HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.4 DublinRnchPDReznB-E
.
.
.
CIT~ERK
File # . fnJ-GK1J
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 18, 1997
SUBJECT:
(PUBLIC HEARING) Dublin Ranch "Areas B-E"
Planned Development (PD) Rezone and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment /General Plan Amendment
P A 96-039 (Report Prepared by: Tasha Huston)~
EXHIBITS:
(see next page)
RECOMMENDATI04/ : 1. Open public hearing and hear staff presentation
2. Take testimony from applicant and the public
3. Question staff, applicant, and the public
4. Close public hearing and deliberate.
5. Adopt the following:
· Exhibit A: City Council Resolution
approving Negative Declaration, including
Exhibits A-I through A-5: Initial Study, Noise
Study, Visual Study, Traffic Study, Biological
Study and Adopting Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendments
· Exhibit B: City Council Resolution
approving findings and general provisions for
Areas B-E Land Use & Development Plan /
District Planned Development Plan; with
Exhibits: B-1, Public Works Conditions; B-2,
Fire Department Conditions; and B-3,
LUDP/DPDP text & diagrams
6. Waive reading and introduce the Ordinance
amending the Zoning Ordinance to approve the PD
Rezoning (Exhibit C); and
7. Schedule the second reading of the Ordinance for the
December 2, 1997 City Council meeting.
- - - - - - - - - - COPIE~TO:- City Attorney - - --
Applicant
ITEM NO.
6.4
H1cc-forms/agdastmt.doc
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
.
City Council Resolution approving Negative Declaration, including
Exhibits A-I through A-5: Initial Study, Noise Study, Visual Study,
Traffic Study, Biological Study and Adopting Specific Plan/General
Plan Amendments
City Council Resolution approving [mdings and general provisions for
Areas B-E Land Use & Development Plan / District Planned
Development Plan; with Exhibits: B-1, Public Works Conditions; B-2,
Fire Department Conditions; and B-3, LUDP/DPDP text & diagrams
City Council Ordinance adopting Planned Development Rezo~e
Staff Report :from October 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Attachment 9:
Dublin General Plan*
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan*
Parks & Recreation Master Plan *
EIR for Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & General Plan Amendment
(including Addendum dated May 4, 1993) SCH# 91103064; and
Addendum dated August 22, 1994*
City Council Resolution Certifying Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment Program EIR (Resolution # 51-93)*
City Council Resolution adopting Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment; adopting findings and approving overriding
considerations; and adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program
("Matrix") for EDSP EIR (Resolution # 53-93)*
City Council Resolution approving Prezoning of annexed land (EIR
(Resolution # 10-94)*
General Project Information*
Minutes :from October 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
.
* (NOT ATTACHED, BUT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE,
AVAILABLE AT THE DUBLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND
AT THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: none
.
2
.
.
.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Planned Development (PD) District Rezone approval for an
approximately 453-acre site. The project involves rezoning the site :from an overall PD
District to several distinct zoning designations, including: PD Medium Density Residential (-
78.8 acres; 802 dwelling units); PD Medium-High Density Residential (8.6 acres; 172
dwelling units); PD High Density Residential (23.6 acres; 744 dwelling units); PD Medium
Density Residential/Community Park (13.0 acres; 156 units potentially); PD Rural
Residential/Agriculture (99.2 acres, 1 dwelling); PD General Commercial ( 41.2 acres); PD
Campus Office (44.6 acres); Community Park (84.8 acres); PD Open Space (32.4 acres);
Neighborhood Square [an Open Space Use] (2.0 acres); Elementary School (partial ~i~e, 4.4
acres); High School (partial site, 20.0 acres); and establishing permitted uses, development
standards, densities and design guidelines. The project also involves Specific Plan and
General Plan amendments to land uses previously shown for a 10 acre elementary school site
and a portion of the Community Park; and for 4.5 acres of residential located within the
Airport Protection area. The proposed Planned Development includes a Land Use and
Development Plan (LUDP)/District Planned Development Plan (DPDP), to illustrate the
general development concept and guide further subdivision of the property for development.
Additional descriptions of the proposed development concept are contained in the proposed
Planned Development Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP)/District Planned
Development Plan (DPDP), included as Attachment B-3 to this report.
BACKGROUND
This project is located East of Tassajara Road, in an area covered by the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in November 1993, and
established land use designations for approximately 3300 acres of land east of the Camp Parks
military reserve. A large component of the plan area was annexed to the City in 1995,
including 1,037 acres owned by the Jennifer Lin Family, known as the Dublin Ranch project.
Upon annexation, Dublin Ranch was Prezoned with a Planned Development overlay
designation. The proposed Planned Development (PD) District Rezone for Areas B-E covers
approximately 453 acres of the Dublin Ranch annexed area, and identifies more detailed land
uses than the current PD zoning designation. It is the third proposed Planned Development on
the Dublin Ranch property; the first was approved in January of 1996, and is known as Dublin
Ranch Phase I, and the second is the Dublin Ranch Area A project, being processed
. concurrently with this proposal.
The Planned Development (PD) District Rezone for the Dublin Ranch Areas B through E
will accomplish the following:
- assign more refined zoning designations than the previous PD Prezone
- locate these zoning designations on a land use plan
- describe conceptual residential lot and street layouts on conceptual lotting plans
...
.J
- describe conceptual design and architecture of residential and non-residential
development
- locate conceptual layout of various development improvements and amenities,
including an intermittent stream corridor, community parks, major streets, etc.
- establish development standards and conditions of approval for development under
the refmed zoning designations.
Thus, the current proposal for a PD Rezone is one of a series of actions necessary to
implement the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Other approvals have occurred prior to this
project, and additional approvals will be considered by the City after this Rezone, including
tentative maps, development agreements, Site Development Review, and other development
permits.
ANALYSIS
The proposed physical development consists of up to 1,875 dwelling units in eleven distinct
neighborhoods accommodating a range of housing types. Single-family detached homes on
lots ranging in size :from approximately 2,000 to over 6,500 square feet are expected to be the
predominant type of housing in the Medium Density neighborhoods, although some attached
units are permitted as well. Medium-High and High-density neighborhoods will likely consist
of multiple-family developments of attached units, including condominiums and apartments.
Development in the General Commercial and Campus Office areas will be similar to that
found in the newer commercial and business park areas of the Tri-valley area. The project
also involves improvement of the portion of the intermittent stream corridor/public trail
system which crosses the site, and two Community Parks totaling approximately 85 acres.
The site topography involves mainly open grassland on three distinct types of land areas. A
relatively flat plain lies immediately north ofI-580, and comprises most of Area C
(designated for General Commercial and Campus Office uses). A region of gentle slopes,
starting with a series of low foreground hills just beyond Area C, and increasing in elevation
to the north, would be occupied by the residential neighborhoods and the 52-acre Community
Park (Area B). The intermittent stream corridor also runs through this area of the site. The
ridgelands of the property are located in Area D, in which environmentally sensitive resources
are preserved for low-intensity rural residential/agricultural uses. Area D also includes a
stream valley, which is designated for another community park site (32 acres).
.
.
Residential development is generally proposed on a series of terraces cut into the foreground
hills. Some of the more predominant residential development concepts include conventional
small-lot single family, courtyard or cluster single-family, and townhouse/condominium
projects. Apartment developments of up to 31.4 units per acre are anticipated in the flattest
portions of Area B. Provisions have been made to encourage access :from residential
neighborhoods to parks, trails and open space, to encourage the use and enjoyment of the .
natural amenities of the site by its residents.
4
..
--
--
The development concepts are depicted in the Land Use and Development PlanlDistrict
Planned Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP) incorporated as Exhibit B-3, consisting ofa project
description, land use plan, site plan, design guidelines (including land use and development
standards), design concepts, and other text and supplemental diagrams, dated "OCTOBER 1997"
(sent under separate cover). Approval of the Planned Development Rezone includes this Land
Use and Development Plan/District Planned Development Plan, in accordance with Ordinance
*
4-94 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, addressing Planned Developments , as well as the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirement for a District Planned Development Plan.
The proposed PD Rezoning and LUDP/DPDP are consistent with the land use goals and
policies of the City's guiding documents for land use decisions (General Plan, Specific Plan,
and Zoning Ordinance). As the comments contained in the staff report :from the Oct9ber 28,
1997 Planning Commission meeting reflect, the project provides a coordinated plan' for
development of a variety of land uses. It provides for this development through a :framework
of protective development standards that reflect the sensitive biological, aesthetic,
topographic, and other features of the site. All components of the project are consistent with
the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan intents, goals and policies, as
further discussed in the staff report :from the Planning Commission meeting. (The body of the
referenced staff report, which contains this discussion, is attached; however, the Exhibits and
appendices to that staff report were not reproduced here, in order to reduce the bulk of this
report and minimize reproduction. The Staff report and all of its appendices are available for
review at the Planning Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, and are hereby
incorporated by reference.)
As a part of the proposed PD Rezoning, minor amendments to land use diagrams of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan were necessary for several reasons. The
development proposed for Area C includes a small (4.5 acre) portion of land which is
proposed to be changed :from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The
adopted Specific Plan anticipated such an amendment, because the area is located within the
Livermore Airport Protection Area and residential uses in that area were viewed as potentially
incompatible. The proposed Commercial land use is consistent with the closest adjacent non-
residential urban use. The magnitude and intensity of development that could occur if the
amendments are adopted are substantially consistent with the development envisioned for the
area by the Specific Plan.
The Planned Development also includes adjustments to land uses previously designated for an
.. elementary school site and for the southern community park. This results in additional areas
proposed to be designated for Medium Density Residential, including 10 acres no longer needed
for the elementary school, and approximately 16 acres previously designated for the Community
Park (amount of parkland needed for development in the Specific Plan has decreased). Because
Although the City's Planned Development Ordinance has recently been amended, this project
was initiated prior to the amendment and is therefore being processed under the requirements of
Dublin's Ordinance 4-94. The current project includes refining the PD zoning districts adopted
through the Prezoning and adopting a LUDP.
5
the precise acreage needed for the Community Park is yet to be confirmed by the City, 13 of
these acres adjacent to the park have been designated for Medium Density Residential or a
Community Park. The area can be considered for residential development only after the City
Council determines that this portion is not needed for Community Park land.
The design of this park, and the design, maintenance and ownership of open space in the project,
have also not been determined. Although the project description provided by the applicant
contains a statement suggesting that "the City will own and maintain certain public open space
areas and the intermittent stream corridors", in actuality the ownership issue has not yet been
resolved, and the situation is currently being studied. Therefore, the staff disagree with the
applicant's statement (page 12 of Exhibit B-3, "L UD P"), and conditions of approval have been
incorporated which address this issue, requiring that it be resolved when the City and ~eveloper
enter into a Development Agreement for this proj ect.
Finally, the proposed project involves a shift of8 acres :from the General Commercial
designation to the Campus Office designation. The shift would translate into a decrease of
approximately 83,000 square feet of commercial space and an increase of 130,000 square feet of
office space. The proposed shifts do not involve an increase in the overall acreage of these two
land use designations. Additionally, according to trip generation standards used by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers, office uses typically generate less traffic than do commercial uses
and therefore the roadway level of service required by the Specific Plan should not be
significantly affected by this shift. Furthermore, the Specific Plan anticipated the need for
flexibility in developing these land uses (see EDSP, Chapter 4.5). The proposed modifications
and amendments would result in a long-term development pattern consistent with the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan.
The project proposes to refine the PD prezoning by assigning various zoning designations
consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. By using Planned
Development principles, however, the project proposes an effective mixture of residential,
commercial, office, open space and recreational uses. As a whole, the project LUDP uses the
PD principles efficiently to propose more intense development in the appropriate site areas,
and less intense or no development in the more sensitive areas of the site. These uses and
locations are consistent with and reinforce the General Plan and Specific Plan land uses, goals
and policies by providing open spaces among development areas, by restricting development
in sensitive areas, and by providing recreation facilities to serve the community.
Environmental Analvsis
This project is within the General Plan Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report, certified by the
City of Dublin in 1993 (see Background Attachment). The General Plan/Specific Plan EIR is
a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in
Eastern Dublin, including the PD Rezone for this project. The EIR did identify some impacts
from implementation of the General Plan/Specific Plan which were not able to be mitigated.
6
:.
..
-:
,..
...
.-::::
..,..
.
.
.
. -
Upon certification of the EIR, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for
several impacts, some of which relate to this project (e.g.; visual impacts).
The City also adopted a mitigation monitoring program, which included several measures
intended to reduce impacts :from the development of the Eastern Dublin area. These
mitigation measures apply to project approvals and actions at various stages in the
development process, some occurring prior to approval of this PD Rezone, and other
occurring later in the development process. For example, conditions may be applicable when
the property is subdivided, or during site development review, or at issuance of building
permit. (The later projects will be subject to the City's updated Zoning Ordinance). The
timing of these mitigation measures is indicated in the City's EIR mitigation monitoring
matrix (see Background Attachments).
An Initial Study, dated June 18, 1997, was prepared for the project, to determine whether
there will be additional environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project (the PD
Rezone) beyond or different :from those already addressed in the Program EIR. The Initial
Study identifies some potential impacts which required an examination at a project specific
level of detail, due to the refmed designation of land uses and development standards specific
to the project site.
The Initial Study's focused evaluation of pertinent project-level environmental issues include
traffic, biological effects, and public service issues such as wastewater and schools. Each of
these issues has been the subject of supplemental environmental studies addressing new
environmental effects for this level of the project. Upon further evaluation, these impacts were
found to be insignificant due to factors made a part of the project which alleviated the
potential concerns. These findings supplement the determination that the project will not have
any additional significant environmental impacts which were not evaluated in the earlier EIR,
and the Initial Study supports the adoption of a Negative Declaration for those project-specific
impacts that were not addressed in the Program EIR.
Recommendations :from the supplemental studies are included in the project description
and/or are reflected in the conditions of approval. Further discussion of the above-noted study
areas is contained in the attached staff report :from the October 28, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting. The Initial Study discusses the provisions of the project, conditions,
and applicable mitigation measures of the Program EIR which address environmental
concerns. A copy of the EIR, the Initial Study, and the supplemental environmental studies
.. regarding these issues are incorporated in this Staff Report by reference (copies are available
for review at the Dublin Planning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568). No
letters were received in response to the circulation of the Initial Study and Draft Negative
Declaration during the public review period.
As a result of the review of the certified EIR and addenda, and an analysis of pertinent
project-level environmental issues presented in the Initial Study, it has been determined that
the proposed project (a) will not have any new significant effects on the environment which
have not been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. To this
7
extent, the project is within the scope of the Program EIR. Project specific analysis beyond .
the Program EIR is reflected in the proposed Negative Declaration. All mitigations :from the
Program EIR and all recommendations :from the supplemental studies are included in the
project description and/or conditions of approval. Therefore, the attached Resolution includes
appropriate findings. Staff recommends adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts for this project.
Conclusion
Staff recommends the City Council's adoption of the Negative Declaration; adoption of the
Resolution approving the Land Use And Development PlanlDistrict Planned DevelQpment
Plan, subject to development standards and conditions listed in the Resolution (with .the
LUDP included as Exhibit B-3); and introduction of the Ordinance approving the Dublin
Ranch Area A Planned Development Rezone.
.
.
8
RESOLUTION NO. - 96
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/EASTERN
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR DUBLIN RANCH AREAS B THROUGH E
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (P A 96-039)
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GP A") and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
("EDSP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the EDSP provides more specific and detailed goals, policies and action programs for
approximately 3313 acres within the GP A area nearest to the City on its Eastern side; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") was prepared for the EDSP
and GPA (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993, by Resolution No. 51-93,
and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda") have been prepared and adopted by
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 53-93, adopting the
GP A and EDSP, making findings and adopting overriding considerations as to the environmental impacts and
mitigation measures relating to the EDSP and GP A, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program ("Program
MMP") for the GP A and EDSP; and
.
WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Lin, submitted a Planned
Development (PD) District Rezone request (pA 96-039 Dublin Ranch Areas B-E) for rezoning an
approximately 453-acre site to the following land uses: PD Medium Density Residential (78.8 acres; 958
dwelling units); PD Medium-High Density Residential (8.6 acres; 172 dwelling units); PD High Density
Residential (23.6 acres; 744 dwelling units); PD Medium Density Residential/Community Park (13.0 acres;
156 units potentially); PD Rural Residential/Agriculture (99.2 acres, 1 dwelling); PD General Commercial
(41.2 acres); PD Campus Office (44.6 acres); Community Park (84.8 acres); PD Open Space (32.4 acres);
Neighborhood Square [an Open Space Use] (2.0 acres); Elementary School (partial site, 4.4 acres); High
School (partial site, 20.0 acres). These land uses are proposed to accommodate future development of up to
1,875 dwelling units in 11 neighborhoods, commercial and office development, recreational uses, and related
improvements. The project is generally located north of the Interstate 580 Freeway, along both sides of the
planned Fallon Road extension, and east of Dublin Ranch Phase I, within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
project area; and
and
'WHEREAS, a complete application for the project is available and on file in the Planning Department;
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration (''ND'') for the project,
attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 and incorporated herein by reference, which documents reflect the independent
judgment of the City as to the project's environmental effects, and which addresses the applicability and
. . implementation of each of the programs in the EDSP and each of the mitigation measures in the Program
Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP); and
EXHIBIT A
WHEREAS, the Initial Study is supplemented by studies regarding noise, traffic, biological and visual
impacts incorporated herein by reference. Copies of these studies are available for review at the City of
Dublin Planning Department; and --
WHEREAS, the Initial Study demonstrated that the Project would have no potentially significant
environmental impacts which were not adequately described and analyzed in the Program EIR. Project-
specific impacts beyond those in the Program EIR were addressed in the Initial Study and supplemental
studies. All recommendations :from the supplemental studies are included in the project description and/or
reflected or confirmed in conditions of approval; and
.
WHEREAS, a 30 day public review period was held for the Negative Declaration, from June 18,
1997, through July 18,1997; and
WHEREAS, no letters commenting on the Negative Declaration were received during the comment
period; and -.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on October 28, 1997 and
recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and the project in Resolution No. 97-024; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 1997, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
project, during which it considered the Planned Development (PD) District Rezone request and Negative
Declaration
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council hereby finds that:
.
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein as a part of this resolution.
2. Pursuant to Section 21083.3, subdivision (b) and (e), of the Public Resources Code and pursuant to
Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Project is within the scope of the EDSP and the GPA
Program EIR, the Project and all of its potentially significant environmental impacts were adequately
described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures identified in the
Program EIR, and all of the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts will be mitigated to a level
of insignificance with the imposition of the mitigation measures identified in the Program MMP, and no new
signifi~ant impacts were identified in the Initial Study for the Project.
3. Pursuant to Section 21166 and Section 21083.3, Subdivisions (b) and (e), of the Public Resources
Code, and pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines:
a) .the Project does not constitute a change :from the program (i.e. the GP A and the EDSP) analyzed in
the Program EIR which would require major revisions in the Program EIR;
b) there are no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances under which the Project is being
undertaken :from those circumstances which existed when the City certified the Program EIR which would
require major revisions in the Program EIR; and
c) there is no new information of substantial importance to the GP A, the EDSP, or the Project which, .
despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been known when the Program EIR was certified
and which shows either (i) that the Project will have significant environmental effects not discussed or
substantially underestimated in the Program EIR or, (ii) that there are mitigation measures or alternatives not
2
identified as feasible in the Program EIR and not included as part of the Project which would reduce or avoid
any significant environmental impacts.
. -
. 4. Pursuant to section 21080, subdivision (c), of the Public Resources Code and pursuant to section
15074, subdivision (b), of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council (1) certifies that it has considered the
Negative Declaration; (2) finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the
Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) hereby approves the Negative Declaration.
5. The City Council does hereby apply the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Mitigation
Monitoring Program to the Project, along with the conditions made a part of project approval, as a supplement
to the Program MMP as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code Section
21081.6 for the Project.
6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a) (2), the City Council specifies
that the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its fmdings and deE;i'Sion herein are
based shall be located at City Hall, and their custodians shall be the City Clerk and the Community
Development Director of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the General
PlanlEastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E PD Rezone for the following reasOI
1. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the goals, general provisions and purpose of the
Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as proposed to be amended herein; and
. 2. The Amendments are appropriate for the subject property in terms ofland use compatibilities; will
not overburden public services; and provides a comprehensive plan for development of the site
while preserving portions of the site for open space; and
3. The changes to the EDSP will provide new land use designations as reflected on the Areas B
through E Land Use and Development PlanlDistrict Plan Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP),
included as attachment D to the staff report, to assist development in Eastern Dublin. Changes to
the land uses on the LUDP/DPDP are appropriate based upon the analysis contained in the staff
report, will provide a better configuration and long-term development pattern, and will help
implement policies of the General Plan and EDSP regarding development in Eastern Dublin
4. The Amendments will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 18th day of November, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
.
MAYOR
. CITY CLERK
G:\P A96039\ccrsnd-b.
...
.J
~
.
. EXHIBIT A-l
.
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
.
7
INITIAL STUDY
.
"DD'"BLIN RANCH AREAS B, C, D, & E " - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Easte-rn Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment /General Plan Amendment
Planning Application # 96-039
INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed
Dublin Ranch "Areas B through E" Planned Development Rezoning (the project). The analysis is intended to satisfy the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate information for
project review.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report.(consisting of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August 28, 1992; Responses to Comments Part I dated De-cember 7, 1992;
Responses to Comments Part II dated December 21, 1992; Revisions to Part I of the Responses to Comments relating to
the Kit Fox; and Addendum to the DErR dated May 4, 1993; and a DKS Associates Traffic Study dated December 15,
1992 (SCH91103064)] was adopted by the City Council on May 10, 1993. The Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) is available to the public for review of the City of Dublin Planning Department located at 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin, CA. An Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report was approved by the City Council on August 22, 1994.
It is also available for review of the Planning Department.
.
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR concluded certain significant impacts will result
from the development of Eastern Dublin. Most of those impacts will be reduced to insignificance by mitigation measures
of the EIR. Some will remain unavoidable significant adverse impacts but they were included in a Statement of
Overriding Considerations passed by the Dublin City Council when it certified the EIR.
The environmental impact report that was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
was a <'Program" environmental impact report (program EIR). If a program environmental impact report is prepared,
subsequent environmental documents need to be prepared for projects within the program only if there are additional
environmental impacts not considered in the preparation of the original environmental document or additional mitigation
measures are required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168).
The Project will not create any significant impacts which were not already covered by the EIR or reduced to
insignificance by mitigation measures of the ErR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and conditions of approval of the
project. Dublin Ranch "Areas B through E" is located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and
is considered one in a series of actions covered by the Program EIR. The project is within the scope of the Program EIR,
and the program EIR & Addendum adequately describe the impacts of the project, and there have been no changes or
new information which would necessitate supplementing the Program ErR pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21166 and CEQA guidelines Section 15162.
. This Initial Study includes a Project Description, Environmental Checklist Form, an Evaluation and Discussion of
issues identified in the checklist, and a Determination. The attachment to the Initial Study is a Matrix which has
incorporated the Mitigation Measures and Action Programs of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan EIR which will reduce the environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance.
.
The Matrix has been designed for use in evaluating specific project proposals in Eastern Dublin for compliance with the
Eastern Dublin Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Mitigation Measures of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (the FEIR) and the two
approved addenda thereto are referenced throughout this Initial Study. Please refer to the Matrix to review the Mitigation
Measures and/or Action Programs, or refer to the FEIR itself for complete mitigation descriptions.
1
b
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is known as the "Dublin Ranch Areas B, C, D, & E" - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Easte~
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment /General Plan Amendment. This proposal for a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning
is the second Phase of rezoning for the Dublin Ranch project site; a PD Rezoning for Phase I of Dublin Ranch was
approved by the City in 1996. Current PD Rezoning applications occupy approximately 816 acres of land and are
composed of five separate parts, labeled Areas A, B, C, D, and E. This environmental review combines Areas B
through E into one component. The environmental review for Area A is being processed separately.
The project site for Areas B-E is located east of Tassajara Road, north on-S80, and is west of the southern portion of
Fallon Road (existing), butwiIl occupy land on both the east and west sides of Fallon Road when this road is extended to
the north (future). The entire Dublin Ranch project site was previously Prezoned with various PD land use categories.
Consistent with the provisions of Section 8-31 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a Land Use & Development Plan
(LOOP) is now being proposed to finalize the zoning for the project area. The land uses proposed und~r this LOOP are
consistent with the approved PD Prezoning categories The LOOP will also serve thoe capacity of a District Planned
Development Plan (DPDP) as required to implement the provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Areas B through E primarily occupy the southern areas of the Dublin Ranch project site, and are proposed for a variety of
land use types, including office, commercial, medium and high-density residential, schools, parks, open space and rural
residential/agricultural uses. Because these areas do not include traditional low-density residential development plans,
the Land Use and Development Plan for these areas are designed with less detail in some areas (e.g. residential lot sizes)
in order to provide the true flexibility of a Planned Development zone, as provided by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The
Land Use categories for these areas include listings of the appropriate uses for each zone, development standards, and
conditions by which future subdivisions and development entitlement requests wiII be evaluated. The development .
concepts for Areas B through E are discussed below.
Area B is the residential portio an ntains a community park; Area C, includes commercial and office designated
land; Area D includes Rural ,s'dentia griculture and community park land; and Area E comprises portions of two
school sites. Area B consists 0 1983 d 'eIlings units of which 1062 are designated Medium Density Residential, 172
Medium High Density and 748 ~ ensity. The Medium Density would be detached or attached units on individual
parcels at densities of 8 - 14 units per acre while the Medium High Density and High Density units would be apartments
and/or condominiums at densities of 20 to 35 dwelling units per acre. This area totals 136.2 acres. Area B also contains
a 41.3 acre community park, 2 acre neighborhood square and 38.4 acres of open space. Area C consists of 41 acres
designated General Commercial and 44.4 acres of Campus Office. Area C includes the proposed land use change for 4.5
acres of land previously designated for Residential use, to be changed to General Commercial in compliance with
Livermore Airport Protection Area restrictions. Areas Band C are located immediately north ofI-S80 and west of Fallon
Road and its future extension.
Area D is 92.1 acres of Rural Residential/Agriculture land and a 32.8 acre community park located approximately 9000
feet north ofI-S80 and 700 east of Tassajara Road. It will remain virtuaIly undeveloped. Area E is one half (5.4 acres)
ofa:n elem.entary school site located on the eastern boundary of the Dublin Ranch property and the portion (20.6 acres) of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan high school site located on Dublin Ranch.
Additional information and details regarding the project can be found in the attached Project Description, which follows
the Initial Study.
.
2
.
. 6.
.
9.
E1\rvIR01\'MENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
This study was prepared based upon the location of the project, staffoffice review, field review, comments -submitted by
local agencies; use of City Planning documents, the CEQA Law and Guidelines, City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines, and
the previously certified Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
and Addendum (FEIR). The FEIR concluded certain significant impacts will result from the development of Eastern
Dublin. Most of those impacts will be reduced to insignificance by mitigation measures of the EIR. Some will remain
unavoidable significant adverse impacts but they were included in a Statement of Overriding Considerations passed by
the Dublin City Council when it certified the EIR. Dublin Ranch Areas B - E will not create any significant impacts not
already covered by the ElR. Impacts of the project are described below.
1. Project title: Dublin Ranch Areas B, C, D, & E - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment /General Plan Amendment
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
'.
3.
Contact person and phone number: Tasha Huston, Associate Planner; (510)833-6610
4.
Project location: East ofTassajara Road, north ofInterstate 580 Freeway, within the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan project area.
5.
Project sponsor's name and address: Ted C. Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer for Jennifer Lin, eta!., P.O.
Box 1148, 5510 Sunol Boulevard, Pleasanton, CA 94566
General plan: Rural Residential/Agriculture; Medium Density Residential; Medium-High Density Residential;
High Density Residential; General Commercial; Campus Office; Community Park; Neighborhood Square; Open
Space
7.
Zoning: PD Rural Residential/Agriculture; PD Medium Density Residential; PD Medium-High Density
Residential; PD High Density Residential; PD General Commercial; PD Campus Office; PD Community Park;
PD Neighborhood Square; PD Open Space
8.
Description of project: The Planned Development (PD) District Rezone proposed for the Dublin Ranch Areas
B-E site includes land use designations, standards, residential densities, and design guidelines for each Japd use
category, including Rural Residential/Agriculture; Medium Density Residential; Medium-High Density
Residential; High Density Residential; General Commercial; Campus Office; Community Park; Neighborhood
Square; and Open Space. Area C includes the proposed land use change for 4.5 acres of land previously
designated for Residential use, to be changed to General Commercial in compliance with Livennore Airport
Protection Area restrictions. The development proposed for Areas B through E will occupy the southern areas of
the Dublin Ranch project site, and will include a variety ofland use types, including office, commercial, medium
and high-density residential, schools, parks, open space and rural residentiaVagricultural uses. Because these
areas do not include traditional low-density residential development, the Land Use and Development Plan for
these areas are designed with less detail in some areas (e.g. residential lot sizes) in order to provide the true
flexibility of a Planned Development zone, as provided by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use
categories for these areas include listings of the appropriate uses for each zone, development standards, and
conditions by which future subdivisions and development entitlement requests will be evaluated.
Surrounding land uses and setting: Planned Development Single Family, Medium Density Residential, Open
Space, and Rural ResidentiaVAgriculture; Cattle Grazing, Agriculture, Equestrian Facility, and Firewood Sales
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
..,
:>
tb L\\ 1RO?\J\1E\TAL FACTORS POTEJ'\TL-\LL Y AFFECTED:
Tn:: .environme~tal ~~ctors ~hecke~ b~~w would b~.pot~n~ally at"'1'ected by thi~ project, involvi~g.1
one 1mpact that 15 a "Potentlally Slgnmcant Impacr" as mdlcated by the checkhst on the followmg pages.
EJ Land Use and Planning
~ Population and Housing
g] Geological Problems
gj Water
~ Trar..5portationlCirculation ~ Public Services
fij Biological Resources E9 Utilities and Service Systems
S Energy and Mineral Resources. g] Aesthetics
~ Hazards gj Cultural Resources
o Air Quality
.0 Noise ~ Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
.
.
II
..,.
q
.
E:NVIR01\:TJ\1ENT.4..L IT\1PACTS CHECKLIST
I. L-L",'"'D USE _4J\:'"D PLA..NNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #: 1,2 )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1,2 )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 1,2 )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
far.rnlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1, 2 )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minoriTy community)?
( 1,2 )
II. POPULATION A_1\TD HOUSlNG. Would the proposal:
.
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or lo::al population
projections? (1)
b) lnduce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or e:>..."tension of major
infrastructure)? (1 )
c) Displace existing housing, especially 3.L-7ordable housing? (1 )
ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLE:MS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
l'ol(:nliol~I'
l'ole",iD/~I' Sip.(fiCl1t1f
Sip1!fjt:Dn1 Un/a.. lJ:.t.\ Ihall
impact MlligOliol1 S'p,!iiccru:
il1corpormr:d jmpact XII.
0 0 0 Ri
0 0 0 gj
0 0 .. 0 IgJ
~ 0 0 0
0 0 0 gJ
o
o
o
E9
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
m
a) Fault rupture? (1, 3 ) 0 0 0 ~
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1, 3 ) ~ 0 0 0
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,3 ) ~ 0 0 0
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1, 3 ) 0 0 0 g]
e) Landslides or mudflows? (1, 3 ) 0 gj 0 0
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditioDs from
- .. -lJ? (J "') 0 81 0 0
excavatlOn, graamg, or 11. , ::>
g) Subsidence ofland? (1,3 ) 0 ~ 0 0
h) Expansive soils? (1, 3 ) 0 ~ 0 0
i) Unique geologic or pbysj~a1 features? 0, 3 ) 0 0 ~ 0
.
.::;
,C) -
-
l'm<1ZIIO/{I' .
folt:n1ia/{I. S'p'!ficaIJ/
S'p'ifi= UnJ= Lcs.\ th01I
IV. 'VATER. FVould the proposal resulr in: impa::1 }.fuitaliou Sip,[ficufI/
in::orporalcd impOCI l.o iff/paCI
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage panems, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? (1) 0 0 0 0
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding? (1) 0 ~ 0 0
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved Oh)'gen or rurbidity? (1) 0 gj. 0 0
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1) 0 ~ .0 0
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
(1) 0 ~ 0 0
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater 0 IQ 0 0
recharge capability? (1)
g) Altered direction onate of flow of groundwater? (1) 0 81 0 0
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (]) 0 ~ 0 0
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies? (1) 0 ~ 0 O.
v. AIR QUALITY. yVould the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (1,2) B1 0 0 0
b) ll-pose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1, 2 ) 0 0 Bl .0
c) i>Jter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change
in climate? (1, 2 ) 0 0 ~ 0
d) Cr<"...ate .objectionable odors? (1, 2 ) 0 0 ~ 0
VI. TR4..."N"SPORTATION/CIRCUL..4..TION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) mCr<"..2Sed vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1,2,4 ) 1"& 0 0 0
b) Hai:ards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm 0 ~ 0 0
equipment)? (1,2,4 )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1,2,4 ) 0 ~ 0 0
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or oITsite? (1,2,4 ) 0 0 0 18l
e) hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclist..s? (l, 2, 4 ) 0 ~ 0 0 .
f) COnIlicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2,4 ) 0 0 0 ~
g) Rzil, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (I) 0 0 0 ~
1\
.
POlal/ial~l'
POtentjaJ~l' Sip.ificall/
Siplificont Un/tt< Ll:.:C.\ l;,rnJ
impaCl Mititation Sipifticallt
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. incorporated /mpac/ ...f> Jmpocr
Trould the proposal result in impacts 10:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including 0 ~ 0 0
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (l)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (1) 0 0 ~ 0
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal . .
habitat, etc.)? (1) 0 0 ~ 0
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (1) 0 g 0 0
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1) 0 ~ 0 0
VIII. E1'\"ERGY lLl\'D MJNERU RESOURCES.
Trould the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservarion plans? (1, :2 ) 0 0 0 ~
. b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
(1,1) ~ 0 0 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a knO'WD mineral resource that
would be offurure value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 0 0 gj
(1,1)
IX. R4..Z.ARD S. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but Dot limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or 0 0 B1
radiation)? (1)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergenc)' evacuation plan? (1) 0 0 0
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (l)
0 0 0
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?
(1) 0 0 0
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?
(1) 0 Ei 0
X. NOISE. Would 1he proposal resuZt in:
.
a) lncre25es in existing noise levels? (1,1,5 )
b) ExpDsure or people to severe noise levels? (1, 1, 5 )
o
o
o
o
ea
o
o
!5l
~
o
o
o
o
,?,
I
.
