HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 084-96 Grazing/Wildlife RESOLUTION NO. 84 - 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA AND
THE CITY OF DUBLIN WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WttEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Xrnendment and Specific
Plan on May 10, 1993 and the Dublin voters approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan on November 2, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan contains Mitigation Measures 3.7/4.0 and 3.4/12.0 that require the City to
prepare and approve a Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment area; and
WHEREAS, both the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Area (GMP) and City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan (WMP) implement Mitigation Measures
3.7/4.0 and 3.4/12.0 of the FEIR, respectively, and are consistent with the policies and action programs of
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Chapter 6 - Resource Management and Chapter 8 -
Community Services and Facilities of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent that the guidelines and
standards of both documents will promote the protection ofriparian and wetland areas while allowing
grazing to continue within the Eastern Dublin area, and reduction in the risk of open land wildfire to the
lowest level consistent with reasonable protection ofwildlife habitat and other open space values within the
City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the WMP shall be applicable to all new developments within the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the "Construction Requirements for Buildings on Lots or
Parcels Adjacent to Open Space and Undeveloped Land" set forth in the Wildfire Management Plan are
reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological and topographical conditions. As documented in
Section 8.3.2 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and in Part I, pages 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 of the
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (certified
by the City Council on May 10, 1993), the risk of wildfire is part. icularly great for residences near open
space and undeveloped land due to the dry grassland and windy conditions which exist in the area, the
heightened potential for fires resulting from vandalism and human carelessness due to the increased
population in these areas, and the fact that the relatively remote location can make access for fire fighting
equipment and personnel difficult; and
WHEREAS, the G1ViP shall be applicable to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area.
The GMP shall be enforced as conditions of rezone and tentative map approval for areas zoned Open
Space and Rural Residential/Agriculture. Grazing may continue within the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment area until land owners receive zone change approval, tentative map approval and grading
permits consistent with the adopted Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment land uses. The GMP shall be
implemented on a voluntary basis if land owners are not applying for a rezone or tentative map approvals,
or if they have received rezone and tentative map approvals but wish to continue grazing their lands until
development begins, or until grading permits are issued consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City shall initiate any voluntary, cooperative measures with Eastern Dublin land
owners for purposes of implementing the GMP, and 'shall monitor the progress of the GMP
implementation; and
WHEREAS, the GMP and WMP projects have been reviewed in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, .and no new effects
could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the projects that were not addressed in
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan, and the projects are within the scope of the FEIR. The projects implement mitigation
measures of the FElt( and an initial study will be conducted for each development application that is
required to comply with the GMP and WMP documents; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
GMP and WMP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TItAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
approve the GMP and WMP as defined in Exhibits A and B, respectively, of the City Council Staff Report
dated July 9, 1996.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 1996.
AYES: Cou ncilmembers Barnes, Moff att and Mayor Houston
NOES: Councilmember Burton
ABSENT: Councilmember Howard
ABSTAIN: None
K2/g/7-9-96/resograz.doe
g:\eastdubl\wildfire\ecres\cre
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN
GENERAL PI~-~-A.MENDMENT AREA '-
CITY OF DUBLIN
March 1996
Prepared by:
Sycamore Associates LLC
910 Mountain View Drive
Lafayette, CA 94549
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Summary
The preparation of this grazing management plan was required by Mitigation Measure
3.7/4.0 of the EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific
Plan, which states, "Grazing management plans shall be developed by the City and
implemented soon after approval n. pthe General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan:'
Management plans shall favor protection of riparian and wetland areas, increased plant
diversity, and the recovery of native plants, in particular, perennial grasses."
Cattle and horses grazing along Tassajara Creek and major tributaries have reduced and
degraded native habitat. Cattle and horse impacts to riparian resources and sensitive
resources found at seeps and springs noted on Figures 3.7-A and 3.7-C of the EIR for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan (attached) can be
reduced through the implementation of selected improvements. Those improvements
include:
· The development of alternate watering sources, salt blocks and nutrient dispensers
strategically placed in upland, dry locations to greatly reduce the movement of cattle
and horses into the fiparian corridors along Tassajara Creek, major tributaries and
springs and seeps;
· Limited areas of exclusionary fencing to protect sensitive species around springs and
seeps and the arroyo willow riparian woodland area along Fallon Road.
Implementation of these measures will be negotiated through voluntary short-term
agreements between the City of Dublin and landowners for those lands which will be
rezoned and developed in the future. The provisions of the grazing management plan will
be conditions for approval ofrezones within the Eastern-Dublin General Plan Amendment
area, excluding the future study area (GPA) and will apply to those lands which will be
zoned rural residential/agriculture or open space in the future.
Introduction
This grazing management plan was prepared concurrent with the Tassajara Creek
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program (Sycamore Associates, 1996) to fulfill the
requirements of the EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Specific Plan. The primary intent of this document is to ensure that significant riparian and
wetland resources of Tassajara Creek and major tributaries in the GPA area are protected
and enhanced, while allowing grazing to continue on properties along the creek and
tributaries, consistent with the Specific Plan. This document is prepared with the
understanig that cattle and horses have grazed this region and watered in the Tassajara
Creek corridor for many decades, and that any efforts to integrate riparian protection and
restoration must be done with the ranchers cooperation and land management expertise.
Riparian protection and restoration measures must be practical and cost-effective while
providing the means to protect senskive environmental resources.
The preparation of this grazing management plan was required by the Ell for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan. Its authority springs from the
following element of the Ell for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Specific Plan and from policies of the Specific Plan that describe the City' s intention to
protect and enhance riparian resources.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0 ofthe=~E.]~.. fo_r the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
(GPA) and Specific Plan states, "Grazing management plans shall be developed by the
City and implemented soon after approval of the General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. Management plans shall favor protection of riparian and wetland areas, increased
plant diversity, and the recovery of native plants. in particular, perennial grasses."
The purpose of this grazing management plan is twofold:
· To ensure compliance with the EIK for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan which called for the preparation of grazing management plans;
· To provide land management recommendations to protect and enhance riparian and
wetland resources, water quality and the habitats of sensitive plant and wildlife species.
This grazing management plan is based upon information in the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan and EIR other documents cited in the
references and personal communication with agency representatives and local ranchers.
Cattle and horses enter creeks to drink water, therefore development.of alternate watering
sites are a focus of this grazing management plan. Protection of sensitive biological
resources and enhancement ofriparian resources. along Tassajara Creek, major tributaries
and springs and seeps in the GPA area should be accomplished through:
· The develgpment of alternate watering sources, salt blocks and nutrient dispensers
strategically placed in ripland, dry locations to greatly reduce the movement of cattle
and horses into the riparian corridors along Tassajara Creek, major tributaries and
springs and seeps; ., .- · -
· Limited areas of exclusionary fencing to protect sensitive species around springs and
seeps and the arroyo willow riparian woodland area along Fallon Road.
Cooperative and voluntary protection ofriparian and wetland resources are the basis of
this grazing management plan. It is viewed as preferable to a regulated approach which
would mandate costly protection measures, such as extensive fencing of the entire creek.
Landowners and grazing lessees have the greatest familiarity with the lands and resources,
the feasibility and the practical consequences of alternative practices. The motivation for
this approach is underscored by Program '6H of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan .(page 67) which directs the City of Dublin to enact
and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance to protect water quality and
protection of stream channels. Successful implementation of the lower cost measures
described herein to discourage cattle and horse use of sensitive biological resource areas,
Tassajara Creek, and major tributaries would reduce the need for provisions in the soil
2
erosion and sediment control ordinance focusing on cattle and horse impacts to water
quality and soil erosion.
For the purpose of this document, minor tributaries are defined as grassy swales devoid of
shrub and tree vegetation, and major tributaries are defined as tributaries that support
shrubs and trees or are in close proximity to ponds, seeps or springs. The major tributaries
addressed in this grazing manag~eZLe, n.t plan are shown on Figures 3.7-A and 3.7-C of-the
EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan.
This grazing management plan does not address in detail technical range management
issues such as residual dry matter, the control of exotic plants, range analysis, rest, or
grazing capacity, focusing instead on the means to protect the creek and wedand
resources.
Area Covered by Grazing Plan
This grazing plan covers all areas within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
area, excluding the future study area (hereinaf~er referred to as the GPA) that are currently
being grazed or will be grazed by domestic livestock in the future. Lands located outside
the City limits shall not be subject to this grazing plan.
Grazing has been a traditional land use throughout the region for decades. However, as
development in the Eastern Dublin GPA area proceeds, lands that currently support cattle
and horses will be converted to the land uses described on Figure 2B (Land Use Map,
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan) of the Specific Plan.
As described in the Specific Plan, future grazing within the Eastern Dublin GPA area will
be restricted to those areas zoned rural residential/agriculture or open space.
Rural Residential/amicultural Zone
Lands which will ultimately be zoned rural residential/agriculture within the Eastern
Dublin GPA area are in two disconnected areas which are not immediately adjacent to
Tassajara Creek. The smaller area would generate only a small amount of forage for cattle
or horses, supporting only a very limited herd year round, or a larger herd for a short
period of time. This small area is surrounded by land zoned medium density and
community park and is bounded on the west by Tassajara Road. When the park is
developed the boundary between it and the rural residential/agriculture land should be
fenced to prevent the movement of cattle or horses into park facilities. Once fenced,
livestock will be unable to move out of the area into Tassajara Creek or sensitive
resources along tributaries. The larger area that is zoned rural residential/agriculture, while
not adjacent to Tassajara Creek is bisected by tributaries to Tassajara Creek, one of which
supports red-legged frog at the location mapped on Figures 3.7-A and 3.7-C (Habitat and
Sensitive Species, EIR for Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific
Plan). Movement of cattle or horses from this area to the creek will be prevented by
fencing along Fallon Road and fencing around residential development to the south.
3
Open Space Zone
For the purposes of this grazing plan, all lands to be zoned open space within the Eastern
Dublin GPA area in the future are divided into five areas, featured as OS 1 through 5 on
the attached Figure 2B. The accessibility of these areas to Tassajara Creek, riparian
resources along major tributaries, and seeps and springs is described below. The grazing
management guidelines in this grazingplan were developed to reduce impacts of cattle- and
horses on riparian resources along Tassajara Creek, major tributaries, and sensitive species
at seeps and springs within the areas designated as OS 1 through 5.
.OS 1 Livestock will be contained within OS 1, unable to move to Tassajara Creek if the
boundary with Camp Parks to the west is fenced and if fencing or other development
barriers occur at the northern boundary of OS 1.
OS 2 and 3 These properties occur in narrow bands along Tassajara Creek. If livestock
grazing in these areas occurs in the future, livestock would have to be concentrated along
the creek because access to upland areas would be blocked by development and fencing
along the Camp Parks boundary.
OS 4 Movement of liVestock from OS 4 into Tassajara Creek will be blocked by fencing
along Tassajara Creek Road. Sensitive resources at seeps and springs along the major
tributary to Tassajara Creek do not occur within this property.
OS 5 Fallon Road crosses a major tributary that occurs within this area. While
development will surround this area, arroyo willow riparian woodland does occur along
the margins of the tributary.
?.hased Implementation of the Grazing Management Plan
Grazing may continue within the Eastern Dublin GPA until the landowner receives a zone
change approval, tentative .map approval and grading permit consistent with land uses
noted on :Figure 2B of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific
Plan. Compliance with this grazing management plan will be made a condition of rezone
or tentative map .approval. Ai~er approval of zoning changes, grazing will be restricted to
those more limited areas which will be zoned rural residential/agriculture or open space.
Implementation of this grazing management plan should begin upon acceptance by the
City of Dublin for all areas currently being grazed within the Eastern Dublin GPA area.
Discussions with landowners should be held to discuss this grazing management plan and
to determine the need or desirability of a cooperative watershed management group to
expedite these improvements.
The cost of developing alternate watering sources (specified in this management plan) and
extensive exclusionary fencing (not specified in this management plan) can be very high,
and in the case of landowners who do not anticipate continuing grazing in the future, such
improvements may be infeasible. In addition, figrazing is to be phased out with
4
development, grazing-related impacts will be reduced and implementation of new grazing
management measures may not be necessary. The City of Dublin should anticipate
negotiating voluntary agreements with individual landowners in these situations to ensure
that grazing impacts to riparian resources, and sensitive resources at springs and seeps do
not continue beyond an agreed upon period of time. Guidelines 1-2, and 4-9 from the
"Grazing Management Guidelines" section below should be implemented as soon as
possible. Guideline 3, which will resttc~ access of open space-zoned lands along Tassajara
Creek to cattle, should be implemented concurrent with development of the northern
portion of the Eastern Dublin GPA area.
Ultimately, the elements of the grazing management plan will be focused on the properties
zoned rural residential/agriculture and open space noted on Figure 2B Land Use Map of
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan. Alternate watering
sources and limited exclusionary fencing to protect Tassajara Creek, major tributaries, and
seeps and springs will be required only if cattle or horses are being grazed on those lands.
Grazing Management Goals
The goals are guided by EIR Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0 for the protection and
enhancement of native biological resources. Goals cover the following general areas of
resource protection: riparian area protection, protection of sensitive species, recovery of
native plant cover, fire hazard management, prevention of soil erosion or degradation of
soil resources, water quality protection, and wildlife protection from rodenticide impacts.
Management measures used to achieve these goals can include grazing water source
development, fencing integrated pest management, and/or habitat protection and restoration.
Grazing shall be conducted consistent with the goals described below.
Grazing Management Goal 1: Riparian habitat along Tassajara Creek and major
tributaries will be-protected from excessive grazing in the future. Livestock impacts on
riparian vegetation, water quality and soil erosion will be reduced from current levels..
Grazing Management Goal 2: Adverse impacts from grazing to habitats or populations of
sensitive wildlife and plant species including known occurrences and potential habitat for
the red-legged frog will be minimized in the future.
Grazing Management Goal 3: Fire hazards may be managed through the appropriately
timed rotation of domestic livestock which will consume vegetative material likely to
develop into significant fire hazards.
Grazing Management Goal 4: Soil erosion within the Tassajara Creek corridor, major
tributaries and seeps and springs will not be exacerbated by cattle and horse grazing in the
future.
Grazina Management Goal 5: Adverse impacts to water quality in the Tassajara Creek
corridor, major tributaries, seeps and springs associated with cattle and horse grazing will
be reduced in the future.
Grazin~ Management Goal 6: Native plant cover, including perennial grasses and native
plant diversity in riparian and wetland areas will be protected from excessive grazing
through the development of alterna~..watering sources in upland locations away from:
known occurrences of sensitive plant species.
Grazing Management Goal 7: Local wildlife will not suffer adverse impacts from the use
ofrodenticides used in ranching operations to control ground squirrels.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
City of Dublin Role
The City of Dublin will be responsible for enforcing implememation of this grazing plan.
Landowners shall be required to comply with this grazing plan as conditions of rezone or
tentative map approval. The City has no control over lessees except through the property
owners. In cases where property owners are not applying for rezone or tentative map
approvals, the City would ask the property owners and lessees to voluntarily emer into an
agreement to adopt measures consistent with this grazing plan. The City of Dublin should
initiate discussions with landowners and grazing lessees watering cattle or horses along
Tassajara Creek or major tribmaries to review this grazing plan with the goal of
developing alternate watering sources and exclusionary fencing.
Should landoWners wish tO pursue a cooperative watershed management group, the City
of Dublin should take a leadership-role in the formation and management of the group,
working with landowner~i' and grating lessees, East Bay Regional Parks District, Alameda
County ResourCe Conservation District, a/id the Farm Services Agency.
The City of Dublin will be' able to enforce the provisions of this grazing management plan
during review of applications for rezone and tentative map applications. Applications
could be denied if not in compliance with the grazing management plan.
The City of Dublin should work with Camp Parks staff to ensure that the fences along the
Camp Parks border that abuts the Eastern Dublin GPA area are maintained to keep
livestock within Camp Parks boundaries.
Monitoring of this grazing plan by the City of Dublin will be required, and is described
below in the section on Monitoring and Evaluation Standards.
