HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 DublinRnchPD Rezn A
.
.
.
SUBJECT:
EXHIBITS:
CITY~ERK
File # D ~-G[l2
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 18,1997
RECOMMENDATION:
IQ}'
(pUBLIC HEARING) Dublin Ranch "Area A" Planned
Development (PD) Rezone PA 96-038
(Report Prepared by: Tasha Huston) P
(see next page)
1. Open public hearing and hear staff presentation
2. Take testimony from applicant and the public
3. Question staff, applicant, and the public
4. Close public hearing and deliberate.
5. Adopt the following:
. Exhibit A: City Council Resolution
approving Negative Declaration, including
Exhibits A-I through A-5: Initial Study, Noise
Study, Visual Study, Traffic Study, Biological
Study
. Exhibit B: City Council Resolution
approving findings and general provisions for
Area A Land Use & Development Plan / District
Planned Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP);
with Exhibits: B-1, Public Works Conditions;
B-2, Fire Department Conditions; and B-3,
LUDP/DPDP text & diagrams
6. Waive reading and introduce the Ordinance
amending the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to approve
the PD Rezoning (Exhibit C); and
7. Schedule the second reading of the Ordinance for
the December 2, 1997 City Council meeting.
- - - - - - - - - - COPIES-TO:- City Attorney - - --
Applicant
H1cc-forms/agdastmt.d oc
ITEM NO.
6.'1
,
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
.
City Council Resolution approving Negative Declaration, including
Exhibits A-I through A-5: Initial Study, Noise Study, Visual Study,
Traffic Study, Biological Study
City Council Resolution approving findings and general provisions for
Area A Land Use & Development Plan / District Planned
Development Plan, including Exhibits B-1 through B-3 (LUDP/DPDP)
City Council Ordinance adopting Planned Development Rezone
Staff Report from October 28, 1997 Planning Commission ~eeting
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Attachment 9:
Dublin General Plan*
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan *
Parks & Recreation Master Plan*
EIR for Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & General Plan Amendment
(including Addendum dated May 4, 1993) SCH# 91103064; and
Addendum dated August 22, 1994*
City Council Resolution Certifying Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment Program EIR (Resolution # 51-93)*
City Council Resolution adopting Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment; adopting findings and approving overriding
considerations; and adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program
("Matrix") for EDSP EIR (Resolution # 53-93)*
City Council Resolution approving Prezoning of annexed land (EIR
(Resolution # 10-94)*
General Project Information*
Minutes from October 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
.
* (NOT ATTACHED, BUT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE,
AVAILABLE AT THE DUBLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND
AT THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: none
.
2
.
As shown in the LUDP/DPDP, the project includes an intermittent stream corridor public
trail system which crosses the site, and open space. Details of the design, maintenance and
ownership of the stream corridor and open space in the project have not been determined.
Although the project description provided by the applicant contains a statement suggesting that
"the City will own and maintain certain public open space areas and the intermittent stream
corridors", in actuality the ownership issue has not yet been resolved, and the situation is
currently being studied. Therefore, the staff disagree with the applicant's statement (Page 8 of
Exhibit B-3, "LUDP"), and conditions of approval have been incorporated which address this
issue, requiring that it be resolved when the City and developer enter into a Development
Agreement for this proj ect.
As a whole, the LUDP uses the PD principles efficiently to propose more intense
development in the residential neighborhood areas, and less intense or no development in the
Open Space and Rural Residential! Agriculture areas. The proposed residential, golf course,
and open space uses and locations are consistent with and reinforce the General Plan and
Specific Plan land uses, goals and policies by providing an open buffer between development
areas, by restricting development in sensitive areas, and by providing limited development
for recreation in less sensitive areas.
.
Environmental Analvsis
This project is within the General Plan Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report, certified by the
City of Dublin in 1993 (see Background Attachments). The General Plan/Specific Plan EIR
is a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development
in Eastern Dublin, including the PD Rezone for this project. The EIR did identify some
impacts from implementation of the General Plan/Specific Plan which were not able to be
mitigated. Upon certification of the EIR, the City adopted a statement of overriding
considerations for several impacts, some of which relate to this project (e.g.; visual impacts).
The City also adopted a mitigation monitoring program, which included several measures
intended to reduce impacts from the development of the Eastern Dublin area. These
mitigation measures apply to project approvals and actions at various stages in the
development process, some occurring prior to approval of this PD Rezone, and other
occurring later in the development process. The timing of these mitigation measures is
indicated in the City's EIR mitigation monitoring matrix (see Background Attachments).
.
An Initial Study, dated June 18, 1997, was prepared for the project, to determine whether
there will be additional environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project (the PD
Rezone) beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR. The Initial
Study identifies some potential impacts which required an examination at a project specific
5
--
The Initial Study's focused evaluation of pertinent project-level environmental issues include .
traffic, noise, visual, and biological effects, and public service issues such as wastewater and
schools. Each of these issues has been the subject of supplemental environmental studies
addressing new environmental effects for this level of the project. Upon further evaluation,
these impacts were found to be insignificant due to factors made a part of the project which
alleviated the potential concerns. These findings supplement the determination that the
project will not have any additional significant environmental impacts which were not
evaluated in the earlier EIR, and the Initial Study supports the adoption of a Negative
Declaration for those projeGt-specific impacts that were not addressed in the Program EIR.
Recommendations from the supplemental studies are included in the project description
and/or are reflected in the conditions of approval. Further discussion of the above-noted
study areas is contained in the attached staff report from the October 28, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting. A copy of the EIR, the Initial Study, and the supplemental
environmental studies regarding these issues are incorporated in this Staff Report by
reference (copies are available for review at the Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568). No letters were received in response to the circulation of the
Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration during the public review period.
As a result of the review of the certified EIR and addenda, and an analysis of pertinent
project-level environmental issues presented in the Initial Study, it has been determined that .
the proposed project (a) will not have any new significant effects on the environment which
have not been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. To this
extent, the project is within the scope of the Program EIR. Project specific analysis beyond
the Program EIR is reflected in the proposed Negative Declaration. All mitigations from the
Program EIR and all recommendations from the supplemental studies are included in the
project description and/or conditions of approval. Therefore, the attached Resolution includes
appropriate findings. Staff recommends adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts for this project.
Conclusion
Staff recommends the City Council's adoption of the Negative Declaration; adoption of the
Resolution approving the Land Use And Development Plan/District Planned Development
Plan, subject to development standards and conditions listed in the Resolution (with the
. LUDP included as Exhibit B-3); and introduction of the Ordinance approving the Dublin
Ranch Area A Planned Development Rezone.
(g:pa96038\CCSRI197.)
.
6
.
.
.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Planned Development (PD) District Rezone approval for an
approximately 352-acre site. The project involves rezoning the site to: PD Single Family
(Low Density) Residential (135.3 acres; 573 dwelling units); PD Rural Residential!
Agriculture (71.5 acres), and PD Open Space (l44.7 acres), and establishing permitted uses,
residential development standards, densities and design guidelines. The proposed Planned
Development includes a Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP)/ District Planned
Development Plan (DPDP), to illustrate the general development concept and guide further
subdivision of the property for development. Additional descriptions of the proposed
development concept are contained in the proposed Planned Development Land Use and
Development Plan (LUDP)/District Planned Development Plan (DPDP), included as
Attachment B-3 to this report. . .
BACKGROUND
This project is located East of Tassajara Road, in an area covered by the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in November 1993, and
established land use designations for approximately 3300 acres ofland east of the Camp
Parks military reserve. A large component of the plan area was annexed to the City in 1995,
including 1,037 acres owned by the Jennifer Lin Family, known as the Dublin Ranch project.
Upon annexation, Dublin Ranch was Prezoned with a Planned Development overlay
designation. The proposed Planned Development (PD) District Rezone for Area A covers
approximately 352 acres of the Dublin Ranch annexed area, and identifies more detailed land
uses than the current PD zoning designation. It is the second proposed Planned Development
on the Dublin Ranch property; the first was approved in January of 1996, and is known as
Dublin Ranch Phase I.
The proposed Planned Development (PD) District Rezone for this site will accomplish the
following:
- assign more refined zoning designations than the previous PD Prezone
- locate these zoning designations on a land use plan
- locate conceptual residential lot and street layouts on a site plan
- locate conceptual layout and phasing of development improvements, of golf course,
of private recreational facility, and of other non-residential accessory uses
- establish development standards and conditions of approval for development under
the refined zoning designations.
Thus, the current proposal for a PD Rezone is one of a series of actions necessary to
implement the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Other approvals have occurred prior to this
project, and additional approvals will be considered by the City after this Rezone, including
Tentative Maps, Development Agreements, Site Development Review, and building and
other development permits.
3
ANALYSIS
The proposed physical development consists of 573 single family dwelling units on lots
ranging in size from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 square feet and accessory recreational
facilities; an 18-hole golf course; improvement of the portion of the intermittent stream
corridor public trail system which crosses the site, and open space on approximately 352
acres of land. Seven distinct neighborhoods are proposed, with various densities of single-
family detached homes. The site topography involves a combination of hilly knolls, ridges,
and valleys. Development is generally proposed on a series of terraces cut into the hills and
on the tops of the lower knolls. The upper hillside areas are designated for Rural-
Residential! Agricultural uses, and the undeveloped slopes surrounding the development are
reserved for open space. Perimeter residential lots are oriented to have views of the golf
course and open space areas, while the interior lots would be similar to traditional ..
subdivision tract homes built in hillside areas. Provisions have been made for view corridors
and access to trails and open space, to encourage the use and enjoyment of the natural
amenities of the site by its residents.
The development concept is depicted on the Land Use and Development Plan/District
Planned Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP) incorporated as Exhibit B-3, consisting ofa project
description, land use plan, site plan, design guidelines (including land use and development
standards), design concepts, and other text and supplemental diagrams, dated "OCTOBER 1997'
(sent under separate cover). The approval of the Planned Development Rezone includes this
Land Use and Development Plan/District Planned Development Plan, in accordance with
*
Ordinance 4-94 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, addressing Planned Developments , as well
as the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirement for a District Planned Development Plan.
The proposed PD Rezoning and LUDP/DPDP are consistent with the land use goals and
policies of the City's guiding documents for land use decisions (General Plan, Specific Plan,
and Zoning Ordinance). As the staff report from the October 28, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting reflects, the project provides a coordinated plan for development of residential, open
space, and recreational uses. It provides for this development through a framework of
protective development standards that reflect the sensitive biological, aesthetic, topographic,
and other features of the site. All components of the project are consistent with the Dublin
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan intents, goals and policies, as further
discussed in the attached staff report. (The body of the referenced staff report, which
contains this discussion, is attached; however, the Exhibits and appendices to that staff report
were not reproduced here, in order to reduce the bulk of this report and minimize
reproduction. The Staff report and all of its appendices are available for review at the
Planning Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, and are hereby incorporated by
reference. )
.
.
Although the City's Planned Development Ordinance has recently been amended, this project
RESOLUTION NO. - 96
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DUBLIN RANCH AREA A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT REZONING (P A 96-038)
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GP A") and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan ("EDSP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the EDSP provides more specific and detailed goals, policies and action programs for
approximately 3313 acres within the GP A area nearest to the City on its Eastern side; and .'
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") was prepared for the EDSP
and GPA (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993, by Resolution No. 51-
93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda") have been prepared and
adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 53-93, adopting the
GP A and EDSP, making fIndings and adopting overriding considerations as to the environmental impacts
and mitigation measures relating to the EDSP and GP A, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program
. ("Program MMP") for the GP A and EDSP; and
WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Lin, submitted a Planned
Development (PD) District Rezone request (P A 96-038 Dublin Ranch Area A) for rezoning an
approximately 351.5 acre site to the following land uses: 135.3 acres to PD Low Density Residential, 71.5
acres to PD Rural Residential Agriculture, and 144.7 acres Open Space. These land uses are proposed to
accommodate ,future development of up to 573 dwelling units in 7 neighborhoods, accessory recreational
uses, a golf course, and related improvements. The project is generally located north of the Interstate 580
Freeway, along both sides of the planned Fallon Road extension, and east of Dublin Ranch Phase I, within
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for the project is available and on file in the Planning
Department; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration ("ND") for the
project, attached hereto as Exhibit A-I and incorporated herein by reference, which documents reflect the
independent judgment of the City as to the project's environmental effects, and which addresses the
applicability and implementation of each of the programs in the EDSP and each of the mitigation measures
in the Program Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP); and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study is supplemented by studies regarding noise, traffic, biological and
. visual impacts incorporated herein by reference. Copies of these studies are available for review at the City
of Dublin Planning Department; and
EXHIBIT A
'.
WHEREAS, the Initial Study demonstrated that the Project would have no potentially significant
environmental impacts which were not adequately described and analyzed in the Program EIR. Project- .
specific impacts beyond those in the Program EIR were addressed in the Initial Study and supplemental
studies. All recommendations from the supplemental studies are included in the project description and/or
reflected or confirmed in conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, a 30 day public review period was held for the Negative Declaration, from June 18,
1997, through July 18, 1997 ; and
WHEREAS, no letters commenting on the Negative Declaration were received during the comment
period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on OctoQer 28, 1997
and recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and the project in Resolution No. 97-024; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 1997, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
project, during which it considered the Planned Development (PD) District Rezone request and Negative
Declaration
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council hereby finds that:
1.
resolution.
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein as a part of this
.
2. Pursuant to Section 21083.3, subdivision (b) and (e), of the Public Resources Code and
pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Project is within the scope of the EDSP and
the GP A Program EIR, the Project and all of its potentially significant environmental impacts were
adequately described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures
identified in the Program EIR, and all of the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance with the imposition of the mitigation measures identified in the
Program MMP, and no new significant impacts were identified in the Initial Study for the Project.
3. Pursuant to Section 21166 and Section 21083.3, Subdivisions (b) and (e), of the Public
Resources Code, and pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines:
a) the Project does not constitute a change from the program (i.e. the GP A and the EDSP)
analyzed in the Program EIR which would require major revisions in the Program EIR;
b) there are no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances under which the Project
is being undertaken from those circumstances which existed when the City certified the Program EIR which
would require major revisions in the Program EIR; and
c) there is no new information of substantial importance to the GP A, the EDSP, or the
Project which, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been known when the Program .
EIR was certified and which shows either (i) that the Project will have significant environmental effects not
discussed or substantially underestimated in the Program EIR or, (ii) that there are mitigation measures or
2
alternatives not identified as feasible in the Program EIR and not included as part of the Project which
would reduce or avoid any significant environmental impacts. .
. 4. Pursuant to section 21080, subdivision (c), of the Public Resources Code and pursuant to
section 15074, subdivision (b), of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council (1) certifies that it has
considered the Negative Declaration; (2) finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) hereby approves the
Negative Declaration.
5. The City Council does hereby apply the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Mitigation
Monitoring Program to the Project, along with the conditions made a part of project approval, as a
supplement to the Program MMP as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6 for the Project.
6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a) (2), the City Council
specifies that the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its findings and
decision herein are based shall be located at City Hall, and their custodians shall be the City Clerk and the
Community Development Director of the City.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 18th day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
G:\P A96038\ccresnd.
.
...
.;)
.
'.
EXHIBIT A-I
.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
.
.
.
.
INITIAL STUDY
"DUBLIN RANCH AREA A" - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning
Planning Application # 96-038
INTRODUCTION
'Ibis Initial Study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential environmental effects of
the proposed Dublin Ranch Area A Planned Development Rezoning (the project). The analysis is intended
to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with
adequate information for project review.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report
[consisting of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August 28, 1992; Responses to Comments
Part I dated December 7, 1992; Responses to Comments Part II dated December 21, 1992; Revisions to Part
I of the Responses to Comments relating to the Kit Fox; and Addendum to the DEIR dated May 4, 1993;
and a DKS Associates Traffic Study dated December 15, 1992 (SCH91103064)] was adopted by the City
Council on May 10, 1993. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is available to the public for
review of the City of Dublin Planning Department located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA. An Addendum
to the Environmental Impact Report was approved by the City Council on August 22, 1994. It is also
available for review of the Planning Department.
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR concluded certain significant impacts
v.'ill result from the development of Eastern Dublin. Most of those impacts will be reduced to
insignificance by mitigation measures of the EIR. Some will remain unavoidable significant adverse
impacts but they were included in a Statement of Overriding Considerations passed by the Dublin City
Council when it cenified the EIR. -
The environmental impact report that was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan was a "Program" environmental impact report (program EIR). If a program environmental
impact report is prepared, subsequent environmental documents need to be prepared for projects within the
program only if there are additional environmental impacts not considered in the preparation of the original
environmental document or additional mitigation measures are required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168).
Tne Project will not create any significant impacts which were not already covered by the EIR or reduced to
insi8lificance bv mitigation measures of the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Prosrram, and conditions of
__ ,.I _ - - -
appro\'al of the project. Dublin Ranch i\rea A is located v,ithin the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area and is considered one in a series of actions covered by the Program EIR. The project is
v.ithin the scope of the Program EIR, and the program EIR & Addendum adequately describe the impacts
of the project, and there have been no changes or new information which would necessitate supplementing
the Program EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA guidelines Section 15162.
1
This Initial Study includes a Project Description, Environmental Checklist Form, an Evaluation an~
Discussion of issues identified in the checklist, and a Determination. The attachment to the Initial S.
is a Matrix which has incorporated the Mitigation Measures and Action Programs of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR which will reduce the environmental impacts of the
project to a level of insignificance.
The Matrix has been designed for use in evaluating specific project proposals in Eastern Dublin for
compliance with the Eastern Dublin Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring
Program. The Mitigation Measures of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report (the FEIR) and the two approved addenda thereto are referenced throughout
this Initial Study. Please refer to the Matrix to review the Mitigation A1easures and/or Action Programs, or
refer to the FEIR itself for complete mitigation descriptions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is known as the "Dublin Ranch Area A" - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning. This proposal
for a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning is the second Phase of rezoning for the Dublin Ranch project
site; a PD Rezoning for Phase I of Dublin Ranch was approved by the City in 1996. Current PD Rezoning
applications for the Dublin Ranch project occupy approximately 816 acres ofland and are composed of
five parts, labeled Areas A, B, C, D, and E. 1bis environmental review addresses Area A only. The .
environmental review for Areas B through E has been combined into one component, and is being
processed under a separate Initial Study.
The project site is located east of Tassajara Road, north ofI-580, and is north of the existing Fallon Road.
It "\7\111 occupy land on both the east and west sides of Fallon Road when this road is extended to the north.
The entire Dublin Ranch project site was previously Prezoned with various PD land use categories.
Consistent with the provisions of Section 8-31 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a Land Use & _
Development Plan (LUDP) is now being proposed to finalize the zoning for the project area. The land uses
proposed under this LUDP are consistent with the approved PD Prezoning categories The LUDP will also
serve the capacity of a District Planned Development Plan (DPDP) as required to implement the provisions
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The development plan proposed for Area A consists of 571 single family dwelling units on lots ranging in
size from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 square feet, an I8-hole golf course, a public trail system, and open
space on about 352 acres ofland. Area A is the northern portion of the remaining (phase 2) Dublin Ranch
project areas on the annexed portion of the Lin Property. The land use plan for Area A includes a fairly
precise siting of the residential units and development of the golf course and trail system.
Additional information and details regarding the project can be found in the attached Project Description,
which follows the Initial Study.
.
2
.
ENVIRO:NMEI\TAL CHECKLIST FORM
This study was prepared based upon the location of the project, staff office review, field review, comments
submitted by local agencies; use of City Planning documents, the CEQA Law and Guidelines, City of Dublin CEQA
Guidelines, and the previously certified Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report and Addendum (FEIR). The FEIR concluded certain significant impacts will result
from the development of Eastern Dublin. Most of those impacts will be reduced to insignificance by mitigation
measures of the ErR. Some will remain unavoidable significant adverse impacts but they were included in a
Statement of Overriding Considerations passed by the Dublin City Council when it certified the ElR. Dublin Ranch
_ Area A will not create any significant impacts not already covered by the EIR. Impacts of the project are described
below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
. 5.
6.
7.
8.
Project title: Dublin Ranch Area A - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning
Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, ] 00 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
Contact person and phone number. T asha Huston, Associate Planner; (5] 0)833-66] 0
Project location: East of Tassajara Road, north ofInterstate 580 Freeway, within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan project area.
Project sponsor's name and address: Ted C. Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer for Jennifer Lin, eta!.,
P.O. Box 1l48, 5510 Sunol Boulevard, Pleasanton, CA 94566
General plan: Single Family Residential; Rural Residential/Agriculture; Open Space
Zoning: PD Low Density Residential; PD Rural Residential/Agriculture; PD Open Space
Description of project: The Planned Development (PD) District Rezone proposed for the Dublin
Ranch luea A site includes land use designations, standards, residential densities, and design
guidelines for each land use category, including Low Density Residential, Rural
Residential/Agriculture, and Open Space. The development plan proposed for Area A consists of
571 single family dwelling units on lots ranging in size from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 square
feet, an IS-hole golf course, a public trail system, and open space on about 352 acres ofland. .A..rea
A is the northern portion of the remaining (phase 2) Dublin Ranch project areas on the annexed
portion of the Lin Property. The land use plan for Area A includes a fairly precise siting of the
residential units and development of the golf course and trail system.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Planned Development Single Family, Medium Density Residential,
Open Space, and RuraJ Residential/Agriculture; Cattle Grazing, Agriculture, Equestrian Facility, and
Firewood Sales
.
10.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
..,
::>
El\\l:RONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTL4LL Y AFFECTED:
.
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a LtPotentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follo\\ring pages.
g] Land Use and Planning
~ Population and Housing
I8J Geological Problems
~ \1,7 ater
~ TraJ1sportation/Circulation ~ Public Services
ti1' Biological Resources ..l8l Utilities and Service Systems
~ Energy and Mineral Resources EJ Aesthetics
l29 Hazards 0 Cultural Resowces
~ An- Quality
~ Noise ~ Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CHECKLIST
l'ote1l1ial(I'
l'atenlial(l' Sip'ificant
Significanr Unless La.' thatl
1. L.L\..1\1J> USE A~l) PLANJ\1NG. Would the proposal: lmpaCl Mitigation Sipl!/iC/1111
lneorporoted lmpact Xo]n\
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #: 1,2) 0 0 0 ~
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or. policies adopted
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1, 2 ) 0 0 0 )'gJ
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 1,2 ) 0 0 0 ~
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
fannlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1, 2) ~ 0 0 0
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)? 0 0 0 81
( 1,2 )
IT. POPULATION A~"'D HOUSING. Would the proposal:
. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or Jo;:;a1 population 0 0 0 E9
projections? (1 )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or e:>..'1ension of major ~ 0 0 0
infrastructure)? (1 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1 ) 0 0 0 .IgJ
ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1,3 ) 0 0 0 ~
b) Seismic ground shaking? (l, 3 ) ~ 0 0 0
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,3 ) ~ 0 0 0
d) Seiche, tsunami, orvo1canic hazard? (1, 3) 0 0 0 g]
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1, 3 ) 0 gj 0 0
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill? (1, 3 ) 0 g] 0 0
g) Subsidence ofland? (1, 3 ) 0 gj 0 0
h) Expansive soils? (1,3 ) 0 ~ 0 0
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1, 3 ) 0 0 ,~ 0
.
5
PotCnlia/~I' .
Potcntia/~I' Siptificmll
Siptificant Unlcss u$.' than
IV. 'VATER. 'Would the proposal result in: 1m paC! Afttigation Siptificant
Incorpora/cd Impact No Impact
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? (1) 0 0 0 0
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding? (1) 0 l8 0 0
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (1) 0 ~ 0 0
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1) 0 ~ '. 0 0
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
(1) 0 ~ 0 0
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater 0 ~ 0 0
recharge capability? (1)
g) Altered direction or rate offiow of groundwater? (l) 0 gJ 0 0
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1) 0 181 0 0
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise .
2yailable for public water supplies? (J) 0 ~ 0
v. A.IR QU~.o\Lmr. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (1, 2 ) BJ 0 0 0
b) h-pose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1, 2 ) 0 0 ~ . .0
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change
in climate? (1,2 ) 0 0 ~ 0
d) Create objectionable odors? (1, 2) 0 0 0 0
VI, TR..<\NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2,4 ) @ 0 0 0
b) Hazards to safet)' from design features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm 0 ~ 0 0
equipment)? (1,2,4 )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby llses? (1, 2, 4 ) 0 ~ 0 0
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or off site? (J, 2, 4 ) 0 0 0 ~
e) hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1, 2, 4 ) 0 g 0 O.
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1, 2, 4 ) 0 0 0 ~
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (l) 0 0 0 J2g
.
I'D/~11fio/~I'
I'D/~n1io/~1' Si1J17i!JI:oll/
Si1J17ifiCDnt Un/css uss tholl
impoct Mitito/ion Sip/!fico11f
Vll. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Jncorporo/~d Iff/pac/ Nn Impocl
Would the proposal result in impacts [0:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including 0 1'8J 0 0
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (1)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (1) 0 0 ~ 0
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)? (1) 0 0 ~ 0
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal poo!)? (1) 0 ~ 0 0
e) Wildlife dispersal Dr migration corridors? (J) 0 ~ 0 0
VIII. E1\-r:ERGY ..\.1\'1) MI1\-r:ERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1,2 ) 0 0 0 rgJ
. b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
(1,2) g 0 0 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 0 0 gj
(1,2)
IX. HAZ.I\R.DS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion orrelease of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, Dr 0 0 I3l - 0
radiation)? (1)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan Dr
emergency evacuation plan? (1) 0 0 0 I8:l
c) The creation of any health hazard Dr potential health hazards? (1)
0 0 0 0
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
(1) 0 0 0 0
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, Dr trees?
(1) 0 !5J 0 0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
. a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1, 2, 5 ) e;:J 0 0 0
b) Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels? (1, 2,5 ) 0 ~ 0 0
7
-
-
.
XI. PL-:BLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal result in a needfor new Potenlia'~l'
Potenlio/~I' Si~lIiJicont
or altered government services in any of the following areas: SiptiJicont Unless Us.< tholl
Impact MiligOlioll Si~lIiJiCOllt
Incorporaled Impact No ImpaCl
a) fire protection? (1) 0 g 0 0
b) Police protection? (1) 0 ~ 0 0
c) Schools? (1) 0 g 0 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1) 0 !81 0 0
e) (Tiller government services (1) 0 g} 0 0
.
.
XII. UTILITIES .4J\'D SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alrerations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (1, 2 ) ~ 0 0 0
b) Communications systems? (1, 2 ) 0 0 0 @
c) Local orregional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1, 2 ) gj 0 0 0
d) sewer or septic tanks? (1. 2) 0 IRl 0 0
e) Stann water drainage? (1, 2) 0 ~ 0 0 .
f) Solid waste disposal? (1, 2 ) 0 M 0 0
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1, 2 ) 0 ~ 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Allect a scenic vista or hicl1way? (1, 2 ) {2g 0 0 0
. -
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? (1, 2 ) 0 f8I 0 0
c) Create light or glare? (1,2 ) 0 0 &1 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1 ) 0 0 0 ~
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1 ) 0 ~ 0 0
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? (1 ) 0 0 0 g
d) R~ct existing r:::Iigious or sacred uses within the potential impact ar"'..a? (l ) 0 0 0 gj
-
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: ".
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other .
recreational facilities? (1 ) 0 0 0 0
b) ..6Jfect existing recreational opportUnities? (1 ) 0 Bl 0 0
. x"""\l. M.A.NDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICA.NCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat c
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?
o ~ 0 0
b) Does the project have potential to achieve short-tenn, to the disadvantage ofJong-tenn, environmental goals?
o 0 gJ 0
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerab}~? ("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)
o ~ 0 0
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? 0 0 I2l 0
.
DISCUSSION - Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) As indicated by the checklist fonn, the project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a plant or animal species or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory.
b) All potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to reduce both the long tenn and the short
term environmental impacts ,below a level of significance except for those impacts includ,ed within the Statement of
Overriding Considerations of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ErR. A description of
the mitigation measures is contained in the Matrix., Attachment A.
c) All potentially significant cumulative environmental impacts have been addressed in the EIR.
d) As discussed under the headings "Risk of Upset" and "Human Health," the project does not have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
REFERENCES
Rererenced information sources utilized ror this analysis include the rollowing:
.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Determination based on location or project;
Determination based on staff office review;
Determination based on field review;
Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan;
Determination based on the City or Dublin Zoning Ordinance;
Determination based on the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Fin2
ErR and Addendum;
Not applicable.
7)
9
.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supponed by the information
sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supponed if
the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must I2ke account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and consU11ction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impacr." The lead
cgency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier .Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Ecrlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been .
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).). In this case a discussion shaul
identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which are incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to infonnation sources for potential impacts (e.g.,
general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
in:lude a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list
should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
.-_.
:.~ .
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES & ANAL YSIS-
The following discussion includes explanations of answers to the above questions regarding potential
environmental impacts, as indicated on the preceding checklist. Each subsection is annotated with the
number and letter corresponding to the checklist form.
A majority of the potential impacts discussed \l,~thin this initial study were addressed in the earlier analysis
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR (FEIR), incorporated
by reference, and the mitigation measures adopted. Mitigation measures are noted, and the matrix of
mitigation measures is included as Attachment A. The program EIR & addendum adequately describe the
impacts of the project, and there have been no changes or new information requiring a supplemental ErR,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 1516~:
EXISTING SETI1NG:
The project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and is included in the Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the Specific Plan area Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GP .AJSPA Final EIR
for a description of the existing project setting.
POIT:t\TTIAL IMPACTS MID MITIGATION MEASURES:
1.
LAND USE & PL4NNING: The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations and
\l,~th the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planned Development proposed for Area A includes a
golf course, which is considered an outdoor recreational use appropriate for the proposed location
partially within the Open Space. Rllial ResidentiallAgriculture and Low Density Residential areas.
