HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Dolan Canyon GPA & EIR qor�d-3 �
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 14, 1989
REPORT PREPARED BY: Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon (Blaylock, Gleason and
Fletcher) General Plan Amendment and
Environmental Impact Report
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Exhibit A: Draft Resolution certifying EIR
Exhibit B: Draft Resolution approving EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment .
Background Attachments:
REFER TO THE APRIL 3, 1989 MEMO FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR DRAFT EIR
Attachment 1: Final EIR Response to Comments dated received June 15, 1989
(under separate cover)
Attachment 2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigations
Attachment 3: Donlan Canyon Plans dated received January 17, 1989 and
August 4, 1989
Attachment 4: Applicable General Plan policies
Attachment 5: General Plan Primary Planning Area
Attachment 6: General Plan Extended Planning Area
Attachment 7: Location Map - Comparable Densities Multi-Family
Attachment 8: Visual Features Figure 3-9 Hansen Hill EIR Minor Ridge Location
Map
Attachment 9: Visual Features Donlan Canyon Minor Ridge Location Map
Attachment 10: Prominent Knoll Location Map
Attachment 11: Hansen Hill General Plan Land Use Designation Map
Attachment 12: Planning Commission Resolution EIR approved July 17, 1989
Attachment 13: Planning Commission Resolution EIR Monitoring Program approved
July 17, 1989
Attachment 14: Planning Commission Resolution GPA approved July 17, 1989
Attachment 15: Supplemental Analysis
REC0MMEENDATION: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
+ 4) Resolve major policy and processing issues.
�Lr 5) Close public hearing and deliberate.
6) Adopt the resolutions relating to PA 87-012 Donlan
Canyon GPA/EIR, or give Staff and Applicant
direction and continue the matter.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
BACKGROUND:
Upon the City Council's authorization of the General Plan Amendment
Stud* to include the Blaylock, Gleason and Fletcher property, the City hired
the firm of EIP Associates as the environmental consultants for the General
Plan Amendment Study and the Environmental Impact Report. After George Thomas
of The Paragon Group, the Applicant, and Mike Gleason, the Property Owner,
submitted the complete application materials, the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (Draft EIR) was prepared and released on March 29, 1989 for public
review and comment. The 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR ended
May 15, 1989. During that 45-day review period, the Planning Commission held
two public hearings to receive public comment on the Draft EIR.
---------- ---- - ------------------------------------------------NO 4 ,✓ COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
PA 87-012
Jennifer Toth, EIF
Chris Kinzel, TJK_11
Project Planner
The Final EIR Response to Comments was completed June 15, 1989. In
addition to the two public hearings held during the 45-day review period, the
Planning Commission held three other public hearings and two field trips to
the site.
On July 17, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions
recommending City Council certification of the Final EIR as complete and
adequate, approval of the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program and approval of
the General Plan Amendment.
ANALYSIS:
The Paragon Group is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to
include the 197+ acre project site within the City's Primary Planning Area
with the following land use designations:
Land Use Designation Acreage
Low Density Single-Family (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre) 13
Medium-High Density (14.1 to 25 DU/Acre) 19.1
Open Space; Stream Corridor 164.9
Although the General Plan Amendment (GPA) request is limited to type of
land use designation and density range, the Applicants have indicated 17 units
will be proposed for the low-density single-family residential area (resulting
in 1.3 DU/Acre density) and 300 units proposed for the medium-high density
area (resulting in 15.7 DU/Acre density) :
The project site is located outside the Dublin city limits within the
unincorporated portion of Alameda County. The City's General Plan designates
the site within the City's Extended Planning Area with residential/open space
land use designation.
The planning application currently under consideration involves only the
General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Subsequent
planning requests to be reviewed pending City Council action of the GPA/EIR,
will include Planned Development (PD) Prezoning, Tentative Map Subdivision and
Annexation.
Major Policy Issues
1. Ridgeline - Low density single-family residential area. The General
Plan policy issue is to determine ' whether the low density single-family
residential land use proposed on the saddle of the knolls is consistent with
the City's General Plan ridgeline policies. The saddle on which the single-
family residential development is proposed is an extension of the minor ridge
which crosses both the Hansen Hill Ranch project site and the Donlan Canyon
project site. In February 1989, the City Council designated the knoll area
(minor ridge) on the Hansen Hill property as open space (see Attachment 11) . "
The General Plan states "the present undisturbed natural ridgelines as
seen from the primary planning area are an essential component of Dublin's
appearance as a freestanding City ringed by open hills" (see Attachment 4,
Policies 3.3E and 3.3F) . The General Plan includes policies to guide
development on ridgelines, however, the General Plan does not identify
specific ridgelines as major or minor ridges.
The Planning Commission found that the proposed residential land use is
consistent with the City's General Plan policies related to ridgelines.
Staff recommends the City Council determine whether the proposal is
consistent with the ridgeline General Plan policies.
2. Oak Woodland - Low-density single-family residential area. The General
Plan policy issue is to determine whether the proposed single-family
residential land use located within the oak woodland is consistent with the
intent of the General Plan policies requiring preservation of oak woodlands.
Portions of Lots 11, 12 and 13 located in the northeastern portion of
the site appear to be inconsistent with General Plan policies requiring
preservation of oak woodlands and slopes greater than 30% as permanent open
space (see Attachment 4, Policies 3.1.A and 3.13) . The Applicant proposes
-2-
Lots 11 through 13 as custom home lots, on which no trees would be removed, no
grading would occur beneath the tree dripline and no grading would occur on
slopes greater than 30%.
The Applicant is requesting an exception to Policies 3.1A and 3.1B (see
Attachment 4) . The Applicant's proposal may be considered consistent with the
intent of the policies requiring preservation of oak woodlands through the
prohibition on grading and removal of trees within the woodland area. If the
City Council finds the proposal is consistent with the intent of the policies,
a site specific grading and tree survey and tree preservation study would be
required as part of the Tentative Map and Prezoning application and is
included in the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council find
that the proposed single-family residential land use with the mitigation
measures is consistent with the intent of the General Plan policies requiring
preservation of oak woodlands.
3. Oak Woodland/Riparian Vegetation Removal - Medium High Density
Residential Area. The General Plan policy issue is to determine whether the
proposed multi-family land use with the implementation of the mitigation
measures is consistent with the intent of the General Plan policies relating
to preservation of oak woodland/riparian habitats.
The multi-family area is proposed within the southern portion of the
project site. This area is predominately flat and contains oak woodlands and
riparian vegetation. The proposal does not include preservation of the
existing oak woodland or riparian vegetation within the medium-high density
residential area. A total of 230 trees are estimated to be removed from this
area, representing approximately 3% of the total estimated trees on the site.
The Applicant proposes to culvert Donlan Creek underground through the
medium-high density residential area making the creek unavailable through this
portion of the site, for wildlife and riparian vegetation (see Attachment 4,
Policies 3.1.A, 7.1.A, 7.1.D and 7.1.E) .
The Applicant proposes to replace the 230 trees removed within this area
on a 3:1 ratio and to create a new riparian habitat corridor along the east
and west sides of the multi-family development area. The new habitat corridor
is proposed to consist of a dry rock lined swale four to six feet in width
planted with native trees and shrubs along the banks.
The EIR contains mitigation requiring a detailed tree survey and grading
study at the Tentative Map and Prezoning stage of the planning process to save
as many trees as possible. The EIR finds that with the mitigation measures,
no significant negative environmental impacts are anticipated.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council find that
the proposed medium high density residential land use with the mitigation
measures is consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan policies
relating to oak woodlands, riparian vegetation and stream corridors.
Processing Issues
1. Environmental Impact Report: The processing issue is to determine
whether the EIR is complete and adequate.
The Final EIR for the Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment is comprised
of the Draft EIR published March 24, 1989 and the Final EIR Response to
Comments document published June 15, 1989 prepared by EIP Associates. The
most significant impacts identified in the EIR (see Attachment 2 Summary of
Impacts and Mitigation) relate to:
1. Removal of oak woodland riparian habitat
2. Visual impacts of grading and unit development
3. Traffic impacts to Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council find
that the Final EIR is complete and adequate.
2. EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program: The processing issue is to determine
whether the Monitoring Program will adequately monitor the project mitigation
established in the EIR. The Monitoring Program identifies the specific
-3-
mitigation measure, at what stage of the development process implementation of
the mitigation measure will occur and, who will be responsible for compliance
with the mitigation measure.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the Monitoring Program as adequate to monitor the EIR mitigation
measures established for this project.
3. General Plan Amendment Land Use Designation and Density: The processing
issue is to determine whether the proposed GPA land use designations are
appropriate for the site. The proposed General Plan Amendment includes 1) a
Low-Density Single-Family Residential designation (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre) located
in the northeastern portion of the site adjacent to the Hansen Hill Ranch
project, 2) a Medium-High Density Residential designation (14.1 to 25
DU/Acre) located in the southern portion of Donlan Canyon and 3) an open space
designation for the remainder of the site.
Low Density Single-Family Residential
The Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment proposes 13 acres/17 single-
. family lots within the low-density designation. This density range could
yield between 6.5 - 49 DU/Acre. The actual number of units is determined at
the Tentative Map and Planned Development stage, not the General Plan
Amendment stage. The proposed land use designation is compatible with the
adjacent land use designations and is consistent with existing General Plan
policies relating to transitions between residential developments.
Medium-High Density Residential
The Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment proposes 19.1 acres/300 units
for the Medium-High Density designation. This density range would yield
between 269 to 477 dwelling units. The precise number of dwelling units
permitted will be determined at the Tentative Map and Prezoning phase of the
planning process. The Applicant's proposed unit count would result in 15.7
DU/Acres within the Medium-High Density area.
Designation of the site for medium-high density will not adversely
impact existing single-family neighborhoods in that the location of the site
effectively isolates the project from single-family neighborhoods within the
vicinity and does not require traversing any existing residential
neighborhoods to obtain access to the site. The proposed General Plan
Amendment is consistent with policies relating to transition between single-
family neighborhoods and higher density residential neighborhoods and
development on flatter portions of the site.
Open Space
The Applicant proposes 164.9 acres as open space. Designation of this
acreage as open space is consistent with the General Plan policies relating to
preservation of oak woodlands and 30% slopes.
Ownership and maintenance of the proposed open space area is more
appropriately addressed at the Tentative Map and Prezoning phase of the
project review. At that time it must be determined whether the City, East Bay
Regional Parks, a Homeowners Association or combination of organizations will
own and maintain the open space area. During the Tentative Map and Prezoning
process the City may consider requiring the developer to provide improvements
within the open space area in compliance with General Plan policies relating
to open space.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the
proposed General Plan Amendment.
-4-
._ BUST 14, 1989 CITY COUNCIL MEET- .
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY SHEET
PA 87-012 DONLAN CANYON EIR/GPA
NOTE TO PUBLIC:
AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY COMMENT
ON EACH NUMBERED ISSUE LISTED BELOW. TO MAINTAIN THE FOCUS ON EACH ISSUE, PERSONS
DESIRING TO COMMENT SHOULD LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES ON THE FLOOR. IF YOUR
COMMENTS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE MADE BY OTHER SPEAKERS, PLEASE MAKE YOUR STATEMENT, BUT
TRY TO AVOID ;NEEDLESS REPETITION. PRIOR TO SPEAKING, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
AND GENERAL SUBJECT OF YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
THE FOLLOWING FORMAT WILL BE FOLLOWED FOR EACH NUMBERED ISSUE:
1. Staff presentation
2. Applicant presentation
3. Public comments
4. Applicant response
S. Council discussion and action
PROJECT: Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Report
to include 197+ acre site within the City's Primary Planning Area. Proposed
General Plan Amendment includes: Acreage Units
Low Density Single-Family Residential (0.5 - 3.8 DU/Acre) 13 17
Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 - 25 DU/Acre) 19.1 300
Open Space; Stream Corridor 164.9 N/A
# # # # # # # # # # # # MAJORPOLICY ISSUES
# # # # # * # # # # # # # * # #
1. RIDGELIKE - Low Density SF Residential Area - Is the proposed residential land use on
the knolls consistent with General Plan ridgeline policies?
a. Required Action: Determine consistency with existing General Plan policies
relating to ridgelines (Policies: 2.1.4C, 3.3.E, 3.3F).
b. Staff Recommendation: Consider issue and make determination.
c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Proposal is consistent with General Plan
policies.
2. OAK WOODLAND - Low Density SF Residential Area - Is the proposed residential land use
located within the oak woodlands consistent with the intent of the General Plan policies
requiring preservation of oak woodlands?
a. Required Action: Determine consistency with existing General Plan policies
relating to preservation of oak woodlands (Policies: 3.1.A, 3.1.B).
b. Staff Recommendation: Proposal with mitigation is consistent with policy intent.
c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Same as Staff recommendation.
3. OAK WOODLAND/RIPARIAN VEGETATION REMOVAL - Medium High Density Residential - Is the
proposed multi-family land use with implementation of mitigation measures consistent
with the intent of the General Plan policies relating to preservation of oak
woodland/riparian habitats?
a. Required Action: Determine consistency with existing General Plan policies
(Policies: 3.1A, 7.1.A, 7.1.D, 7.1.E)
b. Staff Recommendation: Proposal with mitigation is consistent with policies.
c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Same as Staff recommendation.
a
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PROCESSING ISSUES
1. EIR - Is the EIR complete and adequate?
a. Required Action: Adopt resolution relating to EIR.
b. Staff Recommendation: Adopt resolution finding EIR is complete and adequate.
c. Plannin; Commission Recommendation: Same as Staff recommendation.
2. EIR MONITORING PROGRAM - Does the EIR Monitoring Program provide adequate monitoring
of the project EIR mitigation measures?
a. Required Action: Adopt resolution relating to EIR monitoring program.
b. Staff Recommendation: Adopt resolution approving EIR monitoring program.
c. Planning Commission Recommendation: Same as Staff recommendation.
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - Does the proposed General Plan Amendment represent
appropriate land use desi;nations for the site?
a. Required Action: Adopt resolution relating to General Plan Amendment.
b. Staff Recommendation: Adopt resolution approving General Plan Amendment.
c. Plannin; Commission Recommendation: Same as Staff recommendation.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, FOR PA 87-012 DONLAN CANYON
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held five public hearings on PA 87-012
Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment and EIR on May 1 and 15, 1989, June 19,
1989, July 5, 1989, and July 17, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , together with
the State CEQA guidelines, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project has been
prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
89-042 recommending City Council certification of the Donlan Canyon EIR (PA
87-012) as complete and adequate; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1989, the City Council held a public hearing to
consider Donlan Canyon EIR (PA 87-012) and General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the written and oral testimony
submitted at the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received and reviewed the Staff analysis and
recommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation on the environmental
effects of Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment (PA 87-012) ; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR dated March 24, 1989 and
Final EIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR dated June 15, 1989, which
documents are incorporated herein by this reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
find as follows:
1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and hereby
finds and certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in conformance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the State EIR
guidelines.
2. The City Council hereby finds that there are significant adverse impacts
which can be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened by changes or
alterations required in or incorporated into the project, as follows:
.. . _.. __...1•J .J _
15 'b!Z Tont&&d {Cbt
a. The General Plan Amendment would allow certain growth and land use
changes and intensification in the project area. However, changes
and intensification must be consistent with and conform with the
land use designations and policies of the City's existing General
Plan and the General Plan Amendments.
b. Project construction could impact oak/bay woodland vegetation on
site. However, mitigation measures will be incorporated into the
development phase of the project which will reduce these impacts.
Mitigation will include:
i. Temporary fencing shall be provided during construction for
those areas not to be graded.
ii. Detailed tree survey/horticultural report, tree preservation
study and tree replacement plan- and revegetation plan shall
be undertaken and recommendations implemented.
iii. Grading study shall try to save as many trees as possible.
Trees with trunk diameter greater than 6 inches shall be
replaced with similar native species on a 3 to 1 basis.
iv. Oak woodlands located within the proposed low density single
family residential area shall be preserved as open space. PD
Prezoning regulations and CC&R's shall restrict development,
prohibit grading and prohibit tree removal.
C. Project construction would disturb riparian habitat areas.
However, impacts will be minimized in that the following mitigation
will be implemented with project development:
i. A new riparian habitat corridor as approved by the California
Department of Fish & Game shall be created with minimum 20 to
40 feet width.
ii. Revegetation with native species shall be undertaken within
riparian habitat and graded areas.
d. Project construction could impact wildlife with culverting the
lower portion of Donlan Creek through proposed Lot 1 and removal of
riparian and oak woodlands will reduce wildlife habitats and reduce
availability of water for wildlife. However, the following
mitigation will reduce this impact:
i. Disturbed areas shall be revegetated.
ii. An additional length of new habitat shall be established op.
the west side of Lot 1.
e. Project construction could impact visual quality. However, the
following mitigation will reduce this impact:
i. Site specific visual impact study shall be undertaken and
recommendation implemented.
-2-
ii. A visual berm shall be incorporated to effectively screen
views of single family area from I-580.
iii. Mature trees shall be planted along visual berm to screen
single-family residential and water tanks.
iv. PD Prezoning regulations shall restrict development within
areas of high visual constraints.
f. Project construction could impact soils and geology conditions
resulting in reactivation or initiation of slope instability with
grading activities, landscaping and related irrigation associated
with the proposed development. However, the following mitigation
will reduce this impact:
i. Project specific grading plans, detailed geotechnical reports
and soils engineer recommendations concerning slides and
other soils and geologic conditions shall be reviewed and
implemented at the subdivision stage of the planning process.
ii. All construction shall comply with Uniform Building Code.
g. Project construction could increase flooding potential. However,
the following mitigation minimize the impact to an insignificant
level:
i. A maintenance program for the culvert and upstream open creel'
shall be established.
ii. A detention basin and on-site upstream, from the I-580
culvert shall be constructed.
iii. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be implemented
during construction.
h. Project construction could increase fire risk. However, the
impacts will be reduced by the following mitigation:
i. The project development will incorporate mitigation measures.
DRFA (Fire Department) requirements including non-combustible
roofs, automatic fire suppression system.
ii. Payment of fire impact fee as contribution to fund
construction of future fire station.
i. Project construction could result in noise impacts. However, the
following mitigation will reduce the impacts to an insignificant
level:
i. The proposed multi-family development shall comply to Title
25 requirements relating to noise insulation.
ii. Construction work activities shall be limited to weekday
daylight hours.
