HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Wallis Ranch
CITY CLERK
File # D[][][O]-[3J[Q]
)Ia.. 4-l C ... 5" S-
~ Lt50 ..~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 20,2007
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
PUBLIC HEARING: P A 05-051 Wallis Ranch (aka Dublin Ranch
West) submitted by James Tong on behalf of Chang Su-O Lin (aka
Jennifer Lin), et. al. requesting a Mitigated Negative Declaration; a
General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment; and an amendment to Stage 1 Planned Development
Rezone and a proposed Stage 2 Development Plan for 935 units on 184
acres of land.
Report prepared by Michael A. Porto, Consulting Project Planner
1)
City Council Resolution adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, with the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached as
Exhibit A, Letter from Regional Water Quality Control Board
attached as Exhibit B, Statement of Overriding Considerations as
Exhibit C and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as
Exhibit D.
City Council Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (with the General
Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map attached as
Exhibit A).
Ordinance to amend the Stage 1 Planned Development zoning and
approve the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution 07 -01 approving a Site
Development Review, a Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map and
individual Neighborhood Vesting Tentative Tract Maps.
Planning Commission Resolution 07-02 recommending the City
Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Planning Commission Resolution 07-03 recommending the City
Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Stage 1 Planned
Development zoning and proposed Stage 2 Development Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution 07-06 recommending the City
Council adopt a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
G:\PA#\2005\05-051 Dublin Ranch West-Wallis\CC\Wallis-draftCCSR-stageland2-mnd.doc
Page 1 of 14
ITEMNO.~
RECOMMENDATION:
/V;Y
1\
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
8) Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 9, 2007, without
attachments and Planning Commission January 9, 2007 meeting
minutes.
9) Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 13, 2007, without
attachments.
10) Vicinity Map.
11) Location Map.
12) Stage 2 Site Plan.
13) Tree Protection Plan dated December 20, 2006.
14) Wallis Ranch submittal dated January 3, 2007 {8 12 xlI Stage 1 PD
Amendment and Stage 2 PD booklet & 11 x 17 SDR & Vesting
Maps booklet (11 x 17 approved by Planning Commission)}.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Receive Staff Presentation;
Open the Public Hearing;
Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public;
Close the Public Hearing;
Deliberate;
Adopt Resolution approving the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Attachment 1);
Adopt Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Attachment 2); and
Waive Reading and Introduce Ordinance adopting an amendment to
Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) zoning and a proposed Stage 2
Development Plan for Wallis Ranch PA 05-051 (Attachment 3).
7)
8)
No financial impact.
Background
The proposed Wallis Ranch project encompasses 184 acres of a 189-acre area recently annexed to the
City. Initial applications for the Dublin Ranch West project area were submitted by the property owner to
the Planning Commission for review and approval on February 22, 2005. At that time, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of P A 02-028 which included: 1) the annexation request; 2) an
Ordinance prezoning to Planned Development (PD); 3) amendments to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, 4) adoption of Stage 1 Development Plan; and d) certification of the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH2003022082). On March 15, 2005, the City Council took
action on the recommendations of the Planning Commission and approved the above cited requests. The
area was also annexed to the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
The 184-acre Wallis Ranch project area is located near the northeasterly City limits west of Tassajara
Road. The project site is widest within its northerly section below a ridge line and narrows down to a
"panhandle" in the southerly portion along the Tassajara Creek corridor. Tassajara Creek runs through the
project area west of Tassajara Road from the confluence with the west fork tributary north of the
additional acreage mentioned above, past the confluence with an east fork tributary (Moller drainage), and
then to the southerly boundary of the site where it merges with another drainage further downstream east
of Tassajara Road (identified as Northern Drainage). As mentioned above, Wallis Ranch straddles the
county line to the north between the unincorporated Contra Costa County within the City of San Ramon
Sphere of Influence (SOl) to the north and the Dublin city limits within Alameda County to the south
(Attachment 10).
Page 2 of 14
The original Dublin Ranch West project included three parcels. Wallis Ranch is the largest of the three; it
is owned by the Lin Family, the master developer of Dublin Ranch in the Eastern Dublin Extended
Planning Area (General Plan) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. Planned Development
Prezoning and the accompanying Stage 1 Development Plan for the three properties combined were
approved for a total of 1,053 units of which 1,023 units were planned for Wallis Ranch. The proposal and
application under consideration at this time includes only the Wallis Ranch property (see Attachments 11
& 12). It does not include the Bragg and Sperfslage properties included with the original Annexation.
Additional 11. 6-acre parcel
For environmental review purposes, the project now also includes 11.6 acres of land under common
ownership by the Lin Family (total project area 196 acres). In addition to the 184-acre Wallis Ranch site,
the additional 11.6-acre area to be added lies within unincorporated Contra Costa County, outside the
City's jurisdiction, immediately to the north adjacent to the recently annexed Wallis Ranch project area.
The l1.6-acre property, which is currently vacant, includes a portion of a west fork tributary to Tassajara
Creek which runs mostly beyond the northerly boundary of this additional acreage. The area has been
identified as sensitive habitat for potentially endangered species. This additional property is designated
for open space and will be partially graded for: 1) an emergency vehicle access road, 2) the possible
installation of a bioswale and herpetological fencing, and 3) grading to support neighborhoods at the
northern portion of the project; no structures or other off-site improvements are proposed. It is necessary
to include this acreage in the environmental review so that Contra Costa County may be able to issue the
necessary grading permits for the emergency vehicle access road required as a part of this development.
This additional acreage will be retained by the Lin Family or may be included in a privately maintained
open space and conservation district. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to address the
environmental issues on this Contra Costa County parcel (See Page 10 for further information about the
environmental review).
Existing Use
In the past, the Wallis Ranch proj ect area has been used for farming, grazing, and other rural uses. At
present, the project site generally consists of grasslands from high hills in the north and west that slope to
the south and south-east towards Tassajara Creek. The slopes are generally less than 30% with the
steepest slopes to the north and west. The difference in elevation from the lowest point in the creekbed to
the highest hillside is approximately 300 feet. The Tassajara Creek corridor is vegetated with native oaks
and riparian plant materials including a number of mature or heritage trees. A portion of the area has been
used for firewood sales and storage. Existing structures on site currently include agricultural out buildings
and sheds. In addition, two structures of potentially historic significance were identified with the Stage 1
Planned Development - an old dairy and the old Antone schoolhouse, both currently located on the Wallis
Ranch property. The old schoolhouse will be relocated to a site within Wallis Ranch to the Community
Green (shown as Parcel 17 on page 2 of Attachment 14 of the SDR & Vesting Maps booklet under the tab
labeled "Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7515") and preserved as a community landmark. However,
based on an assessment by a historic resources consultant, the old dairy does not meet the criteria as a
historic resource and will be removed along with the other existing structures. Any existing septic or
leach field systems also will be removed. The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area.
Surrounding Uses
The adjacent uses to the south, west, and east include an assortment of public, private, and institutional
uses mostly within the City of Dublin limits (see Attachments 10 & 11). Parks Reserve Training Facility
(PRTF) owned by the United States government and within the city limits serves as the western boundary
Page 3 of 14
along the northerly portion of the project site separated by an East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD)
trail easement. A portion of the Tassajara Creek corridor adjacent to the southerly portion west of the
panhandle is used by the EBRPD as a staging area and designated for a regional park. Along the northerly
portion to the east, four rural residential properties separate the project site from Tassajara Road. The
most northerly two (Tipper and Vargas) remain unincorporated. The Fredrich property, near the proposed
Tassajara/Fallon Roads intersection was recently annexed with the Fallon Crossing project (aka Mission
Peak). The Bragg property mentioned above with the original annexation separates the Wallis Ranch site
from Tassajara Road to the east. The 3+ acre Sperfslage property, also part of the original annexation, is
located at the southerly tip of the project site. Uses east of the project site and south of the City limits
across Tassajara Road include a landscaping business, a private K-12 school, and the 250-unit
PinnJSilvera Ranch project currently under construction.
General Plan/Specific Plan/Zoning
In addition to the annexation for Dublin Ranch West in 2005, the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan reflected the need to take into further consideration the natural topography created by the
Tassajara Creek corridor. Initial plans also called for a Village Center/Neighborhood Square and
Neighborhood Commercial uses. However, the physical conditions presented by the creek preservation
and topography proved to be an impediment to non-residential development west of Tassajara Road. An
additional opportunity became available to expand open space areas with a decision by the school district
to abandon plans for an elementary school in this location.
The amendments in 2005, approved by the City Council, reflected those changes as described above. The
approved uses for the area include: a) Single-Family (Low Density) Residential, b) Medium Density
Residential, c) Medium High Density Residential, d) Neighborhood Park, e) Public/Semi-Public, and f)
Open Space. Based on the approvals in 2005, 95.5 acres were designated for residential use within the
overall 189-acre annexation area of Dublin Ranch West of which 93.5 acres of that figure were located on
the 184-acre Wallis Ranch.
Land Use Summary
Wallis Ranch is primarily a residential project with a significant effort to preserve and utilize the natural
environment. It is influenced by the natural landscapes of Tassajara Creek and the hillside grassland
corridors. Specifically, the project is designed to provide a mix of housing types while connecting to the
natural environment at different scales by orienting units and views towards the open space and
incorporating trail access into these spaces.
The l1.6-acre site within Contra Costa County, now included as part of the project, IS zoned and
designated for agricultural use.
The proposed Wallis Ranch project is divided into six neighborhoods with a residential product type
designed for each one. Residential uses currently proposed under the amended Stage 1 Development Plan
would be developed at 935 units on approximately 87 acres. This gross residential acreage figure includes
some common area landscaping, private roadways, the 1.1 acre Community Green, and the 2.2-acre
detention basin or water quality pond. The detention basin/water quality pond may ultimately not be
required. The Applicant is proposing to reserve the option of constructing between 40 to 72 additional
units if the detention basin is eliminated. These additional units are allowed by the established density but
are still under the mid-point density previously approved. The addition of these units, in the future, would
require, at a minimum, an amended Stage 2 Planned Development and Site Development Review. Non-
residential uses within the Wallis Ranch project area include neighborhood parks, semi-public facilities,
open space, and infrastructure systems which include roadways, water delivery, storm drainage, and
sanitation systems.
Page 4 of 14
In accordance with the policies of the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the lower
residential densities are designated in the steeper areas of the project site to ensure hillside, ridgeline, and
slope preservation. The higher densities are concentrated in the lower elevations towards Tassajara Creek
under a plan that preserves and maintains the natural water course and riparian environment.
Residential Uses - Residential uses with the six neighborhoods include a mix of attached and detached
units designed to take advantage of the natural features of the site. All of the units within the Wallis
Ranch project are proposed to be for-sale housing either as a single-family detached product or
condominiums. No multi-family rental or apartments are proposed. The Neighborhoods are fully
described in Attachment 8 (Planning Commission Staff Report pages 5, 6, 8 and 9).
Non-Residential Uses - Non-residential uses including neighborhood park, semi-public and open space are
fully described in Attachment 8 (Planning Commission Staff Report pages 6 and 7).
ANALYSIS:
General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment
During the time that the Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch project was being processed for the General
Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment mentioned above, the City was in the
process of finalizing a policy on the provision of Semi-Public land uses. The Dublin Ranch W est/Wallis
Ranch project, however, was approved with the land use designation of Public/Semi-Public. This
application includes a change to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to permit Semi-Public
land uses on the 1.9 gross acre site to be consistent with the Semi-Public policy adopted by the City
Council and included in the General Plan.
In late 2004, the City Council reviewed and adopted the public/semi-public policy and determined that
there should be a separate and distinct category for semi-public land uses. This is a site currently
designated public/semi-public as a part of the Wallis Ranch project. This site is proposed to be designated
semi-public to be consistent with the policy. The Applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan and
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the parcel currently designated as Public/Semi-Public to a Semi-
Public land use designation. This change will reflect consistency with the City Council direction for the
provision of Semi-Public land uses while eliminating Public uses on the property.
The primary difference between the public/semi-public and semi-public designation is the elimination of
uses deemed as having a "public" component such as civic centers or post offices, etc. The complete
description of the General Plan designations of public/semi-public and semi-public are in Attachment 9
(page 4). The actual size of the parcel in question, 1.9 gross acres, would not lend itselfto development of
uses that would have that public component. A much larger parcel size is needed to accommodate that
type of development. Therefore, the proposed amendment to designate the 1.9 gross acre parcel as semi-
public is consistent with City Council policy.
Amendment to Planned Development Zoning/Stage] Development Plan
The Stage 1 Development Plan approved with the pre-zoning in 2005 adopted the: 1) development
concept; 2) permitted uses and conditional uses; 3) general project access and circulation concept; 4)
master infrastructure plan; 5) conceptual landscape and open space plan; and 6) anticipated phasing.
The approved Stage 1 Development Plan for the Dublin Ranch West PD district, including Wallis Ranch,
stated that Specific Development Standards within the project will be established at the Stage 2
Development Plan. Protection of Tassajara Creek and development of the hillsides have been the primary
Page 5 of 14
issues affecting the design of the project access and compliance with a number of environmental standards
established by the Resource Agencies.
The proposed amendment to the Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan involve only
minor changes to the land use areas, and is more focused on the conformance of the housing products within
the environmental constraints and topography. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development amendment
includes the following:
1) incorporates the 11.6-acre adjacent property in Contra Costa County for transitional grading,
emergency vehicle access and environmental mitigation and potential bioswales;
2) further defines the points of access to the project from Tassajara Road;
3) adds specific and key elements specific to the Tassajara Creek Open Space corridor, such as
heritage tree mitigation, Resource Agency required enhancement and revegetation on the 1.9-
gross acre parcel designated as the semi-public site;
4) modifies the Stage 1 PD from Public/Semi-Public land use designation to Semi-Public; and
5) modifies the gross acreage.
The existing land use categories comparing the initial prezoning with the currently proposed project are
shown in the following table:
Table 1: Land Use for Wallis Ranch by Acreage
Single Family (Low Density)
Residential
Medium Densi Residential 54.6 ac 57.1 ac 50.2 ac +2.5 ac
Medium Hit Density 20.1 ac 16.0 ac 13.4 ac (-4.1 ) ac
Residential 2)
Nei hborhood Park 8.8 ac 10.4 ac 7.66 ac +1.6 ac
Semi-Public 1.9 ac 1.9 ac 1.9 ac
o en S ace 79.9 ac 83.3 ac 78.9 ac +3.4 ac
TOTAL 184.1 ac 184.1 ac 167.8 ac
(1) Acreage figure includes the Community Green adjacent to Neighborhood 5.
(2) Acreage figure includes the detention basin adjacent to Neighborhood 4.
(3) At the time of the pre-zoning this designation was "Public/Semi-Public," as a part of this application the
parcel is proposed to be changed to "Semi-Public."
The proposed amendments do not modify the Bragg or Sperfslage properties, included in the approved
Stage 1 Development Plan for the original annexation area.
At the time of annexation, the City Council conceptually reviewed and approved parkland area for the
project at 7.66 acres (net). The applicant has proposed to exceed the required 7.66 acres by approximately
.4 acres. The final boundaries of the parkland will be adjusted at the time of Final Map and will not be
less than 7.66 acres (net).
The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. All
proposed uses are consistent with the permitted uses approved with the Stage 1 Development Plan, and
proposed densities remain within the standards established in the Stage 1 Planned Development. The
required findings are contained in the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 3).
Page 6 of 14
Consistency with the General Plan
In addition to the land uses shown in Table 1 above, a comparison of previously approved and currently
proposed residential densities is shown in the following table:
Table 4: Residential Densities
Residential Use Previously Adopted Proposed/Revised Sta2e 1
acres unit density acres units density
s
Low Density Residential 18.8 ac 75 4 du/ac 15.4 ac 58 3.77 du/ac
Medium Density Residential 54.6 ac 546 10 du/ac 57.1 ac 629 11.37 du/ac
Medium Hiqh Density Residential* 20.1 ac 402 20 du/ac 16.0 ac 248 15.50 du/ac
Total Acres 93.5 ac 11 du/ac 88.5 ac
Total Units/Oyer All Density 1,023 11 du/ac 935 11 du/ac
*Includes detention basin.
The low density residential designated land has been slightly reduced and the medium designated land
slightly increased. However, there is no net change to the overall product density as originally approved
in 2005 for the proposed project.
If dwelling units are proposed, in the future, on the land currently reserved for the detention basin, both a
Stage II PD Amendment and SDR would be required which would be consistent with the Stage I PD land
use designation of Medium High Density which allows residential densities from 14.1 - 25 Dwelling units
per acre.
