HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Schaefer Rnch So. GPA Attch 2-14~g ~ f ~ ~~
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE EXISTING
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND RETAIL/OFFICE LAND
USE DESIGNATIONS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE AND
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028 and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC, submitted an application for a
General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, and
Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000 for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South located at the
southeast and southwest corners of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of a GPA to modify the General Plan Land Use
designations for approximately 81.3-acres of the project area to change the existing Estate Residential
(0.01-0.8 du/acre), Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), and RetaiUOffice land use designations to
Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council approved Resolution 76-96 certifying an
Environmental Impact Report ("Schaefer Ranch EIR") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH
No. 95033070) in connection with the General Plan Amendment for the Western Extended Planning Area,
which EIR is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council approved Resolution 77-96 and adopted a General
Plan Amendment for the Western Extended Planning Area and identified General Plan land use
designation for the Schaefer Ranch project area; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use designations, densities and policies
related to density calculations, and includes a General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la) that shows the
location of land uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2007, the City Council granted the Applicant's request to initiate a
General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch South project (Resolution No. 154-07); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already
approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer
Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for
proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality
ATTACHMENT 2
~~ ~ -~y
Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public
Resources Code Section 21166 (Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163
(Sections 15162/3) are met; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared an Initial Study, included herein by
reference, to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3.
The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,
an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be
included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is included
herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14,
2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-29
incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 4, 2008 was submitted to the City Council analyzing
the Project and recommending that the City Council approve the GPA and PD Rezone with Stage 2
Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that the proposed
amendments to the Dublin General Plan are in the public interest and will not have an adverse affect on
health or safety or be detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement
and that the Dublin General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that the proposed
map and text amendments to the General Plan are consistent with all other goals, policies, and
implementing programs set forth in the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the
following amendments to the Dublin General:
Section I. General Plan Amendments.
Subsection i. Section 1.8.1 (Land Use Classifications), under the subsection "Western
Extended Planning Area (West of Primary Planning Area -See Figure 1-la)" is
hereby amended as follows:
Delete the first paragraph of the "Other land use categories." This
paragraph to be deleted reads as follows:
2
~~~~y
"Commercial, public/semi-public, and other land use categories for the
Primary Planning Area are applicable in the Western Extended Planning
Area."
ii. The following land use designation is added- to the "Other land use
categories":
"Public/Semi-Public Facilities (Maximum of .60 FAR; employee density:
590 square feet per employee).
A combination land use category of Public Facilities land uses and Semi-
Public Facilities land uses. Public Facilities are uses other than parks
owned by a public agency or non profit entity that are of sufficient size to
warrant differentiation from adjoining uses. Such uses include public
schools, libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public
agency facilities; post offices; fire stations; utilities; and Civic Center.
Semi-Public Facilities uses are quasi-public uses, such as child care centers,
youth centers, senior centers, special needs program facilities, religious
institutions, clubhouses, community centers, community theatres, hospitals,
private schools, and other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or
other similar services and benefit the community. ASemi-Public Facility
may be used for more than one such use. Development of housing on a site
designated on the General Plan as Semi-Public Facilities shall be considered
consistent with the General Plan when it is developed by anon-profit entity
and serves to meet affordable housing needs or the housing needs of an
underserved economic segment of the community. Determination as to
whether housing should be permitted on a specific Semi-Public Facilities
site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a
Planned Development proposal under the Zoning Ordinance."
Subsection ii. Figure 1-la, General Plan Land Use Map is hereby replaced with a revised
General Ylan Land Use Map as follows:
D U B L I N G E N E R A L PLAN ~Pigure i-ia~
-~~ L A N D U S E M A P as amended through NovemGer 4, 2008
'i
i ~ ~
I
~, ~ 11;
~~ -~ {~__
~ ~; n.~= -
t ~'
vwaysem.vudiyopen space carnrerc~aywauww ae~n~a PlarvwgMea umR:
,a P.. ®u,R a,.,~c~+
r.~ .m.,u.y~aw W.i ~,.. wc~v aaa~~a
a ad, ..y
M.ni N "..~.~ A
.
~ x~ y.re . ~..rvo oea~..i n
.~i o~o~. a~,.~a, Via- .,~a~o,.,,oK ~., ns,~w. r...N io: 3a~ re,~e,a~~.~a ,.~,au„a.ry
a i
,
cto,.,.,A
~a,., ~,~M~~~~e
,~,.,~~~„~.. ,,~~,,.Na~~na~o
~oa,,~ ...._.: .-_
w~.~. 4m A,M. o.. P... ~ei~ .H r,k,,.o Ate.. . „o~,...~ rrtvauryiu:nnkrions -=~=
~ ~.,,.~„w. ~ ~w,~.. bra o.~n ~„~..v ~ ..i _ _ e' ' _
_ _
~
3
81 ~/~~-
Section II. Table 2.2 (Schaefer Ranch Project Land Use and Housing Characteristics), is
hereby replaced with the following revised Table 2.2:
Table 2.2 LAND USE SUMMARY: WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
(Amended: Resolution xx-08)
Classification Acres Units Factor Yield
RESIDENTIAL Du's Persons/du Population
Estate Residential 16.9 6 3.2 19
Single-Family Residential 89.6 400 3.2 1,280
TOTAL: 106.5 406 1,299
PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION
Neighborhood Park 12.5 1 park
Open Space 385
TOTAL: 397.5 1 park
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 5.5 -- -- --
TOTAL: 5.5
GRAND TOTAL: 509.5
Section III. All provisions of the General Plan not amended by this resolution shall remain in
full force and effect.
Section IV. This Resolution shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
vote:
day of , 2008 by the following
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South\City CounciACC Reso Schaefer GPA.doc
4
~ 1 .~.--.
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2832-031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. By Ordinance No. 15-96, the City Council rezoned the approximately 500-acre Schaefer
Ranch project area generally located at the westerly boundary of the City Limits, north of
Interstate 580 (I-580), and southeast of unincorporated Alameda to the Planned Development
Zoning District (PA 96-037).
B. By Ordinance No. 11-06, the City Council rezoned the approximately 500-acre Schaefer
Ranch project area generally located at the westerly boundary of the City Limits, north of
Interstate 580 (I-580), and southeast of unincorporated Alameda to the Planned Development
Zoning District (PA 06-031) and adopted a Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire project
area.
C. This Ordinance replaces the Stage 2 Development Plan for that portion of the area located at
the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road approved in Ordinance
No. 11-06 by the City Council on August 1, 2006 (APNs 941-2832-031 to 032, 941-2835-
001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021).
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows:
1. The Planned Development (PD) Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, meets the purpose
and intent of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because: 1) it provides a
comprehensive development plan for Single-Family Residential and Open Space; and
2) it creates a functional use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses in terms
of layout, design, and conformity to the existing topography.
2. The PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with
existing and future development in the surrounding areas because: 1) the land uses and site
plan establish residential uses; 2) the project area is surrounded by similar single-
family residential uses; and 3) the land uses and site plan provide effective transitions
to surrounding development, which is characterized by the proposed vehicular and
pedestrian circulation system.
Attachment 3
~3 ~ I8~-
B. Pursuant to Section 8.120.OSO.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds
as follows:
The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 2 Development Plan, will be harmonious and
compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding areas because: 1) the
residential uses identified in the PD are consistent with the General Plan land uses; 2)
the Stage 2 Development Plan maintains the low intensity of uses and open space on
steeper slopes adjacent to I-580; and 3) the land uses and site plan provide effective
transitions to surrounding development which is characterized by the proposed
vehicular and pedestrian circulation system.
2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district
being proposed because: 1) the project has been designed to accommodate the
topography of the Project site which is characterized by vacant, rolling hills; 2)
development is concentrated in the less constrained areas with open space designations
in the more constrained areas; 3) the open space designations help to protect
constrained areas; and 4) the flexibility of the proposed PD district allows development
to be tailored to onsite conditions.
3. The PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, will not adversely affect the health or
safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare because: 1) the Stage 2 Development Plan has been designed in
accordance with the City of Dublin General Plan; and 2) future development will comply
with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted
mitigation measures.
4. The PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, is consistent with the Dublin General
Plan because: the project includes companion amendments to the General Plan.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds as follows:
1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council
adopted Resolution 76-96) certifying the Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) (SCH #95033070). The Schaefer Ranch EIR is incorporated herein by reference
and is available for review in the Community Development Department. On
November 4, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution XX-08 adopting a CEQA
Addendum for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is
amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a PD-Planned Development district:
80.09± acres located in an area bounded by Dublin Boulevard to the north, I-580 to the south,
Schaefer Ranch Road to the east, and an estate lot with a private residence to the west (APNs
941-2832-031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010
to 021).
2
Sy~ r~z
Page Left Blank Intentionally
~~ ~ ~~-~-
SECTION 4. STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in
the following Stage 2 Development Plan, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 2
Development Plan shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its
successors.
1. Statement of compatibility with the Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan is
compatible with the Development Plan adopted as part of the Planned Development zoning for the
overall Schaefer Ranch development in that the Project is a residential development as planned for in
the PD zoning. The Stage 2 Development Plan establishes standards to encourage innovative
development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and
provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied.
2. Statement of uses. The following uses are permitted for this area:
A) PD Single Family Residential
Intent: Single Family land use designations are established to: a) reserve appropriately
located areas for family living at reasonable population densities consistent with
sound standards of public health and safety; b) ensure adequate light, air privacy
and open space for each dwelling; and c) accommodate single family housing,
including a wide range of units from small-lot and zero-lot units to large lot estate
units.
Intensity of Use: 0.9 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre
Permitted Uses:
a. One-family dwelling
b. Secondary Unit/casita
c. Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
d. Animal keeping -residential
e. Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional
use)
f. Small family day care home per Chapter 8.08 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
g. Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
h: Paseos and common area landscaping
i. Public utilities, services and facilities necessary to'serve the project
j. Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
Planned Development Zoning Area Map
s ~.~~~~~
~~ ~~y-
i
Conditional Uses:
a. Bed and breakfast inn
b. Boarding house
c. Community facilities
d. Community clubhouse
e. Parking lot, only when established to fulfill the residential parking requirements of this
zoning district for use on an abutting lot or lots
f. Plant nursery or greenhouse used only for the cultivation and wholesale of plant material
(wholesale, only)
g. Medical or residential care facility (7 or more clients)
h. Large family day care homes
i. Semi-Public uses
j. Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
Temporary Uses:
Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and
permit procedures.
B) PD Open Space
Intent: Open Space land use designations are established within the project area. The public
open space areas are intended to provide for the preservation of natural resources,
outdoor recreational activities, and public health and safety. The private open space
areas are intended to provide for similar types of uses, in areas which are owned and
maintained by a private homeowners association. Unless. otherwise modified under
this PD approval, all applicable requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall
be applied to these land use designations.
Permitted Uses:
a. Public and private recreational trails and maintenance roads
b. Conservation and wildlife habitat preservation areas
c. Public and private utilities, services and facilities and uses necessary to serve the project
d. Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
3.
PD Open Space
4 Stage 2 Site Plan
8'7~ f ~ `
4. Site area, proposed densities.
Land Use Designation Gross
Acres Net
Acres Number
of Units Gross
Densi Net
Densi
Single-Family Residential 29.70 ac 22.35 ac 140 units 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac
Open Space 50.39 ac 47.22 ac n/a n/a n/a
Total: 80.09 ac 69.57 ac 140 units 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac
5. Development Regulations.
Development Regulations within the PD Single-Family Residential zoning district are as established
in the following table:
STANDARD Minimum Unless Otherwise Noted
Lot Size 4500 sf
Lot Width
• Typical street 45 ft
• Cul-de-sac (measure at right-of--way) 35 ft
Lot De th 100 ft
Lot Coverage
• one-story 45 % maximum
• two-story 35 % maximum
Building Height (two-story maximum) 35 ft
Setbacks
Front Yard
• to living or porch 10 ft
• to front entry ara e 18 ft
• to side entry garage 15 ft
Side Yard
• typical 5 ft
• at corners 8 ft
Rear Yard 10 ft
Detached 2" Unit/Casita
• Minimum rear yard setback 5 ft
• Maximum building height 17 ft
• Roof design Hip. Except a gable element may be used where
second unit/casita does not abut another lot on the rear
property line.
• Roof pitch Minimum 4:12 sloping away from all property lines
so as to not overpower the adjacent neighbor.
• Architectural design Consistent with main building including all materials.
All elements of the main building shall be replicated
on the second unit/casita.
• Detached 2"d Unit/Casita Lot Restrictions Not permitted on Lots 36 through 46
Permitted in side yard provided unit does not extended
beyond rear of home on Lots 47 & 48. '
5
Usable Yard
• size 500 sf contiguous flat
• dimension 10 ft minimum any one side and 15 ft diameter clear
within usable yard.
Parkin S aces a
• Off-street covered (enclosed arage) 2
• additional space (may be on-street) 1
Specific Notes:
(1) Maximum lot coverage regulations are intended to establish the maximum lot area that may be
covered with buildings and structures. Buildings and structures include: All land covered by
principal buildings, garages and carports, permitted accessory structures, covered decks and
gazebos, and other covered and enclosed areas. It does not include: Standard roof overhangs,
cornices, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, and paved areas such as walkways, driveways,
patios, uncovered parking areas, or roads. (Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.36.100).
~2~ Residential Building Height: A 35-foot maximum two stories shall be measured from the
finished grade at the midpoint of the building (as shown on a facade or cross section view running
parallel to the slope) to the top ridge of the structure's roof. However, architectural features and
elements may exceed this provision by a 5-foot maximum, and a gable element may exceed this
provision by a 5-foot maximum, subject to approval by the Director of Community Development.
(3) Second Units/Casita -Detached
a) A second unit is defined as having akitchen/kitchenette and will require a dedicated parking
space either within a garage or on the driveway.
b) A Casita will not include a kitchen and therefore an additional parking space shall not be
required.
Secondary dwelling units/casitas are subject to development standards provided herein and current
Dublin Second Units Regulations (Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.80), except that that maximum lot
coverage shall be 50% for the primary dwelling unit and secondary dwelling unit/Casita combined.
General Residential Yard Provisions:
(A) Setbacks -All setbacks are measured from the property line.
(B) Allowable Encroachments -Items such as (but not limited to) air conditioning condensers,
porches, chimneys, bay windows, media centers, etc. may encroach into the required setback
provided that a minimum of 3 feet flat and level path is maintained to provide access past said
items.
(C) Except as prohibited under setback requirements above, roof eaves, pop-outs, architectural
projects, and columns may encroach into required yard area setbacks subject to compliance
with building codes.
(D) Setbacks for accessory structures shall be in accordance with the building code in effect at the
time of construction/installation. Noise generating equipment such as pool and spa equipment
shall be acoustically screened or located outside of the setback area.
6
t ~ ~, ,,.
f
(E) On lots where minimum rear yard clear and level zone cannot be provided due to topography
or vegetation constraints, decks of comparable area shall be allowed and required subject to
Site Development Review.
6. Architectural Standards.
The following five (5) architectural styles are provided in the Stage 2 Development Plan. The
variety of architectural styles will provide visual interest and identity for each neighborhood street.
The architectural elements will be articulated and themed to represent a variety of styles through
color, texture, and massing details. The architectural styles, along with design elements, are
identified below:
California Ranch: The. California- Ranch style is represented by low pitch roof in a hip, gable, or
Dutch gable configuration with flat, shingle-like roof tiles. Exterior materials include wood siding,
stucco, and board & batten accents combined with brick and stone accents, and post elements at a
front porch. Architectural features include articulated windows, shutters, gables end details with
wood truss shapes, louvers, and exposed rafter details. Colors and materials are light brown and
charcoal blends with varied color accents.
Monterey: The Monterey style is characterized by low-pitched gable roof and cantilevered second
story balconies covered by the principal roof of flat or "S" concrete tile. Wall materials typically are
different for first and second floors generally consisting of extensive use of brick on the lower levels
with stucco, wood siding, or board and batten above. Architectural elements include simple wooden
posts and railings, shutters, window frames, and gable end accents. Colors are California mission
blends with varied color accents.
Early Californian: Early Californian is distinguished by simple massing and the principal roof
material of concrete barrel tiles representing terracotta in color and form on a hip or gable roof
above shorter overhangs. Stucco finished exteriors are accented by arched doorways, shutters,
wrought iron detailing, and gable end accents. Colors are California mission and brown blends with
varied tone accents.
English Country: Formal characteristics of the English County style are identified by steeper pitched
roof elements with gable forms, stucco accent walls, use of brick accents, and half-timbered details.
Stone features, bricked archways, decorative corbels, and multi-paned windows give this style its
country image along with the hip and gable roof elements. Colors and materials are lighter charcoal
and brown blends with earthy green tone accents.
Craftsman: The Craftsman style features combinations of wood shingled, board & batten, and
clapboard siding with stone accent bases with square tapered columns. The long, low-pitched gable
roofs of flat the are supported by eave overhangs with decorative wooden braces and exposed rafter
details. Colors and materials are charcoal and gray-brown blends with varied color accents.
7. Preliminary Landscaping Plan.
The Preliminary Landscape Plans are as established in the following Landscape Plans and further
described below. The Preliminary Landscape Plans provide a generalized design layout that clearly
demonstrates the character, massing, and compatibility with the Vesting Tentative Map.
Masonry community walls shall be finished on both sides with materials consistent with those
proposed for the side of the wall facing the public right-of--way.
7
~•~«$~s~,~! ~ =, ~y ~
,, ~,
..,,
:~~,~~"
~ ~ - ~ ;'
`~ _ _ ~
_~
~. __ _ ~ ~~
...~,...... ~~ as
rum u-orrwrE naxcwrrtas
r..~mrw w.
a.+. c,...: •~~~~~
u. r.,m
r~cn.~
P e ~ ww~
~~~ P++~ur..n
M
,~
°~ o~ax~~v. w
i'i+ k
w w
_
~
~bsvhuv
vV.rv ~~~P Awy
ue.+~~.rr~.ea.R.~aw...R...~oxa, 4.w.~.~~
^~ P~ O ~a~i
69r,
~~~ MY u~ Yr
I
4ulrr
t
~ r j ~ ~
i i tOfi ~+mu ~
~
7~ i'
r _ _ _ _ [„___ __.
r
'
t r
r F ~_-
.,.
.....».:
'
f ~ " +
,
! w
t ( 1r; ~ R A \ Asia ! p~
y
IW&~fib~"xA!
Y.__. ~._~. ~._ ^
}sY'~~+~iL~`
~'
r~~\
~__.-..~_s. ~~
~ 1$~'.
~ \\t
~~„n
~ a'- o t mo®
f~ WeIN PUWMMSi
~'~ M
r r _
<"S ~,$,
yg ~ ~m.~ aorw
».a,..,.~.~~.
nu~.r, eau~ne~ -w i~~t~
M
~~
dwa.aF~~~inwv~~~~~
ww war ~
u~na rw
~, w-~.- : ~--..~.,. ~~. ,~~..r.
s. #ev.Rw W+nwrl~
. ~waw.~rasr icYY
wm^.cnp~' wt~'!~w
iarsu.s r~+tM.a.+w ew'n+tlrn M~[iwr
Gw~w~.ra-qrW mu silo
•M
sm+
~4
W
~
m
W w
Wfe ~"
~a..-s sxr~ ~
~nr.n
W 1 ~a~ni'.
M
~M
IIOOY @11~T IlNIkTtlil0/
8
°~i ~ rg2
~- .~
r
~~
G ~:_. `7~
k ~dd}d
~~ ` t "' 4
Ne1R.+M.
_..~~. ..~s..:t.~...
.~~ ..
~-
i *~ rmssa j`
etJ~ a~esatwce m mm a...
._,„r_.-,. .__..,
.. ~,~,.,-~
u.e..F w.
''~"~"
ApVMnN
icua~~Y,n.f udPYn~y
HPIQA EM1n Ct,Tw~~ZN+s ~~-} M•i.w.
~}
• '~~ ~..
~ ~.~;
"'~ ..a.
. ~ .x ~
1e:~wc: .. . ~3if*.}v
'~i a scow ^euu nrux
'dl
~'t
,
e
r :"'"
R~'3LS.]!!* .~~
®.~t~,mt,rcnewf ear roux
nnxa
~y~
Y
~~m * 1 y~ uity
~i~ittif .. i A'. j j~ ~tv.A,
u=~~
~ aft ~t ~ - ~ ~ryssiY~'~
N
rsrs~u-i,~'
sires '`-~~~~ ~_
~ ~ ~
s rt~~ w
a ;yd' _
YIC1h7TY AGP _
I.Ef1EliPD
,..._.a
C~_ 1 0....,...
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EXHIBIT
SCE RAC ~ S
~'iRl~CT ~lTO. $9-44
A. ~~n ~ n~ _ . a.„
9
~~ ~gz
SECTION 5. APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
Except as specifically provided in this Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan (PA
08-005), the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the
provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to section 8.32.060.C. The provisions of the existing
Planned Development Zoning for the remaining portions of the Schaefer Ranch project not amended by
this resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage.
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public
places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 4th day of
November 2008, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South\CityCouncil\CC Ord PD Stage 2 Schaefer.doc
10
' ~~` /~~
~-
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCHAEFER RANCH HOLDINGS LLC
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-010 to 021)
PA 08-005
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. The portion of the Schaefer Ranch development, referred to herein as the "project", is
approximately 42.7-acres located south of Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Dublin, Boulevard and
Schaefer Ranch Road. The project consists of the area that is subject to Vesting Tentative Map 8000, and
Parcels J and K of Final Map 6765.
B. A Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC
("Developer") has been presented to the City Council, Exhibit A, attached hereto.
C. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the Planning
Commission on October 14, 2008, for which public notice was given as provided by law.
D. The Planning Commission has, by Resolution 08-XX, recommended that the City Council
approve the Development Agreement.
E. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City
Council on November 4, 2008 for which public notice was given as provided by law.
F. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all
comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
Therefore, on the basis of (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein; (b) the City of
Dublin General Plan; (c) the Planned Development Zoning (PA 08-005); (d) the EIR for Schaefer Ranch
(SCH #95033070) certified by the City Council in 1996 by Resolution 76-96; (e) the Addendum to the
previously certified EIR prepared for the Schaefer Ranch South project PA 08-005 adopted by City
Council Resolution xx-08; (f) the Agenda Statement, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth
below, the City Council finds and determines that:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses
and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, in that: (a) the General Plan land use
designations for the site are Single-Family Residential and Public/Semi-Public; (b) the proposed project is
consistent with the designated land uses; (c) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General
Attachment 4
~~ ~~~
Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services; and (d) the Development
Agreement includes provisions relating to vesting of development rights, and similar provisions set forth
in the General Plan.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations
prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include
Planned Development zoning Stage 2 Planned Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map 8000.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare,
and good land use policies in that the Developer's project will implement land use guidelines set forth in
the General Plan which have planned for Single-Family Residential and Public/Semi-Public uses at this
location.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general
welfare in that the Developer's project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of
the General Plan.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property
or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan.
SECTION 3. APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A) and authorizes the Mayor to
execute it.
SECTION 4. RECORDATION
Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk
shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage.
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public
places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 4t" day of November,
2008 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
2
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPA#120081PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch SouthlCity CouncillCCOrd SchaeferDA.doc
~~~~~z
.RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF DUBLIN
When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Fee Waived per GC 27383
Space above this line for Recorder's use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
AND
SCHAEFER RANCH HOLDINGS LLC
(SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH, PROJECT)
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 4
~t
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered
in the City of Dublin on this day of , 2008, by and between the City of
Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City"), and Schaefer Ranch Holdings
LLC, a California limited liability company (hereafter "Developer"}, pursuant to the
authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin
Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56.
RECITALS
A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of
the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter
into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a
legal or equitable interest in such property in .order to establish certain
development rights in such property; and
B. DEVELOPER desires to develop and holds legal interest in certain
real property consisting of approximately 42.7 acres of land, located in the City of
Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
and which real property is hereafter called the "Property"; and
C. Developer proposes the development of the Property with 140
residential units (the "Project"); and
D. Developer has applied for, and City has approved various land use
approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including an
amendment to the General Plan (City Council Resolution No. ), a PD District
rezoning. and related Stage 2 development plan (City Council Ordinance No.
and Vesting Tentative Map (Planning. Commission Resolution No. )
(collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with
respect to the Project, the "Project Approvals"); and
E. Development of the Property by Developer may be subject to
certain future discretionary approvals, such as Site Development Review, which,
. if granted, shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals as each such
approval becomes effective; and
F. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of
said Project; and
G. The City Council has found that, among other things, this
Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and has been reviewed and
evaluated in accordance with Chapter 8.56; and
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 2 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings L.LC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
`~~ ~/82
H. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express
herein a development agreement that will facilitate development of the Project
subject to conditions set forth herein; and
I. On , 2008, the City Council of the City of Dublin
adopted Ordinance No. approving this Agreement. The ordinance took
effect on , 2008 ("the Approval Date").
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in
consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein
contained, City and Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
Description of Property.
The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A
attached hereto.
2. Interest of Developer.
The Developer has a legal or equitable interest in the Property in that it
owns the Property in fee simple.
3. Relationship of City and Developer.
It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated
and voluntarily entered into by City and Developer and that the Developer is not
an agent of City. The City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any
form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree~that nothing
contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be
construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners.
4. Effective Date and Term.
4.1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the
Approval Date.
4.2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective
Date and extend fifteen (15) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise
terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement.
5. Use of the Property.
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 3 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
~~ , gv
5.1. Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop
the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments
to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this
Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing
amendments to the Project Approvals shall be those in force and effect on the
Effective Date of this Agreement.
5.2. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density
and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings,
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location
and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public utilities
(operated by City) and other terms and conditions of development applicable to
th.e Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals
and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals.
5.3. Subsequent Discretionary Approvals. At Developer's sole
discretion and in accordance with Developer's construction schedule, Developer
shall apply for such other permits and approvals as may be required by other
governmental orquasi-governmental entities in connection with the development
of, or the provision of services to, the Project. City shall cooperate with
Developer in its efforts to obtain such. permits and approvals.
6. Applicable Rules Regulations and Official Policies.
6.1. Rules re Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, the City's
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the
permitted uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use of the
Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be
those in force and effect on the Effective Date of the Agreement.
6.2. Rules re Design and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly
provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations and official-policies governing design, improvement and construction
standards and specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and
effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of
that approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Ordinances,
resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement
and construction standards and specifications applicable to public improvements
to be constructed by Developer shall be those in force and effect at the time of
the applicable discretionary approval, whether date of approval is prior to or after
the date of this Agreement.
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 4 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
~~~~ ~ ~ ;sue .
6.3. Construction Codes Applicable. Unless expressly provided in
Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in accordance
with the provisions of the City's building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and
housing codes as provided in Chapters 7.28, 7.32, 7.36, 7.40, 7.44 and 7.48 of
the Dublin Municipal Code and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations,
relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate
building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in the foregoing, any construction on that certain portion
of the Property referred to as Parcels J and K on the final subdivision map for
Schaefer Ranch (recorded in the Alameda County Recorder's Office on March 8,
2007 as Series No. 2007-99392 in Map Book 297 Pages 1 through 51) shall not,
during the term of this Agreement, be subject to any ordinances, rules or
regulations which would require green or sustainable building design and/or
construction that may be subsequently enacted by the City.
7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Requlations.
7.1. New Rules and Requlations. During the term of this Agreement,
the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations
and official policies of the City to the Property which were not in force and effect
on the Effective Date of this Agreement and which are not in conflict with those
applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement if: (a) the application of
such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official
policies would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, materially
delay development of the Property, or impair the rights of Developer as
contemplated by this Agreement and the Project Approvals and (b) if such
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies are uniformly
imposed on all comparable residential projects within the City.
7.2. Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent
the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit
or authorization for the Project on the basis of such new or modified ordinances,
resolutions, rules, regulations and policies except that such subsequent actions
shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements expressly
set forth herein.
7.3. Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure
is enacted, whether by action of City, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that
imposes a building moratorium, a limit on the rate of development or a voter-
approval requirement which affects the Project on all or any part of the Property,
City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to
the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the
building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or
state of emergency as defined in Government Code § 8558. In the event of a
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 5 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
X01 ~~°Z-
building moratorium imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or
state of emergency as described herein, the term of this Agreement shall be
automatically extended for the duration of such moratorium.
8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees, Assessments and Taxes.
8.1: Fees, Exactions. Dedications City and Developer agree that the
fees payable and exactions required in connection with the development of the
Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project,
providing infrastructure for the Project and complying with the General Plan shall
be those set forth in the Project Approvals and in this Agreement. The City shall
not impose or require payment of any other fees, dedications of land, or
construction of any public improvement or facilities, shall not increase or
accelerate existing fees, dedications of land or construction of public
improvements, or impose other exactions in connection with any subsequent
discretionary approval for the Property, except as set forth in the Project
Approvals and this Agreement.
8.2. Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and
inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to
the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the
application of such fees to the Property is prospective only; and (3) the
application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden
on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement.
8.3. New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply
to the Project provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is
prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development
in accordance with this Agreement.
8.4. Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the
Property from assessments levied against it by City pursuant to any statutory
procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services
which benefit the Property.
8.5. Vote on Future Assessments and Fees. In the event that any
assessment, fee or charge which is applicable to the Property is subject to Article
XIIID of the Constitution and Developer does not return its ballot, Developer
agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors, that City may count Developer's
ballot as affirmatively voting in favor of such assessment, fee or charge.
9. Amendment or Cancellation.
9.1. Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the
event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 6 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of
this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the
City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to
modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation.
Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be subject to
approval by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.56.
9.2. Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended
or extended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties .hereto
and in accordance with the procedures of State law and Chapter 8.56. Any
extension shall require additional consideration to the City which shall be
negotiated at the time of a proposed extension.
9.3. Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the
preceding paragraph 9.2, any amendments #o this Agreement which do not relate
to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted
uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for "significant"
reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or
requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of
use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (g)
monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this Agreement, shall not,
except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing
before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may
execute an amendment hereto. The City Engineer shall determine whether a
reservation or dedication is "significant".
9.4: Amendment of Project Approvals. Any amendment of Project
Approvals relating to: (a) the permitted use of the Property; (b) provision for
reservation or dedication of land; (c) conditions, terms, restrictions or
requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (d) the density or intensity of
use of the Project; (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; (f)
monetary contributions by the Developer; or (g) public improvements to be
constructed by Developer shall require an amendment of this Agreement. Such
amendment shall be limited to those provisions of this Agreement which are
implicated by the amendment of the Project Approval. Any other amendment of
the Project Approvals, or any of them, shall not require amendment of this
Agreement unless the amendment of the Project Approval(s) relates specifically
to some provision of this Agreement.
9.5. Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted
herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual
consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 8.56. Any fees paid pursuant to this Agreement prior to
the date of cancellation shall be retained by City.
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 7 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
l o ~ ~-
10. Term of Project Approvals.
10.1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), the
term of the vesting tentative map described in Recital D above shall automatically
be extended for the term of this Agreement.
11. Development Impact- Fees.
The.Project shall be subject to the City's Public Facilities Fee, Fire
Facilities Fee, Downtown Traffic Impact Fee and Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee. Developer shall pay such fees in accordance with the
resolutions adopting such fees.
12. Credit Against Public Facilities_Fee
Section 4 of the Improvement Development Agreement for the Schaefer
Ranch Project approved in 1998 provides Developer with a credit of 1.47 acres
which it can use by March 8, 2017 against the Public Facilities Fee obligation for
"Community Parks, Land" and "Neighborhood Parks, Land" for development on
the Property. This credit may also be used against the Project's obligation under
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 (the "Quimby Act")for dedication of land,
provided it is used by March 8, 2017.
In addition, Developer shall be entitled to two additional "credits" against
payment of the "Community .Parks, Land," "Neighborhood Parks, Land,"
"Community Parks, Improvements" and "Neighborhood Parks, Improvements"
components of the Public Facilities Fee and the dedication provisions of Dublin
Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 for the Project.
First, Final Map 6765, recorded on March 8, 2007, included an offer of
dedication of 4.83 acres which satisfied the "Community Parks, Land" and
"Neighborhood Parks, Land" components of the Public Facilities Fee and
Chapter 9.28 for 302 residential units created by Final Map 6765. If 36 of the
approved 302 residential lots created by Final Map 6765 are resubdivided by a
later recorded final map, resulting in construction of 36 fewer units than allowed
by Final Map 6765, Developer shall be entitled to be "credited" with the
"Community Parks, Land" and "Neighborhood Parks, Land" dedication of Final
Map 6765 with respect to excess dedication and will not have to pay those
components of the Public Facilities Fee for the Project. If fewer than 302 building
permits but more than 266 building permits are issued for units to be constructed
on lots created by Final Map 6765, the credit in this paragraph shall be based on
any excess dedication attributable to the reduced number of units.
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 8 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
j v t~ ~ ~g ~,.-
Second, the Project is entitled to a "credit" in the amount of the
"Community Parks, Improvements" and "Neighborhood Parks, Improvements"
components of the Public Facilities Fee for up to 36 units if up to 36 fewer units
are constructed as part of the Final Map 6765. The credit in this paragraph shall
be based on the number of reduced units.
13. Contribution for Dublin Historic Park
Developer shall contribute One Million, Five Hundred Thousand dollars
($1,500,000) to the City in two payments, as follows:
Developer will contribute $750,000 to City for the Dublin Historic Park
when Developer has (a) obtained all discretionary land use entitlements from City
for the Project (with the exception of discretionary land use entitlements for
development on Parcels K and J created by Final Map 6765) and the statute of
limitations for a legal challenge to all such entitlements has run without suit
having been filed, or if suit is filed, a final judgment has been .entered and the
time to appeal has expired or (b) upon issuance of the first building permit for the
Project, whether a model or production unit, whichever occurs first.
Developer will contribute $750,000 to City for the Dublin Historic Park prior
to issuance of the 75th building permit for the Project, whether for a model or
production unit.
14. Fire Station Site
Developer will reserve Parcel K, as shown on Final Map 6765 for use as a
fire station site. Upon 60 days' written notice from City, Developer will dedicate
Parcel K to City for use for fire protection and suppression. This reservation and
dedication obligation shall terminate two (2) years following the Approval Date
but shall survive termination of this Agreement if the Agreement is terminated
within two years of the Approval Date.
15. Public Art Program
The Project will make a monetary contribution in lieu of acquiring and
installing a public art project on the Property, as provided by Dublin Municipal
Code section 8.58.050.D. The in lieu contribution shall be as provided in Dublin
Municipal Code, Chapter 8.58, and shall be used by the City towards a public art
component at the Dublin Historic Park.
16. Inclusionar~Zoning Ordinance
The Developer shall either (a) construct seventeen (17) affordable units on
the Property and receive a refund of $178,824 previously paid, or (b) construct
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 9 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
~~" ~~ )~i
ten (10) affordable units on the Property and pay in lieu fees in accordance with
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.68, at the rate in effect at the time of payment,
for seven (7) units. The Developer shall select either (a) or (b) at the time the
Developer applies for Site Development Review approval for the Project. At such
time Developer may propose to construct some of the seventeen or ten
affordable units on lot(s) created by Final Map 6765, provided Developer applies
for and receives Site Development Review for any affordable units to be
constructed on lot(s) created by Final Map 6765.
All affordable units can be "granny units" or duplexes but, in either case,
the units must comply with the general requirements of Section 8.68.030,.
including restrictions through either rental controls or resale restrictions recorded
against the Property.
Developer paid inclusionary in lieu fees for Final Map 6765 for fifteen (15)
units, at $89,412 per unit, for a total of $1,341,180, based on a 302-unit project.
Upon recordation of a final map for the Project, 36 of the lots created by Final
Map 6765 will be resubdivided and no more than 266 units can be constructed
on lots created by Final Map 6765. If this occurs, Developer shall be entitled,
pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.68.040.E, to a credit in the amount
of $178,824, as provided in this paragraph. If Developer constructs seventeen
(17) affordable units as part of the Project, City will refund $178,824, upon
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the seventeenth unit, together with
interest at the rate earned by City from the date Developer paid said $1,341,180
through issuance of such certificate of occupancy on the $178,824. If Developer
constructs ten (10) affordable units, City shall provide Developer with a credit in
the amount of $178,824 against payment of in lieu fees payable for the Project.
The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute City Council approval. for
exceptions to the requirements of Chapter 8.68, as required by Dublin Municipal
Code section 8.68.040.
17. Annual Review.
17.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be
between July 15 and August 15, 2009 and each July 15 to August 15 thereafter.
17.2 Initiation of Review. The City's Community Development Director
shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter
8.56, by giving to Developer thirty (30) days' written notice that the City intends to
undertake such review. Developer shall provide evidence to the Community
Development Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and when
reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Agreement. The
burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the Developer.
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 10 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
m. ~ ~
17.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, City shall deposit in the mail
and fax to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning
contract performance at least five (5) days prior to any annual review.
17.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by City in connection with the
annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City's schedule
of fees in effect at the time of review.
18. Default.
18.1 Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of
default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity which are
not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing
development agreements., expressly including the remedy of specific
performance of this Agreement.
18.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by
either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default
upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within
thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party
may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this
Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such
thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or
equitable action so long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within
such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion.
Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default.
18.3 No Damages Against City. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against City
upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement.
19. Estoppel Certificate.
Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice
from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, (a) this
Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties,
(b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing,
or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the
certifying party the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature
and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall
execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt
thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties.
City Manager of City shall be authorized. to execute any certificate requested by
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 11 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
la~~,~~
Developer. Should the party receiving the request not execute and return such
certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default,
provided that such party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in
clauses (a) through (c) of this section are true, and any party may rely on such
deemed certification.
Any request by Developer for a written certification to a third party shall be
accompanied by payment to City of a fee for such certification in an amount
established by the Council from time to time.
20. Mortgagee Protection• Certain Rights of Cure.
20.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and
senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date
of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage
("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat,
render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and
for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be
binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of
trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or
any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or
otherwise.
20.2 Mortgaqee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 20.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this
Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to
construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such
construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion,
or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction
or imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote
the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than
those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals
or by this Agreement.
20 3 Notice of Default to Mortgaqee and Extension of Right to Cure. If
City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default
given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then
City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to
Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by City that
Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the
right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to
commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City's
notice. City, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period
provided in paragraph 18.2 for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon
request of Developer or a Mortgagee.
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 12 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
~o~~ 18 Y
21. Severability.
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant,
condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions
unenforceable, invalid or illegal.
22. Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
If City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or
interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other
relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any person or entity not a party to
this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of
any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall
cooperate in defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of
defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse City for
all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by City in defense of any
such action or other proceeding.
23. Transfers and Assignments.
23.1 Developer's Right to Assign. All of Developer's rights, interests and
obligations hereunder may be transferred, sold or assigned in conjunction with
the transfer, sale, or assignment of the Property subject hereto, or any portion
thereof, at any time during the Term of this Agreement, provided that no transfer,
sale or assignment of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder
shall occur without the prior written notice to City and approval by the City
Manager of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
The City Manager shall consider and decide the matter within ten (10) working
days after Developer's notice is given to City and receipt by City Manager of all
necessary documents, certifications and other information required by City
Manager to decide the matter. In considering the request, the City Manager shall
base the decision upon the proposed assignee's reputation, experience, financial
resources and access to credit and capability to successfully carry out the
development of the Property to completion. The City Manager's approval shall
be for the purposes of: (a) providing notice to City; (b) assuring that all
obligations of Developer are fully allocated as between Developer and the
proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee; and (c) assuring City that the
proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee is capable of performing Developer's
obligations hereunder not withheld by Developer pursuant to Paragraph 23.3.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, provided notice is given as specified in Paragraph
24, no City approval shall be required for any transfer, sale, or assignment of this
Agreement to: (1) any entity which either (i) is an affiliate or subsidiary of
Developer or (ii) results from the merger of Developer or its parent or is the
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 13 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
o'~ mp Ig ~-
~~
purchaser of all, or substantially all, of the assets of Developer or its parent; (2)
any Mortgagee; or (3) any transferee of a Mortgagee.
23.2 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment
of all of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to
Paragraph 23.1 of this Agreement, Developer shall be released from the
obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold,
or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such
transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee,
purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of
the rights, interests and obligations of Developer under this Agreement,
Developer shall be released with respect to all such rights, interests and
assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall
be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents,
certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval.
23.3 Developer's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations.
Notwithstanding Paragraphs 23.1 and 23.2 and Paragraph 24, Developer may
withhold from a sale, transferor assignment of this Agreement certain rights,
interests and/or obligations which Developer shall retain, provided that Developer
specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be
appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder
prior to the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. Developer's purchaser,
transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights,
interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to
Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations.
23.4. Termination of Agreement Upon Sale of Individual Lots to Public.
Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the burdens of
this Agreement shall terminate as to any lot which has been finally subdivided
and individually (and not in "bulk") leased (for a period of longer than one year) or
sold to the purchaser or user thereof and thereupon and without the execution or
recordation of any further document or instrument such lot shall be released from
and rio longer be subject to or burdened by the provisions of this Agreement;
provided, however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall continue to run as to
any such lot until a building is constructed on such lot, or until the termination of
this Agreement, if earlier, at which time this Agreement shall terminate as to such
lot.
24. Agreement Runs with the Land.
All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations
contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their
respective heirs, successors and assignees, representative's, lessees, and all
other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 14 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the
provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and
shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws,
including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of
California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property
hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such
properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties,
and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its
ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and
a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each bother person
succeeding to an interest in such properties.
25. Bankruptcy.
The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in
bankruptcy.
26. Indemnification.
Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and its
elected and appointed. councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents,
employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal
fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which .
may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the
Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer's contractors,
subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction,
improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer
shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful
conduct of City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with.
respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it
has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except
as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond).
27. Insurance.
27.1 Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of
this Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive
general liability insurance with aper-occurrence combined single limit of not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) with a One Hundred Thousand Dollar
($100,000) self insurance retention per claim. The policy so maintained by
Developer shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a
severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement.
27.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this
Agreement Developer shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 15 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall
require each. contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's
Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to
indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer's failure to maintain
any such insurance.
27.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this
Agreement, Developer shall furnish City satisfactory evidence of the insurance
required in Sections 27.1 and 27.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to
give the City at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or
reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall extend to the City, its
elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and
representatives and to Developer performing work on the Project.
28. Sewer and Water.
Developer acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permits from
the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD") which is another public
agency not within the control of City.
29. Notices.
All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in
writing. Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
FAX No. (925) 833-6651
Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows:
Schaefer Rarich Holdings, LLC
4021 Port Chicago Hwy.
Concord, CA 94520
Attn: General Counsel
FAX No. (925) 687-3366
A party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other party
and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed,
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 16 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
Ida I`
upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail.
Notices may also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the
following day or by facsimile transmission which shall be deemed given upon
verification of receipt.
30. Agreement is Entire Understanding.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the
parties.
31. Exhibits.
The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are
attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full:
Exhibit A Legal Description of Property
32. Counterparts.
This Agreement is executed in two (2) duplicate originals, each of which is
deemed to be an original.
33. Recordation.
City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following
execution by all parties.
[EXECUTION PAGE FOLLOWS]
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 17 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to be executed as of the date and year first above written.
CITY OF DUBLIN:
By:
Janet Lockhart, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
DEVELOP
r
s: ~ 1-e S t c~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~,
~~
A orney for Developer
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 18 of 18
For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project)
1096320.12; 114.260
i i~ ~~ :~.
Exhibit A
Legal Description of Property
Containing 42.7 acres, more or less.
That land in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described
as follows:
Lots 261 through 296, Parcels M and N, Schaefer Estates Circle, Schaefer
Estates Court, and Parcels J and K, all as shown on the map for Tract 6765,
Schaefer Ranch, filed as Series No. 2007-99392 in Map Book 297 Pages 1
through 51, in the Office the County Recorder of said County, on March 8, 2007.