-3-
j . Project development when combined with the cumulative impacts of
other projects have the potential for decrease in the level of
service (LOS) at Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road to LOS F and will
impact the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate drive.
However, implementation of mitigation to widen the eastbound
intersection to have two right turn lanes, two left turn lanes and
two through lanes will minimize the potential impact and reduce LOS
to an acceptable level. In addition, mitigation to redesign the
Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive intersection and to widen
Dublin Boulevard will minimize the impacts.
3. The City Council hereby finds that there are identified insignificant
impacts, as follows:
a. Development within the project site could impact parks, recreation,
telephone, gas, electric and other utilities. However, the
potential impacts are considered insignificant in that project
specific mitigation will be established and implemented at
subsequent levels of review. Additionally, costs for utilities
will be borne by the developer and homeowner.
b. Development in the project site would generate an increase in
demand for water and sewer services. However, the capacity of the
facilities are anticipated to be adequate to accommodate the
increased demand so as to render the potential impacts
insignificant.
C. Development within the project site will generate an increase in
school enrollment and a corresponding increase in school operating
costs. However, the potential impact is considered insignificant
in that the student increase is considered within the facilities
capacity and State law allows school districts to impose
development impact fees.
d. Development of the project site will result in an insignificant
impact to historic and archaeological resources in that there are
no known historic or archaeological resources on the site.
Additionally, mitigation will be implemented during the
construction stage of development requiring construction activity
to stop and retention of a qualified archaeologist to examine the
site if archaeological material is encountered during the project
construction.
4. The City Council hereby finds that six (6) alternatives, as more fully
set forth in the Final EIR, were considered and are found to be
infeasible, for specific economic, social or other considerations, as
follows:
Alternative --1 - No Project
The "no project" alternative assumes that the site would remain in open
space, allowing one dwelling unit on the site. The "no project"
alternative fails to provide needed housing, along with the associated
increase in property tax revenues, and is thus considered infeasible.
-4-
Alternative #2 - Mitigation Alternative
This alternative assumes 171 acres of proposed open space. Single family
lots would be reduced to 6 due to visual constraints. Multi-family would
remain as proposed. Public service impacts would be slightly reduced.
There would be a small reduction in traffic flow on proposed Hansen Hill
Ranch site. This alternative is infeasible in that it would not meet the
housing needs or associated tax revenue.
Alternative #3 - Neighborhood Context
This alternative assumes restrictions to development according to lot
size, slope and biotic resources. The proposed 171 acres of open space
would be eliminated as the entire 197 acre site would be open for
development consideration. Only single family would be considered with a
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Allowable density would be 3.3
to 3.5 du/acre. Development would be scattered throughout the site on
approximately 60 acres considered developable. Traffic generated would
be less. There would be a decrease in continguous wildlife habitat, a
decrease in visual quality. This alternative is infeasible in that it
would not provide an adequate number of housing units and the associated
increase in the property tax revenues.
Alternative #4 - Single Family Low Density
This alternative assumes single family development over the entire 197
acre site. Density range would be .5 to 2.8 DU/acre. The 171 acres of
open space would be eliminated. Developable acreage would be similar to
Alternative 3. Total number of units would range from 30 to 168.
Impacts would be similar to neighborhood context alternative with
exception of a decrease in visual impact due to reduction in number of
units. This alternative is infeasible in that it would not meet housir.z
needs or associated tax revenue. v
Alternative #5 - Medium Low Density Mutli-Family
This alternative assumes multi-family on the site. A density of 6.1 to
8.0 DU/acre on 16 acres would be allowed resulting in 98 to 128 units.
This alternative would result in slight decreases in traffic flow, noise,
required public services. This alternative is infeasible in that it
would not meet the housing needs or associated tax revenue.
Alternative #6 - Medium Density Multi-Family
This alternative assumes 6.1 to 14 DU/Acre on 16 acres with a unit yield
of 98 to 224. Single family development would not be considered.
Impacts would be similar to Alternative #5. This alternative is
infeasible in that it would not meet the housing needs or property tat
revenues.
-5-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby certify that the
Final EIR for General Plan Amendment PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon is complete and
adequate with the mitigation measures, stipulations and corrections, and
directs that the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR be incorporated
in the implementation of the General Plan, as amended.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August, 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-6-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR PA 87-012 DONLAN CANYON
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code 21081.6 requires the City to adopt a
reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions imposed
to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in order to ensure
compliance during project implementation; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1989, the Planning, Commission recommended City
Council certification of the Donlan Canyon EIR as complete and adequate, and
recommended City Council adoption of the Donlan Canyon EIR mitigation
monitoring program; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1989, the City Council held a noticed public
hearing to consider PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon EIR/GPA; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
certifying the Donlan Canyon EIR (PA 87-012) as complete and adequate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does adopt
the "Donlan Canyon EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program" attached hereto as
Attachment B-1 as the monitoring program required by Public Resources Code
21081.6.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August, 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk ---
13
TA
PA 87-012 DONLAN CANYON
EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
JULY 5, 1989
The Applicant shall be responsible for any and all costs incurred in
monitoring mitigation measures.
For detailed information on impacts and mitigation measures refer to Donlan
Canyon Environmental Impact Report.
RESOURCE IMPACT MONITORING ACTION VERIFICATION
Geology/ Slope Instability, 1. The developer submits 1. Planning Dept
Soils landslides, expansive grading plans in con- with Public
soils, quality of junction with T.Map Works Dept.
artificial fill Planning application input
(in terms of physical
and chemical
characteristics)
2. Prior to grading, 2. Public Works
developer submits Department &
specific soils report/ Building Dept
geotechnical report and
erosion control/main-
tenance plan, with
improvement plans.
Grading permits will not
be issued unless plans
reflect recommendation
of soils report/geotech-
nical report, erosion
control and maintenance
plan.
3. Prior to grading the 3. Alameda Co.
developer submits site Health Care
safety plan for protection Services,
of construction workers. Dept of
(hydrocarbon contamination) Environmental
Health
with Public
Works Dept,
input.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrology Increased Flooding 1. Developer submits drainage 1. Public Works
Potential plans/hydrology report in Department
conjunction with T.Map
application. Grading
permits will not be issued
unless plans reflect recom-
mendation in hydrology report.
A MW a ff T
L N
Nam
c
IL19
E wit,Ean
eR �
'Pty X1.012 'DWMCLn CAn46v% �R
RESOURCE IMPACT MONITORING ACTION VERIFICATION
Hydrology 2. See #2 Monitoring Action 2. Public Works
(cont'd) Geology/Soils erosion and Department
sediment control plan
submitted by Developer. ,
3. Developer obtains 3. State Dept of
necessary permits for Fish & Game,
work in creek areas. U.S. Army
Corp of Engrs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetation/ Oak/Bay Woodland 1. The Developer submits 1. Planning Dept
Wildlife riparian vegetation detailed tree survey/ with input
wildlife horticultural report, from Public
tree preservation study, Works and
landscape plan, tree Dept of Fish
replacement plan and and Game
revised habitat revege-
tation in conjunction
with T.Map and Prezoning
Planning Application.
2. Qualified biologist con- 2. Planning Dept
ducts a systematic with input
inventory of site to from US Dept
determine presence of of Fish and
San Joaquin kit fox. Wildlife
City hires biologist,
developer funds cost.
3. Prior to grading, the 3. Public Works
developer submits plan for Dept. with
temporary fencing around input from
areas not to be graded to Planning Dept
protect riparian or oak/bay
woodland area not intended for
grading or construction.
4. The Developer, in conjunc- 4. Planning Dept
tion with T.Map and Prezoning with input
application submits specific from Public
proposal for dedication and Works Dept
maintenance of open space
area, or include in CC&R's
and dedicate scenic easement.
-2-
J L! 11 *h _ CJI t t t J yF
Y,
RESOURCE IMPACT MONITORING ACTION VERIFICATION
Vegetation/ 5. Developer submits PD 5. Planning Deptt
Wildlife Pre-zoning regulations with input
(cont'd) restricting development, from Public
prohibiting grading, and Works Dept.
tree removal within the
woodland area located
within the proposed low
density single-family
residential area and/or
includes restrictions in
CC&R's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aesthetics/ Unit Visability 1. Developer submits site 1. Planning Dept
Visual Quality I-580/I-680 specific visual impact
study in conjunction w/T.Map
and Prezoning application.
2. Developer submits 2. Public Works
revised grading plan with Planning
with T.Map application. Dept input
3. Developer submits PD regu- 3. Planning Dept
lations restricting with Public
development on portions of Works input
site having "high" visual
constraints.
4. Developer submits prelim- 4. Planning Dept
inary landscape plan in
conjunction with T.Map and
Prezoning application.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Fire, Police 1. Developer submits prelim- 1. Planning Dept
Security inary landscape plans incor- with DRFA
porating fire resistant input
plants in conjunction with
T.Map and Prezoning application.
2. Developer submits plans in 2. DRFA, Building
compliance with Fire and Dept. Planning
Building code regulations in Dept. , and
conjunction with T.Map and Public Works
prior to issuance of building Department
permits including fire proof
roofing, automatic fire
suppression system, and main-
tenance and emergency access
to open space.
-3-
RESOURCE IMPACT MONITORING ACTION VERIFICFTIO
Public 3. Prior to final inspection 3. Dublin Police
Service the Developer complies Dept. and
(cont'd) with Police security Building Dept
requirements
4. Developer pays fire impact 4. DRFA
fee per unit and per square
footage of non-dwelling
unit buildings as contribu-
tion to further fire station
needs.
----------.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parks 1. Developer complies with 1. Public Works
subdivision ordinance and Planning
requirements for parkland Departments
dedication or park in-lieu
fee prior to Final Map.
2. Developer submits proposal 2. Recreation
for public access to open Dept and
space and dedication of open Planning
space at the subdivision and Department
prezoning stage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic/ Dublin Boulevard/ 1. Developer constructs 1. Public ;corks
Circulation San Ramon Road improvements or contri- Department
intersection; butes share of cost with input
Dublin Boulevard/ of improvement prior to from traffic
Silvergate Final Map. consultant
intersection
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise Generated by I-580 1. Developer submits site 1. Building Dept
specific acoustical with input
analysis study in con- from Planning
junction with Site Department V
Development Review
application, complies
with recommendations during
building permit and con-
struction stage. Developer
installs soundwalls and/or
sound deading windows and
walls, if necessary.
-4-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
FOR PA 87-012 DONLAN CANYON
WHEREAS, the Donlan Canyon Associates/Paragon Group have requested a
General Plan Amendment Study to designate 197+ acres currently in the
unincorporated portion of Alameda County, within the City of Dublin's Primary
Planning Area as low-density single-family residential, medium-high density
residential, and open space/stream corridor land use designations; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 1986, the City Council authorized a General Plan
Amendment Study for the Donlan Canyon property; 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, the Planning Commission held five (5) noticed public hearings on
the Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Report planning
applications on May 1, 1989; May 15, 1989; June 19, 1989; July 5, 1989; and
July 17, 1989 and two noticed field trips on February 27, 1988 and May 13,
1989; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant
to CEQA and the Commission recommended certification of the EIR as complete and
adequate; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
89-044 recommending approval of PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment;
and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1989, the City Council held a noticed public
hearing on PA 87-012 Donlan General Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS, notice of City Council public hearing was published in the
newspaper, posted in public buildings, and mailed to property owners within 300
feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and
?-
Al!, —Dili D®Ater CA%ggn
WHEREAS, the Staff analysis was submitted recommending amendments to the
General Plan relating to General Plan Land Use Designation and Density and the
Primary Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Staff recommendation, Planning
Commission recommendation and all written and oral testimony submitted at the
public hearings; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
making findings and certifying the Donlan Canyon EIR (PA 87-012) as
complete and adequate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
find that:
- Utilities and public safety services will be provided at urban
standards without financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses.
- Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the
ridgelands.
- Timing of development will not result in premature termination of
viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands.
- The fiscal impact of new residential development in the Extended
Planning Area supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the
fiscal base of the remainder of the City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby approve
the following General Plan Amendments for PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon:
1. Amend Figure 1 Dublin General Plan Primary Planning Area to include
the Donlan Canyon site (APN 941-018-03 and APN 941-018-04) within the Primary
Planning Area.
2. Amend the land use designation on the Donlan Canyon site as noted
on Attachment C-1 to include:
164.9+ acres Open Space; Stream Corridor
13+ acres Low Density Single Family Residential
(0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre)
19.1+ acres Medium High Density Residential
(14.1 to 25 DU/Acre)
3. Amend Table 1, Development Policies for Residential sites, page 8
and Figure 4 sites for Housing Development page 9 adding the Donlan Canyon
General Plan Amendment site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby direct the Staff
to edit, format and print the up-to-date Dublin General Plan with all approved
revisions.
-2-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby direct that the
Applicant is responsible for all costs the City incurs in providing an up-to-
date Dublin General Plan resulting from the adoption of PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon
General Plan Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of August, 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
j;
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-
- ----------'- --- - . . GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT MAP
- TRACT N0. 5926
DONLAN CANYON .
DONLAN CANYON ASSOCIAMS
__�� \•��� '''"may,--� s':i'': .•:,:::�: ( .•.
17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
71N �: :-:<�::<:'ss�:;.: � �-.,:-•. 13,0 ACRES
`_ l "�•-•— -�'\` ;st,.::.:;.<4;�;?;:.. ' '• 1.3 UNITS / ACRE 1535 OLYMPIC BLVD WALNUT CREEK,CA.94596
• :.>;"•"
- , - OPEN SPACE / PARK LAND
'�;�•..; >i�`;,': 'si;; ��`>�z:::"
lG4.9 ACRES
ACRES INCLUDING GRADED AREAS,
171 oJe
. �,,� tom, ,• ,�.�;.. _ . ' .:=.--}_--__�_=_:_.., ��, �,'� -` �,��,
�. •x�M' r =_" : � - - ` _. �� t 300 CONDOMINIUM / APARTMENT UNITS
O , • ,.= v .. _ :E� _ __ � ---_t. _ ` 19.1 ACRES
15.7 UNITS / ACRE
:ALE t I' a 400'
�"� / �-•�. 1, ���.-_��' �==--�.,. ..
400 Boo
-
' � � � + + � t r/ 1 J. 7rpr h � t{r JI j +�' T t t�fq r /f, +}•� tt
-
C � �':�yi;', ,t,`I 2.�e j 1 {Si,TM r� x r d ll, ..^�.r /v /•' ���Zr;:::';li�Y., �, t f.�I. "i
• � � �':1. �/, ,.e''w. :I' .. + .t t,.,l{!Ve„ .f: ,. y V.t tt ,'x•r• ,. .. . ..
G
/iiK•i.a:,:,.u..,:.hi,.ti:fit+::...,r1.ew:i4`�tlt��..:r.ttr`�444uii:l::;t{:d4s?S`'+J�/dh1�:'iP•i+�x�ar. d.•.ti,.,.its.�.wwak':X.i•.•n:d+..dsi.1.W2e+lit:e-wr+nl.�+;•nwr?�a•.�!«.u.1v+.t�+aM:w, a* � r.'�i::.'Hwr..o:.�...
r
'r
r 21
,
,
'
1i !t { ,f u{y✓ r'i Jt ';.y d`rF LL�J Gx.h i. � 1 Y Y� �' ( r, � { �t��':
- c r r r L tr (' � �d• 4 + .F _ -Y1,1'AY a
4 i 1111 ti � t •Lk r✓ r t t f �. t 4 - v� i
y l:rr i lr , r d .'�:^{fl 4i r1.....t 4 f t'ri Irr �'` 7�'' a.,, {.1 x t tY/ � �T rt - J '� f Y it!t t G+ •4 r�� , I i` r Y ''t 't 1�a
+ t,y.r.,yt J ^.tl�,.;�,sk rJ. 7{'A, t.:•Ix t+ t a { v» F r } �t I"r -s
4 t' ('u,• � .( 5,y� �i. }t Sht': rr, x. �" i,a,"{1. ;('t'�gt;„ry�: t CI t?-rx + F-' a;,<,.y,".``�'%�.=i 1l
t-� t�.0 -'`Ir' i.�li"r�r.�a.•';.'t 'C(;:.,r4,, 'ua ;�,{�{ f`;.,• = xi-r.��,,,>„ .r =;'�s�..�..F°'Cy"�}, >rr; [�',;:�:Fa:- ,_:a_l..�l�,fit.-:a >.to tiff
�:�::�. �..., J. Y,t t1�i:lY r dkf•� i ."�frr l S* { p-"�''t,,,{r t "}t 4 ttr,r '�" t -� �# ,
i �; I� h r FZnlz ;,1 r 1 14 1' �° r t t� f': K it . a o'li �" Jas ('��'���5r J�a„-, ,t!,�„i'y. ,r M'r+' ti��< �,}.1:� . .4 } r .,r �'•,�y�4 ',y ?'v -+i
�i
{r'° �F : ,: P5'd` ..:3f Sr �. p r t t.w« C i tt 1 {. i" 4 d +•', � .�. 'fir r,-yt � t.r- f
� •`_ )I.
II7 .tini .- p s t..tit '. 'r. ,' Je � 1. <AlI w -.'�r-• [{ y_ 2 F t i
11./:.'ir yI�F K S. yt�''- {r< - �b*fit•. t r � +t`-�' .'f- t'dJ S }"-^1.� ki y,14~`+.'� t,r F'c,.l'1'i'r y.:.��r'�K.. fib- rv�S..Yy.��' ;5r, ��' Y C".'�,'..I r s:i ti� :.e}j�i+br{;"`'}S�;S.e+�.:t.."
tl+.�t•t ) r t'f iyr t+:� n Jr CI.. ,<,tir �>w l 1. {�, rf r�.-. ,'.L'}t L"•.f:Y y.bi rr1-�t c �'3.y5 ~'�P.<a z i•:i '`' b 1 J� ;1 t2 � ) ,! '}r-s-r1:fY, t-Ct.
_t,4Y•{ x ,., ) } c x i k
i
'�
{ r •i- a`G� .�jk�tY r y �'� r;-� tt"tr rt _1 { { },}
ry
a r n J t - r ,rr :"' �,•� n X. -� r y r i r c ka
art "-7 t { t l .. I 4, t x+�a5 {• 3 x `k YJ cr tv ?*•n '•{ w. r •}�,,' - h i 't �'r r Y..