The development plan proposes undevelop~d slopes S1.1ITounding the homes and golf course: which.
will be revegetated with indigenous grasses and 'Wildflowers. Ibis will help to maintain consistency
with the appearance of the existing rolling topography and natural grassy landscape. ImpJicts of
residential land uses in the project were addressed in the earlier analysis of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Cumulative
impacts to agricultural resources were also addressed in the FEIR, and were found to have a
sign1Tlcant unavoidable cumulative impact. The Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted
with the Specific Plan includes this finding. The proposed Planned Development Rezoning will not
raise significant new impacts beyond those discussed in the FEIR.
n~
POPULATION & HOUSING: The project would provide up to 571 housing units which are
anticipated to be in a price range affordable to the future employees working within the City of
Dublin. The project will also make provisions to comply with the requirements of the Dublin
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Ibis is consistent with the policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and Dublin General Plan, to provide a range of housing types for all segments of the
community. Grov.1:h inducing impacts associated with the development of housing and increased
population as a result of the adopted Specific Plan were analyzed in the prior ErR. The adoption of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan signified the City's intent to introduce urban development in an
area that previously supported primarily rural activities. A discussion of population and housing
issues was included in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, pp. 3.2-1 through 3.2-11. No significant
impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GP.tVSP A Final EIR are expected to OCCllI.
11
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR and .
through various mitigation measures. For an explanation of items 3a, 3c, 3g, and 3i, see FEIR
mitigation measures MM 3.6/9.0 and 3.6/1 0.0 (p. 3.6-9); for discussion related to items 3e, 3f, 3h
see MM 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 (p. 3.6-14 and 15) and Geotechnical Investigation Dublin Ranch
Phase I, June 19, 1995, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants; for items 3b, 3d see MM 3.6/2.0-
3.6/7.0,3.6/11.0 - 3.6/26.0 (p. 3.6-8 through 14) and the Geotechnical Investigation. No knO\\'Il
active or potentially active faults traverse the project site, and Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are
not located ~~thin the site. The potential for fault ground rupture is therefore considered to be nil.
Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce but not completely eliminate all hazards
associated ~ith groUndshaking. No new impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
GP A/SP A Final EIR are expected to occur. :
IV. \V ATER: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various
mitigation measures. The project site is located in an area of minimal groundwater recharge and
groundwater reserves and the majority of the Tri- Valley's groundwater resources are in the Central
Basin., south of the project. Nevertheless, development of the project site could have an impact on
local ground water resources and groundwater recharge due to an increase in impervious surfaces
within the project site. However, no impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GP AlSP A
Final EIR are e:h."])ected to occur. .
The project 'will result in the realignment and re-creation of an intermittent stream. A streambed .
alteration agreement from the Department ofFish and Game will be required. As development
occurs in the area, more impervious surfaces will be created due to paved streets and building
development. A master drainage plan for the entire project site will be prepared, therefore, any
changes to drainage patterns will be fully evaluated to ensure there are not significant environmental
impacts in this topic area. Due to the fact that future on-site development will be required to adhere to
.requirementsofZone 7 and the J\TPDES permittingprograms, and the FEIR contains several _
mitigation measures which 'will be applied to this project, so that any water impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GP AlSP A Final EIR for a
discussion of this impact, and Mitigation Measures 3.5/25.0 through 3.5/52.0. No impacts not
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP A FEIR are e:h.-pected to occur.
v. AIR Qu.m: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various
mitigation measures. Construction-relatedair quality impacts include short-term violation of adopted
. standards or contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, and could result in exposure
. of sensitive receptors to pollutants. Development of the project site will also result in traffic-related air
quality impacts.
The FEIR developed mitigation measures to reduce mobile and stationary source emissions. .tD.r
quality mitigation measures of the FEIR which 'will be applied to this project include: MM 3..1111.0.
through 3.11/4.0, 3.11/6.0, 3.11/13.0. Implementation of these mitigation measures cannot achieve
the reduction in stationary source emissions needed to meet the insignificantthreshold. The Eastern
Dublin GP AJSP A Final EIR indicates that stationary source emissions air quality impacts remain
significant and, therefore, this unmitigable impact was included in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GP AlSP A Final ErR are
expected to occur from this proposed project.
.
-
\1. TR4..NSPORTATlON/CIRCULATlO?\': The impactS. to transportation and circulation were addressed
in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The FEIR indicates
four traffic/circulation impacts which are not capable of mitigation to a level of insignificance. TWI
of them affect intersections and the other two the general operation ofI-580. Cumulative impacts
affecting 1-580 would occur irrespective of development under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
These four impacts have been included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with
the Speciiic Plan.
A traffic analysis conducted for the proposed PD Rezone (IJKM, June, 1997; included by
reference) outlines the potential traffic impacts from this project, and measures for mitigating these
impacts. The project proponent will need to make improvements to roadway systems as required by
the traffic study, the mitigation measures of the FEIR, and conditions of the PD:Rezone approval.
Many of these measures 'Will be completed as part of the project, while others Will be cumulative
improvements to which the project developers will contribute. With implementation of the
improvements required to address traffic impacts from the project, the potential impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. No new mitigation measures are required.
.
Potential impacts of bazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses; insufficientparking capacity on- or off-site were identified in the FEIR. All projects must
go through a site development process prior to approval and are required to meet all City zoning
standards. Because of the combination ofland uses future developments will be required to meet the
City zoning standards for each use. No mitigation measures are required.
Impacts from Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists were also addressed in the prior FEIR
The Eastern Dublin Speci:6cPlanPolicy 5-15 and Figure 5.3 show bicycle pedestrian paths
throughout the project area. Impacts potentially occurring in this project area include conflicts of
pedestrians and bicycles crossing Fallon Road from the eastern portion of Area A toward ~e Dublin
Ranch Phase I neighborhood and beyond. Tbis impact can be mitigated in part by the golf cart
undercrossingproposed at the northern intersection of Fall on Road and the Area A collector street. In
addition,FEIRMitigationMeasure 33/16.1 requires the location of pedestrian & bicycle paths to
cross major arterial streets at signalized intersections, to provide safe crossing. Several pedestrian
and bicycle routes, including a multi-use trail, provide trails and paths which will converge at these
sifffialized intersections to enCOlliQ..Q:e safe crossin!!.
- ~ ~
.
The above-noted traffic impacts of the project will be mitigated by the following mitigation
measures of the EIR and Action Pro2Tams of the SDecific Plan: 1v.lM3.3/2.1 throUf!h 3.3/16.1 and
-. ~
3.1217.0 and Action Programs 5A through 5D. Implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce a majority of-the traffic-relatedimpacts to a level of insignlTIcance. The Eastern Dublin
GP.4JSP A Final EIR indicates that some impacts (both project-specificand cumulative) remain
potentially significant even after implementation of proposed mitigati on measures. Please refer to the
Eastern Dublin GP.4JSPAFinalEIRfor a complete listing. Aside from the traffic related impacts
noted above, the Project Vlrill not raise any new significant traffic impacts which have not already
been evaluated in the previous environmental analyses done for the proposed development.
13
VII.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Impacts from the project upon biological resources were tlroroug~
addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and various mitigation measures will apply to th~
project. For complete descriptions of existing conditions, maps and other information identifying
such impacts please consult the FEIR..
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project 'will normally have a significant effect on the
environment if it 'will substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or habitat of
the species. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified various impacts upon biological
resources and mitigation of impacts in the following areas: a.) Habitat Loss & Vegetation Removal;
b.) Botanically Sensitive Habitats; c.) Wildlife Resources; d.) Threatened and Endangered Species;
e.) Federal Candidates for Listing; f.) California Species of Special Concern;. g.) Special Status
Invertebrates. The project site is covered primarily with introduced annual grasses and does not
provide unusual or high quality habitat for any rare or endangered species of plants or animals.
Mitigation measures to address the impacts upon the above resources from development of the
Specific Plan area were included in the FEIR and included in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring
Program (see Matrix for listing of mitigation measures.)
Several mitigation measures and programs apply to the project site, and involve further smdies and
pre-constructionsurveys of the project site. Six separate plant and animal surveys of the project site
were conducted by H. T. Harvey and Associates over the past six years. These surveys have b_
instrumental in setting parameters for site design. The topics of the surveys and the applicabili~
the reports to the individual project components areas are described below in excerpts taken from a
summary of the surveys provided by H. T. Harvey and Associates, August 30, 1996.
U.S..A..RMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTIONALANAL YSIS
Most of the site has been intensively grazed, the drainage network and its component channel have
become incised and arroyos have formed. Areas meeting the technical criteria for identification as
jurisdictional wetlands were delineated primarily along site drainageways and in seeped zones in the
Tassajara Creek watershed..
RARE PLAl-rr SURVEYS
The Dublin Ranch site was surveyed for special status plant surveys in the Spring of 1990. A list of
. potentially occurring plants was generated by reviewing the Eastern Dublin General Plan
.A..rnendmentJSpecific Plan EIR, appropriate local references, and the California Natural Diversity
Data Base (C1\1])DB). The entire site was surveyed to locate potential habitat for any potentially
occurring species. Transects were then established and surveyed through appropriate habitat,
searching for any special status species potentially on site. No special status plants were found.
Generally, the site had been grazed, and the vegetation height, biomass and diversity were low.
.
EASTER."N Dt.JBLIN GOLDEN EAGLE StJRVEY
The Golden Eagle nest site that had been identified by Biosystems Analysis in the Eastern Dublin
General Plan AmendmentlSpecific Plan EIR was re-surveyed in 1990. The nest site was monitored
.
tbroughoU! the spring. Two chicks were observed at the nest site in 1990, one of which later died.
The remaining chick fledged in late June, 1990.
.t\DDITIONAL GOLDEN EAGLE SURVEYS
H.T. Harvey & Associates raptor biologists have continued to monitor nest sites on the property
since 1990. Eagles did not nest on the property during the years of 1991 and 1992. During these
years the pair probably bred at an alternative nest site (or nest sites) off the property because the nes'
tree they had been using (a Eucalyptus tree) was largely defoliated during an eALended hard freeze
during the winter of 1990-1991.
In 1993. the foliage returned to the nest tree and so did the pair. The birds successfully fledged one
young from the nest. In 1994 the birds attempted to rebuild the nest but it apparently collapsed.
The pair then moved to an alternative Eucalyptus tree in the same drainage but" ~bser to Tassajara
Road, late in the season, and fledged one young. The pair used the same nest again in 1995, when
at least one young eagle was observed in the nest.
.
The pair returned to this alternate nest site in 1996. They laid eggs, and at least one chick was
observed in the nest in late April. By early May, no adult eagles were seen near the nest, nor were
nestlings seen. It was determined that the site had failed and that the nest had been abandoned. The
old nest (the one used prior to 1994) has completely collapsed and should no longer be considered
an active nest site.
Smv.fMllliY OF KIT FOX SURVEYS IN CONTRA COSTA.AND /~.L.AJ\.1EDA COUJ\TTIES
H. T. Harvey and Associates prepared a report which reviews the California Natural Diversity Data
Base (CNDDB) and other survey reports, as well as historic information regarding the distri~ution
and range of the San Joaquin kit fox.in .AJameda and Contra Costa Counties. Results from 13 recent
surveys for kit foxes were reviewed, as well as historic surveys conducted by the Departmenfof
Fish and Game. Historic range maps were also reviewed. The report concludes that negative results
of more than 10 years of surveys in the Dublin area leaves little doubt that Dublin is outside the
range of the San Joaquin kit fox. The presence and high densities of red foxes and coyotes make the
likelihood of range eA-pansion by the kit fox into the Dublin area extremely remote.
SA.N JOAQUIN KIT FOX
.
The San Joaquin kit fox, a federal endangered and state threatened species, is mown from sites
about 7 Dr more miles to the east and northeast of the Ranch. The range and agricultural lands of
the Ranch and surrounding areas would be low to moderate quality kit fox habitat. Previous Slll'veys
on portions of the Dublin Ranch and surrounding areas did not detect kit foxes, but detected several
possible tracks. Tnese prior surveys were conducted for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan EIR by Biosystems Analysis. H.T. Harvey & Associates conducted k.1t
fox surveys at m~ce the intensity recommended at that time (1991) by California Department of
Fish and Game guidelines. Tnese surveys (September-October 1991) did not detect k.1t fox activity
on or near the Ranch.
15
SPECIAL STATUS A...MPHIBIA..N AJ\TD REPTILE. SURVEYS
=
.
Surveys were conducted for special status amphibian and reptile species on the Dublin Ranch
Property during the Spring of 1993. The site is located in northern Alameda County, near the cities
of Livermore and Dublin. The focus of these surveys included California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), and Southwestern
pond turtle (Clemmys marmoratapallida). No California tiger salamanders were found during the
survey. Fifteen subadult California red-legged frogs were found at two locations. Ten were along
the northern boundary of the site in a stock pond adjacent to the intermittent creek channel. Five
more were found near the southern boundary along Fallon Road. Two adult southwestern pond
mrtles were found along Tassajara Creek. These fmdings were consistent with the 1989 surveys
conducted by Biosystems for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Junendment!Speci~J; Plan ElR.
1995 SPECli\L-ST ATUS AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SURVEYS
H. T. Harvey and Associates conducted additional surveys in the spring of 1995 to determine if the
distribution and abundance of special-status reptiles and amphibians had changed. These surveys
were initiated in a rainfall season (1994-1995) that was nearly 200% of normal. Surveys were
undertaken to provide any new data to the City of Dublin, which 'WaS undertaking a stream corridor
restoration plan and grazing management plan for the vicinity. No California Tiger Salamander
larvae, juveniles or adults were detected anywhere on the site. Seven juvenile California red-legged.
frogs were detected in two ponds on site (the same locations as in previous surveys). One of these
ponds is located along the northern boundary of the site near a tributary to Tassajara Creek, while
the other is along the southern boundary near Fallon Road. Two western pond turtles were detected
along Tassajara Creek. The location and abundance of the California red-legged frog and western
pond turtle have been consistent throughout three separate studies. Based on the sampling from
1989, 1993 and 1995, the project site does not support a breeding population of California Tiger
salamanders. .
DUBLIN RANCH FAIRY SHRlMP SURVEYS
Small, c1aypan pools occurring on the Dublin Ranch property were monitored for listed fairy shrimp
from December 1995 to April 1996. The only fairy shrimp observed in the pools was Branchinecta
lindahi, which is not a special status species. This species offairy shrimp tolerates a 'wide range of
conditions and is the most common fairy shrimp in California. In general, the pools supported a
.low diversity of invertebrates and contained such weedy, opportunistic species as mosquito larvae
and midgefly larvae.
.';'pPLICABILITY OF REPORTS TO "AREA A" OF THE PROJECT
The studies conducted by H.T. Harvey and Associates apply to the entire Dublin Ranch Project area.
However, not all identified mitigations apply to each individual portion of the project. The . ..
discussion below distinguishes between the areas affected by/addressed in the surveys and reports. ..
In lliea A of the project, there are several seasonal drainages. Mitigation plans involving recreation
of the drainages v.rill be developed. However, none of the locations for red-legged frogs or pond
turtles occurs within Area A. Red-legged frogs are found in portions of the drainage north of Area
.
.
.
~
A.. Most of Area A is not within the watershed of the northern drainage that supports the red-legged
frog, that is, the development is over the ridgeline from the drainage. However, some grading will
occur v,rithin the watershed, considerably upslope of areas occupied by the frog. Special care will
need to be given to erosion control techniques and construction timing to protect the frog.
Additionally, Area A development could affect downstream sections of the drainage along Fallon
Road that supports the Red legged frog. The water supply to this drainage will need to be protected.
The Golden Eagle nest site is not within the project area However, a line-of-sight buffer area
around the nest has been incorporated into the planning for Area A to minimize the intruSion into
the buffer area
MITIGATION
The Mitigation Measures adopted with the City's approved Mitigation Monito~g Program, and
corresponding conditions of approval, have been included in the project planning to protect any
species that may be discovered prior to or during construction or to protect adjoining areas. The
Mitigation Measures which address impacts to biological resources are: 3.7/1.0 through 3.7/28.0.
Policies of the Specific Plan call for enhancement of open space area and riparian corridor with
native plant species.
Although the FEIR did not identify the site as having any endangered species of plant or animal life,
certain Mitigation Measures of the FEIR and Action Programs of the Specific Plan (Action
Programs 6A, 6C, and 60) require certain investigations and protocols prior to issuance of a building
permit, and these have been included for this project. The FEIR discusses impacts to riparian and
other wetland habitats, and finds that mitigation measures could not completely reduce the
cumulative loss of sensitive habitat to a level of insignificance. The adopted statement of oveniding
considerations includes this finding.
The proposed Planned Development does not raise any new significant impacts which we~e not
addressed in the Final ErR.
Vlll. Er-.'ERGY & :MlNERALRESOURCES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR,
and through various mitigation measures. Although consumption of non-renewal resources (for the
Specific Plan area as a whole) was identified as a significant cumulative impact (discussed under
section XII), future development of the site is not anticipated to use such resources in a wasteful or
inefficientmanner. Therefore, this topic area was included in the Statement of Oveniding
Considerations. No mineral resources are known to exist on-site, therefore no impacts are anticipated.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit will not result in any additional significant impacts not
covered by the FEIR.
IX. HAZ.AJillS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through Vfu-10US
mitigation measures. The project site is primarily open grasslands and contains no structures. A
Phase II site assessment of the project area has been conducted (Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants,
July 22, 1996) to determine the presence or absence of anyon-site hazardous waste and substance
sites. The findings of this study indicate that no problem sites were found. In addition, a data
search was conducted to determine if the site was included on a list of hazardous waste and
17
substance sites. The results of this search indicate that no such identified sites exist 'within the
project area or within a two mile radius of the project. .
The project will not involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the
event of an accident or upset conditions because: (1) the application of mitigation measures from
the EIR has conditions of approval; and (2) the application of Action Programs of the Specific Plan
as conditions of approval.
Development of the project site may result in increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees. Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GP AJSP A Final EIR for a discussion of this impact.
The City has prepared and adopted a Wildfire Management Plan, which future applicants would be
required to adhere to.
Mitigation measures of the EIR and Action Programs of the Specific plan and corresponding
conditions of approval that would apply to potential impacts in these areas are as follows:
MM3.4/2.0 , 3.4/3.0,3.4/5.0 through 3.4/13.0,3.5/1.0,3.5/3.0,3.1 0/1.0 through 3.10/5.0,3.1017.0,
3.11/3.0,3.1117.0; 8E, 9P and 9Q; Action Programs 8D and 8F through 81. Inclusion of these
mitigation measures 'Will mitigate any impacts of this topic area to an insignificant level. (See
FEIR, Chapters 3.4 and 3.5.) The Planned Development will not raise any additional significant
impacts or require additional mitigation measures which were not addressed in the FEIR.
x.
NOISE: The noise impacts of potential projects in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area were ..
addressed in the earlier analysis of the Program FEIR. As the project site is basically undevelopedP
this time, future development 'Will result in increases of ambient noise over existing levels, resulting in
significant impacts in five main areas:
1.) Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise
2.) Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise
3.) Exposure of Proposed Resi dential development to Noise from Future :Military Training Activities
at Parks Reserve F orces Training ...\rea and the County Jail
4.) Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
5.) Noise conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting
Mixed-Use Development
These impacts are discussed below.
1.) The FEIR addressed the general impacts anticipated from e>"'1'osure of proposed residential
housing along certain roadways, and required that significant impacts be mitigated (See FEIR, Impact
3.10/ A, and Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0). Site specific noise impacts for the Dublin Ranch Area A
Planned Development which require evaluation to a greater level of detail for this Planned
Development proposal than included in the FEIR are discussed below.
The noise contours for the Year 201 0 'with the buildout of the entire Specific Plan are sho'wn in Figur.
3.10- B of the Specific Plan EIR. Some areas in Dublin Ranch Area A are proposed with residential
development along Fallon Road; these areas were predicted in the FEIR to be exposed to future noise
levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. According to the Dublin General Plan Noise Element land use
compatibility guidelines, these residential areas would be in the "conditionally acceptable" range for
.
.
.
this type ofland use. "Conditionally acceptable" means that an acoustical study must be-submined
during project development review to determine how interior noise levels will be controlled to the Cit
standards and State goal of CNEL 45 dB. (See Dublin General Plan, page 9.3).
Becausethe proposed residential housing is within the projected 60 dB Noise contour, acoustical
studies will be required for such proposed residential land uses to determine the attenuation
measures necessary to accomplish an interior noise level standard of CNEL 45 dB, and to ensure
that such measures can be physically implemented with the proposed project design.
.An acoustical study has been submitted with the project (Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., April
17, 1997) to determine the areas where noise mitigation measures 'will be needed achieve the 45 dB
interior standards for residential uses within the 60 dB contour. The study determined that the only
residences requiring sound attenuation are in Subareas L-6 and L-7. The project 'w:il1 be conditioned
to provide sound attenuation measures in the development. Noise attenuation measures may include
greater setback distances, land berms, soundwalls, building construction measures or a combination
of these) and may require additional land space for buffers. In some areas, if it is determined upon
refinement of development plans that the necessary noise attenuation measures are not physically
possible or would be undesirable based upon the proposed land use plan. , the physical layout of the
residential units may need to be redesigned, or density may need to be decreased, to avoid an
unmitigated significant impact.
Additional detailed acoustical studies to identify the attenuation measures necessary to accomplish
an interior noise level standard of CNEL 45 dB for residential areas may also be needed at the Site
Development Review or building permit stage to demonstrate compliance with the FEIR noise
mitigation recommendations, or if the noise environment changes or new impacts occur.
2.) The FEIR determined noise generated by the buildout of the Eastern Dublin area wouJd cause an
adverse impact on existing residences which could not be reduced to a level of insignIficance and,
hence, this was part of the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City. _
3.) The FEIR required mitigati on of noise impacts upon proposed resi dential development from future
military training activities at Parks Reserve F orces Training Area and the County Jail. An acoustical
study is required for proposed residential development within 6,000 feet of Camp Parks RFT A to
determine which mitigation measures should be imposed. The acoustical study currently underway for
the ..A.reas B-E Dublin Ranch project will identify these impacts and conditions of approval may be
applied to the Dublin Ranch development where feasible, as required by the FEIR.
4.) Construction will occur over a number of years on the project site. Maj or noise sources associated
with constructiollinclude truck activity on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving
and impact noises from barriers used in framing of structures. Pile driving can also generate
substruc1:1h-al noise. These impacts were addressed in the previous analysis of the FEIR and
MitigationMeasures of the FEIR require completion of ConstructionNoise Management Programs.
'"
An example of an undesirable noise attenuation measure might be a requirement to consITucl a
12-foot high soundwall for homes too close to a noise source.
19
Implementation of the FEIR mitigation measures (MM # 03.10/01-07) v,ill reduce these Impacts ~
level of insignificance. .
5.) "When different land use types will occur within the same development, there is a possibility of
noise compatibility impacts between adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land
uses abut. The only non-residential uses in Area A are the proposed golf course, its associated
clubhouse & maintenance facilities, and the private cornmunityrecreationfacility. Due to the location
of these facilities and low intensity of expected activities, no significant noise impacts are anticipated
from these uses.
Based upon this analysis, the environmental impacts of noise related to this project have been
addressed both through the earlier analysis of the program FEIR, as well as mitigaJed to a level of
insignificance. A Negative Declaration of environmental impact is appropriate.
XI. Public Senices: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through
various mitigation measures. The project ",,'ill require some of the improvements or service
increases in the areas of Fire Protection, Police Protection, school facilities and personneL and
maintenance of public facilities, including roads, and other governmental services These services are
planned for in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and are typically funded through a combination of
property taxes, assessment districts, and/or special financing plans established, thereby allowing future
developments to pay (usually placed as a condition of project approval) for their contribution towards
these service demands. The applicant's fair share of improvements and increased service will be .
determined and contained in the Development Agreement required by the Speciiic Plan. Mitigation
measures in the EIR that 'Will be implemented as conditions of this project include: M:M3.1215.0;
3.12/8.0; 3.412.0; 3.4/4.0/3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0; 3.4/15.0 through 3.4/24.0; 3.4/27.0 through
3.4/29.0; 3.4/31.0; 3.4/33.0; 3.4/34.0; 3.4/36.0,3.4/44.0 and 3.4/49.0. Action Programs of the
Specific Plan that 'Will be implemented as conditions of this project include 40, SA through 8E, SG,
8H, 8J, 8K and 8N. Inclusion of these mitigation measures and Action Programs and corres:QondIDg
conditions of approval will mitigate impacts in this topic area to a level of insignificance.
XlI. UTILITIES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR and through various
mitigation measures. The eA'1ension of water, electrical and natural gas lines into the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area has been determined by the FEIR to be a significant growth-inducing impact and,
therefore, was included 'Within the Statement of Overriding Considerations as an unavoidable
adverse effect of the project. The Dublin Ranch project, since it is a portion of the Specific Plan
. area, comes within the purview of the Statement. All other impacts ofurilities, such as provision of
water service, wastewater service, storm drainage racilities, and solid waste disposal services were
found to be capable of reduction to a level of insienificance by the mitigation measures of the FEIR
(please refer to matrix ror applicable measures). The plans of the City and DSRSD to provide sewer
service to future development within Eastern Dublin were addressed in the Eastern Dublin GPAJSPA
Final EIR and Addendum (dated August 22, 1994). DSRSD has indicated that it still plans to provide
sewer service to Eastern Dublin with disposal either via one of the export options analyzed in the 199.
EIR for the long range \Vastewater Management Plan for the Livermore-Amador Valley or via
groundwaterrecharge and recycling (including reverse osmosis). D SRSD is currently planning the
construction of facilities to treat wastewater via reverse osmosis, and these facilities will have
sufficient capacity to serve all portions of Eastern Dublin already annexed to DSRSD (including all
.
areas covered by this Specific Plan A..mendment). The project does not raise any additiQnal
significant impacts which were not covered by the FEIR
XIII.
AESTHETICS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various
mitigation measures. The FEIR has determined development of Eastern Dublin \.Vill inalterably
change the rural, agricultural character of the area and, therefore, this is a significant unavoidable
adverse impact. Visual/aesthetics was part of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. As
identified in the Specific Plan EIR, development of the flatter portions of the project area (such as
Areas B and C of the Dublin Ranch project site) is regarded as a trade-offmeasure designed to
preserve slopes, hillsides and ridgelines contained in th~ larger Specific Plan area.
The FEIR contains measures to maintain the visual quality of the area, especially from views along
scenic corridors in Eastern Dublin. M:M 3.8/1.0 through 3.8/8.1 of the EIR address visual resources.
Especially pertinent are MM 3.817.1 and 3.8/8.1 which call for an area-\\'ide survey of scenic vistas
and project by project visual analysis to show conformity with the study.
.
In April of 1996 the City adopted a Scenic Corridor Plan as a requirement of Program 6Q of the
adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Identified scenic corridors include Tassajara Road, 1-580, and
Fallon Road. The intent of the policies and standards of the Scenic Corridor Plan is to allow project
development as shown in the Specific Plan to occur whiJe maintaining the visual character of the
eastern ridgelines, watercourses, and distinct landscape features, for travelers on scenic routes in
Eastern Dublin.
In addition to impacts upon scenic corridors, potential visual impacts could result from the grading of
slopes and the location of homes proposed in Area A, and their visibility from scenic corridors as well
as public gathering places (such as the park site in Dublin Ranch Phase I). A visual study has been
prepared to analyze potential visual impacts from the development proposed with this project and to
demonstrate the refinements in project design which wIll help address impacts upon visual resources.
As required by the adopted FEIR mitigation monitoring program, the project \.Vill be r~quired to
institute sensitive grading and contouring of the project development to the natural landform. Tnis
requirement 'will be applied continually at various project entitlement stages, such as grading permit,
subdivision map approval, and site developmentreview.
No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GP.AJSPA Final EIR are expected to occur
as a result of the proposed Planned Development.
.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and
through various mitigation measures. The project \.Vill not result in the alteration of or the
destruction of any prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. The project does not have the
potential to cause a physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric, historic or architecturally
significant building structure or object. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses
\vithin the potential impact area :Mitigation Measures of the FEIR and an Action Program of the
Specific Plan v.r:i11 be incorporated as conditions of approval of this project, to reduce any potential
impacts in this topic area to a level of insigniilcance. Those lvfitigation Measures and Action
Program are as follows: 3.9/1.0 tbrou9:h 3.9/12.0 and 6P.
- -
;}
xv.
RECREA TIO~: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through \'ar..
mitigation measures. Policies in the General Plan and Specific Plan require that development p
its fair share of costs to maintain the same levels of recreational services presently in place in the
City. In lieu park dedication fees will be paid, and/or park site(s) will be dedicated, to mitigate the
Dublin Ranch Area A impact on the City's recreation facilities. Mitigation Measures of the FEIR,
Action Programs of the Specific Plan and corresponding conditions of approval that would apply in
this topic area include: 3.4/20.0 through 3.4/36.0; 3.7/10.0,3.7/13.0; 6A, 6B, 6G, and 9V.
Inclusion of these mitigation measures will reduce any recreational impacts of the project to an
insignificant level
.
.
--
.
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NECA TIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to
the project. A i\7EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMP ACT REPORT is required.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." .An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
. !gj I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there VlILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, and/or through revisions, conditions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project
(unavoidable significant adverse effects of the project have been included in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations done for the program EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, of
which this project is a part). . .
Signature
~
c;7~Ji #/~~
Date
u/!!/i7
Printed Name
Tasha Huston
Title
Associate Planner
.
')3
.
ATTACHMENT A
M.A. TRIX
OF MITIGATION MEASURES
OFTBE
.
EASTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN I
GENERAL PLAN AM::EI\'DMET'\"T
EIR
(Incorporated by reference; available at City afDublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568
510-833-6610)
.
/::::
--'
,,'
.
"
EXHIBITS A-2 through A-5:
.
Noise Study
Visual Study
Traffic Study
Biological Study
(Not attached, but available for review at the City of Dublin Planning Department
and at City Council public hearing)
.
.
.
