HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 SchaeferRchEIR
CITY CLERK
File # DI?lJ[Z][Q]-~[QJ
.:.----. ,',
f .
'\
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 9, 1996
~~ ""'.'., ",-,- ',', '-'-"- ,', ",",.o-".,-,~-""" _-~ """"~ <"'-'Y)"' -~
~ -:-:-
..-/
(pUBLIC HEARING) P A 94-028 Sch~~ferBJm~hRroject EIR,
General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, and
Annexation Initiation '"I
Report Prepared by: Tasha Huston j;;-
BACKGROU@:E~J::U~<~"..."",".".L__""'MQ~!l,a~!!!~~~.~~tai1ed responses and/or .correction~
, ..' '- ,.' '. to the DraftEIR. " . ....... '.. '.' ............-.:...".....'.....'.......
2, Environmental impacts whichwillI~m~.tU~ignificant after
mitigation
Summary of proposed General Plan revisions
Staff Report from the June 4 and JUIle)8, 1996 Planning
Commis~on11eetings*
5. :Minutes from theJ1Jn~4~QJ!:m~18, 1996 Planning
Commission 11eetings *
:Minutes from the April 8, 1996 Joint City Council! Planning
CommissicW Study Session *
General Project Information
SUBJECT:
EXHlBITS ATTACHED:
Exhibit 1.
.?;
:t
Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 5.
Resolution Certifying the Final EIR, with EIR
(Exhibit I-A)* and Clarifications (Exhibit I-B).
Resolution ~dopting the General pl@Am~.ggm~!J..L_.....,
with GPA document (Exhibit 2-A)*, Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 2-B),
and mitigation monitoring program for the project
(Exhibit 2-C).
Resolutiol1approving the Planned Development
Prezone General Provisions, and Land Use and
Development Plan (Exhibit 3-A)
Resolution authorizing initiation of an application for
reorganization to AlamedaCQunty Local Agency
Formation Commission (I-,AfCo), with annexation
'and detachment maps (Exhibits 4-A, 4-B, and 4-C).
Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to
approve the PD Prezone
,~ ----------------~~~7~~~ ~~0
In-house distribution
ITEM NO.
'.
ltesoliitlon Certlrying'thc;EItt !"..,....k..X...
Resolution adopting the: a) General Plan
Amendment, b) finoings and ovemdmg" '.
considerations, and c) mitigation moillioiirig ..
.. 'l>f6gr~ for the project '
Resolution approving the Planned
Development Prezone General Provisions and
Land Use and Development Plan
Resolution authorizing initiation of an
applicatio~ fo; ~~organization to the A1atl1~cla. .'
CountY Local AgenCyF()rmaiionCo~ssion .'
W wve re~ding andmtrodiJ(~eihe6rdmancearllend:i11g'th'e .
Zoning Ordinance to approve the. PDPrezoning; and
Schedule thesecondreiidmg of the Ordinance for iheJuly23,' "'.
1996 City. to~ncilm'eeting. . ,.""t<
... --:' ',.., '''" , '.. ::.':' ,":.', ". ,'..., ..',........., '.. ...... ....." ',,,"." ,....,,,"".'.".... ',"...U ............... .......
FINANCIAL.STATEMENT:""""W""M..A"fiscaI'sitidy....~fth~p~~;d;~~~p~ct~ ~~co~ducted as part of the
Environmental Impact Report. The report conc111..~es!pe project as
and with'the niiiigatlons"iecommeiidecl ilithe~IR;woufa" '.'
result in a revenue surplus for the City.However~'ifchangesare' .., .
to the proj~ct which requirethenscal impactshere:evaluatecl: ...,'"''
the fiscal study may need to be updated. A condition of appr(),,~. has
been attached to the Planned Development Prezoning resolutionfo
." require updates to studies where the City determines it necessary.
RECOMMENDATION': ~
~~
"....... ...* (NOT ..t\...:. ,'.:...... , ~~..."u,.."'......., ~.,....~.~......~....._'''''~..,,~'''''''',,'')'';~~~~.Ji:\i;~';;;.;;,:(,,~
'DUBtlN'prA:f\rN.tNcrn.bp ARfMEm'ANB..XT..'fHE'......... FX',"~.....
.... CITY COtJNClL..POBLrt'!ffi~""'t:i4.H')"~~'_.l"~'!*"''''''^"~'''*''')--'''''''''-')''''''4'''0i!
Open public hearing'andhear staffpresentation
Take testimony from applicant and the public
Question staff, applicant, and the public
.. ..~l()~~ public heariIlganddeliberate.
Adopt the following:
..,.;::-
","-,,~.,-,~<,;,:);~
DESCRlPTION:'""~'.'~~"".
The Applicants are propoSllii:i-e-sidential and cOlllIllercial..' development' for their collective parcels
totaling :t500 acres west of1:lieDUb1ID CiiYiinlliS~ "The'''pr()poserl project includes the following:
· A qen~ra1 Plan Amendment for the :t500 acres of land, changing land use desi~ations frOlTI'
agricultural to various urban land uses. In addition, General Plan policies may be added or amended.
· Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision :Map, Development Agreement and
subsequent Annexation. ... .' .. . .... .. '" d..
· Annexation and/or detaclnilent from varioussemcedistiicts
'" .......N.. -"" ''-'''' .... ,.
The project components scheduled for consideration by the City Council at the' July 9, 1996 meeting inClude "t1ie ..;~,;
ElR}1.r~~~r,~~~~~.LeCS_~..~e@-""~,~.,_~~~,@nt, Planned Development Prezoning, and initiation of an
applic . . .
BACKGROUND
r
\ J
This project site is part of an area th~ttl1~~ity of Dubliri has designated as the Western ExtendedPlanning
Area. Ih~J)!lQliJ:l,G~n~ralPlan states that specific development in this area will be determined when
, ,. . ".,c;:."< :i<j'~~'''''''':''''""",,,...,-,,,.;-,,,",j.-,,,,,,--'c,..,..~"~'''_-''',,,~,,,s<,;;i;f','*''.,,,,,,,,-,
municipal services can be provided and tlITollghGenerarPIanrefinemeIlt studies.
The City Council, in July of 1994, authorized the Staff to GOI1clu~t!!G~J:l~[~!J~!~~t\meD,;qrI1~!:!~!udyfor ,
this project, including preparation, of an ErR, Ih~,Qgfi.liJ:B.,,92~~~t~c;~~ :p~~pa.r~d anddistnbuteoTo['
public review in December of 1995. .Two public hearings were held on theErRbefor~Jh~'Rl~ng
Commission, in January and February of 19%;< Several comment$were r,eceived on the Draflg()~utl1eJ:lt,
for which responses and clarifications were prepared. The Final ErRw!is,distri!?!:lt~(:Lin,May of 1996, .
The City Council and Planning Coriunission held a joint study session in April of 1996, regarding several
major project issues. Following a detailed discussion, the consensus direction of the decision makers was
to proceed with preparation of the G~n~r!ilPli1J:lAm~J:lQm~nt,Q2f.~rI1~!:lt< with the P?licy amendments
proposed for the project. ' ,..
The Draft General Plan Amendment and,SGl1aeferRaIlch EIRwerediscussedat a public hearing before the
, ' "_, '.,. .:_ ,,'_ ,_ _, _ , :', _ 'C' .' "',': ' >.,'- " " : ,~:' . -,- " ", -'f "__ :::. ':: _i'_""-' \: ,-::':< c"." ,<-, ,-',',_ ,~-;,,',">,,'" ,'._','" :;,,: -~; /--i-j<',"-'''K <: "_,,_,,, "".~_~',~,,': c -_ -:-,'"'' -", >eo ." ".. ,.:-
Planning Commission on Jllpe4, 1996. At this meeting,' the C6m:rmssion'recOn1mended tl1.at tpe9ity
Council certify the EIRas complete and adequate, and adopt the proposed General Plan Amendment
The Planning Commission then considered the next component ofthe Schaefer RanGh project proposal, the
Planned Development Prezoning, at its July 18, 1996 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended
the City CounCil adopt an ordinance establishing the PD Overlay zone, and approve the Land Use and
Development Plan and proposed General Provisions for the project as conditioned.
r'
< '
Additional infO!.1n!l~i9Jl,.QItth.~ht~lOry of the Schaefer Ranchprojectis ,contain~d.m Background Exhibit 7.
The following sections addr~ssth~ project components which are the subject of the July 9, 1996 City
Council public hearing.
EIR
The purpose of the City Council's review oftheEIRi~,tQgetepnine yvhetherit~asa.~equately addressed
the issues assoc;iatyQ)Vitl1!he proposed project (the General ~Pl~'k~~d~e~tlindr~l~!yd proposed
development entitlements). The Califomi~ Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR
provide sufficient analysis to inform decision-:make,r$ Qf1I1~e,!l:vitogmental consequences of a project. The
analysis does not have to be exhaustive but of sufficient$cope to provide the criticallcnowinfQfIIlation
about specific issues. ErR,~Qe,guacy is not bas~d onJhe$eyeIity of the impacts but whether the
information has been presented in accordanc~with. Stlile,,requirements.
l.
2.
(. 3.
4.
5.
While reviewing the EIR, some of the points which should be consideredindude:
Has the project been fulfy described in termsQfJQ~lit!Qn, boundaries, physical characteristics, and
intended, u~es;
Doe$th~!)ll1l.1l1}!irysection clearly describe the proposed actions and consequences; are areas of
enviroriinental controversy identified; .
Have the significant environmental effects l:>~~ncle$c.tiQe,c!; has sufficient information been provided
to understand the issues;
Have mitigations been identifiedtomimmj~e,jmpacts; and
Were alternatives to the project described and evaluated.
3
"wi' .
I ., ' '.', , - '. . \ -
Schaefer Ral1Ghci~y~lopment, certain text and policy changes to the City's existing General Plan are
necessary to ensure consistency between it and the proposed Schaefer Ranch project.
.-:-,.
'r
The revisions tothe General Plan textm~y concern 6 subject areas:
~ ' ' " ' " ' "" ''-', --'- '\' .." "'t """" ..",... '.'''. ", -,.-.;
'c
1. Adding policies to regulate the land uses and development for the Western Extended Planning Area
to accoIIl1l1Q<iaJ~th~,.~~hl!~f~!:~~2h project
2. Revising existing City policies to make adjustment for special circumstances surrounding
development in the Western Extended Planning Area, primarily regarding topography &. grading
3. Adding policies regarding access.,& circulation to, this project and re1l1aip.der()f properties in the
Western EXtended Platllling Area -~,' ,
. -4. Adding policies regarding fire service for project and Western ExtendedPI@Iling Area
5 . 110difying wording of existing City policies regarding Oak woodlands and riparian vegetation
6. Adding or modifying text tocr~atepolicies for preservatiQn of open space and natural resources,
and recreation policies, including regional trailljnlc, in :W:e~~~I}lg,g~tl?~~,~I~g Area
Th,e re~~q~rQf.!h~.,~!l~f?~t!:~X~Yl~~~~",~Y21~~.."~J,~~,gg~;,R~pp~~testo the text or figures. A list
summanzmg the proposed text and policy changes is contaIned m Background Attachment 3.
~'~' ., .
Bec~use the approval of the General PI~Aln~Il<ime!l~~~9!l~~1TI1!.~Jg.~>!i:r~tproject entitlement, the /
Council must also ~dopt findings and statements ofQver,riding considerations, pursuant toCEQA, which
relate to the projects environm~ntal.W1pacts. Staff recommends the findings and statementmqlgQ.egjl}".._..,
Exhibit2-B pea,qQpted with the adoption of the General Plan AmeQQIl!~J1t1\Agi!ietl~y, a mitigation
monitoripg program is required to implement the mitigation measuI:~s,re<:;()mm~~g.~g,QY the EIR with the
approved project. The proposed mitigation monitoring program included as Exhibit 2-C with this ,
ResQlution will address this ,requirement.
__ .__ ,'. .'/0'''_'.__ '" ,..'" ,~, '_'~ ,,- ,. "'~_.,._,'.__,~,~,',~"..~,,<,,~.,''___'O ,.... ,'"".,;,<,
.r
,.
" " ~; ~
Staff recommends the Cpgpqil"adopt the Resolution adopting the General:PJanAlneP.c!m~Q.t, attached as
Exhibit~1. and 2:A, with the findings and statements of ovemc.iiIlg considerations (Exhibit2-B) and
. . " . .' f1::i::C'o~C"'J'''''''''''''''~''
nutiganonmomtonng program \,!:!}UU it ~-I. "....,..,,'..,... '.' ,..., "."",...
PLANNED' DEVELOPMENT
,.., "'7':""""""'-"T",~,,,*,,,,~,""'ii;>~,*,"''''''''''~~~~''*(~~~'~~~~iiI#V~~~~~'1l'~~~~'~0,~.;",.:c-*y~:,.~\~;".,-,,>,,<(.,W4-l(~~r""A..~'~!i"""""'<,*,~"""~j~j\",:"'((,'1$f!,",:;ot'."'<~:!&'"
,
The Applicants are requesting approval of a Planned Development (PD) Prezone to establish the ,General
ProvisiQTI$J!,I!Q..Pe,Yelopment Regulations that would apply to the proposed Residential, Commercial,
Public, Semi-Public, and Open Space Land Us~ Designations forthe 500::t acre project area. FourdistIDct
types of residentialneighborhoods are proposed for the Schaefer, Ranch project site, ranging from attached
duetunits on ~,500 square foot lots, to custom esjateresidences()nlpts ranging from 3 to 40 acres.
. '
An il1ustratiy~d~ye,lopment plan prepared by the Applicants shows the conceptual lot layout for the
proposed land qS~~..I!~1"e,.Qupon this plan, and on the constraints evaluated in the EIR, staff estir:n~1~~!h!it.
. theEStat~R~$icie,11:ti.~,Z;9~g District wQuld have, the, capacity for up to 15 dwelling units. The remainder
ofthean,#s;ipateddwe11iJJ.g units (up to 459 units) could be accommQd~tedwithiI1theSingle-Family
ResidentialZo~gDistrict, for a total of 474 units on the project site.
r
With a Planneci Rey~lgpment Prezoning process, a "PD Overlay Zone" will simply attach a "PD" zoning
designation to the project site and add thesit~lpJh~,Pty's Zoning 11ap (see Exhibit 5). The more precise
location of development on the site, and more specific land U$e standards, are established by adopting a
Land Use and Development Plan (Exhibit 3-A). In addition to the land use categories shown on the Land
'Use ~dP~v~l()pment Plan, the development will be regulated by General Provisions and Development
,
5
.,,""*~,,.,~~Vi,,,=~~~cJJ~~~,~J2j>~~~~"Jts!,9~~,~~,~I.?I1~.,.,~~~~~(l,~J)I:>E~Z,2rU!tg:':apjttt>:~ii,'i;';~;;pii~~~;ith
manCe."...
T~epropo.sed land uses al1d d'eli~iti~~as shown On the Land Use aQ.QJ2evelopment Plan are c011.'Sistentwith
,:,-,::.- -'-"-' " ' " , ",," -"," ~-'< """'-'~-""''''''_;'''''~',",.''''';4._\'''-'""."-",__-"._~,~~,,,,,,,,,,_,,-w::.,.,,,_~v."'_ ".'!-~ _ _", ,,'_ ,," ',' ' .,_,,>_ ,,/_ '_ _ ,; ;" _", .\" ,_';_ "d'- : _" , __, _ --'-'_"_(,.'f,; ""-0i';:'':'-'<, ~l._w".:""",:.,",,,.,,,,..,i,.!"'''''"'-:~.''"'''''~'~':''-''_".
th#Ii2:~[B.~~ic~~~!~~~2~~}.h~..;~S~e~f~r,Rincll'F.inarEfR'whlch evaluated and anticipated a total of 474 "
dwe11ing units from the project, and with tan' S shownfOT the property. .....,,; ','
St:+\.;;~k~X,~~~~t~~;~~flll~th~I'm9ys,es., CWd provisions' proposed for the Schaefei'1tancn''j:>foject are
aPE,~~;&r~sp,e",~~sJ~w..iteros, ho!e~e~,~~~lJ;sEP;~!q,,1?~;~s!gr~~S~g,.!hr9~gh
m~~~t~~~~.m!!!!~CZE1~l,2L~!1l:1ls;l~Qs.ofthe PDPrezorung. These areas tnclude: 1) locatIon of a
neighborhood park, 2) agre~1rl~!1!s for provision of-certain public services.1tfid facilities (including schools),
~"-~'''''''''~'''''.''''''~'''~l~~,.~_~,,, "~"': _:,._.._" _ _",-_~ ~_ '_"_ '_'". ',' ',,'~_
and}) other hysical develo ment regulations. These issues'are . ,
A,rmg to apter. 0 t e, Ity s MUruCIpal Code (Quimby Act Ordinance) the project would
.iC~~'<iiP;Si,"~"'''_~,"''''''~'''_'"''''"'_''''''''''".'''''''''''''' ", ..",,'.'..."'.;'''''' ,.", ",." ", ; , .
gerrer~i~ tfi~Qr" apprOXImately 7.6 acresgf parkland on-SIte, mcludmg 2.3 acresfor neighborhood '.',,'.," ,'" .
.",",~-, "','. "',,." , '. ,'.' ",,',,", " ;,' "',.., .." ......,;.'.'",.,...."."..;..,..,.,,,,...'"-',...,......
P~~~_liP.d\i?JJ~I~~"wly parks. The CIty'S Parks and Req::~~tIon Master Plan establIshed
st~,._fq,~.th~).92~g9!1-gP,clge,~ign of such parks. The 10catiQn ora neighborhood park within the
proje~iliasnotbeenJesolved,ancl th~Lc::ity is currently in the process of reviewing the applicant) proposed
t1.I""~~I'~~~~~,_._'_..,',.".(:L",;.._c:__:::,__:_._-,,,>,'. ..n. ": __"n,__ _, __ _ ,.-:._~..,--"":_o'-,. ',.
parJs.l"K~~t.!~~~.~Ib"~j;e!2.Rr~&;9ningdia~am the[~K9r.e liQe,~1ilO~~p~~ify!~e park location, but the park issue
will need'to be resolved rior to the approval of a Tentaii" ,,' a for the project.
Th~,;;;~!;851~~~'o/t~~""p~k. S}2;~~~t Ic)c~~i8p,affectsimportant issues, including the recf(~aiionaIIl~eds of the
resiqents, ~~~t)'consiq~r~tipl1Scmd potential cQroe issues~'and imp~ct fees' and long;.t~rm maintenance
~~l~~~~~:;~~{~i~ti~riifr~~~~~~,;~~~t~e:~:i:.~Val ,.,..
Pri~frqlq~'CnySappr~~~~ft1i7Tentative,,$llbdjvi,~!QI1J"fap, 'il1eproposetllocation, and c.~rt9-indesign
H+..~"'1~!t,..".~..,....".,"""..,;'..,'-"-;;;,""..c,.".;,,',..;;,;'....""....i0..,.....,'~",..,....>;",....,........."..,.'~.".., ,', ",'.. ",",'" ..., ,"','. . ,,', ","'...' "
aspeCts 0 ooa ark for the pro ect shall be reviewe d ..~pproved by the CIty CouncIl.
The"., "',...:v.()~ 4a1spR~.~HRj~ct to the Puf?lic;faeilities Fee that was recently adopted by the City
COU:r19il...J.IQ~ey~r:theFe,e..~~ilJ...I1.~..~,qJ91>~..r~g?lG}l!~!~~LR,~f.?.Y~~th.~projected population that wiII be .. ..
gen~~_EYtlie~chaerer~RBjlCliprc;jecrwasnofincluded in the original calculatio1ls Qfthefe~. A
~':,."i~"__,,-_'!"''''''','';.~.'''''~,,~~;,1<''~''.5,>_<_''''_,~,i'..-,,'''''..,,"""""/'%\1!"'~. --., ',..' --.,', ' " '.- -",'-,' _' '" __ __ _:"': ,;"',,.__ _:_' ,'_,' 'i_",',_____ '__'"'''' ':__':_:',,_'__:n:,~_'
con 'iti ' , proval requirino the fee to be ree late' incorporated in the PD Pr ." g Resolution.
'r-
.\
in inadequate room in the sicie yards for tree planting, location of arrconditioning units, and stor~ge of
trash~opJ~I1"~r~, small vehicles or other m~chanica1 equipment. For these reasons, the Staffis
recomm~nQit1g that side-yard setbacks be no lessthan 5 feet on one side and 10Jeet 0!ttl1y9!her,for a
total of 15 feet betweenbuilqings. Other standards wouldby~~shoyvnin th~attacl1edXys()Jtl!iotl,
approving the PD Prezoning standards (Exhibit 3), The Planning C~mmissionconcllrred with staff's
recommendations, and recommended approval of the Prezoning as conditioned. In summary, the PD
Prezomt1g for this site will~~1~l:>li$111l1~JgHQ~ing density and lot count standa[dsJ()rtheRysid~tl~i~1
Zoning Districts:
Nei2:hborhood
Unit Tvoe
",,,,,"-,,,'-'~~~:J',,,t.
Minimum _
.L~t I~J~e n " r; I D~~~fity 1~!1 '
Zoning District Zoning District
111M" r a",~,'.,'~,f~, ,~, "~~' ~!!,i~~~,' "ii'~',~,-, _,' "'~ n~t~a,,'~,<a~i~, J".J " ','.,',' "",. ',','
: .T _ ~ IT flU if rmt~rr"1tt1rW1li' ~,~trf1}r'f", "~-."~''frf''~~W5:~'K;t~fr;-''~'~r~'~~-if~
C
Single Family
2 acres 0.01-0.8 PD Estate Resid~nti~l 15
6,000 sq.ft. 0.9-6.0 PD Single Family 459 **
5,250 sq.ft. 0.9-6.0 PD Single Family **
4,500 sq.ft. 0.9-6.0 PD Single Family **
A
Estate
B
Single Family
D
Duets
* Density is based upon units per gross residential acre
** 459 Units forP:Q~ingle Family zoning districtindudes NeighborhooQs:l3, C, and D
r'"
. - "-
',\
",~ ,
The issues discussed above have been addressed with conditions in the Resolution attached as Exhibit 3.
_;. '''~;''-'.-C''''~-'''"~'"':'':'-''''''<:'',',\'-";''''''''''''''-:~~''''<f.*i~*'~,,*,~"f," ,'!\1!",:;:':_~,U~ii'Jfit';;.jjC~~"~'f;iii~~~'iEA~~~1~ii::t<'i~:O:~,~,-~",,_,,_,,-"-->:~''i;;;;c-:/-~..c ,,,,,,:":,,;<';Jt.i.,",~~:'F:~:;t.:.,,,
StaffrecoIl1Il1end~!!d9ption ofthe Resolution approving thePD Preioning, Land Use alla..t5eveIOpmenC~ ..
Plan, and General Provisions and])~"~IPpment Regulations~nd CQnclitiQl1$,.Ih~...!!g9ption of the PD
Prezone wouldbe consistent with the Dublin General PI~ and would take effect on the date whichthe
'. . ' -- ,- ,~>",,^,,.,-:,, ": -,,__,,;:,~,"""':"~:';'__"_"':""",~':':_^';"''''''_"":(C~";';""'~:";':''''"'-':~~'''''K,,::j~::':~~:,;!Pi::{5~~~ ,. i,-',,'._'V"__'_"_- ,-- '-,' '. - , ' " " ;,- ,': ,',-,' ,'-
General Plan Amendment or the PD PrezoIl~Q.n!in.M!ce becom~s ~ffective, whichever is later.
,. .. .... ,_'" '" _"'",,.-'_,_,':"" ", ,.'.'_, ___""'}!' ~__'':"';'-''''''~''''':_,'_''_~''''''','__/'''':'';'~''_;~~'_""<0""'"''',''';'
ANNEXATION".,
The project site is curreIltly within the uninGQrporated portion of Alameda County. In order for the project
to come un~t~Ltb-e jurisdictionoftb~.City of Dublin, annexation of the site to the City must be approved by
the AlamedaCpYl1ty Local AgencyFormation CommissiQnC1A;EQo). The LAFCo prefers that a city
prezone an area proposed for annexatiQn, and that prezoning must be consistent withthe approved General
Plan land 1Js~~"fQr,Jb-~ property. The PD Prez;oning proposed for adoption would add.I:~~~tN~,g~quirement,
and wouldest'!hU~hJfl~.appropriate land usesJob~.iJ;L~:[~.fLattheJ~h~ project site become~ a part of
the city.
,r'.
The cU1Xent?~tiQ!l'proposed for the City Council's COIlsicler:'!ti()n..is,t()~dopt an resQlutionalltl106.zing staff
to initiate (i]}J:\pplication to LAFCo for areorganization. The reorganization proposal incllldes:.
AnnexationofJ!Je project site (500.28i. acres) to the City of Dublin; Annexation of500.28i: acrestoJl1e
Dublin San RamonSYrvig~~:Q,i.~trist; Annexation of 339.63i: acres to Zone 7 of the AIam~d(l<;q~l1ty Flood
Control an~LW~t~r.~Qll~~m!ig1l12islIj#9t.J~J?~~72;12~t~~lunent()fthis acreage from Zone 2 of the
Alameda County Flood Control andW~ter~Q11,~~rYf!:tiQ-tl Pj~trj"sfandDetachment of 328,68i: acres from
the Hayward Area Recreati(:m;;tn(:lr..a.rlsRXs!Ijft~"'0""^'"'''''' .
In terms ofl11lIl~~tiQrr~JQJh~.~iry and various service distriyts, the providers of public services such as
water, sewer, schools and oth~L&~ryjg~~JJ!!~Y~I~vj~~~!.h.~~3at~.~n p~oposal. As part of the LAFCo
7
i~)'l~~p"rt5C4~~rs?th~~e, pr~~derswill, ,e, c(:mt~ct~.ci.regarding tl1eir ability to provide services to the proj ect
sitl'~S~aJf~D:cr!fie,applicanfh.ave-beeii"acti'~~jy"~orking withvarious service'providers to evaluate and plan
:;;; ;,':>;i:A.;p'*~{i",\(~.t*"'t:~~'*f"~~~,*,:o :~".,;.,,"'_~, '";:(.,, -_'...,>c ">"<:,C'''~'_'''+;;''';''"''':;i:.,,,':';'>''_~;:: :::".\~'~'\,>,;,':""~,!',':;:;$~ " , _ " , ." _". _.: :,,",:. "_'_"_~ ,.'._': ,,' -::" _:. ,~,-:,;_, ':,;_. :,,: _ :~ _.:." "'._
fortne~:seryicetteeds oftheproject, and it appears feasible that these agencies will be able to serve the
~~w,W~_~~:~"~,lJLUI .j~W'ii!!~l1J).lm2tr.til"\~ '.' -'^:^"",-,,-"'~_' ~ "_:,,,-,,,:_~~
project. It is anticipated that these service providers will have commentsand conditions to attachtQany
ap~r~ngtllemteTothfCi~e~St8ffte~oInIP:en?sJ~~!$g~o'1)!i(lpiJ,1itiating the annexation . ;',)':'
~pplicatr()iimchideac()namoilregumngCiiY's'iMf and'ih~'p~()jea'Appli~~tto obtai~, confIrmation from
tp~~~p~eMCya:ge~~':~nfserve the,project that service can be providecl,inclucling the" '," '
sf::~'''~'''''''.'''"'ncr%con'aifr''~"'<'~ora-~''rovaras''part'ofth~a:pplication package to be submit!ed to tl1eLAFCo.
As WIt services for t . ay notpe availabI~iI11llleciiately upon
a." ", "..' ".,', .,0 annex.atlQn"'d,.a~,n:g'an ',' engmeenng studies for water ands~\\7~r.!mr(l,stI]lctUI:~ ,will be
refti:t:'n:e(rtoatrdfess~servrc~jii~iWli~x~~i9.qCi~e~ and the project proponents will likely neeO to erifermto
iJ,;( ,;~~,~~~~!t?;:;":;~W..k&f'",".~M' "~'4"",^1>:""'''';~~-'''-i:.>I'-''''l.'\\<'<{f>'~1{;;,{:&,'t,'.Im~Jf1:~;W;;r~~~,'4':~'''''~'~,';>i1'",t.:4',L''''"ZM. ,,"'k.~''"'(-';;'' .._. ,,' _.'. "''',-"", ~ ""_" 0
agreenrentsWIth the sefVlce Olstncts.
, ;'- .~~0~i;~~:?:~;
5t"" ,,"" ,e~~vest,',~,ann~xatloIlis.,~,.,10:gical~},:feIlsiol1oftheJ)ubIinCi1:yliriiits, and the prQject would provide
an.~,fi~i~~t~'Cma~i-r9':mCI"~1~~~r~~en~io'I1'()fu;~~ d'e~eiqp-;;~tin, the City's western exteI1ded planning
aie,..',.~,.,.~,tli,~,'t,',~,ii'ap,-, .,prop-nate'for the"sii,',e,''''','. ,",','''A, 'd,", ,Cli,tip,n,., ~~iY,"",',"',the,."",pr,"~, ~"ect would provide an ",oPP" ',o,rt" urn,,' ty, . for residential,
,.: ~";-"'{i~~t~~ ,-: '~j:- . ,'- '~- "';"'"".-_~_'=}~h""'~'-"_'''A~'J-'''~'_''-~~', '",~<~"""c:");",~-,,,,,,~O':,...,,,,,,,,,,,~.\,,,,~.,,:,,,,,,.--:.^, ""?""":":"'."-::':~~\' """t':":~{,
d~~~lQpmeni seriously needed within the City, and would meet the housing needs of a unique segment of
~J~~1rIJt'c'jt~;"~""",.,-"""">,""',~""~:r'''''''~.'',:,"';''''-o,,,,,~,y,,:,,,:..c"::1"'''',,;tt'~5,'_i;'''''''";'7f<~~'~,,",\''V'_;:>''''''V;'M7~~''-;-''';""'J~>~~,.;,:. . ' "'-, ,- _ '..;' . .' '_.':" ._~ .,_.... ._._., _ c. ,_ .'_ _,,_,c.,,_ _n/ "_ ,<...', ';:.;' _, _." _':' '", -' _, .
tH~xRU1ID1!mty. Staffrecommen,d~C:;~9ptlOn of the ResolutlOntO!!l!!lilt~.an ~pplicatlon to LAFCo for
rJgrwtitrz~n'''~as'serfortlrmthe'''atta~he 'R""ution unaetExnff)lr4'~'~"'"""';"'-'-- ".,~,.' "'''''''''' ",'
5t~ffrecoInm~11 s,tl1at the, City Council cond~ct,a PllblicH~a.ring, deliberate, and take the following
a~ti,ons'-o.n:f>A'94.:o~8~SiF;e~~~~~!L!:rojeci: ,.', ' .
;;;~=~:'.:7'~~~~~~~~~<~~ik,~~'';:;&\",~"_\4w''''-''\''~,,,,"-'''''_'':-~3c,ftP"N~,M"'C':',,:':+."",""..o..',,,o ,...,_,.""",""".
RESOLUTION NO. - 96
(\,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY O:i? DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT :B.E:pOR,T FOR THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT
WHEREAS, Schaefer Heights, Inc. (the applicants) have submitted a request for a General Plan
Amendment, Planned Development (PD) Prezoning to establish land uses, general provisions and development
regulations for a development consisting of up to 474 single family homes, and commercial/office, semi-public,
and open space land uses on approximately 500 acres, generally located on the north side of the 1-580 freeway, at
Schaefer Ranch Road, in Alameda County, adjacent to Dublin's Western City limits, and
WHEREAS, in response to a proposal for development of the Schaefer Ranch property, the City of
Dublin undertook the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Am~dm~nt ~tudy to evaluate the proposed development of
the Schaefer Ranch project site within Dublin'!; W~,~m ~etep.qe<:lf!,m!,ing ar~ and
WHEREAS, the City completed an Initial Study on the project and determined that anEnvironmental
Impact Report (EIR) was required. A Notice of preparation dated-March 21, 1995, was prepared, published in a
newspaper of general circulation and mailed to Responsible Agencies and various other interested parties, and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the project, including the General
t'. Plan Atnendmep.t, Planned Development Prezoning, Annexation to the City, Tentative Subdivision Map,
Annexation to and/or detachment from various servi~ ~~, and approval of subsequent development
entitlements. A Notice of Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was filed with the State of
California Govemors' Qf:Ii~9fl?1anI1iJlg and Research via the State CI~ghouse (SCHNo. 95033070) , and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was initially circulated for a 45-day public/agency
review period beginning on December 27, 1995, and ending on January 16, 1996, and was extended for an
additional period to February 20, 1996. Public noti~o:fth~ ~Y'!ilaPility of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report was published in a newspaper of general circulatioIlalld tmrile<i,t,QB,esponsible Agencies and various other
interested parties, and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission held duly noticed public input meetings on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report on January 16, 1996, and on February 20, 1996. At these hearings, and
through submitted vvritten comments, the Planning Commission received comments on the Draft EIR from the
public, responsible agencies, other governmental and private organizations, as well as from City staff and its
consultants and property owners and their consultants, and
WHEREAS, A joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission was held on April 8,
1996, which addressed major issues affecting the physical development of the site, including: provision of public
services, such as fire service and schools; access to other Western Dublin properties from the Schaefer
Ranch project; and park land requirements, and ownership and maintenance of open space lands, and
~,
WHEREAS, with the consensus direction by the decision makers to proceed with the processing of the
Schaefer Ranch project, the City completed preparation of a Draft General Plan Amendment for approximately
500 acres, and
EXHIBIT 1
\
WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the
public review period and at the public hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information contained in
the Draft EIR, providing good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments and~"
responses to comments were published with the Final EIR, which consists of two volumes: I) The Draft EIR
with Revisions, and IT) the Responses to Comments and Appendices, and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 1996, the Final EIR was distributed to or otherwise made available to the
Planning Commission, City Council, Responsj!>)~ Agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, and other interested
parties, and -
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated June 4, 1996, was prepared for the Schaefer Ranch project Final EIR,
which report described the Final EIR, the comments and responses received, and identified issues related to the
certification of the EIR, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Schaefer Ranch project
Final EIR on June 4, 1996, and considered all written and oral testimony submitted at or prior to the hearings, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report:, Volumes I and
IT, including specific text revisions to the Draft EIR on June 4, 1996, and following a public hearing, the
Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment as complete, adequate, and in compliance with
CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental Guidelines, and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was prepared for the City Council meeting of July 9, 1996, for the Schaefer
Ranch project Final EIR, which report described the Final EIR, the comments and responses received, and
identified issues related to the certification of the EIR, and
~.'