�r i I 3• t r-' •} r a-�3 x.' ^. '4 �. a. '7"� -- t t J L. t,;n..,
Il�d°,+N t t '' '.t ..� z3 1 r ; J J - T t .. t t tr•��a�' t r'r t,y.t f a lY:t�'s a;
a t •�� .)•�y t➢ y I j E s O�i. �I-�f� �l yt�Il 'O��ci isa, a5f}� rY iii '� � ,1ui,r L' rr.�tr�'� { r 7
r 'V Z Jr�'JY rt rtJ f P, t '.Y 7 :t ti 44t r r l
t x. I '�• J,t i J•i °t5 i'R iP{xd ry. t /��/]y 1j///yII- r a t� 'Jrt k _i.._7 k�:"/,/�/]//)rIP; ai,�/r/`/'j y��,>tf tai r f�,i, Iry"r'.,rlr6 +- .�{"� 4d � std f 4 r;r'�r'3r;,-:
1,• J y � ,+ �i\V Gr II�t YIIx �i ,/I'V I/ 1 i7> �. .+ J 2 "�r t} k° tf
OGCt' •' f. J { ..', t t. ' ,f 'F, y -s � 13 i 6 .t ., "r t ;: � 1, i r w S 1 }} a +. W 1F 55.�'
~y .«.5;4' jZT "•s ;. �}.i.{irJ � � t r»{��' {� �`r�(t t;r.:t`t 1J r � yfi A ��)t F•$<+:3 f !a H"J.?y )1 1L,°f ,E h f r tr J .t t}y. ✓) i� t - y It1' R :n
" t r
Y7 � 1 O4OV� 37..^;
[@`r t a,. •(. t r ? r 1 t i�a:, t; i✓r i p-s4•,� .[r -1� +) L a. 1,+ i sr, t. .y i t J t {. .,) pf }�+i �1� :
'c..l�'.4{ y,, `3�A k. ♦i:y fir�Sr
♦ .rt th .? o' - .r �fE. f: `[, + ts->.
�JI Jt�� i - rJ �Jl }.. n '(*>r h '�}! r'C•�f >r tY'3G � '.. s.,ar '} V � s } Y xi, L'�"Y >
t
y f}fa j`-..� l 4 "�.ra5,rn,tt i.+.} -# rr t`' r >r �:tr:17^ 1 1.nt ,'L f yr.'�r•i'� t" �".
�} i�::1 + i,`� y-�....( ❑ ":'tip`, r11+� -�' 'cttl7 rj-'i'Srtt .)� t. zt t x. .y i t S����� ikk}'c,p,r i.l,y":mot � ,I't"...tJ
t ar Y u Jt 7•,a t r
tx
Jr ,t _ '>. 7�i^ r� r t fy E'L,g r ,1 t �.ay`u•�r K i). '�-v�Y'"�-22}' k r'T c- 't'}r.'? t ' tir ti �rSM 7 t t 3� { "rr � .c..P 4 y t"1 y`'
a ,{'t: '� '{ Y-r. "+, tf:a r .}'rf.'t.'t• to! r ! �Y trvC 'f'c iJ, r�A,'. 4.'S cu`-1'. rs�rF �+� i- �i 3 �• S� ::tt X 'tt i. •, rYi s 'vim t fit` r� �1}.-.:
i
1.::;.• ,'J. `Ji...' -fY..-.is r ,YL iti,? ¢ ',:.,5 i�pi;. } c•tS ?...1t� .{r, ,r � 1.�,� y :rf`�i Jtl6 ,..i ,4-tM1-J.. S.4 it J f..-.}r 1 .-F Pt )IYy;Sr< Y,h '•t �-. .:
r:�, �' li;< ft,, '±t;� .::5.f l..�.�, "{a� a9'1'i.F�a '�1'•fl4i �'j�r eF 41t..-�,1: {j2i� "ii�L.t.�....' 4 /: �`t[� 's f) +i`. .} 4'�r Y,. (f :.., 8 's': 5j �. F. ,�, :� ^h
r
i
[, Ii4ra r } i t�>•w �. { +, "C[ t <, i, t. v'�h'; 1'�.. Y 1�� �{{ n ii �+' t } -n •Y. r St Ft•.r.4.v
<
l J ,.d ;�:, "t} ''t,�..r`� *t,l {t .ij y 1 t . >( 43. t-.; 1�` r r .r S y { „ .f ,( �• la ._ a {x f'.1-
9as,'.
r.
+ " - r- a J t q }•� 4
`WI. :i•t (.LCrY F YS .y1 Y 4 sY `t ter! t 4i� ti K�1J tt i- �r ,err r'r r ik � U`' "
�ryg9�C J... r -1;• 't'S. r.',3. .a:y `.ti 7,t �?f ..'i�ryi '3`r1 Ga:�kf.lt y.+...., ,..�"i,h + .. �_.', }�r�J�a '�' t ,.; .�,+• �(` ^..:;;1m�i�lr'k -ka.l�,. �.�ti+yJ,r• A.q, rr.. t-�r;},;
@B t;1 7 } .,R�.. 1J1 _It y :i. r ( .t �l4 -Y}f• aY. ' 7 �fyf. \��7 ij.7 r t �T+,�T�:'•fl�,L '{ {j' 1Y k 1,,,, j -:i,;14 ry, 1 �:'l i r�
t
"'r J:' ,. . + f� T y, ,,,. t1 Y-�f r < yi � ''! ,y, B[c•t i,t•'t � N! 1 t to i s. rr v y f- ^42 B i� t oq 1 jot 1
�.... `i ,nT( t �J,., � � .�1 r ...c''1 z� +a4s �•:
t4 r':i:' J •[ t t C[6$! i 'l.$.J 5+; �-.ti 3: t,}Ts. ,,r,+,;tiYS.t "t'. I�._^-it; �. C ra �5r`"j�,'tr t,T�7 �rrt 7{a. t t`.t�t• '"r_ '{4 r r�� t'�6:a
r<'� tm tt`l.'.x.i yi f-w4# { .r �r'1 h.. ✓ { t 'it,�r'..T ',hr tr:� } ay r.�� 'hs�*,.
PY � �{ rsy..t� (� _t i,,, t�r�ry + : �a}JF' d lr
r t 3 s irJ _.J J h li:,.Tr(•+F[? �, / J y .y Y'}S r 7 Y' -
>ry t ' S1 r�T �,L i Y'•. (h,+'�4 r C i`v J rL r.i..t S� i - � L 7.'S' tr t� c --r �y IsN
Si F'
§P '•,;} _ ? r ! SY t-f
o k
j-rD
I�yr';f �F aJ+a-.'fs!iy lr. '•*. t ',r ,Y+r r> �K� t �_�f.,r'r <' .J.i y s,,,1k �A t' c 'f 't.+,.:r� i�
Y.�j!.1,:+}4i�f�;.('P).,'.{t Y3., .a�y�7..tdi {y ,ryM'. 1. :efY•,c?'r„.+C -;. 'i`.«': -J 4..5�r,�'-i.f•� H '"s,. 'f t �..xd �...1 k.: .,kJ f;r�r3(.+f N.. {ii n"r.,
h-ri}r - I 4 ' j{,.'J�,},. .<�'t?t ( fah�i;f �� J,,: i t' Jet's..�t°.'i i• ,r`��.:� 5. <.,s,1� yr.�+:5 r:."�:'} f..� /'{e.fi 1,.y,ryl,f r',.:s'^.1' �i.,;,�.;,Y '>,:. t7r s,^',z j'.L+ !1-.,:
J'ttL`�y ,y tr-� 1�.;1 r_ ..<t� i-rr ir'1 .n aka 4. ..i' ..• ;� ,'.' W .4 s'�{,n
t 7 � +� �gr Szr F 1 �. �^�f� J`rf} gat .r. t •ta. £ �i t �i F � �, 1 1 y dr ; r. �
I[V1�;NS 11I:fr A x•l rt:a 15�:4 eY { L A.. F� tg 4 +`f �..`'•,R 4 t x�a. -td ,,�t 2}�� � r [ r'i� Jiti�i::.'t �y -.7 ^� I+r.-p�•- t f er n'.
����Y>�iW 't3 a'f. ..+ir Eft'''yr [I a.: }�; .'fi. � 7�i...'i'�,'.'�.'-._`.c;,5 r.i. �l c.f 3f• Ttr a.:.r ,1 y s?
i.'C4 t !t'Y�,,�f t .t..� •t+,•tik. r.,{�;j„•S ys i.d �.}Y�`y.'n Pr:'ar� G t'z
�
•i. r,'t t.,:.rtr'-`>rf r,;f 4.�, z `it<s 2ir< h -k J..r w tJ-! y+ y L. rh y�J_,K �-�:..� r_£ tFi�., ,, �..i . . eJy Y � t �c i."r�1t t{a r ,
>sflr'i'.� .IY.: r 7�.t'.'.. 7 {?.a�,J''..1t1µt (,.:: f '1�i..n fl t' +T-F".',r {.lt:Ry �,: lif4...-�•�iJ?!J .�..�,/ f' tj'j'Ji F1 (I.lyl[t N'1' t:ri �[ q.�...i � Y :1.,. r �. cY ,�7't I 4-J�"4'lj`':
.,; ..{7JG�-`. �:.-ji�tif t•.r y7<,t '{`�' /,1 '.',aJl i-f 17'i}i,?Yrkt..�E`..'� zh w:.74�tj ,d i{ ..� rj.�r :f 4 �r, y ) 1 c -n,: JyY S4 ,S r � vi t,tal..
r 4; Y�l r .i l'1.?'i.,rl`;'`4�'t•C}Ji. t,rt�. z Jr'1 '�� ,;,tt, d'Y•4 yt �itiJ I{: t ?� 1 h''w-�1 a's}.,:
4 ti...' tT �t:'f7 a s r.i•' y{ � o � :. '_'t4 q.'�-.ya-�,
4 i;m a sf£ '#.mot X.3 T`1�` .JC �,rYt e r t't�k t•,+. r#,`{' a}` !t 7r'ti,•�aL �,E�if'`•�tt:
[{rt'S ( - b? j 1 c y r .t. .,y ,r, a. s.t. t, tS F'} r }.. J+. r3> :� tit t1�(. <,r ..e rT t -!. d i } -•4 l �',t a'� t C t F-s a if..'
4:. ,`.r/r s, � P}'yt�•�. C?t a- Y i S t 3 a w4 f•,f'r-S ktT ,�" y ��Y •, j Y, Ll,,:}'r� j �,�' r:K^r S t i t ,.Y.trF^ -v- 4 i+''. r+ Jn ? 1 kAyt � � t1.f.
+'t � rt•..,.� k '" u h '' r p, �• t .', � I i r s- ,F c•t 3 .3* ),'4, r `' ,a,�.P p 1, S. t<<�r y 6 is (" a s•s r,.J yr- r' i,
IrA.y�'(y- �-I..n'k. "� ';• t '+a..ywry{i fs ,i' 4� -siJr ty+j'.K,!'� ti rty } l..r�, rMi.,... � •-K,u�. 'f J .°�!�>ti": u� Lr' nJ.t,l. .ii. tiE, � � -I� �� .�,F,�. � � j..:
iaaf7{:;nit,tit 7y�1„L, .4y
4 r..r;•. t;- '-�•�..tr 'y a l.r -
.''. .ft+-.� - 4.t}.:f=..that4jl7 ' k:a'r'�taT' tL- J #ti ;us tkr��✓ rt`i-•,... 1 N a r rt z t x t „�:.y:�' FS ' }9.;a
'f
t-,:� f j .... � a.r i �t7 y4 t ,, 4' t ti Yti�a_ •tr -. ..}' �.,r..' 'z .2 r e.,. t' � . 1 'F t'i , C J t t aC
}1 t a�
(.. ., 4 ! '�'.' i { � f }.. a -t 'Y }I' r 1 rF r4J�- .A i•_ r h < w -Y( t� y.tr'. S f.
'" [ F -'at {"?• i y +: i*-r.. �..,) { t r -� J ?S• v �'r" .fr},
,(e: a' ■ t r �J} �' v Iti. .!i c } r "r.�F e a. c u: 1 + '� �"
1a
tt d.f.,,�1 7 ,e ,�, rr r'�Jy�f;,.C"::5 7r. ,44+ I L., "� FJ .'k '1�!.4.I-y'it 7}Y,.• �?;"f�.t r..JN t5 '` ,�y 'C t'�+..�.x t''aS; ,Ly i:.,,jt yr r .t%ii ij� - F t .,ti., r 'Br,f•. }�.�.
�i (t.�. ,,rit t- <�/ �r'yrrp'P '..i;?.-5 '`Sk°ti -��s sdr ,:Tf r �, : 5{t�{74 tl�i s.�vr Y�..t +•� 1 t 4 ��s �. iJ ..`ir t„ .h x ir.:` trJ t J ...
;4j1 1• F
`'• -4. * }J✓ s a f - � Y r�i '� � � �4 s,t4 { ' r' ••} ° � L�r�. L'i..
`1 s t d {;.t,all �!.1 �tlt � r (' A ' tNi t-Jt +, " t't r L
�X'4r, j8[ ¢��{g��y
4fg}'rr �z :r 5:.'t!,yL i.l=15y'•�r S ir}4T�1 yt ir �r f �i..iti Y x� Ir.-'• C1kr r`� J�
t t r
+�°4 1,',:.tir s Y �t�..,.-u reA Tlt'� °`�e2'� �ti�'t�E"r""�k'kr '}tia fr `rs •'e r - r�'j tt ,.q ,.: :tl t 7M
t-
�4.. :,} N4£ :.:.ri rtr- a yVt''r i?Ire C14�h �,. J,-YI rti};-{i+J 5�'ry_}. $ .; [ �"' � � � .Y (. t 2-y :st Lc. tv:+ ➢ � a•.i
J`t f�.+s; '} 4� Y7,T_J 7 }•. +,.�'S1, a, it4 i' ;+;{ F. Yr4 -+3..1 1� �= n e ' t e 'T ;:'.t.y 4 .t t � � '�h :(,a t J y r•T.dl 9 J'.rx 2�tt, r : J x +' S ;
lu
S.i V r: ' t ' .r}� I n-r f t Ct.,+ `7a}}nr {*� .} `•.rh,� J'f r Z b 2 � tr s. r
f' r„Cf.� f lr ti
A,srociate.r
r � ii S {{Ir{1• {„vka t y`3 S C 5 t J f aJ� n n y ! , ( r t
{)}L �{�! t i„ L 'G t.Yp.l L {t.l ? ,+,� Y t+J k }, ° J C � r+Ti. ,v P 4tl CI•.J a ,1 Yt r. I�
},tt
E
DONLAN CANYON
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
BY
EIP ASSOCIATES
150 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 1500
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 88100406
June 15, 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
/SEC E,V Page
1. INTRODUCTION JUN �D 1-1
� � 1y�9
2. LIST OF COMMENT SOURCES DUBLIN pIANNING 2-1
3. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-1
Letter 1 Dennis J. O'Bryant, The Resources Agency of California, Department 3-3
of Conservation
Letter 2 T.H. Lindenmeyer, East Bay Regional Park District 3-9
Letter 3 James D. Carson for James J. McKevitt, U.S. Department of the 3-11
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Letter 4 Richard Whitsel, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control 3-21
Board
Letter 5 Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee (PARC) 3-23
Letter 6 Michael Gleason, Donlan Canyon Ranch, Ltd. 3-41
Letter 7 Roger A. Mahany, Valley Christian Center 3-43
Letter 8 Douglas Abbott, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club 3-47
Letter 9 Chandler Lee, City of Pleasanton 3-51
Letter 10 Gary Adams, State of California, Department of Transportation 3-55
Letter 11 Detective Sergeant D. DiFranco #534, Dublin Police Department 3-57
Letter 12 Barbara Darlington, Dublin San Ramon Services District 3-59
Letter 13 Donna McIntosh, State of California, Department of Food 3-61
and Agriculture
Letter 14 Request by the Dublin Planning Commission 4-65
for Further Study, June 19, 1989.
Letter 15 Milton Feldstein, Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance District 3-71
Letter 16 Christian Gerike, California Archaeological Inventory 3-75
Letter 17 William Anthony Johnson, Native American Heritage Commission 3-77
Letter 18 Roderick A. Chisholm, II, Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, 3-83.
San Francisco District
Letter 19 Planning Commission Minutes May 1 and May 15, 1989 3-85
86184 i
1. INTRODUCTION
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Donlan Canyon residential
development was published on March 24, 1989. This addendum to the DEIR contains the
minutes of the May 1, 1989 and May 15, 1989 City of Dublin Planning Commission
meetings, in which public hearings on the proposed project were held. In addition, it
contains all written comments from local and State government agencies and groups
received during the review period. Together with the Draft EIR, the comments and
responses contained herein constitute the proposed project's Final EIR. This addendum
was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, Section 15146.
This addendum is organized by all letters of comment on the DEIR, followed by responses
to those comments. In the section for written comments, letters are identified as
"Letter 1, Letter 2" and so forth. Responses to written comments are placed directly
behind the comment letter. Comments within each letter are coded in the letter's margin
(for example 1-1) to refer to a specific response. In addition, minutes from the May 1 and
May 15, 1989 Planning Commission meetings are included as Letter 19. Comments not
addressed during the meetings are responded to herein. Otherwise, the comments were
responded to during the meeting and are noted by the minutes.
The response "Comment noted" addresses some comments. In these cases, the
"comments" are statements of position either for or against specific parts of the project
or the project as a whole. Since the views expressed are the opinions of the writers (or
speakers) rather than questions, it is appropriate that they be considered by the Planning
Commission and City Council when decisions regarding the project are made. Additional
facts presented by commentors, which do not require a response, are also acknowledged
by "Comment noted."
86184 1-1
1. Introduction
Copies of the Draft and Final EIRs as well as the project files and drawings are kept at
the following address:
City of Dublin
Planning Department
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
86184 1-2
2. LIST OF COMMENT SOURCES
1. Dennis J. O'Bryant, The Resources Agency of California, Department of
Conservation, May 3, 1989.
2. T.H. Lindenmeyer, East Bay Regional Park District, May 15, 1989.
3. James D. Carson for James J. McKevitt, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, May 8. 1989.
4. Richard Whitsel, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, May 10,
1989.
5. Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee (PARC), May 1, 1989.
6. Michael Gleason, Donlan Canyon Ranch, Ltd., May 25, 1989.
7. Roger A. Mahany, Valley Christian Center, May 12, 1989.
8. Douglas Abbott, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club, May 15, 1989.
9. Chandler Lee, City of Pleasanton, May 9, 1989.
10. Gary Adams, State of California, Department of Transportation, May 8, 1989.
11. Detective Sargeant D. DiFranco #534, Dublin Police Department, April 13, 1989.
12. Barbara Darlington, Dublin San Ramon Services District, May 3, 1989.
13. Donna McIntosh, State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture, May 4,
1989.