Stage 2 Development Plan
The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan addresses the six PD zones adopted in the initial zoning as
amended. The Stage 2 Development Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 8.32 of the
Zoning Ordinance. It includes:
1. Site Development Standards - including lot area, lot dimensions, lot coverage, setbacks, building
height, private open space, and
2. Parking Standards
The following requirements are also included in the Ordinance adopting the Stage 2 Development Plan
and were addressed as a part of the Site Development Review as a part of the Planning Commission
reVIew:
1. Architectural Design Standards
2. Traffic, Circulation & Streetscape standards
3. Landscape & Open Space Standards
4. Phasing
Residential site development standards generally include: minimum lot area, lot width (street frontage),
lot depth, maximum lot coverage, building height, usable private open space, minimum setback (for front,
rear, and sideyards), allowable setback encroachments, and required parking. Residential Development
Standards are based on single-family detached units and multifamily (condominium/air space) units.
Residential Site Development Standards have been proposed for single family detached residential
structures in Neighborhoods 1, 2 & 5 and for multi-family buildings in Neighborhoods 3, 4 & 6. The
Page 7 of 14
standards in the Tables and associated notes for each of these two types have been prepared and are
included as part of the proposed Stage 2 PD Ordinance for this project (Attachment 3).
Parking
The proposed project meets the parking requirements established in the General Development Standards.
Single-Family Detached - Generally, the parking standard for a detached residential unit is a minimum of
two covered/enclosed spaces plus a minimum of one guest space per unit. All single family detached
units are provided, at a minimum, with a two-car garage, as follows:
. Neighborhood 1: All three floor plans have three enclosed parking spaces. Plan 1 has two tandem
spaces and one single space behind a straight-in 2-car garage door. For Plan 2, a driveway along
the side of the house leads past a motorcourt to a garage at the rear of the unit also with two
tandem spaces and one single space. Plan 2 allows for an optional granny flat above the garage
space and the tandem space provides the required parking. Plan 3 provides a straight-in 2-car
garage and one swing-in garage or optional storage space along the street side.
Guest Parking is provided curbside throughout the neighborhood.
Neighborhood 1
Required
Garage Spaces 116
Guest Spaces 58
Proposed
116
TOTAL Spaces 174
131 (73 excess
parking spaces)
247
· Neighborhood 2: With the cluster configuration around a motorcourt, all five plans have a 2-car
garage. Depending upon the topography, garages may be lower or higher than the ground floor of
the unit.
Guest Parking is provided curbside throughout the neighborhood.
Neighborhood 2
Required
Garage Spaces 242
Guest Spaces 121
Proposed
242
TOTAL Spaces 363
146 (25 excess
parking spaces)
388
· Neighborhood 5: All of these narrow-lot, single-family detached homes all are provided with a 2-
car detached single-story garage with alley access for a total 156 covered spaces. All three floor
plans allow for an optional granny flat in a second story above the garage.
Guest Parking is provided throughout the neighborhood. The Parking Plan for Neighborhood 3
shows 167 spaces which would include one space per unit (78 spaces), 17 guest spaces on site
along the alley between units facing the Community Green, and an additional 72 curbside spaces.
An additional parking space could be provided between units along the alleys for those lots that
are constructed with the granny flat option.
Page 8 of 14
Neighborhood 5
Required
Garage Spaces 156
Guest Spaces 78
Proposed
156
167 (89 excess
parking spaces)
323
TOTAL Spaces 234
Multi-Family - The standard for covered parking is established based on bedroom count per unit. One
bedroom or less requires a minimum of one covered space. Units with two or more bedrooms require a
minimum of two covered spaces. Only Neighborhood 6 has units with 2 or fewer bedrooms. Floor Plans
in Neighborhood 3 have a minimum of 3 bedrooms, and Neighborhood 4 includes floor plans with no less
than two bedrooms. Both Neighborhoods 4 and 6 each have structured parking with partially subterranean
levels. Guest parking for all multi-family neighborhoods is required at one-half space per unit.
· Neighborhood 3: All townhouse units in Neighborhood 3 have a minimum of three bedrooms.
All units are provided with two covered tuck-under parking spaces in an enclosed garage.
Guest Parking required for the 195 units would be 98 spaces; approximately 232 guest spaces are
located curbside throughout the internal private roadways with eleven of the total spaces provided
by three small clusters of90 degree parking adjacent to common open space areas.
Neighborhood 3
Required Proposed
Garage Spaces 390 390
Guest Spaces 98 227 (129 excess
parking spaces)
TOTAL Spaces 488 617
· Neighborhood 4: Of the five buildings within Neighborhood 4, four of the buildings include 104
covered parking spaces on the garage level/ground level of the structure to serve the 51 units plus.
one space that is handicapped accessible in front of an access gate designated for guests. The fifth
building, which is located near the clubhouse, includes 90 covered parking spaces on the garage
level/ground level of the structure to serve the 44 units. In addition, 8 spaces are provided for
guests in front of the garage gates of which two are handicapped accessible. Total structured
parking would be 506 covered spaces to serve the 248 units and 12 guest spaces.
Guest Parking excluding the spaces within the structure would be provided curbside around the
perimeter of the 5-builidng complex and the adjacent detention basin. The Parking Plan for
Neighborhood 4 shows 124 curbside spaces that would be available for guest parking (one-half
space per unit). In addition, 5 open guest spaces are located on-site from an access road within the
courtyard area adjacent to the clubhouse.
Page 9 of 14
Neighborhood 4
Required
Garage Spaces 496
Guest Spaces 125
TOTAL Spaces 621
Proposed
537 (41 excess
parking spaces)
147 (22 excess
parking spaces)
684 (63 excess
parking spaces)
· Neighborhood 6: Of the 235 units in Neighborhood 6, 39 units have one-bedroom requiring a
minimum of one covered space with the remaining 196 units (2 + bedroom units) requiring 2
covered spaces; a total of 431 covered spaces would be required. The 14 townhouse units with
Plans F and G each are provided with an attached 2-car garage accounting for 28 covered spaces.
A total of 477 spaces are provided in the garage level of the 4 podium structures of which 6 spaces
are tandem and not applied toward the required spaces. If 403 spaces are designated for residents,
then 68 covered spaces would be available for additional residents or guest parking.
Guest Parking required is 119 spaces based on one-half space per unit. Curbside perimeter
parking can accommodate 66 of the guest spaces.
Neighborhood 6
Required
Garage Spaces 431
Guest Spaces 119
TOTAL Spaces 550
Proposed
446 (15 excess
parking spaces)
126 (7 excess
parking spaces)
572
The development standards referenced herein become part of the Planned Development (see Attachment
3). The six neighborhood projects have all been designed in compliance with these criteria. The proposed
project is consistent with the parking regulations established in the General Development Standards. In
the event that any of the neighborhoods are proposed for change or modification, the standards contained
herein will direct the design of the revised proposal. Depending on the nature of any proposed change, a
Site Development Review amendment may be necessary. Should this Applicant or any future Applicant
propose modifications to these standards, a revised Stage 2 Planned Development would be required.
The types of housing, design, etc. that was reviewed as a part of the Site Development Review approved
by the Planning Commission is described in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (See
Attachment 8 pages 16-19).
Heritage Trees
A report has been prepared by the City's certified arborist in accordance with the City's Heritage Tree
Protection ordinance (see Attachment 13). The following criterion is used to determine if the removal of
Heritage trees is appropriate:
Page 10 of 14
· The condition of the tree or trees with respect to the health, imminent danger of falling,
proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services or public
works projects;
· The necessity to remove the tree or trees for reasonable development of the property;
· The topography of the land and the effect of the removal of the tree on erosion, soil
retention and diversion or increased flow of stream waters; or
· The number of trees existing in the neighborhood and the effect of the removal would have
upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty and the general welfare ofthe City as a whole.
The City's Arborist Report identifies the existing trees on site, including "heritage trees," with particular
attention to those trees impacted by the bridges crossings over Tassajara Creek into the project from
Tassajara Road. Based on the survey, eleven of the trees identified as noteworthy present a risk or are in
direct conflict with the proposed two bridge crossings. Of these 11 trees, only 5 are considered heritage
trees under the ordinance (pictures of the trees can be found on pages A-I through A-5 of Attachment 13).
The Applicant has already worked with the resource agencies with respect to trees located within the
conservation area in conjunction with the required improvements needed in this area. All but one of the
five heritage trees has a low suitability for relocation and preservation. Therefore, four of the five heritage
trees are not suitable due to exposed roots, instability, or an existing state of decline. Risk and liability are
posed by these trees from loss of limbs or up-rootings. The report makes recommendations for
preservation, relocation, removal, and/or replacement of the affected heritage trees. The applicant
proposes to replace trees removed on a ratio acceptable to the Resource Agencies. Measures and
procedures also are included for pruning and tree protection during demolition, grading, and construction
activities. Recommendations in this report are included as conditions of approval.
Public Art
The project will comply with the City's Public Art Ordinance. A public art compliance report is included
in the project site development review submittal (see Attachment 14 - page 6A SDR & Vesting Maps
booklet). The developer is required to fulfill the Public Art Contribution through the provision of an on-
site public art project.
The Applicant has designated the primary location to install the public art at the southern tip of the water
quality/detention basin parcel with an alternate location on Parcel 17 of Tract 7515, the Community Green
adjacent to Neighborhood 5 (see Attachment 14, page 6A SDR & Vesting Maps booklet). A Condition of
Approval has been developed and applied to assure compliance (see Attachment 4, page 29, Condition
#14).
Planning Commission Action
General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Site Development ReviewNesting Tentative Maps
The Planning Commission, at the January 9, 2007 meeting, was presented with the Site Development
Review and Vesting Tentative Map applications subject to City Council approval of the Amendment to
the Stage 1 Planned Development zoning and the Stage 2 Development Plan. The Site Development
Review materials are presented to the City Council for reference. The Master Site Plan shows the location
of the six residential neighborhoods, the neighborhood park, open space area, semi-public site, and
roadway system (see Attachment 14 of the Stage 1 PD Rezone Amendment and Stage 2 PD booklet under
the tab labeled "Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone" and SDR & Vesting Maps booklet under the tab
labeled "Planning SDR," page 1).
The Site Development Review for the Stage 2 PD Development Area addresses:
Page 11 of 14
1. proposed uses;
2. site layout;
3. access;
4. compatibility with surrounding and adjacent uses;
5. effects on residents and workers, and
6. insuring an attractive environment.
The site layout has been designed with attention to the preservation of the Tassajara Creek corridor and
improvements for the enjoyment of this natural and open space amenity. Secondarily a site plan layout
has been submitted for each of the six neighborhoods.
The Development Standards adopted with the Stage 2 Development Plan are the basis for the Vesting
Tentative Maps (VTM). Each Site Development Review booklet also contains design plans for the site,
landscaping, and architecture. The architectural plans include all floor plans for each Neighborhood,
elevations for each architectural style, building sections, streetscape elements, and recreational amenities.
The Vesting Tentative Maps presented to the Planning Commission included:
· Master Vesting Tentative Tract 7515 which establishes 27 lots or parcels as shown in the Table 9
ofthe Planning Commission staff report dated January 9,2007; and
· Vesting Tentative Maps 7711, 7712, 7713, 7714, 7715 & 7716 for SIX neighborhoods -
Neighborhoods 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, respectively.
Approval of the Final Tract Maps are conditioned to require the submission of Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding maintenance of all common areas and facilities and certain public use
areas within the boundaries of the project area. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps are consistent
with the adopted PD zoning and conform to the Development Standards in the proposed Stage 2
Development Plan. Conditions of approval are provided for each subdivision map.
The Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map approvals by the Planning Commission are not
deemed approved until all actions on the amended Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development have been
considered and acted upon by the City Council.
The Planning Commission, at the February 13, 2007 meeting, considered a minor General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use amendment. This amendment was needed to clarify the land uses on
the land previously designated for Public/Semi-Public to be consistent with the Council direction with
respect to the provision of Semi-Public land uses. Furthermore, this amendment is required to provide
consistency between the City's zoning map, the General Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use
maps and to apply consistency between these documents and the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning for
the rezoning of a parcel from Public/Semi-Public to Semi-Public.
Development Agreement
Prior to annexation and as a condition of the Stage 1 Development Plan approval, the Applicant entered
into a pre-annexation agreement with the City. That agreement served as the framework for the required
Development Agreement to follow between the City and ApplicantlDeveloper as an implementation
measure and requirement of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Development Agreement will be based
on the standard form prepared by the City Attorney and adopted by the City Council for projects located
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Development Agreement will be drafted with input
from City Staff, the project Developer, and the City Attorney and will be reviewed by City Council at a
future date.
Page 12 of 14
Affordable Housing
The proposed development of Wallis Ranch is subject to the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The
City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, which are set forth in Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal
Code, provide generally that all residential development in excess of 25 units is required to contain
affordable units equal to and not less than 12.5% of the total units in the development. Based on a total of
935 units, 117 units would need to be provided. The City and the Applicant are parties to an agreement
entitled Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Chang Su-O-Lin and Hong Lien Lin-
Dublin Ranch Fairway Ranch, which pertains to the development of an affordable housing project known
as the "Fairway Ranch Project." Consistent with the Inclusionary Zoning regulations, the Agreement
provides for the creation of Affordable Unit Credit Certificates (AUCCs) upon completion of affordable
units in the Fairway Ranch Project, which AUCCs can be used toward the satisfaction of the affordable
unit construction obligations under the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations on certain property, including
Wallis Ranch. To the extent that sufficient AUCCs are available at the time of tentative map approval or
site development review on property subject to the agreement, the City may not require compliance with
the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.
The Developer currently has in excess of 117 Affordable Unit Credit Certificates. Therefore, pursuant to
the terms of the Agreement, 117 of the AUCCs in the developer's possession have been determined to
satisfy and be applied to the Inclusionary Housing obligation of Wallis Ranch. A condition of approval
(see Attachment 4, page 30, Condition #16) has been provided to address this issue.
NOTICING:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300
feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was
also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Dublin Ranch West project (P A 02-028) proposed for annexation in 2005 essentially included similar
land uses and densities analyzed and approved in the 1993 EIR for the "Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment for the Eastern Extended Planning Area," the "Eastern Dublin Specific Plan," and associated
documents. However, a determination was made as a part of the proposal to prepare a Draft Supplemental
EIR (SEIR) (SCH #2003022083) in order to thoroughly and comprehensively assess the potential for the
project to cause or contribute to significant impacts beyond those identified in the 1993 EIR. Where new
potentially significant impacts were identified, appropriate mitigation measures were adopted to reduce or
avoid the impacts. Issues of significance related to the Dublin Ranch West project included: traffic and
circulation, air quality, community facilities (parks and schools), and habitat preservation for wildlife and
endangered species. Specific endangered flora and fauna identified in the SEIR included Congdon's
tarplant, the California red-legged frog (CRLF), and the California Tiger Salamander. The SEIR was
certified in March 2005.
For the proposed project (P A 05-051), an Initial Study was prepared, and a determination was made to
prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The primary purpose of the MND is to expand the
scope of the SEIR to include the adjacent 11.6-acre parcel within Contra Costa County which was not
originally addressed in the SEIR. This property will require some grading to allow for an Emergency
Vehicle Access (EV A) road generally serving Neighborhoods 1 and 2. However, it is in close proximity
to an environmentally sensitive habitat area where further mitigation measures are being recommended.
Due to the sensitive nature of the environment which may be affected by the proposed project, mitigation
measures from the previously approved EIR are included for the installation of a herpetological fence or
barrier to deter or inhibit the endangered California Tiger Salamander (CTS) and potentially the California
Red-Legged Frog from leaving the protected areas. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Contra
Page 13 of 14
Costa County Property states that the presence of special status breeding birds, such as the burrowing owl,
also has been identified on the site. Mitigation Measures have been included for protection of these
species, as well. The review process and compliance with the additional mitigation measures would allow
Contra Costa County to issue the necessary grading permits for this area.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been circulated (comment period September 19, 2006 through
October 19,2006) and submitted for consideration and adoption with the proposed Wallis Ranch project.
The City Council should approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on the project
(see Attachment 1 Exhibit A, Mitigated Negative Declaration). A comment letter was received from the
Regional Water Quality Control Board during the review period asking about the availability of mitigation
lands for California Tiger Salamander habitat. The City responded in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act that such lands are expected to be available.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project provides a practical and efficient land use pattern with the intent of preserving the
topography of the Tassajara Creek corridor, maintaining scenic corridor qualities, and enhancing the
natural environment. The proposed amendment to the Stage 1 Planned Development adds the adjacent
property within Contra Costa County under common ownership for provision of an emergency vehicle
access road and additional environmental mitigation. The proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment will be consistent with the City Council policy. The Stage 1 Planned
Development zoning as amended is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review are compatible and
consistent with the Stage 1 Planned Development zoning as amended, and the proposed Vesting Tentative
Maps (including the Master and Neighborhood Maps) are consistent with the permitted uses and
development standards of the Wallis Ranch PD zoning district. The Mitigated Negative Declaration
supplements the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH2003022082) certified in 2005.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff Presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3)
Take Testimony from the Applicant and the Public; 4) Close the Public Hearing; 5) Deliberate; 6) Adopt
Resolution approving the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 1); 7) Adopt Resolution
approving a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Attachment 2); and
8) Waive Reading and Introduce Ordinance adopting an amendment to Stage 1 Planned Development
(PD) zoning and a proposed Stage 2 Development Plan for Wallis Ranch P A 05-051 (Attachment 3).
