Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6.1 Dublin Rch No Annex
G~~~ OF DUB~~ /9/ ~~~ ~~ \~~~~// l `04LIFOR~~ STAFF REPORT DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File # ^®©®-©~ DATE: December 1, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJE Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area (PA 08-045) Prepared By: Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: X20-3Q 600-60 Dublin Ranch North (formerly known as Redgewick) is 157.7 acres located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area and the City's Sphere of Influence, but outside of the City limits. The proposed Project includes a request that the City of Dublin submit an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation of the property into the City. The proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would modify the existing land use designations from Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agriculture to Estate Residential and Open Space. Approval of a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan would allow construction of four custom residential homes on approximately 30 acres (in the future). The remaining portion of the site (127.3 acres) will be designated as Open Space and maintained in a permanent conservation easement. The Applicant also requests approval of a Development Agreement as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; 5) Adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Dublin Ranch North Project; 6) Adopt a Resolution directing Staff to file an application with the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area into the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District; 7) Adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area; 8) Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance prezoning the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area to the Planned Development Zoning District and approving a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 9) Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for Dublin Ranch North between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin; and 10) Adopt a Resolution approving aPre-Annexation Agreement for Dublin Ranch North between the City of D and ong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin. _~ -'-- Su fitted By evie ed y Community Development Director Assistant Gity'tvlanager Page 1 of 11 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION: Background: The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area (previously referred to as the Redgewick property) consists of 2 parcels, which includes a 157.2 acre parcel owned by the Lin Family and a 0.5 acre parcel owned by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The project area is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) near the northeasterly City Limits. The project area is shown in the vicinity map to the right. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area includes the last two remaining Figure 1: Vicinity Map ~4~ I DUH[.AI parcels in eastern Dublin that are within the City's Sphere of Influence but not within the City Limits. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area is within the boundaries of the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipated future development of the site with up to 68 dwelling units. The Applicant is proposing to cluster development of 4 dwelling units on approximately 30.4 acres in the northwestern portion of the Lin parcel, which results in the reduction of 64 dwelling units on the site. The remaining 126.8 acre portion of the Lin property is proposed as Open Space and will be protected by a conservation easement. The proposed conservation easement will be maintained in perpetuity for the protection of wildlife. This area has been preserved and enhanced as mitigation for impacts from earlier development associated with Dublin Ranch. The Lin parcel is currently vacant and is used for grazing pursuant to a grazing management plan. The grazing that occurs on the proposed conservation easement will continue in the future. The 0.5 acre parcel owned by DSRSD is improved with a Zone 3 water tank and access road. No further development is proposed on this parcel. The DSRSD parcel is proposed to be designated as Open Space; however, it will not be a part of the future conservation easement. The Applicant requests that the City of Dublin submit an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation of the property into the City. The Applicant also requests approval of General Plan and Specific Plan amendments to modify the existing land use designations on the site. Additionally, the Applicant .requests approval of a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create four custom residential home sites and a conservation area. The project also includes a Development Agreement and aPre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin. Page 2 of 11 Planning Commission Action On November 10, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the Dublin Ranch North project. At the public hearing, the Planning .Commission discussed the proposed land use plan, the topography of the site, the project's visibility from surrounding areas and fire access issues (the Planning Commission Agenda Statement is included as Attachment 1 and the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are included as Attachment 2). The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016 (Resolution 09-46) and recommended that the City Council take the following actions: • Direct Staff to file an application with the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area into the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District (09-43); • Amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation of Dublin Ranch North from Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural to Estate Residential and Open Space (Resolution 09-42); • Approve a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (Resolution 09-44); • Approve the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin (Resolution 09-41); and • Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area (Resolution 09-45). An analysis of each of the requested entitlements, including the Vesting Tentative Tract Map that was approved by the Planning Commission, is discussed below. Annexation The project site is currently located within a portion of unincorporated Alameda County and within the City's and Dublin San Ramon Services District's (DSRSD) Sphere of Influence. The City has planned for the eventual annexation of this area through the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Annexation to the City and to DSRSD must be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in order for the project to come under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin and to receive services from DSRSD. LAFCo is a State mandated local agency that oversees boundary changes to cities and special districts. Following annexation, the City will have jurisdiction and authority over plan approvals and the project will be serviced by the City and DSRSD, which serves that portion of the City with water and sewer facilities. The application for annexation (or reorganization, as referenced by LAFCo) includes a list of specific requirements with the most significant being: 1) prezoning by the City; and 2) a municipal services plan. The adopted prezoning must be consistent with the City's General Plan. The Applicant's request includes a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. These requests are consistent with each other and further discussed below. A Resolution recommending that the City Council direct Staff to file an application with LAFCo to annex the properties is included as Attachment 3. Page 3 of 11 'lan Amendments Residential density in the vicinity of the proposed development varies. Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West), located northwest of the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property, has land use designations of Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 dwelling units/acre), Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 dwelling units/acre) and Medium High Residential (14.1- 25.0 dwelling units/acre). The Fallon Crossing development, located west of the property, has land use designations of Single Family Residential and Open Space. The Silvera Ranch development, also located west of the project site has land use designations of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential and Rural Residential. Casamira Valley, located north of the project site, has land use designations of Medium Density Residential, Open Space and Rural Residential. Alameda County properties with Agricultural zoning are located east of the project site. The Applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use designations and reduce the development potential for the project site. The current land use designations of the project site include Low Density Residential (0.0 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre) and Rural Residential/Agricultural (1 unit per 100 Gross Residential acres). Please refer to Figure 2 below for the location of existing land use designations. It was assumed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that 67 low density dwelling units and 1 rural residential dwelling unit would be constructed on the Dublin Ranch North site (Table 1). Figure 2: Existing Land Use Designations: Figure 3: Proposed Land Use Designations: Rkday 6 Hu~Uer RRA Standard i PacNc ~~ ::,---1 ~ ~ ltd\,... ~ RasMeMlal I 30.41 ac. ~ ~ =Pw 121.3saagra4s G~ f'~,~A I ~~~~ 9 ~~ RRA `~.,.,~ Ranch ~ i •"~ I Page 4 of 11 The Applicant proposes to change the land use designations to Estate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space and would therefore reduce the overall density on the site and lower the permitted number of dwelling units. Please refer to Figure 3 above for location of proposed land use designations. The proposed Estate Residential Land Use designation would permit up to 24 dwelling units. However, the Applicant proposes to limit development to 4 dwelling units as discussed in the Planned Development Prezoning and Vesting Tentative Map discussion below. Please refer to Table 1 below for a comparison of the existing and proposed land uses. Table 1: Site Area, Proposed Densities, Maximum Number of Residential Dwellings General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designations Existing Land Use Plan Proposed Land Use Plan Acres Units Proposed Density (du/ac) Acres Units Density (du/ac) Estate Residential - - - 30.4 4 .13 Low Densit Residential 16.8 67 4 - - - Rural Residential/ A riculture 143.2 1 .01 - - - O en S ace - - - 127.3 - - TOTAL 160.0* 68 N/A 157.7 4 N/A *According the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the project site is 160 acres. This number represents a boundary that was not surveyed. The project site is actually 157.7 acres, as determined by a boundary survey that was conducted by the Applicant. The General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan do not have an Estate Residential Land Use designation. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing to add the Estate Residential land use designation to the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Estate Residential Land Use designation is currently used in the General Plan Western Extended Planning Area. The Estate Residential Land Use designation is as follows: Estate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 du/ac): typical ranchettes and estate homes within this density range. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit. The request includes related amendments to various figures, texts and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. The following is a summary of the proposed amendments. Please refer to Attachment 4 for a complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Table 2.1 of the General Plan in addition to Table 4.1, Table 4.10 and Appendix 3 were amended as follows: 0 30.4 acres and 4 units of Estate Residential was added; 0 127.3 acres to Open Space was added; 0 16.8 acres and 67 units were removed from Single Family; and Page 5 of 11 0 143.2 acres and 1 unit were removed from Rural Residential/Agricultural. o A footnote was added to the table regarding the 64 units not used on the Dublin Ranch North project site. Table 4.2 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was amended as follows: 0 4 units of Estate Residential was added; 0 67 units were removed from Single Family; and 0 1 unit was removed from Rural Residential/Agricultural. o A footnote was added to the table regarding the 64 units not used on the Dublin Ranch project site. Appendix 4 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was amended as follows: o Owner name changed from Redgewick to Lin; 0 30.4 acres and 4 units of Estate Residential added; 0 126.8 acres of Open Space added; o Single Family Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural were removed; o DSRSD was added to the owner list; 0 0.5 acres of Open Space was added (DSRSD parcel). A Resolution recommending the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Dublin Ranch North project is included as Attachment 4. Planned Development Prezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan & Stage 2 Development Plan The existing zoning (Alameda County) of the project site is Agricultural. The Applicant is requesting a Planned Development (PD) Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 157.7 acre site. Among other things, the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan establishes the site area, conceptual site plan, proposed density, maximum number of dwelling units, development standards, such as lot coverage, building height and setback requirements, design principles, landscaping requirements, fence and wall standards and project entry and streetscape standards to ensure a cohesive and attractive development. The proposed PD -Stage 1 Development Plan will serve as the prezoning prerequisite for annexation. Upon Annexation, the Planned Development Zoning will take effect. The proposed PD Zoning and related Development Plan are consistent with the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as discussed in the section above). The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan allows a maximum of 4 residential dwelling units on the project site. This is within the density of the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Estate Residential and Open Space land use designations. Lot sizes will range from 4.5 acres to 12.9 acres. The four estate lots are designed to provide a country estate character of homes. Designated building envelopes for the primary residence are established on all four lots as shown on the Stage 2 Development Plan to limit the impact of development on the hillside. Approximately 10 acres of the 157.7 acre project site will be Page 6 of 11 disturbed by grading. This includes approximately 7 acres to create the access road and the building pads and an additional 3 acres for remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical engineer..... The majority of the site is designated as open space (126.8 acres) and will be a permanently managed environmental conservation area. These lands have been designated as a mitigation area for development impacts on environmental resources from other areas of Dublin Ranch. This area will provide permanent habitat and/or nesting sites for Red Legged Frogs, California Tiger Salamanders and Golden Eagles. Grazing currently occurs on this conservation land pursuant to a grazing management plan and will continue in the future. These lands will be placed in a conservation easement and will be managed consistent with a Mitigation Monitoring Plan approved by the resource agencies. The Applicant has worked with these resource agencies to gain the Agencies' approval for the creation and the long term management of this conservation area. Maintenance of these managed environmental areas is privately funded by a land trust. As part of the application, the Applicant is proposing Land Use and Design Standards. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area Land Use and Design Standards are designed to provide guidance for the future homebuilder in the construction of the homes. The intent of the design guidelines are to preserve the rural character of the project site while allowing for creativity and quality design. The Project has been designed to be a small community that conforms to the existing site and the surrounding area. The design standards include landscaping requirements, fence and wall standards, project entry and streetscape standards to ensure a cohesive and attractive development. The Development Plan provides for the ability of the Dublin Ranch North development to be a gated community. Pursuant to Chapter 8.40 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the gate would be permitted through Site Development Review. Additionally, the Development Plan provides for a variety of fences and walls, which include privacy fence, view fence, rail fence and agricultural fence (barbed wire). The City Council Ordinance approving a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 5) contains various requirements and standards on fences and walls. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8016 The Project includes a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 157.2 acre Lin parcel (does not include the 0.5 acre DSRSD parcel) into 5 lots. Lots 1 - 4, which total 30.4 acres, are located in the northwestern portion of the project site and they comprise the portion of the project site where development will occur. The lot sizes for these lots range from 4.5 acres to 12.9 acres. Lot 5, which is 126.8 acres, will be placed in a permanent conservation easement for the protection of wildlife. The 0.5 acre DSRSD property is already a legal parcel and is not included as part of the Vesting Tentative Map. Access to the site will be provided from the Silvera Ranch Phase 4 development by way of Cydonia Court (planned future street). Silvera Ranch has access from both Fallon Road and Tassajara Road. Cydonia Court is an eastward bearing cul-de-sac that provides access and utilities to the project area. From this cul-de-sac, a single private driveway will serve the four Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area lots. Page 7 of 11 An on-site bioswale will collect stormwater run-off from the access road and upper slopes and direct flows to the existing storm drain line in the Silvera Ranch development. The increase in run-off can be accommodated by the Silvera Ranch storm drain lines. The actual size and location of the proposed storm drain facilities will be determined with the improvement plans approval during the Final Map approval process. Each development lot will be expected to drain to the on-site bioswale, as grades permit. Construction of this Project will depend on market demand, the completion of Cydonia Court (from Silvera Ranch -Phase 4) and utilities from adjacent properties. The proposed Project would create 4 estate lots, which may be bought and developed individually as custom homes. Each single-family residence will require a Site Development Review Permit. During the Site Development Review process, the proposed residences will be evaluated to ensure that they meet the intent of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans. The Planning Commission approved the Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 10, 2009 subject to the property being annexed to the City and the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 6). Development Agreement Projects within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) require a Development Agreement between the City and the .Developer. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to obtain certain commitments and establish certain development rights for the property. The Development Agreement must be approved prior to issuance of building permits for development of the property. Staff has worked with the Applicant to prepare a draft Development Agreement. The proposed Development Agreement is between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin. The proposed Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change the zoning and other laws applicable to the Project for a period of five years. The Development Agreement augments the City's standard development regulations, defines financial responsibilities of the developer and provides terms for the developer to advance funds for specific facilities which have a community or area-wide benefit or for reimbursement from future development, as appropriate. Development Agreements are approved by an Ordinance of the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. The City Council Ordinance is attached as Attachment 7, with the Development Agreement included as Exhibit A. Pre-Annexation Agreement The goals and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require land that is annexed to the City and new development be revenue neutral. Prior to submitting an annexation request to LAFCo, the City requires that aPre-Annexation Agreement be entered into by the developer. The Pre-annexation Agreement guarantees that the cost of providing services to the project will not exceed the revenue received from the project, and will also ensure that the financing goals and policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan are met. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Pre-Annexation Agreement is attached as Attachment 8 with the Pre-Annexation Agreement included as Exhibit A. Page 8 of 11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin 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 alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a 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. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise, and other impacts. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted by the City to encourage orderly growth of the Eastern Dublin area. Because the Eastern Dublin project proposed urbanization of the almost completely undeveloped Eastern Dublin area, the Eastern Dublin EIR also analyzed conversion of agricultural and open space lands to urban uses. These impacts, together with visual impacts from urbanization, were also determined to be significant and unavoidable. Where the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts that could be mitigated, the previously adopted mitigation measures that are applicable to this Project and Project site continue to apply to the Dublin Ranch North project. The Eastern Dublin EIR was a Program EIR and evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. As such, the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the cumulative effects of developing in agricultural and open space areas and the basic policy considerations accompanying the change in character from undeveloped to developed lands. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects along Tassajara Road such as Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West), Fallon Crossing, Vargas, and Pinn Brothers/Silvera Ranch, as well as projects elsewhere in Eastern Dublin such as Dublin Ranch and Fallon Village have been approved, relying on the Program EIR. The EIR evaluated development of the project site with 68 dwelling units. For the proposed Dublin Ranch North project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA laws and regulations. The project assessed in this MND includes the annexation, amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (including revised land uses), prezoning to Planned Development (PD), with the related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Development Agreement, Pre-Annexation Agreement and a Vesting Tentative Map to allow the eventual development in accordance with the approved plans. The City, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study to determine whether there would be environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study reviewed the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan site plan, Vesting Tentative Map and also reviewed updated biological, cultural and geotechnical studies for the project. Based on the project description, the Initial Study determined that the project could result in significant but mitigatable site- specific impacts. Page 9 of 11 A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and circulated for public review from October 6, 2009 to November 5, 2009. During the public review period, the City received two comment letters, one from the Dublin San Ramon Services District, dated October 26, 2009 and one from the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), dated November 9, 2009. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared responses to the comments in the LAFCo letter, providing the City's good faith reasoned analysis as to the environmental issues raised in the comments. No response to comments was required for the DSRSD letter, since this letter advised that the District can serve the water and sewer demand for the project. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project as set forth in Attachment 9, with the Mitigated Negative Declaration included as Exhibit A and the Comment Letters included as Exhibits B and C and the Response to Comments included as Exhibit D. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project about the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. CONCLUSION: The Applicant's submittal package is included as Attachment 10 of the Staff Report. The design guidelines and standards found within this booklet have been incorporated into the Ordinance prezoning the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area to the Planned Development Zoning District and approving a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed annexation request includes the Dublin Ranch North property. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City's planning efforts and would provide for the logical and orderly extension of the City. The proposed Dublin Ranch North project includes estate housing types which will increase housing choices in the vicinity. The project has been designed to protect the natural resources on the site by focusing the development envelope away from the resources. A General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is proposed for the Dublin Ranch North project to decrease the density on the site. The proposed amendment would change the Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural land use designations to Estate Residential and Open Space. The Planned Development Zoning is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and will allow a maximum of 4 dwelling units on the site. The majority of the project site, approximately 127 acres, will be placed in a conservation easement and maintained in perpetuity. The Vesting Tentative Map subdivides the Lin parcel into 4 residential lots for future development and an open space conservation parcel. The proposed Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin provides security to the developer that the City will not change the zoning and other laws applicable to the Project for a period of five years. The Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin guarantees that the cost of providing Page 10 of 11 services to the area will not exceed the revenue received from the area and will assure that the financing goals and policies of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Dublin Ranch North project. This document includes mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts of the projects to a less than significant level. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Agenda Statement, November 10, 2009 -_ (without Attachments). 2. Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes, November 10, 2009. 3. Resolution directing Staff to file an Application with the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area into the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. 4. Resolution approving amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area. 5. Ordinance Prezoning the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area to the Planned Development Zoning District and approving a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. 6. Planning Commission Resolution 09-46 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016. 7. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for Dublin Ranch North between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin, with the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit A. 8. Resolution approving aPre-Annexation Agreement for Dublin Ranch North between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin, with the Pre-Annexation Agreement attached as Exhibit A. 9. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Dublin Ranch North project, with the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A, comment letters, attached as Exhibits B and C, and response to comments attached as Exhibit D. 10. Dublin Ranch North Annexation Booklet. Page 11 of 11 ~~~OFDpBl ' ~ ~`1v G~~;;~~^ LG 1 19`(dB~j;~~/~~ z AGENDA STATEMENT ~'VVC" ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 10, 2009 '1LIFOR~ SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative Act): PA 08-045 Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area PA 08-045: Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement acid Mitigated Negative Declaration. Report prepared by Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City .Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area project, with the MND included as Exhibit A (CD). 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council direct Staff to file an application with Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area into the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. 3) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change Dublin Ranch North from Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural to Estate Residential and Open Space, with the draft Resolution attached as Exhibit A. 4) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch North, with the draft City Council Ordinance included as Exhibit A. 5) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Map 8016, with the Vesting Tentative Map attached as Exhibit A. 6) Resolution recommending that the. City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin for Dublin Ranch North, with the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and the Development Agreement attached as Exhibit B. 7) Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area booklet. RECOMI~~NDATION: 1) Receive Staff Presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; (~ 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; ~` 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch North; 6) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council direct Staff to file an application with Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the Dublin Ranch North ATTACHMENT 1 COPIES TO: Property Owner/Applicant File ~-tenn ~ l~, l Ia I ~ f og 7) 8) 9) 10) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a~ ~' ~~{4 Annexation Area into the .City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District; Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change Dublin Ranch North from Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural to Estate Residential and Open Space; Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Prezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch North; Adopt a Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Map 8016; and Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin for Dublin Ranch North. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area (previously referred to as the Redgewi~k property) consists of 2 parcels, which includes a 157.2 acre parcel owned by the Lin Family and a 0.5 acre parcel owned by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The project area is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) near the northeasterly City Limits. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area includes the last two remaining parcels in eastern Dublin that are within the City's Sphere of Influence but not within the City Limits. Figure 1: Project Location Pxo~cr - :~ r :~> a DUBLit1 The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area is within the City of Dublin General Plan and. the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipated future development of the site with up to 68 dwelling units. The Applicant is proposing development on the Lin parcel (157.2 acres) within the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area. The development would include 4single-family custom home lots and a conservation easement for the protection of wildlife. The Applicant is proposing to cluster development of 4 dwelling units on approximately 30.4 acres in northwestern portion of the project site, which results in the reduction of 64 dwelling units on the site. The proposed lots range in size from 4:5 acres to 12.9 acres. These lots are designed to be estate lots designed to provide a country estate character of custom homes. Access to the site will be provided by Cydonia Court (future planned street). The project area is shown in the vicinity map above. DUBLI!V Page 2 of 10 3 ~ ~~o The remaining 1.26.8 acre portion of the Lin property, located to the east and south of where development is proposed on the project site is known as the Northern Drainage Open Space and will be protected by a conservation easement. The proposed conservation easement will be maintained in perpetuity for the protection of wildlife. This area has been preserved and enhanced as mitigation for impacts from earlier development associated with Dublin Ranch. The Lin parcel is currently vacant and is used for grazing pursuant to a grazing management plan. The grazing that occurs on the future conservation easement (126.8 acres) will continue in the future. The 0.5 acre parcel owned by DSRSD is improved with a Zone 3 water tank and access road. No further development is proposed on this parcel. The Applicant requests that the City of Dublin submit an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation of the property into the City. The Applicant also requests approval of General Plan and Specific. Plan amendments to modify the existing land use designation on the site. Additionally, the Applicant requests approval of a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create four custom residential home sites and a conservation area. The project also includes a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin. ANALYSIS: Staff's analysis is broken up into several sections which describe each component of the project. Annexation The project site is currently within an unincorporated portion of Alameda County and within the City's and Dublin San Ramon Services District's (DSRSD) Sphere of Influence. Although currently outside the City Limits, the City has planned for the eventual annexation of this area through the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In order for the project to come under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin and to receive urban services from DSRSD, annexation of the site to the City and to DSRSD must be approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). LAFCo is a State mandated local agency that oversees boundary changes to cities and special districts, the formation of new agencies including incorporation of new cities and the consolidation of existing agencies. State law requires that the City prezone the area proposed for annexation and that the prezoning must be consistent with the approved General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Following annexation, the City will have jurisdiction and authority over plan approvals and the project will be serviced by the City and DSRSD, which serves that portion of the City with water and sewer facilities. The application for annexation (or reorganization, as referenced by LAFCo) includes a list of specific requirements with the most significant being: 1) prezoning by the City; and 2) a municipal services plan. The adopted prezoning must be consistent with the City's General Plan. The Applicant's request includes a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. These requests are consistent with each other and further discussed below. The current action before the Planning Commission is to consider recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing Staff to initiate an application to LAFCo to annex the 157.7 acre project area to the City of Dublin and DSRSD. The proposed annexations are consistent with the City's planning efforts and would provide for the logical and orderly extension of urban services to the eastern portion of Dublin. A Resolution recommending that the City Council direct Staff to file an application with LAFCo to annex the properties is included as Attachment 2. Page 3 of 10 Amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ~ ~~ ~~~ Residential density in the vicinity of the proposed development varies. Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West) located northwest of the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property has land use designations of Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 dwelling units/acre), Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 dwelling units/acre) and Medium High Residential (14.1-25.0 dwelling units/acre). The Fallon Crossing development located west of the property has land use designations of Single Family Residential and Open Space. The Silvera Ranch development also located west of the project site has land use designations of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential and Rural Residential. Casamira Valley located north of the project site has land use designations of Medium Density Residential, Open Space and Rural Residential. Alameda County properties with A (Agricultural) zoning are located east of the project site. Figure 2: Existing Land Use Designation Map: ,~ _ ~ r ~ \ I Y: LAWDeflbLty . Rosldarrtial . Rv~ ~ ~- 1fi$tac, gross 1 ~ ' ReskenffaAAyrlatlture '" x.. 1432~ac gross ^, . t ; i ~ ~~' . ~ ~ ~~` ~ ,.9;~a1 ; _ ~~~ ~ S 4- ° ~ ~ v , j I' . ~, ~. , ~ ~~ ~ -, . _ ~ , '. ,. oUl .. f r /. Figure 3: Proposed Land Use Designation Map: ~ a~ .-. RRA" ~ Sfia~Card PaCIRC . t ~.: LDIYIG Restderrtlal ~ 30:41 eG grass ~ ~~ I ~ i , OPen SPac6 ? , 12'.3 t ac gross . ;_ ~ G~ I Dool~ _ tee.. %O,~,P . dye. ~sna1 `~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~° i Silvera' 'Ranch.,. 1 ~, _, .- ~ ` 1 t , ~ F ~ ~ . ' The Applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use designations and reduce the development potential for the project site. The current land use designations of the project site include Low Density Residential (0.0 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre) and Rural ResidentiaUAgricultural (1 unit per 100 Gross Residential acres). Please refer to Figure 2 above for the location of existing land use designations. It was assumed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that 67 low density dwelling units and 1 rural residential dwelling unit would be constructed on the Dublin Ranch North site. The Applicant proposes to change the land use designations to Estate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space and would therefore reduce the overall density on the site and lower the permitted number of dwelling units. Please refer to Figure 3 above for location of proposed land use designations. The proposed Estate Residential Land Use' designation would permit up to 24 dwelling units. The Applicant proposes to limit development to 4 dwelling units as discussed in the Planned Development Prezoning and Vesting Tentative Map below. Please refer to Table 1 below for a comparison of the existing and proposed land uses. Page 4 of 10 5 ~~~~ Table 1: Site Area, Proposed Densities, Maximum Number of Residential Dwellings Dublin Ranch North Proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Plan et and Gross Acrea e Existing General Plan/ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Plan Acres Units Proposed Density. (du/ac) Acres Units. Density (du/ac) Estate Residential 30.4 4 .13 - - - Low Density Residential - - - 16.8 67 4 Rural Residential/ Agriculture - - - 143.2 1 .01 Open Space 127.3 - - - - - TOTAL 157.7 4 N/A 160.0* 68 N/A *According the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the project site is 160 acres. This number represents a boundary that was not surveyed. The project site is actually 157.7 acres, as determined by a boundary survey that was conducted by the Applicant. The project site is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which do not have an Estate Residential Land Use designation. The Applicant is proposing to add the Estate Residential land use designation to the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Estate Residential Land Use category is a designation in the City of Dublin's General Plan for the Western Extended Planning Area. The Estate Residential Land Use designation is as follows: typical ranchettes and estate homes within this density range. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit. The request includes amendments to various figures, texts and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. Please refer to Exhibit A of Attachment 3 for the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Table 2.1 of the General Plan in addition to Table 4.1, Table 4.10 and Appendix 3 were amended as follows: 0 30.4 acres and 4 units of Estate Residential was added; 0 127.3 acres to Open Space was added; 0 16.8 acres and 3 units were removed from Single Family; and 0 143.2 acres and 1 unit were removed from Rural Residential/Agricultural. Table 4.2 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was amended as follows: 0 4 units of Estate Residential was added; 0 3 units were removed from Single Family; and 0 1 unit was removed from Rural Residential/Agricultural. Appendix 4 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was amended as follows: o Owner name changed from Redgewick to Lin; 0 30.4 acres and 4 units of Estate Residential added; 0 126.8 acres of Open Space added; o Single Family Residential and Rural ResidentiaUAgricultural were removed; o DSRSD was added to the owner list; 0 0.5 acres of Open Space was added (DSRSD parcel). Page 5 of 10 ~ ~ ~~~ A Resolution recommending the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment and an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Dublin Ranch North project is included as Attachment 3. Planned Development Prezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan & Stage 2 Development Plan: The existing zoning (Alameda County) of the project site is Agricultural. The Applicant is requesting a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 157.7 acre site. Among other things, the Stagel and Stage 2 Development Plan establishes the site area, conceptual site plan, proposed density, maximum number of dwelling units, development standards, such as lot coverage, building height and setback requirements, design principles, landscaping requirements, fence and wall standards and project entry and streetscape standards to ensure a cohesive and attractive development. The proposed PD -Stage 1 Development Plan will serve as the prezoning prerequisite for annexation. Upon Annexation, the PD -Stage 1 Development Plan will become City Zoning. The proposed Development Plan is consistent with the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as discussed in the section above). The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan submitted for this Project indicates that there will be a maximum of 4 residential dwelling units on the project site. This number is within the density of the proposed General Plan and Specific- Plan Land Use designations of Estate Residential and Open Space. Lot sizes will vary on the site depending on the location of the lot. The smallest lot will be 4.5 acres and the largest lot will be 12.9 acres. The four estate lots are designed to provide a country estate character of homes. Designated building envelopes for the primary residence are established on all four lots as shown on the Stage 2 Development Plan to limit the impact of development on the hillside. Approximately 10 acres of the 157.7 acre project site will be disturbed by grading. This includes approximately 7 acres to create the access road and the building pads and an additional 3 acres for remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The majority of the site is designated as open space (126.8 acres) and will be a permanently managed environmental conservation area. These lands will be placed in a conservation easement and will be managed consistent with a Mitigation Monitoring Plan approved by the resource agencies. The Applicant has worked with these resource agencies to gain the Agencies' approval for the creation and the long term management of this conservation area. Maintenance of these managed environmental areas is privately funded by a land trust. These lands have been designated as a mitigation area for development impacts on environmental resources from other areas of Dublin Ranch. This area will provide permanent habitat and/or nesting sites for Red Legged Frogs, California Tiger Salamanders and Golden Eagles. Grazing currently occurs on this conservation land pursuant to a grazing management plan and will continue in the future. As part of the application, the Applicant is proposing Land Use and Design Standards. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area Land Use and Design Standards are designed to provide guidance for the future homebuilder in the construction of the homes. The intent of the design guidelines are to preserve the rural character of the project site while allowing for creativity and quality design. The Project has been designed to be a small community that conforms to the existing site and the surrounding area. The design standards include landscaping requirements, fence and wall standards, project entry and streetscape standards to ensure a cohesive and atlxactive development. The design standards are included in the Land Use and Design Standards Section of Attachment 7. The Development Plan provides for the ability of the Dublin Ranch North development to be a gated community. Pursuant to Chapter 8.40 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the gate would be permitted Page 6 of 10 -, ~ ~~~© through Site Development Review. Additionally, the Development Plan provides for a variety of fences and walls, which include privacy fence, view fence, rail fence and agricultural fence (barbed wire). The City Council Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (Exhibit A of Attachment 4) contains various requirements and standards on fences and walls. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve a Planned Development (PD) Prezone with a related Stage l Development Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Dublin Ranch North project is included as Attachment 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8016 The Project includes a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Exhibit A of Attachment 5). The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 157.2 acre Lin parcel (does not include the 0.5 acre DSRSD parcel) into 5 lots. Lots 1 - 4, which tota130.4 acres, are located in the northwestern portion of the project site and they comprise the portion of the project site where development will occur: The lot sizes for these lots range from 4.5 acres to 12.9 acres. Lot 5, which is 126.8 acres, will be placed in a permanent conservation easement for the protection of wildlife. The 0.5 acre DSRSD property is already a legal parcel and is not included as part of the Vesting Tentative Map. Access to the site will be provided from the Silvera Ranch Phase 4 development by way of Cydonia Court (planned future street). Silvera Ranch has access from both Fallon Road and Tassajara Road. Cydonia Court is an eastward bearing cul-de-sac that provides access and utilities to the project area. From this cul- de-sac, a single private driveway will serve the four Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area lots. An on-site bioswale will collect stormwater run-off from the access road and upper slopes and direct flows to the existing storm drain line in the Silvera Ranch development. The increase in run-off can be accommodated by the Silvera Ranch storm drain lines. The actual size and location of the proposed storm drain facilities will be determined with the improvement plans approval during the Final Map approval process. Each development lot will be expected to drain to the on-site bioswale, as grades permit. Construction of this Project will depend on market demand, the completion of Cydonia Court (from Silvera Ranch -Phase 4) and utilities from adjacent properties. The proposed Project would create 4 estate lots, which may be bought and developed individually as custom homes. Each single-family residence will require a Site Development Review Permit. During the Site Development Review process, the proposed residences will be evaluated to ensure that they meet the intent of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans. Development Agreement Projects within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) require a Development Agreement between the City and the Developer. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to obtain certain commitments and establish certain development rights for the property. The Development Agreement must be approved prior to issuance of building permits for development of the property. , Staff has worked with the Applicant to prepare a draft Development Agreement. The proposed Development Agreement is between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin. The proposed Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change the zoning and other laws applicable to the Project for a period of five years. The Development Agreement augments the City's standard development regulations, defines financial responsibilities of the developer Page 7 of 10 D ~ ~~~ and provides terms for the developer to advance funds for specific facilities which have a comet 'ty or area-wide benefit or for reimbursement from future development, as appropriate. The proposed Development Agreement is included as Exhibit B to Attachment 6. Development Agreements are approved by an Ordinance of the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Development Agreement is included as Attachment 6, with the draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin 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, 199,3, assessing a reduced development alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a 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. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise, and other impacts. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted by the City to encourage orderly growth of the Eastern Dublin area. Because the Eastern Dublin project proposed urbanization of the almost completely undeveloped Eastern Dublin area, the Eastern Dublin EIR also analyzed conversion of agricultural and open space lands to urban uses. These impacts together with visual impacts from urbanization were also determined to be significant and unavoidable. Where the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts that could be mitigated, the previously adopted mitigation measures that are applicable to this Project and Project site continue to apply to the Dublin Ranch North project. The Eastern Dublin EIR was a Program EIR and evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. As such, the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the cumulative effects of developing in agricultural and open space areas and the basic policy considerations accompanying the change in character from undeveloped to developed lands. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects along Tassajara Road such as Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West), Fallon Crossing, Vargas, and Pinn Brothers/Silvera Ranch, as well as projects elsewhere in Eastern Dublin such as Dublin Ranch and Fallon Village have been approved, relying on the Program EIR. The EIR evaluated development of the project site with 68 dwelling units. For the proposed Dublin Ranch North project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA laws and regulations. The project assessed in this MND includes the annexation, amendments. to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (including revised land uses), prezoning to Planned Development (PD), with the related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Development Agreement and a Vesting Tentative Map to allow the eventual development in accordance with the approved plans. The City, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study to determine whether there would be environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study reviewed .the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan site plan, Vesting Tentative Map and also reviewed updated biological, cultural and geotechnical studies for the project. Based on the project description, the Initial Study determined that the project could result in significant but mitigatable site-specific impacts. Page8of10 ~ ~~~ A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and circulated for public revi w from October 6,.2009 to November 5, 2009 (Exhibit A to Attachment 1). During the public review period, the City did not receive any comment letters. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the draft MND as set forth in Attachment 1 (CD). CONCLUSION: The proposed annexation request includes the Dublin Ranch North property. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City's planning efforts and would provide for the logical and orderly extension of the City. The proposed Dublin Ranch North project includes estate housing types which will increase housing choices in the vicinity. The project has been designed to protect the natural resources on the site and have focused the development envelope away from the resources. A General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is proposed for the Dublin Ranch North project to decrease the density on the site. The proposed amendment .would change the Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural land use designations to Estate Residential and Open Space. The Planned Development Zoning is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and will allow a maximum of 4 dwelling units on the site. The majority of the project site, approximately 127 acres, will be placed in a conservation easement and maintained in perpetuity. The Vesting Tentative Map subdivides the Lin parcel into 4 residential lots for future development and an open space. conservation parcel. The proposed Development Agreement is between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong .Lien Lin and it provides security to the developer that the City will not change the zoning and other laws applicable to the Project for a period of five years A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Dublin Ranch North project. This document includes mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts of the projects to a less than significant level. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff Presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) .Take testimony from the Applicant and public; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch North; 6) Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council direct Staff to file an application with Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area into the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District; 7) Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change Dublin Ranch North from Low Density .Residential and Rural ResidentiaUAgricultural to Estate Residential and Open Space; 8) Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development. Plan for Dublin Ranch North; 9) Adopt a Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Map 8016; 10) Adopt a Resolution recommending the -City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin. Page 9 of 10 ~o ~f- ~~o GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNERS: LOCATION: ASSESSORS PARCEL NO: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SPECIFIC PLAN AREA: EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: SURROUNDING USES: Jim Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Ste. 