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Schaefer Ranch project Final
ElR on July 9, 1996, and considered all written and oral testimony submitted at or prior to the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council has reviewed the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment, Volumes I and IT,
(included as Attachment I-A to the Staff Report) including specific text revisions to the Final EIR (included as
Attachment I-B to the Staff Report) and does hereby certify this report as complete, adequate, and in compliance
with CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental Guidelines.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
~:
City Clerk
(g:pa\94\028\stfipts\ 7 -19ccmtg\r -eir2)
11
cI-
r--,
.
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IIVIPACT REPORT
FOR
SCHAEFER R.\NCH PROJECT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
r--,
. April 1996
(document sent under separate cover)
EXHIBIT I-A
r-\
/2
?
....,.
. .'
CLARIFICA TION SHEET
FINAL EIR for SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT
July 1, 1996
Typically, there are minor wrapup items to revise or include in the Final ErR. For this
document, these clarifications have been included for the following reasons.
1.
Late EIR comment letter and response. This letter from the Alameda County
CongestlOn Management 'Agency was submitted to the CitY....well after the close of the
comment period on the EIR, and thus no response to this comment letter is required
by CEQA. However, the letter is included for the Council's information, as
miscellaneous correspondence. Responses to the comments are attached to this letter.
~:
2. Minor tvpo,?:raphical and printing corrections. These correctio_~s are provided for,~ross-
referencing, accuracy and completeness of the Final EIR.
These clarifications do not affect the conclusions of the EIR, and do not add any new impacts
or mitigation measures.
\~
EXHIBIT I-B
\-1
---..-
, \
,
..,.'~..LA,~1EDA- COUNTY
COXGESTION ~~ANAGE~1ENT AGENCY'
~~M'\
I i
I t I
l I J
~ /
Count" of Ahn>cd1
. ~u::tC",,~'~r
f.-::U1 St~c-J~
City of Alam.ed1
l\la:v"f
~pL App::::=;r--!
Citt aI Alban,'
C~,f~r.ci.l.'"1lcml:.';
1;-\1.::." !\:L-!:S1
Ci...., ofI\=kcl~'
C01m.:iim=ml~
p,.U; :\~tTC>n.g
Citt ofDubliD
C(\~JicilmC1ll~
=,,,\ll \1..::U,d:'
June 20, 1996
R5CEIVED
JUN 2 It 1995
OUatfN PLANNING
Ms. Tasha Huston
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report With Revisions for
Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment dated April 1996 in the
City of Dublin
Cit:r orE.n:.c~
Fief, Cluxi~:.:~: Dear Ms. Huston:
::\:.,~D;',;,.
CityC:.r;"e;;::: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Glr ;";;~~~:~ Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment (GPA) located in the
Cit), of"Hayward City of Dublin. Volume 2 of this document, Response to Comments and Appendices,
Rc'l>m. .;~~;: responded to comments submitted by the CMA on February 15, 1996. The CMA
Ci"" aILivcnnorc respectfully submits the following additional comments:
~Counci.irnanboer
A~~ \\ie,k..mp
f'
City of1'"",,",,&: ·
Vi"" Mavor
S=Jo~(-[j
Ci... ofOaldand
Counc:iimtmbct
Nal3lie llayton
City of Piedmont
Mav",r
Gnsig Luo'din
Cit:V o;fPlC2~ntOI1 .
, l.1.."",,-r
J:kn Ta..~.cr
City of San Leandro
Vice ft..lavc.r
5........3r.:: K-at
Ci.,. of1:7",;ol1 City
]\'13vC"r
~lark ~
B..lR,T
Dir",,!or
~:!ar~'Lr~1 K. Pry-~.r
AC Tra.....t
Dircc.t.:-r
~:"n \\'illi=
The CMA requires a Year 2000 analysis for CMP purposes. Year 2010 traffic
volumes were provided to the City of Dublin on July 7, 1995. A year 2000 model
run. was not completed because the City of Dublin does not expect the project to be
occupied until 2005. This should be stated in the environmental documentation.
Otherwise, a Year 200'0 traffic analysis needs to be included in the DElR
In the CMA's comments dated Febrwrry 15, 1996 and consistent with the CMA's
request to all other jurisdictions, it was requested that the Final EIR include a
comparison of the results from the Tri- Valley and the Countywide models to show
that the higher projections were used to determine project impacts. This comparison
was not provided in the response to comments. The response stated that "a more
detailed comparison of the two forecasts would not be a salient addition to the
document for purposes of environmental review". It is, however, required for the
purposes of CMP compliance and could affect the City of Dublin's conformance
status. The document needs to be revised to show the comparison of the two model
results.
L-=C~...;;'';:Jtr:~ . Responses to CMA's February 15, 1996 comments labeled K2, K5, and K8 in
V 01ume 2 should be modified to acknowledge that the environmental documentation
{'-, has identified proposed mitigation on CMA monitored facilities. CMA monitored
facilities include, in addition to 1-580 and 1-680, San Ramon Boulevard, Foothill
Boulevard, and Dublin Boulevard.. Given this information, a discussion of proposed
1333 BROADWAY. SUITE 220 . OAKLAl'<"D. ell.. 94612. PHONE: (510) 836-2560 . FAX: (510) 836-2185
.5
-2
-
Ms. T asha Huston
June 20, 1996
Page 2
I
1
1
funding sources for transportation Illitlgation measures identified in the
environmental documentation, adequacy of project mitigation measures, and
consistency with the CMP Capital Improvement Program should be included in the
environmental documentation.
--!:;
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call me or Beth Walukas at 510/836-2560.
Regards,
~L-i\tc1r -t'
Jean Hart
Deputy Director
cc: Beth Walukas, Senior Transportation Planner
File: CMPlEnvironmental Review Opinions - Responses - 1996
\"" ,.J <"',
~..:
."",,:
b
-3
r\
A. RESPONSE TO CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY MEMO
Response to CMA followup comment 1: Model run year. This comment is acknowledged,
The record is hereby clarified to state that a year 2000 model run was not completed because
the City of Dublin does not expect the project to be occupied until 2005.
Response to CMA followup comment 2: comParis?n of Tri- Valley, and Countywide models.
The response to Comment Kl (FEIR Volume, 2, page '101) states that the Tri-Valley model is
more appropriate and more conservative than the Countywide model. Since the more
conservative model is used, the traffic analysis in the EIR is adequate as far as CEQA is
concerned. If further detailed comparisons are r~quired for CMA compliance, this can be
completed later in the review process, but does not need to,b€l inclllcledj1} meFin,~~JR'
Response to CMA followup comment 3: 11itigation for CMAm()tl,i~oredX~~iliti~s:S?~I'I~~Ilt
K2 is a request to discuss funding sources. The response (FEIR Volume 2, page 'HH) states
that the remaining funds will be collected through TIF fees and other availableso!ln~es,
Comments K5 and K8 refer back to this earlier response.
B. TYPOGRAPHICAL AND PRINTING CORRECTIONS
FEIR Volume 1
0.
Page S-l1, Revise Impact 4M to read: Dublin Canyon RdlSchaefer Ranch Rd. (cumul.) Project will
contribute to noed for signalization. Previously identified mitigation will reduce impact to less-than-
significant level. Column 2:, Change "s" to "L". Column 3: delete text as follows. 4.M.1. Contribute
fair share of future signalization 60StS.
Page S-18. Impact 7.3D, Change to read:
[Column 1] 7.3D. Medical emergency response time impacts. A possible extension of one minute
response time to the most remote parcel, and one-half minute av~rage in residential areas, is-R-et
considered to be a significant impact. [Column 2] Change "L" to "S". [Column 3] Add: 7.3.1. (See
Impact 7.3C); 7.3,8. (See Impact 7.3J). [Column 4] Add "L".
[The above correctiops are provided to provide consistency between th~ summary and the EIR text.
Page S-l of the EIR summary states that if there is a question of interpretation, the applicable chapter
shall take precedence over the summary.]
Page S-21, Impact 8.1A. Under column for mitigation measures, delete item 8.1.5 and renumber
remaining measures in sequence. [provides consistency betweent text and summary.]
Page S-24, Impact 11A. Under column for mitigation measures, revise to read as..follows:. .
;---.,
11.A.1 General requirements. Apply City's noise control staBdards.lL\.2,. Existing;
residences. Arrange for residepts to mov~ ,q:ffsite, or phase grading.
[provides consistency between text and summary.]
-4
7
Page S-28, Impact 18.3H. Under "level of significance before mitigation" add "S". Under "Level of
Significance after mitigation" add "L". [correction of typographical error]
...., .
Add Figure S-1 (attached) following page S-29. [Figure S-1 was included in Draft EIR].
Figure 1...7 legend. Under "RetailJOffice", delete the follo\\wg:
Service Station, 1st floor Rctail and Offipc Abo'/e. "
[deleted to provide consistency with EIR text]
Page 4-15. Add the following sentence under Impact 4G:
MitigationMeasure 4.G.1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
[This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary.]
Page 8-4. Revise sentence beginning on line 12 to read:
Mitigation Measures 8.1.1 tbrough-&h+- 8.1.8 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level. [Correction of typographical error]
Page 8-8. Under Mitigation Measure 8.2.2, remove strikeout to restore text as follows.
8.2.2 Treated Water Discharge. [Correction of typographical error]
Page 18-7. Add the following sentence under Impact 18.3C:
Mitigation Measure 18.3.5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
[This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary.]
Page 18-7. Add the following sentence under Impact I8.3D and change the text as follows:
Police Protection. The City shall continue to use the budget strategy require improvements and
assess f-ceg for new development to cover the costs of additional police protection for new development.
Mitigation Measure 18.3.6 would reduce this impact to a less-tOOn-significant level.
[This repeats and clarifies information contained in Chapter 7 and in the FEIR summary.]
~'
Page 18-7. Add the following sentence under Impact 18.3E:
Mitigation Measure 18.3.7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
[This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary.]
Page 18-8. Add the following sentence under Impact 18.3G:
Mitigation Measure 18.3.8 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
[This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR. summary.]
Page 18-9. Add the following teA'"! under Impact 18.3H:
The cumulative demand on fire protection/emergency medical response facilities in the Western
Extended Planning Area is a potential significant adverse cumulative impact. Mitigation
Measures 18.3.9 and 18.3.10 would reduce this impact to a less-tOOn-significant level. [This
repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary.]
Page 18-9. Add the following sentence under Impact 18.31:
Mitigation Measure 18.3.1 I would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
[This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary.]
...."
-5
1
~
I >
r>
r,
q
Page 18-9. Add the following sentence under Impact 18.3!:
Mitigation Measure 18.3.11 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
[This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary.]
FEIR Volume 2
Page 138, line 1: Change U16 to U17. [corre~~ion ?ftypographical error]
Page 138: Add the following after response to comment U15:
U16. Comment: Growth inducement. If the City .chooses to require that roads be stubbed out to the
project boundary, a substantial growth inducing impact will result. The community voted against
massive development in the western hills.
Response to Comment: See response to comment Q1.
[Note: this addition of a cross-reference does not affect the content of the EIR, since the full text of
the comment and response are included elsewhere in the document: Vol. 2, pages 75 and 123.]
-6
"'-.0. f _~ \ ~...~.....
\0~-~ \ \_~
\~
'V::v~ //
~.~ !
'./
jJ R~
/ ('p-j:j t1
jf -rJ::j'-J
I '>-..'V/~
I~ ~~
I;:::::'-'-',~.I::::i,
\-,.: '"
~,' \ ',/
0'l'ifSP
10
,..~ I I
...~ I
I
J
~
g
2
g
~
~
e
II:
~
~
~
~
e/)
I-
2
.--<{
'e::::
e/)I-
Q)e/)
""'2
e10
u:O
UJ
l-
e/)
'I
'i=
/u ·
.~~
~ ,..,
~~
~
~.
~~
I~~
~0
==
u.
rJJ
Q)
>~
a> c: 8
U) ...J"O
Q) ...J
c: 3lm ~
c: '0 ::2..
ctl
.c ZU)
u C>~
E &E
ctl en c:
!!! ;B8
U5
\ \
0.()
. ......
/ (
, \
U)
"0
c:
.!!l
a;
~
a> C
~ a>
"iij C>
c lii
a> "0 U) E
en c: "0 a>
>- ctl c:
iii i5 .!!l u;
0 ~ a>
::l 0 It
U) 3:
5
IN rml'l\H .r .1
I 'fil\\j!\~ ( (
U)
a>
:!2
u;
"0
C
; .:'3 ~
C') ~ ::l
a; ~ 1ii
> a> ~
o en u
~ 6. '2
15' ~ B
en 0 en
I~~*
:'II' :~
8
~
~
en
'E
Q)
E
~ ~
.= ~
o
!:;.
U)
:;
o
C
o
()
B
'E.
<ll
C,
o
C-
O
...
~.'
RESOLUTION NO. - 96
(',
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE ciTY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMJLNT; MAKING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALlFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACTAND
ADOPTING A STATE:MENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SCHAEFER
RANCH PROJECT GENERAL PLAN-AMENDl\mNT ; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PA 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, Schaefer Heights, Inc. (the applicants) have submitted a request for a General Plan
Amendment, Planned Development (PD) Prezoning, and other related eptitlementrequests to establish land
uses, general provisions and development regulations for a development consisting of up to 474 single
family homes, and commercial/office, semi-public, and open space land uses on approximately 500 acres,
generally located on the north side of the 1-580 freeway, at Schaefer Ranch Road, in Alameda County,
adjacent to Dublin's Western City limits; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for the General Plan Ametldment isavailabl~ anci.(,)n.fil~in the
Planning Department; and . , .
~.
,
WHEREAS, In response to a proposal for development of the Sch~efex: ~9h property, the City
of Dublin undertook the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate the proposed
development of the Schaefer Ranch project site within Dublin's Western Extended Planning area; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the project, including the
General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, Annexation1;.Qthe City, Tentative Subdivision
11ap, Annexation to and/or detachment from various service districts, possibly including the Dublin San
Ramon Services District, Castro Valley School District, and/or the, DlJb]jnVIli1ieQSgh()()!P!~!2~t, and
approval of sub sequent development entitlements. The Draft Enyiro~en~ Impact Report was filed with
the State of California Governors' Office of Planning and Research via the State Clearinghouse (SCH No.
95033070); and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was iJlitially circulated for a 45-day
public/agency review period beginning on December 27, 1995, and ending on January 16, 1996, and was
extended for an additional period to February 20, 1996. Public noticeoftl1e availabgityofthe Draft
Environmental Impact Report was published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to
Responsible Agencies and various other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission held duly noticed public input meetings on
the Draft Environmental Impact Report on January 16, 1996, and on February 20, 1996. At these
hearings, and through submitted written comments, the Planning Commission received comments on the
Dr~. EIR from !he public, responsible agencies, other governmental and private organizations, as well as
from. City staff and its consultants and property owners and their consultants; and
o
EXHIBIT 2
1I
WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during
the public review period and at the public hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information
contained in the Draft EIR, providing good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The
comments and responses to comments were published with the Final EIR.; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 1996, the Final EIR, Volumes I and II, was distributed to or otherwise
made available to the Planning Commission, City Council, Responsible Agencies commenting on the Draft
EIR., and other interested parties; and
..." :
WHEREAS, A joint study session of ..the CJty Council and Planning Commission was held on April
8, 1996, which addressed major issues affecting the physical development of the site, including: provision
of public services, such as fire service and schools; access to other Western Dublin properties from the
Schaefer Ranch project; and park land requirements, and ownership and maintenance of open space
l~nds; and
WHEREAS, with the consensus direction by the decision makers to proceed with the processing
of the Schaefer Ranch project, the City completed preparation of a Draft General Plan Amendment for
approximately 500 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan Amendment, dated 11arch, 1996, designates the proposed
general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the Schaefer Ranch project component
of the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area for residential, commercial, public, open space and parks,
and other categories of public and private uses of land; and
WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan Amendment includes a statement of standards of population
density and standards of building intensity for the Schaefer Ranch project; and .......,:'
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and
duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed
amendments to the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated June 4, 1996, was prepared for the Planning Commission
regarding the Schaefer Ranch project Final EIR and proposed General Plan Amendment, which report
described the FinalEIR, the comments and responses received, and identified issues rel~ted to the
certification of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Schaefer Ranch
project Final EIR and Draft General Plan Amendment on June 4, 1996, in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of an EnvirOnmental
Impact Report. After considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearings, the
Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that it certify the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment, as complete, adequate, and in
compliance with CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental Guidelines, and recommended City
Council adoption of the Draft General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996 the City Council held duly noticed a public hearing to hear testimony
regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No." ' .
96-18; and "'wI'
/}--
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996 the City Council adopted Resoluti.on NQ..---> certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") as adequate and complete. The Final EIR identified significant
adverse environm~l'ltalimpacts which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes or
r<~ alterations in the project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, findings adopting the changes or alterations are
required and are contained in this resolution. Some of the significant impacts cannot be mitigated to a level
of insignificance and. ~stateIJ)ellt.of 9y~ITi4~g considerationsi~Jh~r~iQ.r~I~quired pursuant to CEQA and
is also contained in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the environmental i:I'l1pacts associated with the proposed Schaefer Ranch General Plan
Amendment are addressed within the Final ElR; and no new effects CQuld occur and no new mitigation
measures would be ;~q~h-~d f~;'th~~~e;arpianAmendment'1;hal were riot a.ddres~~dinthe Fmal
Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch project, and the General Plan Amendment is within
the scope of the Final Environm~l1tC1lImpact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council used their independent judgment, heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth, and determines that the proposed Schaefer
Ranch General PIl:ll1Atrt~Ilgm~I,1!!.~ip.S!1~,public interest and ip.tendstoJlgopt such amendment; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code s~cti911~I.Q8trequires the City to make certain findings if the
City approves a project for which an environmental impact report has been prePared that identifies
significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093 Qf1he,Stl!teJ~gQA Guidelines requires adoption by the City Council
of a statement of overriding considerations if the Council approves a project which will result in
unavoidable significant effects on the environment; and
WHEREAS, The Final EIRfor th~ ~stemRl!1?lin. ~I,1~~C1JI>!an Ap~J:l4m~nta.n~ Specific Plan
identifies certain significant adverse enyironm~l'lt1:t,Letfe~s; and . , "','... .
WHEREAS, Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects can be reduced to a level of
insignificance by changes or alterations in the project; and.
WHEREAS, Certain of the significant adverse, enyjn)nmel'ita.!e!fe,C?t~~g.~<?!2~'^~ti~ated to a level
of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, Public Resollrcesc:()ge"~e~i.o!1.",+lQ~L2Jequires the City to adopt a reporting or
monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions iIpposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects in order to ensure to ensure compliance during project implementation; and
WHEREAS, Governm, ent Code section 6~300 ~uth.orizesa c,i",ty council to adopt general plan for
land outside its boundaries which in the Pla.nning'Comri~~i~n;sj~dgment bears relation to its planning; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has considered whether land outside the City's boundaries
bears relation to the City's planning, and has recommended adoption of the General Plan Amendment for
the project site.
!~\
j~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
A. The Dublin City Council finds the Schaefer Ranch Project, as described in the Final EIR, to
be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised by the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment.
'-II:""
C. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Schaefer Ranch General Plan
Amendment, attached as Exhibit 2-A to this resolution.
D. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the up-to-
date Dublin General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive
changes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby make the findings,
and rationale for each of the findings, set forth in Exhibit 2-B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, for the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment.
The Council further finds that the mitigation measures for each identified impact in Exhibit 2-B make
changes to, or alterations to, the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, that, once implemented as
described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit 2-C hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effects of the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Statement
of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 6 of Exhibit 2-B, attached hereto, which statement shall
be included in the record of the project approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the "'-',
"Mitigation Monitoring Program: Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit 2-C, as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources
Code section 21081.6 for the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the,Dublin City Council does hereby direct that the
Applicants for land use approvals in the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment area shall pay their pro
rata share of all costs associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program..
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk
to file a Notice of Determination for the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment with the Alameda
County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and Research.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk
to make available to the public, within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of
this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, dated March
1996, as modified by this resolution.
\will: "
I~
~"
":
",,-....,
17 '
r\
/>
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this Resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days
from the date of passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July 1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
11ayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
(g: \pa#\1994\94028\stf-rpts\ 7 -9ccmtg\r-gpafin. doc)
DRAFT
SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
March 1996
(document sent under separate cover)
EXHIBIT 2-A
I~
~.,
\.1/
\J:"
......
e
.fll3~f" Z- A
~
DRAFT
Schaefer Ranch Project
General Plan Amendment
March 1996
prepared by
WPM Planning Team, Inc.
118 I Street, Suite 1B
Sacramento CA 95814
for
City of Dublin
Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
[XtH13Cf 2 - A
e
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Part 1: Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Background and Rationale for General Plan Amendment
The Planning Process for the Western Extended Planning Area
Project and Site Characteristics
Policies for the Western Extended Planning Area
How to Use this Document
1
1
2
2
2
Part 2: Schaefer Ranch Project Geneml Plan Amendment
page
GP A 1.4 Primary Planning Area and Extended Planning Area 3
GPA 1.8.1 Land Use Classification 4
GP A 2.0 Land Use Element 5
GPA 2.1.4 Residential Land Use 6
GP A 3.1 Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources 7
and for Public Health and Safety
GP A 3.2 Agricultural Open Space 8
GPA 3.3 Open Space for Outdoor Recreation 9
GP A 5.1 Trafficways 10
GP A 7.0 Conservation Element 11
GPA 7.1 Stream Corridors and Riparian Vegetation 13
GPA 7.2 Erosion and Siltation Control 15
GPA 7.3 Oak Woodlands 16
GP A 7.7 Open Space Maintenance/ Management 17
GPA 8.2.2 Fire Hazard and Fire Protection 19
GPA 8.2.3 Flooding 21
Figures [revision of selected General Plan figures]
1~2 Extended Planning Area
1-3 Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment Map
2-2 Development Potential
2.4 Development Potential - Western Extended Planning Area
8~1 Geologic Hazards
9-1 Existing Noise Exposure Contours
9~2 2005 Projected Noise Exposure Contours
Tables
Table 2-2 '- Schaefer Ranch Land Use and Housing Characteristics 5
e
e
Part 1: Introduction
1.1 Background and Rationale for General Plan Amendment
Dublin's current General Plan was adopted in 1985. A number of amendments have been
adopted since that time, including extensive changes incorporated in the 1994 Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment.
The General Plan includes site-specific policies for the central part of Dublin (the Primary
Planning Area). However, the Planning Area for ultimate growth in Dublin also includes large
areas to the east and west of the current built-up area of the City. These locations are called
the Extended Planning Area.
At the time the General Plan was adopted, there were no proposals for development in the
Extended Planning Area, and land was still available for additional groWth in the Primary
Planning Area. However, in recognition of future needs for expansion, the General Plan
established basic policies for addressing future expansion into these areas. The Plan notes
that, for the Western Extended Planning Area, "The location, extent, and density of residential
development will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through
General Plan refinement studies, "(Dublin General Plan, page ii). The General Plan also states
that "many or most development proposals in the extended planning area will require a
General Plan amendment." (Dublin General Plan, page 2)
The current planning program for the Schaefer Ranch project in the Western Extended
Planning Area is in keeping with the original direction provided by the General Plan. This
General Plan Amendment thus is a logical outgrowth of the City's earlier planning efforts,
1.2 The Planning Process for the Western Extended Planning Area
Detailed planning efforts in the Western Extended Planning Area began in 1989, with the
preparation of the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the entire
area. An EIR was prepared and certified in 1992. The Western Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment subsequently were rejected in a City referendum.
The current Schaefer Ranch development proposal involves a much smaller area. In this
General Plan Amendment, the Schaefer Ranch project site is referred to as the Schaefer Ranch
sector of the Western Extended Planning Area.
'~
1
e
e
1.3 Project and Site Characteristics
Figure 1-2 shows the location of the project site in the Westem Extended Planning Area.
General characteristics include the following:
Location. Between Dublin and Castro Valley, along the north side of 1-580.
Area, about 500 acres.
Existing site characteristics. Existing rangeland, predominantly a series of ridges and canyons,
with considerable woodland. A limited number of rural residences are located in the Westem
Extended Planning Area.
Proiect landowners and proponents. Schaefer Heights Associates control most of the land on
the project site, and have submitted a development proposal to the City. A 48-acre parcel
within the project site is owned by Dennis and Laurie Gibbs,
1.4 Policies for the Western Extended Planning Area
The General Plan has an established fonnat where some policies apply on a citywide basis,
while other policies are directed only to the Primary Planning Area or Extended Planning
Area. This General Plan Amendment continues this selective policy approach.
This document is not intended to serve as a comprehensive general plan update for Dublin.
Instead, this General Plan Amendment provides necessary text and map revisions to update
certain information in the General Plan.
The Extended Planning Area includes both Western and Eastern Dublin. This General Plan
Amendment establishes policies which are geared specifically to the Western Extended
Planning Area.
1.5 How to Use This Document
Chapter 2 includes the actual text and figure revisions which constitute the General Plan
Amendment. Typically, to provide context for the amended text, the entire section or
subsection of the current General Plan is included. The full text of the current General Plan is
available for review at the Dublin Planning Department.
· Additions are noted in italics.
· Deletions are identified by a "strikeout" with a solid line through the text to be
deleted.
. Material in brackets is not part of the amendment, but describes fonnatting of text.
2
e
e
Part 2:
Schaefer Ranch Project
General Plan Amendment
AMENDMENT 1.4: PRIMARY PLANNING AREA AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA.
[Add the following text to end of Section 1.4.]
Westem Extended Planninf! Area
This area presents a unique opponunity for the City of Dublin. The Western Extended
Planning A rea is strategically located in the Bay A rea, and includes part of the open space
corridor which stretches from Contra Costa County to Santa Clara County. With its steep
terrain and scenic oak woodlands, this area has important open space values for Dublin and
the region.
A t the same time, the Western Extended Planning A rea, consisting of about 3,255 acres,
provides a unique opportunity for carefully planned development. Most of the Planning Area
has convenient access to Interstate 580. In addition, major ridgelines screen most of the site
from key offsite view points. There is, thus the potential to add housing and recreational
facilities in this area, without major disruption of existing neighborhoods or damage to scenic
values in the surrounding area The General Plan includes policies which are specifically
geared to the unique qualities and opportunities of this section of the City.
It is the intent of the City of Dublin to balance open space goals with housing and
recreational needs in the Western Extended Planning A rea A n open space corridor on the
main ridgeline will be preserved, with a regional trail extending across the site. Key
ridgelines, most woodland areas, and other imporlant features will be protected. Development
will be clustered for increased land use efficiency. Within these sectors of clustered
development, intensive grading and selective tree removal will be pennitted, although
proposed development shall respect natural features whenever possible.
3
e
e
AMENDMENT 1.8.1: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.
[Add the following text at end of section.]
Westem Extended Plannine Area
Residential
Residential: Rural ResidentiaVAgriculture (1 unit per 100 gross residential acres).
See description under Eastern Extended Planning A rea
Residential: Estate (0.01 . 0.8 units per gross residential acre). Typical ranchettes and estate
homes are within this density range. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit.
Residential: Single.family (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre). See description under
Primary Planning A rea
Other land use catef!ories
Open Space. See description under Eastern Extended Planning A rea
Commercial, public/semi-public, and other land use categories for the Primary
, Planning A rea are applicable in the Western Extended Planning A rea
4
e e
AMENDMENT 2.0: LAND USE ELEMENT
~ [Add the following text and table at the end of Section 2.0.] - .-
Western ExteruJed Planning Area
Figure 1-3 illustrates generalized land use and circulation for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the
Westem Extended Planning A rea This sector of the City includes about 500 acres. This part
of the Westem Extended Planning Area will add a maximum of 474 housing units.
Development at this maximum level could result in apopulation of about 1,517.
,
, Table 2-2 summarizes land use and housing characteristics for the Schaefer Ranch sector of
the Westem Extended Planning Area The predominant land uses would be open space and
residential uses. Retail/office uses would also be included.
Table 2-2
Schaefer Ranch Project Land Use and Housing Characteristics
Land Use Designation Acres Dwelling
units
(maximum)
Residential: Estate 99.8 11
Residential: Single Family 108.0 463
Retail Office 10.7 --
PubliclSemiwPublic 33.9 --
I Open Space 251.6
I --
TOTAL 504.0 474
5 .. ~
e
e
AMENDMENT 2.1.4: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
[Add the following text to the end of Section 2.1.4.]
Westem Extended Plannin2 Area
Guidine Policv
D. Any development in the Western Extended Planning Area shall be integrated with the
naturol setting. Require clustering of development in areas with fewer constraints.
lmolementine Policies
E. The location, extent and density of residential development will be detennined when
municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies.
F. Approval of residential development in the Western Extended Planning Area will require
detenn ination that:
(1) Utilities and public scifety services will be provided at approved standards without,
financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses,
(2) Proposed site grading and means of access w ill not disfigure the ridgelands as view ed
from areas of existing development in Dublin. Any necessary grading and constroction
shall be planned so as to protect visual qualities.
(3) Timing of development will not result in premature tennination of viable agricultural
operations on adjoining lands.
..
(4) The fiscal impact of new residential development in the Western Extended Planning
A rea supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder
of the city.
"-
6
e
e
AMENDMENT 3.1: OPEN SPACE FOR PRESERV A nON OF NATURAL RESOURCES
"AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
[Add the following text to the end of this section.]
Western Extended Planninf! Area
Guidintl Policies - Western Extended PlanniN! Area
E. Development generally shall be confined to areas where slopes are under thirty percent, as
part of an overall cluster development concept on approved development plans. Within
projects proposing cluste-red development and ancillary facilities in the Western Extended
Planning A rea, land alteration on slopes over thirty percent may be considered where the
following conditions are present:
Public health and safety risks can be reduced to an acceptable level.
Proposed land alteration would be necessary to achieve a basic public need, such as
housing, recreation, street access, or public facilities.
Long-tenn visual qualities can be maintained for residents of Dublin and nearby
communities.
F Existing large stands of woodland and coastal scrub in the Western Extended Planning
A rea shall be protected wherever possible. Grassland sites shall be considered for
development in preference to native shrub and woodland areas.
Imolementinl! PolicY, - Western Extended Planninl! Area
G. A s conditions of development project approval, require detailed tree surveys, protection
measures for existing trees to remain, and replanting of native vegetation.
'~
7
e
e
AMENDMENT 3.2: AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE.
[Revise text so that policies apply to entire Extended Planning Area.]
3.2 AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE
Eastern Extended Planning Area
Excluding parcels fronting on 1-580, much of the Eastern Extended Planning Area is under
Williamson Act Agreement (Government Code Section 51200, et. seq.), and Alameda County
zoning sets minimum parcel size at 100 acres. Under the Williamson Act, property taxes are
based on the agricultural value of land rather than its market value. The contract automatically
renews each year for the new 10.year period unless the owner or the County gives notice of
non-renewal.
Guidi"!! Policy . Eastem Extended Planni"!! Area
A. Lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve can remain as rangeland as
long as the landowner(s) wish to pursue agricultural activities. The City does not support the
cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, unless some compelling public interest would be
served.
The urban land use designations in the General Plan Land Use Map illustrate ultimate (i.e.
long-term) urban development potential, and do not represent a call for the cessation of
agricultural activities. To pursue development of their property, any development proposal
must be consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plan policies for the site. A
development application cannot be approved until a property owner has notified the applicable
agency of the intent to cancel, or not renew, any prevailing Williamson Act contract on the
subj ect property.
ImDlementine: Policy - Easw,m Extended Plannine: Area
B. Approval of development of agricultural land not under contract shall require findings that
the land is suitable for the intended use and will have adequate urban services, and that
conversion to urban use will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining
under contract.
'~
8
e
e
AMENDMENT 3.3: OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION.
[Add the following at end of section]
Guidine Policies - Western Extended Plannine A rea
N. Provide a north-south trail link across the Planning A rea, as part of a regional trail
network.
0, Create a local trail network which links large areas of penn anent open space, while
providing convenient access from nearby residential areas. Maximize visual exposure to open
space, and provide multiple local physical access points to increase public enjoyment of open
space.
P. Provide active recreation facilities to seT1le neighborhood residents.
ImplementinJ! Policv - Western Extended Planninf? Area
Q, In conjunction with development approvals, promote land dedication or reseT1lation, and
improvements for a ridgeline regional trail and other trail links.
9
e
e
[AMENDMENT 5.1: TRAFFICWAYS.
[Reletter policies as follows]
Policy 5.IL 5.1.M
Policy &:+M 5,1.N
Policy ~ 5.1.0
Policy ~ 5.1.P
[Add the following at end of section.]
Western Extended Planninf! A rea - A dditio1U1l Policies
Guidinf! Policies
Q. Provide an efficient circulation system for the Western Extended Planning A rea, including
linkage to the rest of the City, alternate transportation modes, and sensitivity to environmental
concerns.
R. The primary access for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning A rea
shall be via Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. Other sections of the Western
Extended Planning A rea shall have primary access via the Eden Canyon interchange.
lmolementin!! Policv
s. Require the following mcgor circulation improvements in the Western Extended Planning
Area'
Extension of Dublin Boulevard to Schaefer Ranch Road.
Collector streets to provide access to residential neighborhoods and nonresidential
uses, as identified in specific development plans.
10
'~
e
e
AMENDMENT 7.0: CONSERVATION ELEMENT.
[Revise page 7::.1 as follows]
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT:
CONSERV A nON ELEMENT
Government Code sec. 65302 (d) requires that conservation elements plan for the
conservation, development and use of natural resources. The statute lists resources that must
be included and suggests other resources that may be included in, the element. Finally, the
statute specifically requires 'that countywide and any other water development, control, or
conservation agencies be in~luded in the element's water analysis.
Dublin's Conservation Element addresses the following statutorily required elements: water
resources, agricultural and other soils, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitats. Other
important resources discussed in this element are air quality and archaeological and historical
resources. Many conservation related resources are also important in the context of other
elements. For example, agricultural and other open spaces are discussed in sec. 3.0 Parks and
Open Space and sec. 4.0 Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Elements. Soil conditions related
to earthquakes and flood hazard from local streams are discussed in sec. 8.0 Seismic Safety
and Safety Element. Each of these element's counterparts in the Technical Supplement may
also be consulted for information and background on resource related planning policies.
Still other statutorily required resources do not occur in Dublin's planning area and are
therefore not discussed. Specifically~. Dublin is an inland city which contains no artificial or
natural harbors. Likewise, the planning area contains no fisheries or mineral extraction areas.