!'olf!nlia/~I'
XI. PVBLIC SERViCES. Would the proposal result in a needfor new !'olf!ntiol~I' S;1!71ifiCOlll
or altered government services in any of the following areas: Slpl!ficanl Unlf!SS USSlhOll
Impaa MiliFOlioll Sipl!fic0111
incorporalf!d Impeel fo.o impael
a) Fire prorecri on? (1 ) 0 ~ 0 0
b) Police protection? (1) 0 ~ 0 0
c) Schools? (l) 0 g 0 0
d) Maintenance or public facilities, including roads? (l) 0 @ 0 0
e) Other government services (1) 0 Bl 0 0
..
Xll. tJTILITIES _.<\...1\"1) SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a needfor new systems or supplies, or substantial
alIerations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (1, 2 ) ~ 0 0 0
b) Communications systems? (1,.2) 0 0 0 fi:a
c) Local or regional water treatment or disnibution facilities? (1,2) ~ 0 0 0
d) sewer or septic tanks? (1, 2 ) 0 ~ 0 0
e) Storm water drainage? (l~ 2 ) 0 g 0 .
f) Solid waste disposal? (1,2 ) 0 ~ 0
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1, 2 ) 0 g 0 0
XIII. A.ESTBETICS. Would the proposal:
a) _~ect a s~enic vista or highway? (1,2) ~ 0 0 0
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? (1,2) 0 r8l 0 0
c) Create light or glare? (1,2 ) 0 0 &1 0
XIV. CULTDRU RESOD"RCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1 ) 0 0 0 ~
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (l ) 0 ~ 0 0
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would at..lfect
"unique ethnic culrural values? (1 ) 0 0 0 ~
d) R:snict :::xisting r.:iigious or sa:::r-...d llS:::S within th: po~tiaJ impact ar::::a? (1 ) 0 0 0 gJ
.:x"-V. RECRE..4.TION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other .
recreational facilities? (1 ) 0 0 0
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1 ) 0 ~ 0 0
{?
. ~\1. :\IANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICAJ\CE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat oj
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods ofCaIifornia history or prehistory?
o ~ 0 0
b) Does the project have potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
o 0 gj 0
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerabl"e? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
o ~ 0 0
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? 0 0 ~ 0
. DISCUSSION - Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) As indicated by the checklist fonn, the project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substamialJy
reduce the habitat of a plant or animal species or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory.
b) All potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to reduce both the long term and the short
term environmental impacts ,below a level of significance except for those impacts indud,ed within the Statement of
Overriding Considerations of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR. A de~cription of
the mitigation measures is contained in the Matrix, Attachment A.
c) AJI potentially significant cumulative environmental impacts have been addressed in the EIR.
d) .A.s discussed under the headings "Risk of Upset" and 'tHuman Health," the project does not have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beinEs, either directly or indirectly.
. -
REFERENCES
Referenced information sources utilized ror this analysis include the foUoVlwg:
.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Dete11I1ination based on location of project;
Determination based on s+urif office review;
Determination based on :field review;
Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan;
Determination based on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance;
Determination based on the Eastern Dublin General Plan .A.mendment and Specific PI3.J.l Final
EIR and Addendum;
Not applicable.
<I
I
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 parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the
referenced infonnation 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 we]] as
general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening
analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-
level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant If there are one or more
"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly e).:plain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section A'VII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Eariier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program ErR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which are incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the e).1:ent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,
general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a
reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be
attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) Tills is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
.
.
.
\'1
.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES & ANALYSIS
The fol1ov.mg discussion includes explanations of answers to the above questions regarding potential
environmental impacts. as indicated on the preceding checklist. Each subsection is annotated with the number
and letter corresponding to the checklist form.
A majority of the potential impacts discussed Vr'ithin this initial study were addressed in the earlier analysis of
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR (FEIR), incorporated by
reference. and the mitigation measures adopted. Mitigation measures are noted, and the matrix of mitigation
measures is included as Attachment A. The program EIR & addendum adequately describe the impacts of the
proj ect, and there have been no changes or new information requiring a supplemental EIR., pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
EXISTING SETTING:
The project is located 'Within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and is included in the Environmental Impact
Report prepared for the Specific Plan area. Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GPAlSPA Final EIR for a
description of the existing project setting.
POTE1\1JIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGAT10N MEAStJRES:
I. LAND USE & PLANNING: The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations and witl
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Environmental impacts from the project land uses were addressed in
the earlier analysis of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment Final Environmental
Imp,!ct Report (FEIR). Cumulative impacts to ~oricultural rf7Sources were also addressed in the FEIR,
and were found to have a significant unavoidable cumulative impact. The Statement of Overriding
Considerations adopted with the Specific Plan includes this finding. The proposed Planned -
Development Rezoning will not raise significant new impacts beyond those discussed in the FEIR.
The development proposed for Areas B through E includes a small (4.5 acre) portion of land which i
proposed for a land use amendment from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. Th
adopted Specific Plan anticipated such an amendment, because the area is located within the Livermm
Airport Protection Area and residential uses in that area were viewed as potentially incompatible. Th
proposed land use is consistent 'with the closest adjacent non-residential urban use. The magnitude an
intensity of development that could occur if the amendments are adopted are substantially consistent V.>il
the development envisioned for the Specific Plan.
The Planned Development also includes adjustments to land uses previously approved. In terms (
residential uses, the unit count proposed for this project involves an increase over the number of uni
projected by the Specific Plan for the Dublin Ranch lands, based upon the mid'Doint of the range. Th
increase is due primarily to a gain of land for residential uses in various areas. such as 10 acres previous
designated for an elementary school site (no longer needed), and several acres previously designated f
the Community Park (size of park has decreased). However, the total unit count for the Dublin Ran
proj ect is still well within the maximum of the range of units shown for the residential land use areas
Dublin Ranch under the adopted Specific Plan. In terms of non-residential land uses, the proposed proj(
11
II.
ill.
IV.
/0
-
involves a shift of 8 acres from the General Commercial designation to the Campus Office- design_.
The shift would translate into a decrease of approximately 83,000 square feet of commercial space ~
increase of 130,000 square feet of office space. The proposed shifts do not involve an increase in the
overall acreage of these two land use designations, and office uses typically generate less traffic than do
commercial uses. The modifications would result in a long-term development pattern consistent with the
Specific Plan, which anticipated flexibility in the development of these areas (see EDSP, Chapter 4.5
Commercial Land Use). Therefore these shifts are considered substantially in compliance with the Specific
Plan. As such, any impacts that may arise were anticipated in the previous analyses of the adopted EIR.
Finally, potential land use incompatibilities for the proposed project were analyzed for the adopted plan.
The focus of potential incompatibilities is on the proximity of residential to non-residential uses, where
incompatibility issues can exist in many areas, including: noise, odor, light and glare, an9- visual impacts.
The proposed land uses represent the same mix and adjacent uses as those adopted for the Specific Plan.
Tnrough the Site Development permit, the City analyzes all of the issues mentioned above and consults
'with other agencies, as necessary, for making further conditions of the project. In addition, the project
concepts address buffers and design solutions to address the interface of potentially incompatible adjacent
uses. These concepts 'Will be applied 'wbere needed as devel opment standards to address potential impacts.
The proposed Planned Development Rezoning 'Will not raise significant new impacts beyond those
discussed in the FErR.
POPULA nON & HOUSING: The project would provide up to 1,983 units in Areas B through E, of .
various unit types, many of which are anticipated to be in a price range affordable to the future
employees working 'within the City of Dublin. Ibis is consistent 'with the policies of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan, to provide a range of housing types for all segments of the
community. Growth inducing impacts associated with the development of housing and increased
population as a result of the adopted Specific Plan were analyzed in the prior EIR. The adoption of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan signified the City's intent to introduce urban development in an area that
previously supported primarily rural activities. Please refer to the earlier anaIysis of the FEIR PJ). 3.2-1
through 3.2-11, for a discussion ofpopulation and housing provision. No significant impacts not
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GP AlSPA Final EIR are eA-pected to occur.
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR and througb
vili.-ious mitigation measures. For an eA'Planation of items 3a, 3c, 3g, and 3i, see FEIR mitigation
measures M:M 3.6/9.0 and 3.6/10.0 (p. 3.6-9); for discussion related to items 3e, 3f, 3h see MM 3.6/27.0
and 3.6/28.0 (p. 3.6-14 and 15) and Geotechnical Investigation Dublin Ranch Phase I, June 19, 1995,
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants; for items 3b, 3d see M:M: 3.6/2.0 - 3.6/7.0, 3.6/11.0 - 3.6/26.0 (p.
3.6-8 through 14) and the Geotechnical Investigation. No known active or potentially active faults
traverse the project site, and .Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are not located within the site. Tne
potential for fault ground rupture is therefore considered to be niL Implementation of mitigation measures
v..ill reduce but not completely eliminate all hazards associated with groundshaking. No new impacts
not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPivSP A Final EIR are e:\.-pected to occur.
'VATER: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR,~ and througb various mitigatilt
measures. The project site is located in an area of minimal groundwaterrecharge and groundwaterreserves
and the majority of the Tri-Valley's groundwater resources are in the Central Basin, south of the project.
Nevertheless, development of the project site could have an impact on local ground water resources and
.
.
VI.
.
)0
groundwater recharge due to an increase in impervious surfaces within the project sjl~. - However
impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPAJSP A Final EIR are expected to occur.
The project will result in the realignment and re-creation of an intermittent stream. A streambed
alteration agreement from the Department ofFish and Game will be required. As development occurs
the area, more impervious surfaces will be created due to paved streets and building development. A
master drainage plan for the entire project site 'will be prepared, therefore, any changes to drainage
patterns will be fully evaluated to ensure there are not significant environmental impacts in this topic
area. Due to the fact that future on-site development will be required to adhere to requirements of Zone'
and the NPDES permitting programs, and the FEIR contains several mitigation measures which will be
applied to this project, any water impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Please see :MJv.
3.5/25.0 through 3.5/52.0. Action Programs of the Specific Plan also mitigate these impacts. Please
refer to the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPAFinalEIRfor a discussion of this impact. . .
No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP A FEIR are e),..l'ected to occur.
v.
AIR QUALITI': These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and throuQ:h vario'
mitigation measures. Construction-related air quality impacts include short-term violation of adoptl
standards or contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, and could result in exposure I
sensitive receptors to pollutants. Development of the project site will also result in traffic-related a
quality impacts.
The FEIR developed mitigation measures to reduce mobile and stationary source emissions. Air quali!)
mitigation measures of the FEIR which will be applied to this project include: MM 3.11/1.0 through
3.11/4.0,3.11/6.0, 3.11/13.0. Implementation of these mitigation measures cannot achieve the reductioni
stationary source emissions needed to meet the insignificantthreshold. The EastemDublin GPAfSPA
Final EIR indicates that stationary source emissions air quality impacts remain signifi cant and, therefore,
this Unmitigable impact waS included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations~ No impacts not
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPAJSP A Final EIR are e),..l'ected to occur from this proposed
proj ect.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The impacts to transportation and circulation were addressed in th
earlier analysis of the FEIR, and thromdl various miti2:ation measures. The FEIR indicates four
~ -
traffic/circulation impacts which are not capable of mitigation to a level of insignificance. Two of then:
affect intersections and the other two the general operation ofI-580. Cumulative impacts affecting I-58
would occur L.'"Tespective of development under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These four impacts
have been included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the Specific Plan.
A traffic analysis conducted for the proposed Planned Development Rezone (T JKM, June, 1997;
included by reference) outlines the potential traffic impacts from this project, and measures for
mitigating these impacts. The project proponent will need to make improvements to roadway systems,
required by the traffic study, the mitigation measures of the FEIR, and conditions of the PD Rez?ne
approvaL Many of these measures ""ill be completed as part of the project, while others will be
cumulative improvements to which the project developers will contribute. With implementation of the
improvements required to address traffic impacts from the project, the potential impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. No new mitigation measures are required.
13
\1
Potential impacts of hazards to safety from design feamres (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersect. or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); inadequate emergency access or access to nearb es;
insufficient parking capacity on- or off-site were identified in the FEIR. All projects must go through a site
development process prior to approval and are required to meet all City zoning standards. Because of the
combination of land uses future developments will be required to meet the City zoning standards for each
use. No mitigation measures are required.
Impacts from Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists were also addressed in the prior FEIR. The
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Policy 5-15 and Figure 5.3 show bicycle pedestrian paths throughout the
project area Impacts potentially occurring in this project area include conflicts of pedestrian and bicycle
crossing major roadways. This impact can be mitigated with FEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.1, which
requires the location of pedestrian & bicycle paths to cross major arterial streets at signalized
intersections, to provide safe crossing. Several pedestrian and bicycle routes are proposed with the
project, including a multi-use trail, which will include crossings at these signalized intersections.
The above-noted traffic impacts of the project will be mitigated by the follo'wing mitigation measures of
the EIR and Action Programs of the Specific Plan: MM3.3/2.1 through 3.3/16.1 and 3.1217.0 and
Action Programs 5A through 5D. Implementation of these mitigationmeasures will reduce a majority of
the traffic-related impacts to a level ofinsignificance. The Eastern Dublin GPAJSPAFinal EIRindicates
that some impacts (both project-specificand cumulative) remain potentially significant even after
implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP A Final ~
for a complete listing. Aside from the traffic related impacts noted above, the Project vvill not raise ~
new significant traffic impacts which have not already been evaluated in the previous environmental
analyses done for the proposed development.
VIT. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Impacts from the project upon biological resources were thoroughly
addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and various mitigation measures will apply to the project.
For complete descriptions of existing conditions, maps and other information identifying such impacts
please consult the FEIR.
. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project v.rill normally have a significant effect on the.
environment if it will substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or habitat of the
species. Tbe Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified various impacts upon biological resources and
mitigation of impacts in the following areas: a) Habitat Loss & Vegetation Removal; b.) Botanically
Sensitive Habitats; c.) Wildlife Resources; d.) Threatened and Endangered Species; e.) Federal
Candidates for Listing; f.) California Species of Special Concern; g.) Special Status Invertebrates.
The project site is covered primarily with introduced annual grasses and does not provide unusual or
high quality habitat for any rare or endangered species of plants or animals. Mitigation measures to
address the impacts upon the above resources from development of the Specific Plan area were included in
the FEIR and included in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (see Matrix for listing of mitiga-a
measures.) .
Several mitigation measures and programs apply to the project site, and involve further studies and pre-
construction surveys of the project site. Six separate plant and animal slli-veys of the project site were
conducted by H. T. Harvey and Associates over the past six years. These surveys have been
instrumental in setting parameters for site design. The topics of the surveys and the applicability of the
.
.
.
)1
reports to the individual project components areas are described below in excerpts taken fr-om a Sllil11I1a:
of the surveys provided by H. T. Harvey and Associates, August 30, 1996.
u.s. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURlSDICTIONALANAL YSIS
Most of the site has been intensively grazed, the drainage network and its component channel have
become incised and arroyos have formed. Areas meeting the technical criteria for identification as
jurisdictional wetlands were delineated primarily along site drainageways and in seeped zones in the
Tassajara Creek watershed.
RA.RE PLANl SURVEYS
The Dublin Ranch site was surveyed for special status plant surveys in the Spring of 1990~ A list of
potentially occurring plants was generated by revie'wing the Eastern Dublin General Plan
.-\mendmentlSpecific Plan EIR appropriate local references, and the California Natural Diversity Data
Base (CNDDB). The entire site was surveyed to locate potential habitat for any potentially occurring
species. Transects were then established and surveyed through appropriate habitat, searching for any
special status species potentially on site.
No special status plants were found. Generally, the site had been grazed, and the vegetation height,
biomass and diversity were low.
EASTER."N DUBLIN GOLDEN EAGLE SURVEY
The Golden Eagle nest site that had been identified by Biosystems .Analysis in the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR was re-surveyed in 1990. The nest site was monitored
throughout the spring. Two chicks were observed at the nest site in 1990, one of which later died. The
remaining chick fledged in late June, 1990.
/illDffiON.tU- GOLDEN EAGLE SURVEYS
H. T. Harvey & Associates raptor biologists have continued to monitor nest sites on the property since
1990. Eagles did not nest on the property during the years of 1991 and 1992. During these years the
pair probably bred at an alternative nest site (or nest sites) off the property because the nest tree they had
.. been using (a Eucalyptus tree) was largely defoliated during an extended hard freeze during the winter of
. 1990-1991.
In 1993, the foliage retlli-ned to the nest tree and so did the pair. The birds successfully fledged one
young from the nest. In 1994 the birds attempted to rebuild the nest but it apparently collapsed. The
pair then moved to an alternative Eucalyptus tree in the same drainage but closer to Tassajara Road, late
in the season, and fledged one young. The pair used the same nest again in 1995, when at least one
young eagle Vv'aS observed in the nest.
The pair returned to this alternate nest site in 1996. They laid eggs, and at least one chick was observed
in the nest in late April. By early May, no adult eagles were seen near the nest, nor were nestlings seen.
It was determined that the site had failed and that the nest had been abandoned. The old nest (the one
used prior to 1994) has completely collapsed and should no longer be considered an active nest site.
/'II)
rf
Sl3?\1..MJlliY OF KIT FOX SURVEYS IN CONTRA, COSTA AND ALAMEDA COUNTIES .
H.T. Harvey and Associates has prepared a report which reviews the California Natural Diversity Data
Base (CNDDB) and other survey reports, as well as historic information regarding the distribution and
range of the San Joaquin kit fox in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Results from 13 recent surveys
for kit foxes were reviewecL as well as historic surveys conducted by the Department ofFish and Game.
Historic range maps were also reviewed. The report concludes that negative results of more than 10
years of surveys in the Dublin area leaves little doubt that Dublin is outside the range of the San Joaquin
kit fox. The presence and high densities of red foxes and coyotes make the likelihood of range
e).-pansion by the kit fox into the Dublin area extremely remote.
S.t:..N JOAQUThT KIT FOX
The San Joaquin kit fox a federal endangered and state threatened species, is known from sites about 7
or more miles to the east and northeast of the Ranch. The range and agricultural lands of the Ranch and
slllTounding areas would be low to moderate quality kit fox habitat. Previous surveys on portions of the
Dublin Ranch and surrounding areas did not detect kit foxes, but detec~ed several possible tracks. These
prior surveys were conducted for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR by
Biosystems Analysis. H.T. Harvey & Associates conducted kit fox surveys at twice the intensity
recommended at that time (1991) by California Depfu-tment offish and Game guidelines. These surve. "
(September-October 1991) did not detect kit fox activity on or near the Ranch.
SPECIAL STATUS AMPHIBIAN A.'ND REPTILE SURVEYS
Surveys were conducted for special status amphibian and reptile species on the Dublin Ranch Property
during the Spring of 1993. The site is located in northern Alameda County, near the cities of Livermore
and DubliD.. Tne focus of these surveys included California tiger saIamander (Ambystoma _
californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), and Southwestern pond turtle
(Clemmys marmorata pallida). No California tiger salamanders were found during the survey. Fifteen
subadult California red-legged frogs were found at two locations. Ten were along the northern boundary .
, of the site in a stock pond adjacent to the intermittent creek channel. Five more were found near the
southern boundary along Fallon Road. Two adult southwestern pond turtles were found along Tassajara
Creek. These findings were consistent with the 1989 surveys conducted by Biosystems for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR.
1995 SPECLA.L-STATUS AMPHIBLt:..N AND REPTILE SURVEYS
H.T. Harvey and Associates conducted additional surveys in the spring of 1995 to determine if the
distribution and abundance or special-status reptiles and amphibians had changed. These surveys were
initiated in a rainfall season (1994-1995) that was nearly 200% of normal. Surveys were undertaken to
provide any new data to the City of Dublin, which was undertaking a stream corridor restoration plan .
and grazing management plan for the vicinity. No California Tiger Salamander larvae, juveniles or
adults were detected anywhere on the site. Seven juvenile California red-legged frogs were detected in
two ponds on site (the same locations as in previous surveys). One of these ponds is located along the
northern boundary of the site near a tributary to Tassajara Creek, while the other is along the southern
boundary near Fallon Road. Two western pond turtles were detected along Tassajara Creek. The
.
.
.
il
location and ablll1dance of the California red-legged frog and western pond turtle have beep-consistent
throughout three separate studies. Based on the sampling from 1989, 1993 and 1995, the project site
does not support a breeding population of California Tiger salamanders.
DtJBLIN RA..NCH FAIRY SHRlMP SURVEYS
Small, claypan pools occurring on the Dublin Ranch property were monitored for listed fairy shrimp
from December 1995 to April 1996. The only fairy shrimp observed in the pools was Branchinecla
lindahi, which is not a special status species. This species of fairy shrimp tolerates a 'wide range of
conditions and is the most common fairy shrimp in California In general, the pools supported a low
diversity of invertebrates and contained such weedy, opportunistic species as mosquito larvae and
.midgefly larvae.
APPLICABILITY OF REPORTS TO AREAS B 1HROUGH E OF THE PROJECT AREA
The studies conducted by H.T. Harvey and Associates apply to the entire Dublin Ranch Project area.
However, not all identified mitigations apply to each individual portion of the project. The discussion
below distinguishes between the areas affected by/addressed in the surveys and reports.
Area B includes two jurisdictional drainages and associated wetlands, part of the acreage noted in the
\\'etland delineation described above. Additionally, California Red-legged frogs have been found in a
pond in Area B.
_A..rea C includes seasonal ponds that are jurisdictional. Repeated surveys for California tiger
salamanders, special status plants or special status invertebrates have all had negative results, as
described above.
_A..rea D includes a draIDage to Tassajara Creek and associated wetlands that are Jurisdictional as
described in the wetland delineation noted above. The golden eagle nest sites that have been-monitored
are included in area D, and the majority of the viewshed for the eagle nest is within the area. A pond
associated with the upper end of this drainage also supports California Red-legged frogs, a species
federally listed as threatened.
The San Joaquin kit fox surveys, wetland delineation, special status plant surveys and herpetological
surveys described above apply to all of areas B, C, D & E. The fairy shrimp surveys apply to Area C,
although other areas were searched for suitable habitat. The golden eagle nest surveys ap:ply to ..\rea D.
The Golden Eagle nest site is not within the project area However, a line-of-sight buffer area around
the nest has been incorporated into the planning for A.rea A to minimize intrusion into the buffer area.
MITIGATION
The :Mitigation Measures adopted vvith the City's approved :Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
corresponding conditions of approval, have been included in the project planning to protect any species
that may be discovered prior to or during construction or to protect adjoining areas. The :Mitigation
Measures which address impacts to biological resources are: 3.7/1.0 through 3.7/28.0. Policies of the
Specific Plan call for enhancement of open space area and riparian corridor with native plant species.
17
y
1-
A..lth~ugh .~e ~EIR did not identify the site as having ~y endangered spec!es of plant o~ animal life
certaIn MitIgaTIon l\1easures of the FEIR and Action Programs of the SpecIfic Plan (ActlOn Programs
6A, 6C, and 60) require certain investigations and protocols prior to issuance of a building permit, and
these have been included for this project.
Tne FEIR discusses impacts to riparian and other wetland habitats, and finds that mitigation measures
could not completely reduce the cumulative loss of sensitive habitat to a level of insignificance. The
adopted statement of overriding considerations includes this finding.
The proposed Planned Development does not raise any new significant impacts which were not
addressed in the Final ErR.
VITI.
E!\'"ERGY & :MINERAL RESOURCES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and
through various mitigation measures. Although consumption of non-renewal resources (for the Specific
Plan area as a whole) was identified as a significant cumulative impact (discussed under section XII),
furure development of the site is not anticipated to use such resources in a wasteful or ineffi ci ent manner.
Tnerefore, this topic area was included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. No mineral
resources are known to exist on-site, therefore no impacts are anticipated. The proposed Conditional Use
Permit will not result in any additional significant impacts not covered by the FEIR.
.
LX.
R.aARDS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various
mitigation measures. The project site is primarily open grasslands and contains no structures. A Phase II
site assessment of the project area has been conducted (Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, July 22,
1996) to determine the presence or absence of anyon-site hazardous waste and substance sites. The
findings of this study indicate that no problem sites were found. In addition, a data search was
conducted to determine if the site was included on a list of hazardous waste and substance SItes. The
results oftbis search indicate that no such identified sites exist within the project area or \".>ithin a two
mile radius of the project.
.!ilthough it is not known at this time what future tenants may occupy lands in Areas B through E currently
designated for commercial and industrial uses, future residents may keep small quantities of potentially
toxic substances on-site (paints, pesticides, etc.). Due to the normally small quantities, this is not
anticipated to create a substantial risk that substances and materials stored or used on site will create or
eA.-pose people to health hazards. Development projects (those proposing non-residential uses) are
normally conditioned by the City and/or applicable health departments and fire departments to submit
information regarding chemicals to be used and/or stored on-site. Therefore, it is anticipated that buildout
of the proposed project would result in a less than sienificant impact No further mitigation is required.
The project will not involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of
an accident or upset conditions because: (1) the application of mitigation measures from the ErR has .
conditions of approval; and (2) the application of Action Programs of the Specific Plan as conditions 0
approval.
Finally, development of the project site may result in increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
gress, or trees. Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GP AlSP A Final EIR for a discussion of this impact. This
.
I)
?-
impact was addressed in the prior EIR.. The City haS prepared and adopted a 'Wildfire M,magement P
wruchfuture applicants would be required to adhere to. No further mitigation is required.
Mitigation measures of the EIR and Action Programs of the Specific plan and corresponding conditio]
of approval that would apply to potential impacts in these areas are as follows: MM3.4/2.0 , 3.4/3.0,
3.4/5.0 through 3.4/13.0,3.5/1.0,3.5/3.0,3.10/1.0 through 3.10/5.0,3.10/7.0,3.11/3.0,3.11/7.0; BE, 9
and 9Q; Action Programs 8D and SF through 81. Inclusion of these mitigation measures ~~JJ mitigate
any impacts of this topic area to an insignificant level. (See FEIR, Chapters 3.4 and 3.5.) The Planne
Development '\-\':ill not raise any additional significant hazards impacts which were not addressed in the
FEIR.
X. NOISE: The noise impacts of potential projects in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. area were addresse
in the earlier analysis of the Program FEIR. As the project site is basicallyundeveiopedat this time,
future development will result in increases of ambient noise over existing levels, resulting in significant
impacts in five main areas:
1.
2.
..,
.:J.
. 4.
:).
Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise
Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise
Exposure of Proposed Residential development to Noise from Future Military Training Activities at
. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and the County Jail
Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
Noise conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting
Nfixed-Use Development
These impacts are discussed below.
1.) . The FEIR addressed the general impacts anticipated from e:>...-posure of proposed resi dential housing
along certain roadways, and required that sie:n{fi cant impacts be mitigated (See FEIR, Impact 3.1 0/ A, an.d
Mitigation Measure 3.1 0/1.0). Site specIDc noise impacts for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E Planned
Development which require evaluation to a greater level of detail for this Planned Development proposa
than included in the FEIR are discussed below.
.
The noise contours for the Year 20 1 0 with the build out of the entire Specific Plan are sho'WI1 in Figure
3.1 O-B of the Specific Plan EIR. Proposed residential housing in certain areas (e.g.: along Dublin
Boulevard, T assaj ara Road, Fallon Road, and Hacienda Drive) were predicted in the FEIR to be eh.'Posed t<
future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. In addition, proposed housing along Central Parl-way
(Transit Spine) and Gleason Road could potentially be e:>"''Posed to future noise levels in excess of 60 dB
CNEL. According to the Dublin General Plan Noise Element land use compatibility guidelines, these
residential areas would be in the "conditionally acceptable" range for this type ofland use. "Conditionally
acceptable" means that an acoustical study must be submitted during project development review to
determine how interior noise levels will be controlled to the City standards and State goal of CJ\1EL 45 dB
(See Dublin General Plan, page 9.3).
Because the Dublin Ranch development proposes residential development in areas projected to exceed
the 60 dB Noise levels, acoustical studies are required to determine the attenuation measures necessfu)'
to accomplish an interior noise level standard of C1\.1EL 45 dB. .4.n acoustical study is currently
underway to analyze areas eX'Pected to exceed the 60 dB noise levels and to determine the appropriate
10
1~
noise barrierslbuffers which are needed to achieve the 45 dB interior standards for residential uses..
results of this study v.rill be submitted prior to approval of the PD Rezoning for Areas B-E, and the
project will be conditioned to incorporate these measures in the development. Noise attenuation
measures may include greater setback distances, land berms, soundwalls, building cons1ruction measures
or a combination of these, and may require additional space for buffers. In some areas, ifit is
determined upon refinement of development plans that the necessary noise attenuation measures are not
possible or would be undesirable based upon the proposed land use plan'" . the physical layout of the
residential units may need to be redesigned, or density may need to be decreased, to avoid an
unmitigated significant impact.
Additional detailed acoustical studies to identify the attenuation measures necessary ~o accomplish an
interior noise level standard of CNEL 45 dB for residential areas may be needed at the Site Development
Review or building permit stage to demonstrate compliance v.rith the FEIR noise mitigation
recommendations, or if the noise environment changes or new impacts occur.
2.) The FEIR determined noise generated by the buildout of the Eastern Dublin area would cause an
adverse impact on existing residences which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance and, hence,
this was part of the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the Dublin City CounciL
3.) The FEIR required mitigation of noise impacts upon proposed residential development from future.
military training activities at Parks Reserve F orces Training Area and the County JaiL An acoustical s
is required for proposed residential development within 6,000 feet of Camp Parks RFT A to determine
which mitigation measures should be imposed. The acoustical study currently underway for the Dublin
Ranch B-E project will identify these impacts and conditions of approval may be applied to the
development where feasible, as required by the FEIR.
4.) Construction will occur over a number of years on the project site. Maj or noise sources associated
with construction include truck activity on local roads, heaVy equipment used in grading and paving and
impact noises from barriers used in framing of structures. Pile driving can also generate substructural
. noise. These impacts were addressed in the previous analysis of the FEIR and Mitigation Measures of the
. FEIR require completion of Cons1ru cti on Noise Management Programs. Implementation of the FEIR
mitigation measures (1vfM # 03.1 % 1-07) will reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance.
5.) The presence of different land use types v.rithin the same development creates the possibility of noise
compatibility impacts between adjoining uses. particularly when commercial and residential land uses abut.
The Uniform Building Code does not specifically address the sound insulation requirement for partitions
between business and residential uses. Sound insulation for such partitions should be designed on a case by
case basis and may need to exceed those required between residences. Because the allowance of mixed use
developments (commercial and residential in the same building or project site) requires a Conditional use
Permit, the issue of sound insulation between business and residential uses will be addressed through a
condition of the Planned Development approval, with refined studies to be undertaken at the time of ~
Development Review and Conditional Use Permit approval, when specific development proposals Jf!I'
.. An example of an undesirable noise attenuation measure might be a requirement to construct a 12-
foot high soundwall for homes too close to a noise source.
.
.
XII.
.
.(
J/
building types are knovm. With the mitigation measures of the EIR, and the conditions of approya:
attached to this project, the noise impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Based upon this analysis, the environmental impacts of noise related to this project have been addressed
both through the earlier analysis of the program FEIR., as well as mitigated to a level of insignificance.
A Negative Declaration of environmental impact is appropriate.
XI.
Public Services: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various
mitigation measures. The project will require some of the improvements or service increases in the areas
of Fire Protection, Police Protection, school facilities and personneL and maintenance of public facilities,
including roads, and other governmental services. These services are planned for in tEe Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and are typically funded through a combination of property taxes, assessment districts,
and/or special financing plans established, thereby allo'Wingfuture developments to pay (usually placed as
a condition of project approval) for their contribution towards these service demands. The applicant's fair
share of improvements and increased service will be determined and contained in the Development
Agreement required by the Specific Plan. Mitigation measures in the EIR that will be implemented as
conditions of this project include: MM3.1215.0; 3.12/8.0; 3.4/2.0; 3.4/4.0/3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0;
3.4/15.0 through 3.4/24.0; 3.4/27.0 through 3.4/29.0; 3.4/31.0; 3.4/33.0; 3.4/34.0; 3.4/36.0,3.4/44.0 and
3.4/49.0. Action Programs of the Specific Plan that will be implemented as conditions of this project
include 40, 8A through 8E, 8G, 8R, 8J, 8K and 8N. Inclusion of these mitigation measures and Action
Programs and corresponding conditions of approval will mitigate impacts in this topic area to a level of
insignificance.
UTILITIES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various
mitigation measures. The e:x.1:ension of water, electrical and natural gas lines into the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area has been determined by the FEIR to be a significant growth-inducing impact and,
therefore, was mcluded within the Statement of Overriding Considerations as an unavoidable adverse
effect of the project The Dublin Ranch project, since it is a portion of the Specific Plan area, comes
'within the purview of the Statement All other impacts of utilities, such as provision of water service,
\\'2Stewater service, storm drainage facilities, and solid waste disposal services were found to be capable
of reduction to a level of insignificance by the mitigation measures of the FEIR (please refer to matrix
for applicable measures). The plans of the City and DSRSD to provide sewer service to future
developmentwithin Eastern Dublin were addressed in the Eastern Dublin GP AlSP A Final EIR and
Addendum (dated August 22, 1994). DSRSD has indicated that it still plans to provide sewer service to
. Eastern Dublin with disposal either via one of the eA-port options analyzed in the 1992 EIR for the long
range Wastewater Management Plan for the Livermore-iunador Valley or via groundwaterrecharge and
recycling (including reverse osmosis). DSRSD is currently planning the construction of facilities to treat
wastewater via reverse osmosis, and these facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve all portions of
Eastern Dublin already annexed to DSRSD (including all areas covered by this Specific Plan r\mendment).
The project does not raise any additional significant impacts which were not covered by the FEIR
XIII. AESTHETICS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various
mitigation measures. The FEIR has determined development of Eastern Dublin will inalterably change
the rural, agricultural cha..-acter of the area and, therefore, that this is a siznincant unavoidable adverse
impact. Visual/aesthetics was part of the Statement of Overriding Consideration. As identified in the
Specific Plan EIR, development of the flatter portions of the project area (including certain portions of this
b
?
project site) is regarded as a trade-off measure designed to preserve slopes, hillsides and ridgelines .
contained in the larger Specific Plan area.
The FEIR contains measures to maintain the visual quality of the area, especially from views along
scenic corridors in Eastern Dublin. MM 3.8/1.0 through 3.8/8.1 of the EIR address visual resources.
Especially pertinent are M:M 3.817.1 and 3.8/8.1 which call for an area-wide survey of scenic vistas and
project by project visual analysis to show conformity with the study. .
In April of 1996 the City adopted a Scenic Corridor Plan as a requirement of Program 6Q of the adopted
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Identified scenic corridors include Tassajara Road, 1-580, and Fallon Road.
The intent of the policies and standards of the Scenic Corridor Plan is to allow project development as
shown in the Specific Plan to occur while maintaining the visual character of the' eastern ridgelines,
\\atercourses, and distinct landscape features, for travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin.