-.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD) DISTRICT REZONE CONCERNING P A 96-038
DUBLIN RANCH AREA A
WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Un, submitted a Planned
Development (PD) District Rezone request (P A 96-038 Dublin Ranch Area A) for rezoning' an
approximately 351.5 acre site to the following land uses: 135.3 acres to PD Low Density Residential, 71.5
acres to PD Rural Residential Agriculture, and 144.7 acres Open Space. These land uses are proposed to
accommodate future development of up to 573 dwelling units in 7 neighborhoods, accessory recreational
uses, a golf course, and related improvements. The project is generally located north of the Interstate 580
Freeway, along both sides of the planned Fallon Road extension, and east of Dublin Ranch Phase I, within
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 1994, the City Council approved a Planned Development District
Overlay Zone (Prezone) for a 1,538 acre site located within the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
project area (P A 94-030) which: (a) established a Planned Development ("PD") District Overlay Zone
designation for 1,538 acres known as the Eastern Dublin Reorganization annexation area; and in
conformity with Action Program 4C of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The PD District Overlay Zone
allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies
and action programs of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met; (b) adopted a
Preliminary land plan, with the provision that regulations and standards governing the PD District Overlay
Zone, in addition to land use and intensity of use, shall be established in conjunction with the Land Use
and Development Plans which are required to be submitted in accordance with Dublin Ordinance 4-94; (c)
and established zoning designations consistent with the Preliminary land plan, to provide for the variety of
uses anticipated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 14,1994, the Alameda County LAFCo approved the Eastern Dublin
Reorganization for P A 94-030; and
_ WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the Alameda County LAFCo unanimously disapproved the
request to reconsider the Eastern Dublin Reorganization approval (P A 94-030); and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 1995, the City Council ordered the territory designated as
Annexation/Detachment No.1 0, which includes the 1,538 acre site, annexed to the City of Dublin and
annexed to the Dublin San Ramon Services District and detached from the Livermore Area Recreation
and Park District (P A 94-030); and
EXHIBIT B
'.
WHEREAS, AnnexationlDetachment No. 10, including 1,538 acres in Eastern Dublin, became
effective on October 1, 1995; and .
WHEREAS, the entire annexation area was prezoned to Planned Development in accordance with
the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and subject to further refinement of
zoning use and development standards; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Ranch Area A project is located within the 1,538 acre site that was
prezoned and annexed; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's PD Rezone application supplements the initial PD Prezone and
includes a District Planned Development Plan as required under Section 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and a Land Use and Development Plan as required under Ordinance 4-94; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of
Dublin Environmental Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that
environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Program EIR was prepared and certified for the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan addressing development of Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21080.6 requires the City to adopt a reporting or monitorin
program for changes in a project or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effe.
order to ensure compliance during project implementation; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted for the Certified Program Environmental
Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, in accordance with Public
Resources Code Section 21080.6; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study dated June 18, 1997 was prepared for the project and is available and on fil
in the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study reviewed the General Plan/Specific Plan Program EIR to determine if
additional environmental review was required for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study determined that the Area A project would have no new significant
environmental effects beyond those identified in the Program EIR. New effects identified for the project would
be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through project revisions, project conditions of approval and
applicable mitigation measures from the Program EIR and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study determination, staff prepared a draft Negative Declaration and
circulated it for public review as required by CEQA. No public comments were received during this time; and
.
2
.
.
.
WHEREAS, a staff report was prepared summarizing the site's land use; background; project
description;, General Plan and Specific Plan and zoning consistency; and the environmental analysis for the
project; which staff report is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin held a public hearing on October 28,
1997, to consider the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and the Planned Development Rezoning, for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and reviewed the City Planning Department's Staff
Report on the Planned Development Rezoning, including the Initial Study and Negative Doclaration on the
environmental effects of the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered the documents, recommendations,
written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing.
WHEREAS, following a public hearing the Planning Commission voted to recommend City
Council adoption ofa Negative Declaration and approval of the PD Rezone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin held a public hearing on November 18, 1997,
to consider the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and the Planned Development Rezoning, for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the City Council public hearing was given in all respects as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received and reviewed the City Planning Department's Staff Reports on th
Planned Development Rezoning, including the Initial Study and Negative Declaration on the environmental
effects of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered the documents, recommendations, written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Resolution shown in Exhibit A approving the Negative
Declaration for the Project, based upon the findings contained in that Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that the City Council will adopt the rezoning Ordinance
shown in Exhibit C for the following reasons:
1. The proposed PD Rezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general provisions and
purpose of the PD District Overlay Zone (PD Prezone), the City General Plan and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan provisions and design guidelines; and
'"
"
2.
The rezoning, as conditioned, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of land use .
compatibilities; will not overburden public services; and provides a comprehensive plan for
residential and recreational development of the Area A site while preserving sensitive portions
of the site from intense development; and
..,
.:l.
The rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts P A 96-038 Dublin Ranch
Area A PD Rezone, subject to the general provisions listed below:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
..
A. Purpose
This approval is for a Planned Development (PD) District Rezone for P A 96-038 Dublin Ranch
Area A. This PD District Rezone includes a Land Use and Development Plan and District Planned
Development Plan, which is consistent with the initial Planned Development (PD) District Prezone
and amends the initial Prezone to provide more detailed land use and development plan provisions.
The PD District Rezone allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while
ensuring that the goals, policies and action programs of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan are met. More particularly, the PD District Rezone is intended to ensure adherence to .
the following policies from the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
1. Concentrate development on less environmentally and visually sensitive or constrained
portions of the plan area and preserve significant open space areas and natural and
topographic landscape features with minimum alteration of land forms.
2. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning, building design and construction to
create a range of housing types and prices, and to provide housing for all segments of the
community.
3. Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
4. Develop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.
5. Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile.
B. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements
Except as specifically modified by the Provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and
general requirements of the zoning regulations in effect at the time the project components are
processed shall apply to this PD District.
.
4
.
.
.
C.
General Provisions and Development Standards
1. INTENT: This approval is for the Planned Development (PD) District Rezone P A 95-038
Dublin Ranch Area A. This approval rezones 135.3 acres to PD Low Density Residential,
71.5 acres to PD Rural Residential Agriculture, and 144.7 acres Open Space, and sets a
maximum of 573 dwelling units. The location of land uses, development concepts and
standard provisions for this project are illustrated by the Land Use and Development
Plan/District Planned Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP) attached as Exhibit B-3, contained
in the packet dated "OCTOBER 1997", consisting of the following:
a) project description
b) land use plan,
c) site plan,
d) design guidelines (including land use and development standards),
e) design concept plans
f) other text and supplemental diagrams,
The approval of the Planned Development Rezone incorporates this Land Use and
Development Plan/District Planned Development Plan, in accordance with Ordinance 4-94
of the City's Zoning Ordinance, addressing Planned Developments
2.
NUMBER OF UNITS: The total number of units for the Dublin Ranch Area A project, as
shown on the LUDP/DPDP, shall not exceed a maximum of 573 units, except as described
below. The number of dwelling units and mix of densities within each neighborhood may
be modified while staying within the approved density ranges. Any units deleted from one
neighborhood could be added to other neighborhoods if such a modification was found to
be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. However, the maximum number of
units for the overall project (P A 96-038) may not be exceeded, except as follows:
1.) If the project qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Chapter 8.16 of the Dublin
Municipal Code.
2.) Ifunique development concepts, project design and/or amenities justify an increase,
and it is found to be an appropriate modification, pursuant to Section 8-31.18 of
Dublin Ordinance 4-94 (requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit).
The actual number of homes which are developed could also be affected by circumstances
discovered as development plans are refined (for example, an unknown landslide).
3. LAND USES: All standard City provisions for the zoning designations and land use
provisions shall apply, except those specifically superseded by the attached exhibits, or as
modified below:
a.
The "List of Permitted and Conditional Uses" for RRA contained in the approved
PD Rezoning shall be clarified to show that for the "RRA" designation, "Accessory
5
Structures" related to Residential uses are permitted, but all "Agricultural Uses"
will be designated as Conditional Uses, and "Farm Buildings" will require a Site
Development Review approval, to be consistent with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
as amended.
.
4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Except as specifically modified by the Planned
Development Ordinance for PA 96-038 and all provisions ofPA 94~030 (City Council
Resolution 104-94) not modified by P A 96-038, all development in Dublin Ranch Area A
shall be subject to the regulations of the closest comparable zoning designation as
determined by the Community Development Director and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Design of residential units and/or developments within this project shall be generally
consistent with the design concept drawings and design guidelines (including 1he land use
and development standards) approved with the LUDP/DPDP. Modifications to building
floor plans and styles will be allowed, and additional styles can be permitted at the time of
Site Development Review if it is determined by the City that they would not change the
overall character of the Dublin Ranch plan. However, the overall size, product type,
architectural character, embellishments, and building materials of homes shall be
essentially of equivalent or superior quality and design character as described in the Area A
design guidelines. Additional standards and conditions applicable to the development are
listed in the CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL section below.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council hereby adopts PA 96-038
Dublin Ranch Area A PD Rezone subject to the following conditions:
.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any
building. and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes
represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of
approval: [1>L) Planning. 1131 Building. [1>] Parks and Community Services. frO) Police, rpWl Public
Works. rADMJ Administration/City Attornev. WIN) Finance. rF) Alameda County Fire Department (City
of Dublin's Fire ServiceIPrevention provider). rnSR1 Dublin San Ramon Services District. rCOl Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District rZone 71.
>:1
GENERAL
1.
The project approval for the Dublin Ranch Area A PD Rezone (P A 96-038) is represented by the
Land Use and Development Plan(LUDP) and District Planned Development Plan (DPDP). These
Plans incorporate supplemental text and diagrams attached to this resolution, including conceptual
architecture, landscape and open space design guidelines, as well as specific development
standards for the various land uses. These materials along with this resolution establish the
standard provisions and conditions of approval for the project. [PL]
.-:
-.
6
."
--
.
.
.
2.
-
Prior to obtaining building permits, the applicant must receive Site Development Review (SDR)
approval for any development. The materials submitted for Site Development Review shall be in
substantial conformance with this PD Rezone and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Minor
modifications to the PD development concept may be allowed without requiring an amended PD
Rezone approval. The Community Development Director shall determine conformance or non-
conformance and appropriate processing procedures for modifying this PD Rezone (i.e. staff
approval, Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit, or City Council approval of
new PD Rezone). Major modifications, or revisions not found to be in substantial conformance
with this PD Rezone shall require a new PD Rezone. A subsequent PD rezone may address all or
a portion of the area covered by this PD Rezone. [PL]
3. Except where specified otherwise within these General Provisions for PA 96-038, development
shall comply with the City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions. [PL], and
with the City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements. [PO]
4.
Except where specified otherwise, references in these conditions of approval to Tentative Map are
meant to refer to the initial tentative subdivision map(s) creating individual lots, and not to the
processing of a Master Tentative Map, which, as provided for by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
is intended for large land holdings, to create larger interim parcels intended for further subdivision
at a later date. If one or more Master Tentative Maps are proposed, any such submittal shall be
conspicuously labeled as such and shall be accompanied by a written explanation of the purpose
and operation of the proposed interim parcels. The applicability to a Master Tentative Map of the
conditions contained herein which refer to a tentative map shall be determined by the City at such
time as a Master Tentative Map submittal is made.
DESIGN STANDARDS:
5. In addition to the applicable standards mentioned above, the following additional standards shall
apply to development of Dublin Ranch Area A:
a. Design of individual product types is subject to further review at the time of Site Development
Review. Changes to lotting patterns, circulation systems, and number of units may be necessary to
address new issues discovered as a result of more detailed levels of review at the time of Site
Development Review and or Tentative Map. [pL, PO, F]
b. Minimum building separation for side yard setbacks for all Low Density Single Family
Detached units shall be as follows:
1) In neighborhoods where the minimum lot size is greater than 6,500 square feet: 15'
2) In neighborhoods where the minimum lot size is greater than 4,000 square feet, but less
than 6,500 square feet: 10' [pL, B]
c. Minimum rear yard setbacks for Low-Density Single-Family Detached units are as follows:
1) In neighborhoods where the minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet or greater: 15'
7
2) In neighborhoods where the minimum lot size is greater than 4,000 square feet or .
greater, but less than 6,500 square feet: 15' for the main building, and 10' for a wing of the
building (wing shall be no wider than one-half the width of the unit). [PL, BJ
d. Some new models in subdivisions shall provide single story elements and/or give the
appearance of single-story units, and shall make every effort to locate such units on corner lots, at
the ends of streets, and within long rows of houses to provide visual diversity to the street scene.
[PLJ
e. All front yards and common areas in conventional residential subdivisions shall be landscaped
by the initial builder prior to issuance of occupancy. Front yards of custom-home subdivisions
shall be landscaped within six months of occupancy, and the method of ensuring compliance shall
be addressed within the subdivision CC&Rs. [pL J '.
f. To avoid the appearance of a "walled community", homes should be oriented toward and take
access from collector streets where possible. Where long stretches of fences or walls will be used,
variations in materials, wall alignments, and landscaping shall be used, and the fence or wall line
shall be aligned to allow for the creation of landscaped areas between the fence/wall and the street.
The design, location and material of fencing and retaining walls shall be consistent with the wall
and fencing plan included with the design guidelines and be subject to further review at the time of
Site Development Review for the subdivision(s)[PLJ
g. Grading on slopes between development shall include sensitive grading techniques (see also .
grading section below). Conceptual landscape plans for these interface areas shall be submitted at
the time of Site Development Review to address the special needs of buffering and address visual
impacts of these slope areas. [pL, PW]
h. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of one or more Dublin
Ranch homeowners associations shall be submitted with the Tentative Map and/or Site
Development Review application(whichever comes fIrst), and shall be subject to approval of the
City Community Development Director and City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final
Subdivision Map (see also Condition # 18). [PL, ADM]
GRADING
6.
The approval ofP A 96-038 includes a preliminary grading plan which has been determined to
generally comply with applicable policies of the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. Compliance with these
policies and mitigation measures will be required throughout the development phases. The
continued use of sensitive engineering design and grading techniques, including minimizing height
of cut and fill slopes, making gradual transitions from graded areas to natural slopes, and re-
contouring graded slopes to mimic natural landforms is required. Refined grading plans for the
individual tentative maps shall be submitted which incorporate sensitive grading techniques in
order to achieve grading consistent with but more refined than the conceptual grading plan subj ect
.
8
.
.
.
NOISE
11.
-
to City approval, prior to approval of any grading permit or tentative map, whichever is submitted
first. [PL, PW]
7.
Graded slopes shall be recontoured to resemble the existing natural landforms in the immediate
area, revegetated, and designed to soften or naturalize the look of cut slopes. Grading shall not
extend beyond actual development areas or into open space areas unless for remedial purposes
only. Extensive areas of flat pad grading should be avoided. Building pads should be graded
individually or stepped wherever possible. Building design shall conform to natural land forms as
much as possible. Grades for cut-and-fill slopes should be 3:1 or flatter unless otherwise approved
by the Director of Public Works. [PL, PW]
8.
Fences for individual lots shall be placed at the top of slopes, unless otherwise required due to
subdivision design. Wherever possible, design of the subdivision shall ensure that lot boundary
lines are located at the top of slopes to avoid visible fence lines running down hillsides and visible
interior lot areas. The subdivision design shall ensure adequate slope angle and area to facilitate
revegetation of slopes and to avoid large, unsightly retaining walls wherever possible. [PL, PW]
9.
The applicant shall comply with the City's grading ordinance. Grading done prior to approval of
Tentative Map approval is at developers risk. [pL, PW]
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
10.
The Area A project proponent and the City of Dublin shall enter into a Development Agreement
prior to Tentative Map approval, which shall contain, but not be limited to, provisions for
financing and timing of on and off-site infrastructure, payment of traffic, noise and public facilities
impact fees, affordable housing, resolution to issues such as ownership and maintenance of open
space areas, and other provisions deemed necessary by the City to find the project consistent with
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. At some future date, the applicant shall be responsible for
paying all fees required by the Development Agreement. [PL, ADM]
The mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Study for Area A, including the soundwall
along Fallon Road (conducted by Charles Salter & Associates, dated April 17, 1997), shall be
incorporated into the project. If changes in or refinements to development plans result in
inadequate noise mitigation or necessitate undesirable noise attenuation measures, greater setback
*
distances may be required, and the intensity of the residential units may be affected. [pL, B]
An example of an undesirable noise attenuation measure might be a requirement to construct a 12-foot high
soundwall for homes too close to a noise source. The potential need to require greater setbacks to minimize noise
impacts should not necessarily impact the number of units on site. The P D zoning establishes the flexibility to cluster
units at a greater density on some portions of the site if necessary in order to leave open, "neutral zone" areas for
noise buffers.
9
VISUAL IMP ACTS / SCENIC CORRIDOR POLICIES
.
12. The conceptual plotting plans/visual studies submitted with the application for Area A PD Rezone
demonstrate the general appropriateness of land uses and development standards included with this
LUDP/DPDP with respect to the City's Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards and Eastern
Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the General Plan and Specific Plan is
contingent upon continued monitoring to address visual impacts throughout subsequent
application processing and development phases. If, at the time of review for individual tentative
maps and site development review, the project submittal is not consistent with the conceptual
plotting plan/visual study submitted with this application, the City shall determine whether
additional or more refined measures are required to address impacts upon visual resources and
scenic/aesthetic resources. Methods which may be required include, but are not limitt?d to, use of
sensitive grading techniques, sensitive siting of development areas, and berms and landscaping for
visual buffers. [PL]
13. Development in designated scenic corridor areas shall continue to comply with the requirements of
the Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards [PL]
LANDSCAPE/OPEN SPACE/TRAILS
14.
All graded cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted
with Site Development Review for each tentative map, to address appropriate landscaping for
slopes in open space and other visible areas in the project. Special attention should be paid to
selecting appropriate sustainable vegetation to recreate the scenic resource value of the open space
and hillside areas. A separate landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with SDR process
for the golf course facility which addresses the unique landscaping requirements of the golf
course. [PL]
.
15. Plant materials for revegetated slope shall comply with applicable standards of the City's Wildfire
Management Plan. Meadow grasses may not be acceptable in these areas. [pL, PW]
16. As part of Final Map approval, the dedication for ownership of open space and trail corridors shall
be designated. No credit for these areas and improvements shall be given towards parkland
dedication requirements. All landscape within the open space and common areas, including the
intermittent stream and open space corridor shall be subject to Site Development Review approval.
[P, PL, PW]
17.
The project developer(s) shall comply with the applicable Open Space Policies of the General Plan
and Specific Plan and the City's Grazing Management Plan. The project's stream/open space
corridor enhancement and restoration improvements shall comply with the Specific Plan
requirements and shall be submitted with Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review
applications for the project, whichever are submitted first. A minimum 25 foot building setback
from the intermittent stream/open space corridor shall be maintained wherever possible. Setbacks
for this purpose shall be measured from the edge of drainage corridors, as shown on Figures 4.1,
6.2 and 7.33 ofthe Specific Plan, or as modified by the Area A LUDP/DPDP. [PL]
.
10
. 18.
19.
.
A Community Homeowners Association shall be created for Area A of Dublin Ranch and a
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("Declaration") will be prepared and
recorded. The Declaration will require that the Community Homeowners Association manage and
maintain site improvements as established by the Development Agreement required by the EDSP,
including but not limited to: open space, including fire buffer zones, intermittent stream/open
space corridor and trails; community and neighborhood entries; landscaping, parkway areas,
monumentation, water features, lighting, signage, walls, and fences, street trees, street signs,
walks, and street furniture as. The Declaration will establish easements and other rights-of-way
necessary for the Community Association to fulfill its responsibilities. The Declaration will
specify that, as it pertains to the maintenance of the site improvements described by the
Development Agreement, it cannot be amended without the consent of the City. One or more
separate homeowners associations may be needed for the individual residential areas 'for
ownership and maintenance of private improvements which are common to the particular
residential areas but which are not for the use of the entire community. [pL, ADM]
In order to optimize use and provision of open space in the project, trails, pedestrian pathways,
bicycle lanes and access roads and points shall be provided. Trails shall be constructed to provide
continuous routes linking residential projects, public areas and existing or planned trails in the
vicinity. Such trails, pedestrian pathways, fire access roads, bicycle lanes and access points shall
be provided as illustrated on the LUDP/DPDP recreation amenities/pedestrian circulation plan
approved with this project. Convenient connections and access points to these trails, intermittent
stream corridors, open space, or other parks or circulation system from individual developments
shall be provided, using signage and access points in centralized locations with visible and clear
access (minimizing areas hidden by structures), so that access to trails occurs via prominent and
visible trailhead markers. Methods to provide connections which are strongly encouraged include
greenbelts, parkways, landscaped perimeter areas & common areas, openings at ends of cul-de-
sacs, and other private recreation facilities. Design of these areas is subject to the review and
approval of City Police, Fire, Parks & Community Services, Planning, and Public Works
Departments, at the time of tentative map and Site Development Review. [pL, PO, F, PW, P]
20. Construction and phasing of trails shall be addressed in further detail with review of the Tentative
Map. Trail construction shall be coordinated and interim trail segments may be required to
provide links or loops in areas lacking connections to future trails, or to avoid "dead ends", until
complete trail loops are constructed. Developer-provided bond or other financial security
mechanism may be required. [F, PW, PO, PL, P]
21.
-.
Appropriate all weather surface for vehicular access to open space, various trail systems and some
residential areas, as shown on the LUDP/DPDP, shall be provided and maintained on a continuous
basis, to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, Public Works Director and Community Development
Director. Trails shall be constructed to provide continuous routes linking residential projects,
public areas and existing or planned trails in the vicinity as depicted on the recreation
amenities/pedestrian circulation plan approved with the project. Additional trail segments may be
required to be constructed in the interim, to provide links or loops in areas lacking connections to
ultimate trails, until complete trail loops are constructed. [F, PW, PO, PL, P]
11
BUILDING
.
22. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit. [B]
PARKS AND RECREATION
23. The applicant shall comply with the City of Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 9.28 Dedication of
Land for Park and Recreation Purposes and the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan park
dedication and design requirements by either dedicating required acreage of park land, or paying
park dedication in-lieu fees, or providing a combination of both park land dedicatioI). and in-lieu
fees based on the maximum number of units proposed, prior to Final Map approval. Additional
details regarding park dedication shall be addressed in the development agreement for Area A. [P,
PW, PL]
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
24. The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for
mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts (e.g. Applicant shall submit a
preconstruction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to determine
whether or not sensitive species are present. A biologist shall prepare the survey which shall be .
subject to the Planning Department review and approval). Any updated surveys and/or studies that
may be completed by a biologist prior to Tentative Map application shall be submitted with the
Tentative Map application. [PL]
TRAFFIC/PUBLIC WORKS
25. ProjeCt shall be subject to all adopted standards and project specific conditions of the Public
Works Department. Development shall comply with conditions of approval identified in
Memorandum dated October 23,1997, included as Attachment B-1. Any minor modifications to
the City's roadway standards shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works
Director. [PW]
26. Installation of Roadways, Public Improvements and Infrastructure shall be completed by
developer. The Development Agreement required for this project shall include details about the
. phasing and financing of improvements, funding mechanism for maintenance of open space areas
and homeowners association maintenance. The phasing of improvements is subject to the
approval of the affected City Departments. The Development Agreement is required prior to
approval of any tentative subdivision maps. [PL, PW, ADM]
27.
The applicant shall submit updated traffic studies with each Tentative Map application and the
study shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director. Appropriate traffic
mitigation measures will be identified and included as conditions of Tentative Map approval.
Such traffic mitigation may include, but not be limited to: [PW]
.
12
. a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Traffic signalization
Roadway shoulder construction
Frontageinnprovennents
pavement widening
Overlays of existing pavement
Dedications of right-of-way
Restriping
Installation of any improvements in phases, where phasing is proposed
28. Where decorative paving is installed in public streets, pre-formed traffic signal loops shall be used
under the decorative paving. Where possible, irrigation laterals shall not be placed under the
decorative paving. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be considered ill the
Development Agreement and a funding mechanism shall be developed which is acceptable to the
City Manager. Decorative paving plans shall be submitted with the Tentative Map submittal and
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. [pW, ADM]
29.
.
Street lights on arterial streets shall be the City Standard cobra head luminaries with galvanized
poles. Where decorative lights are to be used on residential streets, these lights shall be designed
so as to not shine into adjacent windows, shall be easily accessible for purchase over a long period
oftime (e.g. 30 or more years), and shall be designed so that the efficiency of the lights does not
require close spacing to meet illumination requirements. A street lighting plan demonstrating
compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application and shall be
subject to the Public Works Director's review and approval. [PW]
30. Street name signs shall display the name of the street together with a City Standard shamrock logo.
Posts shall be galvanized steel pipe or other material acceptable to the Public Works Director. A
street sign plan shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application and shall be subject to the
Public Works Director's review and approval. [PW]
FIRE
31. The developnnent shall comply with all Alameda County Fire Department (City of Dublin's Fire
ServiceIPrevention provider) fire standards, including minimum standards for emergency access
roads and payment of applicable fees, including a Fire Capital Innpact Fee. This project shall be
subject to the additional conditions contained in the memorandum fronn the Dublin Fire Prevention
Division, dated October 10,1997, included as Attachment B-2.[F]
32.
.
Prior to approval of the fIrst tentative map, a vicinity plan for emergency access shall be provided,
subject to review and approval of the City and Alameda County Fire Departnnent (City of Dublin's
Fire ServiceIPrevention provider). The plan shall show connections of new fire roads/trails to
existing and proposed roads, trails, structures, vegetation fuel load type, and water supply
locations. Details of improvements needed for accessibility beyond main roads, such as location,
width, number of access points to development, and off-site improvements needed, shall be
reviewed and finalized to City's acceptance prior to approval of first tentative nnap.
13
~-
33. "Fire Apparatus Access Roads" are needed to provide access and emergency service to structures .
and buildings. "Fire Roads/Trails" are needed to provide access and emergency service to
wildland interface/open space areas and other public areas. The following fire roads are required
for the Area A project:
a. A Fire Apparatus Access Road shall have a paved surface capable of supporting the
imposed load of a fire apparatus with a minimum clear width of 20' and a vertical
clearance of 13'6", and shall provide for local drainage, subject to City approval. A Fire
Apparatus Access Road shall be provided to the golf course maintenance facility, and any
other structures/buildings.
.
b. Fire Roads/Trails shall be a minimum of 12' wide with a vertical clearance of 13 '6". An
additional 4' clear space shall be provided on each side of the fire road and shall be
maintained free of obstructions. The road surface shall be capable of supporting the
imposed weight of a fIre apparatus, must be provided with an all-weather surface, and shall
provide for local drainage, subject to City approval. Fire Roads/Trails shall be provided to
access the golf course and slope areas as follows:
(1) On the east side of the project adjacent to the golf course and the wildland
interface/open space. The fire road/trail shall be accommodated within the cart path and
shall run between the golf maintenance facility and the collector street west of the future .
elementary school site.
(2) Along the west side of this project, adjacent to Dublin Ranch Phase I, with multiple '.
points of access to the Phase I residential area as depicted in the approved Phase I PD
documents and which ties into the northern most cul-de-sac of Phase I.
. (3) Along the east side of the project adjacent to the wildland interface/open space next to
neighborhood L-7 (may be combined with the regional trail shown on the Pedestrian and
Vehicular Circulation Plan exhibit). '.
c. Additional fire access road width shall be provided at entry points, curves, and/or
connecting points, as necessary for emergency apparatus operations. .'
d. Signs shall be posted on all fIre roads/trails stating "FIRE ROAD ACCESS POINT -
KEEP CLEAR".
34. The applicant shall comply with the City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan. A Vegetation
plan and maintenance management plan for buffer areas between the development and/or golf ..
course and the wildland interface areas shall be provided and subject to review of the City and
Alameda County Fire Department (City of Dublin's Fire ServiceIPrevention provider), prior to :
Site Development Review approval. Other Plan requirements may be incorporated into the . "
CC&Rs for the Dublin Ranch Area A project. [F, PL, PW] .
..
'.
.'
'.
14 ..
.
.
.
UTILITY/SERVICE PROVIDERS/POSTAL SERVICES
35. The location and siting of project specific wastewater, storm drainage and potable water system
infrastructure shall be consistent with the resource management policies of the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. [pL, PW, DSR]
36. Applicant shall provide Public Utility Easements per requirements of the City of Dublin and/or
public utility companies as necessary to serve Area A with utility services. [PW]
37. The applicant shall confer with local postal authorities to determine the required type of mail units
and provide a letter from the Postal Service stating their satisfaction at the time the Tentative Map
and/or Site Development Review submittal is made. Specific locations for such units shall be to
the satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Dublin Planning Department. [PL] .
38. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide "will serve" letters from
appropriate agencies documenting that adequate electric, gas, telephone and landfill capacity is
available prior to occupancy. [PL]
39.
Applicant shall work with LA VTA to establish the need, bus route(s), bus turnouts, bus stop sign
locations, bus shelter locations, and other transit amenities for this project prior to Site
Development Review and/or Tentative Map approval. Applicant shall design bus turnouts, transit
shelters and pedestrian paths (sidewalks) consistent with the proposed LA VT A routes and stops
and the City of Dublin's requirements and standards prior to issuance of building permits for the
residential units. Conceptual design plans shall be submitted with the Site Development Review
and/or Tentative Map application submittal and subject to the Public Works Director review and
approval. Construction shall be undertaken as part of the street improvement work. [PW]
40. Developer shall comply with the requirements of the NPDES program. [PW]
41. The applicant shall comply with all Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District - Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees. [Zone 7, PW]
42. The applicant shall comply with all Dublin San Ramon Services District requirements and
applicable fees, including but not limited to the following: [DSR, PL, PW]
a. Any new reservoir construction shall comply with DSRSD's requirements. [DSR, PW]
b. The project shall comply with the DSRSD Ordinance #276, establishing Recycled Water Use
Zone 1 in Eastern Dublin. A recycled water distribution system for the landscaping within
Dublin Ranch Area A shall be provided per the City of Dublin, Zone 7, and DSRSD
requirements. The landscaping areas must meet City of Dublin Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance requirements. [pW, Zone 7, DSR]
c. All on- and off-site potable and recycled water and wastewater facilities shall be constructed in
conformance with DSRSD Major Infrastructure Policy (Res. 29-94). The applicant shall submit
15
plans for the potable and recycled water and sewer system to service this development
acceptable to DSRSD, pay fees required by DSRSD and receive DSRSD's approval prior to
issuance of any building permit. Developer-dedicated facilities shall be in conformance with
the DSRSD Standard Specifications and Drawings. [B, PW, DSR]
.
43. The applicant shall provide a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of the grading
permit for the grading that creates individual building sites, which states that the Dublin Ranch
Area A project can be served by DSRSD for water and sewer prior to occupancy. [B, PW]
GOLF COURSE
44. The first nine holes of the Golf Course shall be graded and planting started prior to t~e issuance of
building permit for the 250th unit in Area A, and the second nine holes shall be graded and planted
prior to the issuance of building permit for the SOOth unit in Area A. [pL, B]
45. Signage shall be provided restricting public access to play areas of the golf course for safety
purposes. Signage shall be reviewed at the tentative map and site development review stage. [PL]
46.