Page 14 of 14
I C5'b
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*******************************************
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR AN AMENDMENT OF THE DUBLIN RANCH WESTIW ALLIS RANCH PROJECT TO
EXPAND ONTO PROPERTY IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PA 05-051
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Martin Inderbitzen, representing Chang Su-O (aka Jennifer) Lin, et
aI., submitted applications to the City of Dublin (the "City") requesting to amend the approved PD-
Planned Development District Stage 1 Development Plan to include construction of an emergency
vehicle access road, possible bioswale, herpetological exclusion fencing and barrier, and grading on an
adjacent 11.6-acre parcel ofland within Contra Costa County to support the development of Dublin
Ranch West/Wallis Ranch (the "expansion project"). The amendments also include minor revisions and
refinements to the approved site plan and related uses. The applications include a PD-Planned
Development District Stage 2 Development Plan, subdivision maps and other requests substantially in
compliance with prior project approvals and the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council approved General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments (Resolution 43-05, incorporated herein by reference), a PD-Planned Development District
prezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan (Ordinance 10-05, incorporated herein by reference),
and other approvals for the Dublin Ranch WestlWallis Ranch project (hereafter, "Dublin Ranch West"), a
189-acre area located immediately to the south of the expansion project and within the City of Dublin.
The currently requested amendment applies to the 184.1-acre Lin Family portion of the 2005 approvals,
located on the west side of Tassajara Road at the northerly City limits; and
WHEREAS, Dublin Ranch West is located in Eastern Dublin, for which the City Council adopted
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and certified a program Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15168 (SCH
91103064; City Council Resolution No. 51-93) and Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994
(collectively the "Eastern Dublin EIR"), which is available for review in the City Planning Department
and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and
related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a related
Mitigation Monitoring Program (City Council Resolution No. 53-93), which mitigation measures and
monitoring program continue to apply to development in Eastern Dublin including the Dublin Ranch
West project. The City also adopted findings regarding alternatives and a statement of overriding
considerations for significant impacts that could not be avoided; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the 2005 approval of the Dublin Ranch West project, the City
Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") and adopted mitigation
findings, findings regarding alternatives, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation
monitoring plan (City Council Resolution No. 42-05, which is available for review in the City Planning
Department and incorporated herein by reference). The approved mitigation measures from the SEIR
continue to apply to the Dublin Ranch West project; and
Page 1 of3
WI \
.....-,n-r>/
2-U-/
Attachment 1
;;}.. cD
WHEREAS, the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan contains minor revisions and refinements to
the previously approved Stage 1 Development Plan for the project area within the City. The proposed
amendment to the Planned Development zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan involves only minor
changes to the land use areas and incorporates the 11.6 acre adjacent property in Contra Costa County,
further defines the points of access to the property and the boundaries of the land use designations, and
adds specific and key elements specific to the Tassajara Creek Open Space Corridor. The City reviewed
the various applications and determined that the revisions and refinements for the project within the City
substantially comply with the project and analyses from the prior EIRs. These revisions and refinements
are shown on the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans. The proposed expansion of the
project area onto 11.6 acres ofland in Contra Costa County was not included or analyzed in either the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed expansion consistent with CEQA
Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was required
in order to analyze potential environmental impacts for the proposed expansion onto the Contra Costa
County parcel; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated
September 2006 which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental
impacts ofthe proposed expansion project and which was circulated for public review from September
20,2006 to October 19, 2006. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached as Exhibit A and is
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City received one comment letter on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during
the public review period, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, dated October 13,2006. The
letter asked whether adequate off-site mitigation lands pursuant to proposed Mitigation 3 are available for
CTS aestivation habitat. By letter dated December 13, 2006, the City responded that adequate off-site
mitigation lands are expected to be available. The comment letter and the City's response letter are
attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated January 9, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference, described
and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Dublin Ranch West project, including the
expansion proj ect, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration at a noticed public hearing on January 9, 2007, at which time all interested parties had the
opportunity to be heard, and adopted Resolution No. 07-02 recommending adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated February 20,2007 and incorporated herein by reference,
analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Dublin Ranch West project, including the expansion
project, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at
a noticed public hearing on February 20,2007, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to
be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and
analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the expansion project; and
Page 2 of3
3D"
o
WHEREAS, the prior EIRs identified significant unavoidable impacts that would apply to
development of the Dublin Ranch West project and adopted statements of overriding considerations in
connection with those approvals. A statement of overriding considerations for the current project
approval is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program required by CEQA for this
project is attached as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated September 2006 together with the October
13, 2006 letter from the Regional Water Control Board and the City's December 13, 2006 response
constitute the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the expansion project. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration and related project and environmental documents, including the prior EIRs analyzing the
portion of the project located in the City, are available for review in the City planning department, file P A
05-051, during normal business hours and are incorporated herein by reference. The custodian of the
documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Dublin Ranch
West/Wallis Ranch project, including the expansion project, is the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568, attn: Mike Porto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the
previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR and Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR adequately describe
the impacts of the expansion project and the project area located within the City. There is no substantial
evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the Dublin Ranch West expansion project as
mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including the identified mitigation measures, attached as Exhibits A and B; the Statement of
Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit C; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
attached as Exhibit D.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2007 with the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2005\05-05l Dublin Ranch West-Wallis\CC\Council Reso adopting MND SOC MMP--Contra Costa portion Dublin Ranch West.DOC
Page 3 of3
5
Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................... .2
Applicant/Contact Person ............... .................................................................................2
Project Locati on and Context...........................................................................................2
Project Background and Description ............... .......................... .......... ................ ...... ......3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts... ................. ....... .......................... ............ .12
Earlier Analyses.................................................................................................. .23
Attachment to Initial Study..... .............. ....... ............ ..................................... .......24
1. Aesthetics............................................................................................... ..24
2. Agricultural Resources............................................................................ .25
3. Air Quality ... .... ........ ........ ... ..... ........ ........ ......... ... ........... ..........................25
4. Bi ological Resources..... .... ...................................................................... .26
5. Cultural Resources.. ........ ......... ...... ............................. ........... ...... .... ........30
6. Geology and Soils.............................................. ..................................... .31
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................ .............. ......32
8. Hydrology and Water Quality.. ........ ............ .................................... ........33
9. Land Use and Planning ..................... .............. ........... ..... .........................35
10. Mineral Resources................................................................................... .36
11. Noise...................................................................................................... ..36
12. Population and Housing....... .............................. ........ ..... ........ ....... ......... .37
13. Publi c Servi ces.........................................................................................3 7
14. Recreati on ............................................................................................... .38
15. TransportationlTraffic.............................................................................. 3 8
16. Utilities and Service Systems.... .......... ............ ............ ...... .......... ......... ....39
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance............ ........ ........ ............................40
Initial Study Pre parer ........ .... ....... ..... .... ...... ...... ............ ... ...... ............. ...... ....... .., ..... ........41
References....................................................................................................................... .41
Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document........................................41
lc
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of
implementing the proposed project described below.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the
environmental topics addressed in the checklist. The Initial Study relies on two previous
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs): a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No.
91103064) and a Supplemental EIR for the Dublin Ranch West Project ("Dublin Ranch West
Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report," State Clearinghouse No. 2003022083,
certified by the City Council on March 15, 2005). The former document, known as the "Eastern
Dublin EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing,
Traffic and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage,
Soils, Geology and Seismcity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources,
Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations. The latter document (the "Dublin Ranch West
SEIR), supplemented the 1993 EIR as described more fully below and addressed the following
topics: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Land Use, Population,
Housing and Employment, Transportation and Circulation, Utilities and Services, Schools, Parks
and Recreation Facilities.
Applicant/Contact Person
Martin Inderbitzen
PO Box 1537
Pleasanton CA 94566
Project Background
In 1993 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan, which
addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of the central portion
of Dublin.
In 2005, the City of Dublin certified a Supplemental EIR for the approximately 188.9-acre
Dublin Ranch West Project. Dublin Ranch West was (at that time) located in an unincorporated
area of Alameda County generally bounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa line to the north,
Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area to the west, Tassajara Road to the east and the
existing Dublin City limit line to the south. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of Dublin.
Exhibit 2 shows the project area in relation to the City of Dublin.
The Supplemental EIR ("SEIR") considered changes to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan including relocation of certain land uses within and adjacent to Tassajara
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 2
September 2006
)
Creek, which flows through a portion of the area, to allow preservation of greater amounts of
open space, eliminated a land use designation for an Elementary School for the Dublin Unified
School District that was no longer needed, and relocated local parks within the Project area. A
Stage 1 Planned Development application and prezoning was also included as part of the Project.
The approved Dublin Ranch West Project includes the construction of up to 1,064 dwellings at
varying densities, along with Neighborhood Parks, Neighborhood Squares and other Open
Spaces. This Project included three separate and adjacent properties, the largest being the Dublin
Ranch West property (184 acres of land), the Bragg property (1.6 acre) and the Sperfslage
property (3.2 acres).
The Dublin Ranch West Project also proposed annexation of the 188.9-acre area to the City of
Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which has subsequently been
completed.
Project Description
The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the Dublin Ranch West
Project did not analyze the approximately 11.6-acre portion of the Project located immediately
north of the Dublin Ranch West area and within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County. This
Initial Study supplements the certified SEIR for the 11.6-acre site by analyzing potential impacts
for proposed actions on this parcel.
The 11.6-acre parcel is proposed to be partially graded and would contain an emergency vehicle
accessway (EVA) and a possible bioswale which are essential to the functioning of the overall
Dublin Ranch West development. The entire parcel would be placed in a permanent
Conservation Easement as part of the mitigation for impacts of the Dublin Ranch West Project
on special-status species and would preclude future development of habitable structures in this
area. Also as part of the mitigation for the Dublin Ranch West project, a permanent
herpetological fence or barrier, to prevent movement of California tiger salamanders (CTS) into
the development area, will be installed around the development footprint of the Dublin Ranch
West Project. This fence/barrier will be along the southern border of the project site. The
installation will follow construction activities.
The project site is currently vacant with moderate to steep slopes toward the south and west. The
site includes portions of a natural drainage swale north of the site that flows into Tassajara
Creek, which forms the eastern boundary of the site. Aside from aquatic habitat within the creek
along the perimeter of the site, the site consists of upland, grassland habitat.
Exhibit 3 shows the location of this parcel in relationship to the larger Dublin Ranch West
property. Hereinafter, references to the "project" site or "Contra Costa County Project" site refer
to the approximately 11.6-acre area that is the focus of this environmental document, while
references to the Dublin Ranch West development/project refer to the portion of the development
area located within the City of Dublin.
Grading permit
The project would include a grading permit to be issued by Contra Costa County just for that
portion of the project lying within this County. Exhibit 4 shows a preliminary grading plan that
shows that grading would take place on about 42%, or 4.9 acres of the 11.6-acre parcel.
Maximum cut will be approximately 33' and maximum fill of approximately 20'. In total,
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 3
September 2006
6 j'1-~)
C'
approximately 68,300 cubic yards (38,700 cut, 29,600 fill) of earth would be moved on the
parcel. This grading is require.d for two major reasons. First, the design of neighborhoods 1 and 2
within the Dublin Ranch West Project is such that grading onto the Contra Costa parcel is
necessary to accommodate the improvements required for this (northern) portion of the Dublin
Ranch West development. Secondly, this grading is needed to accommodate a total 20' wide
EV A (16' paved surface with 2' gravel shoulders on each side) required by the Alameda County
Fire Department for access between neighborhoods 1 and 2 of Dublin Ranch West. The locations
of these two neighborhoods are shown on Exhibit 4. The EV A cannot be accommodated in the
Dublin portion of the project area because of the elevation difference between Neighborhoods 1
and 2 and limitations posed by California tiger salamander habitat.
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)
An EVA has been envisioned to be located on the Contra Costa parcel since the inception of the
development process for Dublin Ranch West. The site development plan in the SEIR shows a
conceptual EVA/trail in the approximate current location of the EVA but the text of that
document makes it clear the 11.6- acre Contra Costa parcel is not part of the project that was
analyzed in the SEIR.
The EVA would be situated approximately 100 feet north of the county line and would extend
from about the middle of the northern boundary of Neighborhood 1 (between lots 17 and 18) to
the northwestern portion of Neighborhood 2 where it would intersect "A" Lane at the location
where it curves south to become "F' Street. The EVA is required by the Alameda County Fire
Department because vehicular access to Neighborhood 1 is limited to only one road and
blockage of that street would preclude ingress and egress which in the case of an emergency
could lead to a life-threatening situation. There is no practicable location for the EV A within the
Dublin portion of the development. Exhibit 4 shows the location of the proposed EV A.
In order to accommodate the EVA, potential bioswale and the design of Neighborhoods 1 and 2,
the southern portion of the Contra Costa parcel would have to be graded. Cut and fill in this area
would range between approximately 33' and 20' respectively. Most grading would be adjacent to
Neighborhood 1 (in the vicinity of the EVA) but a lesser amount would also occur adjacent to
Neighborhood 2. The daylight line would be as far as approximately 200' north of the county
boundary but would average only about 50' north of that line.
Bioswale and herpetologicalfenGing
The other feature of Dublin Ranch West which may need to be located on the Contra Costa
parcel is an approximately 360' long bioswale, a water quality feature to treat storm water. This
facility, along with piping to connect it to the storm drainage system, would be located at the far
eastern end of the parcel ranging between about 80' and 150' north of the county boundary. The
bioswale may be needed to help satisfy the clean water requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for Dublin Ranch West. If found acceptable by the RWQCB, a
basin performing both water quality and detention within the Alameda County portion of the
project would be utilized in lieu of the bioswale.
The project includes construction of a herpetological fence around sensitive biological issues on
the site.
Exhibit 4 shows the location of the potential bioswale.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 4
September 2006
0iTb
Land use entitlements
Land uses proposed on the 11.6-acre Contra Costa parcel would be addressed in an amended
Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch West and will also be included on the Stage 2
Development Plan, Vesting Master and Tentative Maps, Site Development Review and
Development Agreement.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 5
September 2006
'"
o
o
"
6
M
o
'E
g
'0
U
,;
~
q;
~
.ll
~
II
...
'0
"
~
~
"
"
OS
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
INITIAL STUDY I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
I
o
I
6
.
8
.
10 miles
I
2
.
4
.
8rue Ox Associates, Berkeley, California 3-10v2006
Contra Costa County Parcel
COllt!t".---
osr"..l"'":"1'!
l'l1f1~-GOlll'l
_ Y- ;'\J'.IIoEO"
[CITY OF SAN RAMON]
.."...."..
.."...."..
.."...."..
.."...."..
PARKS RESERVE FORCES
.
---------
.
I
.
I
TRAINING AREA
(.nnl.............i
: FEDERAL, :
: CORRECTIONAL:
i INSTITUTION l
: .;
SANTA RITA
REHABILITATION
CENTER
I'~.......-
__:,'::.::-iW::::.:~.
I',:, :"
.,':':::,
i
~'~~.
~
0'
"
:II
P.
[CITY OF PLEASANTON]
Exhibit 2
.
-'-'-1
.
I
i
.
I
.
I
.
{J
.
I
PROJECT LOCATION
-.-.- City Limit
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
INITIAL STUDY I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
t
o
I
1/4
.
1/2
.
3'4
.
1 mile
.
I'd.
---
Contra Costa
County Parcel
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
INITIAL STUDY / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
COUNn'
AC05~_--
CON~ - - cauNn'
- ~LAMEDA
'"
g
N
~
o
C
g
C;
()
>.
'"
..
-l!
'"
'"
~
~
"
';:j
"
~
tl
"
:l
0;
MOLLER
MISSION
PEAK
HOMES
UNINCORPORATED
AlAMEDA COUNTY
--------
CITY OF DUBLIN .
SILVERIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA)
NEILSEN
ARAC
KOBOLD
SPERFSLAGE
DUBLIN
RANCH
PHASE 1
EBRPD
Exhibit 3
SITE CONTEXT
N
i
Area Boundary
300
.
600 1200 feet
, I
o
I
Neighborhood 1
Neighborhood 2
SOURCE: MacKay & Somps, 12-7-2005.
-
U,j
"'"\
Exhibit 4
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
INITIAL STUDY I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
PROPOSED
GRADING AND LAND USE
/4
1. Project description
Construction of an Emergency Vehicle Access road,
possible bioswale, herpetological exclusion fencing and
barrier and grading on a l1.6-acre of land within Contra
Costa County to support the development of the Dublin
Ranch West property immediately to the south within the
City of Dublin.