115 ~ I&Y
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Contra Costa
On September 29, 2008 before me, Pamela Blessington, Notary Public,
personally appeared Albert D. Seeno III, who proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person(~whose name(~is/a~subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/S~4e~tf~i executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(i~ nd that by his/h~tb~fr
signaturen the instrument the person(~.,~or the entity upon behalf of which
the person acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
1
Signature
~ PAMELA BLESSINGTON~
N CoMY. ~ 1110054 rn
NOTARY PUBLN;-CAUfORNUI N
CONTNA CO{TA COUNTY
MY CONM. EXI. DEC. 11,1010 "~
(Seal)
IIG~~gz
From: Joanne Collins [mailto:jwcollii@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:49 PM
To: Jeri Ram; Martha Aja
Cc: jwcollii@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Comments regarding Schaefer Ranch from CA Highlands for the Planning Commitee
meeting on 10/14/08
October 10, 2008
Dear Jeri Ram and City Planning Committee
As the Board of Directors for the California Highlands Homeowners Association, we
would like to provide our thoughts regarding the addition of 150 more homes in the
Schaefer Ranch development adjacent to our development.
We continue to be extremley concerned with the additional traffic speeding down Dublin
Blvd from the Schaefer Ranch model homes today, and are concerned of this additional
impact of at least 300 plus vehicles with the additional homes. We are also concerned on
the impact of additional water and other resources.
As a community we were looking forward to having some some commercial presence in
their development which would keep those residents from having to come down the hill
for a gallon of milk. Now, from what we understand, in place of the commercial
property, they wish to add an additional 150 homes which would bring the community
back to the original concept. What happened to all of the downsizing of the homes and
the additional items Schaefer Ranch was going to offer to the community? Also from
what we understand Imagination School is consolidating two schools into one that will be
at Schaefer Ranch. Will this cause any problems?
We would like to go on record as being opposed to the approval of these additional 150
single family homes.
Sincerely,
Joanne Edelman
Board of Directors CA Highlands HOA
Attachment 5
I1~7c~ ~g2
~r,
J
~i~
~~
CITY CLERK
File # [~'l nn_r~~
`~LIFOR~''~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2007
SUBJECT: Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch
Development located at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard.
Report Prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution approving initiation of a General Plan Amendment
Study.
2) Resolution denying initiation of a General Plan Amendment
Study.
3) Vicinity Map.
4) Request letter from the Applicant dated July 18, 2007.
RECOMMENDATION: f~) Receive Staff presentation;
\ 2) Receive presentation from Applicant;
3) Receive public comment; and
", 4) Either
a) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving initiation of a
General Plan Amendment Study; or
b) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) denying initiation of a
General Plan Amendment Study.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The cost to prepare the General Plan Amendment shall be borne
by the affected property owner who has requested this amendment.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Schaefer Ranch project is described in the City of Dublin General Plan and is located within the
Western Extended Planning Area. The project area includes approximately 500 acres located at the
westerly boundary of the City Limits and north of Interstate 580 (I-580), and southeast of unincorporated
Alameda County. The westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard leads into the project area where Dublin
Boulevard terminates. Extensive grading activity is currently underway consistent with the approved
Final Map.
COPIES TO: Property Owner
Applicant
Page 1 of 4
G:\PA#\19961PA96037 Schaefer ltanch\ccsr 8.21.07 gpa request.doc
Attachment 6
__ ) I ~,
~~' /~' ~
The Schaefer Ranch project area was annexed to the City of Dublin in 1996 at the request of the property
owner. The original approvals adopted by the City Council in 1996 included a General Plan Amendment
(Resolution 77-96), Planned Development Rezone (Ordinance 15-96 and Resolution 7$-96), and
certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Resolution 76-96). The approved project
included the land uses as noted in Table 1 below.
Table 1 -Approved General Plan Land Use Designations
Land Uiie Desi nation Acres" Units
Residential: Estate 99.8 11
Residential: Sin le-famil 108 463
Retail/Office 10.7 --
Public/Semi-Public 33.9 --
O en S ace 251.6 --
Total 504 474
The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Map 6765 (VTM) (Resolution 98-38) in 1998.
The VTM created 465 residential lots (14 estate lots and 451 single-family lots), as well as parcels
dedicated for commercial parcel, parks, and public/semi-public uses. The City Council approved a
development agreement in 1998 (Ordinance 20-98) which expired on December 31, 2006.
The Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR and the Conditions of Approval for the VTM required the
project proponent to obtain permits from the various environmental regulatory agencies for impacts to
wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other environmentally sensitive areas within the project. The project
proponent successfully obtained approval from the environmental agencies. However, the approval from
the various agencies required the preservation of Marshall Canyon and associated habitat for protected
wildlife within the project area. The preservation of these areas resulted in the need to reconfigure a
portion of the project.
The Developer submitted a Lot Reconfiguration Concept to the City which reflected the requirements by
the regulatory agencies. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept included 302 residential lots (18 estate lots and
284 single-family lots), a 5.69-acre commercial site, two public/semi-public parcels totaling 1.15-acres, a
10.25-acre park site, and the dedication of land to the East Bay Regional Park District for a trail head
staging area and trails. The City Council reviewed the Lot Reconfiguration Concept on December 21,
2004, and directed Staff to work with the Applicant to prepare a Final Map based on the Lot
Reconfiguration Concept. The Final Map was deemed complete in December of 2006 and has
subsequently been recorded.
A Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review (SDR)
were approved in 1996 to allow construction of single-family homes within Schaefer Ranch (Ordinance
11-06 and Resolution 06-17}.
The Applicant is currently requesting the City Council to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study for
the portion of the project that lies south of Dublin Boulevard and west of Schaefer Ranch Road
(Attachment 3). Currently this area of the Schaefer Ranch development has three separate General Plan
Land Use Designations: Retail/Office, Estate Residential, and Single-Family Residential. The Applicant
proposes to change the existing RetaiUOffice and Estate Residential General Plan Land Use Designations
to Single-Family Residential. The Applicant proposes to reconfigure this portion of the project area to
Page 2 of 4
I~~ s/~k3z
r~
include single-family homes with a density that is consistent with the Single-Family Residential Land Use
Designation.
ANALYSIS:
The Applicant proposes to construct single-family detached homes with a density range of 0.9-6.0
dwelling units per acre in place of the 5.69-acre commercial parcel and the 12 estate lots that are located
south of Dublin Boulevard and west of Schaefer Ranch Road (Attachment 3). This area of the Schaefer
Ranch development has current General Plan Land Use Designations of Retail/Office, Estate Residential,
and Single-Family Residential.
The RetaiUOffice land use designation allows commercial uses such as stores, restaurants and service
stations. The Estate Residential land use designation allows 0.01-0.8 dwelling units per acre, and the
Single-Family Residential land ~ use designation allows 0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
development of single-family detached homes with a density range of 0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre is
not consistent with the uses permitted by the Retail/Office land use designation, and the proposed density
exceeds the maximum density permitted by the Estate Residential land use designation.
Therefore, Discovery Builders is requesting the City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to
change the RetaiUOffice and Estate Residential land use designations in this area of the Schaefer Ranch
development to Single-Family Residential in order to allow single-family detached units with a density of
0.9-6.0 units to the acre which is consistent with the remainder of the Schaefer Ranch development. The
current proposal would allow up to a maximum of 407 residential units (6 estate lots and 401 single-
family detached homes) for the entire Schaefer Ranch project. The following table illustrates the current
and proposed acreage and units per land use designation. The proposed amendment would not impact the
existing sites designated for Public/Semi-Public and Park/Public Recreation uses.
Table 2 - Existing/Proposed Project Comparison
Land Use ' Existing
Acrea a/Units Proposed
Acrea etllnits Proposed "
Chan e
Estate Residential 18 units 6 units -12 units
Single-Family
Residential
284 units
401 units Up to 117
units
Retail/Office 5.69 acres -- -5.69 acres
Public/Semi-Public 1.15 acres 1.15 acres --
Parks/Public Recreation 10.25 acres 10.25 acres --
Schaefer Ranch is not located within a specific plan area and therefore does not have a requirement to
enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City. However, a DA could be utilized in order to
secure a community benefit if the City Council thinks that a community benefit is necessary as a result of
the increased density.
CONCLUSION:
If the City Council authorizes a General Plan Amendment Study for Schaefer Ranch, Staff will:
- Determine the appropriate environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. The type of environmental document could range from an Addendum to the existing
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Schaefer Ranch to a Focused EIR that analyzes additional
impacts. The type of environmental document will be determined once Staff has reviewed the
proposed project.
Page 3 of 4
Sao ~~~z
- Examine the proposed land use. and density to determine if it is appropriate based on City policies and
standards.
- Prepare a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision
Map, and Site Development Review for the subject portion of the Schaefer Ranch development.
Staff estimates that it will take 6-8 months to process the application request. The amount of time
necessary to process this request will be dependent on the type of environmental review that is necessary.
An Addendum does not require a public comment period and would therefore take less time to complete
than a Focused EIR.
The City Council is only considering the initiation of a General Plan Amendment study at this time. The
decision to approve or deny the request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study is within the
discretion of the City Council. If the City Council initiates the General Plan Amendment Study, the
project will come before the Planning Commission and the City Council for a General Plan Amendment,
Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map,
Site Development Review, Development Agreement, and other entitlements as needed.
At this point, the City Council needs to determine whether a General Plan Amendment Study should be
authorized for the Applicant's proposal. Both approval and denial resolutions have been included for City
Council consideration (Attachments 1 and 2).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive presentation from
Applicant; 3) Receive public comment; and 4) Either a} Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the
request to Initiate a General Plan Amendment Study; or b) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) denying
initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study.
Page 4 of 4
Mayor Lockhart asked if the were any
a grant for~he project.
Parks and Com unity Director
that and so many j ects that it
•
lai~~t~y
might be interested in providing
~d that there were so few organizations like
but Staff would continue to look.
Cm. Oravetz asked if the~o}x~cilmembers could take a field trip to the house.
Parks and Commune irecto owart stated that she had photos that she would forward
to the Council and so contact th amily to see if she could arrange a visit by the Council
On motion o Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand by unanimous vote, the City
Council a pted
RE LUTION NO.1 - 07
APPROVING REEMENT WITH
ROYSTON HANAMOT Y & ABEY FOR LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURAL S ICES ATED TO DUBLIN HISTORIC
PARK MASTER P ADDENDU PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS
NEW BUSINESS
Initiation of~a General Plan Amendment Study for the
Schaefer Ranch Development Located at the Western Terminus of Dublin Boulevard
8:20 p.m. 8.1 (420-30)
Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council
would review the request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to change the land
use designation from Retail/Office and Estate Residential to Single-Family Residential for
that portion of the Schaefer Ranch development located south of Dublin Boulevard and
west of Schaefer Ranch Road to allow construction of single-family homes with a density
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26 ~ ~~
REGULAR MEETING ~„~ ~ y
August 21, 2007 '~~~~~\`
``iii
PAGE 353 ~~~o~Ns
ATTACHMENT 7
~ ~
range of 0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre which was consistent with the Single-Family
Residential Land Use Designation. _
Cm. Oravetz asked if there would be any area left that could have a convenience store or
gas station -commercial designation.
Senior Planner Jeff Baker pointed out a 1.15 acre parcel. that was designated as
public/semi-public use and another small commercial parcel as part of the General Plan,
just below the freeway overpass.
Doug Chen, Project Manager, Discovery Builders, thanked the Council for considering
the application. He stated they wanted to introduce new product mix at this point.
Mayor Lockhart asked how large a home would be on those lots.
Mr. Chen stated the typical lot size would be in the range of 8,000 sq. ft. with a 3,000 sq.
ft. home.
Cm. Oravetz asked Mr. Chen if the developer was considering putting a convenience store
in the development.
Mr. Chen stated that at this time, they were not, but could look at different options.
The Council and Staff discussed the feasibility of having a convenience store in that area.
Would there be enough traffic and patronage to make a convenience store successful.
There were residents that did not want commercial in their neighborhoods. If the Council
was interested, then now was the time to have Staff look into the possibility of retail as
part of the development. The Council agreed the small parcel in the development should
be left commercial.
Richard Guarienti, Parks and Community Services Commissioner and Dublin resident,
stated he had previously commented on a walkable community and maybe the City could
save a portion of the commercial designation for a store within walking distance of those
homes.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26 `doe W
REGULAR MEETING 9 ~C,~~
August 21, 2007 `` '~ Jl
PAGE 354 ^~~~R~
1 ~~~p l~-
ff
• •
City Manager Ambrose clarified that the action before the Council tonight to initiate and
then approve a General Plan was totally within the discretion of the City Council. They
did not have to authorizeGeneral Plan amendments. It provided the Council with an
opportunity to discuss with the developer items they would like to see as a result of the
change and those could be memorialized in the Development Agreement and that General
Plan Amendment in the future, if the Council should act on it, would be contingent on the
Developer signing the Development Agreement. That opportunity did not happen often,
but it was an opportunity when somebody requested the Council change the General Plan
and Staff wanted to bring it to the Council's attention.
Mayor Lockhart stated it was a good opportunity.
City Manager Ambrose clarified that the Council would just be authorizing the study, not
actually approving the General.Plan amendment.
On motion of Vm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote, the City
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 154 - 07
APPROVING THE REQUEST TO INITIATE
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
City of Dublid~nd the ~~~
Tri-Valley Hous ~ Opportunity Center ter Agreement for Services
8:42 p.m. 8.2
Housing Specialist John Lu o presented the Staff Report and advised that the City
Council would conside appro 'ng a resolution adopting the Tri-Valley Housing
Opportunity Center ter Agreeme for Services.
The Council c mmented that it made se to help Below Market Rate (BMR)
homeowners ith financial education. It was a a good idea to have the linking center
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26 G`~ of ~,~
REGULAR MEETING ~ ~~~,~
August 21, 2007 ~~ ~ /~
PAGE 355 `'~~ ~~
~~~°~
„t ~ ,,~
1 ~~~~~
`~~~~
rte
lau~l8z
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 14, 2008
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative Action) - PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch
South: General Plan Amendment to change the existing Estate Residential
(0.01-0.8 du/ac) and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family
Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Open Space and Public/Semi-Public land uses,
and a Flanned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for an
81.3+/- acre area, a Vesting Tentative 1\~ap 8000 to subdivide 41.5+/- acres
into 140 single-family residential lots, a Development Agreement, and a
CEQA Addendum to the Schaefer Ranc:i Environmental Impact Report.
Report Prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior t'lanner
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA
Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact
Report, with the Initial Study alid Addendum included as Exhibits
A and B, respectively.
2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution
amending the City of Dublin General Plan to change the existing
Estate Residential, Single-Famil;r Residential, and Retail/Office land
use designations to Single-Fancily Residential, Open Space, and
Public/Semi-Public land use de:~ignations for the project known as
Schaefer Ranch South, with the draft City Council Resolution
included as Exhibit A.
3) Resolution recommending that tiie City Council adopt an Ordinance
approving a PD-Planned De~~elopment Rezone with Stage 2
Development Plan for the proje~,t known as Schaefer Ranch South,
with the draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A.
4) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8000.
5) Resolution recommending th<<t the City Council approve a
Development Agreement betwe~,n the City of Dublin and Schaefer
Ranch Holdings LLC, with tale draft City Council Resolution
included as Exhibit A.
6) City Council Staff Report dated August 21, 2007 without
attachments.
7) City Council Meeting Minutes d.rted August 21, 2007.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the Public Hearing;
3) Take testimony from the Applic<<nt and the public;
4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt the following Resolutions;
COPY TO: Property Owners
File
Page 1 of l2
G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South\Planning Commission\pcsr 10.14.08.doc
ATTACHMENT 8
o~ ~ >~~
a. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA
Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental
Impact Report (Attachment 1);
b. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a
Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan to change
the existing Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential, and
Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential,
Open Space, and Public/semi-Public land use designations
(Attachment 2);
c. Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council
adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development
Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 3);
d. Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8000
(Attachment 4}; and
e. Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a
Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and
Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Attachment 5).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The Schaefer Ranch project is described in the City of
Dublin General Plan and is located within the
Western Extended Planning Area. Schaefer Ranch
includes approximately 500 acres located at the
westerly boundary of the City Limits, north of
Interstate 580 (I-580), and southeast of
unincorporated Alameda County (see Map 1 to the
right). The westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard
leads into the project area where Dublin Boulevard
terminates.
sfrE~:
C~.
Map 1: Vicinity Map
'~ • ~ ~
.~ ... _ -
_.. -
The Schaefer Ranch project area was annexed to the City of Dublin iii 1996 at the request of the property
owner. The original approvals adopted by the City Council in 1996 i~icluded a General Plan Amendment
(GPA) (Resolution 77-96), Planned :Development Rezone (OrdinancE; I5-96 and Resolution 78-96), and
certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Resolution 76-96). The original approvals
anticipated development of 474 single-family home, parks, open space, commercial, and public/semi-
public uses.
The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Map 6765 (VTM) in 1998 (Resolution 98-38).
The VTM created 466 residential lot:, as well as commercial, parks, ~~nd public/semi-public parcels. The
City Council approved a Development Agreement for the project in 1998 (Ordinance 20-98) which
expired on December 31, 2006.
The Mitigation Measures contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the Conditions of Approval for the
VTM required the project proponent to obtain permits for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other
environmentally sensitive areas within the project from the various environmental regulatory agencies
with jurisdiction over the area. The project proponent successfully obtained approval from the
environmental agencies. However, t:he approval from the various agencies required the preservation of
sensitive habitat for protected wildlife within the project area. The preservation of these areas resulted in
the need to reconfigure a portion of the project which ultimately reduced the intensity of the overall
development.
Page 2 of 12
a~~~
In 2004, the Developer submitted a Lot Reconfiguration Concept to the City which reflected the
requirements by the regulatory agencies. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept included 302 residential lots
(18 estate lots and 284 single-family lots), commercial parcels totaling 8.99-acres, a 10.25-acre park site,
and the dedication of land to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) for a trail head staging area
and trails. The lot reconfiguration concept reduced the previously approved 466 units to 302 units, a
reduction of 164 units. On site open space areas were increased as a result of the lot reconfiguration. Due
to resource agency requirements, the Developer also preserved app~•oximately 248 acres of land to the
north and west of the project site with a permanent conservation easement. The City Council reviewed
the Lot Reconfiguration Concept on December 21, 2004, and directec Staff to work with the Applicant to
prepare a Final Map based on the Lot Reconfiguration Concept. The Final Map for 302 residential units
was deemed complete in December of 2006 and was recorded on Marsh 8, 2007.
A Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR)
were approved in 2006 to allow construction of single-family homey within Schaefer Ranch (Ordinance
11-06 and Resolution 06-17).
The Schaefer Ranch project is now in construction in accordance with the above mentioned approvals.
Extensive grading activity has been completed and construction of the first phase of residential
neighborhoods to the north of Dublin Boulevard is currently underw<<y. In addition, major infrastructure
has been constructed, including the Dublin Boulevard extension, Schaefer Ranch Road, a water storage
tank, and storm water retention basins.
In addition to the ongoing construction, Discovery Builders has entered into a written agreement with The
School of Imagination (SOI) to construct apreschool/day care facility on Parcel J of Schaefer Ranch.
Discovery will lease the facility to SOI for a period of 15 years and Provide an option to extend the lease
for an additional 30 years. Construction of the preschool/day care fa~~ility will require a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR}. These entitlerr.ents are not included in the current
request and will be brought forward for consideration at a later date. Discovery's agreement to construct
the preschool/day care facility is predicated on the City granting the requested entitlements.
Current Request
The Applicant proposes to construct 104 additional single-family homes at the southwest corner of Dublin
Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and facilitate future development of the School of Imagination at the
southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. ~~n August 21, 2007, the Applicant
submitted a request to initiate a Gc;neral Plan Amendment for the proposed development. The City
Council granted the Applicant's request to initiate a General Plan Amendment (GPA) Study
(Attachments 6 and 7).
The Applicant is currently requesting approval of the following:
1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) to modify the existing Est~cte Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac) and
Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residernial (0.9-6.0 du/ac), and increase the
acreage for Open Space and Public/Semi-Public land uses.
2. Planned Development (PD) Rezone with Stage 2 Developmen~ Plan, and
3. Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 41.5+/- acres into 141) single-family residential lots (an
increase of l 041ots over the existing approvals for the project site),
4. Development Agreement, and
5. CEQA Addendum to the Sch~iefer Ranch Environmental Impa~~t Report (EIR) are also a part of the
proposed project.
The following is a discussion of the proposed entitlements.
Page 3 of 12
~.~°tt~t•al ['i~tt r'~t~~et~tcl~~taci~t
l.ac ~~-~~l,c,<;~~i til?.=1 rr-t~t.ticl tra~>ciif~~ Tl~t~; c~itirt~~.
[ , : 1~c~i~~c~ntt al {tJ 1 {1.13 cl aL.t°~~)_ ~inlL l~ar~aii~~
j z >1 {Ca.~aeEa,{) ~{u`ittr~:)_ <aaa~ l~etaal'{)1'fi~:L
t. rac ~ ,. ,i . tas,tic}tas rat tla~:: s~:)tttlt~test atad
... r ," ~_ ~ ...-.~~; cif }t!:~1i1~ B~~aale~~ Ord rtncl
_ ~-;~ t~,irliY~ [~<a,~alE. 1'l~ . _ a~~%r t~) 1'~1a~~ }ter
t~1~.° '''~.,t~ :'a ~)t the ~~.astknf l~rXtl t.t~.c° lS~::~a47tatttacaa~~,,
1,a~, l't'~' ,~s~~ aa~c,f€iltt~zta~>n~ ~~~>Et~l~i a~.~~anna~)~i~Xte
w.l~~~ic)~)Xrt~:a~t ~)# ~~~~Ittti~a~al stn~lc-l~.tX~a[l~ l~<~tnL~,~
~ c>aa~ta-aat ttt~k~ ~3I' t1a~ 4~ t,, gr,l <~1~ 1rXa ~~,~i)~<ati~>n, a)atl
~C.'fllc'I' ~?ilfit`c;~S 111L' G~ . I ~ I~ ~~ {)ixC 3}~ill' {)~ t}l~' ~;3i~.
i' ... ~' ~.:r" tqi> "t`~tt`ale I felt±~e lt)a- :t 4utXaraa4ka-r' ~~f"
i ~-':.t~)i3Jt'4.~ 3illt~ 11;9L% 11't{.ltillli`7tlf)17:.
l~aF£tl I~_~~1E3tiS1
~'`,,~
,\
,,,
~a~ ~~~.