The applicant shall cooperate with the City to design a route which provides a safe crossing of the
golf course for pedestrians, from neighborhoods L-2, L-3, L-4, and L-5, to Fallon Road and the
public facilities to the west and south. A proposed route shall be submitted and shall be subject to
Planning Commission review and approval prior to approval of any tentative map. [pL, PW]
.
47. A building permit for construction of the Clubhouse and Recreation Facility shall be obtained
prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit in Area A, along with the development of the
first nine holes of the golf course. These facilities shall be subject to review and approval by the
City via the Site Development Review process.
48. Based upon the analysis included with the Area A LUDP, the golf course, clubhouse, tennis, and
swimming pool facilities will require a total of 182 parking spaces. Parking location, circulation,
and access will require more detailed review by the City's traffic engineer at the Site Development
Review stage. If size or function of proposed facilities changes significantly from this proposal,
parking needs will be reassessed to ensure adequate land area is available for the facilities and the
necessary parking. [PL]
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL EIR MITIGATION
MEASURES
49. The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements.
[ADM]
50.
The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR), respectively, that have not been made specific conditions of approval of
this PD Rezone. [PL]
.-
16
. MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS
.
.
51. The applicant shall pay all City of Dublin fees, including processing fees and development impact
fees, at the times specified in the applicable fee ordinance or resolution which are in effect at such
times. Development impact fees include but are not limited to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact
Fee, the Freeway Interchange Fee, the Public Facilities Fee, the Noise Mitigation Fee, and the Fire
Impact Fee, and the contemplated fee for regional traffic improvements. Processing fees include
but are not limited to fees for adoption and implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1997.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g:\pa96038\CCPDRESA.
17
Jf'
October 23.,_1997
.
Dublin Ranch, Area A Development Plan
Recommended Public Works Conditions of Approval
1) The developer shall be responsible for completing the off-site traffic improvements, that
are not already completed by others, as outlined in the traffic study prepared by TJKM
Transportation Consultants, entitled "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch
Areas A - E", dated July 15, 1997 or as modified in future traffic studies. Improvements
will ultimately be required at build out of the development to mitigate traffic impacts and
to provide adequate capacity for the project. Installation of improvements shall be phased
.\
as needed to address actual impacts created by each phase of the development.
In conjunction with each Tentative Map for the project and the Development Agreement
required by the Specific Plan, a phasing plan for the entire project shall be submitted. If a
Master Tentative Map is submitted, the requirement for this plan shall be determined by
the Director of Public Works. The phasing plan for the project shall indicate a schedule
of completion for improvements, and means of providing improvements, including but
not limited to roads, drainage, sewer, and water improvements both on- and off-site. The
phasing plan shall demonstrate the need for and the means in which off-site
improvements, which are generated by the development potential of all land included .
within Area A, will be financed and implemented. The cost of the improvements shall be
apportioned to individual phases of the project. The phasing plan shall avoid arbitrary
assignment of off-site improvements on a "first-come, first served basis". which could
lead to later phases bearing a disproportionate share of the costs.
Also in conjunction with each Tentative Map and the Development Agreement, an
updated traffic report shall be submitted. If a Master Tentative Map is submitted, the
requirement for a traffic study shall be determined by the Director of Public Works. The
traffic study shall show the traffic impacts and necessary improvements needed. to
mitigate impacts for each phase of the project. The traffic study shall be updated to
include actual traffic volumes, the anticipated traffic volumes of any projects with
approved zoning and the improvements to be installed by those projects. If found
necessary, a traffic study shall be submitted with each subsequent tentative map and
further updated to reflect actual traffic conditions and any new or approved projects at the
time the tentative map is submitted.
Improvements shall be installed in conjunction with the V3.J.-ious phases of the project as
conditioned by each Tentative Map and the Development Agreement. If a Master
Tentative Map is submitted, the requirement for improvements shall be determined by the
Director of Public \V orks. Improvements required of each phase shall be installed as a .
condition of filing the first Final Map of that phase. Improvements shall be designed,
right-of-way acquisition and improvements guaranteed prior to filing the Final Map
associated with the improvements. Improvements shall be installed as specified in the
Tract Developer Agreement for the Final Map.
1
/1
.
.
-.
1)
The design shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard Conditions of Appro\'al or
modifications to them, the City of Dublin Standard Plans and the Subdivision Map Act.
3)
The precise alignment for Fallon Road is subject to change based on the plan line
currently being developed by the City.
4)
The developer shall submit a preliminary drainage master plan for the project in
conjunction with the first Tentative Map. If a Master Tentative Map is submitted, the
requirement for this plan shall be determined by the Director of Public Works. The plan
shall address downstream impacts, including the need for off-site easements, and shall be
tied to the proposed phasing for the project.
5)
. -
The County of Alameda Ordinance, Section 902.2.1. requires that developments having
more than 75 units shall have "A minimum of two public or private access roads". The
access to Area A through Phase I using Tassajara Road may be considered the equivalent
of two access roads for the "loop road" if Tassajara Road is improved to four lanes(two in
either direction) with a 12 foot wide paved median which allows the Fire Department to
drive across it. This street section will be required from Gleason Road to the north
intersection of the Phase I loop collector street.
The single road that ties the "loop road" to lu-ea A can have 25 units without an EV AE
and a maximum of 75 units "Without a second access. Alameda County Fire Department
will accept a second access from the freeway over an improved Fallon Road as the second
access point to Area A if the primary access is over surface streets. Gleason Road can
also be used as a second access to the site from the TassajaralGleason intersection
without the 75 unit limitation.
In conjunction with each Tentative Map and the Development Agreement, the developer
shall submit a fire services circulation plan for the project as required by the Director~f
Public Works, indicating how the Alameda County Fire Department access requirements
will be met. If a Master Tentative Map is submitted, the requirement for this plan shall
be determined by the Director of Public Works. The circulation plan shall include a
phasing element tied to the proposed phasing of the project. The plan shall demonstrate
that off-site right-of-way can be obtained to provide the two acceptable access routes. If
the Developer has exbausted private attempts to acquire right-of-way, the City shall use
its powers of eminent domain, at the Developer's expense, to acquire the needed property
or waive the requirement.
6} All golf cart path crossings of Fallon Road shall be via tunnel(s).
7)
Golf ca..'i path crossings of internal streets may be at grade. The Tentative Map that abuts
or includes any portion of the golf course shall include a detail of path crossings
demonstrating adequate sight distance and a method of fencing to force carts to stop prior
to crossing the street. Security at the on-grade crossings to prevent trespassing shall be
demonstrated v.rith the map.
2
fD
8)
The primary north/south residential road in the easterly portion of Area A ~halI be
desig?ed.with two offset "tee" intersections iri Are~ L3 and L4 just north of the golf cart.
crossmg lDstead of the proposed four-way intersectIOn.
9) The alignment of the multi-use trail on the west side of Fallon Road shall be shown on
the Tentative Map that inCludes or abuts neighborhood L-l and shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Director of Public Works. The means of mitigating potential
conflicts between the path and the adjacent golf course shall be addressed on the map;
alignment could include berms, fences, or vegetation.
10)
The first Tentative Map for Area A shall show a pedestrian connection between
Residential Area LI and the Phase I elementary school, which reduces the length of
Fallon Road which must be traversed by school children.
-\
--
11) The minimum curb radius for all cul-de-sacs shall be 42'.
12) Traffic signals shall be provided at all intersections on Fallon Road which propose left
turn ingress and egress. As an alternate, the project could be redesigned to limit ingress
and egress to right turns only at some intersections.
13) In order to plan for and construct the eA"tension of Fallon Road north of .A..rea A, across
the existing Lin property and to an ultimate connection with Tassajara Road the City will
require the following from the Developer. In conjunction with the fIrst Tentative Map, .
the developer shall submit an alignment and conceptual grading plan: With the
recordation of the fIrst Final Map, right-of-way and adequate slope easements shall be
dedicated for Fallon Road across the existing Lin property to the current northernmost
property line. The grading of Fallon Road across the Applicant's property shall be
accomplished with the grading of the adjacent portion of Area A, as determined by the
. Director of Public Works. Construction of the Fallon Road street improvements from the
northernmost intersection of Fallon, across the existing Lin property and terminatin~ at
the current northernmost property line shall be performed with the last phase of
development of .A..rea A.
14) The regional trail along the east side of residential area L7 shall be provided with an
interim loop back to the collector street.
. 15) The Fallon Road section shall be revised to show an 8' 'wide shoulder and a 12' wide
parkway strip with a 5' minimum landscape area. A 12' wide bikeway/pedestrian path
shall be provided for southbound Fallon Road from Gleason Drive northerly to the
northerly property line.
g: \develop ldubranch lspcoapda
.
3
.
.
.
jl
Date: October 10,1997
To: Tasha Huston asso. Planner
From: Russell Reid Fire Inspector
Subject: Dublin Ranch Area A and Area B,E fire department conditions
The following are standards ,conditions and comments to be introduced in the requrrement for the
Dublin Ranch Project.
COMMERCLU
l.DSRSD standard steamer type (1-4- W' and 1-2- W' outlet)fire hydrant(s) are required. (UFC
1994, Sec 903.2.)
2. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Identify the fIre hydrant locations by installing reflective "blue
dot" markers adjacent to the hydrant 6 inches off center from the middle of the street. (UFC
1994, Sec. 901.4.3c as amended).
3.Provide access to open space and fIre trails that may be obstructed by the new development.
(lJFC 1994).
.. 4.Fire apparatus roadways must e:>..'tend to \\ithin 150 ft. of the most remote fIrst floor eA"terior
wall of any building. (UFC 1994). -
5.Fire apparatus roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of20 feet and an
unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide
shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways
under 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on both
sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1". The subject signs
shall be designed as per the Alameda County Fire Department guild lines. (F 1994, Sec.
902.2.2.1).
6.Fire apparatus roadways must be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fIre apparatus
and must be provided with an all weather driving surface. Only paved surfaces are considered to
be all weather driving surfaces. (1994, Sec. 902.2.2.2).
7.The maximum grade for a fire apparatus roadway is 20% except for the follov..ring
conditions:Grooved concrete or rough asphalt over 15% grade. (Sec. 902.2.2.2).
8.Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must make provisions for approved
apparatus turnarounds, or alternate means offue protection (UFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.3).
EXHIBIT B-2
r
pr
9. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Fire apparatus roadways must be installed, and fire hydrants in service, prior to the
commencement of combustible framing:
.
10. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF FRAMING, CONTACT THE AL.AMEDA
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DUBLIN, FIRE PREVENTION DNISION, TO
SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION OF ROADWAYS AND FIRE HYDRANTS. (UFC 1994, SEC.
1001.4) fiO
11. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Provide a weed abatement program before, during and after construction for vegetation ",~thin
1 00 feet from combustible construction and 30 feet from the street and propei-ty lines. (UFC
1994, Sec. 11 03.2.4.) fl I
12.Temporary access roads at construction sites may be permitted in accordance v.~th Article 87,
UFC 1994; however, permission for temporary access roads must be by Fire Department permit
(UFC 1994, Section 8704.2, EXCEPTIGN).
13. Prior to the issuance ofa Building Permit, a full set of building plans must be submitted to
the Alameda County Fire Department, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, for review and
approval. (UFC 1994,. Sec.. 901.2.2., 1001.3) fl3 .
14. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, proposed plans must be submitted: to the
. Alameda County Fire Department, Dublin, for review and approval. (UBC/CBC 1994, Sec.
106.3.2 &:uBC 1001.3 & 901.2.2). fl4
15. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
All construction equipment!machin~ry/devices with internal combustion engines shall 'be
equipped with approved spark an-estors while operating in this project area. f16
16. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a
position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said
numbers shall contrast with their background. Individual s~te numbers shall be permanently
posted on the main entrance doors of tenant spaces. (UFC 1994, Sec. 901.4.4).
17. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
If rear outside doors to tenant spaces are installed, they shall include the installation of numerical
address numbers corresponding to addressing located on the front of the building. (UFC 1994,
Sec. 901.4.4).
18. ~~y/all new street names and addressing shall be submitted for approval to the .
AdmIDistrative Mapping Division ofllie .AJameda County Fire Depa..-trnent, City of Dublin, Fire
Prevention Division. (UFC 1994, 901.4)
19. Any/all gates across Fire Department access ways shall have a minimum 12 foot clear,
lmnh<::tmcted linear 'Width and a clear vertical height of 13 reet 6 inches. All locking devices
.
.
-.
;,)
--
shall provide for Fire Department emergency access. All gate plans shall be approved by the 1
Prevention Division.priorto construction. (UFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.4 & 902.2.2.1) f27
20. Bridges: Maximum live loads shall be clearly posted at bridge entrance(s). .Minimum live
standards are as follows:
21. Private bridge serving not over two R-3 occupancies =40,000 pounds and 12 foot clear wid
with minimum 13 feet 6 inches clear vertical height
Private bridge serving over two R-3 occupancies - 40,000 pounds and minimum 20 foot clear
width. All public bridges - minimum 20 foot clear width and minimum 80,000 pounds live loa(
UFC, Sec 902.2.4.2 A1~eda County Fire Department Ordinance #1-95) ....
22. The minimum number of access roads serving residential development(s) shall be based on
the number of dwelling units served and shall be as folIows:
1-25 units, one public access road.
26-74 units, one public access road and one emergency vehicle access (EVA) road.
75+ units, at least two public access roads. (l.JFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.1)
23. Buildings 35 feet and over in height above natural grade, the required access roadway shall
be a minimum of 26 feet in width and shall be positioned parallel to at least one entire side of the
building, and shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the
building. (UFC 1994, Sec. 902..2.2.1 EXCEPTION, paragraph 2) f31
24. Adjacent to :fire hycL.ants, access roadways shall be a minimum of28 feet in v.~dth for at least
20 feet in both directions from the fire hydrant (UFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.1 EXCEPTION,
paragraph 2)
~
25. iill approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout. g33
26. Plans, specifications, equipment lists and calculations for the required sprinkler system must
be submitted to the Alameda County Fire Dep~-nnent, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division,
for review and approval prior to installation. A separate plan review fee will be collected upon
review of these plans. (UFC, 1994, Sec. 1001.4)
27. Prior to installation, plans and specifications for the underground fire service line must be
submitted to the }Jameda County Fire Dep~-tment, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, for
review and approval. (UFC, 1994, Sec. 1001.4)
28. Prior to installation of the ceiling or any other concealment of overhead piping, contact
AJameda County Fire Deplil.-tment to schedule an inspection of the overhead sprinkler piping.
CUre, 1994, Sec. 1001.4)
HOu"RS NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTIONS
29. Residential Automatic Fire ExtinQUishina SDrinkler Svstems are required as follows: City of
:::> => ~ .J
Dublin: Over 5,000 sq.ft.; City of Dublin: Occupancies located more than 1.5 miles from a fire
station as measured in a straight line.
;zV
30. Sprinkler systems serving more th~"1. 1 00 heads shall be monitored by an approved cez
station, V.L. listed and certificated for fire alann monitoring. A copy of the V.L. listing. b
provided to the Alameda County Fire Department, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division,
prior to scheduling the final test system. (UFC, 1994, Sec. 1003.3 as amended). f40
31. The water supply information used to design this system was not provided by this
Department. Final acceptance of this fire sprinkler system will be contingent upon successful
completion of a main drain test at the time of final to verity adequate flow and pressure.
Correction or mitigation of a deficient water supply will be the responsibility of the contractor
and must be resolved prior to final approval of the installation.
32. i-ln underground fire'~eivice system shall be subject to field inspection;.hydrostatic pressure
tested (200 psi min. for 2 brs.) and flushed prior to being buried or connected to the overhead
sprinkler system. (no exceptions) (NFPA-13, 1989, Sec. 1-10.1; 1-10.2; 1-11.1.1; 1-11.2)
34. Overhead sprinkler systems including any riser shall be subject to field inspection and a
hydrostatic pressure test (200 psi min. for 2 hrs.) prior to concealment. (No exceptions) (N""FPA- ..
13,1989, Sec. 1-10.1; 1-10.2; 1-11.2)
35. All system control valves shall be provided with their appropriate label (metal), and securely':
fastened to the valve. Any control valve that may be obstructed by cover plates or doors shall .
have an additional label affixed to the cover plate or door. (1\'FP A-13, 1989) .
36. iill approved automatic fire alarm system is required. Plans, specifications and other .
information pertinent to the system must be submitted to the Department for review and approval :
prior to installation. A sepa.-ate plan review fee will be collected upon review of these plans.
.. Guidelines for plans submittal are attached. (ART. 10, UFC 1994, Sec. 1001.3)
37. iill. approved manual fire alarm system is required. Plans, specifications and other
information pertinent to the system must be submitted to the Department for review and approval;
prior to installation. A separate plan review fee vrill be collected upon review of these plans. .
Guidelines for plans submittal are attached. (.Art. 10; UFC 1994, Sec. 1001.3)
38. A.n approved manual and automatic fire al~-m system is required. Plans, specifications and
other information pertinent to the system must be submitted to the Department for review and
approval prior to installation. A separate plan review fee will be collected upon review of these
plans. Guidelines ror plan submittal are attached. (Art. 10, UFC, 1994, Sec. 1001.3)
39. The number and location or audible devices shown on the plans appear to be adequate, :
however, final acceptance of the system is contingent upon successful testing at the time ofiinal .:
to verify audibility. Additional devices may be required at that time. :
40. The required fire alarm system must be monitored by an approved central system, v.LAd:;
and certificated ror fire alih-m monitoring. A copy oft.1}e V.L.listing must be provided to the
Depa.'1.ment prior to scheduling the final test or the system.
.
.
.
~>
41. Prior to occupancy, the Department must~itness a final test Final test \vill in;lude
verification ofmonitoring. 24 HOURS NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR ALL TESTS OR
INSPECTIONS
42. Ail commercial type cooking equipment must be protected by an approved automatic fire
extinguishing system (hood and duct). (UFC, 1994, Sec.1006.2)
43. Plans for the required hood and duct eAiinguishing system must be submitted to the
Department for review and approval prior to installation. A separate plan review fee ",ill be
collected upon review of these plans. (UFC, 1994, Sec.1001.4)
44. Provide at least one 2A 1 OBC portable fire extinguisher for each 6000 s'l.ft. of floor area.
Travel distance to an extinguisher shall not exceed 75 feet of travel distance and shall not be
between floors. (UFC, 1994, Sec. 1002.1)
45. Provide specific address including any pertinent suite, space or room numbers. (UFC, 1994,
Sec. 901.4.4)
46. FEE FOR TillS REVIEW Plan review fees are payable prior to review of plans. THE
APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THIS FEE TO THE .AL.A..MEDA
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DUBLIN, FIRE PRI?VENTION. PAYMENT OF
FIRE IMPACT FEES SHOULD BE l....iWE PRlOR TO OBTAJNThfG PERMITS.
47. A Knox Box key lock system is required { } is not required { } for the building.
Applications are available at the Alameda County Fire Department, Fire Prevention Division,
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. Please retlli-n the completed application ",>ith the building
.. plans when you submit for a permit or prior to final inspection for occupancy. (Section 10.203
UFe). _
48. Fire hydrants in commercial and/or industrial areas or in residential areas comprised
pr1mlli-ily of condominiums, townhouses or apBJ.-unents, shall be spaced every 300 feet Fire
hydrants may be required to be placed at closer intervals to conform to street intersections or
unusual street CUT\'atures.
49. Divided street shall have hydrants on both sides of the street and shall, where applicable, be
installed in alternate or staggered positions so that hydrants will not be directly across from each
other. Spacing criteria shall be maintained on each side of the street. Hydrants in median strips
are not permitted.
?J7
APARTMENTS/CONDOMINIUMS
1. DSRSD standard steamer type (1-4-'/2" and 1-2-Y2" outlet)fIre hydrant(s) are required. (UFC 1994, Sec
903.2.)
.
?
NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Identify the fire hydrant locations by installing reflective "blue dot"
markers adjacent to the hydrant 6 inches off center from the middle of the street. (UFC 1994, Sec.
901.4.3c as amended).
3. Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. of the most remote fITSt floor exterior wall of
any building. (UFC 1994).
4. Fire apparatus roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of20 feet and an unobstructed
vertical clearance of not less th~ 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with
signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shalJ.. be
posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: "NO
STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1". (F 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.1).
5. Fire apparatus roadways must be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fITe apparatus and must
be provided with an all weather driving surface. Only paved surfaces are considered to be all weather
driving surfaces. (1994, Sec. 902.2.2.2).
6. The maximum grade for a fIre apparatus roadway is 20% except for the following conditions:
Grooved concrete or rough asphalt over 15% grade. (Sec. 902.2.2.2).
7. Fire appa.-ams roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must make provisions for approved apparams
turnarounds. (UFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.3).
.
8. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Fire apparatus roadways must be installed, and fIre hydrants in service, prior to the commencement of
combustible framing:
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF FR4.MING, CONTACT TBE ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DUBLlN, FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION, TO SCHEDULE AN
INSPECTlON OF ROADWAYS AND FIRE HYDR4.NTS. (UFC 1994, SEC. 1001.4)
9. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Provide a weed abatement program before, during and after construction for vegetation within 100 feet
from combustible construction and 30 feet from the street and property lines. (UFC 1994, Sec.
1103.2.4.)
] O. Temporary access roads at construction sites may be permitted in accordance with Article 87, UFC
1994; however, permission for temporary access roads must be by Fire Department permit. (UFC
1994, Section 8704.2, EXCEPTlON).
11. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a full set of building plans must be submitted to the
Alameda County Fire Department, City of Dublin, fire Prevention Division, for review and approval.
(UFC 1994, Sec.. 901.2.2., 1001.3)
.
.;1
.
J2. Prior ro the issuance ofa Building Permit, propDsed pians must be submined: to the Alameda County
Fire DeparLment, Dublin, for review and approval. (UBC/CBC J994, Sec. 106.3.2 & UBC 1001.3 &
901.2.2).
13. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
All construction equipment/machinery/devices with internal combustion engines shall be equipped with
approved spark arrestors while operating in this project area.
14. If development interfaces with wildland or open space arezs, a separate landscape plan for veget2tion
fuel modification and/or buffer zone(s) featuring fire resistive and drought tolerant varieties is required to
be submined and approved by the Alameda County Fire Department, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention
Division, prior to issuance of grading and building penn its. Tne zone(s) should be shown/designated zs
separate lenered lots.
.~
The plan shall include dedicated ezsements for emergency and maintenance access to these zones. Tne
maintenance, in perperuitv. for the zones and emergency/maintenance access ways shall be zssigned to a
homeowner's assDciation or other aooroved 2aen!. .
.. ""
These responsibilities shall be disclosed to properry owner(s) by way Df deed r:::strictions and/or covenams,
conditions and restrictions. C I 991 NFPA Sid. 299).
.
15. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
If yard fencing is to be installed, it shall be of non-combustible construction at any/all interfaces with
wildland/open space access.
16. NOTE ON FJELD PLAN:
Approved numbers or addresses shall be pla::=d on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to
be plainly visible and legible from the Stre=t Dr road fronting the propert)'. Said numbers shall contr2St
with their ba::kground. Individual suite numbers shall be permanently posted on the main entrance doors
of renant spa:::es. CUFe 1994, Sec. 901.4.4).
17: FDr homes conslJ1l:::ted of type V-NR under 3600 sq.ft., a minimum of 1000 gpm fire flow at a
minimum 10 psi for a two hDur duration shall be siandard.
For homes constructed ofrype V-NR 3600 sq.ft. and under 4800 sq.ft., a minimum 1750 gpm fire flow at a
minimum 10 psi for a two hDur duration shalI be standard.
For homes from 4800 sq.ft. to 6100 sq.ft., a minimum of2000 gpm at 20 psi for twO hour duration shall be
5~andard.
All homes over 5000 sq.ft. will have an approved residential automatic fire extinguishing sprinkler system
(in addition to required fire flows) insralJeo.
18. NOTE ON fIELD PLAN:
Approved spark 2.J.-restors snaIl be installed on each chimneylfjueivenr used for fireplaces and heating
appliances in whi:::h solid or liquid fuel is used. CU?e 1994, 1109.7)
-.
19. NO 1.::. ON J="ELD PL.\N:
Approved smoke detecto;-(s) snaIl be insLalled according Ie current U3C Siandards. (UBC 1994, Sec.
1210)
20. Any/all new street na,'nes and addressing shall be.submirred fDr approval to the Administrative
Mapping Division afme Alameda County rire Depamnent. City of Dublin, rire Prevention Division.
CUFe 1994, 901.4)
;1
21. Any/all gates across Fire Depamnenr access ways shall have a minimum 12 foot clear, unobstructed
lin~ar width and a clear vertical height of 1.3 feet 6 inches. All locking devices shall provide for Fire
Department emergency access. All gate plans shall be approved by the Fire Prevention Division prior to
construction. (UfC 1994, Sec. 902.i4. & 902.2.2. I)
.
22. A driveway access serVing ~ dwelIinglsrructure shall have a minimum 12 foot unobstructed linear
width, providing all portions of the first rloor are within ISO feet of the required standard 20 foot minimum
access road.
A driveway access serving two dwelling/structures shall have a minimum 12 foot unobstructed linear
width.
A driveway acc~ sen'ing three or more .dwelling/structures shall have a minimum 20 foot unobsp-ucted
jinear width.
AlLdriveway access shall meet Fire Deparnnent standards for distance, weight loads, turn radius. grades,
2nd vertical c1ea.<mce. Approved turnarounds shall be required for disrances over ISO feet from approved
access roads. Other mitigations shalVmay be required in addition to those listed. (UFC 1994, Sec. 902.1 as
2Inended)
:3. The minimum number of access roads sen'ing residential developmenr(s) shall be based on the number
of dweliing units served and shall be zs follows:
2. ]-25 u::irs, one public acc~ road.
b. 26-74 unirs, one public access road and one emergency vehicle access (EVA) road.
c. 75+ unirs, at lezst two public access roads. (Ure 1994, Sec. 901.2. I)
.
].:1. For buildings 35 feet and over in height above natural grade, the required access roadway shall be a
minimum of26 feet in width and shall be positioned pa.-aIJel to at lezst one entire side of the building, and
s;;all be located within a minimum of IS reet and a maximum of25 feet from the building. (UFC 1994,
S~c. 902..2.2. I EXCEPTION, pa..-a.graph 2)
25. Adjacent to fire hydranrs, access roadways shall be a minimum of28 feet in width for at le~st .10 feet
in both directions from the fire hydrant. (UFC 1994. Sec. 9012.2. I EXCEPTION, paragraph 2)
'::6. Plans. specifications. equipment Iisrs and calculations for the required sprinkler system must be
submined to the Alameda County fire Department, City of Dublin. Fire Prevention Division. for review
:md approval prior to instaIlation. A sepa..-ate plan review fee will be collected upon review of these plans.
(UFC. 1994, Sec. 1001.4)
27. Prior to inscallarion, plans and specifications for the underground fire service line must be submirred to
wie Alameda COUnty Fire Depa..unent, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, for review and approval.
(UFC, 1994, Sec. 1 001.4)
2S. Prior to ip'sUiIlation of the ceiling or any other concealment of overhead piping, concact Alameda
(ounty Fire Department to schedule an inspection of the overhead sprinkler piping. (UFC, ] 994, Sec.
IDOlA)
.14HOURS NOTICE IS ~QUlRED FOR ALL INSP~CTIONS
.
29. Residential AutomatIc Fire ~xtinguishing Sprinkler Systems are required 2S :-ollows: City of Dublin:
Over 5,000 sq. ft.; City of Dublin: Occupancies located more than 1.5 miles from a fire scarion 2S measured
in a su-aight line.
.
.
.
;-1
30. Sprinkler systems serving more than 100 he;Jcs shall be monirored by an approved central station, l:I.L.
lisred and cenifiC2ted for fire alarm monitoring. A copy of the U.L. listing must be provided to the
Alameda County fire Department, City of Dublin. fire Prevention Division, prior ro scheduling the final
rest system. (UrC. 1994, Sec. 1 003.3 25 amended).
.:; I. The sprinkler system shall incorporate a landscape irrigation conrrol system 25 'explained in our Design
Guidelines for residential sprinkler systems.
32. Residenrial sprinkler systems using CPVc/Po}yburyJene pipe shall be required to adhere to the
following:
a. With plan submittal. include employee Certificate ofInstaller Training in a course of
instruction on the ins.raIlation ofa CPVClPolyburylene fire sprinkler system.
b. Each employee working on the job site shall have his Certification Card on his l'erson
and available for inspection at all times.
c. The installation ofa CPVClPolyburylene type fire sprinkler system shall be according to
the manufacrurer's recommended installation instructions.
d.
Prior 10 the start of installation, each installer working on the job site shall provide an
example of his pipe fining to the Depaiunent having jurisdiction; the test sample shall be
25sembled in the field at the job site and witnessed by a Fire Department Inspector. The
t~ sample shall include the 25sembling of a piece of pipe to a fining.
The only cutting proc=ss recognized by the Fire DepaJnnent for use with a
CPVC/PolybutyJene fire sprinkler systems is a rube cuner designed for pl25tic.
1.
All pipe shall be deburred and beveled prior to 25sembly.
.u. An underground fire service system shall be subject to field insp~ction, hydrosratic pressure tested
(200 psi min. ror 2 hrs.) and flushed prior to being buried or connected to the overhead sprinkler system.
(no ex:::epIions) (NfPA- 13. 1989, Sec. 1 -1 0.1: J - J 0.2; 1-1 L I.I; 1 -11.2)
-=-
3-1. Overhead sprinkler SYSTems including any riser shall be subject to field inspection and a hydrostatic
pressure lest (200 psi min. ror 2 hrs.) prionD concealment (No exceptions) (NfPA-J3. J9S9, Sec. 1-10.1;
1-10.2; 1-11.2)
35. A sprinkler conrractor shall provide a box or spare sprinklers in accordance with Sec. 3-16.7 to be
located at riser location, and shall provide an o\>''11er's manual 25 well as a copy ofNFPA-13A in
. accordanc~ with Sec. 1 -5.2 which shall also be located at riser. (NFPA-13, 19S9)
36. An approved automatic fire alarm system is required. Plans, specifications and other information
peninent TO Ine system must be submined to the Deparrrnent for review and approval prior to installation.