14. City of Dublin Planning Commission Meeting, June 19, 1989.
15. Milton Feldstein, Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance District, May 15, 1989.
16. Christian Gerike, California Archaeological Inventory, April 26, 1989.
17. William Anthony Johnson, Native American Heritage Commission, April 4, 1989.
18. Roderick A. Chisholm II, Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District, May 8, 1989.
19. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1989 and May 15, 1989.
86184 2-1
3. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
36184 3-1
JUN-i9-'89 MON}6:04 I D:CITY OF DUBLIN TEL ND:415 229 1528 #739 P02
t+
k 1b/d%1 1b:04 002
slor..f colifo.nt. THE k"OUltaS AOENCY OF CALIPOMA
Memorandum LETTER 1
To + Dr. Gordon F. Snore May :11 1989
Assistant 8ecretury for Resources
Vii' Draft Environmental
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran rMpact Report (EIR)
City of Dublin Planning Department for the Donlan
6500 Dublin Boulevard Canyon Ranch GPA,
Dublin, CA 94568 BCH* 88100406
From DtpnHmvnt•f Consaevn1kn—Offko 4 the Director
qua
The Department of conservation's Division of ineso and Geology
(DMG) has reviewed the Draft rT9 for,the ponlan Canyon stanch
General Plan Amendment project. We have the following
comments.
There are several seismic and geologic hazards which tray impact
the proposed project, including:
- very strong ground sthaKing from earthquakes on nearby
active faults, particularly the calaveras fault and
the Hayward fault;
- landslides and debris flows;
- potentially-unstable balks along Donlan Creek;
- liquefaction;
- settlement; and,
- expansive soils.
DMG commented oft the Nutiue of Prepa-eation (NOP) for this Draft
EIR ill our letter dated November 3, 1985, which is included in
Appendix t of the Draft EIR. The NOP included the preliminary
geologic:/geotechnical investigation for the site, entitled
"Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Donlan Canyon, Dublin,
California, April 8, 198 701, iby ENGEO, Inc. The Draft EiR refers
to the ENGEO report, although it is not Included in the Draft
EIR. our Comments refer to both the Draft EIR and the ENGEO
report.
For the most part, the geologic hazards, the impacts, and the
proposed mitigation measures ror this project have been addressed
in only general terms, not in the detail necessary for a project
of this type. Identification of the extent and severity or
importtint hazards which could have significant impacts on the
project has been deferred to ruturs geotechnical investigation.
Likewise, most of the mitigation measures depend on future
yavtechnical investigation to determine how they will be designed
and implemented. As noted in our comments on the NO?, Iuture
studles are not considered to be adequate mitigation for
potential impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) . xdditional geotechnical investigation is needed to
adequately define potential impacts and to formulate appropriate
JUN 19 189 16: 03 CITY OF DUBLIN PAGE .002
Dr'.. Gordon F. Snow -
Ms. .Mdureen O'Halloran
May 3 , 1989
Page Two
mitigative measures. The following comments address specific
geologic/seismic hazards which should be considered in greater
detail as part of the EIR process for this project.
LARGE LANDSLIDE NEAR DONLAN CANYON MOUTH
The slide is shown on Figure 3 of the ENGEO report to toe out at
or near the creek in the area of the proposed condominium/
apartment complex. The slide extends approximately 1000 ft.
along the creek, and 500 ft. upslope. No subsurface investiga-
tion has been done on this slide, but ENGEO considers it to be
deep-seated. ENGEO recommended additional investigation on the
slide to determine its dimensions and stability. The slide could
pose a significant hazard to the proposed apartment complex,
especially during a strong earthquake. It may not be feasible to
remove or stabilize this slide and, if so, a major portion of the
project could not be developed as presently proposed. DMG
suggests that subsurface investigation and dynamic slope
stability analysis be performed to determine the extent and
severity of this hazard, and to determine feasible and effective
mitigative measures. One possible mitigation would be to avoid
the area downslope which would be impacted if the slide were to
move.
SHALLOW LANDSLIDES AND POTENTIAL DEBRIS FLOWS
Based on the descriptions of geologic conditions in the ENGEO
report and the Draft EIR, it appears that there is the potential
for shallow, fast-moving debris slides to develop on the slopes
above the proposed apartment complex during heavy rain storms.
Such slides could significantly impact the apartment complex and
endanger the residents. No subsurface investigation has been '1
done on the slopes above the apartment complex to determine the
distribution or depth of slide-prone materials. We suggest that
sufficient subsurface investigation be done, prior to completion
of the Final EIR, to determine whether-removal/stabilization of
all landslide-prone materials is feasible. If not, avoidance of
areas within potential debris flow paths may be a necessary
mitigation measure.
CREEK BANK STABILITY
The ENGEO report noted that stability of Donlan Creek banks is a
concern, and recommended additional study of the banks within
proposed building areas. Earthquake effects often include the
lurching of stream banks toward the channel , which could
significantly damage any structure located on the stream bar�}c
CFJY
3-4
Dr. Gordon F. Snow
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
May 3 , 1989
Page Three
DMG suggests subsurface investigation and dynamic slope stability
analysis of all stream banks in proposed building areas, in order
to determine appropriate setbacks or stabilization measures.
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
The ENGEO report noted a moderate potential for liquefaction of
the soils along Donlan Creek in the proposed apartment complex
area, and recommended further investigation. No mitigation for
this potentially-significant impact was offered in the Draft
EIR. DMG suggests that subsurface investigation and liquefaction
evaluation be done in the proposed building area of Donlan Creek,
in order to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
The ENGEO report noted the potential for differential settlement
of the deep soils along the lower portion of Donlan Creek, in the
proposed apartment complex area, and recommended further evalua-
tion. Mitigation proposed in the Draft EIR relies on future
geotechnical investigation. Differential settlement can cause
significant damage to structures. DMG suggests that the extent
and severity of this hazard be assessed, and appropriate
mitigation be defined, prior to completion of the Final EIR.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Zoe McCrea, Division of Mines and Geology Environmental
Review Officer, at (916) 322-2562 .
Dennis J. O' Bryant
Environmental Program Coordinator
DJO:JS:efh
cc: Zoe McCrea, Division of Mines and Geology
John Schlosser, Division of Mines and Geology
.0 1 .V
c l'
DUN...
3-5
3. Written Comments and Responses
I
1-1 Known landslides have been identified both in the referenced ENGEO report
(Appendix C of the DEIR) and in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR identifies the
presence of landslides on the project site as an impact requiring mitigation to
accommodate development. The mitigation measures on page 4-6 of the Draft EIR
recommend that the slides on the northeast and southwest facing slopes should be
remediated and that all grading activities should be undertaken in accordance with
the recommendations of a registered professional. In response to this comment by
the Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology, the Draft EIR has
been changed. Mitigation Measure 4.1.1 on page 4-6 of the DEIR should be expanded
to include the following:
"Prior to determination of landslide repair schemes, dynamic slope stability analyses
could be performed to determine the severity of potential future hazards following
detailed geologic exploration. Any slide repair schemes to be undertaken at the site
should be subject to regular maintenance activities to ensure the effectiveness of
specific measures. The maintenance of slide repair schemes could be accomplished
through the establishment of a homeowner's association, whose responsibilities would
include site maintenance."
1-2 Please refer to the previous response (1-1). It should be pointed out that the
geotechnical professionals responsible for providing geotechnical services for the site
development have made recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration report (ENGEO, Inc., 1987) regarding the suitability of site development.
Final exploration activities have not been undertaken at the site at this time; after a
detailed site plan has been prepared, additional exploration will be undertaken to
allow final grading specifications to be completed. It is the opinion of the EIR
consultant that on-site grading and landslide repair schemes need not be determined
prior to the issuance of the Final EIR; the important issue is whether the potential
significant impacts have been identified and mitigation measures suggested to ensure
that potential areas of instability be considered in the final grading and landslide
repair schemes.
1-3 Subsequent to the preparation of the ENGEO report, the proposed development site
plan was developed in greater detail. The proposed project, as described in the Draft
EIR, includes the culverting of Donlan Canyon Creek in the area of multi-unit
dwellings; thus setbacks from the creek are not applicable.
86184 3-6
3. Written Comments and Responses
1-4 During detailed site exploration, the actual potential for liquefaction would be
determined. If soils are identified as liquefiable, mitigation measures typically
include compaction/recompaction of loose soils. The mitigation measures would be
undertaken during final grading activities in accordance with the recommendations of
a registered professional.
1-5 It is recognized that differential settlement may result in significant damage to
structures. Potential mitigation measures, typically employed to minimize settle-
ment include compaction or surcharging. Such activities would be undertaken at the
recommendation of a registered professional during grading activities.
86184 3-7
East Bay Aq y L^,r:i►sr; �s
NI9r EE:E�E�f.P•ovsrr
JAlB r,:UNCOI,At+-.�,�
JO!!h G'CrhYE._ l4•vY.
Regional Park District JOARu��°H-�°��
�ocs!rh GGV;a
-Y P!TMM'.
7EO:IACF:
11500 SKYLINE BOULEVARD,OAKLAND,CA 94619.2x43 TELEPHONE(415)531•9300 FAX: (415)F,31-3239
PAT 0 EAZ,
3e•+e•d Ni-a;••
May 15, 1989 LETTER 2
Mr. Laurence L. Tong
Dublin Planning Director
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
SUBJECT: -DEIR for the Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Tong:
The Draft Environmental Impact Report correctly notes (p. 4-38) that the project would
not act to inhibit the East Bay Regional Park District's planned Las Trampas to Sunol Trail.
Portions of the 171 acres proposed as open space may be suitable as part of a corridor for 2— 1
that trail. The District's plans for such a trail are currently only conceptual; i.e., the District
has not identified a specific trail alignment nor sites for local access or staging areas.
As the DEIR notes in the Geology and Soils discussion (pp. 4-2 to 4-9) there are a number
of landslides on the property including several which may have the potential to "run out"
onto areas which are proposed for development. The project includes the installation of
hydrangers in the latter landslides to minimize the potential for reactivation. Since these
structures would require maintenance and since other repair measures may be required 2-2
should the landslides become reactivated, the East Bay Regional Park District would have
to give careful consideration to acceptance of the portions of the proposed open space
where landslides occur which may threaten the proposed development. In addition
management of these lands may include the need for fire access, water supply and fencing.
The East Bay Regional Park District appreciates the opportunity to review and comment
on the subject document and looks forward to working with the city and the applicant
during the further consideration of this project.
Very truly yours,
T. H. Lindenrneyer
Environmental Specialist
THL:k-w 1Z E C E Vy E D
cc: Pat O'Brien 11 AY 1 G
Tom Mikkelsen
Bob Doyle DUBLIN PLANN[tVG
Maxine Terner
Kevin Shea
Ro Aguilar
Board of Directors
J—�
, .� , LS = a xa 031U Ctrs •3 � �a �- G . _77 0 ` 9 � T
3. Written Comments and Responses
2-1 Comment noted.
2-2 In response to this comment, the Draft EIR has been revised. Mitigation measure
4.1.1 of the Geology and Soils Section has been expanded. The revised language is
stated in Response 1-1.
86184 3-10
ETTER 3
Er+i Or r
yF' United States Department of the Interior
O '•' P
� O
FISH AND WILDLiF'E SERVICE
Division of Ecological Services
2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803
Sacramento, California 95825
May 8, 1989
Mrs. Maureen O'Halloran
Senior Planner
Development Services
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Donlan Canyon
Residential Development, City of Dublin, Alameda County
Dear Mrs. O'Halloran:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the planned Donlan Canyon
Residential Development. The proposed project consists of the
development of a 300-unit condominium complex and 17 single-
family home lots on a 197-acre site. We appreciate the
opportunity to offer our comments.
General Comments
Based upon the information presented in the draft EIR
and our knowledge of the area, riparian and grassland
habitat will be directly affected by the residential development.
In addition, the impact of the development on at least two
endangered species needs to be considered.
Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Fish and
Wildlife Service advises the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on
projects involving dredge and fill activities in waters and
wetlands of the United States. Applicable legislation covering
potential development in the project area may be found in Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. It is the policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service to
encourage all efforts to protect, improve and restore fish,
wildlife and naturally functioning aquatic and wetland ecosystems
1
Ri :C � 11Gi; A
MAY D �
3-11 DUBLIN PJA W, 0
of our Nation. It is also our responsibility to provide
recommendations to protect and restore populations of threatened
and endangered species. Because of our interest in the
biological integrity of our Nation's waters, we generally
recommend against a project when its construction would result in
the destruction of wetland habitat values for non-water dependent
purposes. We do not consider a residential development to be a
water dependent purpose.
When projects impacting waterways or wetlands are deemed
acceptable to the Service, full mitigation is recommended for any
fish and wildlife value losses.
The Council of Environmental Quality regulations for implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act define mitigation to
include 1) avoiding the impact; 2) minimizing the impact; 3) rec-
tifying the impact; 4) reducing or eliminating the impact over
time; and 5) compensating for impacts. The Service supports and
adopts this definition of mitigation and considers the specific
elements to represent the desirable sequence of steps in the
mitigation process. Accordingly, we maintain that the best way
to mitigate for adverse biological impacts is to avoid them
whenever possible.
We strongly recommend that the project be designed to avoid
to the extent possible any losses of riparian wetland habitat.
Where losses are unavoidable, we recommend that habitat
mitigation plans be developed as part of the project.
Specific Comments
In the project proposal, 197 acres will be developed in which 26
acres of riparian and grassland habitat will be disrupted. It
will be necessary to know exactly how many acres are specifically 1
riparian habitat in order to provide some sense of how much
habitat needs to be replaced. The Service would expect the
replacement habitat area to be the same as, or greater than, the
existing habitat area.
Revegetation is being proposed for the grading of six acres
surrounding the development site. There is no indication what
plant species (native or introduced) will be used for
revegetation.
The habitat corridor replacement should occur prior to, or at
least concurrently with, the project construction. This will _
minimize the reduction of available habitat that would
undoubtedly occur if the corridor were established some time
after the existing habitat is destroyed. The Service also
2
3-12
recommends that a contingency plan be developed in case
revegetation efforts fail. A monitoring program and plan for the
long-term operation and maintenance of the mitigation site for
the benefits of fish and wildlife also should be developed. In
addition, a riparian corridor which is surrounded by development
should have adequate buffers to protect the site from increased
human intrusion.
In the revegetation plan, a varying width of 20 to 40 feet is 3 4
given as the proposed replacement. There is no indication what
the length of the corridor is, and therefore an evalaution of the
adequacy of the proposed mitigation cannot be accomplished at
this time.
Soil sampling of the project site revealed elevated hydrocarbon
and oil and grease concentrations near the area of the existing
fuel tanks. This contamination is estimated to extend to a depth
as much as 5 to 5 1/2 feet. In order to protect the stream water
during construction and also during the grading process, this
contaminated soil should not be used in proximity to the stream. .
Also noted in Table 1 of the Laboratory Analysis Summary under
"Other" for sample 2-1 and 3-1, a value of 97 parts per million
is given; however it is classified as an unidentified peak. It
would appear that if an analysis for an unspecified or unknown
compound is done, it would not be possible to quantify it. The
Service would require specific information as to what the
unidentified peak is.
The Endangered Species Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has also reviewed the draft environmental impact report 3 6
for the Donlan Canyon project. The following comments are
provided for your consideration.
The project area is within the historical range of the large-
flowered fiddleneck (Amsinkia grandiflora) , a federally listed
endangered species. Most botanical work for the draft EIR
was conducted during a one-day site visit held in November when
Amsinkia grandiflora would not have been identifiable. The draft 3-7
EIR mentions that the plant was not found in March or April when
field surveys for the "project' s site assessment" were conducted.
If a qualified botanist was present during these spring surveys,
information obtained should also be included in the EIR.
The project area is immediately west of the western boundary of
the known range for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis 3 8
mutica) . A brief survey effort failed to locate any dens for
this species. This survey effort, however, was not sufficient to
determine kit fox presence. For kit fox surveys, the Service
recommends that a qualified biologist experienced with
3
3-13
appropriate survey techniques systematically inventory
grasslands, shrublands, oak savannah or alkali sink habitat.
Inventory methods should include an initial overview of the
project area to determine extent and location of potential
habitats for this species, followed by systematic transect
surveys to locate, identify and map kit fox denning sites.
Surveys should be conducted over a minimum three-day period.
Transects for kit fox den searches should not exceed 200 feet in
length. Spotlighting from a slowly moving vehicle along an
adjacent secondary road also should take place. A 300, 000
candlepower or greater spotlight should be used to locate
foraging animals. Where favorable kit fox habitats exist, but
transect surveys and spotlighting have not documented kit fox
use, investigators should place scent stations at a minimum
density of one station per 160 acres, noting later signs, if
any.
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 , as amended
(Act) , prohibits the "take" of a federally listed endangered
animal species. As defined in the Act, take means " . . .to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect,
or attempt to engage in any such conduct. " "Harm" is further
defined as an act that actually kills or injures an endangered
species. Such an act may include significant habitat
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral
patterns, including breeding, feeding, or shelter (50 CFR
17 . 3) .
If the San Joaquin kit fox or large-flowered fiddleneck are found
on the project site during surveys, the Service recommends that
the project proponent, in consultation with this office and the
California Department of Fish and Game, develop a plan that ��
mitigates for the project' s direct and indirect impacts to the
listed species and compensates for project-related loss of
habitat. The mitigation plan also should be included in the (Cont)
environmental impact report. This early coordination can
facilitate the consultation process under Section 7 or the
permitting process under Section 10 (a) of the Act as described
below.
If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or
carrying out of this project (e.g. , a Corps permit is required) ,
then initiation of formal consultation between that agency and
this office pursuant to Section 7 of the Act would be required
if federally listed species would be adversely affected. Such
consultation would result in a biological opinion rendered by the
Service that addresses anticipated effects of the project to
4
3-14
listed and proposed species and authorizes a limited level of
incidental take.
When a federal agency is not involved with the project, and
federally listed animal species may be taken as part of the
project, then an "incidental take" permit pursuant to Section
10 (a) of the Act should be obtained. The issuance of a Section
10 (a) permit by the Service is contingent upon development by the
applicant of a satisfactory conservation plan for the listed
species that would be affected by the subject project or action.