Air quality and wastewater disposal have been the Tri-Valley's most difficult conservation
issues affecting urban growth, even with construction of the Livermore Amador Valley
Wastewater Management Association (LA VWMA) pipeline, and significantly improved air
quality. The extent of anticipated development now draws greater attention to other
conservation issues -- conversion of agricultural land to urban uses; loss of open space;
hazards posed by development in steep and landslide prone areas; increased runoff; and
erosion and stream siltation. Additionally, the prospect of renewed or intensified air quality
and sewage disposal problems accompanies plans approved or under consideration that would
result in up to 200,000 jobs in the Tri-Valley.
The planning area includes three zones that are distinct in terms of topography, vegetation,
and soils. The urban area within the city's borders and the undeveloped area just north of 1-
580 east of Tassajara Road form part of the flat valley floor. The land east of Camp Parks
Military Reservation and Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and south of the county line
consists of grassy rolling hills with occasional steep slopes, and the westernmost part of the
planning area is composed of ridgelands covered primarily by grasslands with oak and
woodlands on steep slopes and in winding canyons. (These zones are referred to below as the
valley, eastern hills, and western hills portions of the planning area, respectively).
11
e
e
[AMENDMENT 7.0 continued]
The western hills form part of the ridgelands extending from Contra Costa to Santa Clara
counties, established as an area of regional significance by a 1980 National Parks Service
study, The ridgelands have been the subject of preservation efforts over the years, and also
have been protected by the difficulty of development on the steep slopes and ridges. The
ridgelands of the western hills are characterized by grazing land and good quality grazing land
aae woodland and forest habitats with high natural resource values. Perhaps most important,
the western hills form part of a greenbelt that rings the Bay Plain, preventing continuous
urban spread.
A n open space corridor, centered on the main ridgeline in the Western Extended Planning
A rea, is included in the General Plan. This open space corridor will incorporate visually-
prominent ridgelands, as well as woodland and coastal scrub habitat. A north-south regional
troil will provide access to this areafor hiking and nature study.
[no change to remainder of section]
'-
12
e
e
AMENDMENT 7.1: STREAM CORRIDORS AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION
[revise text as follows]
7.1 STREAM CORRIDORS AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION
The primary planning area is in the Livennore drainage unit of the Alameda Creek watershed.
Of the many streams in this drainage area, one flows through the City -- Alamo Creek., The
creek runs along the eastern side of Dublin near Dougherty Road. A major portion of the
creek is channelized, and remaining sections have mostly been improved as a result of
subdivision developments.
The Extended Planning Area lies within other watersheds. Several significant streams traverse
the Extended Planning Area -- Hollis Canyon and Martin Canyon Creeks in the western hills
Dublin and Tassajara and Cottonwood Creeks in eastern Dublin. Refer to the following
documents for information on these water courses (available from the City Planning
Department):
Western Dublin Environmental Setting - November 27, 1989.
Western Dublin Draft Speeifie Plan Deoember 1991
Western Dublin Draft GeBeral PI8:l'l Amendmem Deeemoer 1991
Western Dublin Final IfflHt Environmental Impact Report - Deeemeer 1991 May 1992.
Eastern Dublin Environmental Setting - November 1988
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Environmental Impact Report -
1994. to be published in 1992.
Extensive areas of riparian vegetation are located along stream courses in the Western
Extended Planning A rea This riparian woodland has impol1ance to wildlife in the area
Consideroble damage to riparian areas has resulted from intensive grazing.
Guidine: Policies - PriRlIIfV P.JlHIRiR!: Area and Eastem EscteRded PlIUlBiR!: Area
A. Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a
habitat and aesthetic resource.
B. Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to allow stream
maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting the privacy of owners of
property abutting stream corridors.
Imolementine: Policies - PriRl8tV PlanniR!: Area and Eastem hkRded Plar-RiRE: Area
C. Enforce watercourse ordinance in developed areas of city.
D. Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation, improve
access, and prevent flooding caused by blockage of streams.
'~
13
e
e
[GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 7.1 CONTINUED]
E. Require revegetation of creek banks with species characteristic of local riparian vegetation,
where cons~uction requires creekbank alteration.
F. Complete ea adopt the 'Western Me Eastern Dahlia Geaeral Plan AmeaGmeRt aad
Speeifie PI8:R Studies ia a timely Hlamu,r.
Additional Guidinfl Policv - Westem Extended PlannilU! Area
F While alteration of riparian vegetation will be necessary in some situations, special
consideration shall be given to protection or enhancement of riparian woodland in the Western
Extended Planning A rea
''"-
14
e
e
AMENDlMENT 7.2: EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL
[Revise text as follows]
7.2 EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL
Guidin!! Policies - Primarv Plannin!! Area and Eastern Extended Plannin2 Anea
A. Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
B. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes.
ImoIementint! Polic,ies - Primarv Plannine Area and Eastern Extended Plannine Anea
C. Enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation ordinance establishing performance standards
in relation to maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses.
D. Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control.
E. Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosion and
volume and velocity of surface runoff.
F. Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent.
G. Development projects shall comply with the requirements of the Urban Runoff Program.
Guidinf! Policies - Westem Extended Planninll Area
H. Maintain natural hydrologic systems. Contain any net increase of runoff onsite or with
approved offsite measures.
/. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes, with special concern for potential
problems of erosion and siltation.
Inwlementint! Policies - Weatem Extended Plannintl Area
J Require erosion control plans for proposed development. Erosion control plans shall include
recommendations for preventing erosion and scour of drainageways, consistent with biological
and visual values.
K. In general, restrict areas of steep slopes (more than 30%) to permanent open space, as part
of an overall cluster development concept on approved plans. Any development in otherwise
restricted areas shall require substantial mitigation which has considemble benefit to the
community, in keeping with the standards of General Plan Policy 3.1.E.
L. Development projects shall comply with the requirements of the Urban Runoff Program.
'~
15
e
e
AMENDMENT 7.3: OAK WOODLANDS
~~
[Revise text as follows]
7.3 OAK WOODLANDS
Most of the oak woodland within the Dublin Planning Area is concentrated in the Western
Extended Planning A rea In addition to Califomia live oaks, other species such as laurel ~ a
vital part of this plant community. This woodland has important visual and biological
qualities.
Guidine: Policy - Primarv Plannine: Area and Eastern Extended Plannine: Area
A. Protect oak woodlands.
ImDlementine: Policy - Primarv Plannine: Area and Eastern Extended Plannine: Area
B. Require preservation of oak woodlands. Where woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise
could be graded and developed, permit allowable density to be transferred to another part of
the site. Removal of an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review
process.
C. Develop a heritage tree ordinance.
Guidinr! Policies - Westem Extended PlannilU! Area
D. There shall be an emphasis on preservation of oak woodland in the Western Extended
Planning A rea Development shall be clustered in grassland areas wherever possible, in order
to protect existing trees. However, as part of comprehensive planning for development in this
area, some oak woodland may need to be removed. Removal of oaks shall be allowed only
after all feasible site planning effons have been made to preserve trees.
E. Any removed trees shall be replaced, and existing trees to remain shall be protected.
IinDlementinr! Policies - Westem Extended Planninr! Area
F Require effective replacement of existing trees which are scheduled for removal.
G. Require detailed protection measures for trees to remain.
.~
16
e
e
AMENDMENT 7.7: OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE/ MANAGEMENT
~,
[Revise text as follows]
7.7 OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCFJ MANAGEMENT
Acquisition of existing open space areas has been accomplished through Planned
Developments and subdivision approvals. Since the existing City is mostly built out, there
will be no additional major areas set aside for open space.
In the Western and Eastern Extended Planning Areas, substantial areas of open space will be
designated for open space. Refer to the Westem Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for additional
information. The Specific Plan for Eastern Dublin contains is e)[pccted to be oompleted in
1992. It will eOBtaiB designated areas of open space and mechanisms for maintenance and
management.
In addition, the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan contains (to be oompleted iB 1992)
. will eOBtaiB information on open space acquisition and maintenance.
Guidin!! Policv
A. Require open space management and maintenance programs for open space areas
established through subdivisions and Planned Development districts. Programs should include
standards to ensure control of potential hazards; appropriate setbacks; and management of the
open space so that it produces a positive and pleasing visual image.
Implementin!! Policies
B. Require that land designated and offered as open space in conjunction with through
development approval be permanently restricted to open space use by recorded map or deed.
C. Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes.
D. Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low maintenance costs in revegetation
of cut and fill slopes.
E. Access roads (including emergency access roads), arterial streets and collector streets that
must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum
extent possible, so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics
of the open space area. (See also Implementing Policy H below)
F. Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance
public safety and the environmental setting.
17
e
e
[AMENDMENT 7.7: OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE/ MANAGEMENT - continued]
~,
G. Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling, and/or equestrian trails within designated open
space areas.
Supplementary Implementing Policy - EasRIB Extended Planning Area
H. Due to difficult terrain, some damage to ecological and aesthetic values may result from
construction of streets and emergency access roads in the Eastern. Extended Planning Area.
These roads shall be designed to incorporate feasible measures which minimize adverse
effects on visual and biological resources.
18
e
e
AMENDMENT 8.2.2 FIRE HAZARD AND FIRE PROTECTION
[Amend text and add Implementing Policy F as follows]
8.2.2 Fire Hazanl and Fire Protection
The Daugherty Regiaaal Fire Authority (DRF A) pra',iEles urban fire preteetian 'lAth a S'J"em
staff sf 50 respoRdiag to oyer 1,250 ealls per year from t\';o statiaRs. The "3" ias1H'8:Bee ratiag
giveR te the distriet is the best reasoRably aehievable.
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) serves as the fire department for the City of
Dublin and as such provides all fire prevention, fire protection and First Respo1u:Jer
Emergency Medical Services within the City.
For fire protection, the Authority requires 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours, which
equates to 180,000 gallons. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) supplies water to
the City of Dublin. Currently (1992), the District has a capacity of 10,500 gallons per minute.
On a peak day, 5,250 gallons per minute is used for domestic purposes, leaving 3,750 gallons
per minute for fire fighting or other uses. According to the Fire Authority, there has been
sufficient water to accommodate fire calls in the City of Dublin (personal communication,
Harold Ritter, former Fire Chief, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, January 23, 1992).
Steep, inaccessible slopes and brush create a high fire hazard in the western hills. Mejef
persoRael and equipmeat adElitioas '.ve\ild be aeeded te preteet eevelepmoat ia the exteaEled
plBflaiag area. DRF A dees eurrently provide preteetiee. to Camp Parks Military Resot'Yatiea
aBa to Santa Rita Rehabilitatiaa Center lHider eee.traet '.vith the COlBlty of Alameda. DRFA
will need to modernize its fleet and make stiffing adjustments to protect development in the
extended planning area For projects that are constlUcted outside a fire station service area
and/or interface with open space, certain built-in fire protection measures will be necessary.
Guidin!!: Policv
A. Require special precautions against fire as a condition of development approval in the
western hills outside the primary planning area.
Imolementin!!: Policies
B. A fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the perimeter of residential
development situated adjacent to undeveloped open space land.
C. Enact a high hazard ordinance specifying sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond five
minutes response time from a station.
D. Continue to enforce the City's Fire Safe Roof and Spark Arrestor ordinances.
.~
."t9
e
e
[AMENDMENT 8.2.2 FIRE PROTECTION - continued]
Guidio2 Politv Policies - Extended Plannine Area
E. Prepare and implement a plan for facilities and personnel at one or more fire stations east
of Tassajara Road, as a condition of development approval in the Eastern Extended Planning
Area.
F For development in the vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road, fire sprinklers and other
measures shall be provided in proposed structures as conditions of approval, in lieu of fire
station improveftlents. However, it is the City's intent that a full fire station shall be provided
in the Western Extended Planning A rea before any substantial development proceeds beyond
the general vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road. A fire station site shall be reserved in the
general vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road near Interstate 580.
"-
20
e
e
[AMENDMENT &.2.3: FLOODING. Revise text as follows.]
8.2.3 Flooding
~,
Figure 8-2 delineates flood prone areas in the existing City limits. The areas shown identify
the 100 and 500 year flood zones. Since this map was published, the City has implemented
some downstream improvements, and the map will ultimately be amended by the Flood
Emergency Management Agency . No 100 year or 500 year flood zones have been identified
in the Western Extended Planning A rea
Most of the areas in the 100 year flood plain have been built upon. Any new construction in
flood prone areas is required to construct the floor above the floodplain level, per the
requirements of the City Public Works Department.
Flooding has not been a major problem in Dublin. In 1983, heavy storms carried debris down
from the western hills, blocking drains and causing flooding of backyards and several homes
in the Silvergate area. Drains were cleaned, and the situation was alleviated.
Some channel improvements were made in the Scarlett Court area in 1983, and improvements
were also implemented along Alamo Creek, adjacent to Dougherty Road. There are currently
(as of January 1992) no major flood improvement projects needed or planned for the City of
Dublin.
Guidine Policv
A. Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving woodlands and
riparian vegetation. Retain creek channels with ample right-of-way for maintenance and for
maximum anticipated flow.
Implementine Policies - PrilR8I'V P1RDBiR:!!: ARe ftRd EasRIR Es::RRded PIBBBiR2: Alea
(See also Conservation Element policies)
B. Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition of subdivision or other
development approval.
C. Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of woodlands wherever possible. Replant
vegetation according to the standards in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or other applicable
standards (see also General Plan Guiding Policy 3.t.A).
D. Require drainage studies of entire small watersheds and assurance that appropriate
mitigation measures will be completed as needed prior to approval of development in the
extended planning area.
E. Continue to participate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) flood
Insurance program.
F. Prepare an annual update of flood prone areas and related issues and present to the City
Council for their information and appropriate action, if any.
21
":
.. ~ ~ z
.... . .
6- 'l:I 'l:I <(
.. .. "
.... . ~ ...." " ...J
.. 0 0
u fill Gl a..
. N
... . -. . ...J '"
Ul " o:~ ~ ~
'l:I <(
.. .= -,~ -: - oC ....
.. c:
... ..... E'" '" i;
. 0 .II", - " .. " w e
. ". -J- . ;:
~ ::: ... .. 'l:I Z .a
~ 11.. ..... " .. . '
.. ." .... 'l:I. W ...
W uA: .
.Ii " .0 .... -0: (!) ..
en E .. .u 'l:I .
.. 'l:I .5 .!:! .. .
:J~ .. '=. :a :a ~ z ';
"- .0 .
Cl .. .. .i;-J " " .. ~ II:
. a: l:l "- 11/
Z .. D~ I I' I' ~ m
..
<(! 'I :J
~.:l ! 0
\:.--.-1
i ..-.-..-1/..........--.----.......
" I
~
/
( !I
y-I
\~
...\
~
~
\.11.. ~
"\ =
\.:
2
Ill! fIll
fpl l;~!~i
h1i ~Ht! ~
~.., co.. Do .J!
-"''8 zlJl Ii
~!~lii hJih
a.! .J a. !i c:.. ,. E
"di~ !ll~!lU
z".~1l ~.A"lJ:
~SLh..l!!~:ij
OUA.O"ill"!Fo"aua.
Ilj
~
(!)
it
tll
II)
?f6J
/~
/'
',,-
eCl
g
Q
~
~
~
i
1
a:
~
g
S
i
I
g
"
i
~
j
f
~
3=
ZC
O~~
~ ~~
:J C 't3
C?uei.m.
r- n:a:~
CD - lJ..
.... U "C..c:
:J _""- ~ U
O~C:C:
0: ~ 2g
....~ J:j ...
=> c: om
o ii'i Q)
Z-,g
::s~~
==
u ·
z
~S
~
~ .
~<
~~
<\J
==
u.
00.
Qj
g
en
~
~
c (5
0 U '-
'=
III I
:;
u
...
(3
-0
iD
c:
E
CI) CD
III ~
Q. 1:
co .
e -" .9
li3
8- '" a. . c
~ (Il 't:l "~ 0
:= fJ) -
'0 8 c:; ~ 8
:is If -E 0
::l 0 +:I iD III
.Y .c .!!I a.
a. .s:: Ul fJ)
~ :c 0> fJ) g
::> ~ e c
~ Ii. iD
Z u: a.
(I) . 0
lrlli]
ii {-~ ~~ ~
~ ",'
]i
_ 'E
.. iD
coIi ~I
=_ (Do(:
c 51 CC II
.-812. >-e
ii'j:;:J =\2,
lllC E:;:J
cc"'! Ifc
2~ Q)~
III -'"
a5 Ji~ "~~
~ i 0" ~(I)~
W 'Cl " . . . :">::;
c:l - .. ..,,;,.;.
~ ~ :::: ::::::'::
~
.8
..
l!
a
04
'=i
0;
II:
C;
~
..
"ia "
:s 8&
~ :;::!!
'C u'"
c ;;a-B
==:. S ~
"ia lll"'
13 a:!!!.
...
III
]1
e
--------1 ...----.,
I 1-...... I
" ~I
L_
~
;2'
:c;
j
iii;
'~1!
'Em
"'<'I
~i
.GJ l!,
'iii'
ifi'~
'-.....
,~
do'
:CD
7i
e.
~
(i
9
~
/
'~
~
:m
j;
J!!
0..
0....
-<
1::".
E .5
o..li
oj!
-"-
~,i
Q.l'"
Cd
$
"'
GJ
~
'0
<:
"'
~
C
GJ
E
0-
o
.. Q;
I!' >
<t GJ
'0 Cl
'" i
0. >
~ .9 0
Co (l) C.
o 6i a.
in Cl <t
e
oj
N
'0
'"
~
I..,
V>
'0
c;
.:l
.!.-!
:0
::>
"-
..
'"
c:
:lJ
o
"-
C
GJ
E
0-
o
a;
a;
o
:5
~
-g
..
...J
c:
'"
0.
o
J
oll
f!
GJ
'8
a:
i
~,
~
II
~
E
..:
<'I
'"
".,
PmDDID
ej ,,' ,L~I
~
~
]
gj~
~ ..
<'E
""::>
.~ .8
.ill
"-'j
al'"
'E~
GJ ~
~~
i 5
Vim
ifiN
~~
:g>~'ii
O.$!,!;!
~a!l!
-0"$ ..
a:~
ftl
.8'j "' I
ID II
:~ I.
~; ii
'~ 0.
, l!l'..'
;,,:i!! ~l/l
..::>0.
ll.8'g
...!!l'!!I'
l;=;S
~ li 15'
i! II '
E i'~
1 ~
:i '~~
~~I~l~
'" ..
z i= .
e
e
Q)
D ~
Q) .v;
(; '" '" C C
Q)Q) Q) Q) 0
UJ D .!; (/) Q):;:::
'" .= _ >- >0
~ ii}-o 3W a EQj
o Q)c :J ~O>
,,~I~ii
~
<")
'-
Q)
>
o
,~~ ,~:,) :::'
':'
.
L _to
': " \
, \
, "I'
,.....
'-
."~:
.....
,
'"
'"
L..
'"
0>
u..
c
co
-
c..
-
e
(1.)
c
Q)
c.?
r:
--
-
.c
:J
C
e
~' '~' ">:"1n' ,
'."",\:.",,'." ." .
: "><:.,;';.
, ,', ' " /-....../
~:',,:.: '.\~( ," ",:'
\
'-.
..":-.,'....-,:...
'~::.::"':i~;~
;,>>>\~~~<~:'~'
,,'...:.~::~t1~~:
,~.;:~(:::~~:ti/:;
~
,.;,'.' :
,",<.>
S;j1
-e
~f /~ 1-
~;' :
,....:.. :
....:-.
,;:./'"
.-.'.>.:-
: ::..::" ~.~\
.'
. ':.~'~:~\:->
:,~ ~~'> .
~ ~ :,.y. .. : ~ ~':.
\: "..~':':~, ~~: :"
I.."~~.;-:.~''''. ,,\,,'\..,~,.. ..tll."
. ;.......:;'.,.:....., OVOI:I VI:IVrVSSV!
.. ~ ,...'...... "-.. ...........
\" ,; \~...~~.,,: ......- ,...\',...... "_.
. ~.'.... ".. ~"'. :
f;\ .....
~l; ..'
\\ /
~... ..............
?,
. ".'.'."
,. ~.'~,"~ :',:~ ..............
,<~~\~\
.::.:<.~:~:.
..ti
',.",'
N
(T) to
t- ~
OJ
::::- /II }
Ql
J!J /II c:
C ~ Ql 0
III c: N
.16 -0'" 0 :3
... c: !!! N
1ii :J :; /II '6 !I
oll' Ql
c '6 :J
0 (j; 000: Ul
III Co :J
U 10 IV .g (j) ca
l!! ... .. '0
"tJ <{co ca
C!J '" Ql
C -0'" '0 C-
eo . 'tl ...~ Ql tf.I &1
. c: ~.~ :g c.
en .. ctl tf.I 0
"'C 0( ~ ::t:g' c: ~ (5
... III ~ii 0 [t
CO .E (OJ N ctl
N =<.:1 .... c: ~ ~I
c :3 'E
ca c "''' :;
:::c .. u. ~ .' '"
~ 0 laB u. w C-
o en ...J~ Ql a: <(
.51 '0 ..><:
. ctl
0 " lIT] :J D~rn
"0 c :;.~ : 0-
! ;~ : .t::
ClI -e
~ 10( >:--~ ~ ctl
III W
t(
I
cr
.!!!
E
~
.....
0"
..."
t::
ff
~""
.- '"
..."
..<i
.U
..Q:
...
i~
"
~;E
=~
ii!
~g
J1
(f)
o
N
.
a\
Q.I
l..
::::s
en
....
L.I..
e
.'
"
. .:'~"
;::1
II'~~-~-.+o
,
/..--" : I
1'/" :;. i
e.e-.@
"Cae-
~o"CQ.
.s;I~
j::~l
Q.~ctg
llU-o.!!
'!J~Q.
! 0 c:::i
c:e~
-oJid
.i~i.
~t...
. ~ a
~...i
I
,
\1
9-5
e
c.i
.s
ui
Q)
iii
'8
en
en
<
i ~
... N
.2!
1ii
en
~
II
't:
III
.r::.
U 0
ill
~
~
Figure 9
-2
f
::J
S
c
8
e
::J
en
Q
!
Q)
en
~
i
-
~
.-
o
...
Q.
&n
Q
Q
N
;.., e
.... :I
..
...... 0
c> c:
....." -
0 E:
;'" 8
..
CII "',
... I-
:><
'" CI,)
- '"
....= ~
"' '" :I
"' c: CIJ
"'..
..0: 0
.... 0-
....,.,
i:O )(
E W
i!5'.::
-... Q,)
"'-
-.... en
..-
....e 0
"" .-
N -' Z
"',.,
:::.~ ~
... '-'
~~
i c:
....~
.....
~
;::
.!
~
-
I
a..
cu
~
=>
0>
.....
e
e
~,
-$
'7I1C~ 1.;'~13H~,j H)O
.'
.'
.'
.'
.'
.'
".
" .,1';
,
,
. "~ .
s
a:: ~a: ~
/ "g:..~"g...~..
~~dlO.!!l!!~~
lU"t~U~"tOQ
I:lll:lll!! 01- 01
E i:: i:: :;, E i:: .. <::
..! -c == CI) ..!! 1: CD '2
"i::.!!!o"i::ii!:c::
~a:~.n~a:5a:
::-
:.<
.' ::::
I
$ 2'II!
9-4
Figure 9-1
ti
E
,,;
ell
fii
U
o
III
III
c(
"t;l
c:
III
...
.s
~
~
III
~
Cij
J:.
(,)
CD
(J
...
~
J5
o
o
o
'"
o
.
Findings
and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Environmental Impact Report for
Schaefer Ranch Project / General Plan Amendment
.
prepared by WPM Planning Team, Inc.
for the City of Dublin, California
July 1, 1996
.'
EXHIBIT 2-B
11
.
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Definitions 1
General Considerations 2
Findings
Section 1: Significant Impacts 5
Section 2: Alternatives 34
Section 3: Growth-Inducing Impacts 37
Section 4: Other Impacts 38 .
Statement of Overriding Considerations 38
.
/1
.
.
.'
11
Introduction
These Findings have been prepared in conjunction with the Environmental Impact Report for the
Schaefer Ranch Project. Each finding statement in Section 1 includes a summary of the impact,
mitigation measure, and the appropriate finding with rationale, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091. Impacts and mitigation measures are provided in summary form, and the
Findings refer to pages in the EIR wheriHhe full text is contained.
Fiscal impacts are not required for evaluation by CEQA, and thus no findings are included for
the fiscal impacts listed in Chapter 10 of the FEIR. Findings also are not required for the
planning recommendations listed in Chapter 3 of the FEIR.
1.1 Definitions
Applicant Schaefer Heights, Inc" or designated successors, As of June 1996, Schaefer Heights,
Inc., assumed control over the Gibbs property, and separate mitigations for the Gibbs property
thus are no longer necessary. "Applicant" or related terms include any technical consultants
retained by the applicant when appropriate, Equivalent terms are Applicants, Developer, or
Develope~.
City. City of Dublin, California.
City Council or Council. The City Council of Dublin, California.
CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
DRFA. Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.
Final EIR, FEIR. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project, Dublin,
CA, including the Draft ErR with revisions and Response to Comments.
Project Schaefer Ranch Project, Dublin, CA, as defined in the Final EIR for the Schaefer Ranch
Project/General Plan Amendment, Section 1.6.
1
;'0
1.2 General considerations
A few general notes about these Findings are in order.
a. Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are
based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the
entire record relating to the Project and the EIR The findings and determinations
constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Council in all respects and
are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whoie.
b. Nature of Findings. Any finding made by this Council shall be deemed made, regardless
of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document
constitutes findings by this Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause
includes a statement to that effect. This Council intends that these findings be considered
as an integrated whole, and, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-
reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding
required or permitted to be made by this Council with respect to any particular subject
matter of the Proj ect, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings.
c,
Limitations. The Council's analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best
information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope
and size of the Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the
Project will not exist. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15151 which states that "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of
what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis of the Project is the Council's
lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City. In
some instances, the Council's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors
as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City.
In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat
related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what- are in effect regional,
state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political
framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. For
instance, the City acting alone cannot solve the air quality problems of the region.
d. Summaries of Facts. Impacts. Mitigation Measures. Alternatives. and other Matters. All
summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the EIR, the Project
and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
Moreover, the summaries set forth below, including, but without limitation, summaries of
impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document
includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set
forth below. Cross references to the EIR and other evidence have been made where
helpful, and reference should be made directly to the EIR and other evidence in the
record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based,
e,
Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings are based on the numerous mitigation
measures, to be required in the implementation of the Project, as recommended by the
EIR or identified by the EIR as already having been incorporated into the Project. It
2
e:,.
.~:
.:.,
.
.:
.,
cil
should be noted in this regard that the Project is designed to be self mitigating, often
incorporating the perceived best option among various alternatives. This Council is
hereby adopting and incorporating into the implementation of the Project those
Mitigation Measures recommended in the EIR, which have not already been incorporated
into the Project, (with the exception of those Mitigation Measures that are rejected by the
Council in the specific findings), This Council finds that all the Mitigation Measures
now or previously incorporated into the Project are desirable and feasible and shall be
implemented in connection with the implementation of the Project in accordance with the
adopted Mitigation Monitoring-Program,
f.
Mitigation Measures Are Conditions. The Council hereby conditions the adoption and
implementation of the Project on the implementation of the Mitigation Measures adopted
below. All such adopted Mitigation Measures shall be considered conditions of the
Proj ect.
1.2.1 Description of the Record
For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before this COlUlcil includes, without
limitation, the following:
A. All applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the Project,
including without limitation, applications for the General Plan Amendment, Prezoning,
Annexation and Development Agreement submitted by the Applicant to the City;
B.
The FEIR, including appendices and Addendum with exhibits;
C. All City staff reports on the Project and the FEIR;
D. All studies conducted for the Project and FEIR contained or referenced in the staff
reports or FEIR, including appendices and any and all biological studies;
E. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the Council and the
Planning Commission;
F. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings related to
the Project and the FEIR before the Planning Commission and the COlUlcil;
G. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the FEIR;
H. All matters of common knowledge to the COlUlcil, including but not limited to:
L
2.
3,
4.
the City's general plan and zoning and other ordinances;
the City's fiscal status;
City policies and regulations;
reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and
surrounding the City; and
State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines
published by the California Office of Planning and Research.
5.
3
1.2.2 Project Description
As described more fully in the FEIR, the project is located between Castro Valley and Dublin, ... ':
along the north side ofl-580. Total area of the project site is about 500 acres. The site is existing
rangeland, with a series of ridges and canyons. There is considerable woodland. Two homes are
now located on the site.
The proposed project would have a maximum total of 474 residential units. These are
predominantly single-family detached nomes, with some attached single family units, estate
residential parcels, and retail/office uses. Water reservoirs, a water storage tank site, and
recreation facilities also would be included. A large part of the site would be kept in open space,
including a regional park corridor dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District. At buildout,
the project would have an estimated maximum population of 1,517.
1.2.3 Project Objec1ives
A. Public Objectives
· Provide for development, as well as protection of important environmental
resources consistent with the policies of the General Plan which are applicable to
the Project site.
.
Provide for a variety of housing types and densities to meet the growing demand
for housing by the residents of Dublin and the wider housing market area.
.
B. Private Objectives
· Create a distinguished residential community with four unique neighborhoods, to
meet the housing market demands of the are~ which generates the highest tax
revenues for the City to provide the necessary public services.
· Provide shopping and office services designed to serve the needs and lifestyles of
each neighborhood.
· Contribute to solving the existing jobslhousing imbalance in the Tri-Valley East
Bay area,
· Create a safe and desirable living environment by providing passive and active
open space areas separating as many lots as possible and interconnecting them by
pedestrian and equestrian trails.
· Protect local landmarks by dedication and enhancement of significant open space
for regional public access and benefit.
.
4
i'
. Section 1: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts
.
.
(j,';;
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081, the City Council hereby makes the following fmdings with respect to
the Project's potential significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. Findings pursuant to
Section 21081 (c) as they relate to project alternatives, are made in Section 2 of these Findings.
AGRICULTURAL USE ON ADJOINING LAND'
IMPACT 3.5D: Agricultural use on adjoining lands, or on the project site if grazing is continued in
project open space, could be adversely affected by proposed development. Dogs owned by project
residents could harass or injure livestock. Residential use close to the adjoining lands or onsite grazing
lands could result in livestock gates left open, or in damage to fences or to other livestock control
structures. Project residents, in turn, might be affected by flies and odors normally attendant to grazing
operations, FEIR pages 3-22,3-23.
Mitigation Measures 3-12 through 3-15: Provide project residents with disclosure statements
addressing protection measures for livestock, and also addressing the presence of agricultural
nuisances. Protect agricultural operations by enforcing leash ordinances and including dog owner
liability for livestock damage. Provide fencing at the periphery of grazing areas. FEIR page 3-23.
Finding. Mitigation Measures 3-12 through 3-15 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because by
increasing the future project resident's awareness of agricultural activities and by separating
livestock operations from residential uses the measures will reduce the likelihood of negative
interactions between agricultural activities and residential uses.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: SILVERGATE DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
IMP ACT 4A: Without signalization, the project would contribute to a significant adverse impact on the
Silvergate DrivelDublin Boulevard intersection. FEIR page 4-14.
MitilZation Measure 4.A.l: The project applicants shall contribute a fair share portion of the cost
to install a traffic signal at the Silvergate Drive-Dublin Boulevard intersection and associated
widening. FEIR page 4-14.
Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.A.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service
with signalization will be "D" or better, which is below the City's criteria of significance.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: SAN RAMONI DUBLIN BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
IMPACT 4B: Construction of planned improvements to this intersection has begun in conjunction with
the City's Dublin Boulevard widening project, with the stipulation that the costs for these improvements
would ultimately be reimbursed by benefitted developments, Without these improvements, the
intersection would function at an unacceptable level of service. As a benefitted development, the project
would have a significant adverse impact on this intersection. FEIR page 4-14.
5
Mitigation Measure 4.B,I: The project applicants shall contribute a "fair share" portion of the
cost of improvements currently under construction by the City. FEIR page 4-14.
Findinl!. Mitigation Measure 4.B.l is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service
with the Dublin Boulevard improvements will be "D" or better, which is below the City's criteria
of significance.
...,
,"
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: HANSEN DRNE / DUBLIN BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
IMPACT 4F: Delays to Hansen Drive traffic are expected to increase significantly. The project
contributes to the need for a traffic signal, thereby creating a significant impact. FEIR page 4-15.
Mitigation Measure 4.F.l: The project applicants shall contribute a fair share portion of the cost
of traffic signalization at the Hansen Drive / Dublin Boulevard intersection. FEIR page 4-15.
Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.F.l is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service
with signalization will be "D" or better, which is below the criteria of significance.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD / DUBLIN CANYON ROAD
INTERSECTION
IMPACT 4G. Traffic signalization will be warranted at this intersection under near-term scenarios,
Project traffic will contribute to this need for a traffic signal. FEIR page 4-15.
.'.
Mitil!ation Measure 4.G.1. Project applicants shall contribute a fair share portion of the cost of
traffic signalization at the Schaefer Ranch Road /Dublin Canyon Boulevard intersection. FEIR
page 4-15.
Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.G.l is feasible and-is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service
with signalization will be "D" or better, which is below the City's criteria of significance.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD / DUBLIN BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION
IMPACT 4H. Traffic signalization will be warranted at this intersection under near-term scenarios.
Project traffic will contribute to this need for a traffic signal. FEIR page 4-16.
Mitigation Measure 4.H.l. The project applicants shall be responsible for the construction of a
traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard / Schaefer Ranch Road intersection, FEIR page 4-16.
Findinll. Mitigation Measure 4.H.l is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service
with signalization will be "D" or better which is below the City's criteria of significance.
."
6
;d
.
e:.
.
!J-S
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: EDEN CANYON ROAD - PALOMARES CANYON ROAD /1-580
INTERCHANGE
IMPACT 4L. Without signalization, project traffic would contribute to a significant adverse impact of
cumulative traffic on these ramp intersections. FEIR page 4-22.
Mitigation Measure 4.L,1. Project applicants shall contribute a fair share portion offuture
signalization costs at the intersection of Eden Canyon Roadfl-580 westbound ramps and the
intersection of Palo Verde Roadfl-~~_O eastbound ramps. FEIR page 4-22.
Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.L.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service
with signalization will be "0" or better, which is below the City's criteria of significance,
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: TRANSIT ACCESS
IMPACT 40. Transit provisions for the site are undetermined. Without transit arrangements, there would
be a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 4-23.
Mitigation Measure 4.0.1 A transit service plan shall be funded by the applicant, and shall
address facility needs and funding for transit improvements. The City shall require a park and
ride lot and other facilities if appropriate. FEIR pages 4-23,4-24.