~i~et: it t- }~~c
/`~ l~l
- '`t.
.~
t ~~
~ ~
I
P
~'
_~ i
,^
}
~- ~, l
_3~-rt~~~akl~-
blst~ 2. t-;xi5ti~itg LEtnti ti4c~ t)esi~n.ttitan~+
1'a(~Ne 1. E~istis~~ ~s. 1'rt:-[~t>+ctl l:~ntl l ~;~ l)trsi„;t~atiatt~
~_,~__._._ - -~ m_
_.~ ~,
i ' ~ ~istin~ ~'rt~~``~s~t]
~.~~~~ttl ItS~ 17t~t~r~ati~n i
_ ." ~ (acres) {::1cr~s)
--- _....
(' t ~ I: l~t,rXtaal ita d11 ~?.li tltt ai,
~tr~ ~~ ~ a tl~.~ I~i~iclcntaal {t:) tj t7 O citt ~t~.) t if3..if) ~a~ ~~~,?{t ~a~
_. W._ _ ,
': ~~ <3h[~~atlar~~ati { ~~a~~anct~ial ~ R.~a3 at.- h tit) t
_..
1'tthlat.'4~.a~~i-1'u1-~la~; la,{ita ate l.v'1 a
l ~}t~l`I1 ~?X'tl~'C ; ..{}.{}{) iil .. = ~).3~}cii
"1°tttal .~c
,~ s~~attla~~;e.:;t ec)rnea" t3f ~}ubli~n 33t~)~tlc°t~zr<i ~anci
.1~.•.~~„ 12.ancl~ l~c~a~ is ctzt•a~~a-Xtl~ clesi;nat.ei~ ~>~taie
its i~;atazal, ~it~~xl~ 1~€~~~ily F~esitlenit~al, and
>~~ .ik:t )([is:;('. (`hc ,11~l~lic<arat is rc71~~~in~ tt~
~.i ~ ,_. these 1<aaacl rase clesitrnalic~ra5 tc3 Sitli~le-
I . °7ai}~, 1~~~;i~fc~tati~tl. 1 I7~° ~ii~S,~le-I~at~ail~ itie~i~iLXatial
d~~~=_ta~ali~an ~~{)talcj ~X11~~±~ c~e~~~icj~at-netat ~, c'~;,~~~i1=~~
l~ ~ ~ ~ t.ktat2S. l~l psi' ttit f;l ~'];a~ ~ it)Y tl"te
1~,~,.,., ~ taf~f[`ac, ~~t`~;h~,..1 (~aar~l .,,~ il~ ;i~.~taatisan;~.
l ..~(} :fit
81.3t) ac
{.}pcta ;~l~ac:c ~ ~: a".~ - ~ . {>u1~li~ "~ta~~ti-
_"._._.____._1 ~ ` - , I'a tb1 is
'~ `;?:
~~ ti,. j
"ti . ~~ y
i ~ ~~~
~'~ ~ ~
113, ~r~s:~ li~~.~~t~tetl in~t~tae~~liFatel}~ nE~rth oaf 1-:~~{~ and ,tlc;t~t.i~tl.
l_ _ _.. ~..."_~-.._....
,~,..i =,!~'~tla~~et~:r.l~ztta~l~ iZ«acl is c~aaa~t~a~tiv c~ sit~rt~aicc3 ~1.tp:~: 1't-t,pi~setl l.,<t>•~tl t ~:~ 1.3 {,si~;tt~ttiXroa<
. __• I~~-sic~c,taCidtl. ~iti~ale-1 an~t~l~ lic~-i~l~taTi<al t~t'atl
1'~,.: a)1,7~''. I1~)~~,~~et", t11i4 sar~~t ha; t~el~s ~I~,lac=; tt ~.:~.~ess ~.)1." ~~{)£'~%, ati~l is nt)t.,l,l,r~~l,~~ir:tt~ f)r
c° , . l,,iaaXaea~t. I I~er~ t~}r~. tl~c: ,~1}~}~?lieani prc?pi~~;~s tc> tit~rra~e the 1<:tncl tts~ ciLsi~taatic)aa i-jr dais ~tre<a ic) {}l~eaa
`, L: il'3~~asc r~^1tir ti,> 143ft~~ 3j, l lae f)pt~aa `~~}a~4 Iaa~tl ~ts~ ~i~:~i~~n~:atiatl is it~t~xtcie~l t~) ens4tt"~ l~rt?t~~<~ti~)rt <)I`
t' ~ ~~ ttreats.
Iia~ l:iaa~:l izacat~cl <rt tlae st)tttllcast ctarnLr i>f L)lthln E3cattle~~arcl at~:l `3chGt4fer Ii~tracl'a ~t~ad (l'~trc~is J ~~~tail F
~).a l~ic~al ''v14t1 li7f+:± at~~l ht~L~n tin leap 2 ahc~~~) l~~a. ~t citrrerat Ccnrrtal I'Iat~ lEl.i~if tt;,c: de:i~aZ~ati~:?t~ i>E~
l~ctxtil%{}1'fic~~. "I lae t>t•iu~in~tl ttl~l>rt)~~als it~r ~c1a;:X~#~dr 1<zaracta i~enti(iecl 1:'sar~el ;1 gas ~t t~tatttre clay care site aratl
[',.tt"~;el l~: ~~~~~ t~~:erc,.e~ as ca ~{>sLihle iitt>a:re #ir~: Station site. lra ~:t~tiiti«a~a it> tiXt: ~:ieale'ra1 1'lctti clt~ttwnzttit)ras,
tlkc~ i~~istin~ I'1:} roniaa~ t-etl~tir~:s ~~ttblie%s~;tni-pu>~lic rases ora these ~sarc~;is. llac::-1171~rlieant l~s-c)pc~scs its
1'ci~e ~ i)' l
~ ~ ~
~t,,~,r,~ t}ae it~~,c1 t€~e ciesi~ta€.atic~7a t71°tlEe~~ 17at't:%I~ tt) t'tE4~lit;-":~~n~i-I'€€'.°•li~~ {1'.':~I') ir, €7r~t~r tt> 1?~ c~,;l;~i>t~;t~t
~~;'a t'ac itate7atltci ttse c)f~ t1'Eese :~it::~ as clcfita~°i.! in tl~~: PI.) {E'l`., _ r~f~r ic? ,~1~~~~ ~). ~:~ ~~t•eiit~t.~:~l~'
,_:1, t:iat' 1},~lit;i~a~t ia;:a, etatereti ia~tt? an €€{vx~err~erat ~~itla ~i()1 tt) €.`++€~strti€t:t a ter::-;ci~~~~~1't~~ae ~ar~: E•€b~'i}its
1'..~e~:1 .I
I }ae ',€Pj,_`t iw lt)t~~tt'~1 '~~itiait~ tine '~1'~°~ttt-~a }~texx~eti 1'}r:;aaait:." area t:t~ tit€.: (.ie7leril 1'1~En. «1:tit~h :': ' . "~,Xt
t. ,; pj„}. :: ~b 1"~~' ~,~, a €.€~~ ~ie>,t;.~r;dtis=at. ~l~ert?f"{aa•t . ~,_. I~~i~ l-;re}~°{t7-~ tl€~ 1t)1}€"~~~inx~ I'!~l"' Elti.,- :;. ; ~b~.
I .,. ;. ~ ,~?`it~tir>;a i:: ': ,. L'"~i ~~a~ tlae e~;i:~tira 3 1'!`~T' t1~ °~;,.rlt)a~ that is ~I~;:-;t:rii~~~3 is; tiatr ~~ta~€`tal 1'iLita ' ,~ bit:
}': ib ~ }'lt;taatir;~ .<'~a"t' : a:€ail the E~tatt~-a-~ l~,~t+~;~~itrt! I'i.a~ , ,bra -~~°t~€a. I }a~~ ta~~~iraa€~aaa }":OIL 1~~€s i~t~~ra iaac€'e~t:~'tl
t~ i1.=t) ica t:`~rt3L:€'t{:~ ta~:4b~aa~7j€c>~1<rte ~lat° 1~t)teb;tistl ~S()! f<:i€:ilitr'.
C'rrl~lr'ti>~S~~rrri-,F'arfil~c° 1°crc°ilitae~ rtlcl.aitratrrr~ r)f .f)rl ~;~1h'; f~az~,tl'~~}`r'~:' rt:J°~ipa: ~~'tJ c'l~drel"t `~~' ~~<~1.
t?177~>Ttxt i't"'i ;~ ~°r)rrr1~7=~;~,_, :: l~~r~ttl ll.;'t< ~tlttz~r)#~t' c)/"1'1r1~/rt.; T'tlt'i!itr{>'.~" Otr#lr~~ i,.<°, art",' ~±E';~`71f-F'z~?~Iic° i .rt~~iitie
1t7t7c?` l.~c'<t ~''r~',i,' d"t-: -t/?`t'4 t1Y`{' 11.)`t'3 {)l~lt'i' lhtlti~~tdl'li~ fS11'f7t°L7t ~'1` (.ij72',~;a''~ r7{'1 OI' 11t)77 j)3't.>i'1 'P11d11%
ZP.2t!? C?#'{' ? ,;',~ 1, %1d ~ .:t' l bb'ill'#`tlJ1I C~7tiE"#'t'Y7tlcllt{?77 ft'flt72 C1C:tJf)llrl7ts; , s<'~. .~°I(i:'~; #1,1t'.t 1Ydt'It"tCf(' ~111t?#!['
't:f7t+{P~:S". ~7~)I`C1''7: ', f'lll' !)~~dC'd ~?dll1G~117~;4; ,~~lillt', {'~(>III71~}? d:13tc~ 1Plttt'#' ~)d~31#c" El~'a`€lt'1 rLIC'I~IItz'.~." ~1t1.41 ilt!i?c'L'~.'
llf'e' 4'1{lfttl#?S; ltllfdllt',S; cd!7ti'. {.{!b'#s' (.'t'tllt'Y. .5~t'iJdr.~~11~3~1C' ~'t7t.'j~7tdc`°+ 7.+.?'e':t' t1Yt' (2til.o7-J?id~}~1L` Lt:S't'.5. ,S"2tC.'lt tl,S"
i.'a2,'t~~~ L`LIl"t C'F'Ylld:)",'1', t't?211}2 C'C'lll`l'.S. tit;r'llt3t` i't'Ydl~'#".)', S~Z~ct'dGi1r1t't't~.5 ~)d'()~P°t."113P ftit'l~dllt'S", t'E'I#~7f1Ld:S'
!i2~;;lddf!(377~, t't{7d~?l2C)#d.SE'.~, i'r')137Y)21dY2#1`4> C°t'i3(t'T,'+", ('f17J7#'9'7'Id1tX/~' lyd1L'~Ill'e',+, Jr,,~~~lft~~5~. ~i)'11'ttlt' ~t"~?f1,.)~.t, L17?L~
'" 1 t
€)z~?t't" i~lt'#ljlldt'~ ,FlZll ~17"l )1'iL~i'c'llslidl'fli, t'idd?C'tdt7t,t)?{Z1, f)}` i3#tll'1` Y7 !%` .`,t't § do"t.S t171i1t ~t'tIt'.>tl f~1C'
t: `f??dt?1;~X71171~'. -1 .~+~t'YY1f-,~Li~?~1L' ~'t:1L'11ti1~ f71C7Y` r?4t' t~S'{>`( ~F)#' )iilJP"P 1+7tlfi t~~'~ .4i#L'rl Iltt' ~)('1'f:'~!)~J)i7('i?l t}f
}7i?#z511d,5 f)7t tt J'li£' t-~t'.i"1~;12GF~t'L#~ {ft"1 lilt' t.x{'2'r""fXl ~'~t7Y1 Cl.ti .{S~t'71P1-,Z't#~Pi1 # tlL'lt7ld,'~ :"i~2i1~~ ~)c' L'f)11.i'itft?7"C'z:l
%;}ti.at.~'(E'h'1 iti'llt7 T~7L' ~_i("t7t'P°tl~ ~~t?f 17 ~li'I9i'P4 !! !5 t~i:l`t'it)3T>ti~ l?d' zd Ner?P2-~?#"r)~#1 'f7J7ti' itt2i~ ~'t'Y'1't',1 1{J 1?2E'x.'!
,:dttr)ti.' r#isll.iTJ7~,~ lt't'tdS tJl` l~la,' {ltttd.Si7;i,T lt('t't 1; (>J tl,I titft7tt'1'.~t^l.1'e'L7~ €'t r)s2{7187iC' ,1e:;137t'P7,' tlj 1~1£
,tt1P2)tlli/1'. })f'It.'1'JY##71fi#;i"11d if.S 1t) it tlc.'l~It'}` 11(31i~,".` ~Jlr)t7~t~ hc' ~?c'Yfllilt`t'Lid C)Y? tl ti'x)tt'Ii7C' :~'Y777-~p#!r'~lt'
~'tiC i1#Ila':~ .S'dr`:' Zd7€~ dhi' tlt'i.'C'~?1G7f?dL' t.If'YT.S"Ilt' t(l7tl C~E'.5"1~?#1 7'i~l 77~ Z~lf'r)d<ajl 1-t'1'It'11' {)j ii 1s'~t7)7t7e't7
Tic€°t~l~~l'~ll7c't'21 ~>1't)t)o:3t71 tlr2t~~r7• dlr{~ ~c>r7i,l~; t~}t'{.Irr)crfrt {~.
[ ia~ },3"i7,~;7ti~;t1 tieEaeral i'!ar€ ,=~~aat€€d€iar;nt~ are iaat 1€.€tleci a~ .~tksicl~~r~t 2, 1i:~l~i(3it A t)I~ tl~i~ ~?tttlt~ I~:;.:}>€-~rt
~ , }... ,~ t;'ic'r tt> I'.:;,~e ~' cj1~ F~:~Cail~it :'1 fc)~~ tlt,: I~i€aciita~s).
y: ;t~,t" 2 Pls~t~riecl l)e~clc~Ian~ent i'Is~r~Il)c~°~Itr~~t~~ent ~t~~iidsxr<I,s
'L 1'?'`,"° , ,I ~•t :~~' ~' I)e~~;lc~t~rtte;at I}C~t€a late C~eeaa ~ret~€ret! iba ;accc>c'a1t€r;ce .~iti? fife [)uE~1ir;%t~~aint~>
t'r,~iba€r;a~~ (`~ecti ~-~ ~.~?.(l~t").13i a~ad tal~t~li~w tt) the lcl~~€eler l~€a€:acla ~+t.P€ttla ~3~t)jet~t a€•~a. "1~}a~ t)rta}~c~i;et
", _ ' ~' 1).:~t'c~}~t~a~nt !'ls€n €~.~ttarl~tz~e~~t 3, Ia.~hiE•rit <11 it€b~lt:Eti °~: ! } ;t~ttetzl~:'tat t~f4t,c7€t~;,k7tihilit~ ~~itlt ;;~~ta~te
~ 1?.'.;~ ;:rat l~}<:€t~. Zi ~t€,tez~~ecYt €sf t~t•t~t~~)sctl tE~;es. ~") ~t.~_;_ ~ `pits' 1'C.tt7; ~1l rite t€aea i7aci I?€~tP,~tPSe<1
i1~ ,~. ~I ~?e~.elt>t~t~ael,t I'l'4?ldli3t1t11aS~ {l) ill"l'!"llttrLllll`<E} si;:tltl,:!tl:;; stlltl i} r57t'CIlt14Ilclt`1` Iiltlt~~t:2i1~111~? }"PI£1I1,
1 ,1}<, " ~ is ~i clist;tas~i<7,"t tat`}~e~, eleEaac~r7t~; {~i'tht; }~rt,1?t)secl `~~a;~~e `' 1.~)t.-~ 1t . ~ u,":t I'I€aaa.
. ,. ~, at t>1 I?rtrly~c.L1 ~",~~~:s: 11€e tarc)pt}"cc1 ~,:. _;' ? C~eoeit)1,a~et~t I'la~'; i€ae}i.€tle~ <~ zb:}~~a}alLt~: 1i~t ta1~
C" t: it°iti.l, c4~aat.litit~t~a11~" C~t~€-t~aittbrtrl ttzatl ter€at~t~r€ar~+" tt,~ ~. ~I~la~~c u5t°s are ci)sa~i~ter~t ~~itla tlae u4°~ t~ec•~aaitiecl
€ ;. ~ t:rt~ ~~i~tiba;x' 1'I) f>c- tla.~ rep€a~s;ita~It~E' €~t iCa~° ~efta~;l~r t~tatacla tlt;°~~lc}€a,ent.
`~ _,' `~tae...i'}.~aa az~ci Dt,a€`at€~~, t`}ae 1ac'c)tac~~,~u ~iti° ;-~1az~ 3aaci
t} >>itt~4 tat'e ;~lat?~~rE ir; a'~Ia~~ =~ ~~~~~ T:~k~lc 2 I~eicP~ti' ~arltl trx`t
ia~cl~ECleti ~~;~ I>:ar't t~(~ thy. prt)pta~et! `~tat.~t: "' l'I) {)rtiinLtttee {tl~t
`~iza~Yle-i'atnil~ 1~~ ,i;~etati~~I It7€iti t€:;t clesi`~ttfatitPra tietasit~' ra~a4~e is
(3. ti-r~,i} titt'ttcre). '!!ae t~~'t7t~!<)seci 14ttat' tz5e;~ anti tCera~ities tat'
t;€~ta~ i ~tcttt t~ tla t.}ae !~i'i)l~rt~setl CrF'-~, (~
I~~esitleaatia3 y ~
~~_
i
1'ta<~e ~ f}I~ 3?
_._t
[-~ ..
t. tY
I .) ti~eta ~ ~~iC .~ ~ 1~.` ~~
- ~,..
,.
y
...» 1.
~'~il[7! =~: ~tfdrC ~ ~~~ ~?ltG 1'Nit[i
Table 2: Site Area and Proposed Densities
Gross Number Gross
Land Use Designation
Acres Net Acres
of Units
Densi Net Density
Sin le-Famil Residential 29.70 ac 22.35 ac 140 unit:; 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac
O en S ace 50.39 ac 47.22 ac n/a n/a n/a
Total: 80.09 ac 69.57 ac 140 unity 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac
Development Standards/Regulations: The proposed Development Standards for the PD-Residential
Single-Family zoning district within Schaefer Ranch South are shown in Table 3 below, The proposed
Development Standards address thinks such as maximum lot coverage, building heights and setbacks, and
usable yard requirements.
Table 3: Development Standards/Regulations - PD-Residential Single Family
STANDARD Minimum Unless Otherwise Noted
Lot Size 4500 sf
Lot Width
• T ical street 45 ft
• Cul-de-sac (measure at right-of-wa) 35 ft
Lot De th 100 ft
Lot Coverage
• one-sto 45 % maximum
• two-sto 35 % maximum
Buildin Hei ht (two-story maximum) 35 ft
Setbacks
Front Yard
• to livin or orch 10 ft
• to front entry gara a 18 ft
• to side ent ara a 15 ft
Side Yard
• t ical 5 ft
• at corners 8 ft
Rear Yard 10 ft
Detached 2" Unit/Casita
• Minimum rear and setback ~ 5 ft
• Maximum buildin hei ht 17 ft
• Roof design Hip. Except a gable element may be used where
second unitlcasi~a does not abut another lot on the
rear ro ert ling.
• Roof pitch Minimum 4:12 sloping away from all property
lines so as to not ove ower the adjacent nei hbor.
• Architectural design Consistent with main building including all
materials. All elements of the main building shall
be re licated on the second uniUcasita.
• Detached 2"d UnitlCasita Lor. Restrictions Not permitted ors Lots 36 through 46
Permitted in side yard provided unit does not
extended beyonc rear of home on Lots 47 & 48.
Usable Yard
• size 500 sf contiguous flat
• dimension 10 ft minimum any one side and
1513 diameter clear within usable and
2~ ~~~~-
Page 6 of 12
13n ~ ~~
Parkin S aces a
• Off-street covered (enclosed ara e) 2
• additional s ace {may be on-•street) 1
Specific Notes:
~~~ Maximum lot coverage regulations are intended to establish the maximum lot area that may be
covered with buildings and structures. Buildings and structures include: all land covered by
principal buildings, garages and carports, permitted accessory structures, covered decks and
gazebos, and other covered <<nd enclosed areas. It does not include: standard roof overhangs,
cornices, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, and paved areas such as walkways, driveways,
patios, uncovered parking areas, or roads. (Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.36.100).
~2~ Residential Building Height: The 35-foot maximum two stories shall be measured from the
finished grade at the midpoint of the building (as shown on a ia~ade or cross section view running
parallel to the slope) to the top ridge of the structure's roof. However, architectural features and
elements may exceed this provision by a 5-foot maximum, acid a gable element may exceed this
provision by a 5-foot maximum, subject to approval by the Director of Community Development.
~3> Second Units/Casita -Detached
a) A second unit is defined as having a kitchen or kitchenette and will require a dedicated parking
space either within a garal;e or on the driveway.
b) A Casita will not include a kitchen or kitchenette and therefore an additional parking space
shall not be required.
Secondary dwelling units/casitas are subject to development standards provided herein and current Dublin
Second Units Regulations (Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.80), except that that maximum lot
coverage shall be 50% for the primary dwelling unit and secondary dwelling unit/Casita combined.
General Residential Yard Provisions:
(A) Setbacks -All setbacks are measured from the property line.