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Hong Yao Lin & Hong Lien Lin Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) 7057 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 6582 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA 94568 985-0028-003-02 985-0028-003-01 Low Density Residential & Rural ResidentiaUAgricultural (existing) Estate Residential & Open Space (proposed) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Agriculture (Alameda County, existing) Planned Development (proposed) Location Zonin General Plan Land Use Current Use of Pro e Site Agriculture (Alameda Low Density Residential & Zone 3 water tank and County) Rural access road on DSRSD ResidentiaUAgricultural parcel. Cattle grazing conducted on Lin parcel. North PD -Planned Medium Density Residential, Rural Residential Development Open Space & Rural dwelling & cattle grazing. Residential. South PD-Planned Development Rural Vacant. ResidentiaUAgricultural East Agriculture (Alameda Alameda County Agricultural uses. County) West PD- Planned Development Low Density Residential, Residential. Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential & Rural Residential. Page 10 of 10 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Schaub was concerned about speed of vehicles coming down Dublin Blvd from Schaefer Ranch area. I I ~~ r ~~~ Mr. Baker agreed to inform the Traffic Safety Committee about Cm. Schaub's concern. 8.2 PA 08-045 Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area - Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked where the creek is located within the project area. Ms. Aja answered the creek runs east of the site but there is no creek or water within the development portion of the project site. Cm. Schaub asked if the Planning Commission would review the designs for the homes. Mr. Baker answered the homes would be subject to Site Development Review at the Community Development Director level. Cm. Schaub stated that he visited the site and found there is an access road behind where the houses will be built. He continued the access road was the only secondary access to the project site. He then asked how the City will handle a fire if there are no other access roads to the project site except at Cydonia Court. He was concerned about getting residents out of the area in case of a fire. Ms. Aja answered that the Fire Code requires two (2) secondary accesses if there are 75 houses or more. She continued, including the houses on Cydonia Court, which is 71 lots, which meets the Fire Code requirement. Cm. Schaub was concerned about saving people that live at the top of the development if there is no secondary access road. Ms. Aja stated there is also a fire access road which is what Cm. Schaub saw when walking the site. Cm. Schaub stated the access road only goes approximately 2/3ras of the way up the hill and then stops. He pointed out the area on the map and stated that all the houses up there have only a single point access, including the 4 houses further back in the canyon. 182 ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT ~ ~ ~ ~ `~t ~ DRAFT Mr. Baker stated the Fire Code sets the threshold for the number of access points, the number of units before emergency vehicle access is needed, secondary access and distance, etc. He stated the Fire Dept reviewed the project and found the project to be in compliance with the Fire Code as adopted by the City. Chair Wehrenberg referred to the PD Prezone and Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan Ordinance (Attachment 4) on page 18; #11 Access -which states that Cydonia Court has 2 emergency vehicle access points. Cm. Schaub felt the access road was not adequate. Ms. Aja mentioned that all the homes will be required to have fire sprinklers and adhere to the Wildfire Management Program. Also, the Fire Dept. will continue to review the project during the SDR process where Conditions of Approval will be imposed. Chair Wehrenberg stated that there was no mention of a fire sprinkler requirement for the estate houses in the attachments for the project. Ms. Aja responded that all the houses will be required to have fire sprinklers. Cm. King asked who is in charge of the mitigation monitoring program. Ms. Aja answered the resource agencies. The Applicant has worked with these agencies to get approval for the conservation easement and how it will be managed. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Lisa Vilhauer, McKay & Somps, spoke in favor of the project. She stated the properties were always meant to be annexed into the City of Dublin and developed. She stated that the Applicant is proposing to change the land uses to reflect the site condition to estate residential and open space which she felt was a better fit for the site. She stated they have shifted the residential area to the west to be contiguous with the property line and allowed the residential portion to be on a lower elevation and off the ridgeline. She stated this configuration also helps protect the watershed in the conservation area because the lots will drain into a storm drain system on Cydonia Court instead of run-off going into the conservation area. She stated that the project will follow the Wildfire Management Plan and the Fire Code. Chair Wehrenberg was concerned with the height of the homes and asked if they will impact the views of other properties. Ms. Vilhauer answered no; the ridgeline is over 800 feet high and the tallest lot is at 740 feet. Cm. Schaub showed an aerial photo of the area. He was concerned with the ridgeline and where the houses will be located in relation to the ridgeline. He asked if the houses will be higher than the houses on Cydonia Court. 183 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Vilhauer answered yes; the houses will be higher than the houses on Cydonia Court. Cm. Schaub asked if the houses will be visible from everywhere. 13 ~f ~I~lo Ms. Vilhauer answered they will not be visible from everywhere; they would be visible from certain points on the golf course, but not from Fallon Road or Tassajara Road. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the Specific Plan mentions protecting the views from I-580 and states that developers should tier the heights of buildings and not to block the hillside views. Cm. Schaub stated he understood where the houses would be located and that they would be below the ridgeline and the views would be preserved. Cm. King asked Ms. Vilahour who will run the mitigation monitoring program. Ms. Vilhauer deferred the question to Marty Inderbitzen, Attorney for the Lin family. Mr. Inderbitzen answered the open space area is committed to a mitigation program which is part of a comprehensive plan developed with Dublin Ranch along with several properties that are part of an ongoing program. He stated the program is funded and maintained by the Lin family and monitored by H. T. Harvey and Associates who report to the resource agencies on a annual basis. He stated this is a self monitoring program and as part of the permit program they. are required to monitor and report performance to the agencies. Chair Wehrenberg asked how many years is the monitoring required. Mr. Inderbitzen answered it depends on the specific aspects of the plan but in general the properties are subject to a 10 year performance plan. He continued that after 10 years the property should no longer need monitoring for compliance because it will have survived and in compliance with their requirements for a long enough time that it will then be self-perpetuating. He continued that part of the plan is that the property be dedicated to anot-for-profit entity that will oversee the program in perpetuity and an endowment is funded. He stated this property's endowment is $1.4 million and the interest is set aside for the monitoring program. Chair Wehrenberg asked if H. T. Harvey is the consultant that is required to monitor and report their findings to the agencies. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that once the program meets the compliance criteria H.T. Harvey will drop out and the Center for Natural Lands Management will monitor using their own personnel. Mr. Inderbitzen discussed the development bubble that crests at the hilltop and the anticipation was that there would be a significant amount of grading to create a development envelop of 68 residential units. He stated that the Applicant has set the property line at the top of the ridgeline because that is the watershed break and under natural conditions the rainfall would cause everything within the 127 acre portion to flow down to the creek and the water on the 30 184 DRAFT r ~ ° f ~~ DRAFT acre site would flow in a different direction. He continued that is the primary reason why the area was designated for the mitigation area and the other left for the development. He stated it created a need to develop a different kind of project. He continued that the City approved the Silvera Ranch project and left the Applicant with a cul-de-sac that had 71 units on it and essentially denied the Applicant the ability to build the 68 unit project and left them with only 4 units. He stated that they have taken the development to the property line and configured the project the way they have in order to avoid a homeowners association for only 4 houses which would be inefficient to maintain. He stated they tried to design the project and the conditions so that they can use a joint maintenance agreement for the roads and for some of the drainage issues with the rest being self-maintained by the homeowners. Cm. Schaub stated that the City has a guideline that if there are 50 houses or less it would be too expensive to have a management company run the association there would be a joint agreement to maintain the road and weed abatement. Cm. Brown asked if the development of Cydonia Court is what forced the decision for the current development. Mr. Inderbitzen answered yes; it is one of the factors, the other is that it would be very difficult and expensive to generate a secondary access to the project that would meet the Fire Code requirements. He felt that this project is an opportunity for a residential type that does not exist in Dublin. The Commission discussed grading for the lots and where it will occur. Cm. Schaub was concerned about the Planning Commission allowing development to go higher up the ridgeline in general. Mr. Porto asked Cm. Schaub if he meant allowing development to go higher than what was there before or in general. Cm. Schaub felt this was a good time for the Planning Commission to discuss, in general, the visual impacts of allowing development high on the ridgeline. Mr. Porto stated that the 68 units project that was originally approved had aflat-land plan which was placed on the side of the mountain because the topography was not taken into consideration in 1993. The original 68 unit development would have been more detrimental to the visual environment than this 4 unit project is proposing. Cm. Schaub agreed but was still concerned with the secondary access to the homes. Mr. Porto pointed out that this project will be lower on the ridgeline than the previous 68 unit project would have been. Cm. Schaub felt the 68 unit project that was approved was a mistake. 185 DRAFT `", o f ' ~~, ~ DRAFT Mr. Porto pointed out on the map where the ridgeline is and where the lots will be located. He stated the houses on Cydonia Court will be seen, but the first house will block the rest of the 4 houses in the project. He stated that .from Dublin Ranch the views will be limited and the houses will not be seen at all from Tassajara Road. He continued the 106 unit Fallon Crossing project goes up the hill and will not block the homes, but will interrupt the views into the area. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Brown stated the project is the last parcel of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) to be considered for annexation. He stated that this project eliminates the 68 unit project that would have been built on 16 acres and it also eliminates the inclusionary zoning ordinance requirement of a project with 20 houses or more. He felt that the argument that there are not enough homes in the project to warrant building a secondary access road was not a substantiating argument. He stated he had not read anything in the Staff Report to suggest alternative sites. He felt since this is the last property to be annexed into Dublin, the Planning Commission should explore whether this project is the best land use option for Dublin. He felt that he had not read anything that would indicate this project is the best land use option for Dublin. He continued that under the Estate Residential land use designation the project could have 20 units. Ms. Aja responded that the top of the density range for Estate Residential is 24 units. Chair Wehrenberg responded that with the additional homes the Ordinance would require a secondary access road. Cm. Brown agreed. Chair Wehrenberg felt that the Ordinance is protecting the City and if the Applicant wanted to add more homes they would have to add a secondary access road. Cm. Brown agreed and felt that if adding more homes to the project was a better solution for Dublin then the Planning Commission should consider that. Chair Wehrenberg asked if he meant putting in the secondary access road for the 4 homes proposed for the project. Cm. Brown answered the secondary access road should be added for 20 more homes. Cm. Schaub stated that there are more than 20 homes in the area. He stated that the 70 homes on Cydonia Court do not have a secondary access road either. Cm. Brown felt that it would help him to make a decision to recommend a Planning Commission study session to discuss the alternatives for the land use that are available. Cm. Schaub asked if Cm. Brown felt that there are too many houses exposed without a secondary access and the Planning Commission should look into alternatives. 186 DRAFT DRAFT I~ ~~~~ Cm. Brown felt the issue of the secondary access was only brought up to him tonight. He was concerned with whether this is the best land use for the last annexation into Dublin. Chair Wehrenberg suggested the Planning Commission could continue the item and discuss it further. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission could continue the item if they so choose or discuss it tonight. He also asked to clarify if Cm. Brown is suggesting that he is interested in more units for the project because the Estate Residential land use designation allows 24 units. Cm. Brown stated that he would be interested in more than 4, but was more concerned with whether this is the best land use for the annexation. He also wanted to discuss whether the 127 acres dedicated to conservation easement was the best land use and if that land could be used as a park. Ms. Aja stated that the 127 acres that will be designated Open Space has been approved by the resource agencies and it is for mitigations that occurred for the development of Dublin Ranch and is required. Cm. Brown asked if it is required to be Open Space with no other alternatives. Chair Wehrenberg added it is required because of the endangered species that are there. Ms. Aja responded the open space area will provide habitats for the California tiger salamander, the red legged frog and the Golden Eagle which were all impacted by previous development therefore this would be their area to be protected in the City. Cm. Brown stated he read the documentation and felt it was not clear that these species are threatened and could not be protected in another manner in that area. He felt that regardless of how it was mitigated previously the land use can be changed and still mitigate it for those species. Cm. Schaub stated that the Positano development has a lot of land that is in a conservation area north of their land and into Contra Costa County. He stated that this is not the first time that the City has mitigated for the red legged frog. He continued the species is relocated to another area with migration paths, etc. He felt that the City cannot negotiate with the agencies. These are non-negotiable mitigation lands which were established when Dublin Ranch was originally approved. Ms. Aja added the land has already been committed to the conservation easement. Cm. Brown felt that the report said that there is no natural habitat for the red legged frog. 1,~, :,t~~;~ 187 DRAFT `~ "~ a O DRAFT Ms. Aja responded that the land has been enhanced and their habitat has been created on the conservation easement. She continued the agencies check each year to ensure that the mitigation measures are working appropriately to provide them with the necessary habitat. Kit Faubion, City Attorney commented that the mitigation land for the open space area is compensating for other land that in the past has been allowed to be developed that had red legged frogs and salamanders. This is offsetting the ability to develop that land and in exchange this land is committed because it provides habitat or can be enhanced to provide that habitat. She stated that in the background EIR's for this development there are mitigation measures for other species. This is the reason the site is committed because of past decisions to develop in habitat areas and that is why it cannot be touched. Cm. Swalwell stated he is prepared to support Staff's recommendation and appreciates Cm. Browns wish to continue the project but would support what the Commission feels is warranted. He felt this is a complicated area with restrictions, but felt that Dublin's real estate market is successful with a good balance of homes, but there are not very many estate homes. He felt this development would give Dublin's real estate market more balance with diverse options. Cm. King supports the project but thought they could have a study session to address Cm. Schaub's concerns regarding the ridgelines and Cm. Brown s concern regarding what is the best land use. He felt there has not been enough mitigation and enough open space but felt it was worth a discussion. He is concerned with the environment and felt that the best use is no use but the property owners have the right to do something with their land. Cm Schaub supports the project but felt that when a project is up in the hills and close to the ridgeline the Planning Commission should visit the site to get a better feel for the project. He felt there are too many houses built close to the ridgeline. He suggested going to the site to see what the project actually looks like and see if the project is the best of Dublin. He was not aware of the Fire Code requirement of 75 houses being built before the secondary access point is required until this project. Chair Wehrenberg stated the Planning Commission trusts the Fire Department to review the projects and make code decisions. Cm. Schaub stated he supports the project and felt that Cm. Brown had a point but the Commission is late in this project and only talking about a few acres compared to all the others in this area. He felt the Commission is obligated to support it. Chair Wehrenberg agreed with the rest of the Commissioners and felt this project has been piecemealed and this is the last of the land. Cm. Schaub felt this is not the last of the land but only what is on the map today. Mr. Baker stated that this is the last of the land that is in Dublin s sphere of influence and anticipated to be incorporated into the City. 188 DRAFT ,0 ~ ~~~DRAFT Chair Wehrenberg felt that 4 units were better than 68. She stated she agreed with Cm. Schaub regarding visiting the site. She felt that in the future the Commission should spend more time on the projects that are close to the ridgelines. She felt that some things are missed due to the short time the Commission has to review the information before the meeting. Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that these houses are not built higher than 739 feet for buildings in the EDSP. Ms. Aja stated the requirement is the building cannot be higher then 770 feet at the tallest point of the building. Chair Wehrenberg trusts that the developers are aware of the Commission's concern regarding the height of buildings and the protection of our hillsides. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Brown opposed, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 09-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DUBLIN RANCH NORTH BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND HONG YAO LIN AND HONG LIEN LIN APN: 985-0028-003-02 PA 08-045 RESOLUTION N0.09-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL TO ESTATE RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE (APN: 985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028-003-01) PA 08-045 RESOLUTION NO.09-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 189 DRAFT OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DRAFT RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO ANNEX THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA INTO THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT APN: 985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028-003-O1 PA 08-045 RESOLUTION NO. 09-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DUBLIN RANCH NORTH LOCATED AT 6582 TASSAJARA ROAD (APN:985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028-003-01) PA 08-045 RESOLUTION NO. 09-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA PROJECT PA 08-045 RESOLUTION NO. 09-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8016 TO SUBDIVIDE A 157.2 ACRE PARCEL KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH NORTH (APN: 985-0028-003-02) PA 08-045 190 as ~~~~ RESOLUTION NO. XX - xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO ANNEX THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA INTO THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT APN: 985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028-003-01 PA 08-045 WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong on behalf of the Lin family, has requested that the City file an application with the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to reorganize an area of approximately 157.7 acres generally located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County bounded by Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley to the north, Silvera Ranch and Fallon Crossings to the west and unincorporated Alameda County to the east, located east of the current City Limits, which reorganization includes the annexation of the territory to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD); and WHEREAS, the project site is located within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Dublin, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area is within the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area for which a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93 and two subsequent Addendums dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 (the "Eastern Dublin EIR" (SCH 91103064)). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which apply to this project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City as the Lead Agency prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North project entitled "Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated October 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, and circulated it for review; and WHEREAS, a separate Staff Report, dated November 10, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Annexation, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, Prezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement for Dublin Ranch North for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, at its November 10, 2009 hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-45 incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and WHEREAS, at its November 10, 2009 hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 09-43, recommending Annexation, Resolution 09-42 recommending approval of General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch North, Resolution 09-44 1 ATTACHMENT 3 al ~ y~{o recommending that the City Council prezone the properties and adopt a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Resolution 09-46 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016, and Resolution 09-41 recommending the City Council adopt the Development Agreement, which are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated December 1, 2009, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, prezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Development Agreement and Pre-Annexation Agreement for the for Dublin Ranch North Project for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Project at a properly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2009, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and 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 does hereby find that: The subject property is located within the Sphere of Influence adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission for the City of Dublin and within the adopted Sphere of Influence for DSRSD. 2. The proposed annexation of approximately 157.7 acres to the City and DSRSD will be a logical extension of the City of Dublin and the DSRSD boundaries. 3. The City of Dublin and DSRSD can provide high quality and efficient services to the site, and development of the sites has been planned for since 1993 when the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment was adopted for the Eastern Extended Planning Area by the City Council. 4. The proposed reorganization is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which are comprehensive long range planning documents which planned for the urbanization of the Eastern Extended Planning Area over a 20-30 year horizon and proposed a change in the largely vacant agricultural areas to an urban community. The annexation of the Dublin Ranch North property will extend the existing City Limits to the existing Sphere of Influence line and the annexation is a logical extension of the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin application with LAFCo pursuant to Government Code consisting of reorganizing approximately 157.7 acres of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. City Council authorizes Staff to file an Section 56654 regarding Annexation unincorporated territory to the City of 2 a~ ~- ~~ o PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1St day of December 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:IPA#120081PA 08-045 Dublin Ranch North GPA lnitiationlCity Council 12.1.091CC Reso LAFCo Application.doc 3 a3 ~ ~~~~ RESOLUTION NO. XX - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA APN: 985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028-003-01 PA 08-045 WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong on behalf of the Lin family, submitted an application (PA 08-045) to the City regarding a 157.7 acre parcel ("Dublin Ranch North," previously referred to as "Redgewick") bounded by Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley to the north, Silvera Ranch and Fallon Crossings to the west, and unincorporated Alameda County to the east, located east of the current City Limit line located in the unincorporated area of Alameda County; and; WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, the Project would amend corresponding text, tables and figures related to amendments to land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, including but not limited to area wide land use diagrams, land use summary tables and environmental resource exhibits; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area is within the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area for which a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93 and two subsequent Addendums dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 (the "Eastern Dublin EIR," SCH 91103064). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which apply to this project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City as the Lead Agency prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Property entitled "Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area" dated October 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, and circulated it for review; and WHEREAS, separate Staff Reports, dated November 10, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Annexation, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, prezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement for Dublin Ranch North for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, at its November 10, 2009 hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-45 incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and 1 ATTACHMENT 4 ail ~- ~I~lo WHEREAS, at its November 10, 2009 hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 09-43, recommending Annexation, Resolution 09-42 recommending approval of General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch North, Resolution 09-44 recommending that the City Council prezone the properties and adopt a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Resolution 09-46 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016, and Resolution 09-41 recommending the City Council adopt the Development Agreement, which are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated December 1, 2009, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch North; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Projects at a noticed public hearing on December 1, 2009, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-09, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Dublin Ranch North. 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 City Council approves the following Amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. A. Chapter 1: Background, Section 1.8.1 Land Use Classifications, Eastern Extended Planning Area, add the following definition: Residential: Estate (0.01 - 0.8 units per gross residential acre). Typically ranchettes and estate homes are within this density range. Assumes household size is 3.2 persons per unit. 2 a5 ~ ~~o B. Amend the Land Use Map (Figure 1-1a) of the General Plan as shown below: D U B L I N G E N E R A L P L A N L A N D U S E A4 A P ~..a~.. ,f ~~~~ ~ yid`' (F~gure t-la) as amended through February 12, 2008 _,_ .._ ~~ ~~` ~`~ «., °" ~~ ~ f ~ ~, ~ ~ ~r 1 ~ wq~x.., e.trnesa a~.nr,~nq ,~~. ~ ._ ~ ~ p ... ~ ~, r^ ..~d 'k`1" P -~ ,# _ ~~•,~ ~, ...~. _:: ~ ~- Pu0nc15enrPubkclQ~trt Space Corm~ercta(/Intlusntal ReslAen[4v r~larxwig Mea lmtits ~•fi . srgorarar~ oernateon~erc~+i ~tW wn cwema '-'~r.,s~m,eu»aean~„rghreaewary `°,`~` rural iav ACrt'. @re I I a+ Rsti c~/kr~+,l ;~«w-.:.~ ....~,. r+xrat:cna earrstasi osaaeq ~--ery~ry°c'rh'r,g'~°'ea'°"y anwnrukne<,srre., ~sera4~raena~vnasw tow ran tas ~s -waserncvrr.apr,~.nsna~arneray . ~ .. i WmSps~r canuno-~nr °e1'q 9 w`+q ~~C1tyaIGKNa _. rvagmm~ma taw osneq sesaemwdo.o-sa wxi ._. x<: ~ ssow,cwrmr ~cxma~eV~r~aa eme .say-ra r~r~ay se~mrna gne.asayari Li~nnsrrn . v r "" RtAC tans :.: ~?^~Px[xYa Mrcnan~fkvrury ~tshsowW7b i. I<Q atyat~ [~]~ aPNM1exc - •..., ~~ess/kmr+UGC ~'-aanw5ra ~wwa,vwq,an.b rmri...r«i~car-XeD4t',rl Tai-VaNCy kmfo+cttiorn ':s .rt.~ ~•~ . ~aur,.~FA.l.wm~. ~rnyn+uw~0're~snruittsi.s„rs~ caart+.vv~~we _ _ ~ xm.nok ~aU»Mne..ynar~raraou~rsm~»r L~taurc~,ersem~ - -,,,~~.Y^. c,,,,,,,,en„ m.aa u,r Cj ca ~s~ aamrr owna,asa~ hkuum~tign[aerrzq mnandaarq Nl~alCM:r .._ •...•. •••_•••.. w. ~rrownna... 4` .cynM4. 3 a~ ~-~~o C. Amend Figure 1-2 in the General Plan as shown below: y.r.. ~~~.,~ a ,rm aAt ma.,w ac~4^..rs+,al Wx.4o'~esaa:~-.Hq,,.=.'-~„ .a, w~ ~a~a~a.~vo~ ~a, .~ rm.+amr.*oy ~,.~ n.c~.o7r m .Kanw - Rwai [danss$'AgrisvNeva _^.~ ~,,,rowiru+wr.w ~.r;in.x+ce~ nwm~. ~-a rb ~-•^~ ~~ ~fr~ ~n 5 :~~ tae Lands ~" 1 „m F .. nas ... _ _y ,~ ~~a x,., ~n~~ e. ,.~.,,,~a..a~~.w. r ~ 7i f 'tom V+.,t ~;: :. ,1 tea: ~ ~. ~~~ ~imac,r~m. Rn~_r yin 6._:<I.,.,~-- i. ;any i ~=d k~[~ ~ ~.. ~. r.--"°r~~'~~>sa~-,,, Asa, ~.>:.,,,~ - ~ ~ .~ a s}l,.£ !tiiA lion F ~sv~ 2~..-~.,i..u ~ ~.mF ..ewe o+. v-~ ,,.,,~a3. ,.-... ~.. ~,~ iYab~ e« m4cx ~ . -~. m c. m ...~. 4....x.ie...an.4...,~aa +.,..,~...,.+.a -..... ., ,. .,-,. ~.~ Nitl .,~ ~r .. -. . ~ ~ .*~."~ I'1 Y~ F'. c i'urar,. Ii •~ ?. I ~-.i:,-',.xuut ~6 3i :~,,.RVes~yCiaXrr,~gi:.ro.££A~'4~.:xdn..P. ~'eka6s (51 Ft4LL$C r 4 ~J~l~II"t ~t'~"'~SI a~ ~ ~I~{o D. Amend Table 2.1 in the General Plan as follows: TABLE 2.1" LAND USE SUMMARY: EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA Amended: Resolution 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, and 210-08 Classification Acres Intensity"' Units Factor Yield RESIDENTIAL Du's/acre Du's Persons/du Population High Density 69.9 35 2,447 2.0 4,894 Medium-High Density 132.4 20 2,616 2.0 5,232 Medium-Density*"" 558.2 10 5,582 2.0 11,164 Single Family'`'`'`'`'""* 848 4 3,392 3.2 10,854 Mixed Use*"*" 96 2.0 192 Estate Residential 30.4 0.13 4 3.2 13 Rural Residential 567.3 .01 6 3.2 19 TOTAL 2,206.2 14,143 32,368 COMMERCIAL Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet / Employee Jobs General Commercial 347.9 .35/.25 4.228 510 8,290 General Commercial/Campus Office"""*" 72.7 .28 .887 385 2,303 Mixed Use 6.4 .3/1.0 .083 490 171 Neighborhood Commercial 57.5 .35/.30 .819 490 1,671 Campus Office 189.36 .75/.35 3.052 260 11,739 Industrial Park'"'"'`** 114.7 .25/.28 1.329 590 2,253 TOTAL: 788.6 9.816 26,427 PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION City Park 56.3 1 park Community Park 97.0 2 parks Neighborhood Park 47.1 8 parks Neighborhood Square 16.6 6 parks Regional Park 11.7 1 park TOTAL: 228.7 18 parks OPEN SPACE 776.9 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 101 .25 1.120 590 1,899 Semi-Public""***** 13.1 .25 Schools Elementary School 63.2 5 schools Junior High School 25.2 1 school High School 0 0 school School Subtotal 88.4 6 schools TOTAL: 202.5 TRANSIT CENTER (Total) 90.7 - Campus Office (including ancillary retail 38.3 - Hi h-Densit Residential 31.5 - Park 12.2 - Public/Semi-Public Transit-Related 8.7 GRAND TOTAL 4,293.6 ********The General Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. 5 a8 ~-~I~Io E. Amend Appendix A of the General Plan as follows: Add this project to the list of Amendments and Approvals Dublin Ranch North, Resolution No, Date Adopted and GP updated. F. Amend Figure 2.4 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: ~ f 1 J I 1$ t ~ 1 17 < ~. '~'" zs -` ~ _.~ ~ ~` ~.i . ~, lw _, ~ '% ~, `,-~/~ c 'fi '4~- -12; °- f j f___ 'ft 15 'R 5 ,-t`I ~) i s r l" i 18 ( ''.19 ~€+ ~~ t <~' 1J `n 5 (a ~ ~. \~ -~ r ~ ._ <, ~~~ ~ wit , , _ Figure 2.4 Ownerst~lp Patterns L:egertd OWNER ACREAt~ t Chang S~r04..k~. } 25 }-0 2 sbyera t25 3 Vargas S.6 c 1lerlera~ 7.93 i~i~,e 210 fi 1Nsak»Peak Rnmea 67.83 7a Lin 157.2 76 OSFtSO .5 8 S/MN'a 91.6 6 Plata - H}.0 :a z&1xrlcr 1ao 11 Reilly 375 t2 QY9i i6 13 East bay R®Sinnal Perfc 0.vMCt 27F }A KaRer 71,54 15 Casierson 131& 14 County of, A4srrleda -71}D.t 17 ifiiletl States o1 AmenfA 4.77 78 (kawn i.aM Cortsleny 86.14 }s Paw.ln sosoa 20 Jordan 142At2 Pt ThA 785,62 22 Anderson 4896 23 RI¢~ettl 44.78 24 $ranaugn 88,8 25 CsrtYrtvgl 8.81 24 ftlcilryiiiinkn 225.2 t4tA€: 3:'27.00. EASTERN DUBLIN Specific Plan Wailacg Roberta a Todd .aena~.o w,.w, ;a; a~a M.F.m n.. c;uu o`"A ~ n ~ _irv~ rn _i.s~ 6 a~ ~ ~~~ G. Amend Chapter 3 Summary, 3.3.3. Land Use Categories of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: The Residential land use category has six classifications: High Density (HDR), Medium- High Density (MHDR), Medium Density (MDR), Single Family (SF), Estate Residential (ER) and Rural Residential/Agricultural (RRA). H. Amend the Land Use Map (Figure 4.1) of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: f ~ r, Mtn a ~ c [ Q S`' Q V N t y G CQMSfR ~'' ~~ p F r^X A ~ Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) U-S. QeysrtmeM N ]V4hM County at AaamaAa ~~..f ~' i~ ~• ~ ~~ ~ , ~# ~i1.Y3E~4,#~J19 ! r t aid, ~~~i'+ ~ ~t ~ ~~-«.. ~~ _t f ~~:ru~~; ~.. Figure 4.1 Land Use Map ca.,q.......a®,. ~ar1[ rYS LU ~ ~, ti~ ~~ ~.~.at......,. r ~ >...n« tl YSlWpi~ 5~•*+MPIaL ~` rn. ~ P.m";~'~ '. . ~.. _.. ~~ w ~,.+ kK cm~nr-•ttv ama IkS~ tkShMh d sau?•c IQp ka~unal Prk !6s I TaSMael N3 M~M1 fchnY ~ w+ro+m s.. .-w. ~:: ~.~. m:.~z.. u wa +aw zmn aoto aaan+ ax as a+ es ~~ 7 30 ~- ~~o I. Amend Table 4.1 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08 ) Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.35 FAR 4.122 MSF General Commercial/Campus Office 72.7 acres .28 FAR .887 MSF Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF Nei hborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .30-.35 FAR .871 MSF Mixed Use 6.4 acres .30-1.0 FAR .083 MSF Cam us Office 192.66 acres .35-.75 FAR 3.730 MSF Subtotal 751.3 acres 10.44 MSF RESIDENTIAL Hi h Densit 68.2 acres 35 du/ac 2,387 du Medium Hi h Densit 144.5 acres 20 du/ac 2,858 du Medium Densit ** 511.3 acres 10 du/ac 5,113 du Sin le Famil **''* 855.8 acres 4 du/ac 3,423 du Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du Rural Residential/A ric. 554.2 acres .01 du/ac 6 du Mixed Use 6.4 acres""* 15du/ac 96 du Subtotal 2,170.8 acres 13,887du PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 98.2 acres .24 FAR 1.027 MSF Semi-Public 9.3 acres .25 FAR Subtotal 107.5 acres 1.027 MSF SCHOOLS Elementar School 66.5 acres 5 schools Junior Hi h School 21.3 acres 1 school Subtotal 87.8 acres PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Cit Park 56.3 acres 1 park Communit Park 97.0 acres 3 arks Nei hborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 arks Nei hborhood S ware 16.7 acres 6 arks Subtotal 219 acres 17 parks O en S ace 734.8 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,071.2 acres ***'`The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. 31 ~{- ~Vyo J. Amend Table 4.2 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: TABLE 4.2 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08) Land Use Desi nation Develo ment S FUEm to ees Persons/du Po ulation Commercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266 General Commercial/Campus Office'' .887 MSF 385 2,303 General Commercial 4.122 MSF 510 8,082 Nei hborhood Commercial .885 MSF 490 1,806 Mixed Use"* .083 MSF 490 171 Cam us Office 3.730 MSF 260 14,346 Public/Semi Public 1.027 MSF 590 1,740 Semi-Public 590 TOTAL: 11.481 MSF 29,714 Residential Hi h Densit 2,387 2.0 4,774 Medium Hi h Densit 2,858 2.0 5,716 Medium Densit 5,113 2.0 10,226 Sin le Famil *** 3,423 3.2 10,954 Estate Residential 4 3.2 13 Mixed Use** 96 2.0 192 Rural Residential/A ric. 6 3.2 19 TOTAL: 13,887 31,894 ~`** The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. K. 4.8.1 Residential amend as follows: Estate Residential (0.01 -0.8 units per gross residential acre). Typically ranchettes and estate homes are within this density. Assumes household size is 3.2 persons per unit. 9 3a ~ ~-~o L. Amend Table 4.10 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: TABLE 4.10 FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 43-05, 233-05 58-07, 37-08) Designation Acres Density DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Medium-Hi h Densit Residential 27.1 20 du/ac 542 du Medium Densit Residential 261.9 10 du/ac 2,619 du Sin le Famil Residential* 789.1 4 du/ac 3,156 du Estate Residential 30.4 0.13 du/ac 4 du Rural Residential 554.2 .01 du/ac 6 du Residential Subtotal 1,662.7 -- 6,327 du Open Space 632.5 -- -- Re Tonal Park 11.7 -- 1 park Nei hborhood Park 37.4 -- 4 arks Nei hborhood Square 6.4 -- 2 squares Park/Open Space Subtotal 688 -- 7 parks Elements School 22.7 -- 3 schools Junior Hi h School 1.4 -- 1 school Hi h School 55.3 -- 1 school School Subtotal 79.4 -- 5 schools Public/Semi-Public- 7.2 0.24 FAR -- Semi -Public -- 0.24 FAR -- Total 2,437.3 -- 6,327 du 7 parks 5 schools * The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. 10 ~~ ~~ ~~® M. Amend Figure 6.1 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: falWn a ~ ~ T"15 *Yd ESYa~ed Pn'+~4L'4fi. Cloak. FiradMp, •S LOQan xntl cyka~`cnie~pnses. _ ~,.; .;~, is sa~~~ ~„~ ~.as = I m + a r'is@S9n~r148~w.ro m avr.+bnia - - j+, ~~ 1 ~•- a~ ., ,.,kn~d s~~rd a~N tt~ cnan carcH i;. t.x~ vi~a2"7. Dublin Biw'. noiiyni!gnt at £91b. R~. ` Roux rl!L:f»+'eQ'~a ...+"' i Ran UR.b~+n Ran~M~'7aR.' ,.E'Far¢als '"' ~,... J ~~ r I .s.e ,. }'ai. »t can ill~i,aE~ I_a ~... P~ ! .. ~~ ~., t7pen Space Framework Lciaerix~ 111MA~. i:;1£Ya S ~~.~~~~ Q~~t~k.i~ Specific p}~ _. ~. 1 3~1 ~~ ~I~o N. Amend Figures 6.2 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: ~+drl~+'.Clalaax~]riad ~...., 'faJkJt'Vi&164 Gixl uras+iodied Dx lThilf-0>fa.. Croak, &arlaxki Ragan and FapxsEnteryMee P'0P°nl°";~g6a tQ sDada~aan cr«. ~.. "~...,'~ r? Tka E93J Pmwitiaa A.Fiacea7on R9nd1 InvaCN!ANe . pWE±bJpYebaRtleihE~ed 9sDwate iM3a Wa Glrva Fx~ffauua 4111aga). __ . ftltEn glW nr5l!9[~aen+az J'9lkt?'J[3 ~. .•.,.~ y.I tea.. ^; ra~ _. ~'^' ~~ J r t ~ Tyt3 ~` - ... 'a~..,n n. r :. t .t~.. .;tea r - ~'~ +~R - r - F ~ '~ v`~ 73T 3 ~ . ~ ~tuE13r ~ ~ ~ ~`~ Asa ~\TTS''•/ )~ #+ WJ; QtxrTrr~e a~ ~-- ~ ,_. s ,fin ~P erg: a aa;7~ ~ ~.' tt ~ t {r L ,'' ..9a eam 'i• .. ~ a a~a &,~ F6gura 6.2 E~IY~rUt1111ent8~ Resources Legend Q Taesajara Creak Inlar mlttant 5t?«ams Spring, SeDU o[ ImDi2sendmanl rr--.~ ~~ L ~J tlDlden Eayla ~-~ tt }} I.a.J PatanliaJ J<It Fox f7ons t I ~ Red Legged Frag Localian ~~ °°77 l-J Rad-tsffed t{awk or othM i{aptor Nest O Tlgar Salamartde+ l tlprltuNn itipndan WOOdlarkJ Arroyo WJlow f{ipsrian Woodland Alkafa Oraesland ~~ JnirodaCad AMwnl {_YftLSJBnd 0 Cwltlvaled i [)twaintred EASTERN DUBLIN Specific Plan Nate: All snaps havr not Jarrn n{.nJatrd wHlf Jlrr T"rDS[,9i1 Center(alarvnlJSg snhsrca. t7«ase se. Figurc ~1;J Jar an iJEa+tr Boss of dta TransJl Canter p3annir+g sad[arca. sree .~o+ NOTE: The 6ntamatayaem of 6aaJ # ahmm In ttie 9~va is I$netratBlC 4nJy. (..~.. t7erlseiC Ocloba TS905 C «.~~~ 12 35 bf ~~o O. Amend Figure 6.3 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows: :D1delarla: " .dried new a®prurmn! „af OuF>jin Bkvd, al FalEon Rood ~ddad Qeateahnical fmpaat Area-Cwreytive Graff :aqu}ed if Infrastructure ptanneddea£t7natkin :oviagd olfiar ca~rJvr€ea par newwrhnore eceaate Rdorntatfaf per ails apaelpc surveys Adel Croak, Braddock 8 Logan and atlonEnterpriane properdea. 7odillad FaWon Rd, akgmrcant abrtg ardan property .::.-r .. ~ " y /// 4. -. `y'". 1 _ ' l: r.i • 1 :~ -- , _ -~ C ~ ~/~A: N+!< A!! twtgon b a A h r of da£ ! 'th tt 1 ~ I Canter pkaurrmy, eft rcn 11eau su HI„un a.7 to as df ,:.rranan ct iiEr 7"r:+acit CrMCr plan nlny; urhvea. r _, ~~~ ~~ . ~ , ~ti - ~' ~+ -~ . ~.,~ ~~~ ~~~ ~... ,.. ~ rNG'C TftaMa'`lnatrystamd Wcalsrr~ xatuenei Ms duab~atwc oMy~ Figure 6,3 ,Environmental Constraints lo9orad j5!0j~!~j~ {3EUWgl9nro nl nvawaiwe Arons Ktti•::1 GUntCfin£Fal AvaidanCe Area6 -InflaallaFf Vfa raaSWEc ,~`~,+ Oaotnthntaal Impact Area -Correafwa a=nalog raawraa n larmstroalare rylannoa t~ -7 Snip ea vrer 3694 l::" ?J £66-yaar flaod Ylam F 'F Taaaajara Greek ~~~~~~7 tn£armillenS w.£laanla 1~.,.1 Sans{ava leaatlal Arne '~'~' Gofdrm Fagle prrslecttcn ZonE Visually Seneurva flidgeianda tJU Uovolap maul Yiauo£ty Snns3rive Rlduaaaafds - AaSt!latfd Urivetapnran£ EASTERN DUBLIN Specific Plan Reykad; C~atobar 2605 ~~~-~ ... Mgt w 13 3~ ~ ~~o P. The Foothill Residential portion of Appendix 3 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows, with all other portions of Appendix 3 remaining in full force and effect: Acres Densit S uare Feet Units Foothill Residential Medium-Hi h Densit Residential 27.1 20 542 du Medium Densit Residential 261.9 10 2,619 du Sin le Famil Residential* 789.1 4 3,156 Estate Residential 30.4 0.13 4 du Rural Residential/A riculture 554.2 .01 6 du Subtotal 1,662.7 6,327 O en S ace 632.5 Re Tonal Park 11.7 Nei hborhood Park 37.4 Nei hborhood S uare 6.4 Subtotal 688 Elementa School 22.7 Junior Hi h School 1.4 Hi h School 55.3 Subtotal 79.4 Public/Semi Public 7.2 0.24 FAR Semi -Public -- 0.24 FAR Total 2,437.3 -- 6,327 du 7 parks 5 schools * The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. 14 3~ ~~lyo Q. Appendix 4 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows: #7a Lin Estate Residential 30.4 0.13 4 O en S ace 126.8 -- 0 #7b DSRSD 0.5 -- 0 Tota I 157.7 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1St day of December, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:\PA#12008\PA 08-045 Dublin Ranch North GPA Initiation\Planning Commission\CC Reso GPA-SP.DOC IS 3 `~ ~ ~~~ ORDINANCE NO. XX-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN PREZONING THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PA 08-045 The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: Section 1. RECITALS A. This Ordinance prezones the subject properties (APN 985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028- 003-01)fvom Agriculture (County of Alameda) to PD, Planned Development (PA 08-045) with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. SECTION 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. The proposed Planned Development Zoning District meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 Planned Development Zoning District of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which envisioned residential development in this area; 2) the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan allows for the construction of homes with a country estate character, which is consistent with the rural nature of the site; and 3) the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan focuses residential development in less constrained areas and provides open space to protect sensitive areas, as required by Sections 8.32.010.E and 8.32.010G of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Development under the Planned District Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area because: 1) residential development is envisioned for the site and in surrounding areas within the City; 2) residential development has been approved west of the subject site (Silvera Ranch & Fallon Crossings) and north of the project site (Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley); and 3) the majority of the site (approximately 80%) will be maintained in a permanent conservation easement for the protection of wildlife and therefore the rural residential character of the majority of the site will be maintained. ATTACHMENT 5 3q ~ ~~o B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Dublin Ranch North Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in surrounding areas because: 1) residential development is envisioned 'for the site and in surrounding areas within the City; 2) residential development has been approved west of the subject site (Silvers Ranch & Fallon Crossings) and north of the project site (Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley); and 3) the majority of the site (approximately 80%) will be maintained in a permanent conservation easement for the protection of wildlife and therefore the rural residential character of the majority of the site will be maintained. 2. The Dublin Ranch North Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the Planned Development Zoning District proposed because: 1) the proposed density of the project site is compatible with the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments; 2) the proposed project will include residential uses which are consistent with the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations for the site; 3) the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan will allow the construction of 4 lots which will result in an overall density of 0.13 dwelling units per acre which falls within the permitted density range of 0.01 - 0.8 dwelling unit per acre in the proposed Estate Residential land use category; and 4) the development area is limited to the northwest corner of the site on less constrained portions of the property and with limitations on the location of future grading and ground disturbance. 3. The proposed amendment 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 because: 1) the General Plan anticipated development of the project site; and 2) there are several residential developments approved, under construction or under review in the vicinity. 4. The proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and PD Prezone are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the Applicant has requested approval of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural land use designations to Estate Residential and Open Space on the Dublin Ranch North property to decrease the density to allow the construction of 4 residential dwelling units. On December 1, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-09 approving the requested General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, with the resolution incorporated herein by reference. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project on December 1, 2009 by Resolution xx-09 incorporated herein by reference. 2 ~~ ~ ~~o SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to prezone the following property ("the Property") to a Planned Development Zoning District: 157.7 acres generally located east of Tassajara Road, west of the Pinn Brothers/Silveria Ranch project, south of Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley and east of the City Limit line. (APNs: 985-0028-003-02 & 985-0028-003-01). A map of the prezoning area is shown below: SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the property are set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Project area which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area (PA 08-045) This is a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development prezoning for the Dublin Ranch North project, PA 08-045. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan consist of the items and plans identified below. The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1 and Stage 2 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. 1. Statement of Uses: A) PD Estate Residential. '~I ~~f~lo Intent: Estate Residential Zoning District: typically ranchettes and estate homes are within this zoning district. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit. Intensity: 0.01 - 0.8 dwelling units per acre Permitted Uses: Animal Keeping, Residential pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (including horses and other large animals) Community care facility/small Emergency Vehicle Access Roads Garage/Yard Sale Home occupation (in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance) Secondary units (in accordance with Chapter 8.80 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance) Single-family dwelling Small family day care per Chapter 8.08 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Open Space Water Quality and retention facilities, which treat the on-site storm water run-off, and are therefore limited in their size and function Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Conditional Uses: Animal keeping -Commercial (Zoning Administrator) Large family day care (in accordance with Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance) Riding Academy (Zoning Administrator) Secondary Units (that are not in conformance with Chapter 8.80 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Administrator) Common recreation facilities, such as tennis courts and pools that are shared by all Dublin Ranch North homeowners (Zoning Administrator) Accessory Structures Uses: Residential Accessory Structures and Uses are permitted as long as they follow the Architectural Design Principles as set forth below in this Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. Any use or structures not covered by these principles shall follow Section 8.40 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Temporary Uses: Temporary construction trailer (in accordance with Chapter 8.108 of the Zoning Ordinance) Tract and sales office/model home complex (in accordance with Chapter 8.108 of the Zoning Ordinance) 4 B) PD Open Space. ~~ ~ ~~D Intent: Open Space lands are those shown as open space on the Stage 2 Site Plan below. Permitted Uses, including but not limited to: Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director that are not inconsistent with any applicable Conservation Easement. DSRSD parcel: DSRSD Water tank & access road Future Conservation Easement Area: Agriculture and grazing Streams and drainage protection corridors Wildlife habitat preservation areas Prohibited Uses: Paving or otherwise covering of the protected property with concrete, asphalt, or any other impervious paving material, grading, filling, dumping, excavating, draining, dredging, mining, drilling, removing or exploring for or extraction of minerals, loam, sands, gravel or other material on or below the surface, altering the surface of general topography, including building of roads or construction of permanent structures except as provided in the Conservation Easement. No structures are allowed in the Conservation Easement. 2. Dublin Zoning Ordinance -Other Applicable Requirements: Except as specifically modified by the provisions of this Planned Development District ordinance, all development in this Planned Development District shall be subject to the regulations of the closest comparable zoning district as determined by the Community Development Director and the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Site Plans. e,":; Stage 1 Site Plan: ESTATE RESIDEAiT1AL 3~.4t ac. gross eFFr+ s~A~E 127.31 ac. ~ ~~'~ gross -~ZyP~ ~ L 7 ~~~ ~~ ,r 1S ~~~ I ~ ~~~ iilvera 3nach ~ ~ 1 ~ ~,~_~ Stage 2 Site Plan: N~ f, ' 2 r l ~r~ ~ m ~ ~ ~` ' SP.ACF ;hut :c:lrvattlr a' i'a ~,11 \} 4 i ~~ ~ V . ~~ ! ~ nch ( 3' ~ . J p~`~ j { fq T ~y~ ~J ~ I ~ ¢~11~ ~I~k~ i ~0 t=.. , ~ I ~~..,~~. ~- ~,~~~ ~3 ~~~o 4. 5 Site Area, Proposed Densities, Maximum Number of Residential Dwellings. Dublin Ranch North Proposed PD Prezone Land Use Plan Acres (net & gross) Lots/Units Density (du/ac) (net & ross) Estate Residential 30.4 4 .13 O en S ace 127.3 - - TOTAL 157.7 4 N/A Development Regulations. Estate Residential: Maximum Lot Covera e(E> 10% Maximum Number of Residential Lots 4 Maximum Buildin Hei ht (J)(K)(L) 38' Maximum Stories (F) 3 Minimum Lot Size 1 Acre Minimum Front Setbacks (A)(B)(H)(I)(N) Livin S ace 20' Porch or Balton 15' Front Facin Gara a 25' Swin -in Gara a 20' Minimum Side Setbacks (A)(B)(H>(q(N> 10' Minimum Rear Setbacks (A)(B)(H)(I)(N) 20' Other Requirements Accesso Structure Setbacks (n) Parkin Spaces Required Per Lot 2 covered and 1 nest (on-site) Development Regulations: (A) Front setbacks are measured from the edge of the pavement of the private driveway. Rear and side setbacks are measured from the property line. The primary residence shall be located within the primary building envelope (shown in hatch marks on the graphic below). Accessory structures may be located in the primary building envelope or the building envelope (shown in light gray on the graphic below). (B) Encroachments into setbacks include items such as, but not limited to, roof overhangs, air conditioning condensers, entry stairs, exterior building stairs, porches, chimneys, bay windows, and media centers may encroach up to two feet or more into the required setback provided there is a minimum of 36 inches of unrestricted access on one side of the building. Air conditioning condensers cannot be placed in the front yard. All utilities are to be screened from public view via walls, enclosures, roof placement, etc. MI5 ~ ~I~-lo (C) Any accessory structure over 240 square feet located outside of the primary building envelope shall be approved by a Site Development Review Permit by the Community Development Director. (D) Residential accessory structures located within the primary residential envelope shall be permitted in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. (E) Maximum lot coverage regulations are intended to establish the maximum lot area that may be covered with buildings and structures. Buildings and structures includes all land covered by the principal buildings, garages and carports, permitted accessory structures, second units, covered decks and gazebos, and other enclosed and covered areas; but not roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, tennis courts and paved areas such as walkways, driveways, patios, exterior stairs, uncovered parking areas or roads. (F) Subject to Building Code requirements for access. (G) External retaining walls up to four feet in height may be used to create a level usable area. Walls over 30 inches in height are subject to safety criteria as determined by the Building Official. (H) Setbacks subject to review and approval of Building Official for Building Code and Fire Code Issues. (I) On grade stairs and approaches can be located within setbacks. (J) Building height for a flat pad is measured as the distance from the adjacent ground surface to the perpendicular point of the roof edge. Building heights for a split pad and sloped lot is measured as the distance from the finished grade to the perpendicular point of the roof edge as shown in the graphic below. ,- ~'' ~- - - - -~.