A separate plan review fee will be collected upon review of these plans. Guidelines for plans submiT..aJ are
:::u3ched. (ART. 10, UFC 1994, Sec. 1001.3)
37. :~.n ,,-ppJDved manual fire a1ai.n system is required. Plans, specifications and other information
peninent to the system must be submined to the Department for review and approval prior to installation.
A sepa.-ate plan review fee will be collected upon review of these plans. Guidelines for plans submi~al are
2.t"L2chea.. (Art. 10; UFC 1994, Sec. ]001.3)
38. An approved manual and automatic file a]a."TI1 system is required. Plans, specifications and oL'1er
informacion peninent to the system must be submined to the Department for review and approval prior to
,D
i;;s~2IJation. A 5e?arate plan review fee will be collected upon review of these plans. Guidelines for pJan-
submittal Llre <luached. (Art. 10, UFC, 1994, Sec. 1001.3)
.
~9. The number and location of audible devices shown on the plans appear to be adequate, however, final
acceptance of the system is contingent upon successful testing ar me rime of final ;:a.verify audibility.
Additional devices may be required at thar rime.
40. The required fire alarm system must be monitored by an approved central system, V.L. listed and
cerrific<lted for fire a/ann monitoring. A copy of me U.L. listing must be provided to the Deparnnenr prior
to scheduling the final test of the system.
.; I. Smoke detectors used in lieu of one-hour rated consrruction for tenant corridors in accordance with
UBC.1994. Sec. 1005.7 shall be spaced in accordance with their listings and wired so that when one
sounds they all sound. A functional te:,;r-shall be made during inspection. This exception will oni;)'. be used
in structures protected with an automatic sprinkler system throughout.
42. Smoke detectors used for activating automatic closing fire rated doors shall be approved and listed for
door release service and shall be located in accordance with NFP A 71-E, Sec. 9-5 (copy attached).
(CBClUBC 1994, Sec. 1 005.S.1).
~~. Provide specific address including any perrinent suite, space or room numbers. (UFC, 1994, Sec.
?O 1.4.4)
~. Elevators must confonn to me provisions of Chap. ':;0 of the UFC 1994. Tne Fire Deparnnenr strongly
;~commends that at least one elevator be ofa size that will accommodate one gumey and three attendanrs.
.
4S. FEE FOR THIS REVIEW IS:
?lan review fees ;rre payable prior to review of plans. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
?A YMENT OF THIS FEE TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTM.cNT, CITY OF DU3LIN,
?IRE PREVENTION. PA YME"NT OF FIRE IMPACT FEES SHOULD BE MJ..DE PRIOR TO
03T AINING PERMITS"
~6. Fire hydrants snaIl be spaced every 400 linear feet in residenrial are2.S comprised primarily of well
spaced. average single family dwellings.
~7. Fire hydranrs in commercial and/or inousrrial areas or in residential are2.S comprised primarily of
condominiums. rownhouses or apartments, shall be spaced every 300 feel. Fire hydranrs may be required
10 be placed at closer intervals to confonn to Street intersections or unusual SITeet curvatures.
~8. Divided Sueet shall have hydranrs on both sides of me Sueet and shall, where applicable, be inscaIled in
2.lternate or st2ggered positions so that hydrants will not be directly across from each other. Spacing
:::rireria shalI be maint2ined on each side of the street. Hydra."m in median strips an not pennitted.
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
1. DSRSD s.andard sreamenype (1-4-1/2" a."ld 1-2-'12" outlet)fire hydrant(s) are required. (UFe 1994, See
?O~"2.)
.
1!
e.
e
e
.,
NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Identify the fire hydrant locations by installing reflective "blue dot" markers
adjacent to the hydrant 6 inches off center from the middle of the street. (UFC 1994, Sec. 901.4.3c as --
amended).
3. Provide access to open space and fire trails that may be obstructed by the new development. (UFC J 994).
4. Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within ISO ft. of the most remote first floor exterior wall of any
building. (UFC 1994).
5. Fire apparatus roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of20 feet and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall
have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall
have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC
22500.1". (F 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.1).
6. Fire apparatus roadways must be capable of supporting the imposed weight of frre apparatus an? must be
provided with an all weather driving surface. Only paved surfaces are considered to be all weather driving
surfaces. (1994, Sec. 902.2.2.2).
7. The maximum grade for a frre apparatus roadway is 20% except for the following conditions:
Grooved concrete or rough asphalt over 15% grade. (Sec. 902.2.2.2).
8. Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must make provisions for approved apparatus
turnarounds. (UFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.3).
9. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Fire apparatus roadways must be installed, and frre hydrants in service, prior to the commencement of
combustible framing:
PRlOR TO TIlE COMMENCEMENT OF FRAMING, CONTACT TIlE ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DUBLIN, FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION, TO SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION
OF ROADWAYS AND FIRE HYDR.A..NTS. (UFC 1994, SEC. 1001.4)
10. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Provide a weed abatement program before, during and after construction for vegetation within 100 feet from
combustible construction and 30 feet from the street and property Jines. (UFC 1994, Sec. 1103.2.4.) =-
11. Temporary access roads at construction sites may be permined in accordance with Article 87, UFC 1994;
however, permission for temporary access roads must be by Fire Department permit. (UFC 1994, Section
8704.2, EXCEPTIOJ\T).
12. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a full set of building plans must be submined to the Alameda County
Fire Department, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, forreview and approval. (UFC 1994, Sec.. 901.2.2.,
J 001.3)
13. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
All construction equipment/machinery/devices with internal combustion engines shall be equipped with
approved spark arrestors while operating in this project area. .
14. If development interfaces with wildland or open space areas, a separate landscape plan for vegetation fuel
modification and/or buffer zone(s) featuring fire resistive and drought tolerant varieties is required to be
submined and approved by the Alameda County Fire Deparrrnent, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention
g:corr::splgb/iir::con2
1r
Division, prior to issuance of grading and building permits. The zone(s) should be shown/designated as
Se?2rnte lenered lots.
.
Tne plan shall include dedicated easements for emergency and maimenance acce~$ to these zones. Tne
maimenance, in Deroeruirv, for the zones and emergency/mainrenance access ways shall be assigned to a
homeowner's association or other approved agenL
These responsibilities shall be disclosed to propeny owner(s) by way of deed restrictions and/or covenants,
conditions and restrictions. (1991 NFPA Srd. 299).
15. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
If yard fencing is to be installed, it shall be of non-combustible conslJUction at any/all interfaces with
wildland/open space access.
"0
10. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to
be plainly visible and legible from the street or road froming the property. Said numbers shall conrrast
with their background. Individual suire numbers shall be pennanenrly posted on the main enITaIlce doors
of tenant spaces. (UFe 1994, Sec. 901.4.4).
J7. For homes ::onsrrucred ofrype V-NR under 3600 sg.ft., a minimum of 1000 gpm fire fJow at a
i71inimum 20 psi for a nv.) hour duration shal/ be standard.
?or homes conSrlUCled of type V-NR 3600 sq.ft. and under 4800 sq.ft., a minimui:l 1750 gpm fire fJow at a
i71inimum .20 psi for a IV. ~ hour duration shall b:::: srandard.
.
i="or homes from '=;800 sq.ft. to 6200 sq.ft., a minimum of2000 gpm at 20 psi for two hour durarion shaH be
5iandard.
All homes over 5000 sq.ft. will have an approved residential automatic fire extinguishing sprinkler system
[in addition to required fire flows) installed.
1 S. NOTE ON fELD PLAN: -
.~pproved spark arTestors shall be installed on each chimneylfiuelvenr used for fireplaces and heating
::.ppliances in whi::h solid or liquid fuel is used. (UFC 1994, 1109.7)
19. NOTE ON fIELD PLAN:
Approved smoke deteclor(s) shall be insralled according to current UBC standards. (UBC 1994, Sec.
1210)
: 20. Any/all new SITeet names and addressing shall be submitTed for approval to me Administrative
Mapping DivisiDn of me Alameda County fire Depal'Lment, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division.
CUfe 1994, 901.4)
21. A driveway :access serving one ciweliing/srrucrure shall have a minimum 12 foot unoDslJUcted linear
width, providing all pOrtions of me first floor are within 150 feet of the required srandard 20 foot minL.'"Tlum
:access road.
A driveway access serving tWO dweliing/srrucrures shall have a minimum 1:2 fOD! l.lnobsrrucred linear
width.
.
A driveway ac::ess serving three or more dweliingfstrucrures shall have a minimum 20 fDDt unobstructed
jinear width.
. t
//;:J
.
.
.
..lLLdriveway <lCC::ss shall meet Fire De?Ulment standards for distance, weight loads, rum radius. grao=s,
z.."d verrical cka"mce. Approved turnarounds shall be required for distances over 150 feet from approved
access roads. Other mitigations shall/may be required in addition to those listed. (UFC 1994, Sec. 901.2 as
<lmended)
I'
The minimum number ofaccess roads serving residential development(s) shall be based on the number
of dwelling units served and shall be as follows:
a. 1-25 units, one public access road.
b. 26-74 units, one public access road and one emergency vehicle access (EVA) road.
c. 75+ units, at least two public access roads. (UFC 1994, Sec. 9022.1)
13. Adjacent to fire hydiants, access roadv,'ays shall be a minimum of28 feet in width for at least 20 feet
in both directions from the fire hy~t.. (UFC 1994, Sec. 90222. I EXCEPTION. paragraph 2) .
24. Residential Automatic Fire Extinguishing Sprinkler Systems are required as follows: Ciry'ofDublin:
Over 5,000 sg.rr..: Ciry of Dublin: Occupancies located more than 1.5 miles from a fire station as measured
in :l straight line.
25. Tne sprinkler system shall incorpoiate a landscape irrigation conn-ol system as explained in our Design
Guidelines for residential sprinkler systems.
26. Tne water supply information used to design this system was not provided by this Deparnnent. Final
3c:eptance of this fire sprinkler system will be contingent upon successful completion ofa main drain test
at the time of final ro verifY adequate flow and pressure. Correction or mitigation of a deficient water
supply will be me responsibiiiry of the contractor and must be resolved prior to rmal approval of the
installation.
27. Residential sp.inkh:r systems using CPVC/Polyburylene pipe shall be required to adhere to the
following:
a..
With plan submittal, include employee Certificate ofInsraller Trnining in a course of
insrruction on the installation ora CPVCJPolyburylene fire sprinkler system.
D.
::::ach employee working on the job site shall have his Cerrification Card on his person
and available for inspe:tion at all times.
c.
The in:;:allation of a CPVC/PolyburyJene !)'pe fire sprinkler system shall be according to
the manura:rurer's recommended installation instructions.
d.
Prior to the scar! of installation, each ins'LalIer working on the job site shall provide an
example of his pipe fitting to the Deparrrnent haying jurisdiction; the test sample shall be
assembled in the field at the job site and wirnessed by a Fire Deparnnent Inspector. The
test sample snaIl include the assembling of a piece of pipe to a fitting.
Tne only cutting process re:::ognized by the rire Deparrment for use with a
CPVClPoJyburylene fire sprinkler s)'ste;ns is a rube cuner designed for plastic.
r.
All pipe shall be debu"ed and beveled prior to assembly.
28. .bLn underground fire service system shall be subject to field inspection, hydrostatic pressure tested
C:~OO psi min. for 1 hrs.) and flushed prior to being buried or connected to the overhead sprinkler system.
(no excepI:ions) (NrPA-13. 19S9. Sec. 1-10.1; 1-10..2; 1-11.1.1; 1-11.1)
11
29. Overhead sprinkler !-ystems including any riser shall be subject ro field inspection and a hydrostatic .
pressure teS! (200 psi min. for 2 hrs.) prior 10 concealment. (No exceptions) (NFPA-13. 1 9S9, Sec. 1-10.1
1-10.2; 1-11.2)
30. A sprinkler contractor shall provide a box of spare sprinklers in accordance with Sec. 3- J 6.7 to be
located at riser location, and shall provide an owner's manual as well as a copy oiNFP A- 1 3A in
accordance with Sec. 1 -5.2 which shall also be located at riser. (NFP A- 13, 19S9)
31. An approved automatic fire alarm system is required. Plans, specifications and other information
peninenr 10 the system must be submined 10 the Depamnent for review and approval prior to installation.
A sepa.-ate plan review fee will be collected upon review of these plans. Guidelines for plans submittal are
ar-l.3ched. (ART. JO, DFe J994, Sec. 100L3)
31. Prior ro occupanc)', the Deparnnenr must wimess a final lest Final test will include ~rification of
moniroring.14 HOURS NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR ALL TESTS OR rNSPEt TIONS
33. Approved numbers or addresses snaIl be placed on all new and existing buildings. Tn:: address snail
be positioned as to be plainly visible and legible from the meet or road fronting the prop en)'. Said
numbers shall contrast with their background. Individual suite numbers shall be permanently posted on the
main enL-ance doors orrenant spaces. (UFC, 1994, Sec. 901.4.4)
34. FEE FOR THIS REVIEW IS:
Plan review fees are payable prior to re\'iew ofpJans. TJ-iE APPLICANT IS RESPONSiBLE FOR
PA YMENT OF THIS FEE TO THE ALAMEDA COl)'NTY aRE DEPARTMENT. CITY OF DUBLIN.
FiRE PREVENTION. PA YME'Nl OF FIRE IMPACT FEES SHOULD BE MADE PRJOR TO
03T AINrNG PERMITS.
.
35. Fire hydrants shall be spaced ever)' 400 linear feet in residential areas compr,:>ed prima.-ily of well
spaced, 3Ver2ge single family dwellings.
.36. Fire hydrants in commercial and/or industrial areas or in residential areas comprised primarily of
- . .
conoominiums, lOwnnouses or 2Danmems shall be sDac~d everv 300 feet Fire hydrants may be required
. t ... ..
to be piaced at closer intervals to conforJD to street inters~ctions or unusual str~et curvatures. -
37. Divided street shall have hydrants on bOlh sides ofIne SITeet and shall, where appli::abJe, be installed in
alternate or staggered positions so that hydrants will not be directly across from each other. Spacing
crilen2 shall be maintained on each side afthe street Hydrants in median strif';; Te not perJDined.
.
~?
.
. .
EXHIBIT B-3
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN/
DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
. CONSISTING OF A PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LAND USE PLAN, SITE PLAN, DESIGN GUIDELINES
(INCLUDING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS), DESIGN CONCEPTS, AND OTHER
TEXT AND SUPPLEMENTAL DIAGRAMS, DATED OCTOBER 1997"
(SENT UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
.
1:7
o
ORDINANCE NO.
.
A..~ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
PERMIT THE REZONING OF :t351.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF TASSAJARA ROAD, NORm OF INTERSTATE 580 AND WEST OF THE FALLON ROAD
CURRENT ALIGNMENT IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA
CPA 96-038, DUBLIN RANCH AREA A)
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1
Chapter 2 of TitJe 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner:
'.
Approximately 351.5 acres generally located along the east side of Tassajara Road, north of
Interstate 580, and west of the current alignment of Fallon Road., in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area,
more specifically described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 946-680-3; 94-680-4; 946-]040-]-2; 946-]040-2;
946-] 040-3-2; 99B-3046-2-6; 99B-3046-2-9, are hereby rezoned from a Planned Development to a Planned
Development with the following land uses: 135.3 acres of Low-Density Single-Family Residential; 71.5
acres of Rural Residential/Agriculture; and 144.7 acres of Open Space; as shown and described on the
application for a Planned Development Rezone for P A 96-038 and in Exhibit B (Resolution No._
Approving and Establishing Findings, General Provisions and Conditions of Approval), to the Staff Report
dated November 18, 1997, to the City Council, on file with the City of Dublin Department of Community
Development, and hereby adopted as the regulations for the future use, improvement, and maintenance of
. the property within this District.
A map of the rezoning area is outlined below:
)
d~
r~
............
.
\i.lle
co\\T\\.~ ..
CoS~ \i.lle
coT\\.~ co\\'\\\.'
",..1l\ea&.
~
~
o
c::;
DUBLIN ~
"" {3
~ 5
'0 Q
~
o
r::::;
GLEASON ROAD
SITE
DUBIDl BOULEVARD ~
\ 1-580 i ~
~~
PLEAS ANTO N
t'~
EXHIBIT C
~f)
Section 2
This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. Before
the expiration offifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be published once, with the names of the
Councilmembers voting for and against same, in a local newspaper published in Alameda County and
available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 2nd day of
December, 1997, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\P A96038\ccord.
.
.
.
.~.. CITY OF DUBLIN
_"PLAN1'\~<; COMMISSIO~.\'. .
'""':""" -.' "~~:-"'~'/,...:.. AGENDASTATEME1'\rr/STAFFREPORT ," '.'
i~;~ ..:~.':' :: :,/<. >'..-: '>:7~::;~~~;,~~i~'~< .:/~~./~,. .,~:.:::', : ',,~:;>:,;:,:;> :.< '::~.:'. ;,:'~'-;::.<-'::. >, ,.:.;:. ',' ~.',.' .,. '
~:.,. -: :-"" ',:', '<<'. ..,' ..-",,; ;,,;:~':.;....~.;c~, ".s,':,:.\'~>. ~.e,eti~g Dat~_. 9c!~b,e~,28, .I,?9t,:: ::: ",.;. .:' ,--' ,',,:.
i:.' , );:~;L,~iJ~t~;~~~~m~i; ,;~r:'1~t~~;;tiG1~?~f.~~Y'~0.;.i/~~.~:~\~~2,. .",' , ".,: ' ';","
." '-' FROM- ., ,..." ,:>'. . Plannmg Staff '.' -'" - '.' " "'--~.' . ~--. '., -.. .,,' <' '. -,'., "
;:;tLF~i:2>li~~~i,~fi;::.~;;tt?X~i~~~:A11~~;1~1~~~t$~i;;;X(:!f:j?jfX~\~~~~;~1~i~[Ii~t~j~:f;~.,':"'" C" ", ,,',:.','
~;::: . '_ :'d. .':. PREPARED BY: ,,;.;':- Tasha Huston;'Assoclate Planner":d~~'t' ::l-'''':r'~'~';'',';;:~'~.;-:;':' :"<.':'~" .~:;;':.~'" . .... ':-',- ..~' ,., .. .,:".
;~~Xi,;\t~~if.~~~~~~;lL~7;}~ , .g#~WZ:;~1~~~Z~1,~Jlt~~~t~~if~~r:i;;~t;~~~;~Z~;g{:;:>.; ,', ,;: ~
, ;.:';:'>.~;.,:' SUB}ECT~{.~~:.::,~,.~>,.~L.P A .96-:~~8~ I?llbIin ,Ranch ~'Aiea A'!: Planned I>e~elop1,Dent (p.D}Rezone~.=~'::- .:';... '., ,.-:{:'
!'i}~ <:~.'<H. ;:'.;,.~::: <;~;~:>.',.:..'}=>D Rur~11:tesidentia1iAgncwtllie'.(7.1.5 acres); an(~ PI? Open Space (I44.i ac~es), ,. ::
\;"':"__' ',.'. .' "'_._ '._'~_'_' ...-........,....O~..~.-.....~~..__--..-. _.o:._..:,! r..--IC'.~.~.-.. . ....,. .\~'-:-'." -. .' .~..
~}~.~: . '.;~-, . .. >,.:: .~... -. :,.~~~ ~~bli~?frigpe~.#,~d..ri,s-es;.r.es~~eritial.deye:lop~;~! ~~d~~;A~~iti~s and'
t',:,,<:~,~.'~:, ,,' . ':: ~.,;. /;:_:;. <: .' .<:,;~j~~Be~}?D::~~~!Pe.~~:;.Th~.1i~opi~,e~.~I~~1~~pey~!.~~~7-~!~c~~de(a L~d,Yse~,d .
0'~: .:.. ''',.:',.' . .::"c:,~~;, . , ,.;'. '<t. De,yel<?PfDen~ p'lan (LUDP)/DIStnCt Planned Development Plan (l?PPP), ,to,:: . :'.: .
~;;~~ "
_.' . ~~. : .;..~ ;.:: _','; ~:~ :~,;:.~~.~ ~ ::;. .~' ~~~~(~ D~ve;oprr;~~i p'~an' CLln?p)/piStri.ct PI~.~d Develojnnent Plan cp~D P)'; ~riCluded ' '
.~,:c '," :Y~:' ,,:~'~ :;,.:.:~~..~:~(~t; :~}.:;..~::.~_~~:f'...".::..~~c~~~t Diio,'th)~ ,tet2~~<:':~'..:.\.:~;.'.'..,~,~t~:~.,~::::-:~:)~~ ):~': '..: :-.. .:~~~~. " : '.~'; ..:,=.. .' . ... .~
_. . _ ,.~ _ _ " -..1~.':'.r-,~'<.-,,;..-4":.. ~ <-
':~ B.4..CKGROUl\TJ): ~":'<~~..';;:'.-;< ~:.-
t>.
i:
,
::-
.
n;4
'-
;.:-
. ..-
..-:_A._ ~: .-:..:.'...;. ..~' .....:-.'..~.:>:..A ~;' ". ~_ - . ..~_.-_- -: -....;.. .. ....'-,. :;,:-'. ..: p. . '-:"-~J. '-
". '. This project is located East' of TaSsajaridtoad, in' an' area covered by the Eastern Dublin Specific PTan~'
._,.:' The Specific Plan:was adopte~ by the City of Dubllli in No~embe~ 1993,~and 'established land use, :'.
". d~signationsfor appf.<?XiIDaiely ?300a~res of1arid~ea5t'oith~__Camp Park,s'.militaiy re~~I'\'e. 'A large/.:. .
. .'tomponen~ of th'e plan"areawas 'annexe~ to the CitY.iii 1995, includiIig 1,037 acres o~ed by the JenIDfer'. .
'. ,. -Lm Falliiiy~ krlowna~ith~ Dublm RIDlch'project. Up~n annexation, DublinRanch was Prezoned With a: . .... ..
.:.?~ :~I~~ne?:'Dey~lopn.;~nt:gyfd~YA~~ign~ti~Ii~,p1e:p~op~~~d ~l:~~d. p.e.~e~op~e~t cPD} DismctRe.zone for,:, .
.'::'. .Area p.. c~vers appro'xiinately 352 cicresof the DubIirl R3DCll annexed are~' and identifiesmor.e detiriled .
. ~_,: land Use~ than the c{{rr~~t.PDzomrig ,design~ti';n>.iiis the s~c~ndpr6posed Plllime~ D~vei~pmen(OIi the
. Dublm Ran:c~ property;' the: first v,;as approved in }~uai-y 0(1996, and is bawD. as Dublin Ranch P~ase I.
...< Thus, the current proposal for a PD Rezone is one of a series of actions necessary to implement the
..: 'EasternDubimSp~cific. PI~. Oth~r' approv~s haveoccuri-ed prior totbis project, and ~dditional .
approvals,Y1ll be considered by the City after this Rezone, indud~g teJ?tative Maps, Development
, Agreemen~, Site Development Review, and building and othe!development permits. .. ., .
Iter: N~~~. \ . ~-~~-----------:-----:--
---------------
Copies To:
Applicant7
Property Owner
PA File
General File -.'
EXHIBIT D
11
r
--
,. .
t~
! ' ANALYSIS:' , .... ., . . '.. ..
It" .' 'The proje~t'i~~d~~ed ~.a Plam1~d De~elopment'(pD) Di~tIict:R~z6~~ f~r-the Dubiin R~~h~Ju-ea A site, " . "
'..'. .4J.,
~. '
:~z~: ...~{[:{':':~~:~~~:
~~:~ . . ..~ ';....~,; -: ~- {\:: -:.. -'. "':~ .!-~
~;,~~~~~~~!~~:rQ~}l~wt&~~1~~~~~~~~~~~t~i~~?!11~~~~t~t~1~~
~""..': .' .;c- "..... ,. ,.. '.' ..,. ;<~ .0.... ,._,>c :...:,.;...: ::~:~., ;~""\~~.' -, .';y-",~';"':' ;'.'*t".~ .. ';' '-'1.';:< ~.r-,.. "":.?:'c,-.- ::":;':.'."' ,. '>-.- .,'.-.' ,,:.<~,..,.."--~.;. ,~,,,,,::". -"~~."~.'''''''' r......~'T.~.
...:;,;~.. ; ':';-, course; dedIcatIon and constructIon of the pornon'ofilie mteIIDlttent stream.'comdor publIc. trml sysfem.~t~~~,:v<~'{/
t~. :__~--: "i. .'~' ;:--#_:. '.' . ~:-.~-; ':. :.":; . -~ .:~- ~.tT,.~::'-;'_.:.: .... )0 '.>.f:-~~ :C:r~.;t .:.f::<:,.":..;;~' ",.-t - ~~''::.:''b'''.~? ,.J""~~' .;:_.,".:c_;, ~.... ~ 1:t"'1".-'~::i:t~::-.,: ..;- :....~:.:.,... . ~'.;". ,".:.:' ">.~ . ~. -.~ ..-;--:-;.:.~:,:.;~.....~..:.. ..-...-;-~,:':.:;':'".~-<' .-:":~.~:'-:!{:...."':
fr . :\~';-:-which. cross~s.the SIt~;, ~4.op~~; SPCl.c~ bri.apPJ;<?X1IIiately 35~ acres ofl~d:'/ Seven distm.~tp~igh~orljoodSii\~:'f'-~::
_.",:,_- \_.-:-.----- :. ..;...._.!:..;..-.~.-7-.:'f. ~~. ''>-',.,- "...-" _ ..:......- ~~~..\..c-'._........- _~,_..":-:.,..--~r._-....~ ~-.-...-..::,...-~....~. .,.....-...~-.-'...::......y:_.;'""~-..""..'~-
r.~,,:_.. \ 'are proposed, _w!th v?ri6riS d~~iti~s, of siiigle~fari:tily"detadledhonies~~:The site topography irivol~e~.(~:c~;.~i=:>:~~:>
~~\ :,:.-::/\~~!?~~ti:~n: ~!.!4~~o~i~~' !i~~~E;.~.d~y~~~#Y.{Q~'~~~Jp~~~ri.t 1~Cg~~~t~I~"PEoP().~e~~<?p',1~~~p.f~~!~fff1~~.:~~J2~':';:'.
~;:r .'.~. : A., terraces. cut. .~~oJh~ ~ll.~ ,~(~?:~!h~ tops ~qf tl1eI6\ver moI.ls;jJ1ie upp.~r ~llsJde aieas)i!fde.sigri8:t~~ f()r~~:~~?~:~;.'~'
..
';';":'.
. .-:. The deveIopme~t ,cbn~eptis ~epic:ie4 :~ri.'the. Land ti s~m;d. rievelop~erit PI.8n/Dis~'iCt }>lanned: ::_, .:::.,;' .'
" .:. Developnien~ Plan (LYD P II> PDP) ~~ched as Exhi~~t D-l ~ . eonsistffig of a projeCt description, limd use pl~,: ,~::,
... . site.plan.. deSign grndeliiies(mdudillg land Us~ arid d6vek)pment~tfurds X' designconceptS;apd other text ~~.}. ~:. .";:
~ . ~ SUpplemental dl~;itIDrip.ed by the" Cify,"RECEIVED OCTOBER 20, i997"~:TheappiovaI of the I~lanried ..
. "~eveiopme~t:Re~one .w~ll1d' mcorPor~te tins Land Use' and Developme:ni piar;misiiict Piann~d':~~~~;::~?;;:-<:('~' .;-
_,'_.' ,_.,~,._,,___,:_~"'-_'.}..<:;""..; .,:' .--.-,~~'''-....:-.,.':-.. . -...... ~.. _', _ ~.., .~ ..,.c'......':..:....-." ~-o(....:..-....-o;~'-....?::
Development PI~ ID,accordance with Ordinance 4-94 of the City's Zoning OrdinaD.ce,:addres'smg'~:.~~."."::, ,~~..
._. __ . ._'~~~. '. ?'~ ',.,' *_~'."'_' .~.~ :-~--,-- .,....0... .... ".~-., -.". "; ... .,--.._" ..;;... '. - "'. - -.....:~)...+~.~-_....._'.. . ..-...... '-.'.
.. .~. .:' Plamied Developments :,:;:'is' ,well as .the Eastern Dubliil Specific PlaIi requirement fora Distri~t Plaimed,;,.,:.: :,.
) ..~. peveiopIT{~~t ~lah'.~. Th~~~pp~~~e:2fLUDPIDPrif~lrllicl~de'ar(t~Xtfutddiagrarn;~:at&ched ~ E~~i( J:)~>f'.,.~
,}O~ this St~~R~~~ft; -~'''i~~)~, . ',/', ~~:i',',;:'::;::~t'~(t;~~'"";i:~C(
The proposed PD Rei~~g aiid LUDP/DPDP ,are consistebi With the hind use goals"an~ policies'?fthe'-: ...': '.' ...
. ". City' s. gui ding . 4ocuments. for land Use. decisions (GenerEu Plan, Specific Plan, and Zonirig OrdIDaIlce ):' As..
the following .comments reflect; the project p~oyid~s a coordinated plan for developm,ent.of residential,.
. open space, ~diecre'ati6nal..~es: It' provides 'fo~ this development through a frameworkof protective' .
development standards, that reflect the sensitive biologic~, aesthetic, topographic, and' ~tlier featur~s of.. ..
. .. ... ,.:-- '\'<_:';:, . ..:' .~. . c' . ... . ..,'. .~:. ':'. ...
. Although the City's Planned Develo~me~t Ordinan~e has recently been amended, this'.project ~as initiated
prior to the amendment and is therefore being processed under the requirements of Dublin's Ordinance 4-94.
The current project includes refining the PD zoning districts adopted through the Prezoning and adopting a
LUDP.
2
~I'
~
the site. All components of the project are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
..... Specifi~ Plan intents, goals and policies, as further discusse9-. below. .
~::..:::~;;~.:~' ,::,:.::',;.\:~ir~i{f7...:;:.~.~:~':~::~i:. ;~:/:,:.,~'l:.~::{;;~\,: ~ ,;>,\:-~'':'_. :.'. . ... . .
\~:. -.~: '~/:?1' ~1ep~~J~stp~~~~.?~~.,~? ~~~rie ~~~.,~ppre:i~milg by: ~esignating ~pen Space, Rural :..'. .. .
:;S::,.i,)'{~FRe?id~~~al/Agn~UI~aJ and L,ow Density Resideritial areas c.orisistent with the General Plan and Eastern
....~'- ... 7-; ";' .~; ....;J. ~ ~...::~~ . -.~ ,". ';. ':"',":~...>'i'_' ..." 'f"~":;'~ :".., -;. '-'''. ";"')~",~",,- ...... .'a. ;' .-. . ,~ ',' . '.