Landowner Responsibilities: Cooperative Watershed Management Group and/or
Individual Landowner Implementation
Landowners who graze livestock within the Eastern Dublin GPA area will be responsible
as conditions of project approval for implementing the measures described herein to
protect riparian resources and seeps and springs. Should landowners wish to secure
assistance developing altemate watering sources, a cooperative watershed management
group among ranchers, grazing l~sees, _the City of Dublin, East Bay Regional Parks..
District, Alameda County Resource Conservation District, and the Farm Services Agency
should be instituted. City of Dublin staff would facilitate formation of the group and lead
meetings. Alternatively, should landowners who graze cattle and horses on lands adjacent
to Tassajara Creek, major tributaries or seeps and springs prefer to independently develop
alternate water sources and protect sensitive biological resources without any cost-shar:mg
assistance, there may be no need for such a watershed management group. Cooperation
with a watershed management group would be voluntary, but the protections described
below in the guidelines will be required whether ranchers work with the group or prefer to
work independently.
Focus of Cooperative Watershed Management Group
If instituted, the focus of the group should be on the development of alternate water and
nutrient sources, and their location away from ripafian areas along Tassajara Creek, major
tributaries and sensitive resources at springs and seeps. Other issues could include pest
management, soil conservation, restoration of native plants, and enhancement of native
wildlife populations.
Technical and Funding Assistance :..!:.,. ,
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil Conservation
Service) can .provide technical assistance, while the Farm Services Agency administers the
Agriculture Conservation Program cost-sharing program. Cost-sharing assistance for
landowners may be available through the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP),
administered by the Farm Services Agency for developing watering troughs away from
springs or seeps, or pumping water from the creek. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service can offer technical assistance, and already has extensive contacts with the ranching
community. A watershed-based cooperative approach between interested parties would
facilitate the acquisition of cost-sharing funds and/or a grant for implementing
improvements. Management of such a group is time-consuming however. If a watershed
management group is formed, the City of Dublin should anticipate taking a lead in its
formation and management. A longer lead time is now required to get cost-sharing grants
and a watershed approach with mukiple cooperators is preferred by the disbursing agency.
GRAZING MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Grazing generates income, reduces fire haz_~rd, and helps retain the rural ambiance of the are&
Recognizing the intensification of use anticipated by the Specific Plan, the adaptations of
7
grazing practices described in this documem will be needed to meet the expectations of
ranchers, the City of Dublin and future residents of the area.
Grazing within the Eastern Dublin GPA area should be consistent with the goals described
above and the guidelines developed in this section. This section describes grazing
management guidelines that will help ensure the resource protection required by the Specific
Plan. ------. _ .-
Protection of Riparian Areas, Springs and Seeps
Cattle and horses need watering sources, but left unconl~olled, can damage riparian and
wetland vegetation, cause soil disturbance, degrade water quality, reduce the limited area of
this critically important habitat area, and reduce the value of riparian, spring and seep habitats.
Tassajara Creek, major tributaries, and the seeps and springs featured on Figure 3.7-A of the
EIK for the Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Spedtic Plan are critically
important in supporting wildlife and wetland vegetation given the hot, dry, rainless summers of
the region. These water sources increase the habitat value of the surrounding area for wildlife,
and provide habitat for plant and animal species that require aquatic habitat or a weftand
environment for all or part of their life stages. The red-legged frog populations and areas of
native vegetation noted on Figures 3.7-A and 3.7-C are largely dependent on the wetland and
riparian resources of the area, particularly deep pools that hold water year-round. To protect
these resources, cattle and horse watering should be shifted away from the creek, major
m]>utaries, and seeps or springs to troughs in upland locations, if poss~le. There is evidence in
the literature that cattle even prefer drinking from a trough to a stream (Clawson, 1993).
Supplemental feeding stations in upland locations will also reduce cattle and horse use of the
creek, m'butaries, seeps and springs. Development of alternate watering sources can only occur
if sufficient water is available however. There may be cases where the development of alternate
water sources is infeasible because ofwater scarcity. Landowners and the City of Dublin will
have to negotiate solutions in these situations.
Guideline 1: Watering troughs and nutrient dispensers should be developed in upland locations
above the top of banks of Tassajara Creek and major tributaries throughout the Eastern Dublin
C.*PA area where livestock grazing currently occurs adjacent to the Tassajara Creek, major
m'butaries, springs or seeps.
Watering troughs should be fed by lines regulated by shut-offvalves to prevent any overflow of
the troughs or excess drainage of the springs or seeps. Gravity flow pipeline systems should be
installed, as needed, to transport water from wells, isolated springs or seeps, or pool areas
along dry creeks to storage sites outside of the fipadan area_ In some cases, a pump may be
required to fall troughs where large grade differences occur. Sufficient water should remain to
protect weftand values when a water source is developed to accommodate grazing animals.
Guideline 2: Exdosures should be constructed to protect weftand areas and thek ecotones
(i.e. the transition between habitats) around the springs, seeps, and spring-fed ponds where
grazing occurs. These exclosures should be gated to allow for the option oflimited springtime
8
grazing. to keep surrounding vegetation from becoming weedy and rank Gates shall be dosed
to cattle and horses during the late springtime to keep weftand vegetation from being grazed
heavily when adjacent hillsides begin to dry. Alternate sources of drinldng water for grazing
animals should be provided outside of the enclosed area. Exclosures must not present barriers
to wildlife. Three to five-strand barbed wire fences are compatible with wildlife passage. Hog
wire could be used if wild pigs are a problem in the area, but hog wire would impede the
passage of native wildlife and is the. ze, fore less preferable than barbed wire. .-
Guideline 3: Livestock grazing in open space areas OS 2 and 3 (discussed above in "Area
Covered by Grazing Plan"; and graphically represented on attached Figure 2B ) should be
discontinued when adjacent development occurs in the future because access to upland forage
would be eliminated, and all livestock use would be concentrated within the riparian area.
Movement of livestock into OS 2 from lands to the north of the Eastem Dublin GPA area
should be prevented through the installation of limited exclusionary fencing. Ownership and
management options for these areas are explored in the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream
Restoration Plan (Sycamore Associates, 1996). '
Guideline 4: Livestock grazing should be excluded from the an'oyo willow riparian woodland
along "the Fallon Road tributary through the installation of exclusionary fencing.
Management of Rare, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants
No rare or endangered plants were found during field surveys for the EIR_ The alkali springs
are sufficiently degraded to merit no special'protection from gr~zlng. but may be considered as
mitigation sites for future development.
Wildlife Habitat Protection ·
Plant' corninfinities are not ~a_,ic but change in reaction to climate, fire, drought, plant
competition, and other events. W'~dlife communities change in response to changes in the plant
community. W'~dlife species native to this region evolved with these plant communities, and
developed preferences for various successional stages. Some species are _n_cjapted only to
certain habilat conditions, and when those conditions disappear, so do dependent wildlife
Known occurrences of semitive wildlife species within the areas to be zoned rural
residential/agriculture or open space in the Eastern Dublin GPA area include: golden eagle nest
on northeastern m'butary, raptor nests, red-legged frog populations east of Tassajara Creek,
and potential kit fox den sites. Crazing is not incompatible with the protection of the golden
eagle or raptor nests, therefore livestock need not be excluded from the areas adjacent to these
nests. Kit fox surveys conducted during the preparation of the EIK failed to detect the presence
of kit fox but potential den sites were found (see Figure 3.7-C). Because grazing is compatible
with kit fox habitat, no exclusionary fencing is needed.
Guideline 5: Exclusionary fencing shall be installed around the known locations ofred-Iegged
flog populations on tributaries in the northeast portion of the Eastern Dublin GP A area.
Exclosures shall be gated to allow the option of limited springlime grazing to keep surrounding
9
vegetation from becoming weedy and rank Exclosures must not present barriers to native
wildlife. Three to five-strand barbed wire fences are compatible with wildlife passage and
should be used. Gates shall be dosed to cattle and horses during the late springtime to keep
wetland vegetation from being grazed heavily when adjacent hillsides begin to dry.
Fire Hazard Reduction
Grazing can be used to signiticantly-t~;luce_the volume and height of fuels in the Eastem Dnblin
GPA area' s non-native grasslands. Fuel loads can be optimafly managed through the
determination of carrying capacity and close monitoring of stocking numbers, timing and
duration of grazing. Fuel levels can be managed, and the goal is to leave the optimal mount to
protect soil resources and assure grass stocking for the following year. Stock rotation however,
requires the availability and feas~ility of alternate range. The most significant sources of
ignition lie along Tassajara and Fallon roads. Cattle and horse grazing in the rural
residential/agriculture and open space areas adjacent to these roads will reduce fuel loads.
Guideline 6: Excessive fuel loads in rural residential/agriculture and open space areas adjacent
to Tassajara and Fallon roads can be managed by cattle and horse grazing. Optimal herd s'=es,
timing and rotation can be determined using the information provided in the Forest Service :'.:.
Range Environmental Analysis Handbook (1984) and the East Bay Regional Parks District - "'
Wildland Management Policies and Guidelines (1992).
Soil Erosion and Water Quality Protection
Cattle and horse use of Tassajara Creek, major tributaries, seeps and springs will be greatly
reduced through the development of alternate watering sources, and with exclusionary fencing
around springs and seeps. Reducing cattle and horse use of the creek will serve io protect
water quality as well as reduce soil erosion along livestock tracks down into the creek The
protection roeatoms described in Guideline 1 above will serve to protectwater quality and..
reduce soil erosion. .--
Native Plant Cover
Native plant cover along Tassajara: Creek, m'butaries, seeps and springs will be protected by the
development of alternate watering sources and limited exclusionary fencing. These measures
are desre'bed in Guideline 1. Restoration planrings are discussed in the Eastem Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Plan (Sycamore Associates, 1996).
Range Forage Utilization
The amount of mulch or residual dry matter (dead plant matter, RDM) remaining in any one
year can influence plant productivity and plan~ composition the following growing season.
Low amounts of mulch tend to favor the growth of undesirable plants (Heady 1956, Hooper
and Heady 1970). An optimum mixture of desirable plant species results on non-native
grassland where 600 to 800 pounds per acre are lef~ (Pitt and Heady 1978, Bartolome et al.
1980). Too much mulch results in a thatch, which inhibits new plant growth (Clawson and
McDougald 1982). In general, more mulch is needed in steep areas than on flat land. Plant
cover is another important variable that n~xts consideration.
10
Guideline 7: Forage utiliT~tion by grazing animals should be managed by landowners to
assure that appropriate amounts of RDM remain on the ground at the end of the season.
Various residual mulch guidelines exist for different sites in the-California annual grassland type
(Clawson and McDougald 1982, U.S. Forest Service 1984).
In general, four to six inches of standing vegetation should remain at the end of the grazing
season. Individual areas may have st~ial circumstances that require that additional mulch-
remain. Residue requirements will vary according to the need to promote soil stability,
maintain plant productivity, or protect wildlife habitat. Plant cover should be ~fficient to
minimize bare areas subject to erosion.
Supplemental Feeding
In fall and early winter domestic livestock are often unable to consume enough forage to meet
their nutritional needs. This deficiency may be offset by feeding grains, molasses, or hay.
During the late winter and spring, an adequate diet of all the essential nutrients, with the
possBIe exception of salt and certain minerals, can be obtained from the natural forage. Forage
quality follows a declining trend as the seasons progress, and further supplementation is often
necessary. In order to minimize cattle and horse impacts on riparian and weftand resources,
supplemental feeding stations should be located in upland locations away from these areas.
Guideline 8: Supplemental feeding of cattle and horses, if needed, should be provided outside
of the riparian buffer along Tassajara Creek, major m'butaries and away from the wetland areas
around springs and seeps.
Rodenticide and Herbicide Use
Rodenticides are known to harm native wildlife, including camivores and other non-target
species,- especially raptors and kit fox_Furthermore, the squirrel populations that are often the
target of rodenticide poisonhag are beneficial to many native wildlife species of the region, _
including kit fox, burrowing owl, red legged frog and Califomia tiger salamander. Program 6N
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan stipulates that
"The use ofrodenticides and herbicicles within the project area should be restricted to
avoid impacts on wildlife. The City of Dublin shall require any poisoning programs to be
done in cooperation with and under supervision of the Alameda County Department of
Agriculture."
Guideline 9: To protect wildlife populations and habitat, the use ofrodenticides within the
project area should be restricted. Ground squirrels should be controlled by trapping and
shooting or accepted integrated pest management (IPM) procedures and practices consistent
with other City of Dublin regulations. Landowners are encouraged to assess the extent of
pest infestations and define the actual threat prior to initiating a control program. The use of
herbicides to control noxious weeds should be consistent with label precautions.
11
MONITORING
Monitoring by the City of Dublin
Through discussions with landowners and grazing lessees, the City should negotiate voluntary
agreements for the installation of watering troughs, supplemental feeding stations and
exclusionary fencing around springs and seeps consistent with this grazing management plan.
Compliance with the grazing managere'Lint plan will be conditions for rezone and tentative-map
approval.
The City of Dublin will conduct annual site checks to determine whether watering troughs have
been developed and are functionally maintained, and if exclusionary fencing around springs,
seeps and red-legged frog locations has been installed, is being adequately maintained, and if
management of limited springtime grazing is protecting the wetland resources. Should any
mares agreed upon by the City of Dublin and landowners or the cooperative watershed
management group be inadequately implememed, the City of Dublin should send a letter to the
responsible landowner, asking that corrective measures be taken to ensure compliance with the
grazing management plan and the individual timetable and agreement between the City and the
landowner.
City staff should also develop a worldng agreement with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the Alameda County Resource Conservation District or a private consultant to
monitor the condition of the vegetation in the riparian buffer along Tassajara Creek, tributaries
and springs and seeps in areas being grazed. Adjustments in the location of supplemental
feeding stations or the need for additional exclusionary fencing should be developed with the
technical assistance available through these parties. ·
12
REFERENCES
Bartolome, J.W., M.C. Stroud, and H.F. Heady. 1980. Influence of Natural Mulch on Forage
Production on Differing California Annual Range Sites. Journal of Range Management
33:4-8.
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Gen~a+Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and FEIK '-
December 1992.
Clawson, Jet~ey E. 1993. The Use of Off-stream Water Developments and Various Water
Gap Configurations to Modify the Watering Behavior of Grazing Cattle. Unpublished
Masters Thesis. Oregon State University.
Clawson, W.J. and N.K. McDougald. 1982. Residual Dry Matter as Utilization Standards for
California Annual Range. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal
Science.
East Bay Re~onal Park District 1992. W~dland Management Policies and Guidelines.
Adopted August 18, 1992.
Heady, H.F. 1956. Changes in a California Annual Plant Community Induced by Manipulation
of Natural Mulch. Ecology 37:798-812.
Hooper, J.F. and H.F. Heady. 1970. An Economic Analysis of Optimum Rates of Grazing in
the California Annual-type Grassland. Journal of Range Management 23:307-311.
Pitt, M.D. and H.F. Heady. 1978. Responses of Annual Vegetation to Temperature and
Rainfall Patterns in Northern California. Ecology 59-2:336-350.
Sycamore Associates, Balance Hydrologics and dk Associates. 1996. Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Plan. (draf[)
U.S. Forest Service 1984. Range Environmental Analysis Handbook.
16
..
General Plan
,,,_.,.,] -Eastern Extended Planning Area
co ,-/" """ i ' LAND USE MAP
cos~72~o. i Legend
' "', "~=~,,_~//~~~.,,e..~iI ,~'~'__l '~'FU**TUREcroSTUDy'~A ,RE~A
,/,,/u ! COMMERCIAL
% I ~ , ~ Campus Office
/" ~."~ ~ ..A I L ~ RESIDENTIAL
,~ ':~%2~II~ ' ,~P~ ' ~ Medium Density G-14 ~/ac
.;:::,,,;;;,~2;~H% ~ ~ .. ~ LOw Density ~ ~ac
~ ~ Rural ResidenliaVAgdcul~ure I ~/100 ac
.... ; ',':~ ' "" . !