~ - ~~~ ~ (K) Buildings may not project above the north-south ridgeline running along the eastern portion of the estate residential parcels. (L) Accessory structures shall be measured in the same manner as the primary residence and shall be a maximum of 15 feet except that a barn or a detached s ~~ ~~ ~aD garage with a secondary unit above may be up to a maximum height of 38 feet. 6. (M) Agricultural accessory structures include, but are not limited to; stable barns, pens, corrals, greenhouses or coops are permitted by a Site Development Review Permit by the Community Development Director. (N) Accessory Structures, with the exception of driveway gates, will be placed within the setbacks provided in the Site Development Standards and will follow the same setbacks as the principal structure. (O) Grading will be required on approximately 10 acres of the 157.7 acre site. This includes approximately 7 acres to create the access road, building pads and utilities, and an additional 3 acres for remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The approximate limits of grading are shown on the graphic on page 7. Project Entry, Fence & Wall Standards. Project Entry & Streetscapes. The entry to the Dublin Ranch North neighborhood is located off of Cydonia Court in the Silvera Ranch Phase 4 Residential Development. The entry may have a gate that will provide access to the private driveway for residents, their guests and service providers. Entry: • The entry shall be a driveway entrance off of Cydonia Court at 20 feet in width. • Five feet of landscaping shall be provided on either side of the entry driveway. • The 5 feet of landscaping provided on either side of the private driveway entrance will be planted with a hydro seed mix or with low water planting. ENTRY SILVERA i~APiC}i LC?T M1.41 LBC~XES/ GATE ENTRY GATE _, cc ~~" i~~-tlvaTE r~l~v~ ao~ ~~ _ - _ ~- Gate: • If provided, the gate may span across the 20 foot private driveway. • A minimum 6 foot fence will extend from the gate to the property line in the same material and height as the fence. • The gate may be 6' in height and shall consist of a metal material. • Visitor access would be provided by a gate call box located to the north side of the driveway. 9 ~I~ ~~- ~t~lo • The gate shall include a Knox box for Fire and Police access. • Gate design shall allow 20 feet clear across access drive for vehicles. Mailboxes: • The mailboxes should match in style and color to the gate call box. Entry Monumentation: • If provided, entry monumentation/signage shall be placed within the 5 foot landscaping area on either side of the drive. • Entry monumentation shall blend with the gate and mailboxes to create a distinct character for the project. Private Driveway: • The private common driveway (which accesses the 4 lots) shall be 20 feet in width. • A bioswale shall be provided on the eastern side of the driveway to treat storm water runoff from the site, as grades permit. • Large canopy trees shall be planted in informal clusters on the eastern side of the driveway at the time that the primary residence is constructed. • Provision of landscaping other than the large canopy trees and the bioswale will be the responsibility of the homeowner. • Three parking bays with a total of 5 parking spaces shall be provided along the eastern side of the private driveway. This is in addition to the required on-site parking. The parking bays shall be built with gravel and overlaid on the area that the bioswale runs. The bioswale-will terminate at an inlet, and flow through a pipe in these locations before being released on the other side of the parking bay. A 1 foot swale behind the parking bay shall be provided for storm water collection and will flow into the bioswale. _ - ~ „~ ~~ ,~,.ri J~. __. . ~' ~,. ~ f -~ ~F~ ~ ;, _; s ~ 'I i ,r ~` i ~1.C7~. ~' ~'~~ta4'E CJ~tIY~ ~~ ~r `" S1C}~VY~L ~fi~A~F~ 10 '~^ S o _ ~~ 3_. f. "t. ^a f .q ..i.,~ ~ ' „.. '~`~` 'nt .it 4 ' Hl.~{"s. ,~RIiIATE L~R1VE RCI~ 'M`EN S~~At~r' Fences and Walls: • Fences on the lower portions of the lots (west of the private drive) shall be transparent and blend into the environment. Acceptable fences include but are not limited to rail fences, view fences and wire fences. Fences such as a privacy fence and walls are acceptable when located between structures on adjacent lots to provide privacy. • Fences on the upper portions of the lots (east side of the private drive) shall be transparent and blend into the environment. Acceptable fences include but are not limited to rail fences, view fences and wire fences. Privacy Fence/VVall: o A minimum of 15 feet shall be provided behind the front facade before this fence/wall occurs. The fence/wall shall not exceed 15 feet beyond the rear elevation of the primary residence. o The fence shall be a maximum of 8 feet tall. o Materials shall include wood, synthetic wood (resin based) and masonry. ~~' ~7~ w~~ct1 pwnt Is ~~ ~#" x ~#" t ~' o.c. i j i f .......j :....... 11 ~~ o~ ~~Q View Fence: o The fence shall be a maximum of 6 feet tall. o Fence shall be made of metal and shall be black in color. o If provided along the side property line, the fence shall be a minimum of 15 feet behind the front fagade of the home. Rail Fence: o The fence shall be a maximum of 4 feet from the finish grade to the top of the rail. o If the fence is provided for animals, such as horses, the fences can be increased to 5 feet in height. o The rail fence can be used in the front yards and along the side yards of homes as a landscape element. o Pilasters can be used as an additional element with the rail fence. o Rail fences shall be white or a natural wood color. Agricultural Fence (barbed wire fence): o Agricultural fences shall be used along the edge of the lots and the open space. o Steel posts shall be 6 feet in height and placed with 1 foot 6 inches in the ground and 4 feet 6 inches above grade. The fence shall have four lines of wire, 3 barbed and one smooth. o The barbed wire shall be 12-gauge, with the barbs spaced evenly at 6" apart. o The smooth wire shall be 12-gauge and shall be the bottom wire. 12 4° x 4" POST $' o.c. ~. ___ __ - - _ _~__ T_____ ~_: T-~- 50 ~ yyo ,: . .. ~. ,~ ~. , ,; Retaining Walls: o Retaining walls can be used to help with grading and retaining the natural landform. o Retaining wall height shall be minimized, with 30 inches being the preferred height. o Retaining walls shall have a maximum height of four feet. o If retaining more than six feet of dirt, two retaining walls shall be required. The retaining walls shall be placed five feet apart and shall not exceed four feet in height. o All retaining walls shall be made with high quality design and materials. o Retaining walls shall be designed to match the architectural style of the residence with similar colors and materials or blend in with the environment if located away from the building. o Finishes on retaining walls must continue down to 4 inches of grade or 2 inches of adjacent paved surface. Utilities: • Utility boxes shall be screened with landscaping as allowed by the utility companies. • Underground facilities should be used where practical. 7. Phasing Plan. The access road, utilities and building pads of the Dublin Ranch North project will be developed in one phase. Timing for development will depend on market demand and the provision of access and utilities from adjacent properties. All necessary site grading, storm drainage, sewer and water improvements shall be provided in a timely manner and concurrent with development. The 4 custom homes may be developed by a single developer or by multiple developers. 13 51 ~- ~I~lo 8. Landscape Plan/Private Lot Landscaping/Bioswale. Landscape Plan: _ _ _ _ ~~ - .~ :- ~: , i ;,;~~ "' r , ~+ # 2 ~;~ Ta , _ OPEN ~ 3 SPACE' tF,r~rxa =~ti~+n ^„ ~. ~ P. ` ~~ F r ~ ~ ~ ;-~ '.i ~ LEGEND v.,,,Um ..~c;v ~.~a ~~r3~.ni "' ~ '~ Gmvd?a'kinp Saws NOTE ~_ __ I ~i1lNd RM.b o-:.w.avau.ntltimw.4 p.tia uc w m tro ~«N>~exM d rcn nn o..~ •r Bioswale: The bioswale is designed to collect and treat storm water on site. The bioswale is located on the east side of the private driveway. The private driveway shall be sloped to drain into the bioswale as well as drainage from roofs and yards, as grades permit. The storm water will be treated through the bioswale and then enter the storm drain line through catch basins at each property line. The project storm drain line will then connect to the storm drain stub provided in Cydonia Ct. Landscaping within the bioswale shall be native or other adaptable plants that can take high water intensity as well as drought tolerant in the warmer months. Private Lot Landscaping -Landscape Design: • All paving materials for walks, patios, courtyards and decks shall compliment the architecture style of the home. • Required street trees must be planted, irrigated, retained and maintained in good health by the homeowner. • A maximum of 40' along the lot frontage can be a paved surface; this can be used for a driveway, entry walk, etc. Asphalt driveways and entry walks are not permitted. • A maximum of 30% of the front yard landscape may be planted in lawn. Shrubs and ground covers are encouraged. • Plantings must follow the City of Dublin Wildfire Management plan in spacing and plant types as appropriate. • Ornamental plantings shall have an automatic irrigation system instalFed and maintained by the homeowner. • Drought tolerant and native plants should be considered for planting design. 14 5a ~ ~~lo Undeveloped Land: • Land within the residential parcels that is not developed or landscaped and has been graded shall be hydro seeded to control erosion and provide cover. Fire Management: • Since the residential lots will be adjacent to permanent Open Space, fire buffers and structures adjacent to the open spaces shall be designed in accordance with the City of Dublin Wildfire Management requirements. 9. Architectural Design Standards. • Provide high quality architecture that is built utilizing authentic architecture styles and elements. • Allow flexibility of architectural design and style for each homeowner. • Require that the appropriate scale and proportion of architectural elements and the selection of details are used to provide authenticity of style. • Roof forms, materials and building massing shall be used to establish recognizable style. • Detail elements should be provided to enhance the character of the style. • Materials shall be of a high quality. Fire Management: o Housing materials, designs and placement should be carefully considered and shall follow the City of Dublin's Wildfire Management Plan. Materials should be non-combustible when possible and size treatments and coatings as well as sizes of wood elements should be considered. Building Mass and Form: o The general form of the building should follow the architectural style of the home and visual interest should be provided by articulations of the wall planes to provide interest and scale. o One and two story elements and forms should be combined to break up massing. o Box forms should be avoided and the second story shall not completely overlay the first floor. o When authentic to the architectural style variable facade setbacks should be provided. o Facades of homes that are visible from Fallon Road or Tassajara Road shall incorporate a horizontal or vertical massing break. o If a stepped pad is used, varying heights of the stores of the home shall be used. Facade Detail Elements: o All facade elements shall be appropriate to the architectural style of the home. To enhance the building facade and increase interest elements such as covered porches, entry alcoves, windows and other details should be used. o The entry shall be articulated as the focal element of the front facade. o Alcoves or project overhangs as well as different articulations can be used is 53 ~ y~io to cast shadows. o If a stepped pad is used the downslope wall shall be articulated and include facade elements that the rest of the home incorporates. This can include windows, balconies, wall articulation and other elements. o Enhanced trim and details shall be used to emphasize doors and windows. o Window treatment and details such as shutters, awnings, louvered vents, ,horizontal banding, and false shuttered windows should be used to enhance the exterior of the building if appropriate to the building style. o Facade elements shall be provided on all sides of the home. Roof Lines/Roof Forms: o Roof forms shall be consistent with the architectural style of the home. Hip, gable, shed roof forms or a combination thereof, may be utilized. o Dormers and similar elements are encouraged to be used to provide interest. o Dual pitch roof forms such as Gambrel or Mansard shall not be used. o If asphalt composite shingles are used they shall be 50 year architectural grade. o Principal roof forms shall have a minimum roof pitch of 3'/2:12. o Extended. overhangs are allowed if designed properly and are authentic to the architectural style. o If covered porches are provided, roof pitch can vary. Material shall be consistent with the roof material or house materials. o A variety and balance of hip and gable forms shall be provided to avoid repetitious elements within the community. Garage Design: o The landscaping, entries and overall residential structure shall be the primary emphasis of the street view. o Garages shall be concealed or be de-emphasized, which can be accomplished by utilizing swing in garages, adding windows and other architectural treatments to the garage doors, detached and setback garages, recessing garage doors and adding porte cocheres or trellis' forward of the garage door. o Deeper front yard setbacks than the required 20 feet are preferred. o No more than two car garage doors shall be on the same plane. An additional door, if provided, shall be offset by a minimum of 2 feet. o A maximum of three car doors may be front facing onto the private driveway. o A maximum of four garage doors are permitted if in swing in garages. o Garage doors materials should reflect the architectural style of the home. o Roll up doors shall be used. o Windows within the garage door are encouraged. o Colors should complement the color palette. o Garage doors that face the front shall be recessed a minimum of 6 inches to decrease the visibility of the door if appropriate to style. i6 5~1 ~- ~Iyo Materials/Colors: o The materials and colors for Dublin Ranch North are encouraged to blend with the natural setting and to complement the surrounding environment. o Materials shall be of a high quality and compatibility with other homes within the development. o Materials and colors shall be applied to all four sides of the home, and match that of the front elevation of the home. o Material changes shall occur at an inside corner or a logical transition point such as chimneys, projections or recesses. o Stone in natural hues, naturalistic finishes and patterns are preferred. o All materials shall comply with the City of Dublin's Wildfire Management Plan as appropriate. o Colors should be natural earth tones and are encouraged to mimic and blend with the surrounding colors of the site. o Prohibited colors and materials include bright metals that do not patina or are not matte finished and colors that are bright or occur in non-traditional tones, such as pink, bright yellows, purple or blue. Windows/Doors/Other Detailed Elements: o Windows, doors and other elements shall follow the architectural style of the home and be made with high quality design and materials. o Four sided architecture shall be used, and windows, doors and other elements shall be used on all facades of the home. o Windows shall have a minimum width of four inches of foam trim, a minimum four-by nominal lumber dimension of wood trim, or be recessed by a minimum of four inches. o The entire door assembly should be treated as a single design element including casing, trim, molding and glass sidelights if provided. o Door colors shall complement the rest of the house either through contrast of the trim color or matching; it should be a different color than the wall color. o Skylights and other roof windows are allowed as long as they are designed to be an integral part of the roof with clear or bronzed glazing and framework that matches the roof or trim of the house. Lighting: o Lighting is encouraged to enhance the architectural and landscape features and provide safety. o No on-site pole lights shall be allowed on lots. o Flood lights are not allowed unless they are shielded from the neighbor and private drive and provided with .a motion detecting sensor. o The number of exterior lighting fixtures shall be limited to lighting landscaping and for safety. o All lighting shall be installed to not intrude on the neighboring property or project into the night sky. Utilities: o All on-site utilities shall be screened either via walls, roof placement, enclosures, etc. Mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, heaters, etc. shall not be placed on the roof or in the front yard of the home. ~~ 55 °~ ~I~lo 10. Statement of Consistency with General Plan and Eastern. Dublin Specific Plan. The PD prezoning and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan are consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended through Resolution approving the companion General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments. 11. Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. This project provides only four (4) units; this project is exempted from complying with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance per Section 8.68.030.A. 11. Access. Access to the proposed 4 residential lots shall be provided from the Silvera Ranch development by way of Cydonia Court (planned future street). Cydonia Court is an eastward bearing cul-de-sac and provides access and utilities to the project area. Cydonia Court has two emergency vehicle access points. From this cul-de-sac, a single residential driveway will serve the four Dublin Ranch North lots. 12. DSRSD Parcel. The DSRSD parcel is included in this Planned Development for purposes of prezoning and annexation. No development is authorized beyond that existing at the time this Ordinance is effective. 13. Maintenance of Open Space • The majority of the site is designated as open space (126.8 acres) and will be a permanently managed environmental area. Grading for development will not occur within the open space parcel. • If planting occurs within the Open Space areas it shall be native plants as practical and as accepted by the various environmental agencies. • No trails or other development will occur on the Open Space parcel. • The Open Space parcel within the conservation easement will be managed consistent with a Mitigation Monitoring Plan approved by various agencies. • Maintenance of these managed environmental areas is privately funded by a land trust. • These lands have been designated as a mitigation area for development impacts on environmental resources from other areas of Dublin Ranch. This area will provide permanent habitat and/or nesting sites for red legged frogs, California tiger salamanders and golden eagles. is 5~ af~~~ 14. Maintenance Responsibilities. Maintenance for the Dublin Ranch North property will be the responsibility of four separate entities, the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), the Open Space Conservation entity, a joint maintenance agreement amongst the homeowners and the individual homeowners. • DSRSD shall own and maintain their 0.5 acre parcel. • The Open Space maintenance shall be the sole responsibility of the Open Space Conservation Easement entity. • A Joint Maintenance Agreement shall be formed amongst the project homeowners to govern the shared costs of the bioswale, the driveway, gate and mailboxes. • The individual homeowner is responsible for maintaining all landscaping and irrigation on their property including all private driveway trees, fences, walls, slopes and lot landscaping. JJ~~a.~~F+-f 1Wlb ~i ~-~-i ~1.I R~.Yr ~. 'l~iii' i~Y'~iE~}l~if.~e1~F~ r ~ ~ ~ ~`~ , ` ~ Maintained by the ~, ,~~~ Conservation ,, ~, Easement Entity ""~~~~~ ~ ~ Maintained by i di id l ~ d ~ ~ '~ ~`~ ` ~ n v ua f . ,F homeowner ~ f ~ ~ t r _ ,.. ~ ' ~ SPACE:. 'OP'EN ; ~ .~' m , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Maintained by a joint , ~~~rvR~ co~vs~RUAfiror~ o ~ maintenance agreement (formed ~~' I ~ ,~s~s~N-r~ ~• of the homeowners) 1 ^~ ~ t, , ~,~-~~o 15. Aerial Photo. An aerial photo of the site is shown below. ~,, +n . /R~ ,_ ~~" ~ ," 1;; 1 •^l ". ~f 1, -- RITGHEY & HUNTER r_~ ~__~ _ DUBLIN RANCH NC#RTH STANDARD PAGIFIG i ~ ( +t ~' ' EP! f ~~"~~ ~ a r ~~~ ~ Q ~ ~-~- ~ i SILVERA RANGH ~ ~ ~ I ~ O O DSRSD ~~ ; ~ ~= DUBLIN RANCH r~~r ~\~ _ \` 4 jt~fi AREA D P~e~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ DUBLIN RANCH y, ~~ `~ ~ ,,,~_ , ``~` -.1 ',. .AREA A .~'" ,. ~ ~ .~~. .w:,~``,z~_.rh~ a~._,. ._ .. SECTION 5. The use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project area shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as provided in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption. 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. Zo ` ~ ~ `~~ ~ ~~' .DUBLIN RAf~rj~W`~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ AREA D 58 °~ ~'~o PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on day of 2009, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPA#120081PA 08-045 Dublin Ranch North GPA InitiationlPlanning CommissionlCC Ordinance for Dublin Ranch North PD.doc 21 RESOLUTION NO. 09-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8016 TO SUBDIVIDE A 157.2 ACRE PARCEL KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH NORTH (APN: 985-0028-003-02) PA 08-045 WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong on behalf of the Lin family, has requested approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016 to subdivide a 157.2 acre parcel located at 6582 Tassajara Road; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision of the 157.2 acre property results in five (5) lots as follows: Lot 1 = 12.9 acres, Lot 2 = 5.9 acres, Lot 3 = 4.5 acres, Lot 4 = 7.0 acres, Lot 5 = 126.8; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing to cluster development on Lots 1 through 4 located in the northwestern portion of the project site; and WHEREAS, the majority of the project site (lot 5), 126.8 acres, will be placed in a permanent conservation easement for the protection of wildlife; and WHEREAS, on November 10, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution, incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designations of Dublin Ranch North from Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural to Estate Residential and Open Space; and WHEREAS, on November 10, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution, incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch North; and WHEREAS, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016 is consistent with the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development Prezone; and WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations adopted by City of Dublin require that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels for 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 City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the proposed subdivision is available and on file in the Community Development Department and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016 has been submitted to the City as required by Chapter 9.08 of the Dublin Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Ranch North property is within the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area for which a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93 and two subsequent Addendums dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 (the "Eastern Dublin EIR" (SCH Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT 6 ~ ~~~o 91103064)). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which apply to this project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City as the Lead Agency prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North project entitled "Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated October 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, and circulated it for review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a noticed public hearing on November 10, 2009 and recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted analyzing the Project and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and recommending the Planning Commission approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016 subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on November 10, 2009; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use independent judgment and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. that BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find A. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances. B. The five lots created by Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016 are consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan objectives, polices, land uses, and programs as they relate to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for the development of residential and open space uses provided by the Plans, as well as measures addressing public infrastructure and environmental issues. C. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016 is consistent with the General Provisions and Development Standards proposed for the Planned Development Zoning District for Dublin Ranch North and therefore is consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. The project site is located adjacent to a future cul-de-sac, (Cydonia Court), on approximately 157.2 acres of land and development is proposed on 30.4 acres in a less constrained area with adjacent hillside areas placed in open space and is therefore physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed. E. With the incorporation of environmental mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR prepared for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area and the Mitigation Measures referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project site, the design of the Page 2 of 7 (~I ~ ~--I~--Io proposed tract map will not cause environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife of their habitat or cause public health concerns. F. The design of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016 will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016, PA 08-045 to subdivide 157.2 gross acres of land, as follows: Lot 1 = 12.9 acres, Lot 2 = 5.9 acres, Lot 3 = 4.5 acres, Lot 4 = 7.0 acres, Lot 5 = 126.8 acres. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016, prepared by MacKay & Somps dated received on October 23, 2009 (sheets 1, 2 and 3) and is on file in the Community Development Department. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building_permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, jBl Building_fP0] Police, [PW] Public Works fADMI Administration/City Attorney~[FIN] Finance, [F) Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7~] Zone CONDITION TEXT ` RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: 1. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees B, PL, Issuance of Standard in effect, including, but not limited to, Planning fees, ADM, PW Building Building fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services Permits District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District Impact fees, Fire facilities Impact fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that maybe ado ted and a licable. 2. Final Map Dedications: All easement dedications PW Final Map Public shown on the Tentative Map shall be dedicated on the Works Final Map. 3. Cydonia Court: Tract 7540 shall be recorded and PW Final Map Public Cydonia Court accepted by the City and access rights Works from Cydonia Court to Tract 8016 be recorded prior to the approval of the Tract 8016 Final Map. 4. Water Quality Treatment: The storm drain system PW Final Map Public shall be design to meet all applicable requirements of Works Section C3 of the Municipal Regional Permit adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board on October 10, 2009, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Page 3 of 7 yea ~ ~1~10 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: 5. Storm Drain Diversion: The Developer shall provide PW Final Map Public hydrology /hydraulic calculations that show that the Works existing storm drain system has adequate capacity for any diversion of drainage from Tract 8016. The City will provide to the Developer copies of the existing Hydrology /hydraulic calculations for the downstream storm drain system. 6. Storm Drain Improvements: All storm drain PW Final Map Public improvements within Tract 8016 shall be privately Works owned and maintained. 7. Overland Drainage: The Developer shall provide PW Final Map Public calculations that show that any overland drainage Works flowing across the southern property line is less than the flow prior to the development of Tract 8016. Any concentrated drainage flow shall be designed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to be dispersed prior to flowing across the southern property line. 8. Tract Improvement Agreement: The Developer shall PW Final Map Public enter into a Tract Improvement Agreement with the City Works for the common private site improvements including the driveway and drainage improvements. 9. Surety: The Developer shall provide performance PW Final Map Public (100%), and labor & material (100%) securities to Works guarantee the tract improvements, approved by .the City Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the Final Map. 10. Phasing of Parcel Map: Any phasing of the Final Map PW Final Map Public or site improvements is subject to the approval of the Works City Engineer. 11. Clarification. In the event that there needs to be PW Final Map Standard clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the Community Development Director and/or City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Community Development Director and/or 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. Page 4 of 7 ~v3 ~ y~lo CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: 12. Hold Harmless. The Developer shall defend, PW Final Map Standard 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 related to this project to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 13. Improvements. The improvements shall be constructed PW Final Map Standard generally as shown on the Tentative Map. However, the approval of the Tentative Map is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. 14. DSRSD Requirements. The Developer shall construct PW Final Map Standard all water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with DSRSD requirements. 15. Encroachment Permit. The Developer shall obtain an PW On-going Standard Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of--way of any street where the City has accepted the improvements. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment permit for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. 16. Grading/Sitework Permit. The Developer shall obtain PW Site grading Standard a Grading /Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for all private grading and site improvements not included in the Tract Improvement Agreement. 17. Geotechnical Report. The Developer shall submit a PW Final Map Standard Geotechnical Report, which includes pavement sections and grading recommendations. Page 5 of 7 b~l °f N~I~ CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: 18. Improvement Plans. The Developer will be responsible PW Final Map Standard 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. 19. Notice of Intent. Prior to any clearing or grading, the PW Prior to Standard Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice grading of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. 20. Construction Hours. Construction activities shall be PW On-going Standard limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 21. Archaeological Materials. If archaeological materials PW/PL On-going Standard are encountered during construction, construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 22. Storm Water Treatment Measure Maintenance. The PW Prior to Standard Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of return of Dublin that guarantees the perpetual maintenance Surety obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.e.ii of RWQCB Order R2-2003-0021 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. 23. Digital Vectorized File. The Developer shall provide PW Prior to Standard the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of return of the "master" files for the project when the Final Map Surety has been approved. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 2000 DWG or higher drawing format. Page 6 of 7 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ'D Prior to: SOURCE Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. 24. Contingent Approval. Approval of Vesting Tentative PL Upon Standard Tract Map 8016 is contingent upon Annexation into the Annexation City of Dublin, approval of General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, and adoption of the PD Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 adoption and adopted MND. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10`'' day of November, 2009. AYES: Wehrenberg, Schaub, King, Swalwell NOES: Brown ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager G:IPA#12008!PA OS-045 Dub/in Rnnch North GPA /nitialionlPlanning CommissionlPCReso-VTM.doc Page7of7 (nl~ °f''~~lo ORDINANCE NO. XX - 09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DUBLIN RANCH NORTH BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND HONG YAO LIN AND HONG LIEN LIN APN: 985-0028-003-02 PA 08-045 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. The proposed Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area ("Project") includes General Plan and Specific Plan amendments to modify the land use designations from Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agriculture to Estate Residential and Open Space and reduce the overall density of the site, approval of a Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the 157.7 acre project site and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 157.2 acres into 5 lots. B. Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City as the Lead Agency prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North project entitled "Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated October 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, and circulated it for review. The Planning Commission reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted a Resolution incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the Planning Commission on November 10, 2009, for which public notice was given as provided by law. D. The Planning Commission has made its recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Development Agreement. F. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on December 1, 2009 for which public notice was given as provided by law. G. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission who considered the item at its November 10, 2009 meeting, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Staff Report, all comments received in writing and all testimony received at the public hearing. Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 7 Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Therefore, on the basis of (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin's General Plan, (c) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (d) the Eastern Dublin EIR, (e) the Mitigated Negative Declaration, (f) the Agenda Statement, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The Project is consistent with the objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended in that (a) the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation for the site are Estate Residential and Open Space and the proposed project is a project consistent with those land uses, (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to provision of infrastructure and public services, (c) the project is consistent with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning proposed for Dublin Ranch North, and (d) the Dublin Ranch North Development Agreement includes provisions relating to vesting of development rights, and similar provisions set forth in the Specific Plan. 2. The Dublin Ranch North Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include Annexation into the City of Dublin, General Plan Amendment, Eastern .Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. 3. The Dublin Ranch North Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use policies in that the project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which have planned for residential uses at this location. 4. The Dublin Ranch North Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 5. The Dublin Ranch North Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan and with the Specific Plan. Section 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A) and authorizes the Mayor to execute it. Section 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. Page 2 of 3 ~~ ~- ~~a Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least thre"e (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of , 2009 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-045 Dublin Ranch North GPA Initiation\Planning Commission\CC Ordinance DA.DOC Page 3 of 3 ~°~~~o RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF DUBLIN When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above this line for Recorder's use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND HONG YAO LIN AND HONG LIEN LIN FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH PROJECT (~OPl7 EXHIBIT A TO ATTAC'AMF.NT 7 ~o ~-~~o THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement" or this "Development Agreement") is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this 15th day of December, 2009, by and between the City of Dublin,. a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City") and Hong Yao Lin (also known as Kevin Lin) and Hong Lien Lin (also known as Frederich or Frederic Lin) (hereafter collectively referred to as "Developer") pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8:56. City and Developer are, from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party," and are collectively referred to as "Parties." RECITALS A. California Government Code §§65864 et seq. ("Development Agreement Statute") and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter into a Development Agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property. B. Developer is the owner of certain property presently outside of the City's boundaries but within the City of Dublin's sphere of influence described more particularly in Exhibit A ("the Property"), which is incorporated herein by reference. C. Developer has filed an application with the City to, among other things, authorize the filing of an application to annex the Property to the City and the Dublin-San Ramon Services District, which proposal would require the approval of the Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission. D. Developer proposes the development of the Property, which property is approximately 157.63 acres, with 4 residential units ("the Project"). E. Developer, or its predecessor in interest, has applied for, and City has approved or is processing, various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including, without limitation, a resolution of application for the annexation, a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and a vesting tentative tract map. All such approvals collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Project are referred to as the "Project Approvals." F. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by Resolution No. 53-93 which Plan is applicable to the Property. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires Developer to enter into a development agreement as a condition of the development of the Property. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 2 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 1 ~ °~ `-1yb G. Development of the Property by Developer may be subject to certain future discretionary approvals, which, if granted, shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals as each such approval becomes effective. H. City desires the timely; efficient, orderly and proper development of the Project. . I. The City Council has found that, among other things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56. J. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein. K. [CEQA compliance language to be added.] L. On December 15, 2009, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. approving this Development Agreement ("the Approving Ordinance"). The Approving Ordinance will take effect on January 14, 2010 ("the Approval Date"). NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein . contained, City and Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Description of Property. The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. Interest of Developer. The Developer has a legal or equitable interest in the Property in that it is the owner of the property. 3. Relationship of City and_Developer. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and Developer and that the Developer is not an agent of the City. The City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 3 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 l~ ~ f ~ru~ 4. Effective Date and Term. 4.1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the Approval Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall not become operative until the Property is annexed to the City. . 4.2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and extend five (5) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement. 5. Use of the Property. 5.1. Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time; be approved pursuant to this Agreement (such amendments once effective shall become part of the law Developer is vested into without an additional amendment of this Agreement). 5.2. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public utilities (operated by the City) and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals. 5.3. Additional Conditions. Provisions for the following ("Additional Conditions") are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 5.3.1.. Subsequent Discretionary Approvals. Conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions. (These conditions do not affect Developer's responsibility to obtain all other land use approvals required by the ordinances of the City of Dublin other approvals from regulatory agencies.) 5.3.2. Mitigation Conditions. Additional or modified conditions agreed upon by the parties in order to eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the Project or otherwise relating to development of the Project. See Exhibit B 5.3.3. Phasing, Timing. Provisions that the Project be constructed in specified phases, that construction shall commence within a specified Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 4 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 ~3 ~- ~~o time, and that the Project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time. See Exhibit B 5.3.4. Financing Plan. Financial plans which identify necessary capital improvements such as streets and utilities and sources of funding. See Exhibit B 5.3.5. Fees, Dedications. Terms relating to payment of fees or dedication of property. See Exhibit B 5.3.6. Reimbursement. Terms relating to subsequent reimbursement over time for financing of necessary public facilities. See Exhibit B 5.3.7. Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous terms. See Exhibit B 6. Applicable Rules Regulations and Official Policies. 6.1. Rules Regarding Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, the City's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the Effective Date of the Agreement. 6.2. Rules Regarding Design and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether date of approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 5 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 ~~ ~f ~~o 6.3. Uniform Codes Applicable. Unless expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Fire Codes and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project. 7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. 7.1. New Rules and Regulations. During the term of this Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules; regulations and official policies of the City to the Property which were not in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and which are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement if: (a) the application of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement and the Project Approvals and (b) if such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies have general applicability. 7.2. Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project on the basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and policies except that such subsequent actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein. 7.3. Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by action of the City, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a limit on the rate of development or a voter- approval requirement which affects the Project on all or any part of the Property, the City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code § 8558. 8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees, Assessments and Taxes. 8.1. Fees, Exactions, Dedications The City and Developer agree that the fees payable and exactions required in connection with the development of the Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, providing infrastructure for the Project and complying with the Specific Plan shall be those set forth in the Project Approvals and in this Agreement (including Exhibit B . The City shall not impose or require payment of any other fees, dedications of land, or construction of any public improvement or facilities, Dublin/Lin Development Agreement ~ Page 6 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 15 ~f-yyo shall not increase or accelerate existing fees, dedications of land or construction of public improvements, or impose other exactions in connection with any subsequent discretionary approval for the Property, except as set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement (including Exhibit B, subparagraph 5.3.5). 8.2. Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective only; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement. 8.3. New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 8.4. Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied against it by the City pursuant to any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services which benefit the Property. 8.5. Vote on Future Assessments and Fees. In the event that any assessment, fee or charge which is applicable to the Property is subject to Article XIIID of the Constitution and Developer does not return its ballot, Developer agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors, that the City may count Developer's ballot as affirmatively voting in favor of such assessment, fee or charge. 9. Amendment or Cancellation. 9.1. Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension,of the Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.56. 9.2. Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of State law and Chapter 8.56. 9.3. Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph 9.2, any amendments to this Agreement which do not relate Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 7 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 ~~ ~~~D to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for "significant" reservation or dedication of land as provided in Exhibit B; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this Agreement, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City's Public Works Director shall determine whether a reservation or dedication is "significant". 9.4. Amendment of Project Approvals. Any amendment of Project Approvals relating to: (a) the permitted use of the Property; (b) provision for reservation or dedication of land; (c) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (d) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (e) the maximum height or size of proposed. buildings; (f) monetary contributions by the Developer; or (g) public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall require an amendment of this Agreement. Such amendment shall be limited to those provisions of this Agreement which are implicated by the amendment of the Project Approval. Any other amendment of the Project Approvals, or any of them, shall not require amendment of this Agreement unless the amendment of the Project Approval(s) relates specifically to some provision of this Agreement. 9.5. Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.56. ~ Any fees paid pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 and Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by the City. 10. Term of Proiect Approvals. 10.1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), the term of the vesting tentative map described in Recital F above shall automatically be extended for the term of this Agreement. The term of any other Project Approval shall be extended only if so provided in Exhibit B. 11. Annual Review. 11.1. Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be between July 15 and August 15, 2010 and thereafter between each July 15 and August 15 during the Term. 11.2. Initiation of Review. The City's Community Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under. Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56, by giving to Developer thirty (30) days' written notice that the City intends to Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 8 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 ~~ ~ ~I~lo undertake such review. Developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Agreement. The . burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the Developer. 11.3. Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit in the mail and fax to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least five (5) days prior to any annual review. 11.4. Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with the annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the time of review: 12. Default. 12.1. Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the. remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 12.2. Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 12.3. No Damages Against City. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against the City upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. 13. Estoppel Certificate. 13.1. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying party the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 9 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 ~8 ~ f ~I~lo and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City Manager of the City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer. Should the party receiving the request riot execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this section are true, and any party may rely on such deemed certification. 14. Mortgaqee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 14.1. Mortgaqee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 14.2. Mortgaqee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14.1 above, .no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 14.3. Notice of Default to Mortgaqee and Extension of Right to Cure. If the City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then the City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by the City that Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure' or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City's notice. The City, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in paragraph 12.2 for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon request of Developer or a Mortgagee. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 10 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 ~q ~N~o 15. Severability. 15.1. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. 16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs 16.1. If the City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 17. Transfers and Assignments. 17.1 Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer or assign all or portions of its Property to other developers (each such other developer is referred to as a "Transferee"). In connection with any such sale, transfer or assignment to a Transferee, Developer may sell, transfer or assign to such Transferee any or all rights, interests and obligations of Developer arising hereunder and that pertain to the portion of the Property being sold or transferred, to such Transferee, provided, however, that: no such transfer, sale or assignment of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 17.2 Approval and Notice of Sale Transfer or Assignment. The City Manager shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale or assignment within ten (10) days after Developer's notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information are provided to the City Manager to enable the City Manager to determine whether the proposed Transferee can perform the Developer's obligations hereunder. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer or assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been transferred and those which have been retained by Developer) shall be recorded in the official records of Alameda County, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently with such sale, transferor assignment. 17.3 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Paragraph 17.1 of this Agreement, Developer shall be released from the Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 11 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 80 ~ ~~o obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, .interests and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be released with respect to all such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. 17.4 Developer's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 17.1 and 17.2 and Paragraph 18, Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which Developer shall retain, provided that Developer specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale, transferor assignment of the Property. Developer's purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such. rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations. 17.5 Termination of Agreement Upon Sale of Individual Lots to Public. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the burdens of -this Agreement shall terminate as to any lot which has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk") leased (for a period of longer than one year) or sold to the purchaser or user thereof and thereupon and without the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument such lot shall be released from and no longer be subject to or burdened by the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall continue to run as to any such lot until a building is constructed on such lot, or until the termination of this Agreement, if earlier, at which time this Agreement shall terminate as to such lot. 18. Agreement Runs with the Land. 18.1 All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties, Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 12 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 SI ~~~o and (c) is binding upon. each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 19. Bankruptcy. 19.1. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 20. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, .commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and. all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of the City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). If City is named as a party to any legal action, City shall cooperate with Developer, shall appear in such action and shall not unreasonably withhold approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to Developer. 21. Insurance. 21.1. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Developer.shall maintain in .effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with aper-occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) with a One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000) self insurance retention per claim. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. 21.2. Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement Developer shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer's failure to maintain any such insurance. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 13 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 8~ ~-c~~b 21.3. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, Developer shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 21.1 and 21.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the City at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and to Developer performing work on the Project. 22. Sewer and Water. 22.1. Developer acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD") which is another public agency not within the control of the City. 23. Notices. 23.1. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 FAX No. (925) 833=6651 Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows: Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin c/o Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Attn: James Tong Fax No. (925) 463-1861 A party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. 24. Agreement is Entire Understanding. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 14 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 83 ~- ~-1y~ 24.1 This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. 25. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Exhibit B Additional Conditions 26. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in three (3) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. 27. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. [Execution Page Follows] Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 15 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North Project December 15, 2009 g~ ~ ~~o IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN DEVELOPER By: Joni Pattillo, City Manager Attest: Hong Y Lin (also known as Kevin Lin) Hong Li Lin (also known as Frederich or Fre~c irk) Caroline Soto, City Clerk Approved as to form John Bakker, City Attorney 1308424.2 James h~ Authori d , epresentative Approved aslto Form: Martin W. Inderbi zen Attorney for Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 16 of 16 for the Dublin Ranch North~Project December 15, 2009 $5 ~f-y~o Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Real property in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: The northwest'/4 of Section 27, in Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. Excepting therefrom that portion as granted in the deed to Dublin San Ramon Services District, recorded April 13, 2004 as Instrument No. 2004-156119 of Official Records. $l~ ~ ~Vyo EXHIBIT B Additional Conditions . The following Additional Conditions are hereby imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above. Subparagraph 5.3.1 --Subsequent Discretionary Approvals None. Subparagraph 5.3.2 -- Mitigation Conditions Subsection a. Infrastructure Sequencing Program The Infrastructure Sequencing Program for the Project is set forth below. (i) Roads: The project-specific roadway improvements (and offers of dedication) identified in the City Resolution approving a vesting tentative map (the "VTM Resolution") shall be completed by DEVELOPER to the satisfaction and requirements of the Public Works Director at the times and in the manner specified in the VTM Resolution and SDR Resolution unless otherwise provided below. (ii) Sewer. All sanitary sewer improvements to serve the project site (or any recorded phase of the Project) shall be completed in accordance with DSRSD requirements. (iii) Water. An all weather roadway and an approved hydrant and water supply system shall be available and in service at the site in accordance with the tentative map conditions of approval to the satisfaction and requirements of the City's fire department. All potable water system components to serve the project site shall be completed in accordance with the DSRSD requirements. (iv) Storm Drainage. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 1 of 5 For the Dublin Ranch North Project-EXHIBIT B December 15, 2009 (A) General. The storm drainage systems off-site, as well as on-site drainage systems for the areas to be occupied, shall be improved consistent with the tentative map conditions of approval and to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin Public Works Department applying the City's and Zone 7 (Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7) standards and policies which are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the permit for the proposed improvements. Pursuant to Alameda County's National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) No. CAS0029831 with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or pursuant to subsequent permits adopted by the Board, all grading, construction and development activities within the City of Dublin must comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act. Proper erosion control measures must be installed at development sites within the City during construction, and all activities shall adhere to Best Management Practices. . (v) Other Utilities (e.q. gas, electricity, cable televisions, telephone). Construction shall be completed by phase prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within that specific phase of occupancy for the Project. Subsection b. Miscellaneous (i) Completion May Be Deferred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City's Public Works Director may, in his or her sole discretion and upon receipt of documentation in a form satisfactory to the Public Works Director that assures completion, allow Developer to defer completion of discrete portions~of any public improvements for the Project if the Public Works Director determines that to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare. Subparagraph 5.3.3 -- Phasing, Timing This Agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate or complete development of the Project within any period of time set by the City. It is the intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time schedules and the Project Approvals. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 2 of 5 For the Dublin Ranch North Project-EXHIBIT B December 15, 2009 g8 ~ ~~Io Subparagraph 5.3.4 -- Financing Plan Developer will install all improvements necessary for the Project at its own cost (subject to credits for any improvements which qualify for credits as provided in Subparagraph 5.3.6 below). Other infrastructure necessary to provide sewer, potable water, and recycled water services to the Project will be made available by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. If so required by Dublin San Ramon Services District, Developer will enter into an "Area Wide Facilities Agreement" with the Dublin San Ramon Services District to pay for the cost of extending such services to the Project. Such services shall be provided as set forth in Subparagraph 5.3.2(a)(ii) and (iii) above. Subparagraph 5.3.5 -- Fees, Dedications Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fees. Developer shall pay the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF") established by Resolution No. 111-04, including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the impact fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. In order to ensure that certain interest-bearing debt owed by the TIF is repaid in a timely manner so as to reduce costs that would otherwise occur as a result of accrued interest, the City's Administrative Guidelines for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (Resolution No. 20-07 ("TIF Guidelines")) require developers to pay a portion of the "Section 1" and "Section 2"TIF in cash, rather than using TIF credits. Developer agrees that it will make the TIF payments in cash as required by the TIF Guidelines in effect at the time of payment. Subsection b. Traffic Impact Fee to Reimburse Pleasanton for Freeway Interchanges. Developer shall pay the Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in Resolution No. 155-98 and by any subsequent resolution which revises such Fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 3 of 5 Forthe Dublin Ranch North Project-EXHIBIT B December 15, 2009 ~9 ~ ~lyo Subsection c. Public Facilities Fees. Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 214-02, including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection d. Noise Mitigation Fee. Developer shall pay a Noise Mitigation Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 33-96, including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection e. School Impact Fees. School impact fees shall be paid by Developer in accordance with Government Code section 53080 and the agreement between Developer or its predecessor in interest and the Dublin Unified School District regarding payment of school mitigation fees. Subsection f. Fire Facilities Fees. Developer shall pay a fire facilities fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 12-03 including any future amendments to such fee that may be in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits. Subsection g. Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. Developer shall pay the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee in the amount and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 89-98 or any subsequent resolution which revises such fee. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the impact fee .in effect at time of building permit issuance. Subparagraph 5.3.6 --Credit Subsection a. Traffic Impact Fee Improvements --Credit The City shall provide a credit against Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to Developer for those improvements described in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee if such improvements are constructed by the Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 4 of 5 .For the Dublin Ranch North Project-EXHIBIT B December 15, 2009 ~0 ~f-yyb Developer in their ultimate, location. All aspects of the credit shall be governed by the TIF Guidelines. Subsection b. Traffic Impact Fee Right-of-Way Dedications -- Credit The City shall provide a credit against Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to Developer for any TIF area right-of-way to be dedicated by Developer to the City which is required for improvements which are described in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. All aspects of the credits shall be governed by the TIF Guidelines. Subsection c. Public Facility Fee -Neighborhood Parkland Component City shall provide a credit against Public Facilities Fees to Developer for any neighborhood parkland to be dedicated by the Developer which exceeds the amount required under section 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code. Such credits shall be expressed in acres of parkland. All aspects of the credits shall be governed by the City's Public Facilities Fees Administrative Guidelines. (Resolution No. 195-99) Subparagraph 5.3.7 -Miscellaneous The portion of the Property on which the Development is proposed does not presently have access to a public street. The adjacent property owner has received approval of a tentative map, Tract 7441, that includes the improvement and dedication of a new public street, Cydonia Court, that approaches the boundary of the Development. The approved tentative map for the adjacent property also shows a dedication of an access way to the City between the terminus of Cydonia Court and the Property. Because of the relatively small number of lots in the Development, the' City does not believe that a public street to serve the development is warranted. Therefore, it is the City's intention to facilitate the granting by the adjacent property owner of a private right of way and utilities easement between the terminus of Cydonia Court and the Property boundary; which intention is reflected in the proposed, but not-yet-recorded, final map for the adjacent property (referred to as Tract 7540). In the event that the City or Developer is unable to secure the granting of such easement, the City will ensure that the dedication shown-on the Tract 7441 tentative map can be accepted either at the time of filing of the final map or at some point in the future so that the Property has access to a public street. To the extent necessary, the City will assist in transferring the maintenance responsibilities of the easement area from the Tract 7540 HOA to the Developer of Tract 8016. Dublin/Lin Development Agreement Page 5 of 5 For the Dublin Ranch North Project-EXHIBIT B December 15, 2009 `~ ~ ~ ~~~ RESOLUTION NO. XX - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING APRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR DUBLIN RANCH NORTH BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND HONG YAO LIN AND HONG LIEN LIN APN: 985-0028-003-02 PA 08-045 WHEREAS, aPre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Dublin and Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin has been negotiated for Dublin Ranch North Property and included as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Project site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development in the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 91103064, Resolution 51-93, hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR") that is available for review in the Dublin Community Development Department and is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and areawide mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of Eastern Dublin, some of which would apply to the Project. Pursuant to the Communities for a Better Environment case, any City Council approval of the project must be supported by a new Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to these previously identified impacts; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93.) The mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to development in Eastern Dublin; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City as the Lead Agency prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Property entitled "Initial Study/Mitigated ,Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area" dated October 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, and circulated it for review; and WHEREAS, separate Staff Reports, dated November 10, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Annexation, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, prezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement for Dublin Ranch North for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, at its November 10, 2009 hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-45 incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and WHEREAS, at its November 10, 2009 hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-43, recommending Annexation, Resolution 09-42 recommending approval of ATTACHMENT 8 qa ~-uyo General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch North, Resolution 09-44 recommending that the City Council prezone the properties and adopt a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Resolution 09-46 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8016, and Resolution 09-41 recommending the City Council adopt the Development Agreement, which are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated December 1, 2009, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration, annexation, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, prezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Pre-Annexation Agreement, and Development Agreement (hereafter the "Project") for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Project at a properly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2009, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong on behalf of the Lin family, has executed said Pre-Annexation Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Said Pre-Annexation Agreement, attached as Exhibit A, is hereby approved and the Mayor of Dublin is hereby authorized to execute it. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1St day of December 2009, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-045 Dublin Ranch North GPA Initiation\City Council 12.1.09\CC Reso Pre-Annex.doc q3 ~{- ~-lo RECORDING REQUESTED BY CITY OF DUBLIN When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above this line for Recorder's use PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE LIN FAMILY FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this 1st day of December 2009, by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation ("the City") and Hong Yao Lin (also known as Kevin Lin) and Hong Lien Lin (also known as Frederich or Frederic Lin), referred to in this Agreement as "the Developer." City and Developer are, from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party," and are collectively referred to as the "Parties." Recitals 1. In 1993, the City Council of the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("the Specific Plan"). 2. Developer is the owner of certain property within the Specific Plan Area described more particularly in Exhibit A ("the Dublin Ranch North Property" or "the Annexation Area"), which is incorporated herein by reference. 3. Developer has filed an application with the City to, among other things, prezone and annex to the City the Annexation Area. 4. The General Plan and the Specific Plan include goals and policies to prevent development within the Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Specific Plan Area (collectively "Eastern Dublin") from drawing upon and diluting the fiscal base of the remainder of the City. Pre-Annexation Agreement Between City of Dublin and the Lin Family for Dublin Ranch North Property ~nnM Page 1 of 6 December 1, 2009 EXHIBIT A TO ,TTA('NMF,NT 8 9~1 ¢~I~lo 5. The City currently anticipates that the cost of providing public services to the Eastern Dublin at a level consistent with services provided within the City wiil not exceed revenues generated to the City from property within Eastern Dublin. However, it is possible that, due to the expenses related to the operation of Fire Station 18, which serves Eastern Dublin and which opened in July 2003, the costs of providing services to Eastern Dublin may exceed revenues generated in the area. 6. Even if such a deficit does occur, as development takes place within Eastern Dublin as anticipated, it is expected to generate revenues to the City that will reduce and, in the near future, eliminate the above-described deficit. Nonetheless, consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan, this agreement provides that Developers will pay to City the Developers' proportionate shares of any such deficits, as provided herein. Developers' aggregate proportionate share shall be 4.77%, which is the percentage that the Annexation Area (157 acres) bears to the lands within the Specific Plan area that had not been annexed to the City as of July 25, 2000, the date of Resolution 00-36 (1,929.84 acres) plus the Dublin Ranch Project (1,363.29 acres). AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: Section I. General Fund Shortfalls A. The Developer's Payment Obligations; Definitions. Developer shall pay the City 4.77% of the deficit, if any, between Public Service Costs and General Revenues. "Public Service Costs" shall mean the General Fund cost of providing public services to the Eastern Dublin Area at a level consistent with public services provided within the incorporated area of the City prior to the annexation. "General Revenues" shall mean those revenues deposited to the City's General Fund from property and inhabitants within the Eastern Dublin Area. "Eastern Dublin Area" shall include all lands within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area (see map attached as Exhibit B) that are within the City limits of Dublin. B. Duration of Payment Obligations. The Developer's payment obligation under this Section I shall begin when a deficit exists and shall terminate when there is no longer a deficit but in no event shall the obligation extend beyond June 30, 2010 ("Deficit Period"). The Developer's payment obligation may be terminated only by detachment of the Dublin Ranch North Property from the City or by separate agreement approved by the City. C. Annual Fiscal Analyses. The City shall prepare a fiscal analysis each year during the Deficit Period to estimate the amount by which the Public Service Costs Pre-Annexation Agreement Between Page 2 of 6 City of Dublin and the Lin Family for Dublin Ranch North Property December 1, 2009 MI5 ~ ~I~la will exceed General Revenues. The fiscal analysis will be prepared on a fiscal year basis (July 1 to June 30) and will. calculate the deficit for the preceding fiscal year. D. Payments to the City. No later than April 1 of the next fiscal year, Developer shall pay to City 4.77% of the deficit between Public Services Costs and General Revenues for the preceding fiscal year, based on the fiscal analysis, plus 4.77% of the cost of the fiscal analysis described in Section I.C. E. Security for Payment. At such time as requested by the City Manager, Developer will provide the City with security in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Manager, to become effective once the Annexation Area becomes part of the City, to secure the payments to the City described in Section I.D above. The security may consist of a letter of credit or similar instrument. Developer agrees that the City shall be under no obligation to continue processing any land use entitlement applications for Developer if security has not been provided when requested by the City Manager. Section II. Payment of Development Impact Fees Notwithstanding any vested rights Developer may later obtain, Developer hereby agrees to pay all lawfully enacted development impact fees that are in effect at the time building permits are issued, or at such subsequent time that the fees are otherwise due, for each individual structure within the Project. Section III. Approval of Annexation This Agreement shall take effect when the City adopts a resolution of application to annex the Annexation Area, with or without conditions or, if the Developer files a petition to annex, upon the LAFCO Executive Officer's acceptance of the annexation application for filing. Upon adoption of a resolution of application, the City shall take reasonable steps to facilitate annexation of the Annexation Area in a timely manner. This Agreement shall become ineffective, however, if the annexation is not approved by LAFCO or the voters or does not become effective for any other reason. Section IV. Additional Provisions A. Correctness of the Recitals. The Recitals set forth in this Agreement are true and correct and are a part hereof. B. Further Assurances. The Parties shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver such additional documents or instruments as may be necessary to carry out the intent of this Agreement, including but not limited to, those expressly referred to in this Agreement. C. Construction by California Law. This Agreement is entered into in the State of California and shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with its laws. Pre-Annexation Agreement Between Page 3 of 6 City of Dublin and the Lin Family for Dublin Ranch North Property December 1, 2009 ~~ ~ ~~lo D. Representation of Comprehension of Document. In entering into this Agreement, the Parties represent that they have relied upon the legal advice of their attorneys who are the attorneys of their choice. The Parties further represent that the terms of this Agreement have been completely read by and explained to them by their attorneys, and that they fully understand and voluntarily accept those terms. E. Authorship. Each Party and counsel for each Party has reviewed and revised this Agreement, and accordingly, the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendment of it. F. Authority to Execute. Each of the persons executing this agreement on behalf of a legal entity represents and warrants that each has full power to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the entity and that the Agreement is binding on the entity. G. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties with regard to the matters set forth. There are no additional written or oral agreements or promises between the Parties concerning these matters which are not expressly set forth in this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge the existence of that separate development agreement pertaining to the property within the Annexation Area. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by an agreement in writing executed in the same manner as this Agreement. H. Attorneys' Fees. In the event a Party to this Agreement is found in a court of law to have breached this Agreement, said Party shall pay the opposing Party's reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in litigating the breach of contract action. I. Approval of Project. By entering into this Agreement, City makes no commitment that it will approve the Project. J. Notices. All notices shall be by certified mail or hand delivered to the Parties as follows: If to City, to: Joni Pattillo City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94569 Pre-Annexation Agreement Between Page 4 of 6 City of Dublin and the Lin Family for Dublin Ranch North Property December 1, 2009 q~ ~- ~~o If to Developer, to: Martin W. Inderbitzen P.O. Box 1537 Pleasanton, CA 94566 With Copies to: James Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Dr., Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 K. Waivers. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and the Developer. L. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded against the Property described in Exhibit A (the Dublin Ranch North Property). [Execution page follows.] Pre-Annexation Agreement Between Page 5 of 6 City of Dublin and the Lin Family for Dublin Ranch North Property December 1, 2009 qB ~ ~~o IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN DEVELOPER Hong Yao Lin (also known as Kevin Lin) Ho ien Lin (also known as Frederich or Fr ~ d ri Lin) Tim Sbranti, Mayor ~~ `~ ,. . James (Author `e Representative) Approved as to form: John D. Bakker, City Attorney Attest: City Clerk Approved as`to Form: ~~ Martin W. Inderbitzen Attorney for Hong Yao Lin and Hong Lien Lin [NOTARIZATIONS ATTACHED] 1240741.8 Pre-Annexation Agreement Between Page 6 of 6 City of Dublin and the Lin Family for Dublin Ranch North Property December 1, 2009 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ~ LA-/~~~ ) On NOV l 8 aCb9 before me, ~H-2 ~- L . ~5 ~~~ oS /~ Notary Public, personally appeared ~14m ~-~ ~N U who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. S my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public DARA L. ESPINOSA Commission # 1622921 -m Notary Publ(c -California ~ Alameda County MV Comm. ExpNra Nov 19, 2009 (Seal) WASOl 41740104v2 334166-00042 l00 ~~ly~ EXHIBIT A Dublin Ranch North Property Description Real property in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: The northwest'/4 of Section 27, in Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. Excepting therefrom that portion as granted in the deed to Dublin San Ramon Services District, recorded April 13, 2004 as Instrument No. 2004-156119 of Official Records ion ~u~o EXHIBIT B Map of Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) ~~ $ F ;C~f Figure 4.1 Land Use Map era,. ~.~>..... ~_~_~~~ F,N..~ 5 h..w.w a.~ ~. «an ~ a r,a '"' ..d..w.re...~~.M, :,,. ~W ~~ ....: .. ~ :... awl ~ne~ sa»e ~epmmaaa.r. ~ .~.+..w ~] Ebmrtwy4Md woak IqM &Iqq _ ~wpww .a•«....%yw 'roo. a uo t. oooc aooo ®r.. ooon+ oe o0 0. as ®ue. RESOLUTION NO. XX-09 I ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH PROJECT PA 08-045 WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong on behalf of the Lin family, proposes to develop 4 single family residential units on an approximately 157.7 gross acre parcel located at 6582 Tassajara Road. The project site consists of 2 parcels, which include a 157.2 acre parcel owned by the Lin family and a 0.5 acre parcel owned by Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD"). The majority of the project site, approximately 127 acres, will be placed in a permanent conservation easement for the protection of wildlife. The 0.5 acre parcel owned by DSRSD is improved with a Zone 3 water tank and access road. No further development is proposed on this parcel. The project site is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County within the City's Sphere of Influence near the northeasterly City Limits. The project also includes related grading, roadway and utility improvements, and landscaping. The project proposes annexation to the City of Dublin ("City") and DSRSD and apre-annexation agreement with the City of Dublin. The project also proposes to amend the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designations on the site from Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural to Estate Residential and Open Space; and to prezone the property to the PD, Planned Development, Zoning District and adopt a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. A Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement are also proposed. These proposed actions are collectively referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located in Eastern Dublin, for which the City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and certified a program Environmental Impact Report pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines section 15168 (SCH 91103064; City Council Resolution No. 51-93). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. These documents are collectively referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR", or "EDEIR". The Eastern Dublin EIR and Resolution 51-93 are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at the Dublin City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a related Mitigation Monitoring Program (City Council Resolution No. 53-93, incorporated herein by reference and available for review at the Dublin City Hall), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to development in Eastern Dublin including the Project. The City also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant impacts that could not be avoided; and 1 ATTACHMENT 9 X03 ~~-y~lo WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was required in order to analyze the potential for new or additional significant environmental impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the prior EIR; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated October 2009, and incorporated herein by reference, which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and which was circulated for public review from October 6, 2009 to November 5, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City received a comment letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) dated October 26, 2009 advising that the District can serve the water and sewer demand for the project and a comment letter from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) dated November 9, 2009 with comments on the draft MND. The letters are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively, and are incorporated herein by reference; WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 10, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a noticed public hearing on November 10, 2009 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-45 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at the Dublin City Hall; and WHEREAS, Staff prepared responses to the LAFCo comment letter, which responses contain the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised in the comments. The responses are attached as Exhibit D and are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated December 1, 2009, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the comment letters and responses, and the Project for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the comment letters and responses, at a noticed public hearing on December 1, 2009 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts that apply to the Dublin Ranch North project, therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies new mitigation measures applicable to the Project, therefore a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must be adopted; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated October 2009 reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project. 2 lo~l °~ ~lyo The Mitigated Negative Declaration and related project and environmental documents, including the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and all of the documents incorporated herein by reference, are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PA 08-045, during normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Dublin Ranch North Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568, attn: Martha Aja. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR adequately describes the impacts of the Project. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council, including but not limited to the Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the related comment letters and responses, that the Dublin Ranch North Project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment beyond the significant effects identified in the prior EIR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comment letters and responses, before approving the Dublin Ranch North Project and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant unavoidable impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR that apply to the Project. 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 is currently considering the Dublin Ranch North project, PA 08-045. Although the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the Project.' The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the Project will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original approval and by mitigation measures adopted through 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 ~ "...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 Cal.App. 4m 98, _ (2002). 3 X05 ~f ~y~ adverse impacts for the 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. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Dublin Ranch North project. ^ Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Future development of the vacant Project site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land. ^ Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. I-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: Future development of the Project will contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. ^ 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 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 on the Project site could be subject to damage from large earthquakes. ^ Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E: Future development of the 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 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 Project site against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. The project provides four estate lots designed to provide a country estate character which will contribute the diversity of housing types in the area and will provide construction jobs. The residential portion of the project is adjacent to approved residential development; a road extension from the adjacent property will provide access and utilities to the project, minimizing the grading that would otherwise be required for a separate access road. Locating the residential portion of the project on the west side of the property adjacent to other residential development also ensures that City and urban level services are efficiently provided to the residences. The open space conservation area retains approximately 80% of the project site in open space and permanently protects sensitive topographic and biological resources on the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: 4 ~o~ ~f- ~lyo Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program PA 08-045 October 2009 Mitigation Measure Implementing Res onsibilit Monitoring Res onsibilit Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 1: If work is to Project Dublin Prior to occur between February 1 and Developers Planning Issuance of a August 31 (general bird breeding Division Building season), apre-construction breeding Permit or bird survey shall be conducted by a Grading qualified biologist no more than 10 Permit days prior to the initiation of work activities. The surveys shall be conducted within all suitable nesting habitats within and adjacent to the development area. All active non- status passerine nests identified shall be protected by a minimum 25- foot radius exclusion zone. Active raptor or special status species nests shall be protected by a minimum 50-foot radius exclusion zone. Each ,exclusion zone shall be established with appropriate construction fencing. Work outside of exclusionary buffers may continue; however, ground disturbance activities shall be prohibited in these areas until the j nest has fledged successfully, been ~ predated or abandoned as a result ~ !~ of natural causes as determined by a ualified biolo ist. ! I , Mitigation Measure 2: The Project Dublin ~ Prior to I, Applicant shall perform either two Developers Planning ~ Issuance of a years of protocol-level California Division Building tiger salamander (CTS) trapping Permit or surveys to confirm absence of this Grading species on the site or assume the Permit presence of this species aestivating on the site and purchase CTS mitigation credits. The focused trapping shall occur on the 5-10 acre portion of the project site where grading will occur. Permission for these surveys would be obtained from USFWS and final results would ~ be provided to USFWS as well. If no CTS are found during two years of trapping, protective silt fencing shall be installed prior to Pro~ect radin . i~~ bf yid If CTS are found on site, the Applicant shall purchase CTS mitigation credits in a nearby approved conservation bank, consistent with USFWS a royal. i I Mitigation Measure 3: A Pre- Project Dublin I Prior to j construction American badger Developers Planning Issuance of a burrow/den survey shall be Division Building conducted by a qualified biologist Permit or within and immediately adjacent to Grading the development area no more than Permit 10 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. If the survey results indicate that the American Badger is present during the general breeding period (roughly spring through summer), the biologist should assess if young are present in any identified dents. If ~ young are deemed present, an ' exclusionary buffer shall be placed ~ around each occupied den until all young are independent. Once young are independent or if badgers are found to be present 'i during non-breeding period, use of the site should be discouraged using passive relocation techniques to remove badgers from areas to be impacted prior to the initiation of ~ round disturbance. Mitigation Measure 4: A pre- Project Dublin Prior to construction Burrowing Owl survey Developers Planning Issuance of a per protocol approved by CDFG shall Division Building be conducted no more than 14 days Permit or prior to initiation of ground Grading disturbance within the development Permit ~, area. If surveys are conducted during the breeding season (February 1 - August 31) and owls are found to be breeding within the development area, a suitable exclusionary buffer shall be placed around the nest site ~ until all offspring have fledged. Once all offspring have fledged passive relocation techniques shall be employed and all owls shall be removed prior to initiation of ground disturbances. If a Burrowing Owl is found to be breeding within the development area, Burrowing Owl mitigation credits shall be purchased in a nearby, approved conservation bank. If owls are found durin the log ~~I~{o non-breeding season, passive relocation techniques shall be employed and all owls removed from areas having ground disturbances on site. , ' Mitigation Measure 5: To ensure Project Dublin Prior to that disturbance of the' California red- Developers Planning Issuance of a legged frog (CRLF) does not occur Division Building as a result of this project, work Permit or activities should be limited to the non- Grading rainy season (roughly May 16 Permit. through October 15). If work is to occur during the rainy season, the Applicant shall install an exclusion fence (e.g. silt fence) around all work areas to prevent CRLF from entering work areas. The fencing shall be one- way funnels to allow animals inside the fenced area to escape. Mitigation Measure 6: An Project Dublin Grading engineering geologist shall inspect all Developers Planning Permit Stage cut slopes exposures for evidence of Division & potential instability during the Department Grading Permit Stage. of Public Works ~' PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 St day of December, 2009. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPA#120081PA 08-045 Dublin Ranch North GPA InitiationlCity Council 12.1.091cc adopt mnd soc mmp for dublin ranch north.DOC 7 INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA OCTOBER 2009 Lead Agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 9 1~0 ~~INo Table of Contents Earlier Analysis .............:..................................•............---•--............------•................... 2 Eastern Dublin Planning Area ......................................................................................... . 3 Project Location and Site Information ..............................................'................................. 3 Project Description ................................................................... . . . . ............................... 5 Project Applications .................................................................. .......... ...................... 8 Exhibit 1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area Map ..... ........................................................... 11 Exhibit 2: Regional Map .................................... . . . ....... ............................................. ... 12 13 Exhibit 3: Vicinity Map--• ..........:..............................................................................•-- Exhibit 4: Aerial Photo .................................. . • - - - - ---- .................................................... 14 Exhibit 5: Topography Map ............... . . . . . . ........... ........................................... . .............. 15 Exhibit 6a: Existing Land Use Designations Map ................................................................ 16 ~' Exhibit 6b: Proposed Land Use Designations Map ...............................................................17 Exhibit 7: Stage 1 Development Plan ..............:................... . . . . .........................................18 Exhibit 8: Stage 2 Development Plan ..............................................................:................ 19 Exhibit 9: Photo Location Map ..................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 10: Site Photos ............................................................................................... 21 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................. 22 Discussion of Checklist ............................................................................................... 37 Aesthetics ...................................................................... .. . ... ................... . ... ....37 Agricultural Resources ........................................................:.............................. 39 Air Quality ........................................... ........................................... .............. 42 Biological Resources.......... ..............................................................................49 Cultural Resources ....................................................... -........................... Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 58 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..........-•----------• ....................---.............................63 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................. 64 Land Use and Planning ....................................:.................................. . • - - - - - - - - • .... 67 Mineral Resources .................•-•---....................------.......................................... 68 Noise .......................................... ............................................................. .... 68 Population and Housing ...........................:.....................:.................................... 70 Public Services .........................•---................................................................... 70 Recreation .................................................................................................. . 72 Transportation/Traffic ............. . . . . . . . . ............................................................... ---- 73 Utilities and Service System ................................................................................ 76 Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................78 Appendices ............................................................................................................80 A: Agricultural Land Importance Evaluation B. Biological Resources Analysis C: Cultural Resources Study D: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Report E: Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation F: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area PA 08-045 Earlier Analysis The project site is located in Eastern Dublin. On May 10, 1993 the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report {EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin 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 alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a 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. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and other impacts. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted by the City to encourage orderly growth of the Eastern Dublin area. Because the Eastern Dublin project proposed urbanization of the almost completely undeveloped Eastern Dublin area, the Eastern Dublin EIR also analyzed conversion of agricultural and open space lands to urban uses. These impacts together with visual impacts from urbanization were also determined to be significant and unavoidable. Where the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts that could be mitigated, the previously adopted mitigation measures that are applicable to this Project and project site continue to apply to the proposed Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR, Resolutions 51-93 and 53-93 and the 1994 Addendum are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review in the Planning Division at the Dublin City •Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California during normal business hours. The Eastern Dublin EIlZ was a Program EIR _ and evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. As such, the Eastern Dublin E1R addressed the cumulative effects of developing agricultural and open space areas and the basic policy considerations accompanying the change in character from undeveloped to developed lands. Since certification of the E1R, many implementing projects along Tassajara Road such as Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West), Fallon Crossing, Vargas, and Pinn Brothers/Silvera Ranch, as well as projects elsewhere in Eastern Dublin such as Dublin Ranch and Fallon Village have been approved, relying on the Program EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c), (d), § 15162, and § 15163, this Initial Study examines whether additional environmental review is required for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area. Later discussion sections of the Initial Study Checklist will identify where cumulative and/or programmatic analyses occurred in the Eastern Dublin EIR, and will identify Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures that apply to the Project. Pursuant to the tiering principles of CEQA, the Initial Study will also identify site or Project specific impacts that were not addressed in the Program E1R, if any. While most of the potential project impacts are within the scope of the Program EIR, changed circumstances involving new species impacts require additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and § 15163. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 2 11a ~ ~{~o Eastern Dublin Planning Area The City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment in 1993 for an approximately 4,200 acre area. Most of the area designated on the General Plan for development was also located in the approximately 3,300 acre Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Other areas designated in the General Plan for future development have since been added to the Specific Plan, such as portions of Fallon Village and the Dublin Transit Center. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1993 and has been amended several times since then to include new properties and development consistent with the General Plan. The original Eastern Dublin Specific Plan envisioned a balanced community comprised of mixed residential types and commercial uses. The Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are incozporated herein by reference and are available for review in the Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California during normal business hours. The General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area is located east of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail and is between the Alameda/Contra Costa County border and I-580 (see Exhibit 1). The planning area is characterized by relatively flat topography along I-580 with gently rolling foothills as the land moves away from I-580 to the north near the border of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The EDSP is located within the Eastern Extended Planning Area. At the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was developed, Eastern Dublin was comprised of farmland, grazing and rural residential sites. Exhibit 1 shows the limits of the planning area. Project Location and Site Information The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area {previously referred to as the Redgewick property) consists of 2 parcels, which includes a 157.2 acre parcel owned by the Lin Family and a 0.5 acre owned by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The project site is located east of Fallon Road, .north of Interstate 580 in the northern portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, outside of the City Limits, but within the City Sphere of Influence (Exhibits 2 and 3). The project site is within DSRSD's Sphere of Influence and the Dublin Unified School District. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area includes the last two remaining parcels in Eastern Dublin that are within the City's Sphere of Influence but not within the City Limits. The site is located in unincorporated Alameda County {outside Dublin City Limits}. The County zoning for these properties is A {Agriculture). The property has a City of Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Rural ResidentiaUAgricultural and Low Density Residential. The Project is in an area that is currently transitioning from rural residential home sites and grazing uses to residential developments, in accordance with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Exhibit 4). The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site is 157.7 gross acres in size and is located adjacent to Silvery Ranch (to the west) and east of the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipated further development of the project site. The Applicant of Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area is proposing to cluster 4 residential lots on approximately 30.4 acres in the northwestern portion of the project site, which hereafter will be referred to as the "development area." The development area is currently bounded to the north, south and east by Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 3 il3 ~~lyo open spaces characterized by rolling hills of grassland and patches of oak woodlands. To the west is Silvera Ranch, which has been bulk graded and street improvements and utilities have been completed. The area located to the east and south of the development area is known as the Northern Drainage Open Space and will be protected under future conservation easements. The majority of the project site, approximately 126.8 acres, will remain in perpetuity in a conservation easement for the protection of wildlife. This area has been preserved and enhanced to mitigate for impacts to California red-legged frogs and California tiger salamanders from earlier development associated with Dublin Ranch. This area also provides foraging habitat for Golden Eagles. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area consists of 2 parcels, which includes a 157.2 acre parcel owned by the Lin Family and a 0.5 acre owned by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD}. The DSRSD parcel has been improved with a Zone 3 water tank and an access road. A previous Environmental Document was prepared by DSRSD for the water tank and access road. No further development is proposed on the DSRSD parcel. The development area consists entirely of non-native annual grassland and is currently grazed. No trees, shrubs, waters of the U.S. or wetlands are present within the development area. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1993 and has been modified several times since then to include additional properties. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area has been within the plan since its inception, and has been designated for residential development. Surrounding~properties include Silvera Ranch to the west. Silvera Ranch includes 254 residential units on 105 acres of land. The four phase development contains a mix ofsingle-family estate lots, smaller lot single-family cluster homes and multi-family condominiums. The units and cluster homes that are a part of Phase 1, 2 and 3 have been completed. Phase 4 of Silvera Ranch, which is adjacent to the project site, has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential. Phase 4 of Silvera Ranch was approved for 44 units; the site has been bulk graded and street improvements and utilities have been completed. Fallon Crossing, also located west of the project site, has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential and Open Space. The Fallon Crossing Project is located at the intersection of Fallon Road and Tassajara Road and once constructed will include 106 single-family detached residential units. The majority of the Fallon Crossing site will remain in permanent open space. The Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley Project is located to the north of the property. The City Council adopted a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan for Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley for 298 attached and detached units on 226 acres of land; however, the application has since been withdrawn but the previously adopted PD zoning is still intact. The property was annexed into the City in July 2008. Alameda County land is. located to the east of the project site {Donlan Canyon}. These lands are currently being used for grazing and rural residential land uses. Access to the proposed 4 residential lots on the development area will be provided from the Silvera Ranch development by way of Cydonia Court (planned future street). Cydonia Court is an eastward bearing cul-de-sac and provides access and utilities to the project area. Cydonia Court has two emergency vehicle access points. From this cul-de-sac, a single residential driveway will serve the four Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area units. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 4 1~~1 ~ ~I~lo Project Description The Applicant, James Tong (on behalf of the Lin family) is proposing to develop the Lin parcel (157.2 acres} within the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property with 4single-family lots and a conservation easement. The 0.5 acre parcel owned by DSRSD is improved with a water tank and an access road. No further development is proposed on this parcel. As discussed above, the site is currently vacant (with the exception of the existing DSRSD water tank} and is used for grazing pursuant to a grazing management plan. The project site is within DSRSD's Sphere of Influence and the Dublin Unified School District. City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipated future development of the site with up to 68 units on the residential portion of the project site. The proposed number of units is lower than what the existing land use designation in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan allow to be constructed on the site and a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment will be required to reduce the proposed density of development. The Project includes new dwelling units, accessory units and uses, grading, driveways, utilities and fencing. Additionally, the Stage 1 Development Plan and annexation request applies to the DSRSD parcel that is currently improved with a water tank and access road. The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, PD-Planned Development District prezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan, a PD-Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, annexation to the City, annexation to Dublin San Ramon Services District, aPre-Annexation Agreement and a Development Agreement. Grading will be required on approximately 10 acres of the 157.7 acre site. This includes approximately 7 acres to create the access road, building pads and utilities and an additional 3 acres for remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The development area will be recontoured and a portion of the site will be filled and a portion of the site will be cut to achieve a balance on the site. It is expected that the site will be graded prior to the first lot being developed. The standard Public Work's Conditions of Approval regarding grading and improvements will be attached to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. A Preliminary Grading Plan has been submitted. Specific Plan/General Plttn Amendment The project includes a request to change the General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Designations on the site. The project site currently has two land use designations: Low Density Residential, (approximately 16.8 gross acres) which permits a density of 0.0 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre and Rural ResidentiaUAgricultural (approximately 143.2 gross acres) which permits a density of 1 unit per 100 Gross Residential acres. The Eastern Dublin EIlZ included the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property and studied development on the site with up to 68 units (67 low density units and one rural agricultural unit). According to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the project site is 160 acres. This number represents a boundary that was not surveyed. The project site is actually 157.7 acres, as determined by a boundary survey that was conducted by the Applicant. The application includes a request to amend the General Plan and Specific Plan to modify the land use designations to Estate Residential and Open Space and would therefore reduce the overall density on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 5 ~i5 0~ ~{yo site and lower the permitted number of dwelling units. The density range for Estate Residential land use designation is 0.01 - 0.8 dwelling units an acre. The density range for the 30.4 acre site proposed to be designated to Estate Residential is 0.3 to 24 dwelling units. The Applicant has indicated that a maximum of 4 units would be constructed on the site in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (Exhibits 7 and 8} which falls within the density range. Residential density in the vicinity of the proposed development varies. Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West} located northwest of the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property has land use designations of Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 dwelling units/acre), Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 dwelling units/acre) and Medium High Residential (14.1-25.0 dwelling units/acre}. The Fallon Crossing development located west of the property has land use designations of Single Family Residential and Open Space. The Silvera Ranch development located west of the project site has land use designations of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential and Rural Residential. Casamira Valley located north of the project site has land use designations of Medium Density Residential, Open Space and Rural Residential. Alameda County properties with A (Agricultural) zoning are located east of the project site. PD Prezaning and Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan The existing zoning of the project site is Agricultural. The Applicant is requesting a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan. Among other things, the Stage 1 Development Plan establishes the site area, conceptual site plan, proposed density and the maximum number of dwelling units for future development on the site. The Stage 2 Development Plan establishes ~~ the development standards, such as lot coverage, building height and setback requirements. Additionally, the Stage 2 Development Plan contains design principles, landscaping requirements, fence and wall standards and project entry and streetscape standards to ensure a cohesive and attractive development. The project site is surrounded by projects with varying densities. Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West) was approved for 935 housing units on 189 acres of land. Fallon Crossing was approved for 106 single- family detached residential units on 67 acres of land. Silvera Ranch, which is a four phase development is under construction and includes 254 residential units on 105 acres of land. Phase 4 of Silvera Ranch, which is located west of the project site, once constructed will include 44 single family residences. The Stage 1 Development Plan for Casamira Valley allows 298 units on 226 acres of land. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan submitted for this Project indicates that there will be a maximum of 4 residential units on the project site. This number falls between the minimum number and maximum number of dwelling units permitted once the requested General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use designation of the entire site is changed to Estate Residential and Open Space. The proposed number of dwelling units is much lower than the maximum, 24, that would be permitted in the Estate Residential Land Use Designation and the density would be 0.13 dwelling units/acre as proposed. No additional development will occur on the DSRSD parcel as a water tank and access road akeady exist. Lot sizes will vary on the site depending on the location of the lot. The smallest lot will be 4.5 acres and the largest lot will be 12.9 acres. The four estate lots are designed to provide a country estate character of homes. Designated building envelopes for the primary residence are established on all four lots as shown on the Stage 2 Development Plan (Exhibit 8) to limit the impact of development on the hillside. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 6 Ilb ~f ~I~{o Approximately 1Q acres of the 157.7 acre project site will be disturbed by grading. This includes approximately 7 acres to create the access road and the building pads and an additional 3 acres for remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. One entrance will provide access to the site. Access will be provided from the Silvera Ranch development by way of Cydonia Court {planned future street): Silvera Ranch has access from both Fallon Road and Tassajara Road. Cydonia Court is an eastward bearing cul-de-sac that provides access and utilities to the project area. From this cul-de-sac, a single private driveway will serve the four Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area units. An on-site bioswale will collect stormwater run-off from the access road and upper slopes and direct flows to the existing storm drain line in the Silvera Ranch development. The increase in run-off can be accommodated by the Silvera Ranch storm drain lines. The actual size and location of the proposed storm drain facilities will be determined with the improvement plans approval during the Final Map approval process. Each development lot will be expected to drain to the on-site bioswale, as grades permit. Water and wastewater services will be provided to the Praject by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD}. These services are planned in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan that includes the proposed project azea. DSRSD's existing off-site water storage reservoirs and pumping stations will provide water service for the project site. Water mains will be located in Cydonia Court (planned future street) which is designated as a public street. Final location and sizing of the water mains will be in accordance with the standards and recommendation of DSRSD. The project site is already within DSRSD's existing Sphere of Influence (SOI). As part of the current application, the project site is proposed to be annexed to the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Wastewater services will be provided to the site by DSRSD. Sewer service will require connection to DSRSD's existing sewer system and sewer treatment will occur a# DSRSD's existing treatment plant. Final sizing and location of sewer facilities will be determined in conjunction with DSRSD. Utility connections will be made to adjoining properties which have utilities sized to handle the proposed Project. Tassajaza Road and Fallon Road are the main utility corridors for the area. The Applicant has indicated that timing for the phasing of this Project will depend on market demand and the completion of Cydonia Court (from Silvera Ranch) and utilities from adjacent properties. The proposed Project would create 4 estate lots, which may be bought and developed individually as custom homes. Prior to the construction of the homes, issuance of a Site Development Review Permit by the City of Dublin will be required. As part of the application, the Applicant is proposing Land Use and Design Standards. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area Land Use and Design Standards are designed to provide guidance for the future hornebuilder in the construction of the homes. The intent of the design guidelines are to preserve the character of the project site while allowing for creativity and quality design. The Project has been designed to be a small community that conforms to the existing site and the surrounding area. The design standards include landscaping requirements, fence and wall standards, project entry and streetscape standards to ensure a cohesive and attractive development. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 7 i ~~ Df- ~I~lo Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8016 The Project includes a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the 157.2 acre Lin parcel (does not include the 0.5 acre DSRSD parcel) into 5 lots. Lots 1 - 4, which total 30.4 acres, are located in the northwestern portion of the project site and they comprise the portion of the project site where development will occur. Lot 5, which is 126.8 acres, will be placed in a permanent conservation easement for the protection of wildlife. The Vesting.Tentative Tract Map Conditions of Approval will require that the site be graded. Additionally, the drainage, utilities and driveway shall be constructed as a condition of recording the Final Map. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map proposes to subdivide the project site into 5 lots. Single-family homes are proposed on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. The lot sizes for these lots range from 4.5 acres to 12.9 acres. Lot 5 is the proposed Conservation Easement, which is 126.8 acres. Each single-family residence will require a Site Development Review Permit. During the Site Development Review process, the proposed residences will be evaluated to ensure that they meet the intent of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans. Project Applications The project site includes two parcels, a 157.2 acre parcel owned by the Lin family (Parcel 1) and a 0.5 acre parcel owned by DSRSD (Parcel 2). Project applications considered for Parcel 1 in this Initial Study include a reorganization to annex the parcel into the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, General and- Specific Plan Amendments, prezoning of the unincorporated project {Planned Development -Stage 1 Development Plan), Stage 2 Development Plan, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Pre-Annexation Agreement and a Development Agreement for the Lin property. Project applications considered for Parcel 2 in this Initial Study include a reorganization to annex the parcel into the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, and Prezoning of the unincorporated project {Planned Development -Stage 1). Annexation The 157.7 acre Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site is currently within an unincorporated portion of Alameda County. In order for the Project to come under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin, and to receive urban services from the Dublin San Ramon Services District {DSRSD), annexation of the site to the City and to DSRSD must be approved by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), which is a State mandated local agency that oversees boundary changes to cities and special districts, the formation of new agencies including incorporation of new cities, and the consolidation of existing agencies. State law requires that a City prezone an area proposed for annexation, and that prezoning must be consistent with the approved General Plan and Specific Plan uses for the property. Several projects located in close proximity to the project site were recently annexed into the City Limits, including Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West), Fallon Crossing, Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch, Fredrich, Vargas and Tipper properties. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 8 iig ~f~~o General Plan Amendment A General Plan Amendment is required to change the General Plan Land Use Designations on the site from Low Density Residential and Rural ResidentiaUAgricultural to Estate Residential and Open Space {Exhibits 6a and bb} to reduce the overall density of the site to allow the construction of the proposed 4 detached residential dwelling unit development as shown on the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans (Exhibits 7 and 8} and Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The General Plan Amendment is adopted through a Resolution and requires hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Specific Plan Amendment A Specific Plan Amendment is required to change the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designations on the site from Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural to Estate Residential and Open Space {Exhibits 6a and 6b) to allow the construction of the 4 detached residential dwelling units as shown on the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Developmen# Plan (Exhibits 7 and 8) and Vesting - Tentative Tract Map 8016. The Specific Plan Amendment is approved through a Resolution and requires hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan residential land use designations experience a gap of densities between the different designations. The Rural Residential/Agriculture's density is listed as 0.01 du/ac and then the density jumps to Single Family.with a density range of 0.9 to 6.0 du/ac. The proposed density for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area falls within this density gap. As part of the Specific Plan Amendment, the Applicant is proposing to add the Estate Residential land use designation to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Estate Residential Land Use category is a designation in the City of Dublin's General Plan and allows 0.01 - 0.8 dwelling units per acre. PD Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan The Planned Development -Stage 1 Development Plan is an Ordinance which requires hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Stage 1 Development Plan must include all information required by Chapter 8.32.040.A of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance including, but not limited to, a site plan, proposed density, maximum number of residential units and a Master Landscape Plan. The Planning Commission must hold at least one Public Hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed Ordinance to rezone the property. The City Council must hold two readings of the proposed Ordinance. PD Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan The Planned Development -Stage 2 Development Plan is an Ordinance which requires hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Stage 2 Development Plan must include all information required by Chapter 8.32.040.B of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance including, but not limited to permitted, conditionally permitted, and accessory uses, Stage 2 site plan, site area and maximum proposed densities, maximum number of residential units by type, development regulations, architectural standards and preliminary landscape plan. A Stage 2 Development Plan maybe adopted with the Stage 1 Development Plan at the time of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, or maybe adopted at a subsequent time. In this instance, the Stage 2 Development Plan is being adopted along with .the Stage 1 Development Plan. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration far the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2fl09 City of Dublin 9 • ~ ~ °f ~yo Pre Annexation Agreement The goals and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require land that is annexed and new development to be revenue neutral and therefore the project will not create a burden on the City's General Fund. Prior to a submittal of an annexation request to LAFCo, the City requires that aPre- Annexation Agreement be entered into by the developer or Agency {DSRSD). The Pre-Annexation Agreement will guarantee that the cost of providing services to the area will not exceed the revenue received from the area and will also assure that the fmancing goals and policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan are met. The Pre-Annexation Agreement has been drafted and will be presented to the Planning Commission during a future public hearing as part of the Project. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not to adopt the Pre-Annexation Agreement. Vesting Tentative Tract Map - A Vesting Tentative Tract Map has been proposed to subdivide the 157.2 acre Lin parcel into 5 lots (does not include the Q.5 acre DSRSD parcel). The Planning Commission will be the decision making body for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map unless the Planning Commission chooses to refer hearing jurisdiction to the City Council. Development Agreement Projects within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan {EDSP) require a Development Agreement between the Developer and the City. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code {hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to obtain certain commitments and establish certain development rights for the property. The Development Agreement must be approved prior to issuance of building permits for development of the property. Development Agreements are approved by an Ordinance of the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. The Development Agreement is currently,being drafted and will be presented to the Planning Commission during a future public hearing as part of the Project. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not to adopt the Development Agreement. Next Steps The 41ots on the property will be sold to homeowners or homebuilders once the property is annexed into the City of Dublin and DSRSD. Additionally, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map must be approved and the Final Map recorded prior to development occurring. Conditions of Approval placed on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map will require master grading and driveway, drainage and utilities be constructed as a condition of the Final Map. The homeowners or homebuilders will be responsible for applying for a Site Development Review (SDR) permit for the construction of the custom homes. Additionally, the homebuilders will need to apply for all construction permits prior to construction of the proposed homes. A Condition of Approval will be placed on the Vesting Tentative Map that states that map approval is contingent on LAFCo approving the annexation request. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 10 1aa ~ ~~Q EXI-IIBIT 1-EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA MAP - INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TIC DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ASINEXATION AREA N D R T H City of Dublin ~s Octabe>~ 2009 ~Aq~ ~ EO~~ ~..~.~e sow 09-29-2009 10:21arhisa Ylhauer P\19317-0\PLANNING\SUBMfTTAL\CEQA\D(H1-EDSP AREA MAP.DWG l a I ~-r- ~~ o 0 " 10 Miles EXHIBIT 2-REGIONAL LOCATION >a~ Jose s 101 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECI;AR.ATION FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA City of Dublin October~2009 ~ ~o ~~ Pacific Ocean 49-29-2009 10:46arhisa Vlhauer P:\19317-0\PLANNING\SUBMITTAL\C .... . . . tai Qf ~~o EDIT 3 - VICINITY MAP INITIAL STUDYl1VI1TIGATEDNEGATNE DECLARATION F07~ ry~~ NQRTH D V 3.JLu \ RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA KTS City of Dublin October 2009 ~~ ~a ~~ 09-29--2009 10:22arhisa Vihauer P:\ 19317-0\PIANNkNG\SUBMITTAL\CEQA\EXH3-VICENITY MAP.DWG la3 °fi ~I~--I o EX~IIBIT 4 -AERIAL PHOTO INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TIC DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA City of Dublin October 2009 NORTH ors dc51~s b+w.c. ~~ 09-29-2009 10:24ondiso Vlhauer P:\19317-0\PLANNING\SUBMITTAL\CEgA\EXH4-AERIA!_ PHOTO.DWG 1a~1 ~ y~lo -..... t t ~+=r=" %~ ~' t f ".,,..r. !'~T y`~ ti~ ' O EXHIBIT 5 - TOPOGRAPHY MAP INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATEDNEGATNE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATIGN AREA City of Dublin October 2009 s 09-29-2009 10:46or~hisa ~Ihauer P:\i9317-0\PLANNING\SUBMITTAL\CEOA\EXHS-TOPO A~P,P.pWG :~", ~~ j \ ~ .i A: .~~ ~~, -~0 09-29-2009 10:29ar~h.isa Vlhauer P:\19317-0\PLANNING\SUBMiTTAL\CE4A\EXH6-LAND USE.DWG ~~~ ~f~~o EXHIBIT 6b- PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS MAP INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH A,~INEXATION AREA N o A T H City of Dublin Ctrs October 2009 ~ ,,.~ a (made 09-29-2009 10:30arhisa ~Ihauer P:\19317-0\PLANNING\SUBA4fTTAL\CEQA\EXH6-LAND USE.DWG ~a~ y~lo II~IAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA City of Dublin October 2009 09-29-2009 10:32araisa Vlhauer P:\ 19317-0\PLANNING\SUBMITTAL\CEQA\EXN7--S7AGEI.DWG EXHIBIT 7 -STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~aX ~ ~~lo EXHIBIT 8 -STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATEDHEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TIC DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA City of Dublin N ~~ October 2049 ~ ec~swa a pad mas 09-29-2009 10:35ariiisa Vlhauer P:\19317-0\PLANNING\SUSMITTAL\CEQA\EXHB-STAGE2.DWG EXHIBIT 9 -PHOTO LOCATION MAP INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ANNEXATION AREA ' City of Dublin errs October 20Q9 ~~~~5 sealer a pp ~s.w 09-29-2009 10:37am Lisa Vilhouer P:\19317-0\PLANNING\SUl~i11TAL\CEQA\DOi9-PHOTOLOCATiON.DWG VIEW 7 EXHIBIT 10 -SITE PHOTOS VIEW 5 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH ASJNEXATION AREA City of Dublin October 2049 NORTH nos ~~~~~ w~r~a pgsww 09-29-2009 10.39am Lisa Ydhaer ~\19317-0\PLANNIWG\SUBMfITi4L\CEQA\EXH10-P}~TOS.DWG VIEW 2 131 ~f yyo City of Dublin Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}, the State CEQA Guidelines and the CEQA Guidelines adopted by the City of Dublin. The Initial Study assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. 1. Project Description: The Applicant requests approval of amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to re- designate the project site from Low Density Residential & Rural Residential/Agriculture to Estate Residential and Open Space to allow 4 residential custom Lots on the 157.7 acre project site. Additionally, .the Applicant requests approval of a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, Pre-Annexation Agreement, and Annexation into the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District's Service Area. 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94588 3. Contact person and phone number: Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist, City of Dublin City Manager's Office/Environmental Services (925)833-6650 4: Project location: 5. Assessors Parcel Number(s): 6. Project sponsor's name and address: 6582 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA 94568 985-0025-003-02 985-0028-003-01 Tim Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton CA 94588 Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 22 8. Zoning: A (Agriculture) District (existing) PD (Planned Development) District {proposed} 9. Specific Plan Designation: Low Density Residential & Rural ResidentiaUAgriculture (existing) Estate Residential & Open Space (proposed) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) Annexation to City and DSRSD (Alameda County LAFCO) Site Development Review {City of Dublin) Grading and Building Permits (City of Dublin) Sewer and Water Connections (Dublin San Ramon Services District) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials ~ Hydrology /Water Quality Mineral Resources Noise Public Services Utilities /Service Systems Recreation a Air Quality x^ Geology /Soils Land Use /Planning Population /Housing o Transportation/I'raffic D Mandatory Findings of Significance Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 23 133 ~ y~-o DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 attached sheets; and for newly identified impacts, revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects {a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Printed name Date Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 24 131 °~ yyo Evaluation of Environmental Impacts The source of determination is listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist. A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. The purpose of this initial study is to determine whether additional environmental review is required beyond that in the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. The checklist responses and related discussions identify the related analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIIZ, including impacts and adopted mitigation measures. The checklist responses and checklist discussions also disclose whethex additional impacts and/or mitigations are requvred for the Project. I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista`: (Source 1,3,9} b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but no limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building; within a state scenic highway? {Source:1,3,9} c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character o: quality of the site and its surroundings? {Source: 1,3,9) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare whicl would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? {Source: 1,3,9} II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significan environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California ~ Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlanc of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping anc Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? (Source: 1,6,7) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1,6,7) Potentially Significant. Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X Initial Study/MitigatedNegabve Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 2S t35 ~ ~I~Io c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 1,6,7) III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the ~significanc~ criteria established by the applicable air quality managemen or air pollution control district may be relzed upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicabeE air quality plan?(Source: 6, 19) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantiall} to an existing or projected air quality violation? {Source: 6, 19) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source: 6, 19) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?(Source: 6, 19) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 1,6,7,10) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X x X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 26 i3~ ~f ~~o b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California.Department• of Eish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 1,6,7,10} c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act {including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? {Source: 1,6,7,10, 18} d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? {Source: 1,6,7,10, 15, 16, 17, 18) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Source: 1,4,6,7,11, 18) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1,4,6,7,11) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance o~ a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? {Source: 6,12) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance o~ an archaeological resource puxsuant to §15064.5? (Source: 6,12) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 6,12 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X . X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 27 -3~ ~f ~~o d} Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 6,12} 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 Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source: 6,13,18) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 6,13) iii} Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 6,13) iv) Landslides? (Source: 6,13) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 6,13) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source: 6,13) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B `! of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantia risks to life or property? {Source: 6,13} e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Source: 6,13} Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 28 13~ ~ ~I ~-I o VII. HAZARD5 AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source: 6) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 6} c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source:6) d) Be located on a site which is included on a List of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Cade Section 65962.5 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 a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 6) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 6) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 6) Potentially Significant Impact Less Phan Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 24 13q °f' yyo h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 6) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? {Source: 2,6) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre-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: 2,6) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erasion or siltation on- or off=site? (Source:2,6) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of~the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2,6) e} Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional . sources of polluted runoff? {Source: 2,6) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2,6) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation ~Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 30 ~~1`~ ~ ~I'~° g) Place housing within a I00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 1,2,6) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source:2,6) i} Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? - (Source: 1,2,6) j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lass, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, ormudflow? (Source: 1,6,13) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source:1,6,7) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,6,7) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 1,6,7) X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 4,6,7) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than- Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact ' No Impact X X . X X X X ' X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 31 i~ i ~ tiro b) Result in the lass of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 4,6,7) XI. NOISE -Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 6} b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? {Source: 6) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 6) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 6) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1,6) f} For a project within the vicinity. of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1,6} XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X ' ~ X X Initial Study/MitigatedNegatfve Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 32 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through . extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 6,8) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 3} c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 3,8) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical ,:~ impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? (Source: 2,6) Police Protection? {Source: 2,6) Schools? (Source: 2,6) Parks? (Source: 2,6) Other Public Facilities? (Source: 2,6) XIV. RECREATION - Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No impact X X X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 33 ly3 ~ yyo a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source:2,6) b} Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2,6) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 14) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? {Source: 14, 15} c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traff c levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 14) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections} or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 14) e} Result in inadequate emergency access? {Source: 14) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 14) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City, of Dublin 34 1~1~1 °f '~~-In g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source: 14) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater•ixeatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? {Source: 2,6) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2,6,7} c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2,6,7) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the I project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 2,6,7) i e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Source: 2,6,7) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 2,6,7) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 2,6,7) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No .Impact X X X X X X X X Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 35 ~y5 ~ y~o XVII. 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 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other ;~ current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Inco oration Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts: 1. Location of project. 2. Discussion with City Staff or affected special districts. 3. City of Dublin Gezzeral Plan. 4. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 5. Eastern Dublin EIR. 6. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 7. ~ Stage 1 Development Plan. 8. Stage 2 Development Plan 9. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. 10. Biological Resources Analysis dated June 2009. 11. Cultural Resources Analysis dated May 2009. 12. Geotechnical Report dated May 2009. 13. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment dated July 2003. 14. City's GLS maps and information. 15. Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. 16. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2U09 City of Dublin 36 ~~~ ~ ~~o Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation LS: Less Than Significant Impact Ni: No Impact The following information is provided fox the environmental checklist. I. Aesthetics The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site is located east of Fallon Road, north of Interstate 580 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, outside of the City Limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence. The site is located in unincorporated Alameda County. The project site is comprised of grazed rolling hills and a DSRSD water tank and access road. The topography of the site ranges from approximately 640 feet above mean sea level up to 880 feet along the eastern boundary of the project site. The western portion of the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site consists of a fairly large ridge that runs in a north-south direction. There is a knoll located west of this ridge. The knoll is located west of the project site. East of the ridge, the landform drops gradually into a valley with an unnamed tributary referred to as the "Northern Drainage" that #lows into Tassajara Creek. The un-named creek has two springs that feed it. One spring feeds the eastern pond and the other is located just below the tree that provides habitat to the Golden Eagle (Bella). The tributary flows through the center of the Lin property in a southwest direction. Consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan, no development is proposed in or near the tributary. A majority of the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property is comprised of rolling hills with slopes less than 30%; however, slopes greater than 30% do appear along the central valley's hillside. The proposed residential development is located in the northwestern portion of the project site. The Project would also have a single driveway access from Cydonia Court, as well as designated building envelopes to limit grading within the proposed development area. - Figure 6.3 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identifies the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property as having a Visually Sensitive Ridgeland Restricted Development Area located on a portion of the site. The Specific Plan permits development in the restricted area subject to controls over the location and design of structures and grading. The lands currently designated for residential uses are within the restricted development area and future development was assumed in the EDEIR. The proposed Project consists of 4 residential lots, which is significantly lowez than the development assumed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (68 units). A portion of the site is also located within the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor; however, the area where development will occur is not located within the Scenic Corridor, therefore Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Policy 6-39 and the adopted Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Programs (EDSCPP) do not apply to this Project. The project site is located behind a knoll identified in the EDSCPP and outside of a protected area and therefore, the scenic corridor policies do not apply to the proposed development. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 37 I~~ ~ ~yo There are visually sensitive ridgelines on the Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley site, north of the property; however, due to the location of these ridgelines, the proposed Project will not interfere with views of these visually sensitive ridgelines. Most of the property is blocked from view from adjacent properties and Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Ridgelines along the boundary of Dublin Ranch Areas A and D to the south and along the Casaimira Valley property to the north conceal most views of and into Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area. Limited views into the central valley or onto the first range of western facing hills are available from certain vantage points along Fallon Road and Tassajara Road. The Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report discusses impacts 3.8/A, Standardized "Tract Development," 3.88, Alteration of RuraUOpen Space Visual Character, 3.8/C, Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features, 3.8/D, Alteration of Visual Quality and Hillsides, 3.8/E, Alteration of Visual Quality Ridges, 3.8/G, and Alteration of Visual Character of Watercourses which relate to development as a residential community. These impacts relate to the change in the site from a rural use to a residential development. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Eastern Dublin EIlZ contain policies and mitigation measures (discussed in more detail below) which reduce these impacts so that the development is well designed, relates well to the surrounding area, preserves natural features on the site and therefore protects the existing views of the site. a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. A portion of the project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor, as defined by the adopted Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Programs (EDSCPP). The developable portion of the project area occurs outside of the Scenic Corridor. As discussed above, the developable portion of the site sits behind a knoll identified in the EDSCPP and therefore, the scenic corridor policies do not apply to the proposed development. The development area will not be visible from either Tassajara Road or Fallon Road. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0, related to obscuring distinctive natural features, which requires development in Eastern Dublin to preserve views of distinctive natural features such as hills, stands of trees, and creeks. As noted in the Stage 2 Development Plan, the development of the primary residence will occur on each parcel within a building envelope. Additionally, there is a Site Development Standard that prohibits buildings from projecting over the north-south ridgeline Winning along the eastern portion of the estate residential parcels, which will ensure that views are preserved. Development continues to be proposed in the same general area analyzed for residential uses in the EDEIIZ. The current impacts to the site are far less than what would have been required to achieve the 68 units on the site that were analyzed in the EDEIlZ. There are no new or substantially more impacts from what was analyzed in the EDEIR. b} Would the Project have a substantial impact on a state scenic highway? M. 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. As noted above, the property is located in a unique area which offers many visual resources to the community. The existing site does have a rural residential character due to open landscape. A majority of the site (126.8 acres) will be placed in a permanent conservation easement; therefore, the rural residential character of the majority of the site will be maintained. No further development is Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 38 ~~g °~ ~~o proposed on the 0.5 acre DSRSD site. The development area is located behind an existing knoll and the houses will not be visible from Tassaj ara Road or Fallon Road. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several visual resource impacts and contains related mitigation measures in Section 3.8 which are aimed at reducing visual impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 aim to minimize grading of individual project sites and requires developers to retain as much of the natural grade as possible. The proposed Project will comply with these mitigation measures because the amount of grading on the site will be limited and remedial grading wiIl recreate the natural appearance of the site as shown on the preliminary grading plan in the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 requires the development to be sited in such a manner as to maintain visual access of the creek. Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.1 requires the developer to submit a detailed visual analysis of the Project during the Site Development Review process, when detailed house plans will be provided, to ensure that the height of the units do not detract from views of the site. The Stage 2 Development Plan includes designated building envelopes. Based on the location of the envelopes the development will not detract from existing views of the site. The height and massing of the future residences are unknown at this point; therefore, the Applicant shall be required to comply with the Mitigation Measures in the EDEIR to ensure that any visual impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Although these mitigation measures will limit impacts of the development on the existing rural character of the site, the loss of the character of the site was noted as a significant impact that could not be mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for hnpact 3.8/B, Alteration of RuraUOpen Space Visual Character, in the Eastern Dublin EIR related to the loss of the rural character of this area which is a significant and unavoidable impact due to development of the property although the proposed Project has significantly less development than previously analyzed. The proposed development area was previously analyzed for residential uses; there are no new or substantially more severe impacts from the Project. d) Create Light or Glare. LS. No new street lighting related to the construction of the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area development is proposed and consequently the project will result in a minimal amount of light and glare on the site and in the surrounding area. II. Agricultural Resources Although the County of Alameda zoning designation for this property is Agriculture, the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designated a portion of this land for future residential development. Currently, the entire project site is grazed {with the exception of the 0.5 acre DSRSD parcel). The area proposed for development (30.4 acres) is the only area that will be taken out of grazing. The easement area (126.8 acres} is being grazed per a Grazing Management Plan approved by resource agencies. The grazing that occurs on the easement will continue in the future. The Eas#ern Dublin Environmental Impact Report analyzed the effects of conversion from agriculture to residential uses and identified impacts 3.1/C, Discontinuation of Agricultural Uses and 3.1/D, Loss of Farmland of Local Importance as less than significant, which relate to the development of this site and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 39 I~1~1 ~yyo the lass in any agricultural uses. Impact 3.1F identified the cumulative loss of agricultural and open space as significant and unavoidable. The Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report identified the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property as having rural residential character (Figure 3.1-A in the Eastern Dublin EIR), the Eastern Dublin EIR further identified the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property as being suitable for agriculture and "locally important farmland" {see Figure 3.1-B). While the project site is large in size, 157.7 acres, the site is characterized by rolling hills which makes it unlikely that the parcel would be able to support profitable agricultural operations on it. Additionally, the site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site is not within a Williamson Act Contract. The Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCo} definition of prime land is different from CEQA's definition. Pursuant to Government Code 56064 "prime agricultural land" means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications: a) Land that qualified, if imgated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually ~imgated, provided that irrigation is feasible. b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity. equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003. d} Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, brushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultuual plant production no less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre. e) Land that has returned from production of unprocessed agricultural plant products of annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400} per acre for three of the previous five calendar years. Project Impacts a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural use? LS. As noted in Figure 3.1-B of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the project site is shown as being "locally important farmland" and is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Txrzportance. Additionally, the proposed Project includes the construction of a small residential development on a portion of the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site. which is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which anticipated residential development .. on the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site. Any agricultural use of this property will be lost as a result of the proposed development as analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project proposes a less intensive development than Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 40 1~0 ~-y~-o that assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, and results in no agricultural resources impacts beyond those in the Eastern Dublin EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for Impact 3.1/F, Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands in the Eastern Dublin EIR. On March 3, 2006, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants performed an Agricultural Land Importance Evaluation on the Lin parcel attached as Appendix A to this Initial Study and incorporated herein by reference, and the information in this section is based on that analysis. Berlogar evaluated the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property against each of the five criteria contained in Government Code 56064 (definition of prime agricultural land). As discussed below, the property does not fall within LAFCO's definition of prime agricultural land. Land that qual~ed, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property does not contain Class I or Class II soils according to the "Soil Survey, Alameda Area, California" issued March 1996 by the • USDA Soil Conservation Service. Soils on the project site are in Classes N and VL ii. Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. The Storie index rating for soils on the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property are presented in the "Soil Survey, Alameda Area, California" issued March 1996 by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. Diablo clay is the soil type present on the project site. This soil type is further divided into two types, based on slope gradients. The Storie Index Rating for Diablo clay 15 - 30 percent slopes is 36 and the Storie Index Rating for Diablo clay 30 - 45 percent slopes is 19. iii. Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003. Table 9 of the Soil Survey of Alameda area rates the on-site soils as very good for range pasture. Table 10 indicates that soils rated very well for range pasture, when not irrigated,. have a carrying capacity of at least 1 to 4 animal unit months per acre, under non-fertilized and fertilized. conditions, respectively. An animal unit month per acre is one cow, steer, or horse per acre multiplied by the number of average months the land can support. The capacity assumes a grazing season of 6 months without fertilizer or 7 %2 months with fertilizer. Dividing by 12 months per year gives an annual carrying capacity per acre of 1/12 or 1/3 an animal, without or with fertilizers, respectively. As part of the evaluation, Berloger contacted two of the largest cattle ranchers in Alameda County, Gordon Rasmussen and Robert Nielsen, regarding the carrying capacity of grazing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 41 i5i ~-~~o land in Alameda County northeast of I-580 and Fallon Road. Both ranchers expressed the opinion that carrying capacity in this area would be approximately one-tenth animal unit per acre. Based on similar soil types, water resources and topography, the Berloger evaluation concluded that annual animal carrying capacity on the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area Project would also be approximately one-tenth animal unit per acre. iv. Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, brushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production no less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site is not planted with fruit or nut bearing trees, vines; bushes or crops yielding an annual value of at least four hundred dollars ($400} per acre. v. Land that has returned from production of unprocessed agricultural plan products of annual gross value of not less than four hundred ($400) per acre for three of the previous calendar yea>'s. Unprocessed agricultural plant products have not been produced on the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site for any calendar year out of the previous five. III. Air Quality The amount of given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The Project is located within the Livermore Valley Air Basin. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub regional air basin district from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore Valley Air Basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly prevalent in the summer moinths when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon. According to the Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally generated pollutants, but can be the receptor of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 42 ozone and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also - occurs between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning can become concentrated. Criteria Pollutants. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria pollutants" because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The table below identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and major sources. Table 1: Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources Pollutant Ozone A highly reactive photochemical Eye Irritation The major sources Ozone pollutant created by the action of Respiratory function ozone precursors sunshine on ozone precursors impairment. are combustion {primarily reactive hydrocarbons so~uces such as and oxides of nitrogen. Often factories and . called photochemical smog). automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels. Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, Impairment of oxygen Automobile Carbon Monoxide Monoxide colorless gas that is highly toxic. transport in the exhaust, It is formed by the incomplete bloodstream. combustion of combustion of fuels. Aggravation of fuels, combustion cardiovascular of wood in disease. woodstoves and Fatigue, headache, fireplaces. confusion, dizziness. Can be fatal in the case of very high concentrations. Nitrogen Dioxide Reddish-brown gas that discolors Increased risk of acute Automobile and Nitrogen Dioxide the air, formed during and chronic diesel truck. combustion. respiratory disease. exhaust, industrial processes, fossil- fueledpower lants. Initial Study/MitigatedNegotive Declaration- for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 43 153 ~ y~o Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas Aggravation of Diesel vehicle Sulfur Dioxide with a pungent, irritating odor. chronic obstruction exhaust, oil- lung disease. powered power Increased risk of acute plants, industrial and chronic .processes. res iratory disease. Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, Aggravation of Combustion, Particulate Matter soot, aerosols and other matter chronic disease and automobiles, field Matter which are small enough to heart/lung disease burning, factories remain suspended in the air fora symptoms. and unpaved roads. long period of time. Also a result of photochemical processes. Source: Donald Ballanti, 2009 The Federal and State ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both Federal and State standards are intended to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the Federal and State standards differ in some cases, as demonstrated in the table below. In general, the California State standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and particulate rxxattex (PM,o and PMz.S). Table 2: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal State Time Primary Standard Standard Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 PPM 8-Hour 0.075 PPM 0.07 PPM Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9:0 PPM 9.0 PPM 1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM 1-Hour - 0.18 PPM Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM -- 24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM 1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM PM,o Annual Average - 20 p.g/m' 24-Hour 150 /m3 50 m3 PMZ.s Annual 15 pg/m3 12 µg/m3 24-Hour 35 µg/m3 -- Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 µg/m3 - 30 Day Avera a -- 1.5 m3 Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 -- Hydrogen Sulfide i-Hour . 