Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 Dublin Ranch Area F CTTY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEET]lNG DATE: March 1.6f 2004 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 01-037, Dublin Ranch Area F North, submitted by James Tong representing the Lin Family (Chang Su-O Lin, et. al.) Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 for the Amendment Area, Rezone/Stage 2 Development Plan for the Development Area, and CEQA Addendum (Report prepared by: Michael Porto, Planning ConsultanO~ ' J~' ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Adopting a CEQA Addendum Exhibit A. Initial Study and CEQA Addendum 2. Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and approving related Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD Planned Development Plans 3. Planning Commission Minutes of February 24, 2004 4. Item sent under separate cover a. Planning Commission Staff Report b. Application Proposal Binder: Dublin Ranch Area F North dated December 2003 prepared by MacKay & Somps c. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-14 approving the Site Development Review (SDR) and Master Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 7281, 7282 and 7283 with Conditions of Approval RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open public hearing and hear Staffpresentation  2. Question Staff 3. Take testimony from the applicant and the public 4. Close public hearing and deliberate 5. Adopt Resolution Adopting a CEQA Addendum (Attachment 1) 6. Waive the Reading and introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 2) Amending the Zoning Map and approving the related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Plans FINANCIAL IMPACT: None PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND Dublin Ranch Area F North is located within the boundaries of the Dublin Ranch property owned by the Lin Family. Dublin Ranch is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. The project site COPIES TO: In-House Distribution Applicant/Property Owner G:~A#~2001\01-037 Dub Ranch Area F\CC\CCSR1 .doc J d~ [ ~c>--3 ITEM NO. actually is comprised °fportions of Planning AreasB' F & E of Dublin Ranch, and is situated between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road approximately 2,500 ft north of 1-580. This area was annexed to the City in 1994. The original pre-zoning of the annexation area was approved by PA 94-030. Planning Areas B & E subsequently were rezoned by PA 96-038 and PA 96-039. The last planning action approved for Area F was PA 98-068 which established the current plan now proposed to be amended. Since the previous approvals, many issues affecting the land plan that were conceptual, such as, some road alignments and the boundary of the Community Park have been finalized. Previous approvals referenced a total acreage of 289.3 acres as opposed to the 285.4 acres shown in this application. The discrepancy and variation in acreage are due to imprecise land use calculations for the prior approvals and the realignment of area roads. Additionally, the projected needs of Dublin Unified School District have changed over time. Setting: A newly constructed fire station is located at the northeasterly border of the project site where the construction of Fallon Road currently terminates. The fire station site is not a part of the current application. The entire Amendment Area is vacant, rolling hills of non-native grasses previously used for agriculture. The project site generally slopes and drains from the north and northeast to the south and southwest. Rough grading of the Development Area north of Gleason Drive was completed in December 2003. Application Description:· This application includes: 1. CEQA Addendum 2. Amendments to both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which will be heard as a separate agenda item; and 3. Planned Development (PD) Rezoning consistent with the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments: · a. Stage 1 Planned Development Plan for the entire 285.4-acre "Amendment Area;" and b. Stage 2 Planed Development Plan for the 88.5'acre "Development Area" north of Gleason Drive, including Neighborhoods F1 & F2, within the boundaries of the "Amendment Area." The Applicant is proposing to amend the land uses and zoning as follows: Table 1: Land Use & Zoning, Previously Proposed Increase or Land Use Designations (gross acres) Approved Decrease L Low Density Residential 22.7 ac 33.4 ac +10.7 ac M Medium Density Residential 120.5 ac 125.0 ac +4.5 ac MICP Medium Density Residential/Community Park 13.0 ac removed -13.0 ac HS High School Site (portion) 20.0 ac removed' -.20.0 ac MS Middle School Site 30.6 ac 25.2 ac -5.4 ac ES Elementary School Site 10.0 ac 10.0 ac 0.0 ac P/SP Public/Semi-Public 3.9 ac 6.3 ac +2.4 ac CP Community Park 52.0 ac 65.9 ac +13.9 ac NP Neighborhood Park 5.6 ac 5.6 ac 0.0 ac NS Neighborhood Square 2.0 ac 2.0 ac 0.0 ac OS Open Space/Stream Corridor/Multi-Use Trail 9.0 ac 12.0 ac +3.0 ac Total Gross Acres 289.3 ac 285.4 ac -3.9 ac Units Total units 1,425' du 1,290 du -135 du Low Density Units 91 du 121 du +30 du Medium Density Units 1,334 du 1,169 du -165 du NOTE: The discrepancy and variation in acreage are due to ~mprec~se land use calculations for the prior approvals and the removal of small areas resulting from the realignment of area roads. Please refer to the Vicinity Map shown in the application proposal (Attachment 4 sent previously under separate cover.) under the "Project Reference'' tab. ANALYSIS: Amendments to the General Plan~Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: State law limits General Plan amendments to four per calendar year. This approval would be the first General Plan Amendment for 2004. In order to avoid amendments in excess of the number permitted by State law, General Plan Amendments for specific projects can be grouped together and adopted as one resolution. Therefore, this proposed General Plan Amendment and another one on this same agenda have been grouped together as a separate item to be heard later on the same meeting date. All approvals under this agenda item will not become effective until after approval of the General Plan Amendment item. Although the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments will be acted upon later at this meeting, much of the analysis is repeated here in order to fully understand the application. The following changes are proposed to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: 1) Elimination of a Portion of High School Site - A 20-acre area along the northwest boundary of the project site is designated as a high school site and is a remnant from Area E Phase I. It was not addressed during the previous General Plan Amendment (GPA) for Area F (PA 98-068). This remnant site would be incorporated into the Middle School site. 2) Reconfiguration of Middle School Site - The area designated for the middle school site has been reduced in size. 3) Public/Semi-Public Sites - Two smaller sites designated for Public/Semi-Public use have been eliminated and a larger site for this use has been created from a portion of the high school site. 4) Community Park Site and Elimination of Transitional Use - A final determination regarding the size of the Community Park has eliminated the necessity for an optional transitional zone to accommodate both Community Park and Medium Density Residential uses as approved with the previous plan. The result is a larger Community Park. 5) Open Space/Stream Corridor - Rather than serve as a dual use zone, the Open Space/Stream Corridor now would act as a buffering element between medium density residential uses and the western edge of a larger Commtmity Park site. This new location, length, and acreage of the Open Space/Stream Corridor were factored into the applicant's 404 permit issued by the Army Corps through consultation with the departments of Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife. 6) Unit Total/Density - Residential unit totals for the Development Area north of Gleason Drive would increase by 50 units under the proposed plan from 190 units to 240 units; however, the total units for the Amendment Area over all would decrease by 135 units from 1,425 units to 1,290. This decrease is the result of expanded acreage for low-density residential units use, elimination of the medium density residential units from the transitional area, and enlargement of the community park site. 7) Unchanged - The Neighborhood Square, Elementary School, and Neighborhood Park sites would remain the same size and at th~ same location. The proposed Amendments are in keeping with the intent of the original General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would have the following results: · Creates a more orderly and organized development pattern; · Allows for the introduction of a more usable Public/Semi-Public use site; · Defines the boundaries of a larger sports park; · Provides for residential land uses on the remainder middle school site; and · Generally accommodates a land use pattern that will facilitate the timely implementation of the Plans. The current land uses listed above and shown on Figure 1-Ia in the General Plan and in Figure 4.1 of~the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed to be replaced by the uses shown on Exhibit B to Attachment No. 1 of the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments for Area F North and IKEA to be heard after this Council Agenda item. The proposed amendments correspond to the proposed development plan. Rezone/Stage 1 And Stage 2 Planned Development Plans: The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development~Plans are consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and provide a development area that will allow for the orderly development of subdivisions, parks, schools, public and semi-public land uses within the revised area. The plans and materials submitted by the Applicant include a visual representation of the following: Stage 1 PD - The Stage 1 Planned Development Plan sets forth the land use areas. The Stage 1 PD for the entire 285.4-acre Amendment Area generally corresponds with Master Vesting Tentative Map No. 7281 approved by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, and serves the following purposes: 1) Establishes zoning consistent with the requested Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments 2) Includes two new subdivisions (part of Stage 2 PD) 3) Redefines the middle school site 4) Enlarges the Community Park site, and 5) Reconfigures road and utility corridors The Development Standards for the Stage 1 PD incorporate setbacks, building heights, lot criteria and regulations for guiding the development on the individual residential lots for Area F-1 and F-2 (See Attachment 4 for a more detailed discussion on this issue). Attachment 2, the Ordinance will incorporate these items. Stage 2 PD - The Stage 2 PD includes the 88.5-acre Development Area located north of(and including) the Gleason Drive right-of-way. Permitted uses are listed in the zoning text established for this PD. Development Standards would be applicable to the two new neighborhoods (Neighborhoods F 1 & F2) created within this area. These two neighborhoods, tOtaling 53.4 acres, would result in 240 new units. Neighborhood FI, established by Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7282, is 20.0 acres proposed for the development of 119 units of medium-density, single-family detached housing; over all density would be 6.0 units per gross acre, and each lot would have a minimum of 3,150 square feet. Neighborhood F2, established by Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7283, is 33.4 acres proposed for the development of 121 units of low-density, single-family detached housing; over all density would be 3.5 units per gross acre, and each lot would have a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Development Standards - The Stage 2 PD Rezone and Development Plan would be adopted with three types of development standards: 1. Residential Site Development Standards; 2. Architectural Design Standards; and 3. Landscape & Open Space Guidelines/Standards. The Applicant's proposal also incorporates ArchiteCtural Style Guidelines that would guide the architectural development of the homes later during the Site Development Review process. Site Development Review applications would be submitted to the Planning Commission when the specific residential products are presented for approval prior to construction. Site Development Review and Tentative Tract Maps: These items were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting of February 24, 2004 (Attachments 4 a - c previously sent under separate cover), as cOnsistent with the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and the rezoning of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD Areas. The Planning Commission approvals are contingent upon City Council approval of the associated plan amendments and rezoning. Issues relating to these approvals are as follows: · Residential Uses - A fairly substantial difference in the hillside elevation exists between the project site and existing development immediately north in Dublin Ranch Phase 1.' Concerns of the homeowners in the adjacent tracts regarding views and privacy were expressed in public meetings held by the Applicant, and the project layout has taken into consideration the effects of this hillside separating the two project sites. Pad eleVatiOns in the new tracts would be'established so that roof peaks of the new homes would not extend above the pad elevation of the adjacent home or homes in the adjacent tract. Based on this design parameter, the minimum separation between lot pad elevations would need to be 27 feet. The homeowners on the adjacent site indicated that they are willing to accept assurances for this standard through the Conditions of Approval, CC&Rs, and other requirements placed on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Site Development Plan and Tentative Tract Maps prepared by the Applicant have addressed this aspect of the project site. In addition, view easements for the existing adjacent lots would be placed on the development Site to prohibit landscaping from extending no more than one foot above the pad height of the existing adjacent lot. Homebuyers within these new tracts would be reqUired to execute a statement and submit it to the City acknowledging that this requirement has been read. and understood. · Non-ReSidential Uses - Natural drainage is accommodated by the design of the open space stream corridors and the multi-use trail system. The elimination of the high school site allows for the relocation of the middle school site. Under the existing plan, the two separate sites at Grafton and Central Parkway designated for Public/Semi-Public use would in fact be too small for the uses anticipated such as a church, community theater, etc. The acreage, 1.9 acres and 2.0 acres, was combined, relocated, and reassembled into a 6.3-acre site within the reconfigured pOrtion of the former high school site. The larger site proposed by the currently proposed plan will allow greater flexibility, accommodate a wider variety of uses, and also would satisfy the City's recently adopted Semi-Public Facilities pOlicy to review and provide opportunities for cultural, educational, and other community services. The collector street separating the reconfigured middle school site and Neighborhood F1 (Kohnen Way) has been appropriately designed to handle the traffic and activities for the proposed use. The Planning Commission Resolution approving the Site Development Review, Tentative Tract Maps and Conditions of Approval is attached as Attachment 4c previously sent under separate cover. In accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance, findings were made regarding suitability of the property for the proposed uses, site layout and access, compatibility on surrounding development, effects on residents and workers, and insuring an attractive environment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is within the Dublin General Plan's Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which were the subject of an Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 including revisions to Part I of the Responses to Comments relating to the Kit Fox, and Addendum to the DEIR dated May 4, 1993, and a DKS Associates Traffic Study dated December 15, 1992 (SCH#91103064) ("Eastern Dublin EIR"). The Eastern Dublin EIR is a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern Dublin. The EIR did identify some impacts from implementation of.the General Plan/Specific Plan that could not be mitigated. Upon certification of the EIR, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for such impacts. Pursuant to the recent Citizens for a Better Environment case, the City Council will be required to adopt a new Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant unavoidable impacts identified by the Eastern Dublin EIR as applicable to the proposed project. The City also adopted a mitigation-monitoring program, which included numerous measures intended to reduce impacts from the development of the Eastern Dublin area. The timing for implementation of these mitigation measures is summarized in the adopted Mitigation and Monitoring Program matrix. As further discussed below, the City proposes to approve a CEQA Addendum for the project. The project has been the subject of subsequent environmental reviews as applications for various phases of the Dublin Ranch development have been submitted to and approved by the City. For the portions of the project within Areas B and E, the City approved a Negative Declaration on November 18, 1997 through Resolution 140-97. The Negative Declaration evaluated an area of approximately 453 acres, consisting of Dublin Ranch Areas B through E and proposed for a variety of residential and non- residential uses, as well as a community park site of approximately 42 acres. The portions of Areas B and E in the current applications include residential uses and the community park site now configured to be approximately 65 acres. For the portions of the project within Area F, the City approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 15, 2000 through Resolution 34-00. The previous application for Area F included approximately 147 acres, and proposed to relocate residential and commercial uses (the Village Center) south to Dublin Ranch Area G. The City prepared an Initial Study dated February 9, 2004, for the proposed project to determine whether supplemental environmental impacts would occur as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR and the previous Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Initial Study and Addendum). The Initial Study reviewed the proposed reconfiguration of uses and recent environmental studies prepared for the proposed project. These studies include the TJKM traffic report referenced above. Since the prior reviews, the applicant also has obtained permits from state and federal agencies for alteration of wetlands and has implemented related offsite mitigation, as anticipated in the prior reviews and further described in the Initial Study. The Initial Study determined that the project would cause no environmental impacts beyond those previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Negative Declaration based on the project description and the minor nature of the changes proposed by the project, evaluation of the prior reviews, and evaluation of recent reports. Under these circumstances, a CEQA Addendum is proposed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on February 24, 2004 (Attachments 4 a - c). At that meeting the Commission: a) Recommended approval of the CEQA Addendum; b) Recommended for approval the General Plan Amendment request; c) Recommended for approval the PD Rezone request; d) Approved the Site Development Review for Neighborhoods F1 & F2 contingent on the City Council approving the first three requests; and e) Approved Master Vesting Tentative Tract Tentative Map No. 7281 for the Amendment Area; and c) Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 7282 & 7283 for Neighborhoods F1 & F2, respectively contingent on the City Council approving the first three requests. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Open the public hearing and hear the Staff presentation; 2) question Staff; 3) take testimony from the applicant and the public; 4) close the public heating and deliberate; 5) adopt resolution adopting the CEQA Addendum (Attachment 1); and 6) Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 3) amending the Zoning Map and approving the related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Plans. RESOLUTION NO. - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS, PD REZONING WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS, MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE AREA F NORTH PROJECT IN DUBLIN RANCH PA 01-037 WHEREAS, James Tong, on behalf of Chang Su-O-Lin, J. Yao Lin and J.L. Lin, has requested a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, a PD rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan for the entire Project area, and Stage 2 Development Plan for a portion of the Project area, a Master Vesting Tentative Map for the entire Project area, Vesting Tentative Maps for portions of the Project area, and Site Development Review for a portion of the Project area, which applications are on file in the Planning Division. These applications are collectively referred to herein as "the project", "Area F/B/E Project" or "Area F North Project"; and WHEREAS, the Area F North Project consists of approximately 285.4 acres north of Central Parkway and west of the planned Fallon Road extension, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the project is within the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which a Program EIR was certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (SCH No. 91-103064). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project. Pursuant to the Communities for a Better Environment case, approval of the project mUst be supported by a new Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, portions of the project are in Dublin Ranch Areas B and E for which the City Council previously approved a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, PD-Planned Development Rezoning and related Negative Declaration on November 18, 1997 (ResolutionS 140-97, 141-97, Ord. 24-97, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, portions of the project are in Dublin Ranch Area F for which the City Council previously approved a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, PD rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan and related Mitigated Negative Declaration on March 7, 2000 (ResolutiOns 34- 00, 35-00; Ord. 6-00, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the current project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. The Initial Study, dated February 2004 is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein b.y reference. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated February 23, 2004 (attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference) describing minor changes from the previous approvals and finding that the impacts of the current project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration, all of which documents are incorporated herein by reference; and '~-'t'~r'~ &.,':>O '~/lLvtO'at ATTACHMENT I WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project on February 24, 2004, and adopted Resolution 04-11 recommending approual of the CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the project on March 16, 2004, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated March 16, 2004 was submitted to the City Council analyzing the project and recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum and the project applications; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum with the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration for Area F and Negative Declaration for Areas B-E before making a decision on the project. The City Council further 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 City Council adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibits A and B, for the Area F North project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit C. PASSED,~ APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March 2004 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:LPA~001\01-037 Dub Ranch Area l~CC\adoptingaddendumforareaFnorthproject. DOC 682987-1 2 CEQA ADDENDUM TO DUBLIN RANCH PLANNING AREA F/B/E PA 01-037 February 23, 2004 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced develoPment and project alternative. The City Council adopted · Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the Cit~ Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects such as Dublin Ranch have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the first-tier certified EIR. A subsequent Negative Declaration was adopted for the Dublin RanCh Planning Areas B-E November 18, 1997 (City Council ResolutiOn No. 140-97). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was later approved for Planning Area F of Dublin Ranch in 2000 (SCH # 99112040, PA #98-068, adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 34-00 on February 15, 2000. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the current Dublin Ranch Planning Area B, F and E project, as described below. Project Description and Prior Approvals The City of Dublin approved development of Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B through E in November 1997. The approvals included a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, and PD-Planned Development rezoning/Stage 1 DeveloPment Plan for up to 1875 dwellings units and other non-residential land uses. SUbsequent subdivision maps were later approved to subdivide the land into smaller lots. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the City of Dublin on February 15, 2000 for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F. This project included an amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reconfigure land uses within Planning Area F, as well as a Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning, a Tentative Tract Map, formation of an assessment district, and modifications to an exiSting Development Agreement. This Addendum refers to these approvals as "Dublin Ranch Planning Area B, F and E approvals." The current application proposed a further Amendment to the General Plan andEastem Dublin Specific Plan to reallocate land uses within the three Planning Areas totaling 289.3 acres of land, approval of a Stage 1 PD-Planned Development for this area and a Stage 2 EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT I Planned Development for approximately 88.5- acres of the project area. This Addendum refers to these applications collectively as "the Project", which is further described in the Initial Study referenced below. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project is within the Eastern Dublin planning area, which was the subject of the Eastern Dublin EIR, certified in 1993. The EIR analyzed the potential effects of future urban development planned for a then-largely undeveloped area east of the then- existing city of Dublin. Numerous environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigations adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not.be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement ,of Overriding Considerations, All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated herein by reference. Dublin Ranch Planning Area B-E Negative Declaration. Development of Planning Areas B-E of the Dublin Ranch was further reviewed in a Negative Declaration assessing the potential for site-specific impacts of the proposed development. Tiering from the program- level review in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the ND examined the pOtential for significant impacts not addressed n the prior EIR. The City of Dublin approved the Negative Declaration through Resolution No. 140-97 on November 18, 1997, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. Relying on the Eastern Dublin EIR and Dublin Ranch Planning Area B-E Negative Declaration, the City Council approved the Dublin Ranch proposal. Portions of Dublin Ranch PAs B-E have been developed and/or are currently under construction. The development program associated with Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B-E includes a variety of land use types, including campus office, community conunercial, residential at varying densities, schools, parks, open spaces and rural residential/agricultural uses. The current Project includes the westerly portion of Area E, and residential and communitY park portionS of Area B north of Central Parkway. City Council Resolution No. 140-97, that approved the Negative Declaration for these Dublin Ranch Planning Areas, contained findings that the Project did not constitute a change from the ]Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and that there wase no new information of substantial importance to the GPA, the EDsP or the Project that could not have been known when the Eastern Dublin Program EIR was certified in 1993. ~ Dublin Ranch Planning Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration. Development of Planning Area F of the Dublin Ranch was reviewed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing the potential for site-specific impacts of the proposed development. Tiering from the program- level review in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the MND examined the potential for significant impacts not addressed in the prior EIR. The City of Dublin approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration through Resolution No. No. 34-00 on February 15, 2000, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. Relying on the Eastern Dublin EIR and Dublin Ranch Page 2 Planning Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City Council approved the Dublin Ranch Planning Area F proposal. The development program associated with Dublin Ranch Planning Area F included minor modifications to land uses and the location of roadways through the Planning Area. City Council Resolution No. 34-00, that approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F, contained findings that the Project did not constitute a change from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and that there was no new information of substantial importance to the GPA, the EDSP or the Project that could not have been known when the Eastern Dublin Program EIR was certified in 1993. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this Project. Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the City reviewed the Eastern Dublin EIR, the previous Negative Declaration for Pas B-E and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F, to determine if any further environmental review was required for the proposed General PlarffEDSP Amendment and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development rezonings. The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated February 9, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR, or negative declaration is required for this Project. No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis: a) Are there substan rial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA F, and the Dublin Ranch PA B-E Negative Declaration. The Project proposes to reconfigure approved uses, but is consistent with the overall types of land uses and densities allowed in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These changes would include: 1. This General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for High School use to Middle School use. The High School site originally designated for Areas E and F has been deemed unnecessary by Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). In accordance with the prior wishes of DUSD, the land use designation for the portion of the High School site occurring in Area F, consisting of 30.6 gross acres, was previously changed to Middle School in conjunction with PA-98-068, leaving the remainder of the High School site (20.0 acres in Area E) unchanged. DUSD would now like to develop Page 3 a Middle School on a site further to the north, on a portion of the remnant High School-designated parcel abutting South Dublin Ranch Drive and a portion of the previously planned Middle School Site. As a result of this change, a 24.2-acre site designated for Middle School use would be created. 2. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for High School use to Public/Semi-Public use. The portion of the previouslY designated High School parcel located south of the newly proposed Middle School site would serve as a replacement parcel for the Public/Semi-Public sites at the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafton Street.' The 6,3-acre replacement parcel allows a larger range of potential uses by providing a larger land area and consolidating two smaller parcels of land. 3. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land at the Central Parkway/Grafton Street intersection currently slated for Public/Semi-Public use to Medium DensitY Residential use. Concerns have been raised about the physical suitability of the two Public/Semi-Public parcels of approximately two acres each planned and approved for the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafton Street to accommodate a wide enough range of potential public/semi-public uses due to their small size. To remedy this, these parcels are proposed to be replaced by one larger parcel to the north of Gleason Drive. 4. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for Middle School use to Medium Density Residential use. With DUSD interested in developing the new Middle School on the northerly portion of the land originally slated for a high school, the land abutting Gleason Drive would be changed to a Medium Density Residential use designation and developed as a neighborhood. This land use redesignation would be consistent with adjacent residential land use designations and the neighborhood (Neighborhood Fl) will contribute to the residential nature of the school setting and serve as a buffer between the Middle School and Gleason Drive, an east-west arterial road connecting Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. 5. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land within Area B, which is north of Gleason and west of Fallon (presently slated for Medium Density Residential use) to Low Density Residential use. The small size and hillside nature of the approximately 1 O-acre parcel near the intersection of Fallon Road and Gleason Drive greatly limit the viability of Medium Density development in the area. This parcel would be combined with the land designated Low Density Residential immediately to the west, allowing it to be developed as a more efficient and cohesive neighborhood. This neighborhood (Neighborhood F2) would be consistent in density and character with existing neighborhoods to the north and east. 6. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to reconfigure land within Area B slated for Open Space/Stream Corridor use, Community Park use and Medium Density Page 4 Residential use south of Gleason Drive. Recent revisions to the configuration of the Community Park adjacent to Fallon Road have necessitated changes to the alignment of both Fallon Road and the north-south collector (Lockhart Street) along the western park boundary and to the configuration of the Open Space/Stream Corridor and the Medium Density Residential Neighborhoods west of the park. The Dublin City Council approved the changes to the size and configuration of the Community Park on October 7, 2003. Based on this, the Community Park portion of the Amendment Area would be expanded from 52.0 gross acres to approximately 65.9 gross acres; the Open Space/Stream Corridor will be expanded from 4.8 gross acres to 7.9 gross acres. With the westward realignment of Fallon Road and the expansion of the Community Park and adjacent Open Space/Stream Corridor, Medium Density Residential neighborhoods in the eastern portion of the Amendment Area south of Gleason Drive would be reduced by approximately 7.6 gross acres. The reduction in Medium Density Residential use in this area is necessary to accommodate the entire Community Park and Stream Corridor programs as well as a re-aligned north-south collector street (Lockhart Street) west of Fallon Road. Based on the land use changes encompassed in this. amendment, Keegan Street would no longer be extended north from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, 1997 Negative Declaration for PA B-E and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA F. Although special-status species are present on a portion of the Project site, numerous previous biological studies have been conducted to identify their respective locations, and related mitigations have already been implemented. The Corps of Engineers has also issued necessary 404 permits to allow filling of wetlands within the Project area subject to mitigation for loss of these wetlands. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect. The applicant's plans for Planning Areas B, F and E would be consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, mitigation measures previously adopted, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineer and other agency permits. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous negative declarations. Page 5 Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on an Initial Study dated February 9, 2004. The Addendum and Initial Study reviews the proposed redesignation and reconfiguration of land uses as discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, previous negative declarations and this Addendum/Initial Study adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, Dublin Ranch Planning Area B-E Negative Declaration, Dublin Ranch Planning Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration are all' available for public review in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. Page 6 Initial Study Project Dublin Ranch Planning Areas F/B/E PA 01-037 Lead Agency: City of Dublin February 2004 ~.XH!B! i : ATTACHMENT / Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2 Applicant ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Contact Person ............................................................................................................................. 2 Project Location and Context ....................................................................................................... 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................... 17 Attachment to Initial Study .......................................................................................................... 30 1. Aesthetics ...................................... ' ............................................................................... 30 2. Agricultural Resources ........................... : ..................................................................... 31 3. Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 32 4. Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 34 5. Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 36 6. Geology and Soils ........................................................................ ~ ............................... 38 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 40 8. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................... '..41 9. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................ 44 10. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................... 45 11. Noise .......................................................................................................................... 45 12. Population and Housing ............................................................................................. 47 13. Public Services ........................................................................................................... 47 14. Recreation .................................................................................................................. 49 15. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................ 51 16. Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 56 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................ 57 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................................................................... 58 References .................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix .......................... .' ........................................................................................................... 59 I City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Applicant Chang Su-O-Lin, H. Yao Lin and H. L. Lin C/O James Tong 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Contact Person MacKay & Somps 5142 Franklin Drive, Suite B Pleasanton CA 94588 Attn: Dave Chadbourne Project Location and Context The project site is comprised of portions of Area B, F and E of Dublin Ranch. The Project is located within the larger East Dublin area, located south of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 development and north of Central Parkway. The Project area consists of approximately 285 acres of land and is a part of a larger portion of the Dublin Ranch, which also includes Planning Areas G and H to the south. Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the Project area in context of the larger City of Dublin and Exhibit 2 depicts its relation to Eastern Dublin as well as neighboring Planning Areas. The Project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. This Specific Plan/General Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the purpose of directing long-term land use, circulation, infrastructure and environmental protection for 3,328 acres of land located east of the central portion of Dublin and north of the 1-580 freeway. At full build-out, the Eastern Dublin planning area would allow a range of residential, commercial office, employment and open space uses. The Project area is also part of Dublin Ranch, the largest landholding within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Dublin Ranch contains approximately 1,310 acres of land and is being planned to accommodate approximately 5,760 residential dwellings and approximately 2.5 City of Dub in Page 2 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 million square feet of office and retail floor space. Dublin Ranch is also being planned to contain a range of schools, parks and other public areas. The Project area is currently vacant land. No residences or other structures exist within the boundaries of the Project Area. The low rolling hills are covered primarily with non-native grassland. The existing topography across the site is varied with the greatest elevation difference occurring towards the eastern side of the project, south of Neighborhoods L4 and L5 of Dublin Ranch Phase I. At this location, a hillside exists along the boundary with Phase I with elevation differences of 30 to 50 feet. Elevations across the Project area generally fall from north to south. Construction of Medium High and High Density Residential projects associated with the planned Village Center are currently occurring to the south of the Project area. To the east, development associated with Dublin Ranch Area A is currently in progress, including single family residential neighborhoods, an 18-hole golf course, and the expansion of Fallen Road. To the north and west, the construction of Dublin Ranch Phase I is nearly complete, with Low and Medium Density Residential neighborhoods, an elementary school parcel (not yet developed), a neighborhood park, open space/stream corridor, and other recreational amenities. Project Description The proposed Project would include two separate but related actions: a) an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan and consideration of a PD rezoning/Stage 1 Development plan for portions of Planning Areas B, F and E that would include approximately 289 acres of land (the "Amendment Area"), and b) a PD rezoning/Stage 2 PD-Development Plan for Area F North that would include approximately 86.9 acres of the larger area described in "a." (the "Development Area"). These are described more fully below. Specific Plan~General Plan Amendment Several Amendments are proposed to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan that would slightly reconfigure and reorient previously approved land uses in Planning Areas B, F and E. The effect of the proposed amendments would be to reduce the total number of dwellings units by 136 units and the size of the three Planning Areas by 3.9 acres of land, as shown in Table 1. Previous environmental review and analysis has been completed in terms of a Program EIR for all of the Eastern Dublin SpeCific Plan area as well as individual Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations for each of the Dublin Ranch Planning Areas affected by this proposed Project. Mitigation measures have been established in these previous environmental documents that would continue to apply to this Project. More specifically, the Amendments would include the following: 1. This General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for High School Use to Middle School use. The High School site originally designated for Areas E and F has been deemed unnecessary by Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). In accordance with the prior wishes of DUSD, the land use designation for the portion of the High School site occurring in Area F, consisting of 30.6 gross acres, was previously changed to Middle School in conjunction with PA-98-068, leaving the remainder of the High School site (2010 acres in Area E) unchanged. DUSD would now like to develop a Middle School on a site further to the north, on a portion of the remnant High School-designated parcel abutting South Dublin Ranch Drive and a pOrtion of City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01 ~037 the previously planned Middle School Site. As a result of this change, a 24.2-acre site F"" designated for Middle School use would be created. 2. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for High School use to Public/Semi:Public use. The portion of the previously designated High School parcel located south of the newly proposed Middle School site would serve as a replacement parcel for the Public/Semi-Public sites at the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafton Street. The 6.3- acre replacement parcel allows a larger range of potential uses by providing a larger land area and consolidating two smaller parcels of land. 3. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land at the Central Parkway/Grafton Street intersection currently slated for Public/Semi-Public use to Medium Density Residential use. Concerns have been raised about the physical suitability of the two Public/Semi-Public parcels of approximately two acres each planned and approved for the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafton Street to accommodate a wide enough range of potential public/semi- public uses due to their small size. To remedy this, these parcels are proposed to be replaced by one larger parcel to the north of Gleason Drive. 4. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for Middle School use to Medium Density Residential use. With DUSD interested in developing the new Middle School on the northerly portion of the land originally slated for a high school, the land abutting Gleason Drive would be changed to a Medium Density Residential use designation and developed as a neighborhood. This land use redesignation would be consistent with adjacent residential land use designations and the neighborhood (Neighborhood Fl) will contribute to the residential nature of the school setting and serve as a buffer between the Middle School and Gleas9n Drive, an east-west arterial road connecting Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. 5. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land within Area B, which is north of Gleason and west of Fallon (presently slated for Medium Density Residential use) to Low Density Residential use. The small size and hillside nature of the approximately 10-acre parcel near the intersection of Fallon Road and Gleason Drive greatly limit the viability of Medium Density development in the area. This parcel would be combined with the land designated Low Density Residential immediately to the west, allowing it to be developed as a more efficient and cohesive neighborhood. This neighborhood (Neighborhood F2) would be consistent in density and character with existing neighborhoods to the north and east. 6. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to reconfigure land within Area B slated for Open Space/Stream Corridor use, Community Park use and Medium Density Residential use south of Gleason Drive. Recent revisions to the configuration of the Community Park adjacent to Fallon Road have necessitated changes to the alignment of both Fallon Road and the north- south collector (Lockhart Street) along the western park boundary and to the configuration of the Open Space/Stream Corridor and the Medium Density Residential Neighborhoods west of the park. The Dublin City Council approved the changes to the size and configuration of the Community Park on October 7, 2003. Based on this, the Community Park portion of the Amendment Area would be expanded from 52.0 gross acres to approximately 65.9 gross acres; the Open Space/Stream Corridor will be expanded from 4.8 gross acres to 7.9 gross acres. With the westward realignment of Fallon Road and the expansion of the Community Park and adjacent Open Space/Stream Corridor, Medium Density Residential neighborhoods City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 in the eastern portion of the Amendment Area south of Gleason Drive would be reduced by approximately 7.6 gross acres. The reduction in Medium Density Residential use in this area is necessary to accommodate the entire Community Park and Stream Corridor programs as well as a re-aligned north-south collector street (Lockhart Street) west of Fallon Road. Based on the land use changes encompassed in this amendment, Keegan Street would no longer be extended north from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive. Table 1 shows approved land uses in the Project area compared with land uses proposed as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. Exhibit 4 depicts the location and extent of the requested change as well. Land use acreages have been somewhat reduced in this application due to a re-alignment of Fallon Road to protect biological resources on the Jordan property and more accurate base mapping of the Project site. Table 1. Planned and Proposed Land Use-Planning Area B/F/E Approved Proposed Eastern Dublin General Plan/ Land Use Category General Plan/ Specific Plan Net Difference Specific Plan Amendment Low Density Residential (L) 22.7 acres 91 du* 33.4 acres 121 du +I0.7 ac/+30 du Medium Density Residential (M) Development Area (N. of 9.9 acres 99 du* 20.0 acres 119 du + 10.1 ac/+20 du Gleason) South of Gleason Drive 110.6 acres 1106 du* 105.0 acres 1050 du* -5.6 ac/-56 du Medium Density Residential/ 13.0 acres 130 du* 0.0 acres - 13.0 ac/-130 du Community Park (M/CP) Community Park (CP) 52.0 acres 65.9 acres +13.9 Neighborhood Park (NP) 5.6 acres 5.6 acres Neighborhood Square (NS) 2.0 acres 2.0 acres Hi gh School (HS) ""' 20.0 acres 0.0 acres -20.0 Middle School (MS) 30.6 acres 25.2 acres -5.4 Elementary School (ES) 10.0 acres 10.0 acres Open Space (OS) 9.0 acres 12.0 acres +3.0 Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) 3.9 acres 6.3 acre +2.4 Sub-Total (Development Area 86.9 acres 190 du 88.5 acs 240 du +1.6 ac/_50 du Only) Total (Specific Plan 289.3 acres 1426 du 285.4 acres 1290 du -3.9 ac/-136 du Amendment Area) * Unit counts based on Specific Plan mid-point densities. PD Rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan (Planning Areas B, F & E) An application has also been filed for a PD rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan approval pursuant to the City of Dublin Planned Development (PD) Zoning District. Pursuant to the PD Ordinance, property owners must submit a request for Stage 1 Development Plan approval. A Stage 1 Development Plan establishes land uses within a distinct geographic area, includes a plan of proposed land uses by type and density of use, contains a master landscape plan and development phasing plan. City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 The Stage i Planned Development Rezone covers approximately 289 acres of land, encompassing portions of Areas B, F, and E of Dublin Ranch. This area is bordered by existing Phase 1 residential neighborhoods to the north, an existing neighborhood (MI) and Dublin Land Company lands to the west, Central Parkway to the south, and Fallon Road to the east. This land (referred to in the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (GP/EDSPA) application boOklet as the Amendment Area) is shown in greater detail in the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Review sections. The Stage 1 Development Plan submitted for the Project indicates that the planning area would have an "upscale rural" theme, which would reflect the agrarian past of eastern Dublin. Planned design details would include use of rail fencing, stone pilasters, plantings of tree groves to reinforce the rural theme. The Stage 1 PD-Planned Development area is composed of five distinct sub-areas. These are separated from each other by Gleason Drive, an arterial running east-west through the project area, and north-south collector streets including Lockhart, running south from Gleason to Central Parkway, and Grafton Street, running through the Stage 1 Area from Antone Way north of the Stage 1 area to the Village Center to the south. There are two sub-areas north of Gleason Drive. Of these, the sub-area west of Grafton contains approximately 25.2 acres (gross*) for a Middle School site, a 6.3-acre parcel for Public/Semi- Public uses, 2.2 acres of Open Space/Stream Corridor, and a 20.0-acre Medium Density Residential neighborhood. The sub-area east of Grafton contains a 33.4-acre Low Density Residential neighborhood and an Open Space/Stream Corridor of 1.4 acres. The remai'ning three sub,areas are located sOUth of Gleason DriVe and are separated by Grafton and Lockhart Streets. The sub-area west of Grafton consists of approximately 42.0 acres of Medium Density Residential, with a 2.0-acre Neighborhood Square centrally located within the residential area, and approximately _-acre of Open Space Corridor (multi-use trail) along the western side of Grafton Street. The sub-area between Grafton and Lockhart Streets contains approximately 63.0 acres of Medium Density Residential, a 10.0-acre Elementary School site, and a 5.6-acre Neighborhood Park. The sub-area east of Lockhart Street contains a Community Park (65.9 gross acres) and a 7.9-acre Open Space/Stream Corridor area. Grading activities would occur within the Project Area to accommodate planned land uses, roads and utilities. Mass grading of a portion of the Project site is currently underway or has been recently completed based on issuance of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fill permit. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) will provide water and wastewater service for the Amendment Area. These services are planned in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan (and/or subsequent revisions). An existing water storage reservoir provides water Service for the Amendment area. Distribution mains are planned to be located in all streets. Final locations and sizing of these facilities will be in accordance with the standards and recommendations of DSRSD. * Acreage figures given for land uses are gross acreages unless otherwise noted. Gross acreage is measured to the centerline of arterial/collector streets. City of Dublin page 6 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Sewer service for the Amendment Area will require connection to DSRSD's existing sewer system. Gravity sewer mains have been extended easterly in Gleason Drive from Tassajara Road into the Development Area. Final sizing and location of sewer facilities will be determined during final design. The storm drain system for the Amendment Area will consist of major backbone facilities and local facilities as defined by the Master Storm Drain Study for Dublin Ranch. The backbone facilities will generally consist of larger diameter pipes networked throughout the site located in the major streets. These larger collector pipes will ultimately connect to box culverts that will direct the flow towards the existing G-3 channel, a Zone 7 facility located at the south end of Dublin Ranch. Local facilities will generally consist of smaller diameter pipes connecting individual neighborhoods to the collector system. The locations of proposed storm drain facilities are shown on the tentative maps for the individual neighborhoods. Dublin's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance currently requires 12.5% of all housing to be affordable to those of very low, low and moderate incomes. This project will comply with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requirements by constructing a proportionate share of the affordable units within the Fairway Ranch Residential Community. Construction of the Fairway Ranch project, located within Area B of Dublin Ranch between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard, will commence in 2004. The project applicant indicates that land uses and infrastructure would be phased over a number of years to ensure that roads and other infrastructure facilities would be available to support land uses as they are needed. Preliminarily, construction of initial phases would commence in 2004 with construction anticipated to be completed over the next several years. PD Rezoning/Stage 2 Development Plan (portion of Planning Area F North) The Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone (referred to as the Development Area in the GP/EDSPA section) covers an area of approximately 88..5 acres comprised of the portion of the Stage 1 Planned Development Area north of and including Gleason Drive, within Planning Area F North. The Stage 2 PD-Planned Development area would be comprised of five different land uses: Open Space/Stream Corridor, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Middle School and Public/Semi Public. There are two proposed Open Space corridors in the Project Area, each with a stream and a 12' wide multi-use trail running through it. The Open Space/Stream Corridor area on the west side of Fallon Road is 1.4 acres* and is a continuation of the existing corridor located adjacent to Fallon Road and Phase 1 neighborhoods; the one west of Grafton Street is 2.2 acres and continues the existing corridor on the west side of Grafton. The Development Area also contains two residential neighborhoods. The F1 Medium Density Residential neighborhood is proposed to consist of 119 single-family detached homes on approximately 20.0 acres, at a density of 6.0 dwelling units to the acre (du/ac). The F2 Low Density Residential neighbOrhood is proposed as 121 single-family detached homes on approximately 33.4 acres at a density of approXimately 3.5 du/ac. A Middle School site occupies 25.2 acres in the northwest corner of the Stage 2 Planned Development Area. Finally, a parcel of 6.3 acres in the southeastern area of the Stage 2 Planned Development Area is to be reserved for * Acreage figures given for land uses are gross acreages unless otherwise noted. Gross acreage is measured to the centerline of arterial/collector streets. City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Public/Semi-Public uses. This Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) site is to replace two P/SP sites totaling 3.9 acres, at the intersection of Grafton Street and Central Parkway, which are proposed to be rezoned to Medium Density Residential under the Stage 1 P.D. A comparison of acreages allocated to designated land uses within the proposed Stage 2 Planned Development Land Use Plan and the same area of the approved Specific Plan is included in Table 2. Table 2. Planned and Proposed Land Use - Area F North Approved Eastern Dublin Proposed General Plan/ Land Use Category General Plan/Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment Net Difference Low Density Residential (L) 22.7 acres 91 alu** 33.4 acres 121 du +10.7/+30 Medium Density Residential (M) 9.9 acres 99 du** 20.0 acres 119 du _10.1/+20 Open Space (OS) 3.7 acres 3.6 acres -. 1 Public/Semi-Public 0.0 acres 6.3 acres +6.3 High School (HS) 20.0 acres 0.0 acres -20.0 Middle School (MS) 30.6 acres 25.2 acres -5.4 Total (Area F North) 86.9 acres 190 du 88.5 acres 240 du +1.6ac/+50 du ** Unit counts based on Specific Plan mid-point densities. The increase in acreage of the Stage 2 Planned Development area may be due ro inaccuracies m previous acreage measurements and refinements to the alignment of Gleason Drive. City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Other Entitlements The applicant has also requested approval of a master tentative tract map to subdivide the Project Area into smaller parcels of land for sale to future builders. In addition, individual vesting tentative maps for two neighborhood within Area F North (north of Gleason Drive) have also been submitted for review and approval. A tentative map package is being reviewed concurrently with the Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment application and PD rezone, however, the tentative maps may not be acted upon until other applications have been acted upon. Site Development Reviews (SDRs) applications have also been submitted for the Development Area. City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 lq Sari Franci Pacific Ocean  Exhibit 1-Regional Context ~EC£IVED Dublin Ranch: Initial Study- ~"~,{~R 0 9 ~004 ~'~ '~" Planning Areas; B/E/F ' 0 ~ 0 City of Dublin DUBLIN January 2004 ionalContent, tif DUBLIN " CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN BOULEVARD \ 1-580 Exhibit 2-Site Location \ PLEASANTON Dublin Ranch: Initial Study-Planning ~eas B/E/F CiW of Dublin GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ) '% DUBLIN RANCH AREA FNORTH '~'~'~ ~4~ H EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Sq~AGE I & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP Fl & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS 8ITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Dub/in. Cali£omia k Decembcr 2005 North 0 100 300 500 750 1000 Exhibit 3 - Existing Topography Man,ay & Somps, Engineering & Planning Dublin Ranch- Initial Study - Planning Areas B, E, F Wi,i~m HezmalhalchArchitccts. Inc. o Architec~e &Planning City of Dublin ¢~MCr~rv~ NLlVIS°LandscapeArchitecture !~/~ 0 t~ ~0[~4 GLS Architecture,Landscape Architecture · GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN ' AMENDMENT EXHIBIT PAGE 1 OF 2 I APPROVED LAND USES Land Use Summary Proposed Planned Development Approved Specific Plan Land Uses Land Uses -Midpoint Gross Ac.* Density Unit~_Gross Ac.* Density Units 22.7 ac4.0 91 33.4 ac. 3.6 I21 9.9 ac.10.0 99 20.0 ac. 6.0 119 110.6 ac 10.0 1106'* 105.0 ac. 10.0'* 1050'* 13.0 ac. 10.0 130'* 0.0 ac. 52.0 ac. 65.9 5.6 ac. 5.6 ac. 2.0 ac. 2.0 ac. 20.0 ac. 0 ac~ 30.6 ac. 25.2 ac 10.0 ac. 10~0 ae 9.0 ac. 12.0 ac. 3.9 ac. 6.3 ac. TOTAL 289.3 ac. 1426 285.4 ac. 1290 * Gross acreage is me~.quro:l to center line of mefial/eollector streets. ** Projected unit figures are bm~ed on Specific Plan midpoint density. Legend L Single FamiJy Residential M Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential NS Neighborhoood Square NP Neighborhoo~ Park CP Co~mnunity Park OS Open Space / Stream Corridor Elementary School MS Middle School HS High School VC Village Cenler DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FI & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW O~bh'n, Cdiforni~ Notes/ 1. Heavy lines on land use boundaries indicate Specific Plan components affected by proposed changes. ~ December2003 2. Topography is from before the fire station was built on Fallon Road and does not reflect mass grading completed as of I December 2003. 3. The plan amendment area for Area F North includes a 6.3-acre parcal for Public/Semi-Public uses, replacing thc two parcels in Area F at the intersection of Central and Gra~on. The larger parcel allows a greater range of potential uses than the original proposed parcels. The two Exhibit-~,~AA_ ~-~rxls%"Eastern Dublin General Public/Semi-Public parcels in Area F are proposed to be re-designated to a Medium Density Residential use. The Community Park and Stremn North 0 100 300 500 750 I000 Corridor in the eastern portion of the amendment area are proposed to be reconfigured to follow current plans for area roads, including Fallon and man/q,,eci% Plan Land Uses Lockhart. To accommodate the changes to the Community Park while preserving viable neighborhoods, Kcegan Street is no longer planned to continue north of Central. (See following page for proposed land uses.) Dublin Ranch: Initial Study - Planning Areas B/E/F ~z~E~tV ~[~ MacKay & Somps · Engineering & Planning William Hezmalhalch Architects. Inc.. Architecture & Planning City of Dublin ~ ~fi$~[~ 0 ¢-~ Z00~: NUVISoLandscapeArchitecxure :',?~[.~':y D s. ~ to:: GLS Architecture°Landscape Architecture GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT \ PAGE 2 OF 2 PROPOSED LAND USES ' ~,~--~-- Land Use Summary Proposed Planned Development Approved Specific Plan Land Uses Land Uses Midpoint Gross Ac,* Density Units Gross Ac,* Density Units 22.7 ac. 4.0 91 33.4 ac. 3.6 121 9.9 ac. 10.0 99 20.0 ac. 6.0 119 110.6 ac. lO.0 1106'* 105.0 ac. 10.0'* 1050'* - 13.0 ac. [0.0 130'* 0.0ac 52.0 ac. 65.9 ac. 5.6 ac. 5.6 ac 2.0 ac. 2.0 ac. 20.0 ac. 0 ac 30.6 ac. 25.2 ac. 10.0 ac. 10.0 ac. 9.0 ac. 12.0 ac. 3.9 ac. 6.3 ac. ~ TOTAL 289.3 ac. 1426 285.4 ac. 1290 * Gross acreage is measured to center line of ar~efial/eoltsctor streets. ~ ** Projected unit figures are based on Specific Plan midpoint denstty. '-'-'--/'/ I Legend L Single Family Residential ~ M M~ium Densiiy Residential ME Medium High Densily Residential ~ NS Neighborhoood Square % NP Neighborhood Park CP Communiq Park ~_ ~ OS Open Space / Stream Corridor / ES ElemenlaU School ~ MS Middle School HS High School ( xX VC Village Center ~._~.~ .42 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH ~.~.D I'~ ~J EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT b.r..., STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE MASTER VEST1NG TENTATIVE MAP ~"~' -~x FI & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS ~-, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Pubhh, Cdifomia Notes: 1. Heavy lines on land use boundaries indicate Specific Plan components affected by proposed changes; ghost lines show existing land use boundaries, December2003 2. Topography is from before the fire station was built on Fallon Road and docs not reflect mass grading completed as of 1 December 2003. 3. The plan amendment for Area F North includes a 6.3-acre parcel for Public/Semi-Public uses to replace the two parcels in Area F at the intersection of Central and Grafion. allowing a greater range of Public/Semi-Public Uses in the area, The two smaller Public/Semi-Public parcels are proposed to be re-designated to a Medium Density Residential use under this GPA/SPA request. The City Park and Stream Corridor in the eastern portion of the project area are proposed to be North 0 100 300 500 750 1000 reeonfigurcd to follow current plans for area roads, including Fallon and Lockhart. To accommodate thc changes to thc Community Park while preserving viable .Exhibit 4B - Proposed Planned Development Land Uses neighborhoods, Keegan Street is no longerpl .... dtc continue north of Central. Discrepancies inland ........... due to imprecise land calculations in previously approved plans and realignment of area roads.(See previous page for previously approved General Plan/Specific Plan land uses.) MacKay & Somps · Engineering 8; Planning Dublin Ranch: Initial Study - Planning Areas B/E/F W~l~m Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc.- Architeetm'e & Planning City of Dublin ~C;t=~V~[~: NOVIS,LandscapeArchitecture i~i;.~;r[\[~ 0 ?,, ~0/~ GLS Architecture*Landscape Architecture Exhibit 5-Wetlands Areas . o R T. Dublin Ranch: Initial Study - Planning Areas B/E/F ~-~¢:~D o ~so soo ~ ooo City of Dublin i¢;![~ 0 '3 200~. I 1. Project description: Proposed Eastern Dublin Specific plan/Dublin General Plan Amendment for portions of Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B, E and F, consideration of a PD rezoning and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Master Vesting Tentative Map, Individual Vesting Tentative Maps and Site Development Review application for 285.4-acre site within Dublin Ranch master planned community. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94588 3. Contact person: Mike porto, Dublin Planning Department (925) 833-6610 4. Project location: North of Interstate 580 and east of Tassajara Road 5. Project sponsor: James Tong Authorized Representative 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566 ,~'-. 6. General Plan designations: Existing: Low DensitY Residential, Medium Density ~ Residential, Public/Semi-Public, Community Park, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square, Open Space, Elementary School, Middle School, High School 7. Zoning: PD-Single Family Residential, PD-Medium Density Residential, PD-Middle School, PD- Neighborhood Park, PD-Neighborhood Square, PD-Open Space, and PD-Public and Semi-Public 8. Other public agency required approvals: Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) Site Development Review (City of Dublin) Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin) Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 14 initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 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. 1 Aesthetics - Agricultural Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils - Hazards and Hydrology/Water Land Use/Planning Hazardous Materials Quality - Mineral Resources Noise tPopulation/Housing - Public Services - Recreation - Transportation/ Circulation Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings Systems ~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 significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. __ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. __ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect 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 earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but~ 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, Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project, or (c) a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted by the Dublin City Council. An Addendum has been prepared to the previous CEQA reviews. (reference "Earlier Analysis" section of this Initial Study on page __). Signature: Date: City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Printed Name: For: City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone); or, in this case, there is no impact beyond those identified in prior CEQA reviews. A "no imPact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 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 Potentially Less Than Less than No following the checklist. SignificantSignificant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation I. Aesthetics. Would th~ project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic X vista? (Source: 2,9) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 9) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? (Source: 9) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or X nighttime views in the area? (Source: 9,15) II. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to X 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: X 2) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 2) III. 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 X the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, i IS) { b) Violate any air quality standard, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? (Source: 2, 15) City of Dublin Page 18 initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 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 X quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source:2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? (Source:2) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2) X IV. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, I X 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, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any'~ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally Protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree X protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 17) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Potentially Less Than Less than No - - - SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural . Community Conservation Plan or other X approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 2) V. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2, 4,15) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2, 4,15) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic X feature? (Source: 2, 4,15) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? ' X (Source: 2, 4,15) VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, inclu..ding the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State X Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source: 5) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (5) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? (5) iv) Landslides? (5) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (5) 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 X on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 5) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code t X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 5) City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact I Mitigation e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers X are not available for the disposal of waste? (Source: 5) VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, X use or disp6sal of hazardous materials (Source: 6) I b)'Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the X release of hazardous into the environment? (Source: 6) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or X proposed .school? (Source: 6) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 X and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 6) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 6) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 6) g) Impair implementatiOn of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? (Source: 2) City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/FIE February 2004 PA 01-037 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant SignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where ~esidences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2) IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 7,15) 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 X 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: 2, 7, 15) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the aeration of the course of a stream or X river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 7, 15) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, X or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 7) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 2, 7,15) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? (Source: 2,15) i I g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary X or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 7) City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source: 2, 7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving X flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (7) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? X (7) IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X (Source: 1, 2, 9) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but X not limited to the general plan, sPecific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 'conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? (1, 2) X. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to X the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 2) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific X plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2) XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or , X applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2, 9) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2, 5) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X existing levels without the project? (Source: 2, 9) .. City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No ~ SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels without the project? (Source: 9) 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 X or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) XII. 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 X infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X . replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 2) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing X elsewhere? (Source: 2) XIII. 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, 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, 10, 15, 16) Fire protection X Police protection X Schools X Parks X Other public facilities X City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 I PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation XIV. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional' facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the X facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2) b) Does the project include recreational facilities ~ or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source:.2) XV. 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. X result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (8,15) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for X designated roads or highways? (8,15) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels X or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as X farm equipment? (8) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (8) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (8) X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) X (8) City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality X Control Board? (2) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ,,: X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2,16) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of X which could cause significant environmental effects? (2, 7) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water X entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2, 16) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment' provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X capacity to serve Ce project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (2, 16) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? (2) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? (2) XVI. 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 X drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" X 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 X on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan (1993) 2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan EIR (1993) 3. Special-Status Species Survey, Pao Yeh Lin Property, H.T. Harvey Associates (October 1999) 4, Cultural Resource Survey, Dublin Ranch, Holman & Associates (June, 1999) 5 Geotechnical Investigation of Lin Property, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (November, 1997) 6 Phase One and Two Hazardous Materials Survey of Lin Property, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (November 1997) 7. Drainage and Hydrology Study for Dublin Ranch, MacKay & Somps (November 2003) 8. Project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TJKM Associates (October1999) 9. Site Visit 10. Individual Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program - Area B-E (1997) 11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Fill Permit (dated May 23, 2003) 12. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Opinion (dated July 1, 2002) 13. Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Certification Order (dated April 22, 2003) 14. California Department of Fish & Game 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (dated June 5,2003) 15 Individual Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA F (2000) 16. Discussion with City of Dublin staff or affected special districts 17. Other source City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 XVII. Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental ImPact Report. (SCH 91103064). This document is referred to in this InitiaI Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR." Copies of this document are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours. A Negative Declaration was previously approved for Planning Areas B through E of the Dublin Ranch in 1997 (PA #96-039, adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 140-97). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was subsequently approved for Planning Area F of Dublin Ranch in 2000 (SCH # 99112040, PA #98-068, adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 34-00 on February 15, 2000. Both documents were also used in the preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated herein by reference. : Mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved in 2000 for Planning Area F continue to apply to the proposed. Proj~ctl As part of the certification of the EIR and approval of the Eastern DUblin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air ' quality, noise and visual, and other impacts identified in Resolution 53-93, dated May 10, I993 and incorporated herein by reference. Copies of these previous environmental documents are available for review at the Dublin Planning Department during normal business hours. The Project is consistent with the residential, public/semi public, open space and park land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The purpose of the proposed amendments to these plans is to reconfigure the uses within the Amendment Area. The primary result of the Project will be to reduce the amount of potential residential uses across the Amendment Area by approximately 136 units, and increase the amount of Community Park from 52 acres to 65.9 acres. All of the Amendment Area has been the subject of prior CEQA reviews, initially through the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, a program-level review of the potential urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Numerous mitigation measures were adopted with the Eastern Dublin general plan and specific plan approvals on May 10, 1993. All of the mitigation measures continue to apply, as appropriate, to implementing projects, including this Project. For the significant and unavoidable impacts, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Considerations. (See Resolution 53-93). Pursuant to the recent Communities for a Better Environment case, approval of the Project would require that the City reweigh the identified unavoidable impacts and adopt a new Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Project site was later reviewed in connection with approval of tw° separate land use revisions and adoption of a PD rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plans. The Dublin Ranch Area F portion of the Project was reviewed in a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND tiered from the Eastern Dublin EIR, and identified additional potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures. All of the adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the Project. The Dublin Ranch Area B and E, portions of the Project were reviewed in a subsequent Negative Declaration (ND). No additional significant impacts were identified for these areas and no additional mitigation measures beyond those previously adopted. The following discussions track the environmental checklist above. Where possible, the discussion describes the prior relevant analyses and the prior adopted mitigation measures. The discussions are summary only; the prior EIR, MND and ND should be consulted for full discussion of related impacts and mitigations. The discussions also examine whether the reconfiguration of land uses will have any new or more severe significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, MND or ND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Because the Project does not propose new or different development, i.e., the type and extent of land uses is similar to those assumed in the previous reviews, most impacts are unchanged for the Project. The Project also includes a net reduction in the number of dwelling units across the Amendment Area, therefore, some impacts could actually be reduced compared to the existing approvals. Finally, many of the prior impacts related to biology, soils, drainage and other similar terrain-related impacts no longer apply to the Development Area since this area has been mass graded pursuant to USACE and DFG permits. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Dublin Ranoh Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation LS: Less Than Significant Impact NI: No Impact 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting .The Project area (comprised,of portions of Area F, B and E) is vacant and consists of gently rolling to relatively steep hillsides. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site as "valley grasslands." which are located on the areas near 1-580 in the south and southwest portion of Eastern Dublin. Where agricultural activity, including grazing, has historically taken place (such as within the Project area), the visual image of lands is formed by patterns of the soil that have been furrowed. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts to visual resources and aesthetics applicable to this Project: · IM 3.8/A: Standardized "tract" development, whereby generic subdivision design could obscure existing natural features, such as landforms, vegetation and watercourses. · IM 3.8/B, C, and D: Alteration of the rural/open space visual character of the area whereby new development allowed under the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment would change the visual open space area o£the Project area, including hillsides. · IM 3.8/F: alteration of the visual character of the flatlands, whereby future urban development on the flatland portion of the Project site would alter views of valley grasses and agricultural fields. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of M[tigation Measures that are applicable to this project to assist in reducing aesthetic impacts to a less-than-significant level, including Mitigation Measures 3.8/1.0 through 8.1. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F identified supplemental Mitigation Measure 1 that required pole mounted streetlights to be equipped with cut-off lenses or directed downward to minimize spill over of lights. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed project would convert existing vacant, former agricultural fields to urban uses, City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 including residential and similar uses. This potential impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact IM 3.8/C, Obscuring of Distinctive Natural Features) and it was determined that no measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Other mitigation measures (3.8/4.0 through 4.5, 5.0 and 5.1) have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce impacts to hillside development. The EIR concluded this impact would be a potentially significant irreversible change and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. The project site is not located adjacent to a state designated scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. d) Create light or glare? LS. As addressed in the 2000 MND, construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare due to new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances, the additional lighting could result in negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, parks and other areas that are not intended to be lighted. Overall, no impacts to visual resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting According to information contained in the Phase One Hazardous Materials study prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants for the site, the property has been used exclusively for farming and cattle grazing for the past 40 years, although it is currently fallow. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the site is characterized by soils of locally important farmland, although not of prime or unique farmland. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Figure 3.1-C), no portion of the Project Area is encumbered with a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement contract. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to agricultural resources: · IM 3.1/C: Discontinuation of agricultural uses, which was a less-than-significant impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts that were either non-renewed or cancelled. · IM 3.l/D: Loss of farmlands of local importance, which was identified as a less-than- significant since no prime agricultural soils were identified on the Project site. No mitigation measures were contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, since no potentially significant impacts were identified. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 · :' The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts Or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to agricultural resources. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use? LS. Although the site has historically been used for agricultural crop production, the underlying soil is not considered primary agricultural soil and no Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement exists on the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that discontinuance of agricultural operations is an insignificant impact based on the large number of non-renewal notices being filed on Williamson Act Agreements within the Eastern Dublin area (Impact 3. l/C). Similarly, loss of farmland of local importance, such as the project site, were considered a less-than- significant impact due to the fact that on-site soils are not prime 'agricultural soils (Impact 3.l/D). Overall, no impacts to agricultural lands and resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are .expected to occur as a result of this Project. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the Basin. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to mr quality: · IM 3.1 l/A: Dust deposition soiling nuisance from construction activities, which was identified as a potentially significant cumulative impact. · IM 3.1 I/B: Air emission from construction equipment, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.1 I/C: Air quality impacts related to mobile emissions of reactive organic gasses and nitrogen monoxide, which was identified as a potentially cumulative significant impact. · IM 3.1 I/D: Mobile source emission of carbon monoxide, which was identified as a less- than-significant impact. · IM 3.11/E: Stationary source emissions from HVAC and other sources, which was a potentially significant cumulative impact. City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 through 13.0 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to assist in reducing long- and short-term air quality impacts. Impacts related to emission from construction vehicles~ mobile source emission of reactive organic gasses and nitrogen dioxide and stationary source emissiOns were identified as significant and unavoidable and a Statement. of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City of Dublin for these impacts. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to air qualityl Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. The proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, since the proposed number of dwelling units have been included in Dublin's planned growth as part of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. Short-term construction imPacts related to implementation of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceedances of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Eastern Dublin EIR, Impacts 3.11/A and B). Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.1 I/2.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will reduce short-term air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order. The Eastern Dublin EIR concludes that potential air quality impacts related to construction equipment could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. If this project were to be approved, a new Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin. Similarly, potential air quality impacts related to mobile source emissions of Reactive Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary source emissions were found to exceed regional air quality standards even with mitigation measures, and were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Eastern Dublin EIR Impacts 3.11/C and E). If this project were to be approved, a new Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin. c) Would the project result in cum[datively considerable air pollutants? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies Mobile Source Emissions and Stationary Source Emissions as significant irreversible impacts. Generally such impacts are based on vehicular emission from future traffic within the sub-region as well as stationary sources. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for long-term impacts. If this project were to be approved, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin. d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? LS. The majority of land uses proposed for the Project Area include residential land uses, which are not considered as sensitive receptors. As noted in the 2000 MND, the Project includes both an elementary school and middle school, which could be considered City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 sensitive receptors; however no additional impacts were identified beyond the Eastern Dublin EIR. Overall, no impacts to air quality not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project Area is dominated by non-native grassland and dry. land-farmed (grain crops) habitats. Fields are typically cropped at various seasonal and annual rotations followed by fallow years at a rate of one in every five years. Crops are not irrigated. Biological analyses and wetland delineations were conducted for the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as the MND and ND, describing both habitat and species present in the Project area, and information on wetland resources. As noted earlier, the Development Area portion of the Project site has been mass graded pursuant to USACE and DFG permits. The graded area included ponds with habitat value and species as identified in the prior CEQA reviews; however, species such as California red-legged frog and California Tiger Salamander were relocated to offsite mitigation areas, again, in conformance will applicable permits and requirements. A copy of the Corps permit is appended to this Initial Study. BaSed on the history of cultivation of the Project Area, most of the 23 special-status plant species identified as potentially occurring in the project area are not expected to be present. Previous agricultural activities, including livestock grazing and crop production, have degraded potential habitat for these species, and existing predominant plant species include invasive forbs and grasses indicative of disturbed habitats. Although neither the Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii) nor San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplexjoaquiniana) has been observed in the Project Area, Congdon's tarplant has been observed on Area H to the south, and San Joaquin spearscale has been observed on a nearby parcel to the southeast. Animals The Eastern Dublin EIR, the MND and the ND provide background information on the potential for special-status and sensitive animal species that could potentially occur in the Project area. With the permitted grading on the Project site and related offsite mitigation and species relocation, many of the species are no longer expected to.occur in the Project area Mitigation measures addressing these species have been incorporated into the wetland fill permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 23, 2003. In accordance with the permit conditions, red-legged frogs and tiger salamanders have been relocated to an off-site mitigation area. Wetlands Jurisdictional wetlands were addressed in the Project area in the Eastern Dublin EIR, MND and ND. As noted above, a wetland fill permit was issued by the USACE and the wetlands have been filled City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially significant impacts to biological resources, including IM 3.7/A (direct habitat loss), IM 3.7/B (indirect impacts of vegetation removal), IM 3.7/C (loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat), IM 3.7/D (impacts to San Joaquin kit fox), IM 3.7/E (impacts to bald eagle, peregrine falcon and Alameda whipsnake), IM 3.7/F (impacts to red-legged frog), IM 3.7/G (California tiger salamander), IM 3.7/H (impacts to western pond turtle), IM 3.7/I (impacts tri-colored blackbirds), IM 3.7/J (destruction of Golden eagle nesting sites, IM 3.7/K (elimination of Golden eagle foraging sites), IM3.7/L (Golden eagle and other raptor electrocution), IM 3.7/M impacts to burrowing owl), IM 3.7/N (impacts to American badger), IM 3.7/0 (impacts to prairie falcon, northern harrier and black- shouldered kite), IM 3.7/P (impacts to sharp-shinned hawk and Cooper's hawk), IM 3.7 Q (impacts to short-eared owl), IM 3.7/R impacts to California horned lizard), IM 3.7/S (impacts to special-status invertebrates). A number of mitigation measures are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce all of the above impacts to less-than-significant levels, except for the loss of botanicaIly sensitive habitat. These are Mitigation Measures 3/7/1.0 to 28.0. These mitigation measures continue to apply to this project. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to biological resources. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F contained Supplemental Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 to protect special-status species and wetlands in this Planning Area. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? LS. Development of the Project area would have impacts on the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander that are less than significant with mitigation incorporation. This development could potentially have impacts on the Congdon's tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Burrowing Owl, White-tailed Kite (and other tree-nesting raptors), and American badger that are less than .significant with mitigation incorporation. Site clearing and grading could result in direct loss of individuals of Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale if these species are present on the site. Clearing and grading could result in the loss of individual tiger salamanders and their estivation habitat, and filling of the stock pond would result in the loss of 0.7 acres of red-legged frOg and tiger salamander breeding habitat and could potentially result in the loss of individuals. Clearing and grading could result in the loss of individual burrowing owls, their occupied burrows, and occupied Burrowing Owl habitat; and individual American badgers. Tree removal or indirect disturbance during the breeding season could result in the loss of eggs, young, or active nests of the White-tailed Kite and other tree-nesting raptors. In accordance with the approval conditions of the USACE wetland fill permit (dated May 23, 2003); U.S.F.&W.S. Biological Option (dated July 1, 2002); RWQCB Water Quality Certification Order (dated April 22, 2003); and CDF&G 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (dated June 5, 2003) mitigation measures addressing impacts on candidate, sensitive or special status species have already been implemented. Based on implementation of these measures, the above noted species impacts are no longer considered to be applicable to this Project. City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 As part of the project, project builders and developers have obtained necessary permits from appropriate state and federal environmental permits prior to grading operations, including but not limited to permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? LS. Approximately 1.47 acres of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)jurisdictional habitats (including 0.48 acres of wetlands), based on the draft jurisdictional delineation and verified by the Corps, and 1.6 acres of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional habitats, have been identified within the Project Area ai~d required mitigation, as established by the appropriate agency, has been provided. In accordance with the approval conditions of the USACE wetland fill permit (dated May 23, 2003); U.S.F.&W.S. Biological Option (dated July 1, 2002); RWQCB Water Quality Certification Order (dated April 22, 2003); and CDF&G 1603 Lake and Stre~ambed Alteration Agreement (dated June 5, 2003), mitigation measures addressing impacts on candidate, sensitive or special status species have been or currently are being implemented. As part of the project, project builders and developers have obtained necessary permits from appropriate state and federal environmental permits prior to mass grading operations, including but not limited to permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board. d) Interfere wi~h" moP'ment ofnatiiie fish 6~' Wildlife Species?' NI. TWo small intermittent drainage channels formerly traversed the site, but have been filled as part of Corps- and CDFG-permitted mass grading operations n the Project area. However, no significant wildlife movement occurs on or across the site, and therefore, development is not expected to preclude any significant wildlife movements. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans ? NI. No significant stands of trees are present on the site, and there are no impacts with regard to local tree preservation ordinances or policies. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plans. Overall, no impacts to biological resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Settin~ The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 1988 as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and associated EIR. Several potentially significant archeological resources were identified in the · project area and the Eastern Dublin EIR mandated additional project-level archeological surveys. City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 In May, 1999, Holman and Associates resurveyed the site by means of a mechanical backhoe. Several battered petrified wood fragments were discovered, however, later laboratory investigation indicated the fragments likely resulted from natural tumbling or damage from farm equipment. In summary, no potentially significant prehistoric archeological materials or indicators were found on the property during the study. The Easterri Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to cultural resources: · IM 3.9/A: Disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.9/B: Disruption or destruction of unidentified pre-historic resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.9/C: Disruption or destruction of identified historic resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.9/D: Disruption or destruction of unidentified historic resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 to 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts to historic and pre-historic resources to a less-than-significant level. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to cultural resources. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F (2000) identified Supplemental Mitigation Measure 4, intended to protect unrecorded cultural resources. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The site is vacant and no historic resources have been identified on the site. Therefore, the possibility of encountering historic resources is considered remote and no impact is expected. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources? LS. The 2000 MND identified a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation may uncover significant paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0, contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and will be implemented with Project development. d) Disturb any human resources? LS. A remote possibility exists that human resources could be uncovered on the site during construction activities. Mitigation Measures 3.9 5.0 and 6.0 contained in the eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce such impacts to a level of less- than-significance. Overall, no impacts to cultural resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 6. Geology and Soils (This section is based on a preliminary geotechnical reports cited in the 1997 ND and the 2000. The reports are on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department) Environmental Setting This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landform, drainage and erosion and potential impacts.to localized soil types. Seismic The Project Area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active regions in nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault, and San Andreas Fault. The likelihood of a major seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high. The project site is not part of a Special Studies ZOne for faults as identified by the State of California, however, previous geotechnical investigations of the area show inferred faults along the northerly portion of the Project Area (identified as the "Mocho Fault"). ~ The Mocho Fault was mapped by the California Division of Mines and Geology in 1974 and was ~'later evaluated as part of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. As part of this evaluation it was concluded that the existence of the Mocho Fault was questionable and geomorphic features could be caused by differential erosion. 'A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that may be seisimically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary rocks south of Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust, Mount Diablo Domain." Further investigation of this inferred fault by Berlogar Geologic Consultants has concluded that the risk of ground rupture from this inferred fault is low within the Project Area. Site Soils Site soils are characterized as colluvium, which is highly expansive and consists of dark gray, very stiff to hard silty clay. Artificial fill has been placed on the site to create a stock pond (see below), with the fill material consisting of a stiff, light gray-brown, clayey silt. Landform and Topogrqphy The. Project Area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador Valley. Existing elevations on the site range from approximately 450 to 500 feet above sea level. Since the prior CEQA reviews, portions of the Project site have been graded in accordance with USACE and other permits and requirements. The grading eliminated ponds on the Project site, subject to °ffsite mitigation. The preliminary geOtechnical report indicates a history of landslides on the site. Five slide areas have been identified, all of which are relatively shallow, on the order of 5 to 10 feet each. LandSlides have occurred within deposits of highly expansive colluvium soils. Drainage City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 The permitted grading eliminated a number of small, unnamed north-sOuth trending intermittent streams that were described in the prior CEQA reviews. Drainage patterns generally follow a north-to -south direction, consistent with the overall topography of the East Dublin area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to soil and geological resources as applicable to this Project: · IM 3.6/A: Ground fault rupture, which was identified as a less-than-significant impact. · IM 3.6/B: Primary impacts of groundshaking due to earthquake activity, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/C: Secondary impacts ofgroundshaking due to earthquake activity, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/D: Substantial alteration to site landforms, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/F: Impacts to groundwater resources, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/G: Impacts to groundwater resources due to irrigation, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/H: Shrink and swell impacts related to expansive soils, which woUld be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/K: & L: Construction and long-term erosion and sedimentation, which would be potentially significant impacts. Mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce the above impacts to less-than-significant levels except IM 3.6/B regarding groundshaking, which was significant and unavoidable. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 PA F MND did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to soils or geotechnical issues. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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? LS. The Project site is subject to ground shaking caused by a number of regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed in the Project Area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. Since the Project Area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Safety Zone and the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Mitigation Measures 3.6/1.0 City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 through 8.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to ensure that new structures built within the Project Area will comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that ground shaking impacts would be reduced to a level of less-than- significant. Portions of Project area are hilly and have a history of landslides. As anticipated in the prior MND, the site has been graded and re-contoured to accommodate building pads, roads, parking areas and other development areas and to ~mprove and control site drainage. Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-26.0 were adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin Plan EIR to reduce potential impacts to slopes to a level of less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical reports, minimizing grading on steep slopes and adherence to Uniform Building Code and other City requirements for grading. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that an impact of constructing all of the land uses identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan would be an increase of erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Consistent with adopted Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0, conditions of approval require the Project to prepare and implement interim erosion plans as part of grading permits. With adherence to these mitigation measures, potential erosion impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Portions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, including the Project Area, are subject to soil types with high shrink- swell potential. Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 were adopted to reduce potential shrink-swell impacts to a level of less-than-significance by requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to overcome shrink-swell effects. No additional mitigation measures are required. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. The project developer has indicated that each dwelling would be connected to a sanitary sewer provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks. Overall, no impacts tO soils and geology not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The site has been partially graded: the remaining area is primarily open grasslands and currently contains no structures. Phase I and Phase II hazardous materials studies were completed for the site by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants in 1996 and 1997 with the finding that no hazardous materials has been identified on the site. The site has not been listed as containing a hazardous site, hazardous material generator or transporter or having known underground storage tanks. City of Dublin Page 40 nitial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 The Eastern Dublin EIR identified IM 3.4/E (exposure to wildfire hazards) as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to ' .... Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 trough 11.0. ~ The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and PA F MND (2000) did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to hazards or hazardous materials. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a-c) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous materials? LS. Proposed uses of the site would include residential, schools, parks and open spaces. There is no change from the 1997 MN and 2000 MND conclusions that only minor and less-than-significant quantifies of potentially hazardous materials would be associated with such uses. Materials would include normal and customary such as lawn chemicals, household solvents and similar items. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. A previously completed Phase II hazardous materials analysis indicates that the site is free of hazardous materials. No impacts are therefore anticipated. e, f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS. The Project Area is located northwesterly of the Livermore Municipal Airport. The City of Dublin referred the Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment applications for Planning Areas F-H to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). At the ALUC meeting on April 14, 1999, the Commission noted that Planning Areas F,G & H all lie outside of the referral area for Livermore Municipal Airport and the ALUC has no jurisdiction over land uses within the Project Area. The rest of the Project area is similarlY outside of the referral area. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Adequate emergency access has been provided via the proposed collector street system to and from the site to the satisfaction of the Alameda County Fire Department. Due to the provision of adequate access, there would be no impact with regard to emergency evacuation plans. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. The Project Area is currently a vacant field and is subject to grassland fires. However, the long-term plan for the area is for urbanization. Although parks and open spaces would be part of the long-term land use plans, such areas would generally be irrigated, Development of the area would include adding new water lines for firefighting purposes as well as new fire stations and personnel. Overall, no impacts to hazards and hazardous materials not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 8, Hydrology and Water Quality City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Environmental Setting Portions of the Project area were formerly hilly with two intermittent creeks flowing through. The area was recently graded and the drainages filled pursuant to appropriate permits. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, none of the Project Area is located within a 100-year flood plain as identified on the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. See earlier discussion in Section V, Geology, regarding the history of landslides within Planning Area F. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to hydrology and water quality as applicable to this Project: · IM 3.5/Y: Potential flooding, which was identified as a less~than-significant impact. · IM 3.5/Z: Reduced groundwater recharge, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.5/AA: Non-point sources of pollution, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 to 55.0 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce the above impacts to a less-than-significant level The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to hydrology and water quality. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA F contained Supplemental Mitigation Measures 5 and 6 to ensure that potential surface water quality and flooding impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. Construction of improvements anticipated within the Project Area plan would necessitate grading and overcovering of the soil in order to construct roadways, building pads, utility connections and similar features. The amount of grading is not known at this time, however, proposed grading is anticipated to increase the possibility of soil erosion into creeks and other bodies of water, on and off the project site. As noted in the 2000 MND, standard City of Dublin development conditions of approval require erosion control plans and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. No additional water quality impacts are anticipated beyond those previously described. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? LS. Although currently vacant sites would be converted to urban uses, this ~mpact has been addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5) and Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0, so no further analysis is required. CitY of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR acknowledges that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would change existing natural drainage patterns. Proposed changes would include grading and re-contouring much of the site and filling existing intermittent streams and the existing stock pond and replacing these with underground pipes and culverts to accommodate storm water runoff, some of which activity has already occurred with appropriate permits. Stormwater runoff would eventually flow to the Alameda County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District G-3 facility immediately north of the 1-580 freeway. Two areas where natural drainage is proposed to be recreated are a revegtated stream/open space corridor on the west side of Grafton Street adjacent to the middle school site and an extension of the existing stream corridor on the west side of Fallen Road. Based on preliminary hydrological information for the Project Area prepared by the applicant's engineer, adequate downstream facilities currently exist or will be constructed to accommodate anticipated storm water runoff from the fully improved Project Area. Approval of the proposed project and implementation of construction projects pursuant to the amended Specific Plan/General Plan and other entitlements would increase stormwater runoff from the site and, at the same time, increase erosion off of the site. The City of Dublin requires individual project developers within the Project Area to prepare and implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs to control erosion from the site for both construction and post construction periods. Approvals of such SWPPPs by the City of Dublin and State Water Resources Control Board are required for individual developments greater than one acre. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of neW housing units and other improvements would change drainage patterns within the Project Area. Existing natural streams, swales and other surface drainage flows would be altered due to anticipated site grading, some of which has already occurred with appropriate permits. Drainage would be routed through newly constructed underground pipes, culverts and similar facilities A master drainage plan has been submitted by the applicant, indicating that storm drain improvements would be constructed to connect with existing and planned drainage improvements within the Eastern Dublin area. e) Create stormwater runoff that wouM exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?. LS. Construction of on-site improvements, as well as new improvements upstream of the Project Area, is anticipated to lead to greater quantities of storm water runoff. As noted in the 2000 MND, standard City of Dublin development conditions of approval require erosion control plans and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS Refer to the analysis under "a," above. g) Place housing within a IO0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. None of the Project Area is located within a 100-year flood plan as mapped by FEMA and no new dwellings would be located in a flood hazard area. There would therefore be no impact in regard to flooding hazards. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 h, i) Place within a lO0-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. As noted in the response to "g," above, none of the Project Area is located within a flood hazard area as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Proposed drainage on and off the project site would transport stormwater runoff into approved City or regional drainage facilities for appropriate disposal, so there would be no impact with regard to anticipated drainage facilities.. No impact is anticipated related to dam or levee break, since the existing stock pond within the Project Area has been removed as noted above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? LS. The site is not located near a · major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low based on the Berlogar Geotechnical report. Mitigation Measures adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR will reduce potential impacts of natural and engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation impacts to a level of less-than-significance. These mitigation measure include MM's 3.6/17-28. Briefly, these mitigation measures require site-specific geotechnical analyses of each proposed development, appropriate siting of new construction, use of appropriate engineered fill with proper compaction and limiting the slope of grading. Overall, no impacts to hydrology and water quality not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The Project proposes to reorient some uses and improvements on the Project site; however, the nature and extent of development will not substantially change. Density overall is proposed at lower levels than existing approvals, and no new development areas are proposed compared to those assumed in prior reviews. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to land use as applicable to this Project: · IM 3.l/A: Substantial alteration to existing land use, which was identified as a less-than- significant impact. · IM 3. I/B: On-site land use impacts, which was identified as a less-than-significant impact. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 MND for PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to land use. City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/FIE February 2004 PA 01-037 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The project is vacant and has been planned for uses similar to the Project since the original adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan in 1993. Therefore there would be no disruPtion of any establiShed community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? LS. The prOPosed project would be consistent with goals and policies contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/ General Plan. The extent of the proposed amendment includes relocating various land uses within the Project Area to respond to changed real estate market conditions, land use revisions requested by the City to create additional public/semi-public sites and DUSD school site selection requirements for the middle school. The proposed land use changes to the Project Area would result in a decrease of approximately 136 dwellings over the Amendment Area. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the Project Area. Overall,' no impacts to land use and planning not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The Project area contains no known mineral resources. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Result in the l°ss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the site, so no impacts would occur. Overall, no impacts to mineral resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 11. Noise Environmental Setting Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project site include distant noise generated by vehicles passing through the Eastern Dublin Planning Area on 1-580, traffic sources on Tassajara Road and from aircraft flyovers Based on Figure 3.10 ]3 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, minor portions of Planning Area F would be subject to significant long-term noise exposure, defined as 60 decibels CNEL for City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 -exterior noise.. As noted in the 1997 ND, proposed housing along Fallon Road, Central Parkway and Gleason Road could also be affected. Since major noise sources are from both Tassajara Road and 1-580, construction of permanent buildings and sound walls in adjacent planning areas would reduce exterior noise levels to 60 decibels CNEL or less at the southerly and westerly boundary of the Project Area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to noise as applicable to this Project: · IM 3.10/A: Exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.10/C: Exposure of existing and proposed development to airport noise, which would be a less-than-significant impact. · IM 3.10/E: Exposure of existing and proposed residences to construction noise, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.1 OfF: Noise conflicts due to adjacency of diverse land uses permitted by Specific Plan policies, which would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 were adopted to reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level, primarily through project specific acoustical analysis to reduce indoor residential noise exposure to 45dB. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 MND prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related,lo noise. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, d) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS. Construction of future individual development projects within the Project Area would result in short term noise during construction of proposed dwellings, parks and other improvements outlined in the proposal: Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR require individual project builders to prepare construction noise management plans to minimize noise as well as adhere to construction hour limitations. Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0-3.0 require that individual acoustical analysis be prepared as part of individual residential subdivisions and mixed use projects within a 60 decibel or greater CNEL contour. b, e-f) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI No impacts are anticipated for groundborne vibration or noise, since no sources of vibration currently exist within or adjacent to the Project Area, such as heavy industrial facilities or railroads. City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 c) Substantial permanent increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed exposure of proposed housing to future roadway and construction noise and adopted related mitigation measures. The EIR also discussed ambient noise increases for existing housing due to future roadway noise. No housing exists on the Project site that would be affect by increased ambient noise. Housing in the general area is newer housing built pursuant to prior Dublin Ranch approvals Overall, no impacts to noise not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The State Department of Finance has determined that Dublin's population was 35,500 as of January 1, 2003. The adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan anticipates an ultimate population of 12,458 dwelling units in the Eastern Dublin planning area at full buildout of all land uses within the Planning Area. The Project is within the area plann?d for development. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The Project proposes to reorient land uses, but is substantially consistent with the existing, approved Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. The proposed amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan would redesignate a portion of the neighborhood east of Grafton (F2) from medium density residential to low density residential to be consistent with the current low density residential designated portiOn to the west. The neighborhood west of Grafton (FI) is to be redesignated from low density to medium density residential. Based upon an average person-per-household occupancy of 2.0 persons per dwelling for Medium Density Residential and 3.2 persons per dwelling for Low Density Residential, approval and implementation of the amendment would result in an ultimate total Project Area population of 2,725 persons at project buildout. This population number is less than the population buildout the same area under the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which was anticipated to have a total population of 2,961 persons. b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The site is vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore displace neither housing units or people. Overall, no impacts to population or housing resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 13. Public Services Environmental Setting City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 ~ · Fire Pr°tection. Fire protection services are handled by the Alameda County Fire Department, which contracts with the City of Dublin for fire suppression, fire prevention, education, inspection services and hazardous material control to the community. · Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by Alameda County Sheriff Department, which contracts to the City of Dublin for 24-hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety. · SChools. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides educational services to the City of Dublin. · Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department. · Solid Waste Service: Livermore Dublin Disposal Company. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to public services as applicable to this Project: IM 3.4/A (demand for increased police services), IM 3.4/B (police service accessibility), IM 3.4/C (demand for increased fire services), IM 3.4/E (exposure to wildland fire), IM 3.4/F (demand for new classroom space), IM 3.4/G (demand for junior high schools), IM 3.4/H (overcrowding of schools), IM 3.4/O (increased solid waste production), and IM 3.4/P (impact on solid waste disposal facilities). All of the above were identified as potentially significant impacts. EIR Mitigation Measures were adopted to reduce public service impacts to a less-than-significant level. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 MND prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to public services. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Fire protection? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the amount of permanent population on the site. This impact was previously addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 ND and the 2000 MND. Features which would be incorporated into specific subdivisions as part of existing City ordinances and development requirements and to assist in reducing impacts would require installation of on-site fire protection measures such as fire sprinklers, installation of new fire hydrants and meeting minimum fire flow requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. Developers within the Project Area must also adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0-13.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These mitigation measures relate to funding new fire facilities in eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E FebrUary 2004 PA 01-037 b) Police protection? LS. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected should the Project be approved and future development constructed. Impacts would generally include increases in home burglary and theft. Project developers would also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0-5.0 set forth in Eastern Dublin EIR. These measures deal with establishing funding mechanisms for additional police personnel and facilities and require the inclusion of security provisions into individual development projects. c) Schools? LS. Approval of the proposed the Project and construction of individual residential development projects would increase demand for school facilities. The Eastern Dublin EIR requires project developers to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/13.0-19.0. Since the approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, the property owners of the Dublin Ranch have entered into a mitigation agreement with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure that full mitigation is provided for new development occurring within Dublin Ranch. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Approval of the project and construction of follow-on development projects would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional maintenance demands will be offset by additional City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City of Dublin. e) Solid waste generation? LS. Approval of the project and construction of individual development projects under the auspices of an amended Specific Plan/General Plan would incrementally increase generation of solid waste. The Eastern Dublin EIR requires adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0. These measures require the preparation of a solid waste management plan and assurances that adequate solid waste landfill capacity exists prior to approval of individual development projects. Overall, no impacts to provision of public services not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 14. Recreation Environmental Setting The Project Area is currently vacant and contains no parks or other recreational amenities. Nearby community and regional parks include: Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre City park being developed by the City of Dublin in Eastern Dublin and two community parks slated for development within the Dublin Ranch development one of which is in the Area B portion of the Amendment Area. The combined area of the two community parks is 126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized sports activities, individual sports as well as passive recreation. The East Bay Regional Parks District has developed a staging area on the west side of Tassajara Road as part of a regional recreational trail system. City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to recreation facilities as applicable to this Project: · IM 3.4/K: Increased demand for park facilities, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.4/L: Park facilities fiscal impact, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.4/M: Impact on regional trail system, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.4/N: Impact on open space connectors, which would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce ali of the above impacts to a less-than-significant level. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 MND prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to recreational facilities. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. The proposed development would cause an increase in demand for neighborhood, community t~'"' and regional park facilities due to an increase in the number of people within the Project Area. As part of the entire Dublin Ranch project, the developer has provided one 60-acre (net) community park facility, including active play fields as well as passive nature parks. Residents of the Project Area could be expected to use these community and regional facilities. For potential impacts to neighborhood parks, see the response to "b," below. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? LS. Based on an estimated total population of 2,'725 for the Project Area (see Section 11, Population), and with a standard requirement of 5.0 acres of park land per 1,000 residents (1.5 acres for neighborhood parks and 3.5 acres for community parks), there would be a need for 4.1 acres of neighborhood parks and 9.5 acres of community parks within the Project Area. The proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment makes provision for both a 5.6-acre neighborhood park and a 2.0-acre neighborhood square. Totaling 7.6 acres, construction of both the park and square would be consistent with the City neighborhood park requirement. A 60-acre (net) community park site is proposed within the Project Area, which would exceed the community park requirement. Overall, no impacts to provision of recreational facilities or services not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 15. Transportation/Traffic (Refer to Letter regarding potential Project traffic and transportation impacts from TJKM Transportation Consultants in the Appendix.) ~xisting Transportation Network The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and collector roadways, including: Interstate 580, an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore and Tracy to the east and Oakland, San Francisco and other cities to the west. In the vicinity of the project, Interstate 580 carries between 169,000 and 187,000 vehicles per day. Interchanges near the project site include Dougherty/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road. Dougherty Road is a two-lane rural road with its northern section located in Contra Costa County. Dougherty Road has four lanes between the Alameda County/Contra Costa County border and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. South of 1-580, it continues with six lanes as Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. Average Daily Traffic is approximately 43,500 south of Dublin Boulevard. Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial roadway in the City of Dublin. It contains four lanes largely fronted by retail and commercial uses west of Dougherty Road. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a two-lane road with an exception between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Creek, where it is a four-lane road. Average Daily Traffic varies from. approximately 29,300 vehicles east of San Ramon Road to 5,300 vehicles west of Tassajara Road. Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. It contains six lanes south of 1-580 and four lanes north of 1-580, extending as far north as Dublin Boulevard. As part of the Santa Rita Business Center, Hacienda Drive is currently being extended northward to Gleason Drive as a two-lane roadway. Between 1-580 and Dublin, the existing vehicle count is approximately 11,300. Arnold Road is a north-south two-lane road parallel to and west of Hacienda Drive. It currently connects Gleason Drive and existing Dublin Boulevard (future Central Parkway). This road is planned to be extended southward to Dublin Boulevard (ultimate alignment, The existing average daily traffic flow on Arnold Drive is approximately 3,500 vehicles per day. Gleason Drive is an east-west two-lane road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard. It serves the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, Federal Correctional Institute and existing developments along Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive connects Tassajara Road with Arnold Road and carries between 5,100 vehicles per day (west of Tassajara Road) to approximately 1,000 vehicles per day (west of Hacienda Drive). Portions of Gleason Drive are being widened to four lanesl Tassajara Road is a two-lane rural road connecting Santa Rita Road at 1-580 to the south and continues north to the Town of Danville. North of Contra Costa County line, it is named Cameo Tassajara and is used primarily for local traffic in the Tassajara Valley, City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 with some through traffic. The average daily traffic volume on Tassajara Road is approximately 9,990 vehicles per day between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive, and 7,500 vehicles per day north of Gleason Drive. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial roadway from the 1-580 interchange south to Valley Boulevard. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park and provides access to downtown Pleasanton. Fallon Road is a two-lane rural road that terminates approximately 1.1 mile north of 1- 580. Fallon Road provides access to several parcels in the East Dublin area. Traffic volumes on this road are relatively small. The Boulevard is a private driveway providing access into Hacienda Crossings, a major commercial development within Eastern Dublin. Existing Intersection Operations The traffic analysis prepared by TJKM found that existing intersections near the Project Area currently operate at acceptable levels of service, defined by the City of Dublin as Level of Service "D" or better. This analysis included counts of existing traffic at major intersections near the proposed project as well as intersections throughout the Eastern Dublin area. Future Baseline Conditions To implement the transportation and circulation aspects of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, the City of Dublin has undertaken a comprehensive program of transportation improvements in the community. The purpose of this program is to accommodate anticipated traffic from the Eastern Dublin area. Overall, the program includes upgrades to 1-580 freeway intersections, construction of new roads and improvements to existing roads. The program is primarily funded by fees levied on new development in eastern Dublin. A summary of major components of the Transportation Improvement Program [Mike, Jerry: I don't recall hearing about this specific program, is this the same as the TIF program?] adopted by the City is as follows. A full description of improvements is contained in the traffic analysis. · Hacienda Drive extension · Tassajara Road widening · Dublin Boulevard widening · Improvements to the following intersections, including adding additional travel lanes and/or modifying existing lane geometrics: :Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Central Parkway, Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive, Main Street/Central Parkway, Main Street/Gleason Drive. Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road/Gleason Drive. Future Baseline Intersection Operations The traffic impact analysis for this proposed project also analyzed the future baseline intersection' operations with existing traffic, traffic from approved but not yet built or occupied development and traffic from other pending developments in the area. The traffic analysis included various mitigation measures which would be the responsibility of these other dev.elopments and which would be consistent with the City's Traffic Improvement Program, described above. With this futUre development in the eastern Dublin area and appropriate traffic improvements, the traffic City of Dublin ........ Page 52 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 analysis found that the operation of all study intersections could be maintained at LOS "D" or better. Previous environmental documents The Eastern Dublin EIR identified 16 potentially significant and potentially cumulative significant impacts related to the development of the EDSP. These include impacts to nearby freeways, local streets, transit service and similar transportation facilities. Although many of these impacts could be reduced to level of less-than-significance, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for the following impacts: · IM 3.3/B: Impacts to mainline 1-580 and 1-680 freeways · IM 3.3/E; Cumulative Freeway impacts · IM 3.3/I: Santa Rita & 1-580 Eastbound freeway ramps · IM 3.3/M: Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard The 1997 Mitigated Negative DeClaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to transportation. The 2000 MND prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F identified a number of new or supplemental impacts and mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to transportation. Supplemental Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 set forth in the MND would still apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? LS. The traffic analyses for Planning Areas F, B and concluded that potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level other than the four unavoidable impacts noted above. With the traffic improvements and mitigation measures associated with future approved and pending developments, all study intersections would operate at satisfactory LOS "D" or better conditions. However, with the additional trips generated by the development proposed in the Project Area, potentially significant impacts would occur at the following intersections: · Iron Horse Pkwy./Dublin Blvd.: LOS "E," PM peak; · Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.: LOS "F," AM and PM peak; · Hacienda Dr./The Boulevard: LOS "F," PM peak; · Tassajara Rd/I-580 WB ramps: LOS "E," PM peak Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure 7 and 8 contained in the Planning Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the project traffic impact analysis found that A new Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required if the proposed project is approved by the City of Dublin full development of the three Planning Areas (F-H) under the auspices of an approved General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment would potentially impact Tassajara City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Road between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard by exceeding the maximum capacity of this roadway segment. The maximum capacity of the roadway segment is estimated to be 50,000 vehicles per day. Future volumes along this roadway link could generate between 50,450 to 55,900 vehicles per day, depending on construction of other roadway improvements in the area. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 8 contained in the 2000 Planning Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. A new Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required if the proposed project is approved by the City of Dublin. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? LS. Based on the information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, MND and ND. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative impacts to freeways and Dublin Boulevard. Nearby intersections can be mitigated to Level of Service D or better, which exceeds the minimum Level of Service E established by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. A new Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required if the proposed project is approved by the City of Dublin c) Change in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves residential development. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Approval of the Project would add new roads, driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian'travel ways where none .currently exist. Increases in safety incidents would therefore occur due to the volume of vehicles and pedestrians using new roads and other circulation features. However, all new streets and other circulation improvements within the Project Area would be constructed consistent with City design requirements to minimize substandard turning radii, provide for maximum sight visibility distances and minimize other potential hazards.. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. The current need for emergency access is low, since there are no current residents or visitors on the site. Construction of new residences and other development within the Project Area would increase the need for emergency services and related access to new development. If adequate access is not provided, excessive lengths of time would be needed for emergency vehicles to serve new development. In accordance with adopted mitigation measures, individual development projects constructed within the Project Area, would be reviewed by the City of Dublin Police and Fire Departments to ensure that adequate emergency access can be provided. f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. Parking for individual projects within the Project Area, consistent with the amended Specific Plan/General Plan would be reviewed by the City of Dublin at the time such proposals are submitted to ensure consistency with City parking requirements. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans establish parking standards for implementing projects. g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? LS. Individual projects within the Project Area would be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes to Page 54 City of Dublin February 2004 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E PA 01-O37 minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists. These improvements will be confirmed at the time each individual development project is reviewed by the City. Individual project developers must also comply with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.1, requiring pedestrian and bicycle paths cross arterial roadways at signalized intersections. With construction of pedestrian and bicycle improvements, impacts related to non-vehicular modes of transit would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. Overall, no impacts related to traffic and transportation not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration or PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 ' 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Settin~ The project site is served by the following service providers: · Sewage treatment and local water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. · Water supply and distribution: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone '7 · Storm drainage: City of Dublin/Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains 23 impacts related to provision of utilities to the Eastern Dublin area. All were considered potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures were included in the EIR to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 MND for Planning Area F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to utilities. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Exceed wastewater rrearment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The regional wastewater treatment plant is currently operating in compliance with local, state and federal water quality standards. The addition of wastewater flows from the project would not cause the plant to exceed such standards, based on discussions with DSRSD staff. Mitigation measures 3.5/1.0 through 22.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR deal with wastewater treatment collection, treatment and disposal. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LS. Existing water and sewer lines would need to be extended into the Planning Area from the east. Such extensions have been planned as part of the East Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan and have been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. The project applicant has indicated that a new drainage system would be constructed as part of the Project Area construction. Adopted mitigations will ensure that the proposed drainage system would accommodate Project storm water runoff. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. Approval of the proposed project and implementation of new residences and other uses under the auspices of the Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment would result in an increased ~demand for water for domestic and irrigation purposes. This amount of increased water demand could be acc6mmodated by DSRSD and Zone 7 facilities and long-term supplies. The projeCt developer would be required to provide any local extensions and connections to nearby facilities. This conclusion is based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Consistent with Government Code section 65302.2, the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan has been considered in preparation of this Initial Study. City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the prOPosed project? LS. Approval of the proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment and construCtion of new residences and other land uses would increase the demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Presently, the Planning Area site is vacant and there is no demand for wastewater treatment service. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, DSRSD has indicated that the local wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. f) Solid waste disposal? LS. Construction of proposed land uses in the Project Area under the auspices of an approved General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment would incrementally increase generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching landfill would decrease as statewide regulations mandating increased recycling take effect. Information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the solid waste hauler can accommodate this project. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of individual projects constructed under the auspices of an amended Specific Plan and General Plan would adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. Overall, no impacts related to utility provision not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. XV. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the .proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources with the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No, although incremental and less-than-significant increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic, air emissions, noise, light and glare, the Project site Iies within an area with an approved specific plan. 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 57 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, Community Development Director Mike Porto, Consulting Planner Kathleen "Kit" Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner Applicant Planning a'nd Engineering Consultants Dave Chadbourne, MacKay & Somps References Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B-E, City of Dublin, 1997 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F, City of Dublin, 1999 ., · Dublin Ranch Areas F. G and H Ecological Impacts and Mitigation, H.T. Harvey & Associates, 1999 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F-H, TJKM Associates, 2001. Assessment of a Possible Archeological Resource within Dublin Ranch Areas F-H, Dublin CA, Holman & Associates, 1999 City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Appendix City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA GuidelineS section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council later approved land use applications for Dublin Ranch, including Dublin Ranch Areas F, B and E. The City Council is currently considering the Area F North project in Dublin Ranch. The project includes portions of Areas F, B, and E, and proposes residential, school, public/semi-public, and community park uses, generally consistent with prior approvals. The project area consists of approximately 285 acres, identified in the applications as the Amendment Area. The project proposes to reconfigure the uses in the Amendment Area, resulting in increased acreage for the Community Park, and reducing the overall number of residences. Approximately 88.5 acres of the Amendment Area is identified as the Development Area, for which permit level approvals are requested. Consistent with the prior approvals, the applicant obtained a Section 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers and has completed grading of the Development Area pursuant to the Corps permit. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Pursuant to a recent court decision, the City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the Area F North project. 1 The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the Area F North site will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original approval and by the environmental protection measures adopted through the Area F, B and E project approvals, and the related Conditions of ApProval, to be implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Area F North project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the project. 1 ,,...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cai.App. 4th 98,. (2002). ATTACHMENT/ 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin Eli=, for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Area F North project: Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although considerable development has occurred throughout Dublin Ranch, and a substantial amount of the project site will be maintained as a community park, much of the site is presently undeveloped land, and has some open space character. Future development of the Area F North site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: The Traffic Study prepared for the Area F North project and the Dublin Transit Center Eli=, update cumulative impacts to the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways from development in Eastern Dublin. While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation demand management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor program, and the extension of Fallon Road to Tassajara Road and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Ell=,. Future development on the Area F North site will incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The Area F North project will be required to implement all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIF program; however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Eli=,. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non- Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future development of the Area F North project will contribute to increased energy consumption. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the Area F North project could be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area. Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, and E: Future development of the Area F North project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and 682986-1 2 potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Area F North site against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Area F North project as further set forth below. The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. Future development would provide planned housing as well as a 65 acre Community Park and land for Public/Semi Public uses. The project provides the potential for approximately 1,290 dwelling units at Iow and medium densities, as well as construction jobs, in an area convenient to major transit facilities, schools, and proposed parks. Area F North is also convenient to existing and future housing in Dublin, will provide affordable housing through the Fairway Ranch project, and could substantially increase property tax revenues. Mydocuments\areaFnorth.soc.030204 Imanage: 682986 682986-1 3 ORDINANCE NO. 04 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY AND APPROVING RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH PA 01-037 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Findings A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The project known as Dublin Ranch Area F North PD-Plarmed Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that is tailored to the proposed land use designations within the site, creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan, and uses creative design and a mix of complementary uses to create open space areas, residential neighborhoods, and public facilities within the Area. 2. Development of Dublin Ranch Area F North under the PD-P!anned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the land uses establish neighborhoods, provide open space amenities, and allow for a variety of medium and low density housing tYPes. In addition proposed rezoning has been requested and is necessary due to changes in the projected needs of Dublin Unified School District; proposed changes to road alignments; and proposed changes to size, shape, and location of some other proposed uses. The land uses and site plan provide effective transitions to surrounding development which is characterized by the proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The proposed PD-Planned Development re-zoning for 'Dublin Ranch Area F North will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the land uses and site plan establish neighborhoods, provide open space amenities, and allow for a variety of medium and low density housing tYPes. 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 proposed zoning districts with Dublin Ranch Area F North PD-Planned Development have been designed to accommodate the .topography of the project site which typically is characterized as vacant rolling hills suitable for the development of neighborhoods, open space, parks, trails, and other public use, and therefore physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed PD- Planned Development district. 3. The proposed PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity,, or be detrimental to the. ...... public health, safety,and~.~;, welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable developmer/t regulations and. strolls and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. 4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that the project includes companion amendments to both plans which amendments were approved by the City Council on ,2004 by Resolution No. 04- , and which amendments proposed for the land uses and development plans are reflected in the proposed PD-Planned Development district. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City prepared and circulated an Addendum to a previously adopted Program Environmental Impact Report for Dublin Ranch which includes an analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. A recently conducted traffic study concluded that the proposed project would not exceed or cause levels of service to be worse than those levels addressed in the EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments approved in 1997. This fact is the primary reason for finding that additional an environmental impact report with updated mitigation measures would not be required for approval of the proposed project. Therefore, as required, prior environmental documentation has been determined to support approval of the project, including approval of the PD:Planning Development re-zoning. SECTION 2: Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the following property ("the prOperty'') to a Planned Development Zoning District: Stage 1 - 285.4 acres generally is located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and currently is vacant land. (Portion of APNs: 985-0008-028-04, 985-0008- 030, 985-0009-004 & 985-0014-005). Stage 2 - 88.5 acres generally north of Gleason Drive within the 285.4-acre Stage 1 Development Plan Area. A vicinity map showing the rezoning areas, both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Areas, is shown below: DUBLIN SECTION 3. ~ ,'-*"~ ~ The regulations for the uSe, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the Project area which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans shall be in accordance with section[s] 8.32.080 [any section for Stage 2?] of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plans for Dublin Ranch Area F North Pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the proposal meets all the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, respectively, and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for the Dublin Ranch Area F North, PA 01-037. The Stage 1 Development Plan consists of the items and plans identified herein and many which are contained in a separately bound document entitled Dublin Ranch Area F North, dated December 2003 ("Application Standards booklet" or "AS booklet") which is incorporated herein by reference. The AS booklet is on file in the Dublin Planning Department under file .No. PA 01-037. The PD-Planned Development DistriCt and this Stage 1 Development Plan Provide flexibility to encourage innovatiVe development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. The folloWing required elements of both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans are included in the AS booklet.: ~ . 1. Statement of Permitted Uses. Permitted, conditional, accessory and temporary uses allowed. 2. Stage 1 and Stage 2 Site Plans. Map/Plan of Proposed Land Uses 3. Site Area, Proposed Densities. 4. Phasing Plan. 5. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. 6. Aerial Photo. 7. Stage 1 Development Standards are limited at this time to pp. III-1 through III-34 of the AS booklet described as the Landscape & Open Space Guidelines adopted as standards Dublin F North June ~2~003 LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE GUIDELINES ENTRIl~S A hierarchy of elements, designed to be subtle and blend with the natural beauty of the Tass~ara Hills within the Th-Valley, have been established for the community and neighborhood entries for Dublin Ranch Area F North to ensure that a cohesive "upscale rural" theme is maintained throughout the development. The uniform use of forms and materials will impart a consistent visual image of the community. Community Entry The community entry will announce a clear sense of arrival and set the stage for Dublin Ranch. Low stone walls on the northern side of Gleason Drive at Grafton Street will meander through the landscape, visually drawing the motorist and pedestrian into the community identifying one's arrival to Dublin Ranch. Pedestrians will pass through a gateway of stone pilasters with each containing the community logo. Landscape Treatment Rolling lawns shall be placed to accentuate the low stone walls at the communlty entry. Beyond the low stone walls flowering accent trees shall provide a foreground for a dense row of evergreen trees. Masses of shrubs and groundcovers of varying heights shall be planted to create a layering effect. On the northwest side of Gleason Drive behind the rolling lawn, low stone walls and masses of shrubs, the Stream Corridor shall be planted with native trees, shrubs and hydroseeded with seasonal grasses and flowers. Pilasters, Wails, and Fences Low stone walls shall meander through the cormnunity entry, bisecting stone pilasters. Paving Materials Enhanced paving in the form of interlocking concrete pavers shall be identical in shape and color to those used within the Dublin Rancl~ Refer to Mater/al List on Page HI - 33 for additional information on pavers. Phase I community entries at South Dublin Ranch Drive Page III-1 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North and north Dublin Ranch Drive shall be located .in the street and in the median on Grafton Street north of Gleason Drive. Signage Identification of the community entry shall consist of ornamental plaques to be placed on the pedestrian gateway pilasters. The ornamental plaques shall display a Dublin Ranch logo and be inset into the stone. Page II1-2 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Neighborhood Entries Entries fOr neighborhoods will reflect similar design elements such as the community wall, and pedestrian gateways of stone pilasters, enhanced paving. The primary neighborhood entries are located along Gleason Drive with secondary neighborhood entries located along Grafton Street. Landscape Treatment Flowering accent trees shall be placed with the parkway with a ground plane of turf. shrubs, perennials, annuals, and groundcover shall be placed behind the sidewalk. Evergreen flowering vines Shall be provided to aid in sentencing the Community Wall. Planting within the entry median shall consist of accent frees, perennials, annuals and low groundcover~ Pilasters, Walls and Fences A low stone wall with a precast concrete cap shall meander through the landscape running parallel to the street drawing motorist into the 'entries. Paving Material Enhanced paving in the form of interlocking concrete pavers identical in shape and color to those used within the Dublin Ranch Phase I community entries at South Dublin Ranch Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive shall be located shall be located in the medians. Signage Identification of each neighborhood shall cOnsist of an ornamental plaque to be placed on' the stone pilaster located in the median. Each neighborhood builder shall select its own neighborhood logo to be placed within the ornamental plaque. Page III-3 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch. Area F'North · June 2003 vEHICULAR CIRCULATION. A hierarchy of streets comprise the vehiCular circulation system within and through Dublin Ranch. The goal has been to create synergy and maintain a particular scale, community character} and provide a series of logical connections. Pedestrian walks, bicycle lanes, and multi-Use trails adjacent to streets will' provide a favorable atmosphere for recreational pursuits and efficient Connections throughout the community, in addition to alternative' types of commuter transpormtion~ Infrastructure design consistency is executed through a well- established vocabulary of site furnishings, streetlights, signage and plant material articulating arterial, collector, and local residential fights-of-way. These elements provide the consistent visual image that unifies the community' theme and character established with Phase I of Dublin Ranch. Arterial Streets - Gleason Drive and Falion Road Arterial streets define edges of specific planning areas within Dublin Ranch. Both Gleason Drive and Fallon Road provide opportunities for several levels and choices of travel such as vehicular, public transit, bicycles, and walking. WalkWays shall be separated from the street to provide for a safer pedestrian, environment. Planting shall be' designed to def'me the arterial street from adjacent land uses and provide an interesting view corridor for both the motorist and pedestrian. Street Design Concept Gleason Drive Will consist of four traffic lanes, a' landscaPed median, and bicycle/emergency lanes on both' sides of the street. Fallon Road will consist of four traffic lanes, a landscaPed median, and bicycle/emergency lanes on both sides of the street. Each side of the street will ultimately include a separated sidewalk within a landscaped area. An additional public service and landscape easement extends beyond the right, of-way line on both sides of the street. A public service easement (PSE) will be provided as required by the City and will be dedicated to the public as shown on the Tentative Map. Parcels will be created for landscape buffer areas and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Page I11-6 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Fr~ Lot S}de 'Lo'[ SII~E~ALK · P~C '$~C~/-- '~ND'SCAFE EASE~ , ~' .:0R 4S' , ~SC~,E E~S.E~NT ROW BOW t. LOCA~ RES!~DE~TI~ S~ET ~ ~:' ST~ET OR 44' C~-DE-S'AC N,T~S. · Note: 'Pub~e Sense E~ ~ be 8' ~ fro~ .of lo~ ~ ~ool Site V SIDE~fALK-- 26 ~ ~ PUBMC SERVICE HOA PARCEL/-- ' ' ' " PUBLIC SER~¢E/ I,. OE' ~NDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW 2. KO~NLANE ' 6T' ROW (South of School Siie from Bran-~gan St. to Grafton *Note: OnTs~eet p~g on ~ ~eet ~ ~e ~e~ity of the midge school ~ be pro~bited d~ing school ho~s. Page Ill-8 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2007 'PARCEL/ ~ = ~:~ I. gB' ~ '-- ~eA, P~BC-EL/ ' E~SEMENT ~0~ R ~ ~N.D:SC~,E ~E~$~N:T 3. B~GAN ST~ET ' 72~ ROW (Fi Neighborho:od NOrth of Casco~ Way) SOUTH (BY OrIIEES) - I HOA PA-~C~L I.S'_l 6'~ S/'l 8' ~ !Z~.~._i~' .~ 1~' _~ ~g , i~ , 8 ~ O'~ 6'Im~.l I EASEMENT BOW i04' PUBLIC SEB~CS/ ~OW ~SC~E' EASEMENT 4. GLEASON'D~- 1.04' RO~ (at Prej:.e~t Frontage) Page III-9 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines DuSlin Ranch Area F No~th · June 2003 EAST ~ 42' , ~ Sg "~ pUBLIC B0~ 5, G~FTO~' ST~ET'- ~8" ROW (At Boundary with Existing Phase I ~ Dublin Ranch) ~;~.S~ /~ ~NEST E~ST I HOA P~CEL PAR~KY STRIP ~ L~E ~NE[ TURN { ~ ~ M~I-'USE T~L MU.L~I-'USE T~IL ~ .~ ~2' ~NE --~ 26' . ~ PUBLIC SERYICE/ , 94' - ~NDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW RO~ 6. G~FTON ST~ET -94' ROW (South of Kohnen Way/Rocky Hi~ Way) Page III- 10 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin ·Ranch Area F North · June-~O0~3 Landscape Treatments Gleas°n Drive medians and parkways will be predominantly planted with evergreen street trees. Flowering trees will be used as accents in key locations. Drifts of tiered (6r layered) shrubs and low growing groundcover shall be repeated in elongated patterns over large areas for viewing at higher travel speeds. This will provide a buffer adjacent to residential development as well as providing an attractive environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Where appropriate, groundcover will be placed within the parkway and beyond the sideWalk Fallon Road is designed to be more rural in character and shall utilize similar plant material as Gleason Drive with the inclusion of riparian species. The density of the planting shall be reduced to transition to the intermittent stream corridor landscape. Pilasters, Walls, and Fences The wall/view fenCe shall be placed adjacent to residential lots that side/back to Gleason Drive, with Stone pilaSters placed at each property line. Where sound attenuation is required, the community wall and stone pilasters will be placed adjacent to residential lots. The incorporation of the community wall and stone pilasters, as. accents for the neighborhood entry shall provide visual interest and continuity while reflecting the character of the community. Where a street runs adjacent to Gleason Drive a three rail concrete fence shall be located adjacent to sideWalk Collector Street- Graf ton Street/Kohnen Way/Brannigan Street To create a more pedestrian friendly environment and sense of community, the collector street shall have and expanded fight-of- way greater than the City of Dublin standards. This increased width will allow for a landscape parkway and separated multi-use trail or sideWalk along each side of the roadway. A row of shade trees will be planted on either side of the sidewalk, one within the parkway and one within the landscape easement beyond the fight-of-way. This will allow the pedeswian path-of-travel to act as a safe domain by visually and physically minimizing the interaction of the pedestrian and motorist while creating a more Pedestrian-oriented neighborhood corridor. Grafton Street from Gleason Drive to the property line consists of two traffic lanes, two parking lanes and a landscaped median/mm lane. A parkway strip with a separated multi-use train (one-way · pedestrian/bicycle travel on the east side and two-way pedestrian Page III~11 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch'Area F North · June 2003 bicycle travel on the west side) will be provided. A public service easement.(PSE) Will be provided as required by the City and will be ~ -' ~- dedicated to the pUblic as shown on the Tentative Map. Parcels will be created for landscape buffer areas and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. On the west side, beyond the right-of-way line, is the stream/open space corridor. The portion of Kohnen Way south of the proposed middle school site and the extension of Brannigan Street between Gleason Drive and Kohnen Way are designed as residential collector streets. Kotmen Way typically consists of two travel lanes and two parking lanes. A parkway strip with separated multi-use trail (two-way pedestrian/bicycle travel) will be provided on the south side and an integral curb/sidewalk on the north side. The portion of Kolmen Way from the Grafton Street intersection to the middle school entry driveway will be widened to accommodate a landscape median. The extension of Brannigan Street will consist of two travel lanes, two parking lanes and a landscaped median/turning lane extending from Gleason Drive intersection northerly to the first-intersection into the F1 neighborhood. A parkway strip with separated multi-use trail (for two-way pedestrian/bicycle travel on the east side) or sidewalk (on west side) will be provided. Parcels adjacent to the right-of-way will be created for landscape buffer areas in selected locations and will be owned and maintained by the HOmeowner's Association. Landscape Treatment The dominant feature of the residential collector shall be deciduous shade trees to create a canopy effect for pedestrians and motorists. Only one species of tree shall be allowed to clearly and consistently def'me this collector. Shrubs and groundcover shall be planted where a community wall or rail fence runs parallel to the multi-use trail. Flowering deciduous vines shall be planted adjacent to the community wall. Planting along the rail fence should be predominantly indigenous species when transitioning into the open spaces or intermittent stream corridors. Lawn shall be planted within the parkway strip Pilasters, Wails and Fences The community wall or wall/view fence shall be placed along the rear lot lines of residential lots that back and side onto Grafton Street or portions of Kolmen Way. Where sound attenuation is required, the community wail and stone pilasters will be placed adjacent to the residential lots. The incorporation of the community wall and stone pilasters as accents for the secondary neighborhood Page 111-12 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F Not th · June 2003 entries shall provide Visual interest and continuity while reflecting the character Of the Community. To maintain vistas, a rail fence shall be placed 5' behind the walk when adjacent to open space or intermittent stream corridors. Stone pilasters shall be incorporated into the wall/view fence at prOperty comers and rail fence junction points to provide design continuity throughout the community and shall conform to the typical elevations in the guidelines. Residential Streets Residential streets are pedestrian oriented and accommodate a lighter volume of traffic. They have a strong influence on the character of the neighborhood. Street trees shall act as the primary landscape element affording each neighborhood individualized personality, beauty, and seasonal character. Landscape Treatment F~h neighborhood shall create its own identity through the use of one species of street tree per neighborhood. Through the use of a single species per neighborhood, a grove effect will be created. Where practical, each lot shall be required to have a minimum of one street tree and comer lots shall require two. Street trees are to be planted 5' behind the sidewalk (on private property) within the PUlE/landscape easement. Pilasters, Walls and Fences Fences placed at property lines, returns to homes, and the side yard of all comer lots shall be wood good neighbor fences. Where fences are visible from any residential street the good neighbor fence shall have an open lattice top conforming to the tyPical details in these guidelines. A two-rail fence shall be placed three feet (3') behind the back edge of.the sidewalk where residential streets are adjacent to open space and the furore middle school site. Cul-de-sac Connections Residential streets terminating in cul-de-sacs shall be designed to provide visual and pedestrian access to arterial or collector streets and open space wherever possible. To defme pedestrian access from residential lots a two or three rail fence shall be tied into' the side yard fencing. The two- rail fence shall be used in all locations with the exception of cul-de-sacs that open onto arterial streets, where a three-rail fence shall be placed. Page 111-13 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North June 2003 STREET FURNITUI~ Street furniture should reflect the community theme and architectural styling of .this "upscaie rural" community. Benches and other pedestrian amenities should be placed at the mid-block pedestrian access. Additional street furniture such as bollards, mailboxes, and street lights shall be placed according to function to provide a cohesive design. Bollards Bollards shall be identical to those used in Phase I of Dublin Ranch. They should be placed in locations where pedestrian walks and vehicular traffic meet. Benches Benches shall be shall-be identical to those used at the community entries of Dublin Ranch Phase I. Trash ReceptacIes Trash receptacles shall complement the benches and shall be identical to those used throughout Dublin Ranch Phase L They should be placed in convenient and accessible locations from pedestrian walks. Mailboxes Mailboxes shall meet the U.S. Postal Service standards. When a mailbox serves only one or two homes, it shall be paired on either side of a post with boxes designed to reflect the character of Dublin Ranch. Street Light Standards Street lighting plays a crucial role in enhancing the level of quality and character of Dublin Ranch. Light standards shall be uniform in color and style. Lights on the arterial streets shall conform to the City of Dublin's standard cobra head and shall be painted to match the decorative lights to be used along collector and local residential streets. Street lights on collector streets and in residential areas will be the same decorative fixture design and height approved for Phase I to reflect the character of the Dublin Ranch community. Page III-14 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 200:7 All lighting shall be designed to conform to City of Dublin, Pacific Gas and Electric and IES safety standards and illumination requirements. With the exception of the arterial streets, all other streets shall utilize a metal halide light source in conformance with the approved light source for Phase I of Dublin Ranch. Street Identification Signage Street signs shall be round galvanized steel poles painted to match the decorative street light standards. Graphics on signs will display the City of Dublin logo and the name of the street. OPEN SPACE & PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION The community's open space system shall provide a network of interconnected multi-use trails, bicycle route bike lanes, and a mid- block pedestrian access linking neighborhoods to the community. Stream/Open Space Corridors The stream/open space corridors function as linear circulation routes along the westerly side of Grafton Street between the northern property line and Gleason Drive and along a of portion of Fallon Road north of Gleason Drive. These corridors have been designed as wildlife habitats and will be a continuation of the stream/open space corridors winding through Dublin Ranch Phase L A 12' wide multi-use trail (for two-way pedestrian/bicycle travel) will be located on the eastern stream bank. It will meander where physically feasible, providing a pedestrian and bicycle connection to proposed parks, schools, neighborhoods, village center, and other areas of Dublin Ranch. At trail access points, bollards will be Placed across the opening to prevent unauthorized motOrized access. Appropriate directional and informational signage will be provided (in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act 1990). Design Criteria Construction of the stream/open space corridors will provide a naturalized channel with a gentle curvilinear alignment where feasible. If weirs are needed to stabilize the channel, natural materials such as boulders or logs will be utilized. California native, .indigenous and appropriate trees, shrubs, and ground covers will be planted within the stream/open space corridor based on species, water requirements, user safety and security surveillance visibility. Page 111-15 Landscape Archit~dtural Design Guidelines Dublin RanCh Area F No June~2 3 Channel shading is a critical factor for the development of Wildlife corridors. When feasible, vegetation will be installed in masses overhanging the stream. Concentrated plantings within 8' of the streambed will provide the most shading. Barriers, such as solid fences, that may impede the movement of wildlife within the stream/open space corridor will not be permitted. During and after construction of adjacent lands, site-specific storm drains and erosion control practices will be employed to limit sedimentation of the intermittent stream/open space corridor. Human access within the stream/open space corridor will be controlled via fenCing, trail placement, and interpretive signage. Where possible, the multi-use trail should be set back as far from the channel as possible to maintain habitat quality. New homeowners will be apprised by written documentation, in addition to signage, of the enforcement of pet leash laws within the stream/open space comdors. Multi-Use Trail The multi-use trail will serve as a shared bicycle and pedestrian trail linking residential areas to community-wide parks and open spaces and to other local and regional trail systems. Dimensions Multi-use trails shall be twelve feet (12') wide with the exception of the trail on the east side of Grafton Street which shall be eight (8') wide. Removable bollards shall be placed at all entry points to prevent unauthorized motorized access. Materials Multi-use trails shall be paved with concrete. Striping shall meet City standards. Signage Appropriate directional and informational signage, as determined by the City of Dublin, will be provided. Bicycle Route Bike Lane The bicycle route bike lane, occurring within arterial streets, will serve to link residential areas to community-wide open spaces and parks, and other local and regional trail systems. Page 111-16 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F No, t£h · June 2003 Dimensions Bike lanes shall be a minimum of 5' wide. Materials Striping shall meet City standards. Signage Appropriate directional and informational signage shall be provided. Pedestrian Access Pathways The pedestrian Pathway represents the ~terior pedestrian circulation route linking neighborhoods F2 to Gteason Drive. Where feasible, the pedestrian pathway should be accessible for all users. Low stone walls will be placed at the entry from Gleason Drive drawing the pedestrian into the pathway. Pedestrian pathways are also included from Neighborhood F1 to surrounding streets and represent the interior pedestrian circulation route linking the Neighborhood F1 to Brannigan Street, GleaSOn Drive and Kolmen Way. Where feasible, pedestrian paths should be accessible to all. Dimensions 'The Width of the pedestrian pathway shall be 8'. Removable bollards shall be Placed at all entry points at the arterial and residential streets to prevent unauthorized motor/zed access. Materials The entry to the mid-block pedestrian pathways along GleasOn Drive at the F2 Neighborhood shall be interlocking concrete pavers with concrete bands similar to vehicular entries to the neighborhoods. Other portions of pedestrian pathways will be constructed of concrete with a non-skip surface. Signage Appropriate directional and location signage shall be provided. Lighting The pedestrian pathways will be illuminated in the evening by round metal light bollards design, colored materials for bollard lights shall match those used adjacent to the pedestdan pathway within Phase I Page IIl-17 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines ~ Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2bO~ ] of Dublin Ranch. Ownership and Maintenance The stream/open space corridors adjacent to Grafton Street and Grafton Street shall be owned bY the homeowners association. The City. of Dublin will maintain the multi-use trail system within the stream/open space corridor while the Homeowners Association will maintain the stream channel and all landscaping within the corridor. The HomeOwners AsSOciation will provide an easement to the City of Dublin for access to the multi-use trails. An existing 30' Wide landscape maintenance easement, which is adjacent to the Dublin Ranch Phase [ M3 Neighborhood (Tract 6964) will remain. While the easement is located within the future Public/Semi- Public parcel located west of the F-1 Neighborhood, the land within the easement will continue to be maintained by the Phase I Homeowners Association. Management and maintenance includes drainage systems, pedestrian pathway, landscape maintenance vegetation monitoring and wildland fire practices. GENERAL LANDSCAPE The beauty of the existing rolling topography and natural landSCape is the basis for the Dublin Ranch landscape concept and planting themes. Rows of trees delineating entries and streets shall depict the historical aspect of orchards and create a sense of community. Indigenous and horticulturally adaptive plant materials shall serve as unifying dements throughout Dublin Ranch. Trees shall be used to define a hierarchy of entries, streets, and neighborhoods providing individuality and distinctiveness. Oak trees, native to the Tassajara Hills, have been incorporated into the plant palette to reflect the historical landscape of the Tri-Valley area. Recommended Plant Palette Following are recommended plant palettes which establish the desired character of Dublin Ranch. Plants have been selected to enhance entries and streets, provide shade where necessary and transition areas to open spaces/intermittent stream corridors. Special attention has been paid to the selection of indigenous and ornamental plants that are horticulturally adaptive to the~ natural characteristics of the site and are suited to the cYunate, soils, and recycled irrigation water. Page 11I-I8 ~' Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F 2003 Community Entry Street Trees Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Accent Trees Lagerstroemia x fauriei Crape Myrtle Prunus sargentii ' Cotumnaris ' Flowering Cherry Evergreen Screen Trees Cedrus D eodara Deodar Cedar Pinus halapensis Aleppo Pine Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Arctostaphylos species Maxrzanita Geanothus species Wild Lilac Rosa species Rose Salvia species Sage Perennials HemerocaIlis species Daylily Lavandula species Lavender Salvia species Sage Groundcovers Arctostaphylos species Manzardta Rosa species Carpet Rose .,Vines Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston Ivy Page III-19 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F Nortf ~une 2003 Neighborhood Entries Street Tree Celtis occidentalis Westcum Hackberry Accent Tree J Lagerstroemia x faurieri t rape Myrtl/e~/ Prunus cerassifera 'Newport' [, Flow~ Prunus serrulata ~g Cherry Evergreen Screen Trees Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Cistus species Roekrose Rosa species Rose Salvia Ieucantha Mexican Sage Bush Perennials Hemerocallis species Daylily Lavandula angusttfolia English Lavender Groundcovers Coprosrna pumila 'Verde Vista' Coprosma Cotoneaster species No Common Name Rosa species Carpet Rose ScaevoIa 'Mauve Clusters' NO Common Name Vines Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw Arterial Street* Street and Median Trees Cratae gus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn Quercus virgtniana Southern Live Oak Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Accent Trees Cercis reniformis 'Texas White' No Common Name Koelreuteria panicutata Goldenmin Tree Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle MaIus 'Prairiefire' Crabapple Prunus sargentii 'CoIumnaris' Flowering Cherry Page 111-21 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Evergreen Screen Trees LaUrus noblis 'Saratoga' Grecian Laurel Olea europea Fruitless Olive Pinus halep~nsis Aleppo Pine Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Correa 'Ivory Bells' Australian Fuschia Cotoneaster species No Common Name Nerium oleander Oleander' ' Phormium species New Zealand Flax Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary Salvia species Sage Westringia fruiticosa No Common Name Perennials Achillea 'Moonshine' Yarrow Aloe striata Coral Aloe Coreopsis lanceoIata Coreopsi~ Euphorbia Charcias 'Wulf enii ' Euphorbia Lavandula species Lavender Miscanthus species No Common Name Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Grolmdcovers Gotoneaster species No Common Name Lantana species Lantana Residential Collector* Street Tree Laurus nobitis 'Saratoga' Grecian Laurel ?istachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Shrubs Correa 'Ivory Bells' Australian Fuschia Cotoneaster species No Common Name Nerium oleander Oleander Phormium species New Zealand Flax Rosa species Rose Rosrnarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary Salvia species Sage Westringiafruiticosa No Common Name Perennials Achil[ea 'Moonshine' Yarrow Aloe striata Coral Aloe Coreopsis lanceolata Corecpsis Euphorbia charcias 'Wulfenii' Euphorbia Lavanduta species Lavender Page 111-22 LandscaPe Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North June 2003 ' Miscanthus species ' No Common.. Name , MuhIenbergia rigen~ Deer Grass Ground covers Cotoneaster species No Common Name Lantana species Lalltana Rosa 'Flower Carpet' Flower Carpet Rose Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' Rosemary Residential Streets Neighborhood F1 Street Tree Quercus rubra Red Oak Neighborhood F2 Street Tree Zelkova serrata Sawleaf Zelkova Alternative Street Trees Celtis sinensis Chinese Hackberry Cinarnomum camphora Camphor Tree Intermittent Stream Corridor Revegetation* Trees P~atanus racernosa California Sycamore Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Quercus lobata Valley Oak Sambucus rnexicana Elderberry Shrubs ArctostaphyIos species Manzanita Ceanothus species Wild Lilac HeteromeIes arbutifolia Toyon Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Rhamnus caIifornica Coffeeberry Rosa Catifomica California Wild Rose Salix laevigata Red Willow Simphorocarpus albu~ Common Snowberry Hydroseed Oak Woodland Mix Page 111-23 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Mid-Block Pedestrian Access* Flowering Accent Trees Cercis reniformis 'Texas White' No Common Name Lagerstroemia x faurier Crape Myrtle MaIus 'Prairfire' Flowering Cmbapple Evergreen Screening Trees Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' Grecian Laurel Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine Quercus agrifoIia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Correa 'Ivory Bells' Australian Fuchsia Cotoneaster species Cotoneaster Nerium oleander Oleander Phormium species New Zealand Flax Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Upright Rosemay Salvia species Sage Westring~a fruiticosa No Common Name Perennials Aloe striata Coral Aloe Euphorbia charcias 'Wulfenii' Euphorbia Lavandula species Lavender Miscanthus species Maiden Grass ' Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass GroUndcover Achilles 'Moonshine' Yarrow Lantana species Lantana Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' Rosemary *Denotes plant palettes provided by GLS Architecture/Landscape Architecture All other provided by NUVIS Landscape and Planning. Page 111-24 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North Ju~ 2003 Irrigation Irrigation throUghoUt the public rights-of-way, landscape Setbacks, mid-block pedestrian pathway and temporary irrigated open spaces shall be accomplished by means of automatically controlled spray, bubbler, and drip irrigation systems. The design shall incorporate water saving techniques and equipment and shall meet the water efficient requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance adopted by the City of Dublin and AB325. Irrigation systems that use recycled water shall conform to the Dublin San Ramon Services District Recycled Water Use Guidelines. All irrigation systems shall be efficiently designed to reduceOverspray Ohm walks, wails, fences, pilaSters, street and other non-landscaped areaS and into natural open Space areas. All irrigation systems within the public right-of-way, such as arterial streetscapes, with the exception of the intermittent stream corridor shall be designed to accommodate the use of recycled water in the event that it becomes available in the furore. Drip or other water conserving irrigatiOn systems should be recommended-for installation throughout Dublin Ranch. When spray systems are installed, low gallon/low precipitation spray heads should be used in accordance with soil infiltration rates. Irrigation'Systems shall be valved separately depending on plant ecosystems, orientation and exposure to sun, shade, and wind. The design shall be sensitive to the water requirements of the plant material selected and similar water using plants shall be valved together. Slope and soil conditions will also be considered when valving irrigation .systems. Page 111-25 Landscape Architectural Design Guideliqes Dublin Ranch Area F North o June 2003 PILASTERS, WALLS, AND FENCES Pilasters, walls, and fencing are part of the common elements that compose the consistent and recurring community theme. Due to the high visibility of walls and fences, their location and design have a direct affect on the overall community appearance. Patterns and textures within Dublin Ranch have been chosen to complement the proposed architectural styles and the ~'upscale rural" theme. Stone Pilasters Location Stone pilaSters shall be lOcated at the community entry, within neighborhood entry medians, at the terminus and change of direction of all community walls, and at the terminus, change of direction and lot line' intersections of all wall/view fence, view fences and two and .three-rail fences~ Stone pilasters shall conform to the typical elevation as shown2 Dimensions The height of the pilaSter at the two-rail fence will be 3'-9 '½". At the three-rail fence the height will be 4'-9 ½',. The pilaster at the community wall, wall/view fence, and view fence shall be 6'-9 ½" in height. Freestanding stone pilaSters at the community and neighborhood entries shall be 4'-9 ½". Ali pilasters will have a 4.5 degree batter with an 18!' square dimension below the cap. The 3'-9 1/2" high pilaSters shall be 25" at the base, the 4'-9 ½" pilaster, 27" and the 6'-9 ½" high pilaster, 30". Materials Stone pilasters shall be square with a battered form and a precast concrete cap. The stone pattern shall be primarily stacked ledgestone with random angular larger stone accents. Only those pilasters that act as gateways into the community and signage for the neighborhood entries shall receive an oval ornamental plaque containing a Dublin Ranch or neighborhood logo. Refer to "Materials Source List" page 111-33 for specifications and availability of stone and precast concrete cap. Page 111-26 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North * June~2003 Comm!mity Wall Location The community wall shall be incorporated into high visibility areas such as at community and neighborhood entries. The community wall shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimensions Height of the commtmity wall will be 6'- 0". Spacing of stone pilasters and intermediate stucco colunms shall be determined by the length of the precast wall panel and shall always be equally spaced. Typical spacing will be such that two stucco columns will be placed. between stone pilasters. Materials The community wall shall consist of a pre. cast 'wall panel with a stucco finish to compliment the stone pilasters. A continuous concrete cap to match the stucco shall mn the length of the wail panels.' A horizontal groove to provide architectural interest and a trim line for vines shall be incorporated into the wall panel 12" below the wall cap. Two intermediate stucco columns, to match the color and fm/sh of .the precast wall panels, shall be equally spaced between stone pilasters. Refer to '°Materials Source List" page m-33 for specifications and availability of stucco and precast concrete cap. PKECAST WALL PANEL - STUCCO FINISH - PRECAST CONCRETE CAP PRECAST WALL CAP ~ INTERMEDIATE HIDDEN J. COLI JMN COMMUNITY WALL WITH PILASTER Page 111-27 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Wall/View Fence Location The wall/view fence shall be incorporated into high visibility areas such as areas adjacent to the arterial and collector streets-and mid- block pedestrian access corridors where a 6' high sound attenuation wall is not necessary. The wall/view fence shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimensions Height of the wall/view fence will be 6'- 0". The wall portion shall be 3'-6" in height and the view fence shall be 2'-6". Spacing of stone pilasters and intermediate stucco columns shall be determined by the length of the precast wall panel and shall always be equally spaced. Typical spacing w/Il be such that two stucco columns will be placed between stone pilasters Materials The wall/view fence shall consist of a precast wall panel with a stucco f'mish to match the community wall and metal view fencing on top to be painted to match the view fence. A continuous concrete cap to match the stucco shall run the length of the wall panels. Two intermediate stucco columns, to match the color and £mish of the precast wall panels, shall be equally spaced between stone and pilasters. Refer to "Materials Source List" page 111-33 for specifications and availability of stucco, precast concrete cap, and paint color for metal fence. STON~ VENEER P[LA..q]]~ {lOCATED AT EVERY PROI'I~TY I.{NE AND AT 'I'ERMINATION POINTS O~' ~,~c~r c0~cAp WIlH CHAMI:ERED TOP ~,ECAST WALL CAP -- TUI~ULAR STEEL PANELS COLUMN PRECA~ WALL PANI~ WALL/VIEW FENCE Page 111-28 Landscape Architectural Design Guideline, Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 View Fence Location The view fence shall be incorporated into areas where views outward from project are a premium or where a connection to an existing view fence is necessary. The view fence shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimension Height of view fence will be 6' -0", with post stationed at 8' - 0" O.C. Pickets shall be at 4" clear and bottom rail 4" clear of f'mish grade. Materials View fence shall be tubular steel and match existing view fence dimensions. Refer to 'Wlaterial Source .List''· page III - 33 for specifications and color of tubular steel fence. , TUBULAR STEEL 8' - 0" O.C. / POST AT 8' O.C .L~ I 5f8 "PICKETS "CLR VIEW FENCE Page t11-29 ...... Landscape'Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2005 Rail Fence Loca n The rail fence· shall be 'designated for areas adjacent to stream/open corridors and/or areas where del'tuition by a solid enclosur~ is not desired. The design of the rail fence is reminiscent of an agrarian image. The rail fence shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. The two-rail fence shall be placed along the frontage of the stream/open space corridor adjacent to Grafton Street and residential streets adjacent to open space and the future middle school. In addition, the two-rail fence shall be placed at the ends of ali cul-de- sacs adjacent to residential streets/HOA parcels and open space· with the exception of the cul-de-sac which opens onto the Fallon Road stream corridor, which shall be .a three-rail fence. Adjacent to the stream corridor along Fallon Road, the three-rail fence shall be used to provide separation. The three-rail fence shall also be placed at the ends of cul-de-sacs and at single-loaded streets that visually open onto Gleason Road. c Dimensions The two-rail fence shall be held at 3' in height and the three-rail fence at 4' in height to the top rail. Materials The rail fence should be constructed of a high grade concrete to simulate a wood rail fence. Stone pilasters shall oCcur at any terminus and change in direction of the rail fence and at 48' on center for a two-rail fence and at 72' on center for a three-rail fence. All intermedihte posts shall be approximately 8' on center. Refer to "Materials Source List" page II1-33 for speCifications and availability of precast rail fence. · Page 111-30 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North Juhe' 2003 Good Neighbor Fences Location Good neighbor fences shall occur between lots and adjacent to residential streets. Where fencing sections face onto streets, a 12" high lattice panel shall be incorporated within the top portion of the good neighbor fence. Good neighbor fences shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimensions Good neighbor fences will be G in height. Where a 12" high lattice panel is incorporateG into the top portion of the good neighbor fence, the overall height will remain at 6' in height. Decorative post caps shall be incorporated into the good neighbor fence with lattice top at all changes of direction and at 16' on center. Materials Good neighbor fences will be constructed of wood. --WOOD'POST (8' O.C.) /-- D£CORATIVE POSTC, AP(16' O.~) GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE WITH LATTICE TRIM (LOCATED BETWE~ ALL RES1DEN~O& UNTFS FAC. I~O STR~ --WOOD POST (8' 0.C.) --VERTICAL BOARDS GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE (LOCATED BETWEEJq AND AT REAR OF UNITS) Page 111-31 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area FNorth June 2003 Retaining Walls Location Retaining walls shall be incorporated into areas with slopes when necessary to retain grade at entries into the commuuity and neighborhoods, around sweet light pole bases, hydrants, utility vaults/equipment, etc. and where retaining walls between lots are required to accommodate grade changes. Dimensions The height of the retaining wall shall be determined by the existing and proposed grade but in no case shall it exceed 3' in height from f'mish grade or surface. Any retaining wall with an overall height of 3' or less from f'mish grade will not require approval from the City of Dublin. Materials All portions of retaining walls that are viewable by the public or facing public areas (i.e. streets) shall be faced in stone to match the stone pilasters within the community. The stone pattern shall be stacked ledgestone with random larger angular stone accents. Retaining Walls that are ve/~eered with stone shall be f'mished with a precast concrete cap to match the cormnunity wall. Retaining wails in all other locations shall comply with City of Dublin Standards. Refer to "Materials Source List" page Ill-33 for specifications and availability of stone and precast concrete cap. / SLOPE LINE WHEN WALL IS ~ REQUIREDTO RETAIN GRADE / /---XV~SVOmVmP~ PO&E BOX ETc... ~ ' t-- P~C^ST COSC~ C~ TO ~t~XC. CnP RETAINING AND/OR SCREEN 'WALL NOTE: ALL RETAINING/GARDEN WALLS VIEWABLE BY THE PtIBL1C OR FACING PUBLIC AREAS (I.E. STREETS} SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH STONE VENEER (BOTH SIDES WHERE VISIBLE) AND WITH A PRF~AST CONCRETE CAP THAT MATCHES COMMUN[~ ENTRY CAP. Page 111-32 LandscaPe Architectural Design Guidelines Materials Source List The following materials were utilized within Phase I of Dublin Ranch and shall be used throughout Area FI and F2 to maintain a consiStent community visual image. Stone - Stone shall be Cultured Stone "Country Ledgestone - Caramel" #CSV-20007. Available from Cultured Stone Corporation, (800) 255-I727. Mortar - Mortar shall be Davis Colors #5447. Available from Davis Colors, (800) 356-4348. Stucco - Stucco shall have a "Texcoat" finish and painted to match La Habra X-82, Hacienda. Precast Wall and Pilaster Caps - Color to be "Pacific Coast Sandstone" #15W. Grout to be Hydroment "Cameo by Bostic, Inc. Available from Napa Valley Cast Stone Systems, (707) 252-3933. Rail Fence - Rail fence shall be a "Woodcrete Rail System" fence. Color t6'"~ T~ Avail~ible from Dynamic Pre-Cast Company, (707) 829-2664. Tubular Steel Fence - Tubular steel fences shall be painted with ~)9-1554 'green' Deluxe paint by Sinclair Paints. Interlocking Concrete Pavers - Pavers shall be "Basalite Cobble IIF'. Use 80mm thickness for streets and 60mm elsewhere. Color blend to be 45% Sandalwood, 45% Carmel, and 10% Marin. Available from Basalite, (209) 833-3670. Page 111-33 LandecaPe Architectural Design Guidelines 8. In addition to the Stage 1 Development Standards of the Landscape & Open Space Guidelines/Standards stated above, Stage 2 Development Standards also include: Residential Development Standards and the Architectural Design Standards (pp. II-23 of the AS booklet, attached as Attachment A to this Ordinance) Table 3: Residential Site Develo Standards for Single Famil~ Detached Lot Size 5,000 sf or greater between 3,150 sf & 5,000 sf (minimum dimensions = 45 feet x 70 feet) Minimum Street Frontage 35 feet 35 feet Maximum Lot Coverage(l) 45% 50% Maximum Building Height 35 feet 38 feet Maximum Stories 2 3(2)(3) Maximum Front Yard Setbacks Living Area 15 feet for 2.story® or 12 feet 12 feet for single story (Front) Porch 10 feet 10 feet Front-On Garage 19 feet(s) 18 feet(s) Turn-In Garage 12 feet® N/A Minimum Side Yard Setbacks(z) 1 Story to I Story 5 feet to 5 feet (10-foot total) 4 feet minimum(s) 1 Story to 2 Story 5 feet to 7.5 feet (12.5-foot total) 4 feet minimum(s) 2 Story to 2 Story 7.5 feet to7.5 feet (15-foot total) 4 feet minimum Comer Lot (setback from street side) (9) 15 feet for 2-story® or 9 feet 10 feet for single story (Front) Porch® 3 feet N/A Encroachments (D) (D) Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks® Living Space (D) 10-foot minimum, (D) 5-foot minimum, 15-foot average per lot 12-foot average per lot Single-Story Garage (D) 5-foot minimum 3 feet 2-Story Garage (living space above) (D) 10-foot minimum (D) 10-foot minimum Standards for Usable Rear Yards contiguous fiat area: contiguous fiat area: minimum area of 500 sf & minimum area of 300 sf & minimum dimension of 10 feet minimum dimension of 5 feet Accessory Structures (E) Parking Spaces Required 2 covered + 1 guest space(m 2 covered + 1 guest space® Notes: (A) All setbacks are measured from the property line. (B) See pages in the Architectural Design Standards for a graphic depiction of the standards listed in the Table above. (C) See Pages 11-12 to 11-23 of the Architectural Style Guidelines for additional Architectural Treatment requirements. (D) Items such as (but not limited to) air conditioning condensers, porches, chimneys, bay windows, media Centers, etc. may encroach 2 feet into the required setback provided that a minimum of 36 inches fiat and level area is maintained for access around the house. (E) 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'. (1) 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 & carports, permitted (,---- accessory structures, covered decks & gazebos, and other covered and enclosed areas. It does not include: standard roof overhangs, comices, 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~ Subject to Building Code requirements for access. (3) The 3rd floor must be stepped back from front and rear elevations to reduce building mass. (4) Where 50% or more of the elevation of the home is a single-story element and there is a 5-foot minimum offset between the 1st and 2n~ story elements, the setback for the single-story and 2-story elements shall be considered as that for a single- story building. (5) Three-car front-on garages are prohibited in Neighborhood Fl. In Neighborhood F2, three-car front-on garages are limited to one floor plan type. Additional architecturai requirements pertaining to garage facades, etc. are included in the "Building Mass & Form" and the "Architectural Treatment" sections of the Architectural Design Standards. (6) Turn-in garages are prohibited on lots less than 55 feet wide. (7) Retaining walls up to 3 feet high may be used to create level usable areas. Retaining walls in excess of 3 feet high to create level usable area are subject to review and approval of the Building Official or Community Development and Director of Public Works. Walls over 30 inches in height are subject to safety criteria as determined by the Building Official. ~s) Setbacks subject to review and approval of the Building Official for Building Code and Fire Code issues. Setbacks to building overhang to be 3-foor minimum or as required by the current City Building Code standards. (9) Where a m~nimum 5-foot wide Homeowners Association (HOA) parcel lies between a lot and an adjacent street the adjacent.!0t is not considered a comer lot. ¢0) At cul-de-sac bulbs where lot depths are less than the standard 100 feet, minimum rear-yard setback requirements may be reduced by an amount equal to 100 feet minus the actual depth of the lot (e.g., 100 feet - 90 feet = 10-feet) In no case will the rear yard setback be reduced to less than 10 feet. ¢~) Curbside parking may be counted toward the required number Of guest parking spaces. Tandem parking within a garage ~s permitted. Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 50' + 50' + 50' +- 50' +- +1 1 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 5,000+ SF LOTS TYPICAL PLOTTING CONCEPTS [] 2ND STORY MASSING Residential Site Development Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Minimum usable (level) rear yards = 300 S.F. with a minimum 10' dimension. (Typ) 45'+ 45' + 45'+- 45'+ +1 I STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 3,150+ SF LOTS TYPICAL PLOTTING CONCEPTS 2ND STORY MASSING [] USABLE REAR YARD MINIMUM AREA [ - 4 Reside~q rial Site Development Sta~zctarcls Dublin Ranch Area F North · JUne 2003 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide specific architecture, planning and neighborhood design standards for the development of Neighborhoods F-1 and F-2 in Dublin Ranch. These standards have been developed to establish pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods with variety and interest and uphold a high level of quality and value in the overall community. The goal for these neighborhoods is to achieve a safe and pleasant neighborhood environment within which varied architecture, reduced dominance of automobiles, pedestrian scaled landscapes and walkways and connections to other community areas are all present. Relative to this document is Attachment A - "Architectural Style Guidelines" which is intended to further define the architectural design intent of this project. This attachment can be found following th.e Architectural Design Standards of this PD document. NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN Neighborhood Plotting and Massing One important goal of these guidelines is to create a functional street scene possessing visual quality and variety. Plotting and design criteria are intended to provide this variety in appearance as well as a sense of individuality for each home. Projects where nearly identical buildings line streets without variation in placement and architectural form are not permitted. This and the following section lists plotting and massing techniques which will aid in the creation of a successful street scene. While it is not necessary that every method be utilized, selective and appropriate use will greatly contribute to achieving the desired results. H - I Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 The following techniques address the use of plotting and massing to imProve the street scene: · Reversing and varying adjacent house plan forms. · Avoiding obviously repetitious patterns, · Opening comer lots through plan selection and reduced building heights. · Varying setbacks, · Giving attention to composition of building mass. · Incorporating single story elements into two story buildings. · Stepping second stories. · Minimizing visual impact of the garage. ArchiteCtural Plan and Style Mix ,In order to achieve varied and interesting street scenes, the following architectural style mix and plan requirements must be met: In each neighborhood provide: · a minimum of 3 plans · a minimum of 3 elevations per plan · a rmnimum of 4 different architectural styles per neighborhood Or: · a mimmum of 4 plans · a mimmum of 3 elevations per plan · a minimum of 3 different architectural styles per neighborhood Where the same plan is plotted across from or adjacent to another, it' must be reverse plotted and have a significantly different elevation and color scheme. The use of style-appropriate materi als and color schemes helps to achieve greater variety between homes with identical plans and elevations. It is the intent to avoid an overall monotonous color scheme through the use of a varied neighborhood color and materials palette, Varied color schemes shall be applied to homes according to each individual style color palette as shown in the architectural guidelines section of this document. H - 2 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Setbacks Front yard setbacks shall vary for visual interest. A 2' minimum offset between adjacent buildings is required for lots where minimum rear and front yard setbacks can be met. (Refer to Table I-1 for specific setback requirements). Treatment of Corner Conditions The treatment of corner lots is key to a successful site plan. All units occupying corner lots shall be designed and placed so that: · The driveway and garage is placed against the interior side yard or accessed from the side street at the rear of the lot. · A clear line of site across the corner is maximized. · The building wall adjacent to the exterior side yard is as short as practical. · The exterior side and front yard setbacks are maximized. ' Rear Elevations Rows of units seen from a distance or on elevated lots are generally perceived by their contrast against the background. Here the dominant impact is the overall shape of the building and roof lines instead of the surface treatment or materials. In these circumstances: · Maximize the rear yard setback from the top of slope. · Design the rear elevation and roof forms to provide diversity. (Refer to Table I-i for specific setback requirements). These buildings should appear as varied as practical with particular attention given to avoiding repetitious ~irchitectural elements such as fireplace placement, flat rear elevations, and major gable conditions. Each plan shall differ based on rear roof framing so that no rear roofs appear identical in form. There ~hall be a combination of shed, hip and gables, etc. as seen from adjacent streets. Areas of particular concern include those lots in Area F North Neighborhoods that abut Gleason Drive, Grafton Street and Fallon Road. Refer to Site Development Standards Table I~1 and Massing and Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations, pg. II-11 for additional specific criteria. H - 3 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Building Side Yard Separations There are numerous effective techniques for mitigating the aesthetic and practical aspects of side yard building adjacencies. Side yards in the 10' range are useful in that they optimize density and affordability of a site while minimizing the amount of street paving and length and cost of common utility runs on a site. Various design and plotting techniques can successfully overcome concerns such as privacy, adjacency and accessibility. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) mandates a minimum of 3' clear side yard and/or 6' clear of building separation for non-fire rated single family residences. This is ro provide both physical separation to limit the spread of fire and to allow accessibility around structures for fire fighting personnel. Typically, side yards are a minimum of 5' with 10' of building separation' to allow for the placement of fireplaces on the side yard and eave overhang of the roof while maintaining the UBC separation criteria. Where setbacks are less than 5', extra attention must be paid to location of such encroachments to comply with UBC and any/all other applicable codes. See Table I-1 for specific setback requirements. The typical aesthetic criticism with the building separations in the 10' range are that they lack privacy where windows align, are too dark and canyon-like when between adjacent two story buildings and the accessibility is reduced because of the placement of storage sheds, air conditioning units and trash storage. Setbacks for encroachments have been established (see "encroachments"), however, local fire authority standards may supersede those stated in this document. Modern planned communities should address these issues through the design guidelines and co.mmunity standards planning process. Placement of sheds and air conditioners shall be controlled and enforced to insure accessibility. Plan designs shall provide for the placement of air conditioning and trash storage units that do not intrude into either side or rear yard setbacks. Plan designs with attention to the placement of windows must insure privacy. Many of the same techniques used to vary the street scene should also be used to prevent dark canyon- like side yards and rear yards. These include: single story massing elements, hipped roofs~ and stepped second stories to mimmize side and rear yard depth. I1 - 4 Architectural Design Standards Dublhz Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Encroachments The following encroachments may project up to 2' into yard setbacks: (all non-fire rated encroachments must be at least 3 feet from property lines), eaves, architectural projections, fireplaces, log storage, entertainment niches, balconies, exterior stairs, bay windows, window seats, decks, and air conditioning equipment. Local fire authority standards which may exceed those stated here must be adhered to. SLOPE CONSIDERATIONS Grading Sloped Conditions Where there is adequate space, slope conditions in Area F North should be addressed by creating a series of terraces generally stepping down from north to south. At locations within blocks or at interim points within larger parcels, slope banks or walls shall address any excess slope. The intent is to provide a reasonable number of terraces rather than creating large level areas. Plotting on Cross Slope Conditions When plotting where the elevation difference between lots is greater than 3 feet, the units should be placed so that the driveway is on the high side of the lot. Plotting on Lots at the Bottom of a Slope When plotting and designing the home, maximize the rear yard depth and consider stepping back the rear elevations on the second story to avoid a "canyon-like" rear yard effect. BUILDING MASS AND FORM Residential Massing Exterior mass and form can be manipulated to improve the street scene by reducing the impact of certain home elements as they relate to corner conditions, adjacent units, setbacks and the street. Massing should be designed to decrease perceived density. II - 5 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 ArChitectUral Form Building mass should be formulated to reflect interior uses, to create a positive relationship with adjacent homes and land use, to provide visual emphasis and to reflect the architectural style. Methods for maximizing the variety of arclxitectural form within these constraints include: · Creating recessed alcoves or projected overhangs which cast shadows. · ScUlpting major chimney forms. · Utilizing dormers, bay windows and other architectural projections.~ · Using porch/entry projections. Relationship of One and Two Story Buildings A key technique for creating a sense Of variety within a ;~ neighborhood is to vary the heights and forms of the homes. This can be accomplished by using a combination of one and two story buildings and staggering the massing. It is preferable to use single ,'", story elements on fronts and outside edges of comer 'lots to provide ~ a transition from taller, two story vertical planes to the horizontal Planes of sidewalk and street. Introducing an intermediate · tranSition between one and two story buildings helps to improve the visual relationship between the two. " Two Story Buildings Style-appropriate, significant single story architectural elements shall be used on two story buildings to lessen their apparent :height. (see "Architectural Style Guidelines" of this document for description of style-appropriate elements). Stepping the second story mass, where appropriate to the architectural style, should be used to improve the street scene. The second stories must be set back in relation to the garage face below. Designers shall create the building form as a series of interlocking masses rather than a box. Single Story Architectural Elements A single story architectural element on the front or side provides a transitional step between a two story home and the si. dewalk level., helping to create a sense of pedestrian scale. H - 6 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Significant single story architectural elements include: · A single' story room (interior living space) · A front or wraparound porch ( minimum 6' deep and 10' wide) applied when appropriate to the architectural style (See additional porch requirements below) · Extended entry alcove · A single story garage (if located at the side of the home) All architectural elements shall be appropriate to each architectural style as described in the "Architectural Style Guidelines" section of this document. A minimum number of single story homes and/or architectural elements are required in Dublin Ranch neighborhoods according to the following lot sizes and building types. Area F-2 Neighborhood: · At least one plan in the architectural plan package for the neighborhood shall include a significant single story element at the front or side. In Area F-2 neighborhoods where lots are equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet with minimum lot widths of at least 50', all corner homes are required to have a significant single story element that provides added interest and articulation at the front corner. Any portion of the single story architectural element requirements may be satisfied with the use of comer homes. A comer home may be designed specifically for use on comer tots. If not designed specifically for a corner location a home plan must have the flexibility to be easily altered for use on corner or interior lots. Homes located on comer lots require the following: · Front and side facade articulation using materials that wrap around the side of the home. ° A significant single story architectural element (interior space) at the front comer of the plan · Garage placement that allows the option of entry from the side street - (where garage is mid to deep recessed) Architectural Desigr~ Standards · Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 · . ', : :::. Area F-1 Neighborhood: Comer plans for these neighborhoods may be designed for interior lots with the flexibility to be adapted for corner use. Homes located on these comer tots require the following: · Front and side faqade articulation using materials that wrap around the side of the home. · A pop out side gable or added single story element (exterior - such as a wrap around porch) Corner Homes Neighborhood quality is enhanced by the addition of a home plan designed specifically for the corner, or by enhancing an interior plan for use on the corner with additional architectural elements and/or details as typically found on front elevations. The use of the required single story elements is highly encouraged on corner homes. The use of the same plan on every corner however, is prohibited. The intent is to provide a pleasing variety in the street scene using a combination of massing forms and heights. Porch Requirements In addition to comer lots, in neighborhoods where lots are smaller than 5,000 square feet with minimum lot widths of less than 50', a minimum of I plan per neighborhood (on appropriate styles only) is required to have a porch. Where a porch is included as a single story element, it is desirable for the following design dimensions to be present: · Front porches should be a minimum of 6' depth and 1/2 ~_ ........ the width of the front living area facade. · Side porches should be a minimum of 5' depth. · Side porch length should be a t minimum of 12' measured from front corner of porch. · Eaves must be a minimum of 12" or 18" deep, as appropriate to style. ti ~ 8 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 See individual Architectural Style Guidelines of this document for guidance regarding style-appropriate elements, colors and materials. Refer to Residential Site Development Standards for Setbacks. Garage Criteria The home and the yard, rather than the garage, should be the primary emphasis of the elevation as seen from the street. In order to achieve this, the following standards are required: · The use of front-facing, 3-car garages is limited to one plan per neighborhood. · Swing-in garages are limited to lots 55' wide or greater. · All homes are required to have both automatic garage door openers and "roll up" doors.* · With the exception of lots along substantial street slopes, plans should be reversed and plotted so that garages and entries are adjacent to each other. This creates an undulating sense of setback. Occasionally this pattern should be broken so that it will not become overly repetitious no~ reflected by the units directly across the street. · Locate all garages at least 5' behind the front face/ living space of the home -except swing-in garages. (see "Residential Site Development Standards" for setbacks) · Vary garage placement mix within neighborhood plotting plan · Vary garage door appearance · Var3, garage placement from plan to plan * The use of a sectional "roll up" garage door is required since it maximizes the availability of useable driveway length. Residents often tend to misjudge the necessary swing-up distance of conventional garage doors. As a result, they often park with the rear of car extending into the sidewalk path. H - 9 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 The following design techniques are encouraged to reduce the emphasis on the garage: Vary garage placement within neighborhood plotting plan: · Vary garage placement where possible by alternating front setbacks along street frontage. · Alternate plans with different garage types when plotting adjacent homes. Vary garage door appearance: · Vary garage door pattern, windows and/or color as appropriate to individual architectural styles. · Where possible, use two single doors instead of a large one. · Additional garage treatments are encouraged to buffer direct view of the garage door. · Stagger the setback between individual adjacent garage doors. Vary garage placement from plan to plan: · Incorporate the garage with the architecture of the house. The design treatment should strive to reduce the overall visual mass of the garage. · De-emphasize the garage by highlighting other parts of the house with architectural forms. · Where lot depth allows, recess the garage at least 20' behind the primary front facade on one plan. 1. Recessed - (may be detached) 2. Corner with side street entry (may be detached) 3. Swing-in - limited to a maximum of 33% of units in each neighborhood (or 1 plan per package) Recessed Garage All front facing garages shall be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the front elevation/living space. Additional garage treatments are encouraged to further reduce the impact of the garage door. [[- ! o Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Aren F North · June 2005 Corner with side-street entry Garage This garage placement allows the option of entering from the side street, thereby eliminating the garage and driveway from the front face of the house. Swing-In Garage This garage placement is limited to 33% of homes in single- family detached neighborhoods. Swing-in garages greatly reduce the impact of garage door faces on the streetscape. The resulting front-facing garage wall shall be articulated with the same level of detail as the front fagade of the home including windows, trim, etc. Swing-in garages are prohibited on lots less than 55' wide. Swing- in garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12" behind the garage wall plane. Detached Garages Detached garages may be deep recessed or located adjacent to the corner with side street entry access. Detached garages are located toward the rear of the lot behind the primary structure. They are enhanced by applying the same details found on the home. Where front-facing, long driveways should be improved by adding texture, pattern or a 'ribbon' driveway. 3-Car Front-Facing Garage Requirements 3-car garages with all doors facing front are limited to: · one plan per neighborhood plan package. · lots that are 5,000 SF or greater - being located at least 5' behind the front facade of the home (living space) · all other standard garage requirements When a 3-car front-facing garage is used, in addition to standard garage requirements it shall provide at least one of the following additional front-facing plan requirements: 1. Provide and offset a single door at least 2' fi'om a double door. 2. Provide three single garage doors each separated by at least 1' H - 11 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Additional garage placements and/or treatments are highly encouraged to reduce the impact of a 3-car front-facing garage on the street scene. These include: · Providing a minimum 6' deep by 10' wide porch forward of all garages. · Constructing the additional car bay in tandem behind the standard 2-car garage door. Optional Garage Treatments The following optional treatments are highly encouraged to reduce or buffer the direct view of all garages and garage doors from the sidewalk or street. Porte Cochere: A recessed garage plan with a port cochere creates an additional, partially covered, parking space and also serves an occasional outdoor private space. Garage Door Screening Elements: · Install elements such as attached trellis' beneath single story garage roof fascias and/or above garage door header trims. · Span the driveway forward of the garage with a gated element or an overhead trellis. ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT ELEVATION TREATMENT It is the intent of these guidelines to achieve a high quality product that reads well from all sides. The following section provides guidance to help the designer and builder achieve this requirement for "4-sided" architecture. H - 12 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Major Elevations Proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness creates a successful project design. The differences between the plans and elevations must be readily discernible and create variety, yet at the same time design elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to result in visual chaos. All elements, materials and colors shall be appropriate to the architectural style. Siding materials shall be ended inside chimney corners, fence and wall corners, etc. and finished with detail. They shall be brought down to within a reasonable distance from finished grade so thaf the slab is not discernible. Large expanses of blank walls shall be avoided. Elevations shall be designed and articulated consistently with requirements in the Architectural Style Guidelines section of this document. Creation of Form and Relief Recesses and Shadow The manner in which light strikes or frames a building is instrumental in how that structure is perceived. The effect of sunlight is a strong design consideration since shadow and shade gives the, building a sense of both depth and substance. Projections, offsets, overhangs and recesses are all tools in the creation of shadow. Architectural Projections Projections not only create shadow but also provide strong visual focal points. This can be used to emphasize some aspect of the design such as an entry or major window. It can also distract the observer's attention away from other elements such as the garage or a large wall plane. Stepping Forms Elevations shall be stepped both horizontally and vertically. Desired changes in material must occur at a step. Entry Statement The entry should be designed to serve as a focal point of the elevation and be readily discernible. The approaching observer should be drawn into it by its visual impact. Buried side-facing entries behind front-on garage plane will not be permitted. I[ - 13 Architectural Design standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Massing and Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations Interior Conditions It is not acceptable to "build out" plans to the maximum at side and rear conditions without articulating the mass of those wall planes. This is intended to prevent a two story stucco box, producing a canyon-like effect without vertical or horizontal relief. Required solutions include, but are not limited to, the following: · Create a single story plate at the rear by recessing the second story. · Improve the articulation of the plan forms by offsetting the garage and providing plans that do not utilize the full lot width or depth. · Recess or project the elevation and plan to enhance usable and accessible yard space. Elevations Subject to Public View The rears and sides of homes backing onto streets or open space areas may be highl.y visible from surrounding areas and shall be treated in a similar manner to the front elevation. This is particularly true of second story conditions visible above the fence line. These elevations are viewed in three ways: first, as seen from adjacent units, second, as semi-public foreground with visible details as seen from adjacent streets, and third, as distant silhouettes viewed from adjacent neighborhoods and public areas. It is required that front elevations and those portions of side and rear elevations of homes that abut a street and are visible from a street shall substantially share common materials and degrees of articulation. Architectural trim, design treatments and materials shall be provided as follows: · Provide detailing of the second floor, to include materials, color, window surrounds and changes in wall planes on first and second floors where appropriate to style. · Trim shall be provided on all windows. · At a minimum, second story windows shall have break-ups (muntins) that match the front elevation windows. · Continue trim and accent materials well beyond the front elevations (see individual style requirements). II - 14 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 · Homes shall be detailed in an authentic manner. · Address issues of second story privacy and scale in design of building plans and elevations. · For homes backing onto streets provide detailing of the second floor, to include materials, color, window surrounds and changes in wall planes on first and second floors where appropriate to style. · As seen from a distance, ridge lines and framing of homes shall appear varied with particular attention given to avoiding repetitious elements such as continuous gable-ends and similar building silhouettes and ridge heights. · Where possible, maximize and vary the rear yard setbacks within rows of lots. · Design the rear elevation and roof plane to minimize negative visual impact. ROOF CONSIDERATIONS Roof Forms Homes seen from a close range or a distance are generally perceived with the contrast against their immediate background or skyline, respectively. Overall building lines are predominant, and appearance is directly impacted by roof massing, not the wall plane articulation or materials. The use of different roof types will add variety and interest to the street scene, however the roof characteristics shall always be consistent with whatever architectural style is chosen. To achieve this, roof forms shall be addressed by the following criteria: · Vary the height of ridge lines and fascias in combination with different architectural styles, to create a variety of roof forms and visual interest. · Provide a balance of hip and gable forms that avoid repetitious elements. · Provide a balance of architectm:al massing and forms that minimize negative visual impact of silhouettes and ridge lines. · Provide plans that maximize their rear yard setback so that building outlines are varied and not as dominant. H - 15 Architectural Design Sta~zdards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Acceptable Roof Forms There is no single form of roof that is preferred. Hip, gable and sheds may, within reason, be used separately or together on the same roof. Care should be taken to avoid a canyon effect in side and rear yard when both buildings have front to rear gables. Roof forms with pitch changes at a porch or projection are acceptable. Inappropriate Roof Forms Roof forms having dual pitches such as Gambrel or Mansard should not be used. Flat r6ofs are not permitted. Allowable Roof Pitch The principal roof forms shall have a pitch of between 3 1/2: 12 and 8:12 depending upon dwelling style and character (See Architectural Style Guidelines section of this document). A single roof pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches tend to lessen the apparent building mass. Design of Rakes and Eaves The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types based on climatic and stylistic considerations. Moderate or extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. Tight 'fascias with appropriate styles are acceptable. Single fascia boards, double fascia boards, or exposed rafters when adequately scaled are acceptable. Care should be taken to ensure material sizes avoid a weak or flimsy appearance. Exposed rafter tails without fascias should be at least 3x. Overhang Projections and Covered Porches Substantial overhangs are encouraged as a response to solar and climatic conditions. The inclusion of covered porches and entries expand sheltered living spaces, create entry statements and provide elevation relief. Covered porches may differ from the roof in both pitch and material but front porches should retain at least one of these two characteristics. II- ] 6 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Stepping the Roof Form Steps in the roof respond to the interior room arrangement and provide visual relief and interest. A vertical step within the ridge line should be at least 18" in order to create visual impact and allow for adequate weatherproofing. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS The following sections provide guidance concerning specific elements of residences such as entries, doors, windows and garages. Unit Entries Use of Entry Statements The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: · Identifies and frames the front doorway. ,. · Acts as an interface between public and private spaces. ~ · Acts as an introduction to the house while creating an initial impression. Placement and VisibiliO, The entry should be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions. If the front door locations is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the entry should direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry in merchant built housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the facade. Incorporation of Roof and Architectural Features Proper use of roof elements, columns, feature windows and architectural forms contribute to the overall impact and success of the entry. A covered entry is a traditional American housing element. It may no longer serve as a living activity area (i.e., porch or veranda) but still has an important function as a semi-private transition between the public walkway and the private interior. Even when the entry visually obscures the door, it still announces the door. ~t~/ H - 17 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Doors Design Emphasis'should be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given to the image it creates. · The entire door assembly should be treated as a single design element including surrounding frame, molding and glass side lights, if present. · Typically, the door should be covered by an overhead element or recessed into the wall Plane. Materials/Colors Traditionally, wOod is used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in order to be acceptable, they must possess the same residential "feel" provided by the wood grain and panels. Flexibility is allowed concerning the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color. Use of Glass The use of glass in ~e door and overall assembly is encouraged. · It expresses a sense of welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as single side lights, double side lights, transom glass or fan windows. Residential Address Numbers and Entry Lighting Ali residential addresses shall be clearly marked, located and sufficiently lit for ease of recognition by postal and public safety agencies. I[ - ] 8 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Windows Placement and Organization Typically, the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of room layout, possible furniture placement, view opportunities and concern for privacy. Greater design emphasis shall be directed to insure that window placement and organization will also positively contribute to the exterior architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination with other design elements. This relationship to one another and the wall/roof plane creates a composition and sense of order. · . All windows in a specific plan elevation shall appear compatible. This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape, size or type but rather that a hierarchy of windows exists which visually relate to and compliment one another. Feature/Theme Windows Feature or theme windows on the front elevation create a strong visual focal point. These fo6al points may be used to decrease the visual impact of the garage door, draw attention to the entry or emphasize some other element of building. Within the window hierarchy, this window creates the dominant theme or form. Window Frames Vinyl clad, aluminum, wood or cementitious simulated wood window frames are acceptable. When using aluminum, bronze anodized frames or those complementary to the color palette shall be used while natural, silver or gold anodized frames are unacceptable. Ali windows must be articulated and/or trimmed appropriately to individual style as described in the architectural style section of these guidelines. Use of Wood and Stucco Trim When aluminum frame windows are used, they shall be surrounded or trimmed with other design elements. These may include wood or cementitious simulated wood trim, stucco surrounds and shutters or recessed openings as appropriate to the architectural style. H - 19 Architectural Desig~., Staztdards Dublin Ranch A rea F North · June 2003 Considerations of Rear Elevations Merchant built housing typically fails to adequately address proper window design and placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization and cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible, greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given. The guidance concerning window placement organization, trim and incorporation of architectural elements is applicable to all elevations and will be enforced through the design review process. Integrations with Roof and Architectural Details The window is important to the proper articulation of the wall and roof elements. Focal points can be created by the placement of windows in architectural projection or recesses incorporated with gable, hip or shed roof overhangs. Consideration should be given to using overhangs and projections to shadow windows with south and west exposures. Skylights Skylights and roof windows are permitted where they are not visible from any street, if properly installed and weather proofed. The skylight should be designed to appear as an integral part of the roof plane. Skylights should be clear or bronzed with the framework matching the roof or trim color. Balconies The inclusion of balconies is encouraged for both aesthetic and practical purposes. They are useful in breaking up large wall planes, offsetting floors, creating visual interest and adding human scale to the building. They provide the practical advantage of creating outdoor living areas and elevated open space. Balconies may be covered or open. They may be either recessed into the mass of the building or serve as a projecting element. In whichever manner they are used, they must appear to be an integral element of the building rather than an after thought or add-on, the details, eaves supports, and railing must be consistent with the · balance of the building design elements or style. Concern should be given to avoid designing balconies in plans in such a manner that they are plotted side by side. H - 20 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Exterior Stairs Stairs should be compatible in type and material to the deck and landing. Use of open stair treads can only be justified where the balcOny or landing element is a projecting element. Location of exterior sta~s is permitted on the side or rear of the home except on facades that side or back onto public streets or open space areas. Columns and Posts It is important that both columns and posts project a substantial and durable image. Posts should be of wood, not less than 6" in diameter, and may be built up from multiple pieces. Use of 4" posts and metal pipe columns is prohibited. Columns may be clad in wood, masonry or stucco. They should be square, rectangular, or round and at least 14" wide With a height of approximately 4 to 5 times the width. It is desirable that columns incorporate both base and capitals. Related arches may be flat, round or segments of an inch. Other variations such as parabolic curves are unacceptable. Railing The type of exterior railing used on balconies, decks and stairs, creates a significant impact on the elevation. An extensive variety of rail types are permkted including open wrought iron and wood rail or picket. Extruded aluminum is prohibited. Choice of rail type should reflect taste and be consistent with the chosen design vocabulary or be historically correct for the style. Gutters and Downspouts Exposed gutters shall be colored to match fascia material. Exposed downspouts will likewise be colored to match the surface to which they are attached unless they are finished with a false copper patina. H - 21 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Chimneys Properly designed and located chimneys can serve as a major design element and focal point for the building elevation. It is frequently the major architectural element on exposed side or a rear elevation. Chimneys should be constructed of style- appropriate materials as described in the architectural styles section of this document. Care must be taken concermng the selection of any accent materials and the cap design. The use of steps, curve and banding on the shaft and capital have major visual impact against the sky and roof plane. Attention should be given to the City setback requirements. Garages and Garage Doors Materials "Roll up ~,ara~,e doors shall be used on all. single-family homes. Metal, wood or fiberglass garage doors are permitted when they include either textured or raised panels of a "residential" nature. The use of window elements is encouraged. The design of garage doors should reflect the theme or style of the overall design of the residence. Proper use of accent colors will compliment the architecture and provide visual variety along the street scene. Refer to the individual color palette for each style. Face Design The design of the door face should result in a tasteful treatment which breaks up the expanse of the door plane while not being so excessively decorative as to draw attention away from the architectural elevation. Recessing It is highly desirable to recess the garage door 6"-12" from the garage face. This allows for a strong shadow line and decreases the impact of the door while increasing the apparent sense of mass of the surrounding wall. H - 22 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Patio Covers Patio covers, trellises, pergolas and other exterior structures should reflect the character, color and materials of the building to which they are related. Supports and framing members will confo~-n to the guideline criteria for columns and posts. The pitch of the patio roof may be less than the adjacent building. The materials for the horizontal elements are limited to either wood or the dwelling's roof material. The side elevation of the structure will not be enclosed except in the case where a wall of the dwelling forms a natural enclosure. Ensure that building plans allow space for the later addition of usable patio covers within the buildable envelope and setbacks. Storage Structures If storage structures are used, they must be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria for the residence as stated in the Architectural Style Guidelines of this document. Prefabricated metal or vinyl sheds are prohibited. All sUch structures must be screened from view where adjacent to public streets or open space areas. Further Design Considerations All mechanical or other equipment, inclUding utility meters, junction boxes, trash receptacles and air conditioners should be screened from public view. Further consideration should be given as to the plaCement of these items within the side yards so as not to restrict pedestrian access in emergency situations. They may be accommodated within the rear yard with minimal impact on yard use and layout. Ail antennas shall be placed in attics or interior of the residence. Inclusion of exterior compact satellite dishes is limited to locations that are not visible from the street or side yards from adjacent lots wherever possible. Canvas awnings of solid accent color may be permitted with moderation. Refer to individual style color palettes for criteria. Metal awnings are prohibited. The decision whether to provide awnings should include consideration of their maintenance and deterioration in neighborhoods without maintenance associations. H - 23 Architectural Desigtz Standards Both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Areas satisfy the following required elements: 1. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The Dublin Ranch Area F North project includes a General Plan amendment which modifies General Plan maps and text for the project. The project also includes an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project PD- zoning and both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans shall not be effective until the above General Plan and Specific Plan amendments are approved and effective. 2. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. As agreed upon between the City and the Developer the City's 12.5% affordable housing requirement will be provided and satisfied within the Fairway Ranch residential community south of the project area. 3. Applicable Requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in these Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, the use, development, improvements and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to section 8.32.060.C. 4. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The Area F North project includes a General Plan Amendment which modifies the General Plan maps and text for the project. The project also includes an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to modify the land use designation. The project PD-zoning and this Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan shall not be effective until the above General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment are approved and effective. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced upon the effective date of the general plan and specific plan amendments in PA 01-037. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cauSe this 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 16th day of March 2004, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 ATTACHMENT A: ARCHITECTURAL STYLE GUIDELINES · . :~ - ,~ ......... ~ PURPOSE The goal of these architectural guidelines is to provide more specific design guidance for the residential architectural styles to be used in Neighborhoods F-1 and F-2 in Dublin Ranch. They have been developed to establish a high level of architectural quality, to assure both variety and compatibility and to enhance the community's overall value. ,. ,~: ~ The goal for DUblin RanCh neighborhoods is to promote both visual harmony and variety in a community setting achieved by utilizing a number of compatible traditional and contemporary styles and through architectural innovation. Builders will select from the architectural palette described herein to create their own combinations of neighborhood styles, plans and colors. Each neighborhood will eventually develop a unique character within the overall image of the community. Dublin Ranch will remain unified through the implementation of an overall plan for landscaping, signs and entry monumentation. RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLES Dublin Ranch represents an opportunity to develop a unique community combining the most positive aspects of a master ' planned development 'with the most favorable building types and styles of long established neighborhoods. These guidelines are based on the prior learning curves of earlier planned communities and can thus implement the successes achieved while avoiding the negative aspects sometimes created. II A - 1 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Key to a successful project is the development of an appropriate architectural vocabulary and theme which avoids two alternative pitfalls found in some residential, developments. One of these is the selection of a single "trendy" style which when used everywhere is monotonous, repetitious and, as a result, quickly becomes date& The other extreme to be avoided is the combination of strongly contradictory styles and incompatible designs which lead to visual chaos.' To achieve a successful middle ground, it is the intent for Dublin Ranch to become a quality living environment with an identifiable visual character that establishes itself at the community entry and community facilities, is maintained along the major roadways, and carries through to the neighborhood entries and individual homes. The goal is to provide both variety and compatibility while creating a sense of familiarity. The styles selected convey a sense of classic character and an opportunity to develop a high quality neighborhood environment. For concept and inspiration, we have turned to the greater Dublin area' s own architectural past. In small towns of both the East Bay and the Central Valley, one finds attractive established neighborhoods composed of homes built during the opening decades of the past century. These neighborhoods consist of a mixture of interesting and different, yet compatible styles. From among these "period" or eclectic styles, we have selected those which are not only attractive and compatible but can also be reasonably integrated into a modern merchant-built home. These styles are: · California Craftsman/Bungalow · American Colonial - European Eclectic · Monterey · California Ranch · American Farmhouse · East Coast Traditional These closely associated architectural styles have each evolved in California since the turn of the 20th century and examples are well represented in the East Bay and Central Valley area. Their inherent attractiveness, informality and sense of elegance have enabled these styles to remain popular over a long period of time. H A - 2 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 All styles shown here possess characteristics that the designer and builder shall consider when choosing a desired style or image. Specifically, the styles: · Are visually compatible with each other. · Possess general market appeal and community acceptance. · Can be successfully expressed in a modem merchant built home. · Are capable of authentic interpretation and variation. · Have a historic background and precedence in the East Bay and Central Valley area. The following sections will address each style, defining those elements that are characteristic. The text and graphics are intended to provide specific direction, guidance and authentic inspiration to the builders and architects as they design today's interpretations of these historic styles. It is not the intent of these guidelines to permit any false front architectural design. Ali sides of the building shall be articulated and consistent with the specific style selected for the residence. II A- 3 Architectural Style Guidelines 'Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 WOOD FASCIA/ SIDING MANUFACTURED WOOD TRIM STUCCO SOFFIT"'- ACCENT--1- BRACKET--'-J- -SURROUND ~,,~'~" 4.-- FLAT TILE .¢'~, - - ~ ~ ~ ~ 2.. - ' ,, ~ , '--- ~,-~ ..',:.. ~:~, . ,, ~;TONE BASE CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW Historical Precedent The Craftsman style was inspired by the English Arts and Crafts Movement of the late 19th century. Of the utmost importance was that all exterior and interior elements received both tasteful and "artful" attention. The movement influenced numerous California architects such as Green and Green, and Bernard Maybeck. ',~ The resulting Craftsman style responded with extensive built-in elements and by treating details such as windows or ceilings as if they were furniture. The overall affect was the creation of a natural, warm and livable home. The style is further characterized by the rustic texture of the building materials, broad overhangs with exposed rafter tails at the eaves and trellises over the porches. The Craftsman style evolved in California, inspired by bungalows that were the production home of the time. This type of architecture can be found in classic tree lined neighborhoods throughout California. This unique look promoted hand crafted quality; thus the name Craftsman. · H A - 4 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Gently pitched roofs · Projecting gable ends and exposed rafters · Wood columns · Porches with supporting stone or brick veneer bases · Siding as an accent on the base and in gable ends Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 standard or greater Gables 25% opposing and 75% parallel Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle, or concrete tile with a shake texture Overhangs 18" to 30" standard Siding Horizontal wood or cementitious simulated wood siding is used as an accent in coordination with stone veneer or combined stone & brick. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish Stucco finish where used, will be light to medium sand finish. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with stone or brick veneer. II A - 5 Architectural Style Guidelines D~b[ia R~ch Area P North · ~f~e ~00~ CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW (Cont.) ~ Porches Porches cover the front door area and a partial or full width of the front elevation. Stone or wrapped siding pilasters support wood upper column roof support elements Balconies Where balconies are used, they project out over the building plane and are articulated with wood or cementitious simulated wood detailing. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementifious simulated wood trim shall be used on all windows. Shutters are occasionally used. Entry The entry and surrounding area are covered and contained by the porch. Doors Entry doors will be simple with rustic detail and/or multi-paned windows with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim surrounds. Garage Doors ~ Doors shall be the roll-up type with a variety of panel break-ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Front Elevation The lines of the ro6f will be low and simple with wide projecting roofs. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the Craftsman style. Details for this style may include: · Applied siding in eaves. · Battered columns/pilasters at porch/entry. · Balustraded porch. HA - 6 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW (Cont.) Color Palette Siding Earth tones ranging from warm greens and browns to tans and ochre yellows. Roofs Composition shingle in shades of warm green or brown. Concrete shake in natural wood tones, Trim In contrast to the primary siding color, although certain shades of brown, green and gray may be used on schemes with a lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accent colors are rich, earthy shades of green, red, and brown. Brick & Stone Rustic, handmade appearance such as clinker brick found on historic Craftsman homes. Brick colors range from darker reds to browns. Stone may be smooth, rounded 'river rock', field stone or textural, rubble-like in appearance, but must have the appearance of natural stone. H A - 7 Architectural Style Guidelines Dubl#, Ranch Area F North · June 2003 FLAT TILE - SIMULATED DETAILED BRICK SHAKE OR SHINGLE-I, t,,' ,'(' WOOD TRIM - , ,,":.l,,~I, ~..~" ;..t, SURROUNDS ;;~- '. ;. ~ 2003 Wrm~ H~cu ~CH~C~, I~C. AMERICAN COLONIAL Historical Precedent This classic American style descended directly from the first homes built in the New England colonies in the 17th century. Their beginnings were as small and unpretentious as the one story saltbox, favoring the cultures and traditions of the settlements. As living functions became more defined and prosperity increased, so did the need for additional space. Second stories with overhangs, dormers and gabled roof forms became favored solutions, evolving into classic elements of this traditional American style. Later, wings of smaller continuous gable forms were added to each side of the house, becoming a lasting characteristic. Wood shutters and white picket fences became the finishing details for an otherwise simple and functional form. With the influence of Greek Revival styles in the 19th century, the American Colonial style evolved into a more decorative form known as Colonial Revival. Borrowing classic elements from Greek styles, the simple Colonial central front dormer window evolved into a standard, prominent roof element or decorative pediment entry form; a portico. The portico was supported by massive classic columns, raising the level of drama and sophistication of this style. [I A - 8 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN COLONIAL (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary co'ncepts for this style. They are identified as: · Primarily two story roof elements. · Secondary one story roof elements at entry or wings. · Symmetrical facade. · Fully wrapped siding. · Traditional door and window surrounds. · Predominantly gabled roof forms. Desi~o-n Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 6:12 to 8:12 standard. Roof Material Flat concrete or premium grade composition shingle or shake. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Siding Fully wrapped wood or cementitious simulated wood siding shall be used on all elevations. Ali siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Brick Only brick may be used alone or as an accent with siding. Stucco Finish Not Permitted. · Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with brick veneer or fully wrapped with wood siding. Architectural Style Guidelinex Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN COLONIAL (Cont.) Porches Porches may vary in size; either just around the area of the entry or the full width of the elevation. Balconies May be used on Colonial Revival elevation. Decorative wood railing in appropriate style and proportion for the elevation. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Dormered windows may be used. Shutters will be used widely beyond the front elevation on the simple Colonial form. Entry The Colonial entry will be covered by a pedimented entry form supported by squared columns or posts. Colonial Revival entry is covered by a one or two story portico supported by rounded/ fluted columns. Simple Colonial forms may be expressed as a simple porch element. Doors Colonial paneled entry doors shall have wood or cementitious simulated wood trim and may be articulated with transom lites or sidelights. Colonial Revival doors may also have fanlights above the door. Garage Doors The doors shall be a roll-up door with a variety of panel break- ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the American Colonial style. Details for the American Colonial style may include: · Decorative wood shutters on most windows. · Decorative broken pediment trim at entry and gable ends. · Decorative Iouvered vents in gable ends. · Traditional paneled doors. II A - i 0 Architectural Style Guideline,s' Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN COLONIAL (Cont.) Details for the Colonial Revival form may also include: · Classic rounded/fluted columns at pediment entry or portico. · Brick and/or wood or cemenfitious simulated wood siding. · Decorative broken pediment trim at entry and gable ends. · Decorative louvered vents in gable ends. · Cornices with dentil trim. · Detailed front doors with sidelights. Color Palette Siding Color range shall be from tinted whites to light beige, pale tones of yellow, brown, gray, greens and blues with contrasting color on door and shutters, trim, fascia, and posts at porch. Roofs Shades of gray, green, and blue, representing the slate roofs found on traditional East Coast architecture. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim Most often a shade of white, although certain shades of brown, ~ green and gray may be used on schemes with a lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accented with dark, rich shades of blue, red, green and even some dark gray to near black. With darker siding colors, door and shutters should be the same off-white as the trim color. Br~ck Various textures and colors are used for this style, with natural shades of red being the most common. HA - 11 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 FLAT TILE --SIMULATED SLATE TRIM SURROUND - WOOD OR 8:12 ROOF PITCH _ _ 7 °c%o g T TRIM DETAIL ~/ ~, ~ ' ~' .' ' m- ~~. STONE AND/OR ~5~ CKAT ENTRY . , . ,~ ; EUROPEAN ECLECTIC Historical Precedent The European Cottage is a style that evolved out of medieval Tudor and Norman architecture. This evolving character that eventually resulted in the English and French "Cottage" became extremely popular when the addition of stone and brick veneer details were developed in the 1920' s. Although the cottage is looked upon as small and unpretentious, the style was quickly recognized as one of the most popular in America. Designs for the homes typically reflected the rural setting that they evolved in. Many established older neighborhoods across the United States contain homes with the charm and character of this unpretentious style. Roof pitches for these homes are steeper than traditional homes, and are comprised of gables, hips and half-hip roof forms. The primary material is stucco with heavy use of stone and brick bases, veneers and entry elements. Some of the most recognizable features for this style are the stucco accents in gable end forms and the sculptured swooping walls at the front elevation. li A - 12 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EUROPEAN ECLECTIC (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Gentle to steep roof pitches. · Projecting gable ends. · Exposed rafter tails with fight rake. · Stone and brick as a major accem on wall tower and veneer base. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed' and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 to 8:12 standard. Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle or flat concrete roof tile. Overhangs 12" standard. Stone/Brick Stone and/or brick ~s required on all elevations. Siding Wood or cementitious simulated wood siding may be used as a detail accent or material in gable ends. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish The stucco will be a light to medium sand finish. II A - 13 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EUROPEAN ECLECTIC (Cont.) Chimneys Chimney detailing will include stone or brick veneer below with stucco on the upper half of the stack toward the cap. Porches None Balconies Balconies shall have wood, cementiti0us simulated wood or wrought iron detailing as an attachment to the building plane. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood, cementitious simulated wood or stucco trim shall occur on all windows. A variety of shutters may be used. Where used they shall occur beyond the front elevation. Fabric awnings may be used. Entry The entry may be an alcove or tower element or simply a deep recess over an enhanced front door. Stone and/or brick shall be used as an overall accent material on either form. This material shall cover at least 50% of the entry element facade. Single bands or small "spotted" areas of accent materials are not permitted. Doors .The door shall be simple with wood or cementitious simulated wood surrounds and optional side lites. Garage Doors Doors shall be the roll-up type with a variety of panel break- . ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encore'aged as appropriate design detailing for the European Eclectic style. Details for this style may include: · Decorative window boxes. · Swooping wail at front faqade. · Small accent windows with wood, cementitious simulated wood or wrought iron trim detailing. HA - 14 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EUROPEAN ECLECTIC (Cont.) . Color Palette Stucco Color range includes soft, light to mid-value hues of beige, tan, yellow, gray and green. Roofs Shades of gray, blue, green, beige and plum to emulate natural slate colors. Trim Defined with soft, tinted whites, in subtle contrast to the body color. Fascia and garage doors may be in the same soft white, or a darker, contrasting color. Doors and Shutters Accents of muted blue, green and red are used for entry doors and shutters. Awnings Solid colored fabric awnings in accent shades of muted blue, green and deep red. Brick & Stone Masonry may be either brick or stone, but must always have a rusticated appearance. Natural stone in varied colors of browns and grays. I[ A - 15 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 FLAT TILE - SIMULATED WOOD TRIM WOOD FASCIA/ SHAKE 4'12 ROOF PITCH -- . ,~'. . --SURROUND --STUCCO SOFF T ,~ ~ ~ SPLITCAR MONTEREY Historical Precedent The Monterey style is a combination of the original Spanish Colonial adobe construction methods with the basic two-story New England colonial house. Prior to this innovation in Monterey, all Spanish colonial houses were of single story construction. First built by Thomas Larkin in 1835, this style introduced two story residential construction and shingle roofs to California. This Monterey style and its single story counterpart eventually had a major influence on the development of modem architecture in the 1930's. The style was popularized by the use of simple building forms. Roofs featured gables or hips with broad overhangs, often with exposed rafter tails. Shutters, balconies, verandas and porches are integral to the Monterey character. Traditionally, the first and second stories had distinctly different cladding materials; respectively siding above with stucco and / or brick veneer base below. H A - 16 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MONTEREY (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are required as follows and should be carried to all four building elevations: · Partial or full width balconies, verandas and porches. · Contrasting materials of stucco and siding between first and second floors. · Exposed rafter tails. ' Use of a brick veneer as a base for the front elevation, carrying around to the exposed sides. · Window shutters. Design Requirements The following deSign requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract fr°mthe historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch The 4:12 pitch breaking to 3:12 pitch over front and rear porches or verandas shall be standard. The roof shall consist of one hip roof and one opposing gable element. Roof Material Premium composition shingle or flat concrete tile roof simulating shake (no red or 'S' tile roofs). Overhangs Overhangs shall have tight rakes and extended eaves witt~ exposed rafters. Siding Fully wrapped wood or cementitious simulated wood siding will be used to differentiate the first and second floors. Stucco or brick shall be used around the base of the home. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. StUcco Finish The stucco will have very little texture, smooth to light sand finish. ' IIA - 17 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MONTEREY (Cont.) Brick May be used as a first story wrapping material and / or accent on wails, chimneys, etc. Chimneys The chimney will be faced with siding or stucco and brick (whichever is used on elevation) with a simple chimney cap. Porches The verandas shall be large and open with wood or cementitious simulated wood detailing. Balconies The balconies shall be an integral part of the front elevation, spanning most of the building width with the traditional cantilevered massing. They may also occur on the rear elevation Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Shutters shall be used as accents. Entry The entry will be recessed and under the cover of the front balcony. Doors The entry doors will be typically simple with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim surrounds. Garage Doors Garage doors shall be the roll-up type with a variety of panel break-ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. HA - 18 ' Architectural Style Guideline, Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MONTEREY (Cont.) Design Details The application of design details will. enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the Monterey style: Details for this style may include: · French Doors opening onto balcony. · Wood picket balcony railings. · Exposed rafter tails. Color Palette Siding The range of color shall be from white to beige and light earth tones. The siding will be painted the same color as the stucco (where applicable) with the material change providing the contrast. Roofs Composition shingle in shades of gray or terracotta to brown. Flat concrete tile or simulated shake. Trim White to beige or darker tones in contrast to lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accent colors will be deep jewel tones of red, green and blue. Awnings Solid colored fabric awnings in deep jewel tones of red, green and blue. Brick Natural brick colors range from darker reds to brown. HA - t9 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 STONE OR -1' WOOD F^SC~A-1- F- SURROUNr>S /--WOOD S~r~N~ BRICK CHIMNEY WOOD TRIM VERTICAL FLATTILE ' , ~ .. '~.. CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE Historical Precedent In the late 1800' s, cattle raising was the principal occupation in California. The Ranch house was the primary focus of the enormous ranches developed by the early Californians. Representing one of California's true vernacular styles, the Ranch house evolved naturally from native materials and considerations of climate and lifestyle. The primary building materials were adobe, tile roofs and wood detailing. In the later years of its evolution, the Ranch house was adapted to also include shingles for roofs, board and batten siding and other colonial features introduced in Monterey. Plans were typically organized around a courtyard, which became one of the primary living spaces. The houses were generally simple and straight forward while using thick adobe walls, gabled roofs and an occasional hipped roof. In the mid-1930's Cliff May, a designer, began adapting the ranch house design and layout to the needs of family living. His design considerations maintained much of the authentic character of the early "ranchos", but started using contemporary materials. It initiated the current aCceptance of the informal open room plan and the strong relationship between indoor and outdoor living. HA - 20 Architectural Style Guidelides Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Overall horizontal form. · Wood or cementitious simulated wood siding including clapboard or b'oard and batten. · Gentle roof pitches - gable and hip. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each style will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements-and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 maximum standard, low pitch gable and hip. Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle or concrete tile with a shake texture. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Wide projecting eaves with exposed rafters and/or fascia boards. Siding Fully wrapped wood or cementitious simulated wood siding (including vertical board and batten or clapboards), or accented with minor stone or brick elements. Ail siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stone/Brick Stone or Brick may be used in combination with siding. Stucco Finish Not permitted. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with stone or brick (same as fagade accent material'). [[ A - 2] Ar~h. itectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June2003 CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE (Cont.) '~,~i~ Porches Provides Covered entry; often roofed or trellised and supported by simple wood post and beam construction. Partial or full width of living area elevation. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Multi-paned windows in varying si.zes and types, sometimes configured in horizontal bands. Entry The entry and surrounding will be covered by the front porch. Doors Front door shall be paneled or cross pattern with or without windows in upper half. Garage Door The doors shall be a roll-up type with a variety of panel breakups to correspond with the elements of this style.~ If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of each architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the California Ranch style. Details for this style may include: · Exposed rafters. · Vertical or horizontal wood or cementitious simulated wood siding. · Wood porch railing with crossed rail or vertical picket details. II A - 22 Architectural Style Guidelinex Ranch Area ? North · J~ne 2005 CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE (Cont.) Color Palette Siding Color range shall be from tinted whites to light beige, pale tones of yellow, brown, gray, greens and blues. Stucco Not permitted. Roofs Premium grade composition shingle in. shades of gray, brown and green. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim Defined with soft white to light beige or dark browns or greens in contrast to the body color. Fascia, porch columns/posts and garage doors may be in the same soft white, or the darker, contrasting color. Doors and Shutters Accents of muted blue, green and red are used for entry doors and shutters in contrast to siding. Brick & Stone Masonry may be either brick or stone, but must always have a somewhat rustic appearance. Brick in reds. gray and brown tones. Various textures and colors of sro,ne are used for this style HA - 23 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 )RIZONTAL WOOD FASCIA SURROUNDS BRICK WOOD POST AND © 2003 WILUAM HEZMALNALCH AP. OI~fT~CTS, ~NC, AMERICAN FARMHOUSE Historical Precedent The American Farmhouse represents a practical and picturesque country house. Its beginnings are traced to both Colonial and Cape Cod styles begun in New England. As the American Frontier moved westward, the American Farmhouse style evolved according to availability of materials and technological advancements, such as balloon framing. Predominant features of the style are large wrapping front porches with a variety of wood columns and railings. Two story massing, dormers and symmetrical elevations occur most often on the New England Farmhouse variations. The asymmetrical, casual cottage look, with a more decorated appearance, is typical of the Midwest American Farmhouse. Roof ornamentation is a characteristic detail consisting of cupolas, weather vanes and dovecotes. Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · One and two story massing · Large front porches · Predominantly gabled roof with hip roofs · Wood or cementitious simulated wood siding · Wood shutters and substantial wood or cementitious simulated wood window trim I! A - 24 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN FARMHOUSE (Cont.) Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each style will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vm'y or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 to 6:12 standard. This style will have one and two story massing with simple gabled roofs and some side hip roofs occurring at the first floor porch. Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle or concrete, tile with a shake texture. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Siding Wr,apped siding shall be the predominant material used on all elevations. Ail siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Chimneys Chimneys shall be faced with stone or brick with a simple cap. Stucco Finish To be used as a minor accent only. Smooth to light sand finish. Brick & Stone Appropriate for use on chimneys and enhancement of walls. Balconies None. Porches Front porches are required on the front elevation and encouraged to wrap to the side on corner plotted homes. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall be used on all windows. Shutters will be used extensively on all elevations. Pot shelves will be used on primary accent windows. Entry The entry shall be covered with a front porch. II A ~ 25 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN FARMHOUSE (Cont.) DooF$ The front doors shall be paneled with lites in upper half or with sidelights Garage Doors · The doors shall be a roll-up type with a variety of panel breakups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the American Farmhouse style. · Embellished porch railing with shaped wood columns and balustrades or pickets. · Corbels or barge board trim in gable ends. · Pot shelves under primary accent windoWs. · Cupolas, weather vanes or dovecotes as character details. Color Palette Siding White to tan or beige, light shade of yellow or muted greens, blues and grays. Roofs Premium grade composition shingle in grays and browns. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim White to light beige or muted tones of browns, greens and grays in contrast to lighter body color. Door & Shutters Accent colors will be dark tones of red, blue green, gray and black.. Brick Various textures and colors of brick, primarily red. II A 26 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MANuFACtuRED FLAT TILE- SIMULATED SHUTTERS - .-- SHINGLE OR SHAKE ...... . T ~..' EAST COAST TRADITIONAL Historical Precedent The East Coast Traditional style evolved in the early twentieth century being influenced by American Colonial styles as formal as Georgian Revival and those as simple and functional as Cape Cod, New England Colonial and Farmhouse. With reSpect to East COast traditions and regiOnal culture, the Colonial Revival vocabulary of white-painted columns, clapboards and shuttered windows were combined with the less symmetrical, unpretentious massing and functional forms of the Cape Cod and farmhouse. Combined one and two story massing with single story wings, gabled roofs with dormered Windows, or occasional saltbox roof forms were favored solutions, later becoming classic forms of the traditional style. These inspirations yielded a truly American inspired architecture for a more relaxed, yet still dignified style that would become the new American dream. The characteristic elements and details of this style further demonstrate the blend of American Colonial influences. Use of brick and/or wood siding with Somewhat formal character elements and generous trim above the doors and windows is typical. Some of these character details include dormered windows, wood shutters, rounded or squared columns at porch or entry statement and decorative broken pediment trim and painted wood vents in gables. Il A - 2 7 ArChitectural Style Guidelines Dubl#z Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · One and/or two story roof elements. · Predominantly gabled roof forms. · Fully wrapped siding. · Covered entry; by upper balcony, portico or porch. · Traditional door and window surrounds. · Classic columns or trim elements. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 5:12 to 8:12 standard. Roof Material Flat concrete or composition shingle. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Siding Wrapped siding will be the predominant material used on all elevations. Brick may be used as an accent material in combination with siding. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish None. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with brick. Porches A porch or portico shall cover the entry. May vary in size as a partial or full width of the elevation. H A - 28 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL (Cont.) Balconies Balconies may be used on second story elevations. Decorative columns, rails and posts shall be wood. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with enhanced wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Shutters if present, shall be used widely beyond the front elevation. Dormered windows are encouraged for this style. Entry The entry wilt be covered and articulated with sidelights. Doors Paneled entry doors with or without lites will have substantial surrounding wood or cementitious simulated wood trim. Garage Doors The doors shaH be a roll-up type with a variety of panel break- ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Front Elevation The lines of the roof will have gentle pitches and simple gables. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the East Coast Traditional style. Details for the East Coast Traditional style may include: · Rounded or squared columns at porch or portico. · Decorative broken pediment trim at entry and gable ends. · Decorative louvered vents in gable ends. Il A - 29 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL (Cont.) Color Palette Siding COlor range shall be from tinted whites to light beige, pale tones of yellow, brown, gray, greens and blues. Roofs Shades of gray, green, and blue, representing the slate roofs found on traditional East Coast architecture. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim Most often a shade of white, although certain shades of brown, green and gray are used on schemes with a lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accented with dark, rich shades of blue, red, green and even some dark gray to near black. With darker siding colors, door and shutters shoUld be the same off-white as the trim color. Brick Various textures and colors are used for this style, with natural shades of red being the most common. HA - 30 Architectural Style Guidelines RESOLUTION NO. 04 -06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LEGACY PARTNERS/AMB TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT PA 02-003 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) REZONING/STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PA 02-003 LEGACY PARTNERS - WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8096 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PA 02-003 LEGACY PARTNERS - WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 02-003 WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE 8.4 PA 01-037 Dublin Ranch Area F North Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 for Dublin Ranch Area F North Area & Stage 2 Planned Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Tentative Tract Maps Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. The name of the proPosed project is "Dublin Ranch Area F North." This application includes the Amendments to both the General Plan land use designations and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; Planned Development (PD) Rezoning consistent with the land use amendments; Stage 1 Planned Development Plan for the entire 285.4,aCre Amendment Area; Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the Development Area, 88.5 acres north of Gleason Drive, within the (~nnb~q (~,.~mmisd~r~ 3'7, q:~,~y 24, 2004 Amendment Area and including Neighborhoods F1 & F2; Site Development Review for Neighborhoods FI & F2; Master Vesting Tentative Tract Tentative Map No. 7281; and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.7282 & 7283. Dublin Ranch Area F North is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road approximately 2,500 ft north of 1-580. The project site for the requested actions is comprised of portions of Planning Areas B, F & E within the boundaries of the Dublin Ranch property owned by the Lin Family. A Stage I Planned Development Plan sets forth the land use areas by creating corresponding Zoning Designations. A Stage 2 Development Plan builds upon the Stage 1 land use designations and applies setbacks, complex and detailed development standards and determines the guidelines that will be used to direct the development of the properties in question. This project only proposes a Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the two Subdivisions that comprise the area north of Gleason Drive. In accordanCe with the City's Zoning Ordinance, the proposed project satisfies the required findings in terms of suitability of the Property for the proposed uses, site layout and access, compatibility on surrounding development, effects on residents and workers, and insuring an attractive environment. The Site Development Review for this projects is consistent with the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Zoning and will allow for the aesthetic implementation of the 2 Vesting Tentative Tract Maps. The proposed Project, as conditioned, results in a better plan and more efficient layout of land uses, open space, traffic circulation, and public facilities (including parks and schools). Staff recommends the Planning Commission hear Staff's presentation, open the Public Hearing, deliberate, and recommend approval to the City Council. Mr. Porto stated that Condition No. 1 under Public Works Standard Conditions has been amended with the following added text: All public improvements constructed bY DeVeloper and to be dedicated to 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). A copy has been distributed for Planning Commission review. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was available. Martin Inderbitzen, representing the applicant thanked staff. This project was ready to come to the Planning Commission inOctober 2003 but made changes to subdivision 7283 to resolve some conflicts on grading with the adjacent homeowners. In regards to Condition No. 7, Subsection B states that the bulk grading will be at the sole cost of the developer and will include all' preparation required for the placement and compaction of fill on the site. He stated that they have discussed with Staff on who should pay for the cost of that; it is an improvement cost to the park. This conditiOn relates to Subsection D which states - Allow the Developer to place additional material, up to a specified limit, on the park site subject to schedule constraint. He explained that the more dirt they can put in the site, the more cost they can bear without passing it on to the City or other developers. He is not asking for a change to the Conditions of Approval but wants it clear for the record, that additional discussion has to occur in the negotiation of the agreement with regards to how much their obligation is. The cost might have to be shared. Condition No. 7, Subsection L states - Discuss reimbursement for street frontage right of way for Gleason Drive, Fallon Road and Central Parkway. It only states to discuss and wants to avoid not getting paid by the City. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that he disagrees with adding the new condition, which states - All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to 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) and asked for that condition to remain as is. Ms. Faubion said that it is the recommendation to accept the language as is. There is a new law effective January 1St, which is a State law. In this particular case it puts the obligation on the City and penalties on the City if it doesn't comply. It is the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office to accept the language as written. Michael Frank, 5096 S. Forestdale Circle stated he is speaking in opposition of Tract 7283. When they built his lot they were told it was a view lot. They were told there is a 44-foot easement. They want to maintain some kind of control over their view. The representative from the developer stated that would be controlled by the initial buyer signing off on how the trees would be maintained. They paid a 5 % premium for it to be maintained. At some point the value of the homes are going to be negatively affected. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Frank if his concern is that the trees or the structures and the trees would impact his view. Mr. Frank said he is more concerned about the trees. Cm. King stated that Condition No. 29 refers to a view easement and asked if he had a chance to read it. Mr. Frank said no he has not read it. Mr. Porto directed the Planning Commission to Condition 29 and 30 of the Site Development Review. Mr. Frank said he is not concerned with the condition but rather enforcing it. Cm. Fasulkey asked if he has any recorded documents related to having an easement. Mr. Frank stated Shea Homes told them over and over that there is a 40-foot easement. Cm. Fasulkey stated that sales reps do not always know these things. Lodi Jackson, 5092 S. Forestdale Circle also has a home with a view fence. She stated that the developers have done an excellent job With working with the residents in the community. She would like to propose that a community bike path be placed behind the homes on South Forestdale Circle, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Colebrook Court. After speaking with many neighbors affected by the decision of having a shared view fence, they found that there were a lot of misconceptions. Many people had not taken an active role in what was being planned behind our homes. Several of these people believed that our current easement of 40 feet would remain, when in fact, the easement is now described as "only temporary." This was not adequately conveyed during the purchase of our homes. Many neighbors also thought that the community bike path would be considered since it meets with the current bike path. Debbie Wisch, 5116 S. Forestdale Circle stated she respects her neighbors and what they are doing. She stated that process that was brought on by the developer's representatives was very inclusive. Melinda Hershon, 5008 Coldbrook Court, echoed the last speaker. She worked with Centex Homes during the process. Centex stated they could not guarantee whether there would be development behind the house. Edward Wilcox, 3238 S. Bridgepoint Lane stated when he purchased moved his home, he was told the rear fence would not be shared. He would like the Planning Commission to consider the bike path. George Phirippidis, 5018 Colebrook Court stated he is in favor of the plan that is proposed. He has two lingering questions on how to maintain a view with trees and plants and how to prevent liability issues with pets and children. Andrew Woodward, 5078 S. F°restdale Circle stated would like to see a bike path that would help separate the two sites. Cm. King asked if part of the solution to preserve the view is to have a bike path. Mr. Woodward responded yes. Mr. Inderbitzen stated he was available to answer any questions or clarify any issues. Cm. Fasulkey stated he has never seen this much work put into a view easement. Cm. Machtmes asked if there are any lots left out by this restriction on the view easements. Mr. Porto responded that almost every lot in the subdivision has been included. Cm. King made a comment that the residents should be grateful for the condition to preserve their views. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked for a motion On motion by cm. King, including the revised Condition No. 1 of the Public Works Standard Conditions, seconded by Cm. Machtmes by a vote of 4-1-0 with Cm. Jermings absent, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS, PD REZONING WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS, MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE AREA F/B/E PROJECT IN DUBLIN RANCH PA 01-037 RESOLUTION 04-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE pROJECT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH PA 01'037 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN AN EXISTING PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH, APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE DISTRICT LOCATED NORTH OF, AND INCLUDING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, OF GLEASON DRIVE PA 01-037 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7281, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7282, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7283 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 01-037 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F AND PORTIONS OF AREA B AND AREA E NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - none OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Mr. Peabody discussed upcoming schedule with the Planning Commission. ADIOURNMENT ' The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development DirectOr ~'~nnin~ Commit'sion 42 q:~5~,~? 24, 2004 ATTACHMENT 4 DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER ATTACHMENT Community Development Department Planning Division MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 2004 TO: Mayor & City Council Richard Ambrose, City Manager FROM: Michael Porto, Planning Consultant SUBJECT: Area F North PA 01-037 Ci~. Council Meetinl~ of March 16, 2004 We are providing this background information in advance of the normal City Council Packet. This information would normally accompany the Agenda Statement that will be distributed for the March 16, 2004, City Council meeting for this item. However, because of the volume Of information, we wanted the Council to receive this information early so that you have additional time to review it. Please do not be overwhelmed by the volume of printed material for this project. The information provided is primarily necessary to document the process. This project is primarily a "clean up" of previous approvals now that specific decisions have been made on land use needs for the general Dublin Ranch Area. At the time Dublin Ranch was approved, the Lin's did not own Areas F, G & H. They purchased this area and assimilated it into the overall Dublin Ranch area with a previous General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment. Since the development of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Dublin Unified School District has finalized their needs and determined that a Middle School was necessary rather than a High School in the location shown. When Area F was approved, the exact size of the middle school was not yet known so the entire 50-acre site was amended to be a Middle School site. This left an "L" shaped remnant parcel on Lin holdings for a High School designation. This proposed project will create the necessary land use designation for the Middle School, will drop the unnecessary High School designation and will allow for Public and Semi-Public land uses and residential land uses on the unneeded property,. The issue of the Community Park has been on-going for several years. With the uncertainty of the biological issues east of the Lin's holdings (Jordan property) which had a portion of the Community Park Site designation on it, it was determined that the 60 acre park site needed to be secured at this time. In order to do this, a General Plan and Specific Plan amendment was necessary. This change used up some previously designated medium density land uses which will result in a drop of the total number of units. The resultant Planning Areas were combined to provide for a better future land plan. Council has been working on the Policy for the provision of Public and Semi-Public Land Use. That has recently been finalized. With the original Amendment for Areas F & G, two small sites were placed at the intersection of Grafton and Central. The applicant has chosen to combine these sites with a larger more usable area and provide this area adjacent to the Middle School so that shared parking and a more effective land plan might be possible. · Environmentally, all of these changes were evaluated and it was determined that the. impact of all these changes " was significantly less than that analyzed by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the subsequent Negative Declarations and the Mitigated Negative Declarations for Areas F & G. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to the original documents is the appropriate process .necessary to address the environmental issues. -~ In the order necessary, the City Council is being asked to: 1. Approve the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Approve the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments 3. Approve the Stage 1 Planned Development Plan for land use designations and a Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the F-1 and F-2 Neighborhoods only. Included herein is the Planning Commission Staff Report as well as all of the back up documentation that was necessary to accompany the Planning Commission action. The Planning Commission also considered three Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and a Site Development Review which they approved. The action to approve these items stops with the Planning Commission and does not require City Council action. The Planning Commission staff report discusses these items and is included just for Council reference. The Agenda Statement will be distributed in normal order and this submittal information will be referenced in that document. However this information will not be redistributed. A detailed Power Point presentation will be used to take the City Council through the process at the March 16, 2004 meeting. Please call me ifI can answer any questions for you prior to the meeting. My direct line is 833-6619. AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMM., !SSIO.N~ ~TI~P~AT~,~ ~.~.!~n~ry. 2~ 2 0~o4 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 01-037 Dublin Ranch Area F No~h ............ submitted by James Tong representing the Lin Family (chang Su-O Lin, et. al.) requesting Amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 for the Dublin ~Raa¢~. ~ea~F_Nort~ ........... Amendment Area & Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the Development Area, Site Development Review, and Tentative Tract Maps (Report Prepared. by MiChael Porto, Planning Consultant) ~ ATTACHMENTS: 1. Dublin Ranch.~.~_~e_a_~Nogh - spiral bound proposal/report dated D'ecern¢'¢f~003 ~p~e~i ¢~ MaCKay & Somps 2. Resolution recommending City CoUncil adoption of an EIR Addendum . 3. ResolutiOn recommending CitY Council approval of Amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific PlardGeneral Plan 4. Resolution rec0mm~ndi~ng City Council approval of planned Development Rez0neJStage 1 for the Dublin RanCh Area F North ~,en~ment Area (entire acreage) & Stage 2 Planned Development Plan (PD) fOr the Development Area includivg Zoning Ordinance (north Of O!.¢~son.~Drive) 5. ResolutiOn approving Master Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 7281, 7282, 7283 and Site Development Review. ~/ECOMMENDATION:. 1. _ .Open public hearing and hear staff presentation 2. Take testimony from the Applicant and the public 3, Question Staff, Applicant, and the public 5. Close Public Hearing and deliberate 6. Adopt the following Resolutions: a. Resolution recomm~g~ing City Council adoption of an EIR Addendum (Attachment 2) b. Resolution recommending City Council approval of an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan (Attachmen. t 3) c. Resolution recommending City Council approval of Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 for the Dublin Ra.n¢.h,Ar~,~.a~F ~h ............................... Amendment Area & Stage 2 Planned Development Plan (PD) for the Development Area (Attachment 4) d. Resolution approving Master Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 728 t, 7282, 7283 and Site Development Review (Attachment 5) The Property Owner PA File PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXISTINGCOND'iTiON'S~ General- Thenamc ~fthe proposed project is "Du nn taaen ×ea'a N°rth:';' This application inClUdes: a) the Amendments to both the General Plan land Use desigriatiOns and the Eas;em DUblin SPecific Plan; b) Planned Developmem (PD) Rezoning conslstent With thd'land use amendmems; c)stage 1 pI~ed Devel opme~fi~'P!an for th~ entire '285.4z%re Piandd DeVelOpment Plan for ~he Development ~,:88~'~ ~'~'~'~ dm~ntAr~a and including ..... Neighborh°0d~ F~i''~8~F2}~ d) site D~ei0Pment RevieW for' Neighb6~h6~6d~:'Fl" ~"F2~'~)~ Master~ Vestin~ 'T~n~'iV~ Tract Tentative Map No. 728I; arid f) Vesting Tentative Tract Map N0'S'.7282 & 72'83. Area" and ~?i.(,De~elispm~eii(Areai,, The ~Amendment ~ea' i~:the enqr6 285.4-aCre PrOject site. The ' Tassaj ~ 2,51 actionsiS owned bY fhe~i ~. The Planning Areas Were rezoned by PA 96-039 (AreasB & E) folloWing the original ~:hti0h pre-zoning action by PA 94-030 and by PA'98:068(Ar~a F). Please r~fer t© thd'Vi~rii~ Map shown. !~n- t!!~ applicant's appliCatiOhbi~de~fin~'~p~bj~'~'~'~fe'rdF~'C~,-,~"fa~5~ Previous app;$¢ai~ 'foi-:~" A?ek the Zomg this application The ~ ~ ~d v~mions in ~e l~d use ~eaS ~e due'to Imnd use c~c~i~/ions ,i~precise for ~e Existing Use,~Zonhg; hn'd'Ge ra'i plan'Land-'u e Existing Use: ~e emire ~end~ent~xrea is fire c~ently teminates. The fi~e 'station Site s 0f a Prior pi~ approval, but' not a } requests, south southwest. The open space s~eam condors ~ncluded in the Proposed pi~ also flow in thru direction. ROUgh Zoning=:The'~en~ent ~ea includeS'th~'~6iIi pD-,~N, elghb~d~-h~b ~ P~k, PD Commmiw P~k, PD p.ublic/Semik. Publi~ U~, ~fidPDO~fiS~ace zoned previpusly by PA 98-068. Pri0r'zoning was consistent with the corresponding General Plan Land and Specific Plan land use designations listed, below. General Plan -_General Plan and Specific Plan Land use Desi~nati0n'vdk~i~the'~e'fidmem Area ih~ftide! Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential;'E'!~eri~ S~h0b!.,~ Neighbdi~h00d 'S:ki~"N~i~i~b6i}h6'~~: (Stream c0rrld0i~s?Muiti,Use Trails). Surrounding Uses - The uses surrounding the project area are described as follows: · To the north-~.~tJ~g Dublin Ranch Phase I, single-family and medium density residential. A hillside with an elevation dif£erenti~ o[ 27_tp~..~Q~.~e~e~,5,?Parates the project area from Neighborhood L4 (Tract No. 6959) and Neighborhood L5 (Tract No. 6960) within the Dublin Ranch Phase I development. · To the west - Existing Neighborhood M1 (medium density residential) of the Dublin Ranch Phase Area. · To the north of existing vacant high school site remnant and proposed middle .school site- An e~sting private recreation facility. · To the east - Fallen Road, Area A of Dublin Ranch, Dublin Ranch Golf Course, and associated single- family residential neighborhoods with construction in progress. · To the south - Central Parkway and Area G, a high-density residential development area associated with the Village Center, currently under construction; also a portion of Area B whichis nm a part of this project. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL ~D EASTERN DUBLIN.SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS - The Eastern Dublin SPecific Plan and General Plan ........... reque projected needs of Dublin Unified Schoo!..Dis~ct; proposed changes to road alignments; and proposed changes to size, shape, and location of other proposed uses. Generally, the 20-acre area designated as a high school site is a remnant from Area E Phase I that was not address~e~.d,~ing the previous General Plan for Area F - PA 98-068. The middle school site has been reduced in size. Public/Semi-Public sites have been .(~ocated and reconfigured} andth&"~;mmu~_~i~'~P~k~it~"h~i'~i~'¢~i-~'i~'~&}'¢i~'e~ ....... ~'~ ,~e six notable rey~,ai~q.n_.,s.~.t,p~,~ previously approved plan are more specifically described as follows: Table ~: General Description of Propoaad ~hange$ - All aPrea9e is stoas. No. Location in Area fixiatin9 Designation Size Proposed Deaignatio~n ........ size ~ nweorner ~ to E & V MS - Middle School site 50.6 ac Middle School 25.2 ac PD Areas (portion) - portion relocated - Stage ~ & Sta~e 2 over High School site and reduced size of site. 2 west ......... E H$- ¢ortion of High ......... t 20.0 ac Public/Semi-Public 6.3 ac PD Areas SPhoo! (~ithin project site) - Stage ~ & Stage 2 - eliminated. Becomes · part of the Middle School S te & Pubiic/Semi-Publi~ site. 3 south boundary - n~u' &'~v~ v - south p/$p- publi¢~s~mi'~gi]'~ ~.9 ac becomes part of area .............. 42.0 ac corners of Gentral Parkway of Gieason .2:.0. .a..c. desisnated for Medium Deneity & Grafton Street intersection Total: 3.9 ac Residential (formerly Devaney Drive) Sta9e ~ PO . 4 west ...... F- north MS - Middle School site 30.6 ac becomes part of area 20.0 ac PD Areas of Gleason (portion) designated for Medium Density - Stage ~ & Stage 2 Stage ~ & Residential - V~ (Tract 7282) Stage 2 PD Areas 5 north/middle & ...... F (east of Medium Density & 9.9 ac all Low Density Resi~r~;~i~'¢2 33.4 ac east PD Areas Grafton & - Tract 7283) - Stage 1 &Stage 2 north of Gteason)' ( - & -~ B (north of Low Density Residential .2..2_...7. .a.9. Gleason) Total: 32.6 ac 6 east ........ B Medium Density, 69.8 ac same uses reconfigured s Stage 1 PD Community Park, Open (see notes below) a 3 3. Notes on No. 6: a. One of the tWo COllector streets (Keegan Street) ~h'bWn 6n the pFeVidus plan ha~bben el'iminat~d: An sh6~: bfith~ P~evi0uslY appr0ved Pian has be~-n' r~aii~ned"and 'na~ed L0ckha~ Street. M~dJ~:~ D~'fl~J~a ~0'pe~ ~a~b: ub~s are nOW ProP:0~ t0' ~ ~'~'P~ra~ ~ ~ roaa: c. open SpacelStrea~ Co~idbr anB/Mu ti-Use Trail h'a~ been relocated - fo~erly Shown be~een Multi-Family ResidentialiO0mmdnity Park arid 'the c5~muni~Pa¢~ a~ea; now:~'~SP0se~:b~een LOc~had stFe~'~ d th~ Communi~ Park site. d. ~e proposed Speci~C P1~ ~d Oener~ Plan t~d use ~endmen~ would'resUlt in the following ch~ges: '~: ~ ~'"' ..... ~ plah and General Plan Ean~ Us~A'~'e'n'd:m'e-n~ ...... Table ..... PropoSed SPecifi Land Use Previousl, Approved ProPosed M Medmm Den,~ty Remdentml (sOuth of Gte~s0'n Road) 110.6 ac 1,105 du 105.0 ac 1,050 du C~ uomm'~mty NarK . 52.0 ac 65.9 ac NS Neighborhood SqUare ' 2.0 ac 2,0 ac ' ES Elementa~ SchooFS~te 10.0 ac 10.0 OS Open'Spacbls[re~'~ doi~d0'~i~Ulii:u~;-%a'ii:' '"' - ...... 5.3 ac 8~4 S~ge 2 PD Area {]i~d separately frOm ~e S~ge 1 ~&a)~) L Low'D~si~'~';~i~htial' ': , 22.7 ac 91 du [ 33.4 ac 121 du HS High sch0'51'Si~'(~5~]'on~ 20.0 ac 0.0 ac MS Middl~"S~i"~J{~ ........ ...................... ...... ...... .~ .......... 30.6 ac 25.2 ac OS Open Space/Stream CorridodMutrUseT~il 3.7 ac 3.6 ac Stage 2 PD (no~h of G~eason) - Subtotal ' . ..... 86.9 ..ac 190 du 88.5 ac 240 du rage ~ A~a (~outh 0f Glad'son) - SdStotal 202.4 ac 1,236 du 196.9 ac 1,050 St~b"-i'' (i~j~'~-g{~g~'2)~Tbtal(2) .... 289.3 ac 1,426 du 285.4 ac 1,290 du Source: Mac~ay & SomPs approval. ' The discre¢~n~ in' ~nd ~e'a~eas' iSdue to imprecise land us; Calculation~'¥~r {h~ prior'~pProvals and the'realignmen~ ;f'a~ea subsequent length was fact~redJnt~,_~b~e~~pplicant's 404. permit issued by the Army Corps through consultation f,~ith the departments of Fish an.~ Game and Fish an Fhe proposed General Plan Amend~g;~,~ternDub~i~n Specific Plan Amendment_wi~!. qr_eate a mor~ orderly and organized deVel(~Pmen~¢/~ern, ~11 allow for the introduction of a more usable Public and Semi- Public site, will defin~ ~e.~.~,~S,9~.a~larger sports park, will provide for land uses on the,rema~i~n~er,~i_dd!e school site and will generally accommodate a land u.se pattern that wilt facilkg~.e~.h_e_,~t~,!y implementation of the Plans. The proposed Amendments.are i~ k~eping with the intent of the original General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. REZONE/STAGE 1 AND .2 PLANNED.DEYELOPMENT PLANS' The Stage 1 eD for the entire 285.4-. ~cre Amendmem'~dagenefaliy co'rr~5~i~' Ma~ter vesting Tentative Map No. 7281. The purpose of the Stage 1 PD and Master Vesting Tentative Map No. 7281 is to establish zoning consistent with the requested Specific Plan and GenCr~.~!gg~n,~drn~,~,~,e~ts, include two new subdivisions, re-define the middle ~schoo!~site, expand the size of the_Comm_unity Park, and reconfigure road and utility corridors. Stage 1 PD - The Stage 1 PD area includes five distinct Subareas separated by the proposed street and open space corridor systems. The Development Area portion of the Amendment Ar~a~_¢.~=,e~tly is proposed for a Stage 2 PD, and includes two of these ~ubareasr~¢ighborhoods F1 and F2. Sta~e ,2,,PD - The Stage 2 PD includes 88.5. ac,_r¢~_s_ l~,oc_gt~eA~_o_~_~ o,~f~_(and including) the Gleason Drive right- of-way. The 53.4 acres comprising Neighborhoods F1 'and F2 are included within the Stage 2 area PD. These,two neighborhoods generally correspond to Tentative Tract Map Nos. 7282 (Fl) and 7283 (F2) and would create 240 s~ngle-family residential lots/units of medium-density and iow-density housing as shown ('-' below in Table 6 under Tentative Tra~.~aps. Permitted uses are listed in the zoning text established for this PD. In addition tO ~'~i~ ]~um.~ -d~si~ty and low-density housing, zoning for Middle School uses, Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space uses would be established by the rezoning of the Stage 2 PD area. Development Standards for the Stage 2 PD"at this time are limited:.tp ~e~[,,a-q:~,s~q~ape & Open Space Guidelines/Standards. Three components within the materials presented would be incorporated as part of the Development Standards for the P~D zo.~ ning and the Stage 2 Planned Development Plant area. The components include: 1. Residemio!..Si.~tg~e,~ve~lopment Standards (with associated notes) shown in Table 3; 2. ArchitectUral Design Standards; and 3. Landscape & Open Space Guidelines/St~d~d~, Residential Si.t¢~,D~y~!gpment Standards - Residenlia[Si;e.D~ey,,e.~ppment Standards to b~ a~_d,_opted for the Stage 2 PD (specifically for NeighborhoOds F1 and F2) are shown in Table 3 and discussed below. (The standards discuSscd,~.th, jn.~s~t~r~port may no~ be inclusive but are intended offer a general description and summary. The specific standards will be in~lu.ded ig~th,¢ adopted project documents.) Table 3: Residential Site Development Standards forSingle Family Detached L Low Density Residential MediUm Density Residential Setbacks/Standards Single Family Detached.(F2) Single Family Detached (Fl) ot Size ................................... 5,000 sf or greater between 3.150 sf & 5,000 sf (minimum dimensions = 45 feet x 70 feet) ' Minimum Street Frontage 35 feet 35.feet Maximum Lot cg~e~e(~)- ........................... 457~_,.< 50% 5 35 feet 38 feet 2 3(2)(3) Vlaximum Front.Yard Setbacks ............. Living Area 15 feet for 2-story(4) or 12 feet 12 feet for single story (~:~(-):~'i~i~' ...... -~"- 10 feet 10 feet Tumqn Garage 12 feet(~) N/A 1 Sto~ to 1 Sto~ 5 feet to 5 feet (10-foot total) 4 feet minimum~) · 1 S~5'2'-~tb~ ..... 5. feet to 7.5.feet (~2'~;t~it~'i)' 'J 4 feet',m pimum¢.) 2 sto~ to 2 Sto~ 7.5 feet t07.5 feet (i~b0{ tbta0 4 feet minimum(s) (4) Cor~e~%~t: (~t'Sa~ f~'~:~'~'~:~id~ (~) 15 feet for'2-stb~ Or 9 feet ., 10 feet for s ng e sto~ (Front) POrch(s) 3 feet N/A Encrba~'~fits (D) (D)' Minimum ~a:'~'~r~s~t~a'-~ks(~) (~0) Dwng Space . _ . .' ' ... (D) l~foot minimum; (D) 5-foot minimum, ..... :t: .:.~ .-~/:,.: ............... ~ ................. 15-~oot average per lot 12-foot average per lot Single-StO~ Garage (D) 5-foot ~i~mum' ' 3 feet 2-Sto~ Garage'(living space above)" (D) 10.foot minimum · (D) i 0-f0ot ~inimu~"" Stan~ for~le Rear Yards contiguous fiat area: contiguous fiat area: minimum, area of 500 sf & minimum area. of 300 sf & ~;:-L ............ "~ ......................................... ..,~-.~.~., minimum dimension of 10 feet minimum dimension of 5 feet ....... ~ ...... (E) (E) (A) All setbacks .......... ' :::: ' (B) See pag ~g~ ~?.~ ~ ut~.~.~pe ~r~p~C~ ~.ty~e ~u~oeHnes tot aoemona~ Arcmtectura~ ~reatment requirements, (D) Items such as -m~,-ce ~t,~s~-~:, ~a- around the b0use No~se generating equipment such as pool and spa equipment s~i~ be acoustically screened or located 0utSise of th~ ~rmces, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, and paved ~.r~as such as wa~ys, driveways, p~t ~. ~veCe8 p~in~ Subjeot t0 Buiidi~"C~8~ ~eq~j:~' ~0~ ~'~S'~'; ..... '""'': ' ' ": .... The 3~d floor-mus~, ~e stepped back from front and rear elevations to reduce bui dng mass. and 2*~ story elements, the SetSa~k for the single-sto~ and 2-stS~'~lementS'shall'be considered'aS that for a SinyleZ~tS~ building. Three.~[ [r0~;.0n g.a~g~ ~re prohibited i~ N'ei~'hbO~h'0od F~. 'in N'eighbo~h0bd'F2 t~¢~:'6~ .~n garag floor plan type. Add~bonal arch~te~ural requirements pe~a~nmg to garage facades, etc. are included in the "Building MaSs Form' Turn-in garages are prohibited on lots less. than 55 feg~..w.i~: (7) Retaining walls up tO 3 feet high may be used to create level usable are,as. Retaining walls in excess of 3 feet high to create level usab e area~a_r..e...S.~..bject to review and approval of the Building Official or Community Development and Director of Public Works. Wails over 30 inches in height are subject to safety criteria as determined by the Building Official. Setbacks subject to review and approval of the Building Official for Building Code and Fire Code issues. Setbacks to building overhang to be 3-~oor minimum or as required by the current City Building Code standards (9) Where a minimum 5-foot wide Homeowpers Ass.,oc!a~iQ~. (H.OA) .parcet lies between a lot and an adjacent street the adjacent lot is not.. conS dered a c0.rner lot. ~o) At cul-de-sac bulbs'where lot depths are less than the standard 100 feet, minimum rear-yard setback requirements may be reduced by an amount equal to 100 feet minus the actual depth of the Io! (e.g., 100 feet - 90 feet = 10-feet) In no case will the rear yard setback be reduced to less' than 10 fee{. {~) Curbside parking may be counted toward the required number of guest parking spaces. Ta .n.d~.m parking within a garage is permitted. Architectural Design Standards - The proposed project includes both "Architectural Design Standards" for project development and "Ar~hi~te.9~t¢~r.~..Style Guidelines" for the building exteriors. Only'the "Architectural · ds" Design Standar will be incorporated into the zoning text fOr the Stage 2 PD at this time. These standards would be applicable ~o NeighbOrhoods F 1 (TraC[ No. 7282) and F2 (Tract No. 7283). The discussion in thi~ st.aff~report offers a general description and summary of these stand~ and may not be inclusive. A~ complete set of St ..a,nd~ds.is.in~lg~e~i~e.proposed Ordinance..Archi~e_c~.~sign standards establishedin the Stage 2 PD are applicable to the following categories: A) Neighborhood Design, B) Slope Considerations, C) Building Mass & Form, and D) Architectural Treatment.. ~ fC~enerally, the Architectural Design Standards address the following: A. Neighb°rh00dDe§ign - This element aims to.create a visually interesting, but functional, street scene which projects Character and a~ i~ge'~6~ ~iu~[~' This goal is achieved through variety of techniques in plotting and massing and a mix of architect,ura[ plans and styles. Such techniques would include, bm not be limited to: 1) reversing and varying adjacent plans and exterior styles, 2)'avoiding .repetitious patterns, 3) varying heights and setbacks, 4) incorporating single-stow elements into two-stow buildings, and 5) minimizing the visual impact of garages. Streetscape (Front Elevations) - The standards in thi~sqg~tegory provide options for limiting the number of plans per neighborhood, architectural styles per neighborhood, and elevations per plan. Variations in front setbacks would require a 2-foot offset between adjacent buildings on lots where this standard can be satisfied. Street scene standards are proposed for opposing sides of the streets (as well as the line of sight along One side Of the street)' in'terms of color, elevations, and plans. Elevations, colors, and materials are addressed in the Architectural Guidel}ne~ Rear, Side & Corner Elevations- Avoiding repetition and ove~ii~l~i'h~"~-~ rear, side yard, and corner elevations. In addition m ~the ~ec~ques listed above, specific techniques would be applied to these elevations as W~a~ag~te~¢~:. The vis~.~~al__impacts of rear elevations are proposed to be addressed, especially through variation in rear setbacks and roof form. Areas of particular concern are those that back onto Gleason Drix~e, Grafton Stre~;, and Fallon Road. Massing and articulation standards for residenti~i properties abutting those rights-of:Way are more specifically discussed in the Architectural Design Standards Side yards are particularly sensitive to siting and plotting with regard to privacy, window placement, and maximum u..,s.g~l_~.~s~.~e yard area. The ultimate authoritY on building separation is_~e fire safety standards codified in the Unif0~ Bu~!]d. ing Code, particularly concerning encroachments of eaves, architectural projections~, fireplaces, log storage, other outdoor storage, entertainment niches, balconies, exterior stairways, bay windows, window seats, decks, and air conditioning equipment. garage placement on the interior, rather than comer, side yards. neighborh0ddS; butaiso Co~mity-wide~ SloPe conditionS would be m~aged by creating a'sefies of teffa~:~ in-:a~:C'&dm~eMth' ~e'n'at~al contom of~e area. Te~aCes wiih smiler retaining w~ls ~e' prefe~ed ~eas Mth h~er, more massive m~aining s~c~es. ~e~e ~ ele~mi0n :. : si( ~ re~ y~d depth .should be m~imized, ~d ~e re~ b~iding g the re~ y~d shoed be a Single-stou element to avoid "boxed in"~'d'h~door spaces: C. tck from ground floor or garage facades reduces the perception of Pr0Vide; an intermediate transition spaCe. At · a"single stow room (living space) ?i, fr0ni 0r Wrap:around porch (minimum 6 feet deep and 10 feet wide) ::~ ::~:~i~'~'~n~i~y alcove .... ':~;:: 5.,.':{:"'-' ?:.-~,'-~;4~: 'r,.,,-4--.., ~ : ( ..... - ..... -.,- ?: 12:"!' ::; ;'-' '- '"--'~ *:" ?' :' 'i ' ' ' "' '' ~: ' ' ": ": ' ' si~ifi~t'~ifi~i~:'~0~"~i¢~nt'along ~e~ front or s~ ,met homes Shall bereqUir~d '~o be con~i"~g'd~M~'~'eie~ent at'the building Comer. F:i'' a'~i~ :~ 0ne pi~ is required to haVe:a front to the appr0priate.ArCh~tec~mal Styles). ~chitectural Design : where used as a single-st0u, mass-reducing ~chitecmral ~'~i~'~?~'¢~''design~d f0~ iht~i6r i6¢' Wi~h ~e comer use. with aut0mati~ roliiup doors. The~ol]0~,:~a~¢'~$~:¢"0f t-he-}~dards applicable to garages: 'i":~-'Fr°-n~:hcihg'3':~'~ g~ages are iimi~ed ~o (~ne ~i;°r pi~ type per neighborhood, and ha~e a - :-: ~ ii~rnber of other apPlicable design standards such as'off-setting facadeS'; d06~ ~ii~ij d~ interior tandem parking. This type of garage is prohibited in Neighborhood FI. 2. Turn-In garages are limited to 10ts of p5 feet in Width or greater and shall be recessed a should alternate 5. Garage setback should~he.staggered 6. Garage appearances' should be varied by color and architectural stYle - where possible two single doors should be used in place of one 7. Comer garages with a street side entry may be detached 8. Turn-In garages are limited to a maximum of 33% of the units (one turn-in garage plan per neighborhood) 9. Where lot depth allows, one plan shall provide for a recessed garage at least 20 feet behind the fagade of the' living space of the home 10, Garage design shall be incorporated into the architecture of_the h9~s,~ Design treatment should.striveto red~e.the, gw.~ra~!~yi_.s.u~.ma?_s_?.~t~i~?~:~ .......................... : 11. Front facing driveways to detached garages shall used t~e~mre~paving Other elements such as a porte cochere or trellis may be utilized to screen or visually connect garages with the residence. Elevation Treatments - The elevation treatrnen~5 require 4-sided architecture to ensure a quality product. For front, elevations, the difference in plans and elevation style must be chaos., Expanses of blank walls ~e tO ~.e.~ayPi~ by use of architectural treatments, articulation, and materials applied to finished grade. The manipulation of light through shadow and reflection should be created by use of form and rc!.i~f_. The architec d projections, not only are methods of manipulating shadow ("'" effects, but als° c~S ~vhi~ii dis/ra~ffr~0~'th~-'soine of the less attractive and more uti!itari._.~an.~,g.cti~.~, of a building's exterior. Each plan and style shall be required to have elevation elements ~at~!ep both ve~ically and horizontally. Building entries shall be designed as each .building' s focal point. Hidden side-oriented entries behind a front-on garage plane shall be prohibited. Also, an important situatiOn to prevent is the "canyon effect" within side elevations, and the treatment of elevations visible 0ff-ske from public streets. Second story side and rear elevations, which are visible from public rights-of-way, are of particular concern. In cases where side and ~ear elevations are visible from the streets, the following standards would be applied: · detailing of the second.fl, oo~re~.~e~ri~9,,r~..~qj~,C~!~_~a~?i~.~,~?.!~rs? ~indo~ s~0m~dS:..~.~d.~hanges.!n wall planes appropriate to the building's architectural style. ·trim on al! · window mullions that match the front elevation windg~s ....... ° continuation of trim and materials from front ~9~s around an~to the side elevations. · authentic details.. · second story privacy ° maximizing and variation of rear yard setbacks Roof Considerations - The.use 0f different rocor types is intended to add variety and interest to the street scene provided that the roof_ch~a~t~e~r~i~ri~, are ~ggSi~~ui~Eg's architectural svyle, The ,'-' standards established in this secti0n'i~t}~'~;'~'~l~'~;o;f forms, inap~b~i~i/~h~"'~6f f0mis; ~dlowable pitch, and the design of eaves, projections, and overhangs. Again, avoidance ora "canyon effect" is imperative. Hip, gable, and shed roof forms should be appropriate to the architectural style. Gambrel and Mansard roofs should not be used, while flat roof are prohibited. Covered front porches and entries are to be 9 Architectural Design Elements - Architectural Design elements addressed by these '~t~dards inclUde entries, doors; windows, balco~i~-:~5~e~i0r ~ihirway~ raiiiii~;'~g~ii~6f~ ~h~m~S;~-'g~s'~d-- downsPoUf~, :col~' ahd posts, patio structures, and storage buildings. The buiidin~ '~"~i~¢ 'Sh0did ~i5e 6bY}bUS andes~ablish a vi~aiii '~d~: ~i-01i~l: p~i~7'it~al~6 ~/%~s ~ .......... ~ imp°rt~i.'!i)~ifi~fi~tS~W~e~i .i~..0utd°6r SPii~7'X~Zi~bb~:bfar~hitectural elements ~read~ have been addr~s~d'~6 i_~h~i~-B~fiildlhg ~mfies. ' street. entw lighting'~d house ad&esses. TheSe smd~ds alS6 'diScuss' items haVing ~e Potemial to becOme a nuisanc~'6f~degrad~ me neighb0A00d aPpear=ce~ Sfi~h is i ii; iie =, Satellite dishes, =ash receptaCles, and storage s~c~es. ' ' The ] ~ , ~ Desi be adopted as pm of~e Devel0pment'~i~. =amtionat =d Co~SgNpOr~ swies.' The P~oSe Of 0scussing me Architectural SWle Guidelines m tNs ~tim ~d inco 'in VlsUai 6fihos' 6f deSl ..... n& ~a{,' if 0vemSed} result N' residential process, ~e follow~g::~'~gd~ Sf~ies'have ~een 8et~inga i6 ha¢~ m~kct ¢~ai ~d hstoric presence in the ~ea: ........... *'-' California Cr~sm~ B~galow * ~eric~ ColONal ...... * E~ope~ Eclectic * Monterey ......... ' California R~ch * ~eric~ Far~ouse . :" * E~t Coast TradiiiOn~ ' The ch acterisiic'S arihe's'e'it lei' 6ifi"b' " ¢p ese ied'- d'pr0d ced by todaY' s builders o? Pr°dUcts wi~ previo¢~.{ey,~!opment, ~cNtec~ elements Mll be required to be aniculaied on ~I elevations of each building At this stage, the Standards and Guideli~e.,~ f.or~s~.scape, landscaping, open space, and signage will serve as fJ~e unifying elements for th~_ prOject area design. ~.,andscaping & Open Space Guidelines/Standards - The project area includes.a~si~gnificant amount of land designated for parks, stream corridors/trail systems, streetscape, and open space. As a result, the landscape and streetscape standards (identified as "guidelines") will have a dominant, influen~ce.o~_ ~cr._~[t,.ifig an identity, establishing the community's character, and unifying its image. These standards~ wo~u!d.~.~e applicable to Neighborhoods F-1 (Tract 7282) and F-2 (Tract 7283) only but are consistent ~i.~t~e_.q~y~e~l~h_em~e~0~.r.~u~i_n Ranch. The Landscape & Open Guidelines/Standards address th~ Oesign concepts, treatments, materials, and location of these major elements. Six specific elemen~.~agdres~s~.~..~e2 1) Entries -~. bc~.~he_C0...~.m-m-~_uni~_? and Neighborhood entries 2) VehiCular CirCulation ~ rights,of;way by street function 3) Street Furniture 4) Corridor, Trail & Pedestrian Circulation ....... 5) General Landscape ReqUirements - with the recommended plant palette'and reqUired irrigation systems, and 6) Pilasters, Wails & Fences_~, for.bg~b public and private properties Trees will define a hierarchy of entries, streets, and neighborhoods in keeping w/th the historical image of orchards. A.double rOw0f shade trees is proposed for each collector street to create a unifying community element and a pedestrian friendly enwronment. Entries - The location of the Community and Neighborhood entries will be visually apparent through design elements and materials, including the use of interlocking pavers, signage, and accent trees. 'The intersection of Gleason Drive and Grafton Street is on~ of.~hese.!~.~t~i~p~ Pedestrian gateways als0 will be identified there and m. other designated locations; plaques and ornamental signage will display the Dublin Ranch logo and will be set in stone pilasters. Low stone walls and open rail fences are the predominant fence type along trails and open space corridors. Oak. trees, nat~iY~e..~%~&l),~cg~l~.. hills also have been incorporated into the plant palette to maintain historic continuity. Streetscape... (Vehicular Circulation) - Vehicular circulati.~n i~_~ubject to certain standards established on the basis of sa~e~y. The GUidetineS/Stand.~ds.f0r. h~ proposed plan also addresses~ the.~.~e._~_d.~esign concepts for the arterial and collector streets, including: fight-of-way widths, roadbeds and trav~l..igg.~.S, parking lanes, peripheral and median landscaping, and amenities for non-vehicular ci_rg~ht.}pn, such as pedestrian and bicycle traffic. As part of the apprOval process, the section in the developer's proposal will be incorporated as part of the Development Standards approved with the both the Stage 1 PD and Stage 2 PD rezoning. However, at this time, the property lines and right-of-way design are more specific to the Stage 2 PD rezoning of the Development Area (Neighborhoods F-1 and F-2). Grafton Street, one of the north-south 9o!leg[grs, will separate the F1 and F2 neighborhood and will have landscaped parkways along both sides of the street. South of_Q!.e~asp~ P~V~, it will have a landscaped median. Eventually, it will be extended south of Central Parkway where it will serve as the "main street" for Dublin Raneh Village Center. Both Grafton and Lockhar~ 8.~r~s,,,~,~e:~~e~,~i'~'b~an~6P Space/Stream corridor/Multi-use trail, which serves as natUral draina~e'~d a'~ecie'~i~ C the school and park sites. K0~en-~ay~ the east-west collector, separates Neighborhood F1 from the proposed middle school use.. would be'3 feet. RaiI ~ences also would be installed as a separation, but open visual connection, between cul-de-sacs on neighbbrho°d streets and other'streets. A con-~umty walI or a wail/view shall be placed along the rear lots lines of residential lots that back or side on to OraftOn sireei and portions' of'"K6hnen Way. Where sound attenuation is required, the comm~i}) ~all and stone Pilasters will be placed adjacent to the residentiallots. Pilasters: Wails & Fences,r These .items are som~. 0riCe mo:st visible cmmunity theme elements wi'{hln residential' area~ The~'{yPicali'y wbiiid be visl¢ie ~ro~ al!'pul~ii~~ ~i~i{~S'2:~fi~fi~ and provide cominui{~y tO the: vis~ ideniit'y Th~ general :~f~sign of thek:~:-it~ l~as been establi part f earlier devei0pmeni area's shed as o phases ~ DUblin RanCh} A common theme el~ment~alread~in use'and an.estab!i~hed.precedent is the stone-clad c°nCret'e pilaster 'with a pre-cast c-°n~re{e cap. The details for the stone pilasters also are.a part of the proPbsed'siandardsl In additiop,.to the sto/ie p{i~tei~ the:p~:}jp'o~ed-plans and' detaii~ ~d~id bec°~e for the :i~r6j:¢C/'~a)"L6;aii6iik;~'di~eii~'i0ns, and materials Would be adopted for the 'f011°~g eiernemki · community'Walis'Z P~Lb~ c;~rCte panel's' 'sepm. a{~d by s~0ne'bii~ters visibility area~,"~uch as'arterlaf Streets. .'?isibilig) ~e~' (ihei'u~fin~-:f~iae/itlai-~0li~{c;r-'sfid~s, MidzBtock pedestrian: access points, and SloiJek). t~ti$~*ence ................ aaa¢'~ ....... as ~a ........ trans~tmn'~'~ .......... to ~';~"~?'"~:Wall/V~ew ........ Fence~ ............... combinations.~' ..... ~ cu!Tder5~c egd~.... Rail fences are shown in a two-rail or three-rail design. ' G~°~ b~enceS'~'~;o~en'fen-cesb'efweeri residential' i0ts Or alOng the sideYard 0}'a corn~r- 10~.~!ing a'sireei. G°°d n~ighb0r fences WoUld be iatticeL~edal0ng the sideyards betWeen residentia!~lots or along the sideyard property lines of comer lo~s abutting a street. · R~}amtng and/or Screen ~Ils- Pre-cast concrete and s~;~'~e~eer ~lis'~{'d0 amenities. Additional items include lighied and unlighted b011ards, mailboxes, and signage. The Materials Source LiSt, included M~ tlieSe plans,--specifies manufactured ProdUcts for stone/stone Veneer, mortar~ stucco, interlOCking c0n~rCte ~avers, tubular steel fence components, and pre-cast concrete fence and'wall components including Wall panelSl railing' and' pilaster caPS. Corridors, Tr~il~ & P~de~ri?~.~,~~j~ ~ The open ~?ce and trail system is proposed to li~ ~'~e Comprehensi~~ ~i~i~ ~ ~o~ ~h~~ ~A~~ ~fiti0ned above, ~e multi,use trails adjacent to the open space/s~em condors along Gr~on S~eet (8 feet ~de) ~d Loc~ S~eets (12 feet ~de). The ~1 Will ~be paved concrete in order ac~9~9O_a!~..~rway pedes~ ~d bicycle ~affic, or emergency ~d mainten~ce vehcles, as needed. At trail access points, bolI~ds will be placed to res~ict access by ~authorized motoz~Te~q]e~.~_.~.~.~iq~i~p ~ ~[e~b~0 ~d .~f~.~[~,~Y hm~s ~d domestica1~d~pets will be comrolled by low W~ls, r~i O~ership ~d mainten~e_responsibilifies of l~d.scaped ~d open space ~eas ~e proposed as follows:' Table 4: Ownership and ~aintenance R~s >onsibilitie~ of Landscaped and Open SPace Area ' ' ~ ................................... " ............... Own Main~in Element . Strea m 'Co rrid0rS/d~'6"~'~'A~' ......................... HOA HOA · Stream Corridors~rails (not ~jace HOA HOA streets) ........................ ~ ...................... ~.~ . · Other Trails HOA HOA streets). . . . City. Hardscape . Right_of. Way LandS'c~*~'('~'~~ fi~)"' City HOA ~ ' . S U bdivisio n/com'~uni~"'~'~d~ .......... p [~j~/HO~. · PrivateiHOA HOA= Homeowners Pl~t ~aterhl~ - A v~e~ of pl~t materials hg~ h~¢g_recommended, ~d Mil be s~d~dized.for_eacb suitability to the climate and soils, and tolerance for recycled irrigation water. A total of 55 differeg~t, plant species are listed. Each plant is shown by both its common and scientific name on the plant materials palette. The categories of plant materials for each designated streetscape area are identified below: Table 5: Plant Palette - A~ga~s~ and Type of Materials Listed ' ('r~,i::~-'{~t~-~-u~ ~'-~'~7~c~{~ ii-~(~8'~in-a'~i:-~a~h category in the plant list) 13 commu'hity' - - Ent~/Entrie~., . I' 2 3 4 3 2 2 Neig~b0r~O~'d E~[d~S' 1 3 2 3 2 4 A~.~al s~re~t~¢) 3 5 4 7 7 7 2 - Residential · 8 7 4 ·. Neighborhood Each residential I°t shat[ have one street tree. Corner lots Shall be required to have ' stree~ts. , ~ a m n mMm 0f ~o street trees. ~ F~ ' .' ~ ' ~ F2 ' 1 Stream - ¢) 4 8 Corrid0rs~ra s 1 Ped~stria~,Mid'Bi08k ...... ACCSSS¢) _.,. ,,,,=., . ' 3 3 7' 5 3 Total Different · Varieties 23 31 2 I different areas. Shrt~b were combined to prevent double-counting in cases where the same plant was cate~ t for~ areas. ' ' -- COITe$ applies setbacks, ',s the guidelines that will be Used~o direct ihe' ....... .,, -~ ~ ¥.~.[Lv~)._~y~.~7~ .~..~}~5~opment Rey~ew Issues for the Stage 2 PD Development ~ea ' " ~ ....... ', ................ " generally ~nvolve: 1) the L~dscape & Open Space Gmdehnes which ~I1 5e adopted as st~d~ds for ~e Stage 2 PD'DeveloPment ~ea, and 2) the lot Iayom refliciea'i~'th'e ~r6p6'S~d T~nmive TraCt Map~ N0. 7282 ~'eig~5~f;~'-F f') ~-T~'~T~i'~-~ to create an upscale rural community theme in keeping with the design theme for previous Dublin Ranch areas (,~,rea A, Phase 1 and Area G). .~ description of the proposed density and number of units i~. ~~w~_~_e...~i~s~c~si~n_ ~.t_~. Tentative Tract MaPs. The site development standards for the residential. !9~S i~ in the discussion of the Stage 2 PD rezoning. The elimination of the high school site allowed ~gr [he.re~ocation of the middle school site. The collector street separating the reconfigured middle school site and Neighborhood F 1 (Kohnen Way) has been appropriately designed to handle the traffic and activities for t~ proposed use. The acreage for two smaller parcels (at Grafton and Central Park~_a.y)designated for Public/Semi-Public was combined, relocated, and reassembled into a 6.3-acre site. ~i~i~n~.~e~r~e~co~n!~.)gured portion of the former high school site. The ~o separate sites along Central Parkway, t.9 acres and 2.0 acres, would in fact be too small for the uses anticipated such as a church, community theater., etc. The larger site proposed with this plan will be allowed greater flexibility and accommodate a wider.¥~iety of uses. Semi-Public Facilities p~..tjcy, adopted February 3, 2004 by City Council, states that it is the policy of the City Council of the City of Dublin that in reviewing amendments to the t. ~and use map of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastem.D~![n~SpeCific Plan, the City shall also review the provision of opportunities for cultural, educational and other community services, semi-Public Faci!~ifi. es, such as child care centers, religious institutions and others defined beloW', deliver important community services. It is the inten;t.9~the?,olicy increase the Opportunities for Semi-Public Fgqi!i~ie~by increasing the locations of lands designated Publi.c/._Se~z~ub!i~iI:i_t~~~ d~.us~ ma~p. To that effect, all land use amendmems may be revieWed for designation o~'S¢i~~~g't0 'the guidelines bel0iv:  rni-Pub!ic Faci~e~.~l~d~.p~s~`u~c~.3~i~`~d~ce~m~[s~7~.ut~?~n?~s??~?i~[~?enters~ special.needs ,gram facilities, religious instiiuti°ns, clubhouses, co,unity centers, community thea!res, hospitals, d other, facilities thru provide cultural,, educational, or other community services. A sem~-public hcility may be used formgre~_a.~n.~qB~e~-public:use. Semi-Public Facilities are generally part of the.Public/Semi-P.ublic Facilities land us¢~ategory. Based upon the new policy and in looking back on what was originally proposed in this area for Public and Semi-Public Land Uses, the former sites combined .allowed ~for.~}.9 .~c[~5~h~r~.p~ly 2.961 areas would have been required. As this is a Gener.a.! ~J~0g~..Am~g.~e~_._and a~SPecific Plan Amendment, now is the appropriate time to evaluate the provision of Public and Semi,Public Land Uses Th~re~hg.s. fi~p~g~:~re_,~p~t~.!.~fi,.~e proposed nUmber of residential ,~¢~,[~r~~n~e) (1,426 to 1,290) primarily due to the increase i~n size of the Community Park. As such, the proposed population for the Amendment resulting in a need for 2.725 acres of Public and SemirPub!i~l~d~.: ~Th..~applicant is proposing 6.3 acres that far exceeds the requirement set in the new policy. The Landscaping and Open Space Standards dominate the framework and character of the :site's de'~e!.~pment. Natural drainage has been ad~ess~d.~ig2_h.~.~.~sign of open space stream corridors and the multi-us~, trai! system. The hillside separating the existing Dublin Ranch Phase 1 development immediately north and as compared with the elevation of the project site presents a fairly substantial difference between the two project sites. Standards and assurance~ ~_!?e.i. ng addressed though the requirements shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map whereon pad elevations are shown and through the Conditions of Approval placed on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Meetings with the homeowners of the adjacent tracts determined that they were willing to accept conditions where the peak. of the roof of the homes proposed for this project would not extend above the C! of their home. Based on this design parameter, it was de~ermined that the minimum separation between lot ad elevations needed to be 27 feet. The developer has accommodgte_~_~i~}[[e~r~_tial. Additionally, through due CC&R's and through the Conditions of Approval on the Tentative Tract Map, view easements will be placed over this developer's property for those directly adjacent lots to prohibit landscaping from extending to ~5 tatemen~ ~i~t ~ii b~e '~hb~iited In accord~ce ruth the C~W s Zomng Or&n~ce~ ~e proposed project satmfies ~e req gs in terns of suitabiii,'0~'ih~'~r6~p~.~y for ~e Pfop0sed.us~s' Sl/etay0ut ~d acCeS.~j cdmpatibiilW On SmOunding development[, effectg'0n fesidemS-~d W0rke~S, '~d insming ~ a~ractive enviromem; The site Developmem Amen~d~f~'gtage i ~d Tentative Tract MAPS.- non-vehicular cirCUlation, such as pedestrian and'bicyCib ~trafflC; · y~ and will se~the Pismar5; eaSt:West aerial access within' the proposed project area; Three streets Wit~n the' the southeilf, b6-iiiid~Tf'~g"~i;65&'6i':iiia'~d ab'Uftlh~-'th'~Prop0~ed Viiiage cgn/er} these itree/s are:Br~igan traffic for mat use, including bus stOP ~_oUts ~d PaSsenger drop-offl0cmions (See page 5 0f Plans for Neighborhb6d F i ).~ streets rights-of-way. Ridgefield rights-of way. Each one Will be accentuated with a specimen tree and colorful groundc(;ver. A project wou not. exceed or servme to be worse than those lex;els Dubtin Ranch'~.._ha~'e'i ~o ib~seis'-{he~irfip/ictbf thi~' pf$po'sed~aeg~'f~'is~:~ii'tT$'-~-e~-~f~,a{~-t.-ex~/iftssskilsi~J-The grade diffef~fi~l~'~h' ~i~s ~p~'~sed-subdivlsion ~d"~%~i~ting'Ph~e SUbdiVi~i0fiS tb {he somewhat d~r~g~.b~. ~e sMe ~d necess~ rate of ~ade for ~e consmction of Gleason Road from existing Tassajara Road to its intersection Mth existing Falloh Rcad. The"apPlicat, in ~he g~a~ing d~i~"d~ ~eir F-2'Subdivision, Tract 7283~, ~ha~'keep the pad'dlevmi0ns 27 feet beio~'~e pad 'eievaions 0fthe Dublin R~ch pha;~':~ ~'~'~{~{~{~'t~ DeVeiopmehtS~d~d~~ (Serb'acks) ~d ~e desi~ ~delines (rd;f' pitches), stgf'~i~"60~0'~abi~ that ~esditems in c°nj~Ction ~th conditions of approval apPlied io the subdivision~eguiaii~g &~h':de~i'b~fii d~ih~"i~ Sii~ 9.~9~io~m~hf~-'p~b.6ess;.~dr· t~e..i~nai~d~ai homes to be~cpnsimq~¢d (which will come before the Plying Co~ission at a later date), Mil as~e me adjacem residenl~'~at the Pe&'of~e roofs of the homel' ~G'¢e c°nsm~{ed on ~ese-ib~ ~ill ben6 Affordable Housing - The City's 12.5°,4 affordable_housing requirement will be provided and satisfied within ,me FairWay'Ranch residenfi~ ~p~ity south of the project area. ~rading and Utilities - Berlogar Geotechnical Consultant conducted a soils and hillside stability study dated ~ugust 20, 1999 and.'dete~ifi~d'~t ~e pi~6j~fa?~//' is free from landslides and 9~r ~eotechnical concerns. Hillsides will be stabilized in ac.cord~c~ ~ TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS - The proposed project includes ~.?,.eg~0[iy~.~r~c~_~,_aPs- Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map N6'"'~;lSg~ ~a~s~-t~e-fifir~ 285.4-acre ~Am,.,~g~ A~$¢ge 1 PD Area. It defines the proposed road system, updated school sites, and establishes the size and location of the commumty park site. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7281 is proposed to supersede any land or subdivision configuration approved previously for this area. Vesting Tentative Map No. 7281 also .defines the two residen!i,.aJ~_a~[~§~,~p,~,~p~,P~&s,~0~n~.~.~.g proposed as Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 7282 & 7283. Map No. 7282 would provide the lot layout and circulation system for Neighborhood Fl. This 20.0-acre area is proposed to be developed with 119 un/ts ox[ med~r~!3sity, single-family detached housing with an over all density of 6,0 units per gross acre. Each lot would have a minimum of 3,150 square feet. I7 · Map:No. 7283'would proVidethb 10t layout ~d difeulation area is prop0ied i0 be degelOped Mth I21 ~its oF lo~2density, single-fmily detached housing'Mth over ail densi~ of 3.5 ~its 'per'gross acre~ Each i3i' ~bUid~ha3e ~a ~imm of 5,000 squ~e f~et. ~e ~ea ~h~ve~ifi~T~i9~ Tract Maps N°s~ 7~'82: &' ~283 tOtals 53.~'acres'of the 8825 Gleason D~i~~'~h~ S~hge'2 PD ~ea, ~d allOws for ~e de~elopm~m~'240 ~its~ proposed residentia[ reacts is sho~ in Table 6, as fOll6~k~ Table 6: Pro[ hood', . ~ Lot Size grOss acreage) F1 ~ No. 7282 Medium Densi~ Residential ' 119 lots 20.0 ac 3,150 sf 6.0 units/acre ~ No. 7283 Low DensiW Residential 121. lots 33.4 ac 5,000 sf 3.5 units/acre Total"J Residential Potions, only 240 lots 53.4 ac bomd~ies 'Of th~ park sit~'MI1 alldG'fdf the- evbn~al fe'2shCdiVi'difi'~':~6"l~'di~id~[S 'ibtS' bf th}'deg'el0~ment teas shorn 5fi' {h~ s~ag~' i' Pl~ea Deg~lopmem'p'i~'. ......... '-: ENVIRONMENTAL' ~VIEW This project is within the Dublin General Pt~in's 1993 including reyisi0m t0 P~ I0~' Re~p0nsek relmed to furze° degetbp~em in mStem Dublin. The E~},d l~sl!fy some impacts from implementation of smtement o'~ 0~'~ding considera[°ns for sUch imPacts,. PursUit tb the re~¢jt?¢ltilefi~ f0f~'~ Be2ef' Envir°meht ~6~4;":'/hb' Cie C0mdli"'Wi'li~be"feqUired to'ad0Pt i flew ~siai~m 0f 0ve~iding 'c~nsiderafi6ns' for Wfil-~h lnclud~a nfi~er0us measles in/ended to reduce meas~es,is,~5~3~..~g!h~ 0dgpted MitigatiOn ~d'M0nii~fi~'Pf6~m 'ma~ix. AS h~her' discUksed below, the Ci~pf'0~o~b~"i6~ ip~d~e aCEQA'Adde~dum for~t:h~-'br0jdbt. The Area F application included approximately 147 acres, and proposed to relocate residential ~an~d commercial f--qes (the Village Center) south to Dublin Ranch Area G. the City prepared an Initial .S_~udy dated February 9; 2004 for the project, to determine whether there would be supplemental ~e~¥~rg.~eg~t~[i~pacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR and the previous Negative Declarmion ~a~O_M~Sigated Negative Declaration. (see Exhibit A Ad'de~n and E~..~,!,~iSi.~ ~dy to Attachment 2). The Initial Study reviewed the proposed reconfiguration of uses and also reviewed recent environmental smdi~ prepared for the proposed project. These studies include the TJKM traffic report referenced` ~b:0vel 'Since the prior reviews, the applicant has also ob_taine~ permits from state and federal agencies for alteration of wetlands and has implemented related offsite mitigation, as anticipated in the prior reviews Based on the project description and the minor n_a.m.r..e~9~7~.t.h~.ch~ges proposed by the project, evaluation of the prior reviews and evaluatio~ o£r~qen~reports, the Initial Study determined tho~.~e project would cause no environmental impacts beyond those previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.~d~the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and Negative Declaration. Under these circumstances, a CEQA Addendum is proposed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15 !.64, OTHER AGENCY/DEP.,ARTMENTREY!~E~ The proposed project has been reviewed by the Building Department, the Public Works Department, Police Services, and Alameda County Fire Department. The concerns raised are. a~r~s.~e_~.,in..,~hg,~p~;~9~.~,~ approval for the Site Development Review and Tentative Tract Maps as stated in the draft Reso!~tion (Attachment 5). ~.~,ese requirements are incorporated as the conditions of approval that are recommended by Staff to ensure that: ;~_y City standards are maintained; (2) policies and standards by certain outside agencies are met; (3) site specific compatibility and design issues are addressed; and (4) Fulfillment of the Mitigation Measures of the Program EIR and any previous and applicable Mitigated Negative Declarations. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project, as conditioned, results in a better plan and more efficient layout of land uses, open space, traffic circulation, and public facilities (including parks and schools) than the previously approved plan. With the final determination o£~.e~_C,~.~ _,un.i._ty Park acreage and its general layout, the remnam land uses in Area B were too small and irregular for good land use planning. Combining the land use bubbles together through the center portion of:Area F and Area B will enable a more efficient an~ pteasing plan while giving the most flexibility to the design of the future elemer~;ary school, neighborhood park and subdivisions. Also, with the development of Dublin Ranch, Phase 1 over the last several years, it was important to provide a more transitional !~ar~.~d~.u~a~_th~.,an previously considered. The applicant's revisi0ns.;9 previously approved Public and Semi Public land uses, consolidating the two smaller sites to one larger area, exceeded the requirement as established by the new Council policy before the policy was enacted. Areas designated for schools reflect the current needs of the Dublin U~ifi~d ~chpo} Di§}~ict.?he proposed project results in a more compatible retatis~aSh~'~ {h~e' ~~~ planning stages when the previous plan for the project site was approved. Also, while the nmnher, o~n~t~ within the Stage 2 PD area has increased slightly by 50 units, the over all number of units has been reduced from 1,426 units to 1,290 units (136 units less) and remains within the over ail number of~!;s approved for the ('-'nendment Area... Ad~i~;j~q~al~an~d~required findings and conclusions are stated in the attachedReso!utions. Staff reco~~ ~[~'~l~,fig C0~i:~:i~0h h~~ S~S ~h{~{ibh; b~e~ ~e Pubhc He~ng, deliberate, and adopt ~e ~b'i~i~'~3;~i~{~ns: 1. ,j~'¢C;~ehding to the the Ame~ents to General PI~ Eastern Dhblln SPe~ifi'd'Pl'~ 2. Adopt Resol~fiQn (A~ac~em 3) reco~ending City Co~cil approv~ ~ Amendment'tO the :General ~-,~Pi e~Dd~.}'pecific Pi~ (Mth DeveloPment Pi~s a~ached asEXhibit 1) 3. INFOmViAT ,0N: ?ROPERTY OWNER: Chang Su-O Lin, H. Yao Lin & H. L. Lin 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 APPLICANT: James Tong 7707 Koll Center ?~i~¢/~Y~ Suite '120 Pleasanton, CA 94566 LOCATION: North of Central Parkway, south of Dublin Ranch~e. ~t.~A, east of Tassaj ara ROad, aC/d west of Dublin Ranch property line. APNs Portions p£.t.h~..[p!~[p~gg: 985-0008-028-04,985-0008-030, 985- 0009-004 & 985-0014-005 EXISTING ZONING: PD Single Family residential, PD Medium Density Residential, PD Elementary School, PD Middle School, PD High School, PD Neighborhood Square, PD Neighborhood Park, PD Community Park, PD Public/Semi-Pu~D.!.i~_~.~e, and PD Open Space (Stream Corridors) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Elementary School, Middle School, High School, Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Public/Semi-Public Use, and Open Space (Stream Corridors) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION; In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project,"~ ~ivertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in theTri-~ley Herald and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no contact or objections from surrounding property owners regarding the current proposal. 21 CEQA ADDENDUM TO DUBLIN RANCH PLANNING AREA F/B/E PA 01-037 February 23, 2004 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as weI1 as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development and project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dubtin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects such as Dublin Ranch have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the first-tier certified EIR. A subsequent Negative Declaration was adopted for the Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B-E November 18, 1997 (City Council Resolution No. 140-97). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was later approved for Planning .area F of Dublin Ranch in 2000 (SCH # 99112040, PA #98-068, adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 34.-.00 on February 15, 2000. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the current Dublin Ranch Planning Area B, F and E project, as described below. Project Description and Prior Approvals The City of Dublin approved development of Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B throu~h E in November 1997. The approvals included a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, and PD-Planned Development rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan for up to 1875 dwellings units and other non-residential land uses. Subsequent subdivision maps were later approved to subdivide the land into smaller lots. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the City of Dublin on February 15, 2000 for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F. This project included an amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reconfigure land uses within Planning Area F, as well as a Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning, a Tentative Tract Map, formation of an assessment district, and modifications to an existing Development Agreement. This Addendum refers to these approvals as "Dublin Ranch Planning Area B, F and E approvals." The current application proposed a further Amendment to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reallocate land uses within the three Planning Areas totaling 289.3 acres of land, approval of a Stage 1 PD-Plarmed Development for this area and a Stage 2 Planned Development for approximately 88.5- acres of the project area. This Addendum refers to these applications collectively as "the Project", which is further described in the Initial Study referenced below. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project is within the Eastern Dublin planning area, which was the subject of the Eastern Dublin EIR, certified in 1993. The EIR analyzed the potential effects of future urban development planned for a then-largely undeveloped area east of the then- existing city of Dublin. Numerous environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigations adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated herein by reference. Dublin Ranch Planning Area B-E Negative Declaration. Development of Planning Areas . B-E of the Dublin Ranch was further reviewed in a Negative Declaration assessing the potential for site-specific impacts of the proposed development. Tiering from the program- level review in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the ND examined the pOtential for significant impacts not addressed n the prior EIR. The City of Dublin approved the Negative Declaration through Resolution No. 140-97 on November 18, 1997, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. Relying on the Eastern Dublin EIR and'Dublin Ranch Planning Area B-E Negative Declaration, the City Council approved the Dublin Ranch proposal. Portions of Dublin Ranch PAs B-E have been developed an~or are currently under construction. The development program associated with Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B-E includes a variety of land use types, including campus office, community commercial, residential at varying densities, schools, parks, open spaces and rural residential/agricultural uses. The current Project includes the westerly portion of Area E, and residential and community park portions of Area B north of Central Parkway. City Council Resolution No. 140-97, that approved the Negative Declaration for these Dublin Ranch Planning Areas, contained f'mdings that the Project did not constitute a change from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and that there wase no new information of substantial importance to the GPA, the EDSP or the Project that could not have been known when the Eastern Dublin Program EIR was certified in 1993. Dublin Ranch Planning Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration. Development of Planning Area F of the Dublin Ranch was reviewed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration assessing the potential for site-specific impacts of the proposed development. Tiering from the program- level review in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the MND examined the potential for significant impacts not addressed in the prior EIR. The City of Dublin approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration through Resolution No. No. 34-00 on February 15, 2000, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. Relying on the Eastern Dublin EIR and Dublin Ranch Page 2 Planning Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City Council approved the Dublin Ranch Planning Area F proposal. The development program associated with Dublin Ranch Planning Area F included minor modifications to land uses and the location of roadways through the Planning Area. City Council Resolution No. 34-00, that approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F, contained findings that the Project did not constitute a change from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and that there was no new information of substantial importance to the GPA, the EDSP or the Project that could not have been known when the Eastern Dublin Program EIR was certified in 1993. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this Project. Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the City reviewed the Eastern Dublin EIR, the previous Negative Declaration for Pas B-E and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F, to determine if any further environmental review was required for the proposed General Plan/EDSP Amendment and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development rezonings. The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated February 9, 2004, and incorporated herein by reference. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR, or negative declaration is required for this Project. No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis: aj Are there substantial changes to the Proj'ecr involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA F, and the Dublin Ranch PA B-E Negative Declaration. The Project proposes to reconfigure approved uses, but is consistent with the overall types of land uses and densities allowed in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These changes would include: t. This General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for High School use to Middle School use. The High School site originally designated for Areas E and F has been deemed unnecessary by Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). In accordance with the prior wishes of DUSD, the land use designation for the portion of the High School site occurring in Area F, consisting of 30.6 gross acres, was previously changed to Middle School in conjunction with PA-98-068, leaving the remainder of the High School site (20.0 acres in Ad-ea E) unchanged. DUSD would now like to develop Page 3 a Middle School on a site further to the north, on a portion of the remnant High School-designated parcel abutting South Dublin Ranch Drive and a portion o£ the previously planned Middle School Site. As a result of this change, a 24.2-acre site designated for Middle School use would be created. 2. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for High School use to Public/Semi-Public use. The portion of the previously designated High School parcel located south of the newly proposed Middle School site would serve as a replacement parcel for the Public/Semi-Public sites at the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafton Street.' The 6.3-acre replacement parcel allows a larger range of potential uses by providing a larger land area and consolidating two smaller parcels of land. 3. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land ar the Central Parkway/Grafton Street intersection currently slated for Public/Semi-Public use to Medium Density Residential use. Concerns have been raised about the physical suitability of the two Public/Semi-Public parcels of approximately two acres each planned and approved for the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafion Street to accommodate a wide enough range of potential public/semi-public uses due to their small size. To remedy this, these parcels are proposed to be replaced by one larger parcel to the north of Gleason Drive. 4. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for Middle School use to Medium Density Residential use. With DUSD interested in developing the new Middle School on the northerly portion of the land originally slated for a high school, the land abutting Gleason Drive would be changed to a Medium Density Residential use designation and developed as a neighborhood. This land use redesignation would be consistent with adjacent residential land use deSignations and the neighborhood (Neighborhood Fl) will contribute to the residential nature of the school setting and serve as a buffer between the Middle School and Gleason Drive, an east-west arterial road connecting Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. 5. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land within Area B, which is north of Gleason and west of Fallon (presently slated for Medium Density Residential use) to' Low Density Residential use. The small size and hillside nature of the approximately 1 O-acre parcel near the intersection of Fallon Road and Gleason Drive greatly limit the viability of Medium Density development in the area. This parcel would be combined with the land designated Low Density Residential immediately to the west, allowing it to be developed as a more efficient and cohesive neighborhood. This neighborhood (Neighborhood F2) would be consistent in density and character with existing neighborhoods to the north and east. 6. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to reconfigure land within Area B slated for Open Space/Stream Corridor use, Community Park use and Medium Density Page 4 f-- Residential use south of Gleason Drive. Recent revisions to the configuration of the Community Park adjacent to Fallon Road have necessitated changes to the alignment of both Fallon Road and the north-south collector (Lock_hart Street) along the western park boundary and ro the configuration of the Open Space/Stream Corridor and the Medium Density Residential Neighborhoods west of the park. The Dublin City Council approved the changes to the size and configuration of the Community Park on October 7, 2003~ Based on this, the Community Park portion of the Amendment Area would be expanded from 52.0 gross acres to approximately 65.9 gross acres; the Open Space/Stream Corridor will be expanded from 4.8 gross acres to 7.9 gross acres. With the westward realignment of Fallon Road and the expansion of the Community Park and adjacent Open Space/Stream Corridor, Medium Density Residential neighborhoods in the eastern portion of the Amendment Area south of Gleason Drive would be reduced by approximately 7.6 gross acres. The reduction in Medium Density Residential use in this area is necessary to accommodate the entire Community Park and Stream Corridor programs as well as a re-aligned north-south collector street (Lockhart Street) west of Fallon Road. Based on the land use changes encompassed in this amendment, Keegan Street would no longer be extended north from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive. b) Are there subxtantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, 1997 Negative Declaration for PA B-E and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA F. Although special-status species are present on a portion of the Project site, numerous previous biological studies have been conducted to identify their respective locations, and related mitigations have already been implemented. The Corps of Engineers has also issued necessary 404 permits to allow filling of wetlands within the Project area su~ect to mitigation for loss of these wetlands. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous FIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect. The applicant's plans for Planning Areas B, F and E would be consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, mitigation measures previously adopted, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineer and other agency permits. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous negative declarations. Page 5 Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on an Initial Study dated February 9, 2004. The Addendum and Initial Study reviews the proposed redesignation and reconfiguration of land uses as discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin ErR, previous negative declarations and this Addendum/Initial Study adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The Initial Study, Eastern Dublin ErR, Dublin Ranch Planning Area B-E Negative Declaration, Dublin Ranch Planning Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration are all available for public review in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. Page 6 Initial Study Project Dublin Ranch Planning Areas F/B/E PA 01-037 Lead Agency: City of Dublin February 2004 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2 Applicant ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Contact Person ............................................................................................................................. 2 Project Location and Context ....................................................................................................... 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................... 1'7 Attachment to initial Study .......................................................................................................... 30 1. Aesthetics ............. ~. ........................ . ............................................................................... 30 2. Agricultural Resources ............................................... ~. ................................................. 31 3. Air Quality .. ................................................................................................................. 32 4. Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 34 5. Cultural Resources .................... .~ ........................ i ......................................................... 36 6. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ 38 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 40 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4t 9. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................ 44 10. Mineral Resources ....................................... ~ .............................................................. 45 11. Noise .......................................................................................................................... 45 12, Population and Housing .................. i .......................................................................... 47 13. Public Services ................................................................................................... ........ 47 14. Recreation .................................................................................................................. 49 15. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................ 5 t 16. Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 56 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................ 57 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................................................................... 58 References .................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 59 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Project described below. The.Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Applicant Chang Su-O-Lin, H. Yao Lin and H. L. Lin C/O James Tong 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Contact Person MacKay & Somps 5142 Franklin Drive, Suite B Pleasanton CA 94588 Attn: Dave Chadbourne Project Location and Context The project site is comprised of portions of Area B, F and E of Dublin Ranch. The Project is located within the larger East Dublin area, located south of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 development and north of Central Parkway. The Project area consists of approximately 285 acres of land and is a part of a larger portion of the Dublin Ranch, which also includes Planning Areas G and H to the south. Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the Project area in context of the larger City of Dublin and Exhibit 2 depicts its relation to Eastern Dublin as well as neighboring Planning Areas. The Project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. This Specific Plan/General Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the purpose of directing long-term land use, circulation, infrastructure and environmental protection for 3,328 acres of land located east of the central portion of Dublin and north of the 1-580 freeway. At full build-out, the Eastern Dublin planning area would allow a range of residential, commercial office, employment and open space uses. The Project area is also part of Dublin Ranch, the largest landholding within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Dublin Ranch contains approximately 1,310 acres of land and is being planned to accommodate approximately 5,760 residential dwellings and approximately 2.5 City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/FIE February 2004 PA 01-037 million square feet of office and retail floor space. Dublin Ranch is also being planned to contain a range of schools, parks and other public areas. The Project area is currently vacant land. No residences or other structures exist within the boundaries of the Project Area. The low rolling hills are covered primarily with non-native grassland. The existing topography across the site is varied with the greatest elevation difference occurring towards the eastern side of the project, south of Neighborhoods L4 and L5 of Dublin Ranch Phase I. At this location, a hillside exists along the boundary with Phase I with elevation differences of 30 to 50 feet. Elevations across the Project area generally fall from north to south. Construction of Medium High and High Density Residential projects associated with the planned Village Center are currently occurring to the south of the Project area. To the east, development associated with Dublin Ranch Area A is currently in progress, including single family residential neighborhoods, an 18-hole golf course, and the expansion of Fallon Road. To the north and west, the Construction of Dublin Ranch Phase I is nearly complete, with Low and Medium Density Residential neighborhoods, an elementary school parcel (not yet developed), a . neighborhood park, open space/stream corridor, and other recreational amenities. Project Description The proposed Project would include two separate but related actions: a) an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan' and consideration of a PD rezoning/Stage 1 Development plan for portions of Planning Areas B, F and E that would include approximately 289 acres of land (the "Amendment Area"), and b) a PD rezoning/Stage 2 PD-Development Plan for Area F North that would include approximately 86.9 acres of the larger area described in "a." (the "Development Area"). These are described more fully below. Specific Plan~General Plan Amendment Several Amendments are proposed to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan that would slightty reconfigure and reorient previously approved land uses in Planning Areas B, F and E. The effect of the proposed amendments would be to reduce the total number of dwellings units by 136 units and the size of the three planning Areas by 3.9 aCres of land, as shown in Table 1. Previous environmental review and analysis has been completed in terms of a Program EIR for all of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area as well as individual Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations for each of the Dublin Ranch Planning Areas affected by this proposed Project. Mitigation measures have been .established in these previous environmental documents that would continue to apply to this Project. More specifically, the Amendments would include the following: 1. This General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for High School use to Middle School use. The High School site originally designated for Areas E and F has been deemed unnecessary by Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). In accordance with the prior wishes of DUSD, the land use designation for the portion of the High School site occurring in Area F, consisting of 30.6 gross acres, was previously changed to Middle SchooI in conjunction with PA-98-068, leaving the remainder of the High School site (20.0 acres in Area E) unchanged. DUSD would now like to develop a Middle School on a site further to the north, on a portion of the remnant High School-designated parcel abUtting South Dublin Ranch Drive and a portion of City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E - February 2004 PA 01-037 the previously planned Middle School Site. As a result of this change, a 24.2-acre site designated for Middle School use would be created. 2. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for High School use to Public/Semi-Public use. The portion of the previously designated High School parcel located south of the newly proposed Middle School site would serve as a replacement parcel for the Public/Semi-Public sites at the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafton Street. The 6.3- acre replacement parcel allows a larger range of potential uses by providing a larger land area and consolidating two smaller parcels of land. 3. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land at the Central Parkway/Grafton Street intersection currently slated for Public/Semi-Public use to Medium Density Residential use. Concerns have been raised about the physical suitability of the two Public/Semi-Public parcels of approximately two acres each planned and approved for the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafton Street to accommodate a wide enough range of potential public/semi- public uses due to their small size. To remedy this, these parcels are proposed to be replaced by one larger parcel to the north of Gleason Drive. 4. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land slated for Middle School use to Medium Density Residential use. With DUSD interested in developing the new Middle School on the northerly portion of the land originally slated for a high school, the land abutting Gleason Drive woUld be changed to a Medium Density Residential use designation and developed as a neighborhood. This land use redesignation would be consistent with adjacent residential land use designations and the neighborhood (Neighborhood Fl) will contribute to the residential nature of the school setting and serve as a buffer between the Middle School and Gleason Drive, an east-west arterial road connecting Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. 5. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to redesignate land within Area B, which is north of Gleason and west of Fallon (presently slated for Medium Density Residential use) to Low Density Residential use. The small size and hillside nature of the approximately 10-acre parcel near the intersection of Falion Road and Gleason Drive greatly limit the viability of Medium Density development in the area. This parcel would be combined with the land designated Low Density Residential immediately to the west, allowing it to be developed as a more efficient and cohesive neighborhood. This neighborhood (Neighborhood F2) would be consistent in density and character with existing neighborhoods to the north and east. 6. This GPA/EDSP Amendment proposes to reconfigure land within Area B slated for Open Space/Stream Corridor use, Community Park use and Medium Density Residential use south of Gleason Drive. Recent revisions to the configuration of the Community Park adjacent to Fallon Road have necessitated changes to the alignment of both Fallon Road and the north- south collector (Lockhart Street) along the western park boundary and to the configuration of the Open Space/Stream Corridor and the Medium Density Residential Neighborhoods west of the park. The Dublin City Council approved the changes to the size and configuration of the Community Park 0n October 7, 2003. Based on this, the Community Park portion of the Amendment Area would be expanded from 52.0 gross acres to approximately 65.9 gross acres; the Open Space/Stream Corridor will be expanded from 4.8 gross acres to 7.9 gross acres. With the westward realignment of Fallon Road and the expansion of the Community Park and adjacent Open Space/Stream Corridor, Medium Density Residential neighborhoods Page 4 City of Dublin February 2004 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E PA 01-037 in the eastern portion of the Amendment Area south of Gleason Drive would be reduced by approximately 7.6 gross acres. The reduction in Medium Density Residential use in this area is necessary to accommodate the entire Community Park and Stream Corridor programs as well as a re-aligned north-south collector street (Lockhart Street) west of FaIlon Road. Based on the land use changes encompassed in this amendment, Keegan Street would no longer be extended north from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive. Table 1 shows approved land uses in the Project area compared with land uses proposed as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. Exhibit 4 depicts the location and extent of the requested change as well. Land use acreages have been somewhat reduced in this application due to a re-alignment of Fallon Road to protect biological resources on the Jordan property and more accurate base mapping of the Project site. Table 1. Planned and Proposed Land Use'Planning Area B/F/E Approved Proposed Eastern Dublin General Plan/ Land Use Category General Plan/ Specific Plan Net Difference Specific Plan Amendment Low Density Residential (L) 22.7 acres 91 alu* 33.4 acres. 121 du +10.7 ac/+30 alu' Medium Density Residential (M) Development Area (N. of 9.9 acres 99 du* 20.0 acres 119 du +10. ! ac/+20 du Gleason) South of Gleason Drive 110.6 acres 1106 du* 105.0 acres 1050 du* -5.6 ac/-56 du Medium Density Residential/ 13.0 acres i30 du* 0.0 acres -13.0 ac/-130 du Community Park (M/CP) Community Park (CP) 52.0 acres 65.9 acres +13.9 Neighborhood Park (NP) 5.6 acres 5.6 acres Neighborhood Square (NS) 2.0 acres 2.0 acres High School (HS) 20.0 acres 0.0 acres -20.0 Middle School (MS) 30.6 acres 25.2 acres -5.4 Elementary School (ES) 10.0 acres 10.0 acres Open Space (OS) 9.0 acres 12.0 acres +3.0 Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) 3.9 acres 6.3 acre +2.4 Sub-Total (Development Area 86.9 acres 190 du 88.5 acs 240 du +1.6 ac/_50 du Only) Total (Specific Plan 289.3 acres 1426 du 285.4 acres 1290 du -3.9 ac/-136 du Amendment Area) * Unit counts based on Specific Plan mid-point densities, PD Rezoning/Stage 1 DevelOpment Plan (Planning Areas B, F & E) An application has also been filed for a PD rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan apprOval pursuant to the City of Dublin Planned Development (PD) Zoning District. Pm'suant to the PD Ordinance, property owners must submit a request for Stage 1 Development Plan approval. A Stage 1 Development Plan establishes land uses within a distinct geographic area, includes a plan of proposed land uses by type and density of use, contains a master landscape plan and development phasing plan. City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 RESOLUTION NO. 04- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL .~DoPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS, PD REZONING WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS, MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE AREA F/B/E PROJECT IN DUBLIN RANCH PA 01-037 WHEREAS, James Tong, on behalf of Chang Su-O-Lin, J. Yao Lin and J.L. Lin, has requested a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, a PD rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan for the entire Project area, and Stage 2 Development Plan for a portion of the Project area, a Master Vesting Tentative Map for the entire Project area, Vesting Tentative Maps for portions of the Project area, and Site Development Review for a portion of the Project area, which applications are on file in the Planning Division. These applications are collectively referred to herein as "the project" or "Area F/B/E Project"; and WHEREAS, the Area F/B/E Project consists of approximately 289 acres north of Central Parkway and west of the planned Fallon Road extension, APN's 985-0008-028-04, 985-0008-030,985-0009-004 & 985-0014- 00, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WItEREAS, the project is within the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which a Program EIR was certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (SCH No. 91-103064). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project. Pursuant to the Communities. for a Better Environment case, approval of the project must be supported by a new Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, portions of the project are in Dublin Ranch Areas B and E for which th~ City Council previously approved a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, PD-Planned Development Rezoning and related Negative Declaration on November 18, 1997 (Resolutions 140-97, 141-97, Ord. 24-97 incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, portions of the project are in Dublin Ranch Area F for which the City Council previously approved a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, PD rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan and related Mitigated Negative'Declaration on March 71 2000.(Resolutions 34-00, 35-00; Ord. 6-00, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the current project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. The Initial Study, dated February 2004 is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated February 23, 2004 (attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference) describing minor changes from the previous approvals and finding that the impacts of the current project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration, all of which documents are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the project on February 24, 2004; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 24, 2004 was submitted to the Planning Commission analyzing the project and recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum and applications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum before making a recommendation on the project. The Planning Commission further used their 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the attached CEQA Addendum for the Area F/B/E project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24~h day of February 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Community Development Director The Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone covers approximately 289 acres of land, encompassing portions of Areas B, F, and E of Dublin Ranch. This area is bordered by existing Phase 1 residential neighborhoods to the north, an existing neighborhood (MI) and Dublin Land Company lands to the west, Central Parkway to the south, and Fallon Road to the east. This land (referred to in the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (GP/EDSPA) application booklet as the Amendment Area) is shown in greater detail in the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Review sections. The Stage 1 Development Plan submitted for the Project indicates that thc planning area would have an "upscale rural" theme, which would reflect the agrarian past of eastern Dublin. Planned design details would include use of rail fencing, stone pilasters, plantings of tree groves to reinforce the rural theme. The' Stage 1 PD-Planned Development area is composed of five distinct sub-areas. These are separated from each other by Gleason Drive, an arterial running east-west through the project area, and north-south collector streets including Lockhart, running south from Gteason to Central Parkway, and Grafton Street, running through the Stage 1 Area from Antone Way north of the Stage i area to the Village Center to the south. There are two sub-areas north of Gleason Drive. Of these, the sub-area west oi: Grafton contains approximately 25.2 acres (gross*) for a Middle School site, a 6.3-acre parcel for Public/Semi- Public uses, 2.2 acres of Open Space/Stream Corridor, and a 20.0-acre Medium Density Residential neighborhood. The sub-area east of Grafton contains a 33.4-acre Low Density Residential neighborhood and an Open Space/Stream Corridor of 1.4 acres. The remaining three sub-areas are located soUth of Gleason Drive and are separated by Grafton and Lockhart Streets. The sub-area west of Grafton consists of approximately 42.0 acres of Medium Density Residential, with a 2.0-acre Neighborhood Square centrally located within the residential area, and approximately _-acre of Open Space Corridor (multi-use trail) along the western side of Grafton Street. The sub-area between Grafton and Lockhart Streets contains approximately 63.0 acres of Medium Density Residential, a 10.0-acre Elementary School site, and a 5.6-acre Neighborhood Park. The sub-area east of Lockhart Street contains a Community Park (65.9 gross acres) and a 7.9-acre Open Space/Stream Corridor area. Grading activities would occur within the Project Area to accommodate planned land uses, roads and utilities. Mass grading of a Portion of the Project site is currently underway or has been recently completed based on issuance of a U.S. ArmY Corps of Engineers fill permit. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) will provide water and wastewater service for the Amendment Area. These services are planned in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern DUblin Facilities Master Plan (and/or subsequent revisions). An existing water storage reservoir provides water service for the Amendment area. Distribution mains are planned to be located in all streets. Final locations and sizing of these facilities will be in accordance with the standards and recommendations of DSRSD. * Acreage figures given fOr land uses are gross acreages UnleSs otherwise noted. Gross acreage is measured to the centerline of arterial/collector streets. City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Sewer service for the Amendment Area will require connection to DSRSD's existing sewer t .- system. Gravity sewer mains have been extended easterly in Gleason Drive from Tassajara Road ~ into the Development Area. Final sizing and location of sewer facilities will be determined during final design. The storm drain system for the Amendment Area will consist of major backbone facilities and local facilities as defined by the Master Storm Drain Study for Dublin Ranch. The backbone facilities will generally consist of larger diameter pipes networked throughout the site located in the major streets. These larger collector pipes will ultimately connect to box culverts' that will direct the flow towards the existing G-3 channel, a Zone 7 facility located at the south end of Dublin Ranch. Local facilities will generally consist of smaller diameter pipes connecting individual neighborhoods to the collector system. The locations of proposed storm drain facilities are shown on the tentative maps for the individual neighborhoods. Dublin's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance currently requires 12.5% of all housing to be affordable to those of very low, low and moderate incomes. This project will comply with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requirements by constructing a proportionate share of the affordable units within the Fairway Ranch Residential Community. Construction of the Fairway Ranch project, located within Area B of Dublin Ranch between Central Parkway and Dublin BoUlevard, will commence in 2004. The project applicant indicates that land uses and infrastructure would be phased over a number of years to ensure that roads and other infrastructure facilities would be available to support land uses as they are needed. Preliminarily, construction of initial phases would commence in 2004 with construction anticipated to be completed over the next several years. PD Rezoning/Stage 2 Development Plan (portion of Planning Area F North) The Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone(referred to as the Development Area in the GP/EDSPA section) covers an area of approximately 88.5 acres comprised of the portion of the Stage 1 Planned Development Area north of and including Gleason Drive, within Planning Area F North. The Stage 2 PD-Planned Development area would be comprised of five different land uses: Open Space/Stream Corridor, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Middle School and Public/Semi Public. There are two proposed Open Space corridors in the Project Area, each with a strealr~ and a 12' wide multi-use trail running through it. The Open Space/Stream Corridor area on the west side of Fallon Road is 1.4 acres* and is a continuation of the existing corridor located adjacent to Fallon Road and Phase I neighborhoods; the one west of Grafton Street is 2.2 acres and continues the existing corridor on the west side of Grafton. The Development Area also contains two residential neighborhoods. The F1 Medium Density Residential neighborhood is proposed to consist of 119 single-family detached homes on approximately 20.0 acres, at a density of 6.0 dwelling units to the acre (du/ac). The F2 Low Density Residential neighborhood is proposed as 121 single-family detached homes on approximately 33.4 acres at a density of approximately 3.5 du/ac. A Middle School site occupies 25.2 acres in the northwest corner of the Stage 2 Planned Development Area. Finally,,a parcel of 6.3 acres in the southeastern area of the Stage 2 Planned Development Area is to be reserved for * Acreage figures given for land uses are gross acreages unless otherwise noted. Gross acreage is measured to the centerline of arterial/collector streets. City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2Q04 PA 01-037 Public/Semi-Public uses. This Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) site is to replace two P/SP sites totaling 3.9 acres, at the intersection of Grafton Street and Central Parkway, which are proposed to be rezoned to Medium Density Residential under the Stage 1 P.D. A comparison of acreages allocated to designated land uses within the proposed Stage 2 Planned Development Land Use Plan and the same area of the approved Specific Plan is included in Table 2. Table 2. Planned and Proposed Land Use - Area F North Approved Eastern Dublin Proposed General Plan/ Land Use Category General Plan/Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment Net Difference Low Density Residential (L) 22.7 acres 91 du** 33.4 acres 121 du +10.7/+30 Medium Density Residential (M) 9.9 acres 99 du** 20.0 acres 119 du _10.1/+20 Open Space (OS) 3.7 acres 3.6 acres -. 1 Public/Semi-Public 0.0 acres 6.3 acres +6.3 High School (HS) 20.0 acres 0.0 acres -20.0 Middle School (MS) 30.6 acres 25.2 acres -5.4 Total (Area F North) 86.9 acres 190 du 88.5 acres 240 du +1.6ac/+50 du **Unit counts based on Specific Plan mid-point densities. The increase in acreage of the Stage 2 Planned Development area may be due ro inaccuracies in previous acreage measurements and refinements to the aIignmem of GIeason Drive. Page 8 City of Dublin Febrtiary 2004 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E PA 01-037 Other Entitlements The applicant has also requested approval of a master tentative tract map to subdivide the Project Area into smaller parcels of land for sale to future builders. In addition, individual vesting tentative maps for two neighborhood within Area F North (north of Gleason Drive) have also been submitted for review and approval. A tentative map package is being reviewed concurrently with the Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment application and PD rezone, however, the tentative maps may not be acted upon until other applications .have been acted upon. Site Development Reviews (SDRs applications have also been submitted for the Development Area. City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Exhibit 1. Regional Context City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 EXhibit 2. Site Location City of Dublin Page 1 I Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Exhibit 3. Existing Topographic Features City of Dublin Page 12 initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 Exhibil~ 4. Existing/Proposed General and Specific Plan land uses City of Dubiin Page 13 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 1. Project description: prOposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/Dublin General Plan Amendment for portions of Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B, E and F, consideration of a PD rezoning and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Master Vesting - Tentative Map, Individual Vesting Tentative Maps and Site Development Review application for 285.4-acre site within · Dublin Ranch master planned community. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94588 3. Contact person: Mike Porto, Dublin Planning Department (925) 833-6610 4. Project location: North of Interstate 580 and east of Tassajara Road 5. Project sponsor: James Tong Authorized Representative 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566 6. General Plan designations: EXisting: Low Density Residential, MediUm Density Residential, Public/Semi-Public, Community Park, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square, Open Space, :' Elementary School, Middle School, High School 7. Zoning: PD-Single Family Residential, PD-Medium Density Residential, PD-Middle School, PD- Neighborhood Park, PD-Neighborhood Square, PD-Open Space, and PD-Public and Semi-Public 8. Other public agency required approvals: Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) Site Development Review (City of Dublin) Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin) Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) : Page 14 City of Dublin Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/FIE February 2004 PA 01-037 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentiaIly significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the folloWing pages. I Aesthetics _ I Agricultural - Air Quality ~ Resources ~ Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils Hazards and [ Hydrology/Water Land Use/Planning Hazardous Materials/ Quality , - Mineral Resources ! Noise Population/Housing - Public Services Recreation I Transportation/ Circulation - Utilities/Service Mandatory Findings . I Systems i 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 significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. __ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration Will be prepared. ~ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect 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 earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but 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, Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project, or (c) a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted by the Dublin City CounCil. An Addendum has been prepared to the previous CEQA reviews. (reference "Earlier Analysis" section of this Initial Study on page __). Signature: Date: City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Printed Name: For: City of Dublin Page t6 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 0t-O37 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone); or, in this case, there is no impact beyond those identified in prior CEQA reviews. A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and coastruction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.~ City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/F February 2004 PA 01-037 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 Potentially Less Than Less than No following the checklist. Significant Significant' Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation I. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic X vista? (Source: 2,9) ... b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 9) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? (Source: 9) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or X nighttime views in the area? (Source: 9,15) II. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to X 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: X 2) c) Involve other changes in the existing I environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 2) III. 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 X the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, 15) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute . substantially to an existing or projected air . X quality violation? (Source: 2, 15) City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 " PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 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 X quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source:2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? (Source:2) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2) X IV. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, X 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, 3, 10,I1, 12, 13, 14, 15) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2, 3, 10, I1, 12, 13, 14, 15) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree X protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 17) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 {,---- . Potentially Less Than Less than No - SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Miti ~ation f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other X approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 2) V. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2. 4,15) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2, 4,15) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic X feature? (Source: 2, 4,15) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? .: X (Source: 2.4,15) VI. 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 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source: 5) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (5) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? (5) iv) Landslides? (5) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of : · X topsoil? (5) 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 X on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 5) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X t'"'",~ (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 5) City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers X are not available for the disposal of waste? (Source: 5) VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, X use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 6) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the X release of hazardous into the environment? (Source: 6) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or X proposed school? (Source: 6) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 X and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 6) t e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 6) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project resultin a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 6) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? (Source: 2) t City of Dublin Page 2t Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source:' 2) IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 7,15) 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 X production rate of existing nearby wells would drop t° a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 2, 7, 15) c) Substantially alter the exiSting drainage pattern of the site or area, inCluding through the aeration' of the course of a stream or X river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 7, 15) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, X or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 7) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 2, 7,15) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? (Source: 2,15) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary X or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 7) CiW of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source: 2, 7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant ~ risk of loss, injury, and death involving X flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (7) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? X (7) IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X (Source: 1, 2, 9) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but X not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? (I, 2) .... X. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to X the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 2) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific X plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2) XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or X applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2, 9) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2, 5) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X existing levels without the project? (Source: 2, 9) ~ City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact ,Mitigation d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels without the project? (Source: 9) 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 X or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels? (Source: 9) XII. 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 X infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 2) f'"' b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 2) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing X elsewhere? (Source: 2) XIII. 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, 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, 10, 15, 16) Fire protection X Police protection X Schools X Parks X Other public facilities X City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation XIV. Recreation.' a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the X facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2) XV. 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. X result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (8,15) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for X designated roads or highways? (8,15) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels 'X or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as X farm equipment? (8) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (8) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (8) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) X (8) ! City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 ~ : ~ . Potentially Less Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation XVI. 'Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality X Control Board? (2) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2,16) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of X which could cause significant environmental effects? (2, 7) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water X entitlements ~and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2, 16) ~ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater '~ treatment provider whic~ serves Or may serve the project that it has adequate X capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (2, 16) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? (2) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? (2) XVI, 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 t X drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major I periods of California history or prehistory? Oity of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/FIE February 2004 PA 01-087 ] Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant SignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" I X 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 X on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan (1993) 2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan EIR (1993) 3. Special-Status Species Survey, Pao Yeh Lin PropertY, H.T. Harvey Associates (October 1999) 4, Cultural Resource Survey, Dublin Ranch, Holman & Associates (June., 1999) 5 Geotechnical Investigation of Lin Property, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (November, 1997) 6 Phase One and Two Hazardous Materials Survey of Lin Property, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (November 1997) 7. Drainage and Hydrology Study for Dublin Ranch, MacKay & Somps (November 2003) 8. Project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TJKM Associates (October1999) 9. Site Visit 10. Individual Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program - Area B-E (1997) 11. U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers Wetland Fill Permit (dated May 23, 2003) 12. U.g. Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Opinion (dated July 1, 2002) 13. Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Certification Order (dated April 22, 2003) t4. California Department of Fish & Game 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (dated June 5,2003) 15 Individual Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA F (2000) 16. Discussion with City of Dublin staff or affected special districts 17. Other source City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 . XVII' Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report. (SCH 9110306~). This document is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR." Copies of this document are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours. A Negative Declaration was previously approved for Planning Areas B through E of the Dublin Ranch in 199'7 (PA #96-039, adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 140-9'7). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was subsequently approved for Planning Area F of Dublin Ranch in 2000 (SCH # 99112040, PA #98-068, adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 34-00 on February 15, 2000. Both documents were also used in the preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated herein by reference. Mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved in 2000 for Planning Area F continue to apply to the proposed Project. As part of the certification of the EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment~ the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual, and other impacts identified in Resolution 53-93, dated May 10, 1993 and incorporated herein by reference. Copies of these previous environmental documents are available for review at the .Dublin Planning Department during normal business hours. The Project is consistent with the residential, public/semi public, open space and park land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The purpose of the proposed amendments to these plans is to reconfigure the uses within the Amendment Area. The primary result of the Project will be to reduce the amount of potential residential uses across the Amendment Area by approximately 136 units, and increase the amount of Community Park from 52 acres to 65.9 acres. All of the Amendment Area has been the subject of prior CEQA reviews, initially through the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, a program-level review of the potential urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Numerous mitigation measures were adopted with the Eastern Dublin general plan and specific plan approvals on May 10, 1993. All of the mitigation measures continue to apply, as appropriate, to implementing projects, including this Project. For the significant and unavoidable impacts, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Considerations. (See Resolution 53-93). Pursuant to the recent Communities for a Better Environment case, approval of the Project would require that the City reweigh the identified unavoidable impacts and adoPt a new Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Project site was later reviewed in connection with approval of two separate land use revisions and adoption of a PD rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plans. The Dublin Ranch Area F portion of the Project was reviewed in a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND tiered from the Eastern Dublin EIR, and identified additional potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures. All of the adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the Project. The Dublin Ranch Area B and E portions of the Project were reviewed in a subsequent Negative Declaration (ND). No additional significant impacts were identified for these areas and no additional mitigation measures beyond those previously adopted. The following discussions track the environmental checklist above. Where possible, the discussion describes the prior relevant analyses and the prior adopted mitigation measures. The discussi'0ns are summary only; the prior EIR, MND and ND should be consulted for full discussion of related impacts and mitigations. The discussions also examine whether the reconfiguration of land uses will have any new or more severe significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, MND or ND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Because the Project does not propose new or different development, i.e., the type and extent of land uses is similar to those assumed in the previous reviews, most impacts are unchanged for the Project. The Project also , includes a net reduction in the number of dwelling units across the Amendment Area, therefore, some impacts could actually be reduced compared to the existing approvals. Finally, many of the prior impacts related to biology, soils, drainage and other similar terrain-related impacts no longer apply to the Development Area since this area has been mass graded pursuant to USACE and DFG permits. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/FIE February 2004 PA 01-037 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant 'LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation LS: Less Than Significant Impact NI: No Impact 1. Aesthetics Environmental Settine The Project area (comprised,of portions of Area F, B and E) is vacant and consists of gently rolling to relatively steep hillsides. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site as "valley grasslands," which are located on the areas near 1-580 in the south and southwest portion of Eastern Dublin. Where agricultural activity, including grazing, has historically taken place (such as within the Project area), the visual image of lands is formed by patterns of the soil that have been furrowed. The'Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts to visual resources and aesthetics applicable to this Project: · IM 3.8/A: Standardized "tract" development, whereby generic subdivision design could obscure existing natural features, such as iandforms, vegetation and watercourses. · IM 3.8/B, C, and D: Alteration of the rural/open space visual character of the area ....... whereby new development allowed under the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment would change the visual open space area of the Project area, including hillsides. · IM 3.8/F: alteration of the visual character 0fthe flatlands, whereby future urban development on the flatland portion of the Project site would alter views of valley grasses and agricultural fields. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of Mitigation Measures that are applicable to this project to assist in reducing aesthetic impacts to a less-than-significant level, including Mitigation Measures 3.8/1.0 through 8.1. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F identified supplemental Mitigation Measure 1 that required pole mounted streetlights to be equipped with cut-off lenses or directed downwm'd to minimize spill over of lights. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ~,-,,, a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. Approval and construction of the ~ proposed project would convert existing vacant, former agricultural fields to urban uses, City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 including residential and similar uses. This potential impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact IM 3.8/C, Obscuring of Distinctive Natural Features) and it was determined that no measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Other mitigation measures (3.8/4.0 through 4.5, 5.0 and 5.1) have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce impacts to hillside development. The EIR concluded this impact would be a potentially significant irreversible change and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. The project site is not located adjacent to a state designated scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. d) Create light or glare? LS. As addressed in the 2000 MND, construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare due to new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances, the additional lighting could result in negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, parks and other areas that are not intended to be lighted. Overall, no impacts to visual resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting According to information .contained in the Phase One Hazardous Materials study prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants for the Site, the property has been used exclusively for farming and cattle grazing for the past 40 years, although it is currently fallow. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the site is characterized by soils of locally important farmland, although not of prime or unique farmland. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Figure 3. l-C), no portion of the Project Area is encumbered with a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement contract. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to agricultural resources: · IM 3. l/C: Discontinuation of agricultural uses, which was a less-than-significant impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts that were either non-renewed or cancelled. · IM 3. I/D: Loss of farmlands of local importance, which was identified as a less-than- significant since no prime agricultural soils were identified on the Project site. No mitigation measures were contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, since no potentially significant impacts were identified. City of Dublin ,.., Page 31 initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to agricultural resources. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a-c) Convert Prime Farmland,.conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use? LS. Although the site has historically been used for agricultural crop production, the underlying soil is not considered primary agricultural soil and no Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement exists on the project site. The Eastern DubIin EIR found that discontinuance of agricultural operations is an insignificant impact based on the large number of non-renewal notices being filed on Williamson Act Agreements within the Eastern Dublin area (Impact 3.1/C). Similarly, loss of farmland of local importance, such as the project site, were considered a less-than- significant impact due to the fact that on-site soils are not prime agricultural soils (Impact 3.1/D). Overall, no impacts to agricultural lands and resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are e~pected to occur as a result of this Project. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setfinff Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the Basin. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to air quality: · IM 3.1 l/A: Dust deposition soiling nuisance from construction activities, which was identified as a potentially significant cumulative impact. · IM 3.11/B: Air emission from construction equipment, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.1 i/C: Air quality impacts related to mobile emissions of reactive organic gasses and nitrogen monoxide, which was identified as a potentially cumulative significant impact. ~ IM 3.1 l/D: Mobile source elrdssion of carbon monoxide, which was identified as a less- than-significant impact. · IM 3.1 I/E: Stationary source emissions from HVAC and other sources, which was a potentially significant cumulative impact. City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 through 13.0 were included in the,Eastern Dublin EIR to assist in reducing long- and short-term air quality impacts. Impacts related to emission from construction vehicles, mobile source emission of reactive organic gasses and nitrogen dioxide and stationary source emissions were identified as significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City of Dublin for these impacts. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to air quality. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an ~air quality plan? LS. The proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, since the proposed number of dwelling units have been included in Dublin's planned growth as part of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. Short-term construction impacts related to implementation of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceedances of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Eastern Dublin EIR, Impacts 3.11/A and B). Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.1 i/1.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.11/2.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will reduce short-term air quality impacts to a tess-than-significant level. These measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and constructiOn activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order. The Eastern Dublin EIR concludes that potential air quality impacts related to construction equipment could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. If this project were to be approved, a new Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted .by the City of Dublin. Similarly, potential air quality impacts related to mobile source emissions of Reactive Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary source emissions were found to exceed regional air quality standards even with mitigation measures, and were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Eastern Dublin EIR ImpactS 3.11/C and E). If this project were to be approVed, a new Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies Mobile Source Emissions and Stationary Source Emissions as significant irreversible impacts. Generally such impacts are based on vehicular emission from future traffic within the sub-region as well as stationary sources. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for long-term impacts. If this project were to be approved, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin. d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? LS. The majority of land uses proposed for the Project Area include residential land uses, which are not considered as sensitive receptors. As noted in the 2000 MND, the Project includes both an elementary school and middle school, which could be considered City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 sensitive receptors; however no additional impacts were identified beyond the Eastern ISubiin EIR. Overall, no impacts to mr quality not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project Area is dominated'by non-native grassland and dryland-farmed (grain crops) habitats. Fields are typically cropped at various seasonal and annual rotations followed by fallow years at a rate of one in every five years. Crops are not irrigated. Biological analyses and wetland delineations were conducted for the Eastem Dublin EIR as well as the MND and ND, describing both habitat and species present in the Project area, and information on wetland resources. As noted earlier, the Development Area portion of the Project site has been mass graded pursuant to USACE and DFG permits. The graded area included ponds with habitat value and species as identified in the prior CEQA reviews; however, species such as California red-legged frog and California Tiger Salamander were relocated to offsite mitigation areas, again, in conformance will applicable permits and requirements. A copy of the 'Corps permit is appended to this Initial Study. Plants Based on the history of cultivation of the Project Area, most of the 23 special-status plant species identified as potentially occurring in the project area are not expected to be present. Previous agricultural activities, including livestock grazing and crop production, have degraded potential habitat for these species, and existing predominant plant species include i nvas~ve forbs and grasses indicative of disturbed habitats. Although neither the Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii) nor San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplexjoaquiniana) has been observed in the Project Area, Congdon's tarplant has been observed on Area H to the south, and San Joaquin spearscale has been observed on a nearby parcel to the southeast. Animals The Eastern Dublin EIR, the MND and the ND provide background information on the potential for special-status and sensitive animal species that could potentially occur in the Project area. With the permitted grading on the Project site and related offsite mitigation and species relocation, many of the species are no longer.expected to occur in the Project area Mitigation measures addressing these species have been incorporated into the wetland fill permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 23, 2003. In accordance with.the permit .conditions, red-legged frogs and tiger salamanders have been relocated to an off-site mitigation area. Wetlands Jurisdictional wetlands were addressed in the Project area in the Eastern Dublin EIR, MND and ND. As noted above, a wetland fill permit was issued by the USACE and the wetlands have been filled City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-0:37 · The' Eastei'n Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially significant impacts to 'biological resources, including IM 3.7/A (direct habitat loss), IM 3.7/B (indirect impacts of vegetation removal), IM 3.7/C (loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat), IM 3.7/D (impacts to San Joaqili:n kit: fOx), IM' 3 :.7/E (impacts to bald eagle; peregrine falcon and Alameda whipsnake), IM 3.7/F (impacts to red-l'egged frog), IM 3.7/G (California tiger salamander), IM 3,7/H (impacts to western pond turtle), IM 3.7/I (impacts tri-colored blackbirds), IM 3.7/J (destruction of Golden eagle nesting sites, IM 3.7/K (elimination of Golden eagle foraging sites), IM3.7/L (Golden eagle and other raptor electrocution), IM 3.7/M impacts to burrowing owl), IM 3.7/N (impacts to American badger), IM 3.7/O (impacts to prairie falcon, northern harrier: and black- shouldered kite), IM 3.7/P (impacts to sharp-shinned hawk and Cooper's hawk), IM 3.7 Q (impacts to short-eared owl), IM 3.7/R impacts to California horned lizard), IM 3.7/S (impacts to special:statuS invertebrates). A number of mitigation measui~es are inClUded in the Eastern Dubli'n EIR to reduce all of the abOVe impacts to leSs-than-significant levels} exce'Pt foi-the loss Of botanically sensiti~ve habitat. Th~ 'are Mi'tigation Measure~ 3/7il.0 tO' 28~0. TheSe mitigation measures continue to aPply to this project: ' ' The 1997 NegatiVe Declaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mifi-gatiOn measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to biological resources. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F contained Supplemental Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 to protect special-status species and wetlands in this Planning Area. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have' a' substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? LS. Development of the 'Project area' would have impacts on the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander that are less .than significant .with mitigation incorporation. This development could potentially have impacts on the. Congdon's tarplant, San Joaquin spearsCale, Burrowing Owl, White-tailed Kite (and other tree,nesting raptors), and Amebean badger that are less.than significant with mitigatiOn incorporation. Site clearing and grading could result in direct loss of individuals of Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale if these species are present on.the site. Clearing and grading, could result in the loss of individual tiger salamanders and their estivation habitat, and filling of the stock pond would result in the loss of 0.7 acres of red-legged frog and tiger salamander breeding habitat and could potentially result in the loss' of individuals. Clearing and grading could result in the 16ss 6f individual burrowing-owls, their occupied burrows, and occupied Burrowing Owl habitat; and individual American badgers. Tree removal or indirect disturbance during the breeding season could re'suit in the loss of eggs, young, or active nests of the Whim-tailed Kite and other tree-nesting raptors. In acCordanc~.'with the appr0val~conditions of the USACE wetland fill permit (dated May 23, 2003); U.$.F.&W.S.' Biological Option (dated July 1, 2002); RWQCB Water Quality Certification Order (dated April 22, 2003); and CDF&G 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (dated June 5, 2003) mitigation measures addressing impacts on candidate, sensitive or special status species have already been implemented. Based on implementation of th~se measures, the above noted species impacts are no longer considered to be applicable to this Project. City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E ' ' February 2004 PA 0t-O37 As part of the project, project builders and developers have obtained necessary permits from appropriate state and federal environmental permits prior to grading operations, including but not limited to permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board. b, c ~ Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? LS. Approximately 1.47 acres of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional habitats (including 0.48 acres of wetlands), based on the draft jurisdictional delineation and verified by the Corps, and 1.6 acres of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional habitats, have been identified within the Project Area and required mitigation. as established by the appropriate agency, has been provided. In accordance with the approval conditions of the USACE wed and fill permit (dated May 23, 2003); U.S.F.&W.S. Biological Option (dated July 1, 2002); RWQCB Water Quality Certification Order (dated April 22. 2003); and CDF&G 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (dated June 5, 2003), mitigation measures addressing impacts on candidate, sensitive or special status species have been or currently are being implemented. As part of the project, project builders and developers have obtained necessary permits from appropriate state and federal environmental permits prior to mass grading operations, including but not limited to permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. Two small intermittent drainage channels formerly traversed the site, but have been filled as part of Corps- and CDFG-permitted mass grading operations n the Project area. However, no significant wildlife movement occurs on or across the site, and therefore, development is not expected to preclude any significant wildlife movements. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No significant stands of trees are present on the site, and there are no impacts with regard to local tree preservation ordinances or policies. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat ConserVation Plans. Overall, no impacts to biological resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental. Set-tine The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 1988 as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and associated EIR, Several potentially significant archeological resources were identified in the project area and the Eastern Dublin EIR mandated additional project-level archeological surveys. City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 In May, 1999, Holman and Associates resurveyed the site by means of a mechanical backhoe. ,.t .. Several battered petrified wood fragments were discovered, however, later laboratory ~ investigation indicated the fragments likely resulted from natural tumbling or damage from farm equipment. In summary, nO potentially significant prehistoric archeological materials or indicators were found on the property during the study. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to cultural resources: · IM 3.9/A: Disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.9/B: Disruption or destruction of unidentified pre-historic resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.9/C: Disruption or destruction of identified historic resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3~9/D: Disruption or destruction of unidentified historic resources, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 to 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts to historic and pre-historic resources to a less-than-significant level. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental -- · impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to cultural resources. ~ The Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F (2000) identified Supplemental Mitigation Measure 4, intended to protect unrecorded cultural resources. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The site is vacant and n.o historic resources have been identified On the site. Therefore, the possibility of encountering historic resources is considered remote and no impact is expected. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources? LS. The 2000 MND identified a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation may uncover significant paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0, contained in the EaStern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and will be implemented with Project development. d) Disturb any human resources? LS. A remote possibility exists that human resources could be uncovered on the site during construction activities. Mitigation Measures 3.9 5.0 and 6.0 contained in the eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce such impacts to a level of less- than-significance. Overall, no impacts to cultural resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a - result of this Project. ~ City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 6. Geology and Soils (This section is based on a preliminary geotechnical reports cited in the 1997 ND and the 2000. The reports are on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department) Environmental Settin,~ This secti on of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landform, drainage and erosion and potential impacts to localized soil types. Seismic The Project Area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active regions in nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant faults. including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault, and San Andreas Fault. The likelihood of a major seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high. The project site is not part of a Special Studies Zone for faults as identified by the State of California, however, previous geotechnical investigations of the area show inferred faults along the northerly portion of the Project Area (identified as the "Mocho Fault"). The Mocho Fault was mapped by the California Division of Mines and Geology in 1974 and was later evaluated as part of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. As part of this evaluation it was concluded that the existence of the Mocho Fault was questionable and geomorphic features could be caused by differential erosion. A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that may be seisimically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary rocks south of Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust, Mount Diablo Domain." Further investigation of this inferred fault by Berlogar Geologic Consultants has concluded that the risk of ground rupture from this inferred fault is low within the Project Area. Site Soils Site soils are characterized as colluvium, which is highly expansive and consists of dark gray, very stiff to hard silty clay. Artificial fill has been placed on the site to create a stock pond (see below), with the fill material consisting of a stiff, light gray-brown, clayey silt. Landform and Topograptiy The Project Area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador Valley. Existing elevations on th~ site range from approximately 450 to 500 feet above sea level. Since the prior CEQA reviews, portions of the Project site have been graded in accordance with USACE and other permits and requirements. The grading eliminated ponds on the Project site, subject to offsite mitigation. The preliminary geotechnical report indicates a history of landslides on the site. Five slide areas have been identified, all of which are relatively shallow, on the order of 5 to 10 feet each. Landslides have occurred within deposits of highly expansive colluvium soils. Drainage City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 The permitted grading eliminated a number of small, unnamed north-south trending intermittent streams that were described in'the prior CEQA reviews. Drainage patterns generally follow a north-to -south direction, consistent with the overall topography of the East Dublin area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to soil and geological resources as applicable to this Project: · IM 3.6/A: Ground fault rupture, which was identified as a less-than-significant impact. · IM 3.6/B: Primary impacts of groundshaking due to earthquake activity, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/C: Secondary impacts of groundshaking due to earthquake activity, Which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/D: Substantial alteration to site landforms, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/F: Impacts to groundwater resources, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/G: Impacts to groundwater resources due to irrigation, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/H: Shrink and swell impacts related to expansive soilsl which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.6/K: & L: Construction and long-term erosion and sedimentation, which would be potentially significant impacts. Mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce the above impacts to less-than-significant levels except IM 3.6/B regarding groundshaking, which was significant and unavoidable. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 PA F MND did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to soils or geotechnical issues. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Expose people or structures to t~otential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, grouncl failure, or landslides? LS. The Project site is subject to ground shaking caused by a number of regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed in the Project Area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. Since the Project Area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake. Safety Zone and the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Mitigation Measures 3.6/1.0 City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 through 8.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to ensure that new structures built within the Project Area will comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that ground shaking impacts would be reduced to a level of less-than- significant. Portions of Project area are hilly and have a history of landslides. As anticipated in the prior MND, the site has been graded and re-contoured to accommodate building pads, roads, parking areas and other development areas and to improve and control site drainage. Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-26.0 were adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin Plan EIR to reduce potential impacts to slopes to a level of less-than-significant. These mitiga.tio, n.. measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical reports, minimizing grading on steep slopes and adherence to Uniform Building Code and other City requirements for grading. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that an impact of constructing all of the land uses identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan would be an increase of erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Consistent with adopted Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0, conditions of approval require the Project to prepare and implement interim erosion plans as part of grading permits. With adherence to these mitigation measures, potential erosion impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Portions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, including the Project Area, are subject to soil types with high shrink- swell potential. Mitigation Measures 3.6/t4.0 through 16.0 were adopted to reduce potential shrink-swell impacts to a level of less-than-significance by requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to overcome shrink-swell effects. No additional mitigation measures are required. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. The project developer has indicated that each dwelling would be connected to a sanitary sewer provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks. Overall, no impacts to soils and geology not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The site has been partially graded; the remaining area is primarily open grasslands and currently contains no structures. Phase I and Phase II hazardous materials studies were completed for the site by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants in 1996 and 1997 with the finding that no hazardous materials has been identified on the site. The site has not been listed as containing a hazardous site, hazardous material generator or transporter or having known underground storage tanks. City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 The Eastern Dublin EIR identified IM 3.4/E (exposure to wildfire hazards) as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 trough i 1.0. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and PA F MND (2000) did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to hazards or hazardous materials. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a-c) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous' materials? LS. Proposed uses of the site would include residential, schools, parks and open spaces. There is no change from the 1997 MN and 2000 MND conclusions that only minor and tess-than-significam quantities of potentially hazardous materials would be associated with such uses. Materials would include normal and customary such as lawn chemicals, household solvents and similar items. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. A previously completed Phase II hazardous materials analysis indicates that the site is free of hazardous materials. No imivacts are therefore anticipated. e, f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan ora public airport or private airstrip? LS. The Project Area is located northwesterly of the Livermore Municipal Airport. The City of Dublin referred the Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment applications for Planning Areas F-Hto the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). At the ALUC meeting on April 14, 1999, the Commission noted that Planning Areas F,G & H all Iie outside of the referral area for Livermore Municipal Airport and the ALUC has no jurisdiction over land uses within the Project Area. The rest of the Project area is similarly outside of the referral area. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Adequate emergency access has been provided via the proposed collector street system to and from the site to the satisfaction of the Alameda County Fire Department. Due to the provision of adequate access, there would be no impact with regard to emergency evacuation plans. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving ~ildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. The Project Area is currently a vacant field and is subject to grassland fires. However, the long-term plan for the area is for urbanization. Although parks and open spaces would be part of the long-term land use plans, such areas would generally be irrigated. Development of the area would include adding new water lines for firefighting purposes as well as new fire stations and personnel. Overall, no impacts to hazards and hazardous materials not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 0t-037 Environmental Setting Portions of the Project area were formerly hilly with two intermittent creeks flowing through. The area was recently graded and the drainages filled pursuant to appropriate permits. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, none of the Project Area is located within a 100-year flood plain as identified on the applicable FlOod Insurance Rate Map published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. See earlier discussion in Section V, Geology, regarding the history of landslides within Planning Area F. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to hydrology and water quality as applicable to this Project: · IM 3.5/Y: Potential flooding, which was identified as a less-than-significant impact. · IM 3.5/Z: Reduced groundwater recharge, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.5/AA: Non-point sources of pollution, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 to 55.0 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce the above impacts to a less-than-significant level " The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental impacts Or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to hydrology and water qualitY. ~: The Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA F contained Supplemental Mitigation Measures 5 and 6 to ensure that potential surface water quality and flooding impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. _Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Violate any water quali~ standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. Construction of improvements anticipated within the Project Area plan would necessitate grading and overcovering of the soil in order to construct roadways, building pads, utility connections and similar features. The amount of grading is not known at this time, however, proposed grading is anticipated to increase the possibility of soil erosion into creeks and other bodies of water, on and off the project site. As noted in the 2000 MND, standard City of Dublin development conditions of approval require erosion control plans and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. No additional water quality impacts are anticipated beyond those previously described. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? LS. Although currently vacant sites would be converted to urban uses, this impact has been addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5) and Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and ~ 50.0 so no further analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E · February 2004 PA 01-O37 c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR acknowledges that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would change existing natural drainage patterns. Proposed changes would include grading and re-contouring much of the site and filling existing intermittent streams and the existing stock pond and replacing these with underground pipes and culverts to accommodate storm water runoff, some of which activity has already occurred with appropriate permits. Stormwater runoff would eventually fl0w to the Alameda County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District G-3 facility immediately north of the I:580 freeway. Two areas where natural drainage is proposed to be recreated'are a revegtated stream/.open space corridor on the west side of Grafton Street adjacent to the mi'ddle school site and an extension of the existing stream corridor on the west side of Fallon Road. Based on preliminary hydrological information for the Project Area prepared by the applicant's engineer, adequate downstream facilities currently exist or will be constructed to accommodate anticipated storm water runoff from the fully improved Project Area. Approval of the proposed project and implementation of construction projects pursuant to the amended Specific Plan/General Plan and other entitlements would increase stormwater runoff from the site and, at the same time, increase erosion off of the site. The City of Dublin requires individual project developers within the Project Area to prepare and implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs to control erosion from the site for both construction and post construction periods. Approvals of such SWPPPs by the City of Dublin and State Water Resources Control Board are required for individual developments greater than one acre. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of new housing units and other improvements would change drainage patterns within the Project Area. Existing natural streams, swales and Cher surface drainage flows would be altered due to &nticipated site grading, some of whi~h has already occurred With appropriate permits. Drainage would be routed through newly constructed underground pipes, culverts and similar facilities A master drainage plan has been submitted by the applicant, indicating that storm drain improvements would be constructed to connect with existing and planned drainage improvements within the Eastern Dublin area. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?. LS. Construction of on-site improvements, as well as new improvements upstream of the Project Area, is anticipated to lead to greater quantities of storm water runoff. As noted in the 2000 MND, standard City of Dublin development conditions of approval require erosion control plans and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. Refer to the analysis under "a," above. g) Place housing within a ]O0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. None of the Project Area is located within a 100-year flood plan as mapped by FEMA and no new dwellings would be located in a flood hazard area. There would therefore be no impact in regard to flooding hazards. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 h, i) Place within a iO0-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. As noted in the response to "g," above, none of the Project Area is located within a flood hazard area as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Proposed drainage on and off the project site would transport stormwater runoff into approved City or regional drainage facilities for appropriate disposal, so there would be no impact with regard to anticipated drainage facilities.. No impact is anticipated related to dam or levee break, since the existing stock pond within the Project Area has been removed as noted above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low based on the Berlogar Geotechnical report. Mitigation Measures adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR will reduce Potential impacts of natural and engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation impacts to a level of less-than-significance. These mitigation measure include MM's 3.6/17-28. Briefly, these mitigation measures require site-specific geotechnical analyses of each proposed development, appropriate siting of new construction, use of appropriate engineered fill with proper compaction and limiting the' slope of grading. Overall, no impacts to hydrology and water quality not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The Project proposes to reorie, r~t some uses and improvements on the Project site; however, the nature and extent of development will not substantially change. Density overall is proposed at lower levels than existing approvals, and no new development areas are propoSed compared to those assumed in prior reviews. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to land use as applicable to this Project: · IM 3.l/A: Substantial alteration to existing land use, which was identified as a less-than- significant impact. · IM 3.1/B: On-site land use impacts, which was identified as a less-than-significant impact. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 MND for PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to land use. Page 44 City of Dublin February 2004 initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E PA 01-037 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The project is vacant and has been planned for uses similar to the Project since the original adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan in 1993. Therefore there would be no disruption of any established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? LS. The proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/ General Plan. The extent of the proposed amendment includes relocating various land uses within the Project Area to respond to changed real estate market conditions, land use revisions requested by the City to create additional public/semi-public sites and DUSD school site selection requirements for the middle school. The proposed land use changes to the Project Area would result in a'decrease of approximately 136 dwellings over the Amendment Area. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the Project Area. Overall, no impacts to land use and planning not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. I0. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The Project area contains no known mineral resources. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the site, so no impacts would occur. Overall, no impacts to mineral resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 11. Noise Environmental Setting Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project site include distant noise generated by vehicles passing through the Eastern Dublin Planning Area on 1-580, traffic sources on Tassajara Road and from aircraft flyovers Based on Figure 3.10 B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, minor portions of Planning Area F would be subject to significant long-term noise exposure, defined as 60 decibels CNEL for City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 exterior noise.. As noted in the 1997 ND, proposed housing along Fallon Road, Central Parkway and Gleason Road cOuld also be affected. Since major noise sources are from both Tassajara Road and 1-580, construction of permanent bUildings and sound walls in adjacent planning areas would reduce exterior noise levels to 60 decibels CNEL or less at the southerly and westerly boundary of the Project Area. The Eastern DUblin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to noise as applicable to this Project: - IM 3.10/A: Exposure of proposed housing to furore roadway noise, which was identified as a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.10/C: Exposure of existing and proposed development to airport noise, which would be a less-than-significant impact. · IM 3.10/E: Exposure of existing and proposed residences to construction noise, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.10/Fi Noise conflicts due to adjacency of diverse land uses permitted by Specific Plan policies, which would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 were adopted to reduce noise impacts to a lesS,than-significant level, primarily through project specific acoustical analysis to reduce indoor residential noise exposure to 45dB. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 MND Prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to noise. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, d) WoUld the project' expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS. Construction of future individual development projects within the Project Area would result in short term noise during eoffstruction of proposed dwellings, parks and other improvements outlined in the proposal. Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR require individual project builders to prepare construction noise management plans to minimize noise as well as adhere to constructiOn hour limitations. Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0-3.0 require that individual acoustical analysis be prepared as part of individual residential subdivisions and mixed use projects within a 60 decibel or greater CNEL contour. b, e-f) Exposure of peoPle to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI No impacts are anticiPated, for groundborne vibration or noise, since no sources of vibration currently exist within or adjacent to the Project Area, such as heavy industrial facilities or railroads. Page 46 city of Dublin February 2004 initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E PA 01-037 c) Substantial permanent increases in permanent in ambidnt noise levels? LS. The Eastern .~ - Dublin EIR addressed exposure of proposed housing to future roadway and construction ~ noise and adopted related mitigation measures. The EIR also discussed ambient noise increases for existing housing due to future roadway noise. No housing exists on the Project site that would be affect by increased ambient noise. Housing in the general area is newer housing built pursuant to prior Dublin Ranch approvals Overall, no impacts to noise not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a resuit of this Project. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The State Department of Finance has determined that Dublin's population was 35,500 as of January 1, 2003. The adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan anticipates an ultimate population of 12,458 dwelling units in the Eastern Dublin planning area at fulI buildout of all land uses within the Planning Area. The Project is within the area planned for development. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The Project proposes to reorient land uses, but is substantially consistent with the existing, approved Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. The proposed amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan would redesignate a portion of the neighborhood east of Grafton (F2) from medium density residential to low density residential to be consistent with the current low density residential designated portion to the west. The neighborhood west of Grafton (FI) is to be redesignated from low density to medium density residential. Based upon an average person-perzhousehold occupancy of 2.0 persons per dwelling for Medium Density Residential and 3.2 persons per dwelling for Low Density Residential, approval .and implementation of the amendment would result in an Ultimate total Project Area population of 2,725 persons at project buildout. This population number is less than the population buildout the same area under the existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which was anticiPated to have a total population of 2,961 persons. b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The site is vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore displace neither housing' units or people. Overall, no impacts to population or housing resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 13. Public Services Environmental Settin~ City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 ' ', .... Fire Protection. Fire protection services are handled by the Alameda County Fire Department, which contracts with the City of Dublin for fire suppression, fire prevention, education, inspection services and hazardous material control to the community. · Police Protection: Police and secUrity protection is provided by Alameda County Sheriff Department, which contracts to the City of Dublin for 24-hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety. · Schools. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides educational services to the City of Dublin. · Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibiIity of the City of Dublin Public Works Department. · Solid Waste Service: Livermore Dublin Disposal Company. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to public services as applicable to this PrOject: IM 3.4/A (demand for increased police services), IM 3.4/B (police service accessibility), IM 3.4/C (demand for increased fire services), IM 3.4/E (exposure to wildland fire), IM 3.4/F (demand for new classroom space), IM 3.4/G (demand for junior high schools), IM 3.4/H (overcrOwding of schools), IM 3.4/O (increased solid waste production), and IM 3.4/P (impact on solid waste disposal facilities). All of the above were identified as potentially significant impacts. EIR Mitigation Measures were adopted to reduce public service impacts to a less-than-significant level. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 MND prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to public services. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Fire protection? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the amount of permanent population on the site. This impact was Previously addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 ND and the 2000 MND. Features which would be incorporated into specific subdivisions as part of existing City ordinances and development requirements and to assist in reducing impacts would require installation of On-site fire protection measures such as fire sprinklers, installation of new fire hydrants and meeting minimum fire flow requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire COde. Developers within the Project Area must also adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0-13.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These mitigation measures relate to funding new fire facilities in eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. . City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Dublin Rancii Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 b) Police protection? LS. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected should the Project be approved and future development constructed. Impacts would generally include increases in home burglary and theft. Project developers would also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0-5.0 set forth in Eastern Dublin EIR. These measures deal with establishing funding mechanisms for additional police personnel and facilities and require the inclusion of security provisions into individual development projects. c) Schools? LS~ Approval of the proposed the Project and construction of individual residential development projects would increase demand for school facilities. The Eastern Dublin EIR requires project developers to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/13.0-19.0. Since the approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, the property owners of the Dublin Ranch have entered into a mitigation agreement with the Dublin Unified School District to ensure that full mitigation is provided for new development occurring within Dublin Ranch. ~ d) Maintenance of pubtic facilities, including roads? LS. Approval of the project and construction of follow-on development projects would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional maintenance demands will be offset by additional City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City of Dublin. e) Solid waste generation? LS. Approval of the project and construction of individual development projects under the auspices of an amended Specific Plan/General Plan would incrementally increase generation of solid Waste. The Eastern Dublin EIR requires adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0. These measures require the preparation of a solid waste management plan and assurances that adequate solid waste landfill capacity exists .prior to approval of individual development projects. Overall, no impacts to provision of public services not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 14. Recreation Environmental Settin~ The Project Area is currently vacant and contains no parks or other recreational amenities. Nearby community and regional parks include: Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre City park being developed by the City of Dublin in Eastern Dublin and two community parks slated for development within the Dublin Ranch development one of which is in the Area B portion of the Amendment Area. The combined area of the two community parks is 126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized sports activities, individual sports as well as passive recreation. The East Bay Regional Parks District has developed a staging area on the west side of Tassajara Road as part of a regional recreational trail system. City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to recreation facilities as applicable to this project: · IM 3.4/K: Increased demand for park facilities, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.4/L: Park facilities fiscal impact, which would be a potentially significant impact. · IM 3.4/M: Impact on regional trail system, which would be a pOtentially significant impact. · IM 3.4/N: Impact on open space connectors, which would be a pOtentially significant impact. Mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce ali of the above impacts to a less-than-significant level. The 1997 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 200OMND prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to recreational facilities. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project increase the use of eXisting neighbOrhood or regional parks? LS. The proposed development would cause an increase in demand for neighborhood, community . and regional park facilities due to an increase in the number of people within the Project Area. As part of the' entire Dublin Ranch project, the developer has provided one 60-acre · (net) community park facility, including active play fields as well as passive nature parks. Residents of the Project Area could be expected to use these community and regional facilities. For potential impacts to neighborhood parks, see the response to "b," below. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? LS. Based on an estimated total population of 2,725 for the Project Area (see Section 11, Population), and with a standard requirement of 5.0 acres of park land Per 1,000 residents (1.5 acres for neighborhood parks and 3.5 acres for community parks), there would be a need for 4.1 acres of neighborhood parks and 9.5 acres of community parks within the Project Area. The proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment makes provision for both a 5.6-acre neighborhood park and a 2.0-acre neighborhood square. Totaling 7.6 acres, construction Of both the park and square would be consistent with the City neighborhood park requirement. A 60-acre (net) community park site is proposed within the Project Area, which would exceed the community park requirement. Overall, no impacts to provision of recreational facilities or services not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 15. Transportation/Traffic (Refer to Letter regarding potential Project traffic and transportation impacts from TJKM Transportation Consultants in the Appendix.) Existing Transportation Network The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and collector roadways, including: Interstate 580, an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore and Tracy to the east and Oakland, San Francisco and other cities to the west. In the vicinity of the project, Interstate 580 carries between 169,000 and 187,000 vehicles per day. Interchanges near the project site include Dougherty/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road. Dougherty Road is a two-lane rural road with its northern section located in Contra Costa County. Dougherty Road has four lanes between the Alameda County/Contra Costa County border and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. South of t-580, it continues with six lanes as Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. Average Daily Traffic is approximately 43,500 south of Dublin Boulevard. Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial roadway in the City of Dublin. It contains four lanes largely fronted by retail and commercial uses west of Dougherty Road. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a two-lane road with an exception between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Creek, where it is a four-lane road ........ Average Daily Traffic varies from approximately 29,300 vehicles east of San Ramon Road to 5,300 vehicles west of Tassajara Road. Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. It contains six lanes south of 1-580 and four lanes north of 1-580, extending as far north as Dublin Boulevard. As part of the Santa Rita Business Center, Hacienda Drive is currently being extended northward to Gleason Drive as a two-lane roadway. Between 1-580 and Dublin, the existing vehicle count is approximately 11,300. ArnoM Road is a north-south two-lane road parallet to and west of Hacienda Drive. It currently connects Gleason Drive and existing Dublin Boulevard (future Central Parkway). This road is planned to be extended southward to Dublin Boulevard (ultimate alignment. The existing average daily traffic flow on Arnold Drive is approximately 3,500 vehicles per day. Gleason Drive is an east-west two-lane road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard. It serves the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, Federal Correctional Institute and existing developments along Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive connects Tassajara Road with Arnold Road and carries between 5,100 vehicles per day (west of Tassajara Road) to apProximately 1,000 vehicles per day (west of Hacienda Drive). Portions of Gleason Drive are being widened to four lanes. Tassajara Road is a two-lane rural road connecting Santa Rita Road at 1-580 to the south and continues north to the Town of Danville. North of Contra Costa County line, it is named Cameo Tassajara and is used primarily for locaI traffic in the Tassajara Valley, City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 With some through traffic. The average daily traffic volume on Tassajara Road is approximately 9,990 vehicles per day between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive, and 7,500 vehicles per day north of Gleason Drive. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial roadway from the 1-580 interchange south to Valley Boulevard. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park and provides access to downtown Pleasanton. FaIlon Road is a two-lane rural road that terminates approximately 1.1 mile north of 1- 580. Fallon Road provides access to several parcels in the East Dublin area. Traffic volumes on this road are relatively small. The Boulevard is a private driveway providing access into Hacienda CrOssings, a major commercial development within Eastern Dublin. Existing Intersection Operations The traffic analysis prepared by TJKM found that existing intersections near the Project Area currently operate at acceptable levels of service, defined by the City of Dublin as Level of Service "D" or better. This analysis included counts of existing traffic at major intersections near the propoSed project as well as intersections throughout the Eastern Dublin area. Future Baseline Conditions To implement the transportation and circulation aspects of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, the City of Dublin has undertaken a comprehensive program of transportation improvements in the community. The purpose of this program is to accommodate anticipated traffic fromthe Eastern Dublin area. Overall, the program includes upgrades to 1-580 freeway intersections, construction of new roads and improvements to existing roads. The Program is primarily funded by fees levied on new development in eastern Dublin. A summary of major components of the Transportation Improvement Program [Mike, Jerry: I don't recall hearing about this specific program, is this the same as the TIF program?] adopted by the City is as follows. A full description of improvements is contained in the traffic analysis. · Hacienda Drive extension · Tassajara Road widening · Dublin Boulevard widening · Improvements to the following intersections, including adding additional travel lanes and/or modifying existing lane geometrics: :Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Central Parkway, Tassajara Road/Gleason. Drive, Main Street/Central Parkway, Main Street/Gleason Drive. Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road/Gleason Drive. Future Baseline Intersection Operations The traffic impact analysis for this proposed project also analyzed the future baseline intersection operations with existing traffic, traffic from approved but not yet built or occupied development and traffic from other pending developments in the area. The traffic analysis included various mitigation measures which would be the responsibility of these other developments and which would be consistent with the City's Traffic Improvement Program, described above. With this future deVelopment in the ea§tern Dublin area and appropriate traffic improvements, the traffic City of Dubfin Page 52 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 analysis found that the operation of all study intersections could be maintained at LOS "D" or better. Previous environmental documents The Eastern Dublin EIR identified 16 potentially significant and potentially cumulative significant impacts related to the development of the EDSP. These include impacts to nearby freeways, local streets, transit service and similar transportation facilities. Although many of these impacts could be reduced to level of less:than-significance, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for the following impacts: · IM 3.3/B: Impacts to mainline 1-580 and 1-680 freeways · IM 3.3/E; Cumulative Freeway impacts · IM 3.3/I: Santa Rita & 1-580 Eastbound freeway ramps · IM 3.3/M: Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard The 1997 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to transportation. The 2000 MND prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F identified a number of new or supplemental impacts and mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to transportation. Supplemental Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 set forth in the MND would still apply to the proposed Project. P.ro)ect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? LS. The traffic analyses for Planning Areas F, B and concluded that potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level other than the four unavoidable impacts noted above. With the traffic improvements and mitigation measures associated with future approved and pending developments, all study intersections would operate at satisfactory LOS "D" or better conditions. However, with the additional trips generated by the development proposed in the Project Area, potentially significant impacts would occur at the following intersections: · Iron Horse Pkwy./Dublin Blvd.: LOS "E," PM peak; · Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd.: LOS "F," AM and PM peak; · Hacienda Dr./The Boulevard: LOS "F," PM peak; · Tassajara Rd/I-580 WB ramps: LOS "E," PM peak Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure 7 and 8 contained in the Planning Area F Mitigated Negative 'Declaration will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the project traffic impact analysis found that A neW Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required if the proposed project is approved by the City of Dublin full development of the three Planning Areas (F-H) under the auspices of an approved General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment would potentially impact Tassajara City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 Road between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard by exceeding the maximum capacity of this roadway s~gment. The maximum capacity of the roadway segment is estimated to be 50,000 vehicles per day. Future volumes along this roadway link could generate between 50,450 to 55,900 vehicles per day, depending on construction of other roadway improvements in the area. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 8 contained in the 2000 Planning Area F Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. A new Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required if the proposed project is approved by the City of Dublin. 'b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? LS. Based on the information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, MND and ND, The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative impacts to freeways and Dublin Boulevard. Nearby intersections can be mitigated to Level of Service D or better, which exceeds the minimum Level of Service E established by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. A new Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required if the proposed project is approved by the City of Dublin c) Change in a change of air traffic patterns? Nil. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves residential development. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Approval of the Project would add new roads, driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. Increases in safety incidents would therefore occur due to the volume of vehicles and pedestrians using new roads and other circulation features. However, all new streets and other circulation improvements within the Project Area would be constructed consistent with City design requirements to minimize substandard turning radii, provide for maximum sight visibility distances and minimize other potential hazards. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. The current need for emergency access is Iow, since there are no current residents or visitors on the site. Construction of new residences and other development within the Project Area would increase the need for emergency services and related access to new development. If adequate access is not provided, excessive lengths of time would be needed for emergency vehicles to serve new development. In accordance with adopted mitigation measures, individual development projects constructed within the Project Area, would be reviewed by the City of Dublin Police and Fire Departments to ensure that adequate emergency access can be provided. f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. Parking for individual projects within the Project Area, consistent with the amended Specific Plan/General Plan would be reviewed by the City of Dublin at the time such proposals are submitted to ensure consistency with City parking requirements. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans establish parking standards for implementing projects. g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? LS. Individual projects within the ProjeCt Area would be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes to City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists. These improvements will be confirmed at the time each individual development project is reviewed by the City. Individual project developers must also comply with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.1, requiring pedestrian and bicyCle paths cross arterial roadways at signalized intersections. With construction of pedestrian and bicycle improvements, impacts related to non-vehicular modes of transit would be reduced to a less-than- significa~t level. Overall, no impacts related to traffic and transportation not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration or PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-O37 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Settin~ The project site is served by the following service providers: · Sewage treatment and local Water supply: Dublin San Ram0n Services District and Alameda County Flood Control' and Water Conservation District, Zone '7. · Water supply and distribution: Alameda County Flood control and Water. Conservation District, Zone '7 · Storm drainage: City of Dublin/Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone '7. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains 23 impacts related to provision of utilities to the Eastern Dublin area. All were considered potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures were included in the EIR t© reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. The 199'7 Negative Declaration for Planning Areas B-E and the 2000 MND for Planning Area F did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to utilities. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The regional wastewater treatment plant is currently operating in compliance with local, state and federal water quality standards. The addition of wastewater flows from the project would not cause the plant to eXceed such standards, based on discussions with DSRSD staff. Mitigation measures 3.5/1.0 through 22.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR deal with wastewater treatment c°llection, treatment and disposal. b) Require new water or wasteWater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LS. Existing water and sewer lines would need to be extended into the Planning Areafrom the east. Such extensions have been planned as part of the East Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan and have been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. The project applicant has indicated that a new drainage system would be constructed as part of the Project Area construction. Adopted mitigations will ensure that the proposed drainage system would accommodate Project storm water runoff. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. Approval of the proposed project and implementation of new residences and other uses under the auspices of the Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment would result in an increased demand for water fOr domestic and irrigation purposes. This amount of increased water demand could be accommodated by DSRSD and Zone 7 facilities and long-term supplies. The project developer would be required to provide any l°cal extensions and connections to nearby facilities. This conclusion is based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Consistent with Government Code section 65302.2, the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan has been considered in preparation of this Initial Study. City of Dublin · Page 56 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed prodect? LS. Approval of the proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment and construction of new residences and other land uses would increase the demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Presently, the Planning Area site is vacant and there is no demand for wastewater treatment service. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, DSRSD has indicated that the local wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project. f) Solid waste disposal? LS. Construction of proposed land uses in the Project Area under the auspices of an approved General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment would incrementally increase generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching landfill would decrease as statewide regulations mandating increased recYcling take effect. Information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the solid waste hauler can accommodate this project. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of individual projects constructed under the auspices of an amended Specific Plan and General Plan would adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. Overall, no impacts related to utility provision not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration for PAs B-E, or the 2000 MND for PA F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. XV. 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 wiMlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proPosed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources with the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No, although incremental and less-than-significant increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic, air emissions, noise, light and glare, the Project site lies Within an area with an approved specific plan. 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 57 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/FIE February 2004 PA 01-O37 Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, CommUnity Development Director · Mike'Porto, Consulting Planner Kathleen "Kit" Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner Atvplicant Planning and Engineering Consultants Dave Chadbourne, MacKay & Somps References Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B-E, City of Dublin, 1997 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F, City of Dublin, 1999 Dublin Ranch Areas F, G and H Ecological Impacts and Mitigation, H.T. Harvey & Associates, 1999 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F-H, TJKM Associates, 2001. Assessment of a Possible Archeotogicat Resource within Dublin Ranch Areas F-H. Dublin CA, Holman & Associates, 1999 City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 Appendix City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Dublin Ranch Areas B/F/E February 2004 PA 01-037 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH PA 01-037 WItEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong (representing Chang Su-O Lin, H. Yao Lin & H. L. Lin), submitted applications for a 285.4~acre Amendment area located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, including portions of Areas B, E & F in Dublin Ranch. The Amendment Area is known as Dublin Ranch'Area F North generally located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The applications include: a) Amendments to both the General Plan land use designations and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; b) Planned Development Rezoning consistent with the land use amendments; c) Stage 1 Planned Development Plan for the entire 285.4-acre Amendment Area; d) Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the Development Area, 88.5 acres north of Gleason Drive, within the Amendment Area and including Neighborhoods F 1 & F2; d) Site Development Review for Neighborhoods F1 & F2; e) Master Vesting Tentative Tract Tentative Map No. 7281; and f) Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.7282 & 7283. The project proposes a total of 1,290 residential units of low and medium density residential development, Middle School site, Elementary School site, Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Public/Semi-Public use, and Open Space/Stream CorridorfMulti-Use Trail system. The applications collectively define th/s "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site currently is vacant land; and WHEREAS, the Project would amend the General Plan land use map to change certain uses, including: alteration of the previously approved road system, 'elimination of a remnant high school site, acreage reduction of the middle school site, relocation and consolidation of the Public- Semi-Public Sites, elimination of the Medium Density Residential/Community Park use, expansion of the Community Park site, increase in the number of low-density residential units, and over all reduction in proposed units from 1,426 units to 1,290 units. The Project would amend Table 4.1 of the Eastern Dublin land use summary; and WHEREAS, the Project would amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with corresponding land uses proposed for the General Plan land use amendment. Development Standards are included in the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Planned Development Plan review; and WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated an Addendum to a previously adopted Program Environmental Impact Report for Dublin Ranch which includes an analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. A recently conducted traffic study concluded that the proposed project would not exceed or cause levels of service to be worse than those levels addressed in the EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments approved in 1997. This fact is the primary ~ reason for finding that additional an environmental impact report with updated mitigation measures would ~ not be required for approval of the proposed project; and ATTACHMENT WHEREAS, on February 24, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 04- recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the program EIR previously certified for th/s area. The resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Addendum to the previously certified EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on February 24, 2004 at wkich time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. 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 following General Plan Amendment based on findings that the amendment is in the public interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. A. Amend Section 2.0, PLANNING AREAS in accordance with the attached Table of proposed uses by acre. This area includes approximately 285.4 acres. B. Amend Table 2A, LAND USE SUMMARY, EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA, and Dublin Ranch Planning Area. C. Amend the following figures by reference: 1. Figure t-1 a: Land Use & Circulation, Primary Planning Area 2. Figure 1-2: Extended Planning Area[?n/a] 3. Figure 2,t: Sites for Housing Development 4. Figure 2-2: Development Potential, Dublin Planning Area D. Amend Figure 1- I a Dublin General Plan Land l~se Map to identify land use designations and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the following Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment based on findings that the amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and that the Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. 2 A. Amend Chapter 4.0, Land Use, as follows. Land Use Proposed Stage I PD Area ac du (listed separately from the Stage 2 PD Area) M Medium Density Residential (south of Gleason 105.0 ac 1,050 du Road) ~M/CP Medium Density Residential/Community Park 0,0 ac 0 du CP Community Pad< 65.9 ac NP Neighborhood Park 5.6 ac NS Neighborhood Square 2.0 ac ES Elementary School Site 10.0 ac OS Open Space/Stream Corridor/Multi-Use Trail 8.4 ac P/SP Public/Semi-Public 0.0 ac Stage 2 PD Area (listed separately from the Stage I PD Area)(~) L Low Density Residential 33.4 ac 121 du NI Medium Density Residential (north of Gleason 20.0 ac 119 du Road) HS High School Site(portion) 0.0 ac MS Middle School Site 25.2 ac OS Qpen Space/Stream CorddodMulti-Use Trail 3.6 ac P/SP Public/Semi-Public 6.3 ac Stage 2 PD (north of Gleason)- Subtotal 88.5 ac 240 du Stage 1 Area (South of Gleason)- Subtotat 196.9 ac 1,050 ' Stage 1 (includes Stage 2)-Tota?) 285.4 ac 1,290 du_ B: Amend Figure 4.2, Land Use Map, to reflect the proposed changes. C. Amend other Specific Plan figures by reference as appropriate. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager RESOLUTION NO. 04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN AN EXISTING PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH, APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE DISTRICT LOCATED NORTH OF, AND INCLUDING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, OF GLEASON DRIVE PA 01-037 WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong (representing Chang Su-O Lin, H. Yao Lin & H. L. Lin), submitted applications for a 285.4-acre Amendment area located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, including portions of Areas B, E & F in Dublin Ranch. The Amendment Area is known as Dublin Ranch Area F North. The applications include: a) Amendments to both the General Plan land use designations and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; b) Planned Development Rezoning consistent with the land use amendments; c) Stage 1 Planned Development Plan for the entire 285.4-acre Amendment Area; d) Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the Development Area, 88.5 acres north of Gleason Drive, within the Amendment Area and including Neighborhoods F1 & F2; d) Site Development Review for Neighborhoods F1 & F2; e) Master Vesting Tentative Tract Tentative Map No. 7281; and f) Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.7282 & 7283. The project proposes a total of 1,290 residential units o£1ow and f'"" medium density residential development, Middle School site, Elementary School site, Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Public/Semi-Public use, and Open Space/Stream Corridor/Multi-Use Trail system. The applications collectively define this "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project area generally is located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and currently is vacant land; and WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated an Addendum to a previously adopted Program Environmental Impact Report for Dublin Ranch which includes an analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. A recently conducted traffic study concluded.that the proposed project would not exceed or cause levels of service to be worse than those levels addressed in the EIR for the Eastern Dublin General'Plan and Specific Plan Amendments approved in 1997. This fact is the primary reason for finding that additional an environmental impact report with' updated mitigation measures would not be required for approval of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 04- ~ recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the program EIR previously certified for this area. The resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and ATTACHMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Addendum to the previouSlY certified EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on February 24, 2004 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. 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 attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which ordinance re-zones the Project site to the PD-Planned Development district and adopts a related Stage 1 Development Plan, based on findings that the PD zoning is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Development zoning district, and that development of the Dublin Ranch Area F North project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and furore development in the surrounding area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which ordinance also re-zones to the PD-Planned Development district that portion of the Project site designated as the Development Area north of (and including the right-of-way of) Gleason Drive and adopts a related Stage 2 Development Plan, based on findings that the PD zoning is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Development zoning district, and that development of the Dublin Ranch Area F North project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. 04 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY AND APPROVING RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH PA 01-037 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Findings A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The project known as Dublin Ranch Area F North PD-Plarmed Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that is · tailored to the proposed land use designations within the site, creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan, and uses creative design and a mix of complementary uses to create open space 'areas, residential neighborhoods, and public facilities within the Area. 2. Development of Dublin Ranch Area F North under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the land uses establish neighborhoods, provide open space amenities, and allow for a variety of medium and low density housing types. In addition proposed rezoning has been requested and is necessary due to changes in the projected needs of Dublin Unified. School District; proposed changes to road alignments; and proposed changes to size, shape, and location of some other proposed uses. The land uses and site plan provide effective transitions to surrounding development which is characterized by the proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The proposed PDPlanned Development re-zoning for Dublin Ranch Area F North will be harmonious and compatible with. eXisting and potential development in the surrounding area in that the land uses and site plan establish neighborhoods, provide open space amenities, and allow for a variety of medium and low density housing types. 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 proposed zoning districts with Dublin Ranch Area F North PD-Plarmed Development have been designed to accommodate the topography of the Project site which typically is characterized as vacant roiling hills suitable for the development of neighborhoods, open space, parks, trails, and other public use, and therefore physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed PD- Planned Development district. 3. The proposed PD-planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with al1 applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. ~'~'~i[~l'~ A~ 4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that the project includes companion amendments to both plans which amendments were approved by the City Council on ,2004 by Resolution No. 04- , and which amendments proposed for the land uses and development plans are reflected in the proposed PD-Planned Development district. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City prepared and circulated an Addendum to a previously adopted Program Environmental Impact Report for Dublin Ranch which includes an analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. A recently conducted traffic study concluded that the proposed project would not exceed or cause levels of service to be worse than those levels addressed in the EIR for the ]Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments approved in 1997. This fact is the primary reason for finding that additional an environmental impact report with updated mitigation measures would not be required for approval of the proposed project. Therefore, as required, prior environmental documentation has been determined to support approval of the project, including approval of the PD-Planning Development re-zoning. SECTION 2: Pursuant to Chapter~ 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a Planned Development Zoning District: Stage I - 285.4 acres generally is located north of Central Parkway between Tassajara Road' and Fallon Road and currently is vacant land. (Portion of APNs: 985-0008-028-04, 985-0008- 030, 985-0009-004 & 985-0014-005). Stage 2 - 88.5 acres generally north of Gleason Drive within the 285.4-acre Stage 1 Development Plan Area. A vicinity map showing the rezoning areas, both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Areas, is shown below: DUBLIN SECTION 3. The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the Project area which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans shall be in accordance with section[s] 8.32.080 [any section for Stage 2?] of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plans for Dublin Ranch Area [ North Pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the proposal meets all the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, respectively, and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for the Dublin Ranch Area F North, PA 01-037. The Stage 1 Development Plan consists of the items and plans identified herein and many which are contained in a separately bound document entitled Dublin Ranch Area F North, dated December 2003 ("Application Standards booklet" or "AS booklet") which is incorporated herein by reference. The AS booklet is on file in the Dublin Planning Department under file No. PA 01-037. Th~ PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1 Development Plan provide flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. The following required elements of both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans are included in the AS booklet.: 1. Statement of Permitted Uses. Permitted, conditional, accessory and temporary uses allowed. 2. stage 1 and Stage 2 Site Plans. Map/Plan of Proposed Land Uses 3. Site Area, Proposed Densities. 4. Phasing Plan. 5. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. 6. Aerial Photo. 7. Stage 1 Development Standards are limited at this time to pp. III-1 through 1II-34 of the AS booklet described as the Landscape & Open Space Guidelines adopted as standards Dublin Ranch Area F NorLh · June 2003 LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE GUIDELINES ENTRIF~S A hierarchy of elements, designed to be subtle and blend with the natural beauty of the Tassajara Hills within the Th-Valley, have been established for the community and neighborhood entries for Dublin Ranch Area F North to ensure that a cohesive "upscale rural" theme is maintained throughout the development. The uniform use of forms and materials will. impart a consistent visual image of the Community Entry The community entry will announce a clear sense of arrival and set the stage for Dublin Ranch. Low stone walls on the northern side of Gleason Drive at Grafton Slreet will meander through the landscape, visually drawing the motorist and pedestrian into the community identifying one's arrival to Dublin Ranch. Pedestrians will pass through a gateway of stone pilasters with each containing the commuuity logo. Landscape Treatment ~ Rolling lawns shall be placed to accentuate the iow stone walls at the community entry. Beyond the Iow stone wails flowering accent trees shall provide a foreground for a dense row of evergreen trees. Masses of shrubs and groundcovers of varying heights shall be planted to create a layering effect. On the northwest side of Gleason Drive behind the rolling lawn, low stone Walls and masses of shrubs, the. Stream Corridor shall be planted with native trees, shrubs and hydroseeded with Seasonal grasses and flowers. Pilasters, Walls, and Fences. Low Stone walls shall meander through the corrnnun/ty 'eau-y, bisecting stone pilasters. Paving Materials Enhanced paving in the form of interlocking concrete pavers shall be identical in shape and color to those used within the Dublin Ranch. Refer to Material List on Page III - 33 for additional information on pavers. Phase I community entries at South Dublin Ranch Drive Page IH-1. Landscape Architectural Design Guideline~ Dublin Ranch Area F North o June 2003 and north Dublin Ranch Drive shall be lOcated in the street and in the median on Grafton Street north of Gleason Drive. Signage Identification of the community entry shall consist of ornamental plaques to be placed, on the pedestrian gateway pilasters. The ornamental plaques shall display a Dublin Ranch logo and be inset into the stone. Page 111-2 LandsCape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F Noi ~h , June 2003 Neighborhood Entries Entries for neighborhoods will reflect similar design elements such · as the .community wall, and pedestrian gateways of stone pilasters, enhanced paving. The primary neighborhood entries are located along Gleason Drive with secondary neighborhood entries located along Grafton Street. Landscape Treatment Flowering accent lrees shall be placed with the parkway with a ground plane of turf. shrubs, perennials, annuals, and groundcover shall be placed behind the sidewalk. Evergreen flowering vines shall be provided to aid in sentencing the Community 'Wall. Planting within the enlry median shall consist of accent trees, perennials, annuals and low groundcoverl Pilasters, Walls and Fences A Iow stone wall with a precast concrete cap shall meander through the landscape running parallel to the street drawing motorist into the entries. Paving Material Enhanced paving in the form of interlocking concrete pavers identical in shape and color to those used within the Dublin Ranch Phase I community entries at South Dublin Ranch Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive shall be located shall be located in the medians. Signage Identification of each neighborhood shall consist of an ornamental plaque to be placed on the stone pilaster located in the median. Each neighborhood builder shaLl select its own neighborhood logo to be placed witlxin the ornamental plaque. Page III-3 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines F1 ENTBY LANDSCAPE ;'- ~ PLAN i wn~ :LOW~PdNG ~ ORO~DCOVEK SEE ~P~ P~E~ S'TA~D~S ': ~[~1~ TURF BroCK OR EQU~/ W~V~W DUBL NCH A~.A F NORTH D~ELOPMENT REZONE SITE DEVE~PR~T ~EW ~[~ ~ Dublin, C~fomia RANCM ~gA F NOR~ Ho~ MacKay & Somps · Engineering & Planning W lliam Hezmalhalch Architects inc., Arpb. iteeture'&.Planning NUVIS * Landscape Architecture GLS Arehileeture* Landszape Architecture page F2 ENTRY LANDSCAPE PLAN ~6 P439.0 TYPICAL HOUSE PLOT -- FNTERLOCKt'NO CONCRETE PAVERS PEP. THE CiTY OF DUBLIN STANDARDS '' 2C~NT TREE SEE PLANT PALETTF DUBLIN RANCH Entry from grafton Street AREA F NORTH EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE I & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMF. NT REZONE MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP F'I & F2 VESTING'~'KTIVE' ' MAPS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Dub/in, Ea/z'fom/,~ North MacKay & Somps · Engineering & Planning William ~tezmalhalch .tu-chit~t~. Inc.* Architecture &Pianning '-" NUWIS *Landscape Architecture ...... GLS Archimcture,, Landscape Architecture ' Page £~- 5 . -- ' - ....... FI ENTRY LANDSCAPE ~ PLAQUE ACCENT TR~E (TYPICAL) SE~ ~.-FUTUI~ SCHOOL SITE~ ~-RAm CONCR~Zm m wrm ~ON~ V~W~E~ PILASTER AT ~a' O.C- SEE PLANT pALETFE PLOWERING SI~RLrBS A~ GROU~D~COVER-. SEE 'pLANT PALETTE KOI-INEN W AY ?~ STANDARDS ~..TUm= nq r A~KwAYS ~ PUE EASEMENT WiTH TURF BLOCK OR EQUAL WALL/~W FENCE,~ i SHRUBS AND k 6ROU~OCOVE~ SEE m co,cream ~c~ GLEASON DRIVE PLANT pALgTI~ W1TH 8TOt,~ pILASTeRS VERGR~EN AND DEGIDDOUS TRE~S COi'v~MUNITY WALL- - 9 'A '~ STONE VENEER PILASTEK AT PROPERTY (SEE pLANT pALETF~) ( LI~E LOW STO'~ V'~NEER WALL WITH PRECAST cONCRET~ CAP DUBL1N RANCH .__x~_ ........ ~ F1 Eastern Entry from Grafto~ Street ~ - F1 Suuthera Entry from Gleason .Drive r NORTH '~' E,'~ST~P,N DUBL~ 6Ehr~P,AL ?LAN.: SPECIFIC ~LAN j~ 5 ' ~ :5:? SI'AG£ I & STAG~ ~ D~E~PM~ PLANt?LA~ED DEV~PMEN~ R~2.0NF .... ~- - ~- ' MASTER V~T~G T~TA~VE ?: .~,' Fi &F2 VES~G ~TA~VE ~APS Sl~ DEV~PM~ RE~qEW ~4acKa~, &. Somps · Engineering & Planning William Bezmlhalch ~chiteets. inc,. ~tcb, ltecture & Plannin~ NUVI8 ° Land~cal)e Amhuecmrc GL8 ^rchitecmre · Landscape Architecture F2 ENTRY LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMUNITY WALL WALL~VIEW FENCE TYFICAL HOUSE PLOT , n, rr~oc~o co~cimrSoE ~m~ 'X P 4 7 5.3 CONC~TB FAmNG / '~ ~ow~c 4.2 Sm PL~ P~E~ WALL Wire P~CAST ~ (~.~ ~ mT~amcrm'o CONC~ ] / DUBL~ STANDA~Sj (PILASTER) ~LAQUE (p~TER) W~H PLAQUE FOKcoNCEPTPL~mGOF TinsX .~ -- mOntaNa ACCEN¢ ~E SEE PLA~ PALE~E P 4 3 5.4 [/ Fg Western Entry from Grafton Street . AFNORTH Fi Southern Entry from Gleason Drive EgSTERN DUBL~ GENE~L FLAN: SPECIFIC, pLAN MASTER VBg~G TENTATIVE M~ i: :'- . .......... ~ P~bI& Cdi~mia KEYCAP Mac~y & Somps. Engineering & Plamng William hemalhalch ~chit~B. Inc., Archit~e & Planning NUVIS-LandscaPe ~ehiteemre GLS Architecm~ · La~dsmpe Arcbltecm~ Dublin Ranch,Area F'N°rth · June 2003 VEHICULA'R CIRCULATION A hierarchy of streets comprise the vehicular circulation system within and through Dublin Ranch. The goal has been to create synergy and maintain a particular scale, community character} and provide a series of logical connections. Pedestrian walks, bicycle lanes, and multi-use trailS adjacent to streets will' provide a favorable atmosphere for recreational pursuits and efficient connections throughout the comm]m~t3', in.addition to alternative types of commuter transportation. Infrastructure design consistency is executed through a well- established vocabulary of site furnishings, streetlights, signage and plant material articulating arterial, collector, and local residential rights-of-way. These elements provide the consistent visual image that unfixes the community theme and character established with Phase I of Dublin Ranch. Arterial SWeets - Gleason Drive and Fa[ion Road Arterial streets define edges of specific planning areas within Dublin Ranch. Both Gleason Drive and Fallon Road provide Opportunities for several levels and choices of travel such as vehicular, public transit, bicycles, and walking. Walkways shall be separated from the street to provide, for a safer pedestrian, environment Planting shall be designed to define the arterial street from adjacent land uses and provide an interesting view corridor for both the motorist and pedestrian. Street Design Concept Gteason Drive will consist of four traffic lanes, a landscaped median, and bicycle/emergency lanes on both. sides of the street. Fallon Road Will consist of'four traffic lanes, .a landscaped median, and bicycle/emergency lanes on both sides of the street. Each side of the street will ultimately include a separated sidewalk within a landscaped area_ An additional public serVice and landscape easement extends beyond the right, of-way line on both sides of the street. A public service easement (PSE) will be provided as required by the City and will be dedicated to the public as shown on the Tentative Map. Parcels will be created for landscape buffer areas and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Page 11I-6 l. zmdscape Architectural Design Guidelines WALL, FENCE.& MoN'UMENTION LOCATIONS ~ "~' ~ ':""-" EXISTING TRACT 6959 AND 6960 '' "', "./~'--' --PROPOSED 3-RAIL FENCE TO . ~' ,, , '"' , ~.. CONCRETE FENCE . -PROPosE~ W^LU'~EW ........ ~ ........ - ~ /' / · } · (TYPICAL) .?:.'~':,' ' .-' '. - ,~× ~. ...... WALL/VIIBV FENCE -.' '- I ~'::.'! (TYPICAL) '. , / '-.'., ". FUTURE MIDDLE SCHOOL SCHOOL FRONTAGE TO BE \ " .......... ,56.,~- PROVIDED BY DUSD AS PART OF .... - ....... SCHOOL com'rP, ucuo~ ........ /.'." BREAK IN FENCE TO OCCUR ........ AT ENTRIES TO SCHOOL SITE-' .- LOCATIONS TO BE SHOWN ON SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PLANS. ~o~o~oo,~; DUBL1N RANCH ....................... AREA F NORTH ~STERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENrr STAGE & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAIqNED DEVIiLOPMENT RET-.ONE ~q klA~ TLrR V~TINO TENTATIVE ~O FI & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS '~ '~ ~,r.; ,.. ~ SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW i,i.l ,!.; William Hezmaihalch .grchiteou. tm. * ' ~ h,; .) p~ rl t !!..:. ~. ~ Amhitectm'e ~nd Ptanmg .............. -' L(')!i;AI{C)I'i 14,~' .:.' .."" ....... '"'"" Al'.. L.L, C' I-,,-LA/~g · L~ads cal~ A~hit¢ctar¢ Dublin Ranch Area F North · dune 2003 V~ES , , ;~'-.~[ 6't 10 §' ' t2' I 1~[.I.8_1.6 1 ~NDSC~PE EASE~E'N~ E.O~ ROW 2. ~O~'LANE'- 6~" (South S:ohool Site from Branm~a *Note: On~treet p~g on ~' s~ee% ~e mi~e school ~ Be p~o~btted d~i~g school ho~s, Page 111-8 ' Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Page llf-9 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 s~mm~: '~ '~~' ~_t, ~ox., ~¢EL1 5~ G~FT'O~' $T_~T'- ~8" ROW (At Boundary ~ith Exis~¢ P~ase i ~ Dab'lin Ranch) CO~ID OR ~ ~OA ~'~ ~ 1:.2" i0' 8' ~2' ~ ~ ~6' ~ , i~' ] 8~..t .. ~NDSCkPE EASEMENT ROW 6. G~FTO~ S~ET-.~4" ROW (8ou~h of Kohnen ~a7/Rtoek5 Hi~ Way) Page lll- l O Landscape ArChitectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Landscape Treatments Gleason Drive medians and parkways will be predominantly planted with evergreen street trees. Flowering trees will be used as accents in key locations. Drifts of tiered (or layered) shrubs and low growing groundcover shall be repeated in elongated patterns over large areas for viewing at higher travel speeds. This will provide a buffer adjacent to residential development as well as providing an attractive environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Where appropriate, groundcover will be placed within the parkway and beyond the sidewalk Fallon Road is designed to be more rural in character and shall utilize similar plant material as Gleason Drive with the inclusion of riparian species. The density of the planting shall be reduced to transition to the intermittent stream corridor-landscape. Pilasters, Walls, and Fences The wall/view fence shall be placed adjacent to residential lots that side/back to Gleason Drive, with stone pilasters placed at each property line. Where sound attenuation is required, the community wall and stone pilasters will be placed adjacent to residential lots. The incorporation of the community wall and stone pilasters as accents for the neighborhood entry shall provide visual interest and continuity while reflecting the character of the community. ~rhere a street runs adjacent to Gleason Drive a three rail concrete fence shall be located adjacent to sidewalk Collector Street- Grafton Street/Kohnen Way/Brannigan Street To create a more Pedestrian friendly environment and sense of community, the collector street shall have and expanded right-of- way greater than the City of Dublin standards. This increased width will allow for a landscape parkway and separated multi-use trail or sidewalk along each side of the roadway. A row of shade trees will be planted on either side of the sidewalk, one within the parkway and one within the landscaPe easement beyond the right-of-way. This will allow the pedestrian path-of-travel to act as a safe domain by visually and physically minimizing the interaction of the pedestrian and motorist while creating a more Pedestrian-oriented neighborhood corridor. Grafton Street from Gleason Drive to the property line consists of two traffic lanes, two Parking lanes and a landscaped median/mm lane. A parkway strip with a separated multi-use train (one-way pedestrian/bicycle travel on the east side and two-way Pedestrian Page III-11 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch'Area F North * June 2003 bicycle travel on the west side) will be provided. A public service ¢'~''' easement (PSE) will be provided as required by the City and will be dedicated to the public as shown on the Tentative Map. Parcels will be created for landscape buffer areas and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. On the west side, beyond the right-of-way Iine, is the stream/open space corridor. The portion of Kohnen Way south of the proposed middle School site and the extension of Brannigan Street between Gleason Drive and Kohnen Way are designed as residential collector streets. Kotmen Way typically consists of two travel.lanes and two parking lanes. A parkway strip with separated multi-use trail (two-way pedestrian/bicycle travel) will be provided on the south side and au integral curb/sidewalk on the north side. The portion of Kohnen Way from the Grafton Street intersection to the middle school entry driveway will be widened to accommodate a landscape median. The extension of Brannigan Street will consist of two travel lanes, two parking lanes and a landscaped median/turning lane extending from Gleason Drive intersection northerly to the fn-st.~tersection into the F1 neighborhoock A parkway strip with separated multi-use trail (for two-way pedestrian/bicycle travel on the east side) or sidewalk (on west side) will be provided. Parcels adjacent to the right-of-way will be created for landscape buffer areas in selected locations and wilt be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Landscape Treatment The dominant feature of the residential collector shall be deciduous shade trees to creme a canopy effect for pedestrians and motorists. Only one species of tree shall be allowed to clearly and consistently define this collector. Shrubs and groundcover .shall be planted where a community wait or rail fence runs parallel to the multi-use trail. Flowering deciduous vines shall be planted adjacent to the community wall. Planting along the rail fence should be predominantly indigenous species when transitioning into the open spaces or intermittent stream corridors. Lawn shall be planted within the parkway strip · Pilasters, Walls and Fences The community wall or wall/view fence shall be placed along the rear lot lines of residential tots that back and side onto Grafton Street or portions of Kotmen Way. Where soUnd attenuation is required, the community wall and stone pilasters will be placed adjacent to the residential lots. The incorporation of the community wall and stone pilasters as accents for the secondary neighborhood Page 111-12 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 entries shall provide visual interest and continuity while reflecting the character of the community. To maintain vistas, a rail fence shall be placed 5' behind the walk when adjacent to open space or intermittent stream corridors. Stone pilasters shall be incorporated into the wall/view fence at property comers and rail fence junction points to provide design continuity throughout the community and shall conform to the typical elevations in the guidelines. Residential Streets Residential streets are pedestrian oriented and accommodate a lighter volume of traffic. They have a strong influence on the character of the neighborhood. Street trees shall act as the primary landscape element affording each neighborhood individualized personality, beauty, and seasonal character. Landscape Treatment Each neighborhood shall create its own identitY through the use of one species of street tree per neighborhood. Through the use of a single species per neighborhood, a grove effect will be created. Where practical, each lot shall be required to have a minimum of one street tree and comer lots shall require two. Street trees are to be planted 5' behind the sidewalk (on private property) within the PUE/Iandscape easement. Pilasters, Walls and Fences Fences placed at property lines, returns to homes, and the side yard of all comer lots shall be wood good neighbor fences. Where fences are visible from any residential street the good neighbor fence shalI have an open lattice top conforming to the tyPical details in these guidelines. A two-rail fence shall be placed three, feet (3') behind the back edge of. the sidewalk where residential streets are adjacent to open space and the future middle school site. Cul-de-sac Connections Residential streets terminating in cul-de-sacs shall be designed to provide visual and pedestrian access to arterial or collector streets and open space wherever possible. To de£me pedestrian access from residential lots a two or three rail fence shall be tied into the side yard fencing. The two- rail fence shall be used in all locations with the exception of cul-de-sacs that open onto arterial streets, where a three-rail fence shall be placed. Page 1II-13 Landscape ArchitectUral Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 STREET'FURNITURE Street ftimimre should reflect the community theme and architectural styling of .this 'hapscale rural" community. Benches and other pedestrian amenities should be placed at the mid-block pedestrian access. Additional street furniture such as bo[lards, mailboxes, and street lights shall be placed according to function to provide a cohesive design. Bollards Bollards shall be identical to those used in Phase I of Dublin Ranch. They should be placed in locations where pedestrian walks and vehicular traffic meet. Benches Benches shall be shall 'be identical to those used at the community entries of Dublin Ranch Phase I. Trash Receptacles Trash receptacles shall complement the benches and shall be identical to those used throughout Dublin Ranch Phase I. They should be placed in convenient and accessible locations from pedestrian walks. Mailboxes Mailboxes shall meet the U.S. Postal Service standards. When a mailbox serves only one or two homes, it shall be paired on either side of a post with boxes designed to reflect the character of Dublin Ranch. Street Light Standards Street Iighting plays a crucial role hx enh~cing the level of quality and character of Dublin Ranch. Light standards shall be uniform in color and style. Lights on the arterial sweets shall conform to the City 'of Dublin's standard cobra head and shall be painted to match the decorative lights to be used along collector and local residential streets. Street lights on collector streets and in residential areas will be the same decorative fixture design and height approved for Phase I to reflect the character of the Dublin Ranch community. Page II1-14 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 All lighting shall be designed to conform to City of Dublin, Pacific Gas and Electric and [ES safety standards and illumination requirements. With the exception of the arterial streets, all other streets shall utilize a metal halide light source in conformance w/th the approved light source for Phase I of Dublin Ranch. Street Identification Signage Street signs shall be round galvaniT~d steel poles painted to match the' decorative street light standards. Graphics on signs will display the City of Dublin logo and the name of the street. OPEN SPACE & PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION The community's open space system shall provide a network of interconnected multi-use trails, bicycle route bike lanes, and a mid- block pedestrian access linking neighborhoods to the co .mmunity. Stream/Open Space Corridors The stream/open space corridors function as linear circulation routes along the westerly side of Grafton Street between the northern property line and Gleason Drive and along a of portion of Fallon Road north of Gleason Drive. These corridors have been designed as wildlife habitats and will be a continuation of the stream/open space corridors winding through Dublin Ranch Phase I. A 12' wide multi-use trail (for two-way pedestrian/bicycle travel) will be located on the eastern stream bank. It will meander where physically feasible, providing a pedestrian and bicycle connection to proposed parks, schools, neighborhoods, village center, and other areas of Dublin Ranch. At trail access points, bollards will be placed across the opening to prevent unauthorized motorized access. Appropriate directional and informational signage will be provided (in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act 1990). Design Criteria Construction of the stream/open space corridors will provide a naturalized channel with a gentle curvilinear alignment where feasible. If weirs are needed to stabilize the channel, natural materials such as boulders or logs will be utilized. California native, indigenous and appropriate trees, shrubs, and ground covers will be planted within the stream/open space corridor based on species, water requirements, user safety and security surveillance visibility. Page IH-J5 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Channel shading is a critical factor for the development of wildlife corridors. When feasible, vegetation will be installed in masses overhanging the stream_ Concentrated plantings within 8' of the streambed will provide the most shading. Barriers, such as solid fences, that may impede the movement of wildlife within the stream/open space corridor will not be permitted. During and after construction of adjacent lands, site-specific storm drains and erosion control practices will be employed to limit sedimentation of the intermittent stream/open space corridor. Human access within the stream/open space corridor will be controlled via fencing, trail placement, and interpretive signage. Where possible; the multi-use trail should be set back as far from the channel as possible to maintain habitat quality. New homeowners will be apprised by written documentation, in addition to signage, of the enforcement of pet leash laws within the stream/open space corridors. Multi-Use Trail The multi-use trail will serve as a shared bicycle and pedestrian trail linking residential areas to community-wide parks and open spaces and to other local and regional trail systems. Dimensions ,.- Multi-use trails shall be twelve feet (12') wide with the exception of the trail on the east side of Grafton Street which shall be eight (8') wide. Removable bo]lards shall be placed at all entry points to prevent unauthorized motorized access. Materials Multi-use trails shall be paved with concrete. Striping shall meet City standards. Signage Appropriate directional and informational signage, as determined by the City of Dublin, wiIl be provided. Bicycle Route Bike Lane The bicycle route bike lane, occurring within arterial streets, will serve to link residential areas to community-wide open spaces and parks, and other local and regional trail systems. Page 11[-16 Landscape Architectural Design. Guideline~ Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Dimensions Bike lanes shall be a minimum of 5' wide. Materials Slriping shall, meet City standards. Signage Appropriate directional and informational signage shall be provided. Pedestrian Access Pathways The pedestrian pathway represents 'the interior pedestrian circulation route linking neighborhoods F2 to Gleason Drive. Where feasible, the pedestrian pathway should be accessible for all users. Low stone wails will be placed at the entry from Gleason Drive drawing the pedestrian into the pathway. Pedestrian pathways are also included from Neighborhood F1 to surrounding streets and represent .the interior pedestrian circulation route linking the Neighborhood ~l-- F1 to Brannigan Street, Gleason Drive and Kohnen Way. Where ~,~. feasible, pedestrian paths should be accessible to ali. Dimensions The Width of the pedestrian pathway shall be 8'. Removable bollards shall be placed at all entry points at the arterial and residential streets to prevent unauthorized motorized access. Materials The entry to the mid-block pedestrian pathways along Gleason Drive at the F2 Neighborhood shall be interlocking concrete pavers with concrete bands similar to vehicular entries to the neighborhoods. Other portions of .Pedestrian pathways will be consWucted of concrete with a non-slip surface. Signage Appropriate directional and location signage shall be provided. Lighting The pedestrian pathways will be illuminated in the evening by round metal light bollards design, colored materials for bollard lights shall match those used adjacent to the pedestrian pathway within Phase I Page III-] 7 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North o June 2005 of Dublin Ranch. Ownership and Maintenance The stream/open space corridors adjacent to Grafton Street and Grafton Street shall be owned by the homeowners association. The City of Dublin will maintain the multi-use trail system within the stream/open space corridor while the Homeowners Association will maintain the stream channel and all landscaping within the corridor. The Homeowners AssOciation will provide an easement to the City of Dublin for access to the multi-use trails. An existing 30' wide landscape maintenance easement, which is adjacent to the Dublin Ranch Phase [ M3 Neighborhood (Tract 6964) .will remaim While the easement is located within the future Public/Semi- PubIic parcel located west of the F-1 Neighborhood, the land within the easement will continue to be maintained by the Phase I Homeowners Association. Management and maintenance includes drainage systems, pedestrian pathway, landscape maintenance vegetation monitoring and wildland f'tre practices. GENERAL LANDSCAPE The beauty of the existing roiling topography and natural landscape is the basis for the Dublin Ranch lan. dscape concept and planting themes. Rows of trees delineating entries and streets shall depict the historical aspect of orchards and create a sense of community. 'Indigenous and horticulturally adaptive plant materials shall serve as unifying dements throughout Dublin Ranch. Trees shall be used to defme a hierarchy of entries, streets, and neighborhoods providing individuality and distinctiveness. Oak trees, native to the Tassajara Hills, have been incorporated into the plant palette to reflect the historical landscape of the Tri-Valley area~ · Recommended Plant Palette Following are recommended plant palettes which establish the desired character of Dublin Ranch. Plants have been selected to enhance entries and streets, provide shade where necessary and transition areas to open spaces/interrm'ttent stream corridors. Special attention has been paid to the selection of indigenous and ornamental plants that are horticulturally adaptive to the natural characteristics of the site and are suited to the climate, soils, and recYcled irrigation water. Page 11I-I8 l_zrndscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Community Entry Street Trees Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Accent Trees Lagerstroemia x fauriei Crape Myrtle Prunus sargentii 'Columnaris ' Flowering Cherry Evergreen Semen Trees Cedru, Deodars Deodar Cedar Pinus halapensis Aleppo Pine Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs ArctostaphyIos species Manzanita Ceanothus species Wild Lilac Rosa species Rose Salvia species Sage Perennials Hemerocallis species Daylily Lavandula species Lavender Salvia species Sage Grom~dcovers ArctostaphyIos species Manzar~ta Rosa species Carpet Rose Vines Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw Parthenocissus tricuapidata Boston Ivy Page 1II-19 l. zmdscape Architectural Design Guidelines PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ' z [~.,,,~ .... '. \,, ',,,,.kd ..... "x "'. - STREAM CORRIDOR- f /' i--27 ) ~?"7'\'~'-' "x."" "",,,, ,, PLANTING CONCEPT STREAM CORRiDOR-FOR PLANTING ' \ ~ '~ " CONCEPT OF THIS AREA REFER TO PLANS ............ PREPARED BY GLS. EVERGREEN SCREEN TREES AT NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY ~YPICAL) N \ ~.. NEIGHBORHOOD Fl x. STREET T~E¢ trOPIC^L) MID BLOCK PEDESTRIAN ~.CCEg$ REFER TO x ' ' DUBLIN RANCH TO e,-,NS ~EP^REO ~ OLS. AREA F NORTH \~ STREET TREE frYPICAL) x~,--.- ^CCENT TREES AT NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY SEE PLANT PALETI'E E^STERN DUBLIN GE~IzT4L PL^NI S?ECIFIC ?LAN AMElqDM£N7 frYP1GAL) ~' ~ STAGE I & 8TAGI~ 2 DEYELO?MEI'fr PL^N/PLAIx~ED DEVELOPMENT ~C'~ ~" ~ MASTER VEST~G TENTATIVE MAP ,,,,,,?~,' ~ F] & F1VESTINC TENTATIVE MAPS ~"" . ~ ~'~ ~~/ ~ SITE DEVELOPMENT RE\qEW , ', W-"1: -? L._ k N ~oa~ 0 I00 200 400 VICINITY MAP KEY vlAP u,,~ &SompsoEugin~zmg&Planning N.T.S Willim Hezmalhateh Architects. inc.. LOCATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS ArchiteemreandPlamng WtTFIIN DUBLIN RANCH AREA [- NORTH b,tUVlSoLaudscapcArchilcc~e. Dublin Ranch Area F North ' June 2003 NeighbOrhood Entries Street Tree - Celtis occidentalis Western Hackberry Accent Tree Lagerstroemia x faurieri Crape Myrtle Prunus cerassifera 'Newport' Flowering Plum Prunu~ serrulata Flowering Cherry Evergreen Screen Trees Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Cistus species Roekrose Rosa species Rose Salvia Ieucantha Mexican Sage Bush Perennials HemerocaIlis species Daylily Lavandula angust~foIia English Lavender Groundcovers Coprosma pumiIa 'Verde Vista' Coprosma Cotoneaster species No Common Name Rosa species Carpet Rose Scaevola 'Mauve Clusters' No Common Name - Vines Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw Arterial Street* Street and Median Trees Crataegus pha~nopyrurn Washington Hawthorn Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Accent Trees Cercis reniformis 'Texas White' NO Common Name Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain Tree Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Maius 'Prairiefire ' Crabapple Prunus sargentii 'Columnaris' Flowering Cherry Page Ill-21 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North o June 2003 Evergreen.Screen Trees Laurus noblis 'Saratoga' Grecian Laurel OIea europea Fruitless Olive Pinus haIepensis Aleppo Pine Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Correa 'Ivory. Bells' 'Australian Fuschia Cotoneaster species No Common Name Nerium oleander Oleander Phormium species New Zealand Flax Rosrnarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary Salvia species Sage Westringia fruiticosa No Common Name Perennials Achillea 'Moonshine' Yarrow Aloe striata Coral Aloe Coreopsis lanceotata Coreopsis Euphorbia charcias 'Wulf enii ' Euphorbia LavanduIa species Lavender Miscanthus species No Common Name Muldenbergia rigens Deer Grass Groundcovers Cotoneaster species No Common Name Lantana species Lantana Residential Collector* Street Tree Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' Grecian Laurel Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Shrubs Correa 'Ivory Bells' Australian Fuschia Gotoneaster species No Common Name Neriurn oleander Oleander Phorrnium species New Zealand Flax Rosa species Rose Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary Salvia species Sage Westringiafruiticosa No Common Name Perennials Achillea 'Moonshine' Yarrow Aloe striata Coral Aloe Coreopsis lanceoIata Corex)psis Euphorbia charcias 'WuIfenii' Euphorbia LavanduIa species Lavender Page 111-22 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Miscanthus species No Common Name Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Ground covers Cotoneaster species No Common Name Lantana species Lantana Rosa 'Flower Carpet' Flower Carpet Rose Rosmarinus officinaIis 'Prostratus' Rosemary Residential Streets Neighborhood F1 Street Tree Quercus rubra Red Oak Neighborhood F2 Street Tree ZeIkova serrata Sawleaf Zelkova Alternative Street Trees Celtis sinenais Chinese Haekberry Cinarnomum camphora Camphor Tree Intermittent Stream Corridor Revegetation* Trees Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Quercua lobata Valley Oak Sambucus mexicana Elderberry Shrubs ArctostaphyIos species Manzanita Ceanothus species Wild Lilac HeteromeIes arbutifolia Toyon Muhlenbergia rigert~ Deer Grass Rharrmus californica Coffeeberry Rosa Californica California Wild Rose Salix Iaevigata Red Willow Simphorocarpus aIbus Common Snowberry Hydroseed Oak Woodland Mix Page 111-23 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North . Jtole 2003 Mid-Block Pedestrian Access* Flowering Accent Trees Cercis reniformis 'Texas White' No Common Name Lagerstroemia x faurier Crape Myrtle MaIus 'Prairfire' Flowering Cmbapple Evergreen Screening Trees l_aunts nobilis 'Saratoga' Grecian Laurel ?inus h~depensis Ateppo Pine Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Correa 'Ivory Bells' Australian Fuchsia Cotoneaster species Cotoneaster Nerium oleander Oleander Phormium species New Zealand Flax Rosrnarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Upright Rosemay Salvia species Sage Wextringia.fruiticosa No Common Name Perennials Aloe striata Coral Aloe Euphorbia charcias 'Wulfenii' Euphorbia Lavandu~a species Lavender Miscanthus species Maiden Grass Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Groundcover AchilIea 'Moonshine' Yarrow Lantana species Lantana Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' Rosemary *Denotes plant palettes provided by GLS Architecture/Landscape Architecture All other provided by NUVIS Landscape and Planning. Page 111-24 I~andscape Architectural Design Guideline~ Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2005 Irrigation Irrigation throughout the public rights-of-way, landscape setbacks, mid-block pedestrian pathway and temporary irrigated open spaces shall be accomplished by means of automatically controlled spray, bubbler, and drip/rrigation systems. The design shall incorporate water saving techniques and equipment and shall meet the water efficient requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance adopted by the City of Dublin and AB325. Irrigation systems that use recycled water shall conform to the Dublin San Rarnon Services District Recycled Water Use Guidelines. Ail irrigation systems shall be efficiently designed to reduceoverspray onto walks, walls, fences, pilasters, street and other non-landscaped areas and into natural open space.areas. All irrigation systems within the .public fight-of-way, such as arterial streetscapes, with the exception of the intermittent stream Corridor shall be designed to accommodate the use of recycled water in the event that it becomes available in the future. Drip or other water conserving irrigation systems should be recommended for installation throughout Dublin Ranch. When spray systems are installed, low gallon/low precipitation spray heads should be used in accordance with soil infiltration rates. Irrigation systems shall be valved separately depending on plant ecosystems, orientation and exposure to sun, shade, and wind. The design shall be sensitive to the water requirements of the plant material selected and similar water using plants shall be valved together. Slope and soil conditions will also be considered when vatving irrigation systems. Page III-25 Landscape Architectural Design GuideIin*s ' · ' Dublin Ranch Area FNorth~, June 2003 PILASTERS, WALLS, AND FENCES Pilasters, walls, and fencing are part of the common elements that compose the consistent and recurring community theme..Due to the high visibility of walls and fences, their location and design have a direct affect on the overall community appearance. Patterns and textures within Dublin Ranch have been chosen to complement the proposed architectural styles and the "upscale rural" theme. Stone Pilasters Location Stone pilaSters shall be located at the community entry, within neighborhood, entry medians,, at the terminus and change of direction of all community walls, and at the terminus, change of direction and lot line' intersections of all wall/view fence, view fences and two and three-rail fences. Stone pilasters shall conform to the typical elevation as shownl Dimensions The height of the pilaster at the two-rail fence will be 3'-9 ½". At the three-rail fence the height will be 4'-9 ½". The pilaster at the community wall, wall/view fence, and view fence shall be 6'-9 ½" in height. Freestanding stone pilasters at the community and neighborhood entries shall be 4'-9 ½", All pilasters will have a 4.5 degree batter with an 18" square dimension below the cap. The 3'-9 ½" high pilasters shall be 25" at the base, the 4'-9 ½" pilaster, 27" and the 6'-9 ½" high pilaster, 30". Materials Stone pilasters shall be square with a battered form and a precast concrete cap. The stone pattern shall be primarily stocked ledgestone with random angular larger stone accents. Only those pilasters that act as gateways into the community and signage for the neighborhood entries shall receive an oval ornamental plaque containing a Dublin Ranch or neighborhood logo. Refer to "Materials Source List" page 111-33 for specifications and availability of stone and precast concrete cap. Page 111-26 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Community Wall Location The community wall shall be incorporated into high Visibility areas such as at'community~ and neighborhood entries. The 'community wall shall conform to the typical elevation as showm DimenSions Height of the community wall will be 6'- 0". Spacing of stone pilasters and intermediate stucco columns shall be determined by the length of the precast wall panel and shall always be equally spaced. Typical spacing will be such that two stucco columns will be placed between stone pilasters. Materials The community wall shall consist of a precast wall panel with a stucco finish to compliment the stone pilasters. A continuous concrete cap to match the stucco shall nm the length of the wall panels. A horizontal groove to provide architectural interest and a trim line for vines shall be incorporated into the wall panel 12" below the wall cap. TWo intermediate stucco columns, to match the COlor and finish of .the precast wall panels, shall be equally spaced between stone pilasters. Refer to "Materials Source List" page 111-33 for specifications and availability of stucco and precast concrete cap. PKECAST WALL PANEL - STUCCO FINISH - PRECAST CONCRETE CAP -- PILECAST WALL CAP STONE PILASTER 1" REVEAL qTER.MEDIATE HIDDEN COLI IMN COMMUNITY WALL WITH PILASTER Page 111-27 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North ~ June 2003 Wall/View FenCe Location The wall/view fence shall be incorporated into high visibility areas such as areas adjacent to the arterial and collector streets and mid- block pedestrian access corridors where a 6' high sound attenuation wall is not necessary. The wall/view fence shall conform to the typical elevation as showr~ Dimensions Height of the wall/view fence will be 6'- 0". The wall portion shall be 3'-6" in height and the view fence shall be 2'-6". Spacing of stone pilasters and intermediate stucco columns shall be determined by the length of the precast wall panel and shall always be equally spaced. Typical spacing will be such that two stucco columns will be placed between stone pilasters Materials The wall/view fence shall consist of a precast wail panel with a stucco fm/sh to match the community wall and metal view fencing on top to be painted to match the view fence. A continuous concrete cap to match the stucco shall nm the length of the wall panels. Two intermediate stucco columns, to match the color and finish of the precast wall panels, shall be equally spaced between stone and pilasters. Refer to "Materials Source List" page 111-33 for specifications and availability of stucco, Precast concrete cap, and paint color for metal fence. DRI~)E~'fY LINE AND AT ?]~J~[NATION POIN'['~ O~ W,O..t.~IEW FENCE) I~ECASI CoNCltETI~ CAP WITH C~ TOP ~CAg~ W~ CAP ~ eOLUM~ PRECA~r WALL ?ANEI. WALL/VIEW FENCE Page 111-28 lxmd~cape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 View Fence Location The view fence shall be incorporated into areas where views outward from project are a premium or where a connection to an existing view fence is necessary. The view fence shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimension Height of view fence ~vill be 6' --0", with post stationed at 8' - 0" O.C. Pickets shall be at 4" clear and bottom rail 4" clear of f'mish grade. Materials View fence shall be tubular steel and match existing view fence dimensions. Refer to "Material Source List" page III - 33 for specifications and color of tubular steel fence. TUBULAR STEEL b 8' - 0" O.C. ,/ POST AT 8' O.C, / ,/ I (:L~, =' 1 5/8 "PICKETS 4" CLR VIEW FENCE Page IH-29 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Rail Fence Locat/on The rail fence shall be designated for areas adjacent to stream/open corridors and/or areas where definition by a solid enclosure is not desired. The design of the rail fence is reminiscent of an agrarian image. The rail fence shall conform to the' typical elevation as shown. The two-rail fence shall be .placed along the frontage of the stream/open spac,e corridor adjacent to Grafton Street and residential streets adjacent to open space and the future middle school. In addition, the two-rail fence shall be placed at the ends of all cut-de- sacs adjacent to residential, itreets/I-IOA parcels and open space'with the exception of the cul-de-sac which opens onto the Fallon Road stream corridor, which shall be a three-rail fence. Adjacent to the stream corridor along Fallon Road, the three-rail fence shall be used to provide separation. The three-rail fence shall also be placed at the ends of cul-de-sacs and at single-loaded streets that visually open onto Gleason Road. Dimensions The two-rail fence shall be held at 3' in height and the three-rail fence at 4' in height to the top rail. Materials The rail fence should be constructed of a high grade concrete to simulate a wood rail fence, Stone pilasters shall occur at any terminus and change in direction of the rail fence and at 48' on center for a two-rail fence and at 72' on center for a three-rail fence. Ali intermediate posts shall be approximately 8' on center. Refer to "Materials Source List" page III-33 for specifications and availability of precast rail fence. Page 111-30 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F Nort.h · June 2003 Good Neighbor Fences Location Good neighbor fences shall occur between lots and adjacent to residential streets. Where fencir~ sections face onto streets, a 12" high lattice panel shall be incorporated within the top portion of the good neighbor fence. Good neighbor fences shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimensions Good neighbor fences will be 6' in height. Where a 12" high lattice panel is incorporated into the top portion of the good neighbor fence, the overall height will remain at 6' in height. Decorative post caps shall be incorporated into the good neighbor fence with lattice top at all changes of direction and at 16' on center. Materials Good neighbor fences will be constructed of wood. WOOD'POST [8' O.C.) / -- DECORATIVE POSTCAP{I$' O.C.) · . ~ VERTICAL BOAIIDS. GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE WITH LATTICE TRIM (LOCATED it~ ALL RESlD~ UNITS FAClNO STREm') --WOOD POST (~' O.C.} · VERTICAL aOARDS GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE (LOCATED BETWEEN AND AT ~ OF UNITS) Page [II-31 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North o June 2003 Retaining Walls Location Retaining walls shall be incorporated into areas with slopes when necessary to retain grade at entries into the community and neighborhoods, around street light pole bases, hydrants, utility vaults/equipment, etc. and where retaining walls between lots are required to accommodate grade changes. Dimensions The height of the retaining wall shall be determined by the existing and proposed grade but in no case shall it exceed 3' in height from £mish grade or surface. Any retaining wall with an overall height of 3' or less from finish grade will not require approval from the City of Dublin. Materials Ali portions of retaining walls that are viewable by the public or facing public areas (i.e. streets) shall be faced in stone to match the stone pilasters within the commun/ty. The stone pattern shall be stacked ledgestone with random larger angular stone accents. Retaining walls that.are veneered with stone shall be'finished with a precast concrete cap to match the community wall. Retaining walls in all other locations shall comply With City of Dublin Standards. Refer to "Materials Source List" page 111-33 for specifications and availability of stone and precast concrete cap. /, SLOPE LINE WHEN WALL IS ~ REQUIRED TO RETAIN GRADE ' ~ ~TRANSFORMEP,, PG&E BOX ETC... ~ ~ i PRECAST CONCRETE CAP TO MATCH CAP . STONE VENEER RETAINING AND/OR SCREEN WALL NOTE: ALL RETAINING/GARDEN WALLS VIEWABLE BY THE PUBLIC OR. FACING PUBLIC AREAS (I.E. STREETS) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH STONE VENEER (BOTH SIDES WI-IEP, E VtSIBLI~) AND WITH A PR.I~AST CONCRETE CAP THAT MATCHES COMMUNITY ENTRY CAP. Page [II-32 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Materials Source List The following materials were utilized within Phase I of Dublin Ranch and shall be used throughout Area F1 and F2 to maintain a consistent community visual image. Stone - Stone shall be Cultured Stone "Country Ledgestone - Caramel" #CSV-20007. Available from Cultured Stone Corporation, (800) 255z1727. Mortar - Mortar shall be Davis Colors #5447. Available from Davis Colors, (800) 356-4348. Stucco - Stucco shall have a "Texcoat" finish and painted to match La Habra X-82, Hacienda. Precast Wall and Pilaster Caps - Color m be "Pacific Coast Sandstone" #15W. Grout to be Hydroment "Cameo by Bostic, Inc. Available from Napa Valley Cast Stone Systems, (707) 252-3933. Rail Fence - Rail fence shall be a "Woodcrete Rail System" fence. Color to be Tan. Available from Dynamic Pre-Cast Company, (707) 829-2664. Tubular Steel Fence - Tubular steel fences shall be painted with g09-1554 'green' Deluxe Paint by Sinclair Paints. Interlocking Concrete Pavers - Pavers shall be "Basalite Cobble IIF'. Use 80mm thickness for streets and 60mm elsewhere. Color blend to be 45% Sandalwood, 45% Carmel, and 10% Marin. Available from Basatite, (209) 833-3670. Page III-33 [xmdscape Architectural Design Guidelines 8. In addition to the Stage 1 Development Standards of the Landscape & Open Space GUidelines/Standards stated above, Stage 2 Development Standards also include: Residential Development Standards and the Architectural Design Standards (Pp. 11-23 ofth.e AS booklet, attached as Attachment A to this Ordinance) Table 3: Residential Site Development Standards for Sin ~ie Famil~ Detached Lot Size 5,000 sf or greater between 3,150 sf & 5,000 sf (minimum dimensions = 45 feet x 70 feet) Minimum Street Frontage 35 feet 35 feet Maximum Lot Coverage(~) 45% 50% Maximum Building Height 35 feet 38 feet Maximum Stories 2 3(2)(3) Maximum Front Yard Setbacks Living Area 15 feet for 2-story® or 12 feet 12 feet for single story (Front) Porch 10 feet 10 feet Front-On Garaqe 19 feet(s) 18 feet(s) Tum-ln Garage 12 feet(6) N/A Minimum Side Yard Setbacks(7) 1 Story to 1 Story 5 feet to 5 feet (10-foot total) ' 4 feet r~inimum¢) 1 Story to 2 Story 5 feet to 7.5 feet (12.5-foot total) 4 feet minimum 2 Story to 2 Story 7.5 feet to7.5 feet (15-foot total) 4 feet minimum(s) Corner Lot (setback from street side) (9) 15 feet for 2-story(4) or 9 feet 10 feet for single story (Front) Poroh(8) 3 feet N/A Encroachments (D) (D) Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks(7) Living Space (D) 1 O-foot minimum, (D) 5-foot minimum, 15-foot average per lot 12-foot average per lot Single-Story Garage (D) 5-foot minimum 3 feet 2-Story Garage (living space above) (D) 10-foot minimum (D) 10-foot minimum Standards for Usable Rear Yards contiguous fiat area: contiguous fiat area: minimum area of 500 sf & minimum area of 300 sf & minimum dimension of 10 feet minimum dimension of 5 feet Accessory Structures (E) (E) Parking Spaces Required 2 covered + 1 guest space® 2 covered + I guest space® Notes: (A) All setbacks are measured from the property line. (B) See pages in the Architectural Design Standards for a graphic depiction of the standards listed in the Table above. (C) See Pages 11-12 to 11-23 of the Architectural Style GUidelines for additional Architectural Treatment requirements. (D) Items such as (but not limited to) air conditioning condensers, porches, chimneys, bay windows, media centers, etc. may encroach 2 feet into the required setback provided that a minimum of 36 inches fiat and level area is maintained for access around the house. (E) 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. Maximum lot coverage regulations are intended to establish the maximum tot area that may be covered with buildings and structures. Buildings and structures include: all land covered by principal buildings, garages & carports, permitted accessory structures, covered decks & 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) Subject to Building Code requirements for access. The 3r~ floor must be stepped back from front and rear elevations to reduce building mass. Where 50% or more of the elevation of the home is a single-story element and there is a 5-foot minimum offset between the Ist and 2na story elements, the setback for the single-story and 2-story elements shall be considered as that for a single- story building. Three-car front-on garages are prohibited in Neighborhood Fl. In Neighborhood F2, three-car front-on garages are limited to one floor plan type. Additional architectural requirements pertaining to garage facades, etc. are included in the "Building Mass & Form" and the "ArChitectural Treatment" sections of the Architectural Design Standards. Turn-in garages are pr(: ~ibited on lots less than 55 feet wide. Retaining walls up to 3 feet high may be used to create level usable areas. Retaining walls in excess of 3 feet high to create level usable area are subject to review and approval of the Building Official or Community Development and Director of Public Works. Walls over 30 inches in height are subject to safety criteria as determined by the Building Official. Setbacks subject to review and approval of the Building Official for Building Code and Fire Code issues.' Setbacks to building overhang to be 3-foor minimum or as required by the current City Building Code standards. Where a minimum 5-foot wide Homeowners Association (HOA) parcel lies between a lot and an adjacent street the adjacent 10t is not considered a comer lot. At cul-de-sac bulbs where lot depths are less than the standard 100 feet, minimum rear-yard setback requirements may be reduced by an amount equal to 100 feet minus the actual depth of the lot (e.g., 100 feet - 90 feet = 10-feet) In no case will the rear yard setback be reduced to less than 10 feet. Curbside parking may be counted toward the required number of guest parking spaces. Tandem parking within a garage is permitted. Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS riO' +- 50' + 50' +- 50' + +1 1 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 5,000+ SF LOTS TYPICAL PLOTTING CONCEPTS []2NT) STORY MASSING Residential Site Development Standard~ Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Minimum usable (level) rear yards = 300 S.F. with a minimum 10' dimension. (Typ) 45,+ 45'+__ 45'+ 45'+__ +1 1 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 3,150+ SF LOTS TYPICAL PLOTTING CONCEPTS  2ND STORY MASSING ] []' USABLE REAR YARD MINIMUM AREA l - 4 Residential Site Development Sta~zdard~~ Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide specific architecture, planning and neighborhood design standards for the development of Neighborhoods F-1 and F-2 in Dublin Ranch. These standards have been developed to establish pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods with variety and interest and uphold a high level of quality and value in the overall community. The goal for these neighborhoods i.s to achieve a safe and pleasant neighborhood environment within which varied architecture, reduced dominance of automobiles, pedestrian scaled landscapes and walkways and connections to other community areas are all present. Relative to this document is Attachment A - "ArchitectUral Style Guidelines" which is intended to further define the architectural design intent of this project. This attachment can be found following the Architectural Design Standards of this PD document. NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN Neighborhood Plotting and Massing One important goal of these guidelines is to create a functional street scene possessing visual quality and variety. Plotting and design criteria are intended to provide this variety in appearance as well as a sense of individuality for each home. Projects where nearly identical buildings line streets without variation in placement and architectural form are not permitted. This and the following section lists plotting and massing techniques which will aid in the creation of a successful street scene. While it is not necessary that every method be utilized, selective and appropriate use will greatly contribute to achieving the desired results. [[ - ! Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 The following techniques address the use of plotting and massing to improve the street scene: · Reversing and varying adjacent house plan forms. · Avoiding obviously repetitious patterns. · Opening comer lots through plan selection and reduced building heights. · Varying setbacks. · Giving attention to composition of building mass. · Incorporating single story elements into two story buildings. · Stepping second stories. · Minimizing visual impact of the garage. Architectural Plan and Style Mix In order to achieve varied and interesting street scenes, the following architectural style mix and plan requirements must be met: In each neighborhood provide: · a minimum of 3 plans · a minimum of 3 elevations per plan · a minimum of 4 different architectural styles per neighborhood Or: · a minimum of 4 plans · a minimum of 3 elevations per plan · a minimum of 3 different architectural styles per neighborhood Where the same plan is plotted across from or adjacent to another, it must be reverse plotted and have a significantly different elevation and color scheme. The use of style-appropriate materials and color schemes helps to achieve greater variety between homes with identical plans and elevations. It is the intent to avoid an overall monotonous color scheme through the use of a varied neighborhood color and materials palette. Varied color schemes shall be applied to homes according to each individual style color palette as shown in the architectural guidelines section of this document. H.- 2 Architectura! Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Setbacks Front yard setbacks shall vary for visual interest. A 2' minimum offset between adjacent buildings is required for lots where minimum rear and front yard setbacks can be met. (Refer to Table I- 1 for.specific setback requirements). Treatment of Corner Conditions The treatment of comer lots is key to a successful site plan. All units occupying corner lots shall be designed and plaCed so that: · The driveway and garage is pl~ed against the interior side yard or accessed from the side street at the rear of the lot. · A clear line of site across the comer is maximized. · The building wall adjacent to the exterior side yard is as short as practical. · The exterior side and front yard setbacks are maximized. Rear Elevations Rows of units seen from a distance or on elevated lots are generally perceived by their contrast against the background. Here the dominant impact is the overall shape of the building and roof lines instead of the surface treatment or materials. In these circumstances: · Maximize the rear yard setback from the top of slope. · Design the rear elevation and roof forms to provide diversity. (Refer to Table I-1 for specific setback requirements). These buildings should appear as varied as practical with particular attention given to avoiding repetitious architectural elements such as fireplace placement, flat rear elevations, and major gable conditions. Each plan shall differ based on rear roof framing so that no rear roofs appear identical in form. There shall be a combination of shed, hip and gables, etc. as seen from adjacent streets. Areas of particular concern include those tots in Area F North Neighborhoods' that abut Gleason Drive, Grafton Street and Fallon Road. Refer to Site Development Standards Table I-1 and Massing and Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations, pg. II-1 i for additional specific chter/a.' H - 3 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Building Side Yard Separations There are numerous effective techniques for mitigating the aesthetic and practical aspects of side yard building adjacencies. Side yards in the 10' range are useful in that they optimize .density and affordability of a site while minimizing the amount of street paving and length and cost of common utility runs on a site. Various design and plotting techniques can successfully overcome concerns such as privacy, adjacency and accessibility. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) mandates a minimum of 3' clear side yard and/or 6' clear of building separation for non-fire rated single family residences. This is to provide both physical separation to limit the spread of fire and to allow accessibility around structures for fire fighting personnel. Typically, side yards are a minimum of 5' with 10' of building separation to allow for the placement of fireplaces on the side yard and eave overhang of the roof while maintaining the UBC separation criteria. Where setbacks are less than 5', extra attention must be paid to location of such encroachments to comply with UBC and any/all other applicable codes. See Table I-1 for specific setback requirements. The typical aesthetic criticism with the building separations in the 10' range are that they lack privacy where windows align, are too dark and canyon-like when between adjacent two story buildings and the accessibility is reduced because of the placement of storage sheds, air conditioning units and trash storage. Setbacks for encroachments have been established (see "encroachments"), however, local fire authority standards may supersede those stated in this document. Modem planned communities should address these issues through the design guidelines and community standards planning process. Placement of sheds and air conditioners shall be controlled and enforced to insure accessibility. Plan designs shall provide for the placement of air conditioning and trash storage units that do not intrude into either side or rear yard setbacks. Plan designs with attention, to the placement of windows must insure privacy. Many of the same techniques used to vary the street scene should also be used to prevent dark canyon- like side yards and rear yards. These include: single story massing elements, hipped roofs, and stepped second stories to minimize side and rear yard depth. H - 4 Architectural Design Standard3' Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Encroachments The following encroachments may project up to 2' into yard setbacks: (all non-fire rated encroachments must be at least 3 feet from property lines), eaves, architectural projections, fireplaces, log storage, entertainment niches, balconies, exterior stairs, bay windows, window seats, decks, and air conditioning equipment. Local fire authority standards which may exceed those stated here must be adhered to. SLOPE CONSIDERATIONS Grading Sloped Conditions Where there is adequate space, slope conditions in Area F North should be addressed by creating a series of terraces generally stepping down from north to south. At locations within blocks or at interim points within larger parcels, slope banks or walls shall address any excess slope. The intent is to provide a reasonable number of terraces rather than creating large level areas. Plotting on Cross Slope Conditions When plotting where the elevation difference between lots is greater than 3 feet, the units should be placed so that the driveway is on the high side of the lot. Plotting on Lots at the Bottom'of a Slope When plotting and designing the home, maximize the rear yard depth and consider stepping back the rear elevations on the second story to avoid a "canyon-like" rear yard. effect. BUILDING MASS AND FORM Residential Massing Exterior mass and form can be manipulated to improve the street scene by reducing the impact of certain home elements as they relate to corner conditions, adjacent units, setbacks and the street. Massing should be designed to decrease perceived density. H - 5 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Architectural Form Building mass should be formulated to reflect interior uses, to create a positive relationship with adjacent tiomes and land use, to provide visual emphasis and to reflect the architectural style. Methods for maximizing the variety of architectural form within these constraints include: · Creating recessed alcoves or projected overhangs which cast shadows. · Sculpting major chimney forms. · Utilizing dormers, bay windows and other architectural projections. · Using porch/entry projections. Relationship of One and Two Story Buildings A key technique for creating a sense of variety within a neighborhood is to vary the heights and forms of the homes. This can be accomplished by using a combination of one and two story buildings and staggering the massing. It is preferable to Use single story elements on frOntS and outside edges of comer lots to provide a transition from taller, two story vertical planes to the horizontal planes of sidewalk and street. Introducing an intermediate transition between one and two story buildings helps to improve the visUal relationship between the two. Two Story Buildings Style-appropriate, significant single story architectural elements shall be used on two story buildings to lessen their apparent height. (see "Architectural Style Guidelines" of this document for description of style-appropriate elements). Stepping the second story mass, where appropriate to the architectural style, should be used to improve the street scene. The second stories must be set back in relation to the garage face below. Designers shall create the building form as a series of interlocking masses rather than a box. Single Story Architectural Elements A single story architectural element on the front or side provides a transitional step between a two story home and the sidewalk level., helping to create a sense of pedestrian scale. H - 6 Architectural Design Standards Dub[in Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Significant single story architectural elements include: · A single story room (interior living space) · A front or wraparound porch ( minimum 6' deep and 10' wide) applied when appropriate to the architectural style (See additional porch requirements below) · Extended entry alcove · A single story garage (if located at the side of the home) All architectural elements shall be appropriate to each architectural style as described in the "Architectural Style Guidelines" section of this document. A minimum number of single story homes and/or architectural elements are required in Dublin Ranch neighborhoods according to the following lot sizes and building types. Area F-2 Neighborhood: · At least one plan in the architectural plan package for the neighborhood shall include a significant single story element at the front or side. In Area F-2 neighborhoods where lots are equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet with minimum lot widths of at least 50', all Corner homes are required to have a significant single story element that prov. ides added interest and articulation at the front corner. Any portion of the single story architectural element requirements may be satisfied with the use of comer homes. A comer home may be designed specifically for use on comer lots. If not designed specifically for a comer location a home plan must have the flexibility to be easily altered for use on corner or interior lots. Homes located on comer lots require the following: · Front and side fagade articulation using materials that' wrap around the side of the home. · A significant single story architectural element (interior space) at the front comer of the plan · Garage placement that allows the option of entry from the side, street - (where garage is mid to deep recessed) H - 7 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Area F-1 Neighborhood: Comer plans for these neighborhoods may be designed for interior lots with the flexibility to be adapted for corner use. Homes located on these comer lots require the following: · Front and side facade articulation using materials that wrap aroUnd the side of the home. · A pop out side gable or added single story element (exterior - such as a wrap around porch) Corner Homes Neighborhood quality is enhanced by the addition of a home plan designed specifically for the corner, or by enhancing an interior plan for use on the comer with additional architectural elements and/or details as typically found on front elevations. The use of the required single story elements is highly encouraged on corner homes. The use of the same plan on every comer however, is prohibited. The intent is to provide a pleasing variety in the street scene using a conabination of massing forms and heights. PorCh Requirements In addition to comer lots, in neighborhoods where lots are smaller than 5,000 square feet with minimum lot widths of less than 50', a minimum of i plan per neighborhood (on appropriate styles only) is required to have a porch. Where a porch is included as a single story element, it is desirable for the following design dimensions to be present: · Front porches should be a minimum of 6' depth and 1/2 ......... the width of the front living area facade. · Side porches should be a . minimum of 5' depth. · Side porch length should be a minimum of 12' measured from front comer of porch. · Eaves must be a minimum of 12" or 18" deep, as appropriate to style. II - 8 Architectural Design Standard.s' Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 See individual Architectural Style Guidelines of this document for guidance regarding style-appropriate elements, colors and materials.. Refer to Residential Site Development Standards for Setbacks. Garage Criteria The home and the yard, rather than the garage, should be the primary emphasis of the elevation as seen from the street. In order to achieve this, the following standards are required: · The use of front-facing, 3-car garages is limited to one pl.an per neighborhood. · Swing~in garages are limited to lots 55' wide or greater. ° Ail homes are required to have both automatic garage door openers and "roll up" doors.* · With the exception of lots along substantial street slopes, plans should be reversed and plotted so that garages and entries are adjacent to each other. This creates an undulating sense of setback. Occasionally this pattern should be broken so that it will not become overly repetitious nor reflected by the units directly across the street. · Locate ali garages at least 5' behind the front face/ living space of the home -except swing-in garages. (see "Residential Site Development Standards" for setbacks) · Vary garage placement mix within neighborhood plotting plan · Vary garage door appearance · Vary garage placement from plan to plan · The use of a sectional "roll up" garage door is required since it maximizes the availability of useable driveway length. Residents often tend to misjudge the necessary swing-up distance of conventional garage doors. As a result, they often park with the rear of car extending into the sidewalk path. H - 9 Architectural De,'ign Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 The following design techniques are encouraged to reduce the emphasis on the garage: Vary garage placement within neighborhood plotting plan: · Vary garage placement where possible by alternating front setbacks along street frontage. · Alternate plans with different garage types when plottLng adjacent homes. Vary garage door appearance: · Vary' garage door pattern, windows and/or color as appropriate to individual architectural styles. · Where possible, t~se two single doors instead of a large one. · Additional garage treatments are encouraged to buffer direct view of the garage door. · Stagger the setback between individual adjacent garage doors. Vary garage placement from plan to plan: · Incorporate the garage with the architecture of the house. The design treatment should strive to reduce the overall visual mass of the garage. · De-emphasize the garage by highlighting other parks of the house with architectural forms. · Where lot depth allows, recess the garage at least 20' behind the primary front facade on one plan. 1. Recessed - (may be detached) 2. Corner with side street entry (may be detached) 3. Swing-m - limited to a maximum of 33% of units in each neighborhood (or 1 plan per package) Recessed Garage All front facing garages shall be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the front elevation/living space. Additional garage rreatmen.ts are encouraged to further reduce the impact of the garage door. H - 10 Architectural Design Standard3 Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Corner with side-street entry Garage This garage placement allows the option of entering from the side street, thereby eliminating the garage and driveway from the front face of the house. Swing-In Garage This garage placement is limited to 33% of homes in single- family detached neighborhoods. Swing-in garages greatly reduce the impact of garage door faces on ~the streetscape. The resulting front-facing garage wall shall be articulated with the same level of detail as the front fagade of the home including windows, trim, etc. Swing,in garages are prohibited on lots less than 55' wide. Swing- in garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12" behind the garage wall plane. Detached Garages Detached garages may be deep recessed or located adjacent to the corner with side street entry access. Detached garages are located toward the rear of the lot behind the primary structure. They are enhanced by applying the same details found on the home. Where front-facing, long driveways should be improved by adding texture, pattern or a 'ribbon' driveway. 3-Car Front-Facing Garage Requirements 3-car garages with all doors facing front are limited to: · one plan per neighborhood plan package. · lots that are 5,000 SF or greater o being located at least 5' behind the front fa~cade of the home (living space) · all other standard garage requirements When a 3-car front-facing garage is used, in addition to standard garage requirements it shall provide at least one of the following additional front-facing plan requirements: 1. Provide and offset a single door at least 2' from a double door. 2. Provide three single garage doors each separated by at least 1'. Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Additional garage placements and/or treatments are highly encouraged to reduce the ~mpact of a 3-car front-facing garage on the street scene. These include: · Providing a manimum 6' deep by 10' wide porch forward of all garages. · Constructing the additional car bay in tandem behind the standard 2-car garage door. Optional Garage Treatments The following optional treatments are highly encouraged to reduce or buffer the direct view of all garages and garage doors from the sidewalk or street, Porte Cochere: A recessed garage plan with a port cochere creates an additional. partially covered, parking space and also serves an occasional outdoor private space. Garage Door Screening Elements: · Install elements such as attached trellis' beneath single,,story garage roof fascias and/or above garage door header trims. · Span the driveway forward of the garage with a gated element or an overhead trellis. ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT ELEVATION TREATMENT It is the intent of these guidelines to achieve a high quality product that reads well from all sides. The following section provides guidance to help the designer and builder achieve this requirement for "4-sided" architecture. H - I2 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Major ElevatiOns Proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness creates a successful project design. The differences between the plans and elevations must be readily discernible and create variety, yet at the same time design elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to resUlt in viSual chaos. All elements, materials and colors shall be appropriate to the architectural style. Siding materials shall be ended inside chimney comers, fence and wall comers, etc. and finished with detaiI. They shall be brought down to within a reasonable distance from finished grade so that the slab is not discernible. Large expanses of blank walls shall be avoided. Elevations shall be desig-ned and articulated consistently with requirements in the Architectural Style Guidelines section of this document. Creation of Form and Relief Recesses and Shadow The manner in which light strikes or frames a building is instmmentaI in how that structure is perceived. The effect of sunlight is a strong design consideration since shadow and shade gives the building a sense of both depth and substance. Projections, offsets, overhangs and recesses are ali tools in the creation of shadow. Architectural Projections Projections not only create shadow but also provide strong visual focal points. This can be used to emphasize some aspect of the design such as an entry or major window. It can also distract the observer's attention away from other elements such as the garage or a large wall plane. Stepping Forms Elevations shall be stepped both horizontally and vertically. Desired changes in material must occur at a step. Entry Statement The entry should be designed to serve as a focal point of the elevation and be readily discernible. The approaching observer should be drawn into it by its visual impact. Buried side-facing entries behind front-on garage plane will not be permitted. I[ - 13 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Massing and Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations Interior Conditions It is not acceptable to "build out" plans to the maximum at side and rear conditions without articulating the mass of those wall planes. This is intended to prevem a two story stucco box, producing a canyon-like effect without vertical or horizontal relief. Required solutions include, but are not limited to, the following: · Create a stngle story plate at the rear by recessing the second .. story. · Improve the articulation of the plan forms by offsetting the garage and providing plans that do not utilize the full lot width or depth. · Recess or project the elevation and plan to enhance usable and accessible yard space. Elevations Subject to Public View The rears and sides of homes backing onto streets or open space areas may be highly visible from surrounding areas and shall be treated in a similar manner to the front elevation. This is particularly true of second story conditions visible above the fence line. These elevations are viewed in three ways: first, as seen from adjacent units, second, as semi-public foreground with visible details as seen from adjacent streets, and third, as distant silhouettes viewed from adjacent neighborhoods and public areas. It is required that front elevations and those portions of side and rear elevations of homes that abut a street and are visible from a street shall substantially share common materials and degrees of articulation. Architectural trim, design treatments and materials shall be provided as follows: · Provide detailing of the second floor, to include materials, color, window surrounds and changes in wall planes on first and second floors where appropriate to style. · Trim shall be provided on all windows. · At a minimum, second story windows shall have break-ups (muntins) that match the front elevation windows. · Continue trim and accent materials well beyond the front elevations (see individual style requirements). 1I - 14 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 · Homes shall be detailed in an authentic manner. · Address issues of second story privacy and scale in design of building plans and elevations. · For homes backing onto streets provide detailing of the second floor, to include materials, color, window surrounds and changes in wall planes on first and second floors where appropriate to style. · As seen from a distance, ridge lines and framing of homes shall appear varied with particular attention given to avoiding repetitious elements such as continuous gable-ends and similar building silhouettes and ridge heights. · Where possible, maximize and vary the rear yard setbacks within rows of lots. · Design the rear elevation and roof plane to minimize negative visual impact. ROOF CONSIDERATIONS Roof Forms Homes seen from a close range or a distance are generally perceived with the contrast against their immediate background or skyline, respectively. Overall bUilding lines are predominant, and appearance is directly impacted by roof massing, not the wall plane articulation or materials. The use of different roof types will add variety and interest to the street scene, however the roof characteristics shall always be consistent with whatever architectural style is chosen. To achieve this, roof forms shall be addressed by the following criteria: · Vary the height of ridge lines and fascias ih combination with different architectural styles, to create a variety of roof forms and visual interest. · Provide a balance of hip and gable forms that avoid repetitious elements. · Provide a balance of architectural massing and forms that minimize negative visual impact of silhouettes and ridge lines. · Provide plans that maximize their rear yard setback so that building outlines are varied and not as dominant. H - 75 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Acceptable Roof Forms There is no single form of roof that is preferred. Hip, gable and sheds may, within reason, be used separately or together on the same roof. Care should be taken to avoid a canyon effect in side and rear yard when both buildings have front to rear gables. Roof forms with pitch changes at a porch or projection are acceptable. Inappropriate Roof Forms Roof forms having dual pitches such as Gtimbrel or Mansard should not be used. Flat roofs are not permitted. Allowable Roof Pitch The principal roof forms shall have a pitch of between 3 1/2: 12 and 8:12 depending upon dwelling style and character (See Architectural Style Guidelines section of this document). A single roof pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches tend to lessen the apparent building mass. Design of Rakes and Eaves The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types based on climatic and stylistic considerations. Moderate or extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. Tight fascias with appropriate styles are acceptable. Single fascia boards, double fascia boards, or exposed rafters when adequately scaled are acceptable. Care should be taken to ensure material sizes avoid a weak or flimsy appearance. Exposed rafter tails without fascias should be at least 3x. Overlmng Projections and Covered Porches Substantial overhangs are encouraged as a response to solar and climatic conditions. The inclusion of covered porches and entries expand sheltered living spaces, create entry statements and provide elevation relief. Covered porches may differ from the roof in both pitch and material but front porches should retain at least one of these two characteristics II- ] 6 Architectural Design Stcmdards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Stepping the Roof Form Steps in the roof respond to the interior room arrangement and provide visual relief and interest. A vertical step within the ridge line should be at least 18" in order to create visual impact and a/low for adequate weatherproofing. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS ~i'he following sections provide gnidance concerning specific elements of residences such as entries, doors, windows and garages. Unit Entries Use of Entry Statements The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: · Identifies and frames the front doorway. · Acts as an interface between public and. private spaces. · Acts as an introduction to the house while creating an initial impression. Placement and Visibility The entry should be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions. If the front door locations is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the .entry should direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry in merchant built housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the facade. Incorporation of Roof and Architectural Features Proper use of roof elements, columns, feature windows and architectural forms contribute to the overall impact and success of the entry. A covered entry is a traditional American housing element. It may no longer serve as a living activity area (i.e., porch or veranda) but still has an important function as a semi-private transition between the public walkway and the private interior. Even when the entry visually obscures the door, it still announces the door. H - J 7 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Doors Design Emphasis should be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions'as the major introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given to the image it creates. · The entire door assembly should be treated as a single design element including surrounding frame, molding and glass side lights, if present. · Typically, the door should be covered by an overhead element or recessed into the wall plane. Materials/Colors Traditionally, wood is used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in order to be acceptable, they must possess the same residential "feel" provided by the wood grain and panels. Flexibility is allowed concerning the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent trim, bur should be differentiated from the wall color. Use of Glass The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged. It expresses a sense of welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as single side lights, dOuble side lights, transom glass or fan windows. Residential Address Numbers and Entry Lighting All residential addresses shall be clearly marked, located and sufficiently lit for ease of recognition by postal and public safety agencies. U - 18 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Windows Placement and Organization Typically, the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of room layout, possible furniture placement, view opportunities and concern for privacy. Greater design emphasis shall be directed to insure that window placement' and organization will also positively contribute to the exterior architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination with other design elements. This relationship to one another and the wall/roof plane creates a composition and sense of order. All windows in a specific plan elevation shall appear compatible. This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape, size oi: type but rather that a hierarchy of windows exists which visually relate to and compliment one another. Feature/Theme Wi~utows Feature or theme windows on the front elevation create a strong visual focal pointl These focal points may be used to decrease the visual impact of the garage door, draw attention to the entry or emphasize some other element of building. Within the window hierarchy, thi~s~window creates the dominant theme or form. 'Window Frames Vinyl clad, aluminum, wood or cementitious simulated wood window frames are acceptable. When using aluminum, bronze anodized frames or those complementary to the color palette shall be used while natural, silver or gold anodized frames are unacceptable. All windows must be articulated and/or trimmed appropriately to individua! style as described in the architectural style section of these guidelines. Use of Wood and Stucco Trim When aluminum frame windows are used, they shall be surrounded or trimmed with other design elements. These may include wood or cementitious simulated wood trim, stucco surrounds and shutters or recessed openings as appropriate to the architectural style. H - 19 Architectural Design Statzdards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Considerations of Rear Elevations Merchant built housing typically fails to adequately address proper window design and placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritiz'ation and cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible. greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given. The guidance concerning window placement organization, trim and incorporation of architectural elements is applicable to all elevations and will be enforced through the design review process. Integrations with Roof and Architectural Details The window is important to the proper articulation of the wall and roof elements. Focal points can be created by the placement of windows in architectural projection or recesses incorporated with gable, hip or shed roof overhangs. Consideration should be given to using overhangs and projections to shadow windoWs with south and west exposures. Skylights Skylights and roof windows are permitted where they are not visible from any. street, if properly installed and weather proofed. The skylight should be designed to appear as an integral part of the roof plane. Skylights should be clear or bronzed with the framework matching the roof or trim color. Balconies The inclusion of balconies is encouraged for both aesthetic .and practical purposes. They are useful in breaking up large wall planes, offsetting floors, creating visual interest and adding human scale to the building. They provide the practical advantage of creating outdoor living areas and elevated open space. Balconies may be covered or open. They may be either recessed into the mass of the building or serve as a projecting element. In whichever manner they are used, they must appear to be an integral element of the building rather than an after thought or add-on, the details, eaves supports, and railing must be consistent with the balance of the building design elements or style. Concern should be given to avoid designing balconies in plans in such a manner that they are plotted side by side. H - 20 Architectural Dea'ign Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Exterior Stairs Stairs should be compatible in type and material to the deck and landing. Use of open stair treads can only be justified where the balcony or landing element is a projecting element. Location of exterior stairs is permitted on the side or rear of the home except on facades that side or back onto public streets or open space areas. Columns and Posts It is important that both columns and posts project a substantial and durable image. Posts should be of wood, not less than 6" in diameter, and may be built up from multiple pieces. Use of 4" posts and metal pipe columns is prohibited. Columns may be clad in wood, masonry or stucco. They should be square, rectangular, or round and at least 14" wide with a height of approximately 4 to 5 times the width. It is desirable that columns incorporate both base and capitals. Related arches may be flat, .round or segments of an inch. Other variations such as parabolic curves are unacceptable. The type of exterior railing used on balconies, decks and stairs, creates a significant impact on the elevation. An extensive variety of rail types are permitted including open wrought iron and wood rail or picket. Extruded aluminum is prohibited. Choice of rail type should reflect taste and be consistent with the chosen design vocabulary or be historically correct for the style. Gutters and Downspouts Exposed gutters shall, be colored to match fascia material. Exposed downspouts will likewise be colored to match the surface to which they are attached unless they are finished with a false copper patina. H - 2f Architecr~raf Design Standard,r Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Chimneys Properly designed and located chimneys can serve as a major design element and focal point for the building elevation. It is frequently the major architectural element on exposed side or a rear elevation. Chimneys should be constructed of style- appropri, ate materials as described in the architectural styles section of this document. Care must be taken concerning the selection of any accent materials and the cap design. The use of steps, curve and banding on the shaft and capital have major visual impact against the sky and roof plane. Attention should be given to the City setback requirements. Garages and Garage Doors Materials "Roll up" garage doors shall be used on all single-family homes, Metal, wood or fiberglass garage doors are penmtted when they include either textured or raised panels of a "residential" nature. The use of window elements is encouraged. The design of garage doors should reflect the theme or style of the overall design of the residence. Proper use of accent colors will compliment the architecture and provide visual variety along the street scene. Refer to the individual color Palette for each style. Face Design The design of the door face should re suit in a tasteful treatment which breaks up the expanse of the doorplane while not being so excessively decorative as to draw attention away from the architectural elevation. Recessing It is highly desirable to recess the garage door 6"-12" from the garage face. This allows for a strong shadow line and decreases the impact of the door white increasing the apparent sense of mass of the surrounding wall. H- 22 Architectural Design Sta12dards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Patio Covers Patio covers, trellises, pergolas and other exterior structures should reflect the character, color and materials of the building to which they are related. Supports and framing members will conform to the guideline criteria for columns and posts. The pitch of the patio roof may be less than the adjacent building. The materials for the horizontal elements are limited to either wood or the dwelling's roof material. The side elevation of the structure will not be enclosed except in the case where a wall of the dwelling forms a natural enclosure. Ensure that building plans allow space for the later addition of usable patio covers within the buildable envelope and Setbacks. Storage Structures If storage structures are uSed, they must be designed and const~cted in accordance with the criteria for the residence as stated in the Architectural Style Guidelines of thi~ document. Prefabricated metal or vinyl sheds are prohibited. All such structures must be screened from view where adjacent to pubtic streets or open space areas. Further Design Considerations All mechanical or other equipment, including utility meters, junction boxes, trash receptacles and air conditioners should be screened from public view. Further consideration should be given as to the placement of these items within the side yards so as not to restrict pedestrian access in emergency situations. They may be accommodated within the rear yard with minimal impact on yard use and layout. Ail antennas shall be placed in attics or interior of the residence. Inclusion of exterior compact satellite dishes is limited to locations that are not visible from the street or side yards from adjacent lots wherever possible. Canvas awnings of solid accent color may be permitted with moderation. Refer to in4ividual style color palettes for criteria. Metal awnings are prohibited. The decision whether to provide awnings should include consideration of their maintenance and deterioration in neighborhoods without maintenance associations. H - 23 Architectural Design Standards Both the'Sta~e 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Areas satisfy the followin~ required elements: a. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The Dublin Ranch Area F North Project includes a General Plan amendment which modifies General Plan maps and text for the proj eot. The project also includes an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project PD- zoning and both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans shall not be effective until the above General Plan and Specific Plan amendments are approved and effective. ~ b. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. As agreed upon between the City and the Developer the City's 12.5% affordable housing requirement will be provided and satisfied within the Fairway Ranch residential community south of the project area. c. Applicable Requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in these Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, the use, development, improvements and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to section 8.32.060.C. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced upon the effective date of the general plan and specific plan amendments in PA 01-037. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this 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 24th day of February 2004, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mawr ATTEST: City Clerk Attachment A - Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 ATTACHMENT A' ARCHITECTURAL STYLE GUIDELINES .,.~,:., ~L ~ ...... ~ ,~.,, ,~ I, ,' ......... ~,2, ~~ ~ 'll~, ". ,~ ~ '. '" .'. · ..... "~ ,, ~ .,. · ~ PURPOSE The g0al of these architectural ~tiidelineS is to provide more specific design guidance for the r~Sidential architectural styles to be used in Neighborh6ods F-'i and F-2 in Dublin Ranch. They have been developed to establish a high level of architectural quality, to assure: both Variety and compatibility and to enhance the commilnity's overall value. The goal t?or Dublin RanCh' rioighborhoods is to promote both visual harmony anti variety in a community setting achieved by U:tilizing a number of compatible traditiOnal and contemporary styles and through architectural innovation. Builders will select from the architectural palette described herein to create their own combinations of neighborhood styles, plans and colors. Each neighborhood will eventually develop a unique character within the overall image of the community. Dublin RanCh will remain unified through the implementation of an overall plan for landscaping, signg and entry monumentation. RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLES Dublin Ranch represents an opportunity to develop a unique commumty combining the most positive aspects of a master planned development with th~ most favorable building types and styles of long established neighborhoods. These guidelines are based on the prior learning curves Of earlier planned communities and can thus implement the successes achieved while avoiding the negative aspeCts sometimes created. II A - ] Architectural Style Guideline~ Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Key to a successful project is the development of an appropriate architectural vocabulary and theme which avoids two alternative pitfalls found in some residential, developments. One of these is the selection of a single "trendy" style which when used everywhere is monotonous, repetitious and, as a result, quickly becomes dated. The other extreme to be avoided is the combination of strongly contradictory styles and incompatible designs which lead to visual chaos. To achieve a successful middle ground, it is the intent for Dublin Ranch to become a quality living environment with an identifiable visual character that establishes itself at the community entry and community facilities, is maintained along the major roadways, and carries through to the neighborhood entries and individual homes. The goal is to provide both variety and compatibility while creating a sense of familiarity. The styles selected convey a sense of classic character and an opportunity to develop a high quality neighborhood environment. For concept and inspiration, we have turned to the greater Dublin area' s own architectural past. In small towns of both the East Bay and the Central Valley, one finds attractive established neighborhoods composed of homes built during the opening decades of the past century. These neighborhoods consist of a mixture of interesting and different, yet compatible styles. From among these "period" or eclectic styles, we have selected those which are not only attractive and compatible but can also be reasonably integrated into a modern merchant-built home. These styles are: · California Craftsman/Bungalow · American Colonial - European Eclectic · Monterey ' California Ranch · American Farmhouse · East Coast Traditional These closely associated architectural styles have each evolved in California since the tm'n of the 20th century and examples are well represented in the East Bay and Central Valley area. Their inherent attractiveness, informality and sense of elegance have enabled these styles to remain popular over a long period of time. II A - 2 Architectural Style Guideiine~ Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 All styles shown here possess characteristics that the designer and builder shall consider when choosing a desired style or image. Specifically, the styles: · Are visually compatible with each other. · Possess general market appeal and community acceptance. · Can be successfully expressed in a modern merchant built home. · Are capable of authentic interpretation and variation. · Have a historic background and precedence in the East Bay and Central Valley area. The following sections will address each style, defining those elements that are characteristic. The text and graphics are intended to provide specific direction, guidance and authentic inspiration to the builders and architects as they design today's interpretations of these historic styles. It is not the intent of these guidelines to permit any false front architectural design. All sides of the building shall be articulated and consistent with the specific style selected for the residence. H A - 3 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 WOOD FASCIA/ SIDING MANUFACTURED WOOD TRIM STUCCO SOFFIT- ACCENT ] BRACKET 'l :'~[~'~ -- SURROUND I . _~'~,' ,~' ,'~_",2~ I-- FLAT TILE ~~~w~~ ~t~ : - . .sTone BAsE CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOw Historical Precedent The Craftsman style was inspired by the English Arts and Crafts Movement of the late 19th century. Of the utmost importance was that all exterior and interior elements received both tasteful and "artful" attention. The movement influenCed numerous California architects such as Green and Green, and Bernard Maybeck. The resulting Craftsman style responded with extensive built-in elements m~d by treating details such as windows or ceilings as if they were furniture. The overall affect was the creation of a natural, warm and livable home. The style is further characterized by the rustic texture of the building materials, broad overhangs with exposed rafter tails at the eaves and trellises over the porches. The Craftsman style evolved in California, inspired by bungalows that were the production home of the time. This type of architecture can be found in classic tree lined neighborhoods throughout California. This unique look promoted hand crafted quality; thus the name Craftsman. H A ' 4 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, arid details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Gently pitched roofs · Projecting gable ends and exposed rafters · Wood columns · Porches with supporting stone or brick veneer bases · Siding as an accent on the base and in gable ends Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 standard or greater Gables 25% opposing and 75% parallel Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle, or concrete tile with a shake texture Overhangs 18" to 30" standard Siding Horizontal wood or cementitious simulated wood siding, is used as an accent in coordination with stone veneer or combined stone & brick. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish Stucco finish where used, will be light to medium sand finish. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with stone or brick veneer. HA - 5 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW (Cont.) Porches Porches cover the front door area and a partial or full width of the front elevation. Stone or wrapped siding pilasters support wood upper column roof support elements Balconies Where balconies are used, they project out over the building plane and are articulated with wood or cementitious simulated wood detailing. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall be used on all windows. Shutters are occasionally used. Entry The entry and surrounding area are covered and contained by the porch. Doors Entry, doors will be simple with rustic detail and/or multi-paned windows with wood or Cementitious simulated wood trim surrounds. Garage Doors Doors shall be the roll-up type with a variety of panel break-ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Front Elevation The lines of the roof will be low and simple with wide projecting roofs. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the Craftsman style. Details for this style may include: ~ · Applied siding in eaves. · Battered columns/pilasters at porch/entry. · Balustraded porch. H A - 6 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW (Cont.) Color Palette Siding Earth tones ranging from warm greens and browns to tans and ochre yellows. Roofs Composition shingle in shades of warm green or brown. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim In contrast to the primary si~ng color, although certain shades of brown, green and' gray may be used on schemes with a lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accent colors are rich. earthy shades of green, red, and brown. Brick & Stone Rustic, handmade appearance such as clinker bricl~ found on historic Craftsman homes. Brick colors range from darker reds to browns. Stone may be smooth, rounded 'river rock', field stone or textural, rubble-like in appearance, but must have the appearance of natural stone. lI A - 7 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 FLAT TILE - SIMULATED DETAILED BRICK SHAKE OR SHINGLE-1', il C WOOD TRIM - / CHIMNEY "';', MI' ~ ~",'.t ,r SURROUNDS ~,-~ . . , ~ :..' :,, ,,,. ..... . WOOD SIDING~ ~ 2003 W~ H~ ~CH~ INC. AMERICAN COLONIAL Historical Precedent This classic American style descended directly from the first homes built in the New England colonies in the 17th century. Their beginnings were as small and unpretentious as the one story saltbox, favoring the cultures and traditions of the settlements. As living functions became more defined and prosperity increased, so did the need for additional space. Second stories with overhangs, dormers and gabled roof forms became favored solutions, evolving into classic elements of this traditional American style. Later, wings of smaller continuous gable forms were added to each side of the house, becoming a lasting characteristic. Wood shutters and white picket fences became the finishing details for an otherwise simple and functional form. With the influence of Greek Revival styles in the 19th century, the American Colonial style evolved into a more decorative form known as Colonial Revival. Borrowing classic elements from Greek styles, the simple Colonial central front dormer window evolved into a standard, prominent roof element or decorative pediment entry form; a portico. The portico was supported by massive classic columns, raising the level of drama and sophistication of this style. H A - 8 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN COLONIAL (Cont,) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Primarily two story roof elements. · Secondary one story roof elements at entry or wings. · Symmetrical facade. · Fully wrapped siding. · Traditional door and window surrounds. · Predominantly gabled roof forms. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 6:12 to 8:12 standard. Roof Material Flat concrete or premium grade composition shingle or shake. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Siding Fully wrapped wood or cementitious simulated wood siding shall be used on all elevations. Ail siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall nor end without finishing details. Brick Only brick may be used alone or as an accent with siding. Stucco Finish Not Permitted. Chimneys Chi.mneys will be faced with brick veneer or fully wrapped with wood siding. I[ A - 9 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublitz Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN COLONIAL (Cont.) Porches Porches may vary in size; either just around the area of the entry or the full width of the elevation. Balconies May be used on Colonial Revival elevation. Decorative wood railing in appropriate style and proportion for the elevation. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Dormered windows may be used. Shutters will be used widelY beyond · the front elevation on the simple Colonial form. Entry The Colonial entry will be covered by a pedimented entry form supported by squared columns or posts. Colonial Revival entry is covered by a one or two story portico supported by rounded/ fluted columns. Simple Colonial forms may be expressed as a simple porch element. Doors .... Colonial paneled entry doors shall have wood or cementitious simulated wood trim and may be articulated with transom lites or sidelights. Colonial Revival doors may also have fanlights above the door. Garage Doors The doors shall be a roll-up door with a variety of panel break- ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the American Colonial style. Details for the Amehcan Colonial style may include: · Decorative wood shutters on most windows. · Decorative broken pediment trim at entry and gable ends. · Decorative louvered vents in gable ends. · Traditional paneled doors. I1 A - 10 Architectural Style Guideli~e,r Dublin Ranch Area F NOrth · June 2003 AMERICAN COLONIAL (Cont.) Details for the Colonial Revival form may also .include: · Classic rounded/fluted columns at pediment entry or portico. · Brick and/or wood or cementitious simulated wood siding. · Decorative broken pediment trim at entry and gable ends. · Decorative louvered vents in gable ends. · Cornices with dentil mm. ·Detailed front doors with sidelights. Color Palette Siding Color range shall be from tinted whites to light beige, pale tones of yellow, brown, gray, greens and blues with contrasting color on door and shutters, trim, fascia, and posts at porch. Roofs Shades of gray, green, and blue, representing the slate roofs found on traditional East Coast architecture. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. irt/tn Most often a shade of white, although certain shades of brown, green and gray may be used on schemes with a lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accented with dark, rich shades of blue, red, green and even some dark gray to near black. With darker siding colors, door and shutters should be the same off-white as the trim color. Brick Various textures and colors are used for this style, with natural shades of red being the most common. [IA - I] Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 FLAT TILE - WOOD OR STUCCO F SIMULATED WOOD OR SLATE . TRIM SURROUND-I' IRON-'r 18'12 ROOF PITCH / WOOD =.or,,. STONE AND/OR BRICK AT ENTRY EUROPEAN ECLECTIC Historical Precedent The European Cottage is a style that evolved out of medieval Tudor and Norman architecture. This evolving character that eventually resulted in the English and French "Cottage" became extremely popular when the addition of stone and brick veneer ~1~ details were developed in the 1920' s. Although the cottage is looked upon as small and unpretentious. the style was quickly recognized as one of the most popular in America. Designs for the homes typically reflected the rural setting that they evolved in. Many established older neighborhoods across the United States contain homes with the charm and character of this unpretentious style. Roof pitches for these homes are steeper than traditional homes, and are comprised of gables, hips and half-hip roof forms. The primary material is stucco with heavy use of stone and brick bases, veneers and entry elements. Some of the most recognizable features for this style are the stucco accents in gable end forms and the sculptured swooping walls at the front elevation. II A - 12 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EUROPEAN ECLECTIC (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Gentle to steep roof pitches. · Projecting gable ends. · Exposed rafter tails with fight rake. · Stone and brisk as a major accent on wall, tower and veneer base. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based On the following criteria. Elements and details which vary ordetract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 to 8:12 standard. Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle or flat concrete roof tile. Overhangs 12" standard. Stone/Brick Stone and/or brick is required on all elevations. Siding Wood or cementitious simulated wood siding may be used as a detail accent or material in gable ends. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish The stucco will be a light to medium sand finish. H A - 13 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EUROPEAN ECLECTIC (Cont.) Chimneys Chimney detailing wilt include stone or brick veneer below with stucco on the upper half of the stack toward the cap. Porches None Balconies Balconies shall have wood, cementitious simulated wood or wrought iron detailing as an attachment to the building plane. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood, cementitious simulated wood or stucco trim shall occur on all windows. A variety of shutters may be used. Where used they shall occur beyond the front elevation. Fabric awnings may be used. Entry The entry may be an alcove or tower element or simply a deep recess over an enhanced front door. 'Stone and/or brick shall be used as an overall accent material on either form. This material shall cover at 'least 50% of the entry element facade. Single bands or small "spotted" areas of accent materials are not permitted. Doors The door shall be simple with wood or cementitious simulated wood surrounds and optional side lites. Garage Doors Doors shall be the roll-up type with a variety of panel break- ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the European Eclectic style. Details for this style may include: · Decorative window boxes. · Swooping wail at front fagade .... · Small accent windows with wood, cementitious simulated wood or wrought iron trim detailing. I? A - 14 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North . June 2003 EUROPEAN ECLECTIC (Cont.) Color Palette Stucco Color range includes soft, light to mid-value hues of beige, tan, yellow, gray and green. Roofs Shades of gray, blue, green, beige and plum to emulate natural slate colors. Trim Defined with soft, tinted whites, in subtle contrast to the body color. Fascia and garage doors may be in the same soft white, or a darker, contrasting color. Doors and Shutters Accents of muted blue, green and red are used for entry doors and shutters. Awnings Solid colored fabric awnings in accent shades of muted blue, green and deep red, Brick & Stone Masonry may be either brick or stone, but must always have a rusticated appearance. Natural stone in varied colors of browns and grays. II A - 15 Architectural Style Guidetinex Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 FLAT TILE - SIMULATF-.D WOOD TRIM WOOD FASCIA/ ...... .,.... . ,.-~. . '1'--- SURROUND -- STUCCO SOFFIT SHAKE 4:12 ROOF WOOD SIDING ,~ -- ' ' "~" ' ' ," ' ~ ~" ACCENT MANUFACTURED SHU~ERS ~~ SPLIT CAR GARAGE : : ~ 2003 w~cu~ H~c~ ~c~u~s, I~c. MONTEREY Historical Precedent The Monterey style is a combination of the original Spanish Colonial adobe construction methods with the basic two-story New England colon/al house. Prior to this innovation in Monterey, all Spanish colonial houses were of single story construction. First built by Thomas Larkin in 1835, this style introduced two story residential construction and shingle roofs to California. This Monterey style and its single story counterpart eventually had a major influence on the development of modem architecture in the 1930's. The style was popularized by the use of simple building forms. Roofs featured gables or hips with broad overhangs, often with exposed rafter tails. Shutters, balconies, verandas and porches are integral to the Monterey character. Traditionally, the first and second stories had distinctly different cladding materials; respectively siding above with stucco and / or brick veneer base below. Il A - 16 Architectural Style Guidefines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MONTEREY (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essen.tials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are required as follows and should be carried to all four building elevations: · Partial or full width balconies, verandas and porches. · Contrasting materials of stucco and siding between first and second floors. · Exposed rafter tails. · Use of a brick veneer as a base for the front elevation, carrying around to the exposed sides. · Window shutters. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch The 4:12 pitch breaking to 3:12 pitch over front and rear porches or verandas shall be standard. The roof shall consist of one hip roof and one opposing gable element. Roof Material Premium composition shingle or flat concrete tile roof simulating shake (no red or 'S' tile roofs). Overhangs Overhangs shall, have tight rakes and extended eaves with exposed rafters. Siding Fully wrapped wood or cementitious shpulated wood siding will be used to differenti.ate the first and second floors. Stucco or brick shall be used around the base of the home. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish The stucco Will have very little texture, smooth to light sand finish. H A - 17 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MONTEREY (Cont.) Brick May be used as a first story wrapping material and / or accent on walls, chimneys, etc. Chimneys The chimney will be faced with siding or stucco and brick (whichever is used on elevation) with a simple chimney cap. Porches The verandas shall be la-ge and open with wood or cementitious simulated wood detailing. Balconies The balconies shall be an integral part of the front elevation, spanning most of the building width with the traditional cantilevered massing. They may also occur on the rear elevation Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Shutters shall be used as accents,, Entry The entry will be recessed and under the cover of the front balcony. Doors The entry doors will be typically simple with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim sUrrounds. Garage Doors Garage doors shall be the roll-up type with a variety of panel break-ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. H A - 18 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MONTEREY (Cont.) Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the Monterey style. Details for this style may include: · French Doors opening onto balcony. · Wood picket balcony railings. · Exposed rafter tails. Color Palette Siding The range of color shall be from white to beige and light earth tones. The siding will be painted the same color as the stucco (where applicable) with the material change providing the contrast. Roofs Composition shingle in shades of gray or terracotta to brown. Flat concrete tile or simulated shake. Trim White to 'beige or darker tones in contrast to lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accent colors will be deep jewel tones of red, green and blue. Awnings Solid colored fabric awnings ~n deep jewel tones of red, green and blue. Brick Natural brick colors range from darker reds to brown. HA - 19 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 STONE OR WOOD TRIM VERTICAL B.~:K c~l~N~¥-[ woo~ ~ASC~A--t F- SURROUNDS F-WOO~ SlMU~TED CALIFORNIA RANCH-STYLE Historical Precedent In the late 1800's, cattle raising was the principal occupation in California. The Ranch house was the primary focus of the enormous ranches developed by the early Californians. Representing one of California's tree vernacular styles, the Ranch house evolved naturally from native materials and considerations of climate and lifestyle. The primary building materials were adobe, tile roofs and wood detailing. In the later years of its evolution, the Ranch house was adapted to also include shingles for roofs, board and batten siding and other colonial features introduced in Monterey. Plans were typically organized around a courtyard, whiCh became one of the primary living spaces. The houses were generally simple and straight forward while using thick adobe walls, gabled roofs and an occasional hipped roof. In the mid-1930's Cliff May, a designer, began adapting the ranch house design and layout to the needs of family living. His desi.gn considerations maintained much of the authentic character of the early "ranchos", but started using contemporary materials. It initiated the current acceptance of the informal open room plan and the strong relationship between indoor and outdoor living. FI A - 20 Architectural Style Guidetides Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Overall horizontal form. · Wood or cementitious simulated wood siding including clapboard or board and batten. · Gentle roof pitches - gable and hip. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this ai3chitectural style. Each style will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 maximum standard, low pitch gable and hip. Roof Material Premium grade.:¢omposition shingle or concrete tile with a shake texture. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Wide projecting eaves with exposed rafters and/or fascia boards. Siding Fully wrapped wood or cementitious simulated wood siding (including vertical board and batten or clapboards), or accented with minor stone or brick elements. Ail siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stone/Brick Stone or Brick may be used in combination with siding. Stucco Finish Not permitted. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with stone or brick (same as fagade accent material). ~ A '2 21 Architectural StYle Guidelines Dublin RanchArea F N°rth · June 2003 CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE (Cont.) Porches Provides covered entry; often roofed or trellised and supported by simple wood post and beam construction. Partial or full width of living area elevation. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Multi-paned windows in varying sizes and types, sometimes configured in horizontal bands. Entry The entry and surrounding will be covered by the front porch. Doors Front door shail be paneled or cross pattern with or without windows in upper half. Garage Door The doors shall be a roll-up type with a variety of panel breakups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of each architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the California Ranch style. Details for this style may include: · Exposed rafters. · Vertical or horizontal wood or cementitious simulated wood siding. · Wood porch railing with crossed rail or vertical picket details. Il A - 22 Architectural Style Guidelinex Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE ~Cont.) Color Palette Siding Color range shall be from t~nted whites to light beige, pale tones of yellow, brown, gray, greens and blues. Stucco Not permitted. Roofs Premium grade composition shingle in shades of gray, brown and green. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim Defined with soft white to light beige or dark browns or greens in contrast to the body color. Fascia. porch columns/posts and garage doors may be in the same soft white, or the darker, contrasting color. Doors and Shutters Accents of muted blue, green and red are used for entry doors and shutters in contrast to siding. Brick & Stone Masonry may be either brick or stone, but must always have a somewhat rustic appearance. Brick in reds. gray and brown tones. Various textures and colors of stone are used for this style H A - 23 Architectura! Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · JUne 2003 .,,-.--. HO RIZOiX~t"AL WOOD__FASCIA ] ~WOOD S~DING SURROUNDS BRICK CHIMNEY ~ RAIL DETAI~~ ~ ~ ~03 W~M HE~C~ AROU~C~, t~C. AMERICAN FARMHOUSE Historical Precedent The American Farmhouse represents a practical and picturesque country house. Its beginnings are traced to both Colonial and Cape Cod styles begun in New England. As the .~aerican Frontier moved westward, the American Farn~ouse style evolved according to availability of materials and technological advancements, such as b~10on framing. Predominant features of the style are large wrapping front porches with a variety of wood columns and railings. Two story massing, dormers and symmetrical elevations occur most often on the New England Farmhouse variations. The asymmetrical, casual cottage look, with a more decorated appearance, is typical of the'Midwest American Farmhouse. Roof ornamentation is a characteristic detail consisting of cupolas, weather vanes and dovecotes. Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion,, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · One and two story massing · Large front porches · Predominantly gabled roof with hip roofs · Wood or cementitious simulated wood siding · Wood shutters and substantial wood or cementitious simulated wood window trim I[ A - 24 Architectural S~. le Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN FARMHOUSE (Cont.) Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each style will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vm~ or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 to 6:12 standard. This style will have one and two story massing with simple gabled roofs and some side hip roofs occurring at the first floor porch. Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle or concrete, tile with a shake texture. Overhangs t 2" to 24" standard. Siding . Wrapped siding shall be the predominant material used on all elevations. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Chimneys Chimneys shall be faced with stone or brick with a simple cap. Stucco Finish To be used as a minor accent only. Smooth to light sand finish. Brick & Stone Appropriate for use on chimneys and enhancement of wails. Balconies None. Porches Front porches are required on the front elevation and encouraged to wrap to the side on corner plotted homes. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementi.tious simulated wood trim shall be used on all windows. Shutters will 'be used extensively on all elevations. Pot shelves will be used on primary accent windows. Entity The entry shall be covered with a front porch. H A - 25 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN FARMHOUSE (Cont.) Doot'~ The front doors shall be paneled with lites in upper half or with sidelights Garage Doors The doors shall be a roll-up type with a variety of panel breakups to correspond with the elements of'this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the American Farmhouse style. · Embellished porch railing with shaped wood columns and balustrades or pickets. · Corbels or barge board trim in gable ends. · Pot shelves under primary accent windows. · Cupolas, weather vanes or dovecotes as character details. Color Palette Siding White to tan or beige, light shade of yellow or muted greens, blues and grays. Roofs Premium grade composition shingle in grays and browns. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim White to light beige or muted tones of browns, greens and grays in contrast to lighter body color. Door & Shutters Accent colors will be dark tones of red, blue green, gray and black. Brick Various textures, and colors of brick, primarily red. Il A - 26 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 WOOD SIDING-- MANUFACTURED FLAT TILE - SIMULATED SHU'I-FERS -- -, -- SHINGLE OR SHAKE AND DETAIL TRIM ?.~ ¢~,-~ "~7'~ ~-'"--~ ~ "' ~-' '~~¢~,~"~'¢'~ ~ woo~ co[uu,s ~ EAST COAST TRADITIONAL Historical Preceden! The East Coast Traditional style evolved in the early twentieth century being influenced by American Colonial styles as formal as Georgian Revival and' those as simple and functional as Cape Cod, New England Colonial and Farmhouse. With respect to East Coast traditions and regional culture, the Colonial Revival vocabulary of white-painted columns, clapboards and shuttered windows were combined with the less symmetrical, unpretentious massing and functional forms of the Cape Cod and farmhouse. Combined one and two story massing with single story wings, gabled roofs with dormered windows, or occasional saltbox roof forms were favored solutions, later becoming classic forms of the traditional style. These inspirations yielded a truly American inspired architecture for a more relaxed, yet still dignified style that would become the new American dream. The characrer/stic elements and details of this style further demonstrate the blend of American Colonial influences. Use of brick and/or wood siding with somewhat formal character elements and generous trim above the doors and windows is typical. Some of these character details include dormered windows, wood shutters, rounded or squared columns at porch or entry statement and decorative broken pediment trina and painted wood vents m gables. I1 A - 27 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale. proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · One and/or two story roo£ elements. · Predominantly gabled roof:forms. · Fully wrapped siding. · Covered entry; by upper balcony, portico or porch. · Traditional door and window surrounds. · Classic columns or trim elements. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 5:12 to 8:12 standard. Roof Material Flat concrete or composition shingle. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Siding Wrapped siding will be the predominant material used on all elevations. Brick may be used as an accent material in combination with siding. Al1 siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish None. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with brick. Porches A porch or portico shall cover the entry. May vary in size as a partial or full width of the elevation. HA - 28 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL (Cont.) Balconies Balconies may be used on second story elevations. Decorative columns, rails and posts shall be wood. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with enhanced wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Shutters if present, shall be used widely beyond the front elevation. Dormered windows are encouraged for this style. Entry The entry will be covered and articulated with sidelights. Doors Paneled entry doors with' or without lites will have substantial surrounding wood or cementitious simulated wood trim.. Garage Doors The doors shal[ be a roll-up type with a variety of panel break- ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Front Elevation The lines of the roof will have gentle pitches and simple gables. ~sign Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the East Coast Traditional style. Details for the East Coast Traditional style may include: · Rounded or squared columns at porch or portico. · Decorative broken pediment trim at entry and gable ends. · Decorative louvered vents in gable ends. tl A - 29 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL (Cont.) Color Palette Siding Color range shall be from tinted whites to light beige, pale tones of yellow, brown, gray, greens and blues. Roofs. Shades of gray, green, and blue, representing the slate roofs found on traditional East Coast architecture. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim Most often a shade of white, although certain shades of brown, green and gray are used on schemes with a lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accented with dark, rich shades of blue, red, green and even some dark gray to near black. With darker siding colors, door and shutters should be the same off-white as the trim color. Brick Various textures and colors are used for this style, with natural shades of red being the. most common. HA ~ 30 Architectural Style GuideIinex RESOLUTION NO. 04 - RESOLUTION OF TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7281, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7282, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7283 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 01-037 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F AND PORTIONS OF AREA B AND AREA E WI~REAS, The applicant James Tong (representing Chang Su-O Lin, H. Yao Lin & H.L. Lin) has submitted an application and has requested approval of a Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map, 2 Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and a Site Development Review consisting of approximately 285.4 acres' of land in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area at the Dublin Ranch Areas F, B and E, south of D.ublin Ranch Phase I, north of Central Parkway, east of Brannigan Street and west of Fallon Road.; and WltEREAS, a completed application for Tentative Tract Maps and Site Development Review is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, The City prepared an Addendum to a previously adopted Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Planning Area and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declarations for Area B and Area F. This Addendum included an analysis of potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. A recently conducted traffic study concludedthat the proposed project would not exceed or cause levels of service ro be worse than those levels addressed in the EIR for the eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment approved in t997. This fact is the primary reason for finding that an additional Environmental Impact Report with updated mitigation measures would ~c~. be required for approval of the proposed project; and WltEREAS, a Development Plan has been submitted to the City as required by section 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, The State of California Subdivision Map Act and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, unless a tentative map is acted upon, and a final map is approved consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Dublin Subdivision regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on February 24, 2004~ and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted to the' Planning Commission recommending approval of the Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map, the 2 Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and the Site Development Review subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Tentative Tract Maps: Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7281 and Vesting Tract Maps 7282 and &283 are consistent with the intent of the applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances. B. Tentative Tract Maps 7281, 7282 and 7283 are consistent with the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific ATTACHUE T Plan policies as amended by previous action as a part of this hearing and as they apply to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for implementation of a residential community, a school site, park sites and public and semi public land uses in an area designated for this type of development. C. The design of the improvements of Tentative Tract Maps 7281, 7282 & 7283 are consistent with the planned Development District and Land Use and Land Use and Development plan/District Planned Development Plan approved as PA 96-039 as amended for this project and approved as a part of this hearing for this project and is therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance D. Tentative Tract Maps 7281, 7282 and 7283 are located adjacent to major roads on 285.4 acres of sloping property and is, therefore, sUitable to the type and density of development. E. The design of the sUbdivision will not will not caUse environmental damage or SUbstantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns. F. The design of the subdivisions will not conflict with any 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 conflicting easements of this nature. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTI-IER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Maps. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval: Developer shall comply with all Prior to . applicable City of Dublin Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval included herein Recordation of unless specifically modified by these Conditions of Approval. Final Map' 2. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions: In the event that there needs to be Prior to clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and P~ecordation of the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to Final Map the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer 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. 3. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District:' The Developer shall request the area Prior to to be annexed into the Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District and shall provide Recordation of any exhibits required for the annexation. Final Map 4. Rights of Ways: Developer shall offer for dedication t° the City of Dublin the rights of Prior to way for Gleason Drive and Grafton Street (north of Gleason Drive). The Final Map shall Recordation of show the location of the street monuments to be set in Gleason Drive and Graf-ton Street. Final Map 5. Parcels for Future Rights of Way: In addition to the parcels on the Final Map for the Prior to future the rights-of-Way of Lockhart Street, Grafton Street (south of Gleason Drive) and Recordation of Central Parkway, the Final Map shall include a Parcel for the future right of way of Fallon Final Map Road within Tract 7281. 6. Community Park Parcel: The Community Park, Parcel 8, shall be shown on the Final Prior to Map containing a minimum of 60.00 acres exclusive of any future Fallon Road right of Recordation of way. A minimum 52 acres of Parcel 8 shall be deeded to the City for use as a Community Final Map Park with the Final Map approval. 2 7. Community Park Agreement: Prior to a Grading Permit for any grading between Gteason. Prior to Grading Drive and Central Parkway with the exception of Grafton Street connection and bullk Permit South of ~-" grading of F West, an agreement between the Developer and the City of Dublin shall be Gleason with the executed regarding the Community Park. This agreement shall include, but not be limited exception of to, the following: Grafton Street connection and a) Provide for the dedication and the City to reimburse the Developer for the parkland bulk grading of' F over 52 acres in accordance with Section 17 of the Master Development Agreement West for Dublin Ranch. b) Require the Developer to bulk grade the park site with a minimum ~500,000 cubic yards in accordance to a bulk grading plan to be provided by the City. The bulk grading to be at the sole cost of the Developer and include all preparation required for the placement and compaction of fill on the site. The bulk grading shall include the grading required for the revised Fallon Road alignment from Bent Tree Drive tO Central Parkway, and may include, at the option of the Developer, the bulk grading for Fallon Road from Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard. The City to provide bulk grading plans and mutually agreed grading specifications to Developer within two weeks after requested by the Developer. The City is to provide the Geotechnical Services for the grading within the park site. c) Require the Developer to provide a Phase 1 Environmental Report d) Allow the Developer to place additional material, up to a specified limit, on the · park site subject to schedule constraint. e) Set phasing / scheduling requirements for bulk grading the site. f) Set phasing / scheduling requirements for the Developer to dedicate the adjacent Lockhart Street and Central Parkway right of ways g) Require that Storm Drain Line D be routed within the Central parkway right of way between Lockhart Street and the entranqe tO the park. ~'-' h) Set phasing / scheduling requirements for Developer to construct the stream corridor around the park and limit the parcel width to 70 feet. .~ i) Discuss phasing, scheduling and responsibilities for the construction of Central ' Parkway & Lockhart Street improvements including park frontage. j) Discuss'the phasing, schedule and responsibilities for the construction of Fallon ~. Road, on the new alignment south of Bent Tree Drive to the connection to the existing roadway, and provide for the return of excess rights of way to the Developer. k) Coordinate the location of the park entrances with proposed surrounding residential development, and limit the number and width of the streambed corridor crossings. 1) Discuss reimbursement for street frontage right of way for Gleason Drive, Fallon Road and Central Parkway. 8. Master Grading Plan: Prior to a Grading P'efinit fO'r any grading in the area between Prior to Grading Gleason Drive and Central Parkway with the exception of Grafton Street connection and Permit South of bulk grading of F West the Developer shall prepare a Master Grading Plan for remainder of Gleason with the Dublin Ranch. The Master Grading Plan needs to be based only on conceptual grading exception of~ schemes for development. The Master Grading Plan shall include the estimated CUt and fill Grafton Street for each grading area (bounded by arterial and collector streets) including the Community connection and Park. A plan for any adjuslrnents that may be required to balance the project grading shall bulk grading off be included. The Master Grading Plan shall include construction phasing. The Dublin West Ranch Master Drainage Plan Hydrology Map shall be updated in regards to drainage areas and storm drain line and size locations to reflect current plans at the request of the City Engineer. The Master Grading Plan will be in advance of development plan applications and thus subject to change by either party through the Site Development Review and/or .,~. Tentative Tract Map process for projects within this map area. 3 9. SideWalks: Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to construct the sidewalk Prior to improvements on the west side of Gmft0n Street and on the north side of Gleason Drive Recordation of between Grafton Street and Brannigan Street, and to construct a temporary five-foot wide Final Map AC path within the existing rights of way across the Dublin Land Company property to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The agreement shall require the improvements to be consm~cted prior to occupancy of the school on Parcel 1 'or with development of Area F1 (Parcel 3) or F2 (Parcel 4) whichever occurs first. 10. Utility Structures: The Public Works Standard Condition of Approval No. 39 is modified Prior to to allow four above ground utility structures as shown on the approved Site Development Recordation of Review exhibits for this project. Final Map 11. Temporary Drainage ReleaSe: The Developer shall provide the City a Temporary Prior to Drainage Release that accepts drainage from Dublin Ranch public streets to drain across Recordation of the undeveloped .land of the. Developer within Dublin Ranch Final Map ................ /I.,2 .... ~... ~ ........... ; ....... .., ~ . ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ 12. Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval: Developer shall comply with all Prior to applicable City of Dublin Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval dated included Recordation of herein unless specffically modified by these Conditions of Approval. Final Map 13. clarifications and Changes to the Conditions: In the event that there needs to-be Prior to clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and Recordation of the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to Final Map the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer 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. 14. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs): A Homeowners Association shall be Prior to formed by recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to Recordation of govern use and maintenance of common areas and facilities. Said declaration shall set forth Final Map 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, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, s~gns and other improvements ~n Parcels A, B,. C, D, and E andwithin the adjacent street frontage right of way. The Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&R document to the City for review and approval relative to this condition. 15. Bulk Grading Parcel 5 of Tract 7281: Developer shall prepare a conceptual grading plan Prior to for Parcel 5 to be approved by the City Engineer. The rough grading for Tract 7282 shall Recordation of be designed to bulk grade Parcel 5 so that this parcel wilt generally balance if graded Final Map according to the conceptual grading plan. 16. Rough Grading the School Site: (Parcel 1 of Tract 7281): With the rough grading of Tract Prior to 7282 the Developer shall rough grade the school site to a condition that will generally Recordation of balance earthwork on this parcel when graded according to the School District's site plans. Final Map 17. Retaining Walls: The location and height of retaining walls are not approved as shown on Prior to the Tentative Map. Retaining walls will be reviewed and approved with the Site Recordation of Development Review. Side yard retaining walls shall be a maximum height of two feet if Final Map on the property line. Side yard retaining walls over one foot in height shall be masonry. All other retaining walls shall be a maximum height of four feet and shalI be a minimum three feet offthe property line. The City Engineer may approve exceptions to the four-foot height limit for unique lot conditions with the Site Development Review. 18. Typical Street Sections: The Typical Street Sections shall be modified from those shown Prior to on Sheet 1 of the Tentative Map to provide a minimum one-foot wide flat (2%) area at the Recordation of top of all slopes and behind the sidewalk Final Map 19. Street Widths: All public streets shall be of sufficient width to allow parking on both Prior to sides. The Fire Department requires a minimum 20-foot wide travel lane thus the cul de Recordation of sacs will need to be 46 feet from curb to curb not 44 feet as shown on the Tentative Map Final Map 4 20. Sidewalks: ApPlicant shall construct the sidewalk improvements On the west side of Prior to Grafton Street and the north side of Gleason Drive west of Grafton Street, and construct a Recordation of temporary five'foot wide AC path on the north side ofGleaSon Drive within the existing Final Map rights of way between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 21. Kohnen Lane: Developer shall construct full street improvements including frontage Curb Prior to & gutter, sidewalk, median curbs, pavement, drainage, sanitary sewer, water, utilities, Recordation of traffic signage & pavement markings, and street lighting on Kohnen Lane as shown on the Final Map Tentative Map and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Parking will not be allowed on the south side of Kohnen Lane east of Shelton Lane, a cross walk and stop signs are to be provided at the school exit, a left turn lane is to be provided at the school entrance, and ~'our way stop signs are to be provided at the Kohnen Lane / Grafton Street intersection. All final lane configuration shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 22. Brannigan Street: DevelOper shall construct street improvementS on Brannigan Street as Prior to shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The improvements to Recordation of include curb & gutter (both frontages except the Dublin Land Company's frontage), Final Map sidewalk (eaSt frontage), median curbs, pavement, drainage, sanitary sewer, water, utilities, traffic signage & pavement markings, and street lighting. Sidewalk on the west side will not be required. If the City has acquired rights of way and permission to grade from the Dublin Land Company, the Developer may grade and construct the roadway improvements including median with landscaping and the western frontage curb at the Gleason Dr entrance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23. Pedestrian Pathway: Developer shall construct pedestrian pathway improvements across Prior to Parcel D between Edgecomb Place and Brannigan Street and Readfield Way and Gleason Recordation of Drive, and across Parcels A & E between the end of the cul de sa~s and Kohen Way to the Final Map satisfaction of the City Engineer.. ,Pathway lighting will not be required other than the normal lighting within the adjacent streets. 24. Traffic Signals: Developer shall install a traffic signal at the intersections of Gleason Drive Prior to and Brannigan Street,. The City intends to collect 50% of the cost of this traffic signal as a RecOrdation of condition for development of the property to the west of the intersection and reimburse the Final Map DeVeloper these funds : 25, Median Landscaping: Developer shall install landscaping in the median islands on 'Prior to · ' Gieason Drive (Brannigan Street to Grafton Street), Kohnen Way and Grafton Street. A Recordation of separate irrigation system, meter, and electrical power supply shall be provided for the Final Map median landscaping within Gleason Drive. 26. Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval: Developer Shall comply with all Prior to applicable City of Dublin Standard PUblic Works Conditions of Approval included herein · Recordation of unless specifically modified by these Conditions of Approval. Final Map 27. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions: In the event that there needs to be Prior to clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and Recordation of the City Engineer have the authority to' clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to Final Map the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer 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. 28. Covenants, Conditions and Restricti°ns (CC&Rs): A Homeowners Association shall be Prior to formed by recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to Recordation of govern use and maintenance of common areas and facilities. Said declaration shall set forth Final Map 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, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs and other improvements in Parcels A, B, C and D and within the adjacent street frontage right of way. The Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&R document to the City for review and approval relative to this condition. _ 5 29. View EasementS: View easements shall be recorded on lots 4, 5, t2, 13, 18-33 and 37-41. Prior to The easements shall restrict the height of vegetation planted on the lot, limit the height of Recordation o£ accessory structures and limit the type of rear yard fence in order to minimize the impact on Final Map the view from the adjacent lots within Tracts 6959 and 6960. The height limits shall be no higher than one-foot above the adjacent rear yard elevation. The height limits for these lots are shown in a Table on the Tentative Map. 30. Building I-Ieights: The maximum building height (top roof line) on lots 4, 5, 9-13, 14-36 Site ., and 49-64 shall be restricted to be no higher than the rear yard elevation of the closest lot in Development Tracts 6959 and 6960. These restrictions will be applied with the Site Development Review Review and plot plan approvals. 31. Retaining Walls: The location and height of retaining walls are not approved as shown on Prior to the Tentative Map. Retaining walls will be reviewed and approved with Site Development RecOrdation of Review. Side yard retaining walls shall be a maximum height of two feet if on the property Final Map line; Side yard retaining walls over one foot in height shall be masonry. All other retaining Walls shall be a maximum height of four feet and shall be a minimum three feet offthe property line. The City Engineer may approve exceptions to the four-foot height limit for unique lot conditions with Site Development'Review. 32. Typical Street Sections: The Typical Street Sections shall be modified from those shown Prior to on Sheet 1 of the Tentative Map to provide a minimum one-foot wide flat (2%) area at the Recordation of top of all slopes and behind the sidewalk. Final.Map 33. Drainage Easement: The storm drain easement in lot 96 shall be eliminated by connecting Prior to the storm drain line in Ridgefield Way to the line in Grafton Street. The Developer shall Recordation of modify the Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Plan to include this change. If the hydraulic Final Map calculations for the existing storm drain line in Grafton Street do not support this change the City Engineer will allow the drainage easement on lot 96. 34. Sidewalks: Applicant shall construct the sidewalk improvements on the east side of Prior to Grafton Street and the north side of Gleason Drive. from Brannigan Street to Fallon Road, Recordation of and construct a temporary five-foot wide AC path on the north side of Gleason Drive Final Map within the existing rights of Way between Tassajara Road"and Brannigan Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 35. Pedestrian Pathway: Developer shall construct a pedestrian pathway across Parcel: D Prior to between the Ridgefield Court and Gleason Drive the satisfaction of the City En.gi~eer, Recordation of .. Since an alternative route is available this pathway may have stairs and does not need to Final Map meet ADA requirements. 36. Traffic Signals: Developer shall install a traffic signal at the intersections of Gleason Prior to Drive and Rock Hill Way. Recordation of Final Map 37. Dougherty Road & Dublin Bird Intersection: The Development Agreement shall Prior to include provisions that if the City does not have sufficient Category 2 Eastern Dublin Recordation of Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) funds available, the Developer shall advance the City monies for Final Map the Project's fair share of the deficiency of the costs of design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the City Capital Improvement Project at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection. City shall provide a credit to the Developer for Category 2 TIF for any monies advanced pursuant to this condition. The City's Administration Guidelines for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (Resolution No. 23-99) shall govern all aspects of the credit. 38. Gleason Drive, Fallon Road and Grafton Street Median Landscaping: Developer shall Prior to install landscaping in the median islands on Gleason Drive (Grafton to Fallon Road), Recordation o Fallon Road and Grafton Street. A 'separate irrigation system, meter, and electrical power Final Map supply shall be provided for the median landscaping within Gleason Drive.. 39. Rear Yard landscaping: The Developer shall landscape the rear yard slopes abutting the Prior to existing homes in Tracts 6959 and 6960. Planting on these slopes shall be restricted so that Recordation of the mature-height will not be higher than one foot above the elevation of the rear yard of Final Map the adjacent lots at the top of the slope. Plants used shall be reviewed by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works in conjUnction with the Site Development Review process. .. - 6 NOW, TI:IEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TttAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does ff'~.~ereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Site Development Review: A. Approval of this application (PA 01-037) as conditioned is consistent with the purpose and intent of Section 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. B. The approval of this application, as conditioned, will comply with the policies of the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended, and the Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan for the project which allows for commercial development at this location. C. The approval of this application, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as the development is consistent, as conditioned with all laws and ordinances of the City of Dublin. D. The proposed site' development, including site layout, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, walls, public safety and similar elements, as conditioned, has been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development. F. Impacts to view have been addressed and the project has been found to be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. G. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features have been addresses as the subject property is essentially flat. (_.. H. The project has been designed with architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings have been incorporated into the project and as Conditions of Approval in order to ensure compatibility of this development with the development's design . . conceptandcharacter of surrounding uses. I. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size and. coverage of plant materials and similar elements combined with Conditions of Approval have been established to ensure visual relief and an attractive public environment. J. The approval of this application, as conditioned, is in conformance with regional transportation plans and requires the Applicant/Developer to either construct or pay for the project's fair share of transportation improvements. K. The approval of the Site Development Review is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the as amended Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise stated, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any building and shall be subiect to Plannin~ Department review and approval. The following codes represent those deparlments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the Conditions of Approval: [PL] Planning, Building, [PO] Police, [PWI Public Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [PCS] Parks and Community Services, IF1 Alameda County Fire Dept., [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [COl Alameda County Flood Control and water Conservation District Zone 7. 3-. Final Landscape Plan: Applicant/Developer shall submit final landscape plans (for all on and PL off-site areas), conforming to the requirements of Section 8.72.030 of the Zoning Ordinance Issuance of (unless otherwise required by this Resolution), which shall be subject to the review and Building approval by the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works. The Permit landscape plans shall include the following information: hardscape details, striping details, 7 quantity, size, spacing and species of landscape elements, and light standards. All above grour~'d utilities shall be screened from view. 2. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance Agreement: PL Applicant/Developer shall sign and submit a signed copy of the City of Dublin Standard Plant Occupancy Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance'Agreement prior to the occupancy of any units. 3. DeveLopment Agreement/Expiration: The approval of this project shall be predicated upon PL and pursuant to the terms set forth in the Development Agreement between the Chang Su-O- On-going Lin, H. Yao Lin and H.L. Lin. 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. The Development Agreement must be effective prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Revocation: The SDR will be revocable for cause in accordance with SectiOn 8.96.020.I of the PL Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or cOnditions of this approval shall be On going subject to citation. 5. Effective Date: SDR and Tentative Map approvals shall not.become effective until the and the PL approval of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the Planned Issuance of Development Rezone has become effective. Grading Permits 6. Required Permits: ApPlicant/DevelOper shall COmply with the City of Dublin Zoning Various Ordinance and obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Various times, Control District Zone 7, California Department ofFish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, but no later Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and shall than Issuance submit copies of the permits to the Department of Public Works. of Building Permits 7. Term: Approval of the Site Development Review shall be valid for one year from approval by PL the Planning Commission. If construction has not commenced by that time, this approval shall On-going be null and void. The approval period for Site Development Review may be extended six (6) additional months by the Director of Community Development upon determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that the above stated findings of'approval . 'will continue to be met. (Applicant/Developer must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the Site Development Review.) 8. Solid Waste/Recycling: Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City's solid waste Bldg. management and recycling requirements. On-going 9. Rodenticides and Herbicides: The use ofrodenticides and herbicides within the project area PL shall be performed in cooperation with and under the supervision of the Alameda County Issuance of Department of AgriCulture and will be restricted, to the satisfaction of the Director of Grading Community Development, to reduce potential impacts to wildlife. Permit '"i' 0. Archaeological Materials: If; during construction, archaeological materials are encountered, PL construction within 100 feet of these materials, shall be halted untiI a professional Archaeologist On-going 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, if they are deemed necessary 'i 1. Kit Foxes: Should any Kit Foxes be discovered on the site, either during the Preconstruction PL, PW Survey or during project construction, the Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for Issuance of complying with the Kit Fox Protection Plan. Grading Permit 1-"~. Preconstruetion Survey: Applicant/Developer shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific PL, PW ~--. Plan EIR mitigation measures for mitigatingpotentially significant plant and animal species Issuance of impacts. Within 60 days prior to any habitat modification, Applicant/Developer shall submit a Grading preconstruction survey, prepared by a biologist (to be approved by the City prior to Permit commencement of the survey.) Said survey shall examine whether any sensitive species exist on or adjacent to the site and, if any exist, shall include recommended protection plans, including any modifications to site design, for those sensitive species that may be discovered as a result of the survey. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the cost of the survey and staff review of the survey. The significance of any discoveries and adequacy of recommended protection measures shall be subject to the discretion of the Director of Community Development. Said protection plans and measures shall occur at least 21 days prior to anticipated habitat modification. Any updated surveys and/or studies that may be completed subsequently shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development ~ 3. Hold Harmless/Indemnification: Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and h°ld PL, ADM harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or Through proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, completion of void, or annul an approval of the City °fDublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Improvements Commission, City CoUncil, Director of Community Development, Zoning Administrator, or any and other department, committee, or agency of the City the Tentative Parcel Map or Site Occupancy of Development Review to the extent such actions are brought Within the time period required by the Building Government COde Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the Cityts full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 14. Parking Of Recreation Vehicles: The parking of Recreational VehiCles overnight, as defined PL ~'"' by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be prohibited. On-going i 5. Landscape Maintenance: The landscaping and irrigation on individual parcels shall be PL maintained and kept in good order by the owner of each parcel. Occupancy of · any building 16. Public Facilities Fee: Applicant/Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee in the amounts and 'PCS at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 195-99, or in the amounts and at the Issuance of times set forth in any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee. Building Permits 17. Fire Conditions: Developer shall comply with all coridititns of the Alameda County Fire F Department (ACFD), including: Issuance of a. Final location of fire hydrants shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire · Building Department in accordance with current standards. Minimum fire flow design shall be Permits for 1500 gallons per minute with 20-psi residual flowing from a single hydrant. Raised blue refleetorized traffic markers Shall be epoxied to the center of the paved street opposite each hydrant. A drawing of the approved locations shall be submitted for future reference. b. Fire lanes shall be identified in the plan and approved by the ACFD prior to installation. c. Emergency Vehicle Access roadways shall be designed and installed to support the imposed lOads of fire equipment. The minimum standard shall be H20 design. Design shall be approved by. ACFD prior to installation. d. Prior to the delivery of any combustible material storage on the. site, fire hydrants, water supply, and roadways shall be installed and sufficient Water storage and ""' pressure shall be available to the Site. e. Approved roadway shall be fn-st lift of asphalt. f. Plans may be subject to revision following review. 9 18. Projected Timeline: Applicant/Developer shall submit a projected timeline for project PO completion to the Dublin Police Services Department, to allow estimation of staffing Issuance of requirements and assignments Building Permits ~9. Residential Security: Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin PO Residential Security Requirements. Occupancy of Any Building 20. Clear of Graffiti: The developer and/or property owner and/or tenant shall keep the site clear PL of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis. Graffiti resistant paint for the structures On-going and film for windows or glass should be used. 21. Notification Requirements: In conjunction with the Site Development Review procedure Site required for the individual residential units to be constructed Tract 7283, Neighborhood F-2, Development the developer will prepare a written statement, to be signed by each home purchaser, detailing Review & the specific constraints regarding building height, view easements and landscape height on the Certificate of lots referenced in Public Works conditions 29. The content of the written statement shall be Occupancy reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. The developer shall submit the signed statement to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of occupancy certificates. 22. CC & R's.' A detailed explanation o£the constraints to building heights, view easements and Final Map for landscape height shall be placed in the CC & R's to be reviewed and approved by the City of Tract 7283 Dublin prior to recordation of the Final Map. These references shall also detail enforcement procedures to assure compliance as well as remedies to change conditions which violate those conditions referenced in Public Works Conditions 29, 30 and 39. 23. Site Development Review: The developer of the homes on the individual lots referenced in Site Public Works Conditions 29, 30 and 39, shall, during the Ske Development Review phase, Development provide design development drawings that assure compliance. Special architectural Review & considerations and treatments may be needed to lessen the impact to the adjacent homes in During ~ Tracts 6959 and 6960 but in no instance shall the highest peak of the roof of any home exceed Construction the maximum building height as specified in the tentative map conditions 29 and 30. Survey Certification may be required by the Directors of Community Development and Public' Works if there is a question regarding compliance to the Site Development Review PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: GENERAL: 1. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, Zoning, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 2. In the event that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer 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 resuking from impacts to this project. 3. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding 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, appeal board, Planning~ Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required bv Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so 10 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 actic~ns or proceedings. 4. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring on the project property must be properly abandoned, backfilled, or maintained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. For additional information contact Alameda County Flood Control, Zone 7. AGREEMENT AND BONDS: 5. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement Agreement with the City for all tract improvements. 6. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), and labor & material (100%) securities to guarantee the trac~ improvements, approved by the City. Engineer, 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: 7. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda 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. Parkland shall be dedicated and / or in-lieu fee paid, prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, in accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. PER1VIITS: 9. An encroachment permit from the Public Works Deparmaent may be required for any work done within the public right-of-way even if covered under an Improvement Agreement. 10. Developer shall obtain all permits required by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department. of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. SUBMITTALS: 1 1. All submittals of plans and Final MaPs shall comply with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works · Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List". 12. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. 13. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes street pavement sections and grading recommendations. 14. ' Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the project when the Final Map has been approved. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorfzed files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. Ali 11 objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. Ali submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. · FINAL MAP: 15. The Final Map shall be substantially in accordance with the Tentative Map approved with this application, unless otherwise modified by these conditions. 16. Ali rights-of-way and easement dedications required by the Tentative Map including the Public Service Easement shall be shown on the Final Map. 17. Street names shall be processed for approval through the Planning 'Department. The approved street names shall be indicated on the Final Map. EASEMENTS: 18. The Developer shall grant to the City of Dublin easements for traffic signal detectors, boxes conduit, etc. at all private streets and driveways entrances that will be sig-nalized. 19. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing easements and right of ways that will no longer be used. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2004 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST Community Development Director 12 ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS i DUBLIN PLANNING TI:~NSMITTAL LETTER To: CitY of Dublin PROJECT NO.: 16034-60 Planning Department DATE: December 29, 2003 100 Civic Plaza SUBJECT: Dublin Ranch -Area F North Dublin CA 94568 ATTN: Michael Porto SHIP VIA: M&S Delivery DESCRIPTION OF ENCLOSED: · Five (5) booklets of the Dublin Ranch -Area F North re-submittal package (dated December 2003), including the following: Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Stage 1 and 2 P.D. Rezone Master Vesting Tentative Map Neighborhood Vesting Tentative Maps (Fl & F2 Neighborhoods) Site Development Review Application MESSAGE: Mike: Enclosed for your review and distribution are five booklets with our re-submittal package. Based on various items addressed during the City review process over the past months, we have incorporated a number of revisions into the project proposal. These include: · Incorporating a 5.32 acre Public/Semi-Public parcel at the western boundary of the project area · Relocating the two Public/Semi-Public parcels at the Grafton/Central intersection to the new consolidated P/SP parcel and redesignating the parcels as Medium Density Residential · Relocating the Gleason entry/exit from the F1 neighborhood to align with Brannigan Street -- SINCE 1953 -- 5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-3355 PHONE (925) 225-0690 FAX (925) 225-0698 OFFICES: PLEASANTON RENO / SPARKS ROSEVILLE SACRAMENTO SAN JOSE SAN RAMON www. msce.com City of Dublin 16034-60 29 December 2003 Page 2 · Revising the lot and street layouts for both the F1 and F2 neighborhoods in response to City review comments and neighbors' concerns · Addressing the project affordable housing requirements by constructing the recently approved Fairway Ranch affordable housing project within Dublin Ranch · Revising the project PD architectural design guidelines per City staff review comments · Including the portion of Dublin Ranch between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive in the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 P.D. packages. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and/or other City staff members to further explain our re-submittal and address any questions that you may have. Please advise if we can schedule a meeting in the near future to accomplish this. Thank you for your consideration and happy holidays. MACKAY & SOMPS Dave Chadbourne cc: M. Inderbitzen w/enclosures J. Tong w/enclosures R. Andrade w/enclosures Paul Kruger, Public Works Dept. w/enclosures P. Quady w/o enclosures 16034-60q4dc-12-29-03areafnorth-cityre-submittaldoc.doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Application Forms Planning Application Form Initial Study - Environmental Information Form, Part 1 Photo Locator Key Site Photographs Project Reference Vicinity Map Key Map Aerial Photograph Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Project Description Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Exhibit Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan/Planned Development Rezoning Project Description Permitted and Conditional Land Uses Findings Statement Drawing Reductions Stage 1 Development Plan Stage 2 Development Plan · Phasing Plan Preliminary Landscaping Plan Street Sections Land Use and Design Standards Residential Site Development Standards Architectural Design Standards Attachment A--Architectural Style Guidelines Landscape Design and Open Space Guidelines Preliminary Title Report Public Notice Materials Appendices A. Dublin Unified School District Letter B. Acoustical AnalysiS Letter C. Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site Assessment D. Traffic Studies i. Proposed Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 ii. Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School iii. Additional analyses E. Biological Surveys Summaries F. Geotechnical Reports G. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Area F North - Table of Contents Area F_N_TOC-Rev3-DubCouncil,doe CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING APPLICATION FORM NOTE: Please discuss your proposal with Plaiming Staffprior to completing this roma. All items on this form related to y--~-ur-~'ur specific type of application must be completed. Some of the items listed might not apply to your specific application. Please print or type legibly. Attach additional sheets, if necessary. I. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Administrative Conditional Use Permit [ACUP] __ Sign/Site Development Review [SIGN/SDR] Conditional Use Perm/t [CUP] __ Master Sign Program [MSP/SDR] X Site Development Review [SDR] X Planned Development Rezone [PD REZ] -- Variance [VAR] __ Rezone [REZ] X Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map [TAP] X General/Specific Plan Amendment [GPA] II. GENERAL DATA A. Address/Location of Property: Between Tassaiara Rd. and Fallon Rd., approx. 2,500 fl north ofi-580 B. Assessor Parcel Number: Portion of 985-0030-001~ 985-0027-008, 985-0009-007, 985-0009-006 C. Site Area: +285 acres D. Zoning: See attached E. GeneralPlan Designation: See attached F. Existing/ProposedUse of Property: See attached G. Existing Use of Surrounding Properties: See attached III. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT A. PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as Property Owner, certify that I have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. [ understand that condition,s of approval are binding. ] agree to be bound by those condition,s, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal period. I further ~.<~e~rtif), that the information and exhibits submitted are true and Vote: All Property Owners must sigh'if property is j°intly Owned) Name: Chang Su-O Lin, H. Yao Lin & H. L. Lin Capacity: Property Owner By: Mr. James Tong Capacity: Authorized Representative Company: Phone: (925) 463-1666 Address: ~690 Chabot Drive~ Suite 100 Fax: (925) 463-1861 Signatur Date: / B. APPLI(, (OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER): In signing this application, I, as Applicant, certify that have obtained tvritten authorization from the property owner and have attached separate docwnentation showing my full legal capacity to file this application. I agree to be bound by the conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal period. I further certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Capacity: Company: Phone: Address: Fax: ~-.--q, i gnature: Date: Rev. 12/03 Rev. 12/03 ,,City of Dublin Planning Application Form Continued II. D. Existing zoning districts are PD Single Family Residential, PD Medium Density Residential, PD Elementary School, PD Middle School, PD High School, PD Neighborhood Square, PD Neighborhood Park, PD Community Park, PD Public/Semi-Public Use and PD Open Space (PA 96-038, PA 96-039). E. Existing General Plan designations are Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Elementary School, Middle School, High School, Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Public/Semi-Public Use and Open Space. F. The existing property use is vacant land. The proposed uses are Single Family and Medium Density Residential, Elementary and Middle Schools, Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Public/Semi-Public and Open Space/Stream Corridor. G. Existing uses of surrounding properties include single family and medium density residential (Phase 1 of Dublin Ranch) to the west and north. An existing private recreation facility is located directly to the north of the future Middle School site. The Dublin Ranch Golf Course and associated single family residential neighborhoods in Dublin Ranch - Area A are located to the east. High Density Residential in Area G is currently under construction south of the project area. Rev. 12/03 Application Name: Dublin Ranch - Area F North General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan/Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Review Initial Study (ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM - PART 1) (To be completed by Applicant purSuant to City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines Section 1.6) Date Filed: December 2003 GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Name and address of authorized representative of property owner: Chang Su-O Lin, Hong Yao Lin & Hong Lien Lin By: Mr. James Tong, Authorized Representative 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA 94588 2. Address of Project: Between Tassaiara Road and Failon Road, approximately 2,500 feet north of 1-580 in Dnblin~ California 3. Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Mr. James Tong David Chadbourne Authorized Representative MacKay & Somps. 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 5142 Franklin Dr. Suite B Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925) 463-1666 (925) 225-0690 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Service from DSRSD and from Dublin Unified School District Area F N eirap-Rev4 5. Existing Zoning District: PD Single Family Residentiak PD Medium Density Residential, PD Elementary. School, PD Middle School, PD High School, PD Neighborhood Square, PD Neighborhood Park~ PD Community Park, PD Public/Semi-Public Use and PD Open Space 6. Description of Project: (Include site area, uses, size and number of buildings, parking, number of dwelling units, scheduling, and any other information necessary or helpful to understand project. This attached description must be complete and accurate. Exhibits or photographs should be identified and attached.) The Area F North project area is comprised of approximately 285.4 acres within portions of the Dublin Ranch planning areas referred to as Area F, Area E, and Area B. This application includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and a Stage 1 Development Plan proposal for the entire project area (referred to in the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment section of this submittal as the Amendment Area.) Also included in the Area FNorth project are a Stage 2 Development Plan, a Master Vesting Tentative MaP, Individual Vesting Tentative Maps, and a Site Development Review package for the community and neighborhood landscape components of the portion of the Area F North project area north of Gleason Drive, consisting of 88.5 acres (referred to in the GP/EDSPA as the Development Area.) In the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Stage 1 P.D. area, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, an Elementary School, a Middle School, a Neighborhood Square, a Neighborhood Park, a Community Park, a parcel for Public/Semi-Public use and two Open Space/Stream Corridors are planned. In the Stage 2 P.D. Area (the Development Area), two single family residential neighborhoods, a middle school site, a parcel for public/semi public uses and open space parcels are planned. The Stage 2 P.D. Area contains portions of two stream corridors that are planned to run through open space parcels within the Dublin Ranch project. The future middle school site will be transferred at some future date to the Dublin Unified School District. The Public/Semi-Public site in Area F North replaces two smaller Public/Semi-Public sites originally planned for southern Area F. The remainder of Area F North will be developed as two residential neighborhoods that contain a total of 240 single-family residential lots.. The land plan includes two different neighborhoods: Tract 7282 (FI) with 119-3,500 S.F. lots on 20.0 acres; Tract 7283 (F2) with 121-5,000 S.F. lots on 33.4 acres. A Master Vesting Tentative Map (Tract 7281) has been included in addition to the individual subdivision tentative maps. The intent of this is to preserve the opportunity to record an initial subdivision map that will create the middle school parcel and a parcel for each of the neighborhoods together with the road and utility access to these parcels. It is intended that the timing for the creation of the individual lots remain as flexible as practical. Please refer to the attached photographs of affected land area(s) for additional data regarding existing site conditions. Area F_N_eirap-Rev4.doc 7. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked (attach additional sheets as necessary). All of the following items are addressed in the program EIR prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan or the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (PA-98-068)~ November 1999. Yes No 1. Change in existin~ features of any b.ay.s, tidelands~, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration oI ground contours. 2. Ch.a.nge .in. scenic views or vistas from existing res~clent~al areas or public lands or roads. 3. Cha. nge in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 4. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 5. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 6. Cha. nge in ocean, bay, 1.ake, strea~ or ground, water quality or quantity, or alteration o~ existing Orainage patterns. 7. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 8. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent (10%) or more. 9. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 10. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 11. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 12. Relationship to larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: 8. Briefly describe the project site as it exists before the project, includin~ information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural. historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and th~ use of the structures. If necessary, attach photographs of the site. See the Eastern Dublin GPA/Specific Plan EIR pages 2-2 and 2-3~ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan pages 5 and 67 and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (PA-98-068)~ November 1999. Also~ please refer to the attached photographs of the area for additional data regarding existing site conditions. Area F_N_eirap-Rev4.doc 9. Briefly describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects and the type of land use. Refer to the Eastern Dublin GPA/Specific Plan EIR pages 2-2~ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan pages 5-7~ and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (PA-98-068)~ November 1999. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and ?rf~tion required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the f,~acts, ~t~tements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knov{ledg/~ ~cl belief. Dated: //.2_ - 2_ 2. -.~_~, ~'-5~ ~~~~Authorized Representative Prinf N~]ne/Title Area F N eirap-Rev4.doc PROCESSING AGREEMENT FORM  Agreement for Payment of Costs of Development Application Processing Application or Permit #: Address of Project: Issue Date: Financ~ Control #: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: This Agreement is by and between the City of Dublin, hereafter "City," and Dubl~ Randq. Hold.~cjs hereafter "Applicant." Project Description: Dublin Ranch Area F North and other related project costs I. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Property Location: East of Tassajara Road North Interest of Applicant: Authorized Representative of I580 (If not fee owner) Il. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Applicant Name: ME. Jan~s Tong Applicant Phone No.: (925) 463-1666 Finn Name: Aqthorized Representative Address: 6601 CXqer~ Drive, Suite 100 Applicant Federal Tax ID or Plea. sane. on, CA 94566 Social Security No.: 94-2594887 Iii. CONTACT INFORMATION: Contact Name: David Chadbourr~ Contact Phone No: (925) 225-0690 Address (if differenO: 5142 Franklin Emive, Suite B, Pleasanton, CA 94588 ff~. BILLING INFORMATION: tements, requests for deposits or refunds shall be directed to Applicant identified in Section II above unless stated otherwise below: Name: Federal Tax ID No.: Address: Applicant agrees to pay all personnel and related direct, indirect and overhead costs for review and processing necessary for the subject project, even if the application is withdrawn, not approved, approved subject to conditions or modified upon approval. Applicant agrees to make a deposit(s) to be applied toward the above costs, in an amount and at such time as requested by the Ci~.y. Applicant further agrees that no Certificate of Occupancy for the project will be issued, until all costs are paid. Interest will accrue on all costs unpaid 30 days after billing at the maximum legal rate, and the City is entitled to recover its costs, including attorney's fees, in collecting unpaid accounts. Any refund of amounts deposited shall be made in the name of the Applicant, to the address noted for billing information, invoices are due and payable within 30 days. Applicant shall provide written notice to the Finance Department in the event that there is a change in Applicant's interest in the property, the project, or the billing address or contact person for said project. Said Notice shall be mailed first class, postage paid, certified mail to: Finance Manager, 100 Civic Plaza, P.O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568. Applicant shall remain responsible for all outstanding costs incurred by City. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless for all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with City's defense of its actions in m~roceeding brought in any State or Federal court challenging the City's actions with respect to the Applicant's project. l\ This Agreement shall only be ex}cu~5 thy an authorized representative of the Applicant. The person executing this Agreement represents that he/she has the express authority to enter into agreement~ o~ :half of the Applicant. Signature of App, ..... Date: - Print Name and Title: Ja~ Tonq, Authorized l~pr~senLative CITY FDUBLIN By: Date: (Staff Member) Signature/Title Original - File Colby · >.. ,., / :. ,,,.',:.::  AREA F NORTH PHOTO LOCATIONS O' 400' 800' 1600' DUBLIN RANCH ~"' AREA F NORTH PROJECT ...... ..... '~ ~. SITE PHOTO EXHIBIT BOULEVARD EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP F1 & F2 VEST1NG TENTATIVE MAPS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLEASANTON · VICINITY MAP N.T.S. December2003 ilMr~Y & SOllIPS CIVIL ENG~NEERING~LANB PLANN~NGeLANO Pleoso~to~, CA (925) -- 225--0690 1 - From Grafton Street, looking southwest 2 - From L4 Neighborhood, looking south 3 - From Fallon Road, looking southwest 4 - From Fallon Road, looking southwest 5 - From Fallon Road, looking northwest 6 - From Central Parkway, looking east-northeast 7 - From Central Parkway and future Grafton Street, looking north 8 - From Central Parkway and Chancery Lane, looking north NP i ES -/ Glea~on Centrgl Far i ' AI~EA F ' ~ ~ ?R, OJECT DOI~NDARY ~ ~,,.~ ~ ~ ~ Area C - Area H DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH  KEY MAP EASTERN DUBLiN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RF. ZONE O' 500' ] 000' 2000' MASTER VESTINO TENTATIVE MAP ~, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IllAOI(AY & SOIIIPS z~,,,~,;, D~c~mbez 2003 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH  AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH STA(~ I &STAGB2 DBVI~.~PIAN/PLA..~ DBVI~0PI~dl~ RBZONI] 0' 400' ~B00' 1600' MASTI~ VllSTINifl ~ATIVlt MAP DUBLIN RANCH DRIVE CENTRAL PARKWAY BOULEVARD PLEASANTON DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH VICINITY MAP EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT  STAGE l & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP F1 & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NOT TO SCALE Dub/in, California Dublin Ranch Area F North · December, 2003 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH General Plan/Easter Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Introduction The Area F North Project proposal includes amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan on approximately 285 acres within Areas B, E and F of Dublin Ranch (the Amendment Area) and the development of approximately 88.5 acres of property within portions of Areas B, E and F of Dublin Ranch (the Development Area.) The Development Area is bordered by existing Phase 1 residential neighborhoods of Dublin Ranch to the northI and west, Fallon ROad to the east, and Gl~a~n D~Ve to the south. The Amendment Area is bordered on the north by existing Dublin Ranch Phase 1 residential neighborhoods, on the west by an existing Phase 1 neighborhood (MI) and property of the Dublin Land Company, on the south by Central Parkway, and on the east by Fallon Road and the boundary of Dublin Ranch lands. Please refer to the General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Exhibits for maps showing previously approved and proposed land uses. The current General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the Amendment Area call for Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Elementary School, Middle School, High School, Public/Semi-Public, Open Space/Stream Corridor, Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood Park and Community Park land uses. This amendment to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is necessary due to changes in the projected needs of the Dublin Unified School · ~:. .~ District (DUSD), proposed changes in area road alignments, and proposed changes in the size, Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan ,~mendment Project Description · Page ! of 7 Area F_N~gp-sp-Rev8.doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December, 2003 shape and location of some land use areas. Six separate requests for amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are included with this submittal. Proposed General Plan & Specific Plan Revisions 1. This General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (GPA/EDSPA) redesignates land slated for High School use to Middle School use. The High School site originally designated for Areas E and F has been deemed unnecessary by DUSD. In accordance with the prior wishes of DUSD, the land use designation for the portion of the High School site occurring in Area F, consisting of 30.6 gross acres, was previously changed to Middle School in conjunction with PA-98-068, leaving the remainder of the High School site (20.0 acres in Area E) unchanged. DUSD would now like to develop a Middle School on a site further to the north, on a portion of the remnant High School-designated parcel abutting South Dublin Ranch Drive and a portion of the previously planned Middle School Site. As a result of this change (and Amendment Item 4 below), a 24.2-acre site designated for Middle School use will be created. (Please refer to Appendix A for a letter indicating DUSD's acceptance of the proposed site and zoning designation.) 2. This GPA/EDSPA redesignates land slated for High School use to Public/Semi-Public use. The portion of the previously designated High School parcel located south of the newly proposed Middle School site (see Item '1 above and Item 4 below) will serve as a replacement parcel for the Public/Semi-Public sites at the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafton Street (see Item 3 below.) The 6.3-acre replacement parcel allows a larger range of potential uses (two-acre sites were seen as too small for some uses, such as a church, community theater, etc.). 3. This GPA/EDSPA redesignates land at the Central Parkway/Grafton Street intersection currently slated for Public/Semi-Public use to Medium Density Residential use. Concerns have been raised about the physical suitability of the two Public/Semi-Public parcels of approximately two acres each planned and approved for the intersection of Central Parkway and Grafton Street (formerly known as Devaney Drive) to accommodate a wide enough range of potential public/semi-public uses due to their small size. To remedy this, these parcels are to be replaced by one larger parcel to the north of Gleason Drive (see Item 2 above.) The Public/Semi-Public parcel on the south side of Central Parkway to the west of the intersection of Central and Grafton Street is unaffected by this change. 