,% %..::',',o~,~,~",.~.;~,U-~~)~ AGRICULTURE : , e
Z--, :'. "'.-':.C L .....,--J··
, 'Q. ~ I ?"' ~ : ;-I - ':" :.' t ~ ~ .. e NeighbOrnoOd Park
....................... · t : ~ '~ .- e CIRCOLATION
, ....~~" '-':'~="t':"::'-5:"~"'~-.:,"'~ ..........I
- ' ' ......;:'" I -, ' '.- .- ~-...."' .......,: ......oz..: .:.~.,,,,~.". __ ej
, ................, ................: ........................, .....; .........,.,,...:.....:....,..: ........,.
i "'f' ..........;'F'-=;,: ........:-=L~,--z: .......i~j. , ....--"" , DUBLIN
. ;.. , . .----, --,, ._.~
· -_ , Wa~ace Robeffs & Todd Figure
,-..~---,.. =-,... :z ..... .....h,..-.... ............. ..... ...... .~.% .............~ .......~ ./~
............... :q .................................<<7.~ ......................., .........-.-;,.,~ ..............~......~.,
Legend
....... General Plan Amendment Area
~'.:;~ .... Specific Plan Area
I~ .De~.v..'eloped
mmm Northern
Riparian forest
r'~
grassland
[] Dry-farming
rotational cropland
]'ntermittent streams
[] Alkalai grassland
[] Arroyo willow
riparian woodland
hA j. [] Ruderal field
[] Freshwater marsh
· SpringS, seeps,
Stock tanks and ponds
· '~";"" DUBLIN
· ~.' EASTERN
GPA · SP ° EIR
Wallace Roberts & Todd Figure 3.7 - A
40
:. ""' .... --' :':": -:" -~ - :, 2-: ........- :.I:~·-<: .~ }::. :~.~.::..,.G:~,\-::~.~ ~...,~-~__.., -- ....:.. Ge.era, p,a.A.~endmentArea
' - - ' ...... :-"-.-' : · .... : '. · ~ -,'~i '~.;~-:' ....... '. '~. ': ~ './, .-, ~
' .- '~;".~- "."-, . /' ~ '- /. ' - z ........ · ....~ - : ;' · : 7 ~ ? .... _ ' .,~,:: ..;~ -'~, ~'., · Red tailed hawk
' ~' · '; ': '- ' . · -~"" ,- : ~-' ' .. : .... '. ' ',,. "~ ~' ~ or other raptor nest
· :,..~,,:.,~....:. ,.:.:--.......,.- :z--_-:. :~.j'.:'.._""-.....-,- -: ~%'--.,-.-;.,~..'.,,:'.: ...
~~ ~ ;" , ~.._.?.:_.:..~ -.. '~:~7---::---~
- ~ ..'~ ' '. - .' > -. ':,'. Z' ,'-:, : . -,.- .' -. ..:: :: _ , - ' '.~' , . -.: ,- . '. "-~ .~, ~:: ~. -,, ~ -Western pond tulle location
.,/'.:.,...~:.~./z./ ;....._ :,.'._....:. _ .-, . ~.-,~-- ·. 3.- .-'."'-_'-'~::~:j::--~'.-~,
,-.,.: ~. ,:~'L~. '. ~'.,~,./' . "~.": _ ..,. :~..:. Po,~.,~, ~ ~o~
_~:~ .....,~: r.,."/~."---,.~" '~ '~" ':x'- '; ~' *~ --,,...-~-.:,.~. ,,~~.,~:3.~-.-,-
/ ~. /-: "i:: !. '. - :' '' - . ~ - ',_ -'~' j - -- ~"': .~' ..:~. ',' .: b Approximate area searched
..' · :.: -~'./'~::" >-'-V'.L' -:.-':: '~: :- ' ~.-'':"" -:: ,- '~ ~" "": '"':~:"" ~''"~ ,o~ ~. ~o~,. ~,, ,o~
.-" ' .:. ', .' ." .-;:-::-"~ :'---:.:-'- ,-'---,:._~'-.- .~--
.- .... 2. ,,,' -.-'..] ?-.- ~- ..- . ',,.~ '.~-.'-:-~.: .....· .
' ~' ' . / Z"~'=: .... , - .., .,/-:~., .
. ..' ~.- : . ~ . ;~ ' .. ,--.:--~:.: ~- - .. - .~. ,~ - _ , - . : ·: , .:~-'..~.
· . ......:::-.-':. :' ..=._ ~...:.' .:. .--.--: ,: --_., . ~] ~ : ~ --~ "~ .....~.. :~
: -- :: - .-"'. " ~ .' -'"" '- : -. ' : ' 5. '?' ""
....... · ,': ' ' -' '~-'-- '~ --. -- ' '- - ~ r ' ', - "'., ~dO/: '
-~,- ,_._ ..-.., .. ....~, = · ~-~ -m -
'T* T~:-, - ' t '
EASTERN DUBLIN
GPA · SP ° .EIR
Wallace Robarts & Todd Figure 3.7 - C
City Of Dublin
Wildfire Management
Plan
Developed by:
The City of Dublin
in cooperation with the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
Adopted:
1996
Resolution No,
CITY OF DUBLIN WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PURPOSE
The purpose of this plan is to reduce the risk of open land wildfire to the lowest practical level consisteni''e~'
with reasonable protection of wildlife habitat and other open space values.
AUTHORITY
Adopted by the Dublin City Council Resolution Number__ dated
,1996.
REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED
This plan, when implemented, will create effects or satisfy requirements as follows:
Implementation of the Wildfire Management Plan is the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
· Vegetation and habitat (in open space) will only change as a result of natural forces or other
actions, since this plan does not impose requirements into open space.
This plan, when implemented, provides a Fire Buffer Zone between open space/undeveloped lands
and developed properties; therefore, no additional brush control measures are required where this
plan is utilized.
Vegetation growth within areas affected by this plan will be monitored in two ways. First, all areas
will be inspected in accordance with the Fire Department's Nuisance Abatement Program. Second,
whenever any building, grading or other activity affects open space or Fire Buffers, it will be
reevaluated.
Wildlife habitat will be evaluated by the City when any change is proposed in open space areas.
APPLICABILITY
This Wildfire Management Plan applies to all new development within the City of Dublin.
DEFINITIONS
Adjacent to Open Space - This refers to, commercial parcels and residential lots which have a point of
contact with open space.
Adjacent to Undeveloped Land - This refers to. commercial parcels and residential lots which have a
point of contact with undeveloped land.
Fire Buffer Zone - Areas A, B, C and D of the "Vegetation Establishment and Maintenance Guidelines"
contained in this plan.
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page
Irrigated o To supply water to the Fire Buffer Zone artificially by means of pipes, pumps, etc.
Landscape Plan - This plan specifies the plantings which are to be utilized in areas A, B, C and D of
the Fire Buffer Zone.
Open Space - For purposes of this plan, open space is defined as those lands which are set aside to
remain permanently undeveloped.
Undeveloped Land - For purposes of this plan, undeveloped land is that land which is available for
development but no Tentative map has been approved, and land designated for governmental use for
which no development plan has been approved.
Vicinity Plan - Areas within 300 feet of boundaries or property lines of subdivisions, commercial parcels
and residential lots..Vicinity Plans include property lines, structures, slope, vegetation, fuel breaks,
water supply systems and access roads.
ALTERNATIVE METHODS
An applicant wishing to use alternative methods shall submit their request to the Fire Chief in
accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 103 as amended by the City or its designee.
An applicant wishing to appeal a requirement placed upon them by the requirements of this plan shall
file their appeal in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 103 as amended by the City or its
.designee.
OWNERSHIP AND FINANCING OF MAINTENANCE FOR OPEN SPACE
The City requires that a responsible entity be selected or formed to be responsible for owning and
maintaining open space. The City also requires that the owner of record and maintenance responsibilities
to be disclosed to potential purchasers of property.
Ownership of Open Lands
Possible Forms of Ownership
The City will evaluate each proposed project on
a case by case basis to determine ownership of
open space affiliated with the project. A
determination of ownership will be made in the
Master Tentative Map development agreement, ·
or in conjunction with tract map approval. Once
ownership is determined, responsibility for
maintenance will be assigned.
The City will assign one or more forms of
ownership to all open space as it is developed.
City Owned - VVhen the City determines that the
needs will be best served by City ownership of
the open space, the developer will be required to
prepare the land according to all approved
specifications and other requirements prior to
transfer of ownership to the City.
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page 2
Developer/Home Owner Association Owned-
When the developer retains control of the open
space, the City will require that the developer
post a bond adequate to ensure Fire Buffer Zone
development. The development agreement or
site plan approval will specify performance
standards for the developer to meet, regarding
open space development.
Other Governmental Agency Owned - Only with
the City's approval can the ownership'~of open
space be transferred to another governmental
body.
Possible Maintenance Sources
Where not in conflict with other City policies
maintenance of the open space will be the
responsibility of one party. A determination of
responsibility for maintenance will be made in
conjunction with tract map approval or in the
development agreement.
City Provided - When the City elects to maintain
open space: all associated expenses will be 'the
responsibility of the City.
· Home Owner Association Provided - When the
City requires a Home Owner Association to own
open space, all maintenance will be in
accordance with City specifications at the
expense of the Home Owner Association.
Other Govemmental Agency Provided - When
the City approves ownership by a Governmental
Agency, that Governmental Agency will provide
maintenance. All maintenance will be in~ :::-.
accordance with City specifications at tt-
expense of that Governmental Agency.
Possible Funding Sources for Maintenance
The City will determine which is the most
appropriate method of funding' open space
maintenance on a case by case basis.
Methods include:
· New Assessment District
· Annex to Existing Assessment District
· Privately Funded by a homeowner's
association or similar body
· Other Funding Source
'Notice to Owners
The developer will be responsible for disclosing
to all purchasers of property the ownership and
maintenance responsibilities and funding
mechanism for open space which is affiliated with _.
the purchaser's proper~y. In addition to an
notices required by law, this disclosure will be
recorded on the title at time of sale of the
property.
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Plans will be examined for compliance with the Wildfire Ma. nagement Plan in accordance with the
following schedule:
Tentative Map
Tentative map
following issues:
submittals will address the
· Ownership of open space and Fire Buffer
Zone
· Maintenance of open space and Fire Buffer
Zone
City of Dublin W~ldlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page 3
· Funding mechanism for maintenance of open
space and Fire Buffer Zone.
Site Development Review
Plans submitted for site development review will
address the following issues:
· Design of the Fire Buffer Zone
· Maintenance and Irrigation Plan for t'h'e Fire
Buffer Zone
· Maintenance Plan for Open Space
· Maintenance Specifications
· Budget for the Maintenance Program
· Preliminary Landscape plan for privately
owned properties
· Vicinity Plan
Buildina Plan Review
Building plan submittals will address the following
issues:
Final Landscape plans
Construction requirements for properties
adjacent to open space and undeveloped
lands
Final Approval of the Completed Project Prior to
Occupancy
All sites, tracts and buildings will be subject to a
final inspection by each approving department.
Departments will give final approval only after all
conditions which have been placed on it by that
department have been complied with.
Fees
All fees to all departments must be current before
any of the following actions are taken:
· Tentative Map Approval
· Site Development Review
· Issuance of a Building Permit
· Final inspection of a Completed Project
prior to occupancy
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS ON LOTS OR PARCELS ADJACENT TO
OPEN SPACE AND UNDEVELOPED LAND
Roof Covering
Roof covering shall be Class A roof
coverings. For roof coverings where the
profile allows a space between the roof
covering and roof decking, the space at the
eve ends shall be fire stopped to preclude
entry of flames or embers. Roof decking
shall be solid. Space sheathing shall be
prohibited.
Protection of Eaves
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 (51
ram) nominal dimension lumber.
Gutters and Downspouts
Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed
of noncombustible material.
Exterior WalEs
Exterior walls of buildings or structures shall
be constructed with materials approved for
one-hour-rated fire-resistive construction on
City of Dublin VVildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page 4
the exterior side or with noncombustible
materials.
Exception: Heavy timber construction. Such
material shall extend from the top of the
foundation to the underside of the roof
sheathing.
Unenclosed Underfloor Protection
Buildings or structures shall ha're all
underfloor areas enclosed to the ground with
exterior walls.
Exception: Complete enclosures may be
omitted where the underside of all exposed
floors and all exposed structural columns,
beams and supporting walls are protected as
required for exterior one-hour-rated fire-
resistive construction or heavy timber
construction.
Appendages and Projections
Unenciosed accessory structures attached to
buildings with habitable spaces and
projections, such as decks, shall be of one-
hour-rated fire-resistive construction, heavy
timber construction or constructed with
noncombustible mateddais.
When the attached structure is located and
constructed so that the structure or any
portion thereof projects over a descending
slope surface, the area below the structure
shall have all underfloor areas enclosed to
within 6 inches of the ground, with exterior
walls.
Windows
Exterior windows, window walls and skylights
shall be tempered glass or multilayered
glazed panels.
Exterior doors
Exterior doors, other than vehicular access
doom to garages, shall be non-combustible or
solid core not less than 1-314" thick. When
windows are within doors, they shall be of
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
tempered glass or multilayered glazed
panels.
Vents
Attic ventilation openings, foundation or
underfloor 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
noncumbustible corrosion-resistaint mesh with
openings not to exceed 114 inch.
Attic ventilation openings shall not be located
in softits, in eave overhangs, between rafters
at eaves, or in other overhang areas.
Underfloor ventilation openings shall be
located as close to grade as practical.
Detached Accessory Structures and Fences
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 fire-resistive construction, heavy timber
construction or constructed . with .:'~:-
noncombustible materials on the exterior ":'
side. When the detached structure is located
and constructed so that the structure or any
portion thereof projects over a descending
slope surface, the area below the structure
shall have all underfloor areas enclosed to
within 6 inches of the ground, with exterior
walls.
Fences shall be separated from the
perimeter of buildings containing habitable
space by connection to buildings as shown in
Figure 1 when the fence is made of
combustible material.
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
Automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be
required in all buildings that are adjacent to
open space or undeveloped land. The
installation of the automatic fire sprinkler
systems shall be in accordance with
standards approved by the City.
Page 5
PLAN
EXTERI[3R
BUILDING
LINE
4' EXTERIOR
VENEER
4 -- ~5
MINIMUM
G'-O' HIM.
DEPTH OR
REFER TQ
PROJECT
REPORT.
I 16' SQUARE
CONCRETE
t'BLOCK
PILASTER
EXTERIOR
VENEER
TO MATCH
EXTERIOR
(STUCCO,
84'X24'XI8'
--CONCRETE
GRADE BEAM
33IA.
EL~'VATION
1/2' SPACE
MINIMUM
FINISH
BRICK, STONE, ETC.)
NOTES=
1. FILL ALL CELLS WITH GROUT.
MORTAR SHALL ~E GRADE 'N'.
3. CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
SHALL ~E A MINIMUM DF ~500 psi.
4o RE~AR SHALL ~E GRADE
5. NO SPECIAL INSPECTION.
MASDNRY PILASTER AT FENCE/I}UILDING
SCALE, 1'=1'
Figure I
City of Dublin Wildl~re Management Plan
JuDy 9, 1996
Page
STANDARDS FOR VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE
The City requires that all new development utilize the following standards for vegetation
establishment and maintenance.
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINtS
0% TO 10% SLOPE
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES
10% TO 20% SLOPE
i
The First 3 Feet
Maintain an area of non combustible material -
flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc.
4 thru 13 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
14 thru 30 feet :
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
The shaded areas (upslope) of& B, C and D remain a constant
distance of 30 feet combined. The shaded are_,a begins from the
midsection of astmcmre. The unshaded areas {downslope) of B,
C and D increase with slope as detailed below:
The First 3 Feet
Maintain an area ofnoncombustible material
flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc.
4 thru 19 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs ofail remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
20 thru 45 feet
Thin ~'ees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
46 thru 70 feet
Thin trees to I0 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs ofalt remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
Page 7
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES
20% TO 30% SLOPE
The shaded areas (upslope) of B, C and D remain a constant
distance of 30 feet combined. The shaded area begins from the
midsection of a structure. The unshaded areas (downslope) of B,
C and D increase with slope as detailed below:
The First 3 feet
Maintain an area of noncombustible material -
flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc.