(B) Allowable Encroachments -Items such as (but not limited to) air conditioning condensers,
porches, chimneys, bay windows, media centers, etc. may encroach into the required setback
provided that a minimum unobstructed 3 foot wide flat and level path is maintained to provide
access past said items.
(C) Except as prohibited under setback requirements above, roof eaves, pop-outs, architectural
projects, and columns may encroach into required yard area :setbacks subject to compliance with
building codes.
(D) Setbacks for accessory structures shall be in accordance with the building code in effect at the time
of construction installation. Noise generating equipment such as pool and spa equipment shall be
.acoustically screened or located outside of the setback area.
(E) On lots where a minimum re<<r yard clear and level zone canna be provided due to topography or
vegetation constraints, decks of comparable area shall be allowed and required subject to Site
Development Review.
Page 7 of 12
131 ~ 1~~
Architectural Standards: The following five (5) architectural st;~les are provided in the Stage 2
Development Plan. The variety of <<rchitectural styles will provide ~/isual interest and identity for each
neighborhood street. The architectw•al elements will be articulated and themed to represent a variety of
styles through color, texture, and massing details. The architectural styles, along with design elements,
are identified below:
California Ranch: The California Ranch style is represented ley low pitch roof in a hip, gable, or
Dutch gable configuration with flat, shingle-like roof tiles. Exterior materials include wood
siding, stucco, and board & batten accents combined with brick and stone accents, and post
elements at a front porch. Architectural features include articulated windows, shutters, gable end
details with wood truss shapes, louvers, and exposed rafter details. Colors and materials are light
brown and charcoal blends with varied color accents.
Monterey: The Monterey style is characterized by low-pitched gable roof and cantilevered second
story balconies covered by the principal roof of flat or "S" co lcrete tile. Wall materials typically
are different for first and second floors generally consisting ol~extensive use of brick on the lower
levels with stucco, wood siding, or board and batten above. Architectural elements include simple
wooden posts and railings, shutters, window frames, and gabef: end accents. Colors are California
mission blends with varied color accents.
Early Californian: Early Californian is distinguished by simple massing and the principal roof
material of concrete barrel tiles representing terracotta in color and form on a hip or gable roof
above shorter overhangs. Stucco finished exteriors are accented by arched doorways, shutters,
wrought iron detailing, and gable end accents. Colors are California mission and brown blends
with varied tone accents.
English Country: Formal ch;~racteristics of the English Country style are identified by steeper
pitched roof elements with gable forms, stucco accent walls, use of brick accents, and half-
timbered details. Stone features, bricked archways, decorative; corbels, and multi-paned windows
give this style its country image along with the hip and gable roof elements. Colors and materials
are lighter charcoal and brown blends with earthy green tone a~:cents.
Craftsman: The Craftsman .style features combinations of wood shingled, board & batten, and
clapboard siding with stone accent bases with square tapered columns. The long, low-pitched
gable roofs of flat the are ;supported by eave overhangs v~~ith decorative wooden braces and
exposed rafter details. Color;; and materials are charcoal and gray-brown blends with varied color
accents.
The development and architectural standards are consistent with the previously approved Schaefer Ranch
project and the lot sizes are comparable to the existing lots within Schaefer Ranch. An SDR is required
for construction of units on the proposed lots. The Applicant is rot proposing an SDR at this time.
Therefore, the SDR will be brought forward for consideration at a futt re public hearing.
Preliminary Landscape Plan: A Preliminary Landscape Plan has b~:en prepared to address the project
backbone landscaping. The Preliminary Landscape Plan .include:. conceptual neighborhood entries,
streetscape and common area landscape treatment, and wall and fencing details. The Preliminary
Landscape Plan has been incorporated into the Stage 2 Development and is consistent in design with
landscaping for the approved project.
The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan is included in Attachment 3 Exhibit A (please refer to Page 1
of Exhibit A for the Findings).
Page 8 of 12
i~~ ~~.
Vesting Tentative Map
Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000 would subdivide approximately 41.5-acres located at the southwest
corner of Dublin Boulevard and Sch~-efer Ranch Road into 140 single-family residential lots, a pedestrian
paseo, common area landscape parcels, and related roadways to se ve the subdivision. Access to the
proposed subdivision is provided by future "Road 1" and "Road 3", which connect to Dublin Boulevard.
The proposed subdivision has a den:~ity of 4.71 units/acre. The pro~~osed density is consistent with the
density range permitted by the proposed Single-Family Residential 10.9-6.0 du/ac) land use designation
(please refer to the GPA discussion above).
This project site was previously subdivided into 12 estate lots, 24 single-family lots, and a 5.69-acre
commercial parcel (Final Map 6765). The proposed subdivision maf~ would eliminate the existing estate
lots, single-family residential lots, and the commercial parcel in this area, resulting in a net increase of
104 residential lots as shown in Table 4 below. If approved, the overall Schaefer Ranch development
would have a total of 406 single-family homes. The total number of residential units would be less than
the 474 units that were originally cor-templated and approved for the ~;ntire Schaefer Ranch project site in
1998.
Table 4 -Residential Lot Unit Count
1~~0 Pro osed Lots
-12 Existin Estate Lots
-'Z4 Existing Sin le-Family Lots
11)4 Additional Lots
The draft Resolution and Condition:; of Approval for VTM 8000 are; included as Attachment 4 of this
Staff Report (please refer to page 2 of Attachment 4 for the Findings).
In accordance with the Dublin Zc-ning Ordinance (Site Development Review Chapter 8.104), the
developer is required to obtain approval of an SDR in order to constrict homes on the proposed lots. An
application for SDR is not part of the. current entitlement request. TI' erefore, an SDR application will be
presented to the Planning Commission at a later date.
Development Agreement
The Development Agreement provides security to the Developer that the City will not change its zoning
and other laws applicable to the project for a period.of fifteen years. In return, the Developer agrees to
comply with the Conditions of Approval and make commitments which the City might otherwise not have
the authority to compel.
The proposed Development Agreement includes an exception to tt.e Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
(Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.68). The Development Agreement allows the developer to meet the
obligation to provide l7 affordable units for the 140-unit subdivision by constructing "granny units" or
duplexes. The Development Agreement further allows the developer to construct the 17 affordable units
within the 140-unit subdivision, or to construct the affordable ur-its on lots throughout the overall
Schaefer Ranch development.
Under the terms of the proposed Development Agreement, the Developer will reserve the 0.65-acre parcel
at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road (Parcel K on Final Map 6765) as a
fire station site. Under the terms of this agreement, the reservati~~n will terminate in 2 years if not
exercised by the City. This site was previously reserved as a :ire station site under the original
Development Agreement that was approved in 1998 and has since exf~ired.
Page 9 of 12
~~ ~~
`~
The Development Agreement also provides that the Developer will make a financral contribution for
public art at the Dublin Historic Park. The in-lieu fee contribution gill be made in accordance with the
Dublin Public Art Program (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.58).
The Development Agreement further obligates the Developer to make a financial contribution of
$1,500,000 to the City for construction of the Dublin Historic Pa~•k. The Developer will contribute
$750,000 when the Developer receives all discretionary land use entitlements from the City or upon
issuance of the 1St building permit in the 140-unit subdivision, which ever comes first. The Developer
will contribute the remaining $750,0()0 to the City prior to issuance ol~the 75~' building permit in the 140-
unit subdivision.
A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the pr~>posed Development Agreement is
included as Attachment 5 (please refer to page 1 of Attachment 5 for the Findings).
Inclusionary Zoning/Affordable Housing
The project is subject to the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulation: which will be addressed at a later
time by a separate Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the (;ity Council. This Agreement must
be finalized prior to approval of a Final Map or Site Development Review, which ever occurs first.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #9`+033070) was certified by the City
Council on July 9, 1996 (Resolution 76-96). The project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR included a
total of 474 residential units and 10.7-acres of commercial development. Vesting Tentative Map 6765
was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission in 199l~ (Resolution 98-38) creating 466
residential lots. Final Map 6765 was recorded on March 8, 2007, creating 302 residential units and
commercial parcels totaling 7.99-acres. The proposed Schaefer Rance South development would replace
12 estate lots and a 5.69-acre commercial site with 104 additional : Ingle-family lots. If approved, the
Schaefer Ranch development would include a total of 406 lots (400 :;Ingle-family lots and 6 estate lots),
which is less than the 474 units studied in the Schaefer Ranch EIR.
The proposed project also includes future development of a presch~~ol/day care facility on Parcel J of
Final Map 6765. The EIR previously contemplated commerci:~l development consistent with a
preschool/day care facility on Parcel .1.
The City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether there could be significant environmental impacts
occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Schaefer
Ranch EIR.
The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment beyond or different from those already addressed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, and no
significant information has arisen for this project during the prepara~ion of this Initial Study that would
require further environmental review. Therefore, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared documenting
these facts. This Addendum will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the public hearing.
A Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the t~EQA Addendum is included as
Attachment 1 with the Initial Study rind Addendum included as Exhit~its A and B of Attachment 1.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project complements the existing Schaefer Ranch devel~~pment by providing land uses and a
street system that are compatible with the existing project approvals. The proposed PD Zoning and Stage
Page 10 of 12
2 Development Plan are consistent with the General Plan land use designations as proposed to ~ 4,
amended. The proposed VTM would create 140 single-family lots (a net increase of 104 lots) that are
consistent with the proposed land use designation and would implement the Stage 2 Development Plan.
The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan as amended, and all project
approvals. An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential for environmental impacts and a CEQA
Addendum was prepared for the project. An SDR is required for construction of units on the proposed
lots and for the future School of Imagination facility. The Applicant is not proposing an SDR at this time.
Therefore, the SDR for these projects will be brought forward for con:;ideration at a future public hearing.
NOTICING:
In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing w.~s mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. A public notice w<<s also mailed to all property owners
and occupants of the California Highlands development which is located immediately to the east of the
Schaefer Ranch development on Dublin Boulevard. A public notice was also published in the Valley
Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, :he City has not received comments
or objections from surrounding property owners or tenants regarding tie current proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning; Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public
Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Clo:;e the Public Hearing and deliberate;
and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a
CEQA Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 1); b)
Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General
Plan to change the existing Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential, and Retail/Office land use
designations to Single-Family Residential, Open Space, and Public~Semi-Public land use designations
(Attachment 2); c) Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending that file City Council adopt an Ordinance
approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 3); d)
Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8000 (Attachment 4); and e) Resolution
recommending that the City Council approve a Development Agreerr.ent between the City of Dublin and
Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Attachment 5).
Page 11 of 12
~~ ~ ~^'
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Doug Chen
Discovery Builders, Inc.
4061 Port Chicago High ray, Suite H
Concord, CA 94520
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS:
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS:
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS:
SURROUNDING USES:
Southwest and southeast corners of Dublin Boulevard and
Schaefer Ranch Road
941-2832-027 to 028, and 031 to 032,
941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075,
941-2837-002 to 003, anti O10 to 021
Planned Development Zcning (PD}
Planned Development Zcning (PD)
Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac)
Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac)
Retail/Office
Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac)
Public/Semi-Public
Open Space
LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY
North PD Single-Family, Open Space, and
Neighborhood Park Future single-family homes,
future ublic park, and o ens ace
South PD -- I-580c~~
East PD Open Space Schaefer Ranch Road, open space,
and storm water detention basin
West PD Estate Residential Schaefer Residence
"' Across I-580 -Rowell Ranch rodeo and equestrian facility antl vacant ianas witnm the urnncorporatea ponion or Hiameoa
County
Page 12 of 12
DRAFT
b ~~
,DRAFT
Cm. Biddle asked what t e of vehicle the Applicant will sell at the site. Mr. Shank answered
high end, pre-owned, luxur vehicles.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this anew business not being reloca from another location. Mr.
Shank answered this is a new bu 'ness.
Chair Schaub asked if the Applican would be selling vehicles on consignment. Mr. Shank
answered no; they would be purchas from auto a ions and brought there for sale.
Chair Schaub closed public hearing
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconde CM. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission approved the following:
SOLUTIO O. 08-27
A RESOLD ION OF THE PLAN NG COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OFD LIN
APPROVING A COND IONAL USE PERMIT TO OP TEA 3,500 SQUARE FOOT
AUTOMOBILE/VEHI E SALES FACILITY WITH OUTD OR DISPLAY OF 2 VEHICLES
LOC ED AT 6310-A HOUSTON PLACE (A 941-0550-067)
PA 08-016
8.4 PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South (Legislative) General Plan Amendment to change the
existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac) and Retail/Office land use designations to
Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Open Space and Public/Semi-Public land uses,
and a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for an 81.3+/- acre
area, and Vesting Tentative Map 8000 to subdivide 41.5+/- acres into 140 single-family
residential lots, a Development Agreement, and a CEQA Addendum to the Schaefer
Ranch Environmental Impact Report.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Baker to explain the other items that the Applicant had agreed to
provide the City. Mr. Baker answered there are a number of items in the Development
Agreement that he would speak to later in the presentation. Chair Schaub felt it was important
to note what the Applicant is providing to the, City in exchange for approval of the increase in
the number of units since those units will be more expensive and the profit larger for the
Applicant. Chair Schaub agreed to wait until that part of the presentation to continue the
discussion.
116
Attachment 9
DRAFT FT
Chair Schaub asked about lots on the back side of the project location. Mr. Baker answered that
at the end of Dublin Blvd there are 6 additional estate lots that are not part of the project.
Cm. King asked if there is still a park in the existing plan. Mr. Baker answered yes, but it is not
subject to this application. The park is part of the larger Schaefer Ranch project and is located
on the north side of Dublin Blvd.
Cm. King asked if the mitigation pond was to the north of the project. Mr. Baker answered yes.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the public/semi public area was part of the proposal or existing. Mr.
Baker answered the area is currently designated retail/office and would change to public/semi-
public with this proposal. He continued the lower parcel was originally anticipated to be a day
care center and the northern parcel was reserved for a future fire station site, that will not
change with this proposal. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the area that is currently designated
commercial will be homes and the lower part, which is difficult to develop, will be open space.
Mr. Baker answered yes.
Chair Schaub asked if the fire station is still proposed at that site which is next to the School of
Imagination. Mr. Baker answered yes; the site was reserved in the original development
agreement for a fire stating but the City opted not to take that option however, as part of this
project it would give the City and additional two years to determine if they still want/need the
site.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the need would materialize. Mr. Baker answered the Alameda County
Fire Department is currently conducting a needs analysis through out the City to determine if
the site will be needed.
Chair Schaub asked if two years would be sufficient or should the Commission consider 5 years.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed.
Ms. Wilson commented the study will be completed sooner than two years. If the study
determines that a fire station is needed then the City would take the option and hold the parcel
as a fire station site.
Cm. Biddle asked with the elimination of commercial from the project will there be other
commercial/retail businesses in the area. Mr. Baker answered there would be no commercial
areas within the Schaefer Ranch project except the public/semipublic type uses.
Chair Schaub mentioned that the Commission had tried to create villages where residents could
walk to commercial areas and we were successful in the Tassajara area because there are
enough people, but with only 400 houses it could not sustain a store and would not be practical.
Cm. Biddle suggested a small commercial site at Schafer Ranch Road and Dublin Blvd. for
commercial use. Mr. Baker stated the site has steep slope topography and would be difficult to
develop as a commercial site.
117
DRAFT 'D R'AF
Cm. Biddle asked if the same criteria for public/semipublic designation were used for this
project as is used for other projects, and what kind of acreage would be allowed for Schaefer
Ranch area. Mr. Baker answered the City has a public facilities policy and it requires that if a
new project creates 150 units then there is an acreage requirement they must provide. He
continued while the project before the Commission does not meet the 150 unit threshold, there
will be public/semi-public facilities to serve the overall project.
Cm. King asked if the houses would be visible from I-580. Mr. Baker answered not any more
than what was originally approved.
Cm. Biddle felt there has been a lot of grading for the project and asked if it is completed. Mr.
Baker answered yes the overall grading of the site is complete and there should be only some
fine tuning of the pads.
Cm. Tomlinson stated the Applicant is proposing 104 additional lots but the original number of
lots that was approved was more than that. Mr. Baker answered the original number of lots
approved was 474 and they have 302 homes currently approved. Cm. Tomlinson stated the
overall project, including the additional 104 units, is still below the number of lots that were
originally approved. Mr. Baker answered the project is 68 units less.
Chair Schaub asked if the traffic impacts for the project is still below what was originally
approved. Mr. Baker answered yes because it is a less intense use both in the .number of units
and since the commercial is eliminated it further reduces the traffic impacts.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked when the $1.5 million to the City for the Historic Park would be paid.
Mr. Baker answered it would be paid in phases. He stated the first half of the payment would
be paid when the Applicant receives all their entitlements, or their first building permit. Cm.
Wehrenberg asked if this application redefines their terms of payment. Mr. Baker stated that
currently the Applicant is not obligated to pay any money towards the Dublin Historic Park.
Mr. Baker continued the City was able to negotiate with the Applicant as part of the approval
process that if the project is approved they would provide the City with $1.5 million for
construction of the park which is money the City would not otherwise receive or be compelled
to require the developer pay without the agreement. Cm. Wehrenberg asked when the next
installments would be made. Mr. Baker answered after the first payment of 50% would be at
entitlements or when the first building permit is issued and then the balance or second payment
would be after the issuance of the 75th building permit.
Ms. Wilson explained the entitlements mean all the way through SDR approval, therefore the
Applicant could receive approval of the zoning and the map and wait to come forward with the
SDR at a later date. Cm. Wehrenberg stated the Applicant has 15 years to build the project
therefore it could be some time before the City actually receives any money. Ms. Wilson
answered yes.
Chair Schaub stated the park is completely funded therefore, the $1.5 million would be extra.
118
DAFT r3~ ~
Ms. Wilson stated the park will be built in phases, at this time, all of the tenant's spaces are
vacant and demolition is anticipated to begin soon. She continued that certain phases of the
park are funded.
Chair Schaub asked if there is anything in the DA that would allow the Applicant to pay all in-
lieu fees instead of building inclusionary units, if the City Council wishes to do that. Mr. Baker
stated there was nothing in the DA that would preclude them from allowing that but the
Council would have to give that direction. He also stated the Applicant would be required to
enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement which is not in place currently.
Chair Schaub felt that over time the City would require more money in the Affordable Housing
fund and less actual housing.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Baker to explain the peak hour trip generation comparison chart. Mr.
Baker stated Tim Cremin, City Attorney's office; Jaimee Bourgeois, Traffic Engineer; Mark
Lander, City Engineer; and Jerry Haag, Planning Consultant are present to explain the traffic
study and specifically the trip generation chart.
Cm. Biddle asked if the site was graded for the proposed project or the existing. Mr. Baker
answered the site has been mass, graded for the existing project and would require only minor
grading for the proposed project.
Chair Schaub stated that the perimeter that is visible today is the same as the initial
development. Mr. Baker stated the proposed development would occur within the same
footprint and would actually reduce the footprint by creating the open space area along the
freeway and reducing the developable area of the project and increasing the overall open space.
Cm. King asked if there is freeway access to Schaefer Ranch Road. Mr. Baker answered no.
Cm. King asked if the project was originally planned for estate lots. Mr. Baker answered under
the current approvals there would be 12 estate lots, at approximately 2 acres each and 24 SFR's.
Cm. King was concerned about what houses would be visible from 580. Mr. Baker stated there
would be approximately 10 lots visible from the freeway. Cm. King asked were any of the
estate houses going to be visible from I-580. Mr. Baker answered it was only the single family
homes that would be visible.
Cm. Tomlinson explained that basically some of the homes were visible before and some will
still be visible with this project. Mr. Baker commented none of the visible homes would be
estate homes.
Cm. Biddle stated he appreciates the increase in open space and asked if it will remain open
space and owned and maintained by the HOA .not the City. Mr. Baker answered it will be
maintained through the GHAD not the HOA.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked, since the current Commission was. not part of the original approvals,
what was expected at that time when planning the commercial zoning. She stated that the
~t}„
119
DRAFT ' ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~
DRAFT
Commission's intent with the "village' concept of fewer trips into the -City and include small
retail within walking distance; what was the Commission expecting at the time. She stated the
Commission reviewed the project as a full project and now the project is coming in pieces. She
stated she wanted to avoid this problem in the future and asked why the Planning Commission
did not address the commercial zoning at the time it was originally approved. She felt that the
project was small and understood that it would not support a store but wanted to understand
why it wasri t addressed originally. She felt the project was the opposite of what was intended
and asked if this would be the right thing to do because of the market.
Mr. Baker answered the project goes back to 1996 when Schafer Ranch was originally approved
the project had 10-11 acres of commercial development and at the time it was felt there would
be additional development in western Dublin. He stated there was a plan submitted for
approximately 3,000 homes as part of a Western Dublin Specific Plan, therefore there would
have been considerably more homes to -support commercial development. He stated that
project has been withdrawn and there is a development moratorium beyond the limits of the
Schafer Ranch Development and some factors have changed from the originally anticipated
number of homes in the area. He continued in 2006 when the Commission reviewed the PD it
was for zoning and the land use designation was already in place, and there was no request to
change the zoning. Therefore, the opportunity wasri t there to change the zoning nor did the
Council direct any change. The approval in 2006 provided zoning for an existing land use
designation to allow the development if the Applicant was able.
Cm. Wehrenberg thanked Mr. Baker for his explanation.
Cm. King stated there was a proposal in 1993 for a project of 3,000 homes which was referended
and rejected by the voters in Dublin. He felt some of that project would have supported
commercial in the area. He continued that in 1998 a plan was submitted for an additional 100
homes which were close enough to the Schaefer Ranch project to support the commercial also.
He continued that Dublin adopted a "policy" of discouraging more houses in the west hills and
he felt it was not a mistake when the original Schaefer Ranch project was approved, but only
because there was an assumption of more support for commercial in the area.
Cm. Biddle stated he likes the change from the estate housing to the single family housing units,
he felt they are a better fit with the Dublin character. He asked if the minimum lot size of 4500
square feet is typical for Dublin. Mr. Baker stated yes, they would be very similar to other
developments.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Inclusionary housing would be at the City Council's discretion.
Mr. Baker answered yes.