In addition to impacts upon scenic corridors, potential visual impacts could result from the grading of
slopes and the location of homes in hillsides and their visibility from scenic corridors as well as public
gathering places (such as the park site in Dublin Ranch Phase I). A visual study has been prepared to
analyze potential visual impacts from the development proposed with this project and to demonstrate the
refinements in project design which will help address impacts upon visual resources. As required by the
adopted FEIRmitigationmomtoringprogram, the project will be required to institute sensitive grading and
contouring of the project development to the natural landform. This requirement will be app~
continually at various project entitlement stages, such as grading permit, subdivision map approval, :JI!f
site developmentreview.
No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GP AlSP A Final EIR are expected to occur as a
result of the proposed Planned Development.
XIV. CuLTURALREsOURCES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR., and through
various mitigation measures. The project will not result in the alteration of or the destruction orany
prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. The project does not have the potential to cause a physical
. or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric, historic or architecturally significant building structure or object
. Tne project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. Mitigation
Measures of the FEIR and an Action Program of the Specific Plan will be incorporated as conditions of
approval of this project, to reduce any potential impacts in this topic area to a level of insignificance.
Tnose Mitigation Measures and Action Program are as follows: 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/12.0 and 6P.
:Xv. RECREATION: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various
mitigation measures. Policies in the General Plan and Specific Plan require that development pay its fair
share of costs to maintain the same levels of recreational services presently in place in the City. In lieu
park dedication fees 'will be paid, and/or park site(s) ",rill be dedicated, to mitigate the Dublin Ranch
J~re2.S B-E impact on the City's recreation facilities. Mitigation Measures of the FEIR, Action Pro~
of the Specific Plan and corresponding conditions of approval that would apply in this topic area .,
include: 3.4/20.0 through 3.4/36.0; 3.7/10.0, 3.7/13.0; 6~ 6B, 68, and 9V. Inclusion of these
mitigation measures will reduce any recreational impacts of the project to an insignificant level
.~
.
.
DETERMINA TION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLAR.A.TION will be prepared.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
sismificant effect in this case because the mitil!ation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to th(
- -
project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect( s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed b
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMEhTTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
g] 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 EIR,
andlor through revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project (unavoidable significan1
adverse effects of the project have been included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations done for the progran
EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, of which this project is a part).
Signature
----1'"7_./ d
~p.....t ~.-/
m;ff /97
Date
Printed Name
Tasha Huston
Title
i~.sSDciate Planner
.""
I(
.
ATTACH1\1ENT A
:M...4. TRIX
OF MITIGATION MEASURES
OF THE
.
EASTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN /
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
EIR
(In~Drporated by reference; available at City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568
510-833-6610)
.
rq
.
..
EXHffiITS A-2 through A-5:
.
Noise Study
Visual Study
Traffic Study
Biological Study
(Not attached, but available for review at the City of Dublin Planning Department
and at City Council public hearing)
.
IiJD
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)
DISTRICT REZONE CONCERNING P A 96-039
DUBLIN RANCH AREAS B-E
WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Lin, submitted a Planned
Development (PD) District Rezone request (p A 96-039 Dublin Ranch Areas B-E) for rezoning an
approximately 454 acre site to the following land uses: 23.6 acres to PD High Density Residential, 8.6 acres
to PD Medium High Density Residential, 78.8 acres to PD Medium Density Residential, 13:0 acres to PD
Medium Density Residential/Community Park, 99.2 acres to PD Rural Residential Agriculture, 41.2 acres to
General Commercial, 44.6 acres to Campus Office, 84.8 acres of Community Park, 2.0 acres for
Neighborhood Square/Park, 32.4 acres Open Space, 4.4 acres for an Elementary School, and 20.0 acres for a
High School, for a total maximum of 1,875 dwelling units; and related Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General
Plan Amendment requests to redesignate a 10 acre elementary school site for Medium Density Residential; to
add the Medium Density Residential designation to approximately 13 acres of land along the westerly portion
of a Community Park site so that either Park or Residential uses would be permitted; and 4.5 acres of land
:from Residential to General Commercial in compliance with Livermore Airport Protection Area restrictions.
The project is generally located north of the Interstate 580 Freeway, west of Fallon Road, within the Eastern
. Dublin Specific Plan project area; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 1994, the City Council approved a Planned Development District
Overlay Zone (prezone) for a 1,538 acre site located within the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project
area (p A 94-030) which: (a) established a Planned Development ("PD") District Overlay Zone designation
for 1,538 acres known as the Eastern Dublin Reorganization annexation area; and in conformity with Action
Program 4C of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The PD District Overlay Zone allows the flexibility needed
to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies and action programs of the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met; (b) adopted a Preliminary land plan, with the
provision that regulations and standards governing the PD District Overlay Zone, in addition to land use and
intensity of use, shall be established in conjunction with the Land Use and Development Plans which are
required to be submitted in accordance with Dublin Ordinance 4-94; (c) and established numerous zoning
designations consistent with the Preliminary land plan, to provide for the variety of uses anticipated by the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 14,1994, the Alameda County LAFCo approved the Eastern Dublin
Reorganization for P A 94-030; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the Alameda County LAFCo unanimously disapproved the request
to reconsider the Eastern Dublin Reorganization approval (p A 94-030); and
.
EXHIBIT B
.IT/
WHEREAS, on January 23, 1995, the City Council ordered the territory designated as .
Annexation/Detachment No. 10, which includes the 1,538 acre site, annexed to the City of Dublin and
annexed to the Dublin San Ramon Services District and detached :from the Livermore Area Recreation and
Park District (P A 94-030); and
WHEREAS, Annexation/Detachment No. 10 became effective on October 1, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E project site is located within the 1,538 acre site that has
been prezoned and annexed, and the Applicant's request complies with the existing Planned Development
District Prezone provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's PD Rezone application supplements the initial PD Preione and includes
a District Planned Development Plan as required under Section 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
and a Land Use and Development Plan as required under the City's Zoning Ordinance, Title 8, Chapter 2,
Section 8-31.16; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City
of Dublin Environmental Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and
that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the project dated June 18, 1997 and is available and ~
file in the Planning Department; and .
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21080.6 requires the City to adopt a reporting or
monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project implementation; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted as part of the Certified Environmental
Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21080.6, would apply to the Dublin Ranch properties and is available and on file in the Planning Department;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin has held one public hearing to consider
the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and the Planned Development Rezoning, Specific Plan Amendment,
& General Plan Amendment for the proposed Project on October 28, 1997; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was given in all respects as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and reviewed the City Planning Department's Staff
Report on the Planned Development Rezoning, Specific Plan Amendment/General Plan Amendment,
including said Initial Study, and Negative Declaration on the environmental effects of the project; and
.
2
.
.
.
'f'r
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered said documents, recommendations,
written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing as herein above set forth.
WHEREAS, following a public hearing the Planning Commission voted to recommend City Council
adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of the PD Rezone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin held a public hearing on November 18, 1997, to
consider the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and the Planned Development Rezoning, for the Project; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the City Council public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received and reviewed the City Planning Department's Staff Report on
the Planned Development Rezoning, including the Initial Study and Negative Declaration on the
environmental effects of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered the documents, recommendations, written and
oral testimony submitted at the public hearing.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Resolution shown in Exhibit A approving the Negative
Declaration for the Project, based upon the findings contained in that Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council will adopt the rezoning Ordinance
shown in Exhibit C for the following reasons:
1. The proposed PD Rezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general provisions and purpose of
the PD District Overlay Zone (pD Prezone), the City General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan provisions and design guidelines; and
2. The rezoning, as conditioned, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of land use
compatibilities; will not overburden public services; and provides a comprehensive plan for
residential and recreational development of the Area A site while preserving sensitive portions of
the site :from intense development; and
3. The rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts P A 96-039 Dublin Ranch Areas
B through E PD Rezone, subject to the general provisions listed below:
...
.J
/rj'
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Purpose
.
This approval is for a Planned Development (PD) District Rezoning and minor modifications to the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan land use diagrams for P A 96-039 Dublin Ranch Areas B-E.
This PD District Rezone, including a Land Use and Development Plan and District Planned Development
Plan, is consistent with the initial Planned Development (PD) District Prezone and amends the initial Prezone
to provide more detailed land use and development plan provisions. The PD District Rezone allows the
flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies and action
programs of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met. More particularly, the PD District
Rezone is intended to ensure adherence to the following policies :from the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan: :
1.
Concentrate development on less environmentally and visually sensitive or constrained
portions of the plan area and preserve significant open space areas and natural and topographic
landscape features with minimum alteration of land forms.
2.
Encourage innovative approaches to site planning, building design and construction to create a
range of housing types and prices, and to provide housing for all segments of the community.
....
:>.
Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
4.
.
Develop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open areas
for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.
5.
Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile.
B. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements
Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and general
requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to this PD District.
C. General Provisions and Development Standards
1.
INTENT: This approval is for the Planned Development (PD) District Rezone P A 95-039
Dublin Ranch Areas B-E. This approval rezones 23.6 acres to PD High Density Residential,
8.6 acres to PD Medium High Density Residential, 78.8 acres to PD Medium Density
Residential, 13.0 acres to PD Medium Density Residential/Community Park, 99.2 acres to PD
Rural Residential Agriculture, 41.2 acres to General Commercial, 44.6 acres to Campus Office,
84.8 acres of Community Park, 2.0 acres for Neighborhood Square/Park, 32.4 acres Open
Space, 4.4 acres for an Elementary School, and 20.0 acres for a High School, and sets a
maximum of 1,875 dwelling units. The location ofland uses, development concepts and
standard provisions for this project are illustrated by the Land Use and Development
.
4
.
.
.
'71
-
PlanlDistrict Planned Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP) incorporated as Exhibit B-3, contained
in the packet dated "OCTOBER 199T', consisting of the following:
a) project description
b) land use plan,
c) site plan,
d) design guidelines (including land use and development standards),
e) design concept plans
f) other text and supplemental diagrams,
The approval of the Planned Development Rezone incorporates this Land Use and
Development PlanlDistrict Planned Development Plan, in accordance with Ordinance 4-94 of
the City's Zoning Ordinance, addressing Planned Developments.
2.
NUMBER OF UNITS: The total number of dwelling units for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E project shall
not exceed a maximum of 1,875, except as described below. The number of dwelling units and mix of
densities (e.g.: ratio of Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential) within each
neighborhood or subarea may be modified while staying within the approved density ranges. Any
units deleted :from one neighborhood could be added to another neighborhood or subarea if such a
modification was found to be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. However, the maximum
number of units for the overall project (P A 96-039) may not be exceeded, except as follows:
1.) If the project qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Chapter 8.16 of the Dublin Municipal
Code.
2.) If unique development concepts, project design and/or amenities justify an increase, and it is
found to be an appropriate modification, pursuant to Section 8-31.18 of Dublin Ordinance 4-94
(requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit).
The actual number of homes which are developed could also be affected by circumstances discovered
as development plans are refmed (for example, an unknown landslide).
3. LAND USES: All standard City provisions for the zoning designations and land use provisions shall
apply, except those specifically superseded by the attached exhibits, or as modified below:
a. The "List of Permitted and Conditional Uses" for RRA contained in the approved PD Rezoning
shall be clarified to show that "Accessory Structures" related to Residential uses are permitted, but
all "Agricultural Uses" will be designated as Conditional Uses, and "Farm Buildings" will require
a Site Development Review approval, to be consistent with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance as
amended.
b. Residential uses may be considered Conditional Uses in PD Campus Office and General
Commercial subject to determination by the City Planning Commission that such development is
consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan for mixed use in these areas. Approval of the mixed
5
~7
use CUP may require supplemental environmental. study to ensure no additional significant .
environmental impacts will occur (e.g.; traffic, noise, etc.).
c. The approximately 13-acre area identified on the LOOP with a " *** "and designated as
"Community Park/Medium Density Residential" may be developed for residential uses at such
time as the Dublin City Council determines that this acreage is not needed for the designated
Community Park. The location of the roadway and Open Space/stream corridor along the west
side of the park is subject to further review and approval by the City, and shall be determined prior
to the approval of the fIrst tentative map for Area B.
d. Neighborhood boundaries, roadway locations, residential unit types, and parcels may be
reconfigured based on specific development proposals, while being substantially in compliance
with this Planned Development approval. .'
4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Except as specifically modified by the Planned Development
Ordinance for PA 96-039 and all provisions ofPA 94-030 (City Council Resolution 104-94) not
modified by P A 96-039, all development in Dublin Ranch Areas B-E shall be subject to the
regulations of the closest comparable zoning designation as determined by the Community
Development Director and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Design of residential units and/or developments within this project shall be generally consistent with
the design concept drawings and design guidelines, and development standards approved with .
LUDP/DPDP. Building type, location, or configuration, lot lines, and site circulation as shown on
exhibits and described in the text of this PD are considered to be conceptual and are subject to further
refinement at the time a specific development proposal is brought forth. Architectural styles described
in the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E Design Guidelines and architectural elevations may be utilized in any
individual neighborhood. Because the conceptual design plans for Areas B-E are intended to allow
development of a variety of residential product types and various commercial uses, additional and
more. detailed information, plans, and studies will be required with the Site Development Review
applications in order to address the more detailed design items which have not been defmed at this
stage. The overall size, product type, architectural character, embellishments, and building materials of
homes shall be essentially of equivalent quality and design character as described in the design
guidelines and concept plans and associated exhibits. Additional standards and conditions shall apply
to this development, as listed in the CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL section below.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby adopts P A 96-039 Dublin
Ranch Areas B-E PD Rezone subject to the conditions listed below:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any
buildimr. and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent
those departments/ alZencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: rPL 1
Planning:. [131 BuildinlZ. \1>1 Parks and Community Services. \1>01 Police. \1>Wl Public Works. [ADM1
.
6
.
.
.
i
Ihl:?
J
-
Administration/City Attornev. rFINl Finance. rFl Fire rDSRl Dublin San Ramon Services District. fCOl
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District rZone 71.
GENERAL
1. The project approval for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E PD Rezone (P A 96-039) is represented by the
Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) and District Planned Development Plan (DPDP). These
Plans incorporate supplemental text and diagrams attached to this resolution, including conceptual
architecture, landscape and open space design guidelines, as well as specific development standards
for the various land uses. These materials along with this resolution establish the standard provisions
and conditions of approval for the project. [PL]
2.
Prior to obtaining building permits, the applicant must receive Site Development Review (SDR)
approval for any development. The materials submitted for Site Development Review shall be in
substantial conformance with this PD Rezone and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Minor
modifications to the PD development concept may be allowed without requiring an amended PD
Rezone approval. The Community Development Director shall determine conformance or non-
conformance and appropriate processing procedures for modifying this PD Rezone (i.e. staff approval,
Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit, or City Council approval of new PD
Rezone). Major modifications, or revisions not found to be in substantial conformance with this PD
Rezone shall require a new PD Rezone. A subsequent PD rezone may address only applicable
portions of the area covered by this PD Rezone. [PL]
3. Except as may be specifically provided for within these General Provisions for P A 96-039,
development shall comply with the City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions
[PL], and with the City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements. [PO]
4. Except where specified otherwise, references in these conditions of approval to Tentative Map are
meant to refer to the initial tentative subdivision map( s) creating individual lots, and not to the
processing of a Master Tentative Map, which, as provided for by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is
intended for large land holdings, to create larger interim parcels intended for further subdivision at a
later date. If one or more Master Tentative Maps are proposed, any such submittal shall be
conspicuously labeled as such and shall be accompanied by a written explanation of the purpose and
operation of the proposed interim parcels. The applicability to a Master Tentative Map of the
conditions contained herein which refer to a tentative map shall be determined by the City at such time
as a Master Tentative Map submittal is made.
DESIGN STANDARDS:
5.
In addition to the applicable standards mentioned above, the following additional standards shall apply
to development of Dublin Ranch Areas B-E:
7
,1
a. Design of individual product types, lotting patterns, and circulation system are subject to further
review at the time oftentative map and Site Development Review. Changes to lotting patterns,.
circulation systems, and number of units may be necessary to address new issues discovered as a
result of more detailed levels of review at the time of Site Development Review and or Tentative
Map. The actual development configuration and number of units for each neighborhood
development may vary, and shall be subject to City approval. [PL, PO, F]
b. On lots with sideyard setbacks of less than 5', special provisions of the house design shall be
required to address concerns with accessibility, privacy and window placement, accessory
equipment and locations for garbage cans, allowing light into side-yards, and the overall street
scene appearance and density of the neighborhood. [PL, B]
c. Some new models in single-family subdivisions shall provide single story units and/or give the
appearance of single-story elements, and every effort shall be made to locate such units on corner
lots, at the ends of streets, and within long rows of houses to provide visual diversity to the street
scene. [PL]
d. All :front yards and common areas in conventional single-family residential subdivisions shall be
landscaped by the initial builder prior to issuance of occupancy. Installation oflandscaping for
other residential projects shall be addressed in the Site Development Review approval for each
project. [PL]
e. Common area landscaping shall be required in all attached unit residential developments in en.
areas, common areas, and in yard areas between structures and driveways/streets. The use of
special paving materials is encouraged in private shared drive aisles or courtyard areas. [PL]
f. To avoid the appearance of a "walled community", homes should be oriented toward and take
access :from collector streets where possible. Where long stretches of fences or walls will be used,
variations in materials, wall alignments, and landscaping shall be used, and the fence or wall line
shall be aligned to allow for the creation of landscaped areas between the fence/wall and the street.
The design, location and material of fencing and retaining walls shall be consistent with the wall
and fencing plan included with the PD design guidelines and be subject to further review at the
time of Site Development Review for the subdivision(s)[pL]
g. Fences for individual lots shall be placed at the top of slopes, unless otherwise required due to
subdivision design. Wherever possible, design of the subdivision shall ensure that lot boundary
lines are located at the top of slopes to avoid visible fence lines running down hillsides and visible
interior lot areas. The subdivision design shall also ensure adequate slope angle and area to
facilitate revegetation of slopes and to avoid large, unsightly retaining walls wherever possible.
[pL, PW]
h. In addition to the height limits listed in the matrix of development standards contained in the
design guidelines approved with this LUDP, the maximum building height for any part of a
structure in the Medium-High Density land use subarea shall not extend above the natural ridgele
8
/~(
.
.
.
of the foreground low-lying hills as seen :from existing scenic corridors, in compliance with the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Section 6.3.4, Visual Resources. [PL, B]
1. Project subareas developed with multi-family units shall provide private recreational facilities for
use by that project's residents (for example, pool and cabana club areas). Detached units at
densities higher than 10 units per acre are encouraged to provide such amenities in the project as
well. [PL]
J. In order to optimize use and provision of open space in the project, development near the
intermittent stream/open space corridor should be encouraged to orient front or side yards toward
the stream corridor. Wherever practical, backyards shall not be located adjacent to the intermittent
stream corridor[pL]
k. Buffers between incompatible uses or different product types shall be provided where necessary,
utilizing methods including but not limited to distance separation, slope breaks, and landscaping.
[PL]
1. Screening measures such as perimeter landscaping and berms may be required in Higher-density
Residential areas, and in Commercial and Campus Office areas, where needed to provide a visual
buffer for parking areas. [PL]
m. Based upon the concept plans and analysis submitted with the project application, adequate space
for needed parking can be provided the Medium High, and High Density Residential areas.
However, at the time of Site Development Review, parking location, circulation, and access will
undergo more detailed review by the City staff. If size or use of proposed development changes
significantly :from the concepts illustrated with this proposal, parking needs will be reassessed to
ensure adequate land area is available for the facilities and the necessary parking. [pL, PW, F]
n. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) CC&R's of one or more Dublin Ranch
homeowners associations shall be submitted with the Tentative Map and/or Site Development
Review application, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Director and City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, or prior to Site
Development Review approval (see also Condition #16). [pL, ADM]
GRADING
6.
. The development is subject to applicable grading and visual impact guidelines of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, EIR, and Dublin General Plan. The approval of P A 96-03 9 includes a preliminary
grading plan which has been determined to generaIIy comply with applicable policies of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and mitigation measures of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
EIR. Compliance with these policies and mitigation measures will be required throughout the
development phases. The continued use of sensitive engineering design and grading techniques,
including minimizing height of cut and fill slopes, making gradual transitions :from graded areas to
natural slopes, and re-contouring graded slopes to mimic natural landforms is required. Refined
grading plans for the individual developments shaH be submitted which incorporate sensitive grading
9
rJ;1
techniques in order to achieve grading more refined than the conceptual grading plan subjecfto City
approval, prior to approval of any grading permit or tentative map. Grading done prior to tentative.
approval is at developers risk. [PL, PW]
7. Graded slopes and slope breaks shall be recontoured to resemble the existing natural landforms in the
immediate area, shall be revegetated, and designed to soften or naturalize the look of cut slopes.
Extensive areas of flat pad grading should be avoided. Building pads should be graded individually or
stepped wherever possible. Building design shall conform to the natural land form as much as
possible. Grades for cut-and-fill slopes should be 3:1 or flatter, whenever possible. Grading on slopes
between development areas shall use sensitive grading techniques. Conceptual landscape plans for
these interface areas shall be submitted at the time of Site Development Review to address the special
needs of buffering and addressing visual impacts of these slope areas. Grading for the project shall not
extend beyond the subject development area or into Open Space areas except for rem~dial purposes
only.
8. Prior to approval oftentative subdivision maps, a revised and more detailed grading scheme shall be
submitted to illustrate the proposed condition of slopes at all interface areas between this project and
adjacent properties, especially along the western edge of the property. This grading scheme shall
illustrate both the long-term developed condition, and the interim condition (prior to development
occurring on the adjacent property). Such grading schemes shall require comparison to available
development plans for adjacent properties. Plans shall be of adequate level of detail for a
determination by the City that any safety and visual concerns will be addressed. This interface grading
scheme shall include, but not be limited to the following information: grading necessary for roadwae
shown on the LUDP, including grading necessary for construction of Fallon Road and for necessary
roadways along the project boundaries; grading necessary to provide useable Community Park and
Neighborhood Square sites; maximum allowable slopes for temporary graded slopes, matching
daylight lines to the existing contours; and safety and aesthetics measures to be taken in the event that
construction occurs on the subject property and not the adjacent property, or grading is begun but not
completed to final stage. The location, intensity, and timing of development adjacent to these
interface areas may be affected or delayed until the grading issues are addressed to the City's
satisfaction. [pL, PW]
9. A detailed grading scheme for the extension of Fallon Road in Area D shall be submitted for review
and approval prior approval of the tentative map and development agreement required for this project
by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed grading in this area shall be modified to address
visual, safety, and access concerns with the proposed 25' high fill, the proposed culvert stream
. crossing, and the size and developability of the remaining parcels. (see also related condition in Public
Works Department memo attached as Exhibit B-1) [pL, PW]
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
10. The Dublin Ranch Areas B-E project proponent and the City of Dublin shall enter into a Development
Agreement prior to Tentative Map approval, which shall contain, but not be limited to, provisions for
financing and timing of on and off-site infrastructure, payment of traffic, public facilities impact fees,.
resolution to issues such as ownership and maintenance of open space areas, and other provisions
10
~D
.
.
.
deemed necessary by the City to find the project consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. At
some future date, the applicant shall be responsible for paying all fees required by the Development
Agreement. [pL, ADM]
NOISE
11. A noise study shall be required with applications for the initial Tentative Maps (creating individual
lots), Site Development Review, or building permit (whichever comes first) which shall identify areas
in which residential uses will be located within a 60 dB or greater noise level contour and shall
propose attenuation of exterior noise levels to meet City standards. The noise study shall also identify
measures to be used to control interior noise levels to acceptable limits. Noise attenuation measures
may include greater setback distances, land berms, soundwalls, build orientation, building construction
measures or a combination of these, and may require additional space for buffers. IIri'some areas, ifit
is determined upon refinement of development plans that the necessary noise attenuation measures are
not possible or would be undesirable based upon the proposed land use plan, greater setbacks distances
may be required and the intensity of the residential units may be affected, in order to avoid an
unmitigated significant impact. These studies and appropriate attenuation measures are required to be
incorporated into the development to demonstrate compliance with the Program ErR noise mitigation
recommendations, as well as to address new concerns if the noise environment changes or new impacts
occur. * [pL, B]
VISUAL IMP ACTS/ SCENIC CORRIDOR POLICIES
12.
Development in designated scenic corridor areas shall comply with the requirements of the Dublin
Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The conceptual plotting plans/visual studies submitted with
the application for Areas B-E PD Rezone demonstrate the general appropriateness ofland uses and
development standards included with the LUDP/DPDP. Compliance with the General Plan and
Specific Plan is contingent upon continued monitoring to address visual impacts throughout
subsequent application processing and development phases. At the time of review for individual
tentative maps and Site Development Review, the City shall determine whether additional or more
refined measures are required to address impacts upon visual resources and scenic/aesthetic resources.
Methods which may be required include, but are not limited to, use of sensitive grading techniques,
sensitive siting of development areas, and berms and landscaping for visual buffers. [PL]
13.
A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for City review prior to approval of any tentative map, to
address appropriate landscaping for slopes in open space and other visible areas in the project. Special
An example of an undesirable noise attenuation measure might be a requirement to construct a I2-foot high
soundwall for homes too close to a noise source. The potential need to require greater setbacks to minimize noise
impacts should not necessarily impact the number of units on site. The P D zoning establishes the flexibility to cluster
units at a greater density on some portions of the site if necessary in order to leave open, "neutral zone" areas for
noise buffers.
11
tJ(
attention should be paid to selecting appropriate sustainable vegetation to recreate the scenic resour.
value of the open space and hillside areas. [PL]
LANDSCAPE/OPEN SPACE/TRAILS
14. As part of Final Map approval, the dedication for ownership of the intermittent stream corridor, open
space and trail corridors shall be designated. No credit for these areas and improvements shall be
given towards parkland dedication requirements. All landscape within the open space and common
areas, including the intermittent stream corridor shall be subject to Site Development Review approval.
[P, PL, PW]
15. The project developer(s) shall comply with the applicable Open Space Policies of the General Plan and
Specific Plan and the City's Grazing Management Plan. The stream/open space corrtdor
improvements shall comply with the Specific Plan requirements and shall be submitted with Tentative
Map and/or Site Development Review applications for the project, whichever is submitted first. A
minimum 25 foot building setback :from the intermittent stream/open space corridors shall be
maintained wherever possible. Setbacks for this purpose shall be measured :from the edge of drainage
corridors as shown on Figures 4.1,6.2 and 7.33 of the Specific Plan. [PL]
16. A Community Homeowners Association shall be created for areas which contain residential
neighborhoods, and other areas with community improvements within Dublin Ranch and a Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Declaration") will be prepared and recorded. The .
Declaration will require that the Community Homeowners Association will manage and maintain sit
improvements as established by the Development Agreement required by the EDSP, including but not
limited to: the open space, including the intermittent stream/open space corridor and trails and
foreground hill areas within Area B; community and neighborhood entries, landscaping, parkway
areas, monumentation, water features, lighting, signage, walls and fences, landscaping, street trees,
street signs, walks, and street furniture. The Declaration will establish easements and other rights-of-
way necessary for the Community Association to fulfill its responsibilities. The Declaration will
specify that, as it pertains to the maintenance of site improvements described in the Development
Agreement, it cannot be amended without the consent of the City. One or more separate homeowners
associations may be needed for the individual residential areas for ownership and maintenance of
private improvements which are common to the particular residential areas but which are not for the
use of the entire community. [pL, ADM]
17. In order to optimize use and provision of open space in the project, trails, pedestrian pathways, fire
. access roads, bicycle lanes and access points shall be provided as illustrated on the LUDP/DPDP
recreation amenities/pedestrian circulation plan approved with this project. Convenient connections
and access points to these trails, intermittent stream corridors, open space, or other parks or circulation
system :from individual developments shall be provided, using signage and access points in centralized
locations with visible and clear access (minimizing areas hidden by structures), so that access to trails
occurs via prominent and visible trailhead markers. Methods to provide connections which are
strongly encouraged include greenbelts, parkways, landscaped perimeter areas and common areas, .
openings at ends of cul-de-sacs, and other private recreation facilities. Design of these areas is subje
to the review and approval of City Police, Fire, Parks and Community Services, Planning and Public
12
.
.
.
0r
23.
-
Works Departments, at the time of subdivision map arid Site Development Review. Design.s shall
comply with the Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan. [pL, PO, F, PW, P]
18.
Appropriate all weather surface for vehicular access to open space, various trail systems and some
residential areas, as shown on Exhibit A, shall be provided and maintained on a continuous basis, to
the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, Public Works Director and Community Development Director.
Trials shall be constructed to provide continuous routes linking residential projects, public areas and
existing or planned trails in the vicinity as depicted on the recreation amenities/pedestrian circulation
plan approved with the project. Additional trail segments may be required to be constructed in the
interim, to provide links or loops in areas lacking connections to ultimate trails, until complete trail
loops are constructed. [F, PW, PO, PL, P]
19.
All graded cut and fill slope areas shall be revegetated as described in Policy 6-22 of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, subject to Site Development Review approval. Interface slopes between
developed areas, or in common areas, shall be landscaped to the approval of the City, with special
consideration given to use of sustainable and attractive landscaping. Plant materials shall comply with
applicable standards ofthe City's WildfIre Management Plan. Meadow grasses may not be acceptable
in these areas. [pL, PW]
BUILDING
20.
All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit. [B]
PARKS AND RECREATION
21. The applicant shall comply with the City's Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 9.28 Dedication of Land
for Park and Recreation Purposes and the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan park dedication
and design requirements by either dedicating required acreage of park land, or paying park dedication
in-lieu fees, or providing a combination of both park land dedication and in-lieu fees based on the
maximum number of units proposed, prior to Final Map approval. Additional details regarding park
dedication shall be addressed in the development agreement for Areas B-E. [P, PW, PL]
22. Responsibilities for park construction will be addressed by the City's Park Implementation Plan. The
applicant has expressed a desire to design and construct park facilities with project development in
. Dublin Ranch. The City will consider the applicant's request to improve parks and receive credit for
those improvements. Additional details regarding park dedication and construction shall be addressed
in the development agreement for Areas B- E. [P, PW, PL]
The design, size and facilities needed for the Community Park shall be subject to the determination of
the City's Parks and Community Services Department, pursuant to the Park Implementation Plan.
Medium Density Housing shall be an approved alternate land use for the portion of the Community
Park illustrated on the LUDP with a " *** ", and residential development may be proposed for this
area if it is determined by the City that the land is not needed for use as a Community Park. The
13
l-
et}
26.
27.
28.
location and arrangement of the stream /open space corridor and collector road shall be subject to c..
review once the design, size and facility needs of the Community Park are determined.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
24. The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for
mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts (e.g. Applicant shall submit a
preconstruction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to verify the presence
of sensitive species. A biologist shall prepare the survey which shall be subject to Planning
Department review and approval). Any updated surveys and/or studies that may be completed by a
biologist prior to Tentative Map application shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application.
[PL]
I
TRAFFIC/PUBLIC WORKS
25.
Project shall be subject to all adopted standards and conditions of the Public Works Department.
Development shall comply with conditions of approval identified in Memorandum dated October 23,
1997, included as Attachment B-1. Any minor modifications to the City's roadway standards shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director
Installation of Roadways, Public Improvements and Infrastructure shall be completed by developer as
shown in proposed plan, or as modified by the requirements of the phasing plan, development .
agreements, traffic study, City, or service-providers' Improvement Plans. The Development
Agreement required for this project shall include details about the phasing and financing of
improvements, funding mechanism for maintenance of open space areas and Homeowners
Association maintenance. The phasing of improvements is subject to the approval of the affected City
Departments. The Development Agreement is required prior to approval of any tentative maps. [pL,
PW, ADM]
The applicant shall submit updated traffic studies with each Tentative Map application and the study
shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director. Appropriate traffic mitigation
measures will be identified and included as conditions of Tentative Map approval. Such traffic
mitigation may include, but not be limited to: [PW]
a. Traffic signalization
b. Roadway shoulder construction
.c. Frontage improvements
d. Pavement widening
e. Overlays of existing pavement
f. Dedications of right-of-way
g. Restriping
h. Installation of any improvements in phases
Where decorative paving is installed in public streets, pre-formed traffic signal loops and other utilitie.
shall be used under the decorative paving. Where possible, irrigation laterals shall not be placed under
14
LjV
.
30.
FIRE
31.
.
the decorative paving. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be considered in the
Development Agreement and a funding mechanism shall be developed which is acceptable to the City
Manager. Decorative paving plans shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application submittal
and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. [pW, ADM}
39.
Street lights on arterial streets shall be the City Standard cobra head luminaries with galvanized
poles. Where decorative lights are to be used on residential streets, these lights shall be designed
so as to not shine into adjacent windows, shall be easily accessible for purchase over a long period
of time (e.g. 30 or more years), and shall be designed so that the efficiency of the lights does not
require close spacing to meet illumination requirements. A street lighting plan demonstrating
compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application and shall be
subject to the Public Works Director's review and approval. [PW]
Street name signs shall display the name of the street together with a City Standard shamrock logo.
Posts shall be galvanized steel pipe or other material acceptable to the Public Works Director. A
street sign plan shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application and shall be subject to the
Public Works Director's review and approval. [PW]
The development shall comply with all Alameda County Fire Department (City of Dublin's Fire
ServiceIPrevention provider) fire standards, including minimum standards for emergency access roads
and payment of applicable fees, including a Fire Capital Impact Fee. This project shall be subject to
the additional (standard) conditions contained in the memorandum :from the Dublin Fire Prevention
Department, dated October 10,1997, included as Attachment B-2. [F]
32. Prior to approval of the fIrst tentative map, a vicinity plan for emergency access shall be provided,
subject to review and approval of the City and Alameda County Fire Department (City of Dublin's
Fire ServiceIPrevention provider). The plan shall be coordinated with the circulation Plan required by
Public Works to show access to projects for Fire Service, connections of new fire roads/trails to
existing and proposed roads, trails, structures, vegetation fuel load type, and water supply locations.
Details of improvements needed for accessibility beyond main roads, such as location, width, number
of access points to development, and off-site improvements, shall be reviewed and finalized to City's
acceptance prior to approval of fIrst tentative map.
33. "Fire Apparatus Access Roads" are needed to provide access and emergency service to structures and
.. buildings. "Fire RoadslTrails" are needed to provide access and emergency service to wildland
interface/open space areas and other public areas. The number and location of fIre roads required for
the Areas B-E project shall be reviewed as part of the vicinity plan noted above, and prior to approval
of the fIrst tentative map.
.
a.
A Fire Apparatus Access Road shall have a paved surface capable of supporting the imposed
load of a fire apparatus with a minimum clear width of20' and a vertical clearance of 13'6",
and shall provide for local drainage, subject to City approval. Fire Apparatus Access Roads
shall be provided to all structures/buildings, unless alternate means of fire protection is
15
~5
provided, subject to approval of the City and Alameda County Fire Department (City of
Dublin's Fire ServiceIPrevention provider).