0.03 PPM - Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM -- Initial Study/MitigatedNegatfve Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 44 15 t-I a~ LI ~o PPM =Parts per Million µg/m3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04/01/08} http: //www. azb. ca. Gov/reseazch/aags/aags2.pdf Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil and dust. " Tnhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined as "suspended particulate matter" or PM~o. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PMZS). PMzS, by definition, is included in PM,o. Ambient Air Quality. The state and federal ambient air quality standards cover a wide variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD maintains a network of monitoring sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the project site is in Livermore. The Table below summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring site for the period between 2005-2007. The table shows that the federal ambient air quality standazds for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley and the state standazds for ozone and PM~o are exceeded. Table 3: Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005-2007 Pollutant Standard Days Exceed ing Standard ln: 2005 2006 2007 Ozone State 1-Hour 6 13 2 Ozone State 8-Hour 7 15 3 Ozone Federal8-Hour 1 5 1 PM~o Federa124-Hour 0 0 0 PM~o State 24-Hour 0 3 2 PM2.5 Federa124-Hour 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal 8-Hour 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 ~ Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http: //www.azb. ca. gov./adam/cgi-bin/adamtop/d2wstazt) Attainment status and regional air quality plans. The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 45 155 ~ ~y~ portions of the state were the Federal or State ambient air quality standards are not met as "non- attainment areas." Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non-attainment areas is different under the Federal and State legislation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as a non- attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was designated as unclassified/attainment far the federal PM~o and PMz.S standards. Under the California Clean Air Act, Alameda County is anon-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter (PM,o and PM~.S). The county is either attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. Air Districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air. Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and combine that information with air monitoring data (used to assess progress in improving air quality) and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard. Sensitive Receptors. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor groups {children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes; hospitals and medical clinics. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. There is no current statute, regulation, or case law which requires the analysis of greenhouse gasses and climate change under CEQA. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the. Eastern Dublin EIR. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR has been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is. governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs. Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance," which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIlZ was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec, 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EII2 was certified. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990x. The studies and analyzes of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin E1R in May 1993. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 46 15e ~- yy~ The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies significant impacts 3.11/A, Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance from Construction Activity, 3.11/B, Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions, 3.11/C, Mobile Source Emissions: ROG or NOx, 3.11/E, Stationary Source Emissions which apply to the proposed Project. Related mitigation measures continue to apply to implementing projects such as the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) . Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. The proposed Project would generate additional vehicular traffic to and in Dublin and the Tri- Valley area. The associated vehicular trips would generate carbon monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PMio). The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed increased development in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified cumulative mobile source impact IM 3.11/C as significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation. Upan approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a statement of Overriding Considerations for these two impacts. The proposed Project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District because the Clean Air Plan is based on local general plans and the Dublin General Plan which designates the site as a residential development with up to b8 dwelling units. The number of dwelling units on the site is proposed to be reduced to 4 units pursuant to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to reduce density on the site from Low Density Residential to Estate Residential. Therefore, the Project conforms to and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. During the construction of the building and site improvements air quality standards could be exceeded as a result of dust and equipment emissions. Consistent with construction Impacts 3.111A and B in the EDEIR, the Project shall be required to conform to Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 - 3.11/4.0 in the Eastern Dublin E1R which requires construction equipment emission control and dust reduction measures during construction of the project. The project shall also be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13, for Stationary Source Emissions Impact 3.11/E of the E1R, which require the development to be designed to include energy conserving features, such as insulation and energy star appliances, which will be reviewed during the Building Permit stage when formal house plans with construction details will be submitted. Despite the establishment of both Federal and State standards for PMz.s (particulate matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not development a threshold of significance for this pollutant in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. For this analysis, PMz,S impacts would be considered significant if project emissions of PM~o exceed 80 pounds per day. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review in the Planning Division in City Hall located at 100 Civic Plaza during normal business hours. Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 47 ~s~ ~ ~~~ The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PMIO. Construction activities, including grading, would have the potential to cause nuisance relate to dust and PM~o. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction controls are implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin project because the EIR assumed that cumulative air quality impacts as a result of construction equipment could not be reduced to a less than significant impact even with mitigation. (Impact 3.11A, Dust Deposition Soiling Nuisance from Construction Activity, and 3.11B; Construction EquipmentNehicle Emissions, in the Eastern Dublin EIR). Similarly, the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that air quality impacts related to mobile source emission of Reactive Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary source emission were found to exceed regional air quality standards even with mitigation measures and were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Impacts 3.11/C and 3.11/E). The Project is substantially smaller than the project assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but is not small enough to reduce Impacts 3.11/C and E to a less than significant level based on the reduction estimated in the Eastern Dublin EIR as necessary to avoid significant impacts. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. A previously discussed, 68 residential units were studied in the Eastern Dublin EIR for this Project. The ozone contributed by this Project would be lower than what was analyzed in the EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment and therefore, there would be a cumulative decrease in pollutants from what was previously determined in the Eastern Dublin EIR resulting from this Project and no further analysis is required. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors•to substantial pollutant concentrations? LS. The proposed Project would expose residents and sensitive receptors to air emission from mobile sources, including reactive organic gasses, nitrogen oxides and particulates. However, if the proposed Project is approved, a total of 4 dwelling units will be constructed on the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property which is 64 units less than what was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The BAAQMD considers PM~o emissions of 80 pound per day to be a substantial pollutant. In this case, due to the total number of daily trips {38), the Project would generate significantly less than 80 pounds per day. e) Would the project create objectionable odors? LS. The proposed Project includes typical residential uses which would not create any significant objectionable odors. Initial. Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dablin 48 15 g ~~ ~I~lo IV. Biological Resources A biological survey of Eastern Dublin was conducted in 1989 in conjunction with the Eastern Dublin EIR. A detailed site biological analysis of the development area was conducted by WRA Environmental Consultants in June 2009, attached as Appendix B to this Initial Study and incorporated herein by reference, and the information in this section is based on that analysis. WRA assessed the development area for the potential to support special status species and the presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state and federal laws and regulations. WRA conducted a site visit on April 28, 2009 of the proposed development area of the project site (30.4 acres in the northwestern portion of the site) and reviewed available information to determine if there were any special status species or habitats on the site. The project site was traversed on foot to determine the following: 1. The plant communities present within the development area of the site; 2. If the existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special status plant or wildlife species; . and 3. If sensitive habits are present within the development area of the site. The site visit included a search for suitable habitats for species identified in the literature review as occumng in the vicinity. The potential for each special status species to occur in the project area was evaluated using the following criteria: 1. No potential 4. High Potential 2. Unlikely 5. Present 3. Moderate Potential The Eastern Dublin EIlt classifies the project site as introduced annual grassland (see Figure 3.7-A in the Eastern Dublin EIR). The development area has rolling hills and is comprised entirely of non-native annual grassland. Non-native annual grassland typically occurs in open areas of valleys and foothills #hroughout California, usually on fine textured clay or loam soils that are somewhat poorly drained (Holland, 1986). There are no sensitive biological communities present on the development area. Additionally, there are no trees, shrubs, water or wetlands present on the development area. Grazing currently occurs on the entire project site (with the exception of the 0.5 acre DSRSD parcel). The future conservation easement area (126.8 acres) is being grazed per a Grazing Management Plan. Apart from grazing, the land is relatively undisturbed with the exception of the DSRSD parcel which is developed with a water tank and access road. The Lin Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property to the east and south of the development area is known as the Northern Drainage Open Space and will be protected under conservation easements. The majority of the site, approximately 126.8 acres, will be placed and remain, in perpetuity in a conservation easement for the protection of wildlife. This area has been preserved and enhanced to mitigate for impacts to California red-legged frogs and Califonia tiger salamanders from earlier development associated with the Dublin Ranch Planning Area. The conservation easement will provide an area designed to enhance the environment for the protection of golden eagles that nest and forage on the eastern portion of the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area site. Initial Study/Mitigated'Negative Declaration for the Dublin Rarieh North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 49 159 ~f-~{yo The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies impacts 3.7/A, Direct Habitat Loss, 3.78, Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal, 3.7/C, Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat, 3.7/D; San Joaquin Kit Fox, 3.7/F, Red-legged Frog, 3.7/G California Tiger Salamander, 3.7/J Golden Eagle, 3.7/M, Burrowing Owl which may relate to the development of the site including impacts related to grading and construction activities. All mitigation measures adopted for these impacts continue to apply to this Project. Wetlands The project site was surveyed to determine if any wetlands and waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the Army Corps of Engineers or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) were present on the development area. The assessment was based primarily on the presence of wetland .plant indicators in addition to observed indicators of wetland hydrology or wetland soils. No wetland or waters are present on the development area. Plants Based upon a review of the resources and database, 45 special plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the project site. These species have not been documented on the development area, but rather on the surrounding properties. No special status plant species have high or moderate potential to occur in the development area {WRA Environmental Consultants, 2009). Wildlife Seventy-one special status species of wildlife have been recorded near the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area property. Two special status wildlife species were observed in the development area during the site assessment. One special status. wildlife species has a high potential to occur in the development area and seven special status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur in the development area as described below (WRA Environmental Consultants, 2009). . Observed Species - Northern Harrier {Circus cyaneus). CDFG Species of Special Concern. The Northern Harrier is found in open habitats throughout most of California, including freshwater and brackish marshes, fields, grasslands, agricultural areas, and desert habitats. Harriers typically nest on the ground in open habitats in dense, relatively tall vegetation. Harriers are predatory and subsist on a variety of small mammals and other vertebrates. One Northern Harrier was observed foraging along one of the development area boundaries during the site visit. Although the development area provides suitable foraging habitat for hamers, it lacks suitable vegetative cover for nesting. Grassland habitat within the immediate vicinity may provide suitable nesting habitat, though none was observed during the site visit. The EDEIR IM 3.7/O identified potential impacts to Northern Hamer foraging habitat. Consistent with MM 3.7/25.0, the project maintains most of the site in open space and will not cause any new or more significant impact than previously identified. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarunr~). CDFG Species of Special Concern. The Grasshopper Sparrow is a summer resident in California, wintering principally in Mexico and Central Initial Study/Mifiigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 50 America. This species occurs in grassland habitats with short-to-moderate height vegetation and often scattered shrubs. Nests are on the ground; .well-concealed and often adjacent to grass clumps. Grasshopper Sparrow is secretive and generally detected by voice. One Grasshopper Sparrow was observed singing downslope from the ridge along the eastern boundary of the development area. This bird was presumed to be a part of a nesting pair. Other portions of the development area provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. The Grasshopper sparrow was not a protected species and no potential impact was identified in the 1993 EDEIR; however, it has since been listed as a Species of Special Concern. The Project could potentially disturb this species; this is a new potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 below will reduce the impact to less than significant. High Potential S ep cies California Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma californiense). Federal Threatened, State Candidate for Listing, CDFG Species of Special Concern. California Tiger Salamander, hereafter referred to as "CTS," is endemic to California. It was listed as Threatened by USFWS in 2004. In the main portion of its range, CTS occurs in isolated ponds and season pool complexes on rangeland bordering the Central Valley from Yolo County south to northwestern Tulare County and in sag ponds and stock ponds in the coast ranges from Suisun Bay in Solano County sauth to the Temblor Range. CTS have disappeared from a significant portion of its historic range due to habitat loss from agriculture and urbanization. After metamozphosis and emergence from breeding pools as juveniles, individual CTS spend most of their lives in grasslands surrounding breeding pools. Because of its moist skin, CTS survives the dry season by retreating to upland refugia where the soil atmosphere remains near the water saturation point. These refugia are typically burrows of ground squirrels or other mammals, but include deep cracks or holes in the ground. The diet of the CTS is not well known but probably includes a variety of invertebrates and small vertebrates. Mass migrations of adults to aquatic breeding habitat occur annually with the onset of reliable, pool-filling rains, typically between December and March. After mating, females lay eggs singly or occasionally in small clusters, attached to plant stems in the water column. While most CTS breed in their natal pools, dispersal between pools is relatively common and dispersing juvenile CTS have been found up to 1.5 kilometers from breeding sites. CTS may live up to ten years or more in the wild. The project site does not provide aquatic breeding habitat for CTS; however, suitable breeding habitat does exist within the immediate vicinity of the development area (within 1,600 feet} in the form of stock ponds and analogous features to the west and east. There are several recent occurrences within 5.0 miles of the development area, the nearest being a breeding record 0.1 mite to the southwest of the southwest corner of the development area. Although larger, active ground squirrel colonies appeared to be just outside of the development area boundaries {to the west and north), several burrows within the development area were noted during the site visit, primarily in the lower-elevation, northwestern section. In addition, relatively large soil fissures providing potential refugia for CTS were located throughout much of the development area. Given the numerous recent documented occurrences and presence of suitable breeding habitat in the vicinity there is the potential for CTS to use the development area for estivation or dispersal, but CTS does not breed within the development area. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin ~ 51 I l~ I ~ yyo Ground disturbance within a six to ten acre portion of the development area has the potential to: 1) disturb adult and sub-adult CTS under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); and 2) alter CTS terrestrial habitat to a permanently unsuitable state; therefore, a Mitigation Measure has been developed to ensure that this does not occur. CTS were a candidate for listing in 1993; therefore, the EDEIR assumed potentially significant impacts (IM 3.7/G} and identified related mitigations (3.7/20-22). Mitigation Measure 2 listed below is in addition to the existing Mitigation Measures in the EDEIR. Moderate Potential Species American Badger (Taxidea taxus}. CDFG Species of Special Concern. American Badger is a large, semi-fossorial member of the Mustelidae (weasel family). It is found uncommonly within the region in drier open stages of most scrub, forest and herbaceous habitats where friable soils and prey populations are present. Badgers are typically solitary and nocturnal, digging burrows to provide refuge during daylight hours. Burrow entrances are usually elliptical and each borrow generally has only one entrance. Young are born in the spring and are independent by the end of summer. Badgers are carnivores, preying on a variety of mammals (especially ground squirrels} and occasionally other vertebrates and eggs. The grassland habitat of the development area provides moderate quality denning habitat for this species, and prey (ground squirrels) were also observed within and immediately adjacent to the development area. In addition there have been several occurrences for this species within approximately 2.0 miles of the development area, including one as recently as 2404 (CDFG 2009). Although no burrows were observed within the development area, the area showed badgez characteristics and this species could come to occupy the development area prior to initiation of work activities. The EDEIR identified potentially significant impacted related to disturbance of habitant or individuals and identif ed related mitigations 3.7/20 and 27. Mitigation Measure 3 listed below is in addition to the existing 1Vlitigation Measures in the EDEIR. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). CDFG Fally Protected Species, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. The Golden Eagle is largely resident in open and semi-open areas from sea level to 3600 meters elevation. Occupied habitats include tundra, shrublands, grasslands, mixed woodlands, and coniferous forests. This species is .usually found in mountainous areas, but it also nests in .wetland, riparian and estuarine habitats at low elevations. Nests are typically built on cliff ledges or in large, relatively isolated trees. It forages over large areas, feeding primarily on ground squirrels, rabbits, large birds and carrion. The development area contains no cliffs, rock outcrops or trees and thus provides no suitable nesting habitat for this species, but does provide suitable foraging habitat. Because suitable nesting habitat occurs in the general vicinity of the development area, this species has a moderate potential to occur (foraging) within the development area; however, work activities within the project site are unlikely to result in impacts to the Golden Eagle. The EDEIR identified potential impacts on Golden Eagle habitat, IM 3.7/K. Consistent with MM 3.7/25, most of the project site {127.3 acres) will continue to be maintained in Open Space; therefore, no new or more significant impacts are expected. Initial Study/MitigatedNegatlve Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 52 iba ~ ~~o White-~#ailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) CDFG Fully Protected. White-tailed Kite is resident in agricultural areas, grasslands; scrub habitats, wet meadows and emergent wetlands throughout the lower elevations of California. Nests are constructed mostly of twigs and placed in small to large trees, often at habitat edges. This species preys upon a variety of small mammals and other vertebrates. ,I ?1 The development area contains no trees or shrubs and thus provides no nesting habitat for this species, but does provide suitable forging habitat. One White-tailed Kite was observed in a likely nesting tree approximately 0.2 miles from the property during the site visit. Development is occurring far away from the area where the White-tailed Kite was observed and it is not expected to impact this species. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). CDFG Species of Special Concern. Burrowing Owl is resident in grasslands, desert floors and other dry, open habitats with sparse to non-existent tree or shrub canopies and vegetation (grasses) that are short in height. In California, this species is generally found in close association with California Ground Squirrel. Burrowing Owl utilizes vacant ground squirrel burrows for shelter and nesting. This species may colonize disturbed, human-modified habitats, utilizing debris, old pipes or other anthropogenic structures. Prey includes invertebrates as well as small mammals and other vertebrates. The development area was assessed to see whether it provides suitable habitat for Burrowing Owl during the site visit. The eastern portion of the development area is likely too steep for nesting owls, but several ground squirrels burrows were noted in the western portion of the project site with relatively low-height vegetation in association. The entrances of all burrows found were examined and no indication of owl ~' use (e.g. feces, regurgitated pellets) was noted. A large ground squirrel colony was noted immediately west of the development area. In addition, there are numerous recent occurrences within five miles of the development area (CDFG, 2009). Given these occurrences and the suitability of the development area for both breeding and foraging by owls, there is a moderate potential foz Burrowing Owl to occur within the development area. While owls were not observed during the site visit, this species could come to occupy the development area or its unmediate vicinity prior to the initiation of work activities. Potential impacts to Burrowing Owls were ident~ed in EDEIR IM 3.7/M. Mitigations for these impacts were identified in Mitigation Measures 3.7/20 and 27. Mitigation Measure 4 listed below is in addition to the existing Mitigation Measures in the EDElR. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). CDFG Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Loggerhead Shrike is a resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. This species is associated with open country with short vegetation and scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. Nesting substrates vary from trees to brush piles. Vegetation with thorns is usually preferred and nests are typically well-concealed. Shrikes are songbirds; however, they are predatory and forage on a variety of invertebrates and small vertebrates. The development area contains no trees or shrubs and thus provides no nesting habitat for this species. While the development area of the site does provide land suitable for foraging, there is no suitable habitat on the development area, and therefore the impact is less than significant. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 . - City of Dublin 53 ~~a ~f y~~ California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii). USFWS Threatened, CDFG Species of Special Concern. The California Red-legged Frog (CRLF), until recently considered a subspecies of the Red- legged Frog (R. aurora), is the only native "pond frog" found throughout much of California. It was listed as threatened by USFWS in 1996. Typically.CRLF breeding habitat is characterized by deep and still or slow-moving water associated with emergent marsh and/or riparian vegetation. Suitable aquatic habitats include ponds (ephemeral and permanent}, streams/creeks (ephemeral and permanent), seasonal wetlands, springs, seeps, man-made features (e.g. stock ponds, roadside ditches), marshes, dune ponds and lagoons. Depending on local conditions, CRLF may complete its entire life cycle in a particular patch of habitat (e.g. a pond suitable for all stages of life), or utilize multiple habitat types. CRLF often undergoes estivation (a period of inactivity) during the dry months, over-summering in small mammal burrows, moist leaf litter, incised stream channels or large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds. Adult and sub-adult (newly metamorphosed) CRLF may disperse from breeding habitats to nearby riparian and/or estivation habitats in the summer. Conversely, during the rainy season, CRLF may disperse from estivation sites to suitable breeding habitat. During such dispersal, frogs can travel up to one mile over a variety of topographic and habitat types. Upland dispersal habitats include riparian comdors, non-native annual grassland and oak savanna. The development area does not provide suitable aquatic habitat for CRLF and is unlikely to be used for estivation. However, suitable breeding habitat does exist within the immediate vicinity of the development area (within 1,100 feet) in the form of riparian watercourses and stock ponds to the south and east. There are numerous recent occurrences within five miles of the development area, the nearest being 885 feet to the southeast, suggesting that the development area maybe used for dispersal by CRLF during the rainy season. The CRLF was a candidate for listing in 1993; therefore, the EDEIR identified impacts as potentially significant (IM 3.7/F); and identified related Mitigations (MM 3.7/20-22). Mitigation Measure 5 listed below is in addition to the existing Mitigation Measures in the EDEIR. The City of Dublin contracted with Randall Long of RCL Ecology who performed a peer review of the biological analysis conducted by WRA Environmental Consultants. In his review, Mr. Long reviewed the Special-status species analysis, wetlands assessment and permit requirements. Mr. Long found that the above items were analyzed correctly and fully following standard requirements and he concurred with the presentation of the information in the WRA Report. Mr. Longs only recommendation was to add another potential option for. consideration regarding the determination of presence/absence of the CTS and CRFL under section 5.2 of the report prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants. Currently, the report only lists the requirement of a 2-year rainy season trapping study. An additional alternative to .this would be to assume presence of these species on the project area; purchase lands nearby as mitigation for habitat to be developed; and dedicate these lands as open space to be managed in concert with lands similarly dedicated as mitigation for previous development in the area. A Mitigation Measure has been incorporated into this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which requires the Applicant to perform either two years of protocol-level CTS trapping surveys to confirm presence/absence of this species on the site or assume the presence of this species aestivating on the site and purchases CTS mitigation credits. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 54 i~~ ~- y~o Project Impacts a} Would the Project have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive or special status species? LS/M. As discussed in the section above, a Biological Resources Analysis was conducted by WRA Environmental Consultants. The analysis also included a site visit to determine if any special status plants or animals were located on the site. The analysis and site visit deternned that there are no special status plants found on the development area. Impacts related to species are discussed in the background section above (pages 50 - 54). As discussed above, two special status wildlife species were observed in the development area during the site assessment. One special stahis wildlife species has a high potential to occur in the development area and seven special status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur in the development area. The following additional Mitigation Measures have been added to ensure that the Project does not have an adverse impact on any sensitive or special status species. All mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to this Project. The Mitigation Measures identified in the EDEIR together with the following measures adequately analyze potential biological resource impacts from the Project and reduce future impacts to wildlife to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 1: If work is to occur between February 1 and August 31 (general bird breeding season), apre-construction breeding bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the initiation of work activities. The surveys shall be conducted within all suitable nesting habitats within and adjacent to the development area. All active non-status passerine nests identified shall be protected by a minimum 25-foot radius exclusion zone. Active raptor or special status species nests shall be protected by a minimum 50-foot radius exclusion zone. Each exclusion zone shall be established with appropriate construction fencing. Work outside of exclusionary buffers may continue; however, ground disturbance activities shall be prohibited in these azeas until the nest has fledged successfully, been predated or abandoned as a result of natural causes as determined by a qualified biologist. Mitigation Measure 2: The Applicant shall perform either two years of protocol-level CTS trapping surveys to confirm absence of this species on the site or assume the presence of this species aestivating on the site and purchases CTS mitigation credits. The focused trapping shall occur on the 5-10 acre portion of the project site where grading will occur. Permission for these surveys would be obtained from USFWS and final results would be provided to USFWS as well. If no CTS aze found during two years of trapping, protective silt fencing shall be installed prior to Project grading. If CTS are found on site, or the Applicant chooses to assume presence of this species aestivating on the site, the Applicant shall purchase CTS mitigation credits in a nearby approved conservation bank, consistent with USFWS approval. Mitigation Measure 3: APre-construction American badger burrow/den survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within and immediately adjacent to the development area no more than 10 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. If the survey results indicate that the American Badger is present during the general breeding period Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 55 ~~s ~ ~yo (roughly spring through summer), the biologist should assess if young are present in any identified dens. If young are deemed present, an exclusionary buffer shall be placed around each occupied den until all young are independent. Once young are independent or if badgers are found to be present during non-breeding period, use of the site should be discouraged using passive relocation techniques to remove badgers from areas to be impacted prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure 4: Apre-construction Burrowing Owl survey per protocol approved by CDFG shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbances within the development area. If surveys are conducted during the breeding season (February 1 -August 31) and Owls are found to be breeding within the development area, a suitable exclusionary buffer shall be placed around the nest site until all offspring have fledged. Once all offspring have fledged passive relocation techniques shall be employed and all owls shall he removed prior to the initiation of ground disturbances. If a Burrowing Owl is found to be breeding within the development area, Burrowing Owl mitigation credits shall be purchased in a nearby, approved conservation bank. If owls are found during the non-breeding season, passive relocation techniques shall be employed and all owls removed from areas having ground disturbance on site. Mitigation Measure 5: To ensure that disturbance of the CRLF does not occur as a result of.this Project, work activities should be limifed to the non-rainy season (roughly May 16 through October 15). If work is to occur during the rainy season, the Applicant shall install an exclusion fence (e.g. silt fence) around all work areas to prevent CRLF from entering work areas. 'The fencing shall be one-way funnels to allow animals inside the fenced area to escape. b,c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? NI. There are no wetlands or other waters present on the development area. d) Would the Project interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS/M. No native fish are located on the site. Minimal wildlife movement was observed on or across the development area by WRA biologists and therefore it is not anticipated that the development will interfere with such actions, particularly as the Project continues to maintain most of the project site as open space. Construction of the Project is not anticipated to begin for a few years and there is a potential for special status animal species to be found on the site in the future due to the future construction activities in the area. Incorporation of Mitigation Measures 1-5, will reduce potentially significant impacts related to the movement of wildlife identified in the background section above (pages 50 - 54) on the project site to a less than significant level if special status species were found on the property in the future. e,f) Would the Project conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. There are na trees located within the development area; therefore, none will be removed from the site. The project site is not located within the boundaries of a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. There are no other habitat conservation plans that are applicable to the Project. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 56 _ A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted by Holman & Associates in May 2009, attached as Appendix C to this Initial Study and incorporated herein by reference and is available for review during normal business hours in City Hall in the Planning Division located at 100 Civic Plaza in Dublin. Pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 18, the City of Dublin notified the tribes in the area of the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and no comments were received. A visual inspection of the development area was conducted by Miley Holman of Holman & Associates on April 30, 2009. The development area was traversed in 150 foot transacts to visually inspect the ground surface. A more intensive visual inspection was conducted on the bottom slope that drains to the south. Additionally, an archaeological literature review was conducted by Miley Holman at the Northwest Information Center on May 4, 2009 to obtain information about recorded historic and/or prehistoric sites inside or near the project area. Eastern Dublin was previously surveyed in conjunction with the Eastern Dublin EIlZ. The survey identified several potentially significant archeological resources in Eastern Dublin, but did not indicate the presence of any resources on the project site. Impacts 3.98 and D addressed the potential disruption of unidentified resources due to development and related impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.9/6.0 xequired project-level archeological surveys to be conducted as part of the application process of individual development projects in Eastern Dublin. Mitigation Measure 3.9/5 requires that development activities cease if resources are discovered. As noted above, a cultural resources assessment was conducted on the development area by Holman & Associates in 2009. Neither the 1988 survey nor the 2009 site specific survey noted the presence of any cultural resources development azea of the site. The nearest historic resources are found just north of the project site near the county line and at the Silvers Ranch Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts 3.98, Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-Historic Resources and 3.9/D, Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources which relate to construction and grading activities that will occur on this site in the future. All Mitigation Measures adopted for these impacts and included in the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to this Project. Pro'ect t Impacts a) Would the Project cause substantial adverse changes to significant historic resources? NI. The Site specific Cultural Resources Assessment did not identify any historic resources on the development area. Therefore, the passibility of encountering historic resources is considered remote and no impact is expected. b-d) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource or destroy a paleontological resource or unique geological feature or disturb human remains? LS. No cultural resources were identified in the site-specific assessment of the site. The possibility does exist, however, that cultural resources could be buried on the site and could be discovered during excavation or grading of the site. IM 3.98 and D addressed the potential disturbance of unified resource due to development and related activities. In the event that such resources are encountered Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIlZ requires cessation of construction activities if historic or prehistoric remains are found. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 57 VI. ~ Geology and Soils A Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Report was prepared for the Lin property in May 2009 by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants attached as Appendix D to this Initial Study and incorporated herein by reference for the development area and is available for review during normal business hours in City Hall in the Planning Division located at 100 Civic Plaza in Dublin. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed residential development from the standpoint of engineering and geotechnical engineering. The report determined that construction of the residential development was feasible on the site from a geological and geotechnical standpoint. Landform and Topography The development area is an irregular shaped area measuring approximately 1,600 feet long by 1,000 feet wide in plan view. With the exception of the on-going residential constriction of the Silveri Ranch property located west of the project site, the development area is bounded mostly by undeveloped ranch land. Site topography ranges from approximately 640 feet above mean sea level in the northwest comer of the site up to 880 feet along the east site boundary. The site is dominated by awest-facing ridge flank. This ridge flank rises to anorth-trending ridge crest, which dominates the eastern boundary of the site. The ridge flank is gently undulating, with about four small ridge spurs and intervening swales gently falling to the west from the ridge crest. Regional Geology The site is situated within the Coast Ranges geomorphic provine of California, which is characterized by northwest trending, folded and faulted mountain chains. In this part of the province sedimentary deposits of the Tassajara Formation underlie the area. The region has been folded and faulted during the past three million years due to right-lateral oblique motions between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. Earth Materials Three types of earth materials were encountered during the investigation, which include: Landslide deposits. The Preliminary Geologic Map prepared by Berlogar as part of the project application identified areas of landslides and potential colluvial swales/landslides. Landslides and colluvium were identified north of the building areas, and potential colluvium/landslides were delineated in three bowl-shapes locations within the proposed building areas. Subsequently, Berlogar excavated seven test pits in these bowl-shapes areas on September 27, 2009. It was determined that .the landslides north of the building areas should not impact improvements; hence additional field exploration was not performed in this area. The test pits excavated on September 27, 2009 encountered 3 to 7 feet of soil overlying.bedrock in the bowl-shaped area. Shear planes were not observed in the test pits and the material appeared to be residual soil or colluvium; hence, Berlogar concluded that the three bowl-shaped areas were not landslides. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 58 1 io8 °~ y~o Colluvium. Colluvium is a soil derived from in-place weathering of the underlying bedrock that then moves downslope by gravity. Colluvium mantles all slopes to some degree and collects in particularly _ thick deposits within the bottoms of swales and at the bases of slopes. The Colluvium consists of dark gray-brown; very stiff to hard clay with some fine sand. The soil appears to have moderate to high -_ plasticity and expansion potential. Bedrock. Bedrock beneath the site was mapped as belonging to Plio-Pleistocene Tassajara Formation. This material consists of grayish to yellowish brown, silty, fine-grained sandstone and silty claystone. These materials typically have a friable, barely rock-like, nearly soil-like consistency. Groundwater Shallow groundwater in test pits was not encountered during the field investigation by Berlogar. Shallow groundwater could be present during wet times of the year within swales at the ground surface or a few feet deep_ Seismic Hazards Surface Fault Rupture. The Project is located outside official State of California designated Earthquake Fault Zone for active faults and the potential for surface fault rupture at the site is low. According to the State of California, a fault is considered active if it has demonstrated Holocene activity within the past 11,000 years. No evidence of active fault traces crossing, passing near or trending toward the project site were encountered. Ground shaking. The project site is located in a region of high seismicity given the proximity of the Calaveras fault and other active fault systems in the San Francisco 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 life span of the development. Ground shaking is a hazard that cannot be eliminated but can be partially mitigated through proper attention to seismic structural design and observance of good construction practices. 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 were any earth materials encountered that might be susceptible to liquefaction. Based on the Seismic Hazard Map prepared by the California Geological Survey for the Livermore Quadrangle (CGS, 2008), the project site is not located in an area of expected liquidation. Therefore, the risk of liquefaction is low. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 59 ~ ~~ °F ~f X10 Ground Subsidence. Ground subsidence can occur as a result of dynamic densification, or "shakedown," when dry cohesionless soil is subjected to earthquake vibrations of high amplitude. Loose cohesionless soils were not encountered during the site investigation; therefore, seismic induced ground subsidence is not considered a geologic hazard at the project site. 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. The site is shown within an area of potential seismically induced landsliding on Seismic Hazard Map for Livermore Quadrangle (CGS, 2008}. Grading in accordance with recommendations of a geotechnical engineer is expected to result in a low risk of seismically induced landslides. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts 3.6/B and C, Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary and Secondary Effects, 3.6/D, Substantial Alteration to Project Site Landforms, 3.6/H, Expansive Soils, 3.6/I, Natural Slope Stability, 3.6/J Ctit-and-Fill Slope Stability, 3.6/L, Long Term and 3.6/K Erosion and Sedimentation, Construction-Related which all relate to the development of this Project. All Mitigation Measures adopted for these impacts and included in the Eastern Dublin EIR shall continue to apply to this Project. Project Impacts a) Would the Project 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 involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Aquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known Fault (Refer to the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? LS. The Berloger report shows no active fault traces on or near the development area. The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Safety Zone and the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal and is a less than significant impact. ii} Strong Seismic Shaking? LS. As discussed above, there are no active faults either on or within close proximity of the site. However, the site is subject to severe ground shaking from active and potentially active faults in the greater Bay Area, including the Hayward, San Andreas, Greenville and Calaveras Faults. The potential primary effects for earthquake ground shaking is~ common to the San Francisco Bay region and was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for Impact 3.6/B, Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects. The project site is subject to ground shaking caused by a number of regional faults. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area, buildings, utilities and other improvements. would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 64 Igo ~ ~Iyo development can expect to experience at least one moderate to severe earthquake during the Life span of the development as noted in the EDEIIL Ground shaking is a hazard that cannot be eliminated; however, it can be mitigated through proper seismic structural design. Construction of the Project shall be required to conform to the current California Building Code in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance in accordance with `_ Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIlZ for impact 3.68. Secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking include possible seismically induced landslides, differential compaction and/or settlement. Secondary effects were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIlZ as a potentially significant impact (Impact 3.6/C). The measures listed in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce ground shaking impacts as discussed below and will mitigate secondary impacts to a less than significant Level. The proposed Project is consistent with the intended use of the property, as a residential development, as noted in the Eastern Dublin Specifc Plan and Dublin General Plan and would not have any new or greater impacts, with respect to ground shaking, than identified in the Eastern Dublin EIl2. The Project shall be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.6/3.0 (removal of unstable materials), 3.6/4.0 (Applicant is required to improve the stability of fills), 3.6/5.0 (requires that fill settlement be reduced), 3.616.0 (project must be designed to accommodate settlement without failure) and 3.6/7:0 (a design level geotechnical report must be submitted in conjunction with a Grading Permit). iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? LS. The Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Report (Appendix D) indicates that the site is comprised of silty clay and sandy clay interbedded with very dense silty sand over bedrock. Based on the geotechnical report that was prepared for the site, there is no impact to the Project due to liquefaction. iv} Landslides? LS. The Geologic and Geotechnical Report by Berlogar described the possibility of landslide deposits on the project site within the proposed development area. This was noted a potentially significant impact. However, Berlogar did afollow-up survey and excavated additional test pits. As noted in the October 1, 2009 letter from Berlogar, the questionable landslides discussed in the Geologic and Geotechnical Report was not present in the development area (Appendix E). The landslides that are present are north of the development area. The development area does not have any landskdes, but rather has 3 to 7 feet thick colluvium over bedrock. Mitigation Measures 3.613.0-7.0 and 3.6/20.0 - 26.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR require stability of the fill material and grading plans which conform to the California Building Code and additional geological investigations. Implementation of these impacts to a less- than-significant level. b) Result in erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. The construction of all of the land uses contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has the potential to increase erosion in the area initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 61 (Impacts 3.6/K,L). The Project shall be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 which requires individual Project Applicants to implement interim and long term erosion control measures which ensures that this impact remains less-than-significant. Soil erosion and the loss of topsoil could occur during project grading and construction activities especially during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs, if the soils are not properly protected. The exposure of the dirt to rainfall and wind could result in soil erosion. The Tentative Tract Map indicates that a bioswale will be constructed near the private driveway, which will provide access to the four units. Some of the surface water from the development will be directed into this bioswale. The bioswale will help collect and treat stormwater run-off from the private driveway and upper slopes. The small portion of the .lots west of the pads will continue to drain across the adjoining property as it currently does. The bioswale noted above in addition to other appropriate water quality improvements will be applied to the Project at the map stage which will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6127.0 and 28.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR which require that grading activities be timed to avoid the rainy season as much as possible, that interim control measures be implemented to control runoff and that the Project reduce erosion potential, require appropriate design, construction and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface drainage to ensure that erosion and/or loss of topsoil impacts remain less than significant. c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or may potentially result in landslides or collapse? LS/M. As discussed in the Geotechnical Report, the primary geotechnical issue affecting the proposed development is presence of expansive soil and claystone at the site, which are susceptible to significant volume changes when subjected to change in moisture. According to the Geotechnical Report, the expansive potential of soil at the site likely ranges from moderately to highly expansive. This is based on analysis of samples frorni test pits at the site and laboratory tests on samples of similar materials from neighboring Dublin Ranch Projects completed by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants. The degree of expansion of the on- site materials is chiefly a function of the following factors: the types of soil and bedrock materials and clay composition, in-place moisture contents of the materials; in-place density of the materials, and overburden pressures or surcharge loads acting on the materials. The two main expansive material types at the site are (1) the near-surface colluvium, residual soil and possible landslide debris and (2} beds of claystone and silty claystone within Tassajara Foundation bedrock. Cut slopes at the site are currently planned at gradients of not steeper than 21/2:1. According to the Geotechnical Report, cut slopes in sandstone and/or sandy siltstone bedrock can generally be constructed at gradients no steeper than 2%2:1. The Applicant is proposing to cut 49,835 cubic yards and fill 46,550 cubic yards yard on the project site, with a net of 3,285 cubic yards cut (lost to compaction of the fills}. It is the intent to balance the cut and fill material on the project site. As noted in .the .October 1, 2009 prepared by Berlogar, cut slopes will expose Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 62 I1a~yyo higkly expansive soil at the top of the cuts. This expansive soil material exposed on the cut slopes would be potentially unstable and undergo sloughing. In order to reduce the potential for surface soil sloughing, removal of the expansive clay one equipment width and replacement with compacted fill using select on-site bedrock materials is recommended at the top of the cut slopes. The following Mitigation Measure applies to the project to ensure slope stability: Mitigation Measare 6: An engineering geologist shall inspect all cut slopes exposures for evidence of potential instability during the Grading Permit stage. Potential total swelling of future fill composed of these materials can be limited to an acceptable range provided fill is placed and compacted in accordance with detailed engineering criteria to be developed in accordance with Mitigation Measure 6. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/3.0-7.0 and 3.6/20.0 - 26.0 in the Eastern Dublin ElR which require stability of the fill material and grading plans which conform to the Uniform Building Code and additional geological investigations will reduce any potential instability to a less than significant level. e) Does the project site have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems? NI. The Project will be connected to a sanitary sewer system provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District and therefore septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems will not be used. . VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The. project site is currently vacant {with the exception of the existing DSRSD water tank). Eckland Consultants conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the development area to investigate the potential for on-site hazardous. waste or substances. Eckland's assessment indicates that the property is not known to contain hazardous wastes or substances. The study concluded that the property has a low likelihood that any hazardous or toxic substances exist on the site. The Phase 1 Environmental Assessment is attached as Appendix F to this Initial Study and is incorporated herein by reference for the project site and is available for review during normal business hours in City Hall in the Planning Division, located at 104 Civic Plaza in Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report did not address Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Project Impacts a, b, c} Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, disposal or emission of hazardous materials? LS. The proposed use of the site is residential - with the majority of the 157.7 acre site to be placed and remain in a conservation easement and protected as open space. No new uses are proposed for the DSRSD parcel. Only minor quantities of potentially hazardous materials including lawn chemicals, household solvents, pesticides and similar items would be associated with the development and would pose a less than significant impact. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 ~' City of Dublin 63 ~~ 3 ~ ~~o d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites? NI. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the site is not located on a hazardous waste and substance site. Additionally, the site has primarily been used for grazing and typically this use does not have hazardous waste associated with it. e, f) If the site is located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the area? NI. The Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private air strip. The project site is located approximately four miles northwest of the Livermore Municipal Airport. g) Would the proposed Project impair the implementation of the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? LS. Adequate emergency access will be provided in the area through the existing streets and future streets (Cydonia Court and private driveway). City Staff including the Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin Police Services Department have reviewed the site plan and Tentative Tract Map included with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. Both the Police Services Department and the Alameda County Fire Department have determined that adequate access is provided to the site via the access point from Cydonia Court. h) Would the proposed project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? LS. The project site is located near undeveloped areas and there is a potential for wildland fires. Additionally, the project site is located approximately 2 miles from the nearest fire station. The City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan reduces wildfire impacts on residential dwellings. The Plan requires developers to design the dwelling units in order to provide features such as Class A roof materials, fire sprinkler, approved landscape materials and building materials. As part of the Site Development Review and Building Permit Review of this Project, specific fire protection requirements will be imposed to ensure compliance with the Wildfire Management Plan and the 2007 California Fire Code. The fire requirements specified above are predicated on inclusion into the City of Dublin's City Limits. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM Map Community Panel #06001C0326G, dated revised August 3, 2009 for Alameda County (unincorporated areas} indicates that the property is located outside of a special flood hazard -area. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) operates the water distribution system that supplies water to the City of Dublin. The Alameda County Flood Control and Conservation District (Zone 7) is the water supply wholesaler. Additionally, Zone 7 is the agency that maintains drainage facilities in the area. As development continues to occur in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, more impervious surfaces will be created by paved streets, houses, sidewalks, driveways and patios. The additional impervious surfaces (including new impervious surfaces on the project site) will increase water runoff to drainage channels in the area and could potentially affect Tassajara Creek. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 64 i~~ ~ quo Water quality in California is regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francisco .Bay Area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB}. Federal regulations were issued in November. 1990 and since then have been updated to expand the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of storm water discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes and construction sites which will disturb an area which is larger than one acre. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) which is'a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve the water quality of the San Francisco Bay. A potential impact to storm water quality is from non-point sources of water pollution. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many diffuse sources. NPS pollution is caused by rainfall moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, creeks, wetlands, coastal waters, and underground sources of drinking water. These pollutants include, but are not limited to fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, oil, sediment from construction sites, eroding creek banks, and pet waste. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts 3.5/P, Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources 3.5/Y, Potential Flooding, 3.5/Z, Reduced Groundwater Recharge, 3.5/AA Non-point Sources of Pollution and 3.6/K and L which relate to the development of this site as a residential development which increases the amount of impervious surfaces on the site potentiaIly increasing runoff from the site. All Mitigation Measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR for these impacts continue to apply to this Project. Project Impacts a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. Construction of the Project would require grading in order to construct the building pads, private driveway, utilities and other improvements. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan as well as the Preliminary Grading Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map indicate that due to the topography on the site, grading cut and fill activities will occur on the site. As noted on the Tentative Tract Map, approximately 10 acres of the 157.7 acre site will be disturbed by grading. This includes approximately 7 acres to create the access road and the building pads and an additional 3 acres for remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. These activities could increase non-point sources of pollution, as identified in IM 3.5/AA. The Applicant will be required to apply for a Grading Permit. At this time, the project will be reviewed to ensure that no water quality standards or waste discharge requirements will be violated. As a standard project condition of approval (during Grading Permit) and consistent with the EDEIIZ mitigations, the Applicant shall be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which lists Best Management Practices to reduce construction and post construction activities to a less than significant level. b) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water tables? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR discussed hnpacts 3.5P, Overdraft of Local Groundwater Resources and 3.5/Z, Reduced Groundwater Recharge, and conformance with Mitigation Measures 3.5/25.0, 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR encourage connection to a Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 65 ~~5 ~ yUo public water system, such as DSRSD, to plan facilities and manage programs to protect water quality and to support groundwater recharge programs consistent with these mitigations, the proposed residential development will be served by DSRSD. Additionally, the project site is not designated as a water recharge area and a substantial portion of the site .(126.8 acres) will remain undeveloped per the conservation easement. c) Would the Project substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding on or off the project site which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated that irnpiementation of the land uses in the Eastern Dublin Specific Pian with related re-contouring, could change the existing natural drainage patterns. Re-contouring of the project site could change the natural drainage pattern of the site (TM 3.6/&). As part of the Project, approximately 10 acres will be disturbed by grading, which includes ?acres to create the access road and building pads and an additional acres for remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Stormwater runoff from the development would eventually flow to the appropriate Zone 7 facility via a storm drainage system. The project site is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and facilities to support storm water runoff from the project site were previously planned for. The Project would not substantially alter drainage patterns assumed in the EDEIR and no new or more severe effects would result. d) Would the Project substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding either on or off the Project site which would result in flooding on- or off-site? LS. As discussed above, construction of the proposed Project could alter existing drainage patterns within the area. Drainage on the site will be required to connect with existing and planned drainage - improvements within the Eastern Dublin planning area. A Preliminary Grading Plan has been -' submitted in conjunction with the Stage 2 Development Plan. Additionally, Improvement Pians which show compliance with the requirement to connect with existing and planned drainage improvements within Eastern Dublin will be required to be submitted during the Tentative Map approval process. Pursuant to IM 3.5/Y, the Project shall be required to conform to Mitigation Measure 3.5/44.0, 3.5/46A and 3.5/47.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR which requires adequate planning of the development and on-site drainage to minimize flooding as a result of the development. The Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map indicates that an on-site bioswale will collect stormwater run-off from the private driveway and upper slopes, treat it and will direct those flows to the existing storm drain main line- on-the adjacent Silvera Ranch development which will result in a less than significant potential for _ localized flooding. T'he development area was planned for residential development in the EDE1R; the Project would create no new or more severe significant effects than previously - analyzed. e) Would the Project create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacfty of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. Construction of the Project is anticipated to lead to an increase in stormwater runoff from the project site due to the increase in impervious surfaces on the site; however, due to the relatively small size of the project and the design of the storm drain system on the Preliminary Grading Plan and Vesting Tentative Map which was sized to accommodate the site drainage, run-off from the project site will not exceed the Initial Study/MitigatedNegatfve Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 66 capacity of the dr-ainage system. Additionally, Water Quality Treatments will be a Condition of Approval on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, which is being processed for the Project. A bioswale will be constructed on the project site to treat surface water runoff from the access road and upper slopes. The small portion of the lots west of the pads will continue to drain across the adjoining property as it currently does. Storm drains will divert some of the runoff to the existing storm drain system in Silvera Ranch. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan anticipated a denser residential development on the site than what is being proposed and the Project will create significantly less impervious surfaces than were anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Operation of the bioswale will ensure that the Project doesn't add substantial amounts ofpolluted run-off to the drainage system. f) Would the Project substantially degrade water quality? LS. The proposed Project would not degrade water quality. As discussed above, mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which include the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Plan, will reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. g) Would the Project place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. No portion of the project site is located within a flood hazard azea as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. h) Would the Project place within a 100 year flood hazard boundary structures that impede or redirect flood flows? NI. No portion of the project site is located within a flood hazard area as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. i) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? NI. There are no dams or levees located nearby that could impact the Project. j) Would the Project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or. mudflows? NI. The risk of a potential mudflow is considered low since no historic mudflows have been identified on the site. There are no bodies of water located.neazby that could impact the Project due to either a seiche or tSUllamt. IX. Land Use and Planning The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area, but is located outside of the City Limit line. The project site is the last two parcels that are located outside of the City Limits and within the City's Sphere of Influence identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Surrounding properties include Silvera Ranch to the west, which includes 254 residential units on 105 acres of land. The four phase development contains a mix of single-family estate lots, smaller lot single-family cluster homes and multi-family condominiums and is currently under construction and partially occupied. Fallon Crossing, also located west of the project site, has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential and Open Space. Once constructed, Fallon Crossing will include 106 single-family detached residential units. The Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley Project is located to the north of the Project. The City Council adopted Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan for Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 67 -~l ~ yyo Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley for 298 attached and detached units on 226 acres of land; however, the application has since been withdrawn. The property was annexed into the City in July 2008. Alameda County land is located to the east of the project site (Donlan Canyon). The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify any impacts related to Land Use and Planning resulting from development of Eastern Dublin. Project Impacts a) Would the proposed Project physically divide an established community? NI. The project site is currently vacant (with the exception of the water tank on the DSRSD parcel} and has been. planned for residential development since the adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The proposal includes an amendment to the existing Land use designations of Low Density Residential and Rural Residential/Agricultural to Estate Residential and Open Space but retains the general pattern of residential development in less constrained areas with adjacent hillside areas in open space that is common in the upper Tassajara Road area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not disrupt an established community. b) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The proposed Project includes a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment for the proposed reduction in density. The Project would also transfer land use authority from Alameda County to the City of Dublin. c) Would the Project conflict with a habitat or natural community conservation plan? NI. A small portion of the project site is proposed for development. The remaining portion of the site (127.3 acres) will be maintained as open space. The portion of the project that will be in the conservation easement will have an Open Space Land Use Designation. No structures or grading are permitted in the portion of the project site designated as Open Space. X. Mineral Resources The project site contains no known mineral resources. There are cunren#ly no mining activities on the site. There was a mining permit for the property issued to Redgewick Construction many years ago. A test pit was excavated. The pit has been fully reclaimed and the permit terminated per all requirements of the State division of mines and geology and approved by Alameda County. Project Impacts a, b} Would the project result in the Loss of availability of significant mineral resources? NI. No known sources of mineral resources exist on the site; therefore there is no foreseeable impact. XI. Noise Major potential sources of noise on and adjacent to the project site include noise generated by vehicles on nearby Tassajara Road. Figure 3.lOB in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that noise levels on and - adjacent to Tassajara Road will reach or exceed 60 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 68 1~8 0~ ~yQ although the fuhire noise contour does not appear to extend to the proposed residential areas. The Eastern Dublin EIIZ identifies this impact (Impact 3.10/A) as a significant impact and includes mitigation measures aimed at reducing noise impacts on residential dwellings within the 60dB contour. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impacts 3.10/A, Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise, 3.10/B, Exposure. of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise, 3.10/D, Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks RFTA) and the County Jail and, 3.10/E, Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise which relate to the proposed development. All Mitigation Measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the impacts shall apply to this Project. Prot ect Impacts a) Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standards? LS. Construction of the residential development would result in short term noise impacts during construction of the development {Impact 3.118). Prior to construction, the Applicant or contractor shall be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR which requires the Applicant or contractor to prepare a construction noise management plan to minimize impacts of construction noise. The project site is not located in close proximity to any major impacting roadways; therefore, the exterior noise levels are consistent with City standards and the impact is less than significant. The Applicant or contractor shall also be required to submit an acoustical analysis prior to issuance of a Building Permit to show how the interior noise level of the residential units shall be controlled to a CNEL of 45 dB as required by Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.O~in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.11/A). The Project would not cause new or more severe significant impacts then identified in the EDEIR. b) Would the Project expose persons 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 or will exist within or adjacent to the Project, such as heavy industrial facilities or railroads. c, d) Would the Project substantially increase permanent or periodic ambient noise levels? LS. The proposed Project may result in an increase in noise levels in the area due to an increase in traffic in the area. The increase in traffic will be lower than what was previously studied in the Eastern Dublin EIR due to the reduction in the number of dwelling units on the site from 68 units to 4 units. There is no additional impact beyond that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as future noise even assuming the future higher level of development would not result in 60dB in the residential area of the project. Additional noise will be generated on a temporary basis during grading activities and construction of the residential units. This noise would be generated by truck activity, construction equipment and tools. Mitigation Measure 3.1/4.0 for IM 3.11/D requires that the Applicant submit a Construction Noise Management Plan to minimize noise impacts on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 69 residents which shall include a construction and grading schedule, construction hours and other noise limiting measures. This Plan will be required to be approved prior to issuance of a Building Permit. e, f) For a Project. located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? Nl. The property is located approximately four miles from the Livermore airport and is not within an airport land use plan; therefore there is no impact. XII. Population and Housing The adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipates that there will be 13,648 dwelling units in Eastern Dublin at full build out. The City population as of June 2008 was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 46,934. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2005 estimates that the City's population will grow to 50,000 in 2010 and will grow to 78,200 by the year 2030. The Eastern Dublin EIlZ did not identify any impacts related to population and housing resulting from development of Eastern Dublin. Pro~ecl t Impacts a} Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI. Annexation and development of the site was planned for in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan. The potential for growth inducing impacts of development under the General Plan was analyzed in Section 5.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR and in the Response to Comment 32-55 of the Eastern Dublin Final EIR. -The proposed residential development of 4 units would not substantially increase the number of people in the area. The proposed number of units is significantly lower than the 68 units assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Because the proposed number of dwelling units is lower than what was planned for in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan, the Project will not induce a substantial population growth in this area over what was reviewed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. b, c) Would the Project displace a substantial number of existing housing units or people? NI. The existing site is vacant and therefore no individuals. will be displaced. XIII. Public Services The project site is currently located within Alameda County. No public services are provided to the project site at this time, as the site is vacant and undeveloped. As part of the project, the Applicant is proposing annexation into the City of Dublin. If this occurs, the City of Dublin would be responsible for providing public services to the project site, which include Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Parks, and road maintenance as discussed below. Fire Protection: The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Fire Department for fire protection services including fire suppression, fire prevention, education, inspection services, and hazardous material control to the community. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts 3.4/C, Demand Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 70 ISo ~ y~lo for Increased Fire Services, 3.4/D, Fire Response to Outlying Areas and 3.4/E, Exposure to Wildlands Hazards which relate to the provision of fire services and safety of residents on the site as a result of the proposed development. All mitigation measures adopted for these impacts continue to apply to this Project. Police Protection: The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Sheriff Department to provide 24-hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts 3.4/A, Demand for Increased Police Services and 3.48, Police Services Accessibility, which all relate to the new development and increase in residents on the site. All mitigation measures adopted for these impacts continue to apply to this Project. Schools. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides educational services to residents in the City of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR identif ed impacts 3.4/F, Demand for New Classroom Space, 3.4/G, Demand for Junior High Schools, 3.4/H, Overcrowding of Schools, 3.4/I, Impact on School Financing District Jurisdiction, and 3.4/J, Financial Burden on School Districts which relate to the development of this site. All mitigation measures adopted for these impacts continue to apply to this Project. The project site is already in the Dublin Unified School District. Parks. Public parks are provided throughout the area by the City of Dublin and all Dublin residents are able to use these parks. Parks in the City and area include neighborhood parks and community parks. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts 3.4/K, Demand for Park Facilities, 3.4/L, Park Facilities and Fiscal Impact, and 3.4/M, Impact on Regional Trail System which relate to the development of this site and an increase in demand for park facilities due to an increase in residents in the area. All mitigation measures adopted for these impacts continue to apply to this Project. Other Public Services: Maintenance of public streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Solid waste services are provided by Amador Valley Industries. The Eastern Dublin EIlZ identified impacts 3.4/O, Increased Solid Waste Production, and 3.4/P, Impact on Solid Waste Disposal Facilities which relates to an increase in solid waste service demand on the site. All mitigation measures adopted for these impacts continue to apply to this Project. . Project Impacts a} Would the Project result in impacts associated with the provision ~of the following services? i) Fire protection? LS. Construction of the proposed Project would increase demand for fire and emergency services on the site. As part of the Site Development Review and Building Permit Review of this project, specific fire protection requirements shall be imposed to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code and the City's adopted Wildlife Management Plan. The Project shall be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.4/b.0-3.4/11.0 which require Applicants to fund new fire facilities in the Eastern Dublin planning area, ensure adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression and minimize wildland fire hazards. Adherence to these measures is provided through the payment of Public Facilities fees & Fire Department review of development applications. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 71 . 181 o f yyo ii) Police protection? LS. An increase in the demand for police services may occur as a result of the new development. The Project was preliminarily reviewed with respect to safety and as part of the Site Development and Building Permit review process, specific security requirements will continue to be reviewed on the Project when more detailed plans are submitted to ensure compliance with applicable provisions of the City of Dublin Municipal Code and in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0 and 3.4/5.0. ` iii) Schools? LS. Construction of the new residential development will increase the demand fox school facilities over what currently exists on the site but less than what was assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Payment of statutory school mitigation fees is deemed full mitigation of school impacts under SB 50. iv) Parks? LS. Construction of the development will result in an increase in demand for park facilities over what currently exists on the site but less~than what was assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the developer shall be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.4/24.0. The Public Facilities Fee collected by the City from Applicants allow the City to obtain, construct, upgrade, and maintain park facilities to meet the demands of new developments. v} Other Public Services? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Approval of the Project would increase the long-tenor maintenance demand for roads. However, funding to meet the additional demands will be provided by project payment of the City's Public Facilities Fee and Traffic Impact Fee and any other applicable fee program. Solid waste generation? LS. Approval of the Project would increase generation of solid waste during construction and during the life of the buildings. At the time of SDR, the Project will be required to provide adequate access for garbage trucks for pick-up services and a condition of approval will address adequate landfill capacity. Additionally, the City's current waste provider, Amador Valley Industries, provides garbage, recycling and organics (yard and food waste) curbside pick-up which aims to reduce the amount of waste sent to area landfills as discussed in Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-3.4/40.0. XIV. Recreation Community and recreational facilities include: Emerald Glen Park, Ted Fairfield Park, Dublin Swim Center, the Dublin Sports Park, the Dublin Library, and many other parks and recreational areas in the City. Regional recreation facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District. Initial Study/MitigatedNegatfve Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 72 1g2 ~f- y~lo Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. The proposed residential development will result in a minimal increase in demand for recreational facilities due to the small increase in the population on the project site. The developer shall be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee in order to offset impacts of the development by ensuring adequate facilities are provided in the City and maintained to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.4/29.0-3.4/31.0, in the Eastern Dublin ElR which requires the developer to pay or install their fair share of planned park facilities, among other things. b} Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of facilities which may have an adverse impact on the environment? LS. The proposed Project does not include any recreational facilities and will not require expansion of any facilities due to the reduction in the density and the low number of dweIling units. XV. Transportation/Traffic Development on this site was assumed in the traffic study for the Eastern Dublin EIR (Chapter 3.3 of the EDEIR) and has also been assumed in buildout conditions in subsequent EIRs in the City. Traffic impacts as a result of the proposed Project are less than what was studied in the Eastern Dublin EIR and subsequent Eastern Dublin EIRs because the development potential on the Properly has been reduced to 4 units {which is significantly lower than the 68 units assumed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan). Existing Transportation Network The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and local arterial and collector roadways including: Interstate 580 - An eight lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore to the east and Hayward and Oakland to the west. Interchanges near the project site include Dougherty/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, and Fallon Road/El Charro Road. Interstate 680 - A six-lane north-south freeway through Alameda and Contra Costa Counties that connects Dublin to local cities such as San Ramon and Danville to the north and Pleasanton and Fremont to the south. In 2002, the new southbound I-680 two-lane flyover connecting to eastbound I-580 was completed and opened to traffic. A direct one-lane connector ramp also exists connecting northbound I- 680 to eastbound I-580. Dougherty Road - A six lane road between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 (the road continues as a six lane road as Hopyard Road in Pleasanton). This road reduces to four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to the Alameda County/Contra Costa County border and then widens back to six lanes within Contra Costa County (City of San Ramon). Dublin Boulevard -This is a major arterial roadway in the City. The road extends from the western City Limits to Fallon Road (in the east). The road extension has been completed to Fallon Road; however, this portion of the road is not yet open. Dublin Boulevard is generally asix-lane roadway. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 73 ~3 of ~ y Hacienda Drive - An arterial roadway designed to provide access to I-580. This road contains six lanes - between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard, five lanes between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, and three lanes between Central Parkway and its northern terminus at Gleason Drive. Arnold Drive -- This is a north-south two lane road which connects Gleason Drive to Dublin Boulevard. The road is extended south of Dublin Boulevard and connects via Altamirano to the BART parking garage in the Dublin Transit Center. Gleason Drive -This is an east-west road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard. Gleason Drive runs from Arnold Drive to Fallon Road. The majority of Gleason Drive is four lanes with the exception of a section through the Dublin Land Company between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. Tassajara Road -This road extends from Santa Rita Road at I-580 to the Town of Danville (it becomes Camino Tassajara at the Alameda CountylContra Costa County border). The road is a five/six lane arterial between I-580 and Central Parkway and afoot/five lane arterial to North Dublin Ranch Drive. The road then becomes atwo-lane roadway north of North Dublin Ranch Drive. Santa Rita Road - A six lane divided urban arterial roadway from the I-580 interchange south to Valley Avenue in Pleasanton. This road primarily serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park and provides access to downtown Pleasanton. Fallon Road - A two lane road from I-580 to Positano Parkway, which becomes a four lane roadway to its terminus just north of Signal Hill Drive. Eventually, Fallon Road will continue through to Tassajara Road. Existing ?'ransit Services Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Rail -The Altamont Commuter Express operates three trains per day between Stockton and San 3ose. The trains provide westbound service in the morning and eastbound service in the evening. The ACE train has stations in Livermore near the downtown and on Vasco Road. The train also has one stop in Pleasanton on Pleasanton Avenue near Main Street. The Pleasanton ACE train station is likely to be used by Dublin commuters with bus services connection between the station and Dublin. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (also known as WHEELS) -The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority provides bus service to the communities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. Several lines provide service to Eastern Dublin.. The closest stop near the project site is on North Dublin Ranch Drive near Tassajara Road. The WHEELS bus system connects to both the ACE train and the BART station. It is expected that the existing bus lines will be expanded further as additional development is built in the Eastern Dublin area. Dial-A-Ride (DAR) -Dial-A-Ride is a bus service which will pick a resident up and drop the resident off at a desired location, by appointment. DAR is available for residents in Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore who have a disability or health-related condition and are unable to board the bus or are unable to get to a bus stop. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 74 Ig~l ~~-lyo Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) -BART operates trains between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station near Hacienda Drive and the greater Bay Area. Service is available seven days a week. The BART" station is accessible by automobile, transit or by bicycling or walking. BART anticipates that construction will be completed on a new BART station in Western Dublin in 2011; however, it is anticipated that residents of the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area will likely use the station near Hacienda Drive due to its close proximity. Project Trip Generation Trip generation is defined as the number of "vehicle trips" produced by a particular land use or project. The trip rates are obtained from the standard reference Trip Generation, 8th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE}. According to ITE's Trip Generation Manual, asingle-family detached house generates 9.57 trips a day, which equates to 38 trips a day far the 4-unit residential development. Project Impacts a) Would the Project cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and street capacity? LS. The proposed Project consists of a 4-unit residential development and surrounding open space. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area Project proposes significantly less units than what was assumed and studied in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and subsequent traffic studies. Additionally, the' impacts associated with this `a development are less than what has previously been studied due to a reduction in the number of units on the site by 64 residences. The Project is subject to payment of the City's Traffic Impact Fee which funds improvements aimed at easing traffic congestion and funding specific `~ improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.1-3.3/2.1- 3.3/4.0 and 3.3/6.0-3.3/14.0}. There is no impact beyond that identified in the previous EIR. The Project will cause no new or more severe increase in traffic than previously analyzed. b) Would the Project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads? LS. An analysis of the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadway network is required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Program (Land Use Analysis. Program} for development that either require a General Plan Amendment ar require an EIR and will generate more than 100 p.m. peak hour trips. The Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area Project does require a General Plan Amendment; however, the proposed General Plan Amendment is to reduce the allowable density on the project site from 68 residential units to 4 residential units. Additionally, the Project will not generate more than 100 p.m. peak hour trips; therefore, an analysis of the MTS is not required for this Project. c) Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns because it is a residential development. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Approval of the Project would result in the construction of a private driveway which will Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 75 ~~5 ~ ~y~ - be used to access the 4 units. This driveway and other circulation improvements on the site will be constructed in accordance with City requirements to provide adequate turning radii, sight visibility and minimize other potential hazards. e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? LS. The proposed Project has been reviewed with respect to emergency access by the City's Fire Department and the Police Department. These departments have determined that adequate access will be provided to the site by one access point off of Cydonia Court. f) Would the Project result in inadequate parking capacity? LS. During the Site Development Review process for the individual homes, the City will ensure that each residence provides adequate parking spaces for. asingle-family residence pursuant to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the Stage 2 Planned Development Site Plan identifies 5 additional guest parking spaces located along the private driveway, which exceeds City Parking Standards. g) Would the Project create hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? LS. The Project will include a new residential private driveway that will connect to the existing street and sidewalks on Cydonia Court. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The project site is served by the following service providers: Sewage service and local water supply: Dublin San Raman Services District and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. Regional 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. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 76 I~~ ~ y~1o Project Impacts a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI. The regional wastewater treatment plant is currently operating in compliance with local, state and federal water quality standards. Additionally, as previously discussed, the proposed Project area is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and the project has been previously reviewed with respect to these requirements in the Eastern Dublin E1R. Additionally, impacts that were previously reviewed have been reduced due to the reduction in the number of dwelling units that will be constructed on the site. Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0 through 3.5/22.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses wastewater collection, plant capacity, treatment j and storage and consistent with these mitigations, the Project will receive sewer services from _~ DSRSD. The Project proposes 4 units rather than the 68 units previously studied in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As a result, the Project would generate less wastewater than previously evaluated - and would not cause any new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed. b) Would the Project require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? 1~TI. Existing water and sewer lines will need to be extended to serve the project site. Extensions have been planned as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and DSR5D's Master Facilities Plan for Eastern Dublin. The proposed Project will not impact this extension and the Dublin San Ramon Services District has determined that they will be able to ,serve the development once the site is annexed into their service area. c} Would the proposed Project require new storm drainage facilities? LS. An on-site bioswale and storm drain line will collect stormwater run-off from the access road and upper slopes and direct flows to the existing storm drain line in the Silvers Ranch development. The increase in run-off can be accommodated by the Silvera Ranch storm drain Lines. The actual size and location of the proposed storm drain facilities will be determined with the improvement plans approval during the Final Map approval process. The reduced development project will not cause any new or more severe significant impacts. d) Are suj~cient water supplies available to support the Project? LS. The proposed Project will have a minimal increase in the demand for water for domestic and irrigation purposes. The water requixed to serve the project is less than what was studied in the original EDEIR. The increase in water can be accommodated by Zone 7 and the Dublin San Ramon Services District once the site is annexed into their service area. Project water demand for 4 residential units and related uses will be substantially less than previously analyzed in the EDEIR for 68 residences. e) Does the current wastewater provider have adequate capacity to serve the project? LS. Approval of the Project will increase the demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. The Dublin San Ramon Services District master plans are based on potential development under the General Plan and the proposed project is significantly less than what the existing General Plan Land Use Designation allows. The increase in wastewater can be accommodated by the Dublin San Ramon Services District once the site is annexed into their service area. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 77 i~~ ~ ~t~o f) Would the project be served by a landfill with adequate capacity to serve the Project? LS. The City of Dublin contracts with Amador Valley Industries to collect solid waste from households .and businesses. Amador Valley Industries also provides recycling services including paper, glass, aluminum, yard waste, and food scraps. The solid waste that would be generated by the Project is less than what was estimated in the Eastern Dublin EIR because the Project proposes to construct fewer units than what is allowed by the Specific Plan and what was studied in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project would cause no new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed. g) Would the Project comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The City of Dublin and the City's solid waste provider would ensure that the developer of the Project would adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No impacts are anticipated for this matter. XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance a} Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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? LS/M. The proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources with adherence to the appropriate Mitigation Measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. A biological analysis was conducted on the project site to determine if any plant or animal species would be impacted as a result of the construction of the proposed Project. Based on the result of the analysis, which was peer reviewed by a consultant to the City, the Project would not have any significant impacts to biological resources with the incorporation of the various Mitigation Measures. Additionally, the Cultural Analysis has determined that there are no known cultural or historical resources on the project site that would be impacted as a result of the development of the site. b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? LS/M. Although incremental increases and cumulative effects such as traffic, noise, air emissions and demand for public services and utilities would occur, these cumulative impacts were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report. Impacts resulting from the development of the site will be increased over current conditions, the Project is included in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and impacts have been reviewed in both the Eastern Dublin EIR and this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed development will result in a lower number of dwelling units than what was previously reviewed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No new significant cumulative environmental impacts are expected to occur as a result of this Project with adherence to the appropriate Mitigation Measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigation Measures incorporated in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 78 c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? LS/M. The development of the proposed Project would not have any environmental effects in addition to those identified'in the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, except as identified in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based on the project design, as shown on the Stage 1 and' Stage 2 Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Mitigation Measures to minimize impacts, the proposed Project would not have any adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly beyond from previously identified. All of the impacts as a result of this Project have been identified in the Eastern Dublin EIlt or in this Initial Study. No new or more severe unavoidable significant impacts on human beings, directly or indirectly, are expected to occur as a result of the Project with adherence to the appropriate Mitigation Measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigation Measures incorporated in this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Dublin Ranch North Annexation Area October 2009 City of Dublin 79 i~q ~ ti~lo Appendix A: Agricultural Land Importance Evaluation 'Stia Facsimile and Mail March 3. 2006 306 No, 139.131 C Ms Connie Goldade MacKay & Somps X14? Franklin Drive, Suite $ Pleasanton. California 9d~6G Subject: Revised Agricultural Land Importance Evaluation Redgewick Propert}• Alameda Count}•. California Dear Ms Goldade: ><NTItODUCTI©N This report presents the results of our evaluation of ab icultural land importance at the Redgewick propert~r. The l2,edgevs=ick property is located aff Fallon Road in north-central Alameda County, California. "rime ab iculturaE land" is defined in Government Code Sb06~ as follows: "Prime agricultural land ntea-ts an area of land. whether a single parcel or enntigtroirr parcels, that has not been developed ,for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets unv of the ,follmi~irlg qualifications_• (aj Land that rfualifies, if irrigater~ •for sling as Class' 1 or Class I! in the USD.~ Natural Resotn•cer Conservation Sen:ice land use capahilrt_y classi~cativn, x~ltether or not lultd is actually irrigated: provided That irrigation is, feasible. (b) Land that giralifics,for rating 8U th~•vuglt 1(1(1 b'torie Index Rating. (c) Lund that supports livestock used fcn• the production vf,foad and •fiher and that has un annual cartyirtg capacity equivalerst to at Least one anima! unit per acre cts defined by thc? United Sates Department ofAgriculture i~T the 1Vationul Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands. Jul}~, 1967, developed ptrrsaunrt to Public Lax' fib, December 193.5. (c~j Lcrnd planted .with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or• crops that have u n©nbearing period of less thart_f~ve yca~•s and that will return dta•ing the cDntmercial bearing perit~d ort alt annual basis, from tht~ productirnt of unprocessed agricult:arul plant production not less thcrn•four hutulrcd.doilaa•s (,~-lU0) per c:crc~. (e) Land that has returned ,from the production o{ unprocessed al,~•iculttu•c71 plant p1•aduclc an annual grass value of not less than foiu- hundred dollars (S~lUl1) pr;r acre, for tltrc~e o{ the previous, five calendar years. " SC)14 ENGINEEP~-S • EtiGIA[EERING GEDL©G15T5 • 5587 5UN01 BOULEVARD - PIEPSANTC7N, CA 945Gt~ • {9?5) 884.0220 ~ FAX: i9Z5) 84(i-9645 EVALUATION FOR PRIME AGRICULTURAL LA1VD To evaluate for the possible presence of prime agricultural land in the Redgewick propem•, we evaluated-the property against each of the five criteria contained in Government Code ~6fl64. (a) Land tf+at qualiTjes, if irr-igateci; •f°r ratiltg as Class 1 or Class II in the USDA Natalral Resources Cons•ervativn Service land use capuhilittf classifrcation, whether ar not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is-feasible. The Redgewick property. does not contain Class I or Class Il soils according to the "Soil Serve}~, Alameda Area, California' issued March, 1966 by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. Soils on the Redgewick property are in Classes 1V and UL In our opinion, based on the site hydrogeologic characteristics and local well pump test results. irrigation for commercial agricultural purposes at the site is not feasible. ~h) Land that qualifies. for rating SU through 700 Storie index rating The Storie index rating for soils on the RedQewick property aze presented in the "Soil Stuve}•, Alameda Area. California," issued March 1966 by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. Plate 1 of this report presents the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Map for this area. The table below presents the soil types identified on the Redgewick property and their corresponding Storie index ratings. Diablo clay is the soil type present on the Redgewick property. and the map fuxther subdivides this soil into two varieties based on slope gradients. Their Storie index ratings are 36 and 19. l`4ap Symbol Soil Storie Index Rating DbD Diablo elan. ! S to 30 percen[ slopes 36 DbE? Diablo clay. 30 to 4S percent slopes, eroded 19 (c) LarTd that supports livestock used for the productiun of fond and,fiher and that l+as an anni+al carrying rppacit7~ equivalent to at least once anin3al unit per acl•e as defined h}~ the United States Depurtmelit of Agl•ic~tltttr•e in t)7c Nutiolutt Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands, July; 196" developed pzrrsuant tv Puhlic Lcru- -l6, December 1 X35. Table 9 of the Soil Serve}' of Alameda area rates the on-site soils as very goad for range pasture. Table I d indicates that soils rated very good for range pasture, when not irrigated. have a carrying capacit}• of at least 1 to 4 animal unit months per acre, under nonfertilized and fertilized conditions, respectively. An animal unit month per acre is one cow, steer, or horse per acre multiplied b}' the number of average months the land can support it. 'T`hat capacity assumes a grazing season of 6 months without fertilizer or 7'i B~RLOGAR GfOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS IG~• ~ ~~a ' ~,Man:h 3.2006 Job No. 1394.131 C Page 3 months with fertilizer {nonirrigated in either case). Dividing by 12 months per year gives an annual carrying capacity per acre of ~l~~ or ~/~ animal. without or with fertilizer., respectively. The value ofone-twelfth animal unit per acre corresponds well with other information we obtained. We have previously contacted two of the largest cattle ranchers in the Alameda Count}~. Gordon Rasmussen and Robert Nielsen. regarding the carrying capacity of grazing Sand in Alameda County northeast of Route 580 and Fallon Road. Both ranchers expressed the opinion that the carrying capacity in this area would be appraxiinately one- tenth animal unit per acre. Based on similar soil types, water resources, and topography. we conclude that annual animal carrying capacity on the Redgewick property would also be approximately one-tenth animal unit per acre. t'd) I.amcl planted ~a~itli .fruit or- nut-bearing trees, vines, hushes, or crops thal hate u nonbearing period of less than _frte yours and that will return during thc~ camrrterciul bearing pet•iod an an a~tnuul basis from they pr-od~tction of unprveessed agricultural plant production not less than,four hundred dollars (~4UU) per acre. The Redgewick propert}• is not planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops yielding an annual value of at least four hundred dollars ($400) per acre. (e) Land that hus returt¢ed from the prvducrion of unproressed ugrirultural plant products an annual gross value of not less thcrn.fvur hzrridred dollms (S4UU) per arre,far• three of thc~ previous.~ive calendar yours. Unprocessed a~°ricultural plans products have not been produced on the Redgewick property for any calendar year gut of the previous five. FARMLAND MAP The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. has published a map titled Alameda Count;• Important Farmland ?UUD, dated 2001, shov`~ing farmland importance in Alameda County. The map was compiled pursuant to provisions of Section b~570 of the California Government Code. Areas of the map designated as prime farmland were identified in part h}° using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA} National Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) sail surveys. It sppears the mapped prime agricultural land was delineated using the same criteria discussed above. The map does not show the Redgewicl; propert}• in an area designated "prime farmland." Thus. the results of our evaltaation and the map are in agreement. The map also does not shoo,- the Redgewick property in an area designated "farmland of statewide importance" or an area designated `~iniclue farrriland." The map shows the Redgewick property in an area designated as grazing land. BERLUGAR GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS . ~ u ~ ~q~~ ~~o - h 206 Marc ~. Job No: 1344,131 C Page 4 CONCLUSXON We have evaluated the Redeewick praperty in regard to Section 56064 of the Govemmeilt Code and find that the property fails each of the Gve specific tests required for classification as prime agricultural land. The map r3lameda Count-~ Important Farmland 20D(J (24Q1) agrees. Furthermore. the map does not show the properi~' in a designated "farmland of statewide importance" or one designated "unique farmland." We trust this letter provides you the information you require at this time, If you have questions. please call our oi-fice at 92~-484-0220. Respectfully submitted. BERL(IGAIt GEOTECHNI<CA.