Jaimee Bourgeois, Traffic Engineer, spoke regarding the traffic study for the Schafer Ranch
Initial Study. She summarized the 1996 EIR which analyzed 10.7 acres of a retail/ office
commercial mix, and the total trip generations that were assumed in the study. She stated this
information was used as a part of the environmental. review and compared to the EIR, and
mitigation measures. She continued that with the current proposal the commercial portion is
°~. -~:~
120
~SZ
DRAFT I ~ l FT
eliminated, the residential component is reduced, and the day care is included. Therefore, the
current proposal reduces the overall trip generation.
Ms. Bourgeois stated the from a CEQA standpoint it would be speculative to assume that all the
commercial trips would come from within the development. She stated in order to offer a
conservative analysis, it was assumed that most of trips would come from outside the
development and the fact that the commercial is being eliminated further reduces the trip
generation for the current proposal.
Cm. King stated that it would reduce the trip generations within the development but would
increase it on Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bourgeois stated that was correct, the residents can no longer
shop within the development but that was what was assumed in the 1996 EIR, that the residents
would have to drive down Dublin Blvd. to do their shopping and the commercial/retail within
the development would generate trips from outside the development.
Cm. King asked how many trips per day the project would generate on Dublin Blvd. Ms.
Bourgeois answered they review the peak hours because they are the worst times. and build
improvements to accommodate those times.
Cm. King stated that a normal guideline is for 500 car trips per day on a residential street but
Dublin has 1500 car trips per day which he has objected to. His question was for a total trips
generated on Dublin Blvd. which he felt was a collector street instead of a residential street.
Ms. Bourgeois stated she not have that information readily available. She agreed that Dublin
Blvd. is not a residential street and felt that Dublin Blvd. in the downtown area generates over
the course of the day experiences approximately 30,000 to 40,000 vehicle trips per day.
Cm. King asked what level of service would be at peak hours at the intersection of Silvergate
and Dublin Blvd and who decides the level of service. Ms. Bourgeois stated a traffic signal is
expected to be installed and that the City of Dublin standard is if an intersection operates at E or
F and satisfies industry standard warrants, then the signal would be installed to bring to the
operation to D or better. She felt the project would not degrade the level of service from what
was included in the EIR.
Chair Schaub asked when the traffic signal would be installed.
Mark Lander, City Engineer stated that phase 1 of the existing Schaefer Ranch project is
required to install a traffic signal at Silvergate and Dublin Blvd. as well as widen Dublin Blvd
from Silvergate easterly to Hansen. He felt it would be approximately mid 2009 when the signal
and improvements will be completed.
Cm. Biddle asked if was anticipated that there would be any traffic signals along Dublin Blvd.
in the Schaefer Ranch area. Ms. Bourgeois answered there would be a traffic signal at Dublin
Blvd and Schaefer Ranch Road.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
121
l~a~i~z-
DRAFT D FT
Doug Chen, Discovery Builders, representing the Schaefer Holdings spoke in favor of the
project. He stated the proposal is limited to the acres currently within the development
footprint, with the increased density from the current plans by 104 lots and the elimination of
commercial, the project is still below the originally approved number of units. He continued
that within the developed area they will set aside 11.5 acres of open space; the net overall
project will increase but the developed area will decrease. He also stated there would be a
greenbelt and trails within the area. He mentioned there would be no additional grading to the
project.
Cm. King asked if the trail is part of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Chen answered yes.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the trail connects to the Dublin bikeways. Mr. Baker stated the trail is
not part of the bikeway system but would connect to it.
There was a discussion regarding the trails in the Schaefer Ranch development and what agency
would be responsible for maintenance.
Cm. King asked if it would be possible to plant trees to shield the project from I-580 without
blocking the views of the homeowners.
Mr. Chen answered that in their landscaping plans there will be a trail along the perimeter of
the project and when they submit landscaping plans they will show how that area will be
landscaped.
Chair Schaub felt the project removed a lot of trees during grading and the Commission would
expect that when the Applicant comes back to the Planning Commission for SDR approval they
will have a plan for the open space area.
Mr. Baker stated the intent for the open space would be to keep the natural landscaping rather
than a defined landscaped edge, may be able to work with Discovery to provide natural
screening and keep the intent of natural landscaping:
Cm. King asked how may trees are to be replanted for the overall project. Mr. Chen answered
there will be approximately 3000 planted, 2500 of which have already been planted.
Cm. Tomlinson asked once the remaining entitlements have been received, understanding the
challenging market, when would they move forward with construction. Mr. Chen answered
they are currently working on the SDR and have shown the preliminary architecture to Staff
and anticipate submitting within the next few months.
Chair Schaub asked, realizing this is not a Planning Commission issue, if there is a way to
receive part of the $1.5 million sooner due to some requirements for the Heritage Park. Chair
Schaub suggested City Council take a look at receiving the money sooner.
~~.~ 7-a, zr~
122
~ ~~ 1SZ
DRAFT D FT
Mr. Chen stated the Applicant worked on the DA for several months and their preference
would be to approve the Development Agreement then if they need to change elements of it
they would review it.
Louis Parsons, Discovery Builders, stated they could, in anticipation of approval of these
entitlements, of the initial $750,000, provide $350,000 by June 2009 and upon SDR approval
provide the balance of the $750,000 and then the additional $750,000 at the 75~ building permit.
Chair Schaub asked if the City does not need the fire station, what will happen to the land. Mr.
Chen answered a portion of the parcel will be used for parking for the preschool.
Cm. King stated he noticed trees planted along Dublin Blvd but not many within the project
area. Mr. Chen answered most of the trees planted so far are in the mitigation area and are
native to the area.
Mitch Sigman, School of Imagination, 7567 Amador Valley Blvd., spoke in favor of the project.
Mr. Sigman gave an overview of what Discovery Homes is doing for the community and the
School of Imagination, also known as Happy Talkers. He wanted to express his gratitude to the
City of Dublin and Discovery Homes for a permanent home for their school.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. Biddle asked if the property to the west of the Schaefer Ranch project is privately owned.
Mr. Baker answered the property directly to the west is the Butch Schaefer residence and
beyond that is Alameda County. Cm. Biddle asked if there was any road connection through to
the other side to the west. Mr. Baker answered no.
Cm. Tomlinson felt it was a worthwhile project; he appreciated the context of the commercial
and retail areas, significant other developments on the west side of town with commercial and
retail at the edge of the City, those projects don t work. He can see why the retail and office
doesri t work in this location the way the project is now. He views this project as cleaning up
something from before that didri t work. He felt that the School of Imagination s presentation is
a tangible benefit to the community. He stated he is in favor of the project because it has a
lower number of units than originally approved, and the type of housing product. In light of
the economy and the financial markets, expensive housing requires jumbo loans which are
harder to receive. He continued there is more open space, traffic trips are lower which are also
reasons to support it. He stated he prefers landscaping the trees on the outside of the sidewalk
so that the sidewalk is on the inside creating tree-lined streets which makes for a more visually
appealing project.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed .with Cm. Tomlinson and felt it was a good presentation; she
appreciated hearing the history of the project. She agreed with the findings and rezoning but
questions whether the project is right for inclusionary housing.
Cm. Biddle also agreed and felt this type of housing is a better fit for the community; he likes
the increase in open space, but was searching for a way to increase the public/semi-public land
123
(~ .~~-
DRAFT r~ DRFT
but didri t feel there was a good option with this project. He felt the "village" concept would
not work for this project. He stated he is in favor of the project.
Cm. King felt it was a complicated decision. He stated he met with Mr. Chen approximately
one year ago who gave him a tour of the area and he also discussed it with the Mayor. He felt
there were two things that complicated his decision; 1) the School of Imagination focuses on
autistic children, he has astep-son who was diagnosed autistic so he would be very supportive
of that use; 2) he is concerned with the need for a community theater. The Historical Park
includes a theater; therefore it was good to hear that the funding will go towards the park and
theater. He stated his philosophy of the planning process is that those considerations are not
valid considerations for land use planning. He felt the question was is it consistent with land
use and specific plans and can we make the findings regarding safety and consistency with the
rest of the area. He was concerned with the environmental issues because the Army Corp of
Engineers was concerned about the red legged frog in the area so the project was forced to cut
back because of those concerns. He wondered how to add homes without encroaching on the
environmental concerns that were raised. He felt that the reality is that the proposed project is
part of the land within the project and is not close to the area that was of concern to the Army
Corps of Engineers therefore; there is no environmental issue.
Cm. King further stated he has encouraged retail. in residential areas in order to reduce traffic.
He stated the retail would create traffic in different directions, some residents could walk
therefore reducing traffic, but then it would encourage traffic from other parts of Dublin. He
stated the traffic engineer explained that if the project was approved it would result in a net
reduction in vehicle trips on Dublin Blvd. He felt that it made sense that the retail would save
some trips but there is are residents who would drive west to the store. He felt traffic would not
be a problem. He felt his responsibility is to find reasons why the project should not be
approved. He stated the current policy of the City of Dublin is to discourage building in the
west hills and mentioned that Valley Christian was not allowed to build housing because of that
policy. He continued this project was approved before the policy was adopted so he could not
find a planning reason to vote against it based on the current policy. He mentioned Measure M
was adopted in 2000 which requires any additional housing in the west hills to be voted on by
the residents. He stated it was understood that the Schaefer Ranch project was excluded from
Measure M. He felt there should have been fewer homes in the west hills based on the General
Plan which called for the area to be retained as a greenbelt. Cm. King stated he is in favor of
the project.
Chair Schaub is in favor of the project. He is personally aware of the good work that Happy
Talkers does. He commended the developer for the good work they have done for the
community.
Mr. Baker asked Mr. Parsons to confirm their proposal for the $1.5 million.
Louis Parsons, Discovery Builders agreed that they would make a payment of $350,000 on June
1, 2009, then at approval of SDR or issuance of first building permit whichever comes first, the
balance of the $750,000 will be paid, and then with the issuance of the 75th building permit the
remaining $750,000 would be paid.
124
DRAFT f DRAFT' ~ ~
Mr. Baker stated the Commission could make that recommendation to the Council.
Chair Schaub asked to have that agreement stated in the recommendation to the Council.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by CM. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission approved the following resolutions, with a recommendation for the above
modifications to the DA:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ESTATE
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND RETAIL/OFFICE LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
RESOLUTION N0.08 -30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2832-031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA
ADDENDUM TO THE 1996 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT AND A RELATED INITIAL STUDY
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028 and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
125
DRAFT
RESOLUTION N0.08 - 31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
i~ ~a~
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8000 FORA 41.541-ACRE AREA WITHIN
THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-010 to 021)
PA 08-005
RESOLUTION N0.08 -32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCHAEFER RANCH HOLDINGS LLC
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-010 to 021)
PA 08-005
NEW OR UNFINIS~IED BUSINESS -NONE
OTHER BUSINESS -1~ONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATI ONLY r ~orts from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee orts nd Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City ense (AB 1234).
10.2 Community Design Elem nt: as approved by the City Council with two modifications.
The City Council remo ed the i lementation measure for the creation of districts for
neighborhoods and a o the policy arding freeway signage.
10.3 Medium Density: ity Council deci d not to adopt the proposed amendments to the
General Plan an instead decided to r ain the existing medium density designation
rather than cre ting two new designations, nd require that 50 % of those homes within
the designat' n for the Croak and Jordan properties have a usable yard area. Staff is
working o the revisions which will be brought before the Planning Commission for
recomm dations to the City Council.
126
i~ ~~ ism
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA
ADDENDUM TO THE 1996 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT AND A RELATED INITIAL STUDY
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028 and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the Dublin City Council approved a Resolution adopting a General Plan
Amendment and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 77-96); an Ordinance
and Resolution approving a Planned Development Rezone (Ordinance No. 15-96 and Resolution No. 78-96);
and a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report ("Schaefer Ranch EIR") pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 95033070), which EIR is available for review in the Planning Division and
is incorporated herein by reference (Resolution No. 76-96); and
WHEREAS, the Project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR included the following land uses and
related features: a total of 474 residences, including 11 estate residences, 389 single family detached dwellings
and 74 attached residential dwellings; retail. and office uses, including a 9.2-acre neighborhood-serving retail
and office center on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and a second, smaller 1.5-acre
retail and office parcel adjacent to I-580; public and semi-public uses including a recycled water reservoir, a
water storage tank and street rights-of--way; and parks and recreation uses consisting of approximately 162 acres
of land that includes dedication to the East Bay Regional Park District trail, trail head facilities and related
improvements. The Schaefer Ranch EIR examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts,
alternatives and mitigation measures for development of the Schaefer Ranch Project. It identified certain
unavoidable significant impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project relating to impacts on secondary effects on native
plants and wildlife, regional pollutant emissions, cumulative loss of open space and landscape alteration, and
cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by City Council Resolution No. 77-96
concluded that the substantial public benefits of the Schaefer Ranch Project, including job creation, increased
City sales and property tax revenues, increased housing opportunities and a concomitant improvement of the
City Jobs/Housing Balance, supported approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, the Planning Commission approved VTM 6765 (Resolution 98-38) and created
466 residential lots, and commercial, parks, and public/semi-public parcels for Schaefer Ranch. The Final Map
6765 on the Proposed Project site, Schaefer Ranch South, created 12 estate lots, 24 single-family lots, and a
5.69-acre commercial parcel on approximately 41.5 acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard
and Schaefer Ranch Road; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC ("Applicant"), requested in 2007 that the
City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to modify the General Plan Land Use Designations for
certain portions of the Project site; and
Page 1 of 3
Attachment 10
4S ~ !~2
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2007, the City Council granted the Applicant's request and initiated a
General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch South Project (Resolution No. 154-07); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted applications for a modification of the Schaefer Ranch Project
to allow the construction of up to 140 single-family units on the Schaefer Ranch South Project site. The
applications include: a General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2
Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000, and a Development Agreement. The GPA is for
approximately 81.3 acres to change the existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/acre), Single-Family Residential
(0.9-6.0 du/acre), and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre),
Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space. A PD rezone and Stage 2 Development Plan to revise the zoning and
development plan. A Development Agreement that vests development approvals for a specified period of time
in return for benefits granted to the City, as mutually agreed by both parties. A vesting tentative subdivision map
to create individual building lots on the Project site. These entitlements are collectively referred to as the
Project or Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the overall Schaefer Ranch Project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR contained 474
residential units and approximately 10.7 acres of commercial uses. Approval of the modifications to the
Schaefer Ranch Project under the Proposed Project will result in a total of 406 residential units and property
designated to allow public orsemi-public uses, including a children's day care center; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the 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, the Proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already approved by
the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR. Since
the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for Proposed changes to the
Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) unless the
conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code Section 21166
(Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163 (Sections 15162/3) are met; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared an Initial Study to determine if further
environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3 due to modifications to the approved
Schaefer Ranch Project under the Proposed Project. The Initial Study, dated October 2008, is attached as
Exhibit A of this Resolution. The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring
the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164, an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may
be included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit B of this Resolution. The Initial Study and Addendum have been available to the public at the Planning
Department at City Hall. CEQA does not require that the Initial Study and Addendum be circulated for agency
or public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2008, at
which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the Addendum, Initial Study, and the
Schaefer Ranch EIR prior to making a recommendation on the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008, was submitted to the Planning Commission
analyzing the Project and recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum and the Project applications; and
Page 2 of 3
~~~ ~~~`
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission used its independent judgment and considered all reports,
recommendations and testimony before taking action on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a
part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
Addendum dated October 2, 2008, the Initial Study dated October 2008, and the Schaefer Ranch EIR (which are
available for review during normal business hours and on file in the Community Development Department).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study attached hereto as Exhibits A and B pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15164.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October 2008.
AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, Biddle and King
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G: IPA#120081PA 08-005 Schnefer Ranch SouthlPlanning CommissionlPC Reso Schnefer CEQA Addendum.doc
Page 3 of 3
~~~ ~~z
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE EXISTING
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND RETAIL/OFFICE LAND
USE DESIGNATIONS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE AND
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC, submitted an application for a
General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, and
Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000 for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South located at the
southeast and southwest corners of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of a GPA to modify the General Plan Land Use
designations for approximately 81.3-acres of the project area to change the existing Estate Residential
(0.01-0.8 du/acre), Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), and Retail/Office land use designations to
Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been
amended a number of times since that date; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council approved Resolution 76-96 certifying an
Environmental Impact Report ("Schaefer Ranch EIR") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH
No. 95033070) in connection with the General Plan Amendment for the Western Extended Planning Area,
which EIR is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996 the City Council approved Resolution 77-96 and adopted a General
Plan Amendment for the Western Extended Planning Area and identified General .Plan land use
designation for the Schaefer Ranch Project area; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use designations, densities and policies
related to density calculations, and includes a General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la) that shows the
location of land uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2007, the City Council granted the Applicants request for the
initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch South Project (Resolution No. 154-
07); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
Attachment 11
/51 s~ 182-
~J
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already
approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer
Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review. for
proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public
Resources Code Section 21166 (Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163
(Sections 15162/3) are met; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared an Initial Study, included herein by
reference, to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3.
The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,
an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be
included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is included
herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14,
2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008, was submitted to the Planning Commission
analyzing the Project and recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt the Addendum and related Initial Study, approve the GPA and PD Rezone with Stage 2
Development Plan, and that the Planning Commission approve VTM 8000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals .are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings in the
attached draft City Council Resolution, recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution attached
as Exhibit A, which amends the portions of the Dublin General Plan relating to the 81.3-acre area known
as Schaefer Ranch South, and which includes the following as described in the attached Resolution:
1) Definition of the propose Public/Semi-Public land use designation;
2) Amends to the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-la); and
3) Amends to the text and various tables in the General Plan.
2
/~aoF'I82
iI
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, Biddle and King
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:~PA#~2008~PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South~Planning Commission~PC Reso Schaefer GPA.doc
3
/53 o.P 18 v
~1
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2832-031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
WHEREAS, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC submitted an application for a General Plan
Amendment and PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for 80.09-acres
located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road known as Schaefer Ranch
South; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council approved a PD rezone for Schaefer Ranch, which
included the subject property (Ordinance 15-96); and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2006, the City Council approved a PD rezone and Stage 2
Development for Schaefer Ranch, which again included the subject property (Ordinance 11-06); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution (Resolution 08-xx) recommending
City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment for land uses within the Schaefer Ranch South
project area; and
WHEREAS, PD Zoning districts are required to be consistent with all elements of the General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already
approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer
Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for
proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public
Resources Code Section 21166 (Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163
(Sections 15162/3) are met; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared an Initial Study, included herein by
reference, to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3.
The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,
an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be
ATTACHMENT 12
i~~ ~i~~
included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is included
herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, the Addendum and related Initial Study were considered by the Planning
Commission together with the Schaefer Ranch EIR at a properly noticed public hearing on the project on
October 14, 2008. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-XX recommending City Council
approval of the CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14,
2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008 was submitted to the Planning Commission
analyzing the Project and recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the GPA and PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution (Resolution 08-xx) recommending
City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment for land uses within the Schaefer Ranch South
project area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Ordinance included as Exhibit A, which Ordinance approves a PD rezone and Stage
2 Development Plan for Schaefer Ranch South with the following and as described in the attached
Ordinance:
1) Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan;
2) Statement of proposed uses;
3) Stage 2 Site Plan;
4) Site area and proposed densities;
~) Development regulations;
6) Architectural standards; and
7) Preliminary landscaping plan.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, Biddle and King
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
2
s'' ,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:~PA#~2008~PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South~Planning Commission~PC Reso Schaefer Stage 2 PD.doc
,~ ~ -~
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8000 FORA 41.541-ACRE AREA WITHIN
THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-010 to 021)
PA 08-005
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer .Ranch Holdings LLC, submitted an application for a
General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, and
Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000 for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South located at the
southeast and southwest corners of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road; and
WHEREAS, VTM 8000 would subdivide approximately 41.541-acres located at the southwest
corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road into 140 single-family residential lots; and
WHEREAS, in 1998 the Planning Commission approved VTM 6765 (Resolution 98-38) and
created 466 residential lots, and commercial, parks, and public/semi-public parcels for Schaefer Ranch;
and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Measures contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the Conditions of
Approval for the VTM required the project proponent to obtain permits from the various environmental
regulatory agencies for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other environmentally sensitive areas
within the project. The project proponent successfully obtained approval from the environmental
agencies. However, the approval from the various agencies required the preservation of sensitive habitat
for protected wildlife within the project area. The preservation of these areas resulted in the need to
reconfigure a portion of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Lot Reconfiguration Concept on December 21, 2004,
and directed Staff to work with the Applicant to prepare Final Map 6765 based on the Lot
Reconfiguration Concept. Final Map 6765 was deemed complete in December 2006 and was recorded on
March 8, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Final Map 6765 created 12 estate lots, 24 single-family lots, and a 5.69-acre
commercial parcel on approximately 41.541-acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard
and Schaefer Ranch Road; and
WHEREAS, VTM 8000 would re-subdivide the 41.541-acres located at the southwest corner of
Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and create 140 single-family lots; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already
approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer
Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for
Attachment 13
[~7~ i~a
proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public
Resources Code Section .21166 (Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163
(Sections 15162/3) are met; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared an Initial Study, included herein by
reference, to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3.
The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,
an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Seetion 15162/3 may be
included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is included
herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum and Initial Study were considered by the Planning Commission
together with the Schaefer Ranch EIR. at a properly noticed public hearing on the project on October 14,
2008. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-XX recommending City Council approval of the
CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14,
2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008 was submitted to the Planning Commission
analyzing the Project and recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the GPA and the PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan and further recommending that the
Planning Commission approve VTM 8000; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted the following
resolutions, all of which are incorporated herein by reference: Resolution 08-xx recommending that the
City Council adopted the CEQA Addendum to the 1996 EIR, Resolution 08-xx recommending that the
City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Resolution 08-xx recommending that the City
Council approve the PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding Vesting Tentative Map
8000:
A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision
regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map are consistent with the
General Plan, as amended, as they relate to the subject property in that it is a subdivision fora
single-family residential and open space development.