4. This GPA/EDSPA redesignates land slated for Middle School use to Medium Density Residential use. With DUSD interested in developing the new Middle School on the northerly portion of the land originally slated for a high school, the land abutting Gleason Drive would be changed to a Medium Density Residential use designation and developed as a neighborhood. This land use redesignation is consistent with adjacent residential land use designations and the neighborhood (Neighborhood FI) will contribute to the residential nature of the school setting and serve as a buffer between the Middle School and Gleason Drive, an east-west arterial road connecting Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Eastern Dublin General Plan~Specific Plan Amendment Project Description · Page 2 of 7 Area F_N_gp-sp-Rev8 doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December, 2003 5. This GPA/EDSPA redesignates land within Area B which is north of Gleason and west of Fallon (presently slated for Medium Density Residential use) to Low Density Residential use. The small size and hillside nature of the approximately 1 O-acre parcel near the intersection of Fallon Road and Gleason Drive greatly limit the viability of Medium Density development in the area. This parcel would be combined with the land designated Low Density Residential immediately to the west, allowing it to be developed as a more efficient and cohesive neighborhood. This neighborhood (Neighborhood F2) will be consistent in density and character with existing neighborhoods to the north and east. 6. This GPA/EDSPA reconfigures land within Area B slated for Open Space/Stream Corridor use, Community Park use and Medium Density Residential use south of Gleason Drive. Recent revisions to the configuration of the Community Park adjacent to Fallon Road have necessitated changes to the alignment of both Fallon Road and the north-south collector (Lockhart Street) along the western park boundary and to the configuration of the Open Space/Stream Corridor and the Medium Density Residential Neighborhoods west of the park. The Dublin City Council approved the changes to the size and configuration of the Community Park on 7 October 2003. Based on this, the Community Park portion of the Amendment Area shall be expanded from 52.0 gross acres to approximately 65.9 gross acres; the Open Space/Stream Corridor will be expanded from 4.8 gross acres to 7.9 gross acres. With the westward realigmnent of Fallon Road and the expansion of the Community Park and adjacent Open Space/Stream Corridor, Medium Density Residential neighborhoods in the eastern portion of the Amendment Area south of Gleason Drive shall be reduced by approximately 7.6 gross acres. The reduction in Medium Density Residential use in this area is necessary to accommodate the entire Community Park and Stream Corridor programs as well as a re-aligned north-south collector street (Lockhart Street) west of Fallon Road. Based on the land use changes encompassed in this amendment, Keegan Street will no longer be extended north from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive. Accompanying this request for an amendment to the EDGPA/SPA is a separate application for a Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Maps and a Site Development Review for Dublin Ranch Area F North. Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Project Description . Page 3 of 7 Area F_N2gp-sp-Rev8 doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December, 2003 proposed General Plan & Specific Plan Revisions Summary Approved Eastern Dublin Proposed General Plan/ Land Use General Plan/Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment Low Density Residential (L) 22.7 acres 91 du* 33.4 acres 121 du Medium Density Residential (M) - Development Area (N. of Gleason) 9.9 acres 99 du* 20.0 acres 119 du - South of Gleason Drive 110.6 acres 1106 du* 105.0 acres 1050 du* Medium Density Residential/ Community Park (M/CP) 13.0 acres 130 du* 0.0 acres Community Park (CP) 52.0 acres 65.9 acres Neighborhood Park (NP) 5.6 acres 5.6 acres Neighborhood Square (NS) 2.0 acres 2.0 acres High School (HS) 20.0 acres 0.0 acres Middle School (MS) 30.6 acres 25.2 acres Elementary School (ES) 10.0 acres 10.0 acres Open Space (OS) 9.0 acres 12.0 acres Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) 3.9 acres 6.3 acres Total (Development Area Only) 86.9 acres 190 du 88.5 acs 240 du Total (Specific Plan Amendment Area) 289.3 acres 1426 du 285.4 acres 1290 du *Unit counts based on Specific Plan mid-point densities. Proposed Development Plan The Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone for the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Area & the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone for the Development Area describe the physical characteristics, existing land uses, and proposed development concept of the lands under consideration here. Please refer to those project descriptions for further information about this site. Circulation A traffic analysis has been prepared by TJKM to determine whether the proposed land use changes would have a greater impact on traffic levels than those shown in ~he GPA/SP EIR or subsequent amendments. TJKM has determined impacts due to the proposed development would be significantly lower than those described in the EDGPA/SP EIR. Thus, plans for the Development Area are consistent with the traffic studies done for the EDGPA/SP and the subsequent amendment for a minor modification to the City's Circulation Eastern Dublin General Plan~Specific Plan Amendment Project Description · Page 4 of 7 Area F_N_gp-sp-Rev8 doc Dublin Ranch A rea F North · December, 2003 Element approved in June 1997. For this reason, the traffic impacts of the Area F North Development Area will not require modification of the existing EIR, preparation of a new EIR, or new mitigation measures. (Please refer to the letter from TJKM comparing traffic impacts included in Appendix D.) The table below describes the land uses and related traffic information for the traffic-generating land uses contained in Area F North, the Development Area: TABLE 1: ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED AND PROPOSED LAND USE Daily A.M. Street Peak P.M. Street Peak Rate Rate Rate Rate Approved Land Use Size Units Rate Trips In Out In Out Total In Out In Out Total SFUnits(LDR) F North 91 du 9.57 871 0.19 0.56 17 51 68 0.65 0.36 59 33 92 SFUnits(MDR) F North 99 du 9.57 947 0.19 0.56 19 55 74 0.65 0.36 64 36 100 SFUnits(MBR)Other 1106 du 9.57 10584 0.19 0.56 210 619 829 0.65 0.36 719 398 1117 SF Units(MDR)/CP 130 du 9.57 1244 0.19 0.56 25 73 98 0.65 0.36 85 47 132 High School 20.0 acre 50.00 1000 8.40 3.60 168 72 240 1.80 4.20 36 84 120 Middle School 30.6 acre 40.00 1224 7.20 4.80 220 147 367 1.44 2.16 44 66 110 Elem. School 10.0 acre 60.00 600 10.08 6.72 101 67 168 1.26 2.94 13 29 42 Public/Semi-Public 2.1 Ksf 79.26 166 6.74 5.97 14 13 27 6.20 7.00 13 15 28 Community Park 52.0 acre 1.59 83 0.03 0.01 2 1 3 0.03 0.05 2 3 5 Total Approved 1671~ 776 1098 1874 1035 711 1746 Proposed Land Use SF Units(LDR) F2 North 121 du 9.57 1158 0.19 0.56 23 68 91 0.65 0.36 79 44 123 SFUnits(MDR) F1 North 119 du 9.57 1139 0.19 0.56 23 67 90 0.65 0.36 77 43 120 SFUnits(MDR) Other 1050 du 9.57 10049 0.19 0.56 200 588 788 0.65 0.36 683 378 1061 Middle School 25.2 acre 40.00 1008 7.20 4.80 181 121 302 1.44 2.16 36 54 90 Elem. School 10.0 acre 60.00 600 10.08 6.72 101 67 168 1.26 2.94 13 29 42 Public/Semi-Public 3.4 Ksf 79.26 269 6.74 5.97 23 20 43 6.20 7.00 21 24 45 Community Park 65.9 Acre 1.59 105 0.03 0.01 2 1 3 0.03 0.05 2 3 5 Total Proposed 1432~ 553 932 1485 911 575 1486 Total Difference 2391 389 2611 Notes: Ksf= 1,000 square feet LDR= Low Density Residential MDR=Medium Density Residential CP = Community Park Source: ITE Trip Generation, 6th Edition, SANDAG It should be noted that some of the trips contained in the table are double-counted; some of the residential trips, for example, may be included in the totals of residential and school trips. The impact of these trips on the street system has been determined in the EDGPA/SP EIR traffic studies and the streets have been sized accordingly. Eastern Dublin General Plan~Specific Plan Amendment Project Description · Page 5 of 7 Area F_N~gp-sp-Rev8 doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December, 2003 Utility Services Dublin San Ramon Services Dis~ct (DSRSD) will provide water and wastewater service for the Amendment Area. These services are planned in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan (and/or subsequent revisions). An existing water storage reservoir provides water service for the Amendment Area. Distribution mains are planned to be located in all streets. Final locations and sizing of these facilities will be in accordance with the standards and recommendations of DSRSD. Sewer service for the Amendment Area will require connection to DSRSD's existing sewer system. Gravity sewer mains have been extended easterly in Gleason Drive from Tassajara Road into the Development Area. Final sizing and location of sewer facilities will be determined during final design. The storm drain system for the Amendment Area will consist of major backbone facilities and local facilities as defined by the Master Storm .Drain Study for Dublin Ranch. The backbone facilities will generally consist of larger diameter pipes networked throughout the site located in the major streets. These larger collector pipes will ultimately connect to box culverts that will direct the flow towards the existing G-3 channel, a Zone 7 facility located at the south end of Dublin Ranch. Local facilities will generally consist of smaller diameter pipes connecting individual neighborhoods to the collector system. The locations of proposed storm drain facilities are shown on the tentative maps for the individual neighborhoods. The Area F North Amendment application modifies the type and location of proposed land uses within the project boundaries. To determine if there are any substantive changes to the timing and amount of storm water runoff, a hydrology study of the proposed land use map was prepared and compared to the hydrology of the Specific Plan land use map for the same area. The results of this analysis indicate that the overall hydrologic characteristics of the proposed land uses are nearly identical to those in the Specific Plan approved in May of 1993. Therefore, the hydrologic impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report (certified 1993) and the subsequent 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (certified by City Council Resolution 51-93, May 4, 1993, amended August 22, 1994) are adequate. No additional environmental assessment or mitigation measures are required for the associated storm drain impacts. The updated hydrology report for Dublin Ranch, including the Area F North project area, was recently submitted to the City of Dublin. A strategy for improving the quality of storm water runoff for the Dublin Ranch project, including the F1 and F2 Neighborhoods, has been determined in conjunction with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In accordance with the permit granted for this project by the Corps of Engineers in May 2003, a series of best management practices (BMPs) have been designed to prevent the introduction of pollutants associated with development into downstream watercourses. With respect to this project, the primary focus will be to divert "first flush" runoff, typically containing the highest pollutant load, from out of the underground pipe system and into a regional treatment basin prior to entering the main G-3 system described above. Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Project Description · Page 6 of 7 Area F_N~gp-sp-Rev8 doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December, 2003 HazardOus Waste Site Potential A Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment of the Amendment Area and surrounding areas has been conducted by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (dated 9/25/97) to determine the presence of any hazardous waste and substance sites. The findings of these studies indicated that no problem sites were found. In addition, an environmental records search was conducted by Berlogar to determine if the site was included on a list of hazardous waste and substances areas. The results of this search indicated that neither the Amendment Area nor any areas within a two mile radius of the center of the site are listed as a hazardous site, hazardous material generator or transporter, or known to have underground storage tank leaks. This study has been included in Appendix C. Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Project Description · Page 7 of 7 Area F_N~gp-sp-RevS.doc GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT PAGE 1 OF 2 APPROVED LAND USES Land Use Summary Proposed Planned Development Approved Specific Plan Land Uses . Land Uses Midpginl Gross Ac.* Density Units Gross Ac.* Density Hints 22.7 ac. 4.0 91 33.4 ac. 3.6 12t 9.9 ac. 10.0 99 20.0 ac. 6.0 119 110.6 ac 10.0 1106'* 105.0 ac I0.0'* 13.0 ac. 10.0 130'* 0.0 ac. 52.0 ac. 65.9 ac. 5.6 ac. 5.6 nc. 2.0 ac. 2.0 ac. 20.0 ac. 0 ac. 30.6 ac. 25.2 ac 10.0 ac. t0.0 ac. 9.0 ac. 12.0 an. 3.9 ac. 6.3 ac. TOTAL 289.3 ac. 1426 285.4 ac. I290 · Gross acte.~ge is measured Io center line r)f arterial/collector sm:em ** Projected unit figures are based on Specific Plan midpoint density. Legend L Single Family Rcsidcn0al M Medium Dcnsiiy Resldemia MH Medium High Deraity Residential NS Neighborhoood Square Neighborhood Park CP Cnmunmiiy Park OS Open Space / Stream Conidor ES Elementary School MS Middle School HS High School VC Village Center DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP Fl & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS siTE DEVELOPmNT R~VIEW Dublin. Cali£omia Notes~ Existing Eastern Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan Land Uses i. Heavy lines on land use boundaries i;,dicato Specific Plan components affected by proposed changes. ~ Oecember2Otlt 2. Topography is from before the fire station was built on Fallon Road and does not reflect mass grading completed as of I December 2003. 3. The plan amendment area fbr Area F North includes a 6.3-acre parcel for Public/Semi-Public uses, replacing the two parcels in Area F at thc ~ - - intersection of Central and Grafton. The larger parcel allows a greater range of potential uses than the original proposed parcels. The two Public/Semi-Public parcels in Area F are proposed to he re-designated to tt Medium Density Residential use. The Community Park and Stream North 0 100 300 500 750 1000 · Corridor in the eastem portion of the amendment area are proposed to be reconfigured to follow current plans for area roads, including Fallon and Lockhart. To accommodate the changes to the Community Park while preserving viable neighborhoods, Keegan Street is no longer planned to continue north of Central. (See following page for proposed land uses. ~ MacKay & Somps · Engineering & Planning William tlezmalhalch A/chilccls. Inc.* Architeclure & Planning NUVIS ,Landscape Archttecmre GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ EASTERN DUBL1N SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT PAGE 2 OF 2 PROPOSED LAND USES ................... Land Use Summary ~'~--- ~j Proposed Planned Development Approved Specific Plan Land Uses Land Uses Midpoint Gross Ac.' Density Units Gross Ac.* Density Umt_s 22.7 ac. 4.0 91 33.4 ac3.6 121 9.9 ac.10.0 99 20.0 ac. 6.0 119 13.0ac.LO,O 130'* 0.0 ac. 52.0 ac. 65.9 ac 5.6 ac. 5.6 ac 2.0 ac. 2.0 20.0 ac 0 ac. 30.6 ac 25.2 ac. IO. Oac I0.0 ac. 9.0 ac. 12.0 ac. 3.9 ac. 6.3 ac. TOTAL 289.3 ac. 1426 285.4 ac. 1290 * Gross acreage ia measured to center line of medal/collector streets. ** Projected unit figures are basecl on Specific Plan midpoint density. L Single Family Residennal ~'~" '~ M Medium O~i~y Rcsidcnlia[ MH Medium High Density Residential NS Neighlmrhooed Square x CP Community Park ar~ -----~, ~_~ OS Open Space / Stream Conidol /- ES Eiementap/School ~ MS Middle School H$ High School /% VC Village Cemer DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH -~ ~ [Vl~i EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE I & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE ~,..~ ~¢r--~ -~'~/'"'"x MASTERVESTINGTENTATIVEMAP FI & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Dub/& Cali£om/a Notes: Pronosed Planned Development Land Uses , Heavy lines on land usc boundaries indicate Specific Plan components affected by proposed changes; ghost lines show existing land usc boundaries. ~ December2aaJ 2. Topography is from before the fire station was built on Fallon Road and does not reflect mass grading completed as of I December 2003. for Area F North includes a 6.3-acre parcel for Public/Semi-Public uses to replace the two parcels in Area F at the intersection of Central 3. The plan amendment and Grafton, allowing a greater range of Public/Semi-Public Uses in thc ama The two smaller Public/Semi-Public parcels arc proposed to be m-designated to a Medium Density Residential usc under this GPA/SPA request. Thc City Park and Stream Corridor in the eastern portion of the project area are proposed to be North 0 100 300 500 750 1000 rcconfigured to follow current plans for area roads, including Fallon and Lockhart. 'Fo accommodate the changes to the Community Park while preserving viable neighborhoods, Keegan Street is no longer planned to continue north of Central. Discrepancies in land use areas are due to imprecise land calculations in previously approved plans and realignment of area roads.(See previous page for previously approved General Plan/Specific Plan land uses.) MacKay & Scraps o'Engineering & Planning William Hemalhalch Architects, Inc.. Architecture & Planning NUVIS °Landscape Architecture GLS Architecture o Landscape Architecture Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Project Description for DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan/Planned Development Rezone Introduction The Area F North Project is a Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan as defined by Section 8.32.030(A) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone covers approximately 285 acres, encompassing portions of Areas B, E, and F of Dublin Ranch. This area is bordered by existing Phase 1 residential neighborhoods to the north, an existing neighborhood (Mi) and Dublin Land Company lands to the west, Central Parkway t° the south, and Fallon Road to the east. This land (referred to in the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (GP/EDSPA) as the Amendment Area) is shown in greater detail in the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Review sections. The Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone (referred to as the Development Area in the GP/EDSPA section) covers an area of approximately 88.5 acres comprised of the portion of the Stage 1 Area north of Gleason Drive. This submittal includes a listing of permitted and conditional land uses; development standards; data on site area, proposed densities and maximum number of dwelling units; a phasing plan; and textual information sufficient to establish consistency with the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan. Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan~Planned Development Rezone Project Description · Page 1 of 9 Area F_N__pd__desc- Rev8 doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Background Dublin Ranch is located within the East Dublin Specific Plan Area and comprises 1,311' acres, the majority of which have been annexed to the City of Dublin. The annexation area was pre-zoned in conformity with the Specific Plan land use designations under PA 94-030. Areas B through E were then rezoned under PA 96-039. Area F was later rezoned under PA 98-068. This Development Plan for the Area F North Project Area will also serve as an amendment for minor modifications to these documents. Existing Land Use and Site Conditions The Stage 1 P.D. Area is currently vacant land. No residences or other structures exist within the boundaries of the Stage 1 P.D. Area. The low rolling hills are covered primarily with non-native grassland. The existing topography across the site is varied with the greatest elevation difference occurring towards the eastern side of the project, south of Neighborhoods L4 and L5 of Dublin Ranch Phase I. At this location, a hillside exists along the boundary with Phase I with elevation differences of 30 to 50 feet. Elevations across the Project Area generally fall from north to south. Construction of Medium High Density Residential associated with the planned Village Center is currently occurring to the south of the Stage 1 P.D. Area, and construction of Fairway Ranch, a High Density Residential development, is slated to begin in 2004. To the east, development associated with Dublin Ranch Area A is currently in progress, including Single Family Residential neighborhoods, an 18-hole golf course, and the expansion of Fallon Road. To the north and west, the construction of Dublin Ranch Phase I is nearly complete, with Low and Medium Density Residential neighborhoods, an elementary school parcel (not yet developed), a neighborhood park, open space/stream corridor, and other recreational amenities. A Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment of the Stage 1 P.D. Area and surrounding areas has been conducted by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (dated 9/25/97) to determine the presence of any hazardous waste and substance sites. The findings of these studies indicated that no problem sites were found. In addition, an environmental records search was conducted by Berlogar to determine if the site was included on a list of hazardous waste and substances areas. The results of this search indicated that neither the Project Area nor any areas within a two mile radius of the center of the site are listed as a hazardous site, hazardous material generator or transporter, or known to have underground storage tank leaks. This study has been included in Appendix C. Various biological studies have been undertaken within the Project Area and surrounding areas by H. T. Harvey & Associates. The presence of the California red-legged frog and * Dublin Ranch includes all of the property in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area shown as being owned by Jenmfer Lin, and those areas previously owned by Jennifer Lin and since dedicated or sold. Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan~Planned Development Rezone Project Description · Page 2 of 9 Area F_N_pd_desc-Rev8 doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 the California tiger salamander was addressed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (PA 98-068) prepared by the City of Dublin. Mitigation Measures were designated and approved as part of the MND. Two delineations conducted by Ted Winfield & Associates identified the areas that are subject to the USACE jurisdiction within the Project Area. These submittals were formally verified by the USACE on August 18, 1999 and December 2, 1999. Mitigation measures have been incorporated in the wetland fill permit issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on May 23, 2003. A copy of the permit may be found in Appendix G. A summary of the Biological Surveys conducted has been included in Appendix E. Please refer to the documents on file at the City of Dublin for additional information. Geotechnical investigations of the Project Area and surrounding areas have been conducted by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants to determine the soil condition and stability. The studies indicated no areas of concern within the Project Area. These studies have been included in Appendix F. Community Theme Key elements of the "upscale rural" community theme established for the previous phases of Dublin Ranch will be incorporated into this Project. Where appropriate, the continuation of established landscape and architectural themes, materials, forms, and elements will provide an overall unified community appearance while creating a classic and livable community. Refer to the Residential Site Development Standards, Architectural Guidelines and Landscape Design and Open Space Guidelines in the Land Use and Design Standards section for further discussion and details. Stage 1 Proposed Development Plan The Stage 1 P.D. Area is composed of five distinct sub-areas. These are separated from each other by Gleason Drive, an arterial running east-west through the project area, and north-south collector streets including Lockhart, running south from Gleason to Central Parkway, and Grafton Street, running through the Stage 1 Area from Antone Way north of the Stage 1 area to the Village Center to the south. There are two sub-areas north of Gleason Drive. Of these, the sub-area west of Grafton contains approximately 25.2 acres (gross*) for a Middle School site, a 6.3-acre parcel for Public/Semi-Public uses, 2.2 acres of Open Space/Stream Corridor, and a 20.0-acre Medium Density Residential neighborhood. The sub-area east of Grafton contains a 33.4-acre Low Density Residential neighborhood and an Open Space/Stream Corridor of 1.4 acres. * Acreage figures given for land uses are gross acreages unless otherwise noted. Gross acreage is measured to the centerline of arterial/collector streets. Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan~Planned Development Rezone Project Description · Page 3 of Y Area F_N ~:)d_desc- Revg.do c Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 The remaining three sub-areas are located south of Gleason Drive and are separated by Grafton and Lockhart Streets. The sub-area west of Grafton consists of approximately 42.0 acres of Medium Density Residential, with a 2.0-acre Neighborhood Square centrally located within the residential area, and approximately ½-acre of Open Space Corridor (multi-use trail) along the western side of Grafton Street. The sub-area between Graf~on and Lockhart Streets contains approximately 63.0 acres of Medium Density Residential, a 10.0-acre Elementary School site, and a 5.6-acre Neighborhood Park. The sub-area east of Lockhart Street contains a Community Park (65.9 gross acres) and a 7.9- acre Open Space/Stream Corridor area. The proposed Area F North Stage 1 Planned Development Land Use Plan is based on the type, location and intensity of land uses found in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for that area. Notable land use changes include: · The exchange of two Public/Semi-Public sites on Central Parkway for one larger, more useable site to the north of Gleason Drive · The elimination of the High School designation and relocation of the Middle School site to conform to current Dublin Unified School District preferences · The increase in the Community Park size to respond to the City's desire to keep the entire park west of Fallon Road and the necessity of keeping Fallon Road on Dublin Ranch property. A comparison of acreages allocated to designated land uses within the proposed Development Plan and the approved Specific Plan is as follows: Approved Eastern Dublin Proposed GPA/SPA Land Use General Plan/Specific Plan and Stage 1 P.D. Low Density Residential (L) 22.7 acres 91 du* 33.4 acres 121 du Medium Density Residential (M) Development Area (N. of Gleason) 9.9 acres 99 du* 20.0 acres 119 du South of Gleason Drive 110.6 acres 1106 du* 105.0 acres 1050 du* Medium Density Residential/ Community Park (M/CP) 13.0 acres 130 du* 0.0 acres Community Park (CP) 52.0 acres 65.9 acres Neighborhood Park (NP) 5.6 acres 5.6 acres Neighborhood Square (NS) 2.0 acres 2.0 acres High School (HS) 20.0 acres 0.0 acres Middle School (MS) 30.6 acres 25.2 acres Elementary School (ES) 10.0 acres 10.0 acres Open Space (OS) 9.0 acres 12.0 acres Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) 3.9 acres 6.3 acres Total 289.3 acres 1426 du 285.4 acres 1290 du *Unit counts based on Specific Plan mid-point densities. Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan~Planned Development Rezone Project Description · Page 4 of 9 Area F_N_pd_desc-RevS.doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Stage 1 Project Access and Circulation Gleason Drive and Central Parkway will provide primary east-west access to the Stage 1 P.D. Area. Tassajara and Fallon Roads are the arterial streets providing the primary north- south vehicular routes to and from freeways and other regional destinations. Three north- south collectors, Brannigan, Grafion and Lockhart Streets, will provide vehicular circulation within this portion of Dublin Ranch, serving neighborhoods, schools, parks and, in the case of Grafton Street, the Village Center planned south of Central Parkway. The applicant is currently in the process of extending Gleason Drive from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road. Gleason Drive is to be a four-lane divided arterial. Grafton Street, a Class II Residential Collector, will be extended south from the Dublin Ranch Phase 1 boundary to Gleason Drive, separating the F1 and F2 neighborhoods. Eventually, Grafton Street will extend south to Central Parkway where it will serve the southern portion of the Stage 1 P.D. Area and be the future "Main Street" of the Dublin Ranch Village Center. Entries to Neighborhoods F1 and F2 from Grafton will be designed with a median and widened landscaped parkway section along each side of the street similar to that constructed in Dublin Ranch Phase 1. A stream/open space corridor runs along the eastern boundary of the middle school site and F1 neighborhood. It is a continuation of a reconstructed open space corridor that passes through portions of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 to the north. At Gleason Drive, the stream component is anticipated to end as shown on the Specific Plan. The open space corridor will continue south through Area F to Central Parkway. This corridor will contain a 12' wide multi-use trail along one side and will be designed for shared use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, in addition to providing a visual and physical separation between the proposed school, F1 neighborhood and Grafton Street, the corridor will serve as a pedestrian circulation link between the school site and points to the north and south. A similar stream/open space corridor runs along the eastern boundary of the F2 neighborhood adjacent to Fallon Road. This is also a continuation of a Phase 1/Area A reconstructed open space corridor. This stream corridor is expected to continue south of Gleason Drive, rtmning along the expanded Community Park through Area B of Dublin Ranch to Central Parkway. This corridor will also contain a 12' wide multi-use trail along one side designed for shared use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, this corridor will also serve as a linear circulation route connecting residential neighborhoods to the north and south. An updated traffic analysis has been prepared by TJKM to determine whether the proposed land use changes would have a greater impact on traffic levels than those shown in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP EIR or subsequent amendments. TJKM has determined impacts due to the proposed development would be smaller than those described in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA EIR. Thus, the Development Plan for the Project Area is Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan~Planned Development Rezone Project Description · Page 5 of 9 Area F_N~d_desc-RevS.doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 consistent with the traffic studies done for the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan and the subsequent amendment for a minor modification to the City's Circulation Element approved in June 1997. For this reason, the traffic impacts within the Area F North Development Plan area will not require modification of the existing EIR, preparation of a new EIR, or new mitigation measures. Please refer to the TJKM Traffic Report for Area F North included in Appendix D. Stage 2 Proposed Development Plan The Stage 2 Planned Development Area is the portion of the Stage 1 P.D. Area north of and including Gleason Road. The Stage 2 P.D. Area will be comprised of five different land uses: Open Space/Stream Corridor, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Middle School and Public/Semi Public. There are two proposed Open Space corridors in the Stage 1 P.D. Area, each with a stream and a 12' wide multi-use trail mrming through it. The Open Space/Stream Corridor area on the west side of Fallon Road is 1.4 acres and is a continuation of the existing corridor located between Fallon Road and Phase 1 neighborhoods; the one west of Grafton Street is 2.2 acres and continues the existing corridor west of Grafton. The Development Area also contains two residential neighborhoods. The F1 Medium Density Residential neighborhood will consist of 119 single-family detached homes on approximately 20.0 acres, at a density of 6.0 dwelling units to the acre (du/ac). The F2 Low Density Residential neighborhood is proposed as 121 single-family detached homes on approximately 33.4 acres at a density of approximately 3.5 du/ac. A Middle School site occupies 25.2 acres in the northwest comer of the Stage 2 P.D. Area. Finally, a parcel of 6.3 acres in the southeastern area of the Stage 1 P.D. Area is to be reserved for Public/Semi-Public uses. This Public/Semi- Public (P/SP) site is to replace two P/SP sites totaling 3.9 acres, at the intersection of Grafton Street and Central Parkway which are proposed to be rezoned to Medium Density Residential under the Stage 1 P.D. A comparison of acreages allocated to designated land uses within the proposed Area F North Stage 2 Planned Development Land Use Plan and the same area of the approved Specific Plan is as follows: * Acreage figures given for land uses are gross acreages unless otherwise noted. Gross acreage is measured to the centerline of arterial/collector streets. Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan~Planned Development Rezone Project Description. Page 6 of 9 Area F_N~d_desc-Rev8.doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Proposed General Plan/ Approved Eastern Dublin Land Use Specific Plan Amendment General Plan/Specific Plan Low Density Residential (L) 33.4 acres 121 du 22.7 acres 91 du* Medium Density Residential (M) 20.0 acres 119 du 9.9 acres 99 du* Open Space (OS) 3.6 acres 3.7 acres Public/Semi-Public 6.3 acres 0.0 acres High School (HS) 0.0 acres 20.0 acres Middle School (MS) 25.2 acres 30.6 acres Total (Area F North) 88.5 acres 240 du 86.9 acres 190 du *Unit counts based on Specific Plan mid-point densities. The increase in acreage of the Stage 2 Planned Development area may be due to inaccuracies in previous acreage measurements and refinements to the alignment of Gleason Drive. Stage 2 Project Access and Circulation Gleason Drive will provide east-west access to the Stage 2 Planned Development area. The applicant is in the process of extending this arterial from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road. Gleason Drive is to be a four-lane divided arterial. Grafton Street, a Class II Residential Collector, will be extended south from the Dublin Ranch Phase 1 boundary through Area F North to Gleason Drive, separating the two F1 and F2 neighborhoods. Eventually, Grafton Street will extend south to Central Parkway where it will serve the southern portion of Dublin Ranch and be the future "Main Street" of the Dublin Ranch Village Center. Entries to Neighborhoods F1 and F2 will be designed with a widened landscaped parkway section along each side of the street similar to that constructed in Dublin Ranch Phase 1. Streets within the residential neighborhoods will be public streets based on the City of Dublin's design standards. The neighborhood entry streets are slightly modified with a widened parkway, similar to that constructed in Dublin Ranch Phase 1. Street circulation systems within the neighborhoods have been designed to allow for visibility and safety and to discourage automobile traffic through the neighborhood. Pedestrian connections to adjacent areas and emergency vehicle access have all been planned in accordance with the Dublin General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan. An updated traffic analysis has been prepared by TJKM to determine whether the proposed land use changes would have a greater impact on traffic levels than those shown in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP EIR or subsequent amendments. TJKM has determined impacts due to the proposed development would be smaller than those described in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA EIR. Thus, the Development Plan for the Project Area is consistent with the traffic studies done for the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan and the sUbsequent amendment for a minor modification to the City's Circulation Element approved in June 1997. For this reason, the traffic impacts of the Area F North Stage I & 2 Development Plan/Planned Development Rezone Project Description · Page 7 of 9 Area F_N~d_desc-Rev8 doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Development Plan Will not require modification of the existing EIR, preparation of a new EIR, or new mitigation measures. Please refer to the TJKM Traffic Report for Area F North included in Appendix D. A stream/open space corridor runs along the eastern boundary of the middle school site and F1 Neighborhood. It is a continuation of a reconstructed open space corridor that passes through portions of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 to the north. At Gleason Drive, the stream component is anticipated to end as shown on the Specific Plan. The open space corridor will continue south through Area F to Central Parkway. This corridor will contain a 12' wide multi-use trail along one side and will be designed for shared use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, in additiOn to Providing a visual and physical separation between the proposed school, F1 neighborhood and Grafton Street, the corridor will serve as a pedestrian circulation link between the school site and points to the north and south. A similar stream/open space corridor runs along the eastern boundary of the F2 Neighborhood adjacent to Fallon Road. This is also a continuation of a Phase 1/Area A reconstructed open space corridor. This stream corridor is expected to continue south of Gleason Drive, running along the expanded Community Park through Area B of Dublin Ranch to Central Parkway. This corridor will also contain a 12' wide multi-use trail along one side designed for shared use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, this corridor will also serve as a linear circulation route connecting residential neighborhoods to the north and south. Ownership and Maintenance of Stage 2 Planned Development Area Open Space and Pedestrian Areas A homeowners' association(s) will be created with the Project Area and a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (Declaration) will be prepared and recorded. The Declaration will establish easements and other rights necessary for the association to fulfill its responsibilities. The Declaration will require the homeowners association to own and/or maintain the lands in accordance with the following table. Element Own Maintain Center Median in Public Streets City City Stream Corridor/Open Space Areas HOA HOA Stream Corridor Trails (not adjacent HOA HOA to streets) Other Trails HOA HOA Trails/Sidewalks along City Landscape - HOA Arterials/Collectors Hardscape - City Right-of-way Landscaping City HOA (curb to ROW line) Subdivision Community Landscaping Private/HOA Private/HOA Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan~Planned Development Rezone Project Description ° Page 8 of 9 Area F_N_pd_desc-Rev8 doc Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Dublin's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance currently requires 12.5% of all housing to be affordable to those of very low, low and moderate incomes. This project will comply with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requirements by constructing a proportionate share of the affordable units within the Fairway Ranch Residential Community. Construction of the Fairway Ranch project, located within Area B of Dublin Ranch between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard, will commence in 2004. Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan~Planned Development Rezone Project Description · Page 9 of 9 Area F_N2od_desc-Rev8.doc Area F North · December 2003 Permitted and Conditional Land Uses For DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH PD Low Density Residential Permitted Uses: Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use) Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenant use only) Single family dwelling Small family day care home Conditional Uses: Ambulance service Bed and breakfast inn Day care center Large family day care home Parking lot - residential Religious facility School/private PD Medium Density Residential Permitted Uses: Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use) Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Private recreation facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenant use only) Single family dwelling Small family day care home Conditional Uses: Ambulance service Bed and breakfast inn Day care center. Large family day care home Parking lot - residential Religious facility School/private Permitted and Conditional Land Uses ° Page ! of 2 Area F_N_Land Uses-Rev2 doc Area F North · December 2003 PD Open Space Permitted Uses, including, but not limited to: Recreation facility- passive Those uses allowed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 permit and 1603 agreements. Trails and maintenance roads PD Middle School Permitted Uses: Middle School PD Elementary School Permitted Uses: Elementary School PD Public/Semi-Public Permitted Uses: Public, semi-public, and institutional uses including, but not limited to: Library Post Office Fire Station Police Station Religious Facility Community Center Other governmental and quasi-governmental offices as determined by the Community Development Director Conditional Uses: School (private) Day Care Center PD Park Permitted Uses: Community Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Square Permitted and Conditional Land Uses · Page 2 of 2 Area F_N_Land Uses-Rev2.doc STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN Land Use Summary Gross Nat ) Land Usc Gross Ac.* Net Ac.* UniL~DensityDensity L (F-Noah - F2I 33.4 ac.29.5 ac. 121 3.6 4 M (F North- FI) 20.0 ac 15.4 ac. 119 6.0 7.7 M (F-West)42.0 ac.33.1 ac. 420" I0.0'* M (F-E~t} 63.0 ac.52.0 ac. 630**I0.0'* CP 65.9 ac.60.0 ac. NP 5.6 ac 4.4 ac. NS 2.0 ac 1.4 ac. MS 25.2 ac.24.2 ac. ES 10.0 ac.8.3 ac. OS 12.0 ac.7,0 ac. P/SP 6.3 ac. 5.8 ac. TOTAL 285.4 ac. 241.1 ac. 1290  * Gross acreage is mea~ared to center line of arterial/collector st~ecls · * Projected unit figures are based on Specific Plan midpoint density. ' ~'J / ~ ~ '/ Legend ~-~_/ /'2, '~ L Single Famil.~ Residential ~' _,,_/. / x, -- , M MediumDerait) Residential ME Medium High Density R~idenfial NS NeighborhnoM Square NP Neighborhoed Park ~, ~.~_.~. CP Community Park /~x,,,,~.__.,~' OS Open Space / Stream Con~dor x, ~-~. ES Elementm3 School ) x~__~ VIS Middle School ~IS High School VC Village Center ) /' ?/SP PublidSemi Public ~/ 33. ~ DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE (x..._ ~ ~'~'~x MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP Fl & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS SffE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Dub/in, California Proposed Planned Development Land Uses Notes: 1. Heavy lines on land use boundaries indicate Specific P an components affected by proposed changes. 2. Topography is from before the fire station was built on Fallon Road and docs DOt reflect mass grading completed as of I December 2003. 3. Neighborhood Square, Neighborhood Park and Elementary School locations ale tentative and are subject to change based on further refinements to surrounding residential neighborhood at the Tentative Map stage. Net acreages for NS, NP and ES sites may change from what is depicted on this exhibit based on final site North 0 100 300 500 750 1000 location. MacKay & Somps o Engineering & Planning William Hezmalhalch Architects. Inc., Architecture & Planning NINIS, Landscape Architecture GLS Architecture o Landscape Architecture STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ] .... ._, . --.__ Land Use Summary Drive '~k~-¢'~'~i" '4 LandUse GrossAc.*NetA¢ Units DensityDensit'/ L (F-North ~ F2) 33.4 ac, 29.5 ac. 121 3.6 4.1 M (F North - FI] 20.0 ac.15.4 ac119 6.0 7.7 ?/- ...._ ............. ~ MS 25.2 ac 24.2 ac. ~ ~ OS 3.6 ae 2.0 ac. '~ 't ~ TOTAl. 88.5 ac.76.9 ac 240 Legend L Single Family Residential I~e M Medium Density Residential CP Community Park ; ;:" i~ i! / ," ' 'k,, OS Open Space / Stream Corridor - .. MS . Middle School · i { . .. ..... ~ HS High School ' ~,'~.~" P/SP Public/SemiPublic ..... ' ........... DUBLIN RANCH Proposed Planned Development Land Uses E^sxER~ DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE MASTER VESTING TENTATIVfi M~P Fl & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS SIT~ DEVELOPmNT REmW DublJh, California  Deceu~ber North 0 100 200 400 600 800 MacKay & Somps · Engineering & Planning William Hezmalhalch Architects. Inc.. Architecture & Planning NUVIS · Landscape Architecture GLS'Architectureo Landscape Architecture Lot Fr ~ ~ . ~ ~ ot Side SIDEWALK J -- SIDEWALK PUBLIC SERVICE/-- PUBLIC SERVICE/ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 44' 0R 40' I~NDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW 1. LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET - 46' STREET OR 44' CUL-DE-SAC ROW N.T.S. *Note: Public Service Easments will be 8' in front of lots and 5' on lot sides. SOUTH NORTH School F1 Neighborhood Site ' ' ' DUBLINRANCH 5'-81 6~1 _10'_ pK~,i~RAVEL~RAVEi~PK~,[ , i ~A FNORTH PAR~AY STRIP--'-t ~ .I-fl-I- 12 ~_ 12 _1_ _1 _ 7~~ -~NE ~sg /~NE~N~ 2 ~ID~WALK EASTERN DUBIJN GENE~ PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDME~ SIDEWALK-- 36' I_ 26' t~ ~ PUBLIC SERVICE SIAGElasTAGE2DEVELOPMENTPLAN~CA~EDDEVELOPMENTREZONE H0A PARCEL/-- EASEMENT ~svsR vss~o ~S,Ta~Ws uae m UB LI C S ERVI CE / 6 2' LANDSCAPE EASEMEN~ ROW ROW 2. KOHNEN LANE - 62' ROW (South of School Site from Brannigan St. to grafton St.) N.T.S. *Notes: Noah Street section varies west of intersection of Kohnen Way and Grafton Street, where Kohnen Way will have a median. MacKay & S0mps- Engin~fing & Plamng Street section also varies at School Bus Drop-off Zone, William[temalhalchA~chitects, lnc.*AmhiI~mre&Pla~ing ~th a pull-out for vehicles and where on-street paring ~11 be prohibited during school hours. N~lS.~ds~pe~chit~mre 6LS Architecture* ~ndscape ~chit~mre STREET SECTIONS WEST EAST eublic/S emi-Public Sit~, ~ ,~ [ ~L~-~ ,,1~... ~ ~j__~__ F1Neighorhood VARIES VARIES 1_5' MINI.8'.I8' ~1~8'_1_ 12'__ 12'_1_ 8'_1.8' .I 8'15' MINI ' GITRAVEL RAVE-qr GI - PARKWAY STRIP - l--J PARKWAY STRIP MULTI-UsE TRAIL '2] L~,E LANE LANE'LAN~ HOA PARCEL / · HOA PARCEL/----/ ~ 72' PUBLIC SERVICE/ PUBLIC SERVICE/ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 3. BRANNIGAN STREET - 72' ROW (FI Neighborhood Nor[h of Casco Way) N.T.S. SOUTH NORTH AREA F NORTH ~ HOA PARCEL MASTER VESTING TElqTATIVE MAP (BY OTHERS) I [ 8' FI & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PARKWAY STRIP-- - - _~_l~j- {~IK~TRAVEL ~RAVE¢ MEDIAN4~RAVE~TRAVE~- BIKE k_ PARKWAY STRIP l)ttN/II, Ca/ifom/a ILANE~ ,LANE LANE TURN ~ LANE~ LANE 'LANE SIDEWALK- --w- I~ 44 LANES [ 44' SIDEWALK lPecember2007 PUBLIC SERVICE/ ~ 104' PUBLIC SERVICE/ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW LANDSCAPE EASEMENT Noflh 4. GLEASON DRIVE - 104' ROW ~a~ray & S0mpso Engineering & Planning (at Project Frontage with Williamllezmalhalch Architects, lnc.- Architecture & Planning lands of Dublin Land Co.) WEST EAST STREET SECTIONS t ,2'1 Jo'! s' !_ ,2' I .,6' h ~2' I 8'1 8'1 8' I s' I PAR~AY STRIP I- :iD ' PK~ITRAVE'd MEDIAN/ 7RAVELtbKaI' UI' -I~ PAR~AY STRIP 1~ 'LANE 2NE[ TURN [UNE LANE L[~ MULTI USE TRAIL MULTI USE TRAIL / ] ..... ~ ~ - I 4~ .[ , [ afl { X ' PUBLIC SERVICE/ ~4 I LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW 5. G~FTON STREET - 94' ROW N.T.S. WEST EAST * DUBLIN RANCH CORRIDOR ~ AREA F NORTH EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PI[AN AMENDMENT ~ }Jl0A PARCEL MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP HOA PARCEL FI & F2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PARICe/AY STRIP ~--I-J IPK&I+RAVEi3RAVELIPK&I:LANE LANE LANE LANE ~l:--:t~_ - PARKWAY STRIP MULTI-USE TRAIL - MULTI-USE TRAIL 4~' , . 36' ._1 ~ id' PUBLIC SERVICE,/ BO'W ROW LANDSCAPE EASEMENT Noa~ 6. GRAFTON STREET - 78' ROW (At Boundary with Existing Phase 1 - Dublin Ranch)MacKay&Somp~oEngincering&Ptanning William He:~nalhalch Architects. In¢.o Amhitecmre & Planning N.T.S. NUVIS °Landscape Architecture Dubh'n Ranch ~lrea F North · June, 2003 RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Area F North Single Family Detached Setbacks/Standards Low Density Medium Density Single Family Detached (F2) Single Family Detached (FI) > 5000 S.F. > 3150 S.F. - < 5000 S.F. Lot Size 5,000 S.F. or greater 3,150 S.F. or greater (45 x 70) Minimum Street Frontage 35' 35' Maximum Lot Coverage 0) 45% 50% Maximum Building Height 35' 38' Maximum Stories 2 3 (2)(3) Minimum Front Yard Setbacks Living Area 15' 2-story®, 12' single-story 12' Porch Iff 10' Front-on Garage 19' (s) 18' Tm-in Garage 12' (6) NA Minimum Side Yard Setbacks (7) 1 Story to 1 Story 5' - 5' (aggregate 10) 4' min. (8) 1 Story to 2 Story 5' - 7.5' (aggregate 12.5) 4' min. 2 Story to 2 Story 7.5' - 7.5' (aggregate 15') 4' min. (8) Corner Lot (Setback from street 15' 2-story (4), 10' single-story 9' side) Porch (8) 3' N/A Encroachments (D) (D) Minimum Rear Yard Setbacks (7) (,0) Living Space 15' avg. per lot, Iff min. (D) 12' avg. per lot, 5' min. (D) Single-story garage 5' min. (ID) 3' 2-story garage (living space above) 10' mm. 0D) 10' mm. (D) Standards For Usable Rear Yards 500 SF minimum contiguous flat 300 S.F. mimmum contiguous area. Minimum dimension 10' flat area. Minimum dimension 5' Accessory Structures 0S) (E) Parking Spaces Required 2 covered and 1 guest 0~) 2 covered and 1 guest I - ! ResidentialSite Development Standard Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 NOTES: (A) Setbacks measured from property line. (B) See following pages for graphic depiction of above Standards. (C) See Pages II-12 to II-23 of Architectural Guidelines for additional Architectural Treatment requirements. (D) Items such as, but not limited to air conditioning condensers, porches, chimneys, bay windoWs, media centers, etc. may encroach 2' into the required setback provided a minimum of 36' flat and level area is maintained for access around the house. (E) Setbacks for accessory structures shall be in accordance with the building code in effect at the time of construction/installation. Noise generating uses such as pool and spa equipment shall be acoustically screened or located outside the setback area. (1) 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 enclosed and covered areas; but not standard roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, paved areas such as walkways, driveways, patios, uncovered parking areas or roads. (Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.36.100) (2) Subject to Building Code requirements for access. (3) The 3rd floor must be stepped back from front and rear elevation to reduce building mass. (4) Where 50% or more of the elevation of the home is a single story element and there is a 5' minimum offset between the Ist and 2na story elements, the setback for the single story and 2- story elements shall be considered as that for a single story building. (5) Three car front-on garages are prohibited on lots within the F1 Neighborhood. In the F2 Neighborhood, three car front-on garages are limited to one plan per neighborhood plan package. Refer to Building Mass and Form and Architectural Treatment Sections of the Architectural Design Standards for additional architectural requirements pertaining to garage facade, roof lines, etc. (6) Swing-in garages are prohibited on lots less than 55' wide. (7) Retaining wails up to 3' high may be used to create a level usable area. Retaining walls in excess of 3' to create usable area are subject to review and approval of the Building Official or Community Development and Director of Public Works. Walls over 30" in height are subject to safety criteria as determined by the Building Official. (8) Setbacks subject to review and approval of Building Official for Building Code and Fire Code issues. Setback to building overhang to be 3' minimum or as required by current City Building Code Standards. (9) Where a minimum 5' wide Homeowners Association (HOA) parcel lies between a lot and an adjacent street the adjacent lot is not considered a corner lot. (10) At cul-de-sac bulbs where lot depths are less than the standard 100', minimum rear yard setback requirements may be reduced by an amount equal to 100' minus the actual depth of the lot (i.e. 100' - 90' = 10'). In no case will the rear yard setback be reduced to less than 10'. (11) Curbside parking may be counted toward required number of guest spaces. Tandem garage parking is permitted. 16034-60dc-q2-17-04NotesRevised.doc I-2 Residential Site Development Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 50' + 50' + 50' +- 50' +- +il 1 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 5,000+ SF LOTS TYPICAL PLOTTING CONCEPTS []2ND STORY MASSING I - 3 Residential Site Development Standards Dubli~t Ranch Area F North ° June 2003 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Minimum usable (level) rear yards = 300 S.F. with a minimum 5' dimension. (Typ) 45,+ 45'+_ 45'+. 45'+ +! 1 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 3,150+ SF LOTS TYPICAL PLOTTING CONCEPTS 2ND STORY MASSING [] USABLE REAR YARD MINIMUM AREA I - 4 Residential Sire Developme~zt Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide specific architecture, planning and neighborhood design standards for the development of Neighborhoods F-1 and F-2 in Dublin Ranch. These standards have been developed to establish pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods with variety and interest and uphold a high level of quality and value in the overall community. The goal for these neighborhoods is to achieve a safe and pleasant neighborhood environment within which varied architecture, reduced dominance of automobiles, pedestrian scaled landscapes and walkways and connections to other community areas are all present. Relative to this document is Attachment A - "Architectural Style Guidelines" which is intended to further define the architectural design intent of this project. This attachment can be found following the Architectural Design Standards of this PD document. NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN Neighborhood Plotting and Massing One important goal of these guidelines is to create a functional street scene possessing visual quality and variety. Plotting and design criteria are intended to provide this variety in appearance as well as a sense of individuality for each home. Projects where nearly identical buildings line streets without variation in placement and architectural form are not permitted. This and the following section lists plotting and massing techniques which will aid in the creation of a successful street scene. While it is not necessary that every method be utilized, selective and appropriate use will greatly contribute to achieving the desired results. II - I Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 The following techniques address the use of plotting and massing to improve the street scene: · Reversing and varying adjacent house plan forms. · Avoiding obviously repetitious patterns. · Opening comer lots through plan selection and reduced building heights. · Varying setbacks. · Giving attention to composition of building mass. · Incorporating single story elements into two story buildings. · Stepping second stories. · Minimizing visual impact of the garage. Architectural Plan and Style Mix In order to achieve varied and interesting street scenes, the following architectural style mix and plan requirements must be met: In each neighborhood provide: · a minimum of 3 plans · a minimum of 3 elevations per plan · a minimum of 4 different architectural styles per neighborhood Or: · a minimum of 4 plans · a minimum of 3 elevations per plan · a minimum of 3 different architectural styles per neighborhood Where the same plan is plotted across from or adja.cent to another, it must be reverse plotted and have a significantly different elevation and color scheme. The use of style-appropriate materials and color schemes helps to achieve greater variety between homes with identical plans and elevations. It is the intent to avoid an overall monotonous color scheme through the use of a varied neighborhood color and materials palette. Varied color schemes shall, be applied to homes according to each individual style color palette as shown in the architectural guidelines section of this document. H - 2 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Setbacks Front yard setbacks shall vary for visual interest. A 2' minimum offset between adjacent buildings is required for lots where minimum rear and front yard setbacks can be met. (Refer to Table I-1 for specific setback requirements). Treatment of Corner Conditions The treatment of corner lots is key to a successful site plan. All units occupying corner lots shall be designed and placed so that: · The driveway and garage is placed against the interior side yard or accessed from the side street at the rear of the lot. · A clear line of site across the corner is maximized. · The building wall adjacent to the exterior side yard is as short as practical. · The exterior side and front yard setbacks are maximized. Rear Elevations Rows of units seen from a distance or on elevated lots are generally perceived by their contrast against the background. Here the dominant impact is the overall shape of the building and roof lines instead of the surface treatment or materials. In these circumstances: · Maximize the rear yard setback from the top of slope. · Design the rear elevation and roof forms to provide diversity. (Refer to Table I-1 for specific setback requirements). These buildings should appear as varied as practical with particular attention given to avoiding repetitious architectural elements such as fireplace placement, flat rear elevations, and major gable conditions. Each plan shall differ based on rear roof framing so that no rear roofs appear identical in form. There shall be a combination of shed, hip and gables, etc. as seen from adjacent streets. Areas of particular concern include those lots in Area F North Neighborhoods that abut Gleason Drive, Grafton Street and Fallon Road. Refer to Site Development Standards Table I-1 and Massing and Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations, pg. II- 11 for additional specific criteria. II - 3 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Building Side Yard Separations There are numerous effective techniques for mitigating the aesthetic and practical aspects of side yard building adjacencies. Side yards in the 10' range are useful in that they optimize density and affordability of a site while minimizing the amount of street paving and length and cost of common utility runs on a site. Various design and plotting techniques can successfully overcome concerns such as privacy, adjacency and accessibility. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) mandates a minimum of 3' clear side yard and/or 6' clear of building separation for non-fire rated single family residences. This is to provide both physical separation to limit the spread of fire and to allow accessibility around structures for fire fighting personnel. Typically, side yards are a minimum of 5' with 10' of building separation to allow for the placement of fireplaces on the side yard and eave overhang of the roof while maintaining the UBC separation criteria. Where setbacks are less than 5', extra attention must be paid to location of such encroachments to comply with UBC and any/all other applicable codes. See Table I-1 for specific setback requirements. The typical aesthetic criticism with the building separations in the 10' range are that they lack privacy where windows align, are too dark and canyon-like when between adjacent two story buildings and the accessibility is reduced because of the placement of storage sheds, air conditioning units and trash storage. Setbacks for encroachments have been established (see "encroachments"), however, local fire authority standards may supersede those stated in this document. Modem planned communities should address these issues through the design guidelines and community standards planning process. Placement of sheds and air conditioners shall be controlled and enforced to insure accessibility. Plan designs shall provide for the placement of air conditioning and trash storage units that do not intrude into either side or rear yard setbacks. Plan designs with attention to the placement of windows must insure privacy. Many of the same techniques used to vary the street scene should also be used to prevent dark canyon- like side yards and rear yards. These include: single story massing elements, hipped roofs, and stepped second stories to minimize side and rear yard depth. 1I- 4 Architectural Design Sta~tdards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Encroachments The following encroachments may project up to 2' into yard setbacks: (all non-fire rated encroachments must be at least 3 feet from property lines), eaves, architectural projections, fireplaces, log storage, entertainment niches, balconies, exterior stairs, bay windows, window seats, decks, and air conditioning equipment. Local fire authority standards which may exceed those stated here must be adhered to. SLOPE CONSIDERATIONS Grading Sloped Conditions Where there is adequate space, slope conditions in Area F North should be addressed by creating a series of terraces generally stepping down from north to south. At locations within blocks or at interim points within larger parcels, slope banks or walls shall address any excess slope. The intent is to provide a reasonable number of terraces rather than creating large level areas. Plotting on Cross Slope Conditions When plotting where the elevation difference between lots is greater than 3 feet, the units should be placed so that the driveway is on the high side of the lot. Plotting on Lots at the Bottom of a Slope When plotting and designing the home, maximize the rear yard depth and consider stepping back the rear elevations on the second story to avoid a "canyon-like" rear yard effect. BUILDING MASS AND FORM Residential Massing Exterior mass and form can be manipulated to improve the street scene by reducing the impact of certain home elements as they relate to corner conditions, adjacent units, setbacks and the street. Massing should be designed to decrease perceived density. Architectural Design Standa~;ds Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Architectural Form Building mass should be formulated to reflect interior uses, to create a positive relationship with adjacent homes and land use, to provide visual emphasis and to reflect the architectural style. Methods for maximizing the variety of architectural form within these constraints include: · Creating recessed alcoves or projected overhangs which cast shadows. · Sculpting major chimney forms. · Utilizing dormers, bay windows and other architectural projections. · Using porch/entry projections. Relationship of One and Two Story Buildings A key technique for creating a sense of variety within a neighborhood is to vary the heights and forms of the homes. This can be accomplished by using a combination of one and two story buildings and staggering the massing. It is preferable to use single story elements on fronts and outside edges of comer lots to provide a transition from taller, two story vertical planes to the horizontal planes of sidewalk and street. Introducing an intermediate transition between one and two story buildings helps to improve the visual relationship between the two. Two Story BUildings Style-appropriate, significant single story architectural elements shall be used on two story buildings to lessen their apparent height. (see "Architectural Style Guidelines" of this document for description of style-appropriate elements). Stepping the second story mass, where appropriate to the architectural style, should be used to improve the street scene. The second stories must be set back in relation to the garage face below. Designers shall create the building form as a series of interlocking masses rather than a box. Single Story Architectural Elements A single story architectural element on the front or side provides a transitional step between a two story home and the sidewalk level, helping to create a sense of pedestrian scale. H - 6 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Significant single story architectural elements include: · A single story room (interior living space) · A front or wraparound porch ( minimum 6' deep and 10' wide) applied when appropriate to the architectural style (See additional porch requirements below) · Extended entry alcove · A single story garage (if located at the side of the home) All architectural elements shall be appropriate to each architectural style as described in the "Architectural Style Guidelines" section of this document. A minimum number of single story homes and/or architectural elements are required in Dublin Ranch neighborhoods according to the following lot sizes and building types. Area F-2 Neighborhood: · At least one plan in the architectural plan package for the neighborhood shall include a significant single story element at the front or side. In Area F-2 neighborhoods where lots are equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet with minimum lot widths of at least 50', all corner homes are required to have a significant single story element that provides added interest and articulation at the front corner. Any portion of the single story architectural element requirements may be satisfied with the use of comer homes. A comer home may be designed specifically for use on comer lots. If not designed specifically for a corner location a home plan must have the flexibility to be easily altered for use on corner or interior lots. Homes located on comer lots require the following: Front and side fagade articulation using materials that wrap around the side of the home. A significant single story architectural element (interior space) at the front comer of the plan Garage placement that allows the option of entry from the side street - (where garage is mid to deep recessed) H - 7 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Area F-1 Neighborhood: COmer plans for these neighborhoods may be designed for interior lots with the flexibility to be adapted for corner use. Homes located on these comer lots require the following: · Front and side faqade articulation using materials that wrap around the side of the home. · A pop out side gable or added single story element (exterior - such as a wrap around porch) Corner Homes Neighborhood quality is enhanced by the addition of a home plan designed specifically for the corner, or by enhancing an interior plan for use on the comer with additional architectural elements and/or details as typically found on front elevations. The use of the required single story elements is highly encouraged on corner homes. The use of the same plan on every corner however, is prohibited. The intent is to provide a pleasing variety in the street scene using a combination of massing forms and heights. Porch Requirements In addition to comer lots, in neighborhoods where lots are smaller than 5,000 square feet with minimum lot widths of less than 50', a minimum of 1 plan per neighborhood (on appropriate styles only) is required to have a porch. Where a porch is included as a single story element, it is desirable for the following design dimensions to be present: · Front porches should be a minimum of 6' depth and 1/2 the width of the front living area facade. · Side porches should be a minimum of 5' depth. · Side porch length should be a minimum of 12' measured from front comer of porch. · Eaves must be a minimum of 12" or 18" deep, as appropriate ..... to style. II - 8 Architectural Design Sta~tdards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 See individual Architectural Style Guidelines of this document for guidance regarding style-appropriate elements, colors and materials. Refer to Residential Site Development Standards for Setbacks. Garage Criteria The home and the yard, rather than the garage, should be the primary emphasis of the elevation as seen from the street. In order to achieve this, the following standards are required: · The use of front-facing, 3-car garages is limited to one plan per neighborhood. · Swing-in garages are limited to lots 55' wide or greater. · All homes are required to have both automatic garage door openers and "roll up" doors.* · With the exception of lots along substantial street slopes, plans should be reversed and plotted so that garages and entries are adjacent to each other. This creates an undulating sense of setback. Occasionally this pattern should be broken so that it will not become overly repetitious nor reflected by the units directly across the street. · Locate all garages at least 5' behind the front face/ living space of the home -except swing-in garages. (see "Residential Site Development Standards" for setbacks) · Vary garage placement mix within neighborhood plotting plan · Vary garage door appearance · Vary garage placement from plan to plan * The use of a sectional "roll up" garage door is required since it maximizes the availability of useable driveway length. Residents often tend to misjudge the necessary swing-up distance of conventional garage doors. As a result, they often park with the rear of car extending into the sidewalk path. 1I - 9 Architec, turaI Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 The following design techniques are encouraged to reduce the emphasis on the garage: Vary garage placement within neighborhood plotting plan: · Vary garage placement where possible by alternating front setbacks along street frontage. · Alternate plans with different garage types when plotting adjacent homes. Vary garage door appearance: · Vary garage door pattern, windows and/or color as appropriate to individual architectural styles. · Where possible, use two single doors instead of a large one. · Additional garage treatments are encouraged to buffer direct view of the garage door. · Stagger the setback between individual adjacent garage doors. Vary garage placement from plan to plan: · Incorporate the garage with the architecture of the house. The design treatment should strive to reduce the overall visual mass of the garage. · De-emphasize the garage by highlighting other parts of the house with architectural forms. ° Where lot depth allows, recess the garage at least 20' behind the primary front facade on one plan. 1. Recessed - (may be detached) 2. Corner with side street entry (may be detached) 3. Swing-in - limited to a maximum of 33% of units in each neighborhood. (or 1 plan per package) Recessed Garage All front facing garages shall be located a minimum of 5 feet behind the front elevation/living space. Additional garage treatments are encouraged to further reduce the impact of the garage door. tl - 10 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Corner with side-street entry Garage This garage placement allows the option of entering from the side street, thereby eliminating the garage and driveway from the front face of the house. Swing-In Garage This garage placement is limited to 33% of homes in single- family detached neighborhoods. Swing-in garages greatly reduce the impact of garage door faces on the streetscape. The resulting front~facing garage wall shall be articulated with the same level of detail as the front facade of the home including windows, trim, etc. Swing-in garages are prohibited on lots less than 55' wide. Swing- in garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12" behind the garage wall plane. Detached Garages Detached garages may be deep recessed or located adjacent to the comer with side street entry access. Detached garages are located toward the rear of the lot behind the primary structure. They are enhanced by applying the same details found on the home. Where front-facing, long driveways should be improved by adding texture, pattern or a 'ribbon' driveway. 3-Car Front-Facing Garage Requirements 3-car garages with all doors facing front are limited to: · one plan per neighborhood plan package. · lots that are 5,000 SF or greater · being located at least 5' behind the front facade of the home (living space) · all other standard garage requirements When a 3-car front-facing garage is used, in addition to standard garage requirements it shall provide at least one of the following additional front-facing plan requirements: 1. Provide and offset a single door at least 2' from a double door. 2. Provide three single garage doors each separated by at least 1'. H - I 1 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Additional garage placements and/or treatments are highly encouraged to reduce the impact of a 3-car front-facing garage on the street scene. These include: · Providing a minimum 6' deep by 10' wide porch forward of all garages. · Constructing the additional car bay in tandem behind the standard 2-car garage door. Optional Garage Treatments The following optional treatments are highly encouraged to reduce or buffer the direct view of all garages and garage doors from the sidewalk or street. Porte Cochere: A recessed garage plan with a port cochere creates an additional, partially covered, parking space and also serves an occasional outdoor private space. Garage Door Screening Elements: · Install elements such as attached trellis' beneath single story garage roof fascias and/or above garage door header trims. · Span the driveway forward of the garage with a gated element or an overhead trellis. ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT ELEVATION TREATMENT It is the intent of these guidelines to achieve a high quality product that reads well from all sides. The following section provides guidance to help the designer and builder achieve this requirement for "4-sided" architecture. 1I - 12 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Major Elevations Proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness creates a successful project design. The differences between the plans and elevations must be readily discernible and create variety, yet at the same time design elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to result in visual chaos. All elements, materials and colors shall be appropriate to the architectural style. Siding materials shall be ended inside chimney corners, fence and wall corners, etc. and finished with detail. They shall be brought down to within a reasonable distance from finished grade so that the slab is not discernible. Large expanses of blank walls shall be avoided. Elevations shall be designed and articulated consistently with requirements in the Architectural Style Guidelines section of this document. Creation of Form and Relief Recesses and Shadow The manner in which light strikes or frames a building is instrumental in how that structure is perceived. The effect of sunlight is a strong design consideration since shadow and shade gives the building a sense of both depth and substance. Projections, offsets, overhangs and recesses are all tools in the creation of shadow. Architectural Projections Projections not only create shadow but also provide strong visual focal points. This can be used to emphasize some aspect of the design such as an entry or major window. It can also distract the observer's attention away from other elements such as the garage or a large wall plane. Stepping Forms Elevations shall be stepped both horizontally and vertically. Desired changes in material must occur at a step. Entry Statement The entry should be designed to serve as a focal point of the elevation and be readily discernible. The approaching observer should be drawn into it by its visual impact. Buried side-facing entries behind front-on garage plane will not be permitted. H - 13 Architectural Design Standards Dublbt Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Massing and Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations Interior Conditions It is not acceptable to "build out" plans to the maximum at side and rear conditions without articulating the mass of those wall planes. This is intended to prevent a two story stucco box, producing a canyon-like effect without vertical or horizontal relief. Required solutions include, but are not limited to, the following: · Create a single story plate at the rear by recessing the second story. ° Improve the articulation of the plan forms by offsetting the garage and providing plans that do not utilize the full lot width or depth. · Recess or project the elevation and plan to enhance usable and accessible yard space. Elevations Subject to Public View The rears and sides of homes backing onto streets or open space areas may be highly visible from surrounding areas and shall be treated in a similar manner to the front elevation. This is particularly true of second story conditions visible above the fence line. These elevations are viewed in three ways: first, as seen from adjacent units, second, as semi-public foreground with visible details as seen from adjacent streets, and third, as distant silhouettes viewed from adjacent neighborhoods and public areas. It is required that front elevations and those portions of side and rear elevations of homes that abut a street and are visible from a street shall substantially share common materials and degrees of articulation. Architectural trim, design treatments and materials shall be provided as follows: · Provide detailing of the second floor, to include materials, color, window surrounds and changes in wall planes on first and second floors where appropriate to style. · Trim shall be provided on all windows. · At a minimum, second story windows shall have break-ups (muntins) that match the front elevation windows. · Continue trim and accent materials well beyond the front elevations (see individual style requirements). II - 14 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 · Homes shall be detailed in an authentic manner. · Address issues of second story privacy and scale in design of building plans and elevations. · For homes backing onto streets provide detailing of the second floor, to include materials, color, window surrounds and changes in wall planes on first and second floors where appropriate to style. · As seen from a distance, ridge lines and framing of homes shall appear varied with particular attention given to avoiding repetitious elements such as continuous gable-ends and similar building silhouettes and ridge heights. · Where possible, maximize and vary the rear yard setbacks within rows of lots. · Design the rear elevation and roof plane to minimize negative visual impact. ROOF CONSIDERATIONS Roof Forms Homes seen from a close range or a distance are generally perceived with the contrast against their immediate background or skyline, respectively. Overall building lines are predominant, and appearance is directly impacted by roof massing, not the wall plane articulation or materials. The use of different roof types will add variety and interest to the street scene, however the roof characteristics shall always be consistent with whatever architectural style is chosen. To achieve this, roof forms shall be addressed by the following criteria: · Vary the height of ridge lines and fascias in combination with different architectural styles, to create a variety of roof forms and visual interest. · Provide a balance of hip and gable forms that avoid repetitious elements. · Provide a balance of architectural massing and forms that minimize negative visual impact of silhouettes and ridge lines. · Provide plans that maximize their rear yard setback so that building outlines are varied and not as dominant. H - 15 Architectural Design Standards Dubl#, Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Acceptable Roof Fortns There is no single form of roof that is preferred. Hip, gable and sheds may, within reason, be used separately or together on the same roof. Care should be taken to avoid a canyon effect in side and rear yard when both buildings have front to rear gables. Roof forms with pitch changes at a porch or projection are acceptable. Inappropriate Roof Forms Roof forms having dual pitches such as Gambrel or Mansard should not be used. Flat roofs are not permitted. Allowable Roof Pitch The principal roof forms shall have a pitch of between 3 1/2: 12 and 8:12 depending upon dwelling style and character (See Architectural Style Guidelines section of this document). A single roof pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches tend to lessen the apparent building mass. Design of Rakes and Eaves The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types based on climatic and stylistic considerations. Moderate or extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. Tight fascias with appropriate styles are acceptable. Single fascia boards, double fascia boards, or exposed rafters when adequately scaled are acceptable. Care should be taken to ensure material sizes avoid a weak or flimsy appearance. Exposed rafter tails without fascias should be at least 3x. Overhang Projections and Covered Porches Substantial overhangs are encouraged as a response to solar and climatic conditions. The inclusion of covered porches and entries expand sheltered living spaces, create entry statements and provide elevation relief. Covered porches may differ from the roof in both pitch and material but front porches should retain at least one of these two characteristics. tl - 16 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Stepping the Roof Form Steps in the roof respond to the interior room arrangement and provide visual relief and interest. A vertical step within the ridge line should be at least 18" in order to create visual impact and allow for adequate weatherproofing. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS The following sections provide guidance concerning specific elements of residences such as entries, doors, windows and garages. Unit Entries Use of Entry Statements The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: · Identifies and frames the front doorway. · Acts as an interface between public and private spaces. · Acts as an introduction to the house while creating an initial impression. Placement and Visibility The entry should be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions. If the front door locations is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the entry should direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry in merchant built housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the facade. Incorporation of Roof and Architectural Features Proper use of roof elements, columns, feature windows and architectural forms contribute to the overall impact and success of the entry. A covered entry is a traditional American housing element. It may no longer serve as a living activity area (i.e., porch or veranda) but still has an important function as a semi-private transition between the public walkway and the private interior. Even when the entry visually obscures the door, it still announces the door. II - 17 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Doors Design Emphasis should be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given to the image it creates. · The entire door assembly should be treated as a single design element including surrounding frame, molding and glass side lights, if present. · Typically, the door should be covered by an overhead element or recessed into the wall plane. Materials/Colors Traditionally, wood is used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in order to be acceptable, they must possess the same residential "feel" provided by the wood grain and panels. Flexibility is allowed concerning the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color. Use of Glass The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged. It expresses a sense of welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as single side lights, double side lights, transom glass or fan windows. Residential Address Numbers and Entry Lighting All residential addresses shall be clearly marked, located and sufficiently lit for ease of recognition by postal and public safety agencies. II- 18 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Windows Placement and Organization Typically, the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of room layout, possible furniture placement, view opportunities and concern for privacy. Greater design emphasis shall be directed to insure that window placement and organization will also positively contribute to the exterior architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination with other design elements. This relationship to one another and the wall/roof plane creates a composition and sense of order. All windows in a specific plan elevation shall appear compatible. This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape, size or type but rather that a hierarchy of windows exists which visually relate to and compliment one another. Feature/Theme Windows Feature or theme windows on the front elevation create a strong visual focal point. These fo6al points may be used to decrease the visUal impact of the garage door, draw attention to the entry or emphasize some other element of building. Within the window hierarchy, this window creates the dominant theme or form. Window Frames Vinyl clad, aluminum, wood or cementitious simulated wood window frames are acceptable. When using aluminum, bronze anodized frames or those complementary to the color palette shall be used while natural, silver or gold anodized frames are unacceptable. All windows must be articulated and/or trimmed appropriately to individual style as described in the architectural style section of these guidelines. Use of Wood and Stucco Trim When aluminum frame windows are used, they shall be surrounded or trimmed with other design elements. These may include wood or cementitious simulated wood trim, stucco surrounds and shutters or recessed openings as appropriate to the architectural style. It - 19 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Considerations of Rear Elevations Merchant built housing typically fails to adequately address proper window design and placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization and cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible, greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given. The guidance concerning window placement organization, trim and incorporation of architectural elements is applicable to all elevations and will be enforced through the design review process. Integrations with Roof and Architectural Details The window is important to the proper articulation of the wall and roof elements. Focal points can be created by the placement of windows in architectural projection or recesses incorporated with gable, hip or shed roof overhangs. Consideration should be given to using overhangs and projections to shadow windows with south and west exposures. Skylights Skylights and roof windows are permitted where they are not visible from any street, if properly installed and weather proofed. The skylight should be designed to appear as an integral part of the roof plane. Skylights should be clear or bronzed with the framework matching the roof or trim color. Balconies The inclusion of balconies is encouraged for both aesthetic and practical purposes. They are useful in breaking up large wall planes, offsetting floors, creating visual interest and adding human scale to the building. They provide the practical advantage of creating outdoor living areas and elevated open space. Balconies may be covered or open. They may be either recessed into the mass of the building or serve as a projecting element. In whichever manner they are used, they must appear to be an integral element of the building rather than an after thought or add-on, the details, eaves supports, and railing must be consistent with the balance of the building design elements or style. Concern should be given to avoid designing balconies in plans in such a manner that they are plotted side by side. H - 20 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Exterior Stairs Stairs should be compatible in type and material to the deck and landing. Use of open stair treads can only be justified where the balcony or landing element is a projecting element. Location of exterior stairs is permitted on the side or rear of the home except on facades that side or back onto public streets or open space areas. Columns and Posts It is important that both columns and posts project a substantial and durable image. Posts shoul.d be of wood, not less than 6" in diameter, and may be built up from multiple pieces. Use of 4" posts and metal pipe columns is prohibited. Columns may be clad in wood, masonry or stucco. They should be square, rectangular, or round and at least 14" wide with a height of. approximately 4 to 5 times the width. It is desirable that colunms incorporate both base and capitals. Related arches may be flat, round or segments of an inch. Other variations such as parabolic curves are unacceptable. Railing The type of exterior railing used on balconies, decks and stairs, creates a significant impact on the elevation. An extensive variety of rail types are permitted including open wrought iron and wood rail or picket. Extruded aluminum is prohibited. Choice of rail type should reflect taste and be consistent with the chosen design vocabulary or be historically correct for the style. Gutters and Downspouts Exposed gutters shall be colored to match fascia material. Exposed downspouts will likewise be colored to match the surface to which they are attached unless they are finished with a false copper patina. H - 21 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Chimneys Properly designed and located chimneys can serve as a major design element and focal point for the building elevation. It is frequently the major architectural element on exposed side or a rear elevation. Chimneys should be constructed of style- appropriate materials as described in the architectural styles section of this document. Care must be taken concerning the selection of any accent materials and the cap design. The use of steps, curve and banding on the shaft and capital have major visual impact against the sky and roof plane. Attention should be given to the City setback requirements. Garages and Garage Doors Materials "Roll up" garage doors shall be used on all single-family homes. Metal, wood or fiberglass garage doors are permitted when they include either textured or raised panels of a "residential" nature. The use of window elements is encouraged. The design of garage doors should reflect the theme or style of the overall design of the residence. Proper use of accent colors will compliment the architecture and provide visual Variety along the street scene. Refer to the individual color palette for each style. Face Design The design of the door face should result in a tasteful treatment which breaks up the expanse of the door plane while not being so excessively decorative as to draw attention away from the architectural elevation. Recessing It is highly desirable to recess the garage door 6"-12" from the garage face. This allows for a strong shadow line and decreases the impact of the door while increasing the apparent sense of mass of the surrounding wall. H - 22 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Patio Covers Patio covers, trellises, pergolas and other exterior structures should reflect the character, color and materials of the building to which they are related. Supports and framing members will conform to the guideline criteria for columns and posts. The pitch of the patio roof may be less than the adjacent building. The materials for the horizontal elements are limited to either wood or the dwelling's roof material. The side elevation of the structure will not be enclosed except in the case where a wall of the dwelling forms a natural enclosure. Ensure that building plans allow space for the later addition of usable patio covers within the buildable envelope and setbacks. Storage Structures If storage structures are used, they must be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria for the residence as stated in the Architectural Style Guidelines of this document. Prefabricated metal or vinyl sheds are prohibited. All such structures must be screened from view where adjacent to public streets or open space areas. Further Design Considerations All mechanical or other equipment, including utility meters, junction boxes, trash receptacles and air conditioners should be screened from public view. Further consideration should be given as to the placement of these items within the side yards so as not to restrict pedestrian access in emergency situations. They may be accommodated within the rear yard with minimal impact on yard use and layout. All antennas shall be placed in attics or interior of the residence. Inclusion of exterior compact satellite dishes is limited to locations that are not visible from the street or side yards from adjacent lots wherever possible. Canvas awnings of solid accent color may be permitted with moderation. Refer to individual style color palettes for criteria. Metal awnings are prohibited. The decision whether to provide awnings should include consideration of their maintenance and deterioration in neighborhoods without maintenance associations. H - 23 Architectural Design Standards Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 ATTACHMENT A' ARCHITECTURAL STYLE GUIDELINES PURPOSE The goal of these architectural guidelines is to provide more specific design guidance for the residential architectural styles to be used in Neighborhoods F-1 and F-2 in Dublin Ranch. They have been developed to establish a high level of architectUral quality, to assure both variety and compatibility and to enhance the community's overall value. The goal for Dublin Ranch neighborhoods is to promote both visual harmony and variety in a community setting achieved by utilizing a number of compatible traditional and contemporary styles and through architectural innovation. Builders will select from the architectural palette described herein to create their own combinations of neighborhood styles, plans and colors. Each neighborhood will eventually develop a unique character within the overall image of the community. Dublin Ranch will remain unified through the implementation of an overall plan for landscaping, signs and entry monumentation. RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLES Dublin Ranch represents an opportunity to develop a unique community combining the most positive aspects of a master planned development with the most favorable building types and styles of long established neighborhoods. These guidelines are based on the prior learning curves of earlier planned communities and can thus implement the successes achieved while avoiding the negative aspects sometimes created. II A - I Architectural Style Guidelines Dubl#z Ranch Area F North · June 2003 Key to a successful project is the development of an appropriate architectural vocabulary and theme which avoids two alternative pitfalls found in some residential developments. One of these is the selection of a single "trendy" style which when used everywhere is monotonous, repetitious and, as a result, quickly becomes dated. The other extreme to be avoided is the combination of strongly contradictory styles and incompatible designs which lead to visual chaos. To achieve a successful middle ground, it is the intent for Dublin Ranch to become a quality living environment with an identifiable visual character that establishes itself at the community entry and community facilities, is maintained along the major roadways, and carries through to the neighborhood entries and individual homes. The goal is to provide both variety and compatibility while creating a sense of familiarity. The styles selected convey a sense of classic character and an opportunity to develop a high quality neighborhood environment. For concept and inspiration, we have turned to the greater Dublin area's own architectural past. In small towns of both the East Bay and the Central Valley, one finds attractive established neighborhoods composed of homes built during the opening decades of the past century. These neighborhoods consist of a mixture of interesting and different, yet compatible styles. From among these "period" or eclectic styles, we have selected those which are not only attractive and compatible but can also be reasonably integrated into a modern merchant-built home. These styles are: · California Craftsman/Bungalow · American Colonial · European Eclectic · Monterey · California Ranch · American Farmhouse · East Coast Traditional These closely associated architectural styles have each evolved in California since the turn of the 20th century and examples are well represented in the East Bay and Central Valley area. Their inherent attractiveness, informality and sense of elegance have enabled these styles to remain popular over a long period of time. II A - 2 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 All styles shown here possess characteristics that the designer and builder shall consider when choosing a desired style or image. Specifically, the styles: · Are visually compatible with each other. · Possess general market appeal and community acceptance. · Can be successfully expressed in a modem merchant built home. · Are capable of authentic interpretation and variation. · Have a historic background and precedence in the East Bay and Central Valley area. The following sections will address each style, defining those elements that are characteristic. The text and graphics are intended to provide specific direction, guidance and authentic inspiration to the builders and architects as they design today's interpretations of these historic styles. It is not the intent of these guidelines to pemfit any false front architectural design. All sides of the building shall be articulated and consistent with the specific style selected for the residence. II A - 3 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 WOOD FASCIA/ SIDING MANUFACTURED WOOD TRiM STUCCO SOFFIT-- ACCENT~ BRACKET m -SURROUND -?'~"~"'~-""'~..- 1-- FLAT TILE ¢::::::-. ~~~ ~ ~: [ 4:12 ROOF PITCH ~/~ ~ --~-q~ ...... ~f ~ ~1 ~11 ~~ STONE BASE CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW Historical Precedent The Craftsman style was inspired by the English Arts and Crafts Movement of the late 19th century. Of the utmost importance was that all exterior and interior elements received both tasteful and "artful" attention. The movement influenced numerous California architects such as Green and Green, and Bernard Maybeck. The resulting Craftsman style responded with extensive built-in elements and by treating details such as windows or ceilings as if they were furniture. The overall affect was the creation of a natural, warm and livable home. The style is further characterized by the rustic texture of the building materials, broad overhangs with exposed rafter tails at the eaves and trellises over the porches. The Craftsman style evolved in California, inspired by bungalows that were the production home of the time. This type of architecture can be found in classic tree lined neighborhoods throughout California. This unique look promoted hand crafted quality; thus the name Craftsman. Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Gently pitched roofs · Projecting gable ends and exposed rafters · Wood columns · Porches with supporting stone or brick veneer bases · Siding as an accent on the base and in gable ends Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 standard or greater Gables 25% opposing and 75% parallel Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle, or concrete tile with a shake texture Overhangs 18" to 30" standard Siding Horizontal wood or cementitious simulated wood siding is used as an accent in coordination with stone veneer or combined stone & brick. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish Stucco finish where used, will be light to medium sand finish. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with stone or brick veneer. H A - 5 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW (Cont.) Porches Porches cover the front door area and a partial or full width of the front elevation. Stone or wrapped siding pilasters support wood upper column roof support elements Balconies Where balconies are used, they project out over the building plane and are articulated with wood or cementitious simulated wood detailing. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall be used on all windows. Shutters are occasionally used. Entry The entry and surrounding area are covered and contained by the porch. Doors Entry doors will be simple with rustic detail and/or multi-paned windows with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim surrounds. Garage Doors Doors shall be the roll-up type with a variety of panel break-ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Front Elevation The lines of the roof will be Iow and simple with wide projecting roofs. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the Craftsman style. Details for this style may include: · Applied siding in eaves. · Battered columns/pilasters at porch/entry. · Balustraded porch. Il A - 6 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA CRAFTSMAN/BUNGALOW (Cont.) Color Palette Siding Earth tones ranging from warm greens and browns to tans and ochre yellows. Roofs Composition shingle in shades of warm green or brown. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim In contrast to the primary siding color, although certain shades of brown, green and gray may be used on schemes with a lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accent colors are rich, earthy shades of green, red, and brown. Brick & Stone Rustic, handmade appearance such as clinker brick found on historic Craftsman homes. Brick colors range from darker reds to browns. Stone may be smooth, rounded 'river rock', field stone or textural, rubble-like in appearance, but must have the appearance of natural stone. I1 A - 7 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 FLAT TILE - SIMULATED DETAILED BRICK SHAKE OR SHINGLF--,'-I', :.,' .t; WOOD TRIM -- / CHIMNEY ~',l' ,~,'~ ;.x, SURROUNDS F'~ / "'2'"_1~,"~ ' ~-' ' -rr*".'~' ;~'~'~, '~" ~. ~-' q. . ~ '. ¢~ ' . ,_ ~ ~ J WOOD S~D~NG~~N~ ~l~J~ ~HN ~lll~l~lll~ AMERICAN COLONIAL Historical Precedent This classic American style descended directly from the first homes built in the New England colonies in the 17th century. Their beginnings were as small and unpretentious as the one story saltbox, favoring the cultures and traditions of the settlements. As living functions became more defined and prosperity increased, so did the need for additional space. Second stories with overhangs, dormers and gabled roof forms became favored solutions, evolving into classic elements of this traditional American style. Later, wings of smaller continuous gable forms were added to each side of the house, becoming a lasting characteristic. Wood shutters and white picket fences became the finishing details for an otherwise simple and functional form. With the influence of Greek Revival styles in the 19th century, the American Colonial style evolved into a more decorative form known as Colonial Revival. Borrowing classic elements from Greek styles, the simple Colonial central front dormer window evolved into a standard, prominent roof element or decorative pediment entry form; a portico. The portico was supported by massive classic columns, raising the level of drama and sophistication of this style. II A - 8 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN COLONIAL (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Primarily two story roof elements. · Secondary one story roof elements at entry or wings. · Symmetrical facade. · Fully wrapped siding. · Traditional door and window surrounds. · Predominantly gabled roof forms. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 6:12 to 8:12 standard. Roof Material Flat concrete or premium grade composition shingle or shake. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Siding Fully wrapped wood or cementitious simulated wood siding shall be used on all elevations. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Brick Only brick may be used 'alone or as an accent with siding. Stucco Finish Not Permitted. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with brick veneer or fully wrapped with wood siding. HA - 9 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN COLONIAL (Cont.) Porches Porches may vary in size; either just around the area of the entry or the full width of the elevation. Balconies May be used on Colonial Revival elevation. Decorative wood railing in appropriate style and proportion for the elevation. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Dormered windows may be used. Shutters will be used widely beyond the front elevation on the simple Colonial form. Entry The Colonial entry will be covered by a pedimented entry form supported by squared columns or posts. Colonial Revival entry is covered by a one or two story portico supported by rounded/ fluted columns. Simple Colonial forms may be expressed as a simple porch element. Doors Colonial paneled entry doors shall have wood or cementitious simulated wood trim and may be articulated with transom lites or sidelights. Colonial Revival doors may also have fanlights above the door. Garage Doors The doors shall be a roll-up door with a variety of panel break- ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the American Colonial style. Details for the American Colonial style may include: · Decorative wood shutters on most windows. · Decorative broken pediment trim at entry and gable ends. · Decorative louvered vents in gable ends. · Traditional paneled doors. tl A - lO Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN COLONIAL (Cont.) Details for the Colonial Revival form may also include: · Classic rounded/fluted columns at pediment entry or portico. · Brick and/or wood or cementitious simulated wood siding. · Decorative broken pediment trim at entry and gable ends. · Decorative louvered vents in gable ends. · Cornices with dentil trim. · Detailed front doors with sidelights. Color Palette Siding Color range shall be from tinted whites to light beige, pale tones of yellow, brown, gray, greens and blues with contrasting color on door and shutters, trim, fascia, and posts at porch. Roofs Shades of gray, green, and blue, representing the slate roofs found on tradition~al East Coast architecture. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim Most often a shade of white, although certain shades of brown, green and gray may be used on schemes with a lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accented with dark, rich shades of blue, red, green and even some dark gray to near black. With darker siding colors, door and shutters should be the same off-white as the trim color. Brick Various textures and colors are used for this style, with natural shades of red being the most common. H A - 11 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 FLAT TILE ~ WOOD OR STUCCO ': --SIMULATED SLATE TRIM SURROUND - WOOD OR 8:12 ROOF PITCH WOOD FASCIN STONE AND/OR BRICK AT ENTRY ~ 2003 WILL~Akt HE~ALNAtCH ARCHITECTS, JNC, EUROPEAN ECLECTIC Historical Precedent The European Cottage is a style that evolved out of medieval Tudor and Norman architecture. This evolving character that eventually resulted in the English and French "Cottage" became extremely popular when the addition of stone and brick veneer details were developed in the 1920's. Although the cottage is looked upon as small and unpretentious, the style was quickly recognized as one of the most popular in America. Designs for the homes typically reflected the rural setting that they evolved in. Many established older neighborhoods across the United States contain homes with the charm and character of this unpretentious style. Roof pitches for these homes are steeper than traditional homes, and are comprised of gables, hips and half-hip roof forms. The primary material is stucco with heavy use of stone and brick bases, veneers and entry elements. Some of the most recognizable features for this style are the stucco accents in gable end forms and the sculptured swooping walls at the front elevation. 11A - 12 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EUROPEAN ECLECTIC (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Gentle to steep roof pitches. · Projecting gable ends. · Exposed rafter tails with tight rake. · Stone and brick as a major accent on wall, tower and veneer base. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 to 8:12 standard. Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle or flat concrete roof tile. Overhangs 12" standard. Stone/Brick Stone and/or brick is required on all elevations. Siding Wood or cementitious simulated wood siding may be used as a detail accent or material in gable ends. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish The stucco will be a light to medium sand finish. li A - 13 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EUROPEAN ECLECTIC (Cont.) Chimneys Chimney detailing will include stone or brick veneer below with stucco on the upper half of the stack toward the cap. Porches None Balconies Balconies shall have wood, cementitious simulated wood or wrought iron detailing as an attachment to the building plane. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood, cementitious simulated wood or stucco trim shall occur on all windows. A variety of shutters may be used. Where used they shall occur beyond the frOnt elevation. Fabric awnings may be used. Entry The entry may be an alcove or tower element or simply a deep recess over an enhanced front door. Stone and/or brick shall be used as an overall accent material on either form. This material shall cover at least 50% of the entry element facade. Single bands or small "spotted" areas of accent materials are not permitted. Doors The door shall be simple with wood or cementitious simulated wood surrounds and optional side lites. Garage Doors Doors shall be the roll-up type with a variety of panel break- ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the European Eclectic style. Details for this style may include: · Decorative window boxes. · Swooping wall at front fagade. · Small accent windows with wood, cementitious simulated wood or wrought iron trim detailing. II A - 14 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EUROPEAN ECLECTIC ('Cont.) Color Palette Stucco Color range includes soft, light to mid-value hues of beige, tan, yellow, gray and green. Roofs Shades of gray, blue, green, beige and plum to emulate natural slate colors. Trim Defined with soft, tinted whites, in subtle contrast to the body color. Fascia and garage doors may be in the same soft white, or a darker, contrasting color. Doors and Shutters Accents of muted blue, green and red are used for entry doors and shutters. Awnings Solid colored fabric awnings in accent shades of muted blue, green and deep red. Brick & Stone Masonry may be either brick or stone, but must always have a rusticated appearance. Natural stone in varied colors of browns and grays. II A - 15 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 WOOD TRIM WOOD FASCIA/ FLAT TILE - SIMULATED · SHAKE 4:12 ROOF PITCH ~ 'i-' ..;"'~% ,";';. 1~SURROUND -- STUCCO SOFFIT / ~; .'".~' ~-~Z: / MANUFACTURED ~~ ~~ SPUT CAR GARAGE ~ 2003 WiLL~M HB~L~LCM ARCMI~CTS, MONTEREY Historical Precedent The Monterey style is a combination of the original Spanish Colonial adobe construction methods with the basic two-story New England colonial house. Prior to this innovation in Monterey, all Spanish colonial houses were of single story construction. First built by Thomas Larkin in 1835, this Style introduced two story residential construction and shingle roofs to California. This Monterey style and its single story counterpart eventually had a major influence on the development of modern architecture in the 1930's. The style was popularized by the use of simple building forms. Roofs featured gables or hips with broad overhangs, often with exposed rafter tails. Shutters, balconies, verandas and porches are integral to the Monterey character. Traditionally, the first and second stories had distinctly different cladding materials; respectively siding above with stucco and / or brick veneer base below. H A - 16 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MONTEREY (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are required as follows and should be carried to all four building elevations: · Partial or full width balconies, verandas and porches. · Contrasting materials of stucco and siding between first and second floors. · Exposed rafter tails. · Use of a brick veneer as a base for the front elevation, carrying around to the exposed sides. · Window shutters. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details Which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch The 4:12 pitch breaking to 3:12 pitch over front and rear porches or verandas shall be standard. The roof shall consist of one hip roof and one opposing gable element. Roof Material Premium composition shingle or flat concrete tile roof simulating shake (no red or 'S' tile roofs). Overhangs Overhangs shall have tight rakes and extended eaves with exposed rafters. Siding Fully wrapped wood or cementitious simulated wood siding will be used to differentiate the first and second floors. Stucco or brick shall be used around the base of the home. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish The stucco will have very little texture, smooth to light sand finish. II A - 17 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MONTEREY (Cont,) Brick May be used as a first story wrapping material and / or accent on walls, chimneys, etc. Chimneys The chimney will be faced with siding or stucco and brick (whichever is used on elevation) with a simple chimney cap. Porches The verandas shall be large and open with wood or cementitious simulated wood detailing. Balconies The balconies shall be an integral part of the front elevation, spanning most of the building width with the traditional cantilevered massing. They may also occur on the rear elevation Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Shutters shall be used as accents. Entry The entry will be recessed and under the cover of the front balcony. Doors The entry doors will be typically simple with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim surrounds. Garage Doors Garage doors shall be the roll-up type with a variety of panel break-ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. H A - 18 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 MONTEREY (Cont,) Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the Monterey style. Details for this style may include: · French Doors opening onto balcony. · Wood picket balcony railings. · Exposed rafter tails. Color Palette Siding The range of color shall be from white to beige and light earth tones. The siding will be painted the same color as the stucco (where applicable) with the material change providing the contrast. Roofs .. Composition shingle in shades of gray or terracotta to brown. ...... Flat concrete tile or simulated shake. Trim White to beige or darker tones in contrast to lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accent colors will be deep jewel tones of red, green and blue. Awnings Solid colored fabric awnings in deep jewel tones of red, green and blue. Brick Natural brick colors range from darker reds to brown. II A - 19 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 STONE OR BRICK CHIMNEY-- WOOD TRIM VERTICAL WOOD FASCIA -~ B SURROUNDS ]~-WOOD SIDING / ~ 2~3 WtLLIAM HEZ~[~LCH ARCHI~CTS, INC. CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE Historical Precedent In the late 1800's, cattle raising was the principal occupation in California. The Ranch house was the primary focus of the enormous ranches developed by the early Californians. Representing one of California's true vernacular styles, the Ranch house evolved naturally from native materials and considerations of climate and lifestyle. The primary building materials were adobe, tile roofs and wood detailing. In the later years of its evolution, the Ranch house was adapted to also include shingles for roofs, board and batten siding and other colonial features introduced in Monterey. Plans were typically organized around a courtyard, which became one of the primary living spaces. The houses were generally simple and straight forward while using thick adobe walls, gabled roofs and an occasional hipped roof. In the mid-1930's Cliff May, a designer, began adapting the ranch house design and layout to the needs of family living. His design considerations maintained much of the authentic character of the early "ranchos", but started using contemporary materials. It initiated the current acceptance of the informal open room plan and the strong relationship between indoor and outdoor living. HA - 20 Architectural Style Guidelir~es Dubl#z Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the phmary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · Overall horizontal form. · Wood or cementitious simulated wood siding including clapboard or board and batten. · Gentle roof pitches - gable and hip. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each style will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 maximum standard, low pitch gable and hip. Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle or concrete tile with a shake texture. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Wide projecting eaves with exposed rafters and/or fascia boards. Siding Fully wrapped wood or cementitious simulated wood siding (including vertical board and batten or clapboards), or accented with minor stone or brick elements. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stone/Brick Stone or Brick may be used in combination with siding. Stucco Finish Not permitted. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with stone or brick (same as facade accent material). 11A - 21 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE (Cont.) Porches Provides covered entry; often roofed or trellised and supported by simple wood post and beam construction. Partial or full width of living area elevation. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Multi-paned windows in varying sizes and types, sometimes configured in horizontal bands. Entry The entry and surrounding will be covered by the front porch. Doors Front door shall be paneled or cross pattern with or without windows in upper half. Garage Door The doors shall be a roll-up type with a variety of panel breakups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of each architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the California Ranch style. Details for this style may include: · Exposed rafters. · Vertical or horizontal wood or cementitious simulated wood siding. · Wood porch railing with crossed rail or vertical picket details. HA - 22 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 CALIFORNIA RANCH STYLE (Cont.) Color Palette Siding Color range shall be from tinted whites to light beige, pale tones of yellow, brown, gray, greens and blues. Stucco Not permitted. Roofs Premium grade composition shingle in shades of gray, brown and green. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim Defined with soft white to light beige or dark browns or greens in contrast to the body color. Fascia, porch columns/posts and garage doors may be in the same soft white, or the darker, contrasting color. Doors and Shutters Accents of muted blue, green and red are used for entry doors and shutters in contrast to siding. Brick & Stone Masonry may be either brick or stone, but must always have a somewhat rustic appearance. Brick in reds, gray and brown tones. Various textures and colors of stone are used for this style 11 A - 23 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 WOOD FASCIA ]m HORIZONTAL w WOOD TRIM · --'r WOOD SIDING SURROUNDS BRICK ' - WOODAND BEAM/ ~RAIL D ETAILIPOST AMERICAN FARMHOUSE Historical Precedent The American Farmhouse represents a practical and picturesque country house. Its beginnings are traced to both Colonial and Cape Cod styles begun in New England. As the American Frontier moved westward, the American Farmhouse style evolved according to availability of materials and technological advancements, such as balloon framing. Predominant features of the style are large wrapping front porches with a variety of wood columns and railings. Two story massing, dormers and symmetrical elevations occur most often on the New England Farmhouse variations. The asymmetrical, casual cottage look, with a more decorated appearance, is typical of the Midwest American Farmhouse. Roof ornamentation is a characteristic detail consisting of cupolas, weather vanes and dovecotes. Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · One and two story massing · Large front porches · Predominantly gabled roof with hip roofs · Wood or cementitious simulated wood siding · Wood shutters and substantial wood or cementitious simulated wood window trim II A - 24 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN FARMHOUSE (Cont.) Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each style will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 4:12 to 6:12 standard. This style will have one and two story massing with simple gabled roofs and some side hip roofs occurring at the first floor porch. Roof Material Premium grade composition shingle or concrete tile with a shake texture. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Siding Wrapped siding shall be the predominant material used on all elevations. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Chimneys Chimneys shall be faced with stone or brick with a simple cap. Stucco Finish To be used as a minor accent only. Smooth to light sand finish. Brick & Stone Appropriate for use on chimneys and enhancement of walls. Balconies None. Porches Front porches are required on the front elevation and encouraged to wrap to the side on comer plotted homes. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with wood or cementitious simulated wood trim shall be used on all windows. Shutters will be used extensively on all elevations. Pot shelves will be used on primary accent windows. Entry The entry shall be covered with a front porch. Il A - 25 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 AMERICAN FARMHOUSE (Cont.) DooFs The front doors shall be paneled with lites in upper half or with sidelights Garage Doors The doors shall be a roll-up type with a variety of panel breakups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the American Farmhouse style. · Embellished porch railing with shaped wood columns and balustrades or pickets. · Corbels or barge board trim in gable ends. · Pot shelves under primary accent windows. · Cupolas, weather vanes or dovecotes as character details. Color Palette Siding White to tan or beige, light shade of yellow or muted greens, blues and grays. Roofs Premium grade composition shingle in grays and browns. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim White to light beige or muted tones of browns, greens and grays in contrast to lighter body color. Door & Shutters Accent colors will be dark tones of red, blue green, gray and black. Brick Various textures and colors of brick, primarily red. H A - 26 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 WOOD SIDING-- MANUFACTURED FLAT TILE - SIMULATED SHUTTERS -- -- SHINGLE OR SHAKE WOOD FASCIA '. ~Z v~ ~ ~ ,~ -~ :.~'~. WOOD COLUMNS ..~: &~ EAST COAST TRADITIONAL Historical Precedent The East Coast Traditional style evolved in the early twentieth century being influenced by American Colonial styles as formal as Georgian Revival and those as simple and functional as Cape Cod, New England Colonial and Farmhouse. With respect to East Coast traditions and regional culture, the Colonial Revival vocabulary of white-painted columns, clapboards and shuttered windows were combined with the less symmetrical, unpretentious massing and functional forms of the Cape Cod and farmhouse. Combined one and two story massing with single story wings, gabled roofs with dormered windows, or occasional saltbox roof forms were favored solutions, later becoming classic forms of the traditional style. These inspirations yielded a truly American inspired architecture for a more relaxed, yet still dignified style that would become the new American dream. The characteristic elements and details of this style further demonstrate the blend of American Colonial influences. Use of brick and/or wood siding with somewhat formal character elements and generous trim above the doors and windows is typical. Some of these character details include dormered windows, wood shutters, rounded or squared columns at porch or entry statement and decorative broken pediment trim and painted wood vents in gables. II A - 27 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL (Cont.) Design Characteristics The design characteristics provide the essentials for massing, scale, proportion, building materials, and details in understanding the primary concepts for this style. They are identified as: · One and/or two story roof elements. · Predominantly gabled roof forms. · Fully wrapped siding. · Covered entry; by upper balcony, portico or porch. · Traditional door and window surrounds. · Classic columns or trim elements. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the character for this architectural style. Each plan will be reviewed and approved based on the following criteria. Elements and details which vary or detract from the historical context shall not be accepted. Roof Pitch 5:12 to 8:12 standard. Roof Material Flat concrete or composition shingle. Overhangs 12" to 24" standard. Siding Wrapped siding will be the predominant material used on all elevations. Brick may be used as an accent material in combination with siding. All siding and base treatments shall stop at logical locations and shall not end without finishing details. Stucco Finish None. Chimneys Chimneys will be faced with brick. Porches A porch or portico shall cover the entry. May vary in size as a partial or full width of the elevation. [IA - 28 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL (Cont.) Balconies Balconies may be used on second story elevations. Decorative columns, rails and posts shall be wood. Window Treatments Window surrounds detailed with enhanced wood or cemenfitious simulated wood trim shall occur on all windows. Shutters if present, shall be used widely beyond the front elevation. Dormered windows are encouraged for this style. Entry The entry will be covered and articulated with sidelights. Doors Paneled entry doors with or without lites will have substantial surrounding wood or cementitious simulated wood trim. Garage Doors The doors shall be a roll-up type with a variety of panel break- ups to correspond with the elements of this style. If the doors have windows they must reflect the appropriate form for this style. ', Front Elevation The lines of the roof will have gentle pitches and simple gables. Design Details The application of design details will enhance the character and authenticity of this architectural style. Those identified below are encouraged as appropriate design detailing for the East Coast Traditional style. Details for the East Coast Traditional style may include: · Rounded or squared columns at porch or portico. · Decorative broken pediment trim at entry and gable ends. · Decorative louvered vents in gable ends. H A - 29 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · June 2003 EAST COAST TRADITIONAL (Cont.) Color Palette Siding Color range shall be from tinted whites to light beige, pale tones of yellow, brown, gray, greens and blues. Roofs Shades of gray, green, and blue, representing the slate roofs found on traditional East Coast architecture. Concrete shake in natural wood tones. Trim Most often a shade of white, although certain shades of brown, green and gray are used on schemes with a lighter body color. Doors and Shutters Accented with dark, rich shades of blue, red, green and even some dark gray to near black. With darker siding colors, door and shutters should be the same off-white as the trim color. Brick Various textures and colors are used for this style, with natural shades of red being the most common. HA ~ 30 Architectural Style Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE GUIDELINES ENTRIES A hierarchy of elements, designed to be subtle and blend with the natural beauty of the Tassajara Hills within the Th-Valley, have been established for the community and neighborhood entries for Dublin Ranch Area F North to ensure that a cohesive "upscale rural" theme is maintained throughout the development. The uniform use of forms and materials will impart a consistent visual image of the community. Community Entry The community entry will announce a clear sense of arrival and set the stage for Dublin Ranch. Low stone walls on the northern side of Gleason Drive at Grafton Street will meander through the landscape, visually drawing the motorist and pedestrian into the community identifying one's arrival to Dublin Ranch. Pedestrians will pass through a gateway of stone pilasters with each containing the community logo. Landscape Treatment Roiling lawns shall be placed to accentuate the low stone walls at the community entry. Beyond the low stone walls flowering accent trees shall provide a foreground for a dense row of evergreen trees. Masses of shrubs and groundcovers of varying heights shall be planted to create a layering effect. On the northwest side of Gleason Drive behind the rolling lawn, Iow stone walls and masses of shrubs, the Stream Corridor shall be planted with native trees, shrubs and hydroseeded with seasonal grasses and flowers. Pilasters, Walls, and Fences Low stone walls shall meander through the community entry, bisecting stone pilasters. Paving Materials The Community Entry on Grafton Street at Gleason Drive will be given a treatment similar to Phase I community entries at South Dublin Ranch Drive and north Dublin Ranch Drive. Enhanced paving in the form of interlocking concrete pavers shall be located in Page III-I Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 the street and in the median on Grafton Street north of Gleason Drive. These pavers shall be identical in shape and color to those used in street and median areas within Phase 1 of Dublin Ranch. Textured or colored asphalt surfacing is not permitted for use at Community Entries. Refer to Materials List on Page III - 33 for additional information on pavers. Signage Identification of the community entry shall consist of ornamental plaques to be placed on the pedestrian gateway pilasters. The ornamental plaques shall display a Dublin Ranch logo and be set into the stone. Neighborhood Entries Entries for neighborhoods will reflect similar design elements such as the community wall, pedestrian gateways of stone pilasters, and enhanced paving. The primary neighborhood entries are located along Gleason Drive with secondary neighborhood entries located along Grafton Street. Landscape Treatment Flowering accent trees shall be placed with the parkway with a ground plane of turf. shrubs, perennials, annuals, and groundcover shall be placed behind the sidewalk. Evergreen flowering vines shall be provided to aid in sentencing the Community Wall. Planting within the entry median shall consist of accent trees, perennials, annuals and Iow groundcover. Pilasters, Walls and Fences A low stone wall with a precast concrete cap shall meander through the landscape running parallel to the street drawing motorist into the entries. Paving Material Enhanced paving in the form of interlocking concrete pavers identical in shape and color to those used within the Dublin Ranch Phase I community entries at South Dublin Ranch Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive shall be located behind the curb of the medians. Textured or colored asphalt surfacing is not permitted for use at neighborhood entries. Page HI-2 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines -- f ! ~ .~ ~ ACCESS PATH FROM COL DE SAC TO ~ [ ~ ~ ~ PEDESTR~N PATH ~r ~x~FLO~*G ACC~ ~E , ' SH~T 13 ff~S~)  )'~ :.':' KO~N WAY PA~ D~ STUD--S ~ ..... ~ .'-, ~'" · ':'" ....... ~ LI~ IN P.D. ~ ' COMMHNI~ W~ ~ ~G. III-~) FOR P~G CO~ ~ -- I ' OF ~S ~ S~'~'~(S) GL~SON D~~ · I ~4-~ · ~ STONE ~ ' ~O~R ~ ( ' .2 FLO~G SHRHBS ~D~ GROUND~0~ S~ S~ D~- P~T P~Trh SH~ 13 S~I' '11 ~G~,~D, UTI~ DE~UO~. ~ 10 S~ P~~ ~ co~u~ w~ x ~ P~T CONC~ TO HOUSE xx / ~ S~ D~AIL SH~ 11 t 80 FI Sou~ern EnVy from Glcason Drive FI Easte~ Entry from Grafton Street LOCATION OF F1 ~IG~ORHOOD ENTRY F~TURES ~rI'HIN DUB~N ~CH ~EA F NORTH Page COMM~W~, SEE DETAIl SHEET 1! ~ ~ SEESHEETS 14-16 LOT 2 ...: LOT47 ~ P~, SHE~ 13 / ~ P~T CONC~ ~, SEE DET~ S~ 11 LOT 85 ~ ~I~) ~G~EN SC~EN ~E, ~ ~' EE P~ P~'r r~ SHEET 13 ~,) ~F S~. S~ D~ SHE~ 11 ~O~G SHR~S ~ ~ LOT 121 GROU~CO~,S~ P~ · ] HST ~ P.D. ~S~E G~DE~S F2 SOHTHE~N ENTRY F~OM GL~SON DR~ F2 ~STERN ENTRY FROM G~TON STREET ENVY FEAZES ~T~ DUB~ ~C~ ~EA F NOR~ o' ~*' 20' ~' Page 111.-4 Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Signage Identification of each neighborhood shall consist of an ornamental plaque to be placed on the stone pilaster located in the median. Each neighborhood builder shall select its own neighborhood logo to be placed within the ornamental plaque. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION A hierarchy of streets comprise the vehicular circulation system within and through Dublin Ranch. The goal has been to create' synergy and maintain a particular scale, community character, and provide a series of logical connections. Pedestrian walks, bicycle lanes, and multi-use trails adjacent to streets will provide a favorable atmosphere for recreational pursuits and efficient connections throughout the community, in addition to alternative types of commuter transportation. Infrastructure design consistency is executed through a well- established vocabulary of site furnishings, streettights, signage and plant material articulating arterial, collector, and local residential rights-of-way. These elements provide the consistent visual image that unifies the community theme and character established with Phase I of Dublin Ranch. Arterial Streets - Gleason Drive and FallOn Road Arterial streets define edges of specific planning areas within Dublin Ranch. Both Gleason Drive and Fallon Road provide opportunities for several levels and choices of travel such as vehicular, public transit, bicycles, and walking. Walkways shall be separated from the street to provide for a safer pedestrian environment. Planting /./ Shall be designed to define the arterial street from adjacent land uses and provide an interesting view corridor for both the motorist and pedestrian. Street Design Concept Gleason Drive will consist of four traffic lanes, a landscaped median, and bicycle/emergency lanes on both sides of the street. Fallon Road will consist of four traffic lanes, a landscaped median, and bicycle/emergency lanes on both sides of the street. Each side of the street will ultimately include a separated sidewalk within a landscaped area. An additional public service and landscape easement extends beyond the right-of-way line on both sides of the street. A public service easement (PSE) will be provided as required by the City and will be dedicated to the public as shown on the Tentative Map. Parcels will be created for landscape buffer areas and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Page III-5 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Lot Fr o[ Side , B', ,,5' 34' OR 36' PUBLIC SERVICE/--[--/ [ PUBLIC SERVICE/ lANDSCAPE EASEMENT I I 4-4' OR 46' lANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW RO~ I. LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET- 46' STREET OR 44' CUL-DE-SAC N.T.S. *Not~: Public Serviee E~ments will be 8' in front of lots and 5' on lot sides. SOUTH NORTH F1 Neighbor ~ ~ hool Site VARIES SIDEWALK ..... /~ t--fANE LANE LANE ~A~N~ ~ -- SIDElgALK HOA PARCEL/-- _/ 30' . · 56' . ~- --PUBLIC SERVICE PUBLIC SERVICE/ . 62' EASEMENT lANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW 2. KOHNEN LANE -62' ROW (South of School Site from Brannigan St. to Grafton St.) N.T.S. *Notes: Street section varies west of intersection of Kohnen Way and Grafton Street, where Kohnen Way will have a median. S~reet section also varies at School Bus Drop-off Zone, with a puli-out for vehicles and where on-street parking will be prohibi%ed during school hours. Page Hl-6 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 WEST EAST Public/Semi-Public Site~ ~ Fl Neighorhood VARIES VARIES 15~' MI_NI_8~t_8' I 8' ~ 12'.1. 12'.~ 8' I 8' ~ 8'~5' MIN~ PARKWAY STRIP ~ 36' HOA PARCEL/~ [ ~ ~ HOA PARCEL/ PUBLIC SER~CE/ [ 72' PUBHC SERVICE/ ~NDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW ~NDSCAPE EASEMENT 3. B~NNIGAN STREET - 72' ROW (FI Neighborhood North of Casco Way) SOUTIi NORTH ~HO^ PARCEL (BY o~mRs) [ . 8' 6' ~_~[ 8' I. 12' ~ 12' I 16' SIDEWALK--~ ~ '~N~NE ~ ~NE[ TURN ] ~NE' ~NE '~NE' 44' [ ~NES [ 44' SIDEW~K 4. GLEASON DRIVE- 104' RO~V (at Project Frontage ~th lands of Dublin Land Co.) N.T.S. Page 11I-7 landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 WEST EAST STREAM ~ .~x~5~. ~_ ~ 'c~.