~L ,:,.~::j,:i}~.Ru?llItSp'ecif!~:Plari~::By usirig'.Plaiuied DeveI6pment'principles~ however, the project proposes an','" .... "
..... - ......../'::1... . ~.._.__. .".2~,.......;.jJ:.I..-r-.......);.. ..... ).' .-<....J:'--.... ,::;. #........, ' . ......~ _~.". .' . '-- -- -.... ....~..'. ", .
:t>'<:.;~}{ effective riJixtti:fe 'of resi deritial; 'open-space and recreational 'uSes. For example, at an overall density of '.
~.=_-~;,;\~)o;u-::""';-:~~-.~_.t~_;~:--:::1'A.:t:;~~'';';~-:,,'''--,::'''\.~'...-~~","~V~.~~t?:-':" ,~~~..: ..'\7;.--:'~~'...!.'. ..,::. ......../......:.. ,~ .: -. . . ....: . .
~:.J,~.F;:<};4.4 urutSlacre' across the project sIte;:the proJect'is consistent WIth the Eastern Dublm SpeCIfic Plan' 0 :: . .' . ,'.o:
k~':_1:""';.-4,J.,J~~".""~"~""''t. ....:--.~1'~....$.1...1....... "~":" ".~" -:. -. -l:~-':-.,l't.~";'_ '.' ''''''--'. .. ..... '. .' ,. _'. . ..",.. .
'f::~~:~tG~;fm8x.izP:urii de~itf fo~ Smule.EaIDlly Residential of'< 6.0 units pel: acre:: Nonetheless, under the project;r:.' .'
:;i::~;~~r:Uj5ProPDP~:-ili~Y;sid'6i~ci~~~~;,.t~~d~~~b.rsl~~~~lli','di~tinct '~ei~hb~;h~odS.~f varyi~g_densltie~'and 1'6t ::. ..:
"'~"-:f.?t-?";PAf:":~,~.~~Oo.Ot~.r-!..4:\.t'";.~",\:#~~.":I'~t'~-;.ti...!.:w'f;"::'~i.'i.t~!~~.n:"-~;:~';,.~~,;,t{",.'::'o:"..'\.,'.....':';-;-:-;" -= _:""~t ~~..-......:.. ,~"~."r-h'l.l...,,,...t(.. t~.,.'''''''~~'' .." ~hi'.'.l'~' '.;-' ~~. . .
,':'~~~~:F0.~ s1ies~. Neighoorliood LYproposes approxiIDateIy 8' 000 5q: ft? Jots. at if density 'of 3~ 1 units/acre~ W e :~.!.:,> :".: .
~1~~~N~ightrⅈ&tdi71JY~b~se'~~4:000:f~~ i~lots;it~id~~r.;iioi'5:iiiliitsiabre~~: nrr6~gh' this"pr~R~'sal;.ilib :'~~~}:, .?>
_ -/'-: ":.:....;;[;,"-'!':':::;=-.. t':<::~'~:J:"''''~'tqJ".~/~ ."'~:i~"-,*,..;'~f.~~~~ .'<:.~:7lo'i~~",~~>;~--;,tJ;~:;<-,::r:;:;:'.-r-:.>,.,.,~;",_.,,~.-.....;:.~ :-: '" "',' . "-;:," ,. " .,,-., -' .:. .;~..~: .':' ~. .::.
!.~~Z!i?2~.~~B~~~~12R~~gf~.~~~~~~~~12?i~~!:~~J~.~~~,~-~t~-~~~. ~f' ~~~~~ ~~~e.1.~~.,~~.?i: ~~~~~~11~::~~ >~r
~1R~J1~~~~~i~ent~~ Ge~e~~~l~~g~E~;;~~B~R.!~.~~R~f.ffi~:.~J~~ ~~~~~~f.fI~~t~~~,.~;g;r.r~~~:~~E~'~~~
;}tf~Wit~1~~~~1*~~~~t?f~4r.~i~~~J~~~~:!ft*~~;i:;;lg?;~~:;I-~~~~~j~~~~,~~:..;}\~~:~~;:t..~~>0~1r?~F/j~~~~f.t~~:;~~~
~.<::;;;~k- Th~ de~ignated opeif siface;'tiails; crrcUlation ~and~'recreatiori- facilities; iricluding the proposed golf course;'?',:::}
... -';.:"'::I!:~1\~"'-' :'.-:,1\ .-..........:f7:" ..,r... ......\_~-.:. -,....1.../,... "..'-.....aX...~""i-:.. .~~ ,..;.-" :lo,c;o.,:............>-. .. . - ". .. - '-". -.. --.. ... "': ....:
""..;F;-:~~~'.are -~onsi~ep.t With the'goaJ.s~'of th~ General Plai:tand Specific Plan, of providing open'space for 'outdoor.' " .:: ~'_
..,':;:. ......-~......- .-' ....::- -J-. .t.<;.......t.........,~.-~ ....\ ......-.. _#'.,. ."'.... -' ~ ":;:::~-~~'-t:~.}(-l.......:;:...... -. 'C'" ".~... .,. ~ _ . .,,' . . ., ~ ~ ~.' -- - __ ... -.-.
~:::::< :-;'.j:ecrea!i~.ri. .~~ for jesoUTces pr~seiy~tioj1~:.:Th.es(hlon-residential portions of the project are geneniIly ~~: . ',' .- ~
~j',~' >\: d.esigDat~~-as'.,Open Spa2e and R~ Reside"ntiallAmcultUraI o~ the General Plan'ani:I'specific'Plan~'>'>~ " "
~;;~~~..~-~;iTh~~~)~~i~a~?~.g~~~~apy'/e~f~~ii{g~ii~y'~j9P~g, ~~?S))_~~~.~.the ry~gel~d~_~d .D~~e~n'the vaiiC?~..~~. '::'
:':~'-',:,~~ .~:~i:~iesidentiaI 'iieas,"mi iili~i:D:llrten(stream~corndor:iUi:liiiii6- north and south'through the site, ind'visually" ~:. :'.. ,'.
.~~~~~~~~~irive<ridg~~~:Ir;ili~~'6rth~~irid~aii~fr~r:6rti;~~ ~filie'site:' ':.:".~,,".: ' .<.-." :..\ - .... " .. . :~-,:
~~:-;.aQ:%~~Jf~~~~;~~.~{~;~t;~~f;~~J:lJ;;t:~IS;~~$~1J~;t~:~~s%;~~f{?'::':"~' ..~::.: :j'~,...; '.'---:.'::' .,. .~ :-:.. , .' . -,< ~ , :..~> :'" ~-
~>,<:~.:~:?\~ough..Q1~ ~IlP],!I?.PI?P: th~ pr'9Jeft propos~s-nq: gev~lopment on the 'Visually seri~itive ridgelands in. . ',- :.: .
ti~T~rt~n9~_~~~31~~~X~~#~~1~~!li~~~~;~Aj~?g:~~~~{~rini~e,~'t' stream: c.o~dor, ~e ~yPP f?~l?P.'~>;:_"\'; :;': :';<'::~.
<t,: :.:~:.>tCpr:~pcis.e(a iPUlti:~e' tritiland bicy~le p,itIi.~; The project 'feature is. consistent 'with 'seyeral important .:~:: ~ ~:-. ... ~:::-.
: ::~ ;~~t0~J.~-, Q~~~~~?!~~d..sp~cIfi{PI~:g~'iii~~. I~ reflebts p~~ipies~-~t PD' plannmg in.that th'eCorridot provides a'::\....~
~ -_ -::~~~:S lillw'comiecti,on)hrough the va:rioUS:-~esidential neighborhoods within the site, and also' to off-site . _' ,.
.:~:: .~ '!.~-?: lo.~~tio~~ 'such"a:s fu~e sdi6~ls 'arid' com.rn:ucity 'p~kS':' Lo~ated u;. the 'streani corridor, if pioposed-iinear' . .
;.,~'~t~2i(~ ~,s9 P[~S?iY~~'fli~cJtr~am.c~i-ri4br,k~vif;nment\vliile pro\,idU;g a. c'bntinuous open' space' area for'. '.'
'~;.;31i;F~11~i~~~1~,t~f~ii'f-:~~~~~~~~~~1:;n;~B~{:i'.<,' .' ".' .->. ".' "'.> :.',-y' · .
:::':.'~~'-:~;::: ;rn~dc!ition to,presei-Vmgsellsltiv~ridgdandS'and 'streani corridors~ the LUDP/DPDP uses less sensitive'. .
'.". .,,"' :_--:-....~,_...-,.-....,.-...:...:;-~.,;. ~_.-. "(~_" _._-":_",_~,"~<"."~:" "'~i.~'~"'h' "7'" ....._....~.. ..,.... ."..,... . _. ~ I'" ~. -- . '. .-'
'.. '::::':~?2* ~eaS t<? pr.ov~~e-open'.spac.eanci~r~~~~ati.q# amenitiesc.onsistent with General Plan and Specific PI~ goals ~ .
_, ~_ ....._ .........__. ,,~.r._~ .,.'.~ ~.: '.~.' ~'_',",'_'~",-".~""T -.'-"jt.... ~ ~_-_~-.._-- ," "'_, .,...-.... . ',..- ,..... -_" -. . ~ ' "
:: ., ..::.i~,~-:' ~d p~li~ie~~ ..q~n~ially With.Ui~~gp~ij):;pac~ 'and Rural Residential! ~gnculture are~ ~f the. site. the ..._ ..C'
:': ~,~~:"u:-= L1JJ?P uSes gently sl'opmg 'are~~t9':pi9Videnatm8J. ':and'landscaped open spaces' aroUnd aDd 'along virtually:;'.'
..~':~:'f~:al(6fthe. iesid~ntiiU rielghborhoodsH'poi-tionsC;fthese open areas are also proposed for a'golfcourse and . .
.:: ::_ ~;;;,~ccessoryc!?bli~1ij~:ilia(wou1d'b;rQP:~~Jp~~'p~blic for play on a fee b~is. Through the low intensity,
~.'. .:: ,~.:'-.':-::gqlf c.o~se developmen( :the L:QJ?~- proVi~~s for outdoor recreational opportunities for proj ect residents
. -=:'.i. :~~c~d th~ pub~c:'. It. als6'mamtB.iri~'large- areas ~ofgreen space which buffer the sensitiv,e ridgeland aDd , ',.
~':'.'.~,~~}~~e~co.r?idofaT~aS,'andwhicn 2cJn~Hut~:to .m~iaining a rural quality for the projeCt site. .
.:< .":,~e:L~r'~~:i~b~l) ;~~i;I:f~~~~:~ri~f' t~';io~~se '~ore intense ~eVelopmeni~' the. residential
.' ,.' ...c~. .,~' neighborhood '~eaS: and less interiSe:~r:no. d~:V~lopnlent 'in the Open Space and Rural .'
. .... · 0". ..:' Residential! AgricUlture areas. These uses and 'locations are consistent with and reinforce the General Plan
::;'~~!:c~., ~d Spe~ific P!3nI~d uses"goal~,and policies by pr~viding an open buffe~between develo1?~ent areas,
~~.
~,'. .
:- .. ,,"
.,
.,.
. .'
.. .
3
.;
1 .
v( J
,.
, '
by restricting development in sensitive areas, and by providing limited development for recreation in'less
sensitive areas. .. ." ..' -' .
.j;' . .~ '. , .~ '---"' p' .. .-" -- " ",,' . ~ ," ....... "
~: ,.lli~'~ropi;~~~UD~iJ:>!'P~~9?~~~,~~ 0,r?~~tio~!.e:~&AW:tbe~~~~i~f .f~4A~, ~R'PDPy;,:: :\:::..',
~--:' :.phasmg plan IS meludedas one of the dIagrams meluded ill the LUDP;and IS illtended to address ,t:. :::"'::. ..
~i:/~:;' ~~y~iop~~~f's~qrg~~ili''';~~B~6~us.~:~:~€dfic Gfrastri{~trn:~'Ft:{fif'erii~niS'f~tili~p~~J~tt'ili:f{y~t: ict be. ~:::~:j.i~:'{~;::>/:.".
~\~'i.::tdet~~~d:if~fd1ti6~~-~o'rriiatio~~f1~diiig'iAfra}{~~ttf~tte1tfi'~t'iriftr~~b~hig<feqiiJJ~Ho' g~;aadresiJd~f~?gj:Jf.,
-\::' _~.."'~ ~;'"~-~"!"th~: ';:-~'D- ....:~:.i ~I-i.:(:~,~:;~~';-.rf:--'A~~;t-~:;'''-0.t.(:-:~:~;J:. :-.;...,:q..:;:- ~:':.fd~~"'t':t:~;:~'''thi:''''f: ~'-~' -r4"t";~:-:i!"' n~,;'::f~":-:'" '~;-~:"?l~~;l'':-~'"'' . ;-::.t::s~~l~<\.:......~.ct~~.x:.:tr.l';.Jtj~i~i"'~:"~~:).~;~\ ,::~-:-":;"~"~',;:~~.~.
. '~~':':).:;m . e eV/e opment gI:eement reqUITe lor s proJect;:;::'..~. ~r:~;..~ ~~~~~<;~p.e .~"t:'~".'{::Vf7.$.:,;~~,~~:'--:~t+~;;,,(~\s~
:~~:~i~~~~~;{f~~r~~~t~~ ....- . ;rt~~~~il~fft{F~~Jj-.;;.' . :;A~~~ li~Ii~);~~t~~~i;?i~\t~5iJ1~~g~~S:
:~(1.~.The. proje~t i~"aJ.so'cciiislstent; vvithtlie PD';, Planifed,D'eve opment District p'rocessirig"procedure~. m:~t1f.~'t0i~~~.:~,(~3:
B{'~,::rt'Oidin~cffi~g!!4:94~~':1~~~tr@:ilRdtiili'e~~fdili~~tfKPlYz61:m:f~~:1r&,C[f~{~ttd~llrrfu;~~~~p'~~lli~;~~}f.l~?~E~~~:
:Zo':#]1m.r~~::"i6'f~~~-4-::.;.y''':~~'":-.;ti~'''''Z~~S';:i~'?~~'e'~:w...~t.i~~''.:r;..~.,<*;' ,""~._~~"~~1.'>>1li.",;;l'.~~"J,!';"1;P'::'*if-:;~1-;.~.-;.f:;i.t:;-,.,;{~
,-"t:"'?~; project comphedWlth.tb.eJfrststen,wlien ItwasQrezoned to, tlie.PDPlanneilDeyelop.ment DlStnCt.~,:~t.;,'(;.fj.{;O'~::;~;':!
,..;.S'.f.~~:t . .7::~~~~.;<-~>.,,,,,,,~lf;~'[>t.:<"'!.;:;".f.~.:'.l'}:'$:l"'''(:''~~*'':~ti~~.>'*'~~'"V~~:.(r.e"~""?,i.?:.~~'i!f~"'~'lt~r."S-~~.-;;a.,'-.r'\>~"'~""~~!~7~i{i""';'?'$.~;;a~!;:~~~
~~lJ~~~~~i1f1-!?1.~r~1fIili:~~th.~&~~{2Ed2~~~f:~~f"~tli~gP"'D!gJg:~~~~~~~~JJAl~A<>>th.d;~~~l:i.'~~~~~~~;~t:.;~$d.;?~~pro ~ .. '~~T
. ~2~L\y~"COlnp Y.i.~ .- e secon step,o c e' zoruncr process:;!" oUCTsuusequentpemu .an .;t,>>~" ..:";
-:~:~-:t""._4~~""~~~"'-;.i..~~~~\~~~),~:~~~..~:~~b~;~~~~~~~~~'~\:.;:-~~;z't"~.g-:-..;;.~t*~I~-~i~.}l~~~~=fi.:~~~~~q~!"'~"~ :\i7id:~~*~~.:A~-!~'CY\t~~";'
~~J.;y~~p~~~~:e:p~g.~~~~~~.2~~~~w.$iM~~'~5;~i?l~~,~.? .r?~~!?~PR!~,~~~P&Qfs:~~q~~~Jffij;<,~~~P~~~.;-..., , '
~:/ compIetetliePD-zoilliig"rocess.Wider'Oidiiiance:t4~94;~T1ie='I.o~~osedLUDPIDPDP:Coiii~ IietWitlltlie .~ j
:..to....--:.~".;.:'*_~-:'~.!\:~~~....~....~..::'~-O::...~~;;;s:.~~~~t:-:c..;.~~':-_._ 1?~,.~t..~').~.-;[..~:,:~...,..'Y-'l"-.:l~~:'''':o.:''c,:-~!~,~\~!~-: ~:!:;.;iii~...-,c...-;''''--;'~~~''i~~' I?'S.t~~';;"':'t:'~-, . _ -. ....~ ,~~ ~. ~-f'l""~'''''~Jf:\c'''~'~''''..
~~:.~:;~ intent; purpo~e:~an~ reqooementS' 6ftlie' Planned DeveIo"'ment Districis~ ~. .~::~, ,.~;~~~:~~..:~':
~'&:iE1; r4iS proj~~t ~s.~thill th'e, Geri'eraI Plan E>..1ended' PlanmncrAIea anc!, ili~; Eils1ei:d :Q~blm:Sp~~ific l'Jap.' ,area;:,r'0.f:~t:'-~,
1;'!ilfIII11Ifiii~i'rifllilltli
!'~;;fi.yvhi~h' yiere' ri~t abI~to. bfjIDtigateCli:Upon.ceiiificarlon'of tlie'EIR(tlle .CitY;aftbptecni'st~temenfoL:;~i:;i;?;"; .~:'t~<,,'
;;~37t~~~~~r~{~~~J~~i~~:;;J~iJtnl~;~t~T~~~~~1~iifi~t~f~~1;f~fjt'~Ea~~~Hit~2[-;-_
;'(~~'Eli{;ff~~fM~~!.1~~~fi!~~l~i~r~~~b~~~"J&~~~\~tig~~l~r;;~lt~;,~;..5;";:;:';i:
"'..~..~...~'_'._-:--., RC; _."".;.;..,~";~'.~../.;.y,.,_~:......'...;!.....;,,.r--..,;.~'.}-,., '.:_'~'...k-_';"~."iz ~ "." _~ -:....~..r_.-_.'"'_~...."'-,........-+...r~....~.-t<!'f.....-:O:.......,.d.~~..~~.._'~ -#'-.. -. ',. .-.-..':' ..
':--c} proj ec! apP~o:vals lirid.acti.oils'ii(vanc)us' stages ill t1ie':dey~lopmen(pr,o'cess;,s~me '~cctii:ring'prio~ to,~<_~,~~.:. '. '. :..,.....
:: ,:1-'~~ppf~y~?l~~ .~pJ~~i~~e:~ci?~;'ot?e.~'~sc~i}~t~r i?<tlie '.d~~~iop~~~f~ip_~~ss?~~~g~~~#pf~~'~iJ.~\~~\~:~>.>~~V.~~..~':
~: .Z:~.c' coridi~6ns- may, be{applicablewhen the' propertY. is' subdivided; or dUririg'sife .deveJoPI:r?-erit revie}V ;'o(at3:; O:?::,'':: .:,.~".,.
.:,~' A1!- Initial StUdy, dated June 18,1997; was pie'paredforfueprojeCi:;io'deterrnine-~hetherthete-,will be:'.:'"'; 'f' ."'/' ~
. . a~~:tiO};lar e~yiro~~erital impacts occ~g as ~.r~sclt'~fthis pr~j~ct (th~'pp Rezon;j'b'ey'ondor'different, .
.,:._fibni' those -a1Teady'~ddres'sed m: the Pro'~ EOC';, The' fuiticl StUdy id~i;tifi~s' s~m~'i)oteiitiiti iIDp~ftS:.~: ,: '
:,:,~:~~:'~h1c:?h:~~qcire~f~ ~~~~{;,~ti6n. ~t a'pi6j~ct spe~iliti~y~lc;i d~taii!d~e)~:W~-:~e@~d.de~i~atron o~ Iand~,",_
':-~~>Uses:and developrhent'~d~ds-;Pe~ifi'ctothe:proje~i:site:-~ASi-~~sUlfof-this'further'ev'aluati'oii,'these ". ... ::.' - ','
'. . :fi~}!o:,,~f~d9J;~:st~:~:~U~~~':~tti~~:~~~;!J~~e~et~fZl~t~:~s~~roj'ect::...,'
'~e~ific,ll.rip~fti.tl1,a~~~er~,~?t, addTe~s~~ in the Projr~, E~-,\".':~..':~-':~';: ~-/.,,:.;,;: '. ._ ..', , .,.,
.... i..
. _ i
. ..:-; . " ~
:~. >
',.4
.-
...
\
\..
~~
>,
.'
~~~. q~. Th.elnit!al,Study's "fo~u~ed evaluationofpe~nent~roj~ct-level environmental issues include traffic,
, . _ ..' ,. n?lSe,". '}~~aJ,and..b. l~.IOg~,ca. ~.7~~Sts,.,~? p~bhc s.ervlc.e ~ssu,es, such as. wastewat~r and schoo:~.- Each of
>:=~=~.th~S~ISS~l~S has.bee:n the:subjectofsupplemental envlfonmental studIes addressmg new envIronmental _,
S:. . ,":7teffe(ciSfo~%i~le~yb('blthe':'proJ~t+iiiea"'blic~;e/1iUclies have deteImined tlult the'project will not have" ..
/~.:"_'Z:~fany'add1iibh~~ignifiEai1ten~r~llitib~t~r impa~ci'\vlllch were' not evaluated in the earlier EIR: ..~;' ;- ..
~.:.,..;-::;:..:..---::-._.....,., ::.:..r.......~>.~M~~~:.:~:.~}-....-....:..,....:~F'..'ll.~~~i""'.......~~..;.;"'..~1;-~....~......;:...-'l::..~~" .. ~.;~"..:,..' : _r.~ '. '. ...:...~4 . .~........~ '.r-" -....,:. - .;: '._ . ....
~~~:,.:j~~;j;.~ R.-eco~e.ilgatJoiis' frQI# Jlie'suPP'I~meritarstudies are included in the proj~~t description and/or are ~,:,:. ::\~;
~::' ,::;~;Y~}efl~Ct1d"rrtJh~?[cjffditT3if~'rgft-"'~i3~@EFtirihetdi~~us~iori~iilie?~bov;-not~d,~tudy~afe~'Ippeais below.~~
9:i'i~)~(?,~a~.i.~ 1~~~$~j~~4~~{~;?~it,1'~;~j(e~t~%~iNJg6f;~1it:~;...)jl'K$;;;t~;;'!;;
~~:":~UI3t~~TRAFFI Gi' A' trafficstiiCIi:was.. condiicted for'tlle'projecC If identified'several irOpacts;. however the: '~o:.:..:~\;.
!g-..;r::.~:r~J1j:'.~;'r~-r~r4~"-'V~~~#-~:')f.~;-~";~~]t.:;"1~-t~~~~;';~3;Z:-:'-:':.~r"';'( ';i:j-,l ... .~:L~.~:;.~'" ~'-'~'S~' "$'.~.~~~$~3'~~"':;.~' -it,.~.. i.~"'_r~\~{~~~':}' ,-:....:.. ,:.;:;.~ ~ r ; .. 'v~ ': l_:~~:..:.~'"'.;-~.r
~J~1~r~.~It~P2'~. ,ts.';>.W:;.~f~llir~~Et~~~~~~~~~~Z~!~.~~gg;i.;~E.~\2:.,~.~;~~&!J;~~;~~~t.~~;i~J.'1its~:l.,l~~ef/~~;f::;i
d;":"'~~{,~Y2.::;measures 0 e ux"reqwreu ua.uIclIDprovements anu lees to mItigate any's15~~can rmpac ~1 .Llle...,,=7~;:'~~~'
r'''':''':~~V..i:.~.3~~;'~--~~'''tfxt~i.~'''''''fl.~'1_''"i;.~,....~:."i~1~... ...a.;;r.;~};-u;;..:t.~"""~~~t;~....~.:r....tf.;t1'("""~'t""'~.r.-..._t:.:':".L""'.. .;.;..I.......;i,;.;" ~-,.r~.....~...."" .. t..~ '';-'':':'_ .f.~.... ...r")",.:', -:~,:;{~:,;,;;,~,,,:,,,,"'.. ~~.' ~~..: ::.~_ '. ~ ~~:';::':,;...7"?~.:.~ )"\'t'
~t!'.~:0.::'i~~TieCenftrafficsfud ~ iffi'rbvementS:twhicH nave oeenmad6"d5nditions'.of the> ~ ro .ec( 'aie':Withiii the sea .e:i.ift;
iill~~ti1~6~~=fitd"~ilin-~ ..ltffli~~gl.I<<,'I'ftl
:~~~~S~~~11:~~!lf~~'ir~~~~~~~fi~~fEf2!g~!~~t~~Ri?!f}!~S~i~}g.~~!~~~!;f~;~d,R~~~~t'~~
I'-~.'t.::.:.;.:.r..t.:.!.~.~.:.~.f:r.:~\~flflk.~~~~~~~~~..t~.-~.*l~.~.;. Wg~rl~~j~IJk~'1~.: :~~~.~.'&.~~."'~'?~i~~i~B~.n~~.:.r.!.~
.'~gl.;~Jj~~~fari~~~&r~d'{d~@~~~~iirrir6::f6ot't1ill'5o:;{ri1 b~e;SwoUld'b'~~h;~d~~i't6~a'Chf~~~~1s~:~~~:~
......-:....:...),;i-.....;,4.....~~'.'!'~r~..{<~....~~..""l':l~'~.. ./":.~.:-...~o(~....~.,..,I.u;.,....)i..).:.....~...""';;,~_~~:;~..:-""~"'''''''r,.v~~:~_'-~,.:~........_ ""._~ ..._.',c.... .... '...._,_.... .. . ....:.'._....~~-, c...:.:--....;..~-....-..t:,.......~,..~,..._.. .'.__ 4'
it :?l!/ii? goals:/: 11?~reqiiiiement for~t1i'ese'bamers .lias been made 'a'-condition of appiovaIqf the' pioJec.i!~ No;~~(;>~:>~~
~~~~~~~!~{~~~ij1iilii~jiiwj~~~:~~~;&~~~~&0~~;;,~l~~~~~;~~tt;;!ri
~:;:,.~,:~IJ;;::~;-VISUAU:AsupplenientatvisiIaJ 'analysii wis- conducted forthe' project at a project~specific level to'::}::. ':>:.:~-'.
~:~~~~i~:~ete#itB~~~!11]~f~~p,t6]~~~E~S!gp:~~p.g~~~*~ ~~.~tigatj()n.ip~~sur~{~~.~S..?!~.~~:~~e!!1~{~y..~;;~::~;.
~\:\~t;-t .-~dditional.'\TisllaI iilipactS~onD.itigatior{measures 'woUld ber6qUired::. The study'also evaluated the'project .~,:::
'""'~. '_.r~'.~~,<_.:.. ~ "'::!} _-c;:~._ .-.'i-.....",:.-f:;.~~~~~i-....:~':--:J..,;', ... .~t.J.....~~. ).....:;~~-_. ~... _~4-_..:-;':"-"\:..~ ."'O:;'~,.'-"O~~i.:.,:.;. .';',r." ...;..,..... .."..:.;. T' - . - '.' .' . , - ~ 4 .'.. ''-:-'. _ _
~':,.::,.:.~t ~;',Y" desigiJ. in' termS-of tlie Specific Planvisuarpolicies~:' Several design' guidelines and development 'Standards :'.
i=: ;,._,=\2~.r..z:~;:::--::-'4_:: ",",: ~..' .....r?~....~~~-t;.~~r:~1--e.~~~~..~'.iJ3J:~.~":~ 'A:~'-I;;';::'..:' .~_ : ,: _~. ;0. . ~ ..-:-...._ ..~ _~. . . _ ~. _ _ _ ~_ ,__..' . ~ . .. ...;:. ___ _ .. _. .
~~ :':2:'~~~:;;1...pav~ .be~n' proposed as part bfthe-proJect; and made 'condinons of approval> to reqwre gradirig refin~Il;1ents
':~:'-''''''.'''.-T:''''''':.~~;.>-''~'';.~''''''--'''''r.'''''''"(4~ j.~'.JS,:~~~~'~fi W~"""'~~~""'~i'Z'A~"'~":~~h",-;;t-;.~.~.. ~"-{""''''~''''_,\". ..'~ _.......-. '._ I..""~ ~,' ." .... ~.:..
~:~>-i:.~-;~tft~.tt1ie'P!ojf?~~ pr.6c~~i#?~N6~additioilarsigDificant iIDpacts heyond those address~d in the Program EIR ' _ . .'
;L~~~i'0}~~ef,,1~~~~~1~~~~~~~1(if~r1)~€~'1:'(<:;.. .':"':\ ..;,;~,\;~,?~. ;?et':'t;5'~:{ ....:';,.:,':<'; .....
~;'E:;:,;~Eff. BIOLOGICAL'}(supplemental biological study.waS conducted for the project at a projeCt-:-specific lever:. . .
-':: .'~~~~'.,lt:~.6:det~&5f~~:~~~Qi,~i,~fplo~~sf{{e>~~I;p'in~nt\Vi4re.-~t _~ '~yadditi6n_~~~actS or '!eq~es. any, . :': ' ,
.: ,;:-::'~U'rad_di!i9~aIjnitigatiorl Ipeasures:~~ The stlidfalso followed up on several studies previously completed as', .
;:--, ,,",:...~;._::~;,.,,::-~.....;:>...,..,. ,~'--..4."~":"~::":'';':''-'':~--'''-''-:~-'''':'''.;{-k?:!;-'~.,;.~....o.~,:"-4?-,-!.........(_,~~........--._..;. .. __ ,,_~, . _ _ ..._'W " .. ",
i~:~:.'-::,:D:~::paIto:fJne.~rpgrnm EIR:~TheprojecfsitehaS beeri designed With consideration ofblOlogICal concerns,:: . . ~
f;';~~{Y;"~tanltliot(tEii(IDiti.g11i()~"ii{'6as~es:~ilibh~reqcird bUffers' 'and p~6tecti6n'of sensitive' biologic31.areas have:'
-~:~~._~~:-,.::-:::'>:"",; -...--.,:;.,::,..h";'':-~'-'!~Jo-"_~:;l''~'~''- .._::~~+.."'1)<....;.:.~_i''''''.~:-<'A'.;...:~'-'''-:'',r;;:.':,-~"-,.,,:",,;,,,,,~ ,:.' _" ._. .'.~. '. . .....;. __ ,_ _... .. '.~., _. ".