Such a conservation plan must specify: (1) the anticipated
impacts of the project resulting from the proposed taking of
listed wildlife species, (2) the mitigation and monitoring the
project proponent will take to alleviate the impacts of the
taking, (3) alternative actions to such taking that were
considered, (4) why these alternatives were not employed,
(5) funding that will be provided to implement the mitigation
measures and attendant conservation plan, and (6) additional
measures that the Service may require as appropriate. The
Service may issue an incidental take permit if it determines
that: (1) the taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will,
to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the
impacts of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that
adequate funding for the conservation plan and procedures to
detail with unforseen circumstances will be provided; (4) the
taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival
and recovery of the subject species in the wild; (5) the
applicant will ensure that other measures required by the Service
will be provided; and (6) the plan will be implemented. All
affected property owners or lessees that are party to an approved
conservation plan would be authorized, upon the issuance and
pursuant to the terms of the Section 10 (a) permit, to take the
designated threatened or endangered species incidental to
otherwise lawful activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft EIR. If you
have any questions regarding the above comments, please call Lonn
Maier of my staff at (916) 978-4613 . If you have any questions
regarding endangered species or your responsibilities under the
Act, please call Karla Kramer at (916) 978-4866.
Sincerely,
James J. McKevitt
V Field Supervisor
5
3-15
cc: Reg. Dir. , (AFWE) , FWS, Portland, OR
Dir. , CDFG, Sacramento, CA
Reg. Mgr. , CDFG, Reg. III, Yountville, CA
EPA, San Francisco, CA
Dist. Engr. , Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, CA
6
3-1G
3. Written Comments and Responses
3-1 Culverting of Donlan Canyon Creek will occur across 2,000 feet of"its length. Due to
previous disturbances, the creek and adjacent riparian habitat are no wider than 40
feet in this section. Therefore, the total area of riparian habitat which will be
disturbed is 1.8 acres. The new habitat corridor proposed will occupy 2.6 to 5 acres
depending on the final width (from 20 to 40 feet) used for different lengths of the
corridor. Although the new habitat area will provide riparian type vegetation at a
greater diversity and density than currently exists along the disturbed end of the
creek, the seasonal flow in its swale is not expected to be as great nor last as long as
the flow which currently passes down the main creekbed. With culverting of the main
creekbed, this water source will no longer be available to wildlife. The replacement
habitat therefore is not the same as the habitat which will be disturbed, and although
the former has a greater value in terms of vegetation, it has a lesser value in terms
of wildlife. In the EIR, the dedication of 171 acres on the site as parkland, including
the relatively undisturbed upper length of Donlan Canyon Creek, has been considered
as adequate compensation for the downstream disturbance.
3-2 No plant species have been proposed for revegetation of the 6 acres of grading,
therefore, the following revision of mitigation measure 4.3.3 is recommended:
114.3.3 A revegetation effort on all graded slopes should be undertaken as soon as
possible after clearing with native grasses or naturalized grasses as recom-
mended by US Fish and Wildlife Service."
3-3 To address the timing of new habitat placement, contingency plans, and a monitoring
program, the following revisions to mitigation measure 4.3.4 is recommended:
114.3.4 The creation of the new habitat corridor on Lot 1 as approved by the
California Department of Fish and Game should be undertaken prior to or at
least concurrently with the project construction, and should consist of the
minimum habitat widths and vegetation types as preliminarily proposed. A
contingency plan for replanting of the corridor should be developed in case the
original attempt fails. The new habitat corridor should be inspected on an annual
basis to determine if the original plantings are surviving and providing adequate
wildlife habitat. If necessary, new plantings should be installed and maintained in
a manner consistent with the original plans."
3-4 The proposed new habitat corridor has been designed with planted banks 20 to 40 feet
in width to each side of a 4- to 6-foot wide, dry swale. As recognized in the DEIR,
this new habitat is not necessarily considered a riparian habitat but is designed with
86184 3-17
3. Written Comments and Responses
riparian type vegetation to provide a movement corridor for wildlife around the
project's perimeter. A 20- to 40-foot wide buffer appears adequate for a dry swale
designed for such use.
3-5 The new habitat corridor will be 2,540 feet in length. (Tanakatsubo Architectural
Group, Preliminary Landscape Plan and Creek Mitigation Plan, Donlan Canyon.)
3-6 In response to this comment, the Draft EIR has been modified on page 4-6.
Mitigation measure 4.1.5 has been expanded as follows:
"In addition, any materials excavated during construction and grading of the site
which contain chemical compounds should not be reused on-site."
In reference to the analytical results obtained from soil sampling activities, the
laboratory reported an unidentified peak of 97 mg/kg in their laboratory report. The
unidentified compound did not match the hydrocarbon standard used, i.e., gasoline,
kerosene, or diesel. These compounds have carbon numbers ranging from C6 through
C22. The unidentified compound listed had a carbon number range of C12 to C24.
Thus, it may be closer related to motor oil with a higher boiling point than the
hydrocarbon standards used in the analytical work.
3-7 The March and April field surveys which were undertaken for the project's site
assessment were conducted by Ric Villasenor, a qualified botanist with experience in
rare plant identification. Since the large-flowered fiddleneck's flowering season is in
the months of April and May, this plant should have been evident on the open grassy
slopes at that time. The botanist did not find the plant and has expressed doubt that
it exists on the site due to the heavy grazing which has occurred there. Grazing has
been recognized as the probable cause of the demise of this plant in other areas.
(Robert Ornduff, Rare Plant Status Report, Amsinkia grandiflora, California Native
Plant Society, 1977.)
3-8 Since USFWS feels that the survey effort for the San Joaquin kit fox was inadequate,
the following new mitigation measure is recommended:
"4.4.2 A qualified biologist should systematically inventory the site for the
presence of San Joaquin kit fog in a manner acceptable to USFWS including use
of such techniques as transects, spotlighting, and scent stations. If the San
86184 3-18
3. Written Comments and Responses
Joaquin kit fox is found on the project site, the project proponent should develop
a mitigation plan in consultation with USFWS and CDFG. Early coordination,
formal consultation and/or application for an incidental take permit should be
undertaken as required by the Endangered Species Act."
86184 3-19
r -
ate of California ' ZTTER 4
Memorandum
Ms . Marilyn Nishikawa Dcte:May 10, 1989
State Clearinghouse File No. 2198 . 09
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
Richard Whitsel , Chief of Planning
rom San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
1111 Jackson str**t, Oakland 94607
subject: Donlan Canyon Draft EIR, SCH38100406
We have reviewed the subject draft EIR and have the following
comments:
Section 4 . 2 Hydrology
Page 4-13 , 4 . 2 . 3
A sediment and erosion control plan must be developed for
construction related activities and should be consistent with
the ABAG "Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures" . Installation of approved erosion control measures 4� 1
must be provided no later than October 15 of each year. The
Regional Board may take enforcement action pursuant to the
California Water Code to require the responsible persons to
clean up and abate water quality problems caused by erosion and
sedimentation resulting from the lack of adequate control
measures.
Section 4 . 3 Vegetation
Page 4-25
It is not clear whether Donlon Creek is within the Corps of
Engineers ' s Section 404 (Clean Water Act) jurisdiction. If the 4
Corps has jurisdiction we request that the final EIR address
the requirements of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the
Regional Board' s Wetland Fill Policy.
If you have any question, please contact me at ATSS 561-1329 .
J-21
3. Written Comments and Responses
4-1 Comment noted.
4-2 Donlan Canyon Creek may fall within the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of
Engineers USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act if it is determined to be
a tributary of navigable waters of the United States. Field personnel for USACE
make this determination, however, it is likely that USACE would claim jurisdiction of
Donlan Canyon Creek since it is tributary to San Francisco Bay by way of Devancy
Creek, San Ramon Creek, Arroyo de la Laguna, and Alameda Creek). If less than 10
acres of fill material will be placed in the creek and its adjacent wetlands, then the
project qualifies for a Nationwide permit under USACE's program. To apply for a
Nationwide permit, notice must be sent to USACE describing the project, and if it
meets certain conditions such as less than 10 acres of fill material which is free from
toxic materials), USACE will acknowledge the project as an authorized activity.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires State water quality certification for this
type of nationwide permit. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board would review the project for such water quality certification to determine if
the activity complies with State water quality standards. The Regional Board's
Wetland Fill Policy gives priority to improving or eliminating discharges that
adversely affect wetlands. Wherever possible, it also requires that any application
for fill activity include mitigation within the region so that there will be no net loss
in acreage or value of wetlands.
The following mitigation measure should therefore be added on page 4-26 of DEIR:
"4.3.9 Prior to undertaking any fill activities within the channel of Donlan Canyon
Creek or in adjacent wetlands, all necessary permits should be obtained from the
California Department of Fish and Game, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. All
conditions of these permits should be implemented including those attached to the
Corps permit by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board through
its issuance of State water quality certification."
86184 3-22
ETTgP 5
PARC
PRESERVE AREA
RIDGELANDS COMMITTEE
Dublin Planning Commission
1262 Madison Ave. . 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite 205
Livermore, CA 94550 Dublin, CA 94568
Board of Directors
May 1 , 1989
President,
Marjorie LaBar
11707 Juarez Lane
Dublin, CA 94563 To the members of the Dublin Planning Commission:
829-6096
yice-
President,
Marga Preserve Area Ridge finds the DEIR for the
2�argar et Tracy g
1262 Fiadiscn Ave. Donlon Canyon development basically adequate with the
Livermore, ca 94550 exception of mitigation measures for the portion suggest__
447-011$ P 9 �r
Secretary, for single family homes , phasing of improvements to the
Farvey Scudder intersection of Dublin Blvd. and San Ramon Road, and the
7409 Hansen Drive location and visibility Dublin, CA 94563 y of future water tanks in the west
828-4995 hills . Measures to limit the visibility of the multi-
Treasurer, family units from I-580 also requires further discussion.
Susan Coburn-Yalom
1282 Wagoner Drive
Livermore, CA 94550 we are particularly pleased with the possibility of the
Dcug Abbott dedication of 171 acres as public parkland. The land
Du31'_z, CA
Jim Blickenstarf Proposed for dedication includes a ridgeline visible from
San Ra�cn, CA much of the Live rmore-Amador Valley, Oak and Bay woodland
David Eller and riparian habitat. The view from the top of the ridge
Livermore. CA is quite spectacular in all directions . The small oak and
Stuart CiuCACn Fre:�cnt, CA bay forest can provide local residents with a tranquil
natural haven only minutes from their front door.
The primary difficulties with the development center on the
single family homes . Mass grading must done to accommodate
the homes and the access road. The grading in this area is
of more concern than the multi-unit site because the
grading will impact topography which is in its natural
state as opposed to to the already degraded state of they
topography at the canyon mouth. If the grading
configuration is planned to provide fill for the
multi-family units , we suggest exploring the option of
taking any excess fill from the Hansen development as an
alternative .
Visibility from the flatter portions of Dublin is also elf
serious concern . We suggest the developer prepare a phot:
montage to demonstrate the degree of visibility from kev
points in Dublin . Development o= the type done by Poult%
Homes is inconsistent with the DuIllin General Plan and m�:=-
not become the precedent for hillside development anywher_
in Dublin. Mitigation should include siting , architecture
and the use of building materials which tend to blend with
terrain more effectively than the usual suburban stucco
design . To date, the developers have shown themselves to
3-23
be sensitive to environmental concerns . Surely that sensitivity
can be carried over to designing mitigation to this portion of
the site . The mitigated alternative presented in the DEIR
should provide a starting place for discussion .
Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee supports the concept of
clustering development to preserve quality open space. There is
a demonstrated need in the community for more affordable housing
which will increase in the future according to the most recent
ABAG projections . This development will provide needed housing
stock and preserve high quality open space. The multi-unit
portion of the development will require mitigation to limit .
visibility from I-580 in order to be consistent with the General
Plan . This mitigation should include siting the buildings for
minimum visibility and screening with trees compatible with
native flora . Careful mitigation should also serve to limit the
amount of f reewav noise intruding into the units .
We do not consider the single family hone alternative as a
viable option for this site . P,'e oppose the original circulation
plan by the City of Dublin which suggested a road through the 1 5�4,
canyon. The canyon should be preserved . road would encourage
development on neighboring parcels which would generate traffic
well beyond the capacity of Dublin Blvd. The land has high open
space values and should be preserved as such. Any further
development beyond the Donlon Canyon site must design new access
routes .
Improvements to the intersection of Dublin Blvd. and San Ramon
Road must be phased to prevent gridlock at peak traffic periods .
All improvements should be in place well before the build-out of 5 5
Hansen Ranch and Donlon Canyon to maintain the minimum standards
set in the Dublin General Plan . Maintaining an efficient flow
of traffic at the intersection is also necessary as prevent air
pollution from exhaust of idling automobiles .
The siting of future water tanks is an esthetic concern best
tackled- early in the development process when more options are 5-6
available . The developer should work closely with DSRSD to
insure the minimum visibility of future tangs . The possibility
of burying tanks similar to the approach used on Foothill Road
should be considered if geologically feasible.
The geologic stability of the site must be investigated. Any
landslide areas requiring repairs should be promptly revegetate:l5 7
by the developer . Ail site grading s :ould include measures to
limit erosion and incluee prompt revec:etation of graded areas
with drought tolerant native species .
The mitigation for the loss of ripari, a n Iai;tat: at tale rlcuth 0
tile, canvoll si"Ould 1ncill,�e a wildlife on bath sides of
the development as caller: for b%• the De_art.ment. of Fish and
Game . Ideally' the culvertinq of streams should be avoided . 5-8
However , in this case the culvert makes possible the
preservation of much of the Donlon Creek watershed in a near
3-24
natural state by allowing the clustering of development in an
area already severely degraded. The culvert would be an
acceptable option in this case if the remaining watershed is
dedicated as proposed and new habitat built by the developer
meets all Department of Fish and Game criteria.
The developers appear to have taken great care to minimize the
impact of this project. Their concern should become a standard
for development in Dublin. If the developers continue to act in
a responsible manner, this project has the potential to be a
model for future hillside development.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development
plan.
n
Sincerely,
Marjorie R. LaBar
President - Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee
3-25
3. Written Comments and Responses
5-1 The visual impacts of grading in the single-family housing area are of paramount
concern. The project sponsor proposes grading to develop 17 single-family home sites
on the upper portion of the property. Recent revisions to the grading plan (since
publication of the DEIR) are shown by Figures 5-1 and 5-2. The revised grading plan
(Figure 5-1) includes an earth berm at elevation 815 feet to screen views of the
single-family homes from the frontage road and from I-580; both at elevation 570
feet. The berm would be finished with a 3:1 slope to blend with existing topography.
An illustrative section (Figure 5-2) and photomontages have been prepared by the
project engineers and designers to illustrate the existing and final appearance of the
slope (Figures 5-3 through 5-7). These changes prompt revisions to language in the
DEIR addressing impacts and mitigation measures.
Under the Visual Impacts section, page 4-59, first paragraph, second sentence; the
sentence should be expanded to read as follows:
"Siting of single-family homes in "High" visual constraint areas without appropriate
mitigation measures, would constitute a significant visual impact; this is especially
applicable to development sited on upper site slopes, lots 2 through 18."
In addition, the following changes should be made in the Mitigation Measures section.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1, page 4-63 should be revised as follows:
"4.6.1 Development should be restricted or prohibited on portions of the site
identified during the Environmental Assessment phase of the project as having "High"
visual constraints. In particular, single-family residential development of Lots 2
through 9 and 16 through 18 should be permitted only if appropriate mitigation
measures are implemented to diminish visual impacts to less than significant levels.
"4.6.2 Residential housing units and roadways proposed near the site ridgelines should
be sited and designed such that the natural flow of the ridge is maintained. Building
rooflines and chimneys should not punctuate or penetrate the ridgelines. Visual
berms should be incorporated into the single-family residential component of the
project only if they effectively screen views from the designated scenic highway
corridor (I-580) and if they can be graded to replicate the existing appearance of the
altered ridgeline.
114.6.6 Site design guidelines should be developed which determine appropriate
building height and scale for various portions of the property. Building heights should
not exceed the height of surrounding vegetation in the oak/bay woodland areas. The
height of proposed single-family homes should be limited to one-story. Specific
heights should be determined by site specific visual impact studies as part of the pre-
zoning tentative map application stage. Projecting elements such as chimneys,
dormers, cupolas and decks should not exceed these height restrictions. Design
guidelines should also apply to lighting poles, signs, fences or other project features
in the single-family area.
86184 3-26
3. Written Comments and Responses
"4.6.12 Mature trees should be planted along the proposed saddle/visual berm (at
elevation 815) to screen the proposed single-family residences, water tanks and
access road. Minimum sizes for trees should be 24-inch boxes. Shrubs of minimum
five-gallon container sizes should be installed to fill in between the trees.
Landscaping installations on the upper slopes should be similar in appearance to
established vegetative patterns on the upland portions of the property. Native
materials are preferred if available."
The text revisions result in changes to Section 3, "Summary of Environmental
Impacts". Revise the first mitigation under "Aesthetics and Visual Quality continued"
on page 3-9 of the DEIR to read as follows:
"Permit construction on lots 2-9 and 16-18 only if appropriate mitigations are
implemented to reduce visual impacts to less than significant levels".
In regard to the suggestion for using excess fill from the Hansen site; the cut and fill
calculations for the Donlan Canyon project balance, therefore, it is not anticipated
that any fill would need to be imported from off-site.
5-2 The developer has provided photomontages of the proposed development as it would
appear from the Dublin Sports Field. Figure 5-8 illustrates the existing views to the
project site from the Dublin Sports Field, Figure 5-9 shows the project as proposed,
while Figure 5-10 illustrates the cumulative visual impacts of the Donlan Canyon
project and the proposed adjacent Hansen Hill Ranch development.
Mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR (Visual Quality/Topography, Section 4.6)
establish requirements which the project must meet for landscaping, grading, building
heights, design, lighting and utilities. Please refer to the DEIR and to the response to
comment 5-1 for revisions and additions to the mitigation measures.
5-3 Comment noted. The project sponsor has revised the site grading plan to include a
visual berm which would screen views of the single-family component of the project
from I-580. The project sponsor has also indicated in presentation drawings at the
public hearings that ample landscaping would be incorporated into the project to
diminish visual impacts of the multi-family component from I-580.