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
2. Lead agency:
3. Contact person:
Michael A. Porto, Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833-6610
4. Project location:
West of Tassajara Road and north of the Dublin Ranch
West development project in Contra Costa County
Martin Inderbitzen
5. Project contact person:
6. General Plan designations:
7. Zoning:
Agricultural (Contra Costa County)
Agricultural (Contra Costa County).
8. Other public agency required approvals:
· Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration (City
of Dublin)
. Approval of Amended Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans, Vesting Master and Tentative
Maps, Site Development Review and Development
Agreement (City of Dublin)
· Issuance of Grading Permit (Contra Costa County)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 10
September 2006
/
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural x Air Quality
Resources
x Biological Resources x Cultural Resources x Geology/Soils
- Hazards and x Hydrology/Water - Land Use/ Planning
Hazardous Materials Quality
- Mineral Resources x Noise - Population/Housing
- Public Services - Recreati on - Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings
Systems of Si~nificance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and
the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately
addresses potential impacts and mitigates impacts to a less-than-significant level.
-L 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration
will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier
analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must
only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ErR, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed on the proposed project.
Signature: ~ A-. fu+o ~ ~
Printed Name: j{t.dA4d A. a?(Y~
Date:
11 (( /o~
I
~ of (.)J4~
For:
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 11
September 2006
IU
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis
following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies
elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact. " The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 12
September 2006
/ ,/('
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 3, 5)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 3, 5)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source: 3, 5)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (Source: 5)
II. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
showing on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program 9f the California Resources
Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
3,7)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source:
3,7)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
3,7)
III. Air Quality (Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district
may be relied on to make the following
determinations). Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 3)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 3)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 13
September 2006
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors? (3)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (Source: 3)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 4, 7)
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Source: 3, 7)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source:
3,7)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including but not limited to marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption or other
means?
(Source: 3, 7)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (Source: 3, 7)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 3, 7)
/
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 14
September 2006
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 3, 7)
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 3)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 3)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 3)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery?
(Source: 3)
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault (Source: 2,3)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 3)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (3)
iv) Landslides? (3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (3, 6)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in
on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 7)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 13-1-B of the California Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property? (Source: 7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
/ '--1
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 15
September 2006
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste?
(Source: 3)
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 3,4)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source: 3,4)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 4)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
(Source: 3,4)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 1)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 1)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 1)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 16
September 2006
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Source: 4, 6)
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 3)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g. the
production rate of existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted?
(Source: 3)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the aeration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? (Source: 3,6, 7)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source:
4,6)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Source: 5)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? (Source: 2)
g) Place housing within a lOG-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
;)Jl
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti Qation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 17
September 2006
h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (7)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(2)
IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 5)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (1, 2,3)
X. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
(Source: 1,2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1,2)
XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
(Source: 3,5)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels without the project? (Source:
3,5)
,I"' {
J.
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 18
September 2006
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? (Source:4)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working n the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(Source: 2)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2)
XII. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 1,2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (2, 5)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 4, 6)
XIII. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service rations, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Sources: 1,2,3)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 19
September 2006
XIV. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated
(Source: 4, 6)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 4, 6)
XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads or congestion at
intersections)? (3)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (3)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (3)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as
farm equipment? (3,7)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (7)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (7)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(1)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
MitiQation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 20
September 2006
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (3, 5, 7)
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (4, 5)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (5, 6)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (5, 6)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (5, 6)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (2)
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
--
,)'? ;
~r
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitil!ation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 21
September 2006
'II (j"~h
c7' ...>0'" .
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitil1:ation
X
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
Sources:
1. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June 6, 1998)
2. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (including the Draft and Final EIRs, Addenda,
etc.)
3. Certified Dublin Ranch West Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2003022082)
4. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
5. Site Visit
6. Review of project plans
7. Other Source
These documents are available for review at:
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 22
September 2006
'/
.,~..,p('~
XVII. Earlier Analyses
This Initial Study is being prepared to determine whether earlier EIRs (the EIR prepared for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064)
and an EIR prepared for the Dublin Ranch West project (State Clearinghouse No. 2003022083)
may be used to evaluate the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guideline (Section 15063
(c)(7).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial
Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a
Program EIR that was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993.
As part of the certification the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
impacts such as: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas,
electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for the Dublin
Ranch West portion of the Eastern Dublin area were assessed in the Dublin Ranch West Project
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City of Dublin on March 15,2005
(State Clearinghouse #2003022083). The Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for regional air quality impacts.
The Eastern Dublin EIR and Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR contain a large number of
mitigation measures which apply to this Project and which would be applied to any development
within the Project area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this
Initial Study.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 23
September 2006
/1
0'
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS:
LS/M
LS:
Potentially Significant
Less-than-significant with adherence to mitigation measures contained in
this Initial Study
Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the
previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR
No Impact; or No Additional Impact beyond that which was
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, Dublin Ranch West SEIR
and/or for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted
NI:
1. Aesthetics
Proiect Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista?
NI. The 11.6-acre parcel is not identified as a scenic vista. Construction of the approved
Dublin Ranch West project, consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, will preclude access to major portions of the site by the general public, although limited
recreational trail access may be permitted in the future as part of future projects undertaken by
others. Overall, the project would result in no impacts to scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highways?
NI. Grading of the project site could alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes
along Tassajara Road, since existing natural topographic contours would be modified to allow
grading on the Dublin Ranch West site to the south. However, the graded areas would be
separated from passersby on Tassajara Road by intervening properties (the Tipper property and
the Moura property) and by vegetation and hills. The proposed project would also not result in
the construction of any above ground structures. Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impacts on scenic resources or scenic highways.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site?
LS. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would change the visual character
of the site by modifying the existing natural topography through the grading process. However,
no above-ground structures would be built on the site that would cause a significant change and
the graded areas would be revegetated following grading to blend in with adjacent areas.
Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact with regard to degradation of the visual
character of the site.
d) Create light or glare?
NI. No structures would be constructed on the project site, so there would be no emission of
light or glare and no impact with regard to this topic.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 24
September 2006
2. Agricultural Resources
Proiect Impacts
a, c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use?
NI. The parcel included in this project may be classed as prime farmland, however, it is not
being used for agricultural purposes. Under the conservation easement that is proposed to be
placed on the' parcel, agricultural uses could be undertaken, so long as such activities do not
interfere with special-status species on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, there would be no
impact with regard to impacts to farmland or conversion of the area to a non-agricultural land
use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
LS. The project area is designated on the Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use
Diagram and Zoning Map as Agriculture, however the uses and activities proposed for this
Project would not conflict with either the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The parcel was
formerly encumbered by a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract (Contract No. 13-73),
but this contract was non-renewed in 1982 and is no longer valid. No impacts would therefore
result regarding this topic.
3. Air Quality
Proiect Impacts
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan?
NI. The proposed project would involve installation of an EVA, a potential bioswale and
grading to support the development ofthe Dublin Ranch West Project to the south. There would
be no activities that would emit air emissions on a permanent basis or conflict with the Bay Area
Air Quality Clean Air Plan. No impacts would therefore result.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards?
LSIM. Grading of the parcel would likely release dust and PM -10 particles into the atmosphere
during construction. Grading activities of the project could contribute to emissions exceeding
BAAQMD significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact which would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure 1. The project developer shall adhere to the following
requirements during grading activities. These standards shall be included in
grading plans and specifications.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 25
September 2006
a) Water graded areas in late morning and at the end of the day; the frequency of
watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Watering shall
include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off-site.
b) Daily cleanup of mud and dust carrying excavated materials onto street
surfaces shall be carried out.
c) Excavation haul trucks should use tarpaulins or other covers to minimize dirt
and dust spillage.
d) Replanting or repaving of graded areas should be accomplished as soon after
grading as possible.
e) Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be prohibited.
f) After completion of grading, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be
controlled through seeding of native grasses and watering as necessary,
limiting on-site speeds of construction equipment to 15 mph and limiting use
of chemical soil palliatives to BAAQMD-approved products.
g) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil,
sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
h) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
i) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants?
NI. The proposed project would not include vehicle trips or manufacturing activities that
would contribute to cumulatively considerable air pollutants, so there would be no impact with
regard to this topic.
d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors?
NI. The proposed project would not include habitable structures or a resident population that
would enable sensitive receptors to be exposed to significant pollutant concentrations. Proposed
uses on the parcel would not include manufacturing or other activities that would cause odors, so
no impacts would result.
4. Biological Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species?
LSIM. Based on recent investigations of the subject parcel by the firm of H.T. Harvey &
Associates, four special-status species exist or have the potential to occur on the l1.6-acre site,
including California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, burrowing owl, and
loggerhead shrike (a special-status passerine). Based on previous analyses of the area included in
the Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR and supplemental biological analysis prepared by
H.T. Harvey Associates (listed in the Reference section of this Initial Study), the presence of San
City of Dublin Page 26
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel September 2006
Joaquin kit fox, pallid bat, Congdon's tarplant, western pond turtle, golden eagle, and Alameda
whipsnake are not anticipated to be present on the l1.6-acre site. Special-status species
potentially present and appropriate mitigation measures are identified below.
California tiger salamander (CfS). A recent survey of the project site for the presence of CTS by
H.T. Harvey & Associates in the winter of 2003/04 found that CTS utilizing a breeding site
approximately 1,000 feet west of the project site, within the adjacent Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area, use burrows within the project site's upland grassland habitat when not at the
breeding site. A number of salamanders were trapped on the project site and the Dublin Ranch
West development site, indicating that the upland grassland habitat on these sites is used as
aestivation and dispersal habitat by CTS. Implementation of grading activities and construction
of site improvements could result in a potentially significant impact to CTS. This impact would
. be reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to the following measures:
Mitigation Measure 2. A CTS management plan shall be developed by the Dublin
Ranch West project proponents, and approved by the City of Dublin and/or the County,
as appropriate, in consultation with CDFG and the USFWS, prior to construction
activities. This measure shall also apply to construction grading activities within the
Contra Costa County Project site. The Plan shall detail how CTS will be managed before
and during construction activities and will include the following:
a) Installation of a temporary herpetological fence/barrier prior to any ground
disturbance around the entire construction footprint (i.e., including both the Contra
Costa County parcel and the Dublin Ranch West development site), which shall
prevent CTS from entering the construction area and shall remain until the permanent
fence or barrier is installed. The existing one-way barrier, if approved by the USFWS,
is a functioning temporary barrier and may serve as the construction exclusion fence
if appropriately located, or the location may need to be adjusted if it is to be used as,
or in conjunction with, a temporary herpetological exclusion fence/barrier. A
maintenance schedule shall be included for this fencing.
b) A salvage plan that details how aestivating CTS will be adequately relocated from the
grading footprint within the project site and into permanently preserved suitable
upland habitat. The project area will become a portion of the permanently preserved
habitat (with the exception of the EVA).
Mitigation Measure 3. To compensate for the loss of CTS aestivation habitat, the project
proponent shall acquire and preserve in perpetuity suitable CTS aestivation habitat at a
1:1 ratio adjacent to preserved, occupied CfS breeding and aestivation habitat and
construct a breeding pond, or as required by the USFWS and CDFG. The mitigation
aestivation habitat shall be located in the City of Dublin or Livermore Valley area as
close as is practicable, and as approved by the USFWS or CDFG and shall exhibit similar
characteristics to the habitat lost. In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be
given to preserving one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking
preserved areas to existing open space and other high quality habitat, and excluding or
limiting public use within preserved areas. Land selected for mitigation shall be
permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar method,
approved by the USFWS and CDFG, and obtained prior to the issuance of any
construction permits.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 27
September 2006
-;;
--"
Mitigation Measure 4. An Open Space Management Plan shall be prepared for the
preserved upland grassland habitats within the project area. This plan shall include
strategies for grassland habitat management to maintain crs upland habitat, including
grazing or mowing to encourage ground squirrel use and limiting human access to
migratory routes to and from breeding habitats. If grazing is prescribed, the plan shall
comply with the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment Area. The Open Space Management Plan shall also address management of
the habitats for other special-status species that may utilize these areas, including
California red-legged frog (CRLF), burrowing owl and migratory birds. The plan shall
include protection measures such as fencing, signage, reduced or indirect lighting, pet
control measures, trail use limitations (daytime only), and habitat monitoring and
reporting as appropriate for the proposed project. This plan shall be prepared by the
Project proponent and approved by USFWS and CDFG prior to construction activities.
Mitigation Measure 5. A qualified biologist (as identified by the City of Dublin and
Contra Costa County) shall monitor construction activities to ensure protective measures
are implemented and maintained (i.e. fencing is maintained, preserved areas are not
disturbed, etc.). The biological monitor shall have the authority to suspend any and all
construction activities if protective measures are not properly followed and/or if activities
pose an immediate threat to preserved sensitive resources. The biological monitor shall
also have the authority to contact CDFG and/or the USFWS to report any mortality of
listed species during construction.
Mitigation Measure 6. During initial ground disturbing activities construction
employees shall receive an educational training program that includes information on
sensitive species identification and their potential habitat, approved mitigation measures
for the project, and actions employees should take if a sensitive species is encountered.
California red-legged frog (CRLF). Although unlikely, CRLF could occur along the drainage
swale adjacent to and within the northern boundary of the project area. CRLF may use the
upland grassland habitat within the project area to forage and, particularly along the drainage, for
dispersal. Following grading and construction, the intent of the project is to enhance this
drainage with rocks and woody debris, and perhaps low-growing shrubs, to provide cover for
dispersing frogs. No permanent loss of CRLF habitat will result from the project. As most
construction activities will occur during the dry season when CRLF are least likely to be present
on the site, impacts to this species are extremely unlikely and Mitigation Measures 2a, 5, and 6,
designed to reduce impacts to crs, will also reduce potential impacts to CRLF. This impact will
be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the combination of Mitigation Measures 2a, 5,
and 6, and the following measure:
Mitigation Measure 7. Prior to grading activities or any ground disturbance and
following installation of protective temporary construction fencing (Measure 2a above), a
qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys. If CRLF are found within the
construction areas and if authorized by the USFWS, they shall be immediately moved to
undisturbed, preserved portions of the adjacent Tassajara Creek Conservation Area.
Burrowing Owl. Based on several surveys of the Dublin Ranch West project area, including the
11.6-acre parcel in Contra Costa County, the potential presence of burrowing owls on the site has
been identified, primarily because of the number of burrows on the project parcel. If burrowing
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 28
September 2006
~)~) t)
owls are identified as present, grading and related activities proposed for the parcel site would
result in a potentially significant impact, since burrowing owls are classed as a special-status
species. This impact would be reduced to a less-than significant level through adherence to the
following measures:
Mitigation Measure 8. The following pre-construction survey, avoidance, and/or
compensation measures shall be applied for impacts to burrowing owls:
a) Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist prior to any ground disturbance between September 1 and January 31. If
ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey,
the site should be re-surveyed. If no over-wintering birds are present, burrows should
be removed prior to the nesting season. If over-wintering birds are present, no
disturbance should occur within 150 feet of occupied burrows. If owls must be moved
away from the disturbance area during this period, passive relocation measures must
be prepared according to current CDFG burrowing owl guidelines, approved by
CDFG, and completed prior to construction.
b) If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 - September 1),
pre-construction surveys shall be conducted in the entire Dublin Ranch West area
within 30 days prior to construction and within 250 feet of the Dublin Ranch West
area prior to any ground disturbance. A minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) shall be
maintained during the breeding season around active burrowing owl nesting sites
identified in pre-construction surveys to avoid direct loss of individuals.
c) If destruction of occupied (breeding or non-breeding season) burrows, or any burrows
that were found to be occupied during pre-construction surveys, is unavoidable, a
strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing burrows or
creating artificial burrows at a 2: 1 ratio on permanently protected lands adjacent to
occupied burrowing owl habitat, and will include permanent protection of a minimum
of 6.5 acres of burrowing owl habitat per pair or unpaired resident owl. A plan shall
be developed and approved by CDFG describing creation or enhancement of burrows,
maintenance of burrows and management of foraging habitat, monitoring procedures
and significance criteria, funding assurance, annual reporting requirements to CDFG,
and contingency and remediation measures.
Special-status breeding birds. Grading of a portion of the project parcel could eliminate
grasslands used by nesting special-status birds, including loggerhead shrike (potentially in the
few shrubs), , burrowing owl, and California horned lark. This would be a potentially significant
impact and would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to the following
measure:
Mitigation Measure 9. Prior to any tree removal or ground disturbance, a qualified
biologist (approved by the City of Dublin and Contra Costa County, as appropriate) shall
conduct special-status breeding bird surveys throughout the grading area and mark an
appropriate buffer around any nests discovered. Buffers shall be a minimum of 250 feet
for raptors, and between 50 and 100 feet for special-status passerines depending on
habitat type (50 feet in dense vegetation, 100 feet in open areas). Nesting status shall be
monitored by a qualified biologist to determine when nests are no longer active. All
activities shall be prohibited within the buffer until after young have fledged and moved
out of the nest.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 29
September 2006
~.J
Mitigation Measure 10. Vegetation and tree removal shall take place (as much as
practicable) outside of the breeding period for most birds (February-August is a broad
breeding period that covers most species).