4 thin 24 feet
Thin trees to l 0 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of remaining trees t0 15 feet or one-third
the total live crown height, whichever is less.
25 thru 55 feet
Thin trees to I0 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of remaining trees to 15 feet or one-third
the total live crown height, whichever is less.
56 thru 100 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT
GUIDELINES GREATER THAN 30% SLOPE
When developed, slopes of greater than 30% shall be
evaluated on a case by case basis.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT
GUIDELINES IN OTHER OPEN SPACE
There are no requirements for vegetation reduction or
modification in open space that is not affected by the
guidelines for 0% to 10% Slope, 10% to 20% Slope,
20% to 30% Slope or Greater than 30% Slope.
VEGETATION MAINTENANCE
The city requires that a maintenance program be
established for Fire Buffer Zone Areas A, B, C and
D that will maintain plant specie, s according to city
approved specifications. Maintenance programs
should specifically prevent the introduction of
unapproved species and plan for removal of bio
mass, overgowth and dead foliage. The
maintenance progain should also plan for the
replacement of dead plants and plants which are
beyond useful life.
IRRIGATION
Where required for the establishment and/or
maintenance of plant species irrigation will be
utilized.
OPEN SPACE ACCESS
All open space areas shall have two points of access
suitable for wildland ftre apparatus. Minimum
unobstructed width of the access way must be 20
feel Access points must be no more than 1500"
from the furthest point of open space. Gates, when
utilized, must meet the key control requirements of
the fire department.
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
VEGETATION ON APPROVED LOTS
Plant species as shown for the area on the
Plant Species List may be established or
retained in the appropriate area.
Lawns and native grasses may be utilized in
all areas,-except Area A where native grass
is prohibited, provided they are kept mowed
to a height of three to four inches. When
native grasses are utilized mowing will be
limited to the months of May thru
November.
Page 8
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
VEGETATION INTO PERMANENTLY
DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE
Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into designated open
space the plantings established in the Fire Buffer
Zone will include only native grasses and native trees
shown on the Plant Species List. Grasses in t~he Open
Space Fire Buffer Zone will be kept mowed to a
height of three to four inches. Mowing will only
occur from the months of May thru November.
Where trees are established and/or maintained they
will be estasblished and maintained in accordance
with the appropriate zone. In Open Space where
other than native ~asses and native trees are utilized,
plantings will be irrigated.
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
VEGETATION ON UNDEVELOPED LAND
Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into undeveloped
land the plantings established in the Fire Buffer Zone
will include only native grasses and native trees
shown on the Plan Species List. Grasses in the
Undeveloped Land Fire Buffer Zone will be kept
mowed to a height of three to four inches. Mowing
will only occur from the months of May thru
November. Where trees are established and
maintained they will be established and maintained in
accordance with the appropriate zone. In
undeveloped land where other than native grasses
and native trees are utilized, plantings wilI be _
irrigated.
DISCING
Discing is not permitted in any Fire Buffer Zone or
Open Space for Fire Protection purposes.
TREES
Trees from the Plant Species List or trees with like
characteristics may be utilized in any zone.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page 9
Cit, )'Dublin I'lant Species and Area of Use Table
This table outlines plant species appropriate for planting in conjunction With the "Standards for Vegetation Establishment and Maintenance Guidelines."
Species - Latiu Name
Species Name
Species - Common Name
AREA A
Characteristics
Form Little Form Leaf Little High
Volume (dense (thici~ Dead Moisture
or Io~v) or large) Matter Content
This area must contain non-combustible material. Irrigated flowers are tim only suitable plant life.
AREA B
This area is suitable for all of the plant species shown for Area A above, and the following plant species.
Aeonimn arboremn- Atropurpureum Aeonium suc
Aeonium undulatum Saucer Plant sue
Agapanthus orientalis blue Lily of the Nile peren
Agapanthus "Peter Pan" Dwarf Lily of the Nile peren
Agave americana "Alba Picata"* Agave suc
Agave attenuata "Nova"* Blue Agave sue
Aloe arborenscens Torch Aloe sue
Aloe "Johnson's Hybrid" No Common Name sue
Aloe nobilis Aloe sue
Aloe Striata Coral Aloe sue
Aloe vera Medicinal Aloe suc
Aloe X spinosissima Spider Aloe i sue
Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree tree
Arctotheca calendua Capeweed gr cvr
Almeria alliacea* Sea Pink gr cvr
Almeria marirma* 'Sea Pink gr cvr
Mineral
Content
Freeze
Sensitive
0
0
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
Page I 0
Cify of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Speicies - Latin Name
Species Name
Species - Common Nante
Armerica pseupaemeria
(formosana)
Carissa grandi~ora "Tutter"
Carpobrofus edulis
Cercis occidentalis*
Coprosoma kirkii "Verde Vista"
Cotyledon barbenyii
Cotyledon macrantha
Cotyledon orbiculata
Crassula arborescens
Crassula argentea "Pink Beauty"
Crassula lactea
Crassula lactea "Taylor's Patch"
Crassula multicava
Crassula tetragona
Delosperma alba
Dietes "Lemon Drop"
Dietes bicolor
Dietes vegeta
Drosanthermum floribundum rosea
Drosanthennum hispidutn
Sea Pink
Natal Plum
Hottentot Fig
Western Redbud
Prostrate Mirror Plant
No common name
No common name
No colnnlon name
Silver Jade Plant
Pin Jade Plant
Crassula
Crassula
Crassula
Crassula
White Trailing Ice Plant
No Common Name
Yellow Wild Iris
White. Fortnight Lily
Ice Plant
Ice Pant
ForIll
gr cvr
shrub
sue
shrub
suc
suc
suc
sue
suc
suc
sue
sue
sLIc
Stlc
SUc
perch
perch
perch
perch
peren
Little
Volume
Fornl
(deilse
or Io~v)
0
Characteristics
Leaf
(thiclt
or large)
Little
Dead
Matter
gh Mineral Freeze
:lure Content Sensitive
tent
r 0 no
t 0 yes
c 0 yes
r 0 no
~ 0 yes
r O yes
r~"' 0 yes
r 0 yes
t 0 yes
r 0 no
r 0 yes
r O yes
t' 0 yes
r 0 yes
r O no
r 0 no
r 0 no
t. O no
r 0 no
r O no
tli
Moistu
Content
"'.:.'.::' PalZe 11
Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Speicies - Latin Nanle
Species Nattie
Species- Conunon Name
Duchesnea indica
Dymondia margaretae
Echeveria "Blue Wave"
Echeveria "Pinkie"
Echeveria "Topsy Turvy''
Erigeron "Moerheimii"*
Erigeron karvinskianus*
Fejoa sellowiana
Festuca tuba creeping*
Fragaria chileoensis*
Gazania "Mitsuwa Orange"
Gazania "Mitsuwa Yellow"
Hemerucallis (assorted)
Hesperaloe parvi~ora
Jasminum ligistifolium
Juniperus conferta
Kalanchoe pumila
Kniphofia uvaria
Lampranthus aurantiacus
Lampranthus spectabilis rosea
Macademea "Dr. Beaumont"
Mock Strawberry
No Common Name
Echeveria
Echeveria
Echeveria
Fleabane
Santa Barbara Daisy
Pineapple Guava
Red Fescue
Wild Strawberry
Orange Gazania
Yellow Gazania
Day Lily
Red Yucca
Shiny Leaf Jasmine
Shore Juniper
Kalanchoe
Red Hot Poker
Bush Gold
Trailing Ice Plant
Macademea
ForlR
grd cvr
grd cvr
SUe
SUe
StlC
perch
peren
shrub
grd evr
grd cvr
grd evr
grd evr
peren
Sue
vine
shrub
SLIC
pern
SUC
SUC
tree
Little
Voltline
ok
ok
O
O
For Ill
(dense
or low)
ok
0
0
0
Characteristics
Leaf Little
(thici¢ Dead
or large) Matter
~f
0 7
0 7
~
~
tigh Mineral Freeze
fisture Content Sensitive
intent
~ 0 no
~ 0 no
'~- 0 no
~ 0 no
~" 0 no
0 0 no
0 no
0 ~ no
0 0 no
~ 0 no
~' 0 no
~ 0 no
~" 0 no
~ 0 ?
~' 0 no
0 oils no
~r 0 no
~ 0 yes
'~ 0 yes
~r 0 yes
Moi.
Page 12
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Species Name
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Conunon Name
Malephora crocea
Myoporum Parvi/olium Prostrate
Nerjne masonorum
Nerium oleander "Mrs. Roeding"
Nerium oleander "Petite Salmon"
Pelargonium peltatum
Phormium tenax "Maori Maiden"
Photointo tenax "Maori Queen"
Phormium tenax "Maori Sunset"
Pittosporum c. "Compacta"
Pittosporum robira "Wheeler's
Dwarf"
Punlea Granatum "Nana"
Quercus agrifolia*
Ribes viburnifolium*
Scaevota "Mauve Clusters"
Schinus molle
Sedum acre
Sedum album
Sedum brevifoiium
Sedum confusum
Croceum Ice Plant
Myoporum
Nerine
Dwarf Pink Oleander
Fornl
SUe
grd cvr
bulb
shrub
Little
Volume
0
Form
(dense
or low)
O
Characteristics
Leaf Little
(thick Dead
or large) Matter
0 ~
0 ~
Dwarf Salmon Oleander shrub
Ivy Geranium peren
New Zealand Flax peren
New Zealand Flax peren
New Zealand Flax peren
Dwarf Karo shrub
Mock Orange shrub
Dwarf Pomegrante shrub
Coast Live Oak tree
Evergreen Currant shrub
Fan Flower grd cvr
CalifOrnia Pepper tree
Stonecrop suc
Stonecrop sue
Stonecr0p suc
Stonecrop sue
ligh Mineral Freeze
isture Content Sensitive
ntent
~ 0 yes
0 0 yes
'~ 0 no
~ 0 no
'~ 0 no
~'.l 0 no
0 0 no
0 0 no
0 0 no
~ 0 no
'~' 0 no
0 0 no
0 0 no
~ 0 no
~ 0 no
0 0 no
~ 0 yes
~ 0 yes
~ 0 yes
~ 0 ~r'yes
Mt
C.' )f Dublin Plant Species attd Area of Use Table
Speicies - Latin Name
Species Name
Species ~ Comtnon Name
Sedum lineare
Sedum rosea
Sedum rubrotinctum
Sedum spathulifolium "Purpureum"*
Senecio cinerea
Senecia kleinia "Mandraliscae"
Form Little
Volun~e
Stonecrop sue
Rose Root sue
Stonecrop suc
Stonecrop suc
Dusty Miller peren
No Cmnmon Name peren
For ili
(dense
or low)
Thevetia peruviana neriifolia
Tracbelospermum jasininoides
Tulbaghia violacea "Silver Lace"
Yucca Whipplei*
AREA C
Yellow Oleander sitrub O
Star Jasmine vine O
Society Garlic peren
Yucca peren
Characteristics
Leaf
(thiclt
or large)
0
0
Little
Dead
Matter,
0 0 ,
0 , ,
* 0 0
0 0 ,
This area is suitable for all of tile plant species shown for Areas A and B above, and tile following plant species.
Pink Yarrow ' ~
peren
Red Yarrow peren
White Yarrow peren
Yarrow peren
Wooly Yarrow :peren
Carpet Bugle grd cvr
Manzanita shrub
Manzanita shrub
Achillea millefolium "Cerise Queen"*
Achillea millefolium "Red Beauty"*
AcbiIlea millefolium white*
Achillea taygetea "Moonslfine"*
Achillea tomentosa*
Ajuga reptans
Arctostaphylos "Carreel Sur'*
Arctostaphylos "Emerald Carpet"*
0 ,
0 ,
0 ,
0 ~r
0 ~r
0 ~c
0 0
0 0
High
Moisture
Content
Mineral
Content
O
O
Freeze
Sensitive
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Page 14
City of Dublin l'!ant Species and Area of Use Table
Speicies - Latin Name
Species Name
Species - Common Name
Arctostaphylos "Woods Red"*
Arctotheca calendula
Artemisia "Canyon Gray"*
Artemisia Caucasica
Artemisia pycnocephala*
Atriplex nuttalli cuneata*
Atriplex muttalli gardneri*
Atriplex semibaccata
Centaurea gymnocarpa
Centranthus tuber
Centranthus ruber "Albus"
Cheiranthus Erysimum Cheiri
Coreopsis Ianceolata "Sun Ray"
Diplacus longifolius*
Diplacus puciceus*
Elymus condensatus "Canyon Prince'?*
Eriogonum crocatum*
EriogonUm grandi~ora rubesens*
Eschscholzia californica*
Galvesia speciosa*
Gaura lindheimerii*
Manzanita
Cape Weed
Silver Wormwood
Caucasian Sagebrush
No Common Name
Saltbrush
Saltbrush
Australian Saltbrush
Dusty Miller
Red Valerian
White Valerian
Wail flower
Coreopsis
Monkey Flower
Red Monkey Flower
No Common Name
Coastal Wild Gum
Island Buckwheat
California Poppy
Island Bush Snapdragon
Gaura
Form
shrub
grd cvr
shrub
grd cvr
shrub
shrub
shrub
shrub
peren
peren
peren
peren
peren
peren
peren
grd cvr
peren
shrub
peren
shrub
peren
Little
Voltline
?
~c
0
?
0
0
0
Forin
(dense
or
?
~c
0
?
0
0
0
0
Characteristics
Leaf
(thici{
or large)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Little
Dead
Matter
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
7
igh Mineral Freeze
sture Content Sensitive
flent
D 7 no
D ~' yes
9 ~r no
O ~c no
0 ~.~ yes
~ ~t' yes
~l ~r yes
~ 'A' yes
0 ~- no
~'r 0 no
er 0 no
~t 0 no
~ 0 no
0 0 no
0 0 no
0 0 no
0 0 no
0 0 ,lo
~ 0 no
~ 0 no
'~' 0 no
Hi
Cii~ )Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Spelcies - Latin Name
Species Name
Species - Common Name
Ganzania leucoleana hybrids
Gazania regens leucolaena
Geranium incahum
Geranium sanguuineum
Helichrysum petiolatum "nana"
lteuchera maxima*
Iris "Pacific Coast Hybrids"*
Koeleria glauca*
Lantana motevidensis
Lavandula dentara
Lavandula stoechas
Limonium perezil
Linaria maroccana
Myoporum parvifollium "Prostratum"
Oenothera berlandieri
Osteospermum fruticosum
Pelargonium pettatum
Penstem on "F irebird" *
Penstemon "Midnight"*
Penstemon "Skyline"*
Forin
Little
Volume
Trailing Yellow Gazania peren
Trailing Gazania peren
Stork's Bill Geranium 'peren
Geranium perch
Curry Plant annual
Coral Bells or Island Alum grd cvr
Root
California Iris peren
Blue Hair Grass perch
Lantana grd cvr
French Lavender perch
Spanish Lavender peren
Statice perch
Toad-Flax annual
No Common Name grd err
Mexican Evening Primrose perch
African Daisy grd cvr
Ivy Geranium peren
Red Penstemon peren
Beard Tongue peren
Penstemon peren
Cl~aracteristics
Form Leaf Little dead
(dense (thick Matter
or low) or large)
· Cr 0 ~
Cr 0 ~
'~f 0 0
~r ' 0 0
* 0 ,
* 0 ,
* 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
* 0 0
* 0 ,
* 0 ,
* 0 ,
* 0 ,
* 0 ,
h Mineral Freeze
.ure Content Sensitive
ent
0 no
O no
O no
O no
~r yes
O no
t O no
O no
O no
· ~ no
~ no
~ yes
O no
O no
O no
O no
O yes
0 no
0 no
0 no
Co.tent
,Or
Page 16
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Speicies - Latin Name
Species Name
Species - Common Name
Penstemon heterophyllus*
Perovskia atriplicifolia
Phyla nodi~ora
Rosmarinus officinalis "Prostrata"
Salvia "Allen Chickering"*
Salvia aurea
Salvia chamaedryoides
Salvia leucantha*
Salvia leucopylla*
Salvia sonomensis "Dara's Choice"*
Santolin Chamaecyparissus
Santolina virens
Sene¢ia "Vira-Vira"
Silene maritima
Sisyrichium californicum*
Stachysbyzantina
Thyme praecox articus
Thyme pseudolanuginOsus
Trichostema lanatum*
Vinca major
Vinca minor
Penslemon
Russian Sage
Lippia
Rosemary
Sage
Sage
Sage
Mexican Brush Sage
Purple Sage
Sage
Grey Lavender Cotton
Green Lavender Cotton
Dusty Miller
No Common Name
Yellow-Eyed Grass
Lamb Ears
Thyme
Thyme
Woody Blue Curls
Periwinkle
Myrtle
Form
peren
peren
grd err
'shrub
shrub
peren
shrub
shrub
shrub
peren
peren
peren
shrub
perch
peren
perch
peren
peren
shrub
grd cvr
shrub
Little
Volunle
'O
?