Finding, Mitigation Measure 4.0.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR because the measure requires funding of a transit plan and provide
transit facilities which will allow local transit agencies to service the project at their discretion,
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION: GIBBS PROPERTY ACCESS
IMPACT 4P. The proposed street on the Gibbs property has features which do not meet City standards
and which create potential "traffic safety impacts, including street length, alignment, and intersection
design. FEIR page 4-24.
Mitigation Measure 4.P.l and 4.P.2. The Gibbs access street and intersection with Schaefer
Ranch Road shall be designed to City standards, FEIR page 4-24.
Finding. Mitigation Measures 4.P.1 and 4.P.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant effect identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because changes to
the project identified in these mitigation measures will eliminate substandard streets and
intersection design by requiring a redesign of the street system.
TRAFFIC CIRCULA nON: SHOPPING CENTER ACCESS
IMP ACT 4Q. Access to the shopping center will create adverse traffic safety conditions if the access is
located too close to the Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection. FEIR page 4-24, 4-25.
Mitigation Measure 4.0,1. Access to the shopping center shall be located so as to allow for
traffic safety needs. FEIR page 4-25.
7
Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.Q.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant
impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the left turn inbound
access and median break will be located far enough away from the Dublin Boulevard/ Schaefer
Ranch Road intersection to eliminate any significant safety risk from oncoming traffic.
.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION: PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ACCESS
IMPACT 4R. Proposed trail alignment maJ:~create traffic hazards due to midblock pedestrian cros~ings.
Bike and pedestrian routes are needed to connect existing and proposed bicycle systems. FEIR page 4-26.
Mitigation Measures 4.R.1. 4.R.2. and 4.R.3. A bicycle route shall be properly designated on
Dublin Boulevard. Extend the proposed pedestrian/equestrian trail under 1-580 to connect with
Dublin Canyon Road. Trail crossings shall be properly signed. FEIR page 4-25. 4-26.
Finding. Mitigation Measures 4.R1, 4.R.2, and 4.R3 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the
measures will provide for exclusive bicycle and pedestrian pathways throughout the project with
signage and marked crossings which should significantly discourage mid-block crossings and
minimize safety hazards.
AL TERA TION OF SITE CHARACTER
IMPACT 5A. Mass grading and extensive landform alteration is proposed. This alteration and the
addition of an urban settlement pattern would be a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 5-8.
Mitigation Measures 5.A.1 and 5.A.2. A detailed grading plan and master landscape plan shall be
designed to meet City standards, reduce visual impact and satisfy geotechnical requirements.
FEIR pages 5-7, 5-8.
.'
, "
Findimz. Mitigation Measures S.A.1 and S.A.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or
alteratiOns have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures
cause the graded areas to appear natural, avoid especially sensitive areas, provide extensive
revegetation to preserve a more natural appearance and otherwise minimize the visual impacts of
on-site grading.
ROWELL RANCH RODEO PARK AREA /1-580 VIEW OF SCHAEFER BASIN DEVELOPMENT.
IMPACT 5B. The current rural view from the Rodeo Park would be modified to a view of commercial
and residential development framed by open space. FEIR page 5-10.
Mitigation Measures 5.B.!. 5.B.2. and 5.B.3.: Use berms, setbacks, and/or other design measures
to conceal structures from the Rodeo Park. Modify grading plan to reduce visual impact. Require
conditional use permit for commercial development. FEIR pages 5-10, 5-11.
Finding: Mitigation Measures S.B.I, 5.B.2 and S.B.3 are fwible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce .'"
the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR, because the measures would largely
conceal and screen the developed areas from Rodeo park and 1-580 and help to preserve the ridge
silhouette.
8
).(,
.
e:
.'
J1
INTERSTATE 580 CORRIDOR ~ VIEW OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION
IMPACT 5C, Construction of the Dublin Boulevard Extension, involving tree removal and extensive
landfonn alteration, would be highly visible from the 1-580 freeway. FEIR page 5-11.
Mitigation Measures 5.C.!. 5.C.2. and 5.C.3. Align this street and plan grading to reduce grading
and tree removal. Include special attention to tree replacement for this area in the landscape~
revegetation plans to soften graded slopes and have as many or more trees visible from 1~580
after the project compared to befor~_~he project. FEIR pages 5-11, 5-12.
Finding: Mitigation Measures S.c.!, S.C.2 and S.C.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the
measures would reduce the amount of grading required, conceal and screen the roadway with
plantings and otherwise make the new roadway less visually intrusive.
RIDGELINE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTE AND TRAIL
IMP ACT 5D: Grading and paving of portions of an emergency vehicle access over Skyline Ridge may
be visible from Central Dublin, which could adversely affect views of Skyline Ridge. FEIR page 5-12.
Mitigation Measure 5.D.1. Minimize impact with plan alignment. Design and build the road to
the minimum acceptable width, with a surface treatment which blends with the hillside setting,
FEIR 5-12.
Finding: Mitigation Measure S.D.! is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures would minimize
the size of the route and cause the route to blend in with the surroundings substantially reducing
its visibility from Central Dublin.
MARSHALL CLIFFS
IMP ACT 5E. Development could affect the Marshall Cliffs, a rock outcropping with high scenic value.
FEIR pages 5-12, 5-13.
Mitil!:ation Measure 5.E.l. Protect the visual qualities of the Marshall Cliffs by minimizing
grading in and around the rock outcropping. FEIR page 5-12.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.E.l is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant
impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would
ensure that the visually significant portions of the Marshall Cliffs are not disturbed by grading.
REGIONAL TRAIL - VISUAL CONCERNS
IMPACT 5F: The proposed regional trail requires careful design and location planning to preserve its
visual value for trail users and area residents. FEIR page 5-13.
Mitigation Measure 5.F.1. Align the trail to provide a minimum buffer between the trail and
development. Adjust trail alignment, street crossings and connections near 1-580 for direct and
convenient location while avoiding urban development wherever possible. FEIR page 5-13.
9
Findin2: Mitigation Measure 5.F.l is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that
the trail will be constructed so as to minimize views of urban areas and also so as to be as
visually unobtrusive as is feasible.
e:
WATER STORAGE TANKS - VISUAL CONCERNS
IMPACT 5G. Without careful siting and design treatment, proposed tanks and pump stations located in
the upper elevations of the project site could have adverse visual effects. FEIR page 5-13.
Mitigation Measure 5.G.!. Tanks shall be designed to blend into their visual setting, with neutral
paint color, plant materials, berming, andlor landform screening used to reduce visual impact.
Provision of this information allows the opportunity to identify and resolve visual siting and
design effects of specific facility proposals. FEIR pages 5-13.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.G.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will cause the
tanks to either be screened from view or to be designed such that they are unobtrusive and
difficult to discern from the natural environment.
PUMP STATIONS - VISUAL CONCERNS
IMPACT 5H. Without proper design, pump stations could have an adverse effect on the visual
environment. FEIR page 5-14.
.:,.
Mitigation Measure 5.H.l. Pump stations shall be placed in unobtrusive locations, or
underground, with plant materials used for screening if necessary. FEIR page 5-14.
-
Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.H.l is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant
impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will
require that the pump stations be substantially hidden or screened from public view.
LIGHT AND GLARE - PUBLIC FACILITIES
IMPACT 51: Public facilities could have night lighting which would affect nearby residents.
FEIR pages 5-14.
Mitigation Measure 5.Ll, Design lighting to minimize impact on nearby residential areas.
FEIR pages 5.15.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.11 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would cause the
lighting of public facilities to be designed so as to avoid glare on nearby residential areas by
requiring focused lighting, low glare light fixtures, shielding or other techniques.
.
10
J~
.
..,'
"
.
)1
LIGHT AND GLARE - PRIVATE RECREATION FACILITIES
IMPACT 5J. Private recreation facilities could have night lighting which would affect nearby residents,
FEIR pages 5-15, ,.
Mitigation Measure 5.J,1. Design lighting to minimize impact on nearby residential areas.
FEIR pages 5-15,
Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.J.l is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less -than significant level because the measures would cause the
lighting of private recreational facilities to be designed so as to avoid glare on nearby residential
areas by requiring focused lighting, low glare light fixtures, shielding or other techniques.
LIGHT AND GLARE - COMMERCIAL USES
IMP ACT 5K. Commercial facilities could have night lighting and illuminated signs which would affect
nearby residents and 1-580 motorists. FEIR page 5-15.
Mitigation Measure 5 ,K.l: Design lighting and select materials to minimize light and glare
impact on nearby residential areas and on 1-580 motorists. FEIR pages 5-15.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.Kl is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would cause the
lighting of commercial uses to be designed so as to avoid glare and excessive illuminations on
nearby residential areas and 1-580 motorists by requiring pedestrian-scaled light fixtures, strict
control of sign lighting, and other techniques.
WILLOW RIPARIAN / EMERGENT WETLAND COMPLEX
IMP ACT 6A. The proposed development would destroy the natural emergent wetland seep and willow
riparian habitats plus the large permanent pond in Marshall Canyon which this water source supplies.
Due to the relative scarcity of habitat in the greater project site area and its significance to wildlife, this is
a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 6-12, 6-13.
Mitigation Measure 6.A.l (a). Redesign the development plan so that this wetland complex is
preserved, along with a buffer area. FEIR page 6-13.
Mitigation Measure 6.A.Ub ), Provide suitable onsite habitat mitigation, including willow
riparian habitat. FEIR page 6-13.
Mitigation Measure 6.A.l (c). Enter into an off-site mitigation agreement with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and CDFG at an acreage replacement specified by those agencies.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 6.A.l (b) is feasible and is hereby adopted. Mitigation Measures
6.A.l(a) and 6.A.l (c) are less desirable and unnecessary and are hereby rejected.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
mitigation measure would provide replace habitat of equal value elsewhere on-site for the
amount actually lost. The preservation of existing habitat (mitigation option a) is rejected because
redesign of the project to preserve this habitat would result in substantial reduction in the number
of proposed housing units, and thus would not meet the stated objectives for the project; and
11
because a satisfactory mitigation option is available which would meet both housing and
environmental objectives. The off-site mitigation option (c) is rejected because replacement
habitat in the immediate area of the project is preferable to off-site habitat replacement, in cases
where on-site habitat replacement is feasible.
..
LOSS OF OTHER AQUATIC BIOMES AND JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
IMPACT 6B. Four other stock ponds would be removed by development: FEIR page 6-14.
Mitigation Measure 6.B.I. To redifce the' effects of development on aquatic resources, provide
on-site replacement habitat and buffers around replacement habitat. Conduct pre-construction
surveys. Habitat restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist. FEIR page 6-14.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 6.B.l is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures would replace any
aquatic habitat lost due to the project with an amount equal in size and quality elsewhere on-site.
LOSS OF GRASSLAND
IMPACT 6C. Grassland habitat, including potential habitat for the burrowing owl, would be disturbed by
construction activity. FEIR page 6-15.
Miti!1:ation Measure 6.C,1 and 6.C.2: Revegetate disturbed areas. Conductpreconstruction
survey for burrowing owl. Control or discontinue grazing in the retained grasslands to enhance
productivity for wildlife. FEIR p. 6-15. (Mitigation Measure 7.6.1 requires preparation of an .''-',
open space management plan which will further clarify procedures for grassland habitat
management regarding grazing in open space areas. FEIR page 7-40.)
Finding; Mitigation Measures 6.C.l and 6.C.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified In the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will provide for the re-establishment of grassland temporarily lost due to construction
activities, will include provisions for potential burrowing owl habitat, and will eliminate future
grassland habitat degradation due to overgrazing by livestock.
COAST LIVE OAK WOODLAND
IMPACT 6D: Proposed development would result in removal of oak woodland and its related habitat
value. FEIR pages 6-15, 6-16.
Miti2ation Measures 6.D.I. 6.D.2 and 6.D.3. Complete a detailed tree survey and apply tree
protection measures for trees to remain. Based on the survey, make adjustments to the
development plan to protect additional trees. Protect retained woodland and provide replacement
of removed trees at a 3:1 ratio. FEIR pages 6-16, 6-17.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 6.D.l, 6.C.2 and 6.C.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final ErR to a less than significant level, because the
measures would identify and protect to the extent feasible existing heritage class trees and .
replace those trees unavoidably lost at a 3 to 1 replacement ratio. Such measures combined will
12
;0
e:
e::-
e.
IJ;!
result in no net loss of trees over the long term and will preserve the existing oak trees planned to
rem am.
SECONDARY EFFECTS ON NATIVE PLANTS AND WILDLIFE
IMP ACT 6E: Plants introduced to the project site could compete with native vegetation. Domestic
animals could pose problems for wildlife. Project construction and occupancy would result in noise and
other intensive human activity which could affect native wildlife species. FEIR page 6-15.
Mitigation Measures 6,E.I and 6.E,2. Radier than use introduced plants which could comp'ete
with native vegetation, emphasize the use of native plants in landscaping. Apply Dublin's leash
law to the project, in order to reduce effects of domestic animals on native species.
FEIR page 6-15.
Findine:: Mitigation Measures 6.E.l and 6.E.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations shall be adopted for this impact upon approval of the project.
HERBICIDE RESTRICTIONS
IMPACT 6F. Herbicide sprays could enter the natural plant communities adjacent to the new
development and could seriously impact the local native plant and wildlife species. FEIR page 6-17.
Mitigation Measure 6.F.1. Provide rules regulating the use of herbicides. FEIR page 6-18.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 6.F.l is feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure will substantially
prevent herbicide exposure in the areas of the project site designated as natural open space and
habitat.
DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY : WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
IMPACT 7.1A. Development will require additional distribution mains, pumping facilities, and storage
tanks. FEIR page 7-6.
Mitigation Measures 7.1.2 and 7.1.3. To ensure long-term water supply. design and construct all
water system/facility improvements in accordance with DSRSD's water management plans and
design and construction standards. Create Pressure Zone 4 and water storage facility.
FEIR page 7-7.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will ensure that the project has an effective, adequate and efficient water distribution
system.
13
CONSTRAINTS ON WATER SUPPLY
IMPACT 7.1B. Without application of water conservation measures, and timely provision of water
service, there would be a potential significant adverse impact on water supply. FEIR page 7-6.
e..,
Mitie:ation Measures 7.1.1 throulZh 7,1.8. Support the DSRSD Water Use Reduction Plan, with
implementation of recycled water systems and other water conservation measures on the site.
Require that design and construction of all water facility and system improvements be in
accordance with DSRSD standards. Require that one additional pressure zone and water storage
facility be created. Obtain written commnation that the affected. districts can serve the proposed
development, and attach the appropriate conditions of approval. Insure that necessary water flows
and pressures are available, with system sized in accordance with fire district requirements.
Assure that adequate right of way is reserved. for facility improvements. Phase development to
facilitate orderly extensions of existing water systems. Verify that regulatory requirements are
met for wells. FEIR pages 7-6 through 7-8.
FindinlZ: Mitigation Measures 7.1.1 through 7.1.8 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will ensure that the project has an adequate and reliable source of water in sufficient
amounts to satisfy the demands of project residents prior to the constIUction of any project
improvement which may demand such water.
W ASTEW A TER: COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
IMPACT 7,2A. Sanitary sewer service to the project site is constrained by the lack of off-site e
downstream wastewater collection facilities, the capacity at the existing treatment plant in Pleasanton, , ,
and the capacity in the existing export pipeline. Without expansion of existing facilities, or provision of
alternate facilities, there would be a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 7-9.
Mitigation Measures 7.2.1 through 7.2.12. A will-serve letter shall be provided to the City. The
applicant shall arrange with DSRSD for updating of collection system modeling. Require that
parcels be connected to the sewage disposal system in keeping with current regulations. Use
recycled water systems for certain landscaped areas. The project site shall be annexed to DSRSD.
Improvements shall be designed in compliance with DSRSD standards and guidelines. The
developer shall provide a copy of the sewer permit certificate from DSRSD. Treated effluent
shall meet or exceed the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Recycled
water plans shall comply with separation standards. Provide documents for recycled water
system. Meet regulatory requirements for any recycled water reservoir. Coordinate planning of
the recycled water line with DSRSD. FEIR pages 7-10 through 7-12.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incOIporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the
measures require annexation of the project to DSRSD and would ensure that there is adequate
sewage collection facilities and treatment capacity available to the project prior to the
constIUction of any project improvement which would require such facilities or capacity.
'.
14
r. '"
'2r
.:
e.:.
.~'
?J
W ASTEW A TER: DISTRICT ANNEXATION
IMPACT 7,2B. The site is outside the DSRSD boundary. Without annexation, there would be a potential
significant adverse impact on the ability to provide wastewater services. FEIR page 7-10.
Mitil!:ation Measure 7.2.5, The project site shall be annexed to DSRSD, in order to provide
sanitary sewer service. FEIR page 7.11.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.2.5 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into.the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant
impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure would
require that the project be annexed to DSRSD prior to the constroction of any project
improvements which would require sewage collection and treatment service.
DISPOSAL OF TREA TED WASTEWATER
IMPACT 7.2C. Current capacity of the export pipeline for treated wastewater may be insufficient.
FEIR page 7-10, 7.11.
Mitigation Measures 7.2.1. 7.2,2 and 7.2.4. A will-serve letter shall be provided to the City. The
applicant shall arrange with DSRSD for updating of collection system modeling, Recycled water
systems shall be provided to certain landscaped areas. FEIR page 7-11.
Finding; Mitigation Measures 7.2.1. 7.2.2 and 7.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because
the measures would ensure that, prior to construction of any project improvements which require
sewage disposal service, DSRSD will have sufficient export capacity in the LA VWMA or
alternative system.
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS.
IMPACT 7.2D. Without proper design of on site wastewater improvements, there could be aD. adverse
impact. FEIR page 7-10.
Mitil!:ation Measure 7.2.6. Wastewater systems shall be designed in compliance with DSRSD
standards and guidelines. FEIR page 7-11.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.2.6. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure will ensure that the
project has an adequate, effective and efficient wastewater collection system prior to the
occupancy of any project improvement which would require such services.
EXISTING HOMES ON SEPTIC TANKS
IMPACT 7.2E. The lack of arrangements for sewer service to an existing home on septic tank service is a
potential significant adverse impact. FEIR page 7-10.
Mitigation Measure 7.2.3. Require connections to sewer lines in compliance with regulations.
FEIR page 7-11.
15
Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.2.3. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure
will require that existing septic systems be abandoned where required, and that those homes be
connected to the new sewage collection system where required.
.'
FIRE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME IMPACTS
IMPACT 7.3C. The project would have a slightly extended response time for emergency vehicles to
reach the site. FEIR page 7-23. '
Mitil!ation Measures 7.3.1 through 7.3,6. Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4.C and 8.2.2
addressing fIre safety concerns. Require residential fIre sprinklers and other methods of onsite
fIre control. Provide fIre-resistive planting bands. Install a system of hydrants. Use fIre-resistant
construction materials and techniques. Avoid the use of flammable plant species and use
landscape management techniques to reduce hazards from vegetation. Design streets to
accommodate emergency response vehicles. FEIR pages 7-24 through 7-29.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.3.1. through 7.3.6 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will increase the amount of time it takes for an onsite fIre to spread by providing on-site
fIre suppression measures and also by providing for a site and potential capital contributions
toward a new station should sufficient development occur in the western Dublin area to justify
such a facility. A new station would reduce the response time to 5 minutes or less. On-site
suppression measures will reduce the need to respond to a fIre call within 5 minutes,
.'
MEDICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME IMPACTS
IMPACT 7.3D. The project would have a slightly extended response time for medical emergency service
providers to reach the site. FEIR page 7-25.
Mitil!ation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.8, Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4:C and 8.2.2
addressing fire safety concerns. Require residential fire sprinklers and other methods of onsite
fIre control. Reserve site for additional new fire station and contribute fair share towards capital
improvements for new station. Provide residents with notices stating that response time standards
are unique to this project and make available a Community Education Program focusing on
treatment of medical emergencies prior to first response. FEIR pages 7-24,7-25, and 7-30.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.3.1. and 7.3.8 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures
will provide for an increased rate of response if the level of development in western Dublin
warrants the construction and operation of an additional fire/EMS facility and also because the
notice and education program will provide self-help training which will substantially alleviate the
need for the increased response time.
.
16
I
~q
.:
.
.'
S5
WILDLAND - STRUCTURE FIRE EXPOSURE IMPACTS
IMPACT 73E. The proposed project is bordered by open-space wildlands. Fires could spread between
buildings and wildland. FEIR page 7-25,
Mitigation Measures 7.3.2 through 73.5. Provide fire-resistive planting bands. Install a system of
water mains and hydrants. Use fire-resistant construction materials and techniques. Avoid the use
of flammable plant species. Prepare a fuel management plan. FEIR pages 7-26 through 7-28,
Finding; Mitigation Measures 7.3.2. through 7.3.5 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Cllanges
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will provide both passive and active on-site fITe suppression systems which will
substantially lessen the risk of damage to structures due to wildfires.
WATER SUPPLY AND FIRE HYDRANT IMPACTS
IMPACT 7.3F. Lack of adequate water supply and fITe hydrants would result in a significant adverse
impact. FEIR page 7-26.
Mitigation Measure 7.3.3. Install a complete set of water mains and fire hydrants.
FEIR page 7-26,
Finding; Mitigation Measure 7.3.3. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure will ensure that the
project has an adequate and effective high pressure water supply system installed before the
construction of significant flammable improvements.
COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
IMPACT 7.3G. The use of wood shingles or other combustible construction can result in fast-spreading
fITes. FEIR page 7-27,
Mitigation Measure 7,3.1 and 7.3.4. Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4.C and 8.2.2
addressing fire safety concerns. Use fITe-resistant construction materials and methods.
FEIR page 7-27,
Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.3.1. and 7.3.4 are feasible and hereby adopted. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impacts identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure
will ensure that project structures will contain fITe suppression systems and will be constructed
using only high fITe rated materials and fire resistant construction techniques.
LANDSCAPE AND MANAGEMENT IMPACTS
IMPACT 73H. Flammable landscape materials can result in fire hazards. FEIR page 7-27.
Mitigation Measure 7.3.5 . Avoid the use of highly flammable landscape plants. Prepare a fuel
management plan. FEIR page 7-28.
Finding; Mitigation Measure 7.3.5. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure will ensure that
17
only fire resistant landscaping products are used in the project substantially reducing the risk of
fire damage to Project structures.
STREET AND ROAD ACCESS IMP ACTS
.
IMPACT 7.3.1. Some streets are not consistent with frre district standards, and may increase hazards for
local residents in case of an emergency. FEIR page 7-29.
Miti2ation Measure 7.3.6. Redesig!!._streets to meet fire district standards. FEIR page 7-29:
Findin2: Mitigation Measure 7.3.6. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure will require the
elimination or redesign of all streets within the project which do not meet DRF A standards.
LIFE SAFETY IMPACTS
IMPACT 7.3.1. Assurance is needed that fire alarm and detection systems will remain operable, and
education is needed for mitigation of medical emergencies prior to the arrival of the first responder.
FEIR page 7-30.
Miti2ation Measures 7.3.1. 7.3.7 and 7.3.8. Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4.C and 8.2.2
addressing fire safety concerns. Require residential fire sprinklers and other methods of onsite
frre control. Implement an education or self-inspection program to provide assurance that the
automatic fire sprinkler systems remain in service. Provide a community education program
focusing on the mitigation of medical emergencies prior to the arrival of the first responder. .
Provide a notice stating that response times are unique to this project. FEIR pages 7-24,25, 7-30. ." : "
Findin2: Mitigation Measures 7.3.1.,7.3.7 and 7.3.8 are feasible and hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measure will ensure that project structures will contain frre protection systems, and will provide
education and notice so thilt project residents can provide self-help onsite fire! EMS response
system operational monitoring.
POLICE PROTECTION
IMPACT 7.4A: Increased population due to development of the project site will require an increase in
police personnel and support equipment. FEIR page 7-35.
Mitigation Measures 7.4.1 and 7,4.2, To serve increased population from the project, expand
police operations and systems to serve the project. Verify that security services will be provided
for the East Bay Regional Park District land. FEIR page 7-35.
Findin~: Mitigation Measures 7.4.1. and 7.4.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures
would ensure a police presence sufficient to provide security for the developed portion of the
project site and in the open space area,
.
18
Jf..
.
e.:
.
31
POLICE PROTECTION - PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
IMPACT 7.4B. Site and building layout can affect the ability of police to detect problems and respond to
emergencies. Without adequate incorporation of police protection concerns into the project design, there
would be a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 7-36.
Mitigation Measure 7.4.3. Incorporate Police Department design recommendations into the
project. FEIR page 7-36.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.4.3 ii-feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the incorporation of Police
Department Design recommendations into the fmal project design will substantially increase the
security of the development and reduce the level of effort needed to patrol the project adequately,
ELECTRICITY. NATURAL GAS AND TELEPHONE SERVICE
IMPACT 7.5A. Development of the project will increase the demand for electrical, natural gas and
telephone service. FEIR page 7-36.
Mitigation Measures 7.5.1 and 7,5,2. The applicant shall coordinate with the City and utility
companies in planning and scheduling future facilities and shall document that service is
available to new development. FEIR pages 7-36, 7-37.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.5.1. and 7.5.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will ensure that the project has adequate and efficient telephone, natural gas, electrical
and other utility service.
OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT
IMPACT 7.6A. Without careful development guidelines and adherence to the City's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, compatibility conflicts could occur between project land uses and adjacent open space,
FEIR page 7-39.
Mitigation Measure 7,6.1. Provide an open space management plan for design and development
of open space areas. FEIR page 7-40.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.6.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the open space management
plan will minimize the conflicts between urban land uses and adjacent open space by providing
buffers and by identifying long-term maintenance program funding,
PARK FACILITIES
IMPACT 7.6B. Without arrangements for dedication of parkland and/or in-lieu fees, and funding of
improvements, there would be a potential significant impact on City residents who would not have
satisfactory recreation facilities. FEIR page 7-41.
19
Mitigation Measures 7.6.2. 7.6.3. and 7.6.4. Require that proposed parks be designed and
constructed in compliance with the City of Dublin requirements; require dedication of a park site
on the property; or pay in-lieu fees for neighborhood parkland. Require fees or on-site land
dedication for community parks. Assess park sites in terms of suitability for use. FEIR page 7-42.
.',
Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.6.2.,7.6.3, and 7.6.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures ensure that neighborhood park facilities will be provided for project residents and that
adequate in-lieu offees or land deOication-will be required to provide sufficient resources 'to meet
the City of Dublin community park standard.
INTERNAL OPEN SPACE ISSUES
IMPACT 7.6C. Without addressing issues of ownership, liability and maintenance in internal open space
areas, there are potential impacts associated with fue suppression, weed control, trash problems, erosion
control, and slope instability. FEIR page 7-42.
MitilZation Measure 7.6.5. Require major graded slopes to be owned by Homeowners'
Association. Provide access for maintenance. Make arrangements for maintenance and
management. FEIR page 7-42, 7-43.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.6.5. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will ensure adequate maintenance of internal open space areas to reduce the danger of
fue or other hazardous conditions.
.'
REGIONAL TRAIL
IMPACT 7.6E. Without detailed arrangements for meeting Regional Park District standards, there would
be a potential significant adverse impact on trail users and local residents based on established City and
Park District policies and standards. FEIR page 7-44.
MitilZation Measure 7.6.8 and 7.6.9. Verify dedication of regional trail corridor, and alignment
and construction in keeping with Regional Park District standards. Coordinate efforts to link trail
to Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park. FEIR page 7-44.
Findin!.!: Mitigation Measures 7.6.8. and 7.6.9 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will ensure that an adequate regional trail alignment that links to Rowell Ranch Rodeo
Park has been dedicated to the EBRPD pursuant to their standards for regional trail alignment.
RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA
IMPACT 7.6F. Without satisfactory resolution of ownership of the Resource Protection Area, there could
be a potential adverse impact. FEIR page 7-45.
Miti!.!ation Measure 7.6.10. Require land dedication, access along the development perimeter,
and land use restrictions, FEIR page 7-45.
.
20
7S?
.
.
..
.
"31
Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.6.10. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
will ensure that the open space' area is under the control and responsibility of an entity which is
capable of maintaining adequate control of the use and management of the area.
OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
IMPACT 7.8A: With project development._!here may be inadequate provision for other community
sen'ices, FEIR pages 7-47. -
Mitigation Measure 7.8.1: Verify that arrangements have been made to assure satisfactory
ongoing municipal administrative service,
Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.8.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
significant effect identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
will ensure that sufficient City administrative services will be available to accommodate the
project's demands.
SOLID WASTE CAPACITY
IMPACT 7.9A: Proposed development will increase the amount of solid waste generated which will
further reduce available landfill capacity. FEIR page 7-49.
Mitigation Measures 7.9.1 and 7.9.2, Provide a "will.serve" letter from the solid waste disposal
company. Provide commercial recycling facilities. FEIR pages 7-49, 7-50..
Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.9.1. and 7.9.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will ensure that sufficient solid waste disposal capacity is available to the project
through recycling and through the assurance of adequate landfill capacity prior to the
construction of any housing units or non-residential land uses.
SCHOOL IMPACTS
IMPACT 7.10A: The project site is primarily within the Castro Valley Unified School District. The
eastern part ofthe project site falls within the Dublin Unified School District. Neither school district
would be able to absorb the new students generated by development of the site. Both school districts
wish to serve the project. FEIR page 7-51, 7-52.
Mitigation Measures 7.10.1 through 7.10,3: Verify that the issue of attendance areas between
Castro Valley Unified School District and Dublin Unified School District has been resolved. The
Development Agreement shall provide for applicant payment of fees to cover additional costs of
students generated by the project. The applicable school district shall be consulted about any
necessary siting of schools to serve the student population from the proposed project. FEIR page
7.52.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.10.1. through 7.10.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
21
measures will ensure that the project is annexed to a school district that has adequate facilities to
accommodate the project's projected students prior to the construction of any residential units.
GRADING AND RELATED IMPACTS ON DRAINAGE
.,:
IMPACT 8.lA. Proposed grading will affect existing watershed flows, capacities, and downstream areas.
Existing drainage patterns will be altered by project development. Proposed development could lead to
increased localized runoff, increasing the possibility of flooding downstream properties.
FEIR pages 8-3, 8-4.
Mitigation Measures 8.1.1 through 8.1.8. Provide a Master Drainage Plan to further supplement
FEIR information on runoff impacts, to provide detailed drainage plans for project phases, to
provide design features to minimize erosion, and to coordinate modifications or enhancements to
creeks or the abutting riparian area with other agencies. Design project drainage improvements
to accommodate existing and future flows. Provide facilities to control peak runoff discharge
rates, and to control channel erosion. Obtain approval for watershed diversion. FEIR pages 8-4
through 8-6.
Finding; Mitigation Measures 8.1.1. through 8.1.8 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will ensure that the increased runoff due to the increase in impervious surface will be
controlled through temporary on-site storage, runoff energy dissipators and other physical and
programmatic measures resulting in no net runoff from the site.
SEDIMENTATION AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS
.'
IMPACT 8.2A: The potential for surface erosion will be increased during construction operations as soil
is exposed to rainfall and overland runoff. Erosion could lead to additional transport and deposition of
sediments within existing drainage ditches and pipes. Sediments can also damage aquatic life and
vegetation. Sediment particles cany natural organic matter and nutrients. Particles washed from urban
land surfaces also may contain traces of toxicants. FEIR pages 8-6,8-7.
Mitigation Measures 8.2.1. 8.2.2. and 8.2.4. Prepare a comprehensive water quality report to
examine water quality and runoff issues at a detailed design level. The City shall verify that
DSRSD has initiated permitting processes with regulators. A detailed plan for the reclaimed
water system shall be approved by the City and by DSRSD. FEIR pages 8-8, 8-9.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 8.2.1., 8.2.2, and 8.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures require that adequate water quality control techniques such as desilting and filtering be
implemented under the supervision of responsible regional authorities.
WATER OUALITY: GRAZING IN PROXIMITY TO URBAN USES
IMPACT 8.2E. The presence of cattle grazing in close proximity to proposed urban uses could have a
significant adverse impact, due to health implications for area residents. FEIR page 8-7.
Mitigation Measures 8.2.1. 8.2.2. and 8.2.4. Prepare a comprehensive water quality report to
examine water quality and runoff issues at a detailed design level. The City shall verifY that
.
22
LIt)
DSRSD has initiated permitting processes with regulators. A detailed plan for the reclaimed
water system shall be approved by the City and by DSRSD. FEIR pages 8-8, 8-9.
.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 8.2.1., 8.2.2, and 8.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will provide for controls on runoff, including measures to prevent negative effects of
potential contamination of sunace water with animal wastes.
RUNOFF IMPACTS - RESERVOIR AND DETENTION BASINS.
IMPACT 8.2C. Project- related grading would have a potential significant adverse impact on detention
basins or the proposed reclaimed water reservoir, due to resultant sedimentation. FEIR page 8-7.
Mitigation Measures 8.2,1. 8.2.2. and 8,2.4. Prepare a comprehensive water quality report to
examine water quality and runoff issues at a detailed design level. The City shall verify that
DSRSD has initiated permitting processes with regulators. A detailed plan for the reclaimed
water system shall be approved by the City and by DSRSD. FEIR pages 8-8, 8-9.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 8.2.1.,8.2.2, and 8.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures would provide a sedimentation control program under the supervision of the
appropriate regional authorities which will substantially eliminate the contamination of surface
waters from sediment generated from project grading activities.
e: GROUND WATER QUALITY
IMPACT 8.2D. Potential impacts could result from existing septic tanks, and from runoff pollutants
associated with urban development. FEIR pages 8-7, 8-8.
Mitigation Measures 8.2.1. 8.2.2. 8.2.3 and 8.2,4. Prepare a comprehensive water quality report
to examine water quality and runoff issues at a detailed design level. The City shall verify that
DSRSD has initiated permitting processes with regulators. Abandonment of existing wells and
septic tanks shall be in accordance with regulations. A detailed plan for the reclaimed water
system shall be approved by the City and by DSRSD. FEIR pages 8~8, 8-9.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 8.2.1., 8.2.2, 8.2.3 and 8.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because
the measures will provide a water quality control program which will include measures to protect
ground water quality such as the abandonment of septic systems and private wells under the
supervision of responsible regional authorities.
MASS GRADING IMPACTS
.
IMPACT 9A: Mass grading has a significant impact due to landform alteration and to removal of natural
vegetative cover and wildlife habitat. The extent of grading also can increase the impacts of erosion and
changes in sunace drainage and ground water conditions. Grading can cause activation of existing
landslides and cause new slope failures. Off-hauling of excess material can create excessive truck traffic
with associated dust problems, potential damage to existing streets and traffic problems.
FEIR page 9-8, 9-9.