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected
wetlands?
LS. A small wetland area, approximately O.l-acre in size has been identified in the northeast
portion of the subject parcel, based on the document "Wallis Property, Alameda/Contra Costa
County Counties, Identification of Waters of the U.S." The proposed development plan for the
parcel notes the wetland area and surrounding area would not be developed but instead placed in
a conservation easement. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact with regard to
wetlands and waters of the U.S.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species?
LS. The proposed project would include grading of existing slope areas and construction of a
paved EV A. Neither of these activities would interfere or restrict the movement of native fish or
wildlife species. These would therefore be a less-than-significant impact with regard to this
topic.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances.
NI. The project would not conflict with any policies or ordinances adopted by Contra Costa
County regarding protection of natural resources and no impact would result.
f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any
adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans?
NI. The project site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan area or a Natural
Community Conservation Plan area. No impacts would therefore result. A Conservation
Easement is proposed to be placed on the project site once improvements are constructed.
5. Cultural Resources
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources?
NI. The project site is vacant and contains no structures; therefore, there would be no impact
to above-ground historic resources.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 30
September 2006
'2"
::/ .
LSfM. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities,
including site grading and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or
paleontological resources on the site. This would be a potentially significant impact. The
following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure 11. If historic, archeological, paleontological or Native
American materials or artifacts are identified during project construction, work
within a 50-foot radius of such find on the project shall cease and the City of
Dublin and/or Contra Costa County shall retain the services of a qualified
archeologist and/or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. If such
find is determined to be significant by the archeologist, a resource protection plan
conforming to CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5 shall be is prepared by the a
qualified archeologist and/or paleontologist and approved by the City of Dublin
and/or Contra Costa County, as appropriate. The plan may include but would not
be limited to removal of resources or similar actions. project work may be
resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the
Contra Costa County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions
of State law carried out.
d) Disturb any human resources?
LSfM. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be
uncovered on the site during construction activities, which would be potentially significant.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 11 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
6. Geology and Soils
Proiect Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including
loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground
failure or landslides?
LSIM. Although the parcel analyzed in this document would not contain occupied structures or
other facilities that would be in general public use, proposed grading would support dwelling
foundations constructed to the south within Dublin Ranch West. Typical site soils encountered
on the project parcel consist of alluvial and colluvial deposits. Landslides on the larger Dublin
Ranch West project area were found on the westerly side of the Dublin Ranch West site and
along the banks of Tassajara Creek. No historic landslides were identified on the l1.6-acre parcel
within Contra Costa County, although landslides are mapped immediately north of the project
site, based on Berlogar's Summary Update Geotechnical Investigation ofthe Dublin Ranch West
Project (October 2001).
Although the Bay Area lies within a seismically active area, there are no known active faults
within the Project area or adjacent, based on the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the Updated
Summary Geotechnical Report prepared for the Dublin Ranch West site in October 2001.
Although the anticipated risk of ground rupture is considered low due to lack of an active fault,
there is a possibility that seismically induced ground shaking could include slope failure that
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 31
September 2006
co
could damage dwellings to the south. This would be a potentially significant impact. Similarly,
the proposed slopes to be constructed on the project parcel could be subject to slope failure
during non-seismic events, which would also be a potentially significant impact.
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to the following
measure.
Mitigation Measure 12. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project
parcel, the applicant shall submit a soils and geotechnical report by a qualified
geologist or equivalent. The report shall analyze existing soil conditions, the
proposed grading plan and shall include specific recommendations to reduce the
risk of slope failure and mudflow during seismic and non-seismic events to an
acceptable level of risk, as determined by the City of Dublin or Contra Costa
County, as appropriate.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss oftopsoi/?
LS/M. Proposed grading on the project parcel could result in substantial erosion especially
during and after grading operations, when unprotected slope areas could erode into adjacent
bodies of water, including but not limited to Tassajara Creek, to the east. This would be a
potentially significant impact but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence
to Mitigation Measure 12.
c, d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or will result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse?
LS/M. Project area soils could contain expansive soils that could result in slope failure,
liquefaction or other soil hazards, which would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 12, which requires a detailed site-specific soils analysis and
recommendations to reduce soil hazards to an acceptable level of risk, would reduce impacts
related to expansive or unstable soils to a less-than-significant level.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not
available?
NI. No structures are proposed within the project parcel, therefore, no impact is anticipated
with regard to septic tanks.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Proiect Impacts
a, b) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or
emission of hazardous materials?
NI. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the approximately II-acre site
in Contra Costa by Eckland Consulting Inc. in June of 2006. Copies of this report are available
for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 32
September 2006
-; ....-J
.,", I
-)
The report concludes that no historically recognized environmental condition or recognized
environmental condition exists on this site. This conclusion is based on a review of previous site
uses, a records search with the Contra Costa Fire Protection District and the Contra Costa County
Hazardous Materials Program and recognized hazardous materials databases. There would
therefore be no impact regarding the potential to create a significant hazard through transport or
release of hazardous materials.
c, d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site?
NI. The project parcel is not listed as a hazardous materials site by the Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) as of February 27, 2006. Therefore, no impact would result.
e) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private
airstrip?
NI. The project area is located outside of the referral area for Livermore Airport, based on
Figure 3.lID of the Eastern Dublin EIR. No impact would result.
f) Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within two miles of a private airstrip?
NI. The project site is not located within two miles of a private airstrip as shown in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. No impact would result.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan?
LS. The proposed project would include construction of an emergency vehicle access road
through the site that would facilitate egress from the westerly portion of the Dublin Ranch West
area. This would will ensure that impacts related to emergency evacuation plans would be less-
than-significant.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
NI. The proposed project would not involve the construction of structures so it would not
expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards. The project area would also be planted with
native plant material for erosion control that would limit fire risk. No impact would therefore
result with regard to wildland fire.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
LS/M. The proposed project would include grading of existing slopes to support approved
development on the Dublin Ranch West. Grading activities on the project site could result in
water borne soil erosion into adjacent creeks and streams that would exceed San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board surface water quality standards. This would be a
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 33
September 2006
significant impact. Adherence to the following measure would mitigate this impact to a less-
than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure 13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Project
parcel, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for the site showing construction and post-construction methods that
will be implemented to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board surface water
standards. The Plan shall include methods to prevent soil erosion during
construction as well as long-term methods to protect surface waters. The SWPPP
shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Director or the Contra Costa
County Public Works Department, as appropriate.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lower the local groundwater table?
NI. The proposed Project does not include construction of any land uses that would require
use of groundwater resources or would lower the existing groundwater table. No impact would
therefore occur.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including stream courses, such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur?
LS/M. The proposed project would include grading of the site to support development of the
approved Dublin Ranch West project immediately to the south and minor redirection of existing
drainage patterns would occur. However, the general direction of site drainage would continue to
be to the north and northeast. Soil erosion and siltation off of the site could be a significant
impact and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to
Mitigation Measure 13.
d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the
project site?
LS. The proposed project would modify existing drainage patterns to a limited extent,
although storm water runoff would continue to flow in a general northward direction. The
anticipated increase in the amount of stormwater runoff would be limited since only a small
amount of impervious surface would be created, which would be an emergency vehicle access
roadway. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?
LS/M. Since only a limited amount of impervious surface would be created as part of the
Project, an EVA roadway, there would be a small increase in the amount of surface water leaving
the site under storm conditions. This would be less-than-significant. Surface water pollution
from the site would be potentially significant and would be reduced to a less-than-significant
level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 13.
f) Substantially degrade water quality?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 34
September 2006
LSIM. Construction of the proposed project could contribute to water quality degradation
through erosion of soil from the site into adjacent bodies of water, such as Tassajara Creek. This
would be a significant impact and would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through
adherence to Mitigation Measure 13.
g, i) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to flooding or failure of a
levee or dam?
NI. The proposed project does not include construction of any dwellings that would be within
a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would result.
h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood
flow?
NI. The proposed project does not include construction of any dwellings that would be within
a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would result.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows?
LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or tsunami.
The risk of potential mudflow will be addressed in the site-specific soils and geotechnical
analysis. A less-than-significant impact is anticipated.
9. Land Use and Planning
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community?
NI. The project involves only one parcel, which is adjacent to the Dublin Ranch West project
site. The Project parcel is also vacant and would not divide an established community. No impact
would therefore result.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation?
NI. The project site is planned and zoned for agricultural uses by Contra Costa County.
Proposed land use would consist of a roadway and a potential bioswale, both which would be
consistent with the general plan land use designation and zoning so no impact would result
regarding conflicts with land use policies, plans or regulations.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
NI. There is currently no Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation
Plan on the Project site, so no impact would result, As part of the proposed project, the applicant
would include the project parcel within a Conservation Easement to ensure that no future
development would occur on the site.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 35
September 2006
~L
10. Mineral Resources
Proiect Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral
resources?
NI. There are no known significant mineral resources located within the project area.
Annexation and development of the project as proposed would have no impact on mineral
resources.
11. Noise
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, d) Would the project expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to substantial temporary
or periodic increases in ambient noise levels?
LS/M. Grading activities on the project site could subject surrounding rural residential dwellings
to noise generated by earthmoving equipment, including bulldozers, compactors, dump trucks
and similar equipment. Construction noise would exceed local exterior noise exposure standards
adopted by both the City of Dublin and Contra Costa County and would be a significant impact.
The Eastern Dublin EIR requires all developers in the Eastern Dublin area to prepare
Construction Noise Management Programs to minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. The
developer of Dublin Ranch West is required to prepare such a plan and have it approved by the
City of Dublin prior to grading operations. Since the project site is not located in the Eastern
Dublin planning area, preparation of such a Program is not required. However, the following
measure is recommended to mitigate construction noise on the project parcel to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 14. Grading and construction activities on the project parcel
shall be included in the Dublin Ranch West Construction Noise Management
Plan.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
LS. Proposed construction activities on the project site would occur prior to occupancy of
residences within the Dublin Ranch West project area, so that no residents of the area south of
the Project site would be subject to groundborne vibration or noise. Few other rural residents are
located near the project area that would be affected by the proposed Project. Overall, impacts
related to groundborne vibration and noise would be less-than-significant.
c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 36
September 2006
~l t
NI. No residences or other uses or structures would be located on the project that would .
generate substantial noise levels. There would be occasional use of the Emergency Vehicle
Access roadway by fire and police equipment that could be using sirens, but this would be very
infrequent. There would be no impact regarding substantial permanent increases in noise levels.
e, f) Expose people residing or working within two miles of a public airport or in the vicinity
of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels?
NI. There are no public or private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no
impact would result.
12. Population and Housing
Proiect Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
NI. The proposed project would allow for adjunct grading to support the approved Dublin
Ranch West project in the City of Dublin. Uses and activities allowed do not include residences
so there would be no impact with regard to this topic.
b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or
people?
NI. The project parcel is vacant and no impact would occur.
13. Public Services
Proiect Impacts
a, b) Fire and police protection?
NI. One of the purposes of the proposed project is to provide an Emergency Vehicle Access
for the Alameda County Fire Department, Dublin Police Services and other agencies and
organizations that need access to the northerly portion of the approved Dublin Ranch West
development. No other development would occur on the project parcel, so there would be no
impact of the proposal on police or fire services.
c) Schools?
NI. Since the proposed project would not include any residents, there would be no impact on
schools.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 37
September 2006
~+>.L,
NI. All project facilities would be private, so there would be no governmental agency that
would provide maintenance services. No impacts would therefore result regarding maintenance
of public facilities.
14. Recreation
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks?
NI. The proposed project would not result in the construction of residences that would
generate the need for additional neighborhood or regional parks. No impact would therefore
result.
b) Does the project include recreationalfacUities or require the construction of recreational
facUities?
NI. No recreational facilities are currently planned on the project site since no residences are
proposed. No impacts would therefore result. The East Bay Regional Park District may construct
a portion of a regional trail through this project parcel; however, no right-of-way has been
selected for this trail and construction of the trail would be subject to future CEQA review at the
time such a project may be proposed.
15. Transportationffraffic
Proiect Impacts
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street
capacity ?
NI. The proposed project does not include any residences or other uses that would contribute
long-term traffic to local streets or roadways. No impact would result for this topic.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMAfor designated roads?
NI. Since no traffic would be generated by the proposed project for any local roadway, no
CMA standard would be exceeded and no impact would result.
c) Change in air traffic patterns?
NI. Development of the Project parcel is not expected to create a change in air traffic
patterns at the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 38
September 2006
d ...t.,.
\~t.;
NI. There would be no traffic that would use the emergency roadway on the Project parcel,
only emergency vehicles, so no impact would result.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
NI. The Project would increase the availability of emergency access for the adjacent Dublin
Ranch West project, so no impact would result.
f) Inadequate parking capacity?
NI. Since no habitable uses would be constructed for the proposed Project, there would be no
need for on-site parking. No impact is anticipated.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative transportation?
NI. Since the proposed Project does not include buildings or any other uses that would be
open to the general public, no impact would result with regard to alternative transportation
policies.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB?
NI. The proposed Project would not result in the construction of habitable structures that
would generate wastewater, so no impact would result.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities?
NI. Since no construction of habitable structures is proposed as part of this Project, no water
or wastewater facilities are required and no impact would result.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities?
NI. The proposed project would include new drainage facilities, including a possible
bioswale to accommodate stormwater runoff. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available?
n
LS. A limited amount of water would be required to support the proposed project. This would
be for short-term irrigation of vegetation planting and would represent a less-than-significant
impact. Since no habitable structures would be built as part of the project, there would be no
requirement for a permanent, long-term water supply.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 39
September 2006
Lf~Ub
NI. No wastewater would be generated from the proposed Project since there would be no
habitable structures built. No impact would result.
f) Solid waste disposal?
NI. There would be no impact with regard to solid waste disposal, since none of the uses
proposed as part of the Project would generate solid waste material.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
NI. There would be no impact with regard to compliance with statutes and regulations
regarding solid waste since no solid waste material would be generated as part of the proposed
Project.
h) Gas and electricity?
NI. The proposed Project does not include uses that require the extension of natural gas or
electrical service, no impact would result.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory ?
No. Although the proposed project could have an impact on special-status wildlife
species, adherence to the mitigation measures included in this Initial Study will reduce
such impacts to a less-than-significant level. Please refer to the discussion in the
Biological Resources section above.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of possible future projects.)
No. The proposed project would include minor improvements on an 11.6-acre parcel
within Contra Costa County to support a previously approved residential development
project in the City of Dublin. No habitable structures would be constructed as part of the
project and a majority of the project site would be placed in a conservation easement to
preclude further development.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 40
September 2006
11 -
i:J
No. The proposed project includes minor improvements on an l1.6-acre site that, based
on the foregoing analysis in this Initial Study, would not result in any effects that would
result in substantial adverse effects to humans, ether directly or indirectly.
Initial Study Preparer
Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner
References
Dublin Ranch West California Tiger Salamander Survey and Salvage Report. Winter
2003/04, H. T. Harvey Associates, August 2004
Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey, H.T. Harvey & Associates, October 1997
Dublin Ranch West Rare Plant Survey, H. T. Harvey Associates, September 2003
Dublin Ranch West Biological Resources Report in Support of an Initial Study, H.T.
Harvey Associates, October 2002
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998
City of Dublin General Plan, revised July 7, 1998
Phase One Environmental Site Assessment. for MacKay & Somps. Wallis Ranch 13
acres. Contra Costa County, Eckland Consultants, Inc., June 2006
Update Summary report. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Dublin Ranch West.
Tassaiara Road. Alameda County California, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, October
2001
Wallis Property Alameda/Contra Costa Counties Identification of Waters of the U.S, H.T.
Harvey Associates, May 2000
Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document
City of Dublin, Public Works Department
City of Dublin, Planning Department
MacKay and Somps
City of Dublin
Initial Study/DRW/CC County Parcel
Page 41
September 2006
~
.~
~
Linda S. Adams
Secretary for
"'onmental Pro/ect/oll
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region I"+t~ ell-,
t...q,i
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612
(510) 622-2300 . Fax (510) 622-2460
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/san franciscobay
Amold Schwarzenegger
Governor
Michael Porto, Project Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH Number: 2003022082
October 13, 2006
File No. 2198.09 (BKW)
RECEIVED
OCT 1 8 2006
DUBLIN PLANNING
Dear Mr. Porto:
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff have reviewed the September
2006, Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for PA
05-051, Dublin Ranch West Project (known as Wallis Ranch), Contra Costa County. The
proj ect includes an 11.6-acre parcel in Contra Costa County that is immediately north of
the Dublin Ranch West Project. This parcel will be regraded for an Emergency Vehicle
Access and potential bioswale. Water Board staff have the following comment on
Mitigation Measure 3 of the MND.