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
ForIll
(deuse
or low)
0
?
0
0
0
0
~r
0
0
Characteristics
Leaf
(thicl<
or large)
O
O
O
O
?
,~-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I~ittle
Dead
Mattel'
O
~r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
High Mineral Freeze
oisture Content Sensitive
'oateat
~ 0 no
0 ~ no
0 oils no
0 ~ no
0 ~ no
9 ~ no
0 ~ no
0 ~ no
0 ~ no
0 ~ no
0 ~ no
0 ~ no
~ ~ no
~ 0 no
~ 0 no
~ oils no
~ oils no
0 oils no
~ 0 no
~ 0 no
Ci: ~fDublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Speicies - Latin Name
Species Name
Species - Common Name
Yucca whipplei* [ Yucca
AREA D
Characteristics
Form Little Form Leaf
Volume (dense (thicl¢
or low) or large)
peren ~ ~- [ ~ ~-
This area is suitable for all of the plant species shown for Areas A, B and C above, and the following plant species.
White Alder tree, O ~- O
Manzanita shrub ~ ~'t O
Pajaro Manzaita shrub O O O
Sea Fig suc
Mt. Mahogany shrub
Mountain Lilac shrub
Mountain Lilac shrub
Mountain Lilac shrub
Mountain Lilac shrub
Mountain Lilac shrub
Mountain Lilac shrub
Mountain Lilac shrub
Mounttan Lilac shrub
Mountain Lilac shrub
Toyon shrub
Catalina Cherry shrub
Coffee Berry shrub
Alnus rhombi~oira*
Arctostaphylos "Dr. Hurd"*
Arctostaphyl:os pajaroenses
"Paradise"*
Carpobrotus,edulis Iceplant
Cercocarpusbetuloides*
Ceanothus "Anchor Bay"*
Ceanothus "Frosty Blue"*
Ceanthothus "Joyce Coulter"*
Cemmthus "Ray Hartman"*
Ceanothus "Snow Flurry"*
Ceanothus "Wheeler Canyon"*
Ceanothus "Yankee Point"*
Ceanothus "Point Reyes"*
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis*
Heteromeles arbutifolia*
Prunus lyonil*
Quercus agrifolia*
Little
Dead
Matter
7
7
.~-
O
7
O
7
7
7
O
O
..~-
lligh
Moisture
Content
O
O
Mineral Freeze
Content Sensitive
0 7
no
no
no
uo
no
no
11o
no
no
nO
no
no
no
no
nO
no
no
Page 18
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Speicies - Latin Name
Species Natne
Species ~ Conunon Name
Rhamnus crocea* Redberry
Romneya coulteri* Matilija Poppy
GRASSES
Bromus carinatus
Calamagrosti foliosa
Calamagrostis nutkaensis
Danthonia califomica
Deschampsia caespitosa holciformis
Elymus califomicus
Elymus glaucus
Elymus triticoides
Elymus virescens
Festuca californica
rescue californica
rescue idahocrisis 'Tomales Bay'
Festuca rubra
Festuca rubra "Jana's Blue"
Koeleria macrantha
Melica califomica
Melica imperfecta
California brome
Leafy reed grass
Sand reed grass
California oat grass
no common name
California bottlebrush grass
Blue wildrye
Creeping wildrye
Coastal wildrye
California rescue
California rescue
Idaho rescue
Red rescue
Red fescue
110 common name
Western roelie grass
Small flower roelie grass
Characteristics
Form Little FoHn Leaf Little
Volume (dense (thicl~ Dead
or low) or large) Matter
shrub O O
peren O O
grass 'a' O O O
grass ~f O O O
grass 'Or O O O
grass
grass
grass
grass
grass
grass
grass
grass
grass
grass
grass ·
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
High Mineral Freeze
loistnre Content Sensitive
2ontent
~ O no
'~' O no
C~,. i' Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Species Name
Characteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little
Volun~e (dense (thick Dead
or low) or large) Marie!'
.TREES
High
Moisture
Conteut
Mineral
Content
Freeze
Scllsitive
IIo
The following is a list of trees that have a combination of characteristics which make thetn less flammable and as such are permitted in Areas B, C and D.
Speices - Latin Name Species - Common Name Characteristics
Acer (many)** Maple
Aesculus californica* Buckeye
Growth structure which naturally provides for adequate separation between the tree canopy
and ground (Citrus and Sequioa trees are exceptions).
Citrus (many)
Cinnamomum cmnphora
Orange, lemon, lime
Camphor Tree
Leaf shape, and size which make it less likely to ignite. Geneyally leaves are big or thick.
Fraxinus (deciduous) Ash
High moisture content of tile foliage. Usually deciduous trees have a higher moisture
content.
Liquidamber Sweet Gutn
Persimmon Persitnmon
Little dead wood in tile tree canopy. TIle listed trees generally do not hold onto or
acculnulate dead wood.
Pistachia chinensis
Populus*
Pistachio
Poplar/Cottonwood
Note: Other trees that have tile same characteristics as tile trees shown on this list may be utilized.
Approval will be granted on a case by case bases.
Prunus (deciduous)
Plums/Apples/Peaches
Pyrus (deciduous)
Robiniana ambigua**
Pears
Locust Hybrids
Salix (flee form)**
Willows (tree form)
Sequoia sempervirens
Coast Redwood
Page 20
City of Dublin l'hmt Species and Area of Use Table
Legcnd:
7
~f
0
perch
8rd cvr
StlC
Unknown Property
Has tile Property
Does Not Have tile Property
Native
Some or this particular species
are Native
Perennial
Ground Cover
Succulent
Regular Meeting June 4, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 4, ] 996, in the
Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner
Lockhart.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Geist, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; Eddie Peabody, Community Development
Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, Tasha Huston, Associate Planner
and Gaytene Barkeli, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Jennings
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG .
Cm. Lockhart led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The minutes of the May 21, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
XVP, JTTEN COMMUNICATIONS
'NOne
PUBL]C HEARING
8.]
PA 96-014 Trumark Homes PD Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and
Site Development Review A request ~'or a PD Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision
Map and Site Development Review to allow 92 single family detached residential units
on approximately 8.9 acres of land. The project is located along the Southern Pacific
Right of Way west of Doughercy Road.
Regultr Meeting
[64p~:mi]
June 4, 1996
Cm. Lockhart asked for the staff report.
Jeff Ram, Assoiiate Planner, presented the staff report. She gave a history of the project. She stated that
the previous approvals by the Planning Commission and the City Council were for a General Plan
Amendment also a Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program. She showed the site plan
on the overhead projector. She stated the project was the same configuration, however, the circulation
has been slightly modified for better a~e,~s for fire and police. She went over the parking for_each unit.
She stated each unit had a two car garage and the project allowed for .75 guest parking per unit. She
stated the project is dense, and the Applicant has opened the project up by providing single story plans
along the entry street of the subdivision. Some units have exclusive use easements where they cannot
build within the easement, however, the), can plant in that area. She explained the elevations were a 360
deuce design; the design concept in the front of the units will carry around to the side and back of the
units. She showed the Planning Commission the color and materials that will be used. Staff was
recommended that a higher grade roof shingle be used, and because there was a lot of roof in this
development, it was necessary to use the higher grade to make the project look better. Conditions of
approval have been added, one is the higher Wade of shingle and the other is to pay the required fees.
This would include the Public Facilities Fee. There was a provision stating that if the fee is recalculated,
the developer would pay no more than the current rate of $3,332. There was two portions to the fee and
the $3,332 relmes to the community parks portion of the fee. The neighborhood parks portion of the fee
will be calculated by the City's Quimby Ordinance which will be calculated at the time of final map
based on the market value of the land. She stated the developer would not pay more than $3,332 per unit
in the community parks portion of the Public Facility Fees. The Planned Development Rezone changes
the zoning district from M-I Light Industrial to R-1 Residential. She stated Staff recommends approval
of the project
Cm. Zika asked what would happen if the Public Facility Fee was recalculated and the fee was lower?
Mr. Peabody stated that would not pay higher than :$3,332 for part one of the fee, however if it were
lower, then they would pay the lower f~e.
Cm. Johnson asked about parking along the street.
Ms. Ram stated there would be parking on the main sweet but not on the cul-de-sacs.
Cm. Johnson asked where cars would be placed if people used their garages for storage, or they had a
third car. Where would they park their cars? He had a concern about that situation.
Ms. Ram stated that the applicant had provided more parking than what is typically seen around Dublin.
There would also be CC&R's that would restrict parking.
Mr. Peabody stated he lived in a development where there is no parking on the street, and he only had a 5
foot driveway. The CC&R's would have to be enforced. Once someone is cited or towed, the:>, learn
quickly to obey.the rules.
Cm. Zika asked where the bomeo'~mers garbage cans would go with our new garbage collection in
Dublin.
Regular Meeting 52 June 4, 1996
[6-4p~-Tni]
Ms. Ram stated the Livermore Dublin Disposal Services did indicate that they could sen, ice the area.
She lived in a development where she put her garbage can out near the street and they picked it up.
Cm. Lockhart asked if the garbage company would have to use the driveways to turn around.
Ms. Ram stated the garbage company indicated they had enough room to turn around.
Cm. Johnson stated on his standard cul-de-sac in his neighborhood, there was not enough room for the
truck to turn around. Where would the}, store the garbage cans?
Ms. Ram stated the garbage can be stored in the side or rear yard.
Mike Maples, Trumark Homes, thanked staff for all their work they had put in the project. He gave a
history of how this project came about. He stated that they proposed a Homeowners Association to
address and keep an eye on some of the issues that were raised. He stated that the landscaping was
enhanced with more mature trees and plants and they would be maintained by the Homeowners
Association. He shited the parking has been reworked to 2.75 parking spaces permit, and the buyer
profile was targeted to smaller families. He stated that a strong Homeo~mers Association would ensure
compliance on the parking issue. The garbage company did not anticipate a problem because of the short
streets, They have cameras on the back oftheir trueks and are used to help back up the large trucks. He
went over the privacy issue and certain lots would require to have staggered windows to avoid line of
site. He stated the price for these units would be about $190,000 to $235,000.
Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Maples
if he had a concern with the higher ~ade shingleL
Mr. Maples stated he ageed with everything staff recommended.
Cm. Lockhart aSked if anyone would like to address this issue.
Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Jennings absent,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 96-16
APPROVING PA 96-014 TRUNIARK HOMES
RECOM]VIENDING THAT TB'F~ CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH
FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ANI) DEVELOPNiENT STANDARDS FOR A
PD, PLA_N~N"ED DEVELOPMEiNvITM KEZONIN G
Resolution No. 96-17
APPROx, rlNG PA 96-014 TRUMARK HOMES
VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP
AND SITE DE~rELOPNIiENT REVIEW
53
J~e4,1~6
Regular Meeting
8.2
PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment and EIR The Applicants are
.proposing residential and commercial development for their coIlective parcels totaling
500~- acres. The project is located along the northern side of the 1-580 freeway, adjacent
to the City's western boundary. The proposed project includes the following: A General
Plan Amendment; Planned Development Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map,
Development Agreenmffr and-subsequent Annexation. The project components
scheduled for consideration at the June 4, 1996 Planning Commission meeting include
the Environmental Impact Repbrt and the General Plan Amendment documents.
Cm. Lockhart asked for the staff report.
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the stuff report. She gave a brief history of the project. She
stated that the project applicants approached the City in 1994 with the proposal for development of
approximately 500 acres in the Western Dublin extended planning area. She also stated the draft EIR
was distributed in December, 1995. Two meetings were held before the Planning Commission regarding
the draft EIR, in order to receive public comments. The City received comments and the responses to
these comments have been incorporated into the final Ell. The final EIR was distributed on May 23,
1996 for public review. She stated the EIR was an information document that addressed environmental
impacts and to provide the appropriate mitigation needed in order to help the decision makers. She
stated that the EIR and the responses to comments addresses the issues raised. She asked the Planning
Commission to review the responses to comments and indicate any questions or areas that need
clarification. The General Plan Amendment document is a policy document that modifies the City's
current land usd in certain areas to accommodate the annexation of the project. She stated staff
recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending City Council
certification of the EIR and adoption of the General Plan Amendment.
Cm. Zi'ka asked if the school issue between Dublin and Castro Valley had been resolved?
Ms. Huston stated there was discussions between the two districts and the EIR does have a mitigation
'measure that states the school district issue would need to be resolved before the tentative map
certification.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were built in time lines that had to be addressed before we can proceed.
Mr. Peabody stated school mitigation must be resolved at the time of a Tentative Map. He stated there
was active discussions between the two school districts on this issue.
Cm. Zika asked how many of the homes being built would actually be in the Castro Valley School
District?
Mr. Peabody answered all of the homes would be in the Castro Valley School District.
Cm. Zika statec~that was a problem. He also asked about the location of the park?
Ms. Huston responded that it was concept land uses and the definite area of where the park would go
does not have to be determined at this time.
R~_o~l~ Me~ting 54 Jane 4, 1996
[6-4pcmi]
Cm. Zika stated that he wanted his concerns regarding the school issues be made aware to the developer
and that these issues need to be resolved.
Cm. Johnson asked about the ex"tension of Dublin Boulevard to Schaefer Ranch.
Ms. Huston stated that the primary access was based on the General Plan Amendment document and
would be from Eden Canyon for the reg~inder of the properties.
Cm. Zika stated that if they had put in ~i connector road, from Dublin Boulevard to Schaefer Ranch this
project would not have gotten this far.
Jim Parsons, Applicant from PA Design Resources, stated they were the land planners and civil
engineers for the project. He stated he had reviewed the EIR and response to comments, and felt WPM
had done a good job, developed solid mitigation measures, response to comments and prepared a good
General Plan Amendment. He thanked staff and especially Tasha for the good job that helped get this
project to where it is today. He stated that they hoped the Planning Commission would close the public
hearing and recommend certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the General Plan Amendment to
the City CounciI. He responded to the comment on the school issues. They are continuing to work on
this issue, there was a meeting scheduled on Juhe 7 and they were hoping for resolution between the
districts soon. The parks issue was taken seriously, and they are looking into a system of parks that
address the needs of the City. Mr. Parsons responded to the Dublin Boulevard extension issue and that a
road will go out there however, the project was design~t in keeping with direction received during the
joint study sessions and that the road does not provide primary access to the property to the west.
Cm. Johnson stated he still did not like the future planning of the project in relation with the fire safety
issues .beyond this project site.. He asked if the fire depmh'nent had any concerns?
Mr. Parsons responded that the Fire Department has been involved with a high level of detail.