~[~f~~.o ~ , HOA PARCEL Y H0A PARCEL~ ~-------~ ~DSCAPE EASEMENT ROW ROW 5. GRAFION STREET - 94' ROW N,T.S. WEST EAST STREAM ~ CORRIDOR v~ [ MOA PARCEL HOA PARCEL ~2' ~o' e' t~'I, t2' o' e' o' 8' ' ' J-] PK{~ +RAVEL~RAVE'~IPK~I-/LANE k- ___~ ~ PARKWAY STRIP--__/ LANE LANE/LANE PARKWAY STRIP MULTI-USE TRAIL---- MULTI-USE TRAIL : 42' 7[8, 36' PUBLIC SERVICE/ LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ROW BO~ 6. GRAFTON STREET - 78' ROW (At Boundary with Existing Phase I - Dublin Ranch) N.T.S. Page Ill-8 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Landscape Treatments Gleason Drive medians and parkways will be predominantly planted with evergreen street trees. Flowering trees will be used as accents in key locations. Drifts of tiered (or layered) shrubs and Iow growing groundcover shall be repeated in elongated patterns over large areas for viewing at higher travel speeds. This will provide a buffer adjacent to residential development as well as providing an attractive environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Where appropriate, groundcover will be placed within the parkway and beyond the sidewalk Fallon Road is designed to be more rural in character and shall utilize similar plant material as Gleason Drive with the inclusion of riparian species. The density of the planting shall be reduced to transition to the intermittent stream corridor landscape. Pilasters, Walls, and Fences The wall/view fence shall be placed adjacent to residential lots that side/back to Gleason Drive, with stone pilasters placed at each property line. Where sound attenuation is required, the community wall and stone pilasters wilt be placed adjacent to residential lots. The incorporation of the community wall and stone pilasters as accents for the neighborhood entry shall provide visual interest and continuity while reflecting the character of the community. Where a street runs adjacent to Gleason Drive a three rail concrete fence shall be located adjacent to sidewalk Collector Street - Graflon Street/Kohnen Way/Brannigan Street To create a more pedestrian friendly environment and sense of community, the collector street shall have and expanded right-of- way greater than the City of Dublin standards. This increased width will allow for a landscape parkway and separated multi-use trail or sidewalk along each side of the roadway. A row of shade trees will be planted on either side of the sidewalk, one within the parkway and one within the landscape easement beyond the right-of-way. This will allow the pedestrian path-of-travel to act as a safe domain by visually and physically minimizing the interaction of the pedestrian and motorist while creating a more pedestrian-oriented neighborhood corridor. Grafton Street from Gleason Drive to the property line consists of two traffic lanes, two parking lanes and a landscaped median/turn lane. A parkway strip with a separated multi-use train (one-way pedestrian/bicycle travel on the east side and two-way pedestrian bicycle travel on the west side) will be provided. A public service easement (PSE) will be provided as required by the City and wi!l be Page 111-9 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 dedicated to the public as shown on the Tentative Map. Parcels will be created for landscape buffer areas and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. On the west side, beyond the right-of-way line, is the stream/open space corridor. The portion of Kohnen Way south of the proposed middle school site and the extension of Brannigan Street between Gleason Drive and Kohnen Way are designed as residential 'collector streets. Kohnen Way typically consists of two travel lanes and two parking lanes. A parkway strip with separated multi-use trail (two-way pedestrian/bicycle travel) will be provided on the south side and an integral curb/sidewalk on the north side. The portion of Kohnen Way from the Grafton Street intersection to the middle school entry driveway will be widened to accommodate a landscape median. On the portion of Kohnen Way between the entry and exit from the Middle School drop-off and parking, there will be a Bus pull-out and parking will be prohibited on the school side of the street. (See SDR drawings for details.) The extension of Brannigan Street will consist of two travel lanes, two parking lanes and a landscaped median/turning lane extending from Gleason Drive intersection northerly to the first intersection into the F1 neighborhood. A parkway strip with separated multi-use trail (for two-way pedestrian/bicycle travel on the east side) or sidewalk (on west side) will be provided. Parcels adjacent to the right-of-way will be created for landscape buffer areas in selected locations and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Landscape TreaOnent The dominant feature of the residential collector shall be deciduous shade trees to create a canopy effect for pedestrians and motorists. Only one species of tree shall be allowed to clearly and consistently define this collector. Shrubs and groundcover shall be planted where a community wall or rail fence runs parallel to the multi-use trail. Flowering deciduous vines shall be planted adjacent to the community wall. Planting along the rail fence should be predominantly indigenous species when transitioning into the open spaces or intermittent stream corridors. Lawn shall be planted within the parkway strip Pilasters, Walls and Fences The community wall or wall/view fence shall be placed along the rear lot lines of residential lots that back and side onto Grafton Street or portions of Kohnen Way. Where sound attenuation is required, the community wall and stone pilasters will be placed adjacent to the Page HI-lO Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 residential lots. The incorporation of the community wall and stone pilasters as accents for the secondary neighborhood entries shall ... provide visual interest and continuity while reflecting the character of the community. To maintain vistas, a rail fence shall be placed 5' behind the walk when adjacent to open space or intermittent stream corridors. Stone pilasters shall be incorporated into the wall/view fence at property corners and rail fence junction points to provide design continuity throughout the community and shall conform to the typical elevations in the guidelines. Residential Streets Residential streets are pedestrian oriented and accommodate a lighter volume of traffic. They have a strong influence on the character of the neighborhood. Street trees shall act as the primary landscape element affording each neighborhood individualized personality, beauty, and seasonal character. Landscape Treatment Each neighborhood shall create its own identity through the use of one species of street tree per neighborhood. Through the use of a single species per neighborhood, a grove effect will be created. Where practical, each lot shall be required to have a minimum of one street tree and corner lots shall require two. Street trees are to be planted 5' behind the sidewalk (on private property) within the PUE/landscape easement. Pilasters, Walls and Fences Fences placed at property lines, returns to homes, and the side yard of all corner lots shall be wood good neighbor fences. Where fences are visible from any residential street the good neighbor fence shall have an open lattice top conforming to the typical details in these guidelines. A two-rail fence shall be placed three feet (3') behind the back edge of the sidewalk where residential streets are adjacent to open space and the future middle school site. Cul-de-sac Connections Residential streets terminating in cul-de-sacs shall be designed to provide visual and pedestrian access to arterial or collector streets and open space wherever possible. To define pedestrian access from residential lots a two or three rail fence shall be tied into the side yard fencing. The two- rail fence shall be used in all locations with the exception of cul-de-sacs that open onto arterial streets, where a three-rail fence shall be placed. Page lll-11 Landscape Architectural Design Gtddelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Traffic Calming Islands in F2 Neighborhood ~ · Traffic calming islands have been placed at two loCations within the F2 Neighborhood. To accentuate these traffic calming devices, a specimen tree shall be placed in each island along with colorful groundcover. STREET FURNITURE Street furniture should reflect the community theme and architectural styling of this "upscale rural" community. Benches and other pedestrian amenities should be placed at the mid-block pedestrian access. Additional street furniture such as bollards, mailboxes, and street lights shall be placed according to function to provide a cohesive design. Refer to Materials Source List, page 1II- 33 for specifications of product types to be used. Bollards Botlards shall be identical to those used in Phase I of Dublin Ranch. They should be placed in locations where pedestrian walks and vehicular traffic meet. Benches Benches shall be shall be identical to those used at the community entries of Dublin Ranch Phase I. Trash Receptacles Trash receptacles shall complement the benches and shall be identical to those used throughout Dublin Ranch Phase 1. They should be placed in convenient and accessible locations from pedestrian walks. Mailboxes Mailboxes shall meet the U.S. Postal Service standards. When a mailbox serves only one or two homes, it shall be paired on either side of a post with boxes designed to reflect the character of Dublin Ranch. Street Light Standards Street lighting plays a crucial role in enhancing the level of quality and character of Dublin Ranch. Light standards shall be uniform in .... color and style. Lights on the arterial streets shall conform to the City of Dublin's standard cobra head and shall be painted to match Page 111-I2 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 the decorative lights to be used along collector and local residential streets. Street lights on collector streets and in residential areas will be the same decorative fixture design and height approved for Phase I to reflect the character of the Dublin Ranch community. All lighting shall be designed to conform to City of Dublin, Pacific Gas and Electric and IES safety standards and illumination requirements. With the exception of the arterial streets, all other streets shall utilize a metal halide light source in conformance with the approved light source for Phase I of Dublin Ranch. Street Identification Signage Street signs shall be round galvanized steel poles painted to match the decorative street light standards. Graphics on signs will display the City of Dublin logo and the name of the street. OPEN SPACE & PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION The community's open space system shall provide a network of interconnected multi-use trails, bicycle route bike lanes, and a mid- block pedestrian access linking neighborhoods to the community. Stream/Open Space Corridors The stream/open space corridors function as linear circulation routes along the westerly side of Grafton Street between the northern property line and Gleason Drive and along a of portion of Fallon Road north of Gleason Drive. These corridors have been designed as wildlife habitats and will be a continuation of the stream/open space corridors winding through Dublin Ranch Phase I. A 12' wide multi-use trail (for two-way pedestrian/bicycle travel) will be located on the eastern stream bank. It will meander where physically feasible, providing a pedestrian and bicycle connection to proposed parks, schools, neighborhoods, village center, and other areas of Dublin Ranch. At trail access points, bollards will be placed across the opening to prevent unauthorized motorized access. Appropriate directional and informational signage will be provided (in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act 1990). Design Criteria Construction of the stream/open space comdors will provide a naturalized channel with a gentle curvilinear alignment where feasible. If weirs are needed to stabilize the channel, natural materials such as boulders or logs will be utilized. Page III-13 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 California native, indigenous and appropriate trees, shrubs, and ground covers will be planted within the stream/open space corridor based on species, water requirements, user safety and security surveillance visibility. Channel shading is a critical factor for the development of wildlife corridors. When feasible, vegetation will be installed in masses overhanging the stream. Concentrated plantings within 8' of the streambed will provide the most shading. Barriers, such as solid fences, that may impede the movement of wildlife within the stream/open space corridor will not be permitted. During and after construction of adjacent lands, site-specific storm drains and erosion control practices will be employed to limit sedimentation of the intermittent stream/open space corridor. Human access within the stream/open space corridor will be controlled via fencing, trail placement, and interpretive signage. Where possible, the multi-use trail should be set back as far from the channel as possible to maintain habitat quality. New homeowners will be apprised by written documentation, in addition to signage, of the enforcement of pet leash laws within the stream/open space corridors. Multi-Use Trail The multi-use trail will serve as a shared bicycle and pedestrian trail linking residential areas to community-wide parks and open spaces and to other local and regional trail systems. Dimensions Multi-use trails shall be twelve feet (12') wide with the exception of the trail on the east side of Grafton Street which shall be eight (8') wide. Removable bollards shall be placed at all entry points to prevent unauthorized motorized access. Materials Multi-use trails shall be paved with concrete. Striping shall meet City standards. Signage Appropriate directional and informational signage, as determined by the City of Dublin, will be provided. Page lIl-14 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Bicycle Route Bike Lane The bicycle route bike lane, occurring within arterial streets, will serve to link residential areas to community-wide open spaces and parks, and other local and regional trail systems. Dimensions Bike lanes shall be a minimum of 5' wide. Materials Striping shall meet City standards. Signage Appropriate directional and informational signage shall be provided. Pedestrian Access Pathways Pedestrian pathways represent the interior pedestrian circulation route linking neighborhoods to surrounding streets. Pedestrian pathways are included in both neighborhoods and shall be accented with low stone walls and/or rail fences to draw the pedestrian into the pathway. Where feasible, pedestrian paths should be accessible to all. Dimensions The width of the pedestrian pathway shall be 8'. Removable bollards shall be placed at all entry points at the arterial and residential streets to prevent unauthorized motorized access. Materials The entry to the pedestrian pathways along Gleason Drive at the Fl and F2 Neighborhoods shall be interlocking concrete pavers with concrete bands similar to vehicular entries to the neighborhoods. Other portions of pedestrian pathways will be constructed of concrete with a non-slip surface. Signage Appropriate directional and location signage shall be provided. Lighting The pedestrian pathways will be illuminated in the evening by round, flat-topped metal light bollards. Design, color, and materials Page 111-15 Landscape Architectural Design GuMelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 for bollard lights shall match those used adjacent to the pedestrian pathway within Phase I of Dublin Ranch. Ownership and Maintenance The stream/open space corridors adjacent to Fallon Road and Grafton Street shall be owned by the Homeowners' Association. The City of Dublin will maintain the multi-use trail system within the stream/open space corridor while the Homeowners Association will maintain the stream channel and all landscaping within the corridor. The Homeowners Association will provide an easement to the City of Dublin for access to the multi-use trails. An existing 30' wide landscape maintenance easement, which is adjacent to the Dublin Ranch Phase I M3 Neighborhood (Tract 6964) will remain. While the easement is located within the future Public/Semi- Public parcel located west of the F-I Neighborhood, the land within the easement will continue to be maintained by the Phase I Homeowners Association. Management and maintenance includes drainage systems, pedestrian pathway, landscape maintenance and vegetation monitoring. GENERAL LANDSCAPE The beauty of the existing rolling topography and natural landscape is the basis for the Dublin Ranch landscape concept and planting themes. Rows of trees delineating entries and streets shall depict the historical aspect of orchards and create a sense of community. Indigenous and horticulturally adaptive plant materials shall serve as unifying elements throughout Dublin Ranch. Trees shall be used to define a hierarchy of entries, streets, and neighborhoods providing individuality and distinctiveness. Oak trees, native to the Tassajara Hills, have been incorporated into the plant palette to reflect the historical landscape of the Th-Valley area. Recommended Plant Palette Following are recommended plant palettes which establish the desired character of Dublin Ranch. Plants have been selected to enhance entries and streets, provide shade where necessary and transition areas to open spaces/intermittent stream corridors. Special attention has been paid to the selection of indigenous and ornamental plants that are horticulturally adaptive to the natural characteristics of the site and are suited to the climate, soils, and recycled irrigation water. Page IH-16 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines STREAM CORRIDOR, FOR PLbdWllNG CONCEPT REFER'TO PLANS PREPARED BY GLS, SHEET 19 OF REFER TO PLANS BY GLS LW~GREEN S CiL~I!N TREES AT ..... \ SEE EN~GEM~, SHE~ 3 ~DD~ SCHOOL BUS s~ ~G~,S~ 5' NEIG~O~OOD BUS ~OP -- FOR PLANTING CONCEPT OF THIS AREA REFER TO PLANS PREPARED BY GLS, SHEETS 14-16 · PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, REFER TO PLANS BY GLS, SHEET 17 ~BUS STOP STKEET TREE CrYPICAL) SEE PLANT 0' eo'. X PALETII{, SHEET 13 -- PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, REFER TO PLANS BY GLS, SHEET I? -- ACCENTTREES AT NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY' {TYPICAL) SEE ENLARGElVIENT, SHEETS 3-4 LOCATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN DUBLIN RANCH AREA F -VICINIIY MAP ~ KEY MAP N.I'.S Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Community Entry Street Trees Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Accent Trees Lagerstroemia x fauriei Crape Myrtle Prunus sargentii 'Columnaris' Flowering Cherry Evergreen Screen Trees Cedrus Deodara Deodar Cedar Pinus halapensis Aleppo Pine Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Arctostaphylos species Manzanita Ceanothus species Wild Lilac Rosa species Rose Salvia species Sage Perennials Hemerocallis species Daylily Lavandula species Lavender Salvia species Sage Groundcovers Arctostaphylos species Manzanita Rosa species Carpet Rose Vines Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston Ivy Neighborhood Entries Street Tree Celtis occidentalis Western Hackberry Accent Tree Lagerstroemia x faurieri Crape Myrtle Prunus cerassifera 'Newport' Flowering Plum Prunus serrulata Flowering Cherry Evergreen Screen Trees Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Cistus species Rockrose .... Rosa species Rose Salvia leucantha Mexican Sage Bush Page I11-18 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North ° December 2003 Perennials Hemerocallis species Daylily Lavandula angustifolia English Lavender Groundcovers Coprosma pumila 'Verde Vista' Coprosma Cotoneaster species No Common Name Rosa species Carpet Rose Scaevola 'Mauve Clusters' No Common Name Vines Macfadyena anguis-cati Cat's Claw Arterial Street* Street and Median Trees Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache Accent Trees Cercis t-eniformis 'Texas White' No Common Name Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain Tree Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Malus 'Prairiefire ' Crabapple Prunus sargentii 'Cohtmnaris' Flowering Cherry Evergreen Screen Trees mattrtts noblis 'Saratoga' Grecian Laurel Olea europea Fruitless Olive Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine Quercus agrifotia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Correa 'Ivory Bells' Australian Fuschia Cotoneaster species No Common Name Nerium oleander Oleander Phormium species New Zealand Flax Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary Salvia species Sage Westringiafruiticosa No Common Name Perennials Achillea 'Moonshine' Yarrow Aloe striata Coral Aloe Coreopsis lanceolata Coreopsis Euphorbia charcias 'Wulfenii' Euphorbia Lavandula species Lavender Miscanthus species No Common Name Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Page Ill-19 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Groundcovers Cotoneaster species No Common Name Lantana species Lantana Residential Collector* Street Tree Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' Grecian Laurel Pistachia chinensis i Chinese Pistache Shrubs Correa 'Ivory Bells' Australian Fuschia Cotoneaster species No Common Name Nerium oleander Oleander Phormium species New Zealand Flax Rosa species Rose Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary Salvia species Sage Westringiafruiticosa No Common Name Perennials Achillea 'Moonshine' Yarrow Aloe striata Coral Aloe Coreopsis lanceolata Coreopsis Euphorbia charcias 'Wulfenii' Euphorbia Lavandula species Lavender Miscanthus species No Common Name Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Ground covers Cotoneaster species No Common Name Lantana species Lantana Rosa 'Flower Carpet' Flower Carpet Rose Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' Rosemary Residential Streets Neighborhood F1 Street Tree Quercus rubra Red Oak Neighborhood F2 Street Tree Zelkova serrata Sawleaf Zelkova Alternative Street Trees Celtis sinensis Chinese Hackberry Cinamomum camphora Camphor Tree Page 111-20 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Intermittent Stream Corridor Revegetation* Trees Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Quercus lobata Valley Oak Sambucus mexicana Elderberry Shrubs Arctostaphylos species Manzanita Ceanothus species Wild Lilac Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry Rosa Californica California Wild Rose Salix laevigata Red Willow Simphorocarpus albus Common Snowberry Hydroseed Oak Woodland Mix Mid-Block Pedestrian Access* Flowering Accent Trees Cercis reniformis 'Texas White' No Common Name Lagerstroemia x faurier Crape Myrtle Malus 'Prairfire' Flowering Crabapple Evergreen Screening Trees Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' Grecian Laurel Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrubs Correa 'Ivory Bells' Australian Fuchsia Cotoneaster species Cotoneaster Nerium oleander Oleander Phormium species New Zealand Flax Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Upright Rosemay Salvia species Sage Westringiafruiticosa No Common Name Perennials Aloe striata Coral Aloe Euphorbia charcias 'Wulfenii' Euphorbia Lavandula species Lavender Miscanthus species Maiden Grass Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Page 111-21 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Groundcover Achiliea 'Moonshine' Yarrow ~, . Lantana species Lantana Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' Rosemary *Denotes plant palettes pro vided by GLS Architecture/Landscape Architecture All other provided by NUVIS Landscape and Planning. Irrigation Irrigation throughout the public rights-of-way, landscape setbacks, mid-block pedestrian pathway and temporary irrigated open spaces shall be accomplished by means of automatically controlled spray, bubbler, and drip irrigation systems. The design shall incorporate water saving techniques and equipment and shall meet the water efficient requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance adopted by the City of Dublin and AB325. Irrigation systems that use recycled water shall conform to the Dublin San Ramon Services District Recycled Water Use Guidelines. All irrigation systems shall be efficiently designed to reduce overspray onto walks, walls, fences, pilasters, street and other non-landscaped areas and into natural open space areas. All irrigation systems within the public right-of-way, such as arterial streetscapes, with the exception of the intermittent stream corridor shall be designed to accommodate the use of recycled water in the event that it becomes available in the future. Drip or other water conserving irrigation systems should be recommended for installation throughout Dublin Ranch. When spray systems are installed, low gallon/low precipitation spray heads should be used in accordance with soil infiltration rates. Irrigation systems shall be valved separately depending on plant ecosystems, orientation and exposure to sun, shade, and wind. The design shall be sensitive to the water requirements of the plant material selected and similar water using plants shall be valved together. Slope and soil conditions will also be considered when valving irrigation systems. Page lll-22 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 PILASTERS, WALLS, AND FENCES Pilasters, Walls, and fencing are part of the common elements that compose the consistent and recurring community theme. Due to the high visibility of walls and fences, their location and design have a direct affect on the overall community appearance. Patterns and textures within Dublin Ranch have been chosen to complement the proposed architectural styles and the "upscale rural" theme. Stone Pilasters Location Stone pilasters shall be located at the community entry, within neighborhood entry medians, at the terminus and change of direction of all community walls, and at the terminus, change of direction and lot line intersections of all wall/View fence, view fences and two and three-rail fences. Stone pilasters shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimensions The height of the pilaster at the two-rail fence will be 3'-9 ½". At the three-rail fence the height will be 4'-9 ~z,, y2 . The pilaster at the community wall, wall/view fence, and view fence shall be 6'-9 2/5" in height. Freestanding stone pilasters at the community and neighborhood entries shall be 4'-9 ½". All pilasters will have a 4.5 degree batter with an 18" square dimension below the cap. The 3'-9 I/2" high pilasters shall be 25" at the base, the 4'-9 ~/2" pilaster, 27" and the 6'-9 ½" high pilaster, 30". Materials Stone pilasters shall be square with a battered form and a precast concrete cap. The stone pattern shall be primarily stacked tedgestone with random angular larger stone accents. Only those pilasters that act as gateways into the community and signage for the neighborhood entries shall receive an oval ornamental plaque containing a Dublin Ranch or neighborhood logo. Refer to "Materials Source List" page Ill-33 for specifications and availability of stone and precast concrete cap. Page III-23 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines MATCH EXISTING WALL/VIEW FENCE EXISTING TRACT 6959 AND 6960 D-RAIL FENCE TO EXISTING :~-RAIL CONCRETE FENCE " FUTURE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2-RAIL CONCRETE FENCE ALONG SCHOOL FRONTAGE TO BE PROVIDED BY DUSD AS PART OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION LEGEND -~ PROPOSED COMMUNITYWALL {TYP.) '"'"'""' PROPOSED WALL/VIEW FENCE CTYP.) oaaoa=aaa PROPOSED VIEW FENCE oo~,,oo~- PROPOSED 2-RAIL CONCRETE FENCE WITH STONE VENEER PILASTERS ...... PROPOSED a-RAIL CONCRETE FENCE 2-RAIL CONCRETE FENCE ALONG WITH-STONE VENEER PILASTERS (TYP.) P/SP FRONTAGE-TO BE PROVIDED ..... PROPOSED FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING BY CONTRACTOR AS PART OF PUBLIC/SEMI WALL/VIEW FENCE ('P/P.) PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION ~ COMMUNITYENTRY (TYP.) ;}~ NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY NOTE: 2-RAIL FENCE SHOWN IN FRONT OF FUTURE MIDDLE SCHOOL SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Community Wall Location The community wall shall be incorporated into high visibility areas such as at community and neighborhood entries. The community wall shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimensions Height of the community wall will be 6'- 0". Spacing of stone pilasters and intermediate stucco columns shall be determined by the length of the precast wall panel and shall always be equally spaced. Typical spacing will be such that two stucco columns will be placed between stone pilasters. Materials The community wall shall consist of a precast wall panel with a stucco finish to compliment the stone pilasters. A continuous concrete cap to match the stucco shall run the length of the wall panels. A horizontal groove to provide architectural interest and a trim line for vines shall be incorporated into the wall panel 12" below the wall cap. Two intermediate stucco columns, to match the color and finish of the precast wall panels, shall be equally spaced between stone pilasters. Refer to "Materials Source List" page III-33 for specifications and availability of stucco and precast concrete cap. PRECAST WALL PANEL - STUCCO FINISH ~ PRECAST CONCRETE CAP ~ PRECAST WALL CAP -- STONE PILASTER ]---1" REVEAL ......t-- ~COLIJMN - COMMUNITY WALL WITH PILASTER Page I11-25 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Wall/View Fence Location The wall/view fence shall be incorporated into high visibility areas such as areas adjacent to the arterial and collector streets and mid- block pedestrian access corridors where a 6' high sound attenuation wall is not necessary. The wall/view fence shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimensions Height of the wall/view fence will be 6'- 0". The wall portion shall be 3'-6" in height and the view fence shall be 2'-6". Spacing of stone pilasters and intermediate stucco columns shall be determined by the length of the precast wall panel and shall always be equally spaced. Typical spacing will be such that two stucco columns will be placed between stone pilasters Materials The wall/view fence shall consist of a precast wall panel with a stucco finish to match the community wall and metal view fencing on top to be painted to match the view fence. A continuous concrete cap to match the stucco shall run the length of the wall panels. Two intermediate stucco columns, to match the color and finish of the precast wall panels, shall be equally spaced between stone and pilasters. Refer to "Materials Source List" page Ili-33 for specifications and availability of stucco, precast concrete cap, and paint color for metal fence. STONE VENEER PILASTER (LOCAl'ED AT EVI~,Y PROPERTY LllqE AND AT TERMINATION POINTS OF WALL'VIEW FENCE) PRECAST CONCRETE CAP WITH CHAMFERED TOP PRECAST WALL CAP TUBULAR STEEL PANELS INTERMEDIATE riDDEN -., ! COLOM~ WALL/VIEW FENCE Page 111-26 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North o December 2003 -- EXISTING WALL & PILASTER FROM ADJACENT PROJECT 'PRECAST WALL PANEL & -- TUBULAR STEEL PANELS- REFER TO ELEVATIONS HEREON FINISH GRADE WALL/VIEW FENCE ON SLOPE Page 111-27 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublitt Ranch Area F North · December 2003 View Fence Location The view fence shall be incorporated into areas where views outward from project are a premium or where a connection to an existing view fence is necessary. The view fence shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimension Height of view fence will be 6' -0", with post stationed at 8' - 0" O.C. Pickets shall be at 4" clear and bottom rail 4" clear of finish grade. Materials View fence shall be tubular steel and match existing view fence dimensions. Refer to "Material Source List" page III - 33 for specifications and color of tubular steel fence.  TUBULAR STEEL L5/8 "PICKETS k 4" cLr VIEW FENCE Page III-28 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelit, es Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Rail Fence Location The rail fence shall be designated for areas adjacent to stream/open corridors and/or areas where definition by a solid enclosure is not desired. The design of the rail fence is reminiscent of an agrarian image. The rail fence shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. The two-rail fence shall be placed along the frontage of the stream/open space corridor adjacent to Grafton Street and residential streets adjacent to open space and the future middle school. In addition, the two-rail fence shall be placed at the ends of all cul-de- sacs adjacent to residential streets/HOA parcels and open space with the exception of the cul-de-sac which opens onto the Fallon Road stream corridor, which shall be a three-rail fence. Adjacent to the stream corridor along Fallon Road, the three-rail fence shall be used to provide separation. The three-rail fence shall also be placed at the ends of cul-de-sacs and at single-loaded streets that visually open onto Gleason Road. Dimensions The two-rail fence shall be held at 3' in height and the three-rail fence at 4' in height to the top rail. Materials The rail fence should be constructed of a high grade concrete to simulate a wood rail fence. Stone pilasters shall occur at any terminus and change in direction of the rail fence and at 48' on center for a two-rail fence and at 72' on center for a three-rail fence. All intermediate posts shall be approximately 8' on center. Refer to "Materials Source List" page II1-33 for specifications and availability of precast rail fence. Page 111-29 Landscape Architectural Design Gaidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 PRECAST CONCRETE CAP WITH CHAMFERED TOP pS~LOANsE~ ~/RENEER --CONCRETE POST (8' O.C.) CONCRETi RAIL RAIL FENCE (2-RAIL WITH PILASTERS AT 48' O.C. PRECAST CONCRETE CAP WITH CHAMFERED TOP RAIL FENCE (3-RAIL) WITH PILASTERS AT 72' O.C. Page 111-30 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Good Neighbor Fences Location Good neighbor fences shall occur between lots and adjacent to residential streets. Where fencing sections face onto streets, a 12" high lattice panel shall be incorporated within the top portion of the good neighbor fence. Good neighbor fences shall conform to the typical elevation as shown. Dimensions Good neighbor fences will be 6' in height. Where a 12" high lattice panel is incorporated into the top portion of the good neighbor fence, the overall height will remain at 6' in height. Decorative post caps shall be incorporated into the good neighbor fence with lattice top at all changes of direction and at 16' on center. Materials Good neighbor fences will be constructed of wood. GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE WITH LATTICE TltIM (LOCATED BETWEEN ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS FACING STREET) ~ WOOD POST (8' O.C.) --VERTICAL BOARDS GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE (LOCATED BETWEEN AND AT RF..Ai:! OF UNITS) Page III-31 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · Decetnber 2003 Retaining Walls Localion Retaining walls shall be incorporated into areas with slopes when necessary to retain grade at entries into the community and neighborhoods, around street light pole bases, hydrants, utility vaults/equipment, etc.. and where retaining walls between lots are required to accommodate grade changes. Dimensions The height of the retaining wall shall be determined by the existing and proposed grade but in no case shall it exceed 3' in height from finish grade or surface. Any retaining wall with an overall height of 3' or less from finish grade will not require approval from the City of Dublin. Materials All portions of retaining walls that are viewable by the public or facing public areas (i.e. streets) shall be faced in stone to match the stone pilasters within the community. The stone pattern shall be stacked ledgestone with random larger angular stone accents. Retaining walls that are veneered with stone shall be finished with a precast concrete cap to match the community wall. Retaining walls in all other locations shall comply with City of Dublin Standards. Refer to "Materials Source List" page III-33 for specifications and availability of stone and precast concrete cap. ----SLOPE LINE WHEN WALL IS REQUIREDTO R~AIN GRADE TRANSFORMER, PG&E BOX ETC... ~ ~ V'- PRECAST CONCRETE CAP TO MATCH CAP ~ , ~ ~ · iAT COMMUNI~rY ENTRIES $ECT1ON ~I.EVATION RETAINING AND/OR SCREEN WALL NOT[-.': ALL RETAINING/GARDEN WAI. LS VIEWABLE BY THE PUBLIC OR FACING PUBLIC AREAS (I.E. STREETS) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH STONE VENEER (BOTH SIDES WHERE VISIBLE) AND WITH A PRECAST CONCRETE CAP THAT MATCHES COMMUNITY ENTRY CAP. Page Ill-32 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Materials Source List The following materials were utilized within Phase I of Dublin Ranch and shall be used throughout Area F1 and F2 to maintain a consistent community visual image. Stone - Stone shall be Cultured Stone "Country Ledgestone - Caramel" #CSV-20007. Available from Cultured Stone Corporation, (800) 255-1727. Mortar - Mortar shall be Davis Colors #5447. Available from Davis Colors, (800) 356-4348. Stucco - Stucco shall have a "Texcoat" finish and painted to match La Habra X-82, Hacienda. Precast Wall and Pilaster Caps - Color to be "Pacific Coast Sandstone" #15W. Grout to be Hydroment "Cameo by Bostic, Inc. Available from Napa Valley Cast Stone Systems, (707) 252-3933. Rail Fence - Rail fence shall be a "Woodcrete Rail System" fence. Color to be Tan. Available from Dynamic Pre-Cast Company, (707) 829-2664. Tubular Steel Fence - Tubular steel fences shall be painted with · ..~ #99-1554 'green' Deluxe Paint by Sinclair Paints. Interlocking Concrete Pavers - Pavers shall be "Basalite Cobble III". Use 80mm thickness for streets and 60mm elsewhere. Color blend to be 45% Sandalwood, 45% Carmel, and 10% Marin. Available from Basalite, (209) 833-3670. Street Lights/Poles - Poles shall be 5" round straight aluminum, 20' high with cast aluminum clamshell base cover. Fixtures shall have 24" diameter straight hood, Type III reflector, 70w metal halide lamp, house side shield and photo receptacle. All fixtures to have arm assembly for either single or double head luminaries with adapter for fitter to slipfit a 5"pole. All components shall have dark green finish. Street lights and poles to be components from Universe Series as manufactured by Architectural Area Lighting, La Mirada, CA. (Fixture: UCM-SR-STR-H3-70MH-MT-DGN-HSS; Pole: DB10-55R20-188-DGN; Arm Assembly: SLA17-DGN-AD5- PCR) Page III-33 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Dublin Ranch Area F North · December 2003 Bollard Lights - Bollard lights shall be 42" high, 8" round, flat- topped units with 70w metal halide lamp and cutoff option. Housing to have extruded or cast aluminum components. All components shall have dark green finish. Bollard light to be manufactured by Architectural Area Lighting, La Mirada, CA. (ALR 8-70MH-Green). Benches - Benches shall be "Fairweather" Model #TD-5. All wood members shall be Ipe and all metal shall have a dark green finish to match the street light poles. Trash Receptacles - Trash receptacles to be "Fairweather" Model TR-4 with flat top and shall have a dark green finish to match the street light poles. Page 111-34 Landscape Architectural Design Guidelines Order Number: 6:L222:LALA Page Number: l First American Title 6665 Owens Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 Peter Quaty MacKay & Somps 5142 Franklin Drive, Suite C Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: (925) 920-0200 Escrow Officer: Diane Burton (DB) Phone: (925) 460-8228 Fax No.: (925) 463-9683 E-Maih dburton@firstam.com Title Officer: Bill .~unge Phone: (925) 225-2600 Fax No.: (925) 225-2684 E-Maih bjunge@firstam.com Owner: Lin PRELIMINARY REPORT in response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, this company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown~or referred to as - an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. ]Ct is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued Solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. F/rst Amer/can T/t/e Order Number: 612221ALA Page Number: 2 Dated as of December 30, 2003 at 7:30 A.M. The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: To Be Determined A specific request should be made if another form or additional coverage is desired. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Chang Su-O Lin, a married woman as her sole and separate property, as to an undivided 35.6886% interest; Hong Yao Lin, a single man, as to an undivided 32.1557% interest, and Hong Lien Lin, a single man, as to an undivided 32.:[557% interest, as to Parcel One; Chang Su-O Lin, a married woman as her sole and separate property, as to an undivided 1/3 interest; Hong Yao Lin, a single man, as to an undivided :[/3 interest, and Hong Lien Lin, a single man, as to an undivided 1/3 interest, as to Parcel Two The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is: A fee. The Land referred to herein is described as follows: (See attached Legal Description) At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2004-2005, a lien not yet due or payable. _ 2. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2003-2004. __ First [nstallment: ~- $::[8,296.99, PAID Penalty: $1,829.69 Second :Installment: $18,296.99, OPEN Penalty: $:~,839.69 Tax Rate Area: 26-025 A. P. No.: 985-0009-006 Affects a portion of Parcel One FirstArnerican T/fie Order Number: 612221AI.A Page Number: 3 3. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2003-2004. First Installment: $134,461.08, PAID Penalty: $13,446. t0 Second Installment: $134,461.08, OPEN Penalty: $13,456.10 Tax Rate Area: 26-026 A. P. No.: 985-0009-007-03 Affects the remainder of Parcel One 4. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2003-2004. First Installment: $68,650.35, PAID Penalty: $6,865.03 Second Installment: $68,650.35, OPEN Penalty: $6,875.03 Tax Rate Area: 26-026 A. P. No.: 985-0027-008 Affects a portion of Parcel Two and other property 5. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2003-2004. First Installment: $2,095.28, PAID Penalty: $209.52 Second Installment: $2,095.28, OPEN Penalty: $219.52 Tax Rate Area: 26-023 A. P. No.: 985-0030-001 Affects a portion of Parcel Two - 6. The lien of supplemental t_axes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with - Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. 7. The property is within the boundaries of the following pending district and is subject to all taxes, assessments and obligations thereof. Said taxes are collected with the City and County Taxes. District: A.D. 1999-1 (Dublin Ranch) 8. A waiver of any claims for damages by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of a contiguous freeway, highway or roadway, as contained in the document recorded 3uly 31, 1941 as Book 4115, Page 57 of Official Records. 9. A waiver of any claims for damages by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of a contiguous freeway, highway or roadway, as contained in the document .... recorded 3uly 18, 1950 as BOok 6166, Page 447 of Official Records. First American Title Order Number: 6~.222~.ALA Page Number: 4 10. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Annexation Agreement" ~ recorded March 9, 1995 as Series NO. 95053080 of Official Records. 11. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Drainage Agreement" recorded April 1, 1998 as Series No. 98110030 of Official Records. 12. An easement shown or dedicated on the map filed or recorded as Book 241 of Maps at Page 39 For: Public service and incidental purposes. 13. An easement for storm drain and incidental purposes, recorded March 30, 1999 as Series No. 99134120 of Official Records. ]:n Favor of: City of Dublin Affects: a portion of said land 14. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Master Development Agreement" recorded July 8, 1999 as Series No. 99251790 of Official Records. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Supplemental Development Agreement" recorded November 13, 2000 as Series No. 2000335772 of Official Records. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Estoppel Certificate - Dublin Ranch Development Agreement" recorded April 10, 2002 as Series No. 2002158247 of Official Records. 15. An easement for landscape maintenance and incidental purposes, recorded August 29, 2001 as Series No. 2001324123 of Official Records. ]:n Favor of: MSSH Dublin Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Affects: a portion of said land 16. An easement for storm drain and incidental purposes, recorded August 29, 2001 as Series No. 2001324125 of Official Records. ]:n Favor of: MSSH Dublin Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company - - Affects: a portion of said land 17. An easement for landscape maintenance and incidental purposes, recorded August 29, 2001 as Series No. 2001324126 of Official Records. In Favor of: MSSH Dublin Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Affects: a portion of said land 18. An easement for street right of way and incidental purposes, recorded November 7, 2003 as Series No. 2003663576 of Official Records. In Favor of: City of Dublin, a municipal corporation Affects: Central Parkway, as more particularly described in attached legal description First Arner/¢an Title Order Number: 612221ALA Page Number: 5 19. Rights of parties in possession. 20. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 21. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. First American Title Order Number: 6~.222~.ALA Page Number: 6 INFORMATIONAL NOTES 1. Basic rate applies. 2. According to the public records, there has been no conveyance of the land within a period of six months prior to the date of this report, except as follows: None 3. This preliminary report/commitment was prepared based upon an application for a policy of title insurance that identified land by street address or assessor's parcel number only. ]:t is the responsibility of the applicant to determine whether the land referred to herein is in fact the land that is to be described in the policy or policies to be issued. The map attached, if any, may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. First American expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage which may result from reliance on this map except to the extent coverage for such loss or damage is expressly provided by the terms and provisions of the title insurance policy, if any, to which this map is attached. F/rst An?er/can 7-/t/e Order Number: 612221ALA Page Number: 7 LEGAL DESCR]:PTION Real property in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: Parcel One: Being a portion of that certain parcel of land known as: "Parcel B" of that certain final map entitled: "Tract 6959" as filed on the 2nd day of June, 2000 in Book 251 of Haps at Pages 39 to 43, Official Records of Alameda County, California, and a portion of that certain parcel of land known as: "Parcel 1" of that certain final map entitled: '"Tract 7148" as filed on the 14th day of February, 2001 in Book 257 of Naps at Pages 3 to 7, Official Records of Alameda County, California, for purposes of a Lot Line Adjustment, lying and being in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 23 as shown upon said '"Tract 6959"; thence along the Northerly property line of said "Parcel 1" as shown upon said '"Tract 7148" South 88° 53' 01" East :L010.77 feet to the Northeast corner of said "Parcel 1"; thence along the Easterly property line of said "Parcel 1" as show upon said "Tract 7148" South 0° 38' 11" West 2655.79 feet to the Southeast corner of "Parcel 1"; thence along the Southerly property line of said "Parcel 1" (also being the Northerly right-of-way line of Central Parkway as shown upon said '"Tract 7148") the following sixteen '(16) courses: (1) North 89° 21' 49" West 43.00 feet; thence (2) South 45° 35' 35" West 28.26 feet; thence (3) North 89° 27' 02" West 39.20 feet to a point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right; thence (4) along said curve having a radius of 2943.00 feet, a central .,~i angle of 13° 46' 08", and an arc length of 707.24 feet; thence (5) North 72° 07' 40" West 83.67 ' .... feet to a point on a curve to the right whose radius point bears North 15° 56' 48" East therefrom said point; thence (6) along said curve having a radius of 2939.00 feet, a central angle of 1° 26' 35", and an arc length of 74.02 feet to the beginning point of a tangent line; thence (7) along said tangent line North 72° 36' 37" West 103.76 feet; thence (8) North 27° 36' 37" West 28.28 feet; thence (9) North 75° 06' 00" West 92.01 feet; thence (:L0) South 62° 23' 23" West 28.28 feet; thence (11) North 72° 36' 37" West 502.02 feet to a point of curvature of a tangent curve to the left; thence (12) along said curve having a radius of 3057.00 feet, a central angle of 10° 24' 47", and an arc length of 555.59 feet; thence (13) North 8l° 06' 54" West 84.84 feet to a point on a curve to the left whose radius point bears South 5° 23' 21" West therefrom said point; thence (14) along said curve having a radius of 3061.00 feet, a central angle of 3° 17' 32", and an arc length of 175.89 feet; thence (15) North 43° 22' 41" West 28.05 feet; thence (16) North - 88° 51' 11" West 59.00 feet to the Southwest corner of said "Parcel 1"; thence alon~the _ Westerly property line of said "Parcel 1" the following five (5) courses" (17) North 1° 08' 49" East 1123.10 feet; thence (18) North 88° 39' 20" West 368.18 feet; thence (19) North 1° 13' 07" East 615.00 feet; thence (20) North 5° 56' 41" West 60.94 feet; thence (21) North 1° 44' 49" East 618.51 feet to the Northwest corner of said "Parcel 1" also being a point on a curve to the left whose radius point bears North 19° 21' 27" West therefrom said point, thence along the Northerly property line of said "Parcel 1" the following Eight courses: (22) along said curve having a radius of 816.00 feet, a central angle of 1° 30' 12", and an arc length of 21.41 feet; thence (23) North 69° 08' 21" East 75.12 feet to a point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right; thence (24) along said curve having a radius of 730.00 feet, a central angle of 22° 03' 30", and an arc length of 281.04 feet to the beginning point of a tangent line; thence (25) along said tangent line South 88° 48' 09" East 264.43 feet to a point of curvature of a tangent curve to the left; thence (26) along said curve having a radius of 696.00 feet, a central angle of 9° 43' 27", and an arc length of 118.12 feet; thence (27) South 88° 48' 09" East 573.30 feet; thence (28) South 59° 33' 12" East 186.21 feet; thence (29) South 15° 26' 40" East 228.29 feet; thence continuing along said Northerly property line South 88° 53' 01" East 140.54 feet to the Southwest First American Tit/e Order Number: 612~.21ALA Page Number: 8 corner of said "Parcel B"; thence departing from said Northerly property line and entering said "Parcel 1" the follOwing two (2) courses: (30) along the Southerly prolongation of the Westerly prOPerty line of said "parcel B" South 1° 50' 20" East 27.68 feet; thence (31) North 88° 09' 40" East 25.26 feet; thence continuing traversing through said "Parcel1" and entering said "Parcel B" North 57° 56' 24" East 111.05 feet to the most westerly corner of Lot 24 of said "Tract 6959"; thence along the Southerly property line of said Lot 24 the following two (2) courses: (32) South 52° 18' 04" East 47.82 feet; thence (33) South 79° 31' 50" East 36.46 feet to said point of beginning. APN: 985-0009-006 985-0009-007-03 Parcel Two' Being a portion of that certain parcel of land as described (Parcel 4) in the deed conveyed to "Lin, et al" as recorded on the 12th day of October 1999 in Series No. 99-384198, Official Records of Alameda County, California, and a portion of that certain parcel of land known as "Designated Remainder Area No. 4" of that certain final map entitled '~Fract 6925 - Dublin Ranch" as filed on the 16th day of ]uly, 1998 in Book 241 of Maps at Pages 39 to 52, Official Records of Alameda County, California, for purposes of a fee conveyance - Resultant Remainder No. 4 of Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-99-19, lying and being in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast property corner of said "Remainder" parcel, thence along the Southerly property line of said "Remainder" parcel North 88° 30' 52" West 2693.69 feet to the Southwest corner of said "Remainder" parcel, thence along the Westerly property line of said "Remainder'' parcel North 0° 38' 11" East 2675.56 feet to the Northwest corner of said "Remainder" parcel, thence along the Northerly property line of said "Remainder" parcel the following two (2) courses: (1) South 88° 53' 01" East 240.01 feet, thence (2) North 82° 53' 29" East 210.00 feet, thence continuing along said Northerly property line and the Northeasterly prolongation thereof entering said "Lin" parcel North 39° 54' 38" East 353.00 feet to a point on a curve to the left whose radius point bears North 39° 54' 38" East therefrom said point, thence continuing through said "Lin" parcel along said curve having a radius 1391.00 feet, a central angle of 11° 39' 38", and an arc length of 283.09 feet to the beginning point of a tangent line, thence traversing through said "Lin" parcel and entering said "Remainder" parcel South 61° 45' 00" East 1426.77 feet to a point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right, thence continuing traversing through said "Remainder" parcel along said curve having a radius of 1539.00 feet, a central, angle-of 11° 47' 52", and an arc length of_316.90 feet to point on a curve to the left who radius point bears South - 81° 56' 44" East therefrom said point and said point being on the Easterly property line of said "Remainder" parcel, thence along said Easterly property line the following five (5) courses (3) along said curve having a radius of 800.55 feet, a central angle of 1° 43' 36", and an arc length of 24.12 feet, thence (4) South 6° 19' 16" West 1321.37 feet to a point of curvature of a tangent curve to the left, thence (5) along said curve having a radius of 399.94 feet, a central angle of 44° 12' 02", and an arc length of 308.53 feet to the beginning point of a tangent line, thence (6) along said tangent line South 37° 52' 46" East 428.46 feet to a point of curvature of a tangent curve to the right, thence (7) along said curve having a radius of 399.94 feet, a central angle of 10° 23' 54", and an arc length of 72.58 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom, all that real property described in the deed to the City of Dublin, recorded August 22, 2003, Series No. 2003499117, Official Records. ...... APN: 985-0027-08 (portion) 985-0030-01 First American Title A~SESSOR' S MAP 985 coo~ ^~o ~o~. ~-o~, ~-o~s , z~-oz~ RANCHO SAN RAMON ~J,M. AMADOR] RANCHO SANTA 14  SOUTH 985/I 5 P~ON ~ ~CI m 986/I 7 BO. '>6 AC. ~: $ 8 - DUBLIN BOULEVARD 41 40 eOU£~V~D i 986/[8 ~ I NTERST~TE 4-~-~8o 580 m-om Description: Alameda, CA Assessor Map 985. 9 Page: 1 of 2 Order: 612221 Comment: ASSESSOR'S MAP co~. ~.~ ~o,. ~6-oz.~ ~6-oz6 RANCHO SANTA RITA [dohn Yountz) i T. 2S. ,R, IE. ;SEC. 34 · SCALE: I* = 500' ~8 [ ~ ~ TR.6925 55 I 28 Iii J 0~'$1GNAT£0  F.£MA I NDE~ (15B.05 Z ~ N / ' SEE 4-~A-~a INTERSTATE S~.~ 64-0~ 580 g04/I //;2' -~ ' DETAIL g46 _~' Description: Alameda, CA Assessor Map 985.27 Page: f of 1~, ~,,, , Order: 612221 Comment: ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 co,~,. ^,~o ,oz. ~6-o~  <,~1 TR. 6925 Description: Alameda, CA Assessor Map 985.30 Page: I of 1 H~, ~ ,~ ~, ~ Order: 61222~ Comment: Order Number: 612221ALA Page Number: 9 NOTICE Section 12413.1 of the California ]:nsurance Code, effective .]anuary 1, 1990, requires that any title insurance company, underwritten title company, or controlled escrow company handling funds in an escrow or sub-escrow capacity, wait a specified number of days after depositing funds, before recording any documents in connection with the transaction or disbursing funds. This statute allows for funds deposited by wire transfer to be disbursed the same day as deposit. In the case of cashier's checks or certified checks, funds may be disbursed the next day after deposit. Tn order to avoid unnecessary delays of three to seven days, or more, please use wire transfer, cashier's checks, or certified checks whenever possible. If you have any questions about the effect of this new law, please contact your local First American Office for more details. First American T/de Order Number: 6~.2221ALA Page Number: ~.0 EXHI'BTT A L1'ST OF PRTNTED EXCEP"~ONS AND EXCLUSI'ONS (BY POLTCY TYPE) CAL][FORN]:A LAND 'ITI'LE ASSOCT~.AT~ON STANDARD COVERAGE POLi'CY - ~.990 SCHEDULE B EXCEPT'ZONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notice of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2 Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the public records. EXCLUS][ONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which adse by reason of: I. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. · (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a " defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. ' 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy,_or the inability or - failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable "doing business" laws of the state in which the land is situated. .~- - 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by their policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. 2. AMERI~CAN LAND TITLE ASSOC][A'r[ON OWNER'S POLI'CY FORM B - 1970 SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSI'ONS FROM COVERAGE 1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions of area of the land, or the effect of any violation of any such law, ordinance or governmental regulation. 2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public records at Date of Policy. f'~'"~ 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such ~-~ claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or First American T/tie Order Number: 61222'~ALA Page Number: ].1 created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 3. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY FORM B - 1970 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Association policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 2 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the matters shown in parts one and two following: Part One I. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 4. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY - 1970 WITH A.LT.A. ENOORSEMENT FORM 1 COVERAGE SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE 1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land, or the effect of any violation of any such law ordinance or governmental regulation. ' 2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public records at Date of Policy. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy or acquired the insured mortgage and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder, (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to any statutory lien for labor or material or to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements under construction or completed at Date of Policy). 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of failure of the insured at Date of Policy or of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness to comply with applicable "doing business" laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. AMERICAN LAND TJ[TLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY - 1970 - WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS -- When the American Land Title Association Lenders Policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy, the exclusions set forth in paragraph 4 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the matters shown in parts one and two following: Part One 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct sur~ey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. $. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to ~ water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. First American Tit/e Order Number: 6].2221ALA Page Number: 12 6. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOC~4TION LOAN POLI'CY - 1992 W/TH A.LT.A. ENDORSEMENT FORM 1 COVERAGE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy; (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which Would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters; (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material or the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements under construction or completed at date of policy); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable "doing business" laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or the claim of priority of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date .. of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance. ?. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination; or (iii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. 7, AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY - 1992 W1TH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS - When the American Land Title Association policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy-the exclusions set forth in paragraph 6 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. ~ 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public ~ records. 8. AMERICAN LAND TI'TLE ASSOC~TION OWNER'S POLICY - 1992 First American Tit/e Order Number: 612221ALA Page Number: 13 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: I. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning taws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights taws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. g. AMERICAN LAND i~1LE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY - 1992 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Assodation policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 8 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: Part One: I. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. _ 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey-would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. - 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservationS-or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 10. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDEN'I'IAL 'ITrLE INSURANCE POLICY- 1987 EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, you are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses resulting from: Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes building and zoning ordinances and also laws and regulations concerning: * land use * land division * improvements on the land * environmental protection ...... This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters which appear in the public records at Policy Date. This exclusion does not limit the zoning coverage described in items 12 and 13 of Covered Title Risks. First American Tit/e Order Number: 612221ALA Page Number: 14 The right to take the land by condemning it, unless: * a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records on the Policy Date * the taking happened prior to the Policy Date and is binding on you if you bought the land without knowing of the taking. 3. Title Risks: * that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you * that are known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Date ~ unless they appeared in the public records * that result in no loss to you * that first affect your title after the Policy Date - this does not limit the labor and material lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered Title Risks 4. Failure to pay value for your title. 5. Lack of a right: * to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in Item 3 of Schedule A, or * in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch your land This exclusion does not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title Risks. 11. EAGLE PROTECTION OWNER'S POLICY CLTA HOHEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE - 1998 ALTA HOIqEOWNER'S POLICY OF TrrLE INSURANCE - 1998 Covered Risks 14 (Subdivision Law Violation). 15 (Building Permit). 16 (Zoning) and 18 (Encroachment of boundary walls or fences) are subject to Deductible Amounts and Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, you are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning: a. building b. zoning c. land use d. improvements on the land e. land division f. environmental protection This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters if notice of the violation or enforcement.appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date. This exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14, 15, 16, 17 or 24. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it, unless: a. a notice of exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date; or b. the taking happened before the Policy Date and is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 4. Risks: a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they appear in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they appear in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.d, 22, 23, 24 or 25. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: a. to any Land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11. or 18. 12. SECOND GENERATION EAGLE LOAN POLICY AMERZCAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION EXPANDED COVERAGE RESTDENT[AL LOAN POLICY (10113/01) EXCLUSIONS FROH COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage ot: this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: First American T/tie Order Number: 6~.2221ALA Page Number: t5  """~.. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location '~ of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the Land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the Land or any parcel of which the Land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the Land has been recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks ].2, 13, ].4 and ].6 of this policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 12, 13, 14 and ].6 of this policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without Knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the ]Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (this paragraph does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 8, 16, 18, 19, 20, 2~., 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Hortgage because of the inability or failure of the ]~nsured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury, except as provided in Covered Risk 27, or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Real property taxes or assessments of any governmental authority which become a lien on the Land subsequent to Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Co~ered Risks 7, 8 (e) and 26. 7. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to advances or modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 8. 8. Lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to each and every advance made after Date of Policy, and all interest charged thereon, over liens, encumbrances and other matters affecting title, the existence of which are Known to the Insured at: (a) The time of the advance; or (b) The time a modification is made to the terms of the Insured Hortgage which changes the rate of interest charged, if the rate of interest : is greater as a result of the modification than it would have been before the modification. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 8. 9. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion thereof to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears in the Public Records at Date of Policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: The following existing statutes, reference to which are made part of the ALTA 8.1 Environmental Protection Uen Endorsement incorporated into this Policy following item 28 of Covered Risks: NONE. 13. SECOND GENERATION EAGLE LOAN POLICY AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY (10/13/0l) WI'rH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Association loan policy with EAGLE Protection Added is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 12 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: Part One: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the Public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land ,~ or by making inquip/ persons of in possession thereof. ! 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. ..... 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not; shown by public records. First American Tit/e Order Number: 61222~.ALA Page Number: 16 *'-~'~<i5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. Part Two: I. The following existing statutes, reference to which are made part of the ALTA 8.1 Environmental Protection Uen Endorsement incorporated into this Policy following item 28 of Covered Risks: None. First American Tit/e Order Number: 6~.2221ALA Page Number: 17 PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information - particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entib/. Firs~ American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. Firs~ American calls these guidelines its Fa/r.[n?ormat/on ~/a/ues, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firs~am.com. Types of ]~nformation Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: · Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; · Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and · Tnformation we receive from a consumer reporting agency. ~. Use of Information [.. .~Ve reques~ information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit: of any nonaffiliated pa~y. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permi~ed by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such information may be used for any internal purpose, such as qualib/ control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the b/pes of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, properly and casualty insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. - Confidentiality and Security -- - We will use our best efforts to ensure tha~ no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fa/rZnforrnat/on Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. © 20ol The First American Corporation · All Rights Reserved First American Title ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 cod, Ar eo Nos. 26-025 ~ / c^~ TR. 6925 / ANIONE WAY SOUTH !1 ~.6.~ 4C.~. ~'~ 31 ACM; 48 SB~'t 55B REF: . HPN~ 3 INO PO: 2 ASSESSOR'S MAP 98 co~ Areo Nos, 26-024 26-026 64-003 64-004 RANCHO SANTA RITA (John Yountz) = soo' T. 2S. ,R. IE. ~SEC. 34 ',e ~A) TR.6925 33 28 64-003 DES I GNATEO REdA I NDER AREA No. 4 905 ~ (NOT A PART) , I ITS.~T AC.z ~ ~s.4o ~c.~ 905 9 155.64v kC.~ SEE "~'~'~'-' ' ........ ;:,T,, ........................ ~ ,,/~ ~ · ,, l NTERSTATE ~580 ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 Code Are° Nos. 26-02~ RANCHO SAN RAMON (J,M.AMADOR)  RANCHO SANTA RITA [J.YOUNTZ) SC^L~: ~" = ,00' (C~ TR. 7 148 PORT 10~ I C 986/15 986/15 PORTION 986/18 986/19 c GLEASON DR I VE 14~. 99 AC. ( 162.38 AC.±) ooooo - ,J:.-. ,-,. o 986/17 PARKWAY 80,26 AC.* 8.98. AC.Y: 986/I T ~ Q ! 1,62 AC,: 25.3? AC.± Ir. O0 5 8 8,?1 AC,:* DUBL I N ? 986/t 6 9 ® 6~t, 59 AC.+ ~ - INTERSTATE 4-^LA-580 580 A~ 48 SBE: 55B REF: R.O.S. l~5 18/5T , R.O.S. 1~2 22/59 J ~ HPN~ ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 co,~ ^,~o ~o~.  ~^~ TR. 6925 sc^L£: ,. = ~o' c8~ TR. 6964~ / CASTERSONDRiVE 0~< '~ ' ~ w PoR, o GE' ~GETOWN K C I RCLE 9 ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 code Area Nos. 26-025 SCALE: . oo 986 25 CACAO[ CREEK LANE SOUTH DUBL I N ~ RANCi- DR I VE ~ C R ~ 986 98~/15 9 2~ ~ 25 E~ERSON ACM~ 48 5BE~ 55B REF= . ~ HP~ a.~ I~ P~. ~ ~ ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 co~. A~.o ~o~. ~-o~ SCAL£;~ 9~'6=/~/~: __ 2 I ~ SOMERSET L~E ~RTH DUBL IN ~ RANCH DRIVE BELLEVUE CIRCLE 986 t~ 986 25 BELL~Vu£ CIRCLE _w CACADE' ,; CREEK r ~ _ LANE SOUTH DUBL IN ~ RANCH DR I VE ACM~ 48 SBEt 55B ~ REFt , HPN~ 52 I~ PG: 2 ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 co,~ Area Nos 26L025 m~ IR. 6960 ~/~ SC^L£, ~-- ~oo' {c~ TR. 695T ~s/~s 29 I~0~ ~ ~ 2,48 AC,~ LA~ ~ 5.00 ?C.~ *~ ~ WAY ~ I ~.~z AC.~ ~ DUBL I N ~ c*c~' I 5 C~EK ~ ~ 9 22 ~2 ACM: 48 SBE: 55B REF: TR.8925 1/39 HPN: 48 INO PG: 2 ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 co~ A~eo .o~. ~-o~ c.,,~ TR. 6958 ?,~/so SCALE'. t" ~ I00' ANTONE WAY ACM: ~t8 SBE: 55B REF: . HPN: 86 tl'~ PG: Z ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 co~ x~o ~o~. ~ ./~ (^) TR. 6960 2,~2/8s(~) TR, 6959 NOR TH 8R t DGffP01NTE LANE soUTH BR t DGEpO I NTt LANE ~o- CIRCLE ;ow SOUTH ACM: 46 SBE: 55B REF: ~ HPN: I01 IND PG: 2 ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 co~e ^reo Nos.  c^~ TR, 6960 SCALE: I" = lO0' Q ~,.~. SOUTH F'O~'~ SOUTH 3o ~ 9 ~ 27 A~I 48 SSE; $SB R~F: . HPN* 68 I~ PG* 2 ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 Code Area Nos. 26-02:5 26-026  ~^~ TR.7141 ~ SCAL[~ I" = I00' "' STONE. HAVEN ~ TWIN ,l, EAGLES LANE · LANE: FALLON ,./~,"" ~ ROAD ~ ACM~ 48 SBE~ 55B.55 REF: . HPN.' I00 IND PO: 2 ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 co,~ ^~o aos. ~-o~ ~-o~ ~ ~ ~'.~, TR,7142 ~,,'~ SCALE.' I" = I00' .,5\ ~NEHAVEN EAGLES LANE LANE SOUTH K I LBR I DE LANE 4O ~ FALLON ~ ROAD ',,,,, , .,, REEl . HPN: III IND PO: 2 PAGE 2 ! ASSESSOR'S MAPS ~ COUNTY OF ALAMEDA T??TT? ~.~, soA, E, ,'-5oo' INDEX BOOK 985 -~ 2 29 ~ 986 29 29 27 26 ASSESSOR'S MAP 985 Cod~ X, eo Nos. ~-02~ 2~-0~S sc^~E; ~-= ~oo' ~ TR. 7255 ~ · HILL ' DUBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT co,,,,,,i,,~a,,,,h~s .......... ,,J',,t~S,~,a* ..... 7471 LarkdaleAve. Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: 925-828-2551 Fax: 925-829-0853 SUPERINTENDENT February 18, 2001 John Sugiyama _.Apne Kinney, Project Planner t;ity of DubIin BOARD OF TRUSTEES 10OCivic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Tanva Clark (925) 828-2338 RE: Dublin Ranch Middle School Site Kevin Hart (925) 833-0606 Dear Ms. Kinney: Norbert Hudak At the re_quest ofMcKay and.Somps, engineers for the Dubli.n. (9258293771 Ranch Pro~iect, 1 arn writin~ to provide intbm~at~on to the City re~arding the Dublin Umfied School DisSrict s current intentions for the school'site in · Dublin Ranch. The School District's current Facilities Master Plan does not ....z Denis King inclu.de a new high_school facility in Eastern Dublin and anticir)ates that the (925) 829-9144 sit. e de. sig.n.a.ted ~.~,.Las,te~'n Dub. lin,,Spe,cifiq Plan/General Plan for a high scllool wlll foe um~zea rot a mma~e SChOOl. Eric Swalwell The School Mitigatign A~reement executed by the Di~st.rict and the Lin (925) 828-5021 family, also contemplates2he l~ossible redesignation ot this site from a high school to a middle school. The District administration believes that the ~roposed redesi~nation of this site is consistent with its Facilities Master lan and sut)aoffs the change from hi.~h school to middle school use. Of course, the I~istrict's Governin~Boar~ retains the ultimate authority to make decisions of this nature. This letter is not intended to imply, that the District's Q, overning will be in any way bound in the fitture by tl'iis letter or the District s current intention. Please contact me if you care to discuss this matter. Very truly yours, DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT R~. JOIA, SUPERINTENDENT FAX 415 3970454 CHARLES M SAL~R ASSOC ~, ~002 ~ ~ ~'.~4qt¢:'~%:. ... .' C~h a .r I e s M S a I t e r A s s o c i ~ ~E':~;["~?"C'' ,- Co,s,,an~s ~, 6 January 2004 Acoustics Audio/Visual System Design Jennifer Lin and Telecommunications C/O James Tong 130 Suitor Street 7077 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 120 SaP, Francisco Pleasanton, CA 94566 Cali~crnia 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454 Subject: Dublin Ranch, Area F North - ~ Acoustical Consulting info@cmsalter, com CSA Project No: 99-004 www.cmsalter, com Charles M Salter, pi= Dear Ms. Lin and Mr. Tong: David R Schwind, FAES Anthony P Nash, Pi= This letter summarizes the results of our latest environmental noise review for 1he Eva Dueslsr proposed single-family development at Area F North. With the current land plums sent Thomas A Schindter. PE Kenneth W ~raven, PE over by MacKay & Somps indicating pad elevations and lot line setbacks fi.om roadways, i=,~a L S~o~dhu~st. PE we are able to refine our noise barrier and window recommendations. Since the Year 2020 ~o~n c ~rayta~, ~i= summarized in our Traffic Noise ~: ro~. ~E Build-out CNELs~ for Gleason Drive and Fallen Road ~ 'J codec, Study for Dublin Ranch, Areas F, G and H, dated 1 April 1999, were based on ':raffle DLira~d Ft IBoge.lt. Ph.E), projections that are still considered current, these noise levels are used for this ~malysis aces A ~erozsl also. The following paragraphs lists our recommendations. Philip N Sanders Jason R Duly Cristina L Miya, Outdoors: To achieve the City of Dublin's outdoor noise goal of CNEL 60 dB in Robert ~ ^,~ar~o backyards of Lots 40, 41, 85 to 87, and 90 to 99 in Neighborhood F1 located ale)ny Joey G D'An~elo Gleason Drive, provide 4-foot tall noise barriers along the southern lot lines as shown in ~a,eAUa~o,~ Figure 1. To achieve CNEL 60 dB in backyards of Lots 42 to 44 in Neighborhood F2, Brtan Brustad Brenda RYee located north of Gleason Drive, provide 6 foot-tall noise barriers along the lot lines as EricAYee shown in Figure 2. The earthen berm that would be provided east of Neighborhood F2 Trey ~e, would acoustically shield Fallon Road traffic noise to the nearest backyards. For your ~au, Ca~or information, noise barriers would not be required for any of Area F North if the City of Timothy C McLain Joshua M Roper Dublin chose to apply their alternative outdoor noise goal of CNEL 65 dB. Kevln M Powetl Chrislapher A Peltier Indoors: No sound-rated windows are required to achieve the City's indoor noi.se standard Randy Watdeck ~e. c,u~ of CNEL 45 dB for this project. However, windows located at second floors of homes at Andrew Stanlsy Peter Hoist ~h~n sa,tot 1 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)--A descriptor for the 24-haut A-weighted average noise level. ElaineV Hsieh The CNEL concept accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening Clau61a Kraahe and nighttime hours, Sound levels during the hours fi:om 7 pm to 10 pm are penalized 5 dB; ;ound levels Jessica aerozal during the hours firom 10 pm to 7 am are penalized 10 dB. A 1 O-dB increase in sound level it; perceived by Rebecca Cowger people to be a doubling of loudness. ' ~n Matra D Noordzae Candies Huey Debble Garcia Jennifer Lin and James Tong 6 January 2004 Page 2 the aforementioned 18 lots and Lots 40, 41, 45 to 48, and 85 to 90 in Neighborhood F2, as well at both floors of homes on Lots 59, 60, 61, and 89 in Neighborhood F1 that have a line-of-sight to travel lanes would need to be in the closed position to achieve ti~e indoor noise standard. Therefore, an alternate form of ventilation (i.e., mechanical) would need to be provided. This aspect of the project should be reviewed by a mechanical en~neer. This concludes our latest recommendations for the subject project. Please call Mth any questions. Sincerely, CHAJtLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Principal Consultant MD T/Ch ?: 99-O04_04Jan6MDT_Dubl~n Ranch, Area F North Enclosure as noted cc: Dave Chadboume MacKay & Somps 5142 Franklin Drive, Suite B Pleasanton, CA 94588-3355 Peter Quady MacKay & Somps Fax: 925.225.0698 BGC October 1, 1997 BERLOGAR GEOTECH NICAL Job No. 1394.904 CONSULTANTS Ms Jennifer Lin % Mr. Ted Fairfield 5510 Sunol Boulevard Pleasanton, California 94566 Subject: Phases 1 and 2 - Environmental Site Assessment Pao-Yeh Lin Property Tassajara Road Dublin, California Gentlemen: INTRODUCTION This report contains the results of our Phases 1 and 2 - Environmental Site Assessment of hazardous and toxic substances for the subject project. The site is located north of Interstate 580 and east of Tassajara Road in Dublin, California. The location of the property is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Purpose To identify and assess characteristics of the subject property that may have been contaminated based on current or historic uses a Phase 1 - Environmental Site Assessment was performed. Also, based on previous agricultural use of the site, a limited Phase 2 assessment was performed which included: soil sampling and analytical testing to evaluate the presence and/or concentration of pesticides or herbicides in surface soils. For the purpose of this assessment, hazardous contaminants are defined as those substances listed as hazardous per Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). SCOPE OF WORK Our scope of services for this study have included: 1. A site reconnaissance including photographic documentation, observations of surrounding properties, and site vicinity; 2. Interviewing current and previous land users; 3. Contacting pertinent government agencies to obtain relevant information; SOIL ENGINEERS · ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS · 5587 SUNOL BOULEVARD · PLEASANTON, CA 94566 · (925) 484-0220 · FAX: (925) 846-9645 October 1, 1997 Job No. 1394.904 Page 2 4. Review of available information pertaining to site history, land uses, and geologic maps of the site vicinity; 5. Examination of several generations of stereopaired aerial photographs; 6. Assembling and interpreting data; 7. Obtaining twenty-seven surface soil samples and performing analytical testing on five cc, mposite samples for presence of pesticides (EPA 8140) and herbicides (EPA 8150); and 8. Preparation of this report presenting our findings and opinions. PHASE 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Site Description The site is a rectangular shaped parcel encompassing about 300 acres, as shown on the Sample Location Map, Plate 2. The Assessors Parcel Numbers (APN) are 985-0005-001 and 985-0005- 002. The subject property is currently undeveloped. The southern half is relatively fiat having elevations ranging from about 340 to 350 feet, sloping to the south. This area has been recently disced and is currently used for agricultural purposes. The northern half of the site consists of rolling hills and intervening valleys that rise from elevations of 450 to 500 feet with drainage towards the south currently used for grazing. There is an existing stock pond located along a valley in the north-central portion of the site. Site History Information on the history of the site was obtained by a review of a preliminary title report by First American Title Guaranty Company, dated June 26, 1997, an examination of several generations of aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area, and interview and discussions with Mr. Clyde Casterson (who has reportedly managed the property for about 40 years). Mr. Casterson currently leases the site for ranching. Reportedly, the site consists of two parcels (designated as Parcels 1 and 2). Records indicate that the property was a portion of lands of Rancho Santa Rita prior to 1862. The property was owned by Samuel Martin and acquired by Michael and Thomas Devaney between 1862 and 1880. Pao-Yeh Lin and Bih-Yu Lin acquired the lands in 1977 and are the current owners. Aerial photographs taken in 1957 show five small structures and corrals clustered near the north of drainage swale which discharges to the flatland area in the central portion of the site. The BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS October 1, 1997 Job No. 1394.904 Page 3 1957 photographs show the remainder of the site appears to be undeveloped vacant lands. Aerial photographs taken in 1969, 1976, and 1986, show the site appears to have remained relatively unchanged from the 1957 photographs. Photographs taken in 1996 show all pre-existing structures had been completely removed; the remainder of the site appears relatively unchanged from the earlier 1986 photographs. According to Mr. Clyde Casterson, based on his knowledge, the property has been used exclusively for farming and grazing purposes over about the past 40 years, and that the previous structures and corrals at the site were vacant since circa 1940. Mr. Casterson has indicated that to his knowledge, no underground storage tanks or asbestos containing materials were located at the site. Site Survey On July 25, 1997, Mr. Theodore Bayham of Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (BGC) visited the site, toured the grounds, observed conditions at the existing site and surrounding properties. During our site visit, the site was apparently used for agricultural on the southern half and grazing on the northcrn half. The southern half of the property was plowed but not planted. About 500 feet south of a stock pond near the center of the site, some minor wood rubble and existing fill was noted that appears to be remnant debris from the previous structures. An old well casing was observed in this area. No underground storage tanks (USTs) were observed at the site, and no apparent staining of surface soils in this area was noted. No barrels or suspicious materials were observed at the site.. Surrounding Land Use The surrounding area to the west, east and north is currently undeveloped and also used for farming and ranching purposes. The site is bounded by a frontage road and Interstate 580 to the south. REPORTS BY REGULATORY AGENCIES A review was made of relevant public records concerning the subject property. Primary sources of information consulted include: 1. Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; 2. Dublin Fire Department; and 3. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. - Radius Map with Geocheck. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS October 1, 1997 Job No. 1394.904 Page 4 Interviews with Alameda County Department of Environmental Health and Dublin Fire Department personnel report no known hazardous materials stored or used at the site, or underground storage tanks. The site is not on the EPA National Priorities List, the California DOHS Bond Expenditure List, nor lists of underground tank leaks or hazardous sites kept by RWQCB of the County or City agencies. It is also not posted on the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability and Information System (CERCLIS). The site is not on the Resource Research and Recovery Act (RCRA) listing as a hazardous waste transporter or generator. There are no sites on the EPA National Priority List, the DOSD Bond Expenditure List, the SFBRWQCB North Bay Toxic List within 1-mile of the subject site. The environmental data resources radius map with geocheck is provided in the attached appendix. The California Leaking Underground Storage Tank Report (LUST) reports no underground tank leaks within a 1-mile radius of the subject site. HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING Published maps of the site vicinity (Dibblee, 1980) show the area to be underlain by Plio- Pleistocene sedimentary rocks of the Tassajara Formation in the northern, hilly part of the site and Pleistocene-Holocene Age alluvium in the near-level southern part of the site. The Tassajara Formation consists of interbedded siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate and the alluvium consists of interbedded sand, silt, clay and clayey gravel. The Tassajara Formation unit has been mapped dipping to the south-southwest. Concurrent with this Phase 1 and 2 study, BGC has performed field exploration for a geotechnical investigation at this site. Ground water was encountered in a boring drilled by BGC in the alluvium in the southern part of the site at an approximate depth of 31 feet. Also, at borings in the northern part of the site, encountered ground water in the valley areas at about 10 feet below the ground surface. The grdund water gradient at the site likely follows the general topographic gradient towards the south. The findings of our Phase 1 study are summarized below: 1. Historic use of the site appears to have been limited to farming and ranching. 2. Records indicate that no known contamination or source of contamination exists at the site. 3. No known ground water contaminated sites are located within I-mile upgradient of the site. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS October 1, 1997 Job No. 1394.904 Page 5 4. No underground storage tanks or asbestos containing materials are known to exist at this site. PHASE 2 - LIMITED SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL TESTING Sample Collection A total of 27 soil samples were collected on August 1 and 4, 1997 at the approximate locations are shown on the Sample Location Map, Plate 2. These sampling locations are designated as S-1 through S-27. Samples were obtained from the upper foot of soil, placed in unused glass jars, and transported to our office. The 27 soil samples obtained were composited into a total of five composite samples for analytical testing. The composite included: C-1 (S-l, S-2, S-3, S-4 and S-5); C-2 - (S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9, S-10 and S-ii); C-3 - (S-12, S-13, S-14, S-15, S-16 and S-17); C-4 - (S-18, S-19, S-20, S-21 and S-22); and C-5 - (S-23, S-24, S-25, S-26 and S-27) The composite samples were transported under property chain-of-custody on ice to American Environmental Network, Inc. (AEN) in Walnut Creek, California. Composite samples were analyzed for chlorinated herbicides (EPA 8150) and organochlorine pesticides (EPA 8140). The results of analytical testing by AEN on August 26, 1997 is included in the attached Appendix. All five composite samples were found to have no detectable levels of chlorinated herbicides and organochlorine pesticides. Findings The general composition of the topsoil at the sampling locations consisted of dark brown silty clay. No obviously potential hazardous materials were observed during sampling, and no detectable levels of pesticide or herbicide contamination were encountered. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of our Phases 1 and 2 - Environmental Site Assessment we did not find any indication or conditions that would require a further Phase 2 study. LIMITATIONS Our environmental site assessment is based on a review of geologic maps and literature, examination of aerial photographs, limited analytical testing and surface reconnaissance. Site descriptions described in the text are those existing at the time of our field reconnaissance in August, 1997, and are not necessarily representative of such conditions at other locations and times. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are professional opinions derived BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS October 1, 1997 Job No. 1394.904 Page 6 in accordance with current standards of environmental assessment practice; no other warranty is expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted, BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Senior Engineer ,. 988 FrankTPB/FB~v~°gar Attachments: References Plate 1 - Vicinity Map Plate 2 - Sample Location Map Appendix A - EDR Radius Map with Geocheck Appendix B - American Environmental Network, Inc. - Analytical Testing Results Copies: Addressee (6) Mr. Dave Schneider (1) MacKay & Somps (2) Attention: Mr. Dave Chadbourne ~, ? wp51/report/5337 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS REFERENCES Alameda County Department of Environmental Health Services, file review and personal communication on August 26, 1997. American Environmental Network, Inc., laboratory report dated August 26, 1997. Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, on-going geotechnical investigation and field exploration, August 1997. Casterson, Clyde, phone conversation on August 5, 1997. Dibblee, T.W., 1980, "Preliminary Geologic Map of the Dublin Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California", United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-537. Dublin Fire Department, file review and personal communication on August 29, 1997. EDR - Radius Map with Geocheck report, "Pao-Yeh/Lin Property", Inquiry No. 187728.1s, dated August 4, 1997. First American Title Guaranty Company, "Title Report Order 592434", dated June 26, 1997. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Pacific Aerial Surveys: (August 5, 1997) May 16, 1957, AV-253, Line 27, Frames 41, 42 May 15, 1969, AV-903, Line 5, Frames 18, 1~ May 26, 1976, AV-1250, Line 05, Frames 15, 16 ... April 20, 1986, AV-2862, Line 5, Frames 18, 19 August 9, 1996, AV-5200, Line 28, Frames 37, 38, 39 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS /' / · ~ ~ -. t SCALE: 1'= 2~0' VICINITY MAP · . PAO-YEH/LI N PROPERTY TASSAJARA ROAD DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA FOR MS JENNIFER LIN BASE: PORTIONS OF USGS 7-1t~ MINUTE TOPOGRAPP4C QUADRANGLE LIVERMORE . CALIFORNIA, PHOTOREVISED 1980, AT A SCALE OF ~:2~,ooo. PLATE I BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS t~9691t Transportation Consultants FINAL A Traffic Study For the Proposed Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development in the City of Dublin October 24, 2001 Updated February 2004 PLEASANTON · SANTA ROSA FINAL A Traffic Study For the Proposed Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development In the City of Dublin October 24, 2001 Updated February 2004 Prepared by: TJKM Transportation Consultants 5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton CA 94588 Tel: 925.463.0611 Fax: 925.463.3690 \\pls-server~judsdiction\d\dublin\157-145 schoohff021804 1 & f2,doc TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 3 IMPACT CRITERIA .............................................................................................................................................. 3 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ............................................................................................................................ 4 BASELINE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................5 RESULTS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 6 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................8 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................................ 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 9 TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................................................. 9 TRIP ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 9 RESULTS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 13 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................15 INTERNAL CIRCULATION .......................................................................................................................... 15 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 16 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES: ................................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A - LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B LEVEL OF SERVICE - BASELINE CONDITIONS APPENDIX C - LEVEL OF SERVICE - BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS LIST OF TABLES TABLE I: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ~ BASELINE CONDITIONS ............................................ 6 TABLE II: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .................................................................................................................. 9 TABLE III: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ................ 13 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP ...................................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: BASELINE PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES ..................................................................... 7 FIGURE 3: SITEPLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 4: TR2' DISTRIBUTION ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 5: BASELINE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES ............................................ 14 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Introduction This report presents the results of TJKM% traffic impact analysis of the proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F1 and F2 Residential Development in Dublin. The proposed project consists of 240 single-family dwelling units located primarily to thc no~th of Gleason Drive between Brannigan Street and Fallon Road. TJKM's traffic study for the proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School address traffic issues related to the school development. Therefore, this study focuses on the impacts of the F1 and F2 Developments and assumes that the School is not built. Thc study area is shown in Figure l. The purpose of this study is to evaluate thc traffic impacts of the proposed development on the nearby street system. The study approach was to determine if any nearby intersections are projected to operate at worse than Level of Service (LOS) D and to determine what mitigation would be necessary if level of service standards are exceeded. Finally, signal warrant analyses for unsignalized intersections are also included. Nine intersections were analyzed for this study. These intersections are listed below and shown in Figure 1. 1. Tassajara Road/South Dublin Ranch Drive 2. Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 3. Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 4. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 5. Grafton Street/Antone Way 6. Grafton Street/Gleason Drive* 7. Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive* 8. Grafton Street/Central Parkway* 9. Grafton Street/Kohnen Way* The intersections marked with an asterisk (*) are future intersections. The following two near-term scenarios were addressed in this study: 1. Baseline - Existing land use conditions plus future traffic from the approved and pending projects that are expected to be either fully or partially built and occupied by September of 2005. 2. Baseline plus Dublin Ranch Area F1 and F2- Identical to the Baseline Scenario, but with traffic added from the development of Dublin Ranch Area F1 and F2. Summary In summary, TJKM has reached the following conclusions regarding the proposed residential development: · Under baseline conditions, all twelve of the study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service. Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development Page 1 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Under both the 'Baseline' and the 'Baseline plus Project' scenarios, the following unsignalized intersections do not warrant traffic signalization. · Grafton Street/Antone Way · Grafton Street/Gleason Drive · Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive · Grafton Street/Central Parkway · Grafton Street/Kohnen Way However, the intersections of Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton Street/Central Parkway should be signalized for safety re~sons. To discourage cut-through traffic, all-way STOP control should be installed within the F2 Neighborhood at the intersections of Rocky Hill Way/Brodie Lane/Brodie Court and Rocky Hill Way/Ridgefield Way/Ridgefield Court. Level of Service Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios with corresponding levels of service. Level of service ratings are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and are reported using an A through F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion. Level of Service (LOS) A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed cOnditions with excessive delays and long back-ups. The operating conditions at signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This method provides an overall intersection level of service. Appendix A contains a detailed description of the methodology. Unsignalized Intersections At one-way and all-way STOP-controlled intersections, level of service was evaluated using the 1994 and 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Unsignalized Intersections analysis methodology. The method ranks level of service on an A through F scale similar to that used for signalized intersections, but uses average delay in seconds as its measure of effectiveness. The 1994 HCM methodology is also descr/bed in detail in Appendix A. Impact Criteria The City of Dublin policy is to have its roadways and intersections operate no worse than LOS D. Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development Page 3 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Transportation Network The proposed project and the surrounding area are illustrated in Figure 1. important roadways serving the project area are discussed below. Interstate 580 is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed project, 1-580 carries between 188,000 and 199,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans' 2000 Traffic ?olumes on California State Highways) with interchanges at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, and Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road. Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. It is a four-lane road fronted largely by retail and commercial uses west of Dougherty Road. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a six-lane divided arterial fronted primarily by residential, commercial and vacant lands. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to Keegan Street as a four-to-five lane roadway fronted .by new residential development. Average daily volume near Arnold Road is approximatelyl6,000 vehicles. Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. North of 1-580, Hacienda Drive is two-to-six-lane arterial running in the north-south direction from Gleason Drive southerly to 1-580. It is primarily fronted by commercial, office and residential uses. Average daily volume near Central Parkway is approximately 9,700 vehicles. South of 1-580, Hacienda Drive is a six-lane divided road, a major arterial in the City of Pleasanton designed to provide access to 1-580. Gleason Drive is an east-west four-lane road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard. It currently serves the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, the Federal Correctional Institution and the developments along Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive connects Tassajara Road with Arnold Road. Tassajara Road connects with Santa Rita Road at 1-580 to the south and continues north to the Town of Danville. North of the Contra Costa County line, it is named Camino Tassajara. Camino Tassajara is used primarily for local traffic in the Tassajara Valley, with some through traffic. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial from the 1-580 interchange south to Valley Avenue. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park, and provides access to the downtown Pleasanton area. Central Parkway is a two-to-three lane east-west collector that extends from Arnold Road to Keegan Street (east of Tassaj ara Road) and being planned for an extension east of Fallon Road as part of the East Dublin Properties project. Antone Way is an east-west residential collector between Dublin Ranch Parkway and Fallon Road. Keegan Street is a two-to-three-lane north-south collector, extending northerly from Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway. Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development Page 4 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 BASELINE CONDITIONS The scenario evaluates how well the study intersections serve the existing traffic plus the traffic expected to be generated from the nearby approved and pending projects. Existing turning movement counts for the existing study intersections were conducted during December 2000 by TJKM. Future traffic from the approved and the pending projects were either obtained from the previous traffic impact study, or estimated based on the information contained in Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the San Diego Traffic Generators, published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SanDAG). The following provides the description for some of the existing and future development expected in the vicinity of the proposed project. Hacienda Crossings Development is a 469,600-square-foot retail center. The development consists of a 120-room hotel, a 21-screen theater and a commercial center. The Hacienda Crossings site is located in the southeast corner of the Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection. General Motors Development consists of 75,660 square feet of new automobile dealerships and an automobile service facility on the south side of Dublin Boulevard, east of Tassajara Creek and north ofi-580. Creekside Business Park III consists of 590,000 sqUare feet of office space located on the north side of Central Parkway bounded by Hacienda Drive on the east and Arnold Drive on the west. Koll Dublin Corporate Center consists of 590,000 square feet of office, 100,000 square feet of hotel and 7,000 square feet of retail space to be located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard bounded by Tassajara Road on the east and the General Motors Site on the west. Sybase Office Development consists of 420,000 square feet of office development located on the west side of Hacienda Drive, north of Dublin Boulevard. Villas at Santa Rita Development consists of 324 apartments (132 one-bedroom, 144 two-bedroom and 48 three-bedroom) on the east side of Hacienda Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. The Santa Rita Property Sites 1 lA & 1 lB development consists of 368 apartments and 341 single- family detached homes on the east side of Hacienda Drive between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway. Tassajara Meadow I project consists of 106 single-family detached homes on the west side of Tassajara Road and north of Gleason Drive Tassajara Meadows Residential Development I£ consists of 96 single-family detached homes located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. Emerald Glen Development consists of 143 single-family detached and 152 townhomes to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of future Central Parkway. Emerald Glen Village Development consists of 390 apartments and 132,235 square feet of retail space to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the south and Central Parkway on the north. Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development Page 5 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Yarra Yarra Residential Development consists of 252 single-family detached homes and 193 townhomes to be located on the west side of Tassaj ara Road, north of Gleason Drive. California Creekside Development consists of 154 single-family homes and 123 townhomes. Dublin Ranch Phase I Residential Development consists of 847 single-family detached homes located on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. Dublin Ranch Area A Development consists of 562 single-family detached homes to be located along both sides of Fallon Road, north of Central Parkway. Dublin Ranch Area G Development consists of 1,426 apartments to be located on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of Central Parkway. Quarry Lane School is a private school located north of Dublin Ranch on Tassajara Road. Results of Level of Service Analysis The total of Baseline traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown in Figure 2. The results of the level of service analyses for the Baseline Scenario are shown in Table I, and detailed calculations are contained in Appendix B. Under Baseline Conditions, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. TABLE I: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE CONDITIONS A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersections Control * LOS * LOS 1 Tassajara Road / So. Dublin Ranch Parkway Signal 0.65 B 0.57 A 2 Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive Signal 0.43 A 0.53 A 3 Tassajara Road / Central Parkway Signal 0.53 A 0.51 A 4 Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.62 B 0.79 C 5 Graflon Street / Antone Way One-Way STOP 1.4 (3.8) A (A) 1.2 (3.8) A (A) 0.04 A 0.05 A 6 Graflon Street / Gteason Drive Signal 0.06 A 0.08 A 7 Brannigan Street / Gleason Drive Signal 0.O3 A O.O6 A 8 Graflon Street/Central Parkway Signal 7.2 A 7.2 A 9 Graflon Street/Kohnen Way All-Way STOP Notes: * = Volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for signalized intersections and Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at STOP-controlled intersections. X.X (X.X) = Overall intersection delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS) Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development Page 6 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Tassajara/S. Dublin TassajareJGleason Dr. Tassajara/Central Pkwy. Tassjara/Dublin Grafton/Antone ~m~°1! ~,-'~ ~.105(119) c~ ~m-~ I ~_3 (1) ~'~"~ ~-63 (60) '~,~'~' 1'~--45 (28) e~,~'~- 1~-45 (102) ~.J ~ L~t ~--456 (282) ~.J ~ ~{~ 24 (16) 3 (39) ~ ~ ~ ~ 178 (220) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 206 (240) ~ (30) ~ % ~ ~ 113 (385) ~ j% ~ ~ 36 (39) ~ ~ ~ ~ 121 (465) ~ [% ~ ~ 31 (31) ~ -- - -- ,46~ ~1' ~ / 9 (222) ~[~ 18~ ..... 38 (10)~ ~ 7 3~( ~ ~ e2 (~3)~ s~~ .~ intersection ¢6 intersection ¢7 Intersection ¢8 Intersection ~ Grafto~Gleason Branniga~Gleason GraftoWCentral Graffo~Kohnen LEGEND · Existing Intersection , O Future Intersection 'ttt~ .~Lt ~ TASSAJ^RAFUTURE Existing Road ~ ~ ALIGNMENT ..... Future Road XX AM Peak Hour Volume ' ~"~- (XX) PM Peak Hour Volume North X~ f'~'~t to Scale City of Dublin Figur~ Dublin Ranch Aroa$ F1 & F2 Baseline Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes 2 157-145 - 2/17/04 - GL Signal Warrant Analysis Peak hou~ warrants contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual were used to evaluate the need to install traffic signals at the unsignalized study intersections. Signal warrant analyses based on peak hour traffic volumes were conducted for Grafton Street/Antone Way, Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Grafton Street/Central Parkway, Grafton Street/Kohnen Way, and Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive. The analyses revealed that none of these intersections are projected to warrant traffic signalization under baseline conditions. However, the intersections of Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton Street/Central Parkway should be signalized for safety reasons. Therefore, these three study intersections were assumed to be signalized for the level-of-service analysis. Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & 1=2 Residential Development Page 8 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT Project Description The proposed project consists of 240 single-family detached homes located primarily to the north of Gleason Drive between Brannigan Street and Fallen Road. Figure 3 illustrates the site plan for the proposed project. Trip Generation The proposed development is expected to generate 2,115 daily trips, 180 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 242 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The trip generation assumptions for the project are based on information contained in Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Table II illustrates the estimated trip generation for the proposed project. TABLE II: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Use Size Rate Trips Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate la:Out In Out Total Single- family 240 9.57 2,297 0.75 25:75 45 135 180 1.01 64:36 155 87 242 Detached du Housing Source: Trip Generation, InstitUte of TransPortation Engineers, siXth Edition, 1997 Du: dwelling unit Trip Assignment Project trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, knowledge of the study area, information contained in previous traffic studies and the Tri-Valley Traffic Model. The trip distribution assumptions for project trips are: · 36 percent will travel on 1-580 to and from the west · 15 percent will travel on 1-580 to and from the east · 8 percent will travel on Hacienda Drive to and from the south · 8 percent will travel on Santa Rita Road to and from the south · 7 percent will travel west on Dublin Boulevard to and from Dougherty Road and beyond · 6 percent will travel on Santa Rita Road to and from the north · 5 percent will travel on Hopyard Road to and from the south · 5 percent will travel within the East Dublin Area · 4 percent will travel on Fallen Road to and from the south · 3 percent will travel to and from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. · 3 percent will travel on Dougherty Road to and from the north Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development Page 9 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Figure 4 illustrates the trip distribution assumptions for the proposed project. The project trips were assigned to the study intersections using these trip distribution assumptions to produce forecasts for project traffic volumes at all of the study intersections. The assumed street network for Baseline plus Project conditions is also shown on Figure 4. To avoid double counting of the trips between existing approved and pending developments in East Dublin and the proposed development, adjustments were made to the trip generation to account for the interaction among the projects. Furthermore, adjustments were made to account for how developments in East Dublin will affect traffic entering and exiting Pleasanton. The City of Pleasanton traffic model assigns most of the traffic from its future developments to I-580 and not to East Dublin (which the model assumes has no development). With the development of East Dublin, some of the existing and future traffic from the City of Pleasanton assigned to 1-580 by the Pleasanton model will actually be destined for East Dublin. Therefore, TJKM adjusted the projected trips to account for how development in East Dublin will change the distribution of traffic entering and exiting Pleasanton in the vicinity of the Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road/I-580 Overpass. Based on trip assignments presented in various traffic studies, TJKM estimated the number of trips from future developments in East Dublin exiting and entering Pleasanton. To avoid double counting of trips, for each trip exiting Pleasanton and destined for East Dublin, an equivalent amount of outbound trips was removed from the eastbound and westbound 1-580 and appropriate ramps. For each trip entering Pleasanton from future developments in East Dublin, an equivalent amount of inbound trips was removed from 1-580. ;With the current congestion on westbound 1-580 during the a.m. peak hour and eastbound 1-580 during the p.m. peak hour, the Pleasanton model assigns 20% of Pleasanton traffic to Santa Rita/Tassajara Road/I-580 interchange, 70% to the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange and 10% to the Hopyard Road/Dougherty Road/I-580 interchange in the peak direction. TJKM applied these same percentages when removing inbound and outbound trips from 1-580. Dublin Ranch Nei~lhborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development Page 11 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Results of Level of Service Analysis Figure 5 illustrates the peak hour turning movements for this scenario. The results of the level of service analysis performed for this scenario are contained in Table III and detailed calculations are contained in Appendix C. Under this scenario, all study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable level of service. The level of service for all study intersections remains essentially the same, with the volume~to-capacity ratio (V/C ratio) at the signalized intersections increasing by no more than 0.03. Therefore, the proposed residential project is not considered to cause any traffic impact on the nearby road network. TABLE III: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Assumed A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersections Control * LOS * LOS Tassajara Road / So. Dublin Ranch Pkwy. Signal 0.65 B 0.58 A Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive Signal 0.44 A 0.56 A Tassajara Road / Central Parkway Signal 0.56 A 0.54 A Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.65 B 0.81 D 5 Grafton Street / Antone Way One-Way STOP 1.4 (3.8) A (A) 1.2 (3.8) A (A) 0.08 A 0.09 A 6 Grafton Street / Gleason Drive Signal 0.11 A 0.16 A 7 Brannigan Street / Gieason Ddve Signal 0.03 A 0.06 A 8 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 9 Grafton Street/Kohnen Way All-Way STOP 7.6 A 7.2 A Notes: * = Volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for signalized intersections and Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at STOP-controlled intersections. X.X (X.X) = Overall intersection delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS) Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F f & F2 Residential Development Page 13 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Intersection #1 Intersection ~2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Tassajara/S. Dubli__n Tassajara/Gleason Dr. Tassajara/Central Pkwy. Tassjara/Dublin Grafton/Antone ' ~'~' ~-65 (61) ~'~" I ~._54 (54) L / . ~ .m~'~lt~.111 (123) o~ co ~J ~r L~t~- 124 (81) '~' ~" h~'45 (12) ~J ~ L~t ~-456 (282) c~,~' ;- I~-45 (28) ~ ~ ~ ~ 178 (220) ~ 39 (39) ~206 (240) 6 (3)~ %~ 113 (385)~t% ~ ~ 36 (39)~j% ~ ~ 128 (489)~% ~ 31 (31)~ 37 (lS)~ 2 6 ~----- ( )_ , ~ 7,/46~ ~--, ~- -- 9 (222) ~ ~ 38 (110)~ ~= 62 (73)~ ~ 243 (~,4~)~ 2 Intersection ¢6 Intersection ~7 Intersection ¢8 Intersection .. G~fto~Gleason Brannigan/Gleason GraEo~Centml Gra~on/Kohnen v~.~..~.~ '~ ~ v~-~' I ~_4 (3) ~'~'~-'~'~ I ~- 1 (1) ~ ~[~128 (135) ~,%~1~227 (198) ~:~ ~55 (130) ~,~p ~1 (2) ~0(1) ~% ~0(1) W~37 (23) 12 (43) ~ ~ ~ 110 (2~)'~ I~ ~ ~ 4 (13) ~ I~ ~ ~ I (0) ~ ~ ~ ~ 78 (120)~1~ 5 (15)~'~ 11 (74)~'~ 1 ~ ~-~'~ 5 (18)*, ~ 20 (70)*I ~ 2 (6)~ ~ 3 ~ ~, ~ LEGEND · Existing Intersection 0 Future Intersection i ~'~ FUTURE -- Existing ROad , · ..... Future Road \ ~" North '~'t to Scale C~ty of Dublin Figure Dublin Ranch Areas F1 & F2 Baseline + Project Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes 5 157-145 - 2/17/04 - GL Signal Warrant Analysis ,. Peak hour signal warrant analyses revealed that none of the unsignalized study intersections are projected to warrant traffic signalization under Baseline plus Project conditions. However, the intersections of Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton Street/Central Parkway should be signalized for safety reasons. Therefore, these three study intersections were assumed to be signalized for the level-of-service analysis. Internal Circulation To discourage cut-through traffic, all-way STOP control should be installed within the F2 Neighborhood at the intersections of Rocky Hill Way/Brodie Lane/Brodie Court and Rocky Hill Way/Ridgefield Way/Ridgefield Court. Traffic calming devices (such as the "traffic oval" shown on the site plan) should be considered along Rocky Hill Way and Ridgefield Way in the F2 Neighborhood to discourage speeding. Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 & F2 Residential Development Page 15 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 CONCLUSIONS In summary, TJKM has reached the following conclusions regarding the proposed residential development: · Under the Baseline condition, all twelve of the study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service. · With the additional traffic from the proposed project, all nine of the study intersections are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. Therefore, the project is not considered to cause significant traffic impact on the study intersections. · Under both the 'Baseline' and the 'Baseline plus Project' scenarios, none of the unsignalized study intersections are projected to warrant traffic signalization. However, the intersections of Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton Street/Central Parkway should be signalized for safety reasons. · To discourage cut-through traffic, alt-way STOP control should be installed at the intersections of Rocky Hill Way/Brodie Lane/Brodie Court and Rocky Hill Way/Ridgefield Way/Ridgefield Court. · Traffic calming devices should be considered along Roclcy Hill Way and Ridgefield Way to discourage speeding. Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F f & F2 Residential Development Page 16 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND REFERENCES TJKM Personnel: Gordon Lum, P.E., Project Director Pratyush Bhatia, Project Engineer Geri Foley, Graphics Designer Lily Moore, Word Processor Persons/Agencies Consulted: Mr. Dave Chadbourne, MacKay & Somps Mr. Rod Andrade, MacKay & Somps Mr. Peter Quady, MacKay & Somps Mr. Ray Kuzbari, City of Dublin Mr. Mike Porto, City of Dublin Mr. Paul Kruger, City of Dublin References: Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994 and 2000 Traffic Manual, Caltrans, 1992 A Traffic Impact Study for the Villas at Santa Rita Apartments, TJKM, March 1997 A Traffic Impact Study for Santa Rita Property Sites llA and lib Development, TJKM, October 1997 A Traffic Impact Study for Casterson Property Residential Development, TJKM, November 1997 A Traffic Impact Study for Creekside Business Park IIIDevelopment, TJKM, March 1998 A Traffic Impact Study for General Motors Development, TJKM, July 1998 A Traffic Impact Study for KoIl Dublin Corporate Center Development, TJKM, July 1998 A Traffic Impact Study for Dublin Ranch Phase IResidential Development, TJKM, July 1998 A Traffic Impact Study for Emerald Glen Residential Development, TJKM, February 1999 A Traffic Impact Study for Yarra Yarra Residential Development, TJKM, January 1999 A Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F-H, TJKM, September 1999 Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F 7 & F2 Residential Development Page 17 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 FINAL A Traffic Study For the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School In the City of Dublin October 23, 2001 Updated February 2004 Prepared by: TJKM Transportation Consultants 5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton CA 94588 Tel: 925.463.0611 Fax: 925.463.3690 \\pls-servefijudsdiction\d\dublin\157-145 schoo~O04 reports\r021804 schooLdoc Transportation Consultants FINAL A Traffic Study For the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School In the City of Dublin October 23, 2001 Updated February 2004 PLEASANTON · SANTA ROSA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................... 2 ........................................................................................... 5 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ............................................................................................................. 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 6 IMPACT CRITERIA .............................................................................................................................................. 6 BASELINE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 7 R~SULTS OF LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 10 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 11 PROJECT DESCR2TION ..................................................................................................................................... 11 MODE SPLIT ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 t TPdP GENERATION ........................................................................................................................................... 12 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................................................ 13 DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 16 DROP-OFF/PICK-UP CIRCULATION ................................................................................................................... 16 ON-SITE AND SPECIAL EVENT PARKING .......................................................................................................... 16 PEDESTRIANS ................................................................................................................................................... 16 BICYCLES ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 TRANSIT ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 17 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 19 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS (6-8 SCHOOL) ............................................................................................................. 20 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 21 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 23 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 24 TJKM PERSONNEL: ......................................................................................................................................... 24 PERSONS/AGENCIES CONSULTED ..................................................................................................................... 24 REFERENCES 24 APPENDIX A - DESCRIPTION OF THE LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B - RESULTS OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS - BASELINE CONDITIONS APPENDIX C - MODE SPLIT AND TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D - RESULTS OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS -- BASELINE PLUS AREA F1 & F2 PLUS K THROUGH 8TM GRADE APPENDIX E - RESULTS OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS - BUILDOUT CONDITIONS LIST OF TABLES TABLE I: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE CONDITIONS ............................................ 8 TABLE II: PROJECTED STUDENT ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE MODES ......................................................................... 11 TABLE III: PEAK HOUR PROJECT AUTOMOBILE TRIP GENERATION .................................................................... 12 TABLE IV: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE PLUS AREAS F1 8, F2 PLUS K THROUGH 8TM GRADE ................................................................................................................................................... 19 TABLE V: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BUILDOUT ............................................................ 21 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP ...................................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: STUDY INTERSECTIONS ......................................................................... t ............................................ ,.. 3 FIGURE 3: BASELINE AM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES .............................................................. 9 FIGURE 4 A: K-STH GRADE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREA & ASSUMED STREET NETWORK ............................... t4 FIGURE 4 B: 6TH-STH GRADE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREA & ASSUMED STREET NETWORK ............................ 15 FIGURE 5: BASELINE + AREA F 1 & F2 + K-8 AM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES ...................... 18 FIGURE 6: BUILDOUT AM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES ........................................................... 22 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Introduction This report presents the results of TJKM's traffic impact analysis of the proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School in the City of Dublin. The school is expected to have a capacity for up to 1,200 students on an approximately 24-acre site to be located on the southwest quadrant of South Dublin Ranch Drive and Grafton Street. A Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Neighborhoods F1 and F2 Residential Development, prepared by TJKM, addresses traffic issues related to the proposed single-family home development in the neighborhoods to the south and east of the school. This report will examine the impact of the proposed school assuming the F 1 and F2 Neighborhoods are built and occupied. The traffic impact analysis will be two pronged. The first scenario will evaluate the school as a kindergarten through 8t~ grade (K-8) institution as of September 2005. The second scenario will examine the school for grades 6 through 8 (6-8) based on the buildout of all residential units in the middle school's attendance area. The proposed location for the school is shown in Figure 1. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed school on the nearby street system. The study approach was to determine if any nearby intersections are projected to operate at worse.than Level of Service (LOS) D and to determine what mitigation would be necessary if level of service standards are exceeded. The study also includes roadway segment level of service analysis for key roadway segments within the study area. Ten intersections were analyzed for this study. These intersections are listed below and shown in Figure 2. 1. Tassajara Road / South Dublin Ranch Parkway 2. Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive 3. Tassajara Road / Central Parkway 4. Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard 5. Grafton Street / Antone Way 6. Grafton Street / Gleason Drive* 7. Brannigan Street / Gleason Drive* 8. School Driveway Out / Kohnen Way* 9. Grafton Street / Central Parkway* 10. Grafton Street / Kohnen Way* The intersections marked with an asterisk (*) are future intersections. The near-term scenarios include approved and pending projects that may be built and fully occupied within the next 10 years. This study recommends the minimum required lane geometry for the near term scenario. Ultimate lane requirements should be based on Year 2020 traffic volumes from the Tri-Valley Traffic Model. The following three near-term scenarios were addressed in the study: 1. Baseline - Existing land use conditions plus future traffic from the approved and pending projects that are expected to be built and at least partially occupied by September of 2005. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 1 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 'E~O ¥ON31OYH 2. Baseline plus Area F1 andF2plus K-8 - Identical to the Baseline Scenario, but with traffic added from the development of Dublin Ranch Area F 1 and F2 Neighborhoods and school for kindergarten through 8th grade. 3. Buildout plus Area F1 and F2 plus 6-8 - Assumes that all of the Baseline residential and commercial projects are fully occupied and utilized, respectively. Dublin Ranch Area F1 and F2 Neighborhoods fully occupied as well as the Middle School for grades 6 through 8 only. Summary In summary, TJKM has reached the following conclusions regarding the proposed middle school development: · Under the Baseline condition, all of the twelve study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service. · With the additional traffic from the proposed school, all of the twelve study intersections are projected to continue to operate at accePtable level of service. Therefore, the school is not considered to cause significant traffic impact on the study intersections. · Under the 'Baseline', 'Baseline plus F1 & F2 plus School K-8' and 'Buildout' scenarios, all the following unsignalized intersections do not warrant traffic signalization. · Grafton Street/Anmne Way · Grafton Street/Gleason Drive · Brannigan StreedGleason Drive · Grafton Street/Central Parkway · Grafton Street/Kohnen Way However, the intersections of Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton Street/Central Parkway should be signalized for safety reasons. · The intersection ofKohnen Way/Grafton Street and the Future School Exit/Kohnen Way should be all- way STOP controlled. The northbound approaches on Shelton Lane and Thorndike Lane should be STOP controlled at Kohnen Way. Mid-block crosswalks not controlled by STOP signs should not be installed in the vicinity of the school. · An eastbound left-mm lane should be installed on Kohnen Way between Shelton Lane and the School Entrance Driveway. · With the school open, parking should be prohibited on the both sides of Kohnen Way between the School Exit Driveway and Grafton Street. The north side of Kohnen Way between the driveways for the school loop road will be used as a loading zone by Livermore-Amador Valley Transportation Agency (LAVTA) buses. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 4 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Transportation Network The proposed project and the surrounding area are illustrated in Figure 2. Important roadways serving the project area are discussed below. Interstate 580 is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed project, 1-580 carries between 188,000 and 199,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans' 2000 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways) with interchanges at Dougherty RoaclFrIopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, and Fallon Road/El Charro Road. Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. It is a four-lane road fronted largely by retail and commercial uses west of Dougherty Road. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a six-lane divided arterial fronted primarily by residential, commercial and vacant lands. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to Keegan Street as a four-to-five lane roadway fronted by new residential development. Average daily volume near Arnold Road is approximately 16,000 vehicles. Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. North of 1-580, Hacienda Drive is two- to-six-lane arterial running in the north-south direction from Gleason Drive southerly to 1-580. It is primarily fronted by commercial, office and residential uses. Average daily volume near Central Parkway is approximately 9,700 vehicles. South ofi-580, Hacienda Drive is a six-lane divided road, a major arterial in the City of Pleasanton designed to provide access to 1-580. Gleason Drive is an east-west four-lane road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard. It currently serVes the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, the Federal Correctional Institution and the developments along Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive connects Tassajara Road with Arnold Road. Tassajara Road connects with Santa Rita Road at 1-580 to the south and continues north to the Town of Danville. North of the 'Contra Costa County line, it is named Camino Tassajara. Camino Tassajara is used primarily for local traffic in the Tassajara Valley, with some through traffic. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial from the 1-580 interchange south to Valley Avenue. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park, and provides access to the downtown Pleasanton area. Central Parkway is a two-to-three lane east-west collector that extends from Arnold Road to Keegan Street (east of Tassajara Road) and being planned for an extension east of Fallon Road as part of the East Dublin Properties project. Antone Way is an east-west residential collector between Dublin Ranch Parkway and Fallon Road. Keegan Street is a two-to-three-lane north-south collector, extending northerly from Dublin Boulevard to ..... Central Parkway. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 5 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Level of Service Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios with corresponding levels of service. Level of service ratings are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and are reported using an A through F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion. Level of Service (LOS) A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back-ups. The operating conditions at signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This method provides an overall intersection level of service. Appendix A contains a detailed description of the methodology. Unsignalized Intersections At one-way and all-way STOP-controlled intersections, level of service was evaluated using the 1994 and 2000 HCM Unsignalized Intersections analysis methodology. The method ranks level of service on an A through F scale similar to that used for signalized intersections, but uses average delay in seconds as its measure of effectiveness. The 1994 HCM methodology is also described in detail in Appendix A. Impact Criteria The City of Dublin policy is to have its roadways and intersections operate no worse than LOS D. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 6 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 BASELINE CONDITIONS The scenario evaluates how well the study intersections serve the existing traffic plus the traffic expected to be generated from the nearby approved and pending projects. Existing turning movement counts for the existing study intersections were conducted during December 2000 by TJKM. Future traffic from the approved and the pending projects are either obtained from the previous traffic impact study, or estimated based on the information contained in Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the San Diego Traffic Generators, published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SanDAG). The following provides the description for some of the existing and future development expected in the vicinity of the proposed project. Hacienda Crossings Development is a 469,600-square-foot retail center. The development consists of a 120-room hotel, a 21-screen theater and a commercial center. The Hacienda Crossings site is located in the southeast comer of the Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection. General Motors Development consists of 75,660 square feet of new automobile dealerships and an automobile service facility on the south side of Dublin Boulevard, east of Tassajara Creek and north of 1- 580. Creekside Business Park III consists of 590,000 square feet of office space located on the north side of Central Parkway bounded by Hacienda Drive on the east and Arnold Drive on the west. Koll Dublin Corporate Center consists of 590,000 square feet of office, 100,000 square feet of hotel and 7,000 square feet of retail space to be located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard bounded by Tassajara Road on the east and the General Motors Site on the west. Sybase Office Development consists of 420,000 square feet of office development located on the west side of Hacienda Drive, north of Dublin Boulevard. Fillas at Santa R ira Development consists of 324 apartments (132 one-bedroom, 144 two-bedroom and 48 three-bedroom) on the east side of Hacienda Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. The Santa Rita Property Sites 1 lA & 1 lB development consists of 368 apartments and 341 single-family detached homes on the east side of Hacienda Drive between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway. Tassajara Meadow I project consists of 106 single-family detached homes on the west side of Tassajara Road and north of Gleason Drive Tassajara Meadows Residential Development H consists of 96 single-family detached homes located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. Emerald Glen Residential Development consists of 143 single-family detached and 152 townhomes to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of future Central Parkway. Etnerald Glen YiIlage Development consists of 390 apartments and 132,235 square feet of retail space to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the south and Central .... Parkway on the north. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 7 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Yarra Yarra Residential Development consists of 252 single-family detached homes and 193 townhomes to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. California Creekside Residential Development consists of i 54 single-family detached homes and 123 townhomes. Dublin Ranch Phase IResidential Development consists of 847 single-family detached homes located on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. Dublin Ranch Area A Development consists of 562 single-family detached homes to be located along both sides of Fallon Road, north of Central Parkway. Dublin Ranch Area G Development consists of 1,426 apartments to be located on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of Central Parkway. Quarry Lane School is a private school located north of Dublin Ranch on Tassajara Road. Results of Level of Service Analysis The Baseline traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown in Figure 3. The results of the level of service (LOS) analyses for the Baseline Scenario are shown in Table I, and detailed calculations are contained in Appendix B. The LOS was calculated for only the a.m. peak hour because schools are typically dismissed prior to the p.m. peak commute period. Under Baseline Conditions, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. TABLE I: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE CONDITIONS A.M. Peak Hour Intersections Control * LOS 1 Tassajara Road / South Dublin Ranch Parkway Signal 0.65 B 2 Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive Signal 0.43 A 3 Tassajara Road / Central Parkway Signal 0.53 A 4 Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Signal 0,62 B 5 Grafton Street / Antone Way One-Way STOP 1.4 (3.8) A (A) 6 Grafton Street / Gleason Ddve Signal 0.04 A 7 Brannigan Street / Gleason Drive Signal 0.09 A 9 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.03 A 10 Grafton Street/Kohnen Way All-Way STOP 7.2 A Notes: * = Volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for signalized intersections and Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at STOP-controlled intersections. X.X (X.X) = Overall intersection delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS) Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 8 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 ~L Intemection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 TassajareJS. Dublin TassajareJGleason Dr. Tassajara/Central Pkwy. Tassjara/Dublin Grafton/Antone ~-'~'~ ~_63 ~'m~(~°~ ~_105 ~ ~_54 c~ t~_3 ~J~. ~-206 39 ~J~ ~-456 ~ ~-24 ~ ~-45 Gm ~ 62'-~ '~ 9-~1 ° °~ c~ 243-'~ I ~' m 2-~ m Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #9 Intersection #10 Grafton/Gleason Brannigan/Gleason Grafton/Central Graftort/Kohnen LEGEND ~, > · Existing Intersection , 7. FLr~URE O Future Intersection ',,~', ~ TASS~^RA -- Existing Road ,,.~¢~,, .' ..... Future Road ',-, J. ~.', .'~o'~ ~ NO~h ~t to Scale City of Dublin Figure Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Baseline AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes 3 157-145 - ~17/04 - GL Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Peak hour warrants contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual were used to evaluate the need to install traffic signals at the unsignalized study intersections. Signal warrant analyses based on peak hour traffic volumes were conducted for Grafton Street/Antone Way, Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Grafton Street/Central Parkway, Grafton Street/Kohnen Way, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton Street/Kohnen Way. The analyses revealed that none of these intersections are projected to warrant traffic signalization under Baseline conditions. However, the intersections of Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton SWeet/Central Parkway should be signalized for safety reasons. Therefore, these three study intersections were assumed to be signalized for the level-of- service analysis. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 10 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT Project Description Dublin Ranch Middle School is proposed to be open in September 2005 initially as a kindergarten though 8t~ grade school with approximately 1,100 students, with the ultimate capacity for 1,200 middle school students. The proposed school is bounded on the north by South Dublin Ranch Drive, on the east by Gra~ton Street and on the south by Kohnen Way. A 50-acre high school site with the capacity for appro×imately 985 students was originally assumed for this site in the East Dublin Specific Plan and analyzed in the EIb. Based on standard rates published in Institme of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 6~h Edition, it would be reasonable to assume that the traffic impacts associated with a 955- student high school would be approximately the same, i£not less, than a 1,200-student middle school. Mode Split Student arrivals occur via several travel modes: automobile (parent pick-up/drop-off), bus, bicycle, roller blades, and foot travel. Typically, more children leave school in the afternoon by foot and bus than arrive by these modes in the morning peak. This result is to be expected, as more parents are able to take children to school in the morning in conjunction with work ~ps (or to avoid colder weather). Based on where students are anticipated to live, mode split estimates were developed for the proposed school. Table I~ illustrates the estimated mode splits for the morning and afternoon school peaks for the proposed school, while it is serving kindergarten though 8th graders (K-8). The amount of students arriving by automobile is consistent with the findings of the 2000-01 California Statewide Household Travel Survey published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). TABLE Il: PROJECTED STUDENT ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE MODES Percent Mode Morning Afternoon (Arrival) (Departure) Automobile 71% 66 % FootJRoller Blade 16 % 20 % Bicycle 8 % 8 % Bus (public transit) 5 % 6 % TOTAL 100 % 100 % Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 11 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Trip Generation Trip generation is defined as the number of one-way vehicle trips produced by a particular land use or study site. The total number of peak hour vehicle trips generated by the school is split into inbound and outbound traffic for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, The trip generation estimates assume that the a.m. school peak hour will coincide with the a.m. peak hour for nearby streets. Trip generation for the proposed school is based on the density of residential units that will be served by the school. Based on School Facility Needs Analysis for Dublin Unified School District, July 2003, prepared by Shilts Consultants, the following generation rates per type of dwelling unit (d.u.) were used for kindergarten through 5th grade: Single-family = 0.36 student/d.u. Single-family Small Lot = 0.36 student/d.u. Townhouse = 0.14 student/d.u. · Multi-family = 0.07 student/d.u. Similarly, the following student generation rates per type of dwelling unit were used for grades 6th through 8th: · Single-family = 0.17 student/d.u. · Single-family Small Lot = 0.17 student/d.u. · Townhouse = 0.05 student/d.u. · Multi-family = 0.04 student/d.u. The following assumptions were made for the proposed school: · student enrollment (asSumed to be 1,100 for K-8 in 9/04 and ultimately 1,200 for 6th 8th grades ), · daily absentee rate (assumed to be five percent of enrollment), · average number of students per vehicle during the morning (assumed to be 1.7 per vehicle), average number of students per vehicle during the aftemoon (assumed to be 2.0 per vehicle), and · number of faculty and staffmembers (assumed one faculty-staffper 17 students). Based on the above assumptions, the estimated automobile trip generation for the proposed school is approximately 930 trips during the a.m. street peak hour when the school is K-8 and 1,020 trips when it becomes a 6t~-8th school. The p.m. street peak hour is assumed not to correspond with the p.m. school peak hour. A summary of the automobile trip generation assumptiOns for the proposed school is contained in Table IH. The vehicle trips represented in the table include trips generated by students and faculty/staff, with the assumption that all members of the faculty/staff will drive alone and arrive during the a.m. peak hour. Detailed mode split and trip generation calculations are contained in Appendix C for both K-8 and 6th~ 8~ school scenarios. TABLE III: PEAK HOUR PROJECT AUTOMOBILE TRIP GENERATION A.tvf. Peak Hour P.M. School Peak Hour Use Size In:Out In Out Total In:Out in Out Total K, - 8· School 1,100 53:47 498 436 934 46:54 344 407 751 6· - 8t" School 1,200 53:47 543 474 1,017 46:54 375 443 818 Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 12 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip dis~bution is the process of determining in what proportion of vehicle trips will travel between different locations within a traffic study area. Thp assignment is the allocation o£vehicle ~ps to available routes (local streets) between locations in the traffic study area. To aid in the determination of trip distribution, the area that would be served by the proposed school was divided into 12-traffic analysis zones, with each zone representing subdivisions or other residential units that will be served by the school. As shown on Figures 4a for the K-8 school and 4b for the 6-8 school, the following subdivisions are assumed to be within the school boundary. The following estimate of occupied units by September 2005 is based on information provided by MacKay and Somps. By 2005, these units are expected to generate k-8th students at Dublin Ranch School except for four zones (1,2 3 and 11) where the units will send k-5th students to Dougherty School (as noted below). However, the 6th through 8th students in these four zones are assumed to attend Dublin Ranch School in 2005 and beyond. Zone 1: Califomia Creekside, Archstone, Jefferson, and Summer Glen (238 single-family (SF), 263 small lot single family (SSF), 123 townhouses (TH), and 693 multi-family (MF)). K-5~ students in this zone will attend Dougherty School. Zone 2: Greenbriar, Tassajara Meadows Phases 1 and 2 (406 SSF, 154 TH). K-5th students in this zone will attend Dougherty School. Zone 3: Toll Brothers and Shea Apartments (143 SSF, 152 TH, 390 MF). K-5th students in this zone will attend Dougherty School. Zone 4: Dublin Ranch Phase 1 (568 SF, 279 SSF) Zone 5: Dublin Ranch Areas F and G (115 SSF and 842 MF) Zone 6: Dublin Ranch Areas B and C (96 SSF and 92 MF) Zone 7: Dublin Ranch Area A (337 SF) Zone 8: Dublin Ranch Area F2 (119 SF) Zone 9: Dublin Ranch Area F1 (102 SF) Zone 10: Di Manto Property (26 SSF) Zone 11: Transit Center (300 MF). (K-5th students in this zone will attend Dougherty School). Zone 12: Northern Properties (0 unit) A total of 2,317 dwelling units are assumed to be served by the K-8 school. The 12 zones are assumed to be 100 perce~nt occupied for the middle school (6th-8th grades). Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 13 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Driveway Locations Dublin Unified School District has prepared a detailed site plan that ties down the three driveway locations on Kohnen Way. As shown on Figure 1, one driveway serves the west parking lot, while the other two driveways serve the loading/unloading zone and east parking lot. The proposed one-way (counter clockwise) circulation pattern for the loading zone allows the passenger side of the vehicle to be along the curb of the loading zone. The east driveway for loading zone/east parking lot is proposed to be an inbound (entrance) only driveway and the corresponding west driveway is proposed to be an outbound (exit) only driveway. The entrance driveway is designed to be wide enough to accommodate right turners and left turners simultaneously. The right tamers will also benefit from a westbound right mm only lane on Kohnen Way between the entrance driveway and Grafton Street, while the left turners ~vill have an eastbound left mm only lane on Kohnen Way between the entrance driveway and Shelton Lane. Drop-Off/Pick-up Circulation The site plan shows a loop road for passenger loading/unloading. The proposed loop road is wide enough to accommodate two lanes, with the "outside" lane (adjacent to the school) designated as a loading zone, and the "inside" lane designated for circulation (with no stopping allowed). To avoid congestion within the loop road, some parents may want to drop-off or pick-up their children on Kohnen Way. For safety reasons, this practice should be prohibited by placing NO STOPPING signs approximately every 150 feet on both sides of Kohnen Way between the exit driveway and Grafton Street. On-Site and Special Event Parking Assuming one faculty/staff member for every 17 students, the proposed school could employ approximately 71 (= 1,200/17) faculty and staff members. The site plan shows two parking lots, with a total of approximately 175 stalls, which is more than enough to meet the expected daily demand from faculty/staff, visitors, and volunteers. Pedestrians Generation The proposed school is expected to generate approximately 160 inbound pedestrians during the morning peak and 210 outbound during the afternoon peak. Because of the expected heavy pedestrian volumes, the sidewalk along the southern frontage of the school should be at least six feet in width. An all-way STOP is recommended where the School exit driveway intersects Kohnen Way, with a painted yellow crosswalk across the west leg of the intersection. Approximately 40 inbound and 50 outbound pedestrians are expected to use this intersection. The Kohnen Way/Grafton Street intersection should also be all-way STOP controlled. Approximately 90 inbound and 110 outbound pedestrians are expected to use this intersection. The remaining pedestrians are expected to live north of the School and therefore would not need to cross at these two all-way STOP controlled intersections. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 16 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 School Area Signing and Striping To enhance safety, the school area should be clearly defined by appropriate signing and striping. The Caltrans Traffic Manual indicates that crosswalks may be painted yellow when they are contiguous to sc.hool buildings or grounds. In addition, any crosswalks within 600 feet of school buildings or grounds may also be painted yellow. All marked crosswalks along the southern frontage of the School should be painted yellow. Mid-block crosswalks not controlled by STOP signs should not be installed in the vicinity of the School. The intersection ofKohnen Way/Grafton Street and the Future School Exit/Kohnen Way should be all-way STOP controlled. The northbound approaches on Shelton Lane and Thorndike Lane should be STOP controlled at Kohnen Way. Because future traffic and pedestrian volumes are unknown at this time, the City should evaluate crossing guard warrants after school-related pedestrian and bicycle patterns have had a chance to develop. Although Kohnen Way/Grafton Street and the Future School Exit/Kohnen Way intersections will be controlled with all-way STOP signs, they may be candidates for evaluation. Bicycles The proposed school, when it becomes a middle school, is expected to generate as many as 110 inbound bicyclists during the morning peak and an equivalent amount outbound during the afternoon peak. The following bicycle-related improvements are recommended in conjunction with the opening of the new school: · Students should be educated about safe bicycle riding and the preferred route to school from their homes. · On-site bicycle racks should be provided. Transit The proposed school, when it becomes a middle school, is expected to generate approximately 50 inbound and 60 outbound transit passengers during the morning and afternoon peaks, respectively. A 'bus-only loading zone is proposed on the north side of Kohnen Way between the driveways for the loop road. Maximized bus use and minimized auto use will smooth the flow of traffic, reduce the number of potential vehicular/pedestrian conflicts, and decrease local vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT). K-8 SCHOOL CONDITIONS Level of Service Analysis Figure 5 illustrates the peak hour turning movement for Baseline plus Area F1 and F2 plus K through 8th Grade condition. The results of the level of service analysis performed for this scenario are contained in Table IV and detailed calculations are contained in Appendix D. All of the study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable level of service. Traffic Study for the Pr 3posed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 17 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5 TassajareJS. Dublin TassajaraJGleason Dr. TassajaraJCentral Pkwy. TassjareJDublin Grafton/Antone ,-,z,t 1~-91 ~:~-. ~_23 e~.'T.'- 1~-45 ~ ~-45 45-~ ~,f~ 47--~1~.~ 243-'~I~'m9-~l°me~ 82'~ mm Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8 Intersection #9 Intersection #10 Graftoru'Gleason Brannigan/Gleason Driveway Out/KOhnen GraftorYCentral Graftom'Kohnen 202_~4 ~ 170--~[ LEGEND · Existing Intersection ,, ~ T~Ft~R~ I O Future Intersection , ~) ALIGNMENT I ..... Future ROad ' ' QUARRY LN. SCHOOL DRWY, -J~t tO Scale ~ 'y of Dublin P~oposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Baseline + Area F1 + F2 + K-8 Peak Hour Figure Turning Movement Volumes 5 157-145 - 2/17/04 - GL TABLE IV: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE PLUS AREAS F1 & F2 PLUS K THROUGH 8TM GRADE [ Baseline plus F1 & F2 Baseline plus Intersections Control A.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS 1 Tassajara Road / So. Dublin Ranch Pkwy. Signal 0.65 B 0.65 B 2 Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive Signal 0.43 A 0.51 A 3 Tassajara Road / Central Parkway Signal 0,53 A 0.67 B 4 Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.62 B 0,73 C 5 Grafton Street / Antone Way One-Way STOP 1.4 (3,8) A (A) 4.7 (12,1) A (B) 6 Grafton Street / Gleason Drive Signal 0.04 A 0,13 A 7 Brannigan Street / Gleason Ddve Signal 0,09 A 0,47 A 8 Future School Exit / Kohnen Way Ali-Way STOP N/A N/A 9,9 A 9 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.03 A 0,05 A 10 Graflon Street] Kohnen Way All-Way STOP 7,2 A 8.8 A Notes: * = Volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for signalized intersections and Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and ~,, yielding movements at STOP-controlled intersections. ', X,X (X.X) = Overall intersection delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS) Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Traffic signal warrants were analyzed for the non-signalized study intersections. The analyses revealed that none of these intersections are projected to warrant traffic signalization under Baseline plus FI & F2 plus K-8 School conditions. However, the intersections of Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton Street/Central Parkway should be signalized for safety reasons. Therefore, these three study intersections were assumed to be signalized for the level-of-service analysis. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 19 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Buildout Conditions (6'8 school) Trip Distribution and Assignment The following estimate of occupied units for Buitdout Conditions was provided by staff from MacKay and Somps. The traffic analysis zones were previously shown on Figure 4b. Zone 1: California Creekside, Archsone, Jefferson, and Summer Glen (238 single-family (SF), 263 small lot single family (SSF), 123 townhouses (TH), and 693 multi-family (MF)). Zone 2: Greenbriar, Tassajara Meadows Phases 1 and 2 (456 SSF, 193 TH) Zone 3: Toll Brothers and Shea Apartments (143 SSF, 152 TH, 390 MF) Zone 4: Dublin Ranch Phase 1 (568 SF, 279 SSF) Zone 5: Dublin Ranch Areas F and G (557 SSF and 1,404 MF) Zone 6: Dublin Ranch Areas B and C (958 SSF and 916 MF) Zone 7: Dublin Ranch Area A (552 SF) Zone 8: Dublin Ranch Area F2 (119 SF) Zone 9: Dublin Ranch Area F1 (102 SF) Zone 10: Di Manto Property (261 SSF) Zone 1 l: Transit Center (1,500 MF) Zone 12: Northern Properties (869 SF and 421 SSF) A total of approximately 4,903 dwelling units are assumed to be served by the 6-8 Middle School. For Buildout Conditions, a Day Care and Church School consisting of a 3,400 square feet day care and a 120-student church school are assumed to be located on the west side of Brannigan Street north of Gleason Drive. Based on calculations presented in TJKM's letter report dated October 25, 2002, these two developments are expected to generate a total of 154 trips in the a.m. weekday peak hour and 69 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Level of serVice Analysis Figure 6 illustrates the peak hour turning movement volumes for Buildout conditions (Dublin Ranch Middle School serving grades 6 through 8). The results of the level of service analysis performed for this scenario are contained in Table V and detailed calculations are contained in Appendix E. The analysis assumes that the southbound Brannigan Street approach at Gleason Drive is in its ultimate configuration, which would include two right turn lanes and a shared through/left lane. All of the study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable level of service. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 20 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 TABLE V: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BUILDOUT Baseline plus FI & F2 Buildout plus K-8 Assumed Intersections Control A.M. Peak Hour * LOS * LOS 1 Tassajara Road / So. Dublin Ranch Pkwy. Signal 0.65 B 0.68 B 2 Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive Signal 0.82 D 0.61 B 3 Tassajara Road / Central Parkway Signal 0.67 B 0.80 C 4 Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Signal 0.73 C 0.52 A 5 Grafton Street / Antone Way One-Way STOP 2.2 (3.4) A (A) 3.0 (11.0) A (B) 6 Graflon Street / Gleason Drive Signal 0.13 A 0.24 A 7 Brannigan Street / Gleason Drive Signal 0.47 A 0.42 A 8 Future School Exit / Kohnen Way All-Way STOP 9.9 A 11.3 B 9 Grafton Street/Central Parkway Signal 0.05 A 0.13 A 10 Graflon Street/Kohnen Way All-Way STOP 8.8 A 8.8 A Notes: * = Volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio for signalized intersections and Average Delay in Seconds for stopping and yielding movements at STOP-controlled intersections. X.X (X.X) = Overall intersection delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS) ** = In case Grafton Street/Gleason Drive is signalized. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Traffic signal warrants were analyzed for the non-signalized study intersections. The analyses revealed that none of these intersections are projected to warrant traffic signalization under Buildout conditions. However, the intersections of Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton Street/Central Parkway should be signalized for safety reasons. Therefore, these three study intersections were assumed to be signalized for the level-of-service analysis. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 21 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Intersection #1 Intersection ~ Intersection #3 Intersection #4 intersection #5 Tassajara/S. Dublin Tassajara/Gleason Dr. Tassajara/Central Pk-wy, Tassjara/Dublin Grafton/Antone ~}~405 ~-85 74-'~ ~c~-~ 47--~1 (~' co-~ ~- 205-~1 ~~ 243-~1 ~°~ °~ 108~ Intersection #6 Intersection #7 intersection #8 Intersection #9 Intersection #10 Graftor~Gleason Brannigan/Gleason Driveway Out/Kohnen Grafton/Central Grafton/Kohnen LEGEND · Existing Intersection 0 Future Intersection -- Existing Road '~,,~i~", . ALIGNMENT ..... Future Road ,, // o, .- .......... ,':~.. "%. North ~. to Scale City of Dublin Figure Dublin Ranch Areas F1 & F2 Buildout AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes 6 157-145 - 2/17/04 - GL CONCLUSIONS In summary, TJKM has reached the following conclusions regarding the proposed Middle School development: Under the Baseline condition, all of the ten study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service. With the additional traffic from the proposed project, all of the ten study intersections are projected to continue to operate at acceptable level of service. Therefore, the project is not considered to cause significant traffic impact on the study intersections. · Under both the 'Baseline' and the 'Baseline plus Project' scenarios, none of the unsignalized study intersections are projected to warrant traffic signalization. However, the intersections of Grafton Street/Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street/Gleason Drive and Grafton Street/Central Parkway should be signalized for safety reasons. · Mid-block crosswalks not controlled by STOP signs should not be installed in the vicinity of the school. · Parking should be prohibited on both sides of Kohnen Way between the School exit driveway and Grafton Street. Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 23 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND REFERENCES TJKM Personnel: Gordon Lum, P.E., Project Director Pratyush Bhatia, Project Engineer Geri Foley, Graphics Designer Lily Moore, Word Processor Persons/Agencies Consulted Mr. Dave Chadbourne, MacKay & Somps Mr. Rod Andrade, MacKay & Somps Mr. Peter Quady, MacKay & Somps Mr. Ray Kuzbari, City of Dublin Mr. Mike Porto, City of Dublin Mr. Paul Kruger, City of Dublin References Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1994 and 2000 Traffic Manual, Caltrans, 1992 School Facility Needs Analysis for Dublin Unified School District, Shilts Consultants, July 2003 Expected Level-of-Service at Gleason Drive/Brannigan Street in Dublin, TJKM, October 2002 A Trafficlmpact Study for the Villas at Santa Rita Apartments, TJKM, March 1997 A Trafficlmpact Study for Santa Rita Property Sites llA and 1lB Development, TJKM, October 1997 A Traffic Impact Study for Casterson Property Residential Development, TJKM, November 1997 A Traffic Impact Study for Creekside Business Park III Development, TJKM, March 1998 A Traffic Impact Study for General Motors Development, TJKM, July 1998 A Traffic Impact Study for Koll Dublin Corporate Center Development, TJKM, July 1998 A Traffic Impact Study for Dublin Ranch Phase IResidential Development, TJKM, July 1998 A Traffic Impact Study for Emerald Glen Residential Development, TJKM, February 1999 A Traffic Impact Study for Yarra Yarra Residential Development, TJKM, January 1999 A Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F-H, TJKM, September 1999 Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Middle School Page 24 TJKM Transportation Consultants February 18, 2004 Transportation Consultants December 15, 2003 Ray Kuzbari City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Estimated Trip Generation for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Area F North Dear Ray, This letter briefly compares the trip generation of the Approved Specific Plan Land Use to the Proposed Planned Development Land Use for Dublin Ranch Area F North. The Area F North includes all of Dublin Planning Area F and portions of Areas B and E. As shown on the figures you provided us, the proposed project consists of a mix of residential and public land uses. The proposed land use has fewer residential units than the approved land use and does not include the High School. Project Trip Generation The trip generation for the residential portion of the project was estimated based on the rates provided in Trip Generation, 6t~ Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The rates for Day Care Center (ITE Code 565) were used for the Public/Semi-Public Land use category, while San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) rates were used for the different schooI'IevelS (e.g., elementary, middle and high). The daily rate for City Park from ITE (Code 411) and a.m. and p.n~ peak hour rates fxom SANDAG were used for the Community Park land use category. Based on these trip rates, the proposed project land use is expected to generate approximately 2,391 fewer daily trips than the approved land use, 389 fewer vehicular trips during the a.m peak and 260 fewer trips during the p.r~ peak-hour on a typical weekday. Table I summarizes the trip generation assumptions for the approved development and the proposed land use. 5960 Inglew0od Drivel Suite 100 pleasanton, CA 94588-8535 PLEASANTON 925-463-0611 phone 925;463-36g0 fax www.tl'km.com SANTA ROSA Ray Kuzbari December 15, 2003 2 TABLE 1: ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED AND PROPOSED LAND USE Daily A.M. Street Peak P.M. Street Peak Rate Rate Rate Rate Approved Land Use Size Units Rate Trips In Out In Out Total In Out In Out Total iSF Units(LDR) F North 91 du 9.57 871 0.19 0.56 17 51 68 0,65 0.36 59 33 92 SF Unils(MDR) F North 99 du 9.57 947 0,19 0,56 19 55 74 0.65 0.36 64 36 100 SFUnits(MDR)Other 1106 du 9.57 10584 0.19 0.56 210 619 829 0.65 0.36 719 398 1117 SF Units(MDR)/CP 130 du 9.57 1244 0,19 0,56 25 73 98 0,65 0.36 85 47 132 HighSchool 20.0 acm 50.00 1000 8.40 3.60 168 72 240 1.80 4.20 36 84 120 Middle School 30.6 acre 40.00 1224 7.20 4.80 220 147 367 1.44 2.16 44 66 110 :lena. School 10.0 acre 60.00 600 10.08 6.72 101 67 168 1.26 2.94 13 29 42 ~ublic/Semi-Public 2.1 Ksf 79.26 166 6.74 5.97 14 13 27 6.20 7.00 13 15 28 2,ommunityPark 52.0 acre 1.59 83 0.03 0.01 2 1 3 0.03 0.05 2 3 5 Total Approved 16719 776 1098 1874 1035 711 1746 Proposed Land Use ~F Units(LDR) F2 North 121 du 9.57 1158 0.19 0,56 23 68 91 0.65 0.36 79 44 123 ~F Units(MDR) F1 North 119 du 9.57 1139 0.19 0.56 23 67 90 0.65 0.36 77 43 120 ~F Units(MDR) Other 1050 du 9,57 10049 0.19 0.56 200 588 788 0.65 0.36 683 378 1061 ~iddleSchool 25.2 acre 40.00 1008 7.20 4.80 181 121 302 1.44 2.16 36 54 90 --lem. School 10.0 acre 60.00 600 10.08 6.72 101 67 168 1.26 2.94 13 29 42 ~ublic/Semi-Public 3.4 Ksf 79.26 269 6.74 5.97 23 20 43 6.20 7.00 21 24 &5 ,~ommunityPark 65.9 Acre 1.59 105 0.03 0.01 2 1 3 0.03 0.05 2 3 5 Fotal Proposed 14328 553 932 1485 911 575 1486 -~'"~ Total Difference 2391 389 260 . Notes: Ksf= 1,000 s( uarc feet LDR= Low Density Residential MDR=Medium Density Residential CP = Community Park Source: ITE Trip Generation, 6t~ Edition, SANDAG Conclusions During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and on a daily basis, the proposed project is expected to generate substantially fewer ~-ips than the approved land use. Therefore, the proposed development is expected to have less of an impact on the level of service at nearby intersections and roadway segments than the approved land use. Please contact us with your questions and conm~mts. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this analysis. Sincerely, //~~Gordon Lum Senior Associate JurisdictionX~Dublin\ 157-145\tdpgen_comparo\l 215031anduse. doc SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS _ f"~,, CONDUCTED BY H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA E AND AREA F NORTH May 31, 2001 RARE PLANT SURVEY OF THE EAST DUBLIN PROPERTY. Project 555-03. August 21, 1990. The Dublin Ranch site was surveyed by H. T. Harvey & Associates for special-status plants in the Spring of 1990. A list of potentially occurring plants was generated by reviewing the Eastern Dublin General Plan AmendmentYSpecific Plan EIR, appropriate local references, and the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). The entire site was surveyed to locate potential habitat for any potentially occurring species. Transects were then established and surveyed through appropriate habitat, searching for any special-status species potentially on site. No special-status plants were found. Due in part to regular grazing of the site, vegetation height, biomass, and diversity were low. EASTERN DUBLIN GOLDEN EAGLE PHASE I REPORT. Project 555-04. September 27, 1990. The Golden Eagle nest site that had been identified by Biosystems Analysis in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR was resurveyed by H. T. Harvey & Associates in 1990. The nest site was monitored throughout the spring. Two chicks were observed at the nest site in 1990. One chick died prior to fledging, while the remaining chick fledged in late June 1990. ADDITIONAL GOLDEN EAGLE SURVEYS H. T. Harvey & Associates raptor biologists have continued to monitor Golden Eagle nest sites on the property since 1990. Eagles did not nest on the property during the years of 1991 and 1992. During these years the pair probably bred at an alternative nest site (or sites) off the property because the nest tree they had been using (a eucalyptus tree) was largely defoliated during an extended hard freeze during the winter of 1990-1991. In 1993, after the foliage returned to the nest tree, the pair again nested in this tree. The birds successfully fledged one young from the nest. In 1994 the birds attempted to rebuild the nest but it apparently collapsed. The pair then moved to an alternative eucalyptus tree (tree #2) in the same drainage but closer to Tassajara Road, late in the season, and fledged one young. The pair used tree #2 again in 1995, when at least one young eagle was observed in the nest. The pair returned to tree #2 in 1996. They laid eggs, and at least one chick was observed in the nest in late April. By early May, no adult eagles were seen near the nest, nor were nestlings seen. It was determined that the site had failed and that the nest had been abandoned. The old nest (the one used prior to 1994) had completely collapsed. The pair nested successfully in tree #2 in 1997, fledging at least one young, but in 1998, a nesting attempt in tree #2 failed shortly after the eggs hatched. In 1999, the pair nested successfully in tree #2. Eggs were laid during the second week of February, and two eggs hatched the third week of March. The two chicks left the nest on 18 and 22 May, respectively. During the next four weeks the two juveniles remained on a ridge east of the East Dublin water tank, where favorable wind currents provided easy lift-off for predator avoidance and sustained lift for flight practice. By the third week of June both juveniles were flying well and expanding their range beyond the ridge where they had been staging for four weeks. In late September 1999, both adults and the two juveniles were sighted flying over mid and upper Doolan Canyon. SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX SURVEYS, DUBLIN RANCH, ALAMEDA COUNTY. Project 555-07. November 7, 1991. The San Joaquin kit fox is known from sites seven or more miles to the east and northeast of Dublin Ranch. The range and agricultural lands of the Ranch and surrounding areas would be low to moderate quality kit fox habitat. Previous surveys on portions of the Dublin Ranch and surrounding areas did not detect kit foxes, but detected several possible tracks. These prior surveys were conducted for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR by Biosystems Analysis. H. T. Harvey & Associates conducted kit fox surveys at twice the intensity recommended at that time (1991) by California Department of Fish and Game guidelines. These surveys (September- October 1991) did not detect kit fox activity on or near Dublin Ranch. DUBLIN RANCH SPECIAL-STATUS AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SURVEYS. Project 555-09. July 20, 1993. Surveys were conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates for special-status amphibian and reptile species on the Dublin Ranch property during the spring of 1993. The focus of these surveys included California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and western pond turtle. No California tiger salamanders were found during the survey. Fifteen subadult California red- legged frogs were found at two locations. Ten were along the northern boundary of the site in a stock pond adjacent to the intermittent channel of the Northern Drainage. Five more were found along Fallon Road along the southeastern edge of the site. Two adult western pond turtles were found off-site along Tassajara Creek. These findings were consistent with the 1989 surveys conducted by Biosystems for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR. DUBLIN RANCH: 1995 SPECIAL-STATUS AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SURVEYS. Project 555-11. March 25, 1996. H. T. Harvey & Associates conducted additional surveys in the spring of 1995 to determine if the distribution and abundance of special-status reptiles and amphibians had changed. These surveys were initiated in a rainfall season (1994-1995) that was nearly 200% of normal. Surveys were undertaken to provide updated data for the City of Dublin, which was undertaking a stream corridor restoration plan and grazing management plan for the vicinity. No California tiger salamanders were detected anywhere on the site. Seven juvenile California red-legged frogs were detected in the same two locations (the Northern Drainage and Fallon Road ponds) as in previous surveys. Two western pond turtles were detected off-site along Tassajara Creek. The location and abundance of the California red-legged frog and western pond turtle have been consistent throughout three separate studies. DUBLIN RANCH FAIRY SHRIMP SURVEYS. Project 555-10. July 15, 1996. Small, claypan pools occurring in the southwestern portion of the Dublin Ranch property were monitored for listed fairy shrimp from December 1995 to April 1996. The only fairy shrimp observed in the pools was Lindahl's fairy shrimp,, which is not a special-status species. This species of fairy shrimp tolerates a wide range of conditions and is the most common fairy shrimp in California. In general, the pools supported a low diversity of invertebrates and contained primarily weedy, opportunistic species as mosquito larvae and midgefly larvae. DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX IN THE NORTH PART OF ITS RANGE. Project 673-11. March 13, 1997. All known records of the San Joaquin kit fox and the results of kit fox surveys in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, as well as the western portion of San Joaquin County, were compiled and summarized by H. T. Harvey & Associates. These results were used to delineate the limits of the northern edge of the range of the San Joaquin kit fox based on specific, empirical data rather than on more subjective assessments of habitat quality as had been done previously. Data from surveys on and near Dublin Ranch were used in this report. It was determined that there were only two confirmed sightings of kit fox in the region west of Vasco Road; one was reportedly seen in 1992 on Black Hawk Road, and another was observed along Morgan Territory Road, both in Contra Costa County. This report concluded that the sighting along Black Hawk Road is likely an outlier and does not represent a resident kit fox population. While grassland habitat occurs west of kit fox sightings in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, kit fox have not expanded into these areas in recent years, nor is there any evidence that they have ever used these areas historically: Despite considerable survey effort in these areas, there is little evidence to support assertions of their presence in the areas west and south of the range boundary presented in this report. SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX SURVEYS, DUBLIN RANCH, ALAMEDA COUNTY. PHASE I, 1993 USFWS PROTOCOL, FALL 1996. Project 555-10. June 11, 1997. The Dublin Ranch site was surveyed by H. T. Harvey & Associates following the 30 April 1993 protocol of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Surveys were conducted in October and November 1996 and again in May 1997, using five survey methods: walking transects of the entire project site to detect occupied or potential dens; spotlighting surveys; automatic camera stations; track plate stations; and a compilation of information derived from other surveys and sightings within 10 miles of the Dublin Ranch site. Although 36 potential dens were found, only one was occupied by canids (coyotes), and no inactive canid dens were detected. No evidence of kit fox presence was detected during spotlighting surveys, at camera stations, or on track plates. A review of previous kit fox sightings and survey results revealed only two confirmed sightings of kit fox in the region west of Vasco Road; one was reportedly seen in 1992 on Black Hawk Road, and another was observed along Morgan Territory Road, both in Contra Costa County. Summaries of known kit fox sightings and the results of other surveys within 10 miles of the project site indicated that while grassland habitat providing potential dens and at least moderate prey abundance is present in the Dublin/Livermore area, there is no kit fox population west of Vasco Road. DUBLIN RANCH SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX PRELIMINARY REPORT AND RESULTS FROM EARLIER PHASES OF KIT FOX SURVEYS. Project 555-13. June 11, 1997. This preliminary report was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1997 Survey Protocol for the San Joaquin kit fox. This report consisted of a map showing the location of the Dublin Ranch site; a description of habitat suitability for the kit fox on the Dublin Ranch site; a description of vegetative communities found on the project site using CNDDB; a map showing kit fox sightings within a 10-mile radius of the site; a description of the continuity of the vegetative communities between the site and kit fox sightings; results of walking transects of the entire site, assessing habitat suitability (prey availability and denning potential); and an analysis of potential adverse effects of the project, cumulative impacts, and mitigation recommendations (if any). The survey methodology used by H. T. Harvey & Associates in the first phase of the survey consisted of five elements: walking transects, spotlighting surveys, automatic camera stations, track plate stations, and compilations of information derived from other surveys and sightings within 10 miles of the Dublin Ranch site. Two sets of walking transects were completed. Although a number of potential dens were located, only one active canid den (that of a coyote) and no inactive canid dens were found. No evidence of kit fox was detected during spotlighting surveys, at camera stations, or on track plates. It was concluded that kit fox are absent from the Dublin Ranch site. Therefore project .~}: development would not result in project-specific or cumulative impacts to kit fox, and no mitigation for impacts to kit fox is necessary. DUBLIN RANCH SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX SURVEY (REVISED). Project 555-13. October 9, 1997. In April 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) revised its 1993 survey protocol for the San Joaquin kit fox in the north part of its range. This report summarized the results of H. T. Harvey & Associates' spotlighting surveys and the use of track stations and camera stations on the Dublin Ranch site in May and June 1997, according to the April 1997 USFWS protocol. No evidence of kit fox presence on the Dublin Ranch site was detected during this survey. It was determined that the relative value of the site for kit fox is low due to the Iow density of ground squirrels and other prey. Also, the presence of competitors such as coyotes and red fox may constrain the expansion of kit fox into the Dublin area. DUBLIN RANCH FAIRY SHRIMP SURVEYS 1996/1997 WET SEASON. Project 555-10. December 2, 1997. Fairy shrimp surveys were conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates for a second year according to the protocol outlined in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1996 Interim Survey Guidelines. Pools in the southeastern portion of the Dublin Ranch site were monitored for fairy shrimp from December 1996 until the pools dried in March 1997. The only fairy shrimp observed in the pools was Lindahl's fairy shrimp, which is not a special- status species. As in the previous winter, the pools were of low quality for the listed species, and characteristics of the pools were not typical of those where the listed species occur. It was concluded that it would be highly unlikely for the listed species to be present on the site. DUBLIN RANCH FAIRY SHRIMP SURVEYS 1997/1998 WET SEASON. Project 555-17. October 9, 1998. This report summarized a third winter of surveys for special-status fairy shrimp in the southeastern portion of Dublin Ranch. H.T. Harvey & Associates conducted surveys according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's 1996 Interim Survey Guidelines from December 1997 until the pools dried in May 1998. Again, no special-status fairy shrimp were detected. Therefore, based on the distribution of the listed fairy shrimp, the poor quality of the pools on the site, and the negative results from three consecutive years of surveys, it was concluded that these special-status fairy shrimp are absent from the site. DUBLIN RANCH: 1998 SPECIAL-STATUS AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SURVEYS. Project 555-21. November 6, 1998. Previous surveys for special-status reptiles and amphibians on the Dublin Ranch project site had been conducted in 1989, 1993, and 1995. During these surveys, California red-legged frogs had been detected in the Northern Drainage and in a pond along Fallon Road, although neither the California tiger salamander nor the western pond turtle had been previously detected on the site. H. T. Harvey & Associates conducted surveys for the California tiger salamander, California red- legged frog, and western pond turtle throughout the Dublin Ranch site on a number of dates between October 1997 and May 1998. The Northern Drainage and two stock ponds (one next to Fallon Road and one west of Fallon Road in the middle of Area B) were surveyed intensively using daytime and nocturnal visual searches, dip net sampling, and seining. Two juvenile red-legged frogs were located in the Northern Drainage, but no red-legged frogs were detected elsewhere on the site. A pond in the Northern Drainage previously found to support red-legged frogs was no longer suitable for breeding due to the failure of the dam, while the suitability of the Fallon Road pond had declined due to siltation and partial failure of the dam. This pond is also apparently stocked with mosquitofish. Two California tiger salamander larvae were found in a pond west of Fallon Road, in the middle of area B; this species had not been detected during previous surveys on the Dublin Ranch site. No western pond turtles were observed in 1998. PAO YEH LIN PROPERTY SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES SURVEYS. Project 555-23. May 18, 1999. Surveys for special-status plant and wildlife species, and for habitat potentially suitable for such species, were conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates on a number of dates in 1998 on the former Pao Yeh Lin property, in the southwestern comer of the larger Dublin Ranch site. No special-status plant species were observed on the site during surveys in June and October 1998, although additional surveys were recommended. During a number of surveys for special- status reptiles and amphibians, conducted between January and august 1998, the only special- status species detected on the site was the California tiger salamander; a number of larvae were detected in the Area F stock pond. No California red-legged frogs or western pond turtles were observed. No Burrowing Owls or American badgers were detected on the site, although potentially suitable habitat was found to be present. Reconnaissance-level kit fox surveys on 23 and 24 July 1998 failed to detect any evidence of kit fox on the site and found only two burrows of appropriate size for kit fox. Based on the paucity of burrows on the site and the negative results of numerous kit fox surveys elsewhere in the project vicinity, kit fox were determined to be absent from the site. Pools within Area H were surveyed for listed fairy shrimp, prior to drying, on four days in May . ~; and June 1998. No evidence of fairy shrimp was found. DUBLIN RANCH, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION OF WATERS OF THE U. S. Project 555-30. June 17, 1999. H. T. Harvey & Associates surveyed the entire Dublin Ranch project site for areas meeting the regulatory definition of "Waters of the U. S." Jurisdictional waters were identified and mapped within the project boundaries and included approximately 0.12 acres of tributary waters, 0.23 acres of other waters, and 2.29 acres of potential wetlands. PAO YEH LIN PROPERTY FAIRY SHRIMP SURVEYS 1998/1999 WET SEASON. Project 555-27. October 26, 1999. Surveys for listed fairy shrimp were conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates in a complex of seasonal pools on Areas G and H of the former Pao Yeh Lin property, in the southwestern corner of the larger Dublin Ranch site. These surveys were conducted according to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) 1996 Interim Survey Guidelines. No listed species were observed, the only fairy shrimp found on the site being the common, widespread Lindahl's fairy shrimp. The pools on Area H are hydrologically connected to the pools to the east, which had been previously surveyed according to USFWS protocols and were found not to support these species. Pools containing Lindahl's fairy shrimp on the project site are generally of poor quality and not typical of known pools where the listed fairy shrimp usually occur. Based on the negative findings of surveys on Area H, the negative findings for three years (1995/96 to 1997/98) of surveys from the adjacent (and hydrologically connected) Area C, the distribution of the listed fairy shrimp, and the poor quality of the pools, it was determined that listed fairy shrimp are very unlikely to occur on the Pao Yeh Lin site. DUBLIN RANCH AREAS F, G, AND H (PAO YEH LIN PROPERTY) ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION. Project 555-26. November 1, 1999. H. T. Harvey & Associates compiled and analyzed the results of previous surveys on the former Pao Yeh Lin property and on adjacent portions of Dublin Ranch, summarized ecological impacts that would result from development of this portion of the Dublin Ranch site, and recommended mitigation for these impacts. Impacts to wetland and riparian habitats regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game were determined, and mitigation for these impacts was proposed. Impacts to two special-status plant species, the Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale, were determined to be potentially significant, requiring further surveys and/or mitigation. California tiger salamanders, as well as their breeding habitat within the Area F stock pond and their surrounding upland estivation habitat, would be lost due to project 7 development. The loss of the Area F stock pond would also represent a loss of California red- legged frog habitat, as an individual had been found in the pond during a previous survey. Mitigation measures were proposed to compensate for the loss of tiger salamander and red- legged frog habitat, minimize/avoid the loss of individual tiger salamanders and red-legged frogs, and prevent impacts to active raptor nests, occupied Burrowing Owl burrows, and active American badger dens. PAO YEH LIN PROPERTY FAIRY SHRIMP SURVEYS 1999/2000 WET SEASON. Project 555-27. June, 2000. Surveys for listed fairy shrimp were conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates in a complex of seasonal pools on the former Pao Yeh Lin property, in the southwestern comer of the larger Dublin Ranch site. These surveys were conducted according to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) 1996 Interim Survey Guidelines. None of the listed fairy shrimp were detected during the 1999/2000 surveys. DUBLIN RANCH: 2000 SPECIAL-STATUS AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SURVEYS. Project 555-31. March 5, 2001. This report summarizes the findings of surveys conducted within the Fallon Road Pond, the pond west of the Fallon Road Pond, the stockpond and associated drainage of the northwestern neighboring Area F, Tassajara Creek through the Lin Property, and the Northern Drainage and · ~. assOciated stockpOnd (Redgewick property). Surveys were conducted either by Dr. Jeffery A. Wilkinson or Dr. Mark R. Jennings between November 30, 1999 and August 24, 2000. DUBLIN RANCH PROJECT AREA MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORT. (Draft). Project 555-26. May 15, 2001. This draft report summarizes mitigation measures to compensate for impacts to USACE and CDFG jurisdictional area with the Dublin Ranch Project Area (Areas B, C, F, and H). USACE area impacts totaled 10.22 acres while CDFG area impacts totaled 5.51 acres. USACE impacts occur to all drainages, wetlands, and stockponds on-site. CDFG impacts occur to on-site drainage channels and riparian vegetation. Mitigation to compensate for these impacts is located on the project site within the On-Site Drainage Mitigation area and off-site at three locations, Tassajara Creek, the Northern Drainage, and Lin Livermore. USACE mitigation consists of creating 20.67 acres of new jurisdictional area. Mitigation includes new drainage channels at the On-Site Drainage mitigation area, four (4) ponds at the Northern Drainage and Lin Livermore sites, and a complex of seasonally ponded wetlands at Lin Livermore. CDFG mitigation consists of creating 7.48 acres of new jurisdictional area. Mitigation includes new bed and banks within the On-Site Drainage mitigation area, expansion of riparian habitat along Tassajara Creek, and new willow-riparian habitat along the Northern Drainage. 8 DUBLIN RANCH PROJECT AREA BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG. Project 555.27. May 15, 2001. The purpose of this document was to review the proposed Dublin Ranch Project Area development in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the proposed action may affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, or critical habitat for said species. This document was a revised version of the 17 April 2000 Project Area Biological Assessment for the Red-legged Frog compiled by H. T. Harvey & Associates. The only federally threatened, endangered, proposed threatened or proposed endangered species on the site and determined to be potentially affected by the project is the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). H. T. Harvey & Associates Dublin Reports H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1990a. Eastern Dublin Golden Eagle Phase I Report. Project No. 555-04. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1990b. Rare Plant Survey of the East Dublin Property, Alameda County. Project No. 555-03. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1991. San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys, Dublin Ranch, Alameda County. Project No. 555-07. H.T. Harvey.& Associates. 1993. Dublin Ranch Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys. Project No. 555-09. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1996a. Dublin Ranch: 1995 Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys. Project No. 555-11. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1996b. Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp Surveys. Project No. 555-10. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997a. Distribution of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the North Part of Its Range. Project No. 673-11. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997b. Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp Surveys 1996/1997 Wet Season. · ~. Project No. 555-10. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997c. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Preliminary Report and Results from Earlier Phases of Kit Fox Surveys. Project Number 555-13. H.T. HarVey & Associates. 1997d. San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys, Dublin Ranch, Alameda County. Phase I, 1993 USFWS Protocol, Fall 1996. Project No. 555-10. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997e. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey (revised). Project No. 555-13. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1998a. Dublin Ranch: 1998 Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys. Project No. 555-21. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1998b. Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp Surveys 1997/1998 Wet Season. Project No. 555-17. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1999a. Dublin Ranch, Alameda County, California Identification of Waters of the U.S. Project No. 555-30. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1999b. Pao Yeh Lin Property Fairy Shrimp Surveys 1998/1999 Wet Season. Project No. 555-27. 10 .~ H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1999c. Pao Yeh Lin Property Special-Status Species Surveys. , Project No. 555-23. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1999d. Dublin Ranch Areas F, G, and H (Pao Yeh Lin Property) Ecological Impacts and Mitigation. Project No. 555-26. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2000. Pao Yeh Lin Property Fairy Shrimp Surveys 1999/2000 Wet Season. Project No. 555-27. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 200la. Dublin Ranch: 2000 Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys. Project No. 555-31. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 200lb. Project Area Biological Assessment for the California Red- legged Frog. Project No. 555-27. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2001c. Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Dublin, California (Draft). Project No. 555-26. 11 August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity of providing our geotechnical services to you on this project and trust this report provides the information you require at this time. If you have any questions, please contact us. .aPeCtfully submitted, L ~O, GA~ ?EOTEC~NSULTANTS /Principal Engineer GE 2326, Exp. 12/31/~~~ gar l PSL/FB :p~k Copies: Addressee (1) MacKay & Somps (7) Attention: Mr. Jim Templeton wpSl/report/7600.1tr { ~ BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1 PURPOSE ............................................. 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................ 2 FINDINGS ................................................. 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................... 2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ....................... 3 SOILS AND BEDROCK CONDITIONS .......................... 4 Residual Soils ...................................... 4 Colluvial Deposits .................................... 4 Alluvium ......................................... 4 Landslides ......................................... 4 Bedrock .......................................... 5 Artificial Fill ....................................... 5 · _ Ground Water ...................................... 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 6 GENERAL ............................................ 6 EXPANSION POTENTIAL .................................. 6 SETTLEMENT ......................................... 7 LANDSLIDES .......................................... 9 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ........................ 9 SHRINKAGE/SWELL FACTOR .............................. 11 CUT SLOPES .......................................... 12 FILL, SLOPES .......................................... 13 SUBDRAINAGE ........................................ 13 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS ........................... 14- Residential Structures ................................. 14 Commercial and Office Structures ......................... 15 EXTERIOR FLATWORK .................................. 15 UTILITY TRENCHES .................................... 15 RETAINING WALLS ..................................... 16 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS ........................ 17 CORROSION CONSIDERATIONS ............................ 18 SEISMIC HAZARDS 19 Faulting ......................................... 19 Ground Shaking .................................... 19 Liquefaction ...................................... 19 Lurching ......................................... 19 Ground Subsidence .................................. 20 Earthquake-Induced Landsliding .......................... 20 LIMITATIONS ............................................. 20 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DUBLIN RANCH - PAO-YEH LIN PROPERTY TASSAJARA ROAD DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA FOR MS JENNIFER LIN INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This report presents the results of a design-level geotechnical investigation for the Pao-Yeh Lin property located on the north side of Interstate 580, east of Tassajara Road in Dublin, California. This geotechnical investigation was undertaken to gather information on the subsurface conditions at the site and to develop geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for site development. Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (BGC) previously performed a preliminary geologic and geotechnical of the property the property and presented the results in a report dated November 13, 1998. This investigation included the following scope: 1. Review of pertinent geologic maps, available published and unpublished reports, and previous BGC reports for the site and surrounding areas; 2. Excavation of 96 backhoe test pits ranging from about 7 to 19 feet deep; 3. Drilling of 16 borings ranging from about 12 to 70 feet deep. Sixteen additional borings were drilled in conjunction with a concurrent investigation for Assessment District roadways and utility corridors; that data was used in this evaluation); 4. Laboratory tests performed on selected samples of soil and bedrock materials obtained from test pits and borings; 5. Engineering geology interpretation; 6. Geotechnical engineering analysis; and 7. Preparation of this report. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS BGC : BERLOGAR August 30, 1999 GEOTECHNICAL Job No. 1394.113 CONSULTANTS Ms Jennifer Lin c/o Mr. Ted Fairfield 5510 Sunol Boulevard Pleasanton, California 94566 Subject: Geotechnical Report Dublin Ranch - Pao-Yeh Lin Property Tassajara Road Dublin, California Dear Mr. Fairfield: Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (BGC) is pleased to submit this geotechnical investigation report for the Pao-Yeh Lin Property at Dublin Ranch in Dublin, California. The enclosed report presents the results of our investigation regarding the site soils, bedrock and groundwater conditions, and our recommendations for site preparation and grading, stability c,f cut and fill slopes, landslide mitigation, subdrainage, foundation considerations, exterior flatwork, retaining walls, underground utility installation and preliminary pavement sections. In regard to the issue of design gradients for fill slopes, this report presents various recommendations for slope gradients that vary with the height of the fill slope. While we expect that most fiI1 slopes will be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented herein, we recognize that local design constraints may require fill slope gradients steeper than presented herein. These conditions are likely to occur in the interior of subdivisions, where lot pad elevations exceed a 10 foot elevation difference and where a slope- gradient of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H: IV) is preferred for efficient lot layout. Steeper fill slope gradients will require site specific design in coordination with MacKay & Somps and will likely incorporate design features such as use of select fill material and/or geogrid reinforcement with improved strength parameters. Such fill slopes will be substantially more costly to construct. To reduce the erosion potential, benches with "V"-ditches are generally recommended for newly constructed slopes higher than 30 feet. The bench and "V"-ditch requirements may be waived provided the slope is built at an inclination of 4H: 1V or flatter and additional erosion protection is installed on the portion of the cut slope that is more than 30 feet in elevation below the highest point on the cut slope. SOIL ENGINEERS* ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS · 5587 SUNOL BOULEVARD · PLEASANTON, CA 94566 · (925) 484-0220 · FAX: (925) 846-9645 August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 2 Our findings regarding site, soil, geologic and ground water conditions are Presented herein, together with our conclusions pertaining to expansion potential, settlements, cut and fill slope stability, landslide hazards, soils corrosivity and seismic hazards. This report presents recommendations for site development including: site preparation and grading, cut and fill slopes, landslide mitigation, subdrainage, foundation considerations, exterior flatwork, utility trenches, retaining walls and preliminary asphalt pavement design. The location of the Pao-Yeh Lin property in relationship to surrounding cultural features and landmarks is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Regional geologic features are depicted on the Area Geologic Map, Plate 2. Site topography, predominant geologic features, and locations of our test pits and borings are included on the Geologic Map, Plate 3. Boring and test pit logs are included in Appendix A. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B except for moisture content and dry density test results which are included on the borings logs. The results of slope stability analysis are included in Appendix C. Logs of borings pertinent to the Pao-Yeh Lin property that were drilled as a part of a concurrent investigation for the Assessment District are included in Appendix D. The results of the soils corrosivity analysis are presented in Appendix E. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understand that the site will be developed for a mixture of residential, commercial and office uses. A Preliminary Grading Layout by MacKay and Somps, dated October 30, 1998, indicates that grading in the northern half of the site will involve cuts and fill up to about 50 feet. Graded slopes higher than 10 feet are generally anticipated to have slope gradients of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H: iV) or flatter, although some localized 2H:iV slopes are anticipated. Slopes less than 10 feet in height are planned to be no steeper than 2H: IV. Fills about 5 to 12 feet thick are planned in the relatively flat southern half of the site. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The Pao-Yeh Lin property is a rectangular shaped parcel located on north side of Interstate 580 about 900 feet east of Tassajara Road , as shown on the attached Vicinity Map. The site is bounded by undeveloped open ranchland to the east and west. Land to the north is referred to as Phase 1 of Dublin Ranch and was sheet graded for development during the summer of 1998. The site is currently used for grazing. The site is topographically characterized by low rounded hills in the northern portion of the site and relatively flat ground in the southern half of the site as shown on Plate 3. The northern hills are incised with a stream course that drains to the south. Natural slopes are as steep as about BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 3 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H: iV) but generally are less than about 5H: IV. Elevations on site range from about 340 feet adjacent to Interstate 580, to about 500 feet near the northeast corner of the site. Vegetation is limited to grasses and weeds. An old ranch complex was previously located near the mouth of the drainage course in the north-central portion of the site. A stock pond is also located in the drainage course at the confluence of two swales. REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY The site is situated in the central part of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, which is characterized by a series of parallel, northwesterly-trending, folded and faulted mountain chains. In this part of the province, the gentle topography is underlain by nonmarine and marine sedimentary rocks deposited during the later Tertiary and/or the Quaternary period of geologic time, from about 7 million years before present to about 11 thousand years before present. The flat-lying areas appear to be covered by alluvial sediments deposited during the late Pleistocene and Holocene epoch of geologic time, about 40 thousand years before present to the present. The region has been folded and faulted as a result of tectonic forces generated during major uplift of the area beginning during the Pleistocene epoch. The site is not within a currently-designated State of California "Specia1 Studies Zone" (1982) for the active faults. Two concealed, inferred faults shown on geologic maps covering the site were evaluated in our November 13, 1998 report. The Mocho Fault is mapped north of the proposed Gleason Drive (CDWR, 1966) and an unnamed fault is mapped along the base of the foothills north of Interstate 580 (Dibblee, 1980, Graymer, 1996). No evidence of the Mocho fault or a fault located along the base of the foothills north of Interstate 580 was found. Major active faults in the region that may influence the earthquake susceptibility of the site include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras and Greenville faults located 30 miles, 11 miles, 4 miles, and 7 miles from the site, respectively (Bortugno, 19.91). According to Peterson, et. al. (1996), maximum moment magnitude (Mw) estimated for the above faults is as follows: San Andreas (Peninsula Segment): 7. i; Hayward (Total Length): 7.1; Calaveras (north of Calaveras Reservoir): 6.8; Greenville: 6.9. Recent studies by Um'uh and Sawyer (1997) postulate that the Mount Diablo Uplift is underlain at depth by a "blind" thrust fault system that may be capable of producing earthquakes of Mw 6.25 to 6.75. The distance from the site to the postulated blind thrust can not be accurately measured but could be in the range of 2 to 4 miles. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICA[ CONSIII_TANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 4 SOILS AND BEDROCK CONDITIONS RESIDUAL SOILS Residual natural soils, derived by in-place weathering of the underlying parent bedrock, were encountered in test pits excavated on ridgelines and spur ridges on the northern portion of the site. The residual soils encountered consisted of dark gray and dark gray-brown silty clays (CL-CH). The typical thickness of residual soil revealed by the test pits varied from about 2 to 4 feet. Laboratory test results indicate that the residual soils have moderate to high plasticity, and are considered highly expansive~ COLLUVIAL DEPOSITS Colluvial deposits, generated by the downslope creel: ing of residual soils and/or their transportation by erosion, were revealed in test pits and b >rings in swales and valleys. Areas underlain by colluvium deposits are noted on the Geologic Map using the symbol "Qc". Where encountered in test pits and borings, the colluvial deposit~, were found to consist of dark gray to gray-brown silty clays (CL-CH) to depths ranging from 3 to 6 feet, overlying typically very stiff, dark brown silty and sandy clays (CL) to depths up ~:o about 12 feet. A maximum of 20 feet of colluvium was encountered in Boring Bl-19. LaI,oratory test results indicate that the colluvial soils also have moderate to high plasticity, and are considered highly expansive. ALLUVIUM Alluvial deposits, material transported and deposited predo~ ninately by streams or flowing water, were revealed in test pits and borings in the southern porlion of the site. Areas underlain by alluvium are noted on the Geologic Map using the symbql "Qal". Where encountered in test' pits and borings, the alluvial deposits were found to cd~nsist of dark gray-brown silty clay (CL-CH) to depths ranging from 3 to 6 feet, overlying a ~ide range of soil types. Below 3 to 6 feet, the alluvium encountered ranged from silty clay to silty sand with minor gravelly deposits. Laboratory test results indicate that the clayey alluvial soils have moderate to very high plasticity, and are considered highly expansive. LANDSLIDES Landslide mapping by Nilsen (1973) shows no landslides >n the site. Mapping by Majmundar (1991) shows one possible landslide area in the northwe~,tern part of the site. Eight test pits were excavated in the area questioned by Majmundar ~nd no evidence of landsliding was ! encountered. / Five suspected landslide areas were identified in our 1~ 'eliminary investigation. Based on examination of aerial photographs, site recOnnaissance ano subsurface exploration, two of these landslides are believed to exist. These two landslides are located in the northeastern portion of BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394:113 Page 5 the site as shown on the attached Geologic Map. The landslides have been classified as surficial, dormant landslides. No recently active or deep seated landslides were found on the site. Test pit exploration indicates that the surficial landslides range up to about 8 feet thick and contain slide debris consisting of silty clay and/or silty clay with some rock fragments and highly weathered bedrock. BEDROCK Bedrock on site is mapped as the Tassajara Formation by Dibblee (1980); a non-marine sedimentary rock. Portions of the site underlain at relatively shallow depths by bedrock are noted on the Geologic Map using the symbol "QTt". Bedrock encountered on site was found to consist of interbedded sandstone and siltstone, with minor interbedded claystone. In general, the bedrock was found to be poorly indurated, friable and thickly bedded. Bedding contacts observed were often gradational. Primary sedimentary features such as channel forms and cross bedding were numerous. Claystone, siltstone and silty to clayey sandstone beds were observed to be slightly cemented. Beds of well-sorted sandstone and conglomerate contained only trace amounts of silt and clay and were observed to be uncemented. These uncemented beds tended to cave where encountered in test pits and borings. Bedding attitudes strike typically northwest and dip predominantly to the southwest at inclinations of about 20 to 70 degrees. ARTIFICIAL FILL Two areas underlain by existing fill were observed on the site. An embankment for a stock pond is located in the valley in the northern portion of the site. Fill was also placed in th6 former ranch compound area located in the central portion of the site, GROUND WATER No free ground water was encountered in test pits during this phase of exploration. Seepage and phreatophytes (water seeking plants) were observed in the valley upstream of the stock pond located in the northern part of the site. Free ground water was encountered in borings at the following depths B1-4 23 feet, B1-5 23 feet, B1-6 24 feet, Bl-19 13 feet, B2-3 27 feet, B2-5 25 feet, B2-9 14 feet, B2-11 9 feet and B2-12 18 feet. The boring data indicates that ground water levels along the northern side of Highway 580 were about 23 to 25 feet below the ground surface at the time of our exploration. Ground water conditions should be expected to vary depending on variations in rainfall, irrigation, time of year, and perched ground water conditions. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL From a geotechnical standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The primary geotechnical issue affecting the proposed development is the predominance of expansive soils and mudstone bedrock materials at the site, which are susceptible to significant volume changes (swell and shrinkage) when subjected to variable moisture contents. Other geotechnical concerns addressed in this report include: stability of proposed cut and fill slopes, landslide hazards affecting the proposed development, foundation considerations, retaining wall design, preliminary pavement design, soils corrosivity and ground water. EXPANSION POTENTIAL As indicated by the results of the Atterberg Limits and single point consolidation/swell tests contained in AppendiX B, the expansion potential of soil and bedrock materials at the site is highly variable, typically ranging from low to highly expansive. The degree of expansion of the on-site materials is a function of the following main factors: the type of soil and bedrock materials, and clay composition; the in-place moisture contents of the materials; the in-place density of the materials; and the overburden pressures or surcharge loads acting on the materials. The two main expansive material types at the site include: 1. Expansive near-surface soil deposits consisting of residual soils, colluvium, landslide- debris and clayey alluvial soils; and 2. Mudstone bedrock units composed of interbedded siltstone and claystone. The on-site residual soils, colluvium, landslide debris and clayey alluvial soils are considered highly expansive when subject to changes in moisture content. The siltstone and claystone exhibit variable expansion characteristics ranging from medium to high, generally varying in expansion potential among individual beds of siltstone and claystone. Using the results of the single-point consolidation testing on remolded soil and bedrock materials, our estimate of the maximum swell of the fill placed and compacted following the requirements discussed in the "Site Preparation and Grading" section are estimated as follows: 1 At the flat land portion of the site - up to 3 inches 2. At the hilly portion of the site i~ BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 7 5 1.5 10 1.5 15 2.5 20 3.0 25 3.8 30 4.5 35 5.3 40 5.9 45 6.4 50 6.8 The above-estimated preliminary swells provide a general picture of the swell potential in the fill areas. The actual swell in the fill areas depends strongly on the composition (type and amount) of fill, and in-place moisture content and density. To obtain a more reliable estimate of the fill swell, we recommend that a post-grading swell study be performed in the major fill areas. The post-grading swell study would involve drilling three to four borings at the major fill areas and obtaining undisturbed fill samples for Atterberg Limits and single point consolidation/swell tests. The borings would be extended to the bottom of the fill. The results of the post-grading swell study will aid in providing design-level foundation recommendations for the structures to be cor~structed in the fill areas. Based on the results of the multi-stage swell tests performed on undisturbed bedrock samples, up to about 2 to 3 inches of moisture-related swell is estimated in the cut areas. In general, the magnitude of swell will be related to the depth of cut and the relative expansiveness of the exposed bedrock. We also recommend that a post-grading swell study be performed in the major cut areas. The post, grading swell study would consist of drilling of three to four 30-foot borings in each major cut area and obtaining undisturbed bedrock samples for Atterberg Limits and single point swell tests. The results of the swell tests would be used to provide design-level foundation recommendations for structures to be located in the cut areas. SETTLEMENT The results of single-point consolidation testing on remolded soils and bedrock of the site are summarized in Appendix B. Based on these results, we estimate that on-site materials used as fill will undergo settlements during placement and for a duration following mass grading. The ~ BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 8 total settlement of the fill placed and compacted following the requirements discussed in the "Site Preparation and Grading" section are estimated as follows: 5 0.5 t0 1.5 15 2.5 20 3.5 25 4.5 30 5.5 35 6.5 40 7.5 45 8.5 50 10.0 In-place colluvial deposits in deep fill areas are stiff to hard, and exhibit low to nominal compressibility characteristics. As such, provided the upper 2 to 3 feet of softened soils along swale bottoms are removed from these areas, we anticipate that the remaining stiff colluvium may generally be left in-place in fill areas. The colluvial deposits left in-place are anticipated to undergo limited settlements during fill placement and for a duration following mass grading. We estimate that potential settlements of the in-place colluvial material in the deeper fill areas could be on the order of 2- to 3-inches. Based on our experience, we anticipate that about 75 percent of the estimated total settlement of the fill and in-place colluvium should occur during mass grading. Post-grading long-term settlement is estimated to be up to 4-inches~ The total and differential settlement at the site should be considered in the design of gravity underground utilities (such as storm drains and sanitary sewer lines) and surface drainage. The gravity undergroUnd utilities and surface drainage installed immediately after mass grading should be designed to accommodate the post-grading settlement. We recommend that 11/2 to 2 times the estimated post-grading long-term, settlement be incorporated in the design of the storm drains and sanitary sewer lines. This recommendation is intended to result in the provision of additional gradient in gravity utilities and pavement surface; it is not intended to result in the use of special piping or special pipe joints. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 9 We recommend that the grading contractor install 3 settlement plates and 20 surface settlement markers in the deep fill areas to monitor the settlement characteristics of the deep fill. The settlement plates should be installed at about 5 feet below the finished rough grade and the surface settlement markers should be placed immediately after the completion of mass grading. We recommend that a surveyor be retained to survey the settlement plate and marker locations and elevations. Elevations of the settlement plates and markers should be measured every months during the first six months after their installation. The frequency future readings should be evaluated after the first 6 months readings have been evaluated. The data collected from the settlement plates and markers is expected to be useful for predicting post-grading long-term settlement of fills in developing foundation recommendations. LANDSLIDES Landslide A and B are located in an area of proposed cut that is expected to remove most of the landslide debris. Portions of these landslides not removed by the planned cuts should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING All grading operations should be done i.n accordance with the following recommendations. These grading recommendations are intended for site sheet grading. We understand that pad grading will be performed prior to the house construction. The pad grading may change the thicknesses of fill or bedrock materials capping significantly and, as a result, may alter the settlement and/or swell characteristics of the sheet graded site discussed above. 1. Areas to be graded should be cleared and stripped of all vegetation. Stripping can be stockpiled and reused as topsoil. 2. The fills noted at the former ranch compound and the two mapped landslides should be removed in their entirety. 3. Backfill in test pits from this investigation should be removed and replaced with compacted fill except where the backfill will be removed by the planned cut. If the stock pond is to be removed, then the embankment fill and soft sediments in the pond bottom should also be removed in their entirety. 4. In the swale areas to receive fill, the upper 2 to 3 feet of the colluvium along the center line (about 20 feet wide) of the swale should be removed. 5. For cut/fill transitions, the residual soils and colluvium should be removed to a depth of not less than 5 feet but not more than 10 feet (below the proposed sheet grade) within 80 feet of the cut/fill transition. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 10 6. Zones of soft or saturated soils may be encountered during excavation and compaction; therefore, deeper excavation may be required to expose firm soil. This should be determined in the field by the soil engineer. 7. The exposed surface in fill areas should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches. The scarified materials should be properly moisture-conditioned and re-compacted as follows: I Within the 20 feet of finished sheet grade 84 to 88 percent relative compaction at not less than 5 percent above optimum moisture content. At greater than 20 below finished sheet 88 to 92 percent relative compaction at not less than grade 5 percent above optimum moisture content Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same soil, as determined by the ASTM D1557-91 compaction test method. Optimum moisture is the water content (percentage by dry weight) corresponding to the maximum dry density. 8. In general, the on-site earth materials are considered acceptable for engineered fill, provided surface vegetation and all deleterious materials are removed. 9. Residual soils, colluvium and landslide debris may be used in engineered fills on site. The use of these materials as engineered fill within 10 feet of finished sheet grade should be limited to areas which are so designated on the grading plans. Areas designated to receive these materials will be determined by this office during preparation of the grading plans. 10. Bedrock materials only (lighter color earth materials) should be used in the backfill of keyways from the base of the keyways to 15 feet above the base of the keyways. 11. All fill and backfill materials 'should be subject to evaluation by the soil engineer prior to use. 12. Fill should be placed in thin lifts (normally 8 to 12 inches thick), uniformly moisture conditioned and compacted (as one lift) to degrees indicated below. To avoid over-compaction of on-site expansive materials care should be taken during grading to minimize placement of thin lifts of expansive materials (less than about 8 inches). Modification to actual acceptable lift thickness should be based on demonstrated compaction performance during grading, which will depend on actual compaction equipment and methods used. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 11 Within the 20 feet of finished sheet grade 84 to 88 percent relative compaction at not less than 5 percent above optimum moisture content. At greater than 20 feet below finished sheet 88 to 92 percent relative compaction at not less than grade 5 percent above optimum moisture content 13. Keyway fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent at a moisture content of not less than 3 percent above optimum moisture content. 14. Where bedrock units are exposed in cut grades, these areas should be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer for local variations of expansion among individual beds. Geologic mapping and laboratory testing should be performed in these areas. As deemed appropriate, additional recommendations for over-excavation and remedial grading would be developed in these areas during grading following evaluation. 15. Fill slopes should be overfilled and cut-back to expose a firm and compacted surface. 16. Observations and soil density tests should be carried on during grading to assist the contractor in obtaining the required degree of compaction and the proper moisture COntent. Where cOmpaction is less than required, additional compactive effort should be made with adjustment of the moisture content as necessary until the specified compaction is obtained. 17. The soil engineer should be notified at least 48 hours prior to any grading operation. The procedures and methods of grading may then be discussed between the owner, contractor and the soil engineer. This can facilitate the performance of grading operations and minimize possible construction delays. SHRINKAGE/SWELL FACTOR Based on the compaction test results for this investigation as well as those for mass grading of Dublin Ranch - Phase 1, on-site earth materials densities as encountered in the borings, and the compaction requirements outlined in the "Site Preparation and Grading" Section, we recommend that a Swell Factor of 5 to 10 percent be considered in the dirt quantity calculation. We understand that the remaining portion (Area A, Assessment District, Pao-Yeh Lin property and Areas B through E) of Dublin Ranch is to be graded in different phases. With the phased mass grading schedule, we strongly suggest that the cut and fill quantities of the early phases be tracked by the project civil engineer. This data can be used to refine and/or modify the preliminary swell factor presented above. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 12 CUT SLOPES We recommend that cut slopes be constructed at slope gradients no steeper than 3H: iV, except for cut slopes less than about 10 feet in height which should be no steeper than 2H: iV. We recommend that all cut slope exposures be carefully examined by an engineering geologist for evidence of potential instability. Where cut slopes over 30 feet high are planned, intermediate benches spaced no greater than 25 feet vertically should be provided. Benches should be at least 8 feet wide and have a concrete lined V-ditch along the bench to intercept runoff. Subdrainage should be installed at the toe of major cut slopes as determined during our review of the grading plans. Following grading, cut slopes should be planted with deep-rooted, fast-growing vegetation prior to first winter to resist erosion. The stability of cut slopes is partially dependent on: 1) the orientation and location of the cut slope with respect to the structure of the bedrock; 2) the strength properties of materials comprising the cut slope; and 3) unknown adverse conditions (such as ground water, etc.), which · · could adversely affect the stability of the slope. We anticipate that cut slopes may expose the following adverse conditions in some areas of the site: 1) colluvium material exposed in cut - slopes; and/or 2) bedrock materials showing adversely bedded rock structure in the slopes. · ! ' 1. Colluvium Exposed in Cut SloPes - In general, areas-Where natural slope gradients are " .... steeper than about 5H:iV colluvial deposits are considered susceptible to downslope . creep and potential slope instability; theret~.ore, where cut slopes are steeper than 5H: IV, colluvium exposures in cut slopes will warrant remedial treatment. This condition is likely to be encountered on the cut slope north of the proposed maintenance area. If ~ ._ conditions requiring remedial measures are encountered, o~i~of the following treatments would be appropriate to mitigate the conditions, as follows: - · Completely remove portion of colluvial deposits located adjacent to and upslope of the planned cut slope, to expose competent bedrock materials; or ~, · Remove the colluvial deposits exposed in the cut slope area, and replace with ,_ i~ engineered fill composed of bedrock materials, and install appropriate subdrainage and benching. :~ .~ 2. Cut Slopes in Bedrock Materials - The stability of cut slopes in bedrock materials is largely dependent on the planned cut location and the orientation of the cut slope with ~ ~ respect to the bedrock structure or other planes of geologic weakness. Bedrock structure ~ ~ on the site was found to be poorly developed with varied attitudes, but many bedding attitudes dipping to the south at inclinations of about 20 to 25 degrees were encountered. -~-~ Bedding planes dipping at 20 degrees or steeper should not adversely impact cut slope I ~ stability; however, if areas of slightly flatter dips are exposed, adverse cut slope stability conditions could be. a problem. We recommend that all cut slopes be carefully mapped during grading. ~ ~ BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 13 Beds and lenses of uncemented sandstone were encountered during our exploration and will likely be exposed on cut slopes. These uncemented sandstone units are prone to erosion problems where exposed on cut slopes. In general, we recommend that cut slope areas exposing uncemented sandstone be overexcavated a minimum of 15 feet horizontally from the face of slope and the slope reconstructed with subdrainage and engineered fill. Specific remedial alternatives should be evaluated as cut slope conditions are exposed during grading. Where adverse bedrock structure or other zones of geologic weakness are encountered in cut slopes during grading, we anticipate that remedial measures such as flattening the slope, or construction of a slope buttress will be needed. Specific remedial alternatives should be evaluated as cut slope conditions are exposed during grading. FILL SLOPES The stability of planned fill slopes depends on proper keyways and benching, subdrainage, fill compaction and slope gradients. We understand that the proposed fill slopes will have maximum heights on the order of 30 feet. In general, fill slopes exceeding vertical heights of about 10 feet should be constructed at slope gradients no steeper than 3H:IV. Fill slopes less than about 10 feet in vertical height may be constructed at slope gradients up to 2H: IV, provided that these are constructed of predominantly bedrock materials. Fill slopes should generally be constructed in accordance with the recommendations shown on Plate 4. Keyways are recommended for all fill slopes to be placed on natural ground having a gradient of 7H: 1V or steeper. Generally, keyway width should be at least 15 feet, or one-half of the fill slope height, whichever is greater. Horizontal benches should be excavated ·into firm material or bedrock to key fill into native materials during slope construction. Fill slope' exceeding 30 feet in height should have intermediate benches spaced no greater than 30 feet vertically. Benches should be at least 8 feet wide with a concrete lined V-ditch to intercept runoff. Fill slopes should be planted with deep-rooted, fast growing vegetation prior to the first winter to reduce erosion. SUBDRAINAGE Seepage is expected to occur at the bottom of slopes, gullies, and at major cut slopes. We recommend that subdrainage be provided in the following areas. 1. At all springs and seepage areas; 2. Along swales and gullies that receive fill; 3. On the uphill side of all keyways; BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 14 4. At geologic contacts known to transmit seepage; 5. In other areas of the site where seepage is observed during and after grading as determined by the soils engineer. Subdrains should consist of PVC perforated pipe conforming to ASTM Designation D 2751, Type SDR 23.5 for fill depths over 30 feet and Type SDR 35 for fill depths less than 30 feet and perforations should be placed down. Subdrains should be at least 6 inches in diameter. All subdrains should be surrounded by and be underlain by at least 6 inches of Class 2 "Permeable Material," as defined in Section 68-I .025 of the California Standard Specification (July, 1995). Subdrain trenches should be at least 18 inches wide and at least 4 feet deep. Final trench configurations should be approved by the soils engineer in the field. Subdrain trenches should be capped with engineered fill or topsoil, depending upon the subdrain location. Subdrains should be positioned along the upslope side of all keyway excavations. Subdrain details are presented on Plate 5. Subdrain systems should be discharged into storm drain structures where possible. Some areas of seepage may develop after grading and house construction are completed. Additional subdrains will likely be needed in these areas should seepage develop. FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Because of the relatively significant long-term settlement and swell, it is judged that foundations for residential structures should consist of structurally reinforced mat systems designed to resist potential differential movement of the on-site expansive soils. The design criteria for mat.' foundations should be developed based on the results of the post-grading swell studies of the fill and cut areas. For preliminary planning purposes, the following criteria may be used for estimating mat foundation systems: ,, Structural mat foundations designed to accommodate an estimated 3 inches of differential movement over the length of the house (estimated to be about 60 feet), without experiencing: A. Structural distress to the mat; and B. Excessive deflections in the house framing and wall finishes. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS AugUst 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 15 Structural mat foundations should be designed by a structural engineer for an allowable uniform soil pressure of 1000 psf. The resistance to lateral loading should be calculated using a base friction factor 0.3 acting between the slab subgrade. It is anticipated that additional measures would be required such as: 1) capping building areas with low expansive materials, or 2) pre-soaking surface expansive soils to at least seven percent above optimum moisture content extending at least 18 inches below the bottom of the mat subgrades, prior to mat construction. It may be necessary to revise the design criteria presented above if the collected settlement data and the results of the post-grading swell studies show that the fill settles or swells significantly different from our estimated settlements and swells. COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE STRUCTUREs These structures will likely be supported on either shallow spread footings or deep foundations (either driven piles or cast-in-place driller piers). Such foundation systems will likely require a non-expansive imported fill cap several feet thick over the expansive on-site materials. EXTERIOR FLATWORK It is our opinion that, from a geoteclmical engineering standpoint, exterior concrete flatwork can be supported directly on prepared subgrade. Flatwork placed upon on-site expansive materials will be subject to movement due to soil expansion. From a cost-benefit standpoint, exterior concrete flatwork subgrades exposing expansive soils should be moisture conditioned to at least 5 percent above optimum moisture content to a depth of at least 12 inches to induce some soil expansion prior to placement of concrete; thus reducing the amount of post-construction soil expansion. Also, the exterior concrete work subgrades should not be subject to heavy' construction traffic because it may be overcompacted by these vehicles. UTILITY TRENCHES All excavations should conform to applicable State and Federal industrial safety requirements. Where trench excavations are more than 5 feet deep, they should be slopes and/or shored. Trench walls should be sloped no steeper than i I/2H: iV in dry granular soils, and no steeper than iH:iV in dry, cohesive soils. Flatter trench slopes may be required if seepage is encountered during construction or if exposed soil conditions differ from those encountered by the test borings. If full-sloped trench Walls cannot be excavated due to site constraints, shoring should be provided to ensure trench stability and safety. We will provide soil parameters for shoring design on request. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 16 Materials quality, placement procedures and compaction operations for utility line bedding and shading materials should meet the City of Dublin and/or other applicable agency requirements. Utility trench backfill above the shading materials may consist of native soils, processed to remove rubble, rock fragments over 8 inches in largest dimension, rubbish, vegetation and other undesirable substances. On-site expansive backfill materials should be placed in level lifts about 8 to 12 inches in loose thickness, brought to at least five percent over optimum moisture content and mechanically compacted to between 84 and 88 percent relative compaction at depths below 30 inches of finished grade and not less than 90 percent in the upper 30 inches. Low expansive backfill materials should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction. No jetting is permissible on this project. Depending on time of year, rainfall and local irrigation practice, ground water could be intercepted during trench excavation in which case dewatering is likely to be required. RETAINING WALLS The retaining walls can be supported on footing foundation founded on engineered fill or firm native soils or bedrock. We recommend that the following geotechnical criteria be incorporated in the retaining wall design: Active equivalent fluid pressure Level backfill 45 pcf 3H:iV backfill 55 pcf 2H: iV backfill 65 pcf Allowable.bearing capacity 2000 psf Passive equivalent fluid pressure 350 pcf Friction coefficient 0.35 Minimum footing depth 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade Minimum footing width 18 inches The above recommended lateral pressures are based on drained condition and do not include any surcharges. Therefore, the designer should include the appropriate surcharge loads to the retaining wall design. To prevent hydrostatic pressure build-up, the retaining walls should be provided with permanent backdrains. The backdrain should consist of a blanket of Class 2 permeable material (conforming to Section 68.1025 of the State of California Standard Specifications, dated July, 1995) and a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe (SDR 35). The permeable material blanket should be at least 12 inches thick and should be placed from the base of the retaining wall to BERI_OC, AR GFIDTFCHNIICAI CONIll Il TANITq August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 17 about 1 foot below the finished grade of the top of the retaining wall. The perforated pipe should be placed near the bottom of the wall to carry collected water to a suitable gravity discharge. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS The following recommendations for preliminary asphalt concrete pavement sections are intended as a conceptual guide for planning only. Pavement analyses are based upon an assumed resistance (R)-value of 5, which we expect to be representative of final pavement subgrade materials, the Caltrans "Design Method for Flexible Pavement," and traffic indices CT.I."'s) which are indications of load frequency and intensity. We have assumed that the assigned "T.I.s" include provisions for heavy truck traffic related to construction activities. We recommend the following preliminary pavement sections. Thickness inches) Traffic Index (T.I.) Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base Type B Class 2 3* 7 4 41/2 3* 9 5 3* l0 51/2 3 12 6 3 14 6% 31/2 15 7 4 16 71/z 41/2 20 8I/2 5 Note: * = Minimum asphalt concrete thickness required by the City of Dublin. Prior to subgrade preparation, all utility trench backfill should be properly placed and compacted. Subgrade soils should be rolled to at least 95 percent relative compaction to provide a smooth, ~ surface. Subgrade soils should be maintained in a moist and compacted condition until covered with the complete pavement section. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 · ' Job No. 1394.113 Page 18 Class 2 aggregate base should conform to the requirements in Section 26, Caltrans "Standard Specifications", (July, 1995). The aggregate base should be placed in thin lifts in a manner to prevent segregation, uniformly moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction to provide a smooth, unyielding surface. (Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same soil, as determined by the ASTM D1557-91 compaction test method). Since this is a relatively large grading project and the on-site material properties vary from sandstone to clayey materials, we recommend that samples be obtained from the rough roadway subgrades after mass grading. Resistance R-Value test should be performed on these samples. Final pavement section recommendations should be made on the basis of these test results. To prevent the subgrade soils and aggregate base from saturating by irrigation water or infiltrated rain water, roadway underdrains should be installed at the bottom of the aggregate and below the curb and gutter as shown on Plate 6. Where drop inlets or other surface drainage structures are to be installed, slots or weep holes should be provided to allow free drainage of the contiguous base course materials. CORROSION CONSIDERATIONS The soils corrosivity analysis results (including those from .Area A, Assessment District and Areas B through E) presented in Appendix E shown that the residual soils, colluvium, slide debris and bedrock have conductivities ranging from 190 to 360 umho-cm and the alluvial soils (located on the flat land portion of the site) have conductivities of 700 to 1,000 umh0-cm, Based on the conductivity, the residual soils, colluvium, slide debris and bedrock are classified as "moderately corrosive" while the alluvial soils are classified as "corrosive" to severely' corrosive" to buried metallic pipes and structures. Chloride concentration of 360 to 900 mg/kg were measured in several alluvial soil samples obtained along Interstate 580 and are found to be sufficient to attack steel embedded in concrete or cement mortar coating. In general, relatively low concentrations of sulfate ion (ranging from less than 30 to 50 mg/kg) were detected in all the on-site earth materials and are determined to be insufficient to damage reinforced concrete structures and cement mortar coating. Appropriate corrosion control measures or protection should be considered for the buried metallic pipes and structures, and steel embedded in concrete or cement mortar coating. Commonly used control measures include: 1. Low water/cement ratio concrete; 2. Fly ash additive in concrete; 3. Epoxy coated rebars; 4. Increased concrete cover or cement mortar coating on the rebar; BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICA[ CONSI II. TANT~; August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 19 5. Use of non-metal piping; 6. Apply protective coating to underground metallic pipes; and/or 7. Cathodic protection. SEISMIC HAZARDS FAULTING The site is located outside designated State of California "Special Studies Zones" (1982) for active faulting and no evidence of active or potentially active faulting was found on the site. The potential for fault rupture at the site appears to be low. GROUND SHAKING The site is located in a region of high seismicity given the proximity of the Calaveras fault and other active fault systems in the bay area. As for all sites in the Bay Area, the project can be expected to experience at least one moderate to severe earthquake during the lifespan of the project. Ground shaking is a hazard that can not be eliminated but can be partially mitigated through proper attention to seismic structural design and observance of good construction practices. Analyses by the Association of Bay Area Govermnents (ABAG, 1988) indicates that the site may be subject to "violent" ground shaking from a major earthquake on the Calaveras fault. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis by CDMG (Petersen, 1996) indicates that the ground acceleration at the site with a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years is 0.7g. LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of a saturated, cohesionless soil into a viscous liquid during Strong ground shaking from a major earthquake. There is no evidence of historic ground failure due to liquefaction on the site, nor' did we encountered any earth materials which might be susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the risk of liquefaction is believed to be low. LURCHING Lurching is the sudden swaying, spreading or rolling of the ground during a strong earthquake. Lurching usually is accompanied by the development of fissures on slopes overlain by weak soils. Grading in conformance with the recommendations presented in this report should reduce the risk of lurching to low. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 20 GROUND SUBSIDENCE Ground subsidence can occur as a result of "shakedown" when dry, cohesionless soils are subjected to earthquake vibrations of high amplitude. In general, significant deposits of loose sandy soils do not exist at the site; therefore, seismic induced ground subsidence is not considered a geologic hazard on the property. EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDING Strong ground shaking during a major earthquake is likely to cause sympathetic reactivation of landslides in many parts of the bay area. The stability of all slopes is lower during earthquake disturbances than at other times. Grading in accordance with the recommendations in this report should reduce the risk of seismically induced landslides to low. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations of this report are based upon the information provided to us regarding the proposed improvements, subsurface encountered at the test pit and boring locations, our geologic reconnaissance, the results of the laboratory testing program and professional judgment. This study has been conducted in accordance with current professional geotechnical engineering and engineering geologic standards; no other warranty is expressed or implied. The locations of the test pits and borings were determined by pacing from established cultural features and other points of reference indicated on the drawing supplied by MacKay & Somps, Inc., and should be considered approximate only. The elevations of the borings and other elevations discussed in the text of this report were determined by interpolation between nearest adjacent ground surface contours shown on topographic maps supplied by MacKay & Somps, Inc., and should also be considered approximate only. Site conditions described in the test are those existing at the time of our last field exploration and reconnaissance during January of 1999, and are not necessarily representative of such conditions at other locations and times. If it is found during construction that subsurface conditions differ from those described on the test pit and boring logs then the conclusions and recommendations in this report shall be considered invalid, unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations modified or approved in writing. Our firm should be accorded the opportunity to review the final plans and specifications to determine if the recommendations of this report have been implemented in those documents. The review would be acknowledged in writing. Field observation and testing services are essential and integral parts of this geotechnical investigation. Our firm should be retained to monitor the BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS August 30, 1999 Job No. 1394.113 Page 21 earthwork and other relevant construction operations; the recommendations of this report are contingent upon this stipulation. Respectfully submitted, BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANt,4 Principal Geologist~41[ 1~0 '~fl RI] t/rincipal Engineer, C EG 1239 "~,x~ -~k. /2g.// GE 2326, Exp. 12/31/99 /Frknk ~x~°gar t RPS/PSL/FB :pv Attachments: References Plate 1 - Vicinity Map Plate 2 - Area Geologic Map Plate 3 - Geologic Map Plate 4 - Fill Slope Detail Plate 5 - Typical Subdrain Details Plate 6 - Below Curb and Gutter Subdrain Detail Appendix A - Boring and Test Pit Logs Appendix B - Laboratory Test ReSults' Appendix C - Slope Stability Analyses Appendix D - Assessment District Boring Logs Appendix E - Soils Corrosivity Analysis Results Copies: Mr. Ted Fairfield (1) MacKay & Somps, Inc. (7) Attention: Mr. Jim Templeton ? ~ -~ wpSllreport/7600 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS REFERENCES Publications: Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, May 23, 1988, Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Dublin Ranch, Tassajara Road, Dublin California, unpublished report. .... February 24, 1988, Report, Mocho Fault Investigation, Dublin Ranch, Pappas and Fallon Business park Properties, Dublin California, unpublished report. .... June 19, 1995, Geoteclmical Investigation, Dublin Ranch - Phase 1, Dublin, California, unpublished report. ..., June 12, 1997, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Fallon Road Extension, Dublin Ranch, Dublin, California, unpublished report. ..., November 13, 1998, Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation, November 13, 1998, Pao-Yeh/Lin Property, Tassajara Road, Dublin, California, unpublished report. Borcherdt, R.D., Editor, 1974, "Studies for Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Region", U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 941-A. Borcherdt, R.Di, Gibbs, J.F., and Lajoie, F.R., 1975, "Maps Showing Maximum Earthquake Intensity Predicted in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region, California, for Large Earthquakes on the San Andreas and Hayward Faults", U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-709. Crane, R.C., 1988, Geologic Map of the Livermore Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, unpublished map. Dibblee, T.W., 1980, "Preliminary Geologic Map of the Dublin Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties Cahform , U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-537 ..., 1980, "PrelLm~nary' ' Geologic Map of the Livermore Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California", U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-533B. Graymer, R.W., Jones, D.L., Brabb, E.E, 1996, Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Alameda County, California: Digital Database, U.S Geological Survey Open file Report 96-252. Helley, E.J., Lajoie, K.R., and Burke, D..B., 1972, "Geologic Map of late Cenozoic Deposits, Alameda County, California", U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-429. BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS REFERENCES Publications: (continued) Helley, E.J., and Graymer, R.W, 1997, Quaternary Geology of Alameda County and Surrounding Areas, California: Derived from the Digital Database, USGS Open-File 97-97. Jennings, C.W., 1975, "Fault Map of California, with Locations of Volcanoes, Thermal Springs, and Thermal Wells", California Division of Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 1. Majmundar, H.H., 1991, "Landslide Hazard in the Livermore Valley and Vicinity, Alameda County and Contra Costa Counties, California", CDMG Open File Report 91-2. Nilsen, T.H., 1973, "Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of the Livermore and Part of the Hayward 15-Minute Quadrangles, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California", U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-493~ Peterson, M., et al, 1996, California Fault Parameters, San Francisco Bay Area Faults, www. consrv, ca. gov/dmg/shexp, html. State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982, "Special Studies Zones, Livermore 7.5 Minute Quadrangle." ..., California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982, "Special Studies Zones, Dublin 7 o5 Minute Quadrangle. Unruh, J.R., and Sawyer, T.L., 1997, "Assessment of Blind Seismogneic Sources, Livermore Valley, Eastern San Francisco Bay Region, Final Technical Report, unpublished. U.S. Geological Survey, 1980, "Dublin 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle". .... 1980, "Livermore 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle". Aerial Photographs: Pacific Aerial Surveys, date of photography: September 21, 1973; scale: 1:20,000; Flight Line 1, Panels 97-99. ~ BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAI._ CtDN~;IIITANTq , .:..',:'[ ...... ~:-- /" ~-., z 8OAL'E: 1"= 2000' 0 VICINITY MAP DUBLIN RANCH - PAO YEH LIN PROPERTY TASSAJARA ROAD DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA MS. JENNIFER LIN BABE: PORTION OF U.S.G.B. 7,5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE,DUBLIN & LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA, PHOTOREVISED 1980, AT A SCALE OF 1:24,000, :,, ; PLATE 1 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS i ,,~ _~.~;.: ' ' , , ~ ~ ~.: - .,, i:.," / "- . ~ ~ .. ;, I; i .... SITE ~; et:' ~' ' .... / i:" ,.  '~U .~UU ~ ~" R~la -.' '" ~ .... ; < / '~ .'.' '~ '~ · " D ~E ~ ;- -. 80ALE: 1"= 2000' · > 0 EXP~NATION GEOLOGIO OONTAOT Q a ALLUVIUM i ~ 8D ~ 8THIKE AND DIP OF BEDDING Q ~ t TASS~AHA FOHMATION AREA GEOLOGIC MAP DUBLIN RANCH - PAO YEH LIN PROPERTY TASSAJARA ROAD DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA MS. JENNIFER LIN BASE: PORTIONS OF PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAPS OF THE DUBLIN AND LIVERMORE QUADRANGLES, CALIFORNIA, BY T,W, DIBBLEE, DATED 1980, AT A SCALE OF 1:24,000, pLATE 2 BERLOGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ~ Q DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ,~-' ~, SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 333 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2197 HAY ~ "$ 2(t~ Regulatory Branch SUBIECT: File Number 25144S Mr. James Tong 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, California 94566 Dear Mr. Tong: Enclosed is your signed copy ora Department of the Army permit (Enclosure 1) to construct a masterplarmed residential, commercial and open space development in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Please complete the appropriate parts of "Notice to Permittee" form (Enclosure 2), and remm it to this office. You are responsible for ensuring that the contractor and workers executing the activity authorized herein are knowledgeable with the terms and conditions of this authorization. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Bob Smith of our Reg-ulatory Branch at 415-977-8450. Please address all correspondence to the Regulatory Branch and refer to the file number at the head of this letter. Sincerely, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer Enclosures Copy Furnished (w/encl 1 only): US EPA, San Francisco, CA US FWS, Sacramento, CA CA RWQCB, Oakland, CA CA DFG~ YoUntville, CA {PP, rCAT } NOTICE TO PERMITTEE ~/,,-~lease use the forms below to report the dates when you start and finish the work authorized by the enclosed permit. Also if you suspend win4 ~-('r an extended period °ftime, use the forms below to report the dates you suspended and resumed work. The second copy is for your f~cords. If you fred that you cannot complete the work within the time ganted by the permit, please apply for a time extension at least one month before your permit expires. If you materially change the plan or scope of the work, it will be necessary for you to submit new drawings and a request for a modification of your permit. (cut out as needed) ................................................................................................................................................ Date: NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF WORK under Department of the Army permit No. 25144S TO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market SWeet, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94 t 05-2197 In compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify you 'that the work was completed on Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al. Address: 6601 Owens Drive, Suite I00 Pleasanton, CA 94566- Date: NOTICE OF RESUMPTION OF WORK under Department of the Army permit No. 25144S TO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 In compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify you that work was resumed on F-'~-m~ittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al. dress: 6601 Owens Drive, State I00 Pleasanton, CA 94566- Date: NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF WORK under Department of the Army permit No. 25144S TO: District En~-dneer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 In compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify you that work was suspended on Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al. Address: 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566- Date: NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK under Department of the Army permit No. 25144S TO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Reg21atory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 In compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify you that work was commenced on Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al. Address: 6601 Owens Drive, Suite i00 Pleasanton, CA 94566- I Aug 94 {PRIVATE } NOTICE TO PERMITTEE Pl~-~e use the fom~s below to report the dates when you stall and finish the work authorized by the enclosed pen*nit. Also if you suspend work ,?~ extended period of time, use the forms below to report the dates you suspended and r.esumed work. The sec. ond copy !s for your . o¢,or~ls. If yOu fred that yOU cannot COmplete the work within the thne granted by the permit, please apply for a trane extension at least one month before your perm/t expires. If you materially change the plan or scope of the work, it will be necessary for you to submit new drawings and a request for a modification of your permit. (cut out as needed) ................... , ....................................................................................................................... r .... Date: NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF WORK under Department of the Army permit No. 25144S tO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 tn compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify you that the work was completed on Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al. Address: 6601 Oxvens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566- Date: NOTICE OF RES~TION OF WORK under Department of the Army permit No. 25144S tO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 tn compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, 'this is to notify ~,ou that work was resumed on ?,~-~*tee: Jennifer L/n, et. al. ~ ]s: 61501 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pteasanton, CA 94566- Date: xlOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF WORK under Department of the Army permit No. 25144S I'O: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 2n compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify /ou that work was suspended on Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al.. kddress: 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566- Date: XlOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK under Department of the Army permit No.. 25144S 1'O: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 .in compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify 7ou that work was commenced on ?ermittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al. kddress: 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566- ' Aug 94 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Permittee: Jennifer Linn, et al. Permit No.: 25144S Issuing Office: San Francisco District NOTE. The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: You are authorized to discharge fill into 10.22 acres of wetlands and waters of the United States to construct a residential and commercial development. Work shall be carried out in accordance with the attached plans and drawings labeled" APPLICATION BY: Jennifer Lin, et al; LOCATION: Dublin, CA; COUNTY: Alameda; PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open Space Development" in 17 sheets, dated April 17, 2000 and April 21, 2003. Project Location: The project site is located on unnamed drainages between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road in the City of Dublin, Alameda, County, California. Permit Conditions: General Conditions: 1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on Oct 15~ 2008. If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modifi- cation of this permit from this office, which may re. quire restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. HAG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A)) 1 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the p~rmit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your proje~ct, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience~ a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions: 1. The permittee shall comply .with the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion~a issued on July 1, 2002 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A copy of the opinion is attached. 2. Mitigation shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation and monitoring plan preparedfor this project by H.T. Harvey & Associates labeled: "Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Dublin, Cali- fornia'' dated March 3, 2003. Further Information: 1, Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: ( ) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Actor 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). ( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. Limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. Ba issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the lJaited States in the public interest., c. D~-nages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. e. Damage claims associated with an)-, future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. /'~"i ', 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to ~ ~ ~ the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the follow- ing: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by y.ou in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incom- plete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). c. Significant new information surfaces Which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requir- ing you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where .. appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity ~uthorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevalua- tion of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. ,(' ~,~ Your ~nature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretly of the Army, has signed below. (District =ngineer) Mi~ tv~cc~ck LTC, EN When the structures or work authorized by this permit ~e still in existence at the time the prope~y is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the t~sfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and dati below. (Transferee) (Date) San Francisco PKOmCT A_~EA I San -- Francisco Bay Livermo re Pacific Ocean San Jose DetailI PUP, POSE: .Residential, Commercial and Open VICtNI I'Y MAP PROJECT AREA ~"'"ace Development Scale: 1" = 10 mi LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'~ East of Tassaj ara Road and 200' '- North of I-580. soURcE OF BASE: NGVD APPLICATION BY: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jennifer Lin, et. al. COUNTY: Alameda c7o fames Tong See Application 6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100 FIGURE: 1 of 17 DATE: April 17, 2000 Pleasanton, CA 94566 DETAIL AP,~A M.&2 pROoTECT AREA PURPOSE:' Residential, Commercial and Open '~pace Development Seale: 1" = 3 mi LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± East of Tassajara Road and 200'± North ofl-580. SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD .APPLICATION BY: .ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jennifer Lin, et al. COUNTY: Alameda ~o James Tong See Application 6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100 FIGURE: 2 of 17 DATE: April 17, 2000 Pleasanton, CA 94566 O5 I L M2 M 05 M7 ~ GC ~ I ........ / GC co LEGEND I-S&O PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT AREA g,--'-~.? Development o 2~o 5oo ~oo¢ ~ ~ LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'4- East of Tassajara SCALE: I "= 1000' :. voRCE OF BASE: NGVD Road and 200'4- North of 1-580. APPLICATION BY: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: lennifer Lin, et. al. COUNTY: Alameda See Application c/o James Tong 660I Owens Dr., Suite 100 FIGURE: 3 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003 Pleasanton, CA 94566 ' ~ iiii '...,....'~ .";..,.. .: ..,.v...,..,..,. ...... .. ~..........~.~...-~ ... i., ~,~ ( ".'.' ? ,,, ,, ',,...- '.. ~...~:- ........ '.:. ? /..~. .- ..... .::~ . ,-:;., .:':..:. ~,i ......-' ' ...... '~ :".. ~ ..~ ........ . ............. . ...... ?.. . ,~._¥ '~..., ...... '--::~' '*-:~'~-'-":'~: ........ I--.-5, &O '::::'"-' JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AREA Total I ~ 0.2~ ~C · pURPOSE: Residential, Cmrmaercial and Open JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF TH~ PROJECT AREA UNqTED STATES 'gpace Development o 2so soo ~ooo LOCATION:' Dublin. CA. 900'--' East of Tassajara ~ . I SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD sc^c[:~'~ooo' Road and 200'-' NorthofI-580. APPLICATION BY: .~dDJACENT PROPERTY O'~XrERS: Jennifer Lin, et. al. COUNT~: Alaraech S ~o James Toug ee Application 6601 Owens Dr., Suite I00 FIGURE: 4 of 17 DATE: A~ril 17, 2000 Pleasanton, CA 94566 ' 'AREA F /AREA B . AREA C AREA H -_ .~:_:~. 1-580 LEGEND PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES PROJECT AREA TO BE FILLED ~ce Development o 2so soo ~ooo LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'+ East of Yassajara sc~,tE:~"~ ~ ooo' Road and 200'* North of 1-580. .... tJRCB OF BASE: NGVD APPLICATION BY: ADIACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: lennifer Lin, et. al. COUNTY: Alameda See Application c/o James Tong 6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100 FIGURE: 5 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003 Pleasanton, CA 94566 AREA C AREA H 1-580 LEGI~ND PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open ON-SITE MITIGATION PROJECT AREA _Space Development o 2so soo 4ooo ',, ~ LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'±EastofTassajara ~', ,OURCE OF BASE: NGVD sca, ce ~"= ~ ooo' Road and 200':t: Norda of 1-580. I APPLICATION BY: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jennifer Lin, et. at. COUNTY: Alameda c/o James Tong See Application 660l Owens Dr., Suite 100 FIGURE: 6 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003 Pleasanton, CA 94566 PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open OFF-SITE MITIGATION PROJECT AREA Development :. " LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'4- East of Tassajara Road and 200'4- North ofi-580. ~. _,URCE OF BASE: NGVD APPLICATION BY: I ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jennifer Lin, et. al. COUNTY: Alameda See Application c/o James Tong 6601 Owens Dr., Suite I00 FIGURE: 7 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003 Pleasanton, CA 94566 ,.'., i'. ;~] .... .' ._ .~'~[. ,(:: .. ,t . '~-.. , ',~.:".: . . , ' ' '~' ' : ...... ~7~' ~ o~ ~ ,~*_,~ ...... -~:~_ ',*-, ':'.-L .':',. .; ; .,',." 'x ".'" ' ".~, J~, , '~:'" .... ~~.~~"~' ]'~ %?'~,'; ~ i .."~;~¥" :': ;7 ':. . .':'~ 7¥':... '~hti~d ~ ~. I. I ..~ ~ ~i' i:v. r.I',E; I:',':~}' '~'t'.V"":i~::' :~'.:'t~'.'.'~'~¥!~g'?." ' ,~' :?~A''':P~ ' ,',.',~ - '?: .... , ,. ~ , ,,. · , '-~ , .'-'...~ . ,-,. '.---.- ....... ':,' ....... , , ._ ,~.~,. , ...... ~ ....... . .... , ..... , , .. ,,.., ' t ~ t -, ' ~'. ,. t '.¥t~.~ ;::-~1~.. ~-- ~ ' ::~ :' ...-..~%'~. :.:.-..- ~ :: . · *~ .. ... ,. - ..... ...,: '~ .~,. ..' t I ~ - , .... . .... . ....... , .... .l ..~- , ,. ~ ,..:.,:..~ ,~, .... ~...,.....¥~ ..... ,.. ,~,. ,h.~,,.. . ~ :-. ..... .. ~.~ . .-: .. ~ ';: . ~-~~ ~:: r~ll~[~: ,~:f~:~-:: ?.: .'::..... ,.:. ?, . .:.,.:~(¥~ . . _ _ · .... .... ....... ~ -~I' ' .... ~ ~'~ ~ '~': ': ~' · ~ - '-?'" '~' ~ ' '~7~q ' ' . -~._~ ...... .: :....,.,~ ...... ,.: ...... .: .. , , . ,..,:~ ~ . -..,,..;>., ~~'~ , · ,' , ..... ~:t~ ~:~ ........ .... ~ ~ ~ 'T ..... , : . ~,' ~ ,~'t~ -~I~ ~,,t~:~ ~ ' %~- ''~" ' · ' .' . ..,-, :~:t, ~' ..- · . ~ ,.' t ~ .~ . ~'1 ,. :~.,-~,~ ~ .... ~ · · · " ", >"~:'. '~ - ~' i. .~L,':'~',::" ~.t'~'>::~ '' " ' L ~ ' ' ~ .":'2v' ~.~. : . ~'~[.~ .' ;~-~ :.~ .... ~> .-'-:' ' V':. ', ' ,' .......... ~ ~¥'.->~1 ~= ',n · ,: ~ .~.~ -'. · · ;, .,., fl ~::,~ M:~ .... .,, ...... ~ ,~ -~ ,'' JIt~J · - - ~'.~'.,, '. :.'~ · ~., .:~,;~ :... , " ~ ~ ~' ~ : ~ ~ ~ "' ':~::: :~:t: :':~" ...... ~::~,.!~ :~: ,'.~. ' ~ ,1'.' · - . ~ ~ ~ ...~~.,-. ~... ... -:........,~,~'.~: .... . . · .~ ~ ~ . ~< ~,~.,, ~..~ ; .-~. · , z : ~ , __ ~o~~,~.~, · .- . . t~,~,t,.~, [. ~~. .,,~. . ~ M~ ,": ~ ~'; ~, / IU/; r[~l-- ~ ~ ~ i :~4~ -.: ,. * *. - ..... . . [ " z/:,.~,/z I ~ ~,,~,,~ , ~.. ,,,..~,, .., . ~--~~~ . ,, . .... ' · ;/~ii ' ~/ "'"~'.ttll~;~,~'~ I~ ~ ..h', Z ,.' ~ u~c~v,~,,~:o~ '.:~?,~ r-.-.,-. ~ ;,-.,,'~,.~>~T~ ~,~ · .' ' ~ - ..... ,, .-I,. -. ...... . .., [" .' .': - ~- ~ ' ~',) .. ~L,' ~ ~ I ~==~i=r~ cr~ ' ", " ..... ' -'~,~ L~ATION: ~ T~saj~ ~o~d ~d 200'~ No~h o[I-580. 80~C~ O~ BASE: NG~ ~P~ICATION BY: i J~nifer Lin, ct. ;i . ~AC~ PKOPER~ O~KS: ~o.5~es. Tong ~ S~ A~pli'~6n 6601 ~s ~., Suit~ 100 FIG~E: 10 of 17 DA~: Ap~l 21, 2003 Pl~ton, CA 94566 ~o~o~,~ ~ P~OSE: Res~d~ndal, Co~erc~a] and Open NOR~ERN D~AOE ~ REDO~CK PROfECY ~EA D~v~lopm~n~ SECTION VIEW LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'~ Eas~ of ] APPLICATION BY: ~ACENT PROPER~ O~ERS: ~n~f~ Lin, ~t ~. CO~TY: A~da S~ AppHoadon o/o ~s Tong 660~ ~ Dr., Su~t~ ~00 FIO~: l l of 17 DATE: April 2], 2003 Pl~on, CA 94566 ' ~. .... .: , ..... ~~~'~'~~'~' .~L,:~' :~,,, '/ ......, ~""C~""':'""''~"'"'X~'~"'"'"'~ '~~ k ~ ' O~ %' "- "" "~::".:' N '--:: ,: .,,','., ..,,... ..... . ..... :...: ... : ~n,, ..... ",',. ~.',,:',, ....... '-.."- ~.. _. ~~~~: ¥.~ --,x, ,,~,,.'~,. . ..,->-..' , /~ ~.,.~>. ,. "'.., ............ :>.: ..... . "?' ~ ~~~: % ~'"", ' '.",','>?,' ...":'-'>':--~:l~ i ~, ~ , .' ........ ' ...... · '~ ~ ", ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ,~ ~. =. , : ,. ,,,,~,,.-. :.-:~.. ~ ~ ~ ,, / ~ '~ . , ~ % ,, ' ~, , ~ / ; . '"', r'"' ". . ~,X~O,~ ,.,' .... '" :~ ~',', ~ / ~ '~ '~ ~ '. ~ ~~1~ ". ~ ..... I.'~ , ,', "~..' .... ~ '..' ~ ', '~ '-'~~ ~. ' ....... ' ........ "., ~1 :,:C,.::?:--', ~::~:~',. .-~ ~ ~ ~~~~. -"~ ' ', '., :t~:.~"..: ........ ~ ~ ':'~ X ", ~ .~~~~ i--, ~ 'N ~xx '-.'~-" ~ ] ~ z'--' -~ ~ '~'~ ',-~_ ~, ' .......~ ~, ,. ".. ~-. ~. ~ ~ '~ '.--. ....... :~-' '--~ ~ Xx~ x~~A~ ~ ...... , ....... '.4--~ k N ':~k .:x"?..>, -.. ~.... ,~' ~ I ~ ...... ~ .... 4-.,_ ~."'~-:" ~-~ '. ~ , ~ ~ '. .... ', , ~'~ ..... -- x~ .~ ~ ~.,,. '~--- ~%~_~...~...~. .)~ ~ .~_. :[~[{=~,~ Po~2 1.~a~ , . · ~ ~ %. ~ , ~ , ~ , ,i~/,/7h , .,.,~;~ ~,~ ,/~,,, P~dll O.~a~ ....... - "' ~ .... ~',,/~,~x,~'~,:z '"',' /:~~ ~- , , ~ ........ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~hu~',/,'~z/,.~:::~.~<:-.~· , .. . ........... , ......... ' -. = ~ .. '~. ~ :, .,.~ ~ :,~,~:',~,:,,~ x,': , ,;~.~:~ :. . - , ~, / ~ ~ - z · ~ ,I ~ ,t¢~:,~ ~ xxx~,~:~,,,~~ ~ ~ ~s~st~Pond ~ , ~... ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~,~ ,.,1,',' .'3 ~ I~'~x~.~,~ ,x--i{:~ ~ ~ ~ ...... · .......... .-., .-q ~ -~-~ ~ ~-~¥~ >:3g,~ ~;~Jt~r', ~ . ~ ....... ~ , n ~ ,..~ . ~ ~ ,, ~x~' ~,'~'~'~ ~ [ ~ ',~ X :~ k~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~X'~ ~ ~' ~'~'~ ! ~ dee~rsubzo~s~lhm~mum ~'~ .... -ql -'x '-d ', ~ ', '. ~ :~ ,~ ~,~ ~1 ~q~ , ,,~-b [ C} ~ -.. . -' ., '~ / t : _- , k ~ x ', /.~. L~ Seasonal Drainage to ~ Pmse~ · '~'~'v ' ""Y '" ...... . ..... , ..... / .., . ~,. ,.. ~ ~., 'u ~ ~ ~, ~ .~ ~' ,, P~OSE: Residential, Co~ercial and Open L~ LIVE~O~ MITIGATION SITE PROJECT ~A ~pace Development PLAN V~W ~ LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'~ Eat of Tasajm Road and 200'~ Noah ofi-580. -. .... oO~CE OF BASE: NG~ APPLICATION BY: ADJACENT PROPERTY O~ERS: Jennifer Lin, et al. CO~TY: Alameda c/o Jmes Tong See Application 6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100 FIG~: 12 of t 7 DATE: Aph121, 2003 Pier,ton, CA 94566 o<- om- I ~ PtIRPOSE: Residential, Comm~rc{a! and Open LIN L~VER~ORE ~TIOATION S~TE PRO~CY ~A ~cc Development SECTION VIEW ~ LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'~ E~t of ~'.- ~CE OF BASE: NG~ APPLICATION BY: T~sajara Road ~d 200'~ No~h ofi-580. ADJACENT PROPERTY O~ERS: Jennifer Lin, et. al. CO~TY: Almeda  c/o Jmes Tong See Application 6601 ~ens Dr., Suite 100 FIG~E: 13 of 17 DATE: April 21,2003 Pier,ton, CA 94566 PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open TAS SAJARA CREEK PROJECT AREA Space Development PLAN VIEW LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± East of Tassajam Read and 200'~: North of 1-580. SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD APPLICATION BY: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jennifer Lin, et. al. COLrbrrY: Alameda 'See Apts~l'ication' .c/o J~mes Tong 6601 Owens Dr.~ Suite 100 FIGURE: t4 o£~7 DATE: April 21, 2003 Pleasar~ton, CA 94566 Tassajara Riparian Creek Restoration Setback / Open Space Channel Site Existing Ripadan Habitat Setback / Open Space > < ) ~ ~ (setback varies from 100-260 ft,) (average 100 foot setback width varies width varies from top-of-bank) depending on Lin property CDFG boundary and future Fallen Rd. jurisdictional location) area miligation West Bank · East Bank ?. ,~- ,,9 LEGEND Native Willow and Oak Saplings to be Protected Native Wiliow Cuttings to be Installed in Floodplain and at Toe of Eroded Streambank Slope Fence to be Removed Existing Garbage / Debris to be Removed Noie: A mu~-use trail will be located w~thin PUP. POSE: Residential, Commercial and Open TASSAJARA CREEK PROJECT AREA Development SECTION VIEW , LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'~ East of Tassajara Road and 200'± North ofi-580. i~,,_,URCE OF BASE: NGVD APPLICATION BY: I ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Jennifer Lin, et. al. COUNTY: Alameda i c/o James Tong See AppliCation 6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100 FIGURE: 15 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003 Pleasanton, CA 94566 P~OSE: Residential, Commercial and Open LOWER NOR~RN D~AGE PROJECT ~A ~Space Development PLAN V~W LOCATION: Dubl~, cA. 900'~ E~t of ; T~sajm Road and 200'~ No~h ofi-580. 20~CE OF BAsE~ NG~ APPLICATION BY: Jennifer Lin, et. al. CO~TY: Almeda ~IACENT PROPERTY O~ERS: c/o Jmes Tong See Application 6601 ~ens Dr., Suite Pl~mton, CA 9456~ FIG~: 16 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003 LOWER NORTHERN DRAINAGE PROJECT AREA PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open T'FPICAL CROSS SECTION OF ADDITIONAL ,~.a~¢e Development RESTORATION SITE WHERE SPACE IS LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'* East of AVAILABLE Tassajara Road and 200'4- North ofi-580. ,, ...... d-RCE OF BASE: NGVD APPLICATION BY: Jennifer Lin, et. al. COUNTY: Alameda ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: c/o lames Tong I See Application 6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100 FIGURE: 17A of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003 Pleasanton, CA 94566 ?i ¢" 0 z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o /.- ~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~00 /~ 0~ I LO~R NORTHE~ D~AGE PRO.CT ~A P~OSE: Residential, Commercial and Open TYPIC~ CROSS SECTION OF ~DITIONAL . ~ -Space Development ~STO~T[ON SI~ ~E~ SPA~ IS LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900~ East of L~I~D T~sajam Road and 200~ No~h of 1-580. .~..~' SO.CE OF BASE: NG~ APPLICATION lennifer Lin, et. al. CO~TY: Almeda ~JACENT PROPERTY O~RS: c/o Jmes Tong See Application 6601 Owem Dr., Suite 100 FIG~: 17B of 17 DATE: Apd121, 2003 Ple~mn, CA 94566