-~'E,_':.>.~.~':s been addressed~:~The requirement f6r' the coiitinued'adherence to these mitigation measures has been made.,
.. ~--,: a-~obcli~o-~ ~a'ppi~~~~<olili~pr~]~atN6'; ~dditi~{i~r sigmfi~ant impacts beyond _~ose:~ddie~sed' ii1'th~ -:. ~ -',.~
: : - -~.r-"" I .~ ',,-. . :-:;;-._~..-~ __-r'....~..~ "'::..... ~_.~...-:I_~_ ...~. .... ...... ~r_ . _ . I I. .'.,- .'
Pro~ E!R were ident,ifi6d.fof.ilie 'projed:~~::;~~~~:~-', >,:=~,,_:..,;;. '. ..', .,'::~:.. "~:. _ '. . .:... .,' -,.-'.,:
.. :;t~jj:;~~;i~~YfiW;l~f)t;:E~;~S~g~~i~~i,;,~t;E~i:;~L;:-;~~~,)~,/;,;-- ~:~,: '."... :_.. ::~: ,/:~.y~~tt~'~::;:_~:::\~?:j~ .
" ' -::,.. ..; PUBLIC F ACILITIES{,Th~~~ertmed Progrmh ErR, as updated by the August22~ 1994 addendum>. . .
{;g'~?~:~~~::'-;:~:e~amipedy.,aste.y.,~t~!: f~c~lfW~neids,!'o~th'e pr~ject ~e~ 'and analyzed on a programmatic le.v~l ~.~gations .
'. "y. = ";?>"'c~g fo~ ,u?ipi<?~~m~~ts:fq;-y.:aste\~;.at~itriatrnent ~d export facilities~ Planning by local agencies for the'
.' iID.pr6yemenfsnecessar:tto~pr6"'idi;adeqUah~'wastewater s'enriCes is ongoing.' For exainple, LA VWMA,
has recently.!~suedXNoti~e' ~f.:Prepa!ation\mder_ CEQA for exporting treated water toEBDA. DSRSD ';
.also is ill the plannmiStiges:ofitS.1ieatID~ntplanteA'Pansion.- The status oftbese improvements will.
. ~.. ,~., ... . ~ - . - . - I-
. - contin~e:t6_ h,e monitored, t~; assuie~ compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program as
.: ~ developmenf ~p'plic~tions '(~:g:;tentative maps, site development reviews) ~e submitted in the future. .
~ . -
'5
!.
c-
(:
}
i;, q5 Finally, the Prezoning for this project site requires a School MitigatiC?n Agreement between.the de~eloper'
F':' and the affected School District to establish the 'method and !panner of financing and/or conStructing
~"" . s~hool fa~iYties ~:ce~s~ ~to ~e:ry~ ~~e_ ~~h_~9~ P.?p.~~B2!.1 ?~~~ii:!..~~~~~'~7 ~~.velol:~~~t:,. ~ ~~f~~.
il: · ~ has been entered mto WIth the Dublm School DIStrIct; ,which covers the sIte... A copy IS on file m the - ~ :.
~~,~ .. PI '. . ; D' . . . . l -:. .~.::: -"':". :::";'~~;.>.'. . :-"' .. ; \~r:,: ....~~..'...:,~~~<:t..~.;~,~'<:..:.!{\ :, :..<':<~.::.: ::~ .:'~~:"'" :' '". ",.;,.'. '
~'t: -_ anntn,::, epartrn.ent.(--.'7.... .!.n'......~.,.t....c..t"..,. .."""....:..... ......--..-.....,.,..."'\.;.=""1.~;....;..~~..~.-j.~.h;;...;\.........-:.,.:t../~..~~\,......_...... ..._~. '.
;{: '.:.' }/.', :~~~; ~~;;~;~~~,~[;';~: Z~~": '2; ~,;,:~'.<~~:~ii~JJ~~;~;}~;~:t}~+;~~~f:.j~~ -~: ~~4li~j;~$~r~~1i~:~~~t~~~~i~t~~~t~~~Ji.f~~~~~?;i~:~~ .;1~f~:;2(~::~~;:.,
;:. ':.'>:~ {<J;~~ ~~~. ~J1j~y~ gi~~~~f\~ '.~~ ~rQ5'}.si?~:~{ !h~:Ef?j~~{~~.!L~~~)A!-!:~ppH.c~?!t.~!!g~~9_it!?~~W~~'.~?{~>
iti~::..::~.;(> .,~"e,'.~~~~.~!~,~~.~~,:~~q~~~\~~vlf?#e,ii~ '~~E.?~.~s}!~~{k~X.2t~~;~~~0~JF~~.,~~~~r~.q;.~~~~1\~~~i/.
,~.:~,..:~\,'.:';. suppkmenfuI enviioimlental stiidies"regardmg these issuesare iric'oti)'orated iri this Staff Report byl.~~:'~H-:.~':. :',
\i'.:";,::~<,J?i~....~r:. .. ..... b';..,;' ,..~."4::- p',," :t':':;t:',,,,~:,."(li..fj.~t~~t"':l}.'~:.~. '~.'(....1."" ~ ;".!!'~~::_~~#,,,~""'....-..;:-.;r~~}(...~t;t~~,-...t,.~l;-1V~~;'.;,;J'-....'\.l"';l';~:_,-,,,;~~I~,..:.J~", ......-.....~'..T;~,.,..(..J'~~ltt-....(,-l..r:
~":.<f~r~ r.eference (copies.'arEavailable" foireView at the Dublili'Plannmg' Departinent;: I OQ. Civic PJ;:i7Jl; DllbI.iii;~:t1:~'; ~/',
;'~;~;;;-l~rCA~ 94568/ N~ Ihtti~:W~}6~t~fWcrf3;f~'\e,:6ri.;~Ct&]i~~ii-~mrtibitolililfuTt1'af.sfud~~d,DraftN~~':atl~~~~.;;:{:
~J;~':,,,::.{;'J')" ,.,~}.... ,.::....,::..:~..<>~;~~';;:,,-:::. (,"<..':~;!;\':... "'~~~"i':<:'l~~.,.,~~.::,.:...,!J:.:'~!-~~ .......t - " ~"'~~';~?:$;t,t!;~, ~~Ji:~';:~::":i."'~."':'t."f:':-:'i~'-i!;r ~,.~.:;r.',
~ '~f:~:.~~t peclaratlOn. du,rm l7 the public reVIew. nenod:tf. '" '. .. ". ",,>>:...;<>t-i-'::'~~~;t7, ;..';~';;r.'~.:t-f~~~'J~;t:~)~~J}"-'i'; ~:.~#:,
'"'\':.~.., ":- ; '~i ~"./.:!:;~ .;:,:.': ::. ..... ~_~. .#~ J ~.~-,..~ .'\,-'-. e;r :";;-i,.L,~" "'~,~-+:;:~!'!..-~ ~~::;,:.:;-.~~ ..t;i\>J,:,,-,"-~ ~. # ... 't~f~G~~~.t''" ....-~~~J(~5~~..~:l......~J..~'1~oI;.":':. j. ....J?J~i,I-~l~ ,lot\#>;
t~-' "~"......'~.z '.. ....-- -," .' . '.~#'{; '''-s.''~ ,,- ~;l''''''''':''l/.(~''''''''~':C::{ ..:...E.....'t?'-~:;;... ,:-~r t- "":'\ir.l ~~t~. I:. \r.~ t-~.....J.r: "';~" \....~~;"""~:",.~~~{...........l.~ h3;;.....'\~...~...~i."7'......r........
~/~:;:~: ~:~~~S ~"~ ;:.~'? .~', ~~'?~:{;. ';~ -';:~? ~ ~:.{ ::~~~J;~1;':;-\'f:s,0:~?E~;$.~~dt--;'r;~~ ~:' ,~~~:;;~ r;: ,","$~:~;~.~~~lfy.\>.,,~ ' , h~i~i:~~~~~~t';1~1~j~;~ii~1
~~1~~:,~::~t~~..~}~:~~r~~~;~~~;~-?f~~~~~~~~$~~~f!t~~:g~~~~a:;~~i\~,~~X~~~9{~~~~t13n>d~i~~!;y:~~I .~... ~~~'.:
~~~::}(~,:;-~~)?!P~~~~!~SE~~..R~~W~~Qlli:~E...aJ;2~rl~~E'~~~~t~~~.~~t!R:l.~2~9~ 1?~oJec 1~, I
~;~~~.~;'~.wilriiot have"inf' new~si~cii1(etf~ctSoi{the'enVfronmeiifwhic1i Jiavenot been~an1i1 '""(;(rade~Uatel ~m\df~
I"-~'.~"':= ". -(.., ~"C~ ';;......( "~'-.. "';' ~.),.;'" -.~ ,,,-,"'.';",-';':"''-''''''I;'.:~.,.- -"',.,..-*"'-"q,......."."'~,.. ;...'1'!"....---.....'"'-~~.>t; b.;',-.~', .. ;.:.....,"""..~.~~""':l.:SJ'~:...9."....;r_ Y~-""''l:'-.''
.~y~\}~~.~~li~r, ~~)\u:~!1~!,t~)p1?lif.~l>~f~~9~qt~~I9~!N~:~itJ.RF.:~~~P!pj~~f..t,i~~thL~9i~.~9~?PE:~f.1!i.~~}~t:-t~!i~'
'ii~::::.}f Program ElR>; Erojeds ecifi6 analysis be orid"the- Pro""" ,~,. EIR..'is reflected ill th~'Y'io-- ose'd Ne~ati~~€.:'-f:/::;;~ (.
'.. --., -....., ",,'\--',:, .'," " ".:c".? "~'~'- ,.,.."b. :,..v't":"'Y""._''''~_''''t;." ~.....~.,;..t."-"'-<'~" .'. ....>...--""'.....B-.,:g,_..",......'-'..-,c.,,1\"'-,~.,,.~_ ".,..~
~(;.: /:. pe~larati.9~<~1-~tig'!ti~)J:~: f~"piiK~#_P!o~ &gr~(~1JJ~9~T~1~#.~~g~~)!g#~!R~.~EPpl~~f.~~.~r.tr. ;'. .~~:: ~ I
~l,' ~. .~~~ ~~es: ~~ .~~~~d~~ .~'0~ proj~~i ~~~?pP~~~~:#.e!.~ff~n~t~.~~ gtappr.o~~h.E?s~~!Cff~~.~~~~~~!:~~.~.~,;..; (.
~>;" ~:~~~Jl!Jt~~!~%it1rt[J;1~r.:r~?~16t!3;~~t~~,~~j~~j~f;~~~~~~~~~~~tt$~~f~j}3!
t~y ~}.':~~ Dri(appY~ati~ii h~ ~e~$:ievieV;~ci by)1ii?applic.'!~i.e._Gii.Y, pep~~eii{~~ .age;n,c!~~;=fHl~ '!h:~if .con.i~e?tS"~:;Y:,\(
~.~':' <3~\,~. have -been iricorpofated mtothe' Conditions of ApprovaL 14e' propos'ed project is~consisieD.t~th the,'Ji/{ ~::~;~\r)'.
c....> Dubfu' General plan, E~e~ Dubln{ .sp~cific' Plall:~ ~d .~epr~seii~.~.appr6pri~te 'pr~}~2t' f~f th~' sit~.~;~;~:;:F;./~.;;;;~ '~':
.:_~ ~,.....-.;,;"::~;~':.::':...::::';:::.':~:;:.~~)~,::.~.,- - ,. f;' ,....-:-\~.':~/ >d'~.~ :. ~~:~:;~'::~,~;,.~;ti::t:j:::;_~.;::::t/~:f;,t.;~;~~::: '~<:.:>:~.:~:,~~d~;:J:'}:'.: ~r:.:~:...i:..~;~J{S<;:";jff>~( ,
> :','::). staff recom:rDendS the Planning' C6iD.mission's adoption of the'attached Resolutioi' (EXhibi(A):',~ .,~.:,:,:~::..;;:'.;f.~::<: ,'.:::..
. .: ~:':,~:' .~~:'.reco~~nciillg CitY Go.U4cil appr~~,a!qf a:,Negatiy~))~c1.~~~~. (E~~itB),A-dopti~~.<?ftb.~q~~~S~~{::;::-;:',:,.
.'.:..,-.:.;~C.appiovmg.the DubIID. Rancfi<Area'.A Planned' D evei6pment Re:zone (EXhibit C);;imd 'appr.bv~'~bfthe 1;all4'!t::..;~~:.'~ ..
~. - .' ", ~.. .
..: ;. .':.:
.-:
, -~ . l '-.-
".-': -.-....-;~ ~..:. _'_ ,~', ~_~.t..._
1 i :;~, .'.<?~~;puhlic hemng and h~;'~t2ff p~~seI1ta?on. ~.',,/:. ._:,q{~;~:~;~~:/.;;. ~,'.: .':~ ':
.. 2) .'.~;:;'':'>Tak.e' t~stimony: from the App~~ffi}~ an~ ~e public~ .. . ..:~<t :k~:. .. ,., ,
:, - 3),:' ..~~;.~' Questi6~ S~'Ap'plicapt and tlie. 'pu~~c. .." ... , ..; .'.,Lh,:c',;:;;:'.~ '.
.. 4); , ,Close public hearmgaPd delib~i-ate~"'_ '. ..' ...J,'
.5):::: ....Ad?pt Dfaft Res~lution (ExhibJtA) rela!ing t~)~A~~~-03~:: .:..,. '.,
.-. -.'--- '~".,..'~." '."' ;.: .~... ~-~~::': ~':'.;-:='': . -. .
/':"- ,.-~:::,::-.:.- ."..,..-.,'':'''-.~- .<-~. _' .",'-'1
. ,"Adopt Resol~tion reco~e~ding CitY:C~uncil~d~ption of~egativ~ D~~lm-ation, ,
and appro,ral of the Dublin Ranch Are~ A Planned Development Rezone; induding
;anLUDP/DPDP.., ~ ., .- .
. '..... .
-:. ,.
....
"",~.', ,'FORI\1AT:~.: :;
. '-." - '.,
~'_"~ ~~ ~;.-~- ~~r:: .--;~' ~
.; ~~-
." -~ ....,.. ..." - :
,..
.'.. :
. .
; .~. : ACTION:
"
., 6
\.
, .
k:
~~t..
. -
t:
.
~:
f~,
,,\ :~(~::~::~~.: .,_. .:,:?~~~7t;.
..:!,',;...;'/ :.::>~::.:~.-.:..~;
;:'~J4?~~J' EXhibit A:::;;~~;.~.~~:~{'r Planmng CoITimission Resolution recon:iIDendiDg' CitY C6tiricil adoption' of attached :~~';~;r?: :
~;"J.~"~ .;';"ti~;..~~ ~ :",;"'~~:~"'_,~ '"f~":-.;'; ..,""_" ~Y.~. '..:c- . ,-~. ~ :. ;:."".. '-";J;'~~:'f-"f .7 ..... l<" ~ "';;::..:-.... ".~."",~ ... ""-'-:':.....-~..,>~~~ ~y-"~ ~.. .. ... ,.:. , ~--n':: ,," ....~- - Jf""' ~~,,:; . -, ......~: '"f;" .. ,.~~c- ~).. .;.:. :-r:;.~-.~.. '.
~~:tt?;{C~~1::-.::>~:.S~i::: ~_~::."~Ex4ibitS B~ C; ~d D.Tapprovmcr NeCiatiye Dec!aii~.ori;"and-ad.opti?g Q~di~,~~e.~d ,~';~~~~:
'~~~~JE;~:~:~~ '~:?1!~~J~?~~~~iI?E-f~t~~~~-R~~~fI.[~~~~9P~ '~~:.~@tfl.?~~P::i;:;{~; ~~~~~~r~?~,;~:.~t~~~~'~~i~~~:~~i.
~~;~t;~Xhibit B:'i~~~'1:;';_DR.AFT Cit:.\ €oiuicil Resoli1tioii'"'ap'p,-rovmg- Neoatiye. DeClaration; inchidiri.cr EXhibit.(~:~':.,?
~n;="~_~';"~'_~*~~Joo~-.r~~'~~~""__"""'''';'':.J;Q''~~'!.:;.~~J.i:J;~'':'1,;..'It.;.4.~).,.~&..~~....It...........\l:';~..f'f '~-'-s".~. ...;-,.....::;, .~~..~.."._.-' "~'':'''''''~~ ~j.,,- ....-.._ ::;"_. ....~.~,-. ~.'- .....T.~\..
,~~;:~4~~J::~~~~t;:jit{~~~~~:i~: B~ !~!ht~ugl{B~5;J~ti?l_ S~dy,' Noise-StUdy; visUal StUdy~. Tiaffic S!:ildy; Biological ~:;.::~~. ':
~J~1I~~&~i~~~}~~~~~~.~tu~~~:;~~;}~~fW1rEi{:~;~~~,;~t~{t~~7f\~:~t:~<~.:.~. :~~ ~.' ..: ., :.::-~: '~.~?{~~;~.>:.~: "~:~::~~",~:Fti.': ;' " .: ::',' ,':
~~~:]'~:.i ~X?i~!~ 9g~Flfj~} :~, p'RAF~( ~itY~~9ou~#i O~~#i8ifce'''approymg' PI?DDed DeveloprrH~rit Rez~)D.e. : :' :..!';!. :.... '.'::.
:tYtE~bi! D~t~~?;io"~~;' D~r~itY"C6!ill~i(Resojutioilapproving Area A Land Us~.& J)evelopmen~ P.1an / ." ....
"::f~:~~<:: : _,~' :( ":?!,::).~.~/',Y:. :':~. District PliuID.'ed Development Plan (iricludi~g tert and diagrams), with LUDP/DPDP'
J!.f.':;7;,.,,"..;~Attachri1ent 2.... ,:",-,'.Eastern Dubliri. Specific Plan..,.,;::::;;;,,;. ,~.~. '..
:~~:~':ii~:;~\~fA~Cl:i1~lefif3~'::~::{P~kS;&. Re'2re~tiori'MaSt~r- Pi~'::~~~;~::..L:; :.,. C '. .' .... .-., _ ,
'::'-~;.:.;~;~:;~Attachffienr4::;{(:-~' Ell(for EaStern' DubiiIi'specific Plati &. G~neral piail.AniendIDent (including, ': ..
Jcc~C;:;X~-/'f:f!~~r:~';~9~~t~t~ie{,WY 4,.19m~~~# 911P3g64; and~<idendwn dated AUgUsf22~>
)~-~~~;,{: AttachInent-5::://E. citY~coUricil-Resolution c~rtifyhlg E:istern D~blin Specific Plan and General Plan
(-'.~_~'_"~'"'' :,.:.:;~~!~~t~~~~--::::Alnen~e~f;~)i8~am F;IlfcResolution# 51'-93'. '.' . . . .... ..' -.,' .', . ..' .
~<'.:~:<::~:':Att3chIDenf~}}:'~.CitYCoiiDcil Resolu!i~~'cadop~gE~ern Dublin Specific Plan aDd General PI~ ~, .'
:. ;:::' .. : .. _ .,> r)f~{~._~.;: Am~nm;}erit;' adoptmgfuiding{and approving overriding co~siderations; and adopting .<':. ',:.
:'::5~/.. -:::0::_': >_:.~';~:{\<-\ .Mltigation-MonitoTIng Proir~ ('~Matrix") for EDSP EIR (Resol.uti.on # 53-~3),'. ,: -.',
>. , .. ':,c: Attacb.mhit 7 :..?:~:.,. CitY, Council Res~iution 'approvmg Pre~oIDIlg- of mu;exed land (ErR (Resol~tion If 10~-::. . .
..;..--... -.;..,....,.-. .94) , - ,. -...;.,' . . . ,. .
. -~~-.!....~.__. ~'.-.. .-:-- "'.P:'.- .;~.- . '
General Project Information.
'.,"t' "",
.. :~~:~r::};:?'.'" ~.~>:'(3:: ..' ':. .
.....; .": -~..~..~ ..-.
- .Yi:~~:~~Jrl~
- .
':.':~:: :~j..:;;~~ .:~ '_:.~
..
"." :. .' ~~~ ~: ~:;\~
~
h _, ~..;
...........
:.... .
. . ~:':.:.... :~~ .,.
- ". ~ ~ :::.
". .
.,' ~. ~ .
~ ~....: ~'. .;..-,. .
" .,:''J-:<;.:, ':':~,,:.
"
......,
........ .
~ ~ .... " .
.-
..-".
.--
- ..
7
II)?
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 8
HEREBY INCLUDED BY REFERENCE:
Dublin General Plan
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Parks & Recreation Master Plan
EIR for Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & General Plan Amendment (including
Addendum dated May 4, 1993) SCH# 91103064; and Addendum dated
August 22, 1994
City Council Resolution Certifying Eastern Dublin Specfic Plan and General
Plan Amendment Program EIR (Resolution # 51-93
City Council Resolution adopting Eastern Dublin Specfic Plan and General
Plan Amendment; adopting findings and approving overriding
considerations; and adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program ("Matrix") for
EDSP EIR (Resolution # 53-93)
City Council Resolution approving Prezoning of annexed land (Resolution #
10-94)
General Project Information
(These documents are not attached, but are available for review at the City of Dublin Planning
Department and will be available at the City Council Public Hearing on this project)
.
.
.
./;) 0
ATTACHMENT 9
MINUTES FROM
OCTOBER 28, 1997
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
.
.
~1
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, in the Dublin Civic
Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was cal1ed to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings.
**** * *****
ROLL CALL
.
Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, Oravetz, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development
Director; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, and Gaylene Burkett, Recording
Secretary.
**** * *****
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIIE FLAG
Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
**** * *****
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO TIIE AGENDA
The minutes of the October 14, 1997, meeting were approved as submitted.
**** * *****
OR.A.L COMMUNJCA TIONS
None
**** * *****
.
"WRIITEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
**** * ****
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 P A 96-038 (Dublin Ranch - "Area A") Dublin Ranch Planned Development (PD) Rezone. Project/site address:
352::t acres north of the 1-580 Freeway, East of Tassajara Road, West side of Fallon Road current alignment, in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The applicant is Ted Fairfield, for Jennifer Lin, et.al.; Martin Inderbitzen, Agent
Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Mr. Peabody gave a brief statement about the project. He stated there were two projects to come before the Planning
Co~ission this evening. This was a large project and Staffhas taken time to prepare a complex presentation.
Tasba Huston, Associate Planner, gave a very detailed description of the project. She stated that the proposed planned
development was consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan and Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt the proposed resolution of the Planned Development. A detailed description of Tasha Huston's
presentation are attached to these minutes as part of the record
Ted Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer. He stated this project has be a long time coming. He stated his design team has
been working about 12 years towards this evenings decisions. He introduced his design team for the project. He stated that .
the Lin' s acquired approximately 1,200 acres and 1,000 of it was annexed in 1994. He stated that this project will change
over the years as the applicant will want changes as well as the City. He stated the maps and photos around the room were a
Regular Meeting
[10-28 pcmi]
98
October 28, 1997
.
.
.
lj{
;:7ee::::: f:-ame so that the project could be looked at in manageable sections. He stated they had several issues that have come
togeL;e:-. He stated that they are confident that they will start the grading of phase 1 as soon as the weather permits. He
asked Marty Inderbitzen to explain some of the issues on hand.
Marrin Inderbitzen, commended Staff on the great job tliey have done. Their comminnent oftime was shown in the staff
report and conditions of approval. He stated that they were in agreement with the conditions of approval with one exception.
He showed some overheads of the project and explained the size of the lots. Area A consists of two components. The frrst is
the residential component and the golf course. It has the potential to be a gated community. They are concentrating on
higher densities in the south an west portion of the property and will move to lower densities towards the north and east He
s+..ated there would be and undercrossing to allow for golf carts and pedestrians to cross Fallon Road without stopping traffic.
He stated that they were committed to tlie timing of the golf course with specified timing of units. He stated the only conflict
was with condition number 46 which shows a pedestrian access of the golf course to Fallon Road. He stated that the access
was intended for elementary school children and he felt that generally K-5 children were driven to school. He felt a crossing
was not warranted and there would be safety concerns with keeping children offtbe golf course. That was the one item they
would like deleted from the conditions of approval. He asked if anyone had any questions or comments.
Cm. Hughes stated that to his understanding, there wasn't any way for children or adults to leave that area on foot to the
west, without going to the extreme north or the e)."treme south. .'. .
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that was correct.
Cm. Hughes stated that whether or not there was a trail, isn't it fair to assume that the kids would use that route anyway.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that they would marshall the course in the two locations to keep pedestrians off the golf course. He
s--..ated that they had oriented the residential project so it does not open up to the golf course. It encourages people to use the
surface streets and the pathways created in it He stated that there was an 80 foot grade and it would be a challenge to get
pedestrians across the golf course.
Mr. Peabody stated it was approximately 2,000 feet from the north and an equal distance to the south (ifresidents must take
an alternate route to get to Fallon Road).
Cm. Hughes stated that he understood that the elementary school on the east side of the project IDay never be built If that
was the case, the elementary school on the west side of Fallon would be the primary school.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that one school would not be able to handle all the kids. The school district has indicated that there
would De a need for another school out there.
Cm. Jennings wanted to comment on the statement that kids would be driven to school, but the concept of the Eastern Dublin
plan was to encourage people to walk and bike ride.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated the school district required a designated pedestrian path that was consistent with a bike route to the
schools. His feeling was the benefits of the short cut was Jess impor..ant than the liability issue ofa child getting hit in the
face with a golf ball. .
Cm. Hughes asked what the topography was for the middle of this pod (neighborhood).
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that the whole area was elevated from the road.
Cm. O;-avetz. asked what would prevent kids going out any of the access ways and cr.ossing the golf course.
Mr. Inderbitzen s--..ated that it would be posted adequately and there would be marshall's monitoring it
Cill. O;-avetz wanted to go on record as s--..ating kids K-5 and golf courses don't mix. He stated that it would be a safety
hzzard.
Mr. mae.bitten s--..ated that state and federa11aw requires the course be ADA accessible.
.....
"_,,'
Regula: Meeting
[10-28 pcmi]
99
October 28, 1997
L{f Cm. Hughes asked if the City considered an elevated foot path.
1v'.u. Inderbitzen stated that would exacerbate the elevation problem.
. -
Cm. Oravetz stated the golf course was a 5,000 yard course, and asked if the golf course could be championship lengili, or if .
they were restricted by open space area.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated they don't own the property to the north and it gets steep. They tried to stay out of the
environmentally sensitive areas and were confmed with the amount of area they have. It may not be championship in length,
but will be a lot offun.
Cm. Oravetz stated the course should be championship length.
Tyde Butler, Robert Jones Associates, stated that given the amount of area they have and topographical configuration of the
site, it was not achievable to get a championship level golf course on this site.
Cm. Hughes asked if some of the homes were eliminated, could they do it then.
'.-
Mr. Butler stated that the potential would be greater.
Ted Fairiield stated they were sensitive to the number of golf courses going in the area. He stated that this course would be
fas..er and every bit as challenging. He said they gave up 100 lots that could have been adjacent to the golf course. He felt
fi.n-..her reduction in density would defeat the purpose of the plan.
Ms. Huston responded to the Fallon Road and access issues. She felt it was important to promote alternate modes of
transpor'"..ation and promote pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. She stated that areas L4, L2, L3 and L5 would generate 150+
students. Even if elementary students were driven to school, the middle and high school students would use other ways such
as walking and biking. She felt kids will find a way across the golf course even if there was not a path. She stated there
were examples everywhere where there are paths in golf curses.
.
-~.:. :-:.' Cm. Oravetz asked what kind of pedestrian crossing was Staff proposing.
Ms. Huston stated Staff had considered a pedestrian bridge. She stated that there were two tunnels to the north and
intersections to the southern edges of the project that would have signals and cross walks.
Cm. Johnson asked the distance between the green on 17 and tee on 18 between the development and the street.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated about 700 feet.
Ms., Huston stated it was about 200 ft. to Fallon Road as the crow flies, but 60 feet in elevation change.
Mr. Fai.-neld stated that if ADA requirements apply, they were limited to a 12-1 slope.
Ms. Huston stated that there were many factors to consider in terms of topography. Fallon Road increases in elevation as it
goes nor'"Ji. Tne golf course is lower, Fallon Road is in a valley and then the golf course raises up to the west side of Fallon.
Cm. MUsser asked if it met ADA standards.
Mr. Peabody ~.ated that ADA was not always required, otherwise there would not be any paths up the hills.
Keith Halvorson, Consultant for Public Works, stated that there was debate on whether it should be fully ADA accessible. In
terms of the two paths, it would be beneficial to grade separate the path that the kids travel and the path that the golfers
would travel on.
.:~:
:~:\ Cm. Oravetz asked if:Mr. Halvorson had experience in building paths .across golf courses.
-.-.--
100
October 28, 1997
.,
"
Regular Meeting
[10-28 pcmi]
/}o Mr. Halvorson responded no. He stated that there was one a few miles away, the Iron Horse trail in San Ramon and it has
many c.reas that people can cross. He felt it could be done.
.
Cm. Hughes asked how they would get to the path.
,.
Mr. Halvorson stated that it was a problem trying to take up that kind of elevation. He stated that he has done an ADA path
at 5%. Staffhas not done an in-depth study, and think it could be done.
Cm. Hughes asked if it was 200 feet from the west end to Fallon Road or across Fallon Road to the development on the other
side.
Ms. Huston stated to Fallon Road.
Mr. Inderbitzen felt that they should not be engaging in the technical exercise of designing the path. It would be a challenge
and would create a significant conflict between golfers and non-golfers. He stated the school district does not encourage the
path, and felt they would not want to design it here tonight
Cm. Hughes stated he played on several golf courses and there will be pedestrians on the golf course.
. '.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that it was always a challenge to keep pedestrians off, but when you invite them on to the golf course,
it is creating a whole level of conflict. The Iron Horse trail parallels the golf course, it does not cross it Tnis golf course has
crossings designed into it.
. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing.
Cm. Hughes asked if Staff had come up with a feasible way to actually build this path.
.
Ms. Huston stated she believes you could start the path further back and slope dov>'Il. She suggested it would run along the
back of the homes. It could be done with adjustments to the golf course.
Cm. Musser suggested that the condition be modified to state the applicant and StafIwiIl work towards a solution ror the ...
path.