.
b. Fire Roads/Trails shall be a minimum of 12' wide with a vertical clearance of 13 '6". An
additional 4' clear space shall be provided on each side of the fire road and shall be maintained
:free of obstructions. The road surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed weight of a
fire apparatus, must be provided with an all-weather surface, and shall provide for local
drainage, subject to City approval. Fire Roads/Trails shall be provided to all wildland
interface/open space areas and other public areas where necessary, subject to approval of the
City and Alameda County Fire Department (City of Dublin's Fire ServiceIPrevention
provider).
c. Additional fire access road width shall be provided at entry points, curves, anti/or connecting
points, as necessary for emergency apparatus operations.
d. Signs shall be posted on all fire roads/trails stating "FIRE ROAD ACCESS POINT - KEEP
CLEAR" .
34. The applicant shall comply with the City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan. A Vegetation plan
and maintenance management plan for buffer areas between the development and the wildland
interface areas shall be provided and subject to review of the City and Alameda County Fire
Department (City of Dublin's Fire ServiceIPrevention provider), prior to Site Development Review.
approval. Other Plan requirements may be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Dublin Ranch Area
B-E project. [F, PL, PW]
UTILITY/SERVICE PROVIDERSIPOSTAL SERVICES
35. The location and siting of project specific wastewater, storm drainage and potable water system
infrastructure shall be consistent with the resource management policies of the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. [pL, PW, DSR]
36. Applicant shall provide Public Service Easements per requirements of the City of Dublin and/or public
utility companies as necessary to serve this Areas B-E with utility services. [PW]
37. The applicant shall confer with local postal authorities to determine the required type of mail units and
provide a letter :from the Postal Service stating their satisfaction at the time the Tentative Map and/or
. Site Development Review submittal is made. Specific locations for such units shall be to the
satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Dublin Planning Department. [PL]
38.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide "will serve" letters :from appropriate
agencies documenting that adequate electric, gas, telephone and landfill capacity is available prior to
occupancy. [PL]
39.
Applicant shall work with LA VTA to establish the need, bus route(s), bus turnouts, bus stop sign
locations, bus shelter locations, and other transit amenities for this project prior to Tentative Map
.
16
~&
.
.
.
43.
-
and/or Site Development Review approval. Applicant shall design bus turnouts, transit she1ters and
pedestrian paths (sidewalks) consistent with the proposed LA VTA routes and stops and the City of
Dublin's requirements and standards prior to issuance of building permits for the residential units.
Conceptual design plans shall be submitted with the Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review
application submittal and subject to the Public Works Director review and approval. Construction
shall be undertaken as part of the street improvement work. [PW]
40.
NPDES: Developer shall comply with the requirements of the NPDES program. [PW]
41.
The applicant shall comply with all Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District-
Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees. [Zone 7, PW]
42.
The applicant shall comply with all Dublin San Ramon Services District requirements and applicable
fees, including but not limited to the following: [DSR, PL, PW]
a. Any new reservoir construction shall comply with DSRSD's requirements. [DSR, PW]
b. The project shall comply with the DSRSD Ordinance #276, establishing Recycled Water Use
Zone 1 in Eastern Dublin. A recycled water distribution system for the landscaping within the
project area shall be provided per the City of Dublin, Zone 7, and DSRSD requirements. The
landscaping areas must meet City of Dublin Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements.
[PW, Zone 7, DSR]
c. All on- and off-site potable and recycled water and wastewater facilities shall be constructed in
conformance with DSRSD Major Infrastructure Policy (Res. 29-94). The applicant shall submit
plans for the potable and recycled water and sewer system to service this development acceptable
to DSRSD, pay fees required by DSRSD and receive DSRSD's approval prior to issuance of any
building permit. Developer dedicated facilities shall be in conformance with the DSRSD Standard
Specifications and Drawings. [B, PW, DSR]
The applicant shall provide a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of the grading permit
for the grading that creates individual building sites, which states that the Dublin Ranch Phase I
project can be served by DSRSD for water and sewer prior to occupancy. [B, PW]
MISCELLANEOUS EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL EIR
MITIGATION MEASURES
44. The applicant shall comply with the City's grading ordinance. [PW]
45. The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements.
[ADM]
46.
The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR), respectively, that have not been made specific conditions of approval of this PD Rezone. [PL]
17
~1
MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS
.
47. The applicant shall pay all City of Dublin fees, including processing fees and development impact
fees, at the times specified in the applicable fee ordinance or resolution which are in effect at such
times. Development impact fees include but are not limited to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee,
the Freeway Interchange Fee, the Public Facilities Fee, the Noise Mitigation Fee, and the Fire Impact
Fee, and the contemplated fee for regional traffic improvements. Processing fees include but are not
limited to fees for adoption and implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1997.
..
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g/pa96-039/CCRESPDB
.
18
. ~'b
.
.
'.
2)
October 23, 1997
Dublin Ranch, Areas B - E Development Plan
Public Wor~ Recommended Conditions of Approval
1)
The developer shall be responsible for completing the off-site traffic improvements, that
are not already completed by others, as outlined in the traffic study prepared by TlKM
Transportation Consultants, entitled "A Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch
.Areas A - E", dated July 15, 1997 or as modified in future traffic studies. Improvements
will ultimately be required at build out of the development to mitigate traffic impacts and
to provide adequate capacity for the project. Installation of improvements shqll be phased
as needed to address actual impacts created by each phase of the development.
In conjunction with each Tentative Map for the project and the Development Agreement,
an updated traffic study shall be submitted. If a Master Tentative Map is submitted, the
requirement for this study shall be determined by the Director of Public Works. The
trat..:.ric study shall show the traffic impacts and necessary improvements needed to
mitigate impacts for each phase of the project. The traffic study shall be updated to
include actual traffic volumes, the anticipated traffic volumes of any projects with
approved zoning and the improvements to be installed by those projects. The traffic
study shall demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed street system and the need for a
second north-south collector street. If found necessary by the Director of Public Works, a
traffic study shall be submitted with each subsequent Tentative Map and further updated
to reflect actual traffic conditions and any projects with approved zoning at the time the
Tentative Map is submitted.
Improvements shall be installed in conjunction with the various phases of the projeccas
conditioned by each Tentative Map and the Development Agreement. If a Master
Tentative Map is submitted, the requirement for improvements shall be determined by the
Director of Public Vi orks. Improvements required of each phase shall be installed as a
condition of filing the first Final Map of that phase. Improvements shall be designed,
right-of-way acquisition and improvements guaranteed prior to filing the Final Map
associated with the improvements. Improvements shall be installed as specified in the
Tract Developer Agreement for the Final Map.
In order to plan for and construct the ex1:ension of Fallon Road across A.rea A, across
luea D and to an ultimate connection 'With Tassajara Road, the City \vill require the
follov,mg from the Developer: In conjunction \vith the first Tentative Map, the developer
shall submit an alignment and conceptual grading plan for the roadway ex1:ension. With
the recordation of the Final Map' that creates the .A.rea D parcel, right-of-way and
adequate slope easements shall be dedicated for Fallon Road across the Area D property
to the Clli-rent northernmost property line. The grading of Fallon Road across Area D
shall be accomplished with the grading of the adjacent portion of Area A, as required by
the iu-ea A Conditions of Approval. Construction of the Fallon Road street
improvements (as required by the Conditions of Approval for Area A) from the
1
FXHIBIT B-1',
41
northernmost intersection of Fallon, across the Area D parcel and tenninating ~t the
current northernmost property line shall be performed with the last phase of development .
of Area A.
3) The design shall conforni" to the City of Dublin Standard Conditions of Approval or
modifications of~em, the City of Dublin Standard Plans, and the Subdivision Map Act.
4) The precise alignment for all roadways is subject to change based upon the preliminary
nature of the plans submitted to the City for review and plan line studies currently being
developed by the City. The final design for the cross section of roadways shall be per the
Approved Specific Plan for Eastern Dublin.
,.'
5) The County of Alameda Ordinance, Section 902.2.1. requires that developments having
more than 75 units shall have "A minimum of two public or private access roads" and a
maximum of75 units -without a second access. The primary access to Area B shall be
using City streets. Access :from the freeway over an improved Fallon Road as the second
access point to Area B is acceptable if the primary access is over City streets. Access
solely :from Fallon Road via 1-580 is not acceptable.
In conjunction with each Tentative Map and the Development Agreement, the developer
shaH submit a fire services circulation plan for the project as required by the Director of
Public Works, indicating how the Alameda County Fire Department access requirements
will be met. The circulation plan shall include a phasing element tied to the proposed
phasing of the project. The plan shall demonstrate that off-site right-of-way can be
obtained to provide the two acceptable access routes. If the Developer has exhausted
private attempts to acquire right-of-way, the City shall use its powers of eminent domain,
at the Developer's expense, to acquire the needed property or waive the requirement. The
plan shall address the alignment and typical section for the e:\:tension of Fallon Road :fro~
1-580 to the north boundary of Phases B-C. -
.
6) The offset intersections of the north-south collector street shall be eliminated in favor of a
four-way intersection or the separation shall be in conformance with applicable traffic
studies, City Standards and to the approval of the Director of Public ",Torks.
7) The developer shall submit a preliminary drainage plan for the project in conjunction
with each Tentative Map and the Development Agreement as required by the Director of
Public Works. If a Master Tentative Map is submitted, the requirement for this plan shall
be determined by the Director of Public Works. The study shall address downstream
impacts, including the need for off-site easements, and shall be tied to the proposed
phasing for the project.
8)
Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all public streets. Sidewalk requirements on
private streets shall be determined at the Tentative Map or Site Development Review.
.
9) The first Tentative Ivfap shall show the location of a park-and-ride lot near the 1-
580/Fallon Road interchange, in conformance \/vith the Specific Plan.
2
.~
.
.
"
10)
With each Tentative Map the Developer shall show typical street sections as required by
the Director of Public Works. Street sections will be subject to review and approval by
the City when the map is submitted.
g:\d:ve I op\d ubranch \sp coapdb
. .'
3
<6f
Date: October 10, 1997
To: Tasha Huston asso. Planner
From: Russell Reid Fire Inspector
Subject: Dublin Ranch Area A and Area B,E fire department conditions
.
The following are standards ,conditions and comments to be introduced in the requfrement for the
Dublin Ranch Project.
COM.M:ERCL.\L
1.DSRSD standard steamer type (1-4-W' and 1-2- W' outlet)fire bydrant(s) are required. (UFC
1994, Sec 903.2.)
2. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Identify the fire hydraIlt locations by installing reflective "blue
dot" markers adjacent to the hydrant 6 inches off center from the middle of the street. (UFC.
1994, Sec. 90L4.3c as amended).
3.Provide access to open space and fire trails that may be obstructed by the new development.
(lJFC 1994).
4.Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. of the most remote frrst floor eA"1erior
wall of any building. ({JFC 1994). -
5.Fire apparatus roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of20 feet and an
unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide
shall be posted "With signs or shall have red curbs painted \\rith labels on one side; roadways
under 28 feet ",ride shall be posted 'with signs or shall have red curbs painted \vith labels on both
sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LA.:N""E - CVC 22500.1 ". The subject signs
shall be designed as per the luameda County Fire Department guild lines. (F 1994, Sec.
902.2.2.1).
6.Fire apparatus roadways must be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fire apparatus
and must be provided with an all weather lli-iving surface. Only naved slli-races are considered to
be all weather driving surfaces. (1994, Sec. 902.2.2.2).
7.T:l1e maximum grade for a fire apparatus roadway is 20% except for the following .
conditions:Grooved concrete or rough asphalt over 15% grade. (Sec. 902.2.2.2).
8.Fire apparatus road"ways in excess of 150 feet in length must make provisions for approved
appfu-atus turnarounds, or alternate means offire protection (UrC 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.3).
:::vurol'"'t"" 0 ~
.
.
.
iJ:Y
.::
9. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Fire apparatus roadways must be installed, and fire hydrants in service, prior to the
commencement of combustible framing:
10. PRlOR TO TIIE CONfMENCEJ..1ENT OF FRAMING, CONTACT THE AL.A.MEDA
COUN"TY FIRE DEP .A..RTMENT, CITY OF DUBLW, FIRE PREVENTION DNISION, TO
SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION OF ROADWAYS AND FIRE HYDRANTS. (UFC 1994, SEe
1001.4) fIO
11. NOTE ON FIELD PL.4.N:
Provide a weed abatement program before, during and after construction for vegetation 'within
100 feet It om combustible construction and 30 feet from the street and property lines. (UFC
1994, Sec. 1103.2.4.) ill
I2.Temporary access roads at con.:.-truction sites may be permitted in accordance 'with i\rticJe 87,
Ute 1994; however, permission for tempoTaly access roads must be by Fire DeDal1ment permit
(Ul:'C 1994, Section 8704.2, EXCEPTION). . .
13. Pno; to the issuance of a Building Permit, a full set of building plans must be sUDmined 10
the .AJ3..!.LJeda County Fire Dep3.J.-tment, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, for review and
approval. (UFC 1994,. Sec.. 901.2.2., 1001.3) f13
14. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, proposed plans must be submitted: to the
. AJameda County Fire Dep3.J.-rment, Dublin, for review and approval. (UBC/CBC 1994, Sec.
106.3.2 & :I.JBC 1001.3 & 901.2.2). 114
15. NOTE ON FIELD PLA.1\!:
.AJI construction equipment/machinery/devices v.rith internal combustion engines shal11Je
equipped with approved spark 3.J."Testors while operating in this project area Il6
16. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a
position 2S to be plainly visible and legible from the street or TOad fronting the property. Said
numbers shall contr2..st 'with their background. Individual s~te numbers shall be permanently
posted on the main entrance doors oftenant spaces. (UFC 1994, Sec. 901.4.4).
17. NOTE ON FI r- LD PLW:
lirear outside doors to tenant spaces are installed, they shall include the illi.'""tallatioD ofnumencal
, ,. ... . . 1 d . ~ ~m bui!'. fTTI:'C 100.1.
aoaress numDers correSDonOlDcr to aOOIessmcr ocate on the Iront or e , nmQ:. \.UJ. _....~-+,
... ='::> -
Sec. 901.4.4).
18. }.."y/all new street n3.J.-nes and addressincr shall be subinitted for aPDroval to the
~ ..
AniTJi";~w.ative Mapping Division of me Alameda County Fire Dep3.J.-nnent, CiTY of Dublin, Fire
Prevention Division. (liFe 1994, 901.4)
19. .A..ny/all gates across Fire Dep2.J.-u:nent access ways shall have a minimum 12 foot clear,
. ~,,..t"" T ..~;- '\vldth and a clear vertical height of 13 feet 6 inches. All locking devices
7fl;
shall provide for Fire Dep2.L"1ment emergency access. All gate plans shall be approved..
Prevention Division.prior to construction. (UFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.4 & 902.2.2.1) f27
20. Bridges: Maximum live loads shall be clearly posted at bridge entrance(s). J\1inimum live
standards are as follows:
21. Private bridge serving not over two R-3 occupancies =40,000 pounds and 12 foot clear wid
with minimum 13 feet 6 inches clear vertical height
Private bridge serving over two R-3 occupancies - 40,000 pounds and minimum 20 foot clear
width. All public bridges - minimum 20 foot clear width and minimum 80,000 pounds live loac
UFe, Sec 902.2.4.2 Alameda County Fire Department Ordinance #1-95)..
. . .&..
22. The minimum number of access roads serving residential development(s) shall be b2Sed on
the number of dwelling units served and shall be 2S follows:
1-25 units, one public access road.
26-74 units, one public access road and one emergency vehicle access (EVA) road.
75+ units, at least two public access roads. (UFe 1994, Sec. 902.2.1)
23. Buildings 35 feet and over in height above natural grade, the required access roadway shall
be a minimum of 26 feet in width and shall be positioned parallel to at least one entire side oftb:,'
buil ding, and shall be located within a minim~ of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet fro.
building. (UFC 1994, Sec. 902..2.2.1 EXCEPTION, paragraph 2) f31 .
24. Adjacent to :fire hyiliants, access roadways shall be a minimum of28 feet in width for at lea'.
20 feet in both directions from the fire hyili-ant. (tJFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.1 FXCEPTION, .
paragraph 2)
25. A.ll approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout.
......
g-'-'
26. Plans, specifications, equipment lists and calculations for the required sprinkler system must:
be submitted to the Alameda County Fire Depfu-tment, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division,
ror review and approval prior to installation. A sepa..-ate plan review fee ....riU be collected upon
review or these plans. (UFC, 1994, Sec. 1001.4)
27. Prior to installation, plans and specifications ror the underground fire service line must be
submitted to the ~AJameda County Fire Depa..-o:nent, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, for,
revie'.v and approval. CUrC, 1994, Sec. 1001.4)
28. Prior to installation oftbe ceilina or any other concealment or overhead Dining:, contact
:;;. ~ - ~
Alameda County Fire Dep3.J."1ment to schedule an inspection of me overhead sprinkler piping.
ru'"FC, 1994, Sec. 1001.4) .
HOuKS NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR .AlL INSPECTIONS
29. Residential Automatic Fire E:;...1:inguishing Sprinkler Systems are required 2S rollows: City oi.:
Dublin: Over 5,000 sq.ft; City orDublin: Occupancies located more than 1.5 miles from a fire ";
.::.i.ation 2.S me2Sured in a straight line.
.
.
.
..
9Y
30. Sprinkler systems serving more than 100 heads shall be monitored by an app;C;ved centr
station, U.L.listed and cerJficated for fire alann monitoring. A copy of the U.L.listing mu
provided to the Alameda County Fire Department, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division,
prior to scheduling thefmal test system. (UFC, 1994, Sec. 1003.3 as amended). f40
31. The water supply information used to design this system was not provided by this
Depas.~ent. Final acceptance of this fire sprinkler system 'will be contingent upon successfu
completion of a main drain test at the time of final to verify adequate flow and pressure.
Correction or mitigation ofa deficient water supply will be the responsibility of the contracto:
and must be resolved prior to final approval of the installation.
32. An underground fire.~eivjce system shall be subject to field inspection;:.hydrostatic presslll
tested (200 psi min. for 2 hrs.) and flushed prior to being buried or connected to the overhead
sprinkler system. (no exceptions) (NFPA-13, 1989, Sec. 1-10.1; 1-10.2; 1-11.1.1; 1-11.2)
34. Overhead sprinkler systems including any riser shall be subject to field inspection and a
bydrostatic pressure test (200 psi min. for 2 brs.) prior to concealment. (No exceptions) (N"FP~~
13,1989, Sec. 1-10.1; 1-10.2; 1-11.2)
35. All system control valves shall be provided 'with their appropriate label (metal), and securel:
fastened to the valve. iillY control valve that may be obstructed by cover plates or doors shall
bave an additional label affixed to the cover plate or door. (NFPA-13, 1989)
36. /m approved automatic fue alazm system is required. Plans, specIDcations and other
information pertinent to the system must be submitted to the Department for review and approvz
prior to installation. A sepas.-ate plan review fee 'Will be collected upon review of these plas.'"lS.
Guidelines for plans submittal are attached. (P..RT. 10, u"FC 1994, Sec. 1001.3)
37. A.1l approved manual :fire ala.:.-m system is required. Plans, specifications and other
information pertinent to the system must be submitted to the Department for review and approvz
prior to installation. A sepas.-ate plan review fee 'will be collected upon review or these plans.
Guidelines ror plans submittal are a~L2.ched. (iilt.. 10; UFC 1994, Sec. 1001.3)
38. An approved manual and automatic Ere ala.:.-m system is required. Pla.:."1S, specifications and
other information pertinent to the system must be submitted to the Department ror review and
approval prior to installation. A sepa.:.-ale plan review fee will be collected upon review ort..1)ese
pl2IlS. Guidelines ror plan submittal are attached. (.Art. 10, LJ"FC, 1994, Sec. 1001.3)
39. Tne number and location of audible devices shov,'Il on the plans appear to be adequate,
however, final acceptance or the system is contingent upon successful testing at the th-ne or:5na
to veili"Jr audibility. Additional devices may be required at that time.
40. The required fue ala.:.'"1Il system must be monitored by an approved central system, D.L. liste
and certificated for fire ala.:.'"1Il monitoring. A copy orthe D.L. listing must be provided to the
Depas.-trnent prior to scheduling the final test of the system.
~7
41. Prior to occupancy. the Depar"LITlent must witness a iinal test Final test y,.'ill in~lude
verification of monitoring. 24 HOT.JRS NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR ALL TESTS OR .
INSPECTIONS
42. All commercial type cooking equipment must be protected by an approved automatic flIe
extinguishing system (hood and duct). (UFC, 1994. Sec.l006.2)
43. Plans for the required hood and duct e}.1inguishing system must be submitted to the
Department for review and approval prior to installation. A separate plan review fee will be
collected upon review of these plans. (UFC, 1994, See.1 001.4)
44. Provide at least one 2A 10BC portable Ere extinguisher for each 6000 sq.ft. of floor area
Travel distance to an extinguisher shall not exceed 75 feet of travel distance and shall not be
between floors. (UFC, 1994, Sec. 1002.1)
45. Provide specific address including any pe.,.+;.....ent suite. space or room numbers. (U'r'C'C 199.1
_ .LI..UJ. ir. ..
Sec. 901.4.4)
46. FEE FOR TillS REVIEW Plan review fees are payable prior to review of plans. THE
fi..PPLICA.NT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PA 'YMENT OF THIS FEE TO THE ALAlviEDA
COVNlY FIRE DEP ARThffiNT, CIIY OF Du""BLIN, FIRE PREVENTION. PA Y1\1ENT .
FIRE IMPACT FEES SHOULD BE ]vUillE PRIOR TO OBTA.I1\TING PERMITS.
47. A Knox Box key lock system is required { } is not required { } for the building.
Applications are available at the iuameda County Fire Department, Fire Prevention Division,
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. Plecse retlli-n the completed application with the building
plans v,chen you submit for a permit or prior to final inspection for occupancy. (Section 10.203
u~q. _
48. Fire bydrants in commercial andlor industrial arecs or in residential areas comprised
primarily of condominiums, townhouses or ap3.t"1:ments, shall be spaced every 3 00 feet Fire
bycL.-ants may be required to be placed at closer intervals to conform to street intersections or
unusual street curvatures.
49. Divided street shall bave bydrants on both sides of the street and shall, wbere applicable, be
installed in alternate or staggered positions so that bydrants will not be directly across from each
other. Svacincr criteria sball be maintained on each side of the street. Hydrants in median strips
. ~
a7e not permitted.
.
.
.
..
/}
AP AR Th1ENTS/CONDOMINIUMS
I. DSRSD standard steamer type (I -4-1/2" and I _2_1/2" outlet)fIre hydrant(s) are required. CUFC 1994, Sec
903.2.)
2. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Identity the fIre hydrant locations by installing reflective "blue dot"
markers adjacent to the hydrant 6 inches off center from the middle of the street. CUFC 1994, Sec.
901.4.3c as amended).
3. Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. of the most remote fITSt floor exterior wall of
any building. (UFC 1994).
4. Fire apparatus roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of20 feet and an unobstructed
vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with
signs or shall have red curbs pa~ted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide sh~ll. be
posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: "NO
STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1". (F 1994, Sec. 90222.1).
5. Fire apparatus roadways must be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fITe apparatus and must
be provided with an all weather driving surface. Only naved surfaces are considered to be all weather
driving surfaces. (1994, Sec. 902.2.2.2).
6. The maximum grade for a fITe appa.-atus roadway is 20% except for the following conditions:
Grooved concrete or rough asphalt over 15% grade. (Sec. 902.22.2).
7. Fire appa.-atus roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must make provisions for approved apparatus
turnarounds. (UFC 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.3).
8. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Fire appa.-atus roadways must be installed, and fITe hydrants in service, prior to the commencement of
corn bustible framing:
PRlOR TO THE COMMENCEME1'\'T OF FRA.MING, CONTACT 'IRE ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTh1ENT, CITY OF DUBLIN, FIRE PREVE:N"TION DIVISION, TO SCHEDULE AN
INSPECTION OF ROADWAYS AND FIRE HYDRA..NTS. (UFC 1994, SEC. 1001.4)
9. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Provide a weed abatement program before, during and after constrUction for vegetation within 100 feet
from combustible construction and 30 feet from the street and property lines. (UFC 1994, Sec.
1] 03.2.4.)
10. Temporary access roads at constrUction sites may be permitted in accordance with Article 87, UFC
1994; however, permission for temporary access roads must be by Fire Department permit. (UFC
1994, Section 8704.2, EXCEPTION).
1]. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a full set of building plans must be submined to the
Alameda County Fire Depa.-nnent, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, for review and approval.
(UFC 1994, Sec.. 901.1..2., 1001.3)
~1
12. Prior to Ih~ issuanc~ of a Building hrmir, propos~d pl~.J1s must b~ submin~d: to th~ Alameda Co-unry
fir~ D:::panmenr, Dublin, for review and approval. (UBC/C3C 1994, Sec. 1 063.1 & UBC J 00 1..3 &
901.2.2).
.
13. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
All construction equipment/machinery/devices with internal combustion engines shall be equipped with
approved spark arrestors while operating in this project area.
14. If development interfaces with wildland or open space aT25, a separate landscape plan for vegetation
ruel modification and/or buffer zone(s) featuring fire resistive wd drought tolerant varieties is required to
be submined and approved by the Alameda County Fire Department, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention
Division, prior to issuance of grading and building permits. Tne zone(s) should be shown/designared z.s
separate lettered lots.
.. -:
The plan shall include dedicated ez.sements for e~ergency and maintenance acc~s to these zones. Tne
mainrenance, in perperuitv. for the zones and emergency/maintenance access ways shall be zssigned to a
homeowner's association or other aooroved aCten!. .
.. :::>
These responsibilities shall be disclosed to properry owner(s) by way of deed restrictions andlor covenants,
conditions and restrictions. (1991 NFPA Std. 299).
15. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
If yard fencing is to be insralled, it shall be or non-combustible consm:Jction at any/all interfaces with
wildland/ope;) space access.
J 6. NOT~ ON FIELD PLAN:
Approv::d numbers or address::s shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as IO
be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting me properlY. Said numbers shall cont:ra5t
with their background. Individual suite numbers shall be permanently posted on the main entrance doors
of tenanr spaces. (UFe 1994, Sec. 901.4.4).
.
..
J7. For Domes consm:Jcted ofrype V-NR under 3600 sg.fL, 2. minimum of 1000 gpm fire DOW at a
minimum 10 psi for a two hour duration snaH be sumciard.
'::..
For homes constrUcted ofrype V-NR 3600 sq.ft. and unDer 4800 sq.fL, a minimum 1750 gpm fire DOW at a
minimum 10 psi for a two hour duration shall be sIanciard.
For homes rrom 4800 sa.?-... to 6100 sa.ft., a minimum of1000 5)m at 10 psi for two hour duration shall be
." -...
standard.
All homes over 5000 sq.fL will have an approved residential aUlomatic fire extinguishing sprinkler system
(in addition to required fire flows) iDstalJeo.
J 8. NOT~ ON r=-ELD PLA..."N:
Approved spark arrestors shall be ii157al!ed on each chimneyifj~eivent used for fireplaces and heating
appliances in which solid or liquid fuel is used. (Ur=-C 1994, J J 09.7)
19. NO i:.:. ON FELD PLAN:
Approved smoke detector(s) shall be installed acco,oing to cu:rrenI U3C standards.. CUBC 1994, Se::.
12JO)
.
10. Anyhll new SiTeet na17les and adcir~sing shall besubi7lirred ror approval ID the Adminisuative
Mapping Division of the Alameda CounI)' r=-ire DepaJW1enL. City ofDubIin, r=-ire Prevenrion Division.
(UrC 1994,901.4)
~ ;~
.
.
.
"
t/I
21. Any/all gat:s across Fire Depamnenr access ways shall have a minimum 12 foot clear, unobslTUcred
jin~:lr width and a ckar vertical height of 13 feet 6 inches. All locking devices shall provide for Fire
Depamnenr emergency access. All gate plans shall be approved by the Fire Prevention Division prior to
conslTUction. (UFe 1994, Sec. 9022A & 90222.1)
?? A driveway access serVing one dweIlinglstnlcrure shaJJ have a minimum 12 foot unobslTUcted linear
width, providing all portions of the first floor are within 150 feet of the required standard 20 foot minimum
"C'::5S road.
:\ driveway access serving two dweIling/sD1Jcrures shall have a minimum 12 foor unobsD1Jcted linear
width.
A driveway acc~s serving rhree Dr mDre .dwellinglstnlcrures shall have a minimum 20 foot unDb~FUcted
iin:=ar width.
.-\1l driveway acc::ss snaIl meet Fir:: Depamnent s!aIldards fDr di5i:ance, wdght loads, turn rodius, grades,
:':..'1d vertical clearance. ApprDved rurnarounds shall be required for disranc::s Dver 150 feet frDm approved
zc::::ss roans. Other mitigations shaWmay be required in addition to those listed. (UFC 1994, S:::c. 9022 zs
2l11ended)
23. Tne minimu;n number of access roads serving residential development(s) snaIl be ozsed on the number
of dwelling units served and snaIl be as follows:
c.. J-25 u!:its, one public acc=:ss road.
O. 26-74 units, one public access road and one emergency vehicle access (EVA) road.
c. 75+ units, at J~!:Wo public :access roads. cu?e 1994, Sec. 9022.1)
]4. For buildings 35 reet and over in height above natural gi3de, !he required aCl:ess roadway shall be a
minimum of26 reet in width and shall be positioned pa.-all:l to aT le~t one entire side ofrhe building, and
5~;).J1 be 102ted wirhin a minimum of 15 reet and a maximum of25 feet from the building. (utC 1994,
S~:. 902..2.2.1 EXCEPTION, pal-c.graph 2)
-::;. Adjacent to fire hydrants, access rDadways shall be a minimum of28 feet in width for at kzst 20 reet
ill oDth directions [10m the fire hydrant (uFC I994, Sec. 9022.2. J EXCEPTION, p2J-agra.ph 2)
::5. Plans, specificarions. equipmenllists and calculations rDr the required sprinkler sysrem must be
submined to the Al2J-neoa County Fir: Departmenr, Cil)' of Dublin, Fir: Prevention Division, for review
and approval prior to installation. A sep2J-are plan review fee will be collecred upon re\'iew of these plans.
(U?C. J 994, Sec. 1001.4)
27. Prior to installation, plans aJld specifications for the underground fire service line must be submitted to
me Alameda Coumy Fire Depa.unenr, City ofDuolin, Fire Prevention Division, for review and approval.
(LJ?C. 1994, Sec. JOO1.4)
2S. ?.-iDr to installaIion ofme ceiling or 2Jj)' other concealment of overbead piping, contact Alame:::a
(Dunty rire Dep2J-unent to schedule an iT'specIion DT me overnead sprinkler piping. (UFC, 1994, Sec.
IDOlA)
24HOURS NOTICE IS ~QUlRE.D FOR ALL INSPECTIONS
29. Residential AutomatIc rire S;:Iinguishing Sprinkler Systems are required as :ollows: City of Dublin:
Over 5,000 sq.rT.; City of Dublin: Occupancies iDeated more u~aI1 1.5 miies from a fire STation 2.S me.asured
in 2. sL-aight line.
01
:;0. Sprinkkr systems serving more than 100 heads shall be moriilOred by an ap?rovd cenU21 s;:ztion. U.L.
Ested and certificzted for fire alarm monitoring. A copy of tile U.L. listing ml!sr be provided to tile -
Alameda COUDry fire Department, Ciry of Dublin, fire Prevention Division, prior to scheduling the final
resr system. (UfC. I 994, Sec. J 003.3 as amended).
.
.) I. The sprinkler system shall incorpoiare a landscape irrigation conrrol system 2S.explained in our Design
Guidelines for residential sprinkkr systems.
32.. Residenrial sprinkler systems using CPVClPolyburyJene pipe shall be required to adhere IO the
following:
a.. With plan submittal, include employee Cerrificate ofInstaIJer Training in a course of
insrruction on the in~Iallarion ofa CPVClPolybmylene fire sprinkk:r system.
b. Each employee working on me job site shall have his Certificarion Card on hiS' person
and available for inspection at all times.
c. The installarion of a CPVCfPolyburylene rype fire sprinkler system shall be according to
the manuracrurer's recommended insrallarion instructions.
d. Prior to tile SIar&: of installation, each installer working on the job site shall provide an
example ofh:s pipe firring ro tile Depa.-rmenr having jurisdiction; me test sample shall be
2.!sembled in the field at the job site and witnessed by a fire Department Inspector. The
test samp/:: shall include the 2Ssembling of a piece of pipe to a fining.
Tne only cutting process recogniz::d by the Fire Department for use with a
CPVC/Polybut)'lene fire sprinkler systems is a rube currer designed for plastic.
.
r. All pipe snaIl be deburred and beveled prior to 2Ssembly.
.;-'. An underground fir:: seryice system shall be subject to field inspection, hydrostaric pressure tested
(200 psi min. Tor 2 hrs.) and flusned prior to b::ing buried or connected to the overhead sprinkler syst::m.
(no exceprior.s) (NFPA-13, 1989, Sec. 1-10.1: 1-10.2; 1-11.1.1; I-I 1.2)
--
~~. Overnead spJinkler sysrer.1s inciuding any riser snall be subject to fidd inspecrion and a hyci.ros~tic
pressure l::st (200 psi min. for 2 hrs.) prior to concealment (No exceptions) (N?P A-13, 1989, Sec. ] - J 0.1;
1-10.2: 1-11.2)
35. A sprinkler conrractor shall provide? box of spare sprinklers in accorDance with Sec. 3- 16.7 to be
lo::ared a1 riser location, and shall provide an ovmer's manual as well as a copy ofNfPA-13A in
a::cordance with Sec. J-52 which shall also be located at riser. (N?PA-13, 19S9)
36. An approved automatic fire alarm system is required. Plans, specific3tions and otner information
?errinenr to the system must be submined 10 the Depai.:mem for review and approval prior to ins~Jlation.
A separate plan review fee will be collected upon review of tneSe pJ2ns. Guideiines for plans submiT...al are
;;.";:ached. (ART. 10, U?C 1994, Sec. 1001-3)
37. An appTDved manual iire ala.111 system is required. Plans, specifications and other information
?errinent TO L.~e system mllst be submined to the Depa.-rment for review and approval prior to installation.
A sep2.J-ate Dlan review fee will be collec!ed UDon review ofmese plans. Guidelines for ulans submiw:al are
.. *" .....
:arcached. (Art. JO; U?C 1994, Sec. 1001.3)
.
'.
38. An approved manual and automatic iire alarm system is required. Plans, specifications and ocher
informacion pe,-..inent 10 the system must be submirred to the De?alullent for review and approval pTior to
.