86184 3-27
REVISED GRADING PLAN FIGURE 5-1
1 \
13 5th
TF
�
y /n /
N % 8 fs bo sr
:fcna
! �� se�' /� ._- �/ � moo.eor• 7
18 X
\ 1 I 5 /
�'il O 1\- `i 11r.Y'%� ^� IM'1 Mir' A.IG./AO Si • 0 III � — �T�iriFS ro L�'r rJ GC.?O -NHSCN riFnlcH
1F '1 � Ra 0 / I ♦ � �'% rMJtL:
I � t
Ilfo /
i
86184
SOURCE:ALIQUOT ENGINEERS op
Ml l
0 ID b
SECTION THROUGH SITE TO SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 5-2
7���- _ =cam •
l y� -
KEY PLAN I I I FEET -
0 200 400 .4..ets•
i
'I
miiiiiuiiiiiiiloiii��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�VIIIVV�V�IVVVV�WVVV�IVV�VI�V�VVI�I��I�I�VI�IV�IV�V�I��VWVV
i I500 I,o� 0 IzSOO Roar
SECTION I I IFEET
0 50 ,00
DONLAN CANYON RANCH
SITE ANALYSIS
SOURCE!ALIQUOT ENGINEERS;THOMPSON&MERRILL ARCHITECTS AND'PLANNERS ■ 6618a
J_2n
Y
SITE PHOTO - EXISTING FIGURE 5-3
"�NA
5'r
i
r
/ g
Ni Yp.�
,
s, t
1 C'
K § f
W ��"�•,P•' ,� .g�'Y�'tifv M�F' 7 y '� °�j''iJa"i "i,'�%F �' -.
, H
/b
-¢ Y'�,s,
r � / 44�/ / ,•: ./q s -�� �> 6 s� it?r� 3 q,5`',. b �:: '�a r;' �;,::�yg�,. .y,
.r" d,"r u a f a ,✓i4 „-... :' .r.FRI�, / !A( Y ✓' b 4 ;-' 3,,
/.%�% m. /.?., y, // fF,., / �,, : �✓ s
% p y'� r//'' "ra''' �.: •:1N7 ;�,ak'6 �' y6.;t r �'.t ` , mgt'•
,.A�g' ', S y+'✓F$, H 'g y F .. ;. 3'y '' ..$g' N; �:c. I1;, -�'k
y m
View to project from 1-580 frontage road.
SOURCE:THOMPSON&MERRILL 86184
eip
SITE PHOTO - EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FIGURE 5-4
�IIP.
/ j 3
,v-* r .r.,,Kra�,d� y4 F'fiw�t .,9,t(�i►" y y f �i' .
u 6 P
r
t�,y�5 �`� � /'r f .sa !�3'F",v"n?�� fv� v �'� z{�' � ..,v �� �, •'�`� / �.�' S.:y �`y�
r / r
:%�� '(.A .y �,� '+fir 3 _ L 'r •n �y p,. �y
z hm i � '' / k,. ., 0'b ✓� � 8, Rk F l� � ,S�s A .�, .. 'S snz v �b
s�
+.�: , �;• "F� `w✓ A /s,� J'-t! R,
,../fir t �^° � .,�• :/y
£ `�%�°' 6 rH� �y$�,,f� �� '.r 's) 3m„ot-�.' 'r 3h�y� s.,'«� �s°j•: i"� d`6� ` .r'f �°' ,'o qX` �i
�iv �i �/rA°l:�,' fry _� ✓ �� ��,i
#k�" •: $ggd�sa, �' �: � d::.
':,,,. 9 At hv;%rc�,... t:. +1�' ,�''• y: -:. 1 i3$ ,.� k� � i?%'' Y .�6„��3�a/ 1 „ � � � h,> , .. ,^S�� `�"w.` ',.'4�'+d� w..a n..,yc�'n
Proposed single family development as viewed from 1-580 frontage road.
8
Qt
SOURCE:THOMPSON 8 MERRILL 6184
p
SITE PHOTO - EXISTING FIGURE 5-5
MMI
O
4
I f d
a
sn'% i3'4�vy"
�;s,>n a q �ii�;: r i � �
/i �� ��,f', t� Fy/^ 1 g..
•.,.m�//�e .r y i a
ud
y %
yr �„u.,. . ..•r.�- .,. ,.. ... '' �
Telephoto view of site ridgeline as seen from 1-580 frontage road.
SOURCE:THOMPSON&MERRILL l 86784
e gyp
SITE PHOTO - EXISTING PLUS
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FIGURE 5-6
j
N:
s
Y
FS�jn.
fj
yam/ /�/%�� ✓$s
y'
J NView of proposed rooflines, water tanks and access road prior to landscaping.
86184
SOURCE:THOMPSON&MERRILI ei
SITE PHOTO - EXISTING PLUS
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FIGURE S-7
°
�M
S LW
r �
1 Y
H y u ai' a
fj5� -YF y
�r � 'nib '� � J a .;,ris's rr � �` �.a��V.r � ,:i F�'• .¢w a 3`C�' ,
View of proposed single family residential, water tanks and access road with landscaping.
SOURCE:THOMPSON&MERRILL ! 86184
�p
SITE PHOTO - EXISTING FIGURE 5-8
/fir//'✓./Ir//�/y� '; i- / .;/
�./ .//r4���
5
sf iFU (k
PIM ELL t t s
"'Sae
r
i-' '���--• a� his- x B• ra/m � h�sti �
;;, ., .._.;. ,, / ,z',-;,: /W/l'�i b•� � r /✓,/////;,;: ,..: ;:< //i//h�`�.:. i/ / r r r h s- /�w., v+-,gn y
MM
�xi r y�� Y '
/i ryi0/y��1✓ � b � G / :.
G
uk
ti� u w
/ r
„/..,•;,r, / :<oi„/�' - -S r.,/�rr,r'r'' �s,;.'_. i- "��a �,,_-,, '�.r y -. - ` 'F cyi� ;z'« ,�_, � '.;r
,- ,,,. /�'.// ,,. . .:. ,. ,. „'�'�h y /. a .m„ w, ;., 1. ;,..,,,.. .. . •�
._:, _:. ,i g,/ ./,../ /l r.w y.,r%m. ,//s�✓iy,.,..,�” ✓i <,���"�"..., W ,. � iu ,..a_. .3 r� �-:_.� ..
..(,./... � ��.. .r./.// /�: ...:.., ri ri a.. r. �. / ..,....: 'vi` /, -./•e<:, N. �....:re.l�i'b�H�bw� ��� _
fs,..✓ y, ;6 �... 9 �/.. /6 ,,,-:.: 3%.. �'r H ;6.:<�? .1/_r /..r ., _..y/,'. r<:. „. ,. .. "'�',:r..w :.:::..a s!A' u...,;� "s y x r;-: `.;� ..
-
.rs;;; �:/:;. ...,.,.. ,. a.r�,./ /,,:.- .,. f „ ,. v Y r cr�.,� .r �. ,wm !r/:,✓i.^../ FS Z, _ ..
/ ,.>;H ,/-_r,;4r//r�!�i ?,y � r,r•%f6 6/�,srY 9"�� ,..ig5r/ r� ��'s.,t" C� ;:, �,..r«+�X.�s�u«r.:.wr:, �i',.,,y..<.,�•., ,., .. .,. ..�.. w..., ...... ...
View of Donlan property from Dublin Sports Field.
SOURCE:THOMPSON&MERRILL ej 86,84
p
SITE PHOTO - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT FIGURE S-9
oft
•.nw .'nMaipw- ys. ." .xe ....
/r;: ��r y��.,yya/� ',, l/ / � ��� � �y ly� l;/F.r✓yvy��/� ai f/Y s ym
u
� �.w � /a�j% �L fy r, ::L �,,,�.uw.ira:: •..c,«ra✓.w,:,:
F
y
View of proposed single family residential from Dublin Sports Field.
86
el p
SOURCE:THOMPSON&MERRILL 184
SITE PHOTO - EXISTING PLUS PROJECTS FIGURE 5-10
. . h
,m...,. ,.�siw'.���*,n.�"�.1C,.iCu h..�i'�Pj°^•+G ,.., �� yr
„
r
i
co 3..y AW
PINE
/ 171,
r
TIN x gill sr r
•:tir ,may � _! v,. _"''�.,.
sY �
..
r f j /.w1'uwr�ot39�" 4W
8/
r /u�'���9����r�'d���§z !4 akr✓.��rm/�" ,�._ y '" ,�. »,,,:. ,i �/Y °J, �'s" s "�`a,�rx,�s.{ ._ .
'�2�°.,�'"�Y�� �r. ,:, �` �HY� .�i• .✓ �,va+ � ,'6w'�y,dy...'..� A", �.a� ., `�.t�1�3:-r .'r �t! kr,.,�r,e*�a,"z�,a'�'���;"", d•„v''�..'°'. .. ..
View of proposed Hansen Ranch and Donlan Canyon projects from Dublin Sports Field.
SOURCE:THOMPSON 8 MERRILL l 86184
e gyp
3. Written Comments and Responses
5-4 As noted by the commenter, there are no plans to have a through road in Donlan
Canyon.
5-5 See responses to comment 7-4 on the need for Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road
improvements.
5-6 Comment noted. The photomontages prepared by the developer indicate preliminary
siting of the project water tanks. Please refer to Figures 5-6 and 5-7. The following
mitigation measure should be added to the DEIR to address siting of the water tanks:
"4.16.13 Proposed water tanks should be sited and appropriately screened to diminish
visual impacts. Site specific visual studies should take place during pre-zoning and
^ tentative map application stages."
5-7 Please refer to the Geology and Soils Section of the Draft EIR (Section 4.1, pages 4-2
through 4-9), including the mitigation measures which recommend erosion and
sediment control measures to be implemented should the proposed project be
approved.
5-8 Comment acknowledged. Mitigation measure 4.3.4 recommends creation of such
habitat (the revised mitigation measures included in the response to Comment 3-3).
The project proponent designed the project with culverting of the disturbed end of
the creek to allow clustering of the multi-family buildings, and thereby allowing
dedication of 171 acres of the site as parkland. Mitigation measures 4.3.4 and 4.3.7
recommend creation of new wildlife habitat and dedication of the parkland.
86184 3-39
_ETTER 6
Donlan Canyon Ranch, Ltd,
A California Limited Partnership
May 25, 1989
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
Senior Planner
City of Dublin Planning Department
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, Ca.
Dear Ms, O'Halloran,
In response to the visual impacts indicated in the Draft EIR on our project we have altered our
grading plan to remove any conflicts with city planning policy. The Draft EIR suggests that some
of the single family units may be visable from 1580. A more detailed topographic analysis
:ndicates that the rooftops of two units could indeed be seen from 1 580 and we have revised
our grading program to re-create a saddle which removes these units from view. We have 6� 1
provided the City and EIP with the revised grading plan, a section drawn through the view
corridor and a series of photo montages to more clearly document the visual impact of our
project,
We believe that these changes fully mitigate the visual impacts of the project and is consistent
withn the City's ridgeline policies.
Sincerer,
Michael Gleason
General Partner
cc, Jennifer Toth EIP Associates
3-41
3. Written Comments and Responses
6-1 Initial discussion regarding visual impacts and mitigation measures in the draft EIR
indicated that eleven (11) of the 17 single-family homes would be highly visible from
the designated scenic highway corridor (I-580). Refinement of the grading plan by
the project engineers to create a "saddle" or visual berm, and further studies by the
project sponsor and project engineer, indicate that the visibility of the development
was substantially diminished from the scenic corridor (Figures 5-1 through 5-10).
The EIR consultant, however, believes that some impacts regarding the visibility of
the proposed single-family component of the project still need to be addressed by
additional mitigation measures.
The height of the proposed saddle is 815 feet according to sections provided by the
project sponsor. As illustrated in Figure 5-1, Revised Grading Plan, building pads
have been established at 804 feet for lot 5, approximately 804 feet for lot 4, 803 feet
for lot 6, and about 804 feet for lot 3. If single story homes were built on the
property, it is conceivable that roofs, chimneys or other architectural features could
project over the top of the berm or saddle. Homes larger than one-story in height
would pose an even greater visual impact. In order to avoid these visual impacts and
still permit single-family residential development on the upper hill slope of the
Donlan Canyon property, the new and revised mitigation measures presented in
response to comment 5-1 should be adopted.
86184 3-42
^
, LETTER 7
RO prx���
Dublin,
VALLEY
~HM=M `
May l%, 1989
Ji
Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner
City of Dublin Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
D u b l i n, CA 94568 C E N T E R
Re: DE| R Donlan Canyon Residential Development
Dear Ms. O' Halloran :
We have reviewed a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the proposed Donlan Canyon Development in West Dublin, As
you know, the Valley Christian Center property lies immediately
east of the proposed development'
We are not opposed to the orderly development of this parcel .
Based on our review of the DE| R and our knowledge of the project,
it appears the development is being handled in an environmentally
sensitive fashion.
The concerns we wish to address are in three areas : annexation,
grading and traffic'
l , Annexation - We understand that as one ste p in the approval
process, the Donlan Canyon development will be annexed into the
City of Dublin' Valley Christian Canter is already in the City
so our common property line is also the current City boundary *�
� �
We favor annexation of Donlan Canyon' We wish to point out that � �
the portion of Dublin Boulevard Vest of Silvergate Avenue is also
not within the current City Limits. As a resu7t, it is a "no-
man's-land'', technically in the unincorporated area but built by
' Caltrans as a part of the | -SSO improvements a few years ago, but
not maintained by anyone since'
As a part of the Donlan Canyon annexation, that pmrt|on of Dublin
Boulevard north of the 1 -590 right of way should also by annexed.
In this way, normal urban functions can be handled bv the City.
'
, We note some imprnvements could be made in the areas of weed ��=�n�����q�
control , street lighting and erosion control . Also, in t6� future` � ~��
some maintenance of the roadway itself may be necessary as would
traffic enforcement activities . Pedestrian facilities are also
poor along this section of Dublin Boulevard. �� � ��
^ ` ^. u�
3-43
2. Grading - We have questions: about- the effects that grading
adjacent to our property will have on our property. A deep fill
which is proposed next to our property could create either fill
slopes on our property or a "hole" where now there is a shared
ravine. We are not necessarily opposed to the Donlan Canyon fill , _
but need more information as to what condition our property will
be in after the Donlan Fill . It may be desirable, for example,
to fill the depression in our property at the same time. This
same area will be affected by the new public street proposed to
be built through our property to serve the Hansen Hill develop-
ment recently approved by the City.
3. Traffic - We feel the street systems in the area can handle
the proposed development, provided that the City consider two
key mitigation measures described in the DEIR. We Support the
concept that the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection be
upgraded to handle future traffic. This is described on page 7�4
4-95 of the EIR. Even more important to us is the improvement
of the Dublin-Silvergate intersection as described on page 4-96.
This intersection is awkward now, and could develop into a serious
problem with new traffic from both the Hansen Hill and Donlan
developments .
Valley Christian Center looks forward to having the Donlan Canyon
residential development as a neighbor. Thank you for allowing
us to comment on the project and the DEIR.
Ver ruly yours ,
f
Roge A. Mahany
Business Administrator
RAM/vl
3-44
3. Written Comments and Responses
7-1 Comment noted.
7-2 Comment noted.
7-3 Filling of the ravine is proposed to occur only on the Donlan property. This would
result in an abrupt transition between the Donlan Canyon site and the adjacent Valley
Christian property. The DEIR section entitled "Impacts on Site Topography" (page 4-
55) should be revised to add the following language after the last sentence in the last
paragraph on page 4-55:
"The grading which is proposed to accommodate the multi-family residential
component of the proposed project would occur only on the Donlan Canyon site.
Grading would end abruptly at the property line. This development action would
result in visual impacts to the adjacent Valley Christian parcel. The existing
appearance of the shared ravine would be substantially altered."
In addition, a new mitigation measure should be added to Section 4.6 on page 4-64 of
the DEIR.
^4.6.13 The portion of the shared ravine between the Donlan Canyon site and Valley
Christian property should be graded to avoid an abrupt visual transition. The project
sponsor should provide grading as needed on the Valley Christian property to mitigate
grading impacts resulting from the proposed Donlan Canyon residential development."
7-4 Comments noted. The necessary improvements to the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon
Road intersection, described in the DEIR, have been previously approved by the City
Council and a pro-rata share contribution to this street improvement project should
be considered by the City as a condition of approval of the Donlan Canyon project.
At the Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive intersection, the developer could be
required to partially fund this mitigation measure.
86184 3-45
'
���������� ��
,�0�. � � 0.� ��� ��o
' --- - - ~�~~ ~ -�.
�� � 7�T FRANCISCO �� ��7 ��Y�[ � ��7����� w �� ��� ��KKT��
���^�� u' u�zu���^x���'`�, ��z � u ��"�^ �� � ��^^ ��~.~~��.^ ~ ~^�~ .. _-
ALAMEDA^CONTRA COSTA`MAR|N `SAw FRANCISCO 5014 COLLEGE AVENUE OAKLAND, CA 94618
BOOKSTORE: (415) 658'7470 OFFICE: (415) 653'6127 CONSERVATION: (415) 553'6127
8205 Rhoda Ave . , Dublin , CA 94568 May 15 , 1989
%� �� �~ �� �" �� �- l�
xx �� ^~ -'
!;1�/ -
Maureen O' Halloran
. ^"'
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin , CA 84568
-
Dear Ma . O' Halloran :
This letter presents the views of the Tri-Talley Regional Sub."roup
of the Sierra Club on the Donlan Canyon Residential Development
Draft EIB.
It is refreshing to see a proposal with as many positive aspects
- an this one . The high deooity, moderate cost housing proposed
addresses u critical need in the Tri-Vmllev area, High quality,
^small footprint" development of this type that leaves large areas
in open space should be encouraged as an alternative to
conventional suburban sprawl .
The proposal to dedicate 170 acres as public parkland is highly
commendable and should likewise be encouraged.
We do however wish to express two concerns . The 17 single-family
houses are inappropriate in that they would have a substantial
��
/
visual impact as seen both from the highways and major arterials ���- �
�
�
in Dublin and from the adjoining parkland. They also involve
_ -
substantial grading on previounl�, undisturbed land in contrast to
the canyon area which has already been altered .
The impact on traffic circulation of development on the west side
is m major concern, particularly the intersection of Dublin Blvd.
and Sao Ramon Road , Before any General Plan Amendment is approved,
a plan should be in place for upgrading all impacted streets and
intersections . Most importantly, policies should be established 8� 2
to aaaasa all west side developers for pro-rata shares of the total
cost of required traffic mitigation measures . This is to insure
that existing residents do not in any way subsidize further
development .