Cm. Oravetz asked who would be liable if someone got hit with a ball.
Libby Silver, City Attorney stated it would not be the City.
Cm. Oravetz wanted entered into the record that golf courses and kids do not mix. He didn't think there was a way to design
a path without huning the integrity of the golf cou..rse. He stated that the school district was against the path anyway.
Cm. Jennings stated that she did not hear that the school district was against the path. She asked Mr. Inderbitzen for
cl~-iiication on the subject.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated the school district was not encouraging the crossing.
Cm. Hughes stated that he has seen a lot of kids on golf courses that did not give a boot about a path. He hates to see a plan
disrupted for something that may not work anyway.
Cm. Jennings asked if the proposal would be approved if it was disfiguring to the golf course.
Ms. Huston stated that was not the intent. Tne language of the condition could be changed. The issue could be studied, and
if a solution could not be ~"1ived, it could come back to the Planning Commission.
.
Mr. Peabody stated it could be reworded, but it was the Planning Commission's decision if they want it or not.
... .
.. ~'. - ,
Cm. Jennings suggested that wording be placed in number 46 of exhibit D of the stafIrepon.
Regula: M~ting
[10-28 pcmi]
101
October 28, 1997
~I
Cm. Hughes moved to adopt the resolution with revision of number 46 of exhibit D, requesting the City and the developers
work together to fmd a safe crossing across the golf course yet not affect the working of the golf course at the time of_
tentative map.
.
On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 23
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF
FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE
CONCERNING P A 96-038 DUBLIN RANCH AREA A
The Planning Commission took a five minute recess.
All members of the Planning Commission were present when the recess was over.
8.2 P A 96-039 (Dublin Ranch - "Areas B-E") Dublin Ranch Planned Development (PD) Rezone and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment /General Plan Amendment Project/site address: 453i: acres north of the 1-580 Freeway,
East of Tassajara Road, West side of Fallon Road current alignment, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The
applicant is Ted Fairfield, for Jennifer Lin, eta!.; Martin Inderbitzen, Agent
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report.
Ms. Huston gave a details description of areas B-E. She used overheads to show the areas B through E and stated what
would be in each area. She stated the project site was covered by the ErR.. An initial study was prepared for this area. .
Traffic, visual, and biological issues were studies, and would be addressed in the earlier EIR She stated staff recommends
the adoption of the attached resolutions for areas B-E. A detailed description of Tasha Huston's presentation are attached
to these minutes as part of the record
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that they concur with the staff report and he had nothing to add.
Cm. Oravetz asked who developed the community park.
Mr. Peabody stated the City.
Cm. Oravetz asked what the grade was in that area.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated it was relatively flat with some hills.
Cm. Jennings closed public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hughes and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 97-24
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION"
APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, APPROVAL OF AN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL OF FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE .
CONCERNING P A 96-039 DUBLIN RANCH AREAS B-E
Regular Meeting
[10-28 pcmi]
102
October 28, 1997
.-
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1 Upcoming Planning Schedule
Mr. Peabody stated the next meeting will be November 10, because November 11 was a City holiday. All Commissioners stated they
could be there. He stated that a Planning Commission meeting was scheduled on December 23rd and asked if everyone could make
it..
The Planning Commission stated they could.
9.2 Discussion on what the Planning Commission would like to see in the way of Planning Commission
packets
. .
Mr. Peabody asked if Staff was giving the right amount of information in the Commissioner's packets, and if they want to continue
getting all the information.
Cm. Hughes stated that he does not look at all of it.
A discussion was held on what information to give to the Planning Commission. The consensus was reached that they all like to get
all the information so that they can review the entire package.
.
em. Oravetz reported on the Downtown City Task Force meeting. He stated that one major issue was competition with the business
owners with Eastern Dublin.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
.1z:k, ~
Community Development Director
.
Regular Meeting
[10-28 pcmi]
103 .
October 28, 1997
i
~
.
."
L--
1:.<
~. ,
~:
)
~:'
Or
~:"-~
~0
Staff Report presentation - Areas B-E cPA 96-039)
.
The proposal now before you is the Planned Deyelopment for Areas B throuQh E, which
occupies approximately 450 acres of the ~in property. .The Areas B:-~ project has been
processed as a separate project from Area A fort~C?main.reasons: .,.1) the site planning
for Areas B-E has not been do~e to as great a I~v.el of d.~tail as Area' A - it is purposely left
at a conceptual stage. 'Also, the Areas B-E PD involves minor land use amendments from
those shown in the SP for the Elementary School site; the COmmunity Park, and for a
small portion of land wit~in..th~ Livermor~ Airport ~rotecti6n :A~ea, whic~ was' previously
designated residential. .'. ~.. . :,.' .. .,. . . '
. I -yvould like to des~ribe.the deve.lopment concept, 'and' then summarize the
. land use and environmental analysis .~o~du~ted by s.taff.. Following my
presentation, I believe the applicant's represent:itive, Martin Inderbitzen, would
like to say a few words, and of course, we will be happy to answer any questions.
The proposed development involves both residential and commercial development, along
with a Community Park, Neighborhood Square, two partial school sites, and 32 acres of
Open Space., The residential areas would support 1,875 units in eleven distinct
neighborhoods accommodating a range of housing types. Single-family detached homes, on lots
ranging in size from approximately 2,000 to over 6,500 square feet are expected to be the
predominant tYPe of housing in the Medium Density neighborhoods, although some attached units
are permitted as well. Medium-High and High-density neighborhoods will likely consist of
multiple:"'family developments of attached units, including condominiums and apartments. Rural-
residential/Agricultural uses are designated for 99 acres. The General Commercial and
Campus. Office uses would occur on nearly 86. acres of the site, and be similar to that found
in the newer commercial and business park areas of the Tri-valley area.. The project also involv~s
an intermittent stream corridor and public trail system, and two Community Parks totaling
approximately 85 acres.
.
. The site topography involves mainly open grassland on a varied landscape including flat plains near
the freeway, a region of gentle slopes and low foreground hills beyond, where the large Community
Park site is located, and increasing in elevation toward the upper hills to the north. The. intermittent
stream corridor also rUns alongside the Community Park site and through the project. The
ridgelands of the property are located in Area D, in which environmentally sensitive resources are
preserved for low-intensity rural residential/agricultural uses. This area also includes a stream .
valley, which is designated for another community park site.
.-:'
..
. .
Residential development is generally proposed on a series of terraces cut into the foreground hills.
Some of the more predominant residential development concepts include conventional small-lot
single family, courtyard or cluster single-family, and townhouse/condominium projects. Apartment
developments of up to 31.4 units per acre are anticipated in the flattest portions of Area B.
Provisions have been made to encourage access from residential neighborhoods to parks, trails and
~pen space, to encourage the use and enjoyment of the natural amenities of the site by its residents.
.'.;.
.' .
.t~~.,
".
.. . ~
1
. ?l/
.
.
The development concepts are depicted in the Land Use and Development Plan/District Planned
Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP) referred to in the Staff Report as Exhibit D-I, which has been
provided to you tonight in bound format.
As with Area A, this land Use and Development Plan will complete the second stage of
zoning for the property, which was prezoned as a PO District when the area was annexed
to Dublin. However, the Areas B-E plan is more conceptual in nature, to allow greater
f1exibiIity in the development of the property. In order to provide this flexibility while
gaining the assurance of high-quality and appropriate development, a detailed set of
design guidelines and development standards has been developed for the Areas B-E
project. With these standards, staff believes that the City can ensure that future
developments occurring on the site will be appropriate in nature for the community.
Subsequent planning approvals and other permits which will follow this application include
a Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Site Development review, and Building
Permits.
As a part of the proposed PD Rezoning, minor amendments to land use diagrams of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan were necessary for several reasons. The development
proposed for Area C includes a small (4.5 acre) portion of land which is proposed to be changed
from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The adopted Specific Plan anticipated
such an amendment, because the area is located within the Livermore Airport Protection Area and
residential uses in that area were viewed as potentially incompatible. The proposed Commercial land
use is consistent with the closest adjacent non-residential urban use. The magnitude and intensity of
development that could occur if the amendments are adopted are substantially consistent with the
development envisioned for the Specific Plan.
The Planned Development also includes adjustments to land uses previously designated for an
elementary school site and for the southern community park. This results in additional areas proposed
to be designated for Medium Density Residential, including 10 acres no longer needed for the
elementary school, and approximately 16 acres previously designated for the Community Park
(amount of parkland needed for development in the Specific Plan has decreased). Because the precise
acreage needed for the Community Park is yet to be confirmed by the City, 13 of these acres adjacent
to the park have been" designated for Medium Density Residential or a Community Park. The area can
be considered for residential development only after the City Council determines that this portion is
not needed for Community Park land.
In addition, the proposed project involves a shift of8 acres from the General Commercial designation
to the Campus Office designation. The shift would translate into a decrease of approximately 83,000
square feet of commercial space and an increase of 130,000 square feet of office space, but the
proposed shifts do not involve an increase in the overall acreage of these two land use designations.
The Specific Plan anticipated the need for tlexibilityin developing these land uses (see EDSP, Chapter
4.5). The proposed modifications and amendments would result in a long-term development pattern
consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan
2
77 Sraffbelieves the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the land use goals and policies .
of the City's guiding documents for land use decisions (General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning
Ordinance). The project provides a coordinated plan for development of a variety of land uses. It
provides for this development through a framework of protective development standards that reflect
the sensitive biological, aesthetic, topographic, and other features of the site.
The project's Land Use and Development Plan uses the PD principles efficiently to propose more
intense development in the appropriate site areas, and less intense or no development in the more
sensitive areas of the site. These uses and locations are consistent with and reinforce the General
Plan and Specific Plan land uses, goals and policies by providing open spaces among development
areas, by restricting development in sensitive areas, and by providing recreation facilities to serve
the community. :.
This project site is also covered by the Environmental Impact Report, (or ErR), prepared for the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Extended Planning Area program ErR, which
anticipated future development such as this PD Rezone. The adopted statement of overriding
considerations and mitigation monitoring program discussed earlier also relate to this project.
..An Initial Study was prepared for the Areas B-E project, to evaluate potential project-specific
impacts, and determine whether there will be additional environmental impacts occurring as a result
of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program ElR. The Initial .
Study's focused evaluation of pertinent issues included traffic, noise, visual, and biological effects,
and public service issues such as wastewater and schools. In each case, studies have determined that
the project will not have any additional significant environmental impacts which were not evaluated
in the earlier EIR. As with the Area A project, staff is asking the Commission to verify whether
staff's recommendations regarding the project's use of the mitigation measures is appropriate.
For example, A noise study will be required prior to any development occurring, to ensure the _
project complies with the City's noise standards. The condition of approval for this project also
states that if the noise study identifies undesirable noise attenuation (such as a 12-foot high
. soundwall) that greater setback distances may be required and the intensity of the residential
development may be affected. This means that in residential areas where noise sources are reaching
threshold levels, units may need to be concentrated away from the noise sources, leaving room for
noise buffers, such ~ land berms, or simply larger setbacks. This could be accomplished through
detailed site planning, however, and no additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the
Program EIR were identified for the project.
A supplemental visual analysis was also conducted for this project to examine the proposed
development concept. It determined that the project concept generally complies with the City's
scenic corridor policies and related mitigation measures of the ErR. Several design guidelines and
development standards have been proposed as part of the project, and made conditions of approval.
As long as future development is consistent with the concept analyzed in the visual study, No .
additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR should occur, and
additional visual impacts or mitigation measures would not be required.
3
7b
.
.
.
Staffhas therefore concluded that the environmental analysis provides a sound evaluation o{the
potential impacts, and demonstrates the appropriateness of adopting a Negative Declaration for
project level impacts. Further, the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the City's
plans, policies, and zoning requirements. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the enclosed
Planning Commission resolution for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E Planned Development.
This concludes my Staff Report, and I would be happy to either answer questions, or suggest that
the applicant's representative may wish to speak.
"
4
~ :t -' -
....:
- . ~
.oge er:;dhes. e., o. eve. o. nmen s,'cons u e:a~ argej eve onmentt tnVO vtngl:11.~:: rea. ea 0 ~:1.;;.~~~1.:.l.
. ~~~-~ . . . ~~..Si(~~~~~ ~,..t->t...;,:\,.;,,,=,,,-,,,,~:,,:,,\<<,,,,,,,
nformation,ana~j=na!J~nip"ex~isslJes. We-nave~5een, worKIr]gtQi)J.th1S1Qnjjectfor::af.j~u(a~j.'11*~~
'.~ " ~~h-~'~~~". - .- ~~~;;-~~~~~~":!~\~'~~~~"'{i-~I~Y~:
~~~~.$~~=1!1_~~~~_~~~Z.~~~~I~~~Q~.?fff~~
~.wJ!ectsitw~~fia~e:don~~~orRLJg't~nalysl~ ofJ:~p-rop'osa'~ Be..~~use:tfiei p-r9J5~ct~'.~~8f-~t~{~J;1{:~'r!~
. ~I'..'oj!._' .~~~t~.II..~~..~......T;r~5~-;sr:t";~h""".~."''?:~~a'~t' -~'._~~~~t?C-.' I'<"'kid. ~"b<,..t'h"l'.'-....,..-..~..:.\,.,.
cOIJ]P eX:-.JTIy::commen SiWI :uy:~necessIL'yi e ec mca ~tn'or el":, o:.appropna e Y: escn e. e...~~~--::::~>.:.,~:t:~.
_tT.~ '''''~ct'' ~~'f~'G'~tti:~~~d-Q::. "1~~;~:::'S'7"fi"t."""1 {fl.~'~t.r:!':SJWf:"h.~F'h'''.:~m~4'"'~t!~'1'''~~''~'''1 ~~t"i?~.~<;\;-h"'-;"-;"': ':.:.;''''~.,=i.'r'., '~"~.;;.
.proJe .anl..!~mal\~: e;recor :c eaL~ I ita ..oug ,:t e:process~.las ueen: eng ..yJwe ave3~~Xi'l'.<:.::.=r{~;~
~c~~fYli~rs~1T1~i~aiifSr{iQt~6Cf~;rA(j'a'fio1ili:f6t1ffi~~'f~tr~hf6h~'fHeii~v; both.tReq:::~.;:::~.:~.~?:~;::!:
sl~~Wij;e~:~.'i~~iI ' l>~it" ,,~i~!~~~~;~j{J~c~f
e"site:ls: East of""Tassajara: Rocii"d:::ancfnon: -'-of the' 580~ freewaY~f;Tne:Ein ~ ariiili owns'over.<:.:.:: ;:-~
1iooo~~~ofj~1fdt0'~~fi:~a~~nii~xgcf~Ci'i":Wl~1'995:{~fter~~~~Yot~'i!bf:tlie.'Easte?n'?;~~;':?-,:-_.,:'.o:::.
~~:;~ Dublli1$~6ffi~Pia7iWP:~~rti~h'~n~;:[1W'~tr-!.'e':<.~Y~i~?CFa~'~6$~f~raPI~{nnedf(~::~;.::'~.,~;.:t.::.j:.::~:~. .
,.:~'O,.:~~ '~'''''''h~''';~'''''';#''';:\'''''''''.t~""P;r'.-:'''~~~:'=-:c?~:::Z.~;;";S",.....,,,J?'''''':;~":I'1Y~:--'r~'~~~7~ty~;;. P~~~~,"..?h':"'-.:i' .""-,;:~.' ;'~ f:'.:,:.,' ::..i; ::.: . - ;~'.i.:,. '..;.
~,-: QeJ~!2R.. JD...~n,t2f: 8~Z:JtQ!}1...~s..!!l. ;~ a!!~;:try;1 g~g ~:?.D_cL'~D9~.Q@~J?.YP.~.!}B.9.P.fbJ~b?..~~.L;J.~i.:;7.ciS~:<;t:~!::.::(
.' "'.""'" ...-.....'\.... ...,.,:~~ _--"r."t,.7' -'~_"""~_~~""""~<..f-~I\_"'!)o."'..T:"I&~~_~~,---::rr.:'....~..."T-~_.:~.~--.."'IlIr""'_,)0,..,.--,..- -~"'l"~-.;;;O.......-.. '.'...a"':'-'" -~~ ~''':',,''. "';....~.... .
!::J~;' Gradi!l~rbn"the. F?haseJ:'site. nas: nofyeg oeg'Dhq bur grc>lln-db'reakirig: co"uld. occur this_spring. '\:~i";.', )\:t
~i\!lf;~e!!~~ls8lJII~r~1I~IM1f~t'l~~~1';w.~Th/'<;r};'.i
t:s:~~~~~.N~,~,~;S~~yJRBT~!1t!.~~t.~.:t~~~~~~Q.tth~'.fne.~~U...~-'!::~:.~,Q,~~;~y'gIY~~~~!~:~~~~:!~~}'X.{. '.--:- .::'.:. -.7' .
*~r;:~t.~.~tl:j~Q,?!P!:.~;:.~<, ~~~f~g!?-,~{~~i~ ~D9.i\1~.-?<?I~~8f .?I;>~J1-:,,~.P~~E~/~~~~.~~~J)}~~R~~P~.!~~,~r~a ~ ~. .:c. ~':. . '~'~.. .....
l'r",~,:~2~.J. h~~ .~een cQmpl.et~d to' aJalrly, detaIled level of desIgn; and mclude~.actuallot and, ., ..'
. ...~,t::"":.J'\.*,e""'-#.,,~,,""" I.~~-'k..:.---,.~, ..... ....~-...".r-J......""'.I~I~..'.._ ,.... ~~ .:.~ ....""- ~:..' '-;;>;'~_'<1"--' ..._-..__~....._ ..~. ~..J".....~__ ..' ~_.. ;_'J .~-...-..' -" _;::'-4 - ... "..~~~.,.(;--,.:;.'.... '.' -..... '.-,. .:' .
~!tf~t3~~;:!}~J~~~~i~L~1~,~.I~~:Q,~~ ~.R~~~~?p~~~D!1!.~~~~:~~~~~E~.Q2...Y~lf~.h~~,9~~1~~!.PP!}:.~~( ~Ian./.>.:..~:. ,'./:~!' .'.
;~:?tfl~~'}}~~~W~~tf~l~t~~~~g.IT2~~X*~i~~~~~e~~jtV~~*~~i[~~~l~~~D{Z~ii~l~~~:',:Oi ,:...,' , '
'" :::~''''il'-~ "'-"'~.'::" ~~~'~~.""'"'#."'"~'::;:-''''l::i"~~---J. PP'c,._ ..."".;"""...,,:....~..._.-:~...". '. .....i."~~y.~ 8':!;';;i }'\-r;,,,. -~./.~"'..:,'1;X"~,.:..,,~.~,~ ".!.- [ . ,. .' \;. . ..~ ..-; . .-:. .',:
~.:.;;(.;~~ft~iSite DeveIo'pment review/arid Buildin'g'Permits'?;E~:'~iff:;.&7,~~{>~~i~;::!2'r.;~t?~{~~'!;f:J.!:-;%,:'.;<<--:' ,..;' ',.;:' .~.~~/-: .
~:0~:~~.~~;~j:
0if~~~;J;}!~:n!I~.!.H~fto~~t~eP.Y4~~~:r:ibe~th,~..~~~eIopm'~~f:~~'p~~p't;~:**~~.J!!~~~.t~~e"a f~w.,. '..:' ..::-, '.: . ~
-"0~i~1}filil~O:ut~~t(rs~'iIiiii~;iZ~:tb~I~~d~~s'~jf~al~n~i~'o~ni'~~'tar~.II~'Iv~istonducted by staff. -. _:'..
-.J'~:;.o:.:;"'$~__-':'._-'''''_~''_.:::~'O-". -.....J"~ _ .-......::.......... .::..~.'O-_--......:.. ...- -=." ..... _. '0- . .-........ -- .... .
.~Xt~f~f~~~~o~.iig:iiIy. preseiit~i'tigiii I believ~'tIle 'applic~n't~s'-represerit~t~ve~. ~artin.' ~: '.. .
~ ~_ .~)'''.-.;._':~'_~''''''''' _~.':I.:..._.~ __-?...,.... _, =:;;-. .'-..' -__= ...~...~;. . -; ..' ........- ~.;''''': ~ ......... ..=..... ',-~~ -c..-........~.....- .'h"o'l"., \......-....:.:.. ...... ....-."..::,--..:': ....~_. ;..." . . -', . - ..'
~~~~~~W:rnd~r~itZen;':~ould.like:'tos'a :-~..~{ few:woi-ds';'an-d ~of.courser we,:~'iI(be h'a. 'y to '.:- :.;"
ll~~fifi~I~~i~~k~fu'I~~jl~!t~!~Ti~!~fLL~Ly<.
~:.J-~ -:':'7'S- ..:..~~-: -.->-.' -~::i- ~ '\...,.~...... ..' _or-)~"'-c-;..~'"l""'~~,;-':"'.J"~- -::"-~. --:....~... ........ - ....... u '~~"'..:"~.;.",......-:'...--' .....-;-- ~.... 7::-~A"":'''- :;;;::...:;;:.,:-...,.,,:::,~.. '-,...........' -;-.~.,,'" ..'0:..' ~ ....,.. -'
~~:.'=1f.?4~.4,OOO to 8,000 square feet; an-18-ho1e'g'01f'coUrse; an interrilittent stream.comdor"and publIc trall '
.:.::.-~.;e_:O;-.;...~=~,:::".;:,!"...-:-_~~:;,;-~""5~":'~--"" :.....:;....::[(--<.>-....,:<-.:--..._.....:::-_......~-.:. ~- . ....~.. .....:'1. ..l, . -. <(f':'".;-..._....~::....(_........., .-.~ J;T)..i...-...-:.:....-.. -
;~~<~:~!. ~ste~T8Ed__ 9peri. space;- o:q. app~oxirmitely 352' ac"res of lan9-: $evei?- ~ dis~ct J?eigl!horh<?ods are
~ ~a{1~..pi(jp.bsed;Z~tJ{viriops"" d~~slties'~~ ~ingle~ failliiy_'d~t1clied jlb~~;:~ Th~.:iite'i6po.~aphy nlvolves a
:frii~~;~~~f::?~~l~~01$~t~:.+~i~q~1t~[~~':~~} ;<.(f' ...~-~:{t-3~;j~{~:J:t~~~;~~i~~~~[2i~ii:~~~1:J;t:f.~;it~~~.:~:.:~. :].:~. .'
~1
.
.
.
'.
combination of hilly knolls, ridges, and valleys. Development is generally proposed on a series of
terraces cut into the hills and on the tops of the lower knolls. The upper hillside areas are designated
for Rural-Residential!Agricultural uses, and the undeveloped slopes surrounding the development are
reserved for open space. Perimeter residential lots are oriented to have views of the golf course and
open space areas, and openings for view corridors and access to trails and open space have been
provided, to encourage the use and enjoyment of the natural amenities of the site by its residents.
The development concept is depicted on the Land Use and Development PlanlDistrict Planned
Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP) referred to in the Staff Report as Exhibit D-1. The Land Use and
Development Plan has been provided to you in bound format, and consists of the following:
- a vvritten project description,
- a land use plan, (labeled LUDP/DPDP)
- a site plan (showing lot and street layouts),
- design guidelines (including land use and development standards),
- design concepts, (preliminary architectural drawings),
- and other supporting tex1 and diagrams which illustrate the development
The sprial bound version consolidates these items from the binders which were distributed previously for your
reVIew.
As mentioned earlier, the adoption of this Land Use & Development Plan is the second step in
implementing the zoning for a Planned Development District, and includes identifying the land use
designations for the site. These must be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and the Pre-zoning designations applied to the site when it was annexed. Your
confirmation of the consistency of the proposed land uses is one of the key actions before you tonight.
The Staff Report contains a complete discussion of staffs recommendation for this consistency, but I
would like to summarize the proposed land uses and the issues analyzed by staff. -
"First, the Land Use diagram shows about 135 acres of proposed residential development. The site plan
: lays out these units at an overall density of 4.4 units/acre across the project site, consistent with the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan maximum density for Single Family Residential.
Second, The Land Use diagram designates nearly 145 acres of Open Space land. The Open Space
includes undeveloped grassy slopes between development areas, a segment of the planned intermittent
stream corridor, and the proposed multi-use trail and bicycle path along Fallon Road. It also
accommodates the proposed 18-hole golf course.
The proposed golf course would occupy portions of the Rural Residential!Agr. areas and the Open
Space between development areas. The golf course and accessory clubhouse would be open to the
public on a fee basis. Through the low intensity golf course development, the LUDP provides for
outdoor recreational opportunities for project residents and the public. It also maintains large areas of
green space which buffer the sensitive ridgeland and stream corridor areas, and which contribute to
maintaining a rural quality for the project site. This proposal has been analyzed in light of the Goals,
policies, and intent of the General Plan and Specific Plan, and staff believes that it is consistent 'with
2
71
the goals of providing open space for outdoor recreation and for resources preservation. However, .
your recommendation and validation of this assessment is needed.
Alongside a portion of the golf course, next to Fallon road, is a 12-foot wide multi-use trail. This trail
continues to the south and links with a 100-foot wide open space corridor, containing an intermittent
stream, and provides for north south connections through the Dublin Ranch site, and also to off-site
locations such as future schools and community parks. The stream corridor also preserves a
continuous open space area and provides an environment for wildlife movement.
The multi-use trail is one of the features shown on the "Recreation Amenities" diagram included in the
"Design Guidelines" section of your binders. This exhibit shows some of the trails anctpedestrian
connections which are part of the project's planned "greenbelt-type" circulation system. One of the
primary goals of the EDSP is to provide a circulation system which is convenient and efficient, and
encourages alternate modes of transportation, to promote a less auto-dependent community. Paths for
pedestrian and bicycle circulation are an important component of such a circulation system. It is for
this reason that one of the conditions of approval requires that an additional safe route be provided
across the open space area between neighborhood L-3 and Fallon road, through the proposed golf
course. A pedestrian and bicycle trail is needed across the proposed golf course, to Drovide the
children in these neighborhoods a convenient route to the elementary school in Phase I.
Finally, the project proposes no development on the visually sensitive ridgelands in the northeast and
easterlv portions of the site, designated for Rural Residential! Agricultural areas. The Planned
Development is consistent with the Specific Plan intent to preserve sensitive areas for visual resource
value and to provide open space for passive recreation. The Development Plan includes gentle slopes
for both natural and landscaped open spaces and buffers around and along virtually all of the
residential neighborhoods.
.
The project uses the PD principles efficiently to propose more intense development in the residenfial
neighborhood areas, and less intense or no development in the Open Space and Rural
Residential! Agriculture areas. These uses and locations are consistent with and reinforce the General
Plan and Specific Plan land uses, goals and policies by providing an open buffer between development
areas, by restricting development in sensitive areas, and by providing limited development for
recreation in less sensitive areas.
For the next part of my presentation, involving the project's Environmental Review, I would like to
refer to a summary of previous project actions, which outlines the environmental review history for
this project. I know this is alot ofteA't, so I have highlighted the key actions relating to my comments.
This project site is co,\rered by the Environmental Impact Report, (or ErR), prepared for the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan EA'tended Planning Area, certified in May of 1993. The EIR is
a program ErR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern
Dublin, including the PD Rezone for this project. The EIR identifies impacts from implementation of .
the General Plan/Specific Plan, some of which were not able to be mitigated, and so, upon certifying
the ErR, the City adopted a statement of overriding: considerations for several impacts, some of which
relate to this project. ....
3
bD
.
.
.
For example, the visual impact of development upon an area which is currently rural in nature, cannot
be avoided, and the City acknowledged this impact when it approved the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The City also adopted a program to monitor conditions of the EIR and ensure mitigation was applied
where appropriate. These mitigation measures apply to project approvals and actions at various stages
in the development process, some occurring prior to approval of this PD Rezone, and others occurring
later in the development process. For example, the ErR required that to help mitigate the impacts from
altering the visual quality of the hillsides, grading techniques should be used which minimize alteration
of the topography. This is required to be demonstrated by the grading plans for the Planned
Development and tentative maps. Part of the analysis by staff, which you are being asked to certify, is
whether the project adequately demonstrates use of these techniques.
Finally, a focused Initial Study was prepared for the project in June of 1997, to evaluate, at a project-
specific level of detail, whether there will be additional environmental impacts occurring as a result of
this project, beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program ErR. The Initial Study's
focused evaluation of pertinent issues included traffic. noise. visual. and biolof!ical effects. and public
service issues such as wastewater and schools. Each of these issues has been the subject of
supplemental environmental studies addressing this specific stage of the project. In each case, studies
have determined that the project will not have any additional significant environmental impacts which
were not evaluated in the earlier ErR.
For example, A supplemental noise study was conducted for the project to determine whether any
additional noise impacts would occur, or whether any additional mitigation measures were needed.
The study established outdoor noise goals based upon the applicable General Plan and Specific Plan
standards, and identified areas in which 6-foot tall sound barriers would be needed to achieve these
goals. The requirement for these barriers is a standard condition for residential development near
arterial roadways, and has been incorporated into the project. No additional significant impacts beyond
those addressed in the Program EIR were identified for the project. -
A supplemental visual analysis was also conducted for the project at a project-specific level to
determine whether the project design complies with the mitigation measures of the EIR and whether
any additional visual impacts or mitigation measures would be required. The artists renderinf!s
displayed before you illustrate views of the development at buildout. A comDuter-f!enerated visual
analvsis also evaluated the project design in terms of the Specific Plan visual policies. ...
Se\ieral design guidelines and development standards have been proposed as part of the project, and
made conditions of approval, to require such things as grading refmements as the project proceeds.
Staff has interpreted the EIR and Specific Plan policies, and concluded that No additional significant
impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR were identified for the project.
Standard Traffic, Biological, and Public Service/infrastructure Studies have also been completed for
the Dublin Ranch project, as discussed in the Staff Report. In each case, because Recommendations
and requirements from the supplemental studies are included in the project description and reflected in
the conditions of approval, No additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Program
EIR were identified for the project
4
bl
.
Staffhas therefore concluded that the environmental analysis provides a sound evaluation of the
potential impacts, and demonstrates the appropriateness of adopting a Negative Declaration for project
level impacts. Further, the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the City's plans, policies,
and zoning requirements. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the enclosed Planning Commission
resolution for the Dublin Ranch Area A Planned Development.
This concludes my Staff Report, and I would be happy to either answer questions, or suggest that the
applicant's representative may wish to speak.
.
.
5