.
.
(pb
;::s:z/Jarion. A se?zrare plan review fee will be coJlecled upori.j-eview of these pJ2I1s. Guid=lines for pIa!)"
s:1;,minaJ are d~ch::d. (Art. 10, UFC, 1994, Sec. 10DL3)
':9. Tne number and location of audibk devices shown on the plans appear!O be adequale, however, final
:J:;cepIance oftne system is contingent upDn successful testing at the rime of final i:O.veritY audibiliry.
Addirional devices may be required at that rime.
'::0. The required fire alarm system must be monitored by an approved central system, V.L. listed and
ceiLificated for fire alarm monitoring. A CDpy of the U.L. listing must be prDvided to the Depanment priDr
to scheduling the final test of the system.
~ 1. Smoke deleCrOr5 used in lieu of one-hour rated consrruction for tenant cDrridors in accordance with
UBC. 1994, Sec. J 005.7 shall be spaced in accordance with their listings and wired so that when one
sounds they all sDund. A functional t;nhall be made during inspectiDn. Tnis exceptiDn will Dnlx.. be used
in srruc!Ures protected with an auromatic sprinkler system throughout .
~2. Smoke derecrors used for activating autDmatic closing fire rated doors shall be approved and Ijsted fDr
dODr rele2.5e service and shall be located in accordance with NrPA 72-E, Sec. 9-5 (copy arrached).
(C3C1UBC 1994, 5e:;. 1005.S.1).
.E Provide spe:;ifjc address including any per.:in~nt suire, space or room numbers. (UrC, 1994, 5~::.
901.4.4)
~. =:Jevawrs m!.!St conrorm to me provisions or Chap. ':;0 of the UFC 1994. Tne Fire Depamn~nt srrongly
~~cDmmends r.l;z! at least one ~JevatDr be Dfa size mar will a:;commodate one gumey and three arrenoants.
':;5. FEE FOR THIS REVIEW IS:
?Jan review fe~ <1re payable prior to review Dr plans. L HE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
?A YhENT Of THIS FEE TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARThfLEN'T, CITY OF DU3LIN,
?IRE PRE\SNT10N. PA YM=:f.I'T OF FIRE IMPACT FEES SHOULD BE MADE PRlOR TO
03T ArNING P=:RMITS.
~6. Fire hydrants shall be spa:;ed every 400 linear feet in residential areas cDmprised primarily Dfwell
s?aced. zve:cge single family Dwellings.
':"7. Fire hydrants in commer::ial and/or inDust;ial areas or in r~sidenrjal areas cDmprised primarily oT
:ondDminiums. rownhouses or apaITments, shall be spa:;ed every 300 f~~l Fire hydrants may be required
iO be placed at closer intervals ID conform tD SITeet intersections or unl!sual srreet curvarures.
.~S. Divided SLTeet shall have hYcLants Dn both sides of the SLTeet and shall, where applicabk, be ins~lJ~d in
::.]t::mate or sL2ggered positions SD that hydrants will not be dire:::tly across from e2ch Dmer. SpacL:g
=iteria shaIl be wainC2ined on ~a::h side afme Si:reet. Hvcira."1ts in median strips are nDt D~nnined.
~ .'
:::.::SIDE;-;TIAL SINGLE FAMILY
1. DSRSD standzrd steamer !)?e (J-4-l}2" and 1-2-'/;' ourler)fire hydram(s) ar~ required. CUfe 19.94, Se::
903.2.)
bf
"")
NOTE 0;'\ FIELD PLAN: Identify the fire hydrant locations by installing reflective "blue dot" markers
adjacent to the hydrant 6 inches off center from the middle of the street. (UFC I 994, Sec. 90 1.4.3c as
amended)..
.
-'. Provide access to open space and fire nails that may be obstructed by the new development. (UFC 1994).
4. Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. of the most remote first floor exterior wall of any
building. CUFC 1994).
5. Fire apparatus roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of10 feet and an unobstructed ver1ical
clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall
have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall
have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC
??500.1". (F 1994, Sec. 901.1.1.1).
6. Fire apparatus roadways must be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fIre apparatus an? must be
provided with an all weather driving surface. Only Daved surfaces are considered to be all weather driving
surfaces. (1994, Sec. 902.2.2.1).
7. The maximum grade for a fIre apparatus roadway is 10% except for the following conditions:
Grooved concrete or rough asphalt over 15% grade. (Sec. 901.2.1.1).
8. Fire apparatus roadways in excess of ISO feet in length must make provisions for approved apPa.-atus
turnarounds. (UFC 1994, Sec. 901.1.1.3).
9. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Fire apparatus roadways must be installed, and fIre hydrants in service, prior to the commencement of
combustible framing:
.
PRlOR TO TIffi COMMENCEMENT OF FRAMING, CONTACT mE ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT, CITY OF DUBLIN, FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION, TO SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION
OF RO.A.DWA YS AND FIRE HYDRA..NTS. (UFC 1994, SEC. 1001.4)
] O. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Provide a weed abatement program before, during and after construction for vegetation within 100 feet from
combustible construction and 30 feet from the street and property lines. (UFC 1994, Sec. II 03.1.4.) ~
II. Tempora."y access roads at constrUction sites may be permined in accordance with Article 87, UFC 1994;
however, permission for temporary access roads must be by Fire Deparnnent permit. CUFC 1994, Section
&704.1, EXCEPTJO~T).
11. Prior to the issuance ofa Building Permit, a full set of building plans must be submined to the Alameda Counry
Fire Depa.-nnent, City of Dublin, Fire Prevention Division, for review and approval. (UFC 1994, Sec.. 901.2.2.,
1001.3)
.13. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
All conStrUction equipment/machinery/devices with internal combustion engines shall be equipped with
approved spark arrestors while operating in this project area. .
14. If development interfaces with wildland or open space areas, a separate landscape plan for vegetation fuel
modification and/or buffer zone(s) featuring TIre resistive and drought tolerant varieties is required to be
submined and approved by L1e Alameda COUDty Fire Deparnnent, Ciry of Dublin, Fire Prevention
.
g: corr::sp! g b/firecon2
.
.
.
bY
Division, prior 10 issuance of grading and building permirs. .Th~ zone(s) should bc shown/designated zS
Se?L!r.:Jle lenered lors.
Tne plan shall include dedicated easements for emergency and maintenance acce:>::; to these zones. Tne
maintenance, in DCTTJcruirv. for the zon::s and emergency/maintenance acc::ss ways shall be assigned to a
homeowner's association or other approved agenr.
Tnese responsibilities shall be disclosed to property owner(s) by way of deed resrrictions and/or covenants,
conditions and restrictions. (1991 NFPA Srd. 299).
15. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
If yard fencing is to be installed, it shall be or non-combustible consInlcrion at anylall inrerfaces with
wildland/open space access.
- "
16. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN:
Approved number:> or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position 25 IO
be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said number:> shall connot
with their background. Individual suite numbers shall be permanently posted on the main enrrance doors
ofrenanr spaces. (UFe 1994, Sec. 901.4.4).
17. ror homes consrrucred orrype V-NR under 3600 sg.ft., a minimum of J 000 gpm fire flow at a
illinimum 20 psi for a nv.) hour duration shall be standard.
;:or homes constrUcted of type V-NR 3600 sq.ft. and under 48DO sq.rL, a minimui:1 1750 gpm fire flow at a
;uinimum 20 Fsi for a tv.:., hDur QUiation shall be s--.zndard.
Z:or homes from 4800 sg.ft. to 6200 sq.ft., a minimum of2oo0 gpm at 20 psi fDr rwo hour duration shall be
scan dard.
All hom~ over 5000 so.ft. wilJ have an approved residential automatic fire extinguishing sprinkler system
.. .. ..
(in addition to required fire flDws) installed.
] S. NO 1 .:::. ON i="ELD PLAN:
.~.pproved spark a.,"Testors shall be insLaIJeo Dn each chimneylfjuelvenr used rDr fireplaces and hearing
~?plianc~ in whid1 solid or iiquid fuel :s used. CUre 1994, 1109.7)
19. NOE ON FIELD PLAN:
Approved smoke detector(s) shall be insLalled according to current U3C standards. (UBC 1.994, Sec.
12JO)
.20. Any/all new street nam::s and addressing shall be submined for approval 10 the Adminisuariv::
fy~ap?ing Division of me AlameDa Coun!)' rire Depa.""1ment, Ciry ofDubJin, Fire Prevention Division.
CU?e J 994, 901.4)
.:: 1. A driveway acc::ss serving one dw::HingJsrrucrure shall have a minimum P fODt unobsnucred iinear
-,,-iam, pmviciin~ all pDrtions of me fiG! floor are within 150 reet of the required standard 20 fDot minL.-num
zccess road.
.A. driveway access serving ,"-'0 dweliingisInlcrures shall have a minimum 1:2 fODL unoDsnucred linear
...;;iam. .
A drivew2)" access serving three or more dweJiingJsL-ucrures shall have a minimum :W root unobstructed
iinear wid:h.
Ii1
bY
.:ill..drivewzy J::::ess shall meel fire De?zii.ment si.andan:is ror dis,an.:::, w::ighl loads, rum radius. giad6,
and verrical cl::~Llnce. Approved turnarounds shall be required for distances over 150 feet from approved
ac.:ess Toads. Orner mitigations shall/may be required in addition IO those listed. (UFe 1994, Sec. 902.2 as
am::nded)
.
.,..., The minimum number of access roads serving residential developmenr(s) shall be based on Ibe number
of dwelIing units served and shall be as follows:
2. 1-25 units, one public access road.
b. 26-74 units, one public access road and one emergency vehicle acc::sS (EVA) Toad.
c. 75+ units, at least two public access roads. (UFe 1994, Sec. 9022.1)
13. Adjacent 10 fire hydrnnts, access roadways shall be a minimum of28 fee! in width for at least 20 feet
in both directions from the fire hydra~t. (UFe 1994, Sec. 902.2.2.1 EXCEPTION, paragraph 2) .
24. Residential Automatic fire Extinguishing Sprinkler Systems are required as follows: City. of Dublin:
Over 5,000 sq.ft.: City of Dublin: Occupancies located more than 1.5 miles from a fire station as measured
in i.l srraight line.
25. The sprinkler system shall incorpo;<lte a landscape irrigation conuol system as explained in our Design
Guiddines for r::sidential sprinkler SYSlems.
26. The water supply information used to design this system W2.S not provided by this Departmenr. Final
::::::ep,ance of this fire sprinkler system will be contingent upon successful completion ofa main drain test
at the time or fi"al to verifY adequale flow and pressure. Correction or mirigarion of a deficient water
supply will be me responsibility oftne CDntTactor and must be resolved prior to fmal approval orthe
insralJari on.
.
27. Residential sprinkler systems using CPVClPolybmyiene pipe snalJ be required to adhere ro me
following:
2...
With plan 5uomir-..al, indude employee Certificate ofInsLalk:r Training in a cotL-se of
insiruction on the insmllation ofa CPVCfPoiybutylene fire sprinkler system.
D.
::ach employee working on the job site shall have his Cerrification Card on his pe:-son
and available for inspe::tion ar all rimes.
c.
The in.::;callarion of a CPVClPolyburylene type fire sprinkl=r sysLem shall be according to
rhe manuTacrurer's re::ommended insraliation instTUcrions.
d.
Prior to the s-.an ofinscaliation, e.ach installer working on the job site shall provide an
example of his pipe fining to the Deparnnent haying jurisdiction; the t::st sample shall be
assembled in me field at me job site and wimessed by a fire Deparunenr Inspe:::ror. Tne
lest sample shall induce the assembling or a piece or pipe to a fitting.
Tne only cutting pro:;ess recognized by me 7ire Depa.,unenr for use with a
CPYClPolyburylene fire sp;-inkler syste~s is a rube cutter designed for plastic.
J. All pipe shali be ciebu..-ed and beveled Piior to 2Ssembly.
..
.::
28. :!I.n underground fire servi::e system shall be subject to field inspection, hydrostatic pressure Iesled
(200 psi win. for 2 hrs.) and fil!sned prior 10 being buried or connected to the overhead sprinkler system.
(no eXC~?tjDns) (N??A-13, 1989, Se::. 1-10.1; 1-10.2; 1-11.1.1; 1-11.2)
.
.
.
6~
29. 0\'e,he20 sp,inkJer ~YSt=ms including any riser shall be subject 10 fdd inspection and a hysros121ic
pressure test pOD psi min. for 2 hrs.) p,iorIO conccalmenL (No exceptions) (NFPA- ]3. 191)9, Sec. I-I o. J:
1-10.1; I-I L2)
.3 O. A sp.-inkler contractor shall pro\'ide a box of spare sprinkkrs in accordance with Sec. 3- J 6.7 to be
located at riser location, and shall pro\'ide an owner's manual as well as a copy oiNFP A- 13A in
accordance with Sec. 1-5.2 which shall also be located at riser. (NFPA- 13, 19S9)
31. An approved auromatic fire alarm system is required. Plans, specifications and other information
pertinent to the sysrem must be submined 10 the Department for review and approval prior 10 installation.
A sepa.-ate plan re\'iew fee will be collected upon review of!h::s:: plans. Guidelines for plans submir-.al are
ariAched. (ART. JO, UFC J994, S::c. 10013)
32. Prior 10 occupancy, the D=p~mnent must wimess a final tesL Final lest will include :~rification of
monitoring. 24 HOURS NOTICE 15 REQUIRED FOR ALL 1 ::.STS OR INSPD. TIONS
33. Appro\'ed numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings. Tne address shall
be positioned as to be plainly visibk and legible from the sueet or road fronting the propei7)'. Said
numbers shall comi2St with their background. Individual suite numbers shall be p~nnan~n!J)' posled on In:
main ~nu-an=:: doors on~nant spaces. (UFe, J 994, S~c. 90J AA)
34. FEE fOR THIS REVIEW IS:
Pian rev:::w f:::::s ar:: pzyable pr-iOf 10 fe,'iew ofpJans. THE APPLJCANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PA YMEKl OF THIS FEE TO THE .AlAMEDA COUNIT FIRE DEPARThENT. CITY OF DUBLIN.
FIRE ?REVENTION. PA YMEKl Or rlRE IM?ACT rEES SHOULD BE MADE PRJOR TO
OBTAINING PERMITS.
35. rif: hyd;ants shall be spaced ev::ry 400 Jin=ar feet in residential areas compr,;e.d prima.....iJy of well
spac:::d, average singl:: family dweliings.
36. Fir:: hydrants in commercial andloj industrial ar::.zs or in r::sidenrial ar-.2S comprised primarily of
conDominiums, TOwnhouses Dr apa.'l:I"r.ents, shail be spaced ever)' 300 feeL Fir: hydrants may b: required
to be pizced at closer im:::ry.als 10 confD:-rn 10 street inre:-:;;eclions Dr unusual srreet curyarur::s. --
37. Divided srreet shall hzv: hydrai1ts on both sides oftne sweet and shall, where applicable, be insL.aJJed in
altem.a!::. Dr staggered positions 50 that hyciranrs will not be directly across from each omer. Spacing
cril::.Jiz shall be maintained on ezcn sice Dfme srreeL Bydranrs in median snip .r: not pe:-rnirred.
v
.
EXHffiIT B-3
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN/
DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CONSISTING OF A PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LAND USE PLAN, SITE PLAN, DESIGN GUIDELINES .
(INCLUDING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS), DESIGN CONCEPTS, AND OTHER
TEXT AND SUPPLEMENTAL DIAGRAMS, DATED OCTOBER 1997"
(SENT UNDER SEP ARA TE COVER)
.
b0
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMEl\'DING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT
THE REZONING OF ::t452.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TASSAJARA
ROAD, NORTH OF INTERSTATE 580 AND WEST OF THE FALLON ROAD CURRENT ALIGNMENT
IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA
(P A 96-039, DUBLIN RANCH AREAS B THROUGH E)
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner:
. .
.
Approximately 452.6 acres generally located along the east side of Tassajara Road, north ofInterstate 580,
and west of the current alignment of Fallon Road., in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area, more specifically
described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 946-680-3; 94-680-4; 946-1040-1-2; 946-1040-2; 946-1040-3-2; 99B-3046-2-6;
99B-3046-2-9, are hereby rezoned from a Planned Development to a Planned Development with the following land
uses: PD Medium Density Residential (78.8 acres; 802 dwelling units); PD Medium-High Density
Residential (8.6 acres; 172 dwelling units); PD High Density Residential (23.6 acres; 744 dwelling units);
PD Medium Density Residential/Community Park (13.0 acres; 156 units potentially); PD Rural
Residential/Agriculture (99.2 acres, 1 dwelling); PD General Commercial (41.2 acres); PD Campus Office
(44.6 acres); Community Park (84.8 acres); PD Open Space (32.4 acres); Neighborhood Square [an Open
Space Use] (2.0 acres); Elementary School (partial site, 4.4 acres); and High School (partial site, 20.0
acres); as shov.'Il and described on the application for a Planned Development Rezone for PA 96-039 and in
Exhibit B (Resolution No._ Approving and Establishing Findings, General Provisions and Conditions of
Approval), to the Staff Report dated November 18, 1997, to the City Council, on file with the City of Dublin
Department of Community Development, and hereby adopted as the regulations for the future use, improvement,
and maintenance of the property within this District.
A map of the rezoning area is outlined below:
.
@
~
g
DUBLIN E
"" 5
~ 8
o
SITE
"'"
\ DUBLIN I BOULVVAlID ~
If;?
1-580 ~
~Q ~~~ ~".g
~11~ ~G "'"
2"" !::
- <:
'"
PLEASANTON
EXHIBIT C
(;;f)
Section 2
This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. Before
the expiration of fifteen (I5) days after its passage, it shall be published once, with the names of the
Councilmembers voting for and against same, in a local newspaper published in Alameda County and
available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 18th day of
November, 1997, by the following votes:
AYES:
.'
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
A TrEST:
City Clerk
G:\P A9603 9\ccord-b.
.
.
.
ffl.
~.:
~
",'
~~"~' t;1t~, , CITY, OF DUB~IN,':-- ';, .
t~"- .. ' . - ,'~=' , '- - --,. ',. ; ,,:;.. PLANNIN. TG.' COMMISSION:':'~'_.~' . :. .' " '.
. . _ ../ " .!.o ' .' _ #- .. - '" _ - . J_ i'" (;~.,. . _' _r--;-... - .... .. .~.. .... . "- .. . . - . ' . . '"; . -'. ~
. ':;J.:,:.&~~t%~;~~~~;,~-i~1{]i:014~~~?:~~i~i!;~~\1+igi~t~~~2,S]~}~;:;~">~'8~~'
: .,'_,~;f':c'~;:'",-....,.~<t.7:tiJ:i'r~::r:G,;' J'..,:<;,~~J)f"'_'~'\/".::'."'~7:<.Meefing Date. Octoben28;.199 ~.>t~,;:.~,=;<,- <H.,.!;;;'L;::!::':: '- ".' ';\:"',::'.:: .;,~:..
~~~~~#;~.i'i~,~lfflJ.E<rr:;:';j:g-~-'~~p A_#.9.6~039.Dubliii. . ch*- Areas B::E'P anne. eve 0 ment D..}.. t';~;;fi,,\,,~;'~~~t
~:i:_:'..'~':'.;'~;":--.''.: ".., . "-:i',,,:,,,,.dwellirit> umts),. P]),Medium High Densltr_Resldep:tIalJ8~6~~res, ,1.?2".,.-~,.......::.,._.e':
Ilii:[ttif{~f:i~ili~~~f}~'!tl';lt'j!lji~~}~;:~",(
~ ':~,~,{;:~.t~!;::<, >~_f"~J;:~'<:'"'-:-~~ .:": ;;_~};~~'acres); CoiriIDumiY Park'(84:8.acres); PD Op'en Space (32A acres); ;:.'
~ > __., :..~..-:.~ -,' ..... ..__.- _ ::'- .~..F....'':;' . r~ ~_' ...._. _. . -':~.'" '''-''- \tr:'"..:-~},,,'..- .~ -~1;.. ~~..~..... .~>-.::.-. _.~: ...' '..
.- ';:.~"::'~-~~<:,.... ';~~>:'-::~'~:',c.:~,,:-:>~'.~~~~: Neighbor~ood Square [an Op'en, Spac(Usel(2:0 'acres); ~J.enieiitary,< '
- ,',,; .;':::. . "~:, _~. ;.-. ,'> ::~ ~.~ ~__'-' S~ho.ol (p"arti~f site,.4.4 a~resY; 'High 'Sdlo~1'@~afsite;' 20'. O"~~res f and .
'::.::::. :.:.,.\F esta:blis.~g pern:litted ~~S: d'eye1.6pIrie~t-Standai:d~;- d-,insi~c~s. and' desigr;'
./<" , guid~li?es~)be project~so_~yqlv~sSPf?cifi~ ~lan. and 9~~~ial PI~ . ".
" "-~ amendments to land uses-pre~oUsly~showD.10r'a 10 acre:eJer!1{~iitary~ :.,;
, _ :::__.~-.~c..schooi~ii~~(faportion'ofth~~Con:;~lririiY!P~k;'~(ff~r'4.5 acres of " ~
::i. <. <. ',:~: ;--~~..~}~ r~~id~IitiaJ located \vithii{the'AirPori'ProiedtiOIi~area. : The' proposed .', .
.f>~}:":Y~~";::~~~~:~0; Pi;{n~e~: r?e~~foprii~~t. ~~!~~~fa t#~ ps~~~~'p~yelopm.~n(plan~'>'~~~::'~~~
. . ..'.-. c..:-:;,'(LUDP)/District Planned Development Pllii1' CPPDP)~ t6 ilhishite the:: <~
geneTal d~veioprri~nt 'c~i{cep{and:gcid~i{irtbe~subdiyisiori. of the prop~rtY
.' '. .' for d~~,~l~p~ent> Ad{iiti9#al:'d~~cripti'o;;'~'Ofthe:prop~~~d development'-.,; ,;
~:...', concept are contained m the 'proposed Planned Development Land Use ~d
r' .' ... .. ~. - " .. -..;. '.' ' 'n-
',~>c.: Developin~n~ P}~ ~UPP)/Districf~~ani1~~:Devel<)pmentPlan (DPDP)~'
_ { :inchided as Attachment D-l ~6ihis rep()rt;i\;3/':"':}// :~.":'-;.'> . .--: .
~ --.....-
, .". -..
..
Ite;-No.8.U\.
CopiesJo:.
" Applicant! '
Property Owner
PA File. .
General File...
City Att,('lrne'L:.:~ -
\.
EXHIBIT D
~;~.
. ...-.......
.h1
.,",
~,., ...):~~~~~~~~~~~~;~';,;~'~':~;,~);~~~1;~*U~' ;;! :":.'"~:.~:~,;;'~~~,,.'~."~~~j,~~i;;;;:~,\::.'~;~.~.
~.:.~~..'.~'<.".,~1.~..:if~.i~4~~_..~~.~~~1.:t.~.~~~iX.'~~}V]fe~!~~~t;ff&;~N.:~~~~~.:r,i~~..t(~1~~f~~;~.{.j.~.:.f.~.f'.'~.:.:,~.~f:!.:!':.:r:.:~
lb.:::":: j{f~ lari(~e: d,esignati6riS'f6i.'approXiiriately' 3300 acres'9f land ~eas(of the, Cii1DiLPa:rk~fii1iI!~~~:( :~/'.::f{{:~:;. :~::;";'i :
1:..':~~<~:~ii~:?es~ery~ffAlarg~~6~p6n~nf6{tiltpfantai~~\V~~~~ed<'f6~i1i1~CitY [;rf995r~~ffidllli 1.~03.7 ;.~i:!,;})jX{f.~..,,: ~~~.
-f".:'- .' ... ~ ::,:';':;~..: ~.: . .:: ~.-=-:!;.~'~1.A:;.C.rd:: "'b~'" .;,s.....tth.~if'"J.;'..~~ii~JL. .....'f~=F~~~ir ~{; kri'" :;tp.- ~;-~'.~':'"'i-.">"th"-:''''r:.'D' ?';.~rb~'~I:"~~1"tR.o:""!~;'li~;'~;'~~~";;'.-:Y~':"t;.f:...:.U''''.'~~~'~'~..1:t:~~".:.~"...5~'"J:~~: .:, - :",:,;..<:r.::;-.~'t,:".:'~"..:: ..-;.1. .
:":':>".-:~r'.{{';.~ acres o'wne _ Vi e' e . er, m . y,. own as' e u m: ailc 'prolec~c pou annexation;i;:'f\}'$::"~;:V;':.'t~'
i$?:.:o::'BJJi)):ubilli~ii~Pitifiri@d~~ili~"pi~~d:D106ibpri1~~t~b~~rl~a~sigtitiffiiS~Th6~p~~~~d{bIii:~Y~~~f~~.1~:V~:
.~'~',,:. ,~~",;~":-~~~".~J f~~~~~"";?-:-~~~~~~.t~~k-f.i...-;~;t~~~."'..~~~~~~~1},.g~~~~'\""~Z~~;;~.,~.~.'~~i~~:.F;~-t..;t<t:'~/'__.7rt' .':~f~?:"~~'i~~~~, :i.~t}...:...~;:;~:--.~l'~~....~~.;"gt~4~~~~;.',;~I'J~ ~~ ~
.. ~~:~~:rf*~.i.:DP.-"~O~b~l:W15~:?li~!gP.JE;g~d:,~J? '5tR~~d"~d~tifi..$~].~~~~~i~d~{~'~d~:El''i:~od~J:,z~~thPB~2,fllDth.'""'i~,~i~!~~~P'~.D,-:~.g~~e!Jh.iI.;<,r:~~~~~:;-~?1i:~~\
.:t.':'~~iY~'8<..: ,u llll~c.annex~ . area; an 1 en esmore eU1lle. an uses ..an e.current.,zomng.'$~ ~~~'5;:
. - .~.; - ~"4;.1::'I.-;"-;~.-o 'c'." ":":.:~~;..,~ ~~:t':'o "~~~"~"""';~~'..-.....< ~J:-r;."':J....;o~"':..it....~":."'t':'~...,~1;.~l~;-=-'"-~-""Ct"::~~.....i.("",,,,<.~J(""'lot.:r;-~~'~...,?:L-:~.,...-~i"";;'\;".:f:.,~t.~';';".~-~~.t.""';:-;.~t::~~.-':K:~$~._:~~... :.~ ..~' ~;~"\~~.'
: '1~f~:)f~,;;l;desi~atio:n:~ Itis the third 'rei "osedPlanne"d Develo"rri'eiifon.the-:bilbliifRii!lch""- ro"-e' .. -';'the"lfJ.. ,:" t:,'{~~~r:.
:-...~ -::~ ,~~..-..;-,.:.-~.... ~'v . ~';:"'",:,,...:'"t(:).~~~~~~":"':'>~.N"-!:...-.':t~"t>oo.B:;.-: J?'.~~'-~~~'''f.,,";~i:~,:!;'!~........"'\.-.~''!e!-?'': ;.:'.i-~~''"::.~~.;.;..~......:;......}.:-_~.':-~i.1}-''t.. c ~ ".......""~~'h-A.;'" .B",,:P:.'!~~ ~S;:"f''-'~~' ;;:;<:~."
:~:.~?; .~ fu~t'~a(ap'pr9ved)i1'Jan"''''~~:of 1996~'~dj,s' I6ioWii'-as' pubMRiilich PhaseI!and'tli'e':secon(ris;::~ .~, ~;::;~S
~.~. "J,,'" . -'f!;-'~",~,~",,,,,,,,,~,, _' G-,;,Il~'>;I-.""",.,..:~<.~,f"~".,,,-~}..l'''''''''~.!'';;:'''''-''\:'.;.l';,"'''''~''~';'~''~ol:!.."""".",O~;.:J),~"''''''''''''''''TC.i:';:''.~''r,-.=:''''''-:'< """'>"'''T;<'''''~''.i".,~i''''''. ~~,. ,...,~:.~.:.,.... ':-.....'
~c,:~.;:c.:::d~~ the Dubllii'.Rii1ich~AIea~A'.~ i6;ec+'; bem-~ .. rocessed ~conciliTentI ':-WitIi'. thisfi:r'osa1~ThUS1'the~;;~;f.;{Ef~~;.
-"'~",,. .. P 'J'" gp . y, . p p '. , .......,.".,._'..-..,-,.
~t:::;~~~;:~?5~CllIT~~tprbp,(j~1I1"()r;rPD'R~z5rie:i~"Orie; C;fa:~@~,.c~f~tio;frtg-~lsi<f.~:~t()'fui-';'lErifrnt'~~'E~~n1t~:~'t:$:\:':'
~':'):i..~.:~,:~.::::'- ""'. .......v~~ <~~:~:."';.ilf-..,..,~~~;,...,~'.r.;.t;~'->l;,;".f:.::.:c:w:~'~'i!;.,._~'t'P'f~~,:,-/~~.i~.:":p;.....~";:......~:r...:.-.:.::>-~.;..,..::-~;','i. p~":"e~~iT~,'1:;.....':,>l;.ii;,,!:r.l'~.;;;.'ii;t~;:~~~.,. :5:"
~!.~:!;':r<\:.;< I?llbllljSp~~ifip'P!~~:QW~r app:roya)s hav~.occurred pnor_to this Pr:oJ~ct; ,and'adc:iitlonaJ,~:t*~;~~~,~~;~;;'?I",-:(c).:~ :;'~:~;,
~~., :.:':~~.iHtt}ippfoi~{~~~~~gg!g,~~~~:~y~!1g~~~~.M~?~~:~~#~~f~#i.~!<<~g ;t~:~~#y~:.€t~E~1~t~~fgiijft~~~1l~%~r:~~{;::..
l!~:.:.. ,-:,:;::~ development agreer.nents;. SIte Development ReVIew, arid other development pernnts::~~,:;';~-~;f;~',~~::l~"t~'~:~J'~.:J:; :,:.,:
~:- '. ',:;.,::;'-::~.} 'o(;...tassigii"~~ie'repiied~i~iiliig- designations than~ theprevi~~ PP P~ezon~~i~{S~.>::-.~~__-: <~ '. ',.:. .: "
:.' .'- ".'~':~\~~: >- .\,:\~)o~~t~, ~~!~~~5~g-~~~~gn.~6ns' o~ a 'land ~e' pl~~~d~~~~?~:,:;;:;:~;~~~:~~ J:~:~:r~;~ ~~:~:~~~ ~(.: -.. : :' ~:- .
, " ,,:, '.: ':':"~ descnbe conceptual resIdential lot and street layouts on', conceptUal lo~g plans < :, ~ . "::.":
i~; ,::~ _,c.; ',:.0 -~~ ;~i;:~ d~scn1)e"2oricep~uaf d~sigi1'and ~chit~ctUre ;of:residentiafan~ noii~;~~iden~~,~/3~'~"':'~ ~~, ~ . .','. , ",.,-
~! .
,- ' .;.' . :\'-:'.: estab~~~~deydbpmeii{standMds. and conditionsqf app~ovalfo~ deyelopIllent under,the :.j;' ::;:.c:';':'.:: ,:...
:. '. '._ . '.. ....;{.~~~~~;;ii:,t~tr~o;;S:;=~;zt;'~~~:l<;:.:~~~;It~~t~?l:~11!~!;1!'1:;;Ji'}';,;i~~~(;.'~~rJf "
.. - '. - ~:: .TIiepropo_~~~-'phi~lc~I..~~v~lop~ent consists ~i,up-to 1,875A~eflf~g:~.ts..n?: eleven distin:ct.':F'~~'.:,<~-:';,' ::~'
, >:.' . ~_> .nelghborhoods a~commodatirig 'a range'of h6rismg 'tYPes. " Smgle--farillly detached homes' on lots" .', ,': Y',
. .. '~~"rangIDg msize: .fr~m approXiID~teli 2,000 to over 6,500 sqllar~ feef are: expected. to ,be the ';-> .:: " . '
..~ _.:_' ~~.~'P!ed(mlln~i type o~!1o~mg in'the Medium pensityndghborh~~dS,.~though some' attached' ":"~~ '.". <-;,
,,' .. <=,., umts are p~i.rnitt~~ ~ w~l1:1:1:ediun1-High and High-de~itY n~ighD~rh<?ods ~ ~ely co.nsist o~ .
..',:;niultiple-family .~eve1.oPIller:ts of attached ui1its~includiDi concloininiums and apartinen~. .
_ - '_'. pevelop~ei1~ in the 9~?-eral..ComDlercial and Campus Office 'm:eas ~11 be s~liu:, to tqa~ foUnd. "
. _~ in the ne",:,er'commercial.and bilsiJ?ess park areas of the Tri-valley area: :.1be project,also _<. ,
.- involves dedicatl~n'aDd doiiStruction of the portion of the intermittent stream coriidor/public trail . ..
system which'Grosses the site, ?ffid two Community Parks totaling-approximately 85 ,acres.
. ~ ,;, .
-. . -,' ..
'.'
. ". . . -
'". - : '
2
.,
\ .
.~ aD.~ . . ..:'
. . The site topography inyolves-.rria]~iy :ope~ gfasslarid on three distinct types of land areas. . A _-
'~>,:.}:~.r~I.~tiv,~I~:.J"!.~t I?!~.1~.~i-,~fu~<!i:~1~~y,#~~~o.[E?~.9,'aD.d.co~p~ses.~?~t of Ar~aC (d~signated'
l~.<-e~:..?~}~~cf(for Gen'eriU CommerciaI{"and'C~ptiS.Office'uses);;'Aregion of gentlt~'sIopes;startirig with a".
"...",:': ~:.:.. .~ 'z; :;.';-~;.~.:-. ~..: '~\<.... \. - ~i~~~:~"" ~~'\...::f:'-,.\.,':':'"/ah:...*r.:-?~~J;.'_' ". .....r.... .,;''\.~~_, ...."-:.............'.';...;. '-;.:.f::- -.:o~':.. '''. ..,;..~. .. : ... ,". . ". _ ..... .. >
" :;:~:~ ~:~<~~>~~series .o.f loW foreground bills just. beyond 'Area c; mid increasing in el~vation to the north, would ........,
~:t::~i;~be"t>6Sl/1&i1fyfbe.;i~~id~~tifil"'A~f~b~~ha(;ds"~(ftli~:52~~c~e: Commll~(.Park (Area B)~:. The ..>;: :'.><.:'
.;!i~;~:t'?~.;~'O';y~;;;':ttP'i-"f~..~~~~j;)~;r.'d-:@~l~~~~~t!:"<,:;"'~l, ::!tlii'. :;:;(,;::,.~:i:.;~;2~f.;'L'.ii;J. '. . ;";:':~ 'Th" .o~.~~d.....?""..l~:;:'..i~;'""f.. .th'" . :::u;-.: . ;.:'::.":>~~.:.~;.::\:~:
.3~k~.:~.mtenm ent stream com orii:USoruns uuOU5,U S area.o we sIte:,~,:: en ge anu.:> o. e:;'.",:':.:::<,:;.;:c:~:~~:~~,
,:.::~"S"..7.;1:'J~.ft"f~;'f~~=1."'4~~~i~~1:~~~~~..f.~d.~l;~~~~~':<t'\f:~"I't;:xJit:.do.. ~ .;";.::'-~:j.":.J'~>''i..,,~,~''.1''''. ~:--;;~~_,~. '"(;;.: ..~. f.~~,.:;,;:::","'"}'.):.J:..4,,:,;. ,:.!;:"';j ..:'ri:;~~ ".~-~''''..._<- :.; ..:- ~'. ". ":"..'. :.;...:..:.t;.;,r-.~<;..~:.~!."