ChiefDiekman, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, g'tated ~ai they were not concerned with the issues
beyond this project. He stated that the location is outside of their'service area and there were no future
planning areas beyond it. They work well with the neighboring.cities and the strategic operating plan
that allows them to serve that area in its current condition. '
Cm. Loc'khart asked if anyone wished to address this issue, hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Geist, seconded by Cm. Zika and with a vote of 3-1-1, Cm. Johnson voted against the
motion, with Cm. Jennings absent, the Planning Commission majorit3' voted to adopt
Resolution No. 96-18
RECO/VlJVIZENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION
OF THE FINAL EN~rlZRONM2EN'I'AL 121VlZPACT REPORT FOR ~
SCIitAEFER RANCH PROJECT GEhrERAL PL.42q .~dVI2ENrl)M2E.N'I' Ab,rD
ADOPTION OF Tgg- SCHAEFER tLgqCH PROJECT
GENERAL PLAN .4_MZENDIVIZENT
Re~lar Me=ling
[6-4pcmi]
55
June4,1996
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1
Eastern Dublin Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan As the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR requires, the City has
completed a Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan that will
promote the protectioff_:o'Priparian and wetland areas and reduce the risk of open land
wildfire while protecting wildlife habitat and other open space values.
LOCATION: Wildfire Management Plan - Citywide
Grazing Management Plan - Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Area
Cm. Lockhart asked for the staff report.
Carol Cirelli, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. She gave reasons why the Eastern Dublin Grazing
Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan were necessary. She stated the measure requires that the City
adopt a Grazing Management Plan that would protect the wetland and riparian areas. The Eastern Dublin projet
would result in a loss of approximately 3700 acres of open space/grazing lands. She stated that there were two
major measures regarding the project, strategically placing salt blocks, nutrient dispensers and water sources in
the upland dryer locations which wilt reduce the movement of the cattle and the horses into the riparian corridor
along the creek. The second major measure was placing limited exclusionary fencing to protect the species
around the creek. She stated land owners would be asked to enter into a~eements for land owner to adopt these
measures on a voluntary basis. The City would take a lead in encouraging this. She stated the document
included 9 grazing management guidelines. 1) Install watering troughs and nutrient dispensers above Tassaia..,;a
Creek. 2) Construct enclosures around springs, seeps and sprin= fed ponds. 3) Discontinue livestock gra:
within Tassajara Creek. 4) Install exclusionary fencing around ihe Arroyo Willow riparian woodland aloxi~e'
Fallon Road tributary. 5) Install Exclusionary fencing around the 'known locations of the red-legged frog
populations. 6) Manage excessive fuel loads within the rural residential/agriculture and open space areas
through cattle and horse grazing. 7) Manage animal grazing and forage utilization for assuring that appropriate
mounts of RDM remain on the ground at the end of the season, 8) ProVide supplemental feeding of cattle and
-hOrses and 9) Restrict use ofrodenticides. The document also includes some monitoring conditions that state th~
City will b(monitoring the prowess of the Grazing Plan.. Ms. Cirelli then presented the Wildfire Management
Plan. She stated the plan was prepared in conjunction with DRFA. The plan includes 5 main topic areas. 1 )
Ownership and Financing of maintenance for open space. 2) Plan submittal requirements for Tentative Map,
SDR and building permits. 3) Building construction requirements. 4) Vegetation establishment and maintenant
standards and 5) Plant species list. There are still some unresolved issues with the plan, and tonight we received
letter from the Lin Family regarding this issue. Staff feels both the Grazing Management Plan and the Wildfire
Management Plan satisfy the requirements of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendmen~ and Specific Plan
EIR. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval.
Cm. Zika asked who would monitor the grazing plan?
Ms. Cirelli stated it would be City staff., the planning department.
Cm Zika asked about the extra nutrients that are being put out, would that hurt existing wildlife.
Ms. Cirelli said'a biologist had recommended the exm'a nutrients and that it would not have any negative impact
on wildlife.
Regular Meeting 56 June 4, 1996
[6~pemi]
Cm. Zika asked if a kit fox has been seen in Eastern Dublin? He stated that the red legged flog was put on the
endangered species list after the big frog jumping contest. He asked if the homes required sprinkler systems that
back up against the open land?
Ms. Cirelli stated yes to last question.
Cm. Loc-khart asked if a plan goes throu_gh, a pt_~ase and stops, would the houses at the edge oft. he first phase also
require sprinklers?
Cm. Johnson asked if someone monitored the open land behind his house on Via Zapata?
Ms. Cirelli stated no. She continued to state that the Grazing Management Plan would only apply to Eastern
Dublin.
ChiefDie'kman spoke in regards to the fire protection issues. They had consulted with fire experts and many of
the requirements were due to what was learned by the Oakland fires in the East Bay hills. He explained the
concept of the plan. He stated the sprinkler requirements came from learning that the buildings that were
sprinklered in the East Bay hills, stopped the fire from entering the interior of those buildings. PropertJ, required
to have sprinklers are based on whether they back up to open space land which has no future development plans.
If the open space land was going to be developed the buildings would not be required to have sprinklers.
Cm. Johnson asked about an area behind Via Zapata that has an open area and a creek, would those houses
require to have sprinklers?
ChiefDie'kman stated the answer may vary, if there was a drainage canal arrangement then probably not. If there
was open space involved with the drainage canal the answer would probably be yes.
Cm. Johnson asked if the houses along Tassajara Creek would be required to have sprinklers?
ChiefDiekman stated given the little bit of information, probably yes. Schaefer Ranch would all be sprinklered
·-..due to the open space and the response ~ime required to reach that development
The Planning Commission took a few moments to review a letter received from Dave Chadbourne.
Dave Chadboume, McKay 'and' Somps, stated they represent the Dublin Ranch properties. He summarized the
issues outlined in his letter. They had a few main issues of concern. The approach to the plans seemed to be
driven by a heavily foresled project, Dublin Ranch has only a few trees through out the 1037 acres. He stated the
irrigation requirements would be costly with no other alternatives. He stated the City's irrigation requirements
was not standard practice compared to other communities in the' area. Another concern was the 30 foot
unvegetated buffer which was in conflict with the Specific Plan and EIL This was a large matter, and they
recog'nized the need for the plan, but they feel there should be more flexibility to the plan.
Cm. Zika responded that once an open field catches fire, one could only run. He stated there must be some type
of measures laken to ensure the homes were protected. He felt if there wasn't an), plans for development to the
area,. he would vote for the fire sprinklers in the homes.
Dave stated that the 125 foot irrigated buffer would be a bigger concern for them. He felt the plans were geared
towards the Schaefer Ranch project with a lot more woodland areas versus grass land areas.
Bob Harris, Lin Propert),, representative, stated they have been studying the issues, and had met with the Fire
Chief. He indicated that ChiefDiekman made some revisions to the plan, but the), were not able to review the
plans until the packets went out to the Planning Commission. He asked the item be continued so that they could
discuss the situation further with the Fire Chief. He felt the 125 foot buffer was not realistic when other cities
R,-gular Me~ng 57 June 4, 1996
[6--4punt]
have 30-40 feet. They had hired a consultant to help develop a Homeowners Association and the consultar
stated he had never seen a requirement such as this fire buffer. '~"
Cm. Johnson asked what about the rest of the City, do we have a regulation regarding open space?
Mr. Peabody stated no, not at the moment.
Cm. Johnson asked who monitors this area?
ChiefDie'kman thought Mr. Harris raised some good issues. Especially on how to determine if land was
destined to be developed. He gave an example of how a buffer zone worked. He stated the California
Department of Forestry looked at the plan, and would like to use it as a standard for some of their areas. He felt
the buffer should not be the City's burden to provide an alternative, it should be the developers burden to offer
alternatives, apply for a variance and go through the board of appeals or the City Council. He stated DRFA
would not voluntarily modify the sprinkler requirements or the buffer requirements.
Cm. Johnson asked if the sprinkler system would have to maintain the area 120 feet away from the propert),?
ChiefDie'kman responded that only in extreme cases and the plant species required it. He stated that the wildfire
management plan was a new incoming requirement and there were very few communities in California that use
this plan. Dublin is amongst one of the first cities to use this plan.
Cm. Zika asked if this plan was a set of guidelines?
ChiefDiekman imswered yes.
Cm. Zika asked what type of plant would grow without water.
ChiefDiekman stated there were plant species that occur naturally. Some times, in developments, them is not
irrigation, but the plants grow. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that these types of issues be looked at
This is a first in Dublin and this plan sets guidelines for a developer. Ira developer had an innovative and
creative project that could-address these issues, bring them forward to the City.
Cm. Lockhart stated his house bac'ks up to open space and he felt that the owner has some responsibility to
maintain 'that open space so that it does not create a hazard to his propert),. He stated the developer would have
to go 125 feet against a open area.
ChiefDiekman slated this plan would establish who's responsible for it and how it would be done.
Cm. Lockhart stated that the developer was being asked to go 125 feet out, because DRFA does not want to have
to ask the homeowner to cut their weeds.
ChiefDie'k. man stated the buffer was a direct benefit to that development. He stated that the tax payers pay for
the fire department to maintain areas in Dublin. The guidelines to the document was not to incur on going costs
to the City..
Cm. Geist asked if the developer bac'ks up to another property, and the propert3, owner does not give permission
to go onto his property.
Mr. Peabody stated ifa 125 foot buffer was to be built and a homeovmers association would be pan of the V'
the issue would be taken care of. ~"
Cm. Zika suggested that his item be postponed.-
Regular Me~ting 5 g June 4, 1996
[6-4pc-mi]
Mr. Peabody stated Staff needed direction from the Planning Commission on how to proceed with the item. Or
instruct Staff and interested parties to get together and have the matter resolved by the City Council.
Cm. Johnson stated staff max, need time to address the letter from Dave Chadbourne.
Cm. Lockhart stated in a perfect world;._we want everyone to be safe from fires, however, we ~vant the houses to
be affordable. He stated that maybe they would need more feedback from ChiefDiekman an]:t the Property
owners the Lin family.
Cm. Zika stated that the language may need to be modified stating these are guidelines, however, there could be
options from developers.
Mr. Peabody stated that there was language that addressed that, however, maybe the lan~cmage might need to be
more prominent.
Cm. Lockhart stated he would like to see it less restrictive than 125 feet from the building.
On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Lockart and with a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Jennings absent, the
Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption to City Council of the Grazing Management Plan
and to continue the Wildfire Management Plan.
ADJOURNIx4ENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Community Development Director
59
June 4, t996
Regul~Mee~ng
[6-4pz'mi]
Regular Meeting June 18, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, in
the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by
Commissioner Jennings.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson, Lockhart; Eddie Peabody, Community Development
Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate
Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Zika
~:~: ~ ~
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The minutes of the June 4, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATION -
None
WRITFEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1
PA 96-024 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add text to the General
Plan relating to the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan permitting the location of Small-
Scale Transfer and Storage Facilities and of Industrial Transfer/Storage Facilities in the Business
Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage, Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage, and Industrial Park
designations of the General Plan; and to amend the Zoning Ordinance to adopt def'mitions of terms, adopt
standards and procedures for processing conditional use permits for facilities under the Alameda County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and adopt local siting criteria consistent with the County Plan, and
amend the M-1 (Light Industrial) .and M-2 (Heavy Induslrial) Zoning Districts to allow the location of
Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facilities and of Industrial Transfer/Storage Facilities as conditional uses
subject to adopted procedures and siting criteria. The Planning Commission or City Council may establish
other development standards, zoning district, and/or development regulations consistent with the purpose
and intent of the General Plan or applicable City policy.
Regular Meeting
[6-18pemi]
60 June 18, 1996
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report.
Dennis Cartington, Senior Planner presented the staff report. He explained the Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
He stated a bill was passed in 1986 requiring every county to have a Hazardous Waste Management Plan and it
must be adopted by June 1996. He explained that this plan would require a General Plan Amendment and to
establish a guiding policy stating that we will reduce the amount of resources that are used. He stated that the
Ordinance adopts the definitions of "Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facility" and "Small Scale Transfer and
Storage Facility", and a "Residual Repository" es__tablishin_g the above facilities as conditional uses in the M-1 (Light
Industrial) and M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning districts. He gave a brief overview of the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment. He concluded his presentation.
Cm. Jennings asked for comments from the Audience. Hearing none, she asked for questions from the Planning
Commission.
Cm. Geist asked what the fair share portion meant.
Mr. Carrington stated it basically gets down to sharing the responsibility among cities and taking a regional
approach in taking care of the h_a_Tardous waste problem. Alameda County is recycling the waste oil in the Bay Area
with a finn called Evergeen. He stated that it was a joint responsibility and these facilities are regional in nature.
Cm. Jermings closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Geist and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Zika absent, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -20
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PA 96.024 ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
' '-- :- RESOLUTION NO. 96-21 · -
'RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PA 96-024 ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE
-: MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
8.2
PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Planned Development Prezone -The Applicants are proposing
'residential and commercial development for their collective parcels totaling 5002: acres. The
project is located along the northern side of the 1-580 fleeway, adjacent to the City's western
boundary. The Planning Commission considered the EIR and General Plan Amendment at their
June 4 meeting and recommended certification and approval by the City Council. The project
component scheduled for consideration at the June 18, 1996 Planning Commission meeting is the
Planned Development Prezoning to establish an overlay zone and general land use provisions for
the site.
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report.
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated the prezoning was the third component of
the Schaefer Ranch project. She stated there were three items associated with the proposed Planned Development
Regular Meeting 61 June lg, 1996
[6-18pemi]
Prezoning that would be reviewed by the P!anning Commission. The zoning district map, the development
standards and conditions or provisions of the planned development. She stated once the zoning district maps are
established, any subdivision map or Site Development Review application must to be consistent with the land uses.
The exact location of the park is tentative and under review, and when approved, the map would be revised to show
where the parks would be. Staff recommends approval of the zoning district map as the land use and development
plan for the project. The development standards address yard areas, setbac'ks and building heights. She stated that
one Staff recommendation wa;to change the set backs to 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. She stated the
10 foot setback was important for privacy reasons. Jands_caping and storage. She stated that the prezoning approval
included several provisions or conditions to adrd~ss issues with providing public services to the development~ The
recommended provisions to address the issues were included in the Resolutions with the staff report. Ms. Huston
noted one correction needed in the Resolution on page 21, section G, fourth line of the paragraph should state,
"from Silvergate Drive to San Ramon, which were identified in the City's adopted Capital Improvement Program."
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending the City Council adoption of
the Planned Development Prezoning. She stated that a letter was passed out prior to the meeting, that addressed
comments from the Applicant regarding the conditions of approval.
Cm. Lockhart asked about the side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, was it two 5 foot setbacks, or a 5 and 10 feet
setback?
Ms. Huston stated there had to be 15 feet total between buildings.
Cm. Lockhart asked why this did not apply to neighborhood "D"?
Ms. Huston stated neighborhood "D" was the duet neighborhood and it was common for duet's to have smaller
setbacks.
Jim Parsons, PA Designs Resources, stated that Exhibit 1, page 18 of 28 of the Staff Report, shows the development
standards. He said much time. was spent on these design standards. He stated there would be three distinct
neighborhoods, the duet neighborhood (neighborhood '~B"), smaller lot single family (neighborhood "C"), the larger
lots single family (neighborhood "D") and the custom homes (neighborhood "A"). He stated that they agreed with
the standards that Staff had proposed on neighborhood "B". He stated neighborhood "C" was the area they had
difficulty with Staff's standards. He felt that if they comply with those standards, it would squeeze the house up, and
emphasize the garage, which they_did not want to do. They also had a problem not allowing any projections into the
side yard, he asked that the chimney be allowed to encroach 2 feet into the side yard. In regards to neighborhood
"A", Schaefer was able to acquire the fights to the Gibbs property that promoted some redesign, to include some 2
acre lots and they would like the minimum tot size to be changed from 3 acres to 2 acres. He stated in
neighborhood "A", there was an area where they could not meet the 100 feet between buildings, and they were
requesting it be changed to 50 feet. He asked for flexibility in the maximum height for neighborhood "A" from 35
feet to 38 feet, and neighborhoods "B", "C" and "D" to 35 feet. Also in regards to the custom homes, he requested
that architectural features be allowed to project above the height limits by 4 to 7 feet.