>:.,-C~NSEjLTANTS {~ (., ti ~ ~ ; ,' is I ~- ~IE~;t J• aul Sai-Wing a' ; . .,,,, `L Frank Grof~e f r.o. 1539 ` ., ^70 ~„~5 ~_, ~ Principal Geologist ~ t ~'-' , rincipal Engineer ~ . `;: mj P.G. 4930. C.E.G. 1534 != ~:'~ ~~e~1'l~i~i7 -.•GE 232b. Exp. 12131107 ti~ },. ., ~.,., ,, E~+lGtt2EEf~itFJG ~ ~°`~~~s:`'~~~?~iti~~~".c"; FJG/PSL:fjgijmb ~,, elf "" ~ ~C'~'-~~,` y;,r'r ~:'_`~ ~~ . '~fi ~r_C_~L~~~~` Attachment: Plate i -Soil Conservation Service Soil Map Copies: Addressee (10) wcvdJletterc/I SbSd BfRLOGAR GEOTECi-iNICAL CONSULTANTS _ _ _. _ Iq~1 °f yyo ~~~e~~ai~ ~: Biological. Resources ~nal~sis Iq5 ~ y~lo ~~ can~~~t: Torn Fraser fraser~wra-ca.com Gate:. June 2, 2009 r ENVIRpNMENTAL C©NSULTANTS 2159-G East Ftanci~a Bivd., Son Rato~l, CA 94901 (4153 454-8888 tet {453 454-0129 fax into~wra-ca.cam bvwva.vrra-co.com ,_ _ __ _ _ _ Iq(c ~ ~IyO 'T,4BLE ~~ ~®I~ITEIdTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . ..... . . .... . . .................... , ................ . 1 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ..... . ...................... . ....... . ...... . 1 2.1 Special Status Species . . ................... . .... . .......... . ..... . 1 2.2 Sensitive Biological Communities . ...................... . . .... . ..... . 3 3.0 METHODS ....................... ...........................,...... .5 3.1 Biological Communities .... . . ............... . .. . .. ............. 5 3.4.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities... .................. . ... . 5 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities.......... . . ........ . ....'....... . 5 3.2 Special Status Species . . ................ . ...................... . 6 3.2.1 Literature Review . . . ..... . ............ . ................. . .. . 6 3.2.2 Site Assessment .. .. . ......... ... , . .................... . ~ 4.0 RESULTS ...................._................................,..,... .7 4.1 Biolagical Communities .................. . . ...... . ................ . 8 4.2 Special Status Species ...... . ..... . ........... . ........... . . ..... . 8 4.2.1 Plants ............................. ..................... .8 4.22 WiCdlife .................................................. .8 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... . . ........................... 13 5.1 Special Status Plant Species .. . ..... . ............... . . . ..... . ..... 14 5.2 Special Status Vtrildlife Species ....... . . . . . . ........ . ............... 14 6.0 REFERENCES ..................... ....... , , ....................... 1f LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area Location Map. .. . ........ . . ..... . ...................... .. . 2 Figure 2, Special Status Wildlife Species within Five Miles of'the Praject Area........ , ... . 9 LIST OF Al`'f'ENI3ICES Appendix A- List of Observed Plant and Animal Species . Appendix B- Potential far Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species to Occur in the Praject Area Appendix C- Representative Project Area Photographs Iq~ ^~~lyo 1.t} II~TRflDUCTlt3~l ©n April 28, 20t}9, WRA, Inc. biologists performed an assessment of biological resources on a 30 acre portion of land {Project Areaj in the :northwest corner of the 1b8-acre Dublin Ranch North property in the unincorporated area. of Dublin,. Alameda County, California (Figure 1 }. The Dublin Ranch North property is located off Fallon Road; north of Interstate 580. The property is within the Eas#em Dublin General Plan AmendmentlSpecific Plan area and is currently outside the boundary of the City of Dublin. A project to build four residential units in the Project Area is proposed. As part of the project, a request has been submitted to the City of Dublin for a General Plan! East L7ublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned ..Development Rezones. (Stage 1 and 2), Vesting Tentative Map and annexation to the City of Dublin. The purpose of this assessment is to provide an updated review of biological resources within the Project Area under the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) to accompany the request. The Project Area is comprised of grazed rolling hills, The remaining land surrounding the Project. Area within the Dublin Ranch North property {128 acres} is comprised of open. space which is prates#ed under Conservation Easements and is used for mitigation habitat for previous phases of Dublin Ranch development; so over 80 percent of this property has been preserved as open space. This report describes the results of the April 28, ZOOg site visit, which assessed the Project Area for the {1) potential to support special status, species; and (2) presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Specific findings on the habitat suitability or presence of special status species or sensitive habitats may require that protocol level surveys be conducted. This report also contains an evaluation of potentia! impacts to special status species and sensitive biological resources that may occur as a result of the proposed project and potential mitigation measures to compensate for those impacts. A biological resources assessment provides general information on the potential presence of sensitive species and habitats. The biologica(resources assessment is not an official protocol (eves survey for listed species that may be required for project approval by local, state, ar federal agencies. This assessment is based on information available at the time of the study and an site conditions that were .observed an the slate of the. site visit. 2.0 REGULATI3RY B/~GKGROlJh1D 2.1 Special Status Species Special status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates far such listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species.Act ~CESA}, These acts afford ..protection to bath listed and proposed species.. (n addition, California Department of Fish and Game {CDFG} Species of Special Concem, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitattrends continue, U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, sensitive species included in t)SFWS Recovery Plans, and CDFG special status invertebrates are all considered special status species. Although CDFG Species of Special Concem generally have na special legal status, they are.. given special consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA). In addition to regulations far special status species, mast birds in the. United States, including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird _ 1 ~ ~ ~yo ~} ~+! ;~~ Detaii Area • , ,.: }. ~ ~s .y, it' ... - k .. ~: 't f ~ .. ,' ,,. ' f T ~ a , ~ r " T . .~ q ~, " _ ~ ~ i 1 ' r ~ • µ~~ ~~ Y~ 'Kd~ A '.'w ~~ ~ ' ~~' ~ tt ~ ~ ,. ~ ',~ i M~"'~'i. ~~ ,~j~ ¢- ~~ , ~ X - ~. -:'~ ~ ~:1D">~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ Y t . i ~„~ ~,. r ~ ~ . ~~2dS8titOn t.~i~1 ~~~ `y~r r~~t ~ . ~ ~ ~ 'Y ~, - ,~... .., t'.f ~~~ ,. " ~ .,...~ t-_ ~ 7.~ ?~'R..r w ~-6w-~, ,~e,rt~t, :i..~~>r ~ A~ ?~~~~~L-j.~~ ~f~~+;~ a,~~' _ `, 1 A. e ire?S rte. ~ . i~E '~ ~ ~u,. ~ t~~-- ' is ~ i l ~ ~ ~~ ~ !` i, ~¢ r ~ h~~~ 1- ~. fix, , ~~ ~ ^~t~~ ti ~ ~" r ;~ ., : , "~ ' " '~ ~~' k ry . ray ~- r k " r '"r _ Y qt ~t~ ` , ~. ri ~ ' •, eti : ~ y ~~ r~ . ~.~ s ~i '.a . ' t r n. ,t'r.~' ~~ ~ '~ I 1~ a r~ sz ,,.~. ~ ~ f '-'~ *: # r~. ~ `~~ f i~`.h7K' ~ ~. r,i n~~ m, w~ ~ { j ~ S ~ n :.4 ~, . ~~ _ !? ~.~ ti . cy ~ , ~ , ~p~ ° ~.` ~ = °i {( d ~-a m ~~ ~~ ~+ j,t, 7"A x3~~. ~~ '~ •r~~"` ~~ ~~ ~ k ... 1 k ~ r ~~f ~- .~1y ?!, I~r.~ s ~ F~~yl , 4~ r.. U f w° _~ S e 'Y ~ r l y~ ~'~ ~ {. ~~ ~ ~ n r , . ~~ • ~ ~ 1'0~ ~ ~ "~ 1 ~' r 1 ° ~~ r.. tl ~ t-"~". 7 "~#... ~° ~ +if~ t`~C .r ~ >w - ,, . ~ .~ ~. .. ~ ~ ~ .,~o k. ~ar~~ ~ - ,p~ ~~f: ~<~` z !! ~ _ ~ ~~, ~r ~ '}~p'~~~ ~ : ~µ ~ ~ r~ ~~ ~;~Dubiin Ranch~`,'.~ '~~,~ ~ ~ ~'; ~a ~ ,~:,~•.,`: ~ ~ .~'°~ t~^'!s ! ~'il ~ may. ~~ §i. ~ 4~~~ ~ 7 F~ r i~ ~ ~K t~ . ~ • ~.- t ~ ,~ ~~+-.I~Y, e .. J~ ,. , ''}}~ y~ : Figure 9. PrQje~ct Area Lflcation Map r 1V E ,S ENV1ROtdMENTAI COtdSULTANTS Dublin Ranch North o>~:AP~sac~ fl 50fl 1,Q00 2,t70fl ~~ sotxm- usas ropa a,~a Naa, sacs Alameda County, California ~E~ ~°.P,.~,~.~a a ~~r,al>ti~,~r~,s,~,,~,~ri, ,.~.~~_.a Iqq ~ ~-14t~ Treaty Act of 1918. Under this legislation, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is iNegal. Plantspecies on California Native Plant Satiety {GNPs} Lists 1 and 2 are also considered special status plant species, Impacts to these species are considered significant according to CEQA. CLAPS List 3 plants have little or no protection under CEQA, but are included in this analysis for completeness. Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the Federal Endangered Species Act as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The FESA requires federal agencies to consuitwith the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or_projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. In cansultatian for those species with critical habitat, federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects da not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species' recovery, In many oases, this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the FESA "jeopardy standard." However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species but which are needed far the species' recovery, are protected by the prahibltion against adverse modification of critical habitat. 2,2 Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities include habitats thatfulfili special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, and riparian habitat. These habitats are protected under federal regulations {such as the Clean Water Act), Mate regulations {such as the Paster-Cologne Act, the GDFG Streambed Alteration Program, and CEQA), or local ordinances or policies {City or County Tree Ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements). Waters of the United States The U.S, Army Corps of Engineers {Carps) regulates "Waters of the United States" under Sec#ion 404 of the Glean Water Act. "Waters of the U,S."are defined broadly as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters {intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands stated in the Corps of engineers Wetlands L3elineation Manua! {Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of {1) hydrophytic vegetation, {2) hydric soils, and {3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inunda#ed for sufficient duration and depth to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as "other waters" and are often characterized by an ordinary high water mark. Other waters, for example,. generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into "Waters of the U.S." {including wetlands) generally requires an individual or nationwide pem~it from the Corps under Section 404 of the Glean Water Act. Waters of the State The term "Waters of the State" is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as "any surface water ar groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state,'" The Regional Water Qualify Control Board {RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope, but has special 3 aoo ~- ~lyo responsibility forwetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and ere not systematically protected by other programs.. RWt,2C6 jurisdiction includes "isolated".wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. "Waters of the State".are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certifaca#ion Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 ofi the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Carps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact "Waters at the State,,' are required to comply with the terms ofi the Water Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit, but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to "Waters of the State," the RWQGB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the farm of Waste Discharge Requirements. Streams,. Lakes, and Riparian Habitat Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by GDFG under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1002 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term stream, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code ofi Regulatioi-~s {CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least periodically ar intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic. life, This includes watercourses. having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1.72). En addition, the .term stream can include ephemeral streams; dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife {GDFG ESD 1994).. Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as, "vegetation which occurs in andlor adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, .and occurs because af, the stream itself° {GDFG ESD 1994).. Removal ofi riparian vegetation also .requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from GDFG. Other Sensitive Biological Communities Other sensitive biological communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in Iacal ar regional plans, policies, regulations, ar by the GDFG. GDFG ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its Natural Diversity Database.. Sensitive plant communities are also identified. by GDFG on their List of California Natural Communities Recognized by #lae CNflDB. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the C©FG ar USFWS must be considered and evaluated under CE4A {California Code of Regulations: Ttle 14, Div. 6, Chap:. 3, Appendix G). Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in City or County General Plans or ordinances. Relevant Local Policies, Ordinances., Regulations The Project Area is within the Eastern Dublin Ranch General Plan AmendmentlSpecilrc Plan area The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. {City of Dublin, updated 2008) recognizes northern riparian forest, arroyo willow riparian woodland and freshwater marsh as sensitive habitats. As such, these communities are to be dedicated as public open space or restricted from potentially harmful 4 a~ ~ ~f- yyo development with deed restrictions and design standards. In addition, mitigation programs are required for impacts to federal- and state-listed special status species and development projects are to be designed such -that they maintain contiguous areas of open space interconnected by wildlife Corridors. 3.© METHODS On April 28, 2099, the Project Area was traversed on foot to determine {1} plant communities present within. the Project Area, {2} if existing conditions provided suitable habitat far any special status plant or wildlife species, and {~} if sensitive habitats are present. All plant and wildlife species encountered were retarded, and are summarized in Appendix A. 3.1 Biolo~ica! Communities Prior to the site visit, the Soil Survey of Alameda. County, California jU. S. Department of Agriculture {USDA} 1966] and aerial photographs were examined to determine if any unique soil types that Could support sensitive plant communities and/ar aquatic features were present in the Project Area. E~iolagical communities present in the Projec# Area were classified based an existing plant community descriptions described in the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California {Holland 1986}. However, in some cases it is necessary to identify variants of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified assensitive ornon-sensitive as defined by CEt~A and other applicable laws and regulations. 3.9.9 Non-sensitive Br`oiogicai Comrti"unifies Nan-sensitive biological communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other state, federal, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. These communities may, however, provide suitable habitat for same special status plant or wi(diifie species and are identified or described in .Section 4.'1,1 be{aw. 3.9.2 Sensitive. 8iaiogical Communities Sensitive biological communities are defined as Chase communities that are given special protection under CEQA and other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Applicable laws and ordinances are discussed above in Section 2,0. Special methods used to identify sensitive biological Communities are discussed below. Wetlands and Waters The Project. Area was surveyed to determine if any wetlands and waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the Corps, RWC2C8, or CDFG were present. The assessment was based primarily on the presence of wetland plant indicators, but may also include any observed indicators of wetland hydrology or wetland soils. Any potential wetland areas were identified as areas aoa ~ ~yo , dominated by plant species with a wetland indicator status' of flBL, FACW, or FAC as given on the U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands {Reed 1988}. Evidence of wetland hydrology can include direct evidence {primary indicators.), such as visible inundation or saturation, surFace sediment deposits, algaimats and drift lines, ar indirect indicators {secondary indicators}, such as oxidized root channels, Some indicators of wetland soils include dark colored soils, soils with a suldic odor, and soils that contain redoximorphic features as defined by the Corps Manual {Environmental Laboratory, 1987] and Field indicators of Hydric Sails in the United States {NRCS, 2002.}. Other Sensitive Biological Communities The Project Area was evaluated fior the presence >Jf other sensitive biological communities,. including .riparian areas, sensitive plant communities .recognized by CDFG, and northern riparian forest, arroyo willow riparian woodland and freshwater marsh as recognized in the Eastern Dublin Specific Pian (City of Dublin, .updated 2908). If present in the Project Area, these sensitive biological communities were mapped and are described in the Section 4.1 below. 3.Z Special ~$af<us Species 3.2.1 Literature Review Potential occurrence of special status species in the Project Area was evaluated by first determining which special status species occurln the vicinityof the Project Area through a literature and database search. Database searches for known occurrences of special status species focused on the Livermore 7.5 minute USGS -quadrangle and the eight surrounding USES quadrangles. The following sources were reviewed to determine which special status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project. Area: California Natural D"rversity Database records {CN©D8) {CDFG 2009) tJSFWS quadrangle species lists {USFWS 2999] • CNPS Electronic Inventory records.{GNPs 20{79} CDFG publication "California's Wildlife, Volumes I-III" {Zeiner et al. 1990} CDFG publication "Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California" {Jennings 1994} A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians {Stebbins 2003) Fairy Shrimps of California's Puddles, Pools and Playas {Eriksen and Bslk 1999} 3.22 Site Assessment The site visit to the Project Area included a search for suitable habitats for species identified in the literature review as occurring in the vicinity. The potential for each special status species to occur in the Project Area was then evaluated according to the following criteria. 1 } No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species ' OBL =Obligate, always found !n wetlands (> 99% frequency of occurrence); FACW = Facultative wetland, usually found in wetlands (67-99°1o frequency of occurrence}; FAC =Facultative, equal occurrence in wetland ar non-wetlands (34-66°lo frequency of occurrence). 6 ao3 ~ y ~{ o requirements {foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime). 2} Unl_ ikeiy. Pew of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, andtor the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable ar of very poor quality.. The species is not likely to be found on the site. 3) Moderate Potential. Same of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. 4) High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/ar mast of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of, being found on the site. ~) .Present. Species is observed an the sife or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB, other reports) an the site recently. The site assessment is intended to identify the presence ar absence of suitable habitat for each special status species known to occur in the vicinity in order to determine its potential to occur in the Project Area. The site visit does not constitute a protocol-level survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence ar absence of a species; however, if a special status species is observed d~.iring the site visit, its presence will be recorded and discussed. Appendix B presents the evaluation of potential far occurrence of each special .status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity ofi the Project Area with their habitat requirements, potential for occurrence, and rationale for the classification based on criteria listed above. Recommendations for further surveys are made in Section 5.Q for species with a moderate ar high potential to occur in the Project Area. 4.d RESULTS The Project Area is a 30-acre portion of land in the northwest corner of the ~ 58-acre ©ublin Ranch North property in the unincorporated area of Dublin, Alameda County; California (Figure 1}. The Project Area is mounded to the north, south, east and west by open spaces characterized by rolling hills of grassland and patches of oak woodland. New residential development is under construction to the southwest. The Dublin Ranch North property to the. east and south of the Project Area is known as the Northern Drainage Open Space and is protected under conservation easements. Mitigation for past Dublin Ranch development projects occurs on the Northern Drainage Open Space parcel where Improvements to riparian habitat have been made along the Northern Drainage {a tributary of Tassajara Creek}..and created ponds provide. habitat for California Red-legged Frog and breeding habitat for California Tiger Salamander. A Biological Opinion was issued far the Northern Drainage Open Space by tJSFWS an July 1, 200 {#1-~-01-F-{t2D$}. The 30-acre Project Area is not included in the Open Space and therefore, activities within the Project Area are .not covered under the Biological Opinion. The Project Area has rolling hills, is actively grazed, and is comprised entirely of non-native annual grassland. As a result of ground squirrel activity, burrows are common through the Project Area. 7 ao~l ~ yyo No trees, shrubs, waters or wetlands are present. Elevations of the Project Area range from i?40 to 888 feet. Apart from grazing, the land is relatively undisturbed. The following sections present the results and discussfan of the biological assessment within the Project Area. 4~.1 Biological Communities only one biological community, Wan-native annual grassland, is present in the Project Area. This community is described below, No sensitive biological communities .are present. Nan-Native Annual Grassland. Nan-native annua[ grassland. typically occurs in open areas of valleys and foothills throughout California, .usually on fine textured clay or loam sails that are somewhat poorly drained {Holland 9 986}. Non-native grassland is typically dominated by non-natJve annual grasses and fortis along with scattered native wildflowers. The entire 30-acre Project Area. is comprised of railing hills. of non-native annual grassland. Dominant. grasses and fortis observed include slender wild oat {Avena i~art~ata}, common wild oat {Buena fatua), Italian ryegrass {Lolium multiflorum}, ripgut biome {Bromus rJiandrus), soft chess {Bromus hordeaceusj, Ithuriel's spear {Triteleia Jaxa,) spring vetch {VJcia safiva} and story's bill filaree {Erodium :botrys). Also common throughout the site are black mustard {Brassica nigra}, lupine {Lupines spp;) and stemless morning. glary {Calystegia subacauJis). Wildlife species observed ire this community include California Ground Squirrel {Spermophilus beecheyr~}, Red-tailed Hawk {Bufea jamaicensisj and common ringlet butterfly {Coenonympha tuJJiaj, 4.2Special Status. species 4.2.1 P{ants Based. upon a review of the resources and databases given in Section 3.2::1, 45 special status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Project Area, Due to the lack of appropriate habitat, the Project Area has the potential. to support Wane of these species. Appendix B summarizes the potential for occurrence for each. special status plant species within the vicinity of the Project Area. No special status plant species were. observed in the Project Area during the assessment site visit. No special status plant species have a high ar moderate potential to occur in the Project Area. The site 'assessment occurred during the. blooming period of 26 of the 45 special. status plant species. with a potential to occur in the Project Area; however; Wane af'the. potentially blooming species were observed. 4.2.2 WiJdlJfe Seventy-one special status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the Project Area. Special status wildlife species known to occur within five miles of the Project Area are shown. in Figure 2. Appendix B summarizes the potential for each of these species to occur in the Project Area. Twa special status wildlife species were observed in the Project Area during the site assessment, C?ne special status wildlife species has a high potential to occur in the Project Area, and seven special status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area. 8- ao~ °f" ~ ~ o i` i~ f ~ / j ,' i s ,,~~ ~' ,~ i '~ i ` ~~ ~ ~ ~/ i ~/ ' i ~ ~ r ~ ~" '°' , ~ 5- ~ ~ s f ~ ~ , x'~iA . =: ~ . .~ ` ~f~ ~/ 'I~~ ~' / Air /' / ~'~ ,``' ' O s ~ r ~ i ~ . ~ / / ~ / ~ / ~O~ ° ~}~~ ~ ~ i r., ~ - ~i/ ~ ~ , -~ ~ i ~~ ~ ,.:,"-~ t F> ~ ~ /'~ ,' ~ a r C r 3 / ~ { I !~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~1' 1 ~ ~ ~ -' I ~ ~ f r.< ,. 3 l a ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ - _ Project Ar~ U ~ % ~ - '.. ~ i ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~~ ! , .# ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ f ~~ ' / '~~ ~ ~ _ ~' - ~ _i ~__-----~~_~ ~ ~ . i ~ - .~ r-' "n I t ~~ r i ~ ~ C, ~ .., _< f ~ ~~- ~ ~ ~ 't ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ / /~ ) e [ _ ~ ~ ~/ / t ~ ./ , f ~ ~. ~ :Y ~ 1 ~ ~ / , ~/ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ' / ~. ~ ~...I ~ i 'e , -~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ i~ _ ~ nsi ~ ~ •' ~ ,~ ~ ~ /~ ,~~, x o, ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ - ~, ~ _ . ;, /, ~; ~; ~_ _ ~~ o. V ;! § ~ ~ ~ '~~, Legend ,' ~~~~ ~ ~ PmjactAree ~ San,loaquin kit #ax' _ pallid bat ~ ~~ f ~ Atrencan bad - Y ~ ~~ ~~, r /, gar uma myotts , _' Yrtcoiored blackbird California homed lark ( __ burrowing owl western pond turtle ;, ~~ ~ r' ~ California linderielL~ ~ __, ferruginous hawk ~ white-tailed kite J ~ [~ California red-legged frog ~ golden eagle Alameda whipsnake {Exa~ laoation withheld by OFG) `"`" ~ ~ , California t,` er salamander nar#hem harrier rairie falcon Exact loca6an withheld b D~~ Figure 2. Special Status. Wildlife Species within ~ miles flfi the Project Area ~E ~)wra ENVIRONMENTAL G©NSULTANiS ~~ Dublin Ranch North Datc:Apri20t79 ry Easemag; V SGS Togo ov~f Q ~ G MaP BY lka:ek Chan Alameda C©unty, California: n~~i~s F~e»~,:~~A~~~F,kr~,,~~„g~,~~,~~,.~# Fig2_,GNDD6 PS~ts 2i109o430.mxd any ~ yyo, Speeia{ status wildlife species that were observed or have a moderate or high potential to occur in the Project Area are discussed below. observed Species Northern 'Harrier (Circus cyaneus}. CDFG Species t~l' Special Concern. Northern Harrier is found in open habitats throughout most of California, including freshwater and brackish marshes, fields, grasslands, agricultural. areas and desert habitats. Harriers typically nest on the ground in open (i.e., treeless} habitats in dense, relatively tali, vegetation, the co~~nposition of which is highly variab{e {Davis and N{ema{a 20018}. Harriers are predatory and subsist on a variety of small mammals and other vertebrates. One l~orthern Harrier was observed coursing (i.e. foraging) along one of the Project Area's boundaries during the site visit. Although the Project Area provides suitable foraging habitat for harriers, it lacks suitable vegetative cover for nesting. Grassland habitat within the immediate vicinity may provide suitable nesting habitat, though Wane was Observed during the site visit. However, work activities within the ProjectArea are unlikelyto result in impacts to Northern Harrier, and this species will not be addressed in subsequent sections, Gras~hopperSparrowr(,~rrtmndramussavanr~arurn}. C[~FGSpeciesof5pecialConcern. The Grasshopper Sparrow is a summer resident (i.e.; a breeder) in California, wintering principally in Mexico and Control America. This species occurs in grass{and habitats with short- to -noderate- heigh# vegetation, and often scattered shrubs (Unit# 2flfl8). Nests are on the ground, wel{- concealed,and often adjacent to grass c{urnps (Unitt 2fl08}. Grasshopper Sparrow is secretive.and generally detected by voice. One Grasshopper Sparrow was observed singing downs{ape from the edge along the eastern boundary of the Project Area; this bird was presumed to represent a nesting pair.... Other portions of the Project Area provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. Hiah Potential Species GaI%fc~rna Tiger Salamander {Ambysforna californiense}. Federal 'Threatened, State. Candidate for Listing, CbFG Species of Special Gancern. California Tiger Salamander (CTS} is endemic to California. {t was listed as Threatened by USFINS in 2004. {n the main portion of its range, CTS occurs in iso{ated ponds and seasonal pool complexes an rangeland bordering the Central Valley from Yolo County south to northwestern Tulare County, and in sag ponds and stock ponds in the coast ranges from Suisun Bay in Solano County south to the Temblor Range (Jennings and Hayes 9994}. CTS has disappeared from a signifiicant portion of its historic range due to habitat loss from agriculture and urbanization (Jennings and Hayes 9994, Barry and Schaffer 1994). After metamorphosis and emergencefrom breeding pools as juveniles, individual GTS spend most of their lives in grasslands surrounding breeding pools. Because of its moist skin, CTS survives the dry season by retreating to upland refugia where the soil atmosphere remains near the water saturation poinf. These refugia are typically burrows. of ground squirrels or other mammals, but include deep cracks or hales in the ground (Loredo et al. 1996}. The diet of CTS is not well known .but probably includes a variety of invertebrates and small vertebrates. Mass migrations of adults 10 a0~ °~ y~lo to aquatic breeding habitat occur annually with the onset of reliable, pool-filling rains, typically between December and March {"Barry and Shaffer 1994). After mating, females lay eggs singly or occasionally in small clusters, attached to plant stems in the. water column (S#ebbins 2093). While most CTS breed in their natal pools, dispersal between gaols is relativelycamman {Trenham et al. 2001) and dispersing juvenile CTS have been found up to 1:5 Kilometers awayfrom breeding sites {Austin and Shaffer 1992, Jennings and Hayes 1994), CTS may live up to ten years or mare in the wild {Trenham et al. 2000). The Project Area. does not provide aquatic breeding habitat far CTS. However, suitable breeding habitat does exist within the immediate vicinity of the Project Area {within 1,600 feet) in the farm of stock ponds and analogous features to the west and east. There are several recent CNDDB accurrences within 5.0 miles of the Project Area, the nearest being a breeding record merely 0.1 mile to the southwest ofi the southwest corner of the Project Area {GDFG 2009}. Although larger, active ground squirrel colonies appeared to be just outside of the Project Area boundaries {to the west and north), several burrows within the Praject Area were noted during the site visit, primarily in its lower-elevation,. northwestern section. In addition, relatively large soil fissures providing potential refugia far CTS were located throughout much of the Project Area. !n summary, given the numerous recent documented accurrences and presence of suitable breeding habitat in the vicinity, CT5 does not breed within the Praject Area, but there is potential for CTS to use the Project Area for estivatian or dispersal. Moderate'Potential Species American Badger {1'axidea taws}. CDPG Species of Special Concern. American Badger is a large, semi-fassorial member of the Mustelidae {i.e. weasel family). It is found uncommonly within the region in drier open stages of most scrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats where friable soils and prey populations are present. Badgers are typically solitary and nocfurnal, digging burrows to provide refuge daring daylight hours: Burrawentrancesare usuallyelliptical {ratherthan round); each burrow generally has only one entrance. Young are born in the spring and ' independent by the end of summer. Badgers are carnivores, preying an a variety of mammals {especially ground. squirrels} and occasionally other vertebrates and eggs. The grassland habitat of the Praject Area provides moderate quality dertning habitat for this species, and prey {e.g, ground squirrels) were also observed within and immediately adjacent to the Project Area. In addition, there are several CNDDB occurrences far this species within approximately 2.0 miles of the Project Area, including one as recently as 2004 {CDFG 2009). Although no burrows observed within the Project Area during the site showed badger characteristics, this species could come to occupy the Project Area prior to the initiation of worK activities. Gulden Eagle {Aquila chrysaetos}. CDFG Fully Protected Species, USFt1~S Bird of Conservation Concern. Golden Eagle is largely resident in open and semi-open. areas from sea level to 3600 meters elevation; occupied habitats include tundra, shrublands, grasslands, mixed woodlands, and coniferous forests, This species is usually found in mountainous areas, but it also nests in wetland, riparian, and estuarine habitats at lower elevations {fCachert et a1, 2002). Nests are typically built an cliff ledges or in large, relatively isolated trees.. It forages over large areas, feeding primarily an ground squirrels, rabbits, large birds, and carrion. 11 aox ~ y yo The Project Area contains no cliffs,. rock outcrops,. or trees and thus provides no suitable nesting habitat for this species,. but does provide suitable foraging habitat. Because suitable nesting habitat occurs in the general uicinity of the Project Area, this species has a moderate potential to occur {i.e., foraging) within the Project Area, However,. work activities within the Project Area are unlikely to result in impacts to Golden Eagle, and #his species will not be addressed in subsequent sections. {~dhite tailed tai#e {EJancrs leucurus), CDFG Fully Protected. White-tailed Kite is resident in agricultural areas, grasslands, scrub habitats, wet meadows, and emergent wetlands throughout the lower elevations of California,. Nests are constructed mostly of twigs and placed in small to large bees, often at habitat edges (Dunk 199;0. This species preys upon a variety of small mammals and other vertebrates. The Project Area contains no trees or shrubs and thus provides no nesting habitat for this species, but does. provide suitable foraging habitat. One Whits-tailed Kite was observed in a likely nesting tree approximately 0.2 miles south of the Project Area during the site visit. Because sui#able nesting habitat. occurs in the .general vicinity of the Project Area, this species has a moderate potential to occur (i.e., foraging} within the Project Area. However, work activities within the Project Area are unlikely to result in impacts toWhite-tailed Kite, and this species will not be addressed in subsequent sections. Ferruginous Hawk {~ufeo regalis). C[3FC species of ~Pecia! Concern, U~F~S E3ird of Conserva$ion Concern. Ferruginous-Hawk is a winter visitor to northern Galifornia, favoring open terrain from grasslands to deserts with abundant prey, particularly mammals tBechard and Schmutz 1995}. It does not breed in the :region. The Project Area provides suitable foraging habitat for wintering. Ferruginous Hawks. However, work activities within the Project Area era unlikely to result in impacts to this. species, and it will not be addressed in subsequent sections. 1$urrowing QwC {Alberts curricularia). CDFG Species trf Bpeclal Concern. Burrowing Owl is resident in grasslands, desert floors and other dry, open habitats with sparse to nonexistent tree or shrub canopies and vegetation. {e.g. grasses) that are short in height. In California, this species is generally found in close association with California Ground Squirrel {Spermophilus beechey~}. Burrowing C7w1 utilizes vacant ground squirrel burrows for shelter and nesting, and exhibit high site fidelity; This species may colonize disturbed, human-modified habitats, utilizing debris, old pipes or other anthropogenic structures (Rosenberg et al. 1998, as cited in Gervais et aL 2808). Prey includes invertebrates as well as small mammals and other vertebrates. The Project Area was assessed to see whether it provides suitable habitat for Burrowing Owl during .the site visit. The eastern portion of the Project Area is likely too steep for nesting owls, but several ground squirrel burrows were noted in the western portion of the Project Area with relatively low- height vegetation in association. The entrances of all burrows found. were examined and no indication of owl use (e.g. feces, regurgitated pellets) was noted. However, a larger ground squirrel colony was noted immediately west of the Project Area. In addition there are numerous recent CNDDB occurrences within five miles of the Project Area {CDFG 2009). Given these occurrences and the suitability of the Project Area for both breeding and foraging by owls, there is a moderate potential for Burrowing Owl to occur within the Project Area. While owls were not observed during 12 the site visit, this species could come to occupy the Project Area or its immediate vicinity prior to the initiation of work activities. Loggerhead Shrike {Lanius JcrctovicJanus}. C®FG Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Loggerhead Shrike is a resident and winter visitor in lowlands and fioathi{Is throughout California. This species is assaciated with open country with short vegetation and scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines or other perches. Nesting substrates vary from trees to brush piles; vegetation with thorns is usually preferred, and nests are typically well-concealed {Yosef ~ 996}. AItY~ough songbirds, shrikes are predatory and farage on a variety of invertebrates and small vertebrates. The Project Area contains no trees rar shrubs and thus provides no nesting habitat for this species, but. does. provide suitable foraging habitat. Because suitable nesting habitat occurs in the general vicinity of the Project Area, this species has a moderate potential to occur {i.e,, foraging} within the Project Area. However, work activities within the Project Area are unlikely to result in impacts to Loggerhead Shrike, and this species will not be addressed in subsequent sections. California Red-legged Frog {~ana dvaytorri~), USFWS Threatened, C13F{s` Species ot: Special Concern. California Red-legged Frog {CRLF}, until recently considered a subspecies of the Red-legged Frog {R. auras), is the only native "pond frog" found throughou# much of California. It was listed as Threatened by USFWS in 1994. Typical CRLF breeding habitat is characterized by deep and still orslow-moving water associated with emergent marsh and!or riparian vegetation {Jennings and Hayes 1990. Suitable aquatic habitats include ponds {ephemeral and permanent}, streams/creeks {ephemeral and permanent}, seasonal wetlands, .springs, seeps, man-made features {e.g. stock ponds, roadside ditches}, marshes,. dune ponds, and lagoons. Depending on local conditions, CRLF may complete its entire life cycle in a particular patch of habitat {e,g., a pond suitable for all life stages), or utilize multiple habitat types. CRLF often undergoes estivation {a period of inactivity} during the dry months, aver-summering in small mammal burrows, moist leaf litter, incised stream channels, or large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds (Jennings-and Hayes 1994}. Adult and sub-adult {i.e., newly metamorphosed) CRLF may disperse #rom breeding habitats to nearby riparian and/or estivation I~abitats in the summer. Conversely, during the rainy season CRLF may disperse from estivation sites to suitable breeding habitat. During such dispersals, frogs can travel up to one mile over a variety of topographic and. habitat types {Bulger et al. 2443}. Upland dispersal habitats include riparian corridors, non-native annual grassland, and oak savanna. The Project.Area doss not provide suitable aquatic habitat for CRLF, and is unlikely to be used for estivation. However, suitable breeding habitat does existwithin the immediate vicinityof the Project Area {e.g., within 1,14(7 feet {335 me#ers}) in the form of riparian watercourses and stock ponds to the south and east. There are numerous recent CNDDB occurrences within five miles of the Project Area, the nearest being 885 feet{2.70 meters}to the southeast, suggesting that the Project Area maybe used for dispersal by CRLF during the rainy season. a.{} SLIfMegRY A~1t~ RECC1!~~EIUClAT1QIVS No sensitive plant communities were identified within the Project Area. No special status plant species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the Project Area. Ten special status 13 alo °~ y~lo wildlife species have a moderate or high. potential to occur within the Project Area as described above.. The fol#owing sections present recomme thetexcef lion of sans five bad spec s vi th Doty avoid or reduce impacts to the wildlife species wi h p foraging potential as noted abt~ve. 6,~p special Status Plant Species No special status plantspecies have `a moderate or l~ighip the vice ty equi ettw'oody habitats such lUiost ofthe special status plant species known to oc as woodlands, chaparral or scrub which are not present in the Project Area. The few species that do occur primari{y in grassland habitats were either not observed during the site visit wh{ch coincided with their blooming periods, have no documented occurrences west of Livermore, or require rocky or alkaline soils which are not present in the Project Area. Therefore these grassland species are unlikely to occur in the Project Area, 5.2 Special Status l~ildlife Species California Tiger Salamander Although no aquatic CTS breeding habitat is present within the Project Area., the Project Area provides suitableterrestriai habitatforthis species, and given nearbyoccurrences {one within 1,640 feet) CTS has the potential to be present within the Project Area. Ground disturbance within a six. to ten-acre portion of the Project Area has the potential to {f }take adult and sub-adult CTS under FESA and (2} alter CTS terrestrial habitat to a permanently unsuitable state. Thus, informal or forma{ consultation (Section 10} with USFWS may be required. Another approach is to conduct two years of protoca{-level GTS trapping surveys to confirm absence of this species on the site. Since there is no breeding habitat in the Project Area larval surveys would not be possible., and these surveys would consist solely of rainy season fenceline trapping for adult CTS. The focused trapping area would be the roughly five to ten-acre project grading footprint within the Project Area. Permission for these surveys would be obtained firom USFWS and final results would be provided to USFWS as well. If GTS were found to lie on the site, mitigation for take of GTS generally consists of purchasing CTS mitigation creditsin a nearby, approved conservation bank andlor purchasing nearby land with suitable habitat for, and confirmed presence of, CTS to create a conservation easement. Such mitigation would be subject to approval by USFW S, C©]=G and .possibly other relevant agencies. The salvaging of any adult and sub-adult CTS tha# may be within the Project Area and relocation to another location is typically not recommended due to the time and expense required. if no CTS are found during two years of tra~pp~ 9'n o ro'~ct g ad ntg~ This fens ng would pre ant except the installation of protective silt fend g g p 1 movement of any CTS present in nearby areas from moving into the Project Area. California Red-1et~ged J=roq ..Although no aquatic CRL~ habitat is present with'sn the Project Area,. there are recent documented occurrences of this species within close proximity to the Project Area, and it has the potential to 14 a~i ~y~~ serve as CRLF dispersal habitat during the rainy season. The death or injury of any CRLF resulting from project activities would constitute take under FESA. To ensure that take of CRLF does not occur, VVRA recommends limiting work activities to the non-rainy season {i.e. roughly May 1 ~ through October 15). If work is to occur during the rainy season, an exclusion fence {e.g silt fence) should be installed around all work. areas to prevent CRLF and other wildlife frcim entering work areas. Fencing should include one-way funnels to allow animals inside the fenced area to escape. American Badaer WRA recommends that apse-construction Burrowtden survey Be conducted by a qualified biologist t~tithin and immediately adjacent to the Project Area no more than 10 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance {or other disruptive activities}. If survey results indicate that this species is present during the general breeding period {roughfy spring through summer), the biologist should assess if young are present. in any identified dens. if young are deemed present, an exclusionary buffer should be placed around each occupied den (see Breeding Birds below) until all young are independent. Once young are independent or if badgers are found to Be present during the non- breeding period, use of the site should Be discouraged using passive relocation techniques {e.g. placing one-way doors across den entrances) to remove Badgers from areas to be impacted prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. B~rrrowina OwI Pre-construction Burrowing Owl surveys per protocol approved by CDFG are recommended to Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance {or other disruptive activities} within the Project Area, if surveys are conducted during the breeding season {February 1 to August 31) and owls. are found to be Breeding within the Project Area., a suitable exclusionary bufferwifl be placed around the nestsite (see Breeding Birds below} until all offspring have fledged. Once afl offspring have fledged, passive relocation should be employed (e.g,, the use of one-way doors across Burrow entrances) to remove awls from areas to be impacted. If surveys are conducted during the non-breeding season {September 1 to January 31 }and this species is found to be present, passive relocation techniques as described previously should be employed and all owls removed from areas to Be impacted prior to the initiation of ground disturbance.. if Burrt~wing t?wl is f©und to be breeding within the ProjectArea, mitigation fc,r breeding f~abitat that is altered to a permanently unsuitable state will likely Be required by CDFG. This mitigation generally consists of purchasing Burrowing Owl mitigation credits in . a nearby, approved conservation bank and/or purchasing nearby land with suitable habitat tci create a conservation easement. 8reedina Birds CDFG Species of Special Concern such as Grasshopper Sparrow, as well as other Bird species protected by the MBTA and CDFG codes may use the Project Area for Breeding and foraging. Ground disturbance andlorvegetatian removal should be postponed until the non-Breeding season, between September ~ and January 31. 1f work is to Decor Between February 1 and August 31 {i.e., the general Bird breeding season), it 15 ~l a o~- ~--1~~ is recommended that pre-construction breeding bird surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist no-.more than 10 days prior to the initiation of work activities: Surveys should be conducted within all suitable nesting habitat within aril adjacent to the Project Area. Ali active non-status passerine nests identified at that time should be protected by a minimum 25-foot {7,5-meter}radius exclusion zo€~e. Active raptor or special status species nests should be protected by a minimum 50-foot {15-meter} radius exclusion zone. Exclusion zone bufifer width is determined by a qualified biologist ..and may vary depending on habitat characteristics and species. Each exclusion zone steal( remain in place until all young have fledged. Exclusionary buffers will be established with appropriate construction fencing. Work outside. of exclusionary buffers may con#inue, however, ground disturbance activities will be prohibited in these areas until the nest has fledged successfully, been predated or are abandoned as a result of natural causes as determined by a qualifiied biologist, if exclusionary buffers are breached during the breeding season, work should be immediately halted and a qualified biologist contacted to determine the status of the nest. 5,0 ~IEFERI~it(GES Austin, C. C. and H. B. Shaffer, 1992. Short-, medium-, and long-term repeatability of (ocomotor performance in the tiger salamander Ambysfc~ma califomiense. Functional Ecology 6:145-9 53. Barry, S. J. And. H. B. Shaffer. 1994. The Status of the California Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma caiiforniense) at Lagunita: A 50-year Update. Journal of Herpetology 28{2): 159-164. Bechard, M. J., and J. K. Schmutz. 9995. Ferruginous Hawk.. {Buteo regalis}. In The Birds of North Arr~erica, No.-..172 {A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American C7rn(thologists' Union, Washing#on, b.C. Bulger, J. Ei., S. J, Norman, and R. B. Seymour. 2093, Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs {Rana aurora ciraytonii) in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological conservation 110 {2003) 85-95. California ©epartment of Fish and Game {CDFG). 2009. Natural©iversity 13ataase, Wildlife and Habitat Bata Analysis Branch.. Sacramento. California ©epartment of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division {ESD}. 1994. A f=ield Guide to Lake and Strearnbed Alteration Agreements,. Sections 1600-9607, California Fish .and Game Code. California Native Plant Society: 2009. Electronic inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. City of Dublin. 20118. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan {updated November 2008}. Davis, J. N. and C. A. Niea(a. 2008. Northern Harrier {Circus eyaneus). Jn: Shuford , W. 0. and Gardali, T., eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of 16 ai3 ~~lyo species, subspecies, and distinct. pope{ations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and. Calif©rnia Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Dunk, J. R. 1995, White-tailed Kite {Elan~~s leucurus}. In: Poole; A. And F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Na. 178. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D,C. Erikson, C.H. and. D. Belk. 1.999. Fairy Shrimps of California's Puddles, Ponds and Playas. Mad River Press, Inc., Eureka, Califiornia. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 89180-0631. Fitton, S. D. 2008, Bryant's Savannah Sparrow (Passercutus sandwichensis alaudinsus}. [n: Shuford , W. D. and Gardali, T., eds, California .Bird Species ofi Special Concern; A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation. concern in Ca{ifiornia. S#udies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, Califiornia, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. A. Comrack. 2008. Burrowing Owl (Atherre ctlnicularia}. ln: Shuford , W. D. and T. Gardali, eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.. Hickman, J.C. led:} 1993, The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press.. Hol{and, R. F, 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, Hunting, K.. 2008. Long-eared Owl {Asio otus}. ln: Shuford , W, D. and Gardali, T., eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and disc{nct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in Caiifornia. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Hunting, K. and L. Edson. 2008, Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus}. !n: Shuford , W. D, and Gardali, T., eds. California- Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in Caiifornia. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and Caiifornia Departmentof Fish and Game, Sacramento. Jennings, M. R, and M. P. Hayes. 1994, Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final report submitted to the California .Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California, Contract No. 8023. 17 ail ~f- yyo Kochert, M., K. Steenhofi, C. McIntyre and E. Craig. 2402. Golden Eagle {Aquila chrysaetos}. In: 'The Birds ofi North America., No. 542 {A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.}. The Birds of North America, inc., Philadelphia, PA. Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren and M. L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat Ilse and (Migration Behavior of the California Tiger Salamander, Journal of Herpetology 30{2): 282-285. Natural Resources Conservation Service {MRCS}. 2442. Field indicators of Hydnc Soils in the United States, version 5.0, G,W. Hurt, P.M. Whited, eds. USDA, MRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX, Reed, Jr., Porter B. 1988. National List ofi Plant. Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 {24}. 244 pp, Sproul, M. J. and M. A. Flea. 1993. Status of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the Northwest Margin of its Range. Transactir~ns of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 29; 61-69. Stebbins, R. C, 2003. Western Rep#iles and Amphibians. Third Edition, revised. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusets. Trenha~rP . C., W. D, Koenig and H. B. Schaffer. 2049 . Spatially Autacorrelated Demography and Interphone ©ispersal in the. Salamander Ambystoma ca/iforniense. Ecology 82{12}: 3519-3530. Trenham, P. C., H. B. Schaffer,. W. D. Koenig and M. R. Stolberg, 2040.. Life History and demographic Variation in the California Tiger Salamander ~Ambystoma californiense}. Capeia, .2444{2}: 365-377. Unitt, P. 2048. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum}. ln: Shufiord , W. D. and Gardali, T., eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations ofi birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2446. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps ofi Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region.. December. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. U.S. Army Carps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination form Instructional Guidebook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.1966, Soil Survey of Alameda County. Califomia. In cooperation withthe University tf CaliforniaAgricu €ural Experiment Station. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service {USFWS). 2049. C~uadrangle Species Lists, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service {USFWS}. 2447. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp {Branchinecfa /ynch~~, S-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento Fsh and 1~Vildlife Office, Sacramento, California. September. 18 ~ I J ~' ~-{L.~Q U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS~. 2f102. Biologics! Opinion: Fflrmal Endangered Species Consultation on the Proposed Dublin Ranch Oevelapment, Alameda and Contra Cansta Counties, California.. July. Yosefi, R. 199f3. Loggerhead,Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus}. !n: Poole, A. And F. Cill, eds. The Birds o€ North America, No, 231.. The Academy ofi Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.G. Zeiner, D. C„ W. F, Laudensfayer, Jr., K. E. (Viayer, and l~. lNhite. 19901. California's V1lildlife, Volume !-III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Stater~~ide Wildlife i-3abitat Reiatic~nships System, Caiifomia Department of Fish anal Game, Sacramento. 19