;l:~~1i-:-- p~ope~. ar~ Iocate411iiAIe}f~f-m:w1iicIl e.t?vlIonmentaIly sensItive r,esources. are preserved forj:,~:~ i-:::;;r>~,~~:~
. .~:~'}~~~'1o~;liite~t~~i~~id~tI!V~}J~~~xr~rD'a1so:hiciud~s~'~~tr~~vaII~Y::\Vhic;h is:.; ':"~:";': .::'.~.~:;'~
"V'~[gh~d4r~ih~~:~~~~(32~~7t:t~'Jtfi~ili~ili~~fu~(ii~~~
,eSI enti : eve opmen 'IS gene xprop,oseona'senes of terraces. cut mtd theforegrpundi*..;~:W~~;(;f:~:,:;.::s;:;,;~
";'~1:rs~ciflli~SiF~d~f"r~tdt~till~~~1~t-rlii~iit~~~~~~tifucffid6<2Sfi~~iitio~iI~t~~~;%~~R%t.:?~~
~:~1ill~ft~~fi~~~~~~~~~~g.7ig;fu~ry~f~ii~'b~61fs~7~i{dbriiiIriilin::pFO)~~~:.~~~~~}~0~:~
-;,.;;.:.~~~ ~~~ ,:~~~~~~ '.~-..M;.i5 ~"""",~.;','f",...,..".e~.<.,;t-..,<...,-,,,...;:...~t<;,~"/"".~ ...r' ..y.'...."'.:..':-.,.,.ciS..{'~.
Bal:trp:ent developments: ofUR to't3'~'.4lUnitSp'er~~acre-areantiCipatefi jit. the: flitt.estpomons <of?il:!ji~1::i~i~~:.~~-1:t.4
''''"~~I>~~~~~d~~f'g~~;fr1J1nt~id~~tiai;;ri~ighb''Br~gg~~'t~~t~1~~H~i;~;.i{;'t:~
....:;-_...~~...~~"l.~~A')..:..~~~;;!a.~~".~.a:I[~~~~~~J..:.'fi~....-t;~".:A.__~....i'.'I. ';r~:r-~.I.;,..-: ~".4-~~~..;~';...~..'r~..,...~...._-;.'~,.,";"1.... . -:l~.~f,':...~;..-",":.-:--'......._",;~.=-:z~: ";'J.' ';'":~"~' ...:.....;;::.~-:l....~_,:-.: .~!
"arks;,triills-andrcen.s"aCe~fO"'ene8-~ tIl-euse'and'en 0 6~'''".'enfof tllenatiiriU 8irieDitiescof the i~};:,:~.;q.~.~::
~tJt1Iiii;1~~~~~1W!tgrft{{!i'I~~!~i~!~[}~
~~ ~..':<."~ '.-.'..~"-""' .~ . I' "":!" .o~i:l'.. I""-::--dr~ ~... . .~''"-'d"'. 1:~~(i "'I".~..1:=- I......""..1Je~.~~..~a.d'...~'I-... .......,..' .,_. ..1:..:.:..1_)"'dH'. "..,',_.' ~.~, -. ts'.' ........\,...."'..... . '..".,"'.'.
!. "?~'i.:t':;:.~'S: use P an: SIte p ~ eSU!llQUl elllles JllC UUlllg anu use an eve opment stanlU:llU:S_o eSHID concep ;::.'~:{i7<.;:::.f~(:
.' . <::.~:i;-t.D:~~~~..an" d.Oth.. ..er. -teXtand""suP";:<.""'Iem. .')'';entai. Cli. ^..\'(".,.,...<...."<i..rStam'-".:..;;.-~.X.l,.< tlle-.Ci ";'RECEIVED O. CTOBER 20 1997;. ...,!.-::.:.jf~o::.:<~:'.':' >::': 'co".,:;,
q.,~.-;~:.;o, ;y~....,.......e""""i"''''''' -7 _..rj ~..~~ ... _~~"-"h:~~~6-',-".:.;;:"'-'-"'1)'":.;..,, ',.r'''';. 0,..<,. .;. ;:.,_.,~.. _e..' "",~.", ~.."~ ,.w";;<;'<:'f;;:':;,<;;i~, -
~:o:..;:,,:,~, ~ The approvaI'oft1:ie'Plcimied'DeveloprrienfReione~would mcorj>oiate'this'Liirid Use arid 'c~;:l'5'~:i~;~:';:';;'..~. ,.'
I~i~~~;:~__gff~j~~~~r~~r~]~~~:~~~~~;;,:'-;;;"~.
lftl1$4~:~,~p~~~~l!@!ffiq1;rif~~i.iJtq&a;Pi@&!J)1~~1;,~<!I)~ieIop~eiit.PJari~\ Th(apPf.oyed, LUD:Pff?PD\~::.~ ..':':.: \;:\
'~(,;~~'~~:;~ wpl.mcIud~"""'alIText'antdi~~attac~~d' as EXhibit D: l'of this. StaffRei>orr~:r:~~';-~:~-'. ,-.. :;':>'.,. . ,.'. ,:' .'. ,
~,r:;,~?;Yll}~-:~.:~~~}:~~it~~f;!J-lfft6~~f!i.~~ .t~wtft,':l~tt>~~i~~c?~;[,.~~'~:?/:~:":'~:(:':.~:'~~"::='::~:.}:~~~/:,~: ~?:~.,:~.-,.,. ~~:,'. ....
.~,.:':,:~3~~~~~;The propose'Ci prS'RezomIfgand LUDPiDPDP=m-e:;c~iJSist~iit\vith'the Iaiid use.goals and policies_.__ . .:.,:"
?;~~:~.;~{~::~~>'oftIi~. Cit)?~;~fdfu;cfdB~~:[t;q6rI~d tsegeci~ioiiS (Ge~ebl Plan, Specifi~ Pl8i{ . ~d Zoning'. . ' ,.
~;.::~~l~~:;~l%~t 6!~~g~1~JI~~~~~l!a~tf!~~~i€~'l~~~~~'~~~~~ro~~'?t;proVi~es,: co?rdina~ed ~Ian for < '. ,:; '.
;~~:c;;::~~,~lc~~. development of a: vanety. of land uses.~It prOVIdes for this development through a :framework of. .:;>
~.;: _~~.,..>_':.:;-!-: ;::~_'_~ :.-...::.p.;..~~.i.;.::;:- "_~-G.:;j~:-:.,~"-1'?~~::'i~";j~:,,~~~='~"~;~~:~~~":~t,!j.~i' -;!.:;~~"'-.~~~';"-;:-":'~-'" .-'. _ /~~. .-". :_~.-. ~ ,~.. -....:.,.:.~..... .';~' _:
~!~:> ~~[1~~'? protec4.vf?Ae'y~lopn:i~nt, stan.daI~ that reflect the senSItive bIOlogIcal;' aesthetIc, topographic, and;... . .,
!l"iil~tiiit;:tlliii~~i~~ii~~r~If~;\"'........'..:,
:.~~' '!.:'';:::~~:':;.~: DubIiiF Specific:~ PI3ii'fanct;Dubliri.1',GenernI:c' PIan'r were -. necessarj- for~. several: reasonS;~" Th~.'~'. . ....-...
~ - '___.J_ _ . .' -. ."_ ":>,~. ,...; .':~: .c;:".......:;...'\'i'-:....A>!,.~~;,-."'..~.~.. ~.J.. .', ,:.... c" !. _ CO .' . . . . -
..>):;':~~i~ developmentproposedfor Are'i( CiriCludes.i:smaIl ( 4.5 acre) portion ofland which is proposed to. . ' . , . .
""~-":"~~~"""~-;.;.P-~~-:- .....:'~.':-~. ._...,~o;:.. ~'.."",~,-"",-,......';....:~.';'~-'-"lI<'..~.r,F""''''''':.t.';''';''-<"'':''''~::'''''-...~"-":..-....~.".. . . -' .... . . ~"~
'; :~\iI'~!,;_~~ be 'changed from Mediuiii'Densit)' Residential to Geneial Commercial. The'adopted Specific Plan.: ..' . ,
"_'" "_': . -::-:. . 4..... "--,'- _'~_ - .-".~:,: &.~ ~,;,-:-~ '-"'c~":'.":"-i-"!.-'~'~"'-' ......~~4....c.:~ ~~~:....,;.- ...."" .$....~..-.!..-:' ~::'"..,- _..-,~ "'_ ~ . ~ _ '._ . .', - .,.~' "', '.
~:.;~:.~, :;;~5t~--anti~ipat~d ~~li'ali aD:i~i:i'dinen~ :q~~a.usetl1et~~a is Iodated within the Livermore Airport Prote:ct!ou- ". . .
iT'. ;"'; 7". ~?~~j,~~~~'~~~~~!~~~~~+;td...~. p~t~n~~y incompatible: The. prop~sed
. :'" . Althougli)he.c::iiY's.Pla~Qf1~PJ?ev~!D-pment Ordinance has recently been amended, this project was.
initiated prior tDthe~'amendment~~~;;d is .th'e~efore -being'processed under the 'requirements of .. ·
Dubliliis O'rdinancE(4-9.r\:T6~~c;uj:;e-nf'~roje'ct i'ncludes refining .the PD zoning districts adopted.
_ + +. . ~-' ""'.,... ..,......:~-.~ """ ~j... ..:t...- -01 . ~ .. - - -
through' the Prezoning~and ..adopting"a LUDP~'
. ..'~'~::;':~~Kf:?~;;~'X~J::}t;\kJ::~~~:~+~~~:-:f~t:';?;,_:.... ::, 3
.. ,- .. ~
,- .', .
"
\
,~.
;~-
.:=..~: .:;.
;..'.
".
<, 11 ~
'~~<~ Commercial land use is consistent with the closest adjacent non-residential urban use. The .
~< magni~d.e and intensity of development ",th~t could: ddcur if. ,the., amencirD.entS. are:: adopted' are " " .
f" .' .,.. silbstiiiiially comis\eni ~th fue developiD~lite;i:viiio~ed for thb Specifie pi;';;:';Ti.~;:J:::~j",;?::;:; ,;'~'.'
~;' ': " _,,-.:..,:~~~,;,,0/~~(f;~(: :':;;:.::;~,~ \:}t{;:;<2f5&~f~.:'::,~;~I{g': ':'~':'I:~r~1~{i0i~rf;j;~::' ~;;;'~~,;i~n1?ii&~:~Y~;',:~l;~~~:~~~;~'- '~::~':.\;f\~:, )
'4~';:;,;~-',:.'-:.::; The'- PlaiID6d Development 'also:indudes'ildjustnlents. io:.land.u.se's:.previously,'designated for an-~~;\j:~,:..'{:;
-:-:.'~' ~,,_ /".'~'...~.. :,....:.;:.j,~~~i."";j~~.:...:- ....._~~:-,,1 . ~JJ:.;;~~'.#:."i;~:;tJ;~'r ..'!~~":;;'~..lJ"l'.lt:__.,,- - t.t~":-=I~-r:!.;-""~..~~"Jf../,-.~~.......J..~<<'.>-.~..t}:.:rtk_!~...",~,~,:;t'!i.;r;.:.-' .7;....,;.~;",.-:...,.._..r_.t"'.( -;.4,.......;."4::::,..;;'1-. I;'.~".t.,';.
~:~ ';'~~;::,-:::-:"~ elemen-guy.' school' sIte and~for~ the. southern' commimIty;. park:--::, This' resUlts'.m~additlOnalareas,~~~J~:.;l:.1"'f':_..
~~""'.~~'..' ~';l-~.~:;"":-"T"....:"t>... ':.'__(~~.'.. :;,~.....;:."'7'\."'~';''''\~~Jt._tP--irl:--.'''';'--''.''''1.'''''''"''~'''- ...."~'1':O. p .~.~. ~"'l'v'~._s"~,~ ''':1<.-'':'..) tt...u...........~.....'!~~.t:..,,\~~,t..s:..i~.(J.t,;,..<~.:.J-.:.,....~~-}.....~ u,.. ;.:~" \:... ~"')f..?.....~ .\. ".
~". :.;_.~";>~.;;i-proposed to be-designated for Medium DenSitY Residentil:if mcludirig,l 0 'acres no longerneeded for:.+~JiF'::;s.;:
~...~(....:. "';~~': :_~;)_ _ -:-.p.:~ ~4~~I';""'~~~.'[':':::""'.t";-,,,-"'.1~9;~".-. ?:-,J>~;~r,;,,""~~:;".~"',~ ....... '.:r""... ~..-30~~'t~~~"'i'~3f.~ltS~':::"'"?-''7:.:...~ft.~.~..:t(.if'''';''-I:t'',f.\..i,~~\l ~~N ~~~R" ~"+~7f~~~:;:;:.~":~:
~.:;~~ '; ~~;~~~.~~~lf~J~~~~~~~b~~.(~I?p.~~~~J?,~~~~~,~ B.f~lg~IY~~~IW~~;,~,!9~!~3l1\g~~~~~if,~~ftffir:~:~ ~~~S.,
~'~~{f:1jt~,(~~llil!~.,~!~~f!~j~I1~,,4~.aio,.~q~l'elop~~ntEt~ tlie',~p.esJ1ic'PJ~:~l!~~~re.~ft)~~~~~*~~ ., S~:k-
-, .,,,,,,...7,'. ,~.. ."~1>'-'<~~"'~'~..:I<"d"'.l':'~"':..t.."'1<"Cr.:/,.~~..:;;>.,<f.'.p. k'.~~~."'~1:!/~-'::'~~""d t..""~th'."'C. ~'" 13,",.Pfth~" -~- ,h'" ~
~"?'i:':'::-::':;;.:! precIse,acre~e nec;ue ..lOf.\we: ommunrty,. ar . Is.yet to,ue'COll.W.llllle uy.;, e Ity~ ..0, ese~ ,iJ;f!.i;'
?;"~'::::}1ir.:'~-~~~~'!?~::*~d;'''!;J~:>,...ihf;'!i"'tli.~~~'t;l--J~b'!.&J;Y~~;\<d~~..Bi'~d' ~~;'M.l;:~~di';~:1'.f"D''''''~'"':~~!"!R'~l~~a. ..11j;....~tf~'-""~ J;lfC'8~!.~~~;"7'~ ~~)~'"
"~~i'~i': acres a uacent to. e:p'arl\: ua.ve, een eSIgI}ate .lor: e urn ensrty, eSI ent:Ii:1J. or a 'ommum ";1&:;;'
., ~':.:g~~":_"~!,-;,,~~!.).:; ""yg;~~:c~~~~~-a~~"'~~}~~'jI>~~~"'''''''}2's-J:\,:,.:~.~-...y~m'~;'l"f..t.-.!.v~~>'9i;,!;,'~',t"'t""{C?Wi~"'>;:~~~"'" . ~~~
>~,t-:..~-/,if~~ Park;t~~T1ie~ area~ can.i-bf?t consIderedifor~resIdent:IaJJ deyeloHmen~ oIilX' er.:: tlie>' CI ,'i, Counc :.. 'if.{t:.
~t':-"::'\~~'''-R'~ ~~r'~'~":::;1o(~ ,,:...!'J;;;~;t.~~!~it'j;(~:~w~~~...,~~;!~:r..,'#-"~~~~~:~~~:~:"'~~;o1""-:... ~~rY~.. '~~
::i:~ 'i;. '~~,~cr:, determmes iliat this ortion IS not needed for Commum Park land; .,. t~.',
:<'-';,lt~~~~-!-:3?,_.,~~:.:~~..;.~~.r;.~~~:''''~;::,;:""~,:,,P ~......~~'..~ !-;o.,-l$-.,;~.l: ~ ~,~ ~l;,,~ ,,~.!>
/-- ~~":-- 4.~~'\...::~~~ t.~q'l;~~?tW:;~W:o~~~ ~~. oi~_ ~it,~~. b'tt~.; ...{~
,,,I,,::\:,'/;!'J[:Jf';~"~";'~f?:;':"'~'t"~~. . \ ~ ~...,fft.~ flJfr ~ .;::
.il~~~~Z~~<)1,';'lidd,itio~~tBe.pfop'Qse.ciR(oj~~~my~ii~~~~:~mttQ 8~~q~~ _P1D:~tii~~q~n~._ ,. ~.9D?:P1~rcI :~~f~~
~~ . "o,;~>'.-:-.;....-..~... __~-;o-",:,;,_.~'C:^,..;:'~l"" ....~...,..... ....~~..1V,...~-.. .-.~.J..it!~.~c-'''."",..r..l.c. ~:;--rtJ.'J"""-"""t~~.;.a. -~ i~~:'I~:.:s- ....~..4Y.':....~--'.~. n::l';.;~"",,~"'~-- ~-.....~.., .- ~.;Y~' ::.~...
~S/:>~2':;' desig!i:cition to the CampUS Office' d6si@ation:~-The'shift woUld trarislcite'fut6'iideciease'o ~- '~~TH,l;'i'f~
~t~f~t.t:i%'apJjro~~~"83:000s~u:r-gfb~%"fcb~g~fili~~7~1tliaWin~"e!s~fI3{rOOO:t~~f~~6 . . .<> ~1B~1{
1_ ~"';,,-..::. --. .r.:"'''''l .~.....,.........--.. ':!:~- ..,.., ,-.': ;.:~..:~ '!"'}'.F;;~'-' _-.~'_:r~;,";~:"I';....~"",t...,~~JIII:"J.~~.l._..~'. R...,.":..o';'l~,~."Y-:"';-;"""'~ :,T....;-')..tt;..'J~...~...:.J..-y..;.::\'.'..'l"....I~~".;!'9...~~..,....;-~..r.:-.r:~..I~~.~t~.::t..{......;';':",<!,,~~ ~~,~
. :.~, .":;\Ll.~':' office space:\~ Thepro' "osed'shiftS-do' notinvolvean. mer-ease' ill tllet6vernll acreagebfthese' fWo;~~~Y~<.::~,I.f::: :'t;r
;:~~_:\~~'o:7'.iandfue~d~;i61atio~}Additi()~iilr;~16~~f(ffir.:tgtriL"~"i~~ti6ii~dat~'~~d'b~'~ili~)ri~tittt"etf}lf~~~2~'~~.,~',:::~::'
~:'~. ........~..., :..-...~......J:'":,,:::.... _ .....-.......-_-- -.'-...,.::t-..;......-._.:,.-.,..:."":.:-~~_..,.,,........-....,.- g......_...::-"__pg..........".~--i~_......~-~.;..,.....,..,v--..~..".."-""~........y~...:... ..,'........:.".."'--""!'I.............."'.:.-...~==":,,--..-:,-.... ':.'
~:;:::.-;..;~::: :,: TrillS' 6iiationEn' . 'eers;.officeuses "-'icalf"- '~enerate less'traffic than do commerCial'uses and;~!>::-;~S:~~ :~~.;-
~;,,:, '._,.., '. ' ",~" 12:,.,0';'''' < ~.p...~' JP'~7"-i" >' r'~.,-"'->'U'-:_~' ~ 1XP2.....,,--_! &-...,..~......_~_.~....~"..,......_~....u-,:...t,....:t"'!-:::!~;:;;f.'O;:..."~;,...:- '>-, ~~.\o-"",.._......, ft~,.....'lf.I.,c.:.\.....~-~j":.:...?"\~_.,,~f:J;;..~~:::~;.......~:...::..~ ~ .~'-,....'
~%:;:~~.~:~ :""::: theief6retlleroadwa .level 'ofsernce re"wred b'~ the S'V ecific1>Ian-'should riotbe..sigillficantlyiT.~~S~~~~~S-.~~;.:
~.'";,.~..J :.:: >'_.lop.... .~-......:."...;:- ...-:-:....,. ~...~~.Ut..~. "~'.. ~-fr.~,::Z" ""b"l..O::1!'''~-'~'':- ,....9;v~........~..:.P-_.:....... Y.."..~..':..... :P ~.,.........~t"":.,,,"",:" 4-~ a..--;...............c--.i ~~....."'(~ ~~l.':".. -....-.............z...;f;.........L.... 4"~':...;,....--.\. J:....t-!~t'~&..a~...-?- -: ..-
~r,'.~'. ~~~5:~-::affected bY: this .Shift:;~~?: F1.iithermore; the' S ""ecific Plan anticr"ated thEtnee'd for f1eXibilitYiii:;.~1:;1:i:f~~.~~?;';!,;:~:.:.,; .;:. ~ '
::!.";,., '. . _~" ~...:. - _.. ....-_.,:_: -.;:""'i.''t.&- ..'.;..,.- .!.f""""\ '-:"'C ~..:'y!'!'.~......~J-;....:ol~~~.~....~..,-,; ~.~-:Q, ~);.,.~....)....~_-...:.~~..i~..:.....,." e I? ~*"'::f""';!~~-;.:.!'"~~..";,..,.:u-.._.......l....."~....~~t;'..:j.... i.:c ~i~ ,~.~~~.- ..:"~ .,,:",--...-- -t:!'::..=:-' ""'.... ';."- :....
!~~'?F;:~ij~ deve!o . ire thes'e lana-uses' (see.EDSP~' c.Iia'" ter4:5)f~ The. "TO 'osed'riiqdificationS~d amepdiiientS'::::~~~~~r.' . ~~ .
~~ __.. ~..>..., .~."...._~. ~_ p..... g~...." ....-..-'l.~, _~_,_!',-....... ':-'--"'~~l- ,:~.....-....~.J._~"~ P :;:t-liJ"........ ,.+........~.... ~~.t: PY'!!r' PlooO'7"'~ ~ ..t......._...... ".......:~,. ~......__....+;... :;...........-. ....'"".......... ....'..~ ~ ,,~"~;.I .. N
~~.~~i;:::. .>- \:5 wouid re'Siili ma Ion" ::term:develo'< rrlenf" atterrl"2onsisteirt'*itfi tIle EastemDublll{S ' . e.cific' Plan.:?:,t~,;;~?1~.~ !:. ~..
;-~.',"'~~-~: ~~.:~-~~.~.-:. -d D--' "="-b~.fui.....;:..:.......-Gll;-..~<,.:.~1.pgI'';.::,i;tb~~~~~~'',~"f,;S~1?.. .~~~~~~l,-:-~?~~t:~~r~~t}c~~5t~~4~';:~$Ef1'~~~~~;:t(';~~.t~~i~(::.:~~~~,~~;,~o-S~/:::~.'~.:.. .'
"r_~":........~--: ;.,',::-:- an. u eneldJ. an~"Qi. :n.:.~':"'~,t ~..!".~""""'-":'~':":n~.c-!"_-:'! :'!~..:.~....""'q'::-p-;:.~r:':"...)"."..::;-;;--.~~~\"':~.~.;..lo.~jt~~~....;:..!"_..,.i:.1..":.....~-=...r.:..-..';.,ol-....i.::
~~~i~~~~'~~~t~iitrlf~~~~II;gl~i~;t~~~~~~?'~1~~r&~
;_:" <>~;'~. consIstent WIth the GeneriU Plan and Eastern Dubliri Specific Plan.:' By usmg: Planned;::,-,~~:s;'~ . ,,,:.:;.~;:-,;,:,:.:..;::,:.;~..,::,
-:<~..... .c',-" ..-.................,..-- ~.~--.t:.:....':"..;_.l..,.:,~--....,.::.~...-..,-~.... .......~.~-..-,:...;..;.--,..:.;,.;~ ....'~"::....,..._., _.......,..~....,..':.r.:. :-'-:;-.-,...:.........,-,~...~~..f;;. '.'-~;'F'.~ ~~.:;-7-,'I-' :-_.,,~'-'.,:::-."" '.. ..' ~.-:,;~~::-...:..: ..;...-
\~>:>~: ~< DeveIopmept pririCipIes; however; the proj ect propos-es' an' effective.miXtuTe~ 9f residential,:;:i}i . :..,;~}:\.::~ }.':~'~~e.
.-. .
....: :;?;~:~~~~~;~R~J::::i;ft~~~ori:sd~~~~P;~~CL!s~~~;I~i1r~1~;'::;Z..
--. ~ deSIgnatIons generallY, represent gently ~lopmg 8!eas :below the Ildgelap.dS an~ ~en:veen ~e ": -....: . .1" :,. - .
: . ,-. .: various re'si~e~tial)rre.a.s, an inte~ttent, streanicomdoiiu~D.ing north and ?O?th through the';;ite,
. ~'.. .::.. _~'.. alid vi~Uall{sensiti~e ridgelarids ill the; northeast and easterly: portions of the' site: ..;", ::; :::;..., ,~:" .._:~-
- . . , .... .. - ....... . . .-' . .
~.
.. .~:
4
. '\'
.-,--."
.;;.-
.J:.-~;.
S.:'
.';j
-;
I)~
. ? ~:~__:-_~~~'<~:.<~":~'~ ;,.~~~,':-::'~'~~~~~l':~'::' '.' .~.. .... ~'_'...._ _ '. . ...... _~.> .
.. ;:~;:;hJhr9iigl.1 th~ LUDP/DPDP;.the projectproposes no deveiopment on the yisually sensitiv< .:. '
- ~Li:;'i1~\~ll~li~~~ti~~@~~~g;~~{:Mf~~~,tTh~;r~i<<;~~s~#~!~:~i,/)..:"
:~~({;;, p ~~~~~~8~~~-iJ!.~~$J:,;a,~~~~gS~!-~C ~J.~~\?P~~;,~;.I;:rf~~~~~ ~~~!~~~~,,~!~,Rl~~:~._:nj;;\'" '>,-):~~"
-*~')~~~i~Mfili~H~?ytd~~~~~~111g~~~~~~~~~~t~~~i:~~;!:~~~~~~1fs~~i~~.:. ~~~~;Xj~~~:?:~
:;..~\...;:t :'~~~;~~:;Yi,;~",!~,~..;.....t_-:;...f~:;~>>~~i;:S?~.';-t<~~~;'''n:~,~'''~ti~~~;" -"-'.7:t~..:;"'~.I," I ~"'" '.-:~:'::.':J>~:.::;r.i-i:S:>,{-;.r.~.. ;;_l<{;.t"r>;;"H~"~ ;'..t,;t..~.o-t. .'.~;~':~.~~~ ...:,;"... ;~~ -:::-.~-..~ ~~
'~:~5;?:~~?,;r.;ocated m tlie.stream. comdor a proposed htiear trail ilio preserves the' stream comdor~1!!~c.,:~til:~~\7." : ~ :J"
'~~,~~~Ii~a~ifit~hil~~VidIk::~~~o~tiifti~~~ op.e1is"'''tc~-;'area for~diife:.iiioV~ci~b~'5~V: -'-:~""!i~:~~%S:.ilC~:~~~
~;~.')~~ ~. - . .~~~;fr '{rr~~~':'~~~f:i,,-~1~;:":~i~ ~;y ~~i;~f ~:~i:t..?.~::;.~..,~~.:s.:!....~;~
> ~... (,f..,b i~~"",,\l'~~!~~ P-~~. """....~~;..J. .....~"?t.I.ofo~'~-~
""":~ -:~~Il~~~;.~-?"'~ .. r,,;.' .s.....o\,.~.. a' :.:,..J:....~~ ;
"I.1.:t-:o... ~~\?~~~,t!Oi ;-, h~-r"~~ ';;~.;...;t~'.-~~-
. ~~~~]~~~~J-.=h~.Y;1.~~~~$~~~Jf,;~~~~~~~.*~l;'.~r..{P-l~lt-;~~L~~:;j~",L{~~~$j~
,~ir.~~~~~~1~~J>J2~~~...C!.~~~9..~.~~~,,~t~<J.~~~~t~&1.2~~~~l1.~,~5J.~R~S;&~~~f~.l~~~~;'- ~- r;;?
goals'and 'olicie~:rJie'CommunrY~..ParIiSites:wi.ll a"~iOVide'a"vane ':offacilities'fdr"outd6'" - .{[. '
. ~~~?~?-""~J~~~~"'7'~i'~~~~~,;,::'o:.-:"""~:;ii"i<.,.;;..",:..,I;,;,~;,>',: ,-;."-;'"~;:j.."~,,,?~~,,,.+-?m;";~:'!':'"":'1.;<'''.''':1'J~~ ~5:7..1..~~"'i"i'~
:;creatlOpaI.2.p.pJ?~~sJo~ :RroJect,~~~~ll~~~q.!F.e: p_~~Y9,~!J!~~~'fc?'!f~~,.-.~~g~J:i?-!"9ood - ~.,yt~~
l~i~d ""r"E~~es;.'f~'s1fKIf~~iti~I<full CfoiY"'ermanenf'o' ~n~s"'acenvliiblif~ ~~:w~
q - ~~,6;::4i-'t~.$;?;:;';'_t"'":;R~,,~:'c~~c.I"r .~-...~~"":":::'-~~ ~.'''h:;'':;~y''''';''''..ea-~'-'''''' ..... . _z_..:::::"'-::.. .........: ~- ~ ~...:" -... -...,. .,;-R,,-~u.I,.;,'~ P ~~\.\ i.l:~...<- " .. . - . 'Af';~"~ d.
~6i~~are~!~Ren~~ac~~~in~!h.~~"6~~{Iense~yj~~eI.O~~(~9.U.!.h~Jj1~~e;as 'ofllie' ~i~~~an~r .~'t4Ft:}
":-'-~tn~~t t' f-.~>3;.$<~ijf~~;>1^~'~;f1~..,..~r;tf1'tli~.!;:T<.";:"""~"W"'''';'''''C;'~''''-;'':''fr~.t<-:!'~~.G.~~'-A"~' . '. :,\~.,d,Tfi
. ,Qn uU e. 0 mam g a .lUHU qUa..LltY;.Lor e prOject slte;};;?:.:t:::.,ll~~:~:'?:~~~~;'. ,.. . _~, ':.- ~t}~".\(€~~
...."'I'..~--:.\..:)'~-?'tl-:z:. >-~"~"'t:":":''''-'''j.--:t~~.c.'" -l'......t::?o-~...~l:"-- '~ _-;r --... - - . 1: ;. . - ~ .....""',v-.:.:t T)"-~~f- >-- ro{~.,., ,..;.-),3.....,t-
;:f~~4~fi~~..",. . ~~~~~.~~~it~~ _. ~~~~~1:~;t!};t~:~,ff~?~~~;:~.\t~~~.~};i~l,~~~~:~~~::~f~:t/i~~~~!;,.:~~~:~.::(~f
~SiL~~~tlL1J~Pl<?J.~~~~~YE};.~~~:Q1~J:12.p.~:IpI~>~,.~~~l~n~y,;~O prOpOS~p:9~e .~~~~~ .~.eY~.1~p~~~,t,~ -tJie.';<g~::;:..:;;'lt;~
...i::;},:i:;;j;~~:api>ro ':iiate')ite'm:easfand.less:iiltense:of:n:o'devdo' mentinthe m6i~ 'sensitive areas. of the- site~~i:~.'c': -'2;. ~,,:.~>;
/"::\}\:;;~;~'3~;:{: yet toJj~ deterimne~Wa,dditlOnal. iIif6miatlOn regarding infrastructure .sequenclllg IS. bemg:~~~:~:' ;' <:~o... ,'_:. ,.',..\",c',
;;c!~'t:~t~,~~i:~~fi~~~~~;~~i2~g~f{tir~1~~~\ re,q~~~t~l~f:foitf]:1~rt;:2"(. .~'",;c;,;XJ
~?>-;;~~i.;;,1:.1~\~eprp1~cti~-~~Q:~~llsiit~~tXviili;tli; PD: Planned'Development District proc~'ssing'p~o~edures:<' d /. '.
,:::: '::-~:{~~9;;?~-irt Ordmance.~~4:94~i~AS:-pernritted ood~r.tlie ordinance; 'a: PD zoning inay be' completed ill'tWo . ;-:.;:.- ~ .
~_'~r._...-::.'''c..:--:-''~''~.'..~.~,....'--''o;.~",:f'-'~....::-;:<:~ ._'_ ..__>'..:~ .I~'..~..'~...-;:_~,_.......,__ >' 'p';, ....::~ '~"" :'~:... .
;:..<;,:..;7:; :;. :'~:::'~Steps~~,The 'proj~Ct 'c.omplied.'With~ tlie fITst '.#ep'.when. it was prezon~d to the. PD, Planned ::;: :,... ;'.,
:;~~.'. '. <.:'<:~;~'f{Deyei6P~ent'Di~tr1~tlruo{;gl(ili~'~c{ID.ently proposed";ezonmg t'o'refineili~ sii~'s land"uses aiid_ ..:.;
~;~;\~~~~~t~M~RJ;1~~~~~~~~i~t1~~~pt::~t.~~_~~{J#!f~~~~~iW{~~~1~*,"r';hi):;!
.~ ~!;::;;;/,;:: ):~t[appr6val:Ofthe'iequested~ieioD.irig: Wilrcomplet~ the PD zonmg:processlnider Ordiriimce'.;+94~0:~.;. .':~"';'. ..
~-'-_. _.~....._.. ~~-
...
.-
, .
,'.:.. .
. ~:.~~ .;~. Plan area;' which was. the subject 'of ail EnvironmentalImpact Report, certified by. the CitY of':: . . '-'
"'. Dubli1i~ 199{ (se:e.BackgroUnd Atiac~ent).: The General PI3.n/Specific Plan EIR is a program .'. .
EJR,'.:\Vhic~ aiJ.iic~p~~ed seyenu subsequ~nt actiolls ~elated to future development in Easte~ .
,'" ._; -. .-. -; ..,'.e::'..- ';:-". -::-- '. ~-~_~~,...... _' . -. . -...J".
". .
.,
... .":
" -: ~\ .': '" '-': ~ .:
!--~-,._....:,..,..>-. ".
. - - ..
~:- .,-'- '":
~ ..
5'
t...:
~
c.::
;......
E.'
,-'.
.
t
?i
L.'
~.' ...
,
!)
.>\
....
!::: Dublin, in~luding the: PD Rezone for this project. . The ~IR did identify some impacts :from -.... . ~, ..
~L~ implementation of, the General PlaDJSpecIDc Pla.n:~whichwere not able. to be Initigated. . Upon ;.,>:,:;~:.....