C. The Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the proposed PD-Planned Development Zoning
with Stage 2 Development Plan (PA 08-005) and is therefore consistent with the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
2
~~~~ ~~
D. The project site is located adjacent to major roads, including Dublin Boulevard, Schaefer
Ranch Road, and I-580 and has relatively flat topography and is therefore physically suitable
for the type and intensity of residential development proposed.
E. With the incorporation of all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the
Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report, the design of the Vesting Tentative Map will
not cause environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife of their habitat or cause
public health concerns.
F. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,
or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City Engineer has
reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby conditionally
approve Vesting Tentative Map 8000, PA 08-005 to subdivide approximately 41.541-acres (APNs 941-
2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-010 to 021) at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard
and Schaefer Ranch Road) into 140 single-family lots, subject to City Council adoption of the CEQA
Addendum, and City Council approval of the related General Plan Amendment and Planned Development
Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan no later than January 31, 2009. This approval shall conform
generally to Vesting Tentative Tract 8000 prepared by Isakson & Associates, dated received by the
Community Development Department on October 2, 2008, labeled. Exhibit A to this Resolution and
consisting of two (2) sheets ("Vesting Tentative Map and "Preliminary Grading Plan") stamped approved
except as specifically modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building,,permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning=[B] Building=[PO] Police, [PW] Public Works
[ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR]
Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda Count~partment of Environmental Health, [Z7]
7nna 7
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP.
AGENCY WHEN
REQ'D
Prior to: SOURCE
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable B, PL, Issuance of Standard
fees in effect, including, but not limited to, Planning ADM, PW Building Permits
fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees,
Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public
Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School
Impact fees (per agreement between Developer and
School District), Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise
Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees,
Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation
District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection
fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and
applicable.
3
Riga
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
2. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall PL/PW Issuance of Standard
comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Building Permits
and obtain all necessary permits if required by other
applicable agencies (Alameda County Flood Control
District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and
Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water
Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control
Board, Etc.) and shall submit copies of the permits to
the Department of Public Works.
3. Tract 6765 Parcels J and K Use. Restrictions: PL/PW Approval of Final City
Developer shall create a use restriction, acceptable to Map Attorney
the City Manager and City Attorney, that is applicable
to Parcels J and K shown on the map for Tract 6765
and that is enforceable by the City. The use restriction
shall limit the use of Parcels J and K to school,
daycare, pre-school, and child-related services
operated by public benefit corporations or other non-
profit entities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as
Developer has reserved Parcel K for a potential fire
station site, the use restriction shall not prevent the
City from using Parcel K for a fire station site. The
use restriction shall further provide that it may not be
amended without the approval of the City Council of
the City of Dublin.
PLANNING
4. Inclusionary Zoning: Prior to approval of Site PL SDR approval or PL
Development Review or recordation of the first recordation of the
phased Final Map, whichever occurs first, the owner first Final Map,
or owners of all of the property subject to this vesting whichever occurs
tentative map shall enter into an Affordable Housing first.
Agreement with the City for the entire Vesting
Tentative Map area, which agreement shall be
recorded against such area and against any other
property where Developer proposes to construct off-
site affordable units if approved by the City Council
pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code section
8.68.040.B. Such agreement shall include but is not
limited to providing detail regarding the number of
affordable units required, specify the schedule of
construction of affordable units, set forth the
developer's manner of compliance with City of Dublin
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations and impose
appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on
the affordable units. If the agreement provides for
construction of units off-site, as provided in DMC
section 8.68.040.B, it shall require City Council
~~~~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
approval and Council findings as required by said
section and shall include provision for security
adequate to assure construction of the off-site
affordable units concurrently with the completion of
construction of the market rate units to be constructed
on the lots created by the vesting tentative map.
5. Public Service Easement. The following note shall PL/PW Final Subdivision PL
be included in Owners Statement on the Final Map: Map
"The areas designated "Public Service Easement"
(PSE) as shown upon said map are hereby dedicated to
the Public. Said easement is for the purpose of
installation, construction and maintenance of utility
structures, street trees, and appurtenances, including
but not limited to, street lights and all appurtenances
to the street lights. The maintenance of the street trees
is the responsibility of the adjacent homeowner. The
street trees are owned by the City."
6. Landscape Maintenance. Landscape Maintenance PL/PW Final Subdivision PL
shall be in accordance with the Landscape Map and Ongoing
Maintenance Exhibit.
7. Side Yard Landscape Maintenance. Side yard PL Final Subdivision PL
landscaping for corner lots (i.e. Lots 1, 12, 43, 55, 75, Map and Ongoing
76, 83, 87, 90, 97, 98, 101, 107, 115, 116, 128, 129,
140) shall be maintained by the HOA and such
maintenance shall be identified in the CC&Rs.
PUBLIC WORKS -SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
8. General Public Works Conditions of Approval: PW Ongoing PW
Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin
General Public Works Conditions of Approval for
Tract 8000 contained below unless specifically
modified by these Conditions of Approval.
9. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In PW Final Subdivision PW
the event that there needs to be clarification to these
Conditions of Approval, the Directors of Community
Development and Public Works have the authority to
clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to
the Applicant/Developer by a written document signed
by the Directors of Community Development and
Public Works and placed in the project file. The
Directors also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to a
public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill
needed improvements or mitigations resulting from
impacts of this project.
10. Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval. PW Final Subdivision PW
Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable
16~~,~8a
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of
Approval. In the event of a conflict between the
Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval and
these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail.
11. Conditions of Approval. A copy of the Conditions of PW Final Subdivision PW
Approval which has been annotated how -each
condition is satisfied shall be included with the
submittals to the Public Works Department for the
review of the Final Map and plans.
12. Substantial Conformance. The Final Subdivision PW Final Subdivision PW
Map shall be substantially in conformance with
Vesting Tentative Map 8000 unless otherwise
modified by the conditions contained herein.
13. Development Agreement/Expiration. The approval PW Final Subdivision PW
of this Tentative Map shall be predicated upon and
pursuant to the terms set forth in the Development
Agreement to be approved by the City of Dublin. The
Tentative Map shall expire at the standard time of two
and one half (2 ''/z) years as set' forth in the Dublin
Municipal Code and in the regulations of Section
66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and as provided
in the Development Agreement. In the event of
conflict between the terms of the Development
Agreement and the Conditions of Approval contained
herein, the terms of the Development Agreement shall
prevail.
14. Final Subdivision Map 8000. The PW Final Subdivision PW
Applicant/Developer shall have a registered civil
engineer or a licensed land surveyor prepare the Final
Subdivision Maps subdividing the parcels in
conformance with Vesting Tentative Map 8000
prepared by Isakson and Assoc. and in accordance
with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and
City of Dublin .standards. The map shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer/Public Works
Director prior to recordation.
15. Title Report. A current preliminary title report (not PW Final Subdivision PW
more than 6 months old as of date of submittal) Map
together with copies of all recorded deeds, easements
and other encumbrances and copies of Final Maps for
adjoining properties and off-site easements shall be
submitted for reference as deemed necessary by the
City Engineer/Director ofPublic Works.
16. Right-of Way Dedication. The Applicant shall PW Final Subdivision PW
dedicate right-of--way to the public on the Final Map
Subdivision Map or by separate instrument as follows:
i~~~a
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
10-foot wide right-of--way dedication as shown
along the Dublin Boulevard project frontage for
streetscape purposes.
Any other right-of--way dedications deemed
reasonably necessary by the City Engineer/Public
Works Director.
17. GHAD Dedication. The Applicant shall dedicate to PW Final Subdivision PW
the Schaefer Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement Map
District on the Final Subdivision Map or by separate
instrument as follows:
Parcels B and C for private open space.
Any other dedications deemed reasonably
necessary by the GHAD Manager.
18. Easement Dedications. The Applicant shall d PW Final Subdivision PW
easements on the Final Subdivision Map or by s Map
instrument as follows:
a. Public Access Easements (PAE) over the
following areas:
1. Parcels A and Al (the Paseo Trail and
Greenbelt)
2. Stairway area connecting Court E with the
perimeter trail
3. 8-foot wide minimum easement for the
perimeter trail
b. Public Service Easement (PSE) as shown on the
vesting tentative map.
c. A 10-foot wide minimum Public Storm Drain
Easement (SDE) as necessary for the storm drain
line within Lot 70.
d. A 15-foot wide minimum Storm Drain Easement
(SDE) as necessary for the storm drain line shown
within Parcel C.
e. Easements as required by DSRSD.
f. Any other easements deemed reasonably necessary
by the City Engineer/Public Works Director or
GHAD Manager during final design and/or
construction.
19. Fill settlement monitoring. In conjunction with the PW Issuance of PW
submittal of the Grading Plan for plan check, the Grading Permit
Applicant shall submit a report indicating the amount
of fill settlement that has taken place since the
approval of the Tentative Map and the future
settlement potential of the site. The Director of Public
Works shall review and approve this report prior to the
issuance of Grading permits. Areas encountering too
i~~ iea
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
much fill settlement (as determined by the Director of
Public Works) may have building permits withheld
until appropriate measures are taken to correct the
settlement areas.
20. Overland Release Court D. The intersection of PW Issuance of PW
Court D and Road 2 shall be re-graded to remove the Grading Permit
proposed sump condition and allow an overland
release northward along Road 1.
21. Storm Drain Line Easement Area -Lot 70. The PW Issuance of PW
10-foot wide easement area shall be graded to 4:1 or Grading Permit
flatter to allow adequate access for future maintenance
or repair activities. The easement shall be clear of
sideyard fence, retaining- walls or other permanent
structures.
22. Traffic Calming Measures. The Applicant shall PW Improvements to PW
implement traffic calming measures as directed by the be guaranteed
Traffic Engineer along eastbound Dublin Boulevard in prior to approval
the vicinity of Roys Hill Lane (California Highlands) of Final
as justified for safety reasons.. Proposed traffic Subdivision Map
calming measures may include but are not limited to:
signing, striping, flashers, concrete bulbouts with
appurtenant landscaping, and raised or textured
paving.
23. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements: PW Final Map and PW
Ownership, dedications on final map, and ongoing
maintenance of street right-of--ways, common area
parcels, and open space areas shall be by the City of
Dublin, .the Homeowner's Association, and the
Geologic Hazard Abatement District, as shown on the
Open Space Maintenance Diagram.
24. Landscape Features within Public Right of Way. PW First Final Map; PW
The Developer shall enter into an "Agreement for Modify with
Long Term Encroachments" with the City and/or Successive Final
GRAD to allow the HOA to maintain the landscape Maps
and decorative features within public Right of Way
including frontage & median landscaping, decorative
pavements and special features (i.e., walls, portals,
benches, etc.) as generally shown on Preliminary
Landscape Plans. The Agreement shall identify the
ownership of the special features and maintenance
responsibilities. The Homeowner's Association will
be responsible for maintaining the surface of all
decorative pavements including restoration required as
the result of utility repairs.
25. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). PW First Final Map; PW
A Homeowners Association shall be formed by Modify with
16U~ Aga
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Successive Final
and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of the Maps
landscape features within the public right of way
contained in the Agreement for Long Term
Encroachments and the frontage landscaping along
Dublin Boulevard, interior streets, paseo trail and
greenbelt, and side yard landscaping for corner lots.
Said declaration shall set forth the Association name,
bylaws, rules and regulations. The CC&Rs shall
ensure that there is adequate provision for the
maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, of
the landscaping & irrigation, decorative pavements,
median islands, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs
and other related improvements. The CC&Rs shall
also contain all other items required by these
conditions. The Developer shall submit a copy of the
CC&R document to the City for review and approval.
The Developer at its option may annex lots. created
under Final Map(s) under Vesting Tentative Map 8000
into the existing HOA created under Tract Map 6765.
The amendment to the CC&Rs for the existing HOA
shall be reviewed by the City.
26. Public Streets: Developer shall construct street PW Each Final Map PW
improvements and offer for dedication to the City of
Dublin the rights of way for Dublin Boulevard and
interior streets as shown on the Tentative Map, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL
27. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map PW Ongoing PW
Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, Zoning, and Standard
Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Conditions
Standards and Policies, and all building and fire codes
and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
All public improvements constructed by Developer
and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as
"public works" under Labor Code section 1771.
Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such
improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage
Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following)
28. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold PW Ongoing PW
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, Standard
and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding Conditions
against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency,
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council,
Community Development Director, Zoning
Administrator, or any other department, committee, or
agency of the City related to this project to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or
other applicable law; provided, however, that The
Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly
notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or
proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the
defense of such actions or proceedings.
29. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or PW Approval of PW
exploratory boring on the project property must be Improvement Standard
properly abandoned, backfilled, or maintained in Plans or Final Map Conditions
accordance with applicable groundwater protection
ordinances. For additional information contact
Alameda County Flood Control, Zone 7.
A reements and Bonds
30. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement PW First Final Map PW
Agreement with the City for all tract improvements. and Successive Standard
Maps Conditions
31. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), and PW First Final Map PW
labor & material (100%) securities to guarantee the and Successive Standard
tract improvements, approved by the. City Engineer, Maps Conditions
prior to execution of the Tract Improvement
Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note:
Upon acceptance of the improvements, the
performance security may be replaced with a
maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the
performance security.)
Fees
32. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at PW .Parkland In-Lieu PW
the time of building permit issuance including, but not Fees Due Prior to Standard
limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Filing Each Final Conditions
Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Map; Other Fees
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees Required with
(per agreement between Developer and School Issuance of
District), Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda Building Permits
County Fire Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees,
Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees; Alameda County
Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other
fees as noted in the Development Agreement.
33. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu PW Each Final Map PW
fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Standard
10
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution Conditions
revising these amounts. and as implemented by the
Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-
99.
Permits
34. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from PW Start of Work PW
the Public Works Department for all construction Standard
activity within the public right-of--way of any street Conditions
where the City has accepted the improvements. At the
discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment. for
work specifically included in an Improvement
Agreement may not be required.
35. Developer shall obtain aGrading / Sitework Permit PW Start of Work PW
.from the Public Works Department for all private Standard
grading and site improvements. Conditions
Submittals
36. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply PW Approval of PW
with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Improvement Standard
Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Plans or Final Map Conditions
Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Improvement
Plan Review Check List".
37. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and PW Approval of PW
reviews to obtain the approvals of all applicable Improvement Standard
participating non-City agencies. The Alameda County Plans or Final Map Conditions
Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services
District shall approve and sign the Improvement
Plans.
38. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which PW Approval of PW
includes street pavement sections and grading Improvement Standard
recommendations. Plans, Grading Conditions
Plans, or Final
Map
39. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department PW Acceptance of PW
a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the Improvements and Standard
project when the Final Map has been approved. Release of Bonds Conditions
Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital
vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher
drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with
the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities
in layers shall be colored by layer and named in
English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global
Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83
California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot.
Final Ma
40. The Final Map shall be substantially in conformance PW Approval of Final PW
with the Tentative Map approved with this Map Standard
16~~Iga
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
application, .unless otherwise modified by these Conditions
conditions.
41. All rights-of--way and easement dedications required PW Approval of Final PW
by the Tentative Map including the Public Service Map Standard
Easement shall be shown on the Final Map. Conditions
42. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private PW Approval of Final PW
street pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The Map Standard
Developer shall propose a list of preferred and Conditions
alternate street names for review and approval by the
City and all interested outside agencies. Street names
must not match or be closely similar to existing street
names within Alameda County. The approved street
names shall be indicated on the Final Map.
Easements
43. The Developer shall grant to the City of Dublin PW Approval of PW
easements for. traffic signal detectors, boxes conduit, Improvement Standard
etc. at all private streets and driveways entrances that Plans or Conditions
will be signalized. Appropriate Final
Map
44. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all PW Approval of PW
applicable public agencies of existing easements and Improvement Standard
right of ways that will no longer be used. Plans or Conditions
Appropriate Final
Map
45. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain PW Approval of PW
rights-of--entry from the adjacent property owners for Improvement Standard
any improvements on their property. The easements Plans or Conditions
and/or rights-of--entry shall be in writing and copies Appropriate Final
furnished to the City Engineer. Map
46. All public sidewalks must be within City right-of--way PW Approval of PW
or in a pedestrian access easement unless approved by Improvement Standard
the City Engineer. Plans or Conditions
Appropriate Final
Map
Gradin
47. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of PW
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the Grading Plans or Standard
approved Tentative Map and/or Site Development Issuance of Conditions
Review, and the City design standards & ordinances. Grading Permits,
In case of conflict between the soil engineer's and Ongoing
recommendations and City ordinances, the City
Engineer shall determine which shall apply.
48. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with PW Approval of PW
the Grading Plan. approval. The plan shall include Grading Plans or Standard
detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of Issuance of Conditions
all erosion and sedimentation control measures. Grading Permits,
12
iba~~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
and Ongoing
Im rovements
49. The public improvements shall be constructed PW Approval of PW
generally as shown on the Tentative Map and/or Site Improvement Standard
Development Review. However, the approval of the Plans or Start of Conditions
Tentative Map andJor Site Development Review is not Construction, and
an approval of the specific design of the drainage, Ongoing
sanitary sewer, water, traffic circulation, and street
improvements.
50. All public improvements shall conform to the City of PW Approval of PW
Dublin Standard Plans and design requirements and as Improvement Standard
approved by the City Engineer. Plans or Start of Conditions
Construction, and
Ongoing
51. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and PW Approval of PW
pavement marking as required by the City Engineer. Improvement Standard
Plans or Start of Conditions
Construction, and
Ongoing
52. Developer shall construct all potable water and PW Approval of PW
sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in Improvement Standard
accordance with DSRSD rr~aster plans, standards, Plans or Start of Conditions
specifications and requirements. Construction, and
Ongoing
53. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the PW Approval of PW
Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector Improvement Standard
blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street Plans or Start of Conditions
opposite each hydrant. Construction, and
Ongoing
54. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed PW Occupancy of PW
and installed per approval of the City Engineer. The Units or Standard
maximum voltage drop for streetlights is 5%. Acceptance of Conditions
Improvements
55. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with PW Occupancy of PW
other new signals within the development and to the Units or Standard
existing City traffic signal system by hard wire. Acceptance of Conditions
Improvements
56. Two empty 3" conduits with pull ropes, to PW Occupancy of PW
accommodate future extension of the traffic Units or Standard
interconnect system and for School District uses, shall Acceptance of Conditions
be installed along any project arterial street frontage. Improvements
The extent of this work to be determined by the City
Engineer.
57. The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at PW Occupancy of PW
the locations designated and approved by the LAVTA Units or Standard
and the City Engineer. The Developer shall pay the Acceptance of Conditions
13
,~e~~I~a
~~;
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
cost of procuring and installing these improvements. Improvements
58. The Developer shall furnish and install City Standard PW Occupancy of PW
street name signs for the project as required by the Units or Standard
City Engineer. Acceptance of Conditions
Improvements
59. Street trees, of at least a 24" box size or as otherwise PW Occupancy of PW
determined by the Community Development Director, Units or Standard
shall be planted along the street frontages. The Acceptance of Conditions
varieties and locations of the trees to be approved by Improvements
the Community Development Director and City
Engineer.
60. Any decorative pavement installed within City right- PW Occupancy of PW
of-way requires approval of the City Engineer. Where Units or Standard
decorative paving is installed in public streets, pre- Acceptance of Conditions
formed traffic signal loops and sleeves to Improvements
accommodate future utilities shall put under the
decorative pavement. Maintenance costs of the
decorative paving shall be included in a landscape and
lighting maintenance assessment district or other
funding mechanism acceptable to the City Engineer.
61. Roof drainage shall drain across bio-swales or into PW Occupancy of PW
bio-filters prior to entering the storm drain system. Units or Standard
The landscaping and drainage improvements in the Acceptance of Conditions
bio-swale and bio-filters shall be appropriate for water Improvements
quality treatment. The City Engineer may exempt
specific roof leaders from this requirement if space
limitations prevent .adequate water treatment without
creating hazards, nuisance or structural concerns.
Concentrated flows will not be allowed to drain across
public. sidewalks.
62. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and PW Occupancy of PW
communication improvements within the fronting Units or .Standard
streets and as necessary to serve the project and the Acceptance of Conditions
future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Improvements
Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies.
63. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, PW Occupancy of PW
shall be underground in accordance with the City Units or Standard
policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located Acceptance of Conditions
and provided within public utility easements and sized Improvements
to meet utility company standards.
64. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless PW Occupancy of PW
specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, Units or Standard
shall be underground and placed in landscape areas Acceptance of Conditions
and screened from public view. All utility vaults, Improvements
boxes and structures shall be shown on landscape
plans and approved by the City Engineer and
14
7~~° /8a
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
Community Development Director prior to
construction.
Construction
65. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented PW Ongoing as PW
between October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise Needed Standard
allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Conditions
Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion
and sediment control measures for one year following
the City's acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
66. If archaeological materials are encountered during PW Ongoing as PW
construction, construction within 100 feet of these Needed Standard
materials shall be halted until a professional Conditions
Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of
California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of
Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an
opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and
suggest appropriate mitigation measures.
67. Construction activities, including the maintenance and PW Ongoing as PW
warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday Needed Standard
through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the Conditions
hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
68. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of PW
management plan that identifies measures to be taken Construction; Standard
to minimize construction noise on surrounding Implementation Conditions
developed properties. The plan shall include hours of Ongoing as
construction operation, use of mufflers on construction Needed
equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul
routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise
management measures shall be included in the project
plans and specifications.
69. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic PW Start of PW
interface with public traffic on any existing public Construction; Standard
street. Construction traffic and parking may be Implementation Conditions
subject to specific requirements by the City Engineer. Ongoing as
Needed
70. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any PW Ongoing PW
rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem .due to Standard
construction activities. Conditions
71. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or PW ,Start of PW
other dust-palliative measures to control dust as Construction; Standard
conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. Implementation Conditions
Ongoing as
Needed
72. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of PW
15
-~i ~ ~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
Department with a letter from a registered civil Building Permits Standard
engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads or Acceptance of Conditions
have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades Improvements
shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top
& toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations
and/or Site Development Review shown on the
approved Grading Plans.