Comment 1 - Mitigation Measure 3
This mitigation measure states:
To compensate for loss of CTS aestivation habitat, the project proponent shall
acquire and preserve in perpetuity suitable CTS aestivation habitat at a 1: 1 ratio
adjacent to preserved, occupied CTS breeding and aestivation habitat and construct a
breeding pond, or as required by the USFWS and CDFG. The mitigation aestivation
habitat shall be located in the City of Dublin or Livermore Valley area as close as is
practicable, and as approved by the USFWS or CDFG and shall exhibit similar
characteristics to the habitat lost.
The 2004 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report and the
2004 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report contained
similar mitigation requirements. However, the project proponent has recently proposed
providing mitigation outside of the Livennore Valley. This proposal implies that there
may be a lack of suitable mitigation opportunities in the Livermore Valley. Before
certifying the MND, the Lead Agency should verify that Mitigation Measure 3 can be
implemented as proposed. This verification would preferably include providing the
precise location of the proposed mitigation site.
Identifying the proposed mitigation site in the MND would also be more consistent with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Proposed
mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of a CEQA
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years Exhibit B
o Recycled Paper
-r: ,'; ."., f' .; .1 t J C l' ,. r' ,
l {j 1\ i ,I r.f , 1';J;.. , . L
f' ?
4"1 \Tb
Mr. Porto
- 2 -
MND, Dublin Ranch West, Dublin
document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts
to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures to be identified at some future time are
not acceptable. It has been determined by court ruling that such mitigation measures
would be improperly exempted from the process of public and governmental scrutiny
which is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the
identification of a mitigation site at this time would significantly improve the MND, as
well as resolving the concerns raised by the currently proposed mitigation for the Dublin
Ranch West Project.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 622-5680 or bye-mail at
bwines@waterboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
k J< .
I/L~
tv AA/~
Brian Wines
Water Resources Control Engineer
cc State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
USACE, San Francisco District, Attn: Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105 -2197
CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Robert Floerke, Regional Manager, P.O. Box
47, Yountville CA 94599
CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Janice Gan, P.O. Box 47, Yountville CA
94599
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Chris Nagano, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Kim Squires, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years
6ycled Paper
Lf- ~ o~
b
December 13, 2006
City of Dublin
Dublin Ranch West-Wallis Ranch/Contra Costa County Parcel
Response to Environmental Comments
Introduction
The City of Dublin issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project on September
20,2006, to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance. The proposed
project includes grading on a parcel ofland within Contra Costa County immediately
north ofthe Dublin Ranch WestlWallis Ranch project west of Tassajara Road and
immediately north ofthe Dublin/Contra Costa County boundary line. The project would
also allow for a construction of an Emergency Vehicle Access, herpetological exclusion
fencing and potential bio-swa1e on this 11.6-acre site.
The Negative Declaration was published and circulated for a 30-day review ending on
October 19, 2006.
One comment letter was received and is attached. The comment letter is from the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, dated
October 13, 2006.
Following is a response to the comment letter.
Comment: Board staff is concerned that the location of compensatory off-site land for
replacement of California Tiger Salamander (CTS) is located outside ofthe Livermore
Valley. Mitigation Measure 3, as contained in the project Initial Study, states that the
location of replacement habitat land should be located within the City of Dublin or the
Livermore Valley area, as practicable, and must be approved by the Department ofFish
and Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The Regional Board requests the Lead Agency verify the location of the replacement
habitat site required by Mitigation Measure 3 to ensure it can be implemented as
proposed and that the mitigation is consistent with CEQA.
Response: Refer to the attached letter from the Dublin Ranch WestlWallis Ranch project
sponsor, Martin Inderbitzen, dated November 14, 2006,which identifies the precise
location and size of the replacement habitat land to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service staff.
The Inderbitzen letter notes that an agreement has been reached between the Lin family
and the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank located in Alameda County for sufficient
credits to off-set the impacts of the Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch project, including
Exhibit B
City of Dublin
Response to Comments
Dublin Ranch West-Wallis Ranch/Contra Costa County Parcel
January 2007
the Contra Costa County parcel. Based on this letter, the City of Dublin believes this
mitigation can and will be fulfilled. '
!~I
i:)Page 2
Attachments:
1) California Regional Water Quality Control Board comment letter
2) Inderbitzen Letter to USFWS
, "
~
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) The City Council
carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through
approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. In 2005, the
City Council approved the Dublin Ranch West project, a residential development on the west side
of Tassajara Road, north of the existing city limits generally to the county line. The City prepared a
Supplemental EIR for the Dublin Ranch West project which identified supplemental impacts that
could be mitigated to less than significant. The Supplemental EIR also identified supplemental Air
Quality and Traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to less than significant. The project now
proposes minor amendments to the previously approved PD-Planned Development District Stage 1
Development Plan and approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan. Related approvals include
tentative maps and site development review.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use
approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin and also with the Dublin Ranch West approvals in
2005. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt overriding considerations for
the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the current Dublin Ranch West project.1
The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation
measures adopted with the original Eastern Dublin approvals and by the environmental protection
measures adopted through the Dublin Ranch West approvals, to be implemented with the
development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the
implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR. The City Council
specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the
project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social,
environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the project.
2. Unavoidable Si!:mificant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following
unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future
development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Dublin Ranch West project.
Land Use Impact 3. 1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts
3.8/8; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although development has occurred south
of the project area, the site is largely undeveloped open space land. Future development of the
Dublin Ranch West site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land.
1 ".. .public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the
later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a
Better Environment v. California Resources Aqency 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, _ (2002).
7
1
Exhibit C
it A.trAL:'Hj.~fl:f..:.-r
.c:;I
_"".,;1
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: While
city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation
demand management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline
freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Future development on the Dublin Ranch West site will generate less traffic than anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, but will still incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/1, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin
Boulevard Impacts: The Dublin Ranch West project will be required to implement all applicable
adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIF program; however
even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural
Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage
Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future
development of the Dublin Ranch West project will contribute to increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even
with seismic design, future development of the Dublin Ranch West project could be subject to
damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area.
Air Quality Impacts 3. 11/A, B, C, and E. Future development of the Dublin Ranch West project will
contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary
source emissions.
3. Unavoidable SiQnificant Adverse Impacts from the Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR.
The following unavoidable significant supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the
Supplemental EIR for the 2005 Dublin Ranch West project.
Supplemental Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3. Project emission increase that would exceed the BAAOMD
significance thresholds for ozone precursors on project and cumulative levels. Even with
implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures and the additional mitigation
measures in the Supplemental EIR, project and cumulative precursor emissions will exceed
BAAOMD thresholds.
Supplemental Impact TRA-2. Impacts to study intersections under Buildout conditions (Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty Road). Even with implementation of the previously adopted mitigation
measures, including contribution to intersection improvements through the TIF program, the project
will contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts at this intersection under buildout conditions.
4. OverridinQ Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern
Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In 2005, the City Council balanced those unavoidable impacts
that apply to future development on the Dublin Ranch West site as well as the supplemental
unavoidable impacts identified in the 2005 Supplemental EIR, against its benefits, and determined
that such unavoidable impacts were outweighed by the benefits of the Dublin Ranch West project.
7
2
The City Council again considers the previously identified significant unavoidable impacts and
hereby determines that the project benefits set forth below outweigh its unavoidable impacts.
The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive
framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The 2005 modifications to the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provide important protections to Tassajara Creek
and are more reasonable and protective designations for sensitive creek areas. The project will
provide over 1,000 units of needed housing with diverse densities and building types, as well as
maintaining open space on the site. The 2005 redesignation of the elementary school site will
increase the city's supply of housing, and is a reasonable alternate use for a site no longer needed
by the school district. Development of the site will also provide construction employment
opportunities for Dublin residents. The current project implements the land use changes and
development protections and mitigations adopted with the prior approvals.
927950/011607
7
3
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa Parcel Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
."> tr.1
.,
...,~ ~
2
{"'" =-
4-. ..,..
- 0-
1: ..,..
- .......
,,~
~ ~
. .
....~'-,
Mitigation Measure 1 (Air Quality). The project
developer shall adhere to the following requirements
during grading activities. These standards shall be
included in grading plans and specifications.
a) Water graded areas in late morning and at the end
of the day; the frequency of watering should
increase if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Watering
shall include all excavated and graded areas and
material to be transported off-site.
b) Daily cleanup of mud and dust carrying
excavated materials onto street surfaces shall be
carried out.
c) Excavation haul trucks should use tarpaulins or
other covers to minimize dirt and dust spillage.
d) Replanting or repaving of graded areas should be
accomplished as soon after grading as possible.
e) Umlecessary idling of construction equipment
shall be prohibited.
f) After completion of grading, fugitive dust on
exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled through
seeding of native grasses and watering as necessary,
limiting on-site speeds of construction equipment to
15 mph and limiting use of chemical soil palliatives
to BAAQMD-a roved roducts.
January 2007
Monitoring
Schedule
Construction Plans
and Specifications
Verification
{
Mitigation Measure
g) Require construction contractors to water or cover
stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials
that can be blown by the wind.
h) Require construction contractors to sweep daily
(preferably with water sweepers) all paved access
road, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
Ii i) Require construction contractors to install
sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent
silt nmoffto public roadways.
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
Page 2
lJ',
L
C',
cr
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
Mitigation Measure 2. (Biological Resources). A Project Applicant Dublin Community Prior to issuance of
CTS management plan shall be developed by the Dublin Development a grading permit
Ranch West project proponents, and approved by the Department
City of Dublin and/or the County, as appropriate, in
consultation with CDFG and the USFWS, prior to
construction activities. This measure shall also apply to
construction grading activities within the Contra Costa
County Project site. The Plan shall detail how CTS will
be managed before and during construction activities
and will include the following:
a) Installation of a temporary herpetological
fencelbarrier prior to any ground disturbance
around the entire construction footprint (i.e.,
including both the Contra Costa County parcel
and the Dublin Ranch West development site),
which shall prevent CTS from entering the
construction area and shall remain until the
permanent fence or barrier is installed. The
existing one-way barrier, if approved by the
USFWS, is a functioning temporary barrier and
may serve as the construction exclusion fence if
appropriately located, or the location may need
to be adjusted if it is to be used as, or in
conjunction with, a temporary herpetological
exclusion fencelbarrier. A maintenance schedule
shall be included for this fencing.
u\
f.\'\
V\
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
Page 3
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
b) A salvage plan that details how aestivating CTS
will be adequately relocated from the grading
footprint within the project site and into
permanently preserved suitable upland habitat.
The project area will become a portion of the
I permanently preserved habitat (with the
exception of the EVA).
Mitigation Measure 3 (Biological Resources). To Project Applicant Dublin Community Prior to issuance of
compensate for the loss of CTS aestivation habitat, the Development a grading permit
project proponent shall acquire and preserve in Department
perpetuity suitable CTS aestivation habitat at a 1: 1 ratio
adjacent to preserved, occupied CTS breeding and
aestivation habitat and construct a breeding pond, or as
required by the USFWS and CDFG. The mitigation
aestivation habitat shall be located in the City of Dublin
or Livermore Valley area as close as is practicable, and
as approved by the USFWS or CDFG and shall exhibit
similar characteristics to the habitat lost. In selecting
off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to
preserving one large block of habitat rather than many
small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open
space and other high quality habitat, and excluding or
limiting public use within preserved areas. Land
selected for mitigation shall be permanently preserved
through use of a conservation easement or similar I
method, approved by the USFWS and CDFG, and ~
obtained prior to the issuance of any construction
permits.
C'y.!
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
Page 4
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
Mitigation Measure 4 (Biological Resources). An Project Applicant Dublin Community Prior to issuance of
Open Space Management Plan shall be prepared for the Development a grading permit
preserved upland grassland habitats within the project Department
area. This plan shall include strategies for grassland
habitat management to maintain CTS upland habitat,
including grazing or mowing to encourage ground
squirrel use and limiting human access to migratory
routes to and from breeding habitats. If grazing is
prescribed, the plan shall comply with the Grazing
Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment Area. The Open Space Management Plan
shall also address management of the habitats for other
special-status species that may utilize these areas,
including California red-legged frog (CRLF), burrowing
owl and migratory birds. The plan shall include
protection measures such as fencing, signage, reduced
I or indirect lighting, pet control measures, trail use
I limitations (daytime only), and habitat monitoring and
i
reporting as appropriate for the proposed project. This
plan shall be prepared by the Project proponent and
approved by USFWS and CDFG prior to construction
activities.
l5\
---J
C1
\:j'
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
Page 5
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
~
Mitigation Measure 5 (Biological Resources). A Project Applicant Dublin Community During grading and
qualified biologist (as identified by the City of Dublin Development construction
and Contra Costa County) shall monitor construction Department
activities to ensure protective measures are
implemented and maintained (i.e. fencing is maintained,
preserved areas are not disturbed, etc.). The biological
monitor shall have the authority to suspend any and all
construction activities if protective measures are not
properly followed and/or if activities pose an immediate
threat to preserved sensitive resources. The biological
monitor shall also have the authority to contact CDFG
and/or the USFWS to report any mortality oflisted
species during construction.
I
Mitigation Measure 6 (Biological Resources). During Project Applicant Dublin Community Prior to issuance of
initial ground disturbing activities construction Development a grading permit
employees shall receive an educational training program Department
that includes information on sensitive species
identification and their potential habitat, approved
mitigation measures for the project, and actions
employees should take if a sensitive species is
encountered.
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
Page 6
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
Mitigation Measure 7 (Biological Resources). Prior Project Applicant Dublin Community Prior to issuance of
to grading activities or any ground disturbance and Development a grading permit
I following installation of protective temporary Department
construction fencing (Measure 2a above), a qualified
biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys. If
CRLF are found within the construction areas and if I
authorized by the USFWS, they shall be immediately
moved to undisturbed, preserved portions of the
adjacent Tassajara Creek Conservation Area.
, \
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
Page 7 '..
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
j"Mitigation Measure 8 (Biological Project Applicant Dublin Community Prior to issuance of
Resources): The following pre-construction Development a grading permit
survey, avoidance, and/or compensation Department
measures shall be applied for impacts to
bunowing owls:
a) Pre-construction surveys for bunowing owls shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any
ground disturbance between September 1 and
January 31. If ground disturbance is delayed or i
suspended for more than 30 days after the survey,
the site should be re-surveyed. Ifno over-wintering
birds are present, burrows should be removed prior
to the nesting season. If over-wintering birds are
present, no disturbance should occur within 150
feet of occupied bunows. If owls must be moved
away from the disturbance area during this period,
passive relocation measures must be prepared
according to cunent CDFG bunowing owl
guidelines, approved by CDFG, and completed
prior to construction.
b) If construction is scheduled during the
nesting season (February 1 - September 1),
pre-construction surveys shall be
conducted in the entire Dublin Ranch
West area within 30 days prior to
construction and within 250 feet of the
Dublin Ranch West area prior to any
ground disturbance. A minimum buffer (at
least 250 feet) shall be maintained during
the breeding season around active
burrowing owl nesting sites identified in
Dublin RH~(}h)~1i3mrm€fOOst8~~Y-~arcel Page 8
.. 1 ~. ,. ., .
."
City of Dublin
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
r --
, c) If destruction of occupied (breeding or non-
breeding season) burrows, or any burrows
that were found to be occupied during pre-
construction surveys, is unavoidable, a
strategy will be developed to replace such
burrows by enhancing existing burrows or
creating artificial burrows at a 2: 1 ratio on
permanently protected lands adjacent to
occupied burrowing owl habitat, and will
include permanent protection of a minimum
of 6.5 acres of burrowing owl habitat per
pair or unpaired resident owl. A plan shall be
developed and approved by CDFG
describing creation or enhancement of
burrows, maintenance of burrows and
management of foraging habitat, monitoring
procedures and significance criteria, funding
assurance, annual reporting requirements to
CDFG, and contingency and remediation
measures.
r
Dublin Ranch WesUContra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
Page 9
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
Mitigation Measure 9 (Biological Project Applicant Dublin Community Prior to issuance of
Resources). Prior to any tree removal or ground Development a grading permit
disturbance, a qualified biologist (approved by Department
the City of Dublin and Contra Costa County, as
appropriate) shall conduct special-status breeding
bird surveys throughout the grading area and
mark an appropriate buffer around any nests
discovered. Buffers shall be a minimum of 250
feet for raptors, and between 50 and 100 feet for
special-status passerines depending on habitat
type (50 feet in dense vegetation, 100 feet in
open areas). Nesting status shall be monitored by
a qualified biologist to detennine when nests are
no longer active. All activities shall be prohibited
within the buffer until after young have fledged
and moved out of the nest.
Mitigation Measure 10 (Biological Project Applicant Dublin Community Prior to issuance of
Resources). Vegetation and tree removal shall Development a grading permit
take place (as much as practicable) outside of the Department
breeding period for most birds (February-August
is a broad breeding period that covers most
species).