~~-.CEPii~Thicf~I!~d~l'ldliili~~ilt.hi~ihl~lddtiii~I'~~;t~~~~~~
::3,~:"';::';;;~\;Ji; ..~, _J~J/tuso'~ ,opte H,a.IDltigatiOl], momtonncr pr9~ami.<W c .mc u e. s~v~ltumeasuresZ;~~":~;~~:~''7''~';lq::';.~t-:
. "Y' ... J .... t -..I'~::-':'.J'''''_-:'''' ~....I/'",?:".'(J.~r__",,,,,. '.' ~-' >.....~;.-'k. ~'--.....".......t....,~.."'. ..,~.~ .~~ z:, -." r'.tJ,.:.-... _";...'~-'-":;r.:-n~. 4i~';''''''''~''' ....!:j~...~,... :'o.''''-~.'~'~'\''''A[''''.'' V'/".1:;li~"": ..:;J.,,?W~.~ .111.~t "..iI'-\.
"t'~'::': ;:,~'~~i inteilded.'toreduce:iID""actS' from tne"'"deve16" menfofthe:Eastem: Dilbiiil'area5l;TIies((IDiti 'atioii':~;5r~,,;i.'iJj~~;.i;;d,~-
ii;t;:;11if~~~3!i~~rJ~~iEfiff,~{thi~g~P~~D~;R~~AI1~?d~tli~~:!~[~-1~~~1~;ili~!d~fg:lc~~~1'l~gl~~~~~r
";,:~::'::',;~~i:;,:;,>some.o~curnng;p'nor,to ap.Rroytu~o 1 s"." ezone' an 0 etoccumng, ater,m e, eve opment~.;~~<k'5!i>r~:
;~ .:F;r:Y;~;~-~~"~~.~:-(~.c;@~~~~..,,\.-..t~';!i~,~~~.~~~.~.~!J.;<-i~f"~~ ~.~~~~;~;":'':~?r....~~;:'~~~rl~~~~~';:].~~:'li~ ,.~~p.l';:.~"tl:~.r~~i.....'~tti.~~..c:,,:~-!,o._ .~. ~'.' . .~~..~<.,
~~~;.'o~fi5~&, I?r8.2!;~~.{' ~:r.. exam.Rle~~~~QIidiE2PS,'may: ~~~p.B~~ble .~p:e~' tli~ p.L9~e~)~ ,s.u5di"J"q~~~gIlJ!~ .~S~~:..
J).~:F,'c:::':{~'.~:Site"devlio "iIi~~~~atj~tof,oUililiD.~.t:feriim~f.T'he latg;~r6~~~w.iUb&:-sub.~:t ~~~..
. . :~y,,":.'.1:;t:,"'~.',.,.~r-:....,~1".""'.' p"";."'...,.""'''''''I''<'!;a'.....~f ''':;~...-->,;<.>..'''~.''':;;t:t...." jf;;-;....,-..,. .. - g P.........~_~s~. .~'= ....... ~."-~A"":;... ~"--'.....~,,.~""'..,~....~,"""~, ',' }..',
".~~8'1;G!<~-':.tlie :Ciiy~s'unaated:Zonj~g..,' 07dIDance)11 Ti:ie'ti~i11'g~bf tIiese:IDiti'g'ati6nmeasures:i~rmdicafed:.' !~~~
~~:-.:~..., '~;'...':':Z'!': OJ.: i7.....-:-~'."Y'3.~ ~~....t:- :.r"&t~~j.~~_.,:-~;;~:t'......,..~:-:)~,.~..~,.sX,;.~.:;~'.t'7.;t"-';'b-~~.~..J.6.~l).....~""j'........;..~~r;i."~,,{"~-t~~~.~%~.!,,:':'"1y.\r--i:..~~ : J,~j.....
E~j;b:t~~J2ttX~[~~~tig~tion~m~i~ijng""iii~ .':ZCttttaclied ~as'a-~~ck -.'Oifud,f\ttac1llDenf~l~
~fJff;~%i~~~~~"..:ift< " . .~~fl;: ,.~. ". .; .; ~rt
.~.~~;t~~,,~~~~~~~~~~~1!?J1f-3~2;l~~J?~p.E!~~Ig&!!i~~p:I:~J.~~. ~_~qj~~~~.1.lJJ.~""~~'~~~k~r~ '?';"3>~$:
.;;-:; '~~~;;f.f:';.will be 'additional enVironmental ini.....-acts~occurrifr.'~asareSU1fof thiS"'fO -ect '(iliePIJ.Rezone).i.. .~/{)~.~~r:'..
.~.:; ,~o';/:::.r;"b.,,,.-:.,:;:;c<,"d,,,.ISt~Jiffi"';::~?-t';'?!:.."',;~"J"'t1i""~~~ ~Pd~~~~dJ,di''>:c--:rn1,~''d' !~'Zi.~"~p" .'J:;~::;~~j<E7n;lbTh" ~'"1-;~.:::t;!1fS"""'~d'~~/J<-~ '~':,:;' ,.=-J,::: c,
.;:o;;""~;-::.;2~_~ eyon or, eren uom ose i:Wea x'a esse m we rogICiII;r ~~ e.lllltiClJ: fu Yfi~~- ~ ._...';.i::i',~,,:,,-/
".tJ;~.Ttj~fde;tifi~'~~~~~;"\)t'tIili~tifu;'~~ ~hic'lii~,.:tk~ 1ili-:~~~ati~ii~["i7,'.~~. e6'F~.)"~ifi6'i~~b"'1"tf~~~~~%~~2~:%,1:'
'.... ':..'._. _~...~.... ':- -; ~",_",,!?,.~r.;.....~-.,,....R...r..,,,,,""""':-r'ol::..,.~,-.:...~~_..r.:t..-.... '-.' "..~_.....-.~..~r.;,~~..;_. ,..:: C'" .r_~.,,~~,t.. "~"";"'~'''''O.r_ ~~..\.!... .....~--.l?....;~ Q::l.........~~"T:-:.,:l.:t..~'..i~'i'~;<".;'l'}. -~~ir...... ::..:......,;~,: ..~~:...$-::...I~.~....
-:~~-~':s:r~~~f ~~~Je.-m~~~t~~'b:~~~!$~~?~r9~~~g~~~~~.~~..~::,,~}Epte.~~;~!~,~~~fR~~~~~;!k;~lt;;iW~~l?:.~r,
~}:~~;t&'~~~1~~~1f~~d~~~~~tii~fgtt~~~9at~~~IT:i1ri~~~~~!~~}.f~~J1k~~1~~"litf.{%~t.:
r:2t-; r ..JL.;_J'";"_~ "........:::::.;..-l':>.....:.~~,...f........~~.~....~ ~..._...........-;.._"j~-;;<...... p_.~ ..'~...~i-"~...liI('-'-'\,,......~,....:,. ~~... _M~j ~""~'1"'';'~ ..l.......'-~J.......~\'-~.I~ ~ ........'l\'~-M..,.r~-:'.s..~ ,"I-~~.' ~~.,,,~,,,,,"~-:-~-......I.._"':"'...~
if:~.~ ~:i.:~-~~' Study;supporu{tl1e"adopnonof a NegativejjeClaration for: 1nC)Sf(pfojeCt:specmc,uno-acfS- ihat&':~.1~jb\~.'" .-r:.
~~:...>.:~ ~ ..:.:;. -:_....i::.....~~.:.A-.. .-t ':;f:'~~""'t -..d....~~.:;::; ~:~1-d.; ~;~..J...tli-...~J:-n:g;;i:?~1-~'.~E. ITi~~~...t.~...t.~"'~~~.: !<%~~s:;~.:1~\.~; ..~t~.;.;~"\.~-: ;~:. :""~~ 7..~;t~~~ ~~J:. -::r'"f..iJ:~ .,~;t~~-:;.,:
?t~~O:~~~~-;.._:~,.~:.~~~ were, no a Ul-esse m~ e Lro~ ~.r\:.~M~:~.\~:j~4~:-~:::"~~~~;~t~~;\--a~ft$(~~g!(~t~., ~~Y~I/:,r- ~.:~~J."~:t .~ n
~':~~;~~ ~~}!(i~~:~m~g~Ti)~t~t ' .~;;t~?~~~~1~~l~~~~~~~~1~J~~~~~~~~i~~~~~' .:_,~~~:/1~;:~
::~;;,>, ~:')~'cThe IriitiaI' StUdy?s'rocused"evaIuatioj{ofpertiilentproJeci::"leverenvironmental issues mc1ude.~~~ii2:;;~::::: i~
~;~ ::~'._~ :-~.~ S :2i:t::'; "~'''b-:::' ........1 ::;~""-:"'1~..... ~t:t~ffi' o#~~t..'"''iI.o;.~~''''d'~''' ~:':'-:'_L..s,b'.li.;"~~;t't'7".. ~..:!::::-:'~~~..~;~..;.,,~ h';t.--:.:. -.f.--! j!':d.,:"'::4::-:::/tt;: ;:~f"& '~:""d-"';r:. ~h~.Et':""l-~1i:".r.E.l:':c~~ t!;:-~f~.; {;::;..~i:..~~~~~~~;' ~;,..
~;:-;.'".::"~-::'>.:"',u~.C;, ~o OglCtu e ects;"an pu c:servIce lssues.suc as;wastewater:~an sc 00 s;~ acu 0 ;~::: ....:0~::e~~:;;.f.!.;:.
.~~~~' ;,5 ".;:- =. ili~se' isS1i~s-'1i~ li~~1iill€1~b..ecrof"sii:"'~< 'lenieriJ1il-:~h*6~'~~& '~dIe~'~ddr~~sb1gn'~:&:'-~:.t~f' ;'li~{{f:~~r;;:z.~1i'-
'r " ~~ ..: .~,._ :./~_ ...-.. ..< j.:.;,~ :;.;..: }:,;" ;.i,:~ ....~~.....~..!....;-;--::...~ .~_~-...~.... ~ "P~.:.. '1.......P . ....;-.....:-t.. -...r.... :<r'-..:r").'"'-.r""""7t:;;'.~;..J ta::".....-- '-=--.::;.. -. .... ~-...... ....0: -. ' ;....r.. ""T~'. ..'~ ...~::-.. -~-'L~' ..' ':..... _~,...~. ::; ~ :..;"'~ ...:.....: ~.
.;- " ~..':~: ~~: eriviroiiinental effects forothis level of theproject::' In 'each: case; stUdies hirve-deteimiried that the '\:~~;;:{,~.:;<G:' ?:'':;'"
. "~~:;:~. ~;;~; I:~bje~r\ilH1iQt~~~:~~;~:~~~Iti.pp~"iigDific~i' #ri~~~~~~~~~~~~ '~~~h~*~~€;~~tA~~?~t.e~ )~t;~~%:f.~~~1\~-:T .
'.:,';:.,. '<',':;.. ill theearliei; EIR;'=: ReQommendations' fronithesupplementiU Studies are iIicluq~d iri the proj ect :~::;~0.~::;:'\::l:;E :+;:~':
'. '_- .. _ ,~,-""'_"'-r;';"-..::."".~'" ......__.._..~:..~";. "~'_~~.'.~.-",,;-....- ........."",C""...- '.'" .;...... ........ .....-.'...................... .....~ -.~,.~.,.l"..........._.-:"'-.' ... "', '~'.', .'.....-"."i--'..-.
, .. ".: :.-.:-, '.. descnption, aridlor-afe.reflected iri the conditions of appio_val:;:Fifrther discUssion. of the above?~ <;:~:s~i';:~~":", ~:: .
-_ ~ ....-~. ~ ... _~:::.- '-~ .' ~., \'.-c.;...._,~:_-~::=:.- ....--;:...;-!....: ~~~"':.'f..!!"~" :-. ..... -~'-::. -:-,""':. '::'.: .:~,,:... :-.-! '.--::-. '.. <:"" ~~ .......:;..., ~~"~.' f'~..-:-}-:... -.....:;: .<'~,:;~~~'....d ~_.: ::~::;~ ';.': 1'::':.~~7!:"i,~::::~:~.:J; : ~ ~-di:.. 't-~ :....~..,;..~.; -:.~... -.....:-- '7-:.:
, ... : , noted study areas appears below ~;<-, ~ ~ ~":' ~.. :,-'~-: .-<;":",,..r'~;:':':'_'''''/i2;t,,,..,,,,,,w-'':=..'-:-,;,,:"';<,.: _f'i, :.i2.?;:"."'i'~ ..-',,;:r-:.:.":;~ '~U.:i""~':;.~"" ~~":'}o-' ;, .,'
:'~~,'.( .j 7:,,:. ,Y;'~::~"\(rltiP~~J};~~1.~~~t~<<j~~>~;~~~I:i}f{'~~1(~~;F;E;i~i;~~~$Jii~~~~~:~~;i~l~~V~~~;I~~ig~~~~~~.fK~~;ii~t~;~.
:\ ',: ~: .): ~FI~'~4;.i~~:~~.~~}i~~:~~l?R5!~~~1~~~ f.~r ~~~Ri5-lj~e9iJ~j~~J.~~~d~'~~~~~ ~P,~~t;;g~..y~Y~51!l~J~t~t~{:~.;~t
".:7;;-:_ "f:~'- the Impacts and related rmprovements were preVIously addressed m tlie certified Program EIR:~'i:f'~:tf",:...~{.~,:~t;.':~:
~~~ :',:; .~:~~~ ~~~a~~~~~~~~~1if~K~!~q~iJ~ti~~.?~#~ttii~t~~:~~j~~~':t~~.~~~~t~~~{~~l1?~~:~tt~~f.~~i3rt::i,:;; .
: .. ': __..~ ~lgiJificant rmpactS:'~Th~,recent traffic study 'rmprovements;,which have been made, condltlons of:~-,B~;\:.;'i:; }.~;':~\'::
-- ~ ':,:' ~'" :.' ,'t"_~.~.~: ._,......~:"'-~1.:..~....I~-;.~:"'...t;.:~:.::....'7" . ..:::....~.--s. ...l......... J:..... -./--:-'.~..-- ...'."-',,~,=- ""~",,::~..;'".,.7,,,;,,~"~::r~' .;. ...<- ~~. .t>~:.':.~t.:'-:J'~"';-"''':,~':''''-::~.'': ~...,:-:....:..
_:..'- the' proJect; are Wlthiri the sco:pe. of the lllitlgatlons Identlfied ill the EIR:;R::~2:'f:,::j~:::;. .:....: ~'.-:::;:_'-:.!,.;:-J ',:.~;:c~;~:....?,\:"::::...-:' ':.
.:;?~: .: ....:: . >:>J :~1;~ /{ ;~;~~~'\Li{1~f' ~~.:;~::.-\ ~F;A;~:-' : ':'~.,.,~~~~;~:{.~::/.Z/F;k !~!+~"t\)~.;i,~.;,~;;:~::~ ]~:~~f. :Ai~~:~~;;~~J~:~1-:}:~'E:-;.t}~~1:{~_:~:{::r
. :: BIOLOGI CAr: A suppl~rn~~tal.b.iological study. was con4uctedJ~r fu.e- proJ~ct ~t a'p.r9Jl?~~:~;:$2~::: ,:X{:;?":~(,:.:~:;;;:';';' ::
,.. ~e~ip~.!~'Y.~~:t~ ~~~#~j5{?:~~~~:~~'.~~}[?)~f~'>4~~e~op~~~~~X~~i}ii.~t~~'~J.'~~~<.~~~~~Y~~fy~~?t~:.<}';'.;
~ _,,:_' or reqUITes any additlonalrmtlgatlon measures~~ The study also f9JJowed up on.s~ye:r:aJ.~tudles::?.: u:;:.,';;'.~;;;:.:::'.",:":>__'.--":
ut'./':-:::'~ p~#Y!9~ly.',S9~ple~e,t~ k~}{#~..~r.o~~,~~~:: ..~e.pr~j~~t~~~.<,h.~ ,be~~'?~?~~e~:Bth~~Z;i;;::i\)5.f~~.:~,:;~:-.~~::...' ..:;.
. .:::-;.~_~:;.Co :. corisideratiorf ofqio~ogic8J cqD.cerns, aiJ.d those EIR mitigation .measures which):.equrre buffers ."~::~:~::,::':-'\:'i~,t::j ..;;':~.
~: ~ ~ ~. >'. 'an.dpi~t~~~'oIi 'p{~~iJsih.~~' ~iologicaI.aI~~' hav'e been 'addr~ss(;~~~ Th~: ieqillrem~~t for..th~~}:(~~ ":' <. ~~. .~~;,. ~..~ ". '
continued, adherence .to these nptigatiOJi measures has been made. a coriditiori'of approy~ of the -'
. _'" :i;.~:~>~';:\\ . .. >.'> <;, '.,>. ,.-, > ,:d .., . :.:\;;;::~:"~~~::;F(:;~'Y;~~-:~~~~:~ '
::'-" 1-,'
~,-: ..'.--"
.-. ~ '.. ~~. .
I
'. ~.'
\
..<: ...
"'; proj~~t.~: N~'-.additi~naJ significm'i~pacts beyond those. addressed iri the Program EIR were
>~~~~i\?0?~~iJt%~~i~~~:,~~~~ii{;ci~~t~*~0;(:~',;:,:,,;;c,;/;:; .~.' :'" ,., .,.', "
<.:';:;=.:Tf;X'i?'\ft, PUBLI8 F ACILITIES~ TIle 'certified Program EIR; as , updated by the ;August 22, 1994 ,.:. ~... . . ,. -:.. -:.
_':"'>I,,~,_V"~ ,.;;.....-.. ~ .. ,"4,__ ~~ 'r;~...._.t'~~#''''''':''''''.1!'''''''~ ._,,' ~L";: r....- ~._......... .. _,.. _'. .... .. _:-
f~ ~raddendmnrexaiDiiie&wasiewa{er facilitY'needS for~ the''''ro. eCt area:and analyzed 'on ajt!~S'>' ., :.::. <"~';:::l:~
.~tp~6gi~-a-tf~i~rfu{ti~atfb1i~giII~~:i6~ iri{l~b~~~~1k-lo:~~t~wat~rtteltnfeiit'~Ci~e h.oit. . ~;~tl~~::t~i~
~1t~'f~8ilti~~'pi~~::"lgc~~a:~~~figtforibl~;';~iii~~~'ri~6~gid:>';1;t~"~i;~o~1d~ ~~ci'e:":tia~~;;:;j . ~::;Nt~t;~\{;i~
~,"'';:{'<-'.''''''~'~'i~"..,.",<,~..gi>< ~-",,,,,..,,,",..,J~~&,,,,,,,~.,,"..I,.,_.. "~' pc-.(~"" '_.~."""..._'" ,.- .!:[Y.::,. . E.., ,.,..._ '..,.' q ..""'- ........ '; ':.... :,'.J. ;...'."".::..
~e~~rers~Mce~ ironi~mgtf f or'exampl~1)~~f\ ~h~"feteiii1y' issued :~. Noti~~.'of '::~:: . .;:"}}A~;~:.~t:i:j~
_:~~~~~i.~~~~~~ri""~~~~~~'-'~~~~t.~~1':~~~'l" ~-:'i,''''1t!~'f.h.\i.~!(t~'f~~~~-'''..A,'~''''t't;,:-:'!,~",-""":,,,,,, :"'~.~":-!":i:;; r.':-~:-' 9_::,:- ..~ _~: .' ;:-':.,:'. :_..:.~;../:.A~
J?~R~tL<1~M!l~~&g;g9&fQ!:.~ . e~x-..-R,f2~g~~~t~.d.;~~!~J.~,;,.f:~p~j;Q~E-~:g~alf.~;J%.~Jpe 1'1~ng~.::"-~..~~;';i.ii:z~})
Stages~o~lt;"treatmenyw~t'f~xpallSlon~ Th'1JCstrtllS..~of the~ .mip.rov~entS)Wiif~ontfuue 'to b. 'e.~r:~<~~;gr.ii::~
:: .~!-~t..~.~ ~A~t~l*~. :., .~li....~~..._. ~.ili~t1i" - ~~~"'f'~d~Mi~~~~~~. M' ...~ft~;ii..:t'..':;.~}'~p..~~~~).~.....'l.-:;x-:;t...:f~~jj.~;!~t~i,.;'"....~J....:t.~i~;i;..~~=.;s.:..:~
..C?@,.W~~to ~SJ1feso!p-p' an~ej"Yl " ~.auop.tE,,' ,.,.JIga~on. C?IlltoI?Jlg ,.rogr,?lll..~~t:~Jt~~~\..:.,::,~:;~.,:.'~i:;~~,~;p~~
ev~I6"~~f~lig:ti6~~~1rn~tiV~h:l~~~s1t~d~"Ve1b7ffi~]'i~f~e\VS):~e~'~1ibrrJite~ .ill'tlie1~d~;,:~ '..~~
'~J . . t.,..""c~t:fI~W~lfi'l~
, ~~_ ill y:, ~ rezonmg or: s:prOJectsItereqwres'a cool Mitigation' ~eement between ilie:-.:':'~;~~.:2:::'~"';"i;:;;',:
'~~S;a~v~1<t'~kciiid~~!m-~t~a~S~lf<56i:llitri!tA~~bli~hili~~g-ili~d~d1r:1u;ri~rbifin~~lit~0~r.~:~GJi1~t;}~
'f!~~eC::?l'..~d~"";"::-<'T~i' '~'&"""=J"""<~"""''''~,~"""""",~~Jit.-.:.~.",.f'.",,;.cu'''';'~~,.'.,,,,,. u ~ .-~",~......,-..;., " .co..."",,_.,. :'.''- ... ,~. ~ ':',.;'_~, ,.:-:.-,~",;,; "'~"~""'.
..~,~~{ apWpr~oriStiUCtii1gscm)olrfacllines'?necess=~t(tserv~ihe~scli~;ol<r"~Ulatiori~''erierated Jj...the~~~'S~;'~f,~
~~~":;fK""\: ~f::.1~>~~~~:t"~.-...~~~.tr. ~~,tJ'~;.f~~-'\'.~~:~~~~~~s'~~..:'$tti-:.~~-bt.~~.....;~1:.;~"''-~~~''''''''- g. ~,.--;,;.. . - .. ,. gJ-'-' . ::--;:.; ,[.';. ~--; ~;.:.:... ~ ~:'-.-:~.'_~-"",:.~':l:' :'.~..~_~...;.~
3;'{">$(;.-::3; develci'pment~ All agreenienfhas been. eritere&.iilto\vith'-ilie Dublin School DiStrictn which covers : ;'<'.~;: ~~., ~':'
~;::; :j~- ....-:~.;-\_.S'-.,-~~.w;~~..4~~::.,;~....'.~~......;.:-:.:~~i;..p:.'~~~..,..(~:~z.,~~'4~~:~~~~(~';;..~.;{.~'~~::"":;;!":::::;::~:'~ ';:':;~,::,:::'~ t ~~- ~ _"> :.-"::: '_~, _ . ~ . _ _ -. '/'~~'.:;. .-.!.:.~.~-:. ~
.~'-.t., '-;:"('. the sIte:~A" COpY-IS' on file ill tlie Plarimn Department.j~~:{i~,~~~~';;<;<':J:::;;"r.0:f;';""-~ ;.' ~:-...Y<". ~>,. :",', : :,., . ~. ;./ .::,. .~;_ 'c':>~'., .;'.
$!l~tf~~~~~~J;~l~~~~~~~ftt~~~ <,_ ,.:1~J~i~~~z~tg~i.(~~~::~~ij~~,.~:~~t~i~ i;t:~~:,::~i.~~~~n~,~~;i~~1.~~{;;.0~;
; :~::-~~~~~JI:.~J~Be~'" ~1P.P)jc~J..~~~~~"..,,,,~,p~~.e~J?,~: ,~.tPJ:e~,~~,~,~~~'H!l~~~."~d. app~~~~!~.r~l1tig~~~~ ;~:~~~~~~;J:t~~~~
'~:Z:;~'!:{tm~?iUies k(jf the'I~ro"'. airi EIR"'}Vhich'adctressenvrrDmnentill'concerns:"A' co .. . 'of the EIR;.the,~.: ~::{.~' .~~.: .:~~~:<:.-.
''-:'''\:-,.:'7i'':e::::->.~':;;'~''';;-.?'''.h~~~-''''''~'''~?,;~'~'';.;l:'>'''''''1~-;;'jV'''~,~,,*!~~,~}f<,:"..~~........:;-,::.;:;;.:.:-I'''''S.' : ;:::.r: --- :.'. p~:" ',_' .,_-. ~~~, ~'. . ..' .... '..,,: ,~":;.,~.
. -,..~::::7~~#IriitIiil.Stuay; and the supplemeutiifenvrronmentaI'studies regardmg these Issues are mcprporated.t:.~ :-:::,~.~1-:
~;:~;f~~~~14:%~~~1!t!t{~p.:oJi'~~~f~~gJB;;:!f.M~~~!~tq~.~~:Yii~~~ .~~~~.l!~~:r.!~ry~/~~~~~;;;~:~;:'~-~~.~'}:~~~~~;
i~{'i:ifj"~~:Re~~~Iit"1_Q.o):<(lxi~:~l~_~~~~!il{ C~~~~.~)2~6 l~tte~~~e:~:E~~e.i~~~ ~ .~e~P?~~}~_ ~e, : ~:':'.T'--.~~... ~~2:_<
~,:~~gr;i.~7J;;. circUlatio~f tli"'e Iiiitial Stlld:and DJiftNegative, D~tion. dtirillg- the public'reView'period;~.~ ':<'-;~'.:';:i:;;:~,~~:'
~f1~~1:~~;~jl~r~-{~~~~~ /%f?:. ~.~'~~r ,~;i4~~~~~f~~~~~~~i7J~~t}~?~}~1~.;:'~;;~~~.t;?~- ~J~:(i<::~-~ . :~..:::~;:;.i{~D;-:~
~::;;.i.':~ :.j~:;):~ As: a reSUItof tli6-reVIew'of the certified EIR- and adderidataiid all analisis .of pertinent project ~:~ 7 ":':":',~ :-:,,~:,.:;::
~t%~~j,twft.jjyil~i~~~~~~t~n~~~K~f~{€.gf~g:W~~. ~~~~~~tg#}~i~.~~ ;~~~~;:?~t~~~~,~~t ~e.'rX(,.;': ' ~~.r..:-.~:~&1;iJ-
~~*~}..<;::3"8.-;2iPr:opqsed proJ~ct3!;~yvIll not liave.any'new SIgnIficant effects on theenvrronment which have'.-,.",':,,' ..' ':"
:..I....~:-'" -~" ~- ~; ..~~._. .....': ,. ':.~~);. ':.!.p, J'.. .: ';!"-_.:-';::';.'~ ~-_\..'--:-.. *. ~~...r-:"" ":-"-r<" "i.i"~""-~ . )./".'; -00".. -' . .!""\...~'''':'. -" _ . '._. -". . '" .,,"'. _ _'" c . -. ...., .... ,-' . .... '", _ - .' f y.. '._
:;~~f{~&~;Y~~~J:notb_e,en)ullilYzedadequatelyiIfai:i "eadier EIRjJUrsiianttoapplicable standards.' To th!s e},,'tent,<... :,:..., '...'
...:-...~ .....~_...:~~~ ~.---:-3'~-: ~ "'-.-.....{~-.; -~- _":,...?:"-t.,_,,,;_~..:;. ',;...j '...'~~'~. .~~-.1.~_.'_' '''~'' -.1;.........0:"_- :.: ."' ~....,,- y_ ..: ...._ . ~.. -,..h _. . - ,.... .: . . ...._ . '", _ _ _." _ ~..." _".' .. _, . . _ ._..... ::.. _ '. :
~'~:~J~~:~~0~t,{~Jrthe pioj~d isWithiri:the:sc;ori€;f.oftlieJ>rogram EIR3~':~roject specific..analysis beyond the Program~~:::~':T::. .
Bt~t~r~~~i~::S~,HI~fj~~!~~Al:.~rpf~1i~~7~~,:~f~~~Y:~,~~~)~ti?ilrNt~ftga~o:~Aro.#i_0e ~ro~~- EIR-.~ :::!:: . '.':,.-
~~~:~c.~:;~;t~:;')?~~'aiid-,?lrr~rne1idatron{fromt1l~su,f4'lementarShidies~are iricluded in the project description:": ~.. ~,c . ...
~~\~~}W~;~~i1~1m;~~tER:~~~~~2~~p1fX;I]Jlig!.~;R~t~~,~~li~_~~d!~.~I~n~ijlg..~SO~s.~i?~ Res?ip'~'o~;~~:',:;>:-'t)~;i-;~~::{.' .
::~~;-~~~,;.;~::~'~~~ inc~~clerappropri_at~ 'fii:l~iirgsT~~taff~e_co~meii4(adoptipg'~ :Nega!iye J:)~clar~tion of ::i-~:::_:" ._::. ~::~~. _ -,," '
:,/~;.g/::;;:;:~
'. :X ;~:'~::i ~
; ":o:_:~;~::~l;::-;~: _ This. app~catiori has, b:een,.r~~~wed by the app}.icable City Departments and agencies,. and theIr . ~
.;(!"{{t(( ~z:~~l\1;~~~~~~~ ~~~t:~Ii~r:~;~:~i~,e';:~~~~=:1 is
- .~;~:~:\:<:.'.;." apP~opIi~~?'J(~o}~~st}'b~'th~~s#~}W~f~};n~r.1.;t:~:::.":' .. -- .: ... . '. . .
.' '",,--.. ).o~., ~- - " -'~~~_:'~-~~:(.ff::~~~ :~-~-
<}~~~t~:;j~"~~',~:f~t"~;j~~;'; ',T,..
f)~. ~
..' <
J':'"
I~'
."
17
.,
~:.
........
. ,.. ~ '-
. .
.1_ . .
- . .
- ;..':
- '- .....: : -
,. ,~ . I. .
:,. ~ - .
- ~ . - '-,
8
'-r -
\~~
" - - -. ~ --
.. .
\~'."
'.
.-
;-=-
-: ------
~
R
p~"
tff~
~b
9
\
'11
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
.
ATTACHMENTS 1 THROUGH 8
.'
HEREBY INCLUDED BY REFERENCE:
Dublin General Plan
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Parks & Recreation Master Plan .
EIR for Eastern Dublin Specific Plan & General Plan Amendment (including
Addendum dated May 4, 1993) SCH# 91103064; and Addendum dated
August 22, 1994
City Council Resolution Certifying Eastern Dublin Specfic Plan and General
Plan Amendment Program EIR (Resolution # 51-93
City Council Resolution adopting Eastern Dublin Specfic Plan and General
Plan Amendment; adopting findings and approving overriding
considerations; and adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program ("Matrix") for
EDSP EIR (Resolution # 53-93)
City Council Resolution approving Prezoning of annexed land (Resolution #
10-94 )
General Project Information
(These documents are not attached, but are available for review at the City of Dublin Planning
Department and will be available at the City Council Public Hearing on this project)
.
~4
.
..
ATTACHMENT 9
MINUTES FROM
OCTOBER 28, 1997
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
.
.
f)1
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, in the Dublin Civic
Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Jennings.
* * * * * * * * * *:.
:
ROLL CALL
.
Present Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, Oravetz, and Musser; Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development
Director; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, and Gaylene Burkett, Recording
Secretary.
**** * *****
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIIE FLAG
Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
**** * *****
ADDmONS OR REVISIONS TO TIIE AGENDA
The minutes of the October 14, 1997, meeting were approved as submitted.
**** * *****
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
.
**** * *****
V/RIITEN COMMUl\TJCA TIONS
None
**** * ****
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 P A 96-038 (Dublin Ranch - "Area A") Dublin Ranch Planned Development (PD) Rezone. Project/site address:
352:t acres north of the 1-580 Freeway, East of Tassajara Road, West side of Fallon Road current alignment, in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The applicant is Ted Fairfield, for Jennifer Lin, etal.; Martin Inderbitzen, Agent
Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Mr. Peabody gave a brief statement about the project He stated there were two projects to come before the Planning
Co~ission this evening. This was a large project and Staffhas taken time to prepare a complex presentation.
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, gave a very detailed description of the project She stated that the proposed planned
development was consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan and Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt the proposed resolution of the Planned Development A detailed description of Tasha Huston's
presentation are attDched to these minutes as part of the record
Ted Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer. He stated this project has be a long time coming. He stated his design team has .
been working about 12 years towards this evenings decisions. He introduced his design team for the project. He stated that .
the Lin's acquired approximately 1,200 acres and 1,000 of it was annexed in 1994. He stated that this project will change
over the years as the applicant will want changes as well as the City. He stated the maps and photos around the room were a
Regular Meeting
[10-28 pcmi]
98
October 28, 1997
{D
freeze ~-aJne so that t.!Je project could be looked at in m~Jageable sections. He stated they had several issues that have come
togethe:-. He stated that they are confident that they will star. the grading of phase I as soon as the weather permits. He
asked Marry Inderbitzen to explain some of the issues on hand.
.
Marrin lnderbitzen, commended Staff on the great job tliey have done. Their commitment of time was sho~ in the staff
report and conditions of approval. He stated that they were in agreement with the conditions of approval with one exception.
He showed some overheads of the project and eA-plained the size of the lots. Area A consists of two components. The first is
the residential component and the golf course. It has the potential to be a gated community. They are concentrating on
higher densities in the south an west portion of the property and will move to lower densities towards the north and east He
stated there would be and undercrossing to allow for golf carts and pedestrians to cross Fallon Road without stopping traffic.
He stated that they were committed to tlie timing of the golf course with specified timing of units. He stated the only conflict
was with condition number 46 which shows a pedestrian access of the golf course to Fallon Road. He stated that the access
was intended for elementary school children and he felt that generally K-5 children were driven to school. He felt a crossing
was not warranted and there would be safety concerns with keeping children off the golf course. That was the one item they
would like deleted from the conditions of approval. He asked if anyone had any questions or comments.
Cm. Hughes stated that to his understanding, there wasn't any way for children or adults to leave that area on foot to the
west, without going to the extreme north or the extreme south.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that was correct.
Cm. Hughes stated that whether or not there was a trail, isn't it fair to assume that the kids would use that route anyway.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that they would marshall the course in the two locations to keep pedestrians off the golf course. He
stated that they had oriented the residential project so it does not open up to the golf course. It encourages people to use the
surface streets and the pathways created in it He stated that there was an 80 foot grade and it would be a challenge to get
pedesrrians across the golf course.
.
Mr. Peabody stated it was approximately 2,000 feet from the north and an equal disrance to the south (if residents must take
an alternate route to get to Fallon Road).
Cm. Hughes stated that he understood that the elementary school on the east side of the project may never be built If that
was the case, the elementary school on the west side of Fallon would be the primary schoo1.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that one school would not be able to handle all the kids. The school disrrict has indicated that there
would be a need for another school out there.