3-47
r
J
Donlan Canyon, Page 2
In general , this proposal is a fine example of sound,
environmentally sensitive planning and we look forward to working
with the City of Dublin and the developer as the project moves
forward.
Si cerely
Doug' as Abbott
Tri-Valley Conservation Committee
i
3-43
3. Written Commemts and Responses
8-1 Please refer to the responses to Comments 5-1, 5-3 and 6-1.
8-2 See Response to Comment 7-4.
86184 3-49
LETTER 9
Qy$NSAN'o� CITY OF PLEASANTON
-� P.O. BOX 520 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-0802
w =N s
i o
of � o
�NNtO
May 9, 1989
CITY OFFICES
123 MAIN STREET
Maureen O'Halloran Rl
CITY COUNCIL Development Services
847-8001 !� ')C3.
P.O. Box 2340 t.IAY ;, ?,-�
CITY MANAGER Dublin, ' CA 94568
847-8008
pUUtN P'IA_W_ KG.
CITY ATTORNEY Dear Maureen:
847-8003
FINANCE RE: Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment PA 87-012
847-8033
I am responding to the Draft EIR dated March 24 , 1989
PERSONNEL for the Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment. The City
847-8012
of Pleasanton's major concern with the project regards
the cumulative impact of this and other projects in the
CITY OFFICES West Dublin area on traffic and the need for
200 OLD BERNAL AVE.
improvements at the San Ramon Road/I-580 interchange.
PLANNING
847-8023 While capacity analysis was conducted for San Ramon Road
ENGINEERING at Dublin Boulevard, there apparently was no "weaving
847-8041 analysis" of traffic headed westbound on I-580 to the ��
BUILDING INSPECTION northbound off ramp onto San Ramon Road and proceeding
847-8015 to weave towards the left turn lanes headed west onto
Dublin Boulevard. Also, further analysis appears to be
COMMUNITY SERVICES needed for east bound I-580 traffic headed northbound to
847-8160
San Ramon Road and its effect on future interchange
WATER - BILLING improvements.
847-8038
As shown on the attached Pleasanton General Plan map,
FIELD SERVICES the City of Pleasanton plans to reconstruct the
5335 SUNOL BLVD. southbound Foothill Road off-ramp and believes that
PARKS Dublin should reconstruct the I-580 westbound to
847-8056 northbound San Ramon Road off-ramp- according to buildout
SANITARY SEWER projections and preliminary design work conducted by
847-8061 TJKM. With existing General Plan development in the 19-2
western hill areas, our projections show a need for
STREET improvements to this critical interchange. With
847-8066
increased development, beyond General Plan buildout
WATER assumptions, the need is even more critical.
847-8071
Dublin and Pleasanton share a common need for the full
FIRE improvement of this interchange and Pleasanton believes
444 RAILROAD AVE. that costs associated with this improvement also should
8.37-8114
be shared.
POLICE
4833 BERNAL AVE.
P.O. BOX 909
847-8127
3-51
The City of Pleasanton supports Dublin's efforts to help
design, construct, and finance these transportation
improvements and offers its cooperation to resolve these
important subregional issues.
Yours truly,
Chandler Lee
Principal Planner
Attachment: Pleasanton General Plan map
3-52
3. Written Comments and Responses
9-1 Comment noted. The City of Dublin has also recognized the need to improve the
westbound to northbound off-ramp of I-580 at San Ramon Road. Preliminary plans
and cost estimates have been developed. The City of Dublin is hoping to assist in
improving this ramp, which is located within the City of Pleasanton. Proposed
improvements would resolve the weaving movement described by the commenter.
9-2 See Response to Comment 9-1.
86184 3-53
Stutc r'CaliFornia Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Memorandum LETTER-z- 10
To Loreen McMahon pate May 8 , 1989
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street, Rm. 121 File No.. ALA 580-PM-R21 . 43
Sacramento, CA 95814 SCH #88100406
ALA580202
From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-4
Subject : DEIR DONLAN CANYON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (300 UNIT CONDOMINIUM
APARTMENT COMPLEX AND 17 SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS, 197 ACRES)
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ack-
nowledges the above-referenced DEIR. We are receptive to
participating in the environmental review process. The document
has been reviewed, and our comments follow:
The impacts of project traffic on State Facilities should be
included in the environmental document for this project. These 10— 1
conditions should be stated for the build and no build cases for
I-580 and I-680 and appropriate interchanges.
The costs of traffic mitigation measures have not been es-
timated. The DEIR does state that the responsibility will be
shared by the city and the project proponent. The amount and 1 0�2
proportionate costs should be clearly presented in the document.
These would be appropriately included in the fiscal analysis
section of the document. These figures would certainly alter
the COST/REVENUE BALANCE shown on page 4-84 .
The document does not__address public transportation. Since the
project will generate increased traffic on the street network
within the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, alternative mitiga-
tion measures including public transportation should be con-
sidered. We recommend bus turnouts and shelters be included
where appropriate. Provisions for a Park and Ride lot should be
considered.
If you have any questions or further comment, please contact
Don Steiger of my staff at (415) 557-9298 .
(J
GARY TAMS
Distr ct CEQA Coordinator
cc: Susan Pultz - MTC „ .
Sally Germain - ABAG
3-55
3. Written Comments and Responses
10-1 The project will have minimal impacts on State highways. For example, the project
will add 90 peak hour trips to the I-580/San Ramon Road interchange. No-build,
peak-hour traffic using this interchange will be at least 17,120 vehicles. The project
proportion of interchange trips is 0.5%. At the I-580/I-680 interchange, the project
adds 0.15% to the existing 20,000 peak-hour trips and a smaller percentage to build-
out trips.
10-2 As noted, the final costs of traffic mitigation measures have not been determined.
The developer will be assessed prorated costs of these measures by the City of
Dublin.
10-3 The project area is served by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Agency
(LAVTA). At the present time, the nearest bus route is Route 2, which is on
Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Drive and Dublin Boulevard, and operates at 60
minute headways. In the future, it is possible that the routes may be run through
the new road connecting Dublin Boulevard and the Hansen Hills residential
development. This would place the route within walking distance of the Donlan
Canyon Development.
86184 3-56
_ETTER 1
MEMORANDUM
Date : April 13 , 1989
From: Det/Sgt D . DiFRANCO X6534 1�
+ l
N
To : Maureen O 'HALLORAN , Seinor Planner , via Lt . ROSE
Subj : Donlan Canyon Environ Mental Impact Report draft copy
After extensive review of the EIR, the mitigations pertaining to police
concerns seem resonable . I remain concerned about access and control
of the undeveloped areas of this project . There is no indication of
a trail system or fire access to this large area . Is this in the .1 1 1
plans or his it been ignored?
There is also the question of who will administer these open lands . I
East Bay Regional Parks takes them over , than they well bare the 11 -2
police responsibility . The disposition of these lands , will have
a direct effect upon the personnel and special equipment requirements
of this department . Additional appropriations will be required to
police the increasing wild lands area that are being annexed into the
city by western development .
S
1
�UQLII� V�N C
3-57
3. Written Comments and Responses
11-1 A trail system and fire access for the undeveloped portion of the Donlan Canyon
property has not been developed pending determination of details of a plan by the
agency of jurisdiction for the open space area. The Dublin Police Department
should be consulted during the planning of the remainder of the property.
11-2 Comments noted. If the open lands are the responsibility of the City of Dublin and
additional police resources are necessary, these costs would be borne by the City
and would be partially off-set by the additional property tax revenue generated by
the proposed project.
86184 3-58
Dl B _IN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTR CT
General Offices: 7051 Dublin Blvd. • Dublin, California 94568 • (415) 828-0515 • Fax: 829-1180
May 3 , 1989 LETTER 12
Maureen O ' Halloran, Senior Planner
City of Dublin Development Services
P. 0 . Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: DEIR - Donlon Canyon - General Plan Amendment
Following are comments from DSRSD related to water and sewer
service on the subject DEIR .
1 . This development is isolated for the existing Zone 3 water
system and construction or potable water cannot be provided
until the transmission main across Martin Canyon is con-
structed . The construction is the responsibility of other
developers, and it is not known when this construction will
occur .
2. Based on historical water use in Dublin, the subject develop 1
ment would require an average daily demand of approximately
89,000 gallons per day of water -- not 56,950 gallons per day
as stated in the report .
3. The new Zone 4 water system will serve elevations ranging 12-3
from 740 to 1 ,000 feet -- not 750 to 1 ,000 feet as stated in
the report .
4 . There are no zones associated with sewer service as the 12-4
report assumes .
5 . The fees for sewer connection have increased since the report
was written . The applicant should contact the District to 12-5
obtain revised fee information.
Thank you for the opportunity to ment on this DEIR.
RECEIVED arbara barl ngton
BD: ns Office Engineer
MAY 0 4 1989
DUBLIN PLANNING
3-59
A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA . PROVIDES MUNICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CIT'.CE`S OF AKIA-COR-:.IC FR.\TORE AND SAN RAVJN VALLEt s
ALAMEDA 4ND CONTRA COSTA COVNTtES
3. Written Comments and Responses
12-1 Comment noted. The developer will work with those responsible for the
construction of the transmission line across Martin Canyon in coordinating the
proposed project construction schedule.
12-2 The gallons per day of water listed on page 4-73 under impact as 56,980 should be
changed to "89,000" gpd per DSRSD Letter dated May 3, 1989.
12-3 The third sentence, paragraph 2, page 4-73 should be changed to read "The new Zone
IV would begin at 740 feet and extend to 1,000 feet," not 750 feet.
12-4 Page 4-74, paragraph two under Impacts, sentence three beginning: "These costs
would need . . . " should be removed and the words "Zone III" in the fourth sentence,
paragraph two, should be removed.
12-5 Page 4-74, sentence four, change $3,000 to $3,100. On Page 4-74, sentence five,
change $3,000 to $3,100 and change $2,500 to $2,542.
86184 3-60
State of C arfornia
_ETTER 13
Memorandum
To Marilyn Nishikawa Dote May 4 , 1989
State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Research Place : Sacramento
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, California 95814
Frum . Department of Food and Agriculture --1220 N Street, P.O. BOX 942871
Sacramento, CA 95814-0001
Subject : SCH No. 88100406--City of Dublin Donlan Canyon General Plan
Amendment
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) concerning
the above referenced project which would involve the zoning and
development of a 197 acre site into a residential development and
open space parkland. The CDFA has the following comments and
recommendations for the project.
The Department believes that a fiscal analysis should be included
in the DEIR describing the revenues generated from the grazing on
this site for local and county economies. The CDFA recommends 1 3— 1
approval of the DEIR, but does not support the proposal to
terminate grazing activities on the remainder of the site.
The CDFA supports the right of local agencies to develop and
implement land-use policy in its area of influence, but also wants
to assure that agricultural land is not prematurely and
irreversibly lost due ._ to development which is not accurately
assessed for environmental impact.
Sincerely,
Donna McIntosh
Graduate Student Assistant \ C1c'.�
Agricultural Resources Branch
(916) 322-5227
cc: Alameda County Agricultural Commissioner
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts
E -C I ly
�URLA'
WRNA-%E -
�� .�.: 3-61
3. Written Comments and Responses
13-1 Comment noted. Fiscal analysis of the revenues generated from grazing would be
interesting, but beyond the work scope of this DEIR.
86184 3-62
LETTER 14
Mr. Tong indicated that a chain link fence was a possibility.
Cm. Burnham questioned the fence height requirement. He indicated tha when
you look around the neighborhood, there were other fences similarly
constructed. He asked if the original fence was illegal.
Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Staff had no fence plan availab
Cm. Zika and Cm. Bu nham discussed the fence dimensions and slope
configurations.
Cm. Burnham asked where he measurement of the fence uld be taken.
Staff indicated that the me surement would be take at grade level.
Hypothetically, if measuremen s were taken from n elevated structure, then
the fence could become very hi , therefore th grade line is used for all
height measurements.
Mr. Berry Beck, 11696 Harlan Road (n igh r) , indicated that he s confused
about the regulations. The surroundi neighbors did not under t. what the
issue was. He indicated that Mr. Do a ad put a lot of money in G' % - ';
project and all rules had exceptio He equested the Commission to
the Variance request.
Elliott Healy, 11362 Betlen D ive, indicated t t the Commission should
consider the basic intent a d approve the Varian e.
Marilyn Beck, 11696 Har n Road, indicated that the lternative chain link or
plastic would not look ery nice. The fence extensio was well constructed as
it is now. She felt he lattice top was done nicely a would improve the
look more than the then materials suggested by Staff.
Cm. Burnham clo ed the public hearing.
On motion f m Cm. Okun, seconded by Cm. Mack, the Commission re uested Staff
to draft w resolutions that would approve the Variance and reve a the
Zoning inistrator's action. The Commission indicated that they uld
suppor findings necessary to approve the Variance.
The Commission continued the matter to the July 5, 1989 meeting to be app ved
on a consent calendar basis.
SUBJECT: PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon (Blaylock, Gleason
& Fletcher) General Plan Amendment request
to include approximateliy 197 acres of
project site within the City's Primary
Planning Area, to designate 19.1 acres for
medium-high density residential. 13 acres
for single-family residential and 164.9
acres for open space. Subsequent
applications pending General Plan
Amendment action will include Planned
Development Prezoning, Subdivision and
Annexation (continued from the May 15,
1989 meeting
Regular Meeting PCM-8-90 June 19, 1989
Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that at the May 15th Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission continued the item to the June 19th meeting. This project was
noticed again in the newspaper.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval of a
General Plan Amendment which would include a 197+ acre site within the City's
Primary Planning Area. There were three designated land uses being requested
for approval: Low density single-family (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre) , medium-high
density (14.1 to 25 DU/Acre) , and the open space are which consisted of 164.9
acres.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Commission's role was to conduct public
hearings on the application and make a recommendation to the City Council
concerning the General Plan Amendment and certification of the Final EIR. The
Commission should discuss one issue at a ;time; the Final EIR and then the
General Plan Amendment.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR and the
Final EIR Response to Comments which includes copies of all written comments
received during the public review period, the minutes from the May 1 and May
15th Planning Commission meetings, and responses t Yf comments received.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the EIR document identifies 'arItipated impacts
of the proposed project as well as mitigated measures to minimize any
significant effects of those impacts.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the EIR document identifies six alternatives to
the proposed project. These are: 1) no project alternative, 2) mitigated
alternative, 3) neighborhood context alternative, 4) single-family low-density
alternative, 5) medium-low density multi-family alternative, and 6) medium
density, multi-family alternative.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Assembly Bill #3180 required the adoption of a
monitoring program when certifying an EIR. The purpose of this program is to
ensure compliance with all mitigation measures imposed on the project. The
monitoring program will be prepared by Staff and reviewed by the City
Attorney's office.
MO'Halloran indicated that Jennifer Toth from EIP was in the audience if
Ne Commission would like to ask her any questions. Michelle DeRobertis from
Iii (traffic consultants) was also in the audience.
a� •
Jennifer Toth, EIP Associates, discussed the Draft and Final EIR documents.
She identified and discussed the comments received that were incorporated into
the Final EIR. Some mitigation measures were expanded in regards to Letter
#1, #3, #4, and #5. These changes are shown in bold type. Additional
information was added regarding comments from Letter #5 and 1#14.
Cm. Okun asked what could be done about the added cost the City would be
carrying with this proposed development.
Ms. Toth suggested that additional development fees could be one way of
eliminating the additional cost burden to the City.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-91 June 19, 1989
Ms. O'Halloran stated that cost issue would be discussed in the General Plan
policy section. She indicated that large developments usually pay for
themselves. The Planning Commission and City Council could considered
addit,l,pal fees.
Cku asked for more clarification on way to collect fees.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated a detailed fiscal assessment study could be done.
She indicated that the cost to the City could range from $4,000-15,000.
Cm. Okun indicated that the City does not have that kind of money.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would
determine the outcome of this concern. They could request additional
mitigation measures. The additional development fee could be added at the
approval of the Tentative Map and Planned Development stage.
Ms. Toth indicated that a more detailed fiscal analysis could be done.
Ms. Toth discussed the cultural and archealogical issues of the project.
Cm. Okun had concerns regarding earthquakes and landslides in the area. He
asked if a potential increased danger could occur when the dirt was being
moved.
Ms. Toth indicated that it would be best to talk with a geologist on these
subjects; however, site specific studies will be prepared in conjunction with
specific development proposals such as the Tentative Map and Prezoning.
Cm. Zika asked if Letter #1 was accurate and adequate.
Ms. Toth indicated that adequate consultant work had been done.
Cm. Zika indicated that the East Bay Regional Park District .Kemed lave
some concerns. He asked how stable was the ground. Was kh ,-,&t��I able if
problems occurred. C L4. 1p
Ms. Toth indicated that these concerns were discussed in the Final EIR on page
3-6.
The Commission and Staff discussed who would be responsible for site
maintenance, inspection responsibility, and property management.
Mr. Tong suggested that geotechnical concerns be discussed at the Tentative
Map and Prezoning stage. He indicated that he would discussed the matter with
the Public Works Director. He discussed the General Plan land uses and stages
of improvements.
The Commission asked what risks were involved in having the geotechnical
studies done in the early stages of approvals.
Mr. Tong indicated that 'a preliminary getechnical study was appropriately done
for the proposed General Plan Amendment. The additional cost of a more
detailed geologic study was generally not warranted until the Planned
Regular Meeting PCM-8-92 June 19, 1989
Development rezoning or tentative subdivision map stage. The detailed gelogic
study would need to consider the exact location of the proposed structures,
which usually is not known until after the General Plan is amended.
Mr. Tong indicated that in areas where the preliminary geotechnical study
identifies potential hazards, no dwelling units would be allowed until a
detailed geologic study was prepared and adequate mitigation measures were
applied. The developer takes the risk that the hazard might not be able to be
physically and economically be mitigated.
Cm. Mack had concerns regarding grading requirements shown in Letter -7, page
3-44. Would landslides occur or would the ravine be altered.
Ms. O'Halloran suggested that the Commission look at page 4.613 regarding,-
abrupt visual transition which would address this concern.
Cm. Burnham had concerns regarding Comment #1 in Letter T#7 which addressed the
annexation issue. Who has control over the land in question.