Dave Brandt, the applicants attorney, had four minor requests for changes to the Conditions of Approval. He stated
that in paragraph F on page 14 of the Staff Report requires the applicant to fund an updated public facilities fee but
does not indicate when this would occur. He asked the Commission to modify the condition to indicate the
requirement to state "prior to the approval of the final subdivision map application". He raised some issues
regarding Condition H which requires the applicant to contribute a traffic impact fee, but it was not clear when this
would occur. He asked that Condition I, the policy on the school district, be modified to reflect that the mitigation
agreement will not be necessary until the project is annexed into Dublin Unified School District or prior to Tentative
Map approval. He felt Condition K, dedication of open space, had a legal problem with the language requiring when
the applicant must demonstrate compliance.' He stated that they' recommend the Planning Commission modify the
condition to require that evideOce be submitted at the dedication of the final map.
Mr. Peabody stated that Staff would like to respond to each of the issues raised.
Regular Meeting 62
[6-1 gpcmi]
June 18, 1996
Linda Chavez, EBRPD, clarified Condition K, dedication of open space. The district is interested in the open space,
but prior to the Tentative Map, they cannot formally take action prior to approval of the Tentative Map. She had
spoke with Tasha and agreed there was a isiue of clarification.
Jim Parsons stated that with the modifications raised, they hoped that an agreement could be made tonight, and go
forward to the City Council.
Cm. Lockhart staied some chafiges should be discussed with Staff before it could be recommended to City Council.
Jim Parsons stated they got the staff report by fax, and did not have time to really look at it, and he did not have a
chance to talk with Staff on all these changes. This was the first time Staff had heard some of these changes.
Mr. Peabody stated it was difficult to change conditigns at the last moment. One change included an architectural
issue regarding how high a building should be. These changes involve technical discussions, and may not be able to
be addressed tonight.
Ms. Huston restated the requests for changes in the applicant' s letter passed out at the meeting. Starting with
paragraph F, Public Facilities Fees Provision on page 21 of 28 of the Staff Report, the request was to require the
condition be specified prior to any subdivision map.
Mr. Peabody stated the reason for the condition was because there were two projects that require the public facility
fee, Trumark and this project. The intent was that we get started on completing the study, so by the Tentative Map
stage, the study would be done, and we know that the fee exists. That was the reason for the language at this point.
Ms. Huston stated that this type of condition was typical prior to Tentative Map approval, rather than final map
approval.
Ms. Huston went over Paragraph H of the Resolution, Traffic Impact Fee Provision. The applicant's request was
that the fees were payable prior to issuance of any building permits. This was common practice and Staff agreed.
Pgagaph I of the Resolution, School Facilities Impact Mitigation Provision, the applicant requests that the wording
be changed fi'om: "prior to Council approval of the Planned Development Prezoning," to "prior to annexation of the
project or prior to approval of any tentative subdivision maps, whichever comes first." Tasha stated staff would be
in agreement with that change.
Cm. Johnson asked what happened if the Castro Valley and DubIin School Districts never came to an agreement
regarding schooling for the Schaefer area.
Mr. Peabody stated that if they do not come to an agreement, the area is and would still be in the Castro Valley
School District and any service for that area will come from Castro Valley. The applicant will be responsible to
provide a signed school mitigation agreement before the Tentative Map will be approved.
Cm. Johnson stated that there were some cities in the area with the same situation and it creates a problem. He felt
these issues need to be worked out in advance.
Mr. Peabody stated that Staff was in agreement with him.
Ms. Huston clarified the applicant's request. regarding Paragraph K, to specify at the final map approval. Staffs
intention with this condition was that the applicant present evidence to the City that the District will be willing to
accept the open space and a letter of intent would be satisfactory. She stated that the first sentence of the paragraph
could be changed from "Prior to the City's approval of a Land Use and Development Plan and Tentative
Subdivision Map" and state "prior to the City's approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map," with all other wording
kept the same.
Regular Meeting 63 June Ig, 1996
[6-18petal]
Linda Chavez stated that they are interested in the open space area, the District does not have a problem writing
letters saying they are interested, they just can't go tO the Board before the Tentative Map stage.
Mr. Peabody stated that the Tentative Map would need a note that we dedicate this property to EBRPD.
Cm. Jennings asked if EBRPD can supply the letter of intent or interest.
Linda Chavez stated that they can't do that untij'~e Tentltive Map was approved.
Ms. Huston stated the issues brought up by the applicant, involve setbacks, height increases and lot size.
Mr. Peabody responded to the requested changes and stated we did not have a Tentative Map or lot size, and
neighborhood "B" and "C", could be design. ed to have 15 foot set backs between houses, 5 and 10 feet on each side.
He felt the lots were large enough for the 15 foot setbacks. The change from 3 acres to 2 acres minimum lot size for
estate lots would have to be discussed before making that decision. Without seeing some housing types, 100 feet
between buildings could not be addressed until staff sees the housing design. Mr. Peabody recommended how the
Planning Commission could address the issue on set backs. The standards could be 20 feet, minimum 15 feet, with
minor revision to.be made by S. taff. This would only apply to one area.
Ms. Huston stated that on the side yard aggregate for neighborhood "C", the stuff report should be corrected to state
15 feet.
Mr. Peabody stated that on building height they were willing to go up to 35 feet maximum. The architectural
features and elements should not exceed 5 feet maximum and subject to approval by Staff.
Cm. Geist asked about chimney projection in the side yard set back.
Mr. Peabody stated that with two fireplaces across from each other, you could be down 4 feel
Mr. Parsons suggested that he and Staff refine the numbers at the Tentative Map stage and they could live with the
conditions.- He would be happy with the understanding that the development standards could be further defined
after discussions with Staff.
Mr. Peabody stated the Planning Commission could give that authority to Staff, but did not feel comfortable with
having flexibility on the side yard set backs
Cm. Jennings wanted to clarify some of the issues raise& The minimum lot size for neighborhood "A" was 2 to 10.
The rear yard setbacks of 20 foot minimum was fine, the side yard setbacks for neighborhood "B" of 5 feet and 10
feet was acceptable.
Jim Parsons stateEl he did not h~tve a problem with rear yard setback distance, only with level areas because some
lots are designed to slope. He stated that the side yard setbacks for neighborhood "C" was a problem.
Cm. Lockhart asked if what the applicant was asking was to go from 15 feet to down to 11 feet?
Mr. Parsons stated that they wanted the side yards between two houses to be 5 and 5, with a 10 foot total separation.
Mr. Brandt asked staff to read the proposed changes to condition K, Dedication of Open Space Provision.
Ms. Huston stated Staff recommended the condition would read: "Prior to the approval of a Land Use and
Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map for this project, the Applicants shall present to the City evidence
Regular Meeting 64 June 18, 1996
[6-18pcmi]
of the East Bay Regional Parks District's agreement to accept ownership and operational and maintenance
responsibility for the proposed Open Space, in a form acceptable to the City of Dublin.
Bob Yohai, Schaefer Heights, asked Cm. Jennings if the minimum lot size was 2 acres for neighborhood "A".
Cm. Jennings responded yes and closed the public hearing.
Cm. Lockhart ~tafed everything was settled but the___set bac_ks for neighborhood "C". He felt that after looking _at
different developments with 5 yard setbacks, this was not something he could support. He felt is was necessary to
have design standards that we would like within the eastern and western areas.
Cm. Jennings stated that Staff will make the necessary changes and meet with the developers.
Mr. Peabody summarized some of the issues, minimhm lot size for neighborhood "A" will be 2 acres. The rear
setbacks for neighborhood "B" shall be 20 feet with a minimum clear level zone subject to minor modifications by
Staff. The side yard setbacks shall be as Staff recommends in the Staff Report. The side yard aggregate for
neighborhood "C" will be 15 feet. The 100 feet side yard aggregate setback for neighborhood "A" as a policy shall
be a direction and minor deviations from that setback can be approved by Staff based on design of individual
houses. The building height shall be 35 foot maximum or two stories at any one poinL However, architectural
features and elements may exceed this provision by a 2 foot maximum, and a gable element may exceed this
provision by 5 foot maximum.
On motion by Cm. Geist, seconded by Cm. Johnson, with Cm. Zika absent and with a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 96-22
FINDING PA 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING
· WITHIN SCOPE OF FINAL EIR: > ·
~,,ND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR
- PA' 94028 SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT PD PREZONING
,
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1 City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan (continued) As the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan EIR requires, the City has completed a draft Wildfire Management Plan
that will reduce the risk of open land wildfire while protecting wildlife habitat and other open
space values.
Cm. Jermings asked for the staff report.
ChiefDielcman presented the updated version of the Wildfire Management Plan. He outlined the changes to the
plan. He stated that the definition for open space should state "the area should remain permanently undeveloped"
and page 2 had a change to variances appeiled, remove variances and refer to it as alternative methods. Also on
page 2, the ownership of lands he stated that they inserted master Tentative Map. On page 3, under the developer
Homeowner Association, they inserted insure fire buffer zone improvements, and inserted where not in conflict with
other city policies. On pages 7 and 8, they changed some distances and wording within the various requirements of
the zones. The l.anguage in ti;e various requirements came out of a plan that was modeled from a plan to deal with
cleaning up existing land or establishing new land. On page 8 they added a new section that stated establishment
Regular Meeting 65 June 18, 1996
[6-18pcmi]
and maintenance of vegetation on approved lots. Also establishment and maintenance of vegetation designated
open space. They added to the species list and they added to the characteristic of trees.
Cm. Johnson asked about irrigation of land 120 feet from building.
ChiefDie'kman stated there is a requirement for irrigation for the plant species that require it for appropriate
maintenance. He stated that what they were trying to accomplish in the open space was a fire barrier. They are
recommending that it be natural grasses and kept.mowed_ to no more than 3-4 inches during the months of May
through November. He stated that this plan does not permit disking in any area.
Cm. Johnson asked if water sprinklers will be installed and if the houses will be sprinklered.
Chief Diekman stated all houses that directly front onto open space will be required to have the construction
requirements and design requirements of this plan.
Bob Harris, Dublin Ranch, stated he met with the Fire Chief and resolved several issues. He had a few questions,
and wanted to make some comments for the record. He requested changes be made on page 2, definition of
undeveloped land., he wanted it to read" no Tentative Map or master Tentative Map has been approved." He stated
that a subdivision map act was'very precise as to what a tentative map requires. He stated that they would be
submitting a Master Tentative Map on their first phase and he wanted to make sure that was the same as a Tentative
Map. He went over building permit review, construction requirements for properties adjacent to open space and
undeveloped land. The status may be different when they come in for their Tentative Map opposed to when they
come in for their Site Development Review. At Tentative Map stage they may have a portion of their properly
adjacent to undeveloped land and at the time of building permit, it may have changed.
Chief Diekman stated that the Developer was not inclined to add to their construction cost, in this particular case the
fire sprinklers and the other requirements placed on buildings. The Fire Department wanted reasonable insurance
that the area adjacent to the property being built will be developed. If it is not going to be built, then they must
follow the proper requirements. He stated that the purpose of the plan is to make it environmentally safe. He stated
that requirements will be placed on projects one at a time.
Mr. Harris stated phase I oftheir project is a few hundred acres with 9 distinct neighborhoods. Each of those
neighborhoods will be a separate T..entative Map and be sold separately to individual builders. They will then file a
master Tentative Map to create the neighborhoods. He stated that he needed to know what to tell the individual
builders regarding the fn'e sprinklers and special building requirements. He thought that the Fire Chief understood
this.
Cm. Geist indicated how she understood the requirements. She gave an example of a plan with the worse case
scenario and there was nothing on the border of those two properties and there is no tentative map on the other side
of that property, then it will require to be sprinkled and maintained. If someone does establish a Master Tentative
Map or Tentative-Map, then the requirements go away.
Chief Diekman agreed with Cm. Geist. He stated that was why they put the requirements on at the building permit
stage. These requirements were not to restrain, but to create windows of opportunities.
Mr. Harris thought the Fire Chief said the Tentative Map was the vehicle to allow them to dispense the requirement
for sprinkling. He thought that on Phase I they would not be required to sprinkler between neighborhoods. If they
were adjacent to land they did not own, then he thought the sprinklers would apply.
Cm. Johnson stated that if all the 9 developers were to get building permits and Tentative Maps in at the same time,
the buildings would not require to be sprinklered.
Mr. Harris stated that the buildings would not all be built at once.
Regular Meeting 66 June 18, 1996
[6-18pcmi]
Cm. Lockhart asked what happened if they .sold the land off, and the new buyer decided not to build, what assurance
would the Fire Chief have that it would ever be developed.
Mr. Harris stated that they would do a master grading permit, and clear the whole area. To have the buildings
sprinklered was $1.00 per foot, and on 2,000 square foot house, this would be $2,000 of unnecessary costs added to
the house.
Cm. Jennings felt that sprinklers would be a good selling point with homeowners insurance and such.
Cm. Johnson stated that he understood the reason for the sprinklers, but how often do we have major fire storms.
Cheif Diel,~nan stated about I 0-13 major fires per year, and in the last 5-6 years, maybe 3-4 fires with significant
loss of life and property. He was referring to the East Dublin Mitigation Measures and trying to comply with the
requirements. He stated that there was land that may have been intended to develop but was never finished for
various reasons throughout the State. From a fire protection stands point, undeveloped and open space have the
same risk. Even if graded, it does not guarantee that something might not happen.
Bob Harris commented that the various fires referred to by ChiefDiekman were in heavy tree growth areas, not
areas like the grass areas in Eastern Dublin. He felt this was not necessary in this area. He asked for relief, by
adding the word, Master Tentative Map to the definition of undeveloped land.
Cm. Lockhart stated the Planning Commission had to look out for the whole Eastern Dublin area, and he understood
both situations. He asked if there was a way in the 9 neighborhoods of development, to put a time limit on
Tentative Maps.
Bob Harris stated they could put that in their contract of sale. He never heard of these types of requirements on this
type of land. It creates the potential for increasing the price of housing. There is no guarantee these houses will sell
if the costs get to9 high.
Cm. Johnson asked if the Master Tentative Plan came in and graded all the streets, what would happen?
Mr. Peabody stated they would do a major street, but would not do. roads down to the super pads. _
Mr. Harris also commented On the wording0n pages. 8 - 9, there was an understanding with Chief Diekman, that on
property they do not own;but adjacent to their property, the fire buffer zones that the plan required, the areas would
have to maintained weed free. If they were maintained to the minimum foot set back, some cases there would be
units 25 feet adjacent to areas they have no control over. ' '
ChiefDiekman stated the intent of the plan was that these kinds of deals and understandings were made within the
maintenance plan developed for each property. If they bring forward the lots to be developed that way, then DRFA
has the authority to mow the property. There would have to be negotiations between DRFA, the City and the
developer addressing certain areas of the project to finalize the map. He stated that he met with the wildfire
ecologist and her point of few was the project was unrestrictive and that most plans would not allow a developer to
develop lots that close to adjacent property.
Bob Harris stated that was not in the plan, and wanted what the Chief said entered into the record.
Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Harris if he wanted something more specific for the undeveloped land.
Mr. Harris asked again that the conversation just taken be placed into the minutes. He stated that to his
understanding, normal setbackg for development can occur even if the fire buffer zone would extend into adjacent
property not owned by developer if maintenance of the fire buffer zone was guaranteed by the developer through a
Regular Meeting 67 June 18, 1996
[6-18pcrai]
funding program paid for by the developer. If the adjacent property owner does not keep his weeds down in the fire
buffer zone and the City would do it and get reimbursed. They would lay out a proposal to the Chief that shows a
development adjacent to the property they do not own. They would try to get the adjacent property owner to
maintain the fire buffer zone. If the property owner refuses to maintain it, Mr. Harris said they would fund the
program for the City to maintain the fire buffer zone.
Cm. Jennings asked the Chief what he thought about what Mr. Harris said.
Chief Diekman stated it was very consistent witflY'he thought process of the plan.
Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Harris what happens when he goes away, who will then do the maintenance.
Mr. Harris stated they would propose a program for maintenance.
Cm. Lockhart asked about maintaining the fire buffer on someone else's property.
Mr. Han'is stated they want tO .maintain the safety of the units that go on their property. He stated that he knew this
particular piece of property was purchased for development. He stated that this program described was acceptable
to them.
Cm. Geist asked about possible funding sources for maintenance, what about undeveloped space.
Chief Diekman stated that they want to be able to encroach onto someone else's property.