~
~
~~f
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
'~"\
\,)'
Page 10
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
s
--
itigation Measure 11 (Cultural Project Applicant Dublin Community During grading and
esources). If historic, archeological, Development construction
aleontological or Native American materials or Department
rtifacts are identified during project
onstruction, work within a 50-foot radius of
uch find on the project shall cease and the City
fDublin and/or Contra Costa County shall
etain the services of a qualified archeologist
nd/or paleontologist to assess the significance of
e find. If such find is determined to be
ignificant by the archeologist, a resource
rotection plan conforming to CEQA Guideline
ection 15064.5 shall be is prepared by the a
ualified archeologist and/or paleontologist and
pproved by the City of Dublin and/or Contra
osta County, as appropriate. The plan may
elude but would not be limited to removal of
esources or similar actions. project work may be
esumed in compliance with such plan. Ifhuman
emains are encountered, the Contra Costa
ounty Coroner shall be contacted immediately I
nd the provisions of State law carried out.
M
R
P
a
c
s
o
r
a
th
p
S
q
a
C
ill
r
r
r
C
a
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
s-
( \J
~.
o
Page 11 \~'i'
Mitigation Measure
Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
Mitigation Measure 12 (Geology). Prior to the Project Applicant Dublin Public Prior to issuance of I
issuance of a grading permit for the project parcel, the Works Department a grading permit
applicant shall submit a soils and geotechnical report by a
qualified geologist or equivalent. The report shall analyze
existing soil conditions, the proposed grading plan and
shall include specific recommendations to reduce the risk
of slope failure and mudflow during seismic and non-
seismic events to an acceptable level of risk, as
determined by the City of Dublin or Contra Costa County,
as appropriate..
Mitigation Measure 13 (Hydrology). Prior to Project Applicant Dublin Public Prior to issuance of
the issuance of a grading permit for the Project Works Department a grading permit
parcel, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the site
showing construction and post-construction
methods that will be implemented to meet
Regional Water Quality Control Board surface
water standards. The Plan shall include methods
to prevent soil erosion during construction as
well as long-term methods to protect surface
waters. The SWPPP shall be approved by the
Dublin Public Works Director or the Contra
Costa County Public Works Department, as
appropriate.
. Mitigation Measure 14 (Noise). Grading and Project Applicant Dublin Community Prior to issuance of
construction activities on the project parcel shall Development a grading permit
be included in the Dublin Ranch West Department
Construction Noise Management Plan.
J:....-
c'-'
Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa County Parcel
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin
Page 12
IY:; t,
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
************************************************
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMMENDMENT
TO AMEND THE PARCELS DESIGNATED AS PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO SEMI-PUBLIC
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR A PORTION (APN 986-0004-005-01) OF THE PROJECT
WALLIS RANCH (AKA DUBLIN RANCH WEST)
P A 05-051
WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong representing Chang Su-O (aka Jennifer) Lin, et. aI.,
submitted applications (P A 05-051) to the City regarding a 184-acre parcel ("Lin Family Property")
located in the unincorporated area of Alameda County (APN 986-0004-005-01); and
WHEREAS, a 189-acre project area known AS Wallis Ranch (aka Dublin Ranch West) is
comprised of the 184-acre Lin Family Property and two smaller, individually owned parcels totaling
approximately five (5) acres; and
WHEREAS, Dublin Ranch West is generally is located south ofthe County boundary, north of
the existing City limits, east ofthe property owned by United States Government known as Parks Reserve
Training Facility (PRTF), and generally west of Tassajara Road; and
WHEREAS, all 189 acres of Dublin Ranch West are within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOl),
the Eastern Extended Planning Area of the General Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the application includes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendment to amend the parcels designated as Public/Semi-Public to Semi Public land use designation;
and
WHEREAS, the Project site currently is undeveloped and used for farming, grazing, storage, and
other rural uses; and
WHEREAS, the Project would amend corresponding text, tables, and figures related to
amendments to land use designations of the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, including
but not limited to areawide land use diagrams, land use summary tables, figures regarding the location of
schools and parks, and environmental resource exhibits related to open space and stream corridors shown
in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the City Council certified a program Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") for the Eastern Dublin GP AlSP Project and an addendum thereto, dated May 4, 1993
(SCH 91103064). On August 22, 1994, the City Council approved another addendum to update plans to
provide sewer service. The May 10, 1993 program ErR, the May 4, 1993 addendum and the August 22,
1994 addendum are collectively referred to as the Eastern Dublin ErR; and
WHEREAS, upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP Project, the City Council adopted
mitigation findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring program as set
forth in Resolution 53-93, included in the Eastern Dublin ErR referenced above. All mitigation measures
adopted for the GP A/SP Project continue to apply to implementing projects such as the current PD
Prezone; and all applicable City development ordinances and standards apply to the Project except as
otherwise approved through the Project prezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan; and
ATTACHMENT 2
jOe
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the 2005 approval of the Dublin Ranch West project described
above, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adopted mitigation
findings, findings regarding alternatives, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation
monitoring plan (the "SEIR") (City Council Resolution No. 42-05); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative
Declaration entitled "Dublin Ranch West/Contra Costa Parcel" was prepared and circulated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report and associated Mitigated
Negative Declaration at a duly noticed public hearing held on January 9,2007, at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on January 9,2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-02
recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 9,2007, adopted Resolution
07-01 approving the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps for Wallis Ranch, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their meeting of February 13,2007, adopted
Resolution 07-XX recommending that the City Council adopt a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan changing the land us on a parcel ofland designated for Public/Semi Public uses to Semi-Public land
uses, and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated February 20, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council approves the following
Amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the
amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally
consistent.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of February 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\P A#\2005\05-051 Dublin Ranch West- Wallis\CC\CCResoGP ASP A.doc
2
Mowa
'" i
"',9s;
"J
./
L //:
Mbsinn Peak Homc~ ............<.... I\ttH !
,,-............-N'C", : Haigh
" I
----~ :
)
I
I
I
l___
I
I
Bragg \
MH'\
,-.... '>
I v
>
/'
I ,
" ,/
, ,,'
<:
....
)
I
(
M(
\ OS
\
,
,
'.
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lc----V___h___h____
Wallis Ranch
MoHer
\
,
,
,
,
\'"
\
,
\
I
I
I
I
///
/ Quarry Lane
/ School
MINOR
GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE AMENDMENT
RRA
Jaoual)',2007
16034-40
M
trj
~
=-
.-.
0-
.-.
.....
>
Uuited Stat;;:-s ofArucrica
./
./
./. /,/'
./ //
./ /
./. /,///
./ .,/
0,0. ap.a ./ /'
22.1,...._ ./ /
./ .,/
./. ,,//
/ ,/,/
.:. --
/Z/..
/~~./
/1;./
/../:..//....
/'/ ///
/., ..,/
/ ./
. --
\ ,//'
\,//'
~~~___~_n___..___~~___
~~--~---~----------~----
United Slates of Am~nca
Publici Semi-Public Lands
glicultural
Lands i
i Lin
i
{,
'\
\
\. \
'. \
" ...
..,..,!
!
i...~~
Land Use Summary Table
Land Use
Walli:;Ranch
Low Deosity esidential
Medillm Density Residential
MedIUm High Doosity ReSIdential'
Neighborhood Park
Open Space
Semi-Public
Pu!>tic!Semi-PllbIic
To""
Exishlg Proposed
Minor General Plan/Specific Plan Milor General Plan/Specific Plan
land Use Amendment land Use Amendment
0" '" Idp- Aa~ u.:.ty ross
A,~ R,'9' Density ......."
54.6 333-764 546 57.1 629 11.0
20,1 283-503 402 16,0 288-320 18-20
8.8 10.4
79.9 83.3
1.9
1.9
184.1 632-1.3/9 1.023 184.1 9/1>-1001 11.0-11.4
.. Note: 2.9 acres ulthi:; de~9nalion are currently anticipated to be used towards a watl."- quaJity and detontiun basin..
Thi~ equate:; to a range betwaoo 40 and 72 1lIIit~.
41
NOATH
.. lOll'.
\
Publici Semi-Public Lands
""-2IIl' l:HI'" _ "'I
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 07
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*****************************************
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE A 184.1 ACRE AREA KNOWN AS DUBLIN
RANCH WEST/W ALLIS RANCH TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVING A
RELATED AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A RELATED STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PA 05-051
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows.
1. The Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch PD-Planned Development zoning, including an
amended Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan, meets the purpose and intent of
Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive and coordinated development plan for a large area with
development opportunity and constraint areas. With the added land from the expansion area into Contra
Costa County and the refined land use areas within the City portion ofthe project, as further described
below, the project continues to provide a desirable use ofland that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by
making efficient use of development areas so as to allow sensitive slope and biological areas to be
undeveloped.
2. Development of Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch the PD-Planned Development zoning,
including an amended Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan, will be harmonious
and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the land uses and site
plans provide effective transitions from constrained areas to development areas while maintaining an
attractive frontage along Tassajara Road. Implementation of the development plans will maintain open
space uses along Tassajara Creek, consistent with other development downstream of the project.
B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B ofthe Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows.
1. Development of Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch the PD-Planned Development zoning,
including an amended Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan, will be harmonious
and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the land uses and site
plans provide effective transitions from constrained areas to development areas while maintaining an
attractive frontage along Tassajara Road. Implementation of the development plans will maintain open
space uses along Tassajara Creek, consistent with other development downstream of the project.
2. The central area of Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch is flatter before it drops into the creek,
with rolling hills towards the west. Development is concentrated in the less constrained areas, with lower'
density development in the steeper areas. A large open space corridor along Tassajara Road protects
Tassajara Creek as it passes through the project area. Existing infrastructure (including roads, sewer,
storm drain, potable and recycled water, natural gas, and electricity) is located immediately adjacent to the
site. The project is large enough to provide housing as well as open space for future residents. Through
the flexibility of the proposed PD-Planned Development district that allows development to be tailored to
1
Attachment 3
~.:::;
onsite conditions, as well as development standards and design guidelines in the related Stage 1
Development Plan as amended and the Stage 2 Development Plan, the project is physically suitable for
the type and intensity of the proposed zoning district.
3. The proposed PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in
that the project design is sensitive to biology and topographical features, will comply with all applicable
development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures.
4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan in general and as amended in connection with prior project approvals in 2005. The
project is within the density range of the Single Family, Medium Density Residential and Medium-High
Density Residential designations of both the City of Dublin General Plan Land Use Element and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended); it also provides open space required by the Land Use, Parks
and Open Space and Conservation Elements, roadways consistent with the Circulation Element, adequate
public facilities as required by the Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element, Housing as desired by the
Housing Element, and safe design as required by the Seismic Safety Element
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council certified a Supplement to the
Eastern Dublin EIR for the Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch project in Resolution 42-05 on March 15,
2005, and also adopted mitigation and alternatives findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
a mitigation monitoring plan, as required to support approval of the project, including approval of the PD-
Planned Development prezoning through Ordinance 10-05. The Eastern Dublin EIR and the
Supplemental EIR adequately support the land use and site plan refinements to the portion ofthe project
within the City. The City prepared and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration to analyze the
additional 11.6 acres ofland in Contra Costa County included in the project to allow grading for the City
portion of the project as well as an Emergency Vehicle Access, herpetological exclusion fencing and a
potential bioswale. (Resolution _-07, incorporated herein by reference.) The Mitigated Negative
Declaration together with the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR and Dublin Ranch W est/Wallis
Ranch Supplemental EIR adequately describe the impacts ofthe expansion project and the project area
located within the City.
SECTION 2. Approval.
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the City of Dublin Zoning Map is
amended to rezone the following area to a PD-Planned Development zoning district.
Approximately 184.1 acres located west of Tassajara Road at the northerly City limits (APN 986-
0004-005-01)
The zoning district for Dublin Ranch W estlW allis Ranch, including the proposed amended Stage 1
Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan, is located within the City of Dublin. The project
includes an additional 11.6 acre parcel of land north of the City limits, within Contra Costa County (APN
225-070-02).
A location map of the zoning area is shown below.
2
Dl.::BT TN'
PLE..4SANTON
~.. ~ "'jII>$...m~~~-""'""".-,'Il 01'/ rl
SECTION 3.
1~DD
Ranc.h
:t_
'\'lCI1'(m".L>\.P
lW'"~.<--~
~
2
.
"0"" "'Hi
-
-...
The regulations for the use, development, improvement and maintenance ofthe project area are set forth
in the Stage 1 Development Plan adopted through Ordinance 10-05, as amended below, which
amendments are hereby approved, and set forth in the Stage 2 Development Plan below, which is hereby
approved. Any amendments to the development plans shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080 ofthe
Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
3
/5- {)
~.'
PD-Planned Development Zoning District
Amended Stage 1 Development Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan
P A 05-051
This is an amended Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32
of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the Lin Family portion of the Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch
project, consisting of 184.1 acres on the west side of Tassajara Road at the northerly City limits. The
project includes an additional 11.6 acre parcel ofland north ofthe City limits, within Contra Costa
County. The amended Stage 1 Development Plan and the Stage 2 Development Plan for the Lin property
were processed concurrently.
Amended Sta2:e 1 Development Plan. The Stage 1 Development Plan is as approved through Ordinance
10-05, except as specified below.
1. Statement of proposed uses. As provided in Ordinance 10-05, with the following amendments
regarding second residential units and a potential detention basin site.
"Section 2.A) Single Family Residential, Permitted Uses, Second residential unit..." is amended to delete
reference to the initial homebuilder, to read as follows:
Second residential unit in accordance with appropriate regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
(Chapter 8.80)
"Section 2.A) Single Family Residential, Conditional Uses" is amended by deleting the last listed item
regarding second residential units.
"Section 2.B) PD Medium Density Residential, Permitted Uses, Second residential unit..." is amended to
delete reference to the initial homebuilder and to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and to add reference to
the PD site development standards in the Stage 2 Development Plan, section 5 of this ordinance, to read
as follows:
Second residential unit above detached garage, subject to site development standards in the Stage
2 Development Plan, section 5, Development regulations. Where the detached garage includes a
bonus room over the garage, the bonus room may be converted to a second residential unit, subject
to the site development standards referenced above.
"Section 2.C) PD Medium High Residential, Permitted Uses" is amended to add provision for a retention
basin with the potential for alternate residential uses ifthe basin is not required for the project, to read as
follows:
Hydromodification basin. A stormwater retention basin is proposed on an approximately 2.2 acre
site (generally shown as lot 26 on the project tentative map). Ifthis facility is not required by the
resources agencies, the site may be considered for approximately 40-72 residential units through
an amendment to this Stage 1 Development Plan.
2. Stage 1 site plan, site area, proposed densities. The Stage 1 Development Plan is amended to add
the 11.6 acre property north of the City limits. The City does not have land use jurisdiction over this
additional area; however, this area is integral to the Dublin Ranch West project and is included in the
development plan to show its relationship to the City portion ofthe project. The Stage 1 Development
4
-']/
\.
Plan is also amended to refine land use areas, as follows: refines the boundaries ofthe various land uses,
adds key elements to the Tassajara Creek Open Space Corridor and changes the Stage 1 Planned
Development from Public/Semi-Public to Semi Public land uses. The revised site plan is shown on the
next page (page 6).
3. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The 2005 Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch approvals
included General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments for the project. The development
plan as amended remains consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Sta2:e 2 Development Plan. See Attachment 14, project submittal package dated January 2007 of the City
Council Staff Report dated February 20,2007.
1. Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 development plan. An amended Stage 1 Development
Plan was processed concurrently with the Stage 2 Development Plan, and approved as set forth earlier in
this ordinance. The Stage 2 Development Plan is consistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan as
amended.
2. Statement of proposed uses. See Ordinance 10-05 as amended above.
3. Stage 2 site plan. As shown on page 7.
5
ST AGE 1 PD SITE PLAN
1.
RR.~
:,.1,':h~
'/
~(;;iIDl.
/
,/
/
/
/
./
./
/
,/
./ ./
/
/
,/~/
/1
.~ _",:7>
/",_<f
/'<~~~ "
/
/
/
./
./
t]111I.ii.-&<l!'t"'i.f'A:l'lCrkit
?ubli<:/Scini..;Publk Lands
~7'7
. \1
us
STAGE 1 PD SITE
S;;<.'l::1:2i .
",:
P(.>t~ftt1al Ruadwltv
(.'llllnectir..a;<)'
",~"T3;$Jltjarall')ad
/ ilK'" RRA
~"~~$'.::;<C';;'
lInil'cli S~a,'_" 'if .<l,m~rk;l
Publici Semi-Pubti<: Lands
~'
. .+
-...., /
,,-.'to >>?' .,...
~
~!~~,!
i'>-",,>>'_.~A t>;,$l,. ~~,.:;;('i<>
6
STAGE 2 PD SITE PLAN
'7
<", .