Cm. Jennings wanted to comment on the statement that kids would be driven to school, but the concept of the Eastern Dublin
plan Wc.$ to enCOlliCtge people to walk and bike ride.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated the school district required a designated pedestrian path that was consistent with a bike route to the
schools. His feeling was the benefits of the short cut was less imporL3Ilt than the liability issue ofa child getting hit in the
face with a golfbalI. .
Cm. Hughes asked what the topography was for the middle of this pod (neighborhood).
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that the whole area was elevated from the road.
Cm. O;-avetz asked what would prevent kids going out any of the access ways and crpssing the golf course.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that it would be posted adequately and there would be marshall's monitoring it
.
Cm. Oravetz; wanted to go on record as ~..ating kids K-5 and golf courses don't mix. He stated that it would be a safety
h2Zard.
Mr. L,derbitzen ~..ated that state and federal law requires the course be ADA accessible.
.......
.......
. ~ .. .. ..
......
, -Ie
R~guiar M~::ting
[10-28 pcmi]
99
OClOo::r 28, 1997
.il
Crn. Hugh~s asked iftbe City considered an elevated foot path.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that would exacerbate the elevation problem.
-::.
Cm. Oravetz stated the golf course was a 5,000 yard course, and asked if the golf course could be championship length, or if .
they were restricted by open space area.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated they don't own the property to the north and it gets steep. They tried to stay out of the
environmentally sensitive areas and were confmed with the amount of area they have. It may not be championship in length,
but will be a lot of fun.
Cm. Oravetz stated the course should be championship length.
Tyde Butler, Robert Jones Associates, stated that given the amount of area they have and topographical configuration of the
site, it was not achievable to get a championship level golf course on this site.
Cm. Hughes asked if some of the homes were eliminated, could they do it then.
Mr. Butler stated that the potential would be greater.
- .
Ted Fairfield stated they were sensitive to the number of golf courses going in the area. He stated that this course would be
faster and every bit as challenging. He said they gave up 100 lots that could have been adjacent to the golf Course. He felt
further reduction in density would defeat the pmpose of the plan.
Ms. Huston responded to the Fallon Road and access issues. She felt it was impor.ant to promote alternate modes of
transportation and promote pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. She stated that areas L4, L2, 13 and L5 would generate 150+
smdents. Even if elementary students were driven to school, the middle and high school students would use other ways such
as walking and biking. She felt kids will find a way across the golf course even if there was not a path. She stated there
were examples everywhere where there are paths in golf curses.
.
...:.> Cm. Oravetz asked whatk1nd of pedestrian crossing was Staifproposing.
Ms. Huston stated Staffhad considered a pedestrian bridge. She stated that there were two tunnels to the north and
intersections to the southern edges of the project that would have signals and cross walks.
Cm. Johnson asked the distance between the green on 17 and tee on 18 between the development and the street.
M..r. Inderbitzen stated about 700 feet
Ms. Huston stated it was about 200 it. to Fallon Road as the crow flies, but 60 feet in elevation change.
Mr. Fairfield stated that if ADA requirements apply, they were limited to a 12-1 slope.
1\'f5. Huston stated that there were many factors to consider in terms of topography. Fallon Road increases in elevation as it
goes nOr"J1. The golf course is lower, Fallon Road is in a valley and then the golf course raises up to the west side of Fallon.
Cm. Musser asked if it met ADA standards.
Mr. Peabody stated that .WA was not always required, otherwise there would not be any paths up the hills.
Keith Halvorson, Consultant for Public Works, stated that there was debate on whether it should be fully .WA accessible. In
terms of the two paths, it would be beneficial to grade separate the path that the kids travel and the path that the golfers
would travel on.
:::-\ Cm. Oravetz asked if Mr. Halvorson had experience in building paths _across golf COlLT'$es.
-t"..-.-.-
.
Regular Meeting
[10-28 pcmi]
100
October 28, J997
~ r Iv1r. Halvorson responded no. He stated that there was one a few miles away, the Iron Horse trail in San Ramon and it has
many c.reas that people can cross. He felt it could be done.
.
Cm. Hughes asked how they would get to the path.
Mr. Halvorson stated that it was a problem trying to take up that kind of elevation. He stated that he has done an ADA path
at 5%. Staffhas not done an in-depth study, and think it could be done.
Cm. Hughes asked if it was 200 feet from the west end to Fallon Road or across Fallon Road to the development on the other
side.
Ms. Hl.!Ston stated to Fallon Road.
Mr. Inderbitzen felt that they should not be engaging in the technical exercise of designing the path. It would be a challenge
and would create a significant conflict bet\Veen golfers and non-golfers. He stated the school district does not encourage the
path, and felt they would not want to design it here tonight
em. Hughes stated he played on several golf courses and there will be pedestrians on the golf course.
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that it was always a challenge to keep pedestrians off, but when you invite them on to the golf course,
it is creating a whole level of conflict. The Iron Horse trail parallels the golf course, it does not cross it This 20lf course has
crossings designed into it -
. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing.
Cm. Hughes asked if Staff had come up with a feasible way to actually build this path.
.
Ms. Huston stated she believes you could start the path further back and slope down. She suggested it would run along the
ba::k of the homes. It could be done with adjuslments to the golf course.
Cm. Musser suggested that the condition be modified to state the applicant and Staff will work towards a solution for the . . .
path.
Cl1L Oravetz asked who would be liable if someone got hit with a ball.
LiDby Silver, CitY Attorney stated it would not be the City.
Cm. Oravetz wanted entered into the record that golf courses and kids do not mix. He didn't think: there was a way to design
a path without hurting the integrity of the golf course. He stated that the school district was against the path anyway.
Cm. Jennings stated that she did not hear that the school district was against the path. She asked Mr. Inderbitzen for
clarification on the subject
Mr. Inderbitzen stated the school district was not encouraging the crossing.
Cm. Hughes stated that he has seen a lot of kids on golf courses that did not give a boot about a path. He hates to see a plan
. .disrupted for something that may not work anyway.
Cm. Jennings asked lithe proposal would be approved ifit was disfiguring to the golf course.
M.s. Huston stated that was not the intent Tne lan!!Uac>e of the condition could be changed. The issue could be studied, and
= ~ -
if a solution could not be arrived, it could come back to the Planning Commission.
. Mr. Peabody stated it could be reworded, but it was the Pla.-ming Commission's decision if they want it or not
Cm. Jennings suggested that wording be placed in number 46 of exhibit D of the staff report.
.. -.
-.. -.-.
_. '.0_- ,
.....
R::gu1zr M::::ting
(10-28 pcmi]
101
Octoo::r 28, 1997
jl}
Cm. Hughes moved to adopt the resolution with revision of number 46 of exhibit D, requesting the City and the developers
work together to fmd a safe crossing across the golf course yet not affect the working of the golf course at the time of
tentative map. --
e
On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 23
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF
FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE
CONCERNING P A 96-038 DUBLIN RANCH AREA A
The Planning Commission took a five minute recess.
. .
All members of the Planning Commission were present when the recess was over.
8.2 PA 96-039 (Dublin Ranch - "Areas B-E") Dublin Ranch Planned Development (PD) Rezone and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment /General Plan Amendment Project/site address: 453i acres north of the 1-580 Freeway,
East of Tassajara Road, West side of Fallon Road current alignment, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area The
applicant is Ted Fairfield, for Jennifer Lin, eta!.; Martin Inderbitzen, Agent
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report.
Ms. Huston gave a details description of areas B-E. She used overheads to show the areas B through E and stated what
would be in each area. She stated the project site was covered by the EIR. An initial study was prepared for this area.
Traffic, visual, and biological issues were studies, and would be addressed in the earlier EIR. She stated staff recommends e
the adoption of the attached resolutions for areas B-E. A detailed description of Tasha Huston's presentation are attached
to these minutes as part of the record
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that they concur with the staff report and he had nothing to add.
Cm. Oravetz asked who developed the community park.
Mr. Peabody stated the City.
Cm. Oravetz asked what the grade was in that area
Mr. Inderbitzen stated it was relatively flat with some hills.
Cm. Jennings closed public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hughes and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 97-24
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, APPROVAL OF AN EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
AMEl\'DMENT AND APPROVAL OF FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE
CONCERNING P A 96-039 DUBLIN RANCH AREAS B-E
eo.
Regular Meeting
[10-28 pcmi]
102
October 28, 1997
..
iLl
.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1 Upcoming Planning Schedule
Mr. Peabody stated the next meeting will be November 10, because November 11 was a City holiday. All Commissioners stated they
could be there. He stated that a Planning Commission meeting was scheduled on December 23rd and asked if everyone could make
it.
The Planning Commission stated they could.
9.2 Discussion on what the Planning Commission would like to see in the way of Planning Commission
packets
Mr. Peabody asked if Staff was giving the right amount of information in the Commissioner's packets, and if they want to continue
getting all the information.
Cm. Hughes stated that he does not look at all of it.
A discussion was held on what information to give to the Planning Commission. The consensus was reached that they all like to get
all the information so that they can review the entire package.
Cm. Oravetz reported on the Downtown City Task Force meeting. He stated that one major issue was competition with the business
owners with Eastern Dublin.
.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
~;;;;;:~ f r-
Community Development Director
.
Regular Meeting
[10-28 pcmi]
103
October 28, 1997
~,
7 -17
..
,
f:~.
1:,':'
t:::
~.
~
~:..
;~~
~{
~.
t;-
t.
~;
f.~,.,
~t:: .
}.':'
&.
7-\ :. .
f;..
[.c::
~
~,
~ .
""'1
Staff Report presentation - Areas B-E (P A 96-039)
.
The proposal now before you is the Planned Development for Areas B throuqh E, which
occupies approximately 450 acres of the L)n property. .The Areas B:-~ project h.as been
processed as a separate project from Area A for nyC? ,m.ain' ,r€?asons: ,,1) the site planning
for Areas B-E has not been done to as great a level of detail as Area A- it is purposely left
. "_",-'._ _.," > o.
. at a conceptual stage..'Also, the Areas B-E PD involves minor land use amendments from
those shown in the SP for the Elementary School site; the CommunitY Park, and for a
small portion of land within the Livermore Airport Protection "Area, which was. previously
designated residential. .:: ..:,' ..' . .. . ':..'. ~ .< : '.: ~.,:, -,. ":'~'," ~", .
. - - .,.
I ~ould like to des~r~b~.the dev~lopment conce, pt,and' then summarize the
. land use and environniental analysis .~~~~,u.~ted, ,by ~taff.. Following my
presentation, I believe the applicant's represe~t~tive; ~artin}nderbitzen, would
like to say a few words, and of course, we will be happy to answer any questions.
The proposed development involves both residential and commercial development, along
with a Community Park, Neighborhood Square, two partial school sites, and 32 acres of
Open Space.1 The residential areas would support 1,875 units in eleven distinct
neighborhoods accommodating a range ofhousing types. Single-family detached homes, on lots
ranging in size from approximately 2,000 to over 6,500 square feet are expected to be the .
predominant tYpe of housing in the Medium Density neighborhoods, although some attached units
are permitted as well. Medium-High and High-density neighborhoods will likely consist of
multipk-family ~evelopmenis of attached units, including condominiums and apartments. Rural-
residential/Agricultural uses are designated for 99 acres. The General Commercial and
Campus Office uses would occur on nearly 86 acres of the site, and be similar to that found
in the newer commercial and business park areas of the Tri-valley area., The project also involves
an intermittent stream corridor and public trail system, and two Community Parks totaling -
approximately 85 acres.
.
; The site topography involves mainly open grassland on a varied landscape including flat plains near
the freeway, a region of gentle slopes and low foreground hills beyond, where the large Community
Park site is located, and increasing in elevation toward the upper hills to the north. The intermittent
stream corridor also rims alongside the Community Park site and through the project. The
ridgelands of the property are located in Area D, in which environmentally sensitive resources are
preserved for low-intensity rural residential/agricultural uses. This area also includes a stream '
valley, which is designated for another community park site.
Residential development is generally proposed on a series of terraces cut into the foreground hills.
Some of the more predominant residential development concepts include conventional small-lot
single family, courtyard or cluster single-family, and townhouse/condominium projects. Apartment
developments of up to 31.4 units per acre are anticipated in the flattest portions of Area B. .
Provisions have been made to encourage access from residential neighborhoods to parks, trails and
~pen space, to encourage the use and enjoyment of the natural amenities of the site by its residents.
1
(b
. The development concepts are depicted in the Land Use and Development PlanIDistrict Planned
Deyelopment Plan (LUDP/DPDP) referred to in the Staff Report as Exhibit D-1, which has been
provided to you tonight in bound format.
.
..
As with Area A, this Land Use and Development Plan will complete the second stage of
zoning for the property, which was prezoned as a PD District when the area was annexed
to Dublin. However, the Areas B-E plan is more conceptual in nature, to allow greater
flexibility in the development of the property. In order to provide this flexibility while
gaining the assurance of high-quality and appropriate development, a detailed set of
design guidelines and development standards has been developed for the Areas B-E
project. With these standards, staff believes that the City can ensure that futur-e
developments occurring on the site will be appropriate in nature for the community.
Subsequent planning approvals and other permits which will follow this application include
a Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Site Development review, and Building
Permits.
As a part of the proposed PD Rezoning, minor amendments to land use diagrams of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan were necessary for several reasons. The development
proposed for Area C includes a small (4.5 acre) portion of land which is proposed to be changed
from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. The adopted Specific Plan anticipated
such an amendment, because the area is located within the Livermore Airport Protection Area and
residential uses in that area were viewed as potentially incompatible. The proposed Commercial land
use is consistent with the closest adjacent non-residential urban use. The magnitude and intensity of
development that could occur if the amendments are adopted are substantially consistent with the
development envisioned for the Specific Plan.
The Planned Development also includes adjustments to land uses previously designated for an
elementary school site and for the southern community park. This results in additional areas proposed
, to be designated for Medium Density Residential, including 10 acres no longer needed for the
elementary school, and approximately 16 acres previously designated for the Community Park
(amount of parkland needed for development in the Specific Plan has decreased). Because the precise
acreage needed for the Community Park is yet to be confIrmed by the City, 13 of these acres adjacent
to the park have been" designated for Medium Density Residential or a Community Park. The area can
be considered for residential development only after the City Council determines that this portion is
not needed for Community Park land.
In addition, the proposed proj ect involves a shift of 8 acres from the General Commercial designation
to the Campus Office designation. The shift would translate into a decrease of approximately 83,000
square feet of commercial space and an increase of 130,000 square feet of office space, but the
proposed shifts do not involve an increase in the overall acreage of these two land use designations.
The Specific Plan anticipated the need for flexibility in developing these land uses (see EDSP, Chapter
4.5). The proposed modifications and amendments would result in a long-term development pattern
consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan
2
~ .' .
~1
Staffbelieves the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the land use goals and policies .
of the City's guiding documents for land use decisions (General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning
Ordinance). The project provides a coordinated plan for development of a variety ofland uses. It
provides for this development through a framework of protective development standards that reflect
the sensitive biological, aesthetic, topographic, and other features of the site.
The project's Land Use and Development Plan uses the PD principles efficiently to propose more
intense development in the appropriate site areas, and less intense or no development in the more
sensitive areas of the site. These uses and locations are consistent with and reinforce the General
Plan and Specific Plan land uses, goals and policies by providing open spaces among development
areas, by restricting development in sensitive areas, and by providing recreation facilities to serve
the community. ..
This project site is also covered by the Environmental Impact Report, (or EIR), prepared for the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Extended Planning Area program ElR, which
anticipated future development such as this PD Rezone. The adopted statement of overriding
considerations and mitigation monitoring program discussed earlier also relate to this project.
A..n Initial Study was prepared for the Areas B-E project, to evaluate potential project-specific
impacts, and determine whether there will be additional environmental impacts occurring as a result
of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program ElR. The Initial .
Study's focused evaluation of pertinent issues included traffic, noise, visual, and biological effects,
and public service issues such as wastewater and schools. In each case, studies have determined that
the project will not have any additional significant environmental impacts which were not evaluated .-
in the earlier EIR. As with the Area A project, staff is asking the Commission to verify whether
staffs recommendations regarding the project's use of the mitigation measures is appropriate.
For example, A noise study will be required prior to any development occurring, to ensure the _
project complies with the City's noise standards. The condition of approval for this project also
states that if the noise study identifies undesirable noise attenuation (such as a 12-foot high
, soundwall) that greater setback distances may be required and the intensity of the residential
development may be affected. This means that in residential areas where noise sources are reaching
threshold levels, units may need to be concentrated away from the noise sources, leaving room for
noise buffers, such ~ land berms, or simply larger setbacks. This could be accomplished through
detailed site planning, however, and no additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the
Program EIR were identified for the project.
A supplemental visual analysis was also conducted for this project to examine the proposed
development concept. It determined that the project concept generally complies with the City's
scenic corridor policies and related mitigation measures of the EIR. Several design guidelines and
development standards have been proposed as part of the project, and made conditions of approval.
As long as future development is consistent with the concept analyzed in the visual study, No
additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR should occur, and
additional visual impacts or mitigation measures would not be required.
...
3
.
.
.
t:;;{
S!al4fhas therefore concluded that the environmental analysis provides a sound evaluation of the
potential impacts, and demonstrates the appropriateness of adopting a Negative Declaration for
project level impacts. Further, the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the City's
plans, policies, and zoning requirements. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the enclosed
Planning Commission resolution for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E Planned Development.
This concludes my Staff Report, and I would be happy to either answer questions, or suggest that
the applicant's representative may wish to speak.
,
4
-
. .
.'
og~~~;. q,: eve oQments,constitute;c:i; arge; ~ve oRmen.. ~J.P.vo vJqgi.":.';gr~~t p~~Lq~j,.$; ~:~
lfifg!Jhe!i.9LkC!na~~~es. We nav~b~9'f~n~hl~~1~i%)f$6Bfa%~~, .~
. .~a~ f' ~tl-."""'th -'. d 't~ t t" &.tfi~I.~t t~fi !"~.,...>I:)O;'~~'!."".d!r. .
e~~~a tn~J.~~=~}J1~~~~~~~~EJ~JF.~. e.!k.e~.Q~~~f~J.}~~;~
~1~{~~=~~~~~~Rtfgp~~~~~~~W9~1.~~~gf~~Ir~~:t[tt
COlJ.lprex~. rrnf;: com lTlentslwl If: oy:.: necesslty~ oei te~finlc?Jlr.lliofder!;to:. ~pprop'nately; p.escnbe. the..::::::::':~);'.;.~~:E.
~;."'-t~~Y~~t. .h~~dild~'I~;l:":iK.~S'''''''t.-I'-~~I-t'''h.~~''''')':''h'~t'h'l:o,,~:i:'~''''''li''~fi"f.~""'.b,~",$>l'~~t-ti'';'':~'~-:.'-::-h'''';,-:::.' ';::"'':;C.';i.'r','~~'''~:J..
p'roJec_.tanU~mal\.~:. e;recor 'c ear.~ I f:a oug: e:pro~ess~ as. een: eng y~.we ave::;~.;\~.~...;;,';-)Y{:;':
. ,s-&cce~-rffiii~E;fubi1;Cf~~~~ff~t6r~tM'efn(jafi6ii~~f6ttm~.f(j1Ibr'WhiE~f15eiieve~60ttnR~~'.::;',;.: ~ :-.:.~(:~t
~taff~tie~~frn~~~pirc.~ . 7-~;~ _~~t-qB'i~frK}t1~~~~~~
~;;.t;. e"sl e,IS: asfbf",TassaJara;. ocfd~an :nortn:-Ofth'Er580jreeWaY~~Th'Et'lO.fafiiilY:owns.over'\,.;,,;: .T"..~~..::
, 1fooo~~m~ofr~n~vr~~h~~;~~rih"~x€Cfi~~cT'i":"i1;~1:9g5~~:-~~YroVE:f6f1iie" E~ste1n~~j,;;':~~ ::'.':"
c:~ ~Dubirn~2ifit"P1~?f"K'Ertiah~fii1e~~~b~~w:<~r~i~dB~a~R'~~~m:f'6f~plErn.ned{}:::<~:):t~~.r~:~<~. .,
<::; -~- '~---~<:;-';<~lg;;,.# ~'~""""'--~~'l";R!l~~~~c:."=.:o/~,~"",;~~"r'..J?"''''Ifrl;:,W~4:r..qr.!R-~~';'';''..;>;iJY,.....,::. ~~~:t~"';~~'-';:" ,.;....:;.~~.;;:, ':'.:r'~: :.:. ;'.c..~ ;:.:: : 7 '.;f.:':'.';.~ .
:f#!;''t~wJ?e''yel()PlPenJ ()tJM7~hQm~sAn~~il.IJ.~~Jy!,1 ~J~.6~ a.I,-~L IS. kD9WIX~:Q1JJ?~!l J3C!nch, p. Jj?.s~J;~;,i.;i.;:-i2SS:;~~jt7;1::;:?:
<.:..t..~~7~~"'."'~ ~''I..'''_.~;-~l..I'':t(.,.-~..... -...~..,-~:;.;l~",~~.c:-.f':,.PIIt-~'>""'-J"-~......~~,__?4..~a::~~___'~""~_~~i-:4..:.....r..-i":-~::H~...._._\.. ..~~.,. _~. _ ..;"..,";; -;. ..... t.:,":
!=;Q~~~" Gradinfi"onihe: f?hase:l.site. has~not Y~f:jeguh~ our groun'dbreaking' could occur. th is' spring'~ .;-~;~' ..~ ':'/:::::"
i\E;~~ '''~~~~t. . ~,~i~~1~~~~J~!~~&~\~l\~~t~.. :~~~~~~Il~~~i~)li%~~ic?:f;: . :\::~S.~7:6/?:~
-:;~:}~~:r!::,~~Tjle- currenq5ropOsarisJ6t:tne "second.'p.hi:ise of F?Jaririe . Deyelbpmebt'applic'ationsi::!,;)"he:. . :' ):: ':. ~L.
::'-:-c:.:...,.:;"w::.::-- ';"-;':;'*:"~-'.~:-:U-.:.V" '10 --:-;. ''':':::''._-~'-...-:.;,- ':"":~"'::-:'~';"'''~;''~';:;''''.'~~.-:.-:....;-.}...-.;.... ......'_-; -~.......:..:< -:::' , ,"l' ... .~~'7';;~':~:""''':~i ~.~;..--:. ...-:"".....- '..'. . -"'-;:t_..~..J{."::; '-_;'-" . ';..-.. .";1... .. ."'~' . ~ .. .- -- _ . .
.:~:~.::~;!;~;AreaA'devefopment IS to the'east oUhe Phase" site"'; and mvoJves,5'Z~_sIngle-famlly.::;... .--:: ..' .';'....>'..:,
:-'-'..:j..Z~~:'".~~.::,- "'-::...t.:.7.:..f..:'.\o-......~...;..:,..:...,.i-';.:.:'-~?:;:;;;::....~ ::.!.1::"':"~~...:...~~_ ..:,-..;,... "- --:= :~"____':~_~ If-!.~~'-;~~~~&:-::b'{;;,;r:".j~:'.;...~. ~'.).:... ..:~ ....'1:::--....,~ ~,- _ ...: .. ."... ". <,......,_
~~::~~~~~~~~~m.!:.~;~~r'g~~t.g;>y.~~(~pg.;1~~.-?C?I~f~! ?P.~~~~T?~~~;~~~t~~,p}~ag~~~~!.o~.~r~a '; ~', :: ~:. :.~:. _:.
~~~~~~~~~,!:?'~-~~~~~~J.~te;,~!9.,~~!faJ~IY:~ ~~~!!~~_.!.~y;:1.e~,.~~~!;.g.lJi~~~.~,~~.~I;~~e:~~~~!~.~~,: ~?t and ..':.., :">.;.~. ':.J ~.
~~~~:~~;:!J.~.g,~~,:i:'JIt!?~~J~fl.~~~ ~.!2~~~~?.PJT,l2D!i!Q.C?11!~~~;~~~~D2.H~7~}D~~~~~~y~!.P~T~~t;~1a~;":, >. . - .'.::,::,>:.'
~~~:~~{#1l~2~r1I.;;.t~~~~-~~!~~L~,~~~3?-~~~~~.~~9.YJ~~~nt~~fs~b.~~9.~,~Q1.~!.~;g.q!Q~g~~RBL'?~~lfj.~n~;.,~!h.e~::..;. .:.;'i:~~~:;..:'.. .:;: .-.
~~':~"S'il-;;~ perrmts'whlcfi Will follow. thIs application' Include a DevelopmenfAgreement;'i TentatIve Map, : : .:.:;::~ ~:..::
Ilifli\I~'lli"iJI(t11'I!rJlf~1i~:I~~~~>
:~f~~q~;;i,)!f~~~~ii~~Ji!~;j:~~~~fa?~~f;~t~?fet;r*~",~~f:~ ~o~... ......
1'~1fli~l~l~~1ili~ifl~~~I~!'j~II~~~roiatel>...
1~""";J.";;:~'::.,:--:5":"~"-~,)o.. ..!--:}__"9.:_..~'" -~..'-~(;-""~.;"'-:'~"l'-....~. "~.-:..::."."'...~..;)_u':.;r~.......:..;.~!"..;"';,: ....-;:--7..-":.~.;'.....,-.:.:.;_:;;i.~,.;..;';......_~....'~ ...T............,~~..:...;;-:~--=...., .. '~".. . -. .
=;,~;::.';.,.,r~;t..4,OOO tQ..8,000 square feet;'a.ri'18-hole golf'coUrse; an interririttent stream corndorand.pubhc tr311 ' . . '.,
,-;;-:~ '.;o~z:~":Z.-..~.".~--:-:-...-";:;;-.~-.~-~...~,:;: "1.,:""..., J.,_....:~_..:::..i-:-.::_....~..;....;;-.. ..:...::._.;..~/':--: ''&-. '. .,:",..' ~ ,...... ..;i- .'.'~ .~:..~":,......,......;......u-~..;.l':\.;'>,,,-r--':.(. ,-.... .-.f.-,..,.~~ ;-;-'-:'"""-'-:'::"" '.~_._- -.. .
:J},,~ .,~.::<' sYs1:emTand.'~'pen space;~ on approximately 352' acres" of lana:: Sey.en~ ~~ct neig:Qhqrhoods are
~__"""".J~:"'"::-..."---'-"'-'.'::'"t--rv-.~.." ~.-~..-.. -i"-"",--",-:" ~"'."..", .... .' - "- .._-.~.... --"~-_,'~,"""'_'<>-..........' '~."~"-.. -to '..
{t;~~~~~.ppjposed;~W:iili~'van()liS-densitiei9f single- falnilY= detached p.omes-:~ 11ie'''si~e topoitaphy involves a
i~f~~iJI~~!>Y~t4~~~~}~~tf:~::;;~~-'~')~~~ii;l,;J~~~f~fi~.,tt~1t0b~t~;;-;>i .... ...
.' ~
.. ....-.;~
fD
. combination of hilly knolls, ridges, and valleys. Development is generally proposed on a series of
terraces cut into the hills and on the tops of the lower knolls. The upper hillside areas are designated
for Rural-Residential/Agricultural uses, and the undeveloped slopes surrounding the development are
reserved for open space. Perimeter residential lots are oriented to have views of the golf course and
open space areas, and openings for view corridors and access to trails and open space have been
provided, to encourage the use and enjoyment of the natural amenities of the site by its residents.
The development concept is depicted on the Land Use and Development Plan/District Planned
Development Plan (LUDPIDPDP) referred to in the Staff Report as Exhibit D-1. The Land Use and
Development Plan has been provided to you in bound format, and consists of the following:
- a written project description,
- a land use plan, Oabeled LUDP/DPDP)
- a site plan (showing lot and street layouts),
- design guidelines (including land use and development standards),
- design concepts, (preliminary architectural drawings),
- and other supporting teA"! and diagrams which illustrate the development
The sprial bound version consolidates these items from the binders which were distributed previously for your
re\1ew.
.
As mentioned earlier, the adoption of this Land Use & Development Plan is the second step in
implementing the zoning for a Planned Development District, and includes identifying the land use
designations for the site. These must be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and the Pre-zoning designations applied to the site when it was annexed. Your
confirmation of the consistency of the proposed land uses is one of the key actions before you tonight.
The Staff Report contains a complete discussion of staffs recommendation for this consistency, but I
would like to summarize the proposed land uses and the issues analyzed by staff. -
,First, the Land Use diagram shows about 135 acres of proposed residential development. The site plan
'.lays out these units at an overall density of 4.4 units/acre across the project site, consistent with the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan maximum density for Single Family Residential.
Second, The Land Use diagram designates nearly 145 acres of Open Space land. The Open Space
in~ludes undeveloped grassy slopes between development areas, a segment of the planned intermittent
stream corridor, and the proposed multi-use trail and bicycle path along Fallon Road. It also
accommodates the proposed IS-hole golf course.
.
The proposed golf course would occupy portions of the Rural Residential/Agr. areas and the Open
Space between development areas. The golf course and accessory clubhouse would be open to the
public on a fee basis. Through the low intensity golf course development, the LUDP provides for
outdoor recreational opportunities for project residents and the public. It also maintains large areas of
green space which buffer the sensitive ridgeland and stream corridor areas, and which contribute to
maintaining a rural quality for the project site. This proposal has been analyzed in light of the Goals,
poEcies, and intent of the General Plan and Specific Plan, and staff believes that it is consistent with
2
q'
the goals of providing open space for outdoor recreation and for resources preservation. However, .
your recommendation and validation of this assessment is needed.
Alongside a portion of the golf course, next to Fallon road, is a 12-foot wide multi-use trail. This trail
continues to the south and links with a 1 DO-foot wide open space corridor, containing an intermittent
stream, and provides for north south connections through the Dublin Ranch site, and also to off-site
locations such as future schools and community parks. The stream corridor also preserves a
continuous open space area and provides an environment for wildlife movement
The multi-use trail is one of the features shown on the "Recreation Amenities" diagram included in the
"Design Guidelines" section of your binders. This exhibit shows some of the trails and pedestrian
connections which are part of the project's planned "greenbelt-type" circulation system. bne of the
primary goals of the EDSP is to provide a circulation system which is convenient and efficient, and
encourages alternate modes of transportation, to promote a less auto-dependent community. Paths for
pedestrian and bicycle circulation are an important component of such a circulation system. It is for
this reason that one of the conditions of approval requires that an additional safe route be provided
across the open space area between neighborhood L-3 and Fallon road, through the proposed golf
course. A pedestrian and bicycle trail is needed across the proposed golf course, to provide the
children in these neighborhoods a convenient route to the elementary school in Phase 1.
Finally, the project proposes no development on the visually sensitive ridgelands in the northeast and
easterly portions of the site, designated for Rural Residential!Agricultural areas. The Planned
Development is consistent with the Specific Plan intent to preserve sensitive areas for visual resource
value and to provide open space for passive recreation. The Development Plan includes gentle slopes
for both natural and landscaped open spaces and buffers around and along virtually all of the
residential neighborhoods.
.
The project uses the PD principles efficiently to propose more intense development in the residentIal
neighborhood areas, and less intense or no development in the Open Space and Rural
Residential! Agriculture areas. These uses and locations are consistent with and reinforce the General
:Plan and Specific Plan land uses, goals and policies by providing an open buffer between development
areas, by restricting development in sensitive areas, and by providing limited development for
recreation in less sensitive areas.
Forthe next part of my presentation, involving the project's Environmental Review, I would like to
refer to a summary of previous project actions, which outlines the environmental review history for
this project. I know this is alot ofte:x.rt, so I have highlighted the key actions relating to my comments.
This project site is covered by the Environmental Impact Report, (or EIR), prepared for the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Extended Planning Area, certified in May of 1993. The EIR is
a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern
Dublin, including the PD Rezone for this project. The EIR identifies impacts from implementation of .
the General Plan/Specific Plan, some of which were not able to be mitigated, and so, upon certifying
the EIR, the City adopted a statement of overridin2: considerations for several impacts, some of which
relate to this project. ....
3
.
.
.
fY
For example, the visual impact of development upon an area which is currently rural in nature, cannot
be avoided, and the City acknowledged this impact when it approved the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The City also adopted a program to monitor conditions of the ErR and ensure mitigation was applied
where appropriate. These mitiQ:ation measures apply to project approvals and actions at various stages
in the development process, some occurring prior to approval of this PD Rezone, and others occurring
later in the development process. For example, the EIR required that to help mitigate the impacts from
altering the visual quality of the hillsides, grading techniques should be used which minimize alteration
of the topography. This is required to be demonstrated by the grading plans for the Planned
Development and tentative maps. Part of the analysis by staff, which you are being asked to certify, is
whether the project adequately demonstrates use of these techniques.
Finally, a focused Initial Studv was prepared for the project in June of 1997, to evaluate, at a project-
specific level of detail, whether there will be additional environmental impacts occurring as a result of
this project, beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR. The Initial Study's
focused evaluation of pertinent issues included traffic. noise. visual. and bioloQical effects. and public
seT\ice issues such as wastewater and schools. Each of these issues has been the subject of
supplemental environmental studies addressing this specific stage of the project. In each case, studies
have determined that the project will not have any additional significant environmental impacts which
were not evaluated in the earlier EIR.
For example, A supplemental noise study was conducted for the project to determine whether any
additional noise impacts would occur, or whether any additional mitigation measures were needed.
The study established outdoor noise goals based upon the applicable General Plan and Specific Plan
standards, and identified areas in which 6-foot tall sound barriers would be needed to achieve these
goals. The requirement for these barriers is a standard condition for residential development near
arterial roadways, and has been incorporated into the project. No additional significant impacts beyond
those addressed in the Program EIR were identified for the project. -
A supplemental visual analysis was also conducted for the project at a project-specific level to
determine whether the project design complies with the mitigation measures of the ErR and whether
any additional visual impacts or mitigation measures would be required. The artists renderin2:s
displayed before you illustrate views of the development at buildout. A comDuter-Q:enerated visual
analvsis also evaluated the project design in terms of the Specific Plan visual policies. ...
Several design guidelines and development standards have been proposed as part of the project, and
made conditions of approval, to require such things as grading refinements as the project proceeds.
Staffhas interpreted the ErR and Specific Plan policies, and concluded that No additional significant
impacts beyond those addressed in the Program EIR were identified for the project.
Standard Traffic, Biological, and Public Service/infrastructure Studies have also been completed for
the Dublin Ranch project, as discussed in the Staff Report. In each case, because Recommendations
and requirements from the supplemental studies are included in the project description and reflected in
the conditions of approval, No additional significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Program
EIR were identified for the project
4
.!!J
1
:
.
Staff has therefore concluded that the environmental analysis provides a sound evaluation of the
potential impacts, and demonstrates the appropriateness of adopting a Negative Declaration for project
level impacts. Further, the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the City's plans, policies,
and zoning requirements. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the enclosed Planning Commission
resolution for the Dublin Ranch Area A Planned Development.
This concludes my Staff Report, and I would be happy to either answer questions, or suggest that the
applicant's representative may wish to speak.
.
.
5