23
tj/
Mitigation Measures 9.A.l, 9.A.2 and 9.A.3. A detailed grading plan shall be designed to
minimize project grading, to provide a smooth transition to natural terrain, to consider visual
concerns, to protect existing trees during grading, to encourage recycled water for dust control,
and to balance quantities of cut and fill on-site. Keep visual impacts and tree loss to a minimum
through special remedial grading approaches using reinforced earth or retaining walls. FEIR
page 9-9.
.'
Findinl!:: Mitigation Measures 9.A.1., 9.A.2, and 9.A.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in-The Final EIR, because the measures will require that grading
is balanced (no off-site removal of cut-fill material), existing vegetation is conserved to the extent
possible, landslides are repaired, natural appearing contours are provided, and the amount of dust
is reduced.
SLOPE STABILITY IMPACTS
IMPACT 9B: Numerous landslides are found throughout the project site. Many show signs of recent
activity, and many are massive and/or deep-seated. In addition, debris flow areas and soil creep on steep
slopes occur on the project site. Existing landslides, new landslides on unstable slopes, debris flows and
soil creep could damage structures or improvements if continued or new movement would occur.
FEIR page 9-10.
Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 9.B.8. Complete a detailed geotechnical investigation to
provide supplementary identification and accurate mapping of all landslides, debris flow areas,
and soil creep areas. Specific recommendations to stabilize landslides and unstable slopes shall
be related to the proposed development. Design grading so that slope stability is improved.
Control water movement with ditches and subdrainage. Identify and stabilize or avoid soil creep
areas. Designate setback zones where unstable features cannot be mitigated otherwise. Require
the project's detailed grading plan to evaluate natural slopes, cut and fill areas and landslide areas
and to enhance slope stability through the orientation and location of cuts and through fill design.
Establish a Geologic Hazard Abatement District to maintain and repair landslides and other
geologic hazards. FEIR pages 9-10 through 9-12.
e:
Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.B.1. through 9.B.8 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will ensure that project grading results in no unrepaired landslides, activates no new
landslides or provides for adequate setbacks where landslide repair cannot be performed.
EROSION IMPACTS
IMP ACT 9C: Accelerated erosion could create unstable conditions, increase sediment in surface runoff,
and cause erosion gullies, FEIR page 9-12,
Mitigation Measures 9,C.l, 9.C.2 and 9.C.3. Require an erosion control plan as part of a detailed
geotechnical investigation. The erosion control plan shall include measures to prevent erosion of
existing drainageways and measures for revegetation of graded soil surfaces. Require erosion
control before and during grading to prevent erosion gullies and down cutting of
streambeds.Temporary structures shall provide erosion control during storm runoff and
permanent measures shall provide long-term erosion control. FEIR pages 9-12, 9-13, .
Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.C.1., 9.C.2, and 9.C.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
24
'II-
.:
.:,:
..'
V3
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the
measures will substantially reduce the amount of erosion generated by the project.
FILL SETTLEMENT IMPACTS
IMPACT 9D: Proposed fills on the site are estimated to be up to 140 feet thick, which could result in
significant settlement. Differential settlement could occur, causing damage to building foundations and
utility conduits, FEIR page 9-13.
Mitigation Measures 9.0.1 through 9.0.5. Fill settlement shall be evaluated as part of a detailed
geotechnical investigation, with feasible measures identified to minimize settlement risks for
structures, roads and utilities. Include fill placement procedures and standards in detailed grading
plans for the project. Limit structures and improvements in areas that have a potential for high
differential settlement. Evaluate the feasibility ofremoving compressible soils below fills, or
design structures capable of accommodating the predicted settlements. Monitor settlement of
deep fills and postpone placement of structures on the fill until most anticipated settlement has
occurred. FEIR pages 9-13,9-14.
Finding; Mitigation Measures 9.D.1. through 9.D.5 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures will identify areas with high soil settlement potential, cause those areas to be repaired
where possible and adjust building location where necessary. These measures will substantially
decrease the risk of property damage from soil settlement.
EXPANSIVE AND CORROSIVE SOIL IMPACTS
IMPACT 9E. Changes in volume of expansive soils caused from changes in soil moisture content, and
the effects of corrosive soils can create ground movement that can damage structure foundations and
other improvements. FEIR pages 9-14, 9-15.
Mitigation Measures 9.E.1 throullh 9.E.3. Evaluate-expansive soils as part of a detailed
geotechnical evaluation conducted prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, with measures
developed to reduce the risk of damage to improvements from expansive soils. Evaluate
expansion potential and provide proper design of foundation and pavement sections. After
grading, examine the corrosivity of soils, with the results used to design foundations and other
improvements. Recommendations for moisture control before, during and after construction
should focus on minimizing soil shrinking and swelling. FEIR page 9-15.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.E.l. through 9.E.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures would remove the expansive soil from the developed area, cause the structures to be
designed v:ith foundations resistant to expansive and corrosive soils and provide moisture control
to reduce shrink swell potential, These measures will substantially reduce the risk of structure
damage due to these soils phenomena,
SEISMIC HAZARD IMP ACTS
IMP ACT 9F, The site is not within a currently designated State of California "Special Studies Zone" for
active faults. The nearest major active fault is the Calaveras Fault which is located about 3,000 feet to the
25
east. The site will likely experience moderately strong to very strong ground motion during the life of the
proposed development. Damage to structures and improvements, as well as injwy to people, may occur
due to strong ground shaking during a major seismic event. FEIR page 9-15.
Mitigation Measures 9.F.1 through 9.F.3, Seismic hazards shall be analyzed as part of a detailed
geotechnical evaluation. Direct and indirect effects of groundshaking shall be assessed. Design
and construct structures to maintain integrity during a major seismic event. Apply other
corrective measures iffault zones are exposed during grading. Inactive faults in development
areas shall be mapped and remedial measures prepared to protect foundations, pavement and
slope stability. FEIR page 9-16. .--
."
FindinlZ: Mitigation Measures 9.F.1. through 9.F.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the
measures will allow project improvements to be designed to be earthquake resistant, and
therefore minimizing the risk of property damage and injwy due to seismic activity.
GROUNDWATER IMPACTS
IMP ACT 9G: Shallow groundwater may be present on the site. Groundwater can cause slope instability,
or impact foundations, utilities, and pavement. With the addition of landscape irrigation water introduced
by development, shallow ground water conditions can become more prevalent. FEIR page 9-16.
Mitigation Measures 9.G.l through 9,G.4, The project geotechnical investigation shall identify
all areas exhibiting shallow ground water conditions, and shall recommend corrective measures
for shallow groundwater effects. Groundwater information shall be used to anticipate where .
groundwater will be encountered during excavation. Subdrains shall be installed according to the , .
standards in the FEIR, and irrigation guidelines shall be provided to project property owners.
FEIR pages 9-16, 9-17.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.G.1. through 9.G.4 are feasible and hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measures would allow areas of high groundwater to either be avoided or drained so that
structures can be located and constructed safely.
EXCAVATION IMPACTS
IMPACT 9H. Some of the bedrock formations mapped on the site may contain units that are not easily
excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment. Methods such as blasting may be the only
alternative. Blasting can have disruptive noise and safety impacts on the environment. FEIR page 9-17.
Mitigation Measure 9.H.1. Blasting to facilitate excavation is discouraged and should be
performed only after other techniques have been exhausted, and only then in accordance with an
approved blasting plan to include noise control and control of flying rock and detonation.
FEIR page 9-17.
Finding;: Mitigation Measure 9.H.l. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure will ensure that .
blasting is minimized. When blasting is not avoidable, the measure provides that it be conducted " ,,'
as safely and unobtrusively as possible.
26
tj~
.:-
.:",
,.."
.'
~:5
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
IMPACT llA, The existing homes on the project site will experience construction noise during grading
of the site. EIR page 11-4.
Mitigation Measure 11.A.l, Arrange for residents to live offsite during construction, or phase
grading operations and use berms or natural barriers to limit the duration of noise exposure, and
limit hours of grading, FEIR page 11-4.
Finding: Mitigation Measure ll.Aj~-is feasible and is hereb)' adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure
will result in exposing no current resident in the project area to noise levels in excess of City
noise standards.
ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
IMPACT lIB. As development proceeds in the region, increased traffic levels will lead to higher
highway noise levels. The site will be impacted by increased noise levels from 1-580, and by traffic on
newly improved roadways within the project site. Schaefer Basin is the only part of the site where
proposed development would be exposed to 1-580 freeway noise in excess of 60 dB, Lein.
FEIR page 11-5.
Mitigation Measures Il.B.l and Il.B.2, Require a detailed noise control plan, with procedures
for noise control in the Schaefer Basin Area. Redesign project to conform to City Noise Element.
FEIR page 1l~5.
Finding: Mitigation Measures H.B.!. and H.B.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because
the measures will result in no project residences being subjected to noise levels in excess of City
noise standards.
AIR OUALITY - PARTICULATES
IMPACT 12A: Dust from construction activities would cause a temporary increase in particulate matter
near sites of proposed development. FEIR pages 12-8, 12-9.
Mitigation Measure 12,A.l. Reducing particulate matter effects is largely a matter of controlling
dust. Require strict dust control measures for grading. Such measures can include watering
exposed surfaces, covering haul trucks, avoiding unnecessary engine idling, reseeding completed
grading sites, and limiting vehicle speeds, and monitoring equipment for emission standards
compliance. Take special measures in the vicinity of existing residences including onsite
monitoring of dust levels, close supervision to ensure dust control measures are followed, FEIR
pages 12-9, 12-10,
Finding: Mitigation Measure 12.A.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
would reduce the level of dust generated by the project to such an extent that the PMI0 standard
would not be violated.
27
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
IMPACT l2B. There may be localized violations of carbon monoxide (CO) standards due to construction
equipment operation. FEIR page 12-11.
.::'
Mitigation Measure l2.B.1: Monitor and operate construction equipment to assure compliance
with emission standards. A void open burning of construction waste. FEIR page 12-11.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 12.B.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incOIporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential '
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
would substantially reduce the possibility that the construction activities of the project will cause
the CO air standard to be violated.
REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
IMPACT 12D. The project would contribute to emissions of ozone precursors in the region. Although
the increase would be small, there are existing ozone problems in the area, and there is a regulatory
requirement to produce a reduction in air pollution. FEIR pages 12-12, 12-13.
Mitigation Measures 12.D.1 and 12.D.2. Implement control measures contained in air quality
attainment plans. The project shall be planned to reduce automobile traffic. FEIR pages 12-13.
Findin2: Mitigation Measures n.D.1. and n.D.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project. However, even
with these changes, the impact will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project.
.:'
ON-SITE FUEL COMBUSTION
IMPACT 12F. Inefficient wood stoves and fireplaces can add to carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate
concentrations. FEIR page 12-14.
Mitigation Measure l2.F.I. Require efficient EPA-approved wood stoves and fireplace units.
FEIR page 12-14.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 12.F.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
will prevent anyon-site combustion activities from significantly adding to the CO levels and
thereby causing a CO air violation.
MISCELLANEOUS FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES
IMPACT 12G: Road dust, construction activities, and handling of bulk materials add particulate matter
to the air. FEIR page 12-14.
Mitigation Measure 12.G.1. Implement Air Quality District regulations regarding fugitive dust.
FEIR page 12-15.
."
Finding: Mitigation Measure 12.G.l is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
28
tit
.
.
.
'11
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
would reduce the level of dust generated by the project to such an extent that the PMIO standard
would not be violated.
SITE PLANNING FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
IMPACT l3B: Without careful attention to site planning, including building and window orientation
there could be inefficient and avoidable use of energy for space heating and cooling.
FEIR page 13-3.
Mitigation Measure 13.B.l: Require redesign of project to improve solar orientation of lots, or
use alternative methods of conserving energy, FEIR page 13-3.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 13.B.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR, because the measure will ensure the maximum practical energy
conservation practices are implemented, resulting in an efficient use of energy resources.
PREHISTORIC RESOURCES
IMPACT 14A: Although no significant archeological resources are known on-site, there is a potential
that future earthmoving activities could uncover archaeological materials. FEIR page 14-6,
Mitigation Measure 14.A.1. Follow stop-work and notification procedures specified in the
CEQA guidelines if cultural resources are found. FEIR page 14-6.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 14.A.l. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
would ensure the protection and proper handling of any prehistoric artifacts discovered on the
project site.
ROCK WALLS
IMPACT 14B: Portions of existing historic rock walls on the site could be removed by proposed
construction. FEIR page 14-7.
Mitigation Measure 14.B.1. Adjust new fencing and limit of grading to protect rock walls.
FEIR page 14-7.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 14.B.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact
identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would adequately
protect and preserve the rock walls and prevent any damage from project activities.
HISTORlC SETTLEMENT AREAS
IMPACT 14C: Several locations may contain buried or obscured materials from the time of early
settlers. Site alteration is proposed in these areas, FEIR page 14-7.
Mitigation Measure 14.C.1. Provide monitoring of construction in areas of sensitivity in
Schaefer Basin, FEIR pages 14-7,
29
Finding: Mitigation Measure 14.C.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential
significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure
would ensure the protection and proper handling of any historic artifacts or resources discovered .
on the project site.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IMPACT 15A. An investigation has identified hazardous materials on the site generally related to
ranching and agricultural use and the presence of power poles with transformers. FEIR page 15-1. '
Mitigation Measures 15.A.I throuJ;!;h 15.A.4. Remove identified hazardous materials in the
appropriate manner. Close or evaluate existing wells and septic systems. Assess any other
hazardous materials encountered during grading. FEIR page 15-2.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 15.A.1. through 15.AA are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce
the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because
the measures would ensure that all hazardous materials located on the project site would be
handled and disposed of in a safe manner pursuant to state and federal regulations and that
existing wells and septic systems would be abandoned and sealed in a safe manner.
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS
IMPACT I8.2A. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is under development. This plan may identify
additional cumulative traffic impacts. FEIR page 18-3a.
Mitigation Measure 18.2.1. If applicable, the project shall pay its fair share of traffic impact fees,
as identified in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan or equivalent document. FEIR page 18-3.
."...
, .
Finding; Mitigation Measure 18.2.1. is feasible and hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant
cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR, because the measure would require the project to
contribute to regional traffic improvement projects which are designed to allow regional
transportation facilities to function at acceptable levels of service.
CUMULATIVE WATER SUPPLY IMP ACTS
IMPACT 18.3A. Ongoing urban development in the area is resulting in a cumulative increase in water
demand, FEIR pages 18-4, 18-5.
Mitigation Measures 18.3.1 and 18.3.2. The City shall support areawide efforts to address
potential cumulative impacts on water supplies. The City shall continue frequent coordination
with DSRSD and Zone 7, in order to identify water supply trends and concerns. FEIR pages 18-5,
18-6.
Finding; Mitigation Measures 18.3.1. and 18.3.2 are feasible and hereby adopted. Such actions
are primarily within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City
of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions
would avoid or reduce the potential significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a
less than significant level, because continuing adequate long range water planning will ensure a
stable regional water supply.
.
30
;/&
.
.~
.~
11
CUMULATIVE IMP ACT: WASTEWATER
IMPACT 18.3B: There is an increasing cumulative demand on area wastewater treatment facilities
operated by the Dublin San Ramon Services District and other agencies. FEIR page 18-6.
Miti~tion Measures 18.3.3 and 18.3.4. Onsite water recycling facilities would reduce impact on
wastewater facilities. DSRSD is currently expanding its program to meet service area needs. FEIR
page 18-6. 18-7.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 18.3.3. and 18.3.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations regarding wastewater treatment and recycling have been required in, or
incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant effect
identified in the Final EIR DSRSD's expansion program is within DSRSD's responsibility and
jurisdiction. DSRSD can and should undertake the expansion program. If taken, such actions
would avoid or reduce the significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than
significant level, because the measure will result in sufficient long term wastewater treatment and
disposal capacity for the region.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT: SOLID WASTE
IMPACT I8.3C: Ongoing urban development is creating pressure on remaining landfill capacity.
FEIR page 18-7.
Miti~ation Measure 18.3.5. The City shall continue to comply with the requirements of the
California Integrated Waste Management Act. FEIR page 18-7.
FindinlZ: Mitigation Measure 18.3.5 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been. required in, or incorporated into City procedures that avoid or reduce the potential
significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measure will ensure the City's continuing support of an adequate long-term solid waste disposal
service and capacity for the region.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT: POLICE PROTECTION
IMPACT I8.3D: Cumulative population increase will require additions to police personnel and facilities.
FEIR page 18-7.
Miti~tion Measure 18.3.6. The City shall continue to use the budget strategy to cover the costs of
additional police protection. FEIR page 18-7.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.3.6 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into City procedures that avoid or reduce the potential
significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measure will ensure that there are adequate police resources citywide to satistY the demand for
police services.
31
CUMULATIVE IMPACT: PARKS AND RECREATION
IMPACT 18.3E. Increased population results in cumulative dem and for park and recreation facilities,
FEIR page 18-7.
.
Mitigation Measure 18.3.7, The City shall continue master planning efforts to assess recreation
needs and to plan for new facilities. FEIR page 18-7.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.3.7 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorponrtid into the project that avoid or reduce the significant '
cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
will ensure that adequate park facilities are developed to meet the needs of the entire City of
Dublin.
CUMULA TIVE IMPACT: SCHOOLS
IMPACT 18.3G. Increased population due to new development adds to the pressure on local school
districts, FEIR page 18-8.
Mitigation Measure 18.3.8: The City shall coordinate efforts with local school districts to have
ongoing procedures for requiring new development to pay its fair share of local school
improvement costs, FEIR page 18-8.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.3.8 is feasible and is hereby adopted. To the extent that school
district boundaries overlap the corporate boundaries of other jurisdictions, such actions are
partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of public agency other than the City of Dublin. .
Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies and to the extent the measure may
be adopted by the City of Dublin, it is hereby adopted. If taken, such actions would avoid or
reduce the potential significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than
significant level because the measure will ensure that adequate school facilities are provided for
all relevant school districts.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT: FIRE PROTECTION / EMERGENCY MEDICAL RESPONSE
IMPACT 18.3H. Cumulative development in the Western Extended Planning Area would require
additional frre protection facilities. FEIR page 18-8, 18-9.
Mitigation Measures 18.3.9. 18.3.10. Require reservation of a fITe station site near the
intersection of Schaefer Ranch Road and Dublin Boulevard Extension. Beneficiaries of a new fITe
station shall pay their fair share of costs. FEIR page 18-9.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 18.3.9 and 18.3.10 are feasible and are hereby adopted.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project and in City
procedures that avoid or reduce the significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a
less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that an adequate FirelEMS facility is
constructed in the Western Extended Planning Area should one become needed.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT: OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
IMPACT 18.31: Increased population has a potential cumulative effect on other facilities and services,
FEIR pa~~::~i~n Measure 18.3 .11. The City shall continue efforts to monitor other cumulative impacts .
on public facilities, and to require conditions of approval to resolve these issues. FEIR p. 18-10.
32
:5:::>
.:"
.,':
.
5/
Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.3.11 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into City procedures that avoid or reduce the significant
cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
will enable the City to require that adequate public services be provided to the entire City.
CUMULATIVE LOSS OF OPEN SPACE (PRN A TE RANGELAND)
AND LANDSCAPE ALTERATION.
IMPACT 18.4.B. The project would contribute to the loss of open space in the area. FEIR page 18-10.
Mitigation Measure 18.4.1. The City shall support efforts of the East Bay Regional Park District
to acquire and secure permanent open space in the area, and/or the City shall establish a fee for
mitigation of open space loss. FEIR page 18-10.
Findin2: Mitigation Measure 18.4.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. In the case ofregional
parkland acquisition, such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public
agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other
agencies. However, even if taken, such actions would not reduce the significant effect identified
in the Final EIR to a less-than-significant level. A Statement of Overriding Considerations shall
be adopted for this impact, upon approval of the project.
CUMULATIVE IMP ACT: VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
IMP ACT: There is a continuing loss of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat to urban development in
the area. FEIR page 18-11.
Mitieation Measures 18.4.1 and 18.4.3. The City shall support efforts of the East Bay Regional
Park District to acquire and secure permanent open space in the area, and/or the City shall
establish a fee for mitigation of open space loss. The City of Dublin shall adopt a heritage tree
ordinance or shall take equivalent measures to protect existing trees. FEIR pages 18-10, 18-12.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 18.4.1 and 18.4.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted. In the case
of regional parkland acquisition, such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such
other agencies-: Changes or alterations in City procedures have been required that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant cumulative impact identified in the'Final EIR. However, even
if taken, such actions would not reduce the significant effect identified in the Final EIR to a less-
than-significant level. A Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted for this impact,
upon approval of the project.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPACT 18.4.K. The proposed project may add to the cumulative impacts on cultural resources caused
by large-scale development in the area and region. FEIR page 18-14.
Mitigation Measure 18.4.4. The City of Dublin shall continue to include cultural resource
protection in its planning efforts. FEIR page 18-14.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.4.4 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into City procedures that avoid or reduce the significant
cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure
will result in continuing the current protection of the cultural resources of the City of Dublin.
33
Section 2: Findings Concerning Alternatives
The City Council hereby finds that the four alternatives, identified and described in the Final .' ,
EIR, were considered and are found to be infeasible for the following specific economic, social,
or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 21 081 (c).
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE/NODEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. FEIRpages 17-1,
17-2. Findinl!: infeasible.
With the No Project Alternative, the City would deny the project as proposed by the applicants.
Under current zoning, there would remain the potential for a small number of units. With the No
Development Alternative, no development whatsoever would occur on the site. All of the
significant unmitigatable effects of the Project would be avoided by this alternative, However, it
is infeasible for the following reasons:
(a) Alternative fails to meet adopted public objectives, including the provision of needed
housing. The need for housing is documented in the Housing Element of the City's
General Plan, and in other plan documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area
FEIR page 3-27.
(b)
Alternative does not meet the applicant's objectives, including the creation of a
residential community to meet the housing market demands of the area; provide shopping
and office services; contribute to solving the jobs/housing balance in the area; and to
provide open space areas interconnected by pedestrian and equestrian trails. FEIR
page 1-10.
.
(c) Dublin Boulevard would not be extended, and the City would not receive the benefits of
an alternate east-west traffic route. FEIR page 17-2.
,_ (d) No regional trail connection would be provided across the site. FElR page 17-2.
.
34
C:"':
...-r-
.
.:,
.:
53
RURAL RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE (about 60 residential units). FEIR pages 17-3 through
17-5. Findin2: infeasible. This option would include substantially fewer homes on large lots.
Most of the site would be kept in open space. To the extent that this alternative would reduce or
avoid the Project's unavoidable impacts, it is found to be infeasible for the following reasons:
(a) Alternative fails to meet adopted public objectives, including the provision of a range of
needed housing and housing types and opportunities. The need for housing is
documented in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan
documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area. FElR page 3-27.
(b) Alternative does not meet the applicant's objectives, including the creation of a
residential community to meet the housing market demands of the area; provide shopping
and office services; contribute to solving the jobslhousing balance in the area; and to
provide open space areas interconnected by pedestrian and equestrian trails. FElR page 1-
10.
(c) Dublin Boulevard would not be extended to the site, and the City would not receive the
benefits of an alternate east-west traffic route. FElR page 17-4.
(d) Fire and emergency medical response time may be lengthened for area residents if Dublin
Boulevard is not extended, leading to possible increased safety risks. FElR page 17-5.
(e) Continued overgrazing would likely cause further habitat damage. FEIR page 17-3.
(f)
A small-scale development of this type may be too small to support a viable geologic
hazards abatement district, which could lead to increased risks from geologic hazards.
FElRpage 17-5,17-10.
MITIGATED PLAN ALTERNATIVE (about 460 residential units). FindiJ12: infeasible.
With this option, the proposed project would be modified to resolve certain impacts. FEIR pages
17-6 through 17-8, 17-10.
Although this alternative reduces the severity of some project impacts, it does not avoid the
Project's unavoidable effects on vegetation and wildlife, air quality, and cumulative loss of open
space.
This alternative is further found to be infeasible for the following reasons:
(a) The Mitigated Plan Alternative would have fewer lots than the proposed project, and thus
would reduce housing opportunities. FEIR page 17-6.
(b) Most environmental impacts would not be reduced by this alternative, and unavoidable
impacts would remain. FElR page 17-7, 17-10.
(c)
With this alternative, some homes would lose visual access to open space. FEIR page
17-7.
(d) Fiscal benefits would be reduced. FEIR page 17-7.
35
OPTIONAL SITE ALTERNATIVE (500 units). Findine:: infeasible. The project uses would be
relocated to another site in Eastern Dublin. FEIR pages 17-8 through 17-10.
The Optional Site Alternative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons:
(a) No evidence that unavoidable imoacts would be substantial Iv reduced. Some impacts might
increase for this alternative, while other impacts would be reduced (FEIR page 17-9). The FEIR
does not identify any elimination of unavoidable impacts on vegetation and wildlife, air quality,
or cumulative loss of open space for thiSlilternative. The optional site alternative is not identified
in the Final EIR as an environmentally superior alternative. Thus, there is no clearly-defined
environmental benefit to be gained by selecting this alternative.
(b) Land ownershio. This alternative would not meet the applicants' objectives, since they do not
control the land in question, and are not likely to be able to acquire sufficient unplanned land in
Eastern Dublin, FEIR page 17-9.
(c) General Plan. The Eastern Dublin optional site is not located in the Western Extended
Planning Area, and thus would not meet the City's stated General Plan objectives for
development of the Western Extended Planning Area, including the Schaefer Ranch project site.
FEIR pages 3-6 through 3-13.
36
5'1
.
.
.
.'
."'"
.'
..,.,
..
Section 3: Growth-Inducing Impacts
The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies growth-inducing impacts in keeping with
State requirements. The State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines note that growth
is not necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
Environmental effects associated with growth are addressed elsewhere in the Final EIR.
INDIRECT EFFECT ON POPULA nON
IMPACT 16.4A. The project would foster economic and population growth and the construction
of additional housing in the region, At full buildout, the project would indirectly generate
additional jobs beyond the employees estimated to be directly generated onsite by the project.
Most of these employees and their families would work and reside in the surrounding
communities, including Dublin. No project-related environmental impacts are directly associated
with this growth-inducing impact. Cumulative impacts associated with population growth are
described in Chapter 18 of the Final EIR. Findings related to cumulative impacts of population
growth are discussed under the findings for cwnulative impacts. FEIR page 16-5.
Findings: The FEIR identifies growth-inducing impacts in keeping with State
requirements, No project-related environmental impacts are directly associated with this
growth-inducing impact, and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary for this
growth-inducing impact.
EXTENSION OF WATER AND W ASTEW A TER LINES
IMPACT 16.4B: The project will require extension of water and wastewater lines to the site. The
sizing of these lines has not been determined at this stage of the development process. If these
lines would be oversized to handle future development in the Western Extended Planning Area,
this would be a potential growth-inducing impact. FEIR page 16-5,
Mitigation Measure 16-1: Ensure that new lines do not have excess capacity over that
required to serve the proposed development. FEIR page 16-6.
Findin!!s: Mitigation Measure 16-1 is feasible and hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the growth-
inducing impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measure ensures that no excess capacity will be provided thereby reducing any incentive
or advantage potential future development would realize from the project's water or
wastewater infrastructure.
IMPROVED STREET ACCESS
IMPACT 16.4C. The project will include extension of Dublin Boulevard to the site, and an
internal street (Schaefer Ranch Lane) which extends to the western property line. The project
includes proposed General Plan Amendment 5.1 which limits the use of this street extension for
future growth. Without adoption of General Plan Amendment 5.1, the extension of Schaefer
Ranch Lane to the property line is a growth-inducing impact. FEIR page 16-6.
37
"55
Mitigation Measure 16-2. Adopt General Plan Amendment 5.1 as part of the project
approval, stating that other sections of the Western Extended Planning Area shall have
primary access via the Eden Canyon interchange. FEIR page 16-6.
.:"
Findings: Mitigation Measure 16-2 is feasible and hereby adopted. Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the growth-
inducing impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the
measure would prevent future development from substantially utilizing the project's
infrastructure without considerable capital improvement.
Section 4: Other Impacts
The City Council finds that all other impacts of the proposed project are less-than-significant, as
documented in the FEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record~ No mitigation is
required for these less-than-significant impacts.
Chapter 2 of the FEIR identifies several socioeconomic impacts, and Chapter 3 of the FEIR
identifies a number of "planning and policy concerns." These concerns are not "environmental
impacts' defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15382. Nonetheless, the Council finds that the
language and policies included in the Project General Plan Amendment address these planning
and policy concerns and result in an internally consistent General Plan.
Chapter 10 of the FEIR identifies a number of fiscal impacts. These fiscal concerns are
not "environmental impacts' as defined by CEQA. Nonetheless, the Council finds that the fiscal .
mitigations included in Chapter 10 of the Final EIR address these fiscal concerns , '
Section 5: Statement of Overriding Considerntions
Section 5.0 General
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the
following Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Schaefer Ranch project to the City of Dublin
against the adverse impacts identified in the EIR as significant and potentially significant which
have not been eliminated or mitigated to less-than-significant leve1.The City Council, acting
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that the benefits of the project
outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the project should be approved.
The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to adopt the
project and to allow development on the Schaefer Ranch project site, Although the City Council
believes that the unavoidable and irreversible environmental effects identified in the EIR will be
substantially lessened by mitigation measures incorporated into the development plans as well as
future mitigation measures implemented with future approvals, it recognizes that the
implementation of the project carries with it irreversible environmental effects.
The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially
adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there is substantial evidence in the,.
record of specific economic, social, environmental, land use and other considerations which
38
5b.
.
.
.'
51
support approval of the proj ect. The City Council further finds that anyone of the overriding
considerations identified in Section 5.2 of these Findings is sufficient basis to approve the
project as mitigated.
Section 5.1: Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the proposed
Schaefer Ranch project as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project.
These impacts cannot be fully mitigated 'by changes or alterations to the basic project.
Vegetation and Wildlife Impact 6E: Secondary Effects on Native Plants and Wildlife. The
introduction of exotic plant species, pets, and other effects of human occupancy would have
adverse effects on the surrounding natural habitat. The No Project Alternative / No Development
Alternative would be an assured way to avoid this impact. However, the No Project Alternative /
No Development Alternative has been found to be infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2
of these Findings. The Rural Residential, Mitigated Plan, and Optional Site Alternatives will not
avoid this impact, and in any case have been found infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2
of these Findings.
Air Duality Impact 12D: Regional Pollutant Emissions. Vehicles associated with the project
would contribute to regional ozone emissions. Given the existing ozone problems in the area,
and regulatory requirements to reduce ozone emissions, this would be a significant unavoidable
adverse impact. Only the No Project Alternative would be an assured way to avoid a project
contribution to this impact. However, the No Project Alternative has been found to be infeasible
for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings. The Rural Residential, Mitigated Plan, and
Optional Site Alternatives will not avoid this impact, and in any case have been found infeasible
for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings.
Impact 18.4B: Cumulative Loss of ODen SDace (private Rangeland) and Landscape Alteration.
Continuing prbanization in the region is converting privat~ rangeland to other uses. The No
Project Alternative would be an assured way to avoid a project contribution to this impact at
least on a temporary basis. However, the No Project Alternative has been found to be infeasible
for reasons identified in Section 2 of these ,Findings. The Rural Residential, Mitigated Plan, and
Optional Site Alternatives will not avoid this impact, and in any case have been found infeasible
for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings.
Cumulative Imoact 18.4D: Cumulative Vegetation and Wildlife Imoacts. There is a cumulative
loss of natural habitat in the region. The No Project Alternative would be an assured way to
avoid a project contribution to this impact. However, the No Project Alternative has been found
to be infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings. The Rural Residential,
Mitigated Plan, and Optional Site Alternatives will not avoid this impact, and in any case have
been found infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings,
Section 5.2 Oveniding Considerations
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has considered the public record
of proceedings on the proposed project and does determine that approval and implementation of
the project would result in the following substantial public benefits,
39
Economic Considerations, Substantial evidence is included in the record demonstrating the
economic benefits which the City would derive from implementation of the project.
Specifically, the project will result in:
.:;
a. The creation of about 64 new permanent jobs and a substantial number of construction
jobs. The Project will generate approximately 64 new permanent jobs in the
neighborhood serving office/retail center proposed in the project. In addition, there will
be a substantial number of new temporary construction jobs created during the
construction of the project (FEIR-page 2-9);
b. Increases in sales tax revenues for the City (FEIR page 2-9). The income of Project
residents is projected to 50% greater than the average income level in the City currently.
Consequently there is expected to be a greater amount of sales tax revenue derived from
Project residents per capita than for the City on average; and
c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues, estimated at a 15.5% increase in the City's
assessed valuation at project buildout. (FEIR page 2-11) The project would increase the
City's property tax base by over 15%. Due to this increase in tax base the City will
receive an annually recurring surplus in revenues (over the costs of servicing the Project)
starting at approximately $9,000 and increasing to over $211,000 per year at buildout.
This surplus will allow the City to improve services Citywide without increasing taxes or
fees.
Social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the social
benefits which the City would derive from the implementation of the project. Specifically, the .' .
project will result in:
a. Increase in housing opportunities in the City and a region where housing is costly and in
short supply (FEIR page 2-7). The project will provide 463 units of housing in a region
of extremely high housing demand; and
b. Dedication of almost one half of the project site (approximately 31 % for publicly owned
and 17% privately owned) for open space. This dedication includes both active and
passive parkland and a regional trail system link through the open space of the project
site. This open space will conserve the ecological values of the site and surrounding
areas and provide recreational and open space amenity opportunities for residents of the
project, the City, and the region (FEIR pages 7-37 through 7-44).; and
c. An improvement in the City (and Tri-Valley region) JobslHousing Balance (FEIR
page 2-9,10). The City of Dublin currently has an imbalance in thejobslhousing ratio
(1.32). With the project the City's jobslhousing balance ratio would improve to 1.16,
potentially reducing the net outcommute by almost 50%.
.
40
5$
.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR
SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT
July 1996
.
EXHIBIT 2-C
.
C.::>
-,I
:MITIGA nON MONITORING PROGRAM
..:.
Environmental Impact Report for
Schaefer Ranch Project
prepared by WPM Planning T earn, Inc.
for the City of Dublin, CA
July 1996
The State of California requires public agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring program for
changes to the project or conditions of approval which have been identified and adopted as
methods to reduce environmental impacts. The City of Dublin thus is required to establish a
mitigation monitoring program if the proposed mitigation measures in this EIR are accepted and
the proposed project is to be approved by the City.
This program identifies the following:
.
Who is responsible for monitoring the mitigation?
e:.,
· What is the mitigation measure being monitored and how?