NPDES
73. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall PW Start of Any PW
provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent Construction Standard
(NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Activities Conditions
Resources Control Board per the requirements of the
NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the
Public Works Department and be kept at the
construction site.
74. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program PW SWPPP to be PW
(SWPPP) for the operation and maintenance of the Prepared Prior to Standard
project shall identify the Best Management Practices Approval of Conditions
(BMPs) appropriate to the project construction Improvement
activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion Plans:
control measures in accordance with the regulations Implementation
outlined in the most current version of the ABAG Start of
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction and
Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. Ongoing as
Needed
75. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all PW First Final Map; PW
contractors implement all storm water pollution Modify as needed Standard
prevention measures in the SWPPP. with Successive Conditions
Maps
FIRE
76. Emergency vehicle access roadways must have a F Approval of Final F
minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet (14 feet for Map
one way streets) and an unobstructed, vertical
clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. The radius
for emergency vehicle turns shall be based on a 42 ft.
radius. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted
with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels
on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be
posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with
labels on both sides of the street as follows: "NO
STOPPING, FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1". CFC
902.2.2.1.
77. The maximum dead end emergency vehicle access F Approval of Final F
road without an approved turn around is 150 feet. Map
Cul-de-sacs that are needed for an emergency vehicle
16
~~~~~sa
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
access turn around shall be a minimum of 80 feet with
no parking. CFC902.2.2.4.
78. The following number of access roads shall be F Approval of Final F
provided per the Dublin- Fire Code (based on the start Map
of construction):
1-25 Units: One public or private access road.
26-74 Units: One public or private access road and
one emergency access road. When more than one
access road is required, the roadways shall be
remotely located to provide a separate and distinct
means of access and egress.
75+ Units: A minimum of two public or private access
roads. When more than one access road is
required,. the roadways shall be remotely located to
provide a separate and distinct means of access and
egress.
79. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross F Approval of Final F
pedestrian access and exit paths as well as vehicle Map
entrance and exit roads need to be approved for fire
department access and egress as well as exiting
provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be
submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and
details of such. This should be clearly incorporated as
part of the site plan with details provided as necessary.
CFC 501.3
80. Hydrants & Fire Flows. Show the location of any F Approval of F
on-site fire hydrants and any fire hydrants that are Improvement
along the property frontage as well as the closest Plans or Final Map
hydrants to each side of the property that are located
along the access roads that serves this property.
Hydrant spacing to meet DSRSD minimum residential
distance. Prove a letter from the water company
indicating what the available fire flow is to this
property. CFC 508.
81. All portions of the exterior walls of the homes shall be F Issuance of F
within 150 feet of an emergency vehicle access road. Building Permits
The distance is measured as someone would be able to
walk and shall consider parked cars. Sloped areas
beyond the access roads needed for emergency access
shall be permanent walkway or stair as required by the
'~ Fire Department. CFC 902.2.1, 902.3.1.
82. The maximum grade allowed for a Fire Department F Issuance of F
access road is 12%. CFC Appendix Improvement
Plans
17
~~3~ISa-
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP.
AGENCY WHEN
REQ'D
Prior to: SOURCE
83. All emergency vehicle access roads (first lift of F Issuance of F
asphalt) and the public water supply including all Building Permits
hydrants shall be in place prior to vertical construction
or combustible storage on site.
84. The homes that are adjacent to open space or F Issuance of F
undeveloped land shall comply with the Wildfire Building Permits
Management. The following is a partial list of the for affected lots
requirements of the Wildfire Management Plan:
The homes shall be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system.
The roof covering shall be class A.
Eaves shall be protected on the exposed underside by
materials approved for one-hour rated fire resistive
construction. Fascias are required and must be
protected on the backside by materials approved for
one-hour rated fire resistive construction or 2-inch
(5lmm) nominal dimensional lumber.
Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed of non-
combustible material.
Exterior walls of buildings or structures shall be
constructed with materials approved for one-hour
rated constriction on the exterior side or with non-
combustible materials. Exception: Heavy timber
construction.
Exterior windows, window walls and skylights shall
be tempered glass or multilayered glazed panels.
Exterior doors, other than vehicular access doors to
garages, shall be non-combustible or solid core 1-3/4
inch thick. When windows are within doors, they
shall be of tempered glass or multilayered glazed
panels.
Attic ventilation openings, foundation and under floor
vents, or other ventilation openings in vertical exterior
walls and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144
square inches each. Such vents shall be covered with
non-combustible corrosion resistant mesh with
openings not to exceed '/4 inch.
Detached accessory structures located less than 50 feet
from a building• containing habitable space shall have
exterior walls constructed with materials approved for
one-hour construction or constructed with non-
. combustible materials on the exterior side.
Fences constructed of combustible materials shall be
separated from the perimeter of buildings containing
habitable space by connecting to buildings with a
masonry pilaster as shown in the Wildfire
18
1~4~~Sa
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
Management Plan. Pilaster are not required if a
noncombustible fence is provided on the side(s) facing
the open space and additional 10 feet towards the
home.
85. The landscape plans for home adjacent to open space F Issuance of F
or undeveloped land shall comply with the standards Building Permits
for vegetation establishment and maintenance as for affected lots
required in the Wildfire Management Plan:
Plants within 3 feet of the homes shall be irrigated
flowers only. The area within 3 feet shall have non-
combustible materials only (no combustible mulch).
Plants 3 to 15 feet from the home shall only be those
listed for use in Areas A and B in the plant species
table.
Trees shall be a minimum of 4 feet from the homes.
Trees between 4 ft and 30 feet of the homes shall have
a minimum of ~10 feet between crowns. The trees shall
be limited to those types listed for use in Areas B
through D in the plant species table.
Plants 15 to 30 feet from the home shall only be those
listed for use in Areas A through C in the plant species
table.
The distances increase for areas with slopes over 30%.
See the Wildfire Management Plan.
Plant types shall be reviewed by the City's landscape
consultant.
86. The landscape shall be maintained year round to F Ongoing in F
comply with the Wildfire Management Plan. Trees conformance with
between 4 and 15 feet from the homes shall have their the Wildfire
limbs pruned 10 feet from grade or 1/3 of the total live Management
crown height. Trees between 15 and 30 feet from the Program
homes shall have their limbs pruned 6 to 10 feet from
grade. The distances increase for areas with slopes
over 30%. See the Wildfire Management Plan.
87. Grasses in the undeveloped land shall be kept mowed F Ongoing on a F
to a height of 4 inches in the Fire buffer zone. The yearly basis in
fire buffer zone is defined as follows: 15 feet beyond conformance with
the maintenance road; 45 feet beyond the fence lines Fire Department
where there is no maintenance road; 15 feet beyond regulations
the public roads. The buffer zone shall be defined by
anon-combustible fence.
88. The project shall comply with the applicable Building F Ongoing F
and Fire Codes. Site and Building plans shall be
provided for review and approval by the Fire
Department.
19
ins ~ i8~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
89. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all F Ongoing F
Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) rules,
regulations, City of Dublin standards, including
minimum standards for emergency access roads and
payment of applicable fees including City of Dublin
Fire facility fees.
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
90. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD
improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that building permit
conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon
Services District Code, the DSRSD "Standard
Procedures, Specifications, and Drawings for Design
and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities",
all applicable DSRSD master Plans and all DSRSD
policies.
91. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity DSRSD Approval of DSRSD
to accommodate future flow demands in addition to Improvement
each development project's demand. Layout and Plans or Final Map
sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD
utility master planning.
92. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD Approval of DSRSD
DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of Improvement
sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under Plans or Final Map
extreme circumstances following a case by case
review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will
require specific review and approval by DSRSD of
preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final
plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the
right to require payment of present worth 20 year
maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a
separate agreement with the Applicant for any project
that requires a pumping station.
93. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Approval of DSRSD
Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed Improvement
to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end Plans or Final Map
sections in accordance with requirements of the
DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound
engineering practice.
94. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines DSRSD Approval of DSRSD
to be located in public streets rather than in off-street Improvement
locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, Plans or Final Map
then public sewer or water easements must be
established over the alignment of each public sewer or
water line in an off-street or private street location to
provide access for future maintenance and/or
replacement.
20
~~ ~ i g~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
95. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be DSRSD Approval of Final DSRSD
by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD Map
or by offer of dedication on the Final Map.
96. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a DSRSD Grading Permit, DSRSD
Site Development permit, the locations and widths of Improvement
all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer Plans or Final Map
lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD.
97. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD
Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Permits,
Services District, whichever comes first, all utility approval of
connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan Improvement
checking fees, inspections fees, connection fees, and Plans or approval
fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit of Final Map
shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates
and schedules established in the DSRSD Code.
98. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD
Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Permits,
Services District, whichever comes first, all approval of
improvements plans for DSRSD facilities shall be Improvement
signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of Plans or approval
improvement plans shall contain a signature block for of Final Map
the District Engineer indicating approval of the
sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to
approval by the district engineer, the Applicant shall
pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an
engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer
and water systems, a performance bond, aone-year
maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general
liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms
that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall
allow at least 15 working days for final improvement
drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the
District Engineer.
99. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Ongoing DSRSD
permitted unless the proper utility construction permit
has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit
will only be issued after all of the- items in Condition
No. 11 have been satisfied.
100. -The Applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD Ongoing DSRSD
Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of
DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same
from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the
construction and completion of the project.
POLICE
101. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable City of PO Occupancy and PO
Dublin Residential Security Requirements. All ongoing
21
~~~~~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE
AGENCY REQ'D
Prior to:
residential buildings shall be in accordance with the
currently adopted Uniform Building Security Code
pursuant to Chapter 7.32.220 of the Dublin Municipal
Code.
102. Street names will not duplicate those already being PO Approval of final PO
used in other segments of the City. Map
103. CC&R's for the residential portion of the project will PO Approval of Final PO
include posting of private street areas in accordance Map
with California Vehicle Code Section 22658, sections
1 & 2. Fire .lanes will also be posted in accordance
with California Vehicle Code Section 22500.1.
104. The Applicant shall submit a residential lighting plan PO Issuance of PO
with point by point photometric measurements for Improvement
connecting paths, and outdoor parking areas. The Plans
Applicant shall submit a final lighting plan for
approval by Dublin Police.
105. The Applicant shall keep the site clear of graffiti PO Ongoing PO
vandalism on a regular and continuous basis at all
times. Graffiti resistant material should be used.
106. The Applicant shall work with Dublin Police on an PO Ongoing PO
ongoing basis to establish an effective theft prevention
and security program.
107. The perimeter of the site shall be fenced (minimum PO Issuance of PO
height of six feet) during construction, and security Building Permits
lighting, alarm system, surveillance cameras and or Start of
patrols shall be employed as necessary. A temporary Construction
address sign of sufficient size and color contrast to be
seen during night time hours with existing street
lighting is to be posted at entrance to site. The
developer will file a Dublin Police Emergency Contact
Business Card prior to any phase of construction that
will provide 24 hour phone contact numbers of
persons responsible for the construction site. Good
security practices shall be followed with respect to
storage of building materials and storage of tools at
the construction site. Construction materials and/or
equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of
the fenced area or within the public right-of--way
unless approved in advance by the City
Engineer/Public Works Director.
108. Developer shall submit a projected timeline for project PO Approval of the PO
completion to Dublin Police Services, to allow first Final Map
estimation of staffing requirements and assignments.
109. The cul-de-sacs shall be separated from open space PO SDR PO
areas by bollards, gates or decorative fencings to
prevent access areas that are not publicly accessible.
22
~7~ visa
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP.
AGENCY WHEN
REQ'D
Prior to: SOURCE
If gates are used they shall be secured by lock
approved by Police and Fire and provide for
emergency response access.
110. Signs shall be placed at the ends of cul-de-sacs that PO Approval of PO
are adjacent to open space with the name of the street. Improvement
The street signs will assist emergency responders Plans
identifying specific streets from the open space areas.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October, 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, Biddle and King
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
Planning Commission Chair
G:IPA#120081PA 08-005 SchaeferRa~7ch SouthlPlnnnang ConmiissionlPCReso Schaefer VTM.doc
23
d ~ ~, d
~ ~ ~ Z
~~°, O~J{ Q W ca -i 0
(~ ` `O
b ~ J
,
~ ~ m
~~ 4 ~ ° o
~ ~ _ .~~ ~ ~R`
i F; a8O-T0- H NYN U3dd3tlHS dtlW 3AIItl1N31'JNIl53A - £OBOOZ
~ F' ~f;.'SN ~ ~ ~ yy~~ ~ 0~ 03 ~ '6 LO
PPSS 8 `o ~ yg
9~ ~ ~ ~ °an ~' c g ~ e ~ i~ ~ 5 aaiA9 1 0 @ 'S.~
g~~ ~~~ ~~8 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ S d >> ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ as ~ 9 ~ ~~ ~~$La ~ _~~ qii~~ 1 F ~ ~~~'~~ ~
y ~gA mS8 ~d'o g~s~ ~$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ 5 0~~ ~3 .i p~ -a,r-' aa~~~ 1 ~ ai ~~~~a ~ F ~ ov'a
Q ~ g ~ ~g ~ gym ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~_ ~~ ~~~~F g. Y a ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ Z ~~~~ ~-'~~ ~~~ ~g~q ~ o ~~~ gg ~ Qa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ Q ~ € oaf 9 g €~ ~~ ~~~@ _ ~ 'sg~s.. W
"fig ~ ~ ~
~. ~ ~ ~ o~~ s ~-~ --- of L ~~ ~ vg
~ U W ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ 8 ~~~ ;gin ~ .~ --- ~ of ~ ~ ~~~
Z o S~ gg o ~wg ~. o
0J ~ W ~~o~''uIII 5~ ~ ~ g ~~y ~ u B ~ ~ 'd`~ a a m Q„~ ~ ~ p~ a Sqy W3 ~ ~ f z ~ ~ a o W ~ ~ a d a ~ ~
OJ O ~ O O L7 9i ~ ~ L] O ~ g H ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ o £ £ Sa ~ ~Q~ ~ rc<x _ <~ a~ w~ Y ~ g ~E[R ! ~
} F ~ sg ~3~ `~ ~s
>> ;~% ~ ~ s
j /~\J//T~ ~\/~~V ~__. < ~ tl ~¢i 3t~ ~ 63!5,91
W ~ o ~~ ~`~~~ i~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ _ " iii
(~ =~ O ~ ~,'~~ i. ,~, Kra, `.~ J ~ ~ ~~a
J ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ Q ~ J ~ ~'~~~~~~ qe a"'d'~ao b ~~ - - - _ ~~ o~ Q
t eE~ ~g$ p~~y ` Q ~` .a a L
Lf ~~ES ~ ~`JS 2~G~rn3 ~ ~ ~i // ,1~ '!/ b' OJ\ ~ ~~- ado s S
3 R ,Q R'g \ \\T\~\~\\ \ \ \~\ e V
Z ~ !'~ ~ ~ q mgt j qe ~~ ~ ~\ \ ~\ ~ ~,-' ~ ~ 1
n
..~~ q^
:s
0 ~ ~ ~~~'... .~ w b .h. r _ mgOL ;u ~m.
O Z w ~ / l ~' ;$ m `~ . \~ ~ s ea b m ~ ~ " ~ ~~~~J- oil ~ ~
^ 4
\\ ~ a
3a yy~ A~~
• _.
_~~- ~ _
J _. _ _, ~ ~ ,:a _ 7?t ~
W -,6~ ~~ ~ \ . • ~ ~~ ~~ W''m'be mb~ q• 'r \~ y^,,^~B ~Z \~\
L L v () ~ ~ ad O1m~t \~ b~ T ~ ~b9 ~ \~ 3 1 y
I ~ my, pa'w ~ R d ' f \
Z mn ~ ~ .~ ~ r
~~ !~, ~R9b^ ! a`'E ~~ Sx"s \~ ~ eM~a "1' - 3S~
`~ \~ /~ ~~ ~ 1jJ•OH'3~'N 1f.m a 8 .b p mqo 6 wbb L g~
W ~~ ~ T ~ m R b• rv, qh ~ O,yy
.,_. ~ L7 ~l ~"_/,:. / \ ~.~°s~w, ~yen,~<n § ~ ~~ ~ , ~ Nq~ °jb~"~~dby \~~d ~ ,•~d„l l ~ ~~
~~,~ ~
<~~ ~
~ZJ~~ s
~ U ~%
~~ ,
~o~ ~ !
~a~ z~<3d Cn d
~~a ~~ES~o 0
o ~~~~g' ~~"~~ ~ I~
X05 ~~~Q8 °z
~~LL~ ~~a~~ K~
V~ `,.g~V ~$~U
~o
~ooa o~~~~~ a
o
~~~ ~~~°
~~~~ Wh~a~H a
l
lf'8 `Z4o4 `Wd bZ~6E~Z6 8002/Z/OL `Wl `6MP'90-Wl-EOSOOZ1d`dW 3n11`d1N31\~MP~E0800Z\S80P 800Z\~S
""
VVV .,
~
-
--
°~ ~ o
~ ~
C~ 1
-, 80-TOpOT IfJN
Nl
z ~~
Q ~~
J ~i
~ O
c~~~
O
Z p
- ~i
,~.~
0 m
N
W
m
m W
~~ 0 Z W
Q N
~ ~,Z---,
~~y iii ~-°
~.L ~ ~ W
i ~~
J
z ~ ~ ~1
-, ~i
~ ~1~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~i
W1 ~i
w ~~ ~ ,
oc ~,
~ ~Il
s t~ s
;~ ~ a
°o a
rv ~~ N
~~ ~ ~
L~ G o 0
o~~p 9~~" OS ~°S ~ ~ ~~ m S S ~ ~ ~ B g ~ 6 ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ z~ <~ ~ v ~ ~ .e~,_ s_ ~~~~~ 1 ' ~
0 g8° qE8° Y€~~5^ yB~ES~ ~ ~ <~a' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,g ,$o ~ o o ~ R " LL ~ ~~o a~ ~~~~
Z ~~m o~~a $~3~ 5~~~ o o ~~~ ~o b $ a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° v ~ ~ oa~ ~ ~ Ee
~ "~F ~ ~ ~
W ~ ~ J~o 8 ~Q ~ ~~R„~ 8~~~ ~=n
o' ° ~ W"a
~S ~ ~ 3 8 8a8~ ~aada ~~fE< ~a<~ K~ <g _ ~5
" e m ...... .. .... .. L i ~-
~/ ~ ~ a
¢ ,i y ~aa
I ~t/l ~~ ~ ~ ~ ¢
} Y{ ~ DTI' ~ " i( '3~ NIH~j I ` n ~/.~%/~N ~ 'ri / 3' N ~\~~\
1 W
~ O
W
~ ~~~ a ~~~~~~ LL ~;
~~~~ ~s~~~~~~ ~~~d
~z
~; U~
~,~
.~ ,
`~,~/ '~
~~v~
Uv ~ ~~"'
q~.~~>
~. ~ ~
s~~ ~~<~za cq ~%
~mo °z
~a°'°- ~o~~~ S
doy o0y
~~~~ ~o~~a~~U
~ ~z~ ~d a
s ~ "~
~o j o~~u~
z ti -1
oa3 2° ~° a
..{{ fag ~~~~~°+a ~
2~~° my6aCy °u
tL.S ~'~{
4 J Ni
~ y5
~~~K ,y
$~~' ~ ~
o~ "~ ~
~~@ ~
3~
~~~
~:
v
~~~+++~
~ ~s.~~~
~ a ~ ~~
4 E ~
i CAS 4'
~s
~~' r'+
viiaaaa~YHS NYI~+ ~
„ ~M. A'9~
e~ it°'
"N
W o 2
~ N za
tLl ca
W o Z~
J
~ ~/'~
NI'13U~ \~~+
Z y~
Oi
~ ~ ~_
o,
z •~•:
~ a
c
•~
a
oL ;
a o
a _r
lf8'Zgoq'Wd LO~10~6 8002/Z/OL `Wl'6MP'40-dJd-£0800Z\N`dld JNI4b21J.121b'NIWIl3Nd\SN`dld JNI4V21J-dJ\6MP\£0800Z~S80f 800Z~~S
1g1~182
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCHAEFER RANCH HOLDINGS LLC
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-010 to 021)
PA 08-005
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC, has requested approval of a
Development Agreement for approximately 42.7-acres of the Schaefer Ranch project area generally
located to the southwest and southeast of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road,
referred to herein as the "project area"; and
WHEREAS, the project area subject to the requested Development Agreement includes the area
that is subject to Vesting Tentative Map 8000 and Parcels J & K of Vesting Tentative Map 6765; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared an Initial Study, included herein by
reference, to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3.
The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR under these .sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,
an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be
included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is included herein
by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum and Initial Study were considered by the Planning Commission
together with the Schaefer Ranch EIR at a properly noticed public hearing on the project on October 14,
2008. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-XX recommending City Council approval of the
CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the text of the Draft Development Agreement is attached to this resolution along
with the draft Ordinance marked as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14,
2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008 was submitted to the Planning Commission
analyzing the Project and recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Development
Agreement:
Attachment 14
1~ ~ ~
The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the General Plan in that: a) the amended General Plan land use
designations for the subject project area are Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre),
Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space; b) the project is consistent with the City's fiscal policies
in relation to provision of infrastructure and public services of the City's General Plan; c) the
Agreement sets forth the rules the Applicant and City will be governed by during the
development process.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations
prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because the project
approvals for PA 08-005 include a General Plan Amendment, PD-Planned Development
Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map 8000.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare
and good- land use practice in that the Applicant's project will implement land use guidelines
set forth in the Dublin General Plan.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general
welfare in that the development will proceed in accordance with the Agreement and any
Conditions of Approval for the Project.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the
property or the preservation of property values in that the development will be consistent with
the City of Dublin General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the Development Agreement between
the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (PA 08-005).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October of 2008.
AYES: Schaub, Tomlinson, Wehrenberg, Biddle and King
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G: IPA#120081PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch SouthlPlanning CommissionlPCReso Schaefer DA.doc
Page 2 of 2