Mr. Tong indicated that Alameda County is now in control of the proposed
project area and has jurisdication on the road way. The process would be as
follows: after the General Plan Amendment is completed, the next stage would
be the PD/Prezoning approvals and then the Annexation process. The project is
not within the City limits and an annexation process would have to occur which
would,,,.itte de the road. Basically, Staff concurs with Letter ,-7.
`Okun had questions regarding road access at Valley Christian Center.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the City Council with the Hansen Hill project
approved a General Plan Amendment which included an arterial street to Hansen
Hill Ranch through the Valley Christian Center. The Hansen Hill General Plan
Amendment elimiantes the future extension of Hansen Drive to the west. The
Tentative Map for the Hansen Hill project was in the planning prods nd
would include details for the location of the Valley Christian Cet inroad.
The Commission requested information regarding the traffic issues.
Michelle DeRobertis, TJKM, indicated that the traffic mitigations were the
same as the Hansen Hill Ranch project. When mitigations occur, the level of
service for the project would be "D" .
Cm. Okun asked about the traffic on the eastbound lanes of Dublin Boulevard.
Pis. DeRobertis indicated that mitigation measures identify that additional
lanes should be added at Dublin Boulevard.
Cm. Okun indicated that there was a lot of traffic backup at Regional Street
and Dublin Boulevard.
Ms. DeRobertis indicated that the .plan line of Dublin Boulevard addressed this
issue.
Cm. Zika indicated that he had concerns regardin` the negative cost impact to
the City, geological and traffic problems. .
Regular Meeting PCM-8-93 June 19, 1989
Cm. Burnham had concerns regarding financing and asked Staff for additional
information on the City's impact when developments are built.
Mr. Tong indicated that generally single-family low-density units have a
i negative fiscal impact. The higher density units and retail development
usgua have a positive fiscal impact. A cost/revenue analysis of the
r gg project would have to be done.
Mr. Tong indicated that the Hansen Hill development would not require expanded
City services and the City would basically break even. Retail and commercial
projects are the developments that balance the books.
Cm. Zika asked if all hillside development would cost the City money.
Mr. Tong indicated not necessarily. These type of projects tend to be upscale
and higher quality projects, with higher costs and higher amounts of property
taxes.
The Planning Commission and Staff discussed cost revenue to the City in
regards to the Hansen Hill and Donlan Canyon projects.
Cm. Okun had concerns about the open space dedication and when this would
occur.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that dedication of open space would occur at the
Tentative Map and Planned Development Prezoning stages.
Michael Gleason, Applicant, discussed the cost of the homes and indicated that
the fiscal impacts were overestimated. He indicated that the police officer
allocated for this project could be shared with other developments as well as
the fire department costs.
Cm. Zika asked Staff what the criteria was for so many additional poll,
officer or fireman per square miles, population, etc. APr
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Police Department required one additional
officer for this development.
Mr. Gleason indicated that additional geotechnical and archaeology studies
would be done at the Tentative Map stage. What studies have been done so far
are appropriate for this stage of the planning process. He felt that he
should proceed with the project and take any risks involved and that extensive
studies at this stage would be inappropriate.
Cm. Zika indicated he felt more responses and discussions regarding the
geotechnical studies with the Public Works Director and other agencies was
appropriate.
Mr. Gleason asked the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council
that the Final EIR was complete and adequate.
Marie Cronin had concerns regarding the high density of the apartment
complexes and felt that approximately 800 people living in 17-19 acres was to
dense.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-94 June 19, 1989
Ms. Cronin had concerns with the water shed pattern and the oip'�p
dedication. She indicated that the land was in the acquisition e
sta "'
g
hoped the park would be dedicated so that the lard could not be sold.
Ms. Cronin had concerns regarding the environmental issues and habitats of the
area.
Marjorie LaBar, PARC, indicated that she was in agreement with the clustered
apartment units which would preserve the open space area. She had concerns
over the visibility impacts of the project and referenced Policy 3.3.F which
was shown on page 6 of the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would
make findings consistent with the General Plan policies.
Ms. LaBar reminded the Commission that San Ramon was working on the West Side
plan and that both Cities should worked together on preserving the open space.
list O'Halloran clarified Ms. Cronin's concerns. She indicated that the creek
as. ddressed in the EIR with mitigation measures on page 4-12. The design
` i sue of the apartments would be discussed at the Tentative Map and Planned
Development stage. The actual number of apartments would be decided at that
,+ time, however the actual density range would be decided at the General Plan
Amendment stage. Also, the dedication of open space would be considered at
the Tentative Map stage as well.
Mr. Gleason indicated that the certification of the EIR included a monitoring
program that would be adopted.
Ms. O'Halloran continued the Staff Report regarding the General Plan Amendment
issues and policies.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Policy 2.1.3A discusses the avoidance of abrupt
transitions between single-family and higher density development on adjoining
sites. She indicated that Staff recommends the Commission find the proposed
General Plan Amendment request consistent with Policy 2.1.3A.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Policy 2.1.4A stipulates that residential
development should be built on moderate slopes, with multi-family densities
considered on flatter land and next to business parks. She indicated that
Staff recommends the Commission find that the proposed General Plan Amendment
is consistent with Policy 2.1.4A.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Policy 2.1.4C stipulates that 1) services should
not be financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses; 2) fiscal impact
of new developments support themselves and not draw upon and dilute the fiscal
base of the remainder of the City; 3) proposed site grading and access ways
should not disfigure the ridgelands; and 4) the timing of development would
not prematurely terminate viable agriculatural operations surroiqm4UR the
project area. 5
R A;Pis. O'Halloran indicated that some of these issues had been discussed at th
EIR stage of the Staff Report. She indicated that Staff recommended that the
Commission find that the proposed General Plan A-mendment is consistent with
Policy 2.1.4C.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-95 June 19, 1989
Ms.. O'Halloran discussed Policy 3.1.A regarding preserve oak woodlands; Policy
7.1.A regarding riparian vegetation protection; Policy 7.1.D regarding open
stream corridors and Policy 7.1.E regarding revegetation of creek banks.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that approximately 230 trees were estimated to be
removed from the area which represented about 3% of the total trees on the
site. The Applicant proposed to replace the trees on a 3:1 ratio and to
create a new riparian habit corridor along the east and west sides of the
multi-family development.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the EIR contained mitigation requiring a
detailed tree survey and grading study at the Tenative Map and Prezoning
stages.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated on the wall map which portions of Lots 11, 12 and 13
encroached within the oak woodlands. The Applicant was requesting an
exception to the existing policies.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that if the City Council finds that the proposal is
consistent with the intent of the policies, site specific grading and tree
survey and preservation study should be required at the Tentative Map and
Prezoning stage.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff recommended the Planning Commission'firidf;�
that the proposed General Plan Amendment with mitigation is cons istent 'wi•th
the intent of Policies 3.1.A, 7.1.A, 7.1.D, and 7.1.E.
Ms. O'Halloran discussed the land use designation and density issues. She
indicated that there were three proposed densities: 1) low-density single-
family residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre) ; 2) medium-high density residential
(14.1 to 25 DU/Acre) ; and 3) open space for the remainder of the site.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the low-density single-family density was a new
category recently adopted when the Council adoptaed the Hansen Hill General
Plan Amendment. She indicated that the precise number of units would be
determined at the Tentative Map process. The Planning Commission needs to
determine if the proposed density of land is appropriate for the site.
r Ms. `'O'Halloran indicated that the visual impacts from I-580 have been
,'addressed in the EIR; however visual impacts from I-680 have not.
1..
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the saddle on which the single-family
development was proposed was an extension of the minor ridge which crossed
both the Hansen Hill and Donlan Canyon site. She referred the Commission to
Attachment #8, 9 and 10 of the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran discussed Policy 3.3.F regarding restriction of structures on
the hillside that appear to project above major ridgelines and Policy 3.3.F
regarding preservation and enhancement of ridgelines.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission needs to consider and
determine what is considered minor and/or major ridgelines. The General Plan
does not identify specific ridgeslines as being major or minor. She indicated
Regular Meeting PCi1-8-96 June 19, 1989
that if the issue is not addressed at the General Plan Amendment level, the
Planning Commission would need to address the ridgeline/skyline issue at the
Tentative Map stage.
Ms. O'Halloran showed a video movie noting the visual impacts of the proposed
project. She discussed the ridgeline area, knolls, and visibility impacts
from I-580, I-680 and Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon
Boulevard.
Ms. O'Halloran discussed the medium-high density land use designation. She
indicated that there were four sites within the City that currently used the
medium-high density designation. The proposed project would yield 269 to 477
dwelling units which would result in 15.7 dwelling units per acre. Three
projects, Village I, Amador Lakes and Kildara have a similar density and range
from 2 and 3 story rental units to two story townhouse *units.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the proposed General Plan Amendment is
consistent with the policies relating to•*transition of single-family
neighborhoods and development on flatter portions of the site.
Ms. O'Halloran discussed the open space corridor. She indicated that the
Applicant was proposing to designate 164.9 acres to open space. This is
consistent with the General Plan policies relating to preservation of oak
woodlands and 30% slopes.
Ms'•�"O'Halloran indicated that ownership and maintenance of the proposed open
space area should be addressed at the Tentative Map and Prezoning phase. At
that time, it would be determined whether the City, East Bay Regional Parks, a
Homeowners Association or a combination thereof would own and/or maintain the
open space area. The Planning Commission may want to consider at that time
whether they want to require the developer to improve the open space 4Area-,in-
compliance with the General Plan policies. F
Mr. Gleason discussed the General Plan Amendment regarding the creek area and
replacement of trees and requested the Planning Commission adopt these
outlines.
Cm. Zika and Staff discussed the density of the medium-high and medium range.
Cm. Okun had concerns regarding the ownership and maintenance combinations.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the issue would be addressed at the Tentative
Map stage and the issues addressed were only possibilities.
Mr. Tong indicated that because of the possible configuration of the open
space, more than one entity could own and/or maintain it.
Mr. Gleason discussed the visual impacts from I-6S0.
Ms. Toth, EIP, indicated that Letter #5 of the EIR end 5-2 on page 3-27
discussed the 1-60 visibility issue. A photo montage was done shooing the
single-family homes; however the Hansen Hill project would screen Donlan
Canyon.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-97 June 19, 1989
Mr. Gleason indicated that the preservation of the ridgelines was his ultimate
goal.
Ms. O'Halloran requested direction from the Planning Commission.
Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing.
Cm. Zika requested more information on the geotechnical studies and financial
burden to the City.
Cm. Mack requested more information on geotechnical studies.
Cm. Okun requested information on the geology, financial, earthquake and
traffic issues.
Cm. Burnham concurred with the rest of the Planning Commission.
The Commission indicated that they had no concerns with the single-family or
medium-high density land use designations.
The Commission continued the item to the July 5, 1989 meeting requesting
additional information on the geology studies and fiscal analysis. They
directed Staff to prepare the appropriate mitigation program and resolutions
for the July 17, 1989 meeting.
SUBJECT: PA 89-068 Civic Center General Plan
Amendment Study to consider designating
the Civic Center site a public/semi-public
facility or similar land use designation
Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Tong indicated that this item was to consider designating the Civic Center
siste as a public/semi-public facility. The General Plan currently designates
the Civic Center as a "retail/office" and "parks/recreation" site. The
General Plan identifies "public/semi-public facilities" as "uses other than
parks owned by a public agency that are of sufficient size to warrant
di,fftrentiation from adjoining uses".
r ., Mr. Tong indicated that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to
1) adopt a Negative Declaration prior to amending the General Plan; 2) amend
the Dublin General Plan - Primary Planning Area map; and 3) amend Section
1.8.1 Land Use Classification adding "Civic Center" as an example under the
description of public/semi-public facilities.
Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt
resolutions recommending the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and
General Plan Amendment.
Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing.
On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, and with a vote of 4-0-1, the
Planning Commission adopted
Regular Meeting PCM-8-98 June 19, 1989
4.7 Public Services 14
4.7 PUBLIC SERVICES
FIRE PROTECTION
Settin
Fire protection is provided by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) a joint
powers authority between Dublin and San Ramon. The Department has 45 on-line
personnel and five supervisory personnel (Chief, Assistant Chief, 2 Battalion Chiefs, and a
Deputy Fire Marshal). The Department has two fire stations. The closest station to the
project is located at 7494 Donahue Drive, near the corner of Amador Valley Boulevard.
The station is located beyond 1.5 driving miles from the site.
The Building Code defines 1.5 miles (measured in a straight line) from the station as the
upper boundary of adequate response time (5 minutes) from the fire station on Donahue
Drive. Any area beyond the five minute or 1.5 mile response area must have buildings
equipped with supervised automatic fire suppression system. The DRFA relies on fire
suppression systems beyond the 1.5 mile response limit. The Donlan Canyon site is
located beyond the 1.5 mile response limit.
Prior to the formation of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, the Dublin San Ramon
Service District (DSRSD) provided fire protection to the site area. DRFA currently
collects a fire impact fee of $600 per dwelling unit and $600 per 2,000 square feet of
building space other than dwelling units. The fire impact fee was previously collected by
the DSRSD.
Impacts
The DRFA would not require additional resources to provide service to the site, as growth
continues to the west from existing City limits, cumulative population increases will
eventually require an increase in Fire Department staffing, equipment and fire stations.
The impact of this development would contribute incrementally to a need for the addition
of a future fire station. The Donlan Canyon site lies outside the 1.5 mile response limit of
the DRFA. A number of design mitigations would be required to reduce fire hazards to an
acceptable level. The site possesses a higher risk of fire than a subdivision located within
more developed surroundings due to the fact that it borders on undeveloped highly
vegetated land.
c�1�
86184 4-65 \ .
4.7 Public Services
The road serving the single-family area of this project exceeds the maximum length of a
single access road (600 feet) as specified in the Uniform Fire Code adopted by the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. The Fire Code also specifies that any area serving
over 75 dwelling units must have two public accesses.
Mitigation Measures
4.7.1 The developer will pay the $600 per dwelling unit Fire Impact Fee and $600 per
2,000 square feet of building space other than dwelling units.
4.7.2 Design mitigations include the following.2
o All roof coverings in this project must be Class B or better and the 17 single-family
homes must be Class A or non-combustible.
o All of the project is outside the 1.5 mile limit set forth in the Building Code and must
be equipped with a supervised automatic fire suppression system.
o Grades must be limited to 15% by Fire Code regulations.
o The road serving the single-family area exceeds the 600 foot maximum for a single
access road specified in the Fire Code and must either be shortened or two accesses
be installed.
o Two public accesses to the area with 300 dwelling units .must be installed from Dublin
Road, due to Fire Code requirements requiring two access roads for any area serving
more than 75 dwelling units.
o Installation and maintenance of a fire trail around both the open space and- the
homeowners areas would meet the requirement for a permanent fire break of 15 feet
in width, planted with fire retardant vegetation and maintained by a homeowners
association and access to undeveloped, open areas must be provided every 300 feet.
• A minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute must be provided for fire
suppression, in addition to the water required for the operation of the automatic fire
suppression systems.
• Dead end roads exceeding 150 feet must have a turnaround of a type approved by the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.
• Access roads for fire equipment must be provided within 150 feet of all portions of
all buildings.
86184 4-66
4.7 Public Services
POLICE
Settin
The City of Dublin contracts police service from the Alameda County Sheriff's Depart-
ment. This unit has as its sole responsibility the City of Dublin. This would include the
project area. Currently there are 23 sworn officers in the unit and eight patrol cars.
There are three to four patrol cars on.the street at any one time. The project would be
included in a regular patrol beat.
Response time to the project would vary depending on a number of factors, time of day or
night, distance from site, amount of traffic etc. Under the best conditions the response
time would be under one minute, while under worst condition, the farthest part of Dublin
under heavy traffic conditions, the response time would be approximately seven minutes.
The average response time would be about three minutes.
Impact
The Donlan Canyon site along with other developments (Bordeaux Estates, Pulte Homes,
Silvergate Highlands, Kildard, Vista Green and Estate Homes), in progress or completed,
in the western area could require an additional patrol unit. With the growth in this area
the need for additions to the police unit is increasing. On the basis of one officer per
1,000 residents, an additional officer may be needed. This would take more study by the
Police Chief.
The present site plans raise some public safety and security concerns with the police unit.
These concerns revolve around access to the site, particularly the 17 single-family units,
emergency situations which may arise from flooding in the area, and security of the
homes.
The traffic flow in the condominium area would be provided with a fire road outlet if the
main drive becomes blocked. If access is easily gained by patrol vehicles to the fire road,
then the parking area can be adequately patrolled. The access to the 17 single-family unit
area occurs only through the Hansen property (refer to Fire Section).
86184 4-67
4.7 Public Services
The police unit does have some concern about the possibility of severe flooding of the
lower area of the project site. This would be a police concern if it was necessary to
conduct rescue operations in a disaster.
Personal security for the homes on the project site is another concern the police unit has
seen. There would be reasonably easy access to the condominium site by burglars. There
is no fence securing the project site.
Mitigation Measures
4.7.3 The cost impacts of the additional officer are discussed in Section 4.8, Fiscal
Analysis. The project sponsor and the Police Department would work out a satisfactory
plan of access to the site, particularly the 17 single-family homes.
4.7.4 The police unit requests the following items be included in the security for the
project:
1. Entry doors should be secured with deadbolt locks with a minimum one inch travel.
2. The doorjamb should contain a high security strike plate secured with a minimum
three-inch screws. An all metal jamb may be substituted.
3. The sliding glass doors should be fitted with an auxiliary pin lock with a minimum 1/2
inch bolt.
4. All sliding type windows should be fitted with a positive locking device.
5. Exterior storage areas should be secured with pad locks with hardened hasps or
deadbolt locks as above.
6. All street numbers should be illuminated during hours of darkness.
4.7.5 The project sponsor would develop an emergency evacuation plan with the Police
Department to be used in case of flooding in the project area. This plan would be made
known to all residents of the project.
SCHOOLS
Settin
The proposed project site would be served by the Dublin Joint Unified School District
(DJUSD), which provides elementary school through junior high school and high school
86134 4-68
4.7 Public Services
education. The Dublin Joint Unified School District operates three elementary schools
(K-5) and one middle level school (6-8). In addition, the Dublin Joint Unified School
District operates both Dublin High School and Valley Continuation School.
The Neilsen Elementary School located on Amarillo Street is the closest to the site. The
District has closed three other elementary schools due to a decrease in enrollment. The
District has no plans to open any of the closed schools in the foreseeable future. Children
from the Neilsen School progress to Wells Intermediate School and then to Dublin High
School.
Table 4.7-1 summarizes the District's current enrollments and capacities