· When should mitigation monitoring be undertaken? What schedule is required?
· Completion: when should the mitigation measures be in place and monitoring be
completed? This indicates the latest stage in the process that the measure can be in place,
for purposes of environmental management. However, the City may require certain
measures at an earlier stage of the development process.
· Verification: what agency is required to ensure that the mitigation measure was
implemented?
A mitigation monitoring program is provided for each mitigation measure included in the Final
EIR In this mitigation monitoring program, only a SlllllJWUY of the mitigation me~ure rext is
provided. For the full text, refer to the Final EIR,
.
scb\tnmp,796
69
.'
.'
.
61
Permit Processinl! and Mitil!ation Monitoring
The mitigation monitoring program identifies the most appropriate and effective times to carry
out mitigation measures. Key steps in the processing of the project are identified below, with
notes about the relation of each step to mitigation measures.
Planned Development Prezoning, Rezoning and Annexation
Initial planned development prezoning is required at an early stage of the project review process.
In addition, more detailed planned development review is required at the rezoning and tentative
map stage of the process for individual components of the project. The conceptual site plan,
preliminary master landscape plan, preliminary grading plan, and conceptual architectural plans
are required at this stage.
Tentative Map
At this stage, the applicant submits a tentative subdivision map with street and lot layout.
Typically, the tentative map for a project is approved with a number of conditions, particularly
those involving technical matters such as street improvements, Mitigation measures involving
significant site plan revisions would need to be completed before approval of the tentative map
stage.
For this mitigation monitoring program, conditions specifying tentative map timing may be
applied to other development permit applications as appropriate if they precede the map
application.
Site Development Review (SDR)
In Dublin, this is an important phase of project review, with intensive staff review of the
applicant's submittals. Many of the mitigation measures involving conceptual planning will need
to be completed by this point.
Grading Plans and Grading Permit
At this stage, a detailed grading plan is submitted for approval. A grading permit is required for
any grading work on the site. A number of mitigation measures involving specialized grading,
visual impact, and geotechnical issues will need to be resolved by this time.
Improvement Plans
This refers to the detailed drawings for streets and utilities. Mitigation measures involving these
aspects of the project need to be completed before the improvement plans can be approved,
sch\mmp,796
2
Final Map
.'
The final map is a legal document which records final lot and street location. This is the last
stage for most engineering-oriented mitigation measures to be completed.
Building Permits
Some mitigations are implemented when actual building construction begins and the site is
occupied. The final inspection for the building permit is the last step before occupancy of the
site.
Ongoing Mitigation Measures
Certain mitigations will need to continue on a long-term basis, during operation of the project.
The EIR provides for various ways to continue long-term environmental protection. For example,
a Geologic Hazard Abatement District will provide for maintenance and any necessary repair of
landslides on the site.
Definitions and Abbreviations
ACFCWCD. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The project site ."
includes portions of ACFCWCD Zones 2 and 7.
Applicant Schaefer Heights, Inc., or designated successors. As of June 1996, Schaefer Heights,
Inc., assumed control over the Gibbs property, and separate mitigations for the Gibbs property
thus are no longer necessary. "Applicant" or related terms include any technical consultants
retained by the applicant when appropriate. Equivalent terms are Applicants, Developer, or
Developers.
DRFA. Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.
DSRSD. Dublin San Ramon Services District
GHAD. Geologic Hazard Abatement District (see Mitigation Measure 9.B.8).
SDR Site Development Review.
Cross references
In some cases, cross-referencing is provided when there are related mitigation measures. In
particular, Mitigation Measure 5.A.2 (Master Landscape Plan) and Mitigation Measure 7.6.1
(Open Space Management Plan) have related measures elsewhere in the EIR,
.
sch\mmp.796
3
br
.
.
.
6~
Chaoter 2: Communitvwide Socioeconomic Impacts
No mitigation monitoring required, since no environmental mitigation measures are recommended in
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3: Land Use and Planning:
Measures 3-1 through 3-11 are planning recommendations which do not require mitigation monitoring.
Mitigation Measure 3-12: Protection of Livestock
Who: ApplicantlReal Estate Agents/Homeowners Association
What: Provide a sales disclosure statement regarding protection of livestock
When: Prior to sale of first lots by developers/at follow-on sales of homes
Completion: On-going implementation by Homeowners Association
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measures 3-13: Enforce Leash Ordinance
Who: Animal Control Officer
What: Enforce City leash ordinance to protect wildlife
When: Commences with first residential occupancy
Completion: On-going
Who Verifies: City of Dublin Police Services in consultation with Animal Control
Mitigation Measure 3-14: Minimize Potential Agricultural Conflict Complaints
Who: ApplicantlReal Estate Agents/Homeowners Association
What: Provide'sales disclosure statement regarding agricultural conflicts
When: Statement approved by Planning Department prior to sale of first residential unit
Completion: On-going implementation by Homeowners Associations
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Miti2ation Measure 3-15: Provide Open Space Fencing
Who: Applicant
What: Fence livestock grazing areas
When: Require as a condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to first building occupancy permit
Who Verifies: City Planning Department
sch\mmp.796
4
Chanter 4: Traffic and Circulation
Mitigation Measure 4 .A.I : Silvergate Drive / Dublin Boulevard
.:.
Who: Applicant
What: Contribute a fair share of cost to install traffic signal at Silvergate Drive I Dublin Boulevard
intersection and associated widening.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department. -
Mitigation Measure 4,B.l: San Ramon Road I Dublin Boulevard
Who: Applicant
What: Contribute a fair share of cost for installed traffic signal and related improvements at San Ramon
Road I Dublin Boulevard intersection.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 4,F.1: Hansen Drive I Dublin Boulevard
Who: Applicant
What: Contribute a fair share of cost to install traffic signal and related improvements at Hansen Drivel
Dublin Boulevard intersection.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department.
.;:.
Mitigation Measure 4.0.1: Schaefer Ranch Road I Dublin Canyon Road
Who: Applicant
What: Contribute a fair share of cost to install traffic signal and related improvements at Schaefer Ranch
Road I Dublin Canyon Road intersection, under fee payment schedule established and
administered by Public Works Department.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 4.H.l: Dublin Boulevard /Schaefer Ranch Road Intersection
Who: Applicant
What: Install traffic signal and related improvements at Dublin Boulevard I Schaefer Ranch Road
intersection.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department.
.~:
sch\mmp.796
5
6Y
Miti2ation Measure 4.1.1: 1-580 /Eden Canyon Interchange
.
Who: Applicant
What: Contribute fair share portion of future signalization costs at the intesection of Eden Canyon
RoadlI-580 westbound ramps and the intersection of Palo Verde Road / 1-580 Eastbound ramps,
When: Include as condition of tentative map approval
Completion: According to terms of Development Agreement with City; no later than date of traffic
warrant for intersection.
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department.
Mitigation Measure 4,0.1: Transit
Who: Applicant
What: Fund a transit service plan to address facility needs and funding for transit improvements.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to approval of improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 4.P,l: Gibbs Propertv Access Street Design
Who: Applicant
What: Redesign Gibbs property street access to meet City standards
When: Before tentative map approval
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
. Mitie:ation Measure 4.P.2: Gibbs Access Street Intersection
Who: Applicant
What: Redesign Gibbs access street intersection with Schaefer Ranch Road to meet City standards
When: Before tentative map approval
. Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitil!:ation Measure 4.0.1: Shopping Center Access
Who: Applicant
What: Redesign site plan to provide a median break on Dublin Boulevard a minimum of 250 feet west
of Schaefer Ranch Road,or as determined by the Public Works Director.
When: Before tentative map approval
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 4,R.1: Bike Route
.
Who: Applicant
What: Dublin Boulevard shall be signed as a bike route, or striped and signed for bike lanes
When: Designations provided as part of public improvement plans
Completion: Acceptance of public improvement plans by City
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
sch\mmp.796
6
b5
Miti2ation Measure 4,R.2: Trail Extension
Who: Applicant
What: Extend pedestrian/equestrian trail under 1-580 to connect with Dublin Canyon Road
When: Designations provided as part of public improvement plans
Completion: Recordation of fmal map
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
.>
Mitigation Measure 4.R.3: Trail Crossings
Who: Applicant
What: Trail crossings on Dublin Boulevard, N Street, and Dublin Canyon Road shall be properly signed
and marked with crosswalks; modify trail alignment as needed for convenient access.
When: Designations provided as part of public improvement plans
Completion: Acceptance of public improvement plans by City
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with Planning Department
Chaoter 5: Visual Ouality and Site Desil!ll
MitiJ!:ation Measure 5 .A.I: Grading Plan
Who: Applicant
What: Provide a detailed grading plan
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Public Works approval of grading plan
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with Planning Dept.
Mitigation Measure 5.A.2: Master Landscape Plan
[see also Mitigation Measure 7.3.5]
Who: Applicant
What: Provide a landscape plan
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
.:
MitiJ!:ation Measure 5.B.1: Site Plan - Schaefer Basin Area
Who: Applicant
What: Site plan shall include techniques to reduce visibility of development from 1-580 and Rowell
Ranch Rodeo Park
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before issuance of SDR permit (conceptual plans);
before issuance of grading permit (detailed plans)
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
MitiJ!:ation Measure 5.B.2: Grading Plan - Schaefer Basin Area
Who: Applicant
What: Modify grading plan to reduce visual impact
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Issuance of SDR permit (conceptual plan); issuance of grading permit (detailed plans)
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept.
."
sch\mmp.796
7
bb
.
.
.
c,.1
Mitieation Measure 5,B.3: Commercial Uses
Who: Applicant
What: Obtain a site development review permit (conditional use permit) for any commercial development
on site
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before approval of specific commercial development plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Miti2ation Measure 5.C.l: Street Alignment
Who: Applicant
What: Modify alignment of Dublin Boulevard to reduce grading and tree removal, consistent with safety
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept.
Miti2ation Measure 5.C,2: Gradinf!: Plan - Dublin Boulevard
Who: Applicant
What: Modify grading plan for Dublin Boulevard to reduce grading and tree removal
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Dept., in consultation with Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 5.C.3: Tree Replacement
Who: Applicant
What: Include special attention to tree replacement in landscape plan for Dublin Boulevard area
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept.
Mitigation Measure 5.D.l: Emer2encv Vehicle Access Standards - Skvline Ridee
Who: Applicant
What: Design emergency vehicle access to reduce visual impact.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept.
Miti2ation Measure 5.E.l: Grading Plan - Marshall Cliffs
Who: Applicant
What: Demonstrate that visual qualities of Marshall Cliffs are protected
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Public Works approval of grading plan
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department
scb\mmp.796
8
Mitigation Measure 5,F,I: Re2ional Trail
Who: Applicant
What: Conform to regional trail construction materials and methods
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with East Bay Regional Park District
..
Miti2ation Measure 5,G.1: Water Storage Tanks - Visual Concerns
Who: Applicant
What: Provide supplementary design information about screening of tanks
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before approval of final landscape plan
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Miti2ation Measure 5 .RI: Pump Stations
Who: Applicant
What: Design pump stations to be unobtrusive.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before approval of grading plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 5.1.1: Lighting for Proposed Public Facilities
Who: Applicant
What: Design lighting for proposed public facilities to minimize impacts on residential areas.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Acceptance of public improvement plans by City
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
.'
Mitigation Measure 5.1.1: Lij;!;hting for Private Recreation Facilities
Who: Applicant
What: Design lighting for proposed private facilities to minimize impacts on residential areas.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before approval of improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 5 ,K.l : Commercial Light and Glare Control
Who: Applicant
What: Design lighting for minimum visual impact
When: Condition of SDR permit/conditional use permit for commercial center
Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans for commercial center
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department
.
sch\mmp,696
9
f,Cj
.
.:;
.:-
61
Chavter6: Veeetation and Wildlife
MitiR:ation Measure 6,A.1. Emergent Wetland Comolex
Who: Applicant
What: Provide wetland mitigation plan for emergent wetland complex
When: Mitigation plan prepared as part of open space management plan (Mitigation Measure 7.6.1)
Completion: Approval of grading plan
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Departmel!!_
Miti2ation Measure 6.B.1, Acuatic habitat
Who: Applicant
What: Provide on-site aquatic habitat.
a, Complete survey in spring season before construction begins
b Determine minimum area with a jurisdictional wetland survey
c Provide buffers around replacement habitat.
d Habitat restoration plan designed by a qualified biologist.
e Cattle grazing shall not be allowed in the vicinity of the replacement pond habitat
When: (a) Pre-construction survey to be completed in spring season before construction begins,
(b,c,d,e) Mitigation plan prepared as part of open space management plan
(Mitigation Measure 7.6.1)
Timing: (a) Survey completed before commencement of grading
(b,c,d,e) Mitigation plan approved in conjunction with approval of grading plan
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 6,C.1. Grassland Reve2etation and Habitat Survev
Who: Applicant
What: Provide mitigation plan for grassland revegetation
When: Condition of tentative map approval. Mitigation plan prepared as part of open space management
plan submittal (Mitigation Measure 7.6.1). Preconstruction survey for burrowing owl conducted -,
during wintering and nesting seasons.
Completion: Mitigation plan approved in conjunction with approval of grading plan
Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 6,C,2. Stock Grazing
Who: Applicant
What: Control stock grazing on the site.
When: Grazing standards prepared as part of open space management plan submittal
(Mitigation Measure 7,6.1)
Completion: Open space management plan approved in conjunction with grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
sch\mmp.796
10
Mitigation Measure 6,D.1, Tree Survev and Proiect Redesi2n
Who: Applicant
What: Conduct a heritage tree survey; make feasible readjustments in site plan to reduce tree loss,
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Approval of grading plan
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
.~:
Mitigation Measure 6.D.2, Tree Survev and Proiect Redesign
Who: Applicant
What: Provide measures to reduce risk of damage for trees to remain.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Any necessary site redesign completed before SDR approval.
Protective measures in place before commencement of grading.
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 6.D.3. Tree ReDlacement (see also Mitigation Measure 7.6.1)
Who: Applicant
What: Provide oak woodland mitigation plan for trees to be removed
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Oak woodland mitigation plan approved as part of open space management plan,
in conjunction with grading permit approval.
Monitoring of replacement trees to take place over five-year period following planting date.
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 6.E.1. Plant Material (see also Mitigation Measure 5.A.2)
."
Who: Applicant
What: Use only non-invasive plants; restrict use of non-native plants
When: Condition of planned development prezoning, as part of landscape plan requirement
Completion: Approval of fmallandscape plan
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 6.E.2 Control of Pets
Who: Animal Control Officer
What: Enforce dog leash law
When: Commences with residential occupancy
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: Dublin Police Services
Mitieation Measure 6.F .1, Herbicide Restrictions
Who: Applicant obtains from qualified chemical control personnel; Homeowners' Association monitors,
What: Preparation of standards for use of herbicides
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Ongoing monitoring by Homeowners' Association
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
.':
sch\mmp.796
11
f)o
.'
.',
.:>
'7/
Chaoter 7: Public Facilities and Services
Miti2ation Measure 7.1.1. Water Conservation
Who: Applicant
What: Incorporate DSRSD Water Use Reduction Plan in project approval
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final landscape plan approval. Verify that the following items are included: water efficient
irrigation systems, drought resistant plant ~ettes, recycled water use.
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measure 7.1.2. DSRSD Standards
Who: Applicant
What: Provide design and construction of all water system / facilities in accordance with DSRSD
standards.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Public improvement plan approval: verify that DSRSD standards are met.
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD.
Mitigation Measure 7.1.3, Pressure Zones
Who: Applicant
What: Provide Pressure Zone 4 and water storage facility
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Public improvement plan approval.
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD.
Mitigation Measure 7.1.4. Verification of Water Service
Who: Applicant
What: Require that the following are completed.
__ Affected special districts shall certify in writing that the proposed development can be served.
__ Attach the appropriate conditions of approval for service needs/requirements.
__ Verify that institutional problems of providing Zone 7 water have been resolved.
__ A will-serve letter from DSRSD shall be submitted to City
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before approval of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 7,1.5, Water Service for Fire Protection
Who: Applicant
What: Insure that necessary water flows and pressures are available for fue protection.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Public improvement plan approval.
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with DRFA
sch\mmp.796
12
Mitigation Measure 7.1.6. Water Service for Fire Protection
Who: Applicant
What: Reserve adequate rights-of-way for facilities.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD and DRFA
.'
Mitil!:ation Measure 7.1. 7, Phasing of Water System
Who: Applicant
What: Plan development of the project area to be phased to facilitate orderly extensions of the water
distribution system.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Public improvement plan approval.
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 7.1.8: Existing Wells.
Who: City of Dublin
What: Verify that all regulations regarding existing wells are met.
When: Condition of tentative map approval.
Completion: Before issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measures 7.2.1 : Wastewater Disposal Capacitv
.
Who: Applicant
What: Provide will-serve letter from DSRSD to City
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to approval of grading permit or recordation of final map
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitil!:ation Measure 7.2.2: Wastewater Collection Svstem Master Plan
Who: Applicant
What: Arrange with DSRSD for updating of collection system modeling
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before approval of detailed wastewater improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 7.2.3: Wastewater Connections
Who: Applicant
What: Enforce requirements for wastewater connections
When: Requirements for wastewater connections shall be a condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to approval of grading permit or recordation of final map. Under hardship conditions,
an extension of time not to exceed two years may be granted.
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
.
Sl:h\mmp,796
13
1~
.:
.-
.-
jS
Mitigation Measure 7,2.4: Use of Recvcled Water
Who: Applicant
What: Provide recycled water systems to certain landscaped areas in keeping with a recycled water plan
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Recycled water development plan shall be approved by City, DSRSD, and other agency with
jurisdiction before approval of public improvement plans.
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measure 7.2.5: Annexation of Service Area
Who: Applicant
What: Obtain annexation of development to DSRSD service area
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before approval of detailed improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 7,2,6: Improvement Standards for Wastewater
Who: Applicant
What: Design systems to comply with standards/furnish documentation that service can be provided
When: Condition of approval for tentative map
Completion: Before approval of detailed development plans or fmal map recordation
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 7.2.7: Sewer Permit
Who: Applicant
What: Provide copy of sewer permit certificate from DSRSD
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before construction of wastewater facilities
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 7.2,8: Treated Effluent Standards
Who: City of Dublin / DSRSD
What: Provide treatment of wastewater to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards
When: Condition of approval for tentative map
Completion: Recordation of final map
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 7,2,9: Seoaration of Water Svstems
Who: City of Dublin
What: Verify that DSRSD has approved any recycled water plans for compliance with water separation
standards.
When: Condition of approval for tentative map
Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
schlmmp,796
14
Miti2ation Measure 7.2.10: Documents
Who: Applicant
What: Provide separate documents/drawings for the recycled water system
When: Condition of approval for tentative map
Completion: Approval of improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
.
Mitigation Measure 7.2.11: Recvcled Water Reservoir
Who: Applicant
What: Provide features to prevent eutrophic conditions in recycled water reservoir [if included in project],
arrange for ownership by DSRSD or equivalent entity, calculate storage needs, provide for overflow
control, and obtain necessary permits.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before final map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measure 7.2.12: Coordinate Planning
Who: Applicant
What: Coordinate planning of recycled water line and pump station with DSRSD.
When: During development of improvement plans
Completion: Approval of improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measure 7.3,1: Fire Protection Response Time Miti2ation
.\
Who: (1) Dublin City Council
(2) Applicant
What: (1) Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4.C and 8.2.2, regarding fire protection response time.
(2) Provide onsite fire protection measures, pay impact fees and fund facilities
When: (1) At time of General Plan Amendment consideration
(2) Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: (1) Adoption of General Plan Amendment
(2) Before project occupancy
Who Verifies: (1) Dublin Planning Department, (2) Dublin Building Department
Miti2ation Measure 7.3.2: Fire Protection Measures
Who: Applicant
What: Provide on-site fire protection measures, including irrigated borders, emergency vehicle access,
fIrebreaks, and other measures
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before project occupancy
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
.
sch\mmp.796
15
r?(
.'
.
.
75
Mitigation Measure 7.3.3: Water Supplv and Fire Hvdrants
Who: Applicant
What: Provide water mains and fire hydrants
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Approval of public improvements
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measure 7.3.4: Construction Materials
Who: Applicant
What: Use fire-resistant construction materials and methods
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before issuance of building permits
Who Verifies: Dublin Building Department
Miti2ation Measure 7.3.5: Landscape Management
[see also Mitigation Measure 5.A.2, Master Landscape Plan]
Who: Applicant
What: Landscape plan for project shall avoid use of flammable plant species in landscaping.
Prepare a fuel management plan.
When: Condition of planned development rezoning
Completion: Before issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitil!:ation Measure 7.3.6: Street Design
Who; Applicant
What: Provide a redesign of the project for review and approval by DRFA and Dublin Pub. Works Dept.
When: Before tentative map approval
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Dept., in consultation with DRFA.
Mitigation Measure 7.3.7; Educationllnspection Prol!:ram
Who: Applicant/Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
What: Implement an education or self-inspection program to assure that fIre sprinkler systems remain in
servIce.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Program in place before project occupancy; ongoing implementation of program
Who Verifies: Dublin Building Department
schlrmnp,696
16
Miti2ation Measure 7.3,8: Education Pr02ram/ Notice of Expected Response
Who: Applicant! Homeowners' Association
What: Make available to residents a Community Education Program focusing on the mitigation of
medical emergencies, and provide notice of unique response time.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Program in place before residential occupancy; ongomg provision of Community
Education Program.
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Departmen.L_
e:
Mitigation Measure 7.4.1: Police Personnel and Eauipment
Who: Applicant, in consultation with Dublin Police Services
What: Prepare a budget strategy to meet police security needs
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before project occupancy
Who Verifies: Dublin City Manager's office
Mitigation Measure 7,4,2: Re2ional Park Securitv
Who: Applicant
What: Provide verification that the East Bay Regional Park District or other entity will provide security
services for the portion of the site proposed for dedication as regional parkland.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before final map recordation
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 7.4.3: Police Services Review of Proiect
.
Who: City Planning Department
What: Incorporate Police Services recommendations for site-related security design issues.
When: a. Residential proJect design: during tentative map process
b. Commercial development: during conditional use permit review for commercial development.
Completion: a. Residential development: tentative map approval
b. Commercial development: Conditional use permit approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Miti2ation Measures 7.5.1: Electricitv. Natural Gas. and Tele-phone
Who: Applicant
What: Provide documentation that services can be provided
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department
.
sch\mmp.696
17
it!?
.
.
.
/1
Mitigation Measure 7.5.2: Service Report
Who: Applicant
What: Submit service report to Planning Department
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before Public Improvement Plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 7.6,1: Open Space Management Plan
[see also Mitigation Measures 6.A.l, 6.B.l,-6~C.l, 6.C.2, 6.D.3, 7.6.5, and 7.6.10.]
Who: Applicant
What: Preparation of Open Space Management Plan
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation ( or grading permit approval, if this precedes final map recordation)
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department.
Mitigation Measure 7.6.2: Neighborhood Park Facilities
Who: Dublin City COW1cil
What: Select option which will satisfy the project's need for local parkland
When: Evaluate options during tentative map review
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department in consultation ",ri.th Parks and Community Services Director
Mitigation Measure 7.6,3: Communitv Parks
Who: Dublin City COW1cil
What: Require in-lieu fees or land dedication for community parkland
When: Evaluate during tentative map review
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department in consultation with Parks and Community Services Director
Mitigation Measure 7.6.4: Assessment of Park Sites
Who: Applicant
What: Provide analysis of park sites to determine developability.
When: During tentative map review
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Parks and Community Services Director
Mitigation Measure 7.6.5: Internal and Perimeter Open Space (see also Mitigation Measure 7.6.1)
Who: Applicants
What: Provide internal open space program for access, ownership, maintenance and management
When: Condition oftentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation or grading permit approval
Who Verifies: City Planning Department, and/or Public Works Department, in consultation with Parks and
Community Services Director.
schlmmp,796
18
[No mitigation measures were assigned to numbers 7,6,6 and 7,6,7]
Mitigation Measure 7,6,8: Re'J:ional Trail
.,
Who: City of Dublin
What: Verify that the applicants have provided a trail system and staging area, and construction plans in
keeping with Regional Park District requirements.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Issuance of grading permit --~
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Parks and Comrriunity Services Director,
Public W orIes Department and with East Bay Regional Park District
Mitigation Measure 7.6.9: Trail Linkalle and Access
Who: Applicant
What: Coordinate efforts to link regional trail to Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Recordation of final map
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department, and Parks and
Community Services Director
Mitigation Measure 7.6.10: Resource Protection Area (see also Mitigation Measure 7.6.1)
Who: Applicant
What: Resource Protection Area: provide land dedication, access and maintenance arrangements
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation
Who Verifies: Parks and Community Services DepartmentJPlanning DepartmentlPublic Works Department
.
Mitigation Measure 7.8.1: Municioal Services
Who: City of Dublin
What: Assess other municipal service needs
When: Before development agreement approval
Completion: Development agreement approval
Who Verifies: Dublin City Manager's Office
Miti~ation Measure 7,9.1: Solid Waste Service
Who: Applicant
What: Furnish City with "will serve" letter from solid waste company
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
.
-".'.:."
schlnunp,796
19
Jg
.
.
.
r
Miti2ation Measure 7,9,2: Commercial Recvclin2
Who: Applicant
What: Provide designation on plans of specific areas for recycling
When: During detailed review of commercial plans
Completion: Commercial conditional use permit approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 7.10.1: School District Boundarv
Who: City of Dublin
What: Verify resolution of District boundary dispute
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to residential occupancy
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Miti2ation Measure 7.10,2: School Fees and Financial Plan
Who: Applicant
What: Prepare financial plan to identify school funding needs and fee levels
When: Condition of prezoning
Completion: Prior to tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin City Manager's Office
Mitigation Measure 7.10.3: School Sitin2
Who: City of Dublin
What: Consult applicable school district about any necessary siting of schools to serve students from
pr~ect '
When: During tentative map review process
Completion: Approval of tentative map
Who Verifies: City Planning Department
Chapter 8: Hvdroloe:v
Mitigation Measure 8.1.1: Master Drainage Plan
Who: Applicant
What: Prepare a Master Drainage Plan
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Approval of improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with ACFCWCD
Mitigation Measure 8,1.2: Flood Control
Who: Applicant
What: Provide facilities to alleviate downstream flooding
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with ACFCWCD
sch\mmp.796
20
Mitig;ation Measure 8,1.3: Coordination with Other Agencies
.."<
. .
Who: Applicant and City of Dublin
What: Inter-agency coordination of permit processing
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 8,1.4: Application of Design Standards
Who: Applicant
What: Meet City and ACFCWCD Zone 7 policies and standards
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with ACFCWCD
Mitigation Measure 8,1.5: Off-Site Flooding
Who: Applicant
What: Provide additional investigation of off-site flooding potential in Master Drainage Plan
(See Mitigation Measure 8.1.1)
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
.'
Mitigation Measures 8.1.6 and 8.1.7: Erosion Improvements/Other Drainage Facilities
Who: Applicant
What: Design and implement standards for drainage and erosion mitigation
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: City of Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 8,1.8: Watershed Diversion
Who: Applicant
What: Obtain approval from ACFCWCD for proposed watershed diversion
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: City of Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 8,2.1: Water Oualitv Report
Who: Applicant
What: Prepare water quality report
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: City of Dublin Public Works Department
.
sch\mmp.796
21
~o
.
.:'
e-
~I
Mitigation Measure 8,2.2: Treated Water Discharge
Who: City of Dublin
What: Verify that DSRSD has initiated permitting processes with appropriate regulators
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Improvement plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measure 8,2.3: Wells and Septic Tanks
Who: Applicant
What: Address the issue of wells and septic tanks (abandonment and sealing)
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before issuance of grading permit within existing residential areas
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitieation Measure 8,2.4: Reclaimed Water Svstem
Who: Applicant
What: Provide detailed plan for the reclaimed water system
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Chanter 9: Geolol!V. Soils. and Gradinl:!
Mitigation Measures 9.A.1 through 9.A.3: Grading Plan: Balancing Grading: Special Grading Methods
Who: Applicant
What: Provide detailed grading plan; balance grading; use special grading methods
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with Planning Department
Miti2ation Measure 9.B.1: Slope Stability
Who: Applicant and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants
What: Identify unstable slope conditions and provide recommendations for stabilization; show anticipated
extent of remedial grading on tentative map
When: Prior to submittal of tentative map
Completion: Approval of tentative map
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
sch\mmp.796
22
Mitiution Measures 9.B.2: Landslide Stabilization
.:
Who: Applicant and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants
What: Identify unstable slope conditions and provide recommendations for stabilization; show anticipated
extent of remedial grading on tentative map
When: Prior to submittal of tentative map
Completion: Approval of tentative map
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures 9.B,): Control of Surface and Subsurface Draina2e
Who: Applicant and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants
What: Provide design of drainage in all landslide repairs
When: During preparation of improvement plans
Completion: Approval of grading plan
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures 9.B.4: Soil Creep. See Mitigation Measure 9.B.I.
Mitigation Measures 9.B.5: Setbacks.
Who: Applicant and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants
What: Identify setback zones for landslide hazard areas
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
...:
Mitigation Measures 9.B.6 and 9.B.7: Slope Stabilitv.
Who: Applicant and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants
What: Evaluate stability of natural and proposed slopes; design grading plan to enhance slope stability
When: During preparation of grading plan
Completion: Approval of grading plan
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 9.B.8: Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD)
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical engineering consultants
What: Establish district or equivalent entity to repair and maintain slopes and geologic hazards
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: District or approved equivalent entity established prior to Final Map recordation (or grading
permit approval, if this precedes Final Map recordation)
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with City Attorney
.
sc:hlmmp.796
23
~,z
.
.
.;
~5
Mitigation Measure 9, c.l: Erosion Control Plan
Who: Applicants and their civil and geotechnical engineering consultants
What: Design of erosion control measures
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
MitilZation Measures 9,C.2 and 9.C.3: Er~sion Control
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants
What: Construction of temporary and permanent erosion control structures
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Ongoing monitoring
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department and Geologic Hazard Abatement District
Mitigation Measures 9.D.l and 9,D.2: Fill Settlement
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants
What: Analyze fill settlement potential. Provide fill design recommendations to minimize damage to the
development
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures 9.D.3: Development Design and Construction
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants
What: Adjust building sites, streets, and open space if needed to mitigate fill settlement impacts.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to issuance of building permits and installation of street improvements.
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 9.D.4: Removal and Replacement of Compressible Soils
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical consultant
What: Evaluate removal and replacement of compressible soils in flll areas
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 9 ,D.5: Settlem ent Monitoring
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants
What: Monitoring of fill settlement before building construction, if needed
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Issuance of building permits (for structures in areas of deep fill); installation of public
improvements (for utilities and other improvements in areas of deep fill)
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
sch\mmp.796
24
Miti2ation Measure 9.E,I: Expansion Potential Evaluation
Wbo: Applicants and their geotechnical consultants
What: Assessment of earth material expansion potential as part of detailed geotechnical investigation
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
.'
Mitigation Measure 9.E.2: Foundation and Pavement Design
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical consultants
What: (a) Design foundations, pavement sections and flatwork for minimizing damage due to expanding
subgrade materials; (b) Following grading, evaluate the corrosivity of soils.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Prior to approval of building plans and improvement plans
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department/Building Department
MitilZation Measure 9.E.3: Moisture Control
Who: Applicants, their geotechnical engineering consultants and their contractors
What: Make recommendations for selective removal and/or moisture conditioning of expansive subgrade
materials
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before commencement of building construction
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
..:,
MitilZation Measure 9.F.l: Detailed Seismic Hazard Evaluation
Who: Applicants and their geologic consultants
What: Detailed evaluation of seismic hazards including: fault mapping, fault'activity, ground shaking,
seismically-induced slope failures, liquefaction and lurching
When: Before submittal of tentative map
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measures 9.F.2: Earthauake Resistant Design
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and engineering consultants
What: Design structures and grading for minimizing damage to improvements caused by seismic events.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: building permit issuance
Who Verifies: Dublin Building Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept.
.
sch \mmp. 796
25
If'
.
::.
;-e
..~'. . .
Z5
Mitigation Measure 9.F.3: Inactive Faults
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and engineering consultants
What: Design structures and grading for minimizing damage to improvements caused by inactive faults.
When: Before submittal of tentative map
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures 9.G.1 and 9.G.2: Identification of Ground Water Conditions and Utiliza~on of
Ground Water Data
Who: Applicants and their geotechnical consultants
What: Characterize ground water conditions on the site and provide recommendations for minimizing
damage to the development due to undesirable effects of ground water
When: Conditions of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measure 9.G.3: Subdraina2e
Who: Applicants, their geotechnical engineering consultants and contractors
What: Provide plan for sub drain installation
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval (plans); after review of fmal grading reports (monitoring)
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measure 9,G.4: Irri2ation Control
Who: Applicants' landscape architect, homeowners' associations/maintenance personnel
What: Design and control of irrigation practices to minimize impacts on ground water regime
When: Commences prior to fmal inspection for building permits
Completion: Ongoing monitoring _.
Who Verifies: GHAD or approved equivalent entity, in consultation with Dublin Public Works Department
and Homeowners' Association
Mitigation Measure 9 .H.l : Excavation/Blastin2
Who: Developers and their geotechnical engineering consultants and contractors
What: Evaluate bedrock excavation characteristics and determine excavation methodology to minimize
environmental impacts
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading permit approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Chapter 10: Fiscal Impacts
Since fiscal impacts are not environmental impacts under CEQA, no mitigation monitoring is necessary
for Chapter 10.
schlmmp.796
26
Chapter 11: Noise
Miti2ation 11,A,l: Construction Noise - Existing Residences
."
Who: Applicant
What: Minimize construction noise impact by arranging for residents to live offsite,
or by phasing grading operations.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading permit approval (pr~dure in place);
completion of grading (end of mitigation requirement)
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measures l1.B.1: Noise Control Plan
Who: Applicant
What: Prepare noise control plan
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Miti2ation Measure 11.B.2: Project Redesign
Who: Applicant
What: Redesign project in keeping with City noise element standards
When: Before tentative map submittal
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
..
'-
Chapter 12: Air Quality
Mitil!:ation Measure 12.A.l: Implement Dust Control Measures
Who: Applicant
What: Detailed construction dust control measures
When: Conditions of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading permit approval (preparation of specifications for dust control)
Completion of grading (implementation of dust control measures)
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 12.B.l: Construction Emissions
Who: Applicants, under direction of City
What: Monitor construction equipment to assure compliance with existing emission standards
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Completion of construction
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
e,
sch\mmp.796
27
b
'.
,.
.
.