'1"
Wallis Ranch
~t@.0;;....2....D.~.vf..~.QP.f.n.~.nt....fl.q().
STAGE 2 PD SITE PLAN
l\flS:hbor@~'~tJ
''It'lthm~ ~-ll$ih' R~Wtt<utUlt
:~;'$:<:~.~:~
"'.'l'""N"-,, :,-;~.,;
,<>';.i-.. ~.:
\
\
~\~
r.,....Jt4
0,<,;"
\,:.::<
Lmhl tho::: S~mm;\,'Y
...~-'--..._ Nd:Ehl><trIHtud 6
Medium nctl~lir R%idtmitlt
';::l:i$.'grm:~
~ ~ 1 "",I>.:I
L mtt-J S;~~:<::;; ,-d Am::::l'l":c.
h;bl;,-;}it,{Jli..Pll~.,li;'
'"
~u
:~:.
lC.';
~.., ~i;_:;
I:;
1~4' ! lb~:~
11 ,>,-u,,, 1
. Nti~t:t.bl.>fIW<xl5
Medhrmlkltifb<
!~~t~rl:~~~3 -
1lt"'<lc.lJ'$
ill'
~--I-
'" <' ~ T>
~
:-.::::i!!:hh(>rhtll"" S\l'rll1t~~"Y
N~il' l;.,;l !;~;:;;:';;l-
'fjl"~
--i:;,,~~g~!....
h>J"..p.,,,,,,;,
T:>~cl:""..,
~&:-.s
~_d",. c.... 1'_~l1f~ ~~~
7
4. Site area, proposed densities. As shown on Stage 2 site plan above.
/}
7(1
(
5. Development regulations. As shown below.
SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - Single-Family Detached
Building Type Conventional Alley Loaded Motor Court Cluster
Lot Size 5,000 S.F. or greater 3,150 S.F. or greater 3,130 S.F. or greater
Minimum Street Frontage lot 35' 20' 35'
width
Maximum Lot Coverage (I)
Initial Building Footprint 50% 55% 55%
Other(F) 5% 5% 5%
Maximum Building Height 35' 38' 38'
Maximum Stories (2) 2 3 (3) 3 (3)
Minimum Front Setbacks (A) (0) (7) (8) (II)
Living Space 15' (4) 12' 10' to R.O.W. or 4' to P/L or
shared use easement
Porch or Balcony 10' 10' 8' to R.O.W. or 4' to P/L or
shared use easement
Front Facing Garage (5) 19' N/A 19' from back of sidewalk
Swing-in Garage (6) 12' N/A N/A
Living Space over Forward Garage 50% or less of the second N/A N/A
story living area above
garage may extend past
recessed first-story living
Minimum Side Setbacks (A) (0) (7) (8) (II)"
I Story Living Space/Garage (4) 5' (aggregate 10') 0' or4' 0' or 4'
(aggregate 8') (12) (aggregate 8') (12)
2-3 Story Living Space 5 - 7.5' 0' or 4' 0' or4'
(aggregate 12.5 - IS') (4) (aggregate 8') (12) (aggregate 8') (12)
Corner Lot (Living Space to Street 12' 2-story, 10' single-story
Side PL) (4) (13) element 9' 9'
Porch or Balcony - 5' 3' 3'
Interior Lot (8) (D)
Porch or Balcony - Corner Lot 5' 5' 5'
Minimum Rear Setbacks (0) (7) (8) (9)
Living Space (A) 15' avg. per lot, N/A 10' or 5' to shared use easement
10' min. (15)
Garage (A) 5' 4' to alley edge N/A
Garage Face to Garage Face N/A 30' 30' clear back space
Living Space over Garage N/A 2' max. cantilever or 2' N/A
min. recess from garage
Other Requirements (8)
Minimum Usable Private Open Space 500 S.F. flat area with a 300 S.F. flat area with a 250 S.F. contiguous flat area with
(7) min. dimension of 10'. (14) min. dimension of 10'. a min. dimension of 10'
(14)
Maximum Encroachments (D) 2' 2' 2'
Accessory Structures Setbacks (E) (E) (E) (E)
Parking Spaces Required Per Home 2 covered and 2 covered and 2 covered and I
(10) I guest I guest guest
8
Corner Lot Triangulated Visibility
Easement (II)
Min. 30' from face of
intersecting street curb
lines
Min. 30' from face of Min. 30' from face of intersecting
intersecting street curb street curb lines
lines
Single-Family Detached
Notes for Site Development Standards (see previous page)
(A) Setbacks measured from property line.
(B) See following pages for graphic depiction of above Standards.
(C) See Architectural Guidelines in this document for additional Architectural Treatments.
(D) Encroachments: Items such as, but not limited to, roof overhangs, air conditioning condensers, entry stairs, porches,
chimneys, bay windows and media centers may encroach up to two feet or more into the required setback provided
there is a minimum of 36 inches of unrestricted access on one side of the building. Air conditioning units cannot be
placed in the front yard. All utilities are to be screened from public view via walls, enclosures, roof placement, etc.
(E) Setbacks for accessory structures shall be in accordance with the building code in effect at the time of
construction/installation. Noise generating uses such as pool and spa equipment shall be acoustically screened or
located outside the setback area.
(F) Accessory Structures, as defined in Section 8.08 of the Dublin Municipal Code, covered patios, and in the approved
neighborhoods of the accompanying SDR for the single family detached conventional and motor court c1uster-
remodels, are allowed an additional five percent of coverage when located in the rear or side yard of the house, or
in accordance with Section 7.28.290 of the Dublin Municipal Code. This percentage may increase if the building
footprint coverage is not at the maximum percentage allowed. However, in no event shall the total coverage on a
lot exceed the combined "Building Footprint" and "Patio and Accessory Structure" coverages.
I. Maximum lot coverage regulations are intended to establish the maximum lot area that may be covered with
buildings and structures. Buildings and structures include all land covered by principal buildings, garages and
carports, permitted accessory structures, covered decks and gazebos, and other enclosed and covered areas; but
not standard roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, paved areas such as walkways,
driveways, patios, exterior stairs, uncovered parking areas or roads
2. Subject to Building Code requirements for access.
3. Where appropriate to building style, the third floor must be stepped back from front and rear elevation to reduce
building mass.
4. Where 50 percent or more of the elevation of the home is a single-story element, the setback for the single-story
and two-story elements of that elevation shall be considered as that for a single-story building.
5. Three-car front facing garages are prohibited on lots less than 55 feet wide. Three-car front facing garages are
limited to one plan per neighborhood plan package. These garage doors shall be separated by a two-foot offset
between single door and double door, or be three single doors with a one-foot offset between each door. Refer to
Building Mass and Form and Architectural Treatment Sections of the Architectural Design Standards for additional
architectural requirements pertaining to garage far;ade, roof lines, etc.
6. Swing-in garages are prohibited on lots less than 55 feet wide, unless a shared driveway is provided for cluster lot
conditions.
7. Retaining walls up to four feet high may be used to create a level usable area. Retaining walls in excess of four feet
to create usable area are subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. Walls over 30
inches in height are subject to safety criteria as determined by the Building Official.
9
eel
8. Setbacks subject to review and approval of Building Official for Building Code and Fire Code issues. Setback to
building overhang to be 36-inch minimum or as required by current City Building Code Standards.
9. At cul-de-sac bulbs or knuckles where lot depths are less than the standard lot depth, minimum rear yard setback
requirements may be reduced by an amount equal to lot depth minus the actual depth of the lot (i.e. I DO' - 90' =
10'). In no case will the rear yard setback be reduced to less than ten feet.
10. Curbside parking may be counted toward required number of guest spaces. Tandem garage parking is permitted,
but not encouraged.
II. Minimum 3D-foot triangulated visibility easement on front and side streets measured from the face of intersecting
street curb lines. No structures or shrubs/groundcovers over 30 inches in height allowed. (See diagrams on the
following pages).
12. On grade stairs and approaches can be located within setbacks.
13. Where a minimum five-foot wide HOA landscape parcel lies between a lot or cluster and an adjacent street, the
adjacent lots or cluster shall be considered an interior lot for setback requirements.
14. Yard area may be provided in more than one location within a lot, with a minimum ISO-square foot yard or
courtyard area.
15. The minimum and average rear yard setbacks shall be calculated from rear of living space including adjacent side yard
and not from the deep recessed garage.
10
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
/
$5' TYPical
-_.~
-~ ~
~.(
Qin
..,....'~
7.5'
/
F!rerr STORY MASSING
SECOND STORY MASSING
Mil1ilrltlm ut.1WM levef _ 'j~ 111 IiIXJ S.F.
witl1 all'!lll!mWn to' ~n:!\bI'L 'fllifl'i B_ may bli'
~1it~lhM~I~1'l~qklt. .mhq
Il'!lIl!mWn t5Q $.' }!fml fJf ~fIt liNN fr~!!
7()' typical COl'f'Wf Jot
;I
if..
15'
-5'
-1()'
~story
'"
""'..........,
15'
30'
'"
30'
/
/ffj() U Cf mCl'll dB sid!;, il~ll hill $Ill_story
41~. tIl$ ~d tllcry $G~$hmlb$
~.l/llli IJfh**,$!cry.
U$A13l..t PRlVAiE YARD MINIMUM AREA
'TRAFFIC VISIBIUTY AREA
PARKWAY
10 PRIMARY ENTRY
65' X 100', 6,500+SFD
Typical Plotting Concept
teal prototype plotting ~pts abow 3I"e represental.iw 0fIiy . not in~d to 00 m~t~ laycwt, All setbacKs s.OOwtl3l"e m.i'tlImUln$,
11
~ Z-(jb
~'-."
, -':, ()
....,; ,~
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
3D'
Alley
26'
AQ9regate .
10'
2' Max. Cantilever
or 2' Min. Recessed
from garage
13' Min. to Retaining Wall
-
Q)
~
U)
Minimum usable level
private yardspace = 300 sq. ft.
with a min. dimension of 10'
I
3D'
t
J,
~
3D'
J,
~
Street
SFD Hillside Split
Detatched Alley Garage
Typical Plotting Concept
~ FIRST STORY MASSING
E SECOND STORY MASSING
G TRAFFIC VISIBILITY AREA
CJ PARKWAY
[!J PRIMARY ENTRY
Note: Typical prototype plolting concepts above are representative only - not intended to be mandated layout. All setbacks shown are minimums.
12
~
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Min. 4'
Aggregate 8'
Minimum usable level
rear yards = 250 S.F.
with a minimum
10' dimension. Yard
area may be provided
in more than one t
location within a lot
(may be shared use 30'
easement). ~
I-
ltl
g:
CI)
8'
'I"
8' to porch, balcony
or courtyard
{
Ii SECOND STORY MASSING
USABLE PRIVATE YARD MINIMUM AREA
SFD Motor Court Cluster
Typical Plotting Concept
G TRAFFIC VISIBILITY AREA
EJ PARKWAY
[!] PRIMARY ENTRY
Note: Typical proIotype plotting concepts above are representative only - not intended to be mandated layout. AJI setbacks shown are minimums.
13
t
",,_.
SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - Multi-Family Attached
Building Type Attached Row Townhomes Podium
Maximum Building Height 45' 60' (H)
Maximum Stories (Living Area) 3 (I) 4 over garage (I)
Minimum Setbacks
Building to Collector R.O.W 15',8' to porch or balcony IS', 8' to porch or balcony
Building to R.O.W. on other Public: 15',8' to porch or balcony
Private/Public Streets (to back of 10', 8' to porch or balcony Private: 5' minimum and 10' average,
sidewalk) 5' to porch or balcony
Living Space to Alley or Common N/A 3'
Driveway
Living Space to Open Parking 8' 12'
Garage Face to Alley Edge 3' N/A
(Drive Apron)
Rear Living Space over Garage
Minimum Offset or Maximum Cantilever 2' (F) N/A
from Face of Garage (F)
Minimum Building Separation (E) (A)
Garage Door to Garage Door 30' N/A
Rear Living Space over Garage (F) 26' N/A
2 - 4 Story Living Space - Front (E) 25' 20' minimum, 30' average
2 - 4 Story Living Space - Side IS' 20' minimum, 30' average
Porch or Balcony to Porch or Balcony 12' 14'
Other Requirements
Maximum Encroachments (A)(B) 3' 3'
Private Open Space (L) A) I OO-square foot patio with a 10'
minimum dimension or 50-square foot I OO-square foot patio with a 10'
upper level deck with a 5' minimum minimum dimension or 50-square foot
inside dimension; or upper level deck with a minimum
B) 40-square foot patio or deck with a inside dimension of 5'
5' minimum dimension with increased
common open space
Common Open space (C) A) 50 square feet per unit with a 10'
minimum dimension; or 50 square feet per unit with a 10'
B) 100 square feet per unit with a 10' minimum dimension
minimum dimension with decreased
private open space
Parking Required Per Unit (D) I bedroom - I covered & I bedroom - I covered &
.5 uncovered guest spaces; .5 uncovered guest spaces;
2 or more bedrooms = 2 covered & 2 or more bedrooms = 2 covered
.5 uncovered guest spaces & .5 uncovered guest spaces
Corner Lot Triangulated Visibility Minimum 30' measured from face of Minimum 30' measured from face of
Easement (G) intersecting street curb lines intersecting street curb lines
14
Multi-Family Attached
Notes for Site Development Standards (see previous page)
(A) Encroachments shall be allowed to project up to three feet into building separations and must be at least 36 inches
from property lines (or comply with U.B.C. Standards, whichever is more restrictive) See item (B) below.
(B) Encroachments include: Roof overhangs, eaves, architectural projections, fireplaces, log storage, media niches,
balconies, bay windows, window boxes, exterior stairs, second floor overhangs, decks, porches, trellis, and air
conditioning equipment - providing the equipment is screened from off-site view. Air conditioning units cannot be in
front yards unless no other option exists. All utilities are to be screened from off-site view via walls, enclosures,
roof placement, etc. See item (A) above.
(C) An average of 50 square feet of common open space shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the
private open space requirement. The minimum dimension of any space satisfying this standard is ten feet. This
common open space shall be improved for either passive or active use.
(D) On-street parking can be counted toward number of required guest spaces. Tandem parking is permitted inside
structures.
(E) Where two different building heights are adjacent, taller building controls separation.
(F) Upper story living area over garages may be recessed a minimum of two feet or encroach up to two feet into
driveway length or garage setback.
(G) Minimum 30-foot triangulated visibility easement on front and side streets measured from the face of intersecting
street curb lines. No structures or shrubs/groundcovers over 30 inches in height allowed. (See diagrams on the
following pages).
(H) Excludes appurtenances such as elevator shafts, uninhabitable towers, and penthouse units.
(I) The first of each plan constructed with three floors shall be surveyed for actual square footage of the third floor to
confirm that the upper level is less than 500 square feet and does not require secondary egress. Certification shall
be provided to the City of Dublin Building Division prior to the insulation of the selected units. At the option of the
Building Official, the City may select other units for review at the time of the third floor inspection. If any unit is
determined by the City to be over 500 square feet, the developer shall have said unit surveyed.
15
MULTI-FAMILY ATTACHED SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
2' minimum recess or
IlI8Jlimum canteJiver ~ Allev
IIflOOI'Id-story living J
space from face at garage
30'
-
CD
~
Ci)
10' or 15'
I
30'
t
Street
10'
r
I
Attached Row Townhomes
Typical Plotting Concept
LIVING AREA OVER GARAGE
Ii SECOND STORY MASSING
USABLE PRIVATE YARD MINIMUM AREA
13 TRAFFIC VISIBILITY AREA
~~,'7 ;'
Note: Typical prototype plotting concepts above are represenlative only - not intended to be mandated layout. All setbacks shown are minimums.
16
MULTI-FAMILY ATTACHED SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
~ SECOND STORY OR HIGHER MASSING
USABLE PRIVATE YARD MINIMUM AREA Podium Stacked
B PARKWAY Townhomes and Flats
[!] PRIMARY ENTRY Typical Plotting Concept
....
Q,)
~
CiS
Minimum private open
Ilp8C8 100 squaT8 feet with
a min. 10' dimflllBion or
50 square feet upper dBck
with a min. dimension of 5'
Hole: Typical prototype plotting concepts above are representative only - not intended to be mandated layout. All setbacks shown are minimums.
6. Architectural standards. See Attachment 14812 x 11 Stage 1 PD Rezone Amendment and Stage 2
PD booklet.
7. Preliminary Landscaping Plan. See Attachment 14 11 x 17 SDR and Vesting Maps booklet.
17
SECTION 4. The use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the project properties shall be
governed by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as provided in the amended Stage 1 and the Stage 2
Development Plans.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption.
The City Clerk ofthe City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public
places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council ofthe City of Dublin, on this _ day of
, 2007, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\P A#\2005\05-051 Dublin Ranch West-Wallis\PC\Ordinance rf&mp final.doc
18