Cm. Johnson stated sometimer, there are two pieces of undeveloped land adjacent to one another and both pieces of
property are graded back 30 feet, do those sites require that the open land be maintained.
Chief Dickman stated they disk around the property. People know they have a valuable feed source for animal
grazing. We do have an existing Weed Abatement Ordinance, and wanted to introduce a slightly different plan
more environmentally sensitive to the current needs of today. He stated weed abatement takes a lot of stafftime,
and they are trying to make development responsible for their own weed abatement.
BOb Harris stated on page 5 of the Staff Report under "detached accessory structures and fences", adjac~rlt to open
space and undeveloped land, they have to build to special construction requirements which are one hour fire walls.
He asked fithere was a need for the pilaste~: on every house? He wanted a clause to be added that said "unless
determination is made by the City, other requirements under this section negate the need for such a separation."
Chief Diekman stated he would not support that recommendation. They do not want wood fences on the side of
houses adjacent t.o open space. He stated that the standards they took this from read "you should not have a wood
fence within 12 feet of the house." He stated that they tried to fred ways to reduce this and the pilaster was a good
approach. He would not support that change.
Mr. Harris stated that he only wanted an alternate plan to be submitted.
ChiefDiekman said this was already in there on page 2 "there is a mechanism for providing for an alternative
method."
Bob Harris stated there was not a need for prohibiting disking. He asked that disking be allowed in areas adjacent to
undeveloped land.
Chief Diekman stated that the Wildfire Biologist was very strong against disking and felt we should follow her
advice.
Regular Meeting 68 June 18, 1996
[6-18pcmi]
Cm. Johnson asked Ms. Circlli her opinion ~n disking.
Ms. Circlli said the Fire Biologist stated that disking should not be allowed in order to maintain the integrity of the
natural habitat areas, however, she understood Mr. Harris' point. She agreed with Chicf Diekman to leave it as it is.
Cm. Jennings closed the publi~ hearing·
Cm. Geist asked ChiefDiekman about Mr. Harri~L~ct>ndition on Tentative Map or Master Tentative Map.
Chief Diekman stated that Master Tentative Map would not be helpful to the plan.
Cm. Jennings stated other than the amendment to page 2 of the Staff Report, were there any other amendments.
There were no other amendments.
On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Geist with changes that were made and with a vote of, 4-0-1 with
Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 96-23
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
THE CITY OF DUBLIN WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
9.2 Capital Improvement Program (1996-2001) Conformance to General Plan (Govt. Code 65402)
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report.
Mr. Ambrose, City Manager presented the Staff Report. He stated that there was a section in the Government Code
that requires certain projects to be brought before the Planning Commission. He stated that the Capital
Improvement Program for the. next five years was identified in four major categories; 1) General ImproVements; 2)
Community Improvements;~ 3) Parks; and 4) Streets. We do not have the infrastructure necessary for Eastern
Dublin development included in the Capital Improvement Program for this upcoming fiscal year. We will be
working with the development community, the Dublin Unified School District, and DSRSD on a long term
financing program for Eastern' Dublin. These items will be developed during fiscal year 1996-97. This Capital
Improvement Program is also gearing towards repair and maintenance for the Civic Center. The new projects
consist of the Arroyo Vista handicap accessibility renovations, a proposed project to repair landscape in the area of
San Ramon Road. He stated the 1-580 off ramp to San Ramon Road towards the Dublin Park Hotel area be
landscaped to look attractive. The Heritage Center was requesting a paved parking lot. The Swim center needs to
have the chlorine system replaced. He said there was a couple of drainage repair projects, as a result of recent winter
storms. He stated that there was land dedicated to us as open space that had some slides that have occurred and
now have to be maintained which caused a major financial liability.
Cm. Lockhart asked if the repair that will be done to the open space was just for aesthetics?
Mr. Ambrose responded no. He stated that we have had some slide problems that have plugged the drains, and
flooded some yards and family rooms.
Cm. Johnson asked where the open space area was.
Mr. Ambrose responded that it was on the east side of the Dougherty Hills at the Ridge Creek development. St.
Raymonds Church will also need some repairs and the Swim Center needs the exterior painted. The CIP also
Regular Meeting 69 June 18, 1996
[6-18pernil
includes the local cost associated with the 580/680 connector project. Mr. Ambrose thanked the Commission and
recommended them to adopt Resolution No. 96-024.
On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Joh~son and with a vote of 4-0-I, with Cm. Zika absent, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 96-024
A RESOLUTION OF THE ~LLX~TNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN"
FINDING THAT THE 1996-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
9.3
Wells Middle School and Valley High School additions and new buildings conformance to the
General Plan (Government Code 65402)
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report.
Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. He explained that whenever there
was a major alteration or improvement to a building within the School District it had to come before the Planning
Commission for approval. Although we do not have jurisdiction over school improvements, they must send them to
the Planning Commission for approval as to conformance to the General Plan. He explained that the school will be
remodeling their existing site.
On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Geist. and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Zika absent, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted
· RESOLUTION NO. 96.025 '
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION-OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED WELLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
AND VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ADDITIONS AND NEW BUILDINGS
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming addenda for the Planning Commission. He handed out a schedule showing
them what to expect in then next 6-8 months. The largest project now is the Stream Corridor and Schaefer Ranch.
He went over the Opus project and stated that Tri Valley Crossing had submitted their site plans.
Cm. Johnson asked about the track parking problem and where could these trucks park?
Mr. Peabody responded that there was a truck parking place at Dougherty Road and Houston Court.
Cm. Johnson stated it was a licensed track stop, but does not have the space for parking over night.
Mr. Peabody stated we would look into the issue. It was approved for a truck stop, with a scale and a filling station.
Regular Meeting 70 June 18, 1996
[6-18pcmi]
10. OTHER BUSINESS (Comm ission/Staff Informational Only Reports)
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Community Development Director
Regular Meeting
[6-18pemi]
June 18,1996
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR MITIGATION MEASURES
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN
MM 3.7/4.0
Grazing managemere plans shall be developed by the City and implemented soon after
approval of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Management plans shall favor
protection of riparian and wetland areas, increased plant diversity, and the recovery of
native plants, in particular, p__e_r,enni_al grasses. .
WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
/VIM 3.4/12.0 The City, in consukation with DRFA and a qualified wildlife biologist, shall prepare a wildfire
management plan for the project area.
· The plan objective should be to reduce the risk of open land wildfire to the lowest practical
level consistent with reasonable protection ofwildlife habitat and other open space values.
The plan should define how the open lands of the project will be owned, used and
maintained (consistent with the open space management plan), what wildfire hazard
mitigation measures will be implemented, and how vegetation and-wildlife habitat are likely
to change over time as a result.
The selection or formation of an entity responsible for maintenance of the open lands
should be subject to the Fire Chiefs approval, and any financial obligations of property
owners to the maintenance entity should be disclosed to potential purchasers.
Where open lands are to be removed from grazing use, one or a combination of brush
control measures, such as mowing, discing~ herbicide application or the removal of
combustible materials, should be selected to achieve the objectives of the plan.
Any park districts and/or open space agencies with ownership or management
responsibilities within the Project area shall be requested to participate in and/or provide
input to the preparation of the wildfire management plan for the project area.
Where new landscape planting is proposed, fire-resistant qualities should be a major
consideration. New planting near structures should be irrigated. As a basic rule, a
minimum of thirty feet shall be provided between new or existing homes and non-irrigated
grassland.
The plan should specify who will be responsible for its implementation, and how its
implementation will be paid for.
Since the scientific basis for wildland management is still inexact, it is also important that
the plan provide for periodic monitoring of vegetation growth, wildlife habitat and fire risk,
and for adoption of amendments if necessary to achieve the objectives of the plan on an
ongoing basis.
geastdllbln~streaxnXmm3-43-7
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -19
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PIANNING COMMISSION
OF TFrF, CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TF!'E GRAZING MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR TH'F~ EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA
WFrF, REAS, the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
on May 10, 1993 and the Dublin voters approy_:e~l the_Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
on November 2, 1993; and
WI~,REAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIK) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and 'Specific Plan contains Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0 that requires the City to prepare and approve
a Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area; and
W~F,t!EAS, both the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area
(GMP) implements Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0 of the FEIK and is consistent with the policies and action
programs of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Chapter 6 - Resource Management of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to the extent that the guidelines and standards of the GMP document will promote the
protection ofriparian and wetland areas while allowing grazing to continue within the Eastern Dublin area; and
WFrEREAS, the GMP shall be applicable to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area and shall
be implemented on a voluntary basis until such time that Eastern Dublin land owners receive tentative map
approval, or are issued grading permits consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. Future grazing within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area shall be restricted to those areas
zoned Open Space and Rural Residential/Agriculture. The GMP shall be enforced as conditions ofrezone and
.-.. tentative map approval for areas zoned Open Space and Rural Residential/Agriculture; and
WFW~REAS, the 'City shall initiate any voluntary, cooperative measures with Eastern Dublin land owners
for purposes of implementing the GMP, and shall monitor the progress of the GMP implementation; and
W~F~REAS, the GMP project has been reviewed in aCCordance with the provisions ofthe:California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and n~) new effects could occur and no new
mitigation measures would be required for the project that were not~addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIK) for fhe Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and the project is within the
scope of the FEIR. The project implements mitigation measures of the FEIK and an initial study will be
conducted for each development application that is required to 'comply with the GMP document; and
WI~REAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending Ihat the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council approval of the GMP; and
NOW, TFIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the GMP as defined in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Staff
Report dated June 4, 1996.
PASSED, APPROVED AhrD ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Lockhart, Johnson, Zika and Geist
None ·
Commissioners Jennings
g:.kamtubl~gam~,4.p~'msxere
RESOLUTION NO. 96 - 23
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PZANNING COMMISSION
OF ~ CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOM2M2ENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CITY O2F DUBLIN WILD~"'::'
MANAGEMENT PLAN
WltF-REAS, the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
on May 10, 1993 and the Dublin voters approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
on November 2, 1993; and :: - --
VCltF~REAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report CFE/2R-) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan contains Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0 that requires the City to prepare and
approve a Wildfire Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin project area; and
WttF~REAS, the City of Dublin Vfildfire Management Plan (WMP) implements Mitigation Measure
3.4/12.0 of the FEIK and is consistent with the policies and action programs of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Chapter 8 - Community Services and Facilities of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent
that the guidelines and standards of the WMP document will promote the reduction in the risk of open land
wildfire to the lowest level'consistent with reasonable protection ofwilcllife habitat and other open space values
within the Eastern Dublin area; and
WltEREAS, the WMP shall be applicable to all future developments throughout the City of Dublin; and
WltEREAS, the WM2P project has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Qnality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and no new effects could occur and no new
mitigation measures would be required for the project that were not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIK) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and the project is within
scope of the FEIE The project implements mitigation measures of the FEIK and an initial study will be
conducted for each development application that is required to comply with the WMP document; and ~'::~
. WltF, RE&S, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend
· to the City Council approval of the WlvIP; and : . ..
NOW, Tlt'EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT ~ Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the WMP as defined in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Staff
Report dated June 18, 1996.
:PASSED, AP:PROVED ~ ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSEh~I':
Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Geist and Lockhart
None
Commissioner Zika
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. - 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA AND
TH'E CITY OF DUBLI1V-WI~,DF]RE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted. the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan on May 10, 1993 and the Dublin voters approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan on November 2, 1993; and
Wlt'EREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan contains Mitigation Measures 3.7/4.0 and 3.4/12.0 that require the City to
prepare and approve a Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment area; and
WHEREAS, both the Grazing Management. Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Area (GMP) and City of Dublin V~r~dfire Management Plan (WM:P) implement Mitigation Measures
3.7/4.0 and 3.4/12.0 of the FEI2R, respectively, and are consistent with the policies and action programs of
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Chapter 6 - Resource Management and Chapter 8 -
Community Services and Facilities of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent that the guidelines and
standards of both documents will promote the protection ofriparian and wetland areas while allowing
-::~ grazing to continue within the Eastern Dublin area, and reduction in the risk of open land wildfire to the
:':: lowest level consistent with reasonable protection ofwildlife habitat and other open space values within the
City of Dublin; and
WB'F~REAS, the WMP shall be applicable to all new developments within the City of Dublin; and
WItEREAS, the City Council finds the "Construction Requirements for Buildings on Lots or
Parcels Adjacent to Open Space and Undeveloped Land" set forth in the Wildfire Management Plan are
reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological and topographical 'conditions. As documented in
Section 8.3.2 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and in Part I, pages 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 of the
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (certified
by the City Council on May 10, 1993), the risk of wildfire is particularly great for residences near open
space and undeveloped land due to the dry grassland and windy conditions which exist in the area, the
heightened potential for fires resulting from vandalism and human carelessness due to the increased
population in these areas, and the fact that the relatively remote location can make access for fire fighting
equipment and personnel difficult; and
WltEREAS, the GMP shall be applicable to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area.
The GMP shall be enforced as conditions of rezone and tentative map approval for areas zoned Open
Space and Rural Residential/Agriculture. Grazing may continue within the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment area until land owners receive zone change approval, tentative map approval and grading
permits consistent with the adopted Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment land uses. The GMP shall be
implemented on a voluntary basis if land owners are not applying for a rezone or tentative map approvals,
or if they have received rezone and tentative map approvals but wish to continue grazing their lands until
development begins, or until grading permits are issued consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan; and
WltEREAS, the City shall initiate any voluntary, cooperative measures with Eastern Dublin land
owners for purposes of implementing the GMP, and shall monitor the progress of the GMP
implementation; and
EXHIBIT F
WItEREAS, the GMP and WMP projects have been reviewed in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and no new effects
could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the projects that were not addressed in
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan, and the projects are within the scope of the FEI2R. The projects implement mitigation
measures of the FEIR and an initial study will be conducted for each development application that is
required to comply with the GMP and WMP documents; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approv_e the
GMP and WMP.
NOW, TltEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT ~ Dublin City Council does hereby
approve the GMP and WMP as defined in Exhibits A and B, respectively, of the City Council Staff Report
dated July 9, 1996.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
g:.~_~hlblx.wild~rekn'~r~
i.~ i" I M PI.I-:M I!:N'I"A'rlON G I. jIDI.;1,1Ni.'.S ' "
. !(}..~I'()\.M!I!.E I' %R'I IF.S .' 'I'IMI%(. I A(' I'1()~
Ci~ Inqu~ About Future a Provide wildFife m~agoment guidei~e to developer.
sPInning DeVelopment
Developer Development Initiation
Master Tentative Map or Tentative
Map, Approval
city
·Planning
·Fire
"Finance
· Developer makes proposal to city regarding the
ownership of open lands (space).
· Developer makes proposal to city regarding the
source of maintenance for the open space.
· Developer makes proposal to city regarding the
funding source for open space maintenance.
· City decides and records ownership of open space.
· City decides and records maintenance source for
open space.
· City decides and records funding source for open
space maintenance.
· Certification that all fees are current.
Developer
Site Development Plan Submittal · Developer makes specific proposals for:
- Design of the fire buffer zone.
- Maintenance and irrigation plan for the fire buffer
zone.
- Maintenance plan for open space.
- Maintenance specifications.
- Budget for the maintenance program, proposed.
city
·Planning
·Fire
·Finance
·Building
city
IFire
·Building
·Finance
Property Owner
city
-Fire
City
-Planning
Building Plan Approval
Final Construction Inspection and
Sign-Off
Transfer of Property
Inspect Properties for Compliance
With Wildfire Management
Requirements
Evaluate Wildlife Habitat
Submits preliminary landscape plan for privately
owned properties.
Submits a vicinity plan.
Plans which meet the requirements of the Wildfire
Management Plan will be approved.
Certification that all fees are current.
· Certification that all requirements are satisfied.
-· Certification that all fees are current.
Notify purchaser of open space ownership,
maintenance and funding responsibilities by
recording on title.
Inspection in conjunction with annual Weed
Abatement Program.
Citizen complaint initiated inspections.
All permit applications generate inspections.
Whenever a change is proposed by city or others,
the impact on habitat wilt be reviewed.
g: ~adrnin~chiefiwildfire. tab