37
Miti2ation Measure l2.D,!: Imolement Control Measures Specified in Air Oualitv Attainment Plans
Who: Applicant
What: Implement control measures specified in air quality attainment plans
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Recordation of final map, for construction-related measures;
ongoing, for long-term attainment P:1~asures
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
MitilZation Measure 12,D.2: Provide Physical Facilities in Proiect Design
Who: Applicant
What: Provide facilities for nonmotorized transportation
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Recordation of final map
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department
Mitigation Measure l2.F,I: On-Site Fuel Combustion
Who: Applicant
What: Specify installation of only EP A certified woodbuming stoves or fIreplaces
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Building permit approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Building Department
Mitigation Measure l2,G.l: Implement the AOMD's Fugitive Dust Rule
Who: Applicant
What: Implement rules for controlling fugitive dust
When: Condition of tentative map appro.yal
Completion: End of construction"
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Chapter 13: Enem' Conservation
MitilZation Measure l3.B.l: Lot Orientation for Energy Conservation
Who: Applicant
What: Redesign project to improve lot orientation
When: As part of tentative map preparation
Completion: Tentative map approval
Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with the Building Department
sch\mmp,796
28
Chapter 14: Cultural Resources
Miti2ation Measure 14.A,l: Notification Procedures
.',
Who: City of Dublin grading inspector
What: Stop work if archaeological materials are found
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: End of construction period
Who Verifies: City Public Works Depa:rt:Olent
Miti2ation Measure 14.B,l: Rock Walls - Shell Ridge
Who: Applicant
What: Adjust fencing or other development activity to avoid damage to historic rock walls
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Issuance of grading permit
Who Verifies: City Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 14. C.l : Mitie:ation Plan - Historical Resources
Who: Applicants' consultants - archaeologists
What: Complete research and prepare mitigation plan for historic resources
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Grading plan approval
Who Verifies: City Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department
.'
-'
Chapter 15: Other Environmental Issues
Mitigation Measures l5.A.l and l5.A.2: Removal of Hazardous MaterialsfTransformers
'Who: Applicant
What: Remove hazardous materials from site
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Before general site grading begins
Who Verifies: City Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 15.A.3: Wells and SePtic Svstems
See monitoring program for Mitigation Measure 8.2.3.
Mitie:ation Measure 15.A.4: Further Assessment of Hazardous Materials
Who: Applicant
What: Assess hazardous materials encountered during grading
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: End of mass grading phase
Who Verifies: City Public Works Department
.:"
sch\mmp.796
29
'if
.
:.
:.
Vi
Cbaoter 16: Other Lee:a1 Reauirements
Miti2ation Measure 16-1: Excess Services/Caoacitv
Who: Applicant
What: Do not provide excess capacity in utility lines
When: Preparation of detailed improvement plans
Completion: Approval of improvement plaru;
Who Verifies: City Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 16-2: General Plan Amendment
Who: Dublin City Council
What: Adopt General Plan Amendment 5.1, stating that other sections of the Western Extended Planning
Area shall have primary access via the Eden Canyon interchange
When: Consideration of General Plan Amendment during public hearings
Completion: Adoption of General Plan Amendment
Who Verifies: City Planning Department
Chapter 18: Cumulative Imvacts
MitiR:ation Measure 18.2.1: Tri- V aUev Transoortation Plan
Who: Applicant
What: Contribute fair share of traffic fees for regional improvements
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Per development agreement with City
Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department
Mitigation Measure 18.3.1: Water Supply
Who: City of Dublin
What: Support and coordinate areawide efforts to address water supply impacts
When: Ongoing
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD
Mitigation Measures 18.3.2 and 18.3.4: CoordinationlDSRSD Master Planning
Who: City of Dublin
What: Coordinate and support DSRSD master planning efforts
When: Ongoing
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: City Public Works Department
sch \mmp. 796
30
Mitigation Measure 18.3.3: Water Recvding
Who: Applicant
What: Incorporate water recycling facilities into project
When: In conjunction with development of detailed improvement plans
Completion: Approval of improvement plans
Who Verifies: Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD
.,.,
. .
Mitigation Measure 18.3.5: Solid Waste ---
Who: City of Dublin
What: Continue to comply with the requirements of the Calif. Integrated Waste Management Act
When: Ongoing
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: City Manager's Office
Miti~tion Measure 18.3.6: Police Protection
Who: City Police Services
What: Continue to use budget strategy to cover the costs of additional police protection for new
development.
When: Ongoing
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: Police Services
Mitigation Measure 18.3.7: Parks and Recreation
...-.
., .
Who: City Recreation Department
What: Continue to implement Parks and Recreation Master Plan
When: Ongoing
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: City Parks and Community Services Department
Mitigation Measure 18.3.8: Schools
Who: City of Dublin
What: Continue to coordinate efforts with school district
When: Ongoing
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: City Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 18.3.9: Fire Station Site for Cumulative Development
Who: City of Dublin
What: Require reservation of a :fire station site on the project site.
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Final map recordation
Who Verifies: City Planning Department, in consultation with DRFA
....:
sch'mmp.796
31
92>
".
'.
.
MitiQ:ation Measure 18.3.1 0: Fire Facilitv Costs
Who: Beneficiaries of new fire station
What: Pay fair share of costs for the facility
When: Condition of tentative map approval
Completion: Development plan approval or project approval for individual projects.
Who Verifies: City Planning Department, in consultation with DRFA
Mitigation Measure 18.3,11: Other Cumulative Issues
Who: City of Dublin
What: Continue to monitor other cumulative impacts on public facilities
When: Ongoing
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: City Manager's Office
Miti2ation Measure 18.4,1: Cumulative Loss of Open Space (Private Rangeland)
and Landscape Alteration
Who: City of Dublin
What: Support efforts of the East Bay Regional Park District and other entities to secure open space
When: Ongoing
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: City Parks and Community Services Department
Miti2ation Measure 18.4.3: Heritage Tree Protection
Who: City of Dublin
What: Adopt a heritage tree ordinance or take equivalent measures
When: At time of zoning update
Completion: Prior to completion of zoning update
Who Verifies: City Planning Department
Mitigation Measure 18.4.4: Cultural Resource Protection
Who: City of Dublin
What: Continue efforts to protect cultural resources
When: Ongoing
Completion: Ongoing
Who Verifies: City Planning Department.
* * * * *
sch IDlIDp. 796
32
tf/
RESOLUTION NO. - 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
.'::,
FINDING P A 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD) PREZONING WITHIN SCOPE OF FINAL Em,
AND APPROVING PD PREZONING GENERAL PROVISIONS
AND LAND USE-AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, Schaefer Heights, Inc. (the applicants) have submitted a request for a Planned
Development (PD) Prezoning to establish land uses, general provisions and development regulations for a
development consisting of up to 474 single family homes, and commerciaVoffice, semi.public, and open
space land uses on approximately 500 acres, generally located on the north side of the I.580 freeway, at
Schaefer Ranch Road, in Alameda County, adjacent to Dublin's Western City limits;
WHEREAS, a complete application for the Planned Development Prezoning is available and on
file in the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, in response to the proposal for development of the property, the City of Dublin
undertook the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, including preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the proposed development of the Schaefer Ranch project
site within Dublin's Western Extended Planning area, and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) for which public comments were sought and received, and on May 23, 1996, the Final EIR,
containing responses to the comments received on the Draft Em, was distributed to or otherwise made
available to the Planning Commission, City Council, Responsible Agencies commenting on the Draft ElR,
and other interested parties, and
..., ,
":". ~
WHEREAS, A joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission was held on
April 8, 1996, which addressed major issues affecting the physical development of the site, including:
provision of public services, such as fire service and schools; access to other Western Dublin
properties from the Schaefer Ranch project; and park land requirements, and ownership and
maintenance of open space lands, and
WHEREAS, with the consensus direction by the decision makers to proceed with the processing
of the Schaefer Ranch project, the City completed preparation of a Draft General Plan Amendment for
approximately 500 acres, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Schaefer Ranch
project Final EIR and Draft General Plan Amendment on June 4, 1996, and, following the public hearing,
the Planning Conunission recommended to the City Council that it certifY the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment, as complete, adequate, and in
compliance with CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental Guidelines, and recommended City
Council adoption of the Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment, and .~:
EXHIBIT 3
- 1 -
c;;;
WHEREAS, Schaefer Heights, Inc. submitted a revised Planned Development (PD) Prezoning
. request for the Schaefer Ranch project site, for approximately SOo-acres (including Gibbs property); and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission approve
the Schaefer Ranch Project PD Prezoning, subject to the conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planned
Development (PD) Prezoning request on June 18, 1996; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council adoption of the Schaefer Ranch Project Planned Development (PD) Prezoning subject to
conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment and PD Prezoning, subject to the conditions prepared
by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 9, 1996 to consider the
Schaefer Ranch Project EIR, General Plan Amendment and PD Prezoning request; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing the City Council certified the Final Environinental Impact
Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA and the City
ofDuhlin's Envirorunental Guidelines, and adopted the Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan
Amendment; and
.
WHEREAS, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for
the PD Prezoning that were not addressed in the Final Envirorunental Impact Report for the Schaefer
Ranch project, and the General Plan Amendment and PD Prezoning are within the scope of the Final
Envirorunental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council used their independent judgment, heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development Prezone:
1.
The Planned Development Prezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general
provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD District Overlay Zone of the Zoning Ordinance
and the General Plan as amended by action of the City Council on July 9, 1996. The
Planned Development Prezone will be appropriate for the subject property in terms of
providing General Provisions which set forth the purpose, applicable provisions of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses and
Development Standards; which will be compatible with existing land uses in the immediate
vicinity, and will enhance development of this area; and
.
- 2 -
f:-J
2.
The Planned Development Prezoning, as conditioned, is consistent with the Planned
Development provisions of the zoning ordinance and the general nature and character of
the project as approved under the General Plan because the project would create
development within the densities allowed by the land use designation proposed with the
General Plan Amendment, processed concurrently with the project; and
.
3. The Prezoning, as conditioned, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being
compatible to existing land uses in the area, and will not overburden public services; and
4. The proposed Planned Development Prezoning, as conditioned, will benefit the public
necessity, convenience and general welfare in that it conforms to the provisions of the
City's zoning ordinance.
5. The proposed Planned Development Prezoning, as conditioned, will provide efficient use
of the land and will preserve significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape
features; will provide an environment which will encourage use of open areas for
neighborhood activities; will be compatible with and enhance development of the general
area; and will create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
6. The Prezoning will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or safety, or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements, as all applicable regulations will be met.
7.
The Planned Development Prezoning will not overburden public services as all agencies
are planning for the availability of pubic services; and
.
8. The Planned Development Prezoning will benefit the public necessity, convenience and
general welfare and is in conformance with Sections 8-31.0 to 8-31.19 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance; and
9. The Planned Development Prezoning will be compatible with and enhance the general
development of the area because it will be developed pursuant to Conditions of Approval
and site development review; and
10. The Planned Development Prezoning is within the scope of the Schaefer Ranch Final EIR.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby approve P A 94-
028 Schaefer Ranch project revised Land Use and Development Plan (included as Exhibit 3-A to this
Resolution) and does hereby establish General Provisions for the PD Prezoning, in accordance with the
Planned Development (PD) District Overlay Zone (adopted by separate Ordinance) and subject to the
general provisions listed below:
.
- 3 -
Iff
eA.
.
.
q5
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Purpose
The PD District Overlay Zone allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while
ensuring that the goals, policies and action programs of the Dublin General Plan are met. More
particularly, the PD Overlay Zone is intended to ensure the following policies:
1. Allow and encourage mixed-use residential and commercial development in order to meet
specific housing and employment needs, reduce vehicular trips, and foster pedestrian
access to shopping and employment areas.
2. Concentrate development on less environmentally and visually sensitive or constrained
portions of the plan area and preserve significant open space areas and natural and
topographic landscape features with minimum alteration ofland forms.
3. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning, building design and construction to
create housing products for all segments of the community, including commercial and
office structures.
4. Encourage higher intensity development near transit corridors.
5. Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
6.
Develop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.
7. Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile.
The'PD District Overlay Zone map (adopted by separate Ordinance) shows that a Planned Development
District Overlay Prezoning is adopted for this site. Regulations and standards governing the PD District
Overlay Zone, in addition to land uses and intensity of use, are established in conjunction with this PD
Prezone, as well as the Land Use and Development Plan approved with this PD Prezone. No
development shall occur for any property within the prezoned project area unless it is consistent with the
regulations and standards, land use designations, provisions and conditions of this approval and the Land
Use and Development Plan.
B. Land Use and Development Plan
This approval is for a Land Use and Development Plan for P A 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Planned
Development (PD) District Overlay Prezoning. The land use designations and provisions shall be applied
to this site as defined in this approval, and as generally shown on the "Schaefer Ranch Land Use and
Development Plan", mxhibit 3-A). Additional standards and provisions for the land uses approved by
this plan, which are typically part of a PD Prezoning and/or Land Use and Development Plan are as
stipulated below in the Provisions and Conditions of this approval, and will provide the City with a
comprehensive plan of the proposed development to insure that the intent and purposes of the Planned
Development District are met.
- 4 -
C. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements
Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District, all applicable requirements of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to this PD District.
.'
...:
D. PD District Overlay Zone - Land Use Designations - General Provisions
1. PD - Estate Residential
. Intent: Estate Residential land use designations are established to accommodate low-
intensity residential activities and other open space uses, such as range and
watershed management. They are also established to provide space for and
encourage such uses in places where more intensive development is not desirable
or necessary for the general welfare.
Intensity of Use: 0.01 - 0.8 dwelling units per gross acre
Pennitted Uses:
a. One-family "estate" dwellings, custom homes. Not more than one dwelling unit
shall be pennitted on each site;
b. Field crop, orchard, garden;
c. Home occupations conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in
Section 8-60.22 of the Zoning Ordinance;
d. Public or private riding or hiking trails;
e. Accessory structures and uses located on the same site with a pennitted use,
including barns, stables, coops, tank: houses, storage tanks, windmills, other farm
outbuildings, private garages and carports, storehouses, garden structures,
greenhouses, recreation rooms and hobby shops, and storage of petroleum
products for the use of persons residing on the site;
f Small family day care homes.
g. Neighborhood Parks to serve the adjacent homes
...,...
" ,
Conditional Uses:
a. Other public and semi-public facilities and land uses as described in Section 4
below;
b. Community facilities;
c. Community clubhouse;
d. Parking lot, only when established to fulfill the residential parking requirements
of this chapter for a use on an abutting lot or lots:
e. Plant nursery or greenhouse used only for the cultivation and wholesale of plant
material (wholesale only);
f Medical or residential care facility (7 or more clients). ......
g. Large family day care homes;
h. Second Units.
- 5 -
ft.
:.
.
:.
qIJ
2. PD - SiDlzIe Familv
Intent: Single Family land use designations are established to: a) reserve appropriately
located areas for family living at reasonable population densities consistent with
sound standards of public health and safety; b) ensure adequate light, air, privacy
and open space for each dwelling; c) provide space for semi-public facilities
needed to complement urban residential areas and for institutions that require a
residential environment; and d) accommodate single family production. housing,
including a wide range of units from small~lot and zero-lot line units to large-lot
custom units.
Intensity of Use: .9 ~ 6.0 dwelling units per acre
Permitted Uses:
a. One~family dwellings;
b. Orchard or garden;
c. Accessory structures located on the same site with a permitted use, including
private garages and carports, storehouse, garden structures, greenhouses,
recreation rooms and hobby areas within an enclosed structure;
d. Home occupations conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in
Section 8~60.22 of the Zoning Ordinance;
e. Small family day care homes.
f. Neighborhood Parks to serve the adjacent homes
Conditional Uses:
a Other public and semi-public facilities and land uses as described in Section 4
below;
b. Community facilities;
c. Community clubhouse;
d. Parking lot, only when established to fulfill the residential parking requirements
of this chapter for a use on an abutting lot or lots;
e. Plant nursery or greenhouse used only for the cultivation and wholesale of plant
material (wholesale only);
f. Medical or residential care facility (7 or more clients);
g. Large family day care homes;
h. Second Units.
3. PD - Commercial
Intent: Commercial land use designations are established to: a) accommodate a range of
regional-serving and community-serving retail and mixed use projects
incorporating retail, service and/or office uses with subordinate residential uses
when location and design ensure compatibility; b) provide appropriately located
areas for retail stores, offices, service establishments, amusement establishments,
and wholesale businesses, offering commodities and services required by
- 6 -
residents of the city and its surrounding market area; c) provide opportunities for
retail stores, offices, service establishments, amusement establishments, and
wholesale businesses to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in
mutually beneficial relationship to each other; d) provide space for conununity
facilities and institutions that appropriately may be located in conunercial areas;
e) provide adequate space to meet the needs of modem conunercial
development. including off-street parking and truck loading areas; and f)
minimize traffic congestion and to avoid overloading of utilities by preventing
the construction of-buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land
around them.
Permitted Uses:
a. Conununity-serving retail uses including, but not limited to:
1. General Merchandise Store
2. DiscountlWarehouse Retail Store
3. Clothing/Fashion Store
4. Shoe Store
5. Home Furnishing Store
6. Office Supply Store
7. Home AppliancelElectronics Store
8. Home Improvement/Hardware Store
9. Music Store
10. Hobby/Special Interest Store
11. Gifts/Specialty Store
12. Jewelry and Cosmetic Store
13. Drug Store
14. Auto Parts Store
15. Toy Store
6. Bo.ok Store
17. Pet Supplies Store
18. Sporting Goods Store
19. Grocery/Food Store. including specialty foods
20. Express mailing and packaging delivery center
b. Regionally-oriented, high volume, retail uses including, but not limited to:
1) Discount centers;
2) Promotional centers;
3) Home improvement centers;
4) Factory stores;
5) Furniture outlets.
c. Office and service establishments including, but not limited to:
1) Bank/Savings and Loan
2) Real Estate/Title Office
3) Travel Agent
4) Legal
5) Accounting
6) Medical and Dental
7) Optometrist
- 7 -
7(t"
..
:- .:
e.',
'..
e..
'...
8) Architect
9) Employment Agency
10) Hair/Beauty Salon
11) Dry cleanerILaundromat
12) Shoe Repair
13) Key Shop
14) Tailor
15) Athletic Club
16) Fonnal Wear7Rental
17) Other Administrative and Professional Office
18) Technology Access Center
19) Tele-Commuting Center
d. Hotels and Motels;
e. Recreational and Cultural Facilities;
f. Eating, Drinking and Entertairunent establishments, including, but not limited to:
1) Restaurant
2) Delicatessen
3) Specialty Food
4) Bakery
5) Ice Cream Shop
6) Sandwich Shop
7) Video Rentals
,:.
Conditional Uses:
".
a. Attached and detached dwellings at appropriate densities for mixed land uses
(where it is shown to be consistent with the intent of the project as evaluated in
the Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report, and with the approved
General Plan land uses and Land Use and Development Plan);
b. Auto Malls;
c. Hospital;
d. Animal Hospital, Kennel;
e. Mortuary;
f. Public and semi-public facilities;
g. Community Facility;
h. Service Station, Type A and Type B;
1. Automobile, camper, boat and trailer sales, storage or rental lot;
J. Plant nursery including the sale oflandscaping materials, excluding wet-mix
concrete sales, providing all equipment, supplies and merchandise other than
plant materials are kept within a completely enclosed building;
k. Adult Entertainment Activity, provided however, that no Adult Entertainment
Activity shall be located closer than 1,000 feet to the boundary of any residential
zone or closer than 1,000 feet to any other Adult Entertainment activity;
1. In-patient and out-patient health facilities as licensed by the State Department of
Health Services;
m. Wine or liquor store or bar with on-sale liquor license
n. Micro-brewery
o. Nightclub
- 8 -
9'1
p. Indoor movie theater
q. Video Arcade ......,
r Drive-through Facilities, including restaurants
s. Instruction/teaching facilities
t. Massage Establishment;
u. Recycling Centers, when operated in conjunction with a Permitted Use on the
same premises;
v. Fortunetelling;
w. Other uses that couTd possibly meet the intent of the General Commerdalland
use designation;
x. Semi-Public Land Uses as described in Section 4 below.
4. PD - Semi~Public Land Uses
Intent: Public Land Use designations shall be established within the project area to
accommodate public uses including, but not limited to, public utilities, services,
parks, schools, and facilities necessary to serve the project. The exact location of
these land uses, as well as the regulations and standards governing the Public Land
Use zoning designations will be determined prior to Tentative Map approval, in
accordance with Sections 8-31.0 through 8~31.19 of the Zoning Ordinance. Unless
otherwise modified under this PD approval, all applicable requirements of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to these land use designations.
Permitted Uses:
, -',;
,.,
.-'
a. Semi-Public Land Uses: including sites for water tanks, water reservoirs, detention
basins, or other similar public utilities uses.
b. Park Land Uses: sites for neighborhood, community, or other public park facilities.
c. Open Space Uses: including areas for public open space for preservation of
natural resources, public health and safety, and outdoor recreational activities.
d. Public Schools
e. Public service facilities, such as fire protection, police, or emergency service
facilities.
f Other uses that could possibly meet the intent of the Semi Public Land Use
designation.
5. PD - Open Space
Intent: Open Space Land Use designations shall be established within the project area.
The public open space areas are intended to provide for the preservation of natural
resources, outdoor recreational activities, and public health and safety. The private
open space areas are intended to provide for similar types of uses, in areas which
are owned and maintained by a private homeowner's association. The exact
location of these land uses, as well as the regulations and standards governing the
Private Land Use zoning designations will be determined prior to Subdivision Map .
approval, in accordance with Sections 8-31.0 through 8-31.19 of the ZOning.:-;
Ordinance. Unless otherwise modified under this PD approval, all applicable
- 9 -
/cP
:'.
:.
:..
' .'
It/I
requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to these land use
designations.
Permitted Uses:
a. Public and private Land Uses: including sites for private water tanks, water
reservoirs, detention basins, or other similar public utilities uses.
b. Public and private Park Land Uses: including sites for neighborhood, cOl)Ullunity,
or other public park facilities.
c. Public and private Open Space Uses: including areas for open space for
preservation of natural resources, public health and safety, and outdoor
recreational activities.
d. Other uses that could possibly meet the intent of the Open Space Land Use
designation.
6. Interim A2riculture Desi2oation
Intent: Interim agricultural designations shall be established for the entire project area.
This interim land use designation allows the existing residential and agricultural
uses approved under Alameda County's Zoning Ordinance to remain until such
time the landowners of these parcels apply for a Tentative Map, or other wise
develop the property according to the approved Land Use and Development Plan
in accordance with Sections 8-31.0 through 8-31.19 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Regulations and Standards Governing the Interim Agricultural Zoning
Designation:
a. As specifically provided by the Interim Agricultural Designation, all
applicable and general requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall
be applied to this land use designation.
b. The Agricultural Districts (A Districts) provisions of the Alameda County
Zoning Ordinance shall apply to properties with the Interim Agricultural
land use designation.
c. All properties with the Interim Agriculture land use designation shall
confonn to Sections 8-62.0 through 8-62.9 of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to legal non-conforming uses and buildings.
E. PD DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE - OTIffiR LAND USE PROVISIONS & CONDITIONS OF
AFPROV AL:
Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any
building. and shall be subiect to Planninsz Department review and approval. The following codes
represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the Conditions of
Approval. fPL] Planning:. ml Building. [pOl Police. [PW) Public Works. rADMJ Administration/City
Attorney. fFINl Finance. fPKl Parks and Community Services Department. [FJ Douszherty Regional Fire
- 10 -
Authority. [DSRl Dublin San Ramon Services District. [CO] Alameda County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District (Zone 7).
1. Yards, Setbacks & Development standards within the PD Residential district are as follows.
.
a). Minimum Single Family Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for single family detached
houses shall be as shown in the table below:
'mEiQE'::)H)::" ::P.P:$.:~iat~:LQt~):;m :,~P):$mgJ:~:$;~Y+:ii: :,P:Q;:$mB1~:w'@Y~': :i>riSmgIel.'@$)y:+::i
,$t~~:!::: i:~~glj~Pt.~99~:i!\::: j:~~gljljpr~g9~j~!::!!::: ::~~~~~p'~pg~:q:::::: :M~i~~9rhp~!tX::,:::!
:j:::::'jjj<-j::,-j:':jj,:,:j:j::'::: ::-':::::::::::-Un:nUicnH:n/ UU:::::i/:/iin:n:i::::::::;::i:n:;:ii ::;:::::::::::::::::::;::n:n::::::;iii::niin:: :(Due(Il()ts),n:::i;':::nn:::::
Building Site Per Land Use & Per Land Use & Per Land Use & Per Land Use &
Development Development Plan Development Plan Development Plan
Plan
2.0 acres
25 feet
minimum**
100 feet; 15 foot
minimum clear
and level zone
50 feet setback
minimum; 5 foot
wide nunnnum
clear and level
zone each side
yard. (1 foot
projection of
fireplace or A1C
unit into setback
allowable)
50 feet from
back of sidewalk
or back of curb
if no sidewalk
exists
100 feet total
aggregate side
yard setback;
100 feet
between
buildings. ****
* Exception - Front Yards: 15 foot minimum for units with side vehicular entrance garages
:Minimum Lot
Size
Front Yard
Setback
Rear Yard
Setback
Side Yard
Setback
(interior)
Side Yard
Setback
(comer)
Side Yards
Aggregate
6,000 sq.ft.
5,250 sq.ft.
4,500 sq.ft.
20 feet * 20 feet * 20 feet *
20 feet; 15 foot 15 feet; 15 foot 15 feet; 15 foot
mmunum clear, rmmmum clear, minimum clear,
level zone *** level zone * * * level zone ***
5 feet mnumum 5 feet minimum 5 feet minimum; 5
on one side, 10 on one side, 10 foot wide clear and
feet on other; 5 feet on other; 5 level zone each
foot wide clear foot wide clear side yard. (no
and level zone and level zone projections into
each side yard (no each side yard. setback allowed)
projections into (no projections
se~back allowed) into setback
allowed)
10 feet from back 10 feet from back 10 feet from back
of sidewalk or of sidewalk or of sidewalk or
back of curb back of curb back of curb
15 feet total
aggregate side
yard setback; 15
feet between
buildings.
15 feet total
aggregate side
yard setback; 15
feet between
buildings.
10 feet between
buildings
e--::-
** Exception - Front Yards: Custom homes may deviate from the 25 foot minimum setback
subject to approval of Site Development Review finding that topographic and/or vegetative
constraints of the site prevent the development from complying with the 25 foot setback.
- 11 -
1:;1-
-:.
-.
.
,'?;
*** Exceptions - Rear Yards: 1) See Section 8.26.6.1 Alternate Provision of Rear Yard
(compensating yards) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 2) 10 foot minimum for shade
structures attached to the unit provided the shade structure is not enclosed (enclosed means
more than one vertical wall). 3) 10 foot minimum setback for second story decks, however
second story decks encroaching within the required Rear Yard setback on lots with their rear
property line adjacent to other residential lots shall require Site Development Review
approval. 4) Minor deviations fi:~!D the 15 foot clear and level zone for sloping lots ~
Neighborhoods B and C may be approved by the Community Development Director, in
conjunction with Site Development Review approval.
**** Exception - Side Yard Aggregate: Aggregate side yards and distances between
buildings may be reduced to 50 feet at a minimum on certain Estate Residential lots near the
southern portion of the site, with approval by the Community Development Director, in
conjunction with Site Development Review.
b). General Residential Yard Provisions:
1) Except as stated within this PD Prezoning approval, fireplaces, chimneys and air
conditioning units shall not encroach within the required clear and level zone. Other
encroachments shall be subject to Community Development Director review and approval.
2) Except as prohibited under setback requirements above, roof eaves, pop-outs, bays,
architectural projections and columns may project into required yards subject to compliance
with building code requirements.
3) On lots where the minimum rear yard clear and level zone can not be provided due to
topography or vegetation constraints, decks of comparable area shall be required subject to
Site Development Review approval.
c). General Commercial District Yard Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for
retaiVoffice/commercial buildings shall be as follows:
ii~mM.!'::::~:':":~~~"i"'jj:' i:m~'W-,~~~,I~mm~~~i~i'i~i'ii'!iii~;:!::!:::"::::~::~::~~~:~:::
Buildin Site Per Land Use & Develo ment Plan
Minimum Lot Size Per Land Use & Develo ment Plan
Front Yard Setback 30 feet minimum
Rear Yard Setback 30 feet
Side Yard Setback 30 feet
interior
Side Yard Setback 30 feet
comer
Side Yards A 60 foot total a
- 12 -
2. Building Height:
RESIDENTIAL: 35 foot maximum or two stories at anyone point. Building height shall be e:"
measured from the finished grade at the midpoint of the building (as shown on a facade or cross
section view running parallel to the slope) to the top ridge of the structure's roof However,
architectural features and elements may exceed this provision by a 5 foot maximum, and a gable
element may exceed this provision by 5 foot maximum, subject to Community Development
Director approval.
COMMERCIAL: 45 foot maximum height at anyone point, and 35 feet maximum if the
building or structure is situated within fifty (50) feet of the boundary line of a residential district.
Building height shall be measured from the finished grade at the midpoint of the building (as
shown on a facade or cross section view running parallel to the slope) to the top of the
structure. Exception: Building height for architectural features and elements may exceed this
provision by an amount approved at the time of Site Development Review approval.
3. Parking for Residential districts shall include a minimum of 2 covered parking spaces per
dwelling unit. Parking for Commercial uses shall conform to the requirements of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
4. Except as specifically modified by the provisions of this PD District, all applicable and general
requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to development within this PD
District.
5. Except as may be specifically provided for within these General Provisions, development shall
comply with City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions.
.,
6. Except as may be specifically provided for within this PD, development shall comply with City
of Dublin Police Services Standard Residential Building Security Recommendations.
7. Appropriate vehicular access to open space shall be provided and maintained on a continuous
basis, and design of the trail head and trail system shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Department, Police Services, Fire Chief, Public Works
Director, Community Development Director, and East Bay Regional Parks District.
8. Sites for public facilities including potable and recycled water storage tanks are not conclusively
located by master planning conducted to date by the Dublin San Ramon Services District .
Public Facility sites must retain flexibility for location due to ongoing system master planning.
9. Major modifications, or revisions to the project not found to be in substantial conformance with
this PD Prezone shall require a new PD Rezone in compliance with Section 8-31.16 of the City
of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. A subsequent PD Prezone or Rezone may address all or a portion
of the area covered by this PD Prezone. Minor deviations from the conditions established
herein may be allowed through the Conditional Use Permit and/or Site Development Review
process, as required by the Dublin Municipal Zoning Code. The Community Development
, Director shall determine confonnance or non-confonnance and appropriate processing
procedures for modifying this PD Prezone (i.e. staff approval, Planning Commission approval of
Conditional Use Permit, or City Council approval of new PD Rezone).
.:-
- 13 -
'.
10. CC&R's shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director prior
to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map.
11. Site Development Review: All structures shall be subject to the Site Development Review
procedures established in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance unless a Site Development
Review waiver is approved by the Community Development Director and a zoning approval is
granted, constituting a minor proj~C!, and building permit plans are in accord with the !ntent and
objectives of the Site Development Review procedures.
F. Public Facilities Fees Provision
To implement General Plan Implementing Policy 2.1.3 (C), the developer shall fund a study to update the
"Public Facilities Fee Justification Study" ("Study") prepared for the City by Recht Hausrath &
Associates, dated March 7, 1996. to include the project within the development projections used in the
Study, to recalculate the amount of the City's adopted Public Facilities Fee (Citywide) to include the
project and to establish a fee for Neighborhood Parks (Land and Improvements) for the Western
Extended Planning Area. The Study shall be completed prior to approval of the project's Tentative map.
The developer shall pay the Public Facilities Fee in the amounts set forth in Resolution No. 32.96 (as
such resolution may be amended) at the time the Fee is payable pursuant to the resolution.
G. Street Improvements Provision
:.
In addition to the street improvements identified in the Environmental Impact Report, the project will be
responsible for contributing toward reimbursements to the City for the improvement of existing City
Streets identified as benefiting the project. This includes intersection improvements and widening of
Dublin Boulevard from Silvergate Drive to San Ramon Road, which are identified in the City's adopted
Five Year Capital Improvement Program, which stipulates that development in the Western Dublin area
will be required to contribute to these projects. The Schaefer Ranch applicant shall pay its fair share of
these improvement projects, and the applicant's fair share of the cost of these improvements shall be ..
payable prior to issuance of the first building permit for this project.
H. Traffic Impact Fee Provision
The City of Dublin is currently studying the adoption and implementation of a regional traffic impact fee
for roadway and street improvements in the Tri- Valley area for roadway and street improvements in
Dublin. These fees will provide for Public Works projects to improve traffic circulation for
accommodating new development within the City. If a regional traffic impact fee ordinance is approved
and enacted prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall pay its fair share of the traffic
impact fees, and the applicant's fair share of the cost of traffic impact fees shall be payable prior to
issuance of the first building permit for this project.
1. School Facilities Impact Mitigation Provision
:.
The Dublin General Plan addresses the City's cooperation with the Dublin Unified School District to
ensure the adequate provision of school facilities in the Extended Planning Area. The Schaefer Ranch
EIR requires the issue of attendance areas between the Castro Valley Joint Unified School District and
- 14 -
".....,c:
the Dublin Unified School District be resolved prior to occupancy of any residential units. It also requires
the project's Development Agreement to provide for the applicant's payment offees to cover the cost of
additional students generated by the project. Because statutory fees authorized by Govenunent Code
Sections 53080 and 65995.are inadequate to mitigate the effects of new development on the Dublin
Unified School District and the Castro Valley Joint Unified School District, the City of Dublin intends to
require that development within the Schaefer Ranch project component of the Western Dublin Extended
Planning area mitigate impacts on affected school districts required to serve student population generated
by new development.
In compliance with the above policies, prior to City Council approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map,
or the City's acceptance of Annexation of the project site to the City, whichever comes first, all
developer(s) of property subject to the Prezoning shall enter into a written mitigation agreement with the
affected school district and present satisfactory evidence of such agreement to the City. The mitigation
agreement shall establish the method and manner of financing and/or constructing school facilities
necessary to serve the student population generated by the development. The mitigation agreement shall
address the level of mitigation necessary, the amount of any school impact fees, the time of payment of
any such fees and similar matters. The City may be a party to any such agreement only for the purposes
of assuring uniformity with respect to different property owners and appropriate land use planning.
1. Fiscal Impacts Provision
The Dublin General Plan requires that the approval of new residential development in the extended
planning areas will require determination that the fiscal impact of new residential development supports
itself and does not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the City. Before this site is
annexed to the City of Dublin, the project proponents will be required to demonstrate that the City's
financing policies are met, which may require updates to existing financial studies undertaken by the
applicant or the City. Therefore, prior to the effective date of the annexation of this project site to the
City of Dublin, the proponents of the prezoning and annexation shall enter into an agreement with the
City that will guarantee that the financing goals and policies of the Dublin General Plan are m~~.
K. Dedication/Donation. of Open Space Provision
The proposed project indicates offering land to the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) for
ownership and maintenance of the public open space. With the approval of the prezoning plan, the City
intends to ensure that the operation and maintenance of this open space land will be handled by the
EBRPD. Therefore, prior to the City's approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map for this project, the
Applicants shall present to the City evidence of the East Bay Regional Parks District's agreement to
accept ownership and operational and maintenance responsibility for the proposed Open Space, in a fonn
acceptable to the City of Dublin. This evidence could be in the fonn of a letter from the EBRPD
expressing their interest and willingness to accept the responsibility for maintaining the open space land.
The City shall be involved in any discussions regarding the potential fonnation of any assessment districts
to fund the operation and maintenance of the open space.
L. Public Services Provision
The City's approval offuture development (i.e. Tentative Subdivision Map) based upon the approved
Land Use and Development Plan will require demonstration that the proposed project can secure the
basic and essential services necessary for the development, such as access Qegal and practical), water
- 15 -
lob
....
. -
..-.
..
e:,
supply, sewage disposal, and emergency services, as required by the City of Dublin General Plan,
Municipal Code and Ordinances.
:.
M.
Site Development Standards Provision
Site development standards to supplement the approved Land Use and Development Plan shall be
submitted to the City prior to any Tentative Subdivision Map approval for this property to ensure that the
purpose of the PD District Overlay Zone, as detailed in the introductory section of this ordinance, is met.
Site development standards typically included within a Prezoning Land Use and Development Plan
include, but are not limited to: roadway design standards; soundwall, fencing, and decorative wall
features; entry monument treatments; streetscape designs; landscaping concepts and plans; and other
specialized architectural or design standards which contribute to the uniqueness of the project, and/or
implement the mitigation measures of the project EIR
N. Environmental Impact Mitigation Provision
The approval of land use zoning designations for the Schaefer Ranch Project has been reviewed under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and mitigation measures have been presented for certain
environmental impacts. The approval of a Planned Development Prezoning shall include the provision
that the mitigation measures appropriate and required by the City upon certification of the EIR shall be
applied and implemented with the project.
O. Park Location Provision
. Prior to the City's approval offuture development (Le. Tentative Subdivision Map) based upon the
approved Land Use and Development Plan, the proposed location and certain design aspects of the
neighborhood park which will serve the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council.
This Resolution will be effective upon the effective date of the Ordinance adopting the Planned
Development District Overlay Prezoning.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 1996
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
.
CITY CLERK
g:\pa#\1994\94028\stf-rpts\ 7 -9ccmtg\r -pd2.doc
- J.6 -
JD'1
a~
~
Q:::N
~
~ ~~ ~IO
Ol ~
.... ....
~ ~~~
.--....... ~ s
r'\ ~."
~~ e
~
:::;;
~~ ~
~~
u~
~
Ie:?:
li~;i! !
~
e
. ~ ~
~ 10;;; ~
! i I n
In n
efee~
i ~ ;
Ii)
n ~ ~1 ~
t ..
. " l:!
i ' ~ l!I .' \
o . \ ': \
" " III t:
~ . ~ E r
! . ! i ~
I '0
t~:i~ ~ ~ " .
~ ~ 51 I g ii n .. \ I
fee e ~nn ~
I ~! Dlm~ Ld_ I ' "
~
~
./ ,/ / //.'
/'/ /' /,
! I::
! 1/ II
I ill'
;1 !~(.
_/1//1
111I1';
Ii "1,
II~' //.i
/ ,I,
/ ,// l
! ! 11
/:i Lj!
/I/j .:
. ! /:1/:
....:.: / . ..' / //
, " 'II;
',: .'i 'Iii,
i'l "
t ';, Ili
',j
'1
,'~
, '~
i!
'""
.. ;"
/,/ ,'"j
r .I~~
~,..: ~
. I
~
...
~
.'
.:"
.
RESOLUTION NO. w96
:::.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
______________~__~_~_________________.WM~__________.~______----.-~---
AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF APPLICATION FOR REORGANIZATION
FOR P A 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH
WHEREAS, Schaefer Heights, Inc. (the applicants) have submitted a request for annexing 500!
acres to the City of Dublin and annexing the 500:!: acres to the Dublin San Ramon Service District
(DSRSD), and annexing 340! acres to Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District(Zone 7), and detaching 329! acres from the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks
District (HARD); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (the
"Act") (Government Code Section 56000 et seq,) an affected city and affected district, as therein defined,
may by resolution adopted by its legislative body make a proposal for a "reorganization", as defined in
Section 56073 and request initiation of proceedings thereon;
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is an affected city, and the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
and the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD) are affected districts for a reorganization
':. proposal w?ich contains territory proposed to be ~~xe~ to said city and to DSRSD and to Zone 7, and
- - HARD temtory proposed to be detached from saId dIstnct.
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is an affected local agency for this reorganization proposal.
WHEREAS, the reorganization proposal is made pursuant to the Act. The proposal would
annex 500.28j: acres to the City of Dublin (as described in Attachment 5-A, and 500.28j: acres to the
Dublin SanRamon Services District, and 339.63j: acres to Zone 7 ofthe Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District (as described in Attachment 5-B); and would detach 328.68j: acres from
the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (as described in Attachment 5-C); and
WHEREAS, the territory described in Attachment A is inhabited territory within the meaning
of Government Code Section 56046.
WHEREAS, this reorganization is proposed at the request oflandowners of the territory to be
annexed.
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Schaefer Ranch Project,
including the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, Annexation to the City,
Tentative Subdivision Map, Annexation to and/or detachment from various service districts, and
approval of subsequent development entitlements, in accordance with the provisions of the California
:_. Environmental Quality Act, and
EXHIBIT 4
1
/07
WHEREAS, the City Council certified the Schaefer Ranch Project Environmental Impact
Report as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental
Guidelines, and approved a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development (PD) Prezoning to
establish land uses, general provisions and development regulations for a development consisting of up to
474 single family homes and 11 acres of commercial office uses on approximately 500 acres, generally
located on the north side of the I-580 freeway, at Schaefer Ranch Road, in Alameda County, adjacent to
Dublin's Western City limits; and
.
WHEREAS, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for
the reorganization that were not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer
Ranch project, and the reorganization is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report, and
WHEREAS, the impacts upon and need for services for the territory to be annexed is set forth
in the Schaefer Ranch Final EJR, including the DSRSD's Plan of Service Investigation (Appendix C of
the EIR) which addresses water and wastewater services, and
WHEREAS, the proposed reorganization would be conditional upon agreement of affected
service Districts for annexation of the territory to the Dublin San Ramon Services District and Zone 7 of
the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and agreement of affected Districts
for detachment of the territory from Zone 2 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District and the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District, and
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the City of Dublin sphere ofinfIuence, and
....',
, ,
WHEREAS, if detennined appropriate by the LAFCo, the City Council consents to act as the
conducting authority for the proposed reorganization, and
WHEREAS, Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation code provides, among other things, that no
local agency jurisdictional change can be completed without the agencies affected by such change first
having agreed upon an exchange of property tax revenue between and among the affected agencies, and
WHEREAS, the territory subject to the P A 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Reorganization application
is within "Western Dublin" as that area is defined in the "Agreement Between County of Alameda and
City of Dublin Regarding Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Upon Annexation of property in Western
Dublin" ("Agreement"), dated October 26, 1992, and
WHEREAS, the Agreement sets forth the agreement of the City Council of the City of Dublin
and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda on the method for distributing property tax
revenue for annexed land including the P A 94-028 Schaefer Ranch reorganization; and
WHEREAS, a notice of the City Council public hearing to consider initiating a request for
reorganization to the Alameda County Local Agency Fonnation Commission (LAFCo) was distributed to
all public service providers and interested individuals; and
WHEREAS, the City and the applicant have been cooperatively planning for the provision of
services to the project site and have notified the service providers of the proposed annexation; and
e-,
2
/0
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Schaefer Ranch
project Final ErR., General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, and Annexation Initiation
on July 9, 1996, and considered all written and oral testimony submitted at or prior to the public hearing;
and
':.
WHEREAS, following the July 9, 1996 public hearing the City Council adopted resolutions
certifYing the EIR, adopting the General Plan Amendment, and approving the Phull1ed Development
Prezone, and adopted an Ordinance prezoning the project site.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
B. The City Council of the City of Dublin, as the legislative body for an affected local agency, does
hereby adopt the foregoing recitals and makes a proposal for a reorganization, as described
herein, pursuant to Section 56800 of the Cortese-Knox Act, and does hereby request that
proceedings be taken pursuant to said Act.
C. This proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the City of Dublin.
D.
The proposed annexation is appropriate because it is contiguous to the existing city limits and
would provide a logical extension of development under the City's jurisdiction to provide
residential, commercial, public, and open space land uses for the community.
:,.
E. This proposal is made subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. The description and the maps in Attachments A, B, and C are preliminary and are
subject to more detailed description(s) and map(s) to be prepared and submitted to
the LAPCo. Adjustments to the description of the territory (Attachment A) are to
be made as deemed necessary by the County Surveyor.
2. The annexation to the City of Dublin is conditional upon agreement of affected
service Districts for annexation of the territory to the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, and agreement of affected Districts for detachment of the
territory from Zone 2 ofthe Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District and the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District
(HARD). The Community Development Director is hereby directed to acquire
agreements from DSRSD, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, and HARD to participate in this reorganization.
3.
The City Manager is hereby directed to send a letter to the Alameda County
Administrators officer to request certification from the County of its agreement to
the terms of the preexisting tax sharing agreement.
-.
F. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy ofthis resolution with the Executive Officer of
the LAPCo.
3
)11
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: .'
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
.::
g:\pa#\1994\94028\rstf-rpts\ 7.9ccmtg\r-anxl
e:"
4
1;;1-
:.
c:io
;~z
<::{
t--.~5
_0
!!!ht-
:t"'{:)
~~J
LlJO
~IJ)
~~
"'{
, "
.,,- 'I} ~.
III "'1:
~; :::: r;
.,: ., n-
ill
~) ~l~ ;:
~~~
t...} _~ 1.11
1111-1... III
ltl .,,;, i~
1L C I
(,,~t/lU
-.,..) I~
G II I'
i - r
Il 1-
:? ~:
: ~ ~ ~
"l
~
0::
o
~!!:
........
~~
Cl
'"
......
O~
..:::.
...0
GO
","l
:!;Cl
...'"
:::!
"l
...;
"l
~
~ ,e
..
u,. t
Q,\ ~
l) .
!:; ..
5 ~
~ .~
" Q, Q ~
l:t .:i ~~
II ~:
~~
.~ t :.
en IC ill III
cu .! CII::!
Cl .. H
:-"
~C"f' H
~ =u
ft.' & 1
..... :: ~
~~8~
~~~;. "
I.a::.;--
a~ I:')
t~ IU
,.t: \_
i) n
,-, ..,
j!:~ I~
'" I.;'
~~t)~
~ '"
~ I~~
<l ..:s
~ ~I..i
.. iS~
~-~:
ti ~a$l.,
~d~~
~ .-~ ~.
~ OD<C;.~
"
Q ,... ..
:. i:: "-
~- -
<( -.~, (I
i ~~ ~ "'
-ol "j .',
Gg
i~:a.. _ ~
<( tQlIn.::':; I.',
", "
.
" -
~~;f;
i.L:no
"'~~Q'
I.: '~Ql ~
::~~=<
~I.j~~
~~~~
~::L..
.. ..
rt.d'"
~~~~
~:~ i:.
..~ l't"
oltt--:...
==~. ~~~
~ ;~~~
tr: ~ ~ . 'tI.
~ ~~~?
o 1\~"iI.r1...
IQ .;:' ,:~
...., ~-
::z: 1fI,. .'"
Q
;::
<(
>(
~
;::
<(
:~t i:~
.~ ., ~.; "
":! ~ :'~J
;/3
...
"
"
.J
.-
"
. , ;
, ,
, .'")
r "
. , ,
<, .,
.r,
). .~ ~
"
... ,[ '"
~ '"
Q
0 I
0;: j
e
::E
<(
.....
<(
'-,
,
,I
...
....
"
,
""
Q\
2!
).
~
~ ~
~ ~
ffi
l.L
>.
... ~...
....,
... . "'h
" ~~
..
i ~~
~ ~~
! i~
'. ~ ~~
i "'~
H
r J
2 l!.
'l. '"
l';~!::i I~
"'~-a ~
~..l';" \'"
~~6( 5
"'~..'"
tJ~:;;8~~
.....lil';'" "
i~~",~8
e~~~~a
>: ..~"'::;
i~"tc:~~
al!sfltJ......
l- ~Ull!t:!~a
i:i ...ee"",..
::1i ~~"':t'!i~
""101 t:Q:...d~~ 8
a- a:::-c_;~~
~ ~~al.i&:,^
tJ'j ~~~~~5
1Il i:'''i~::
;:.... ~e~)..!;t;
.... "_<1.. t'"
U ~~~~Q~
l.L ",{;;~~iJ
~ ~a~8..~
o ...-
<J' 0
, 0
o~
<J'~~g
. _ <[ 0_
!::lo.....'
zZ..J~
zzl.:Jg
88:>i".!..
...... t- (J, -q-
.t::lO<J'
x J ~J C,.J
I"J Cl >-
=V1~~
~~~~
..~
~~
~..:
~8~
liil~~~
I- "'~..
~ ~~iii
N/1SnO :iD ),.1./0 \:\, _~ n ~__
, .
i
'-i u u l.J y I,j (j \oJ u \"i \J Q
,"I{ "I\: "III: "( "I[ 'I( "I( "II( "'C ""( ~
... M ... ...... .1 ... ... H ... ... ...
~~~8~::;;~:'~~ =
;:;~~~:i~~~.,.j....~ ~
:;:
Q
i::
~
UJ
~,
:;:
<(
Q
UJ
II)
Q
Q.
Q
Il:
Q.
~
:~~Q~a8~!::c ::
u
...
I I I I I I I I I I .
H88S8UHg ;!
E
I I I I I I I I I I I
H~H~~~H~
I I , I I I I I I I .
-.;:.,'o(----'IIII:~.(~
III"'jrn""~~~""'If'\on"'Vl
tII:Io~~Or.Or.o.Or.tII:IoQ;JlE)~
- H.J.I:JQH~
,uNnO:;J .,OilW"?"
.-~.l:' _::H!-V~B i:d":'
': i :l . '/U
a
'"
H
~~
~~
~~
..~-
"s"'~~
... -"
::t Ii...
::;~~~
=::~ ~
.,='10-0....
_I,.} ""I; 'IIIi:
"'~~
1II'\o1.u"""~
I
I'~
!
I~
II!
''''
,,,
'"
\;
1&
(
t:::'::C
I...h
11$ 8
h
co~
"
..
,.
~ ~
",lol ...
~ I ~
... ~ I ~
~ ~ I a
UJ ... I::
~ ~~ ~g
ti U Ie
~ l';~ ~3
o)..i! \!:''<
).. ~lI- J::a
~ ~i.. ~~
~ ca!O ~'"
:::. <"..~ 3~
"" e~f.I ~s
t ;~l: "';1;
- "13 "<1
~ a~ll ~...
2 h~d
N17SnO dO ),.1./0
r=---
I
1
___J
!
"
...
:x
i
I
. \ CBY--
~ I'
:x
~. 6)"
\ I ~
\l I~}
o
al
If)
>-
f
.....
I-
<t
l-
V?
'"
.....
t-
Z
<[
~
Cl
L..
::i
<t
u
L..
Cl
.....
,-
<J:
I-
",
'.f-~'- ."~',,'
...
~
~\
~o;
~>:
I- ,,"'~ I
if; il; \lX I
~ I ~~
<( ~"!3
I- '" ..
1Il as l~ I
1Il '<I" I..: I
~ ~ i~~ ~ i
_ Q.l.l S t.J
~ ~ I" ~ ~e ~
~ ~ I~ ~~ )-
Il: "'h l::t /jh ~
). '>!~ .. !->ll
.... i::.~)EO Q~ h
~ "j;;~~ 1'J~ $
Q 21"", e:~ ,,'"
u ~~a a ..
<
I
~
~
ioo"'C
~
-
==
>(
~
i
j
~
!!:
~
t
~
to;
~~
~;
:c
~~
Ill:l
~ll:
"
..
",\1
~!
lll..
~lol
...~
9h
.....
3'"
"'~
0 ~
al ~
If)
co i
>- a'
::- t!
:I:
a...
..... ~t ;r; ..
I- H
<[ 13
I- ell
V? a"
D:: ~~ '" ~
.....
I- - ..
2S ~~ tlc,
~~
~ '"a ~~
~ .. ..
1i2 ~ ",..
Cl
.... \'sa
::i
el; ,.>:
U ~~
L.. i~
0 ~
41 ~~
I-
el; ..... ~
I- ~i
V?
iila 1.:1
~::: UJ
,.<'i ....;
.. ;,. """ .. Co "'\" .... ;,
lq......,IIQ...-..........
a..:..s~IId=t...:..:~..;..;
I&I~ I-~~~~~~~~
d"
:'31 "",)rJ:):;:kit\k-=~""
:::a~ :~;~~;~I~~;
!"'~ i ;:: ~ ;:;;.: ~ l:!1l! ;:; 1!;1
Qo(o;c: 'll(1IQ...."Ia...._-Iit\~
u'" :::; - to." IG ~ -I" W) 11ft .....\
: ::t.~~~~:E:~~~
i ~ ~I~ ~I~I~I~ ~ ~I
.., ....1;,\..\"""\;,\;...\;,.\..\\,\'..\;,.1"..1'.\',..
__IIOIiII'Ar..,~IDIoGII_IIAD."'Q~
h ,', a ..,.:N....:..:~.~O~OIo
~!.. ! ;\~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~;,; ~ ~ ~I~i"r
~ i I . I
...~ ):'w....I,y):.~a..kSc):.&w3:::t.I'"
... a..- ~'c...~:"'Q~~1 -:c.o.~j..".~-
.. a _ " ~ '" '" ~ '" ~ !" ~ !!\ " pi" " "'18
-I. ~~~~-~- ~~~.
!i", C ., " ;l ;;; .. ... ... ,. " <> ,. ~I" ,,\1 P S\
Q:"( Ii: 'IIIJI: ~ IE) "-' .". ~ ~ IICo ilO. .." ... -1- " "I
u~ =~~-~~_.~~.....~....~~~
tIlo :2:;:t:ot~~:t:~:;t,~:iC.;;:::it~I::1t:
. .
.. "I~ "1~121-1"1~ .. ~I''''I~''''~'I~
~ - - - - ~.... "'" ...,""" .... ""'I"':"" "'\
~~:~ s~\~I:\~\~\~\a\~II~!~
,.,:.,;" c-.c..;w1""iiD.-i,...ri.nlOltn
; .. fA'" a g r.., ot) ,.....I~ "" IiIIo ~ "".. co ""\"'
~~ ~-~---- ~--~ ---
iw..).. I -
;! ~ ~ :--:--:':-- :+ ."'1:--1:-- :" :'I~ :--I:--I~
..... a."., a ... D. _ a.., _... ~ ..... ~ r.
..l!. h ~ " '" ,. ,. "\'" "'11,..1... " " '" !"I"\''''
~ _ ~ ... ~ _ ~ ... ~I~ "'\h _ ~\.. ~,- "
:)~(J II; ~ I"" r. :"'t ;'"I .". P :ot ~ P :'" ~ ,...I,..td~
C)"I: e 'II!: ""\ ID .. _ ""'" .. ...\.... "'" .... c, ~ .....I~'~
Q I..,; .. ~ lIlI .... ~ ~ ID ... ~ ... ""'" oQ W"I 1a -I"'
\It, .:t: 2::it ~:it: :z:.:ii: ~:iI:.;::': :: ~I>: '"
. I I " .
~ - "I~ ~1~i"'I"'I~I~i2!=I~!~!::~
zl'-
o (l)
_c
t- 0
<(N
X"
We
zca
Z.....
<( .~
cb
w .~
wC
OUJ
o..(l)
o .S2
0::>
0..'-
(l)
J:w
OC
zO
<(E
o::m
0::0::
WC
LLCU
UJrn
<(S::
:z:=
o..c
w::l
C
'It/
o
w
c <
Z l:J
W t::
l- <
X
W 0
Z
Z
c: z
w Z
l- <
CI) ..J
W c..
;,,;,
I
I
I
,
......
I
I
1
~
I
....
;:
1
..
\
1
1
10
<<>
I":'
I
\
,.. ...
~.,.
'2
.2
ill
;;
S?
'E
o
o
~
ll:I
E
x
o
Co
Co
~
>-
o
:g-s
;;; :t
is
5"
'"
c:
'"
9.
jj;
In =
~ ;:
jj; ,...
..!: '" !!!
~ ~
:::l I::: 0
o 0 N
o ~ ~
::: c: 5
C3 a 8
1: _rg ~
III Cll
tD :e E
ia 0 tD
tD <:
o sa
~ I::: .9
~ .Q ~
o ~ =
U) !!: ~
ffi E ~
o III ia
C> ~ "Q
.g 2 ~
'" n 52
Wx 6" 0-
r!:. ~
~ liE.> 'I ~.,:: :
~ !2EiI ~~: 1
I
~
8
.,
....
III
'"
<:
g>
""E
I:::
ttl
6:
"Q
'"
"::l
t::
'"
x
W
t::
iii
c;;
Cll
~
...
...
CQ
I
'o:t
Ce::",
CQ ..
-
:=
;;<
~
.
.'
U
I
"'l1'
E-c
(~ -
CQ
'. -
==
~
~
f-...
Zo
w-
~z
C/J
~ .-
OC
<{C/J
f-.::t:.
wi-
c~
0-0
we
CJ)ca
~.Q
....
-..;.' ca
cr;0)
l:l.i-
zg
Ocr;
Zm
<{O)
Q:i-
cr;<
W-O
LLi-
wm
<~
J:~
OJ:
C/)
.
;/5
z
~u.2j
-0::>
o 0
z
o
;>-u.~
COlI:
o z
..:
en
"
z
z
z
a:
w Z
I- 0:(
en ....I
w CL
==
-'
,
,
I
I
J
'"
,
,
I-
Q
0:( I
WI
a: \.
0:( I-
..
I
C I
a: I
0:( I
I
J
I
I
:::; \
04
z
o
a:
l-
ll)
I-
<
W
II:
c..>
W
c:
C
==
:.::
c:
<
0.
>-
0:(
"fi~
.::'"
"'a..
C:o
~i
~c:
~
E
::J
~
C3
~
u;
13
..
0"
a:
I~
~
'"
..
< ::
-c ..
.. - ~
to >--...
a;iCI: ~.2
:::~ = ~
g~ ~o
__ 1..":'::::
-=. m.....
c.!'1 ~:
..0 ;:loll
E -'" 0
..c;; ..c C
MCL -g.g
cD -6 IiO CJ
~ g ~ ~
:::; ~~
~~ ~:
:t~ z<
o
z
uJ
C)
L.U
-'
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
8
~
~
~
~
~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO PERMIT THE PREZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE 1-580 FREEWAY, AT SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD, IN ALAMEDA COUNTY, ADJACENT
TO DUBLIN'S WESTERN CITY LIMITS
--------------------------------------------------------.--------------------------------------________________w_________
The City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner:
On the 500.28-acre property generally known as the "Schaefer Ranch" project site, located
along the the north side of the 1-580 freeway, at Schaefer Ranch Road, in Alameda County,
adjacent to Dublin's Western City limits, more specifically described as the following Assessor's
Parcel Numbers: ,85A-1000-001-14, 85A-1000-001-16, 85A-1000-001-17, 941-0018-002-02,
941-0018-002-03, 941-0018-005-00, 941-0018-006-00, 85A-1 000-001-18, 85A-1000-001-09,
85A-1 000-001-11, 85A-1000-002-04; approximately 500 acres are hereby prezoned to a
Planned Development District Overlay Zone, with land use districts as generally shown on the
Land Use and Development Plan and as further defined in the Planned Development General
Provisions, adopted for the site with approval of PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Project Prezoning.
A map of the prezoning area is outlined below:
. \
. :'
]'l
.
..-
." "
c...". .
/I~
EXHIBIT 5
e:"""
:....'.
."'"
....
."
. Section 2
'. This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage.
Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be published once, with the
names of the Councilmembers voting for and against same, in a local newspaper published in
Alameda County and available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the-c-Hy"CounciI of the City of Dublin, on this 23rcf day of
July, 1996, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
~.
.'
(g:\pa#\ 1994\94028\stf-rpts\7 -9ccmtg\ORD-PD.)
SCHAEFER RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EIR
SUMMARY OF SELECTED COMMENTS
COMMENT &RESPONSE #
ISSUE RAISED
.:,
E-l
G~3
G. 4, G-5
G-8
G-9, G-lO
H-l
1-2
L-5
L-1S, L-16
L-17
L-20
L-2l
L-22
L-23
L-24
L-26
L-27
L-28, L-29
L-30, L-3l
L-32
L-33
N-l
N-4, N-S
N-15
0.5, 0-6
0-7,0.8
0-9 thru 22
0-23 thru 30
0-31 thru 33
0-38
0-39
0-42
P-2, P-3
P-4
Q-l, Q-2
Q-4
Q-5
Q-7
Q-8
$-1
S-2 thru 5
T-3
T-4
T-6
T~8
T-9
T-ll
T-12
T-16 thru 18
U-3
U-6
Wildlife- Potential impacts to Red legged frog
Vegetation - Botanical surveys
Wildlife - Alameda Whipsnake & surveys for listed species
Wetlands. jurisdictional
- - Vegetation - riparian & Oak woodland mitigation
Traffic impacts - San Ramon
Schools - mitigation
Grazing,- fire control and habitat preservation
Medical emergency response time
Fire Protection - mitigation
Police Protection - mitigation
Parks - mitigation
Park facilities - community parks
Open Space - regional trail
Flood control - Gibbs detention basin
Parks - dedication
Alternatives - No Project Alternative
Alternatives - Rural Residential Alternative
Alternatives - Optional Site Alternative
Alternatives - Mitigated Alternative
Alternatives - Revised Mitigated Alternative
Traffic impacts - intersections
Traffic data & analysis - 1-580
Right -of-way decertification
DSRSD's Sphere ofInfluence
Visual Impacts - water storage tanks, pump stations
Water supply & water system
Wastewater
Water
Water quality - treated water
Reclaimed water reservoir
Alternative projects - water and wastewater impacts
Wastewater - export capacity; Water supply
Western E>..'1ended Planning Area - future development
Traffic Circulation
Western E>..'1ended Planning Area - infrastructure
Irreversible impacts
Alternatives - access road
Cumulative impacts - Western E>..1ended Planning Area
Grading impacts
General Plan policies
Annexation
Property tax revenues
Open space loss
Hydrology - flooding
Tax sharing agreement
Irreversible changes
Traffic circulation - Western E>..1ended Planning Area
Cumulative impacts
General Plan consistency
Wetland habitat loss
..':
.
BACKGROUND EXHIBIT 1
1'6
SCHAEFER RANCH EIR
'.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REMAINING SIGNIFICANT AFTER MITIGATION
AND
REQUIRING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Chapter 6 - Vegetation and Wildlifu~- -
IMP ACT: "Secondary effects on native plants and wildlife"
Exotic plants could crowd out native vegetation. Pets could adversely affect wildlife. Noise and
other human activities could affect species in surrounding area. With proposed mitigations, these
impact could be lessened but not eliminated.
2. Chapter 12 - Air Quality
IMPACT: "Regional pollutant emissions"
Vehicular emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide will exceed air contaminant
emission levels considered significant by the regional air quality district (BAAQMD), ROG
emissions also would exceed established BAAQMD levels. The regional air quality district
mandates a reduction in air pollutants, Any increase in pollutants is therefore considered
significant. The project will unavoidably add to the amount of certain pollutants, and this impact
cannot be reduced to insignificance given the criteria that regional air pollution must be reduced.
. 3. Chapter 18 - Cumulative Impacts
IMPACT: "Cumulative loss of open space (private rangelands) and landscape alteration"
Continuing urbanization is converting open space to other uses. The mitigation measures
propose supporting regional park district efforts to secure open space areas, and/or establish a fee
for mitigation of open space loss. However, it is not expected that these measures would reduce
this impact to a less-than significant level.
IMPACT: "Cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts"
The continuing loss of habitat in the region is an unavoidable significant adverse cumulative
impact to which this project would contribute. The proposed mitigations include adopting a
heritage tree ordinance to protect significant existing trees, or take equivalent measures to protect
trees on a citywide basis. However, the implementation of these measures would not reduce
impacts to a level that is considered less-than-significant.
:.
BACKGROUND EXHIBIT 2
//1
SCHAEFER RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
.
Page # in
Draft GP A Summary of Change
~....~- ~
3
4
5
6
7
Adds text to describe the Western Extended Planning Area (WEPA)
Adds text including land use categories for the Western Extended Planning Area
Adds text to describe proposed land uses for the Schaefer Ranch component of the WEP A
Adds policies for residential land use development in the WEP A
Adds policies for development in WEP A relating to open space, preservation of natural
resources, and public health and safety issues
Revises text so agricultural open space policies apply to entire Extended Planning Area
Adds policies relating to regional trail link and active recreation facilities for neighborhoods
Adds policies relating to access and circulation in the WEP A
Adds text describing open space corridor along main ridgeline in the WEP A
Adds notes regarding riparian vegetation, and corrects text
Adds policy regarding protection of riparian woodland
Adds or revises policies relating to erosion and siltation control, and grading on steep slopes
Adds or revises policies relating to preservation of Oak Woodlands
Text correction for clarification
Text correction for clarification
Updates text describing fire protection service
Adds policy regarding fire protection measures
Adds or revises text for clarification
Map - Revises Dublin General Plan map showing Extended Planning Areas
Map - Assigns land use categories to Schaefer Ranch project
Map - Shows development potential/constraints in developed City and Eastern Dublin
Map - Shows development potential/constraints in Western Extended Planning Area
Map - Corrects Geologic Hazards and Constraints map
Corrects Noise Contours map
Adds note to Noise Contours map
...,";'
,.
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BACKGROUND EXHIBIT 3
.
/ffo
.
~...... ---- - ~
STAFF REPORTS
June 4 and June 18, 1996
Planning Commission Meetings
.
- NOT ATTACHED TO STAFF REPORT-
AVAILABLE AT DUBLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND/OR AT JULY 9,
1996 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
.
BACKGROUND EXHIBIT 4
/j/
.'
---
-- . - -
June 4 and June 18, 1996
Planning Commission Meetings
MINUTES
.':-
-NOT ATTACHED TO STAFF REPORT-
A V.AaABLE AT DUBLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND/OR AT JULY 9,
1996 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
BACKGROUND EXHIBIT 5
.-
/ p.,;-
'.:,...
"
----
- - -
April 8, 1996
Joint City CouncilJ Planning Commission Study Session
MINUTES
':.
- NOT ATTACHED TO STAFF REPORT -
A V AILABLE AT DUBLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND/OR AT JULY 9,
1996 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
.
BACKGROUND EXHIBIT 6
/t3
SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT
GENERAL INFORMATION
AND
ZONING mSTORY
.-,,:
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION:
North side of 1-580 freeway, at Schaefer Ranch Road, Alameda County (Adjacent to
Dublin's Western City limits)
APPLICANTS &
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
Schaefer Heights, Inc., (Otto Schaefer, Jr., Robert 1. Y ohai, Sa! S. Zagari),
Schaefer Heights Associates, and Dennis and Laurie Gibbs.
ASSESSOR
PARCEL #
& SIZE:
OWNER PARCEL # ACREAGE
Schaefer Heights Associates 85A-1000-OOl-14 24.49
" 85A-1000-OOI-16 32.45
" " 85A-I000-001-17 76.51
" 941-0018-002-02 47.00
" 941-0018-002-03 32.05
" 941-0018-005-00 2.67
" 941-0018-006-00 73.51
."
Otto Schaefer, Jr. 85A-1000-OOI-18 155.87 - '
Robert Y ohai & Sal Zagari 85A-1000-OOI-09 5.51
" 85A-1000-001-ll 2.07
TOTAL 452.13
Dennis & Laurie Gibbs 85A-IOOO-002-04 48.0
(Zoning Request submitted by Robert Y ohai)
TOTAL 500.13
SURROUNDING
LAND USE AND
ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Cattle grazing; Alameda County Agricultural District
Interstate 580 Freeway
Grading underway; residential Planned Development
Cattle grazing; Alameda County Agricultural District
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Western E>..1.ended Planning Area
EXISTING ALAMEDA
COUNTY ZONING
AND LAND USE:
Agriculture; Cattle grazing with a few rural homesites
.-.
BACKGROUND EXHIBIT 7
/;' tj
PROJECT IDSTORY
1989
'.
May, 1992
July, 1992
January 1993
July 11, 1994
October 24, 1994
.' March 21, 1995
June 13, 1995
October 5, 1995
December 21, 1995
.
/;'5
Preparation of a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment and Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the entire Western Extended Planning Area began
City Council adopted resolution certifying the EIR for the Western Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan as adequate and complete
City Council adopted resolution adopting the Western Dublin General Plan
Amendment and SpecificPlaii .
Dublin Voters passed a referendum rescinding the City Council's adoption of the
Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
City Council approved a request submitted by Schaefer Heights Associates which
authorized and initiated the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment Study. The
Council defined the study area boundaries, which initially included approximately
452 acres, and directed Staff to prepare a consultant contract for preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report which analyzes the project.
City Council approved the Contract for Consultant Services for preparation of the
Schaefer Heights General Plan Amendment EIR, and Amended the General Plan
Amendment Study Area to include approximately 48 acres adjacent to the project
site, owned by Dennis and Laurie Gibbs.
A Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was distributed by
the City to public agencies potentially affected by the project, and to interested
individuals, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
City Council approved the first Amendment to the Contract between the City of
Dublin and WPM Planning Team, Inc., to add a specialized fire service study to
address fire protection impacts and issues raised in response to the Notice of
Preparation distributed for the project.
City Administration Staff approved a minor revision to the Contract between the
City of Dublin and WPM Planning Team, Inc., to add supplementary Noise and
Traffic analyses,
A Notice of Completion of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was mailed to
affected public agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. A copy of the
EIR was mailed to affected public agencies and made available for public review,
and the public comment period was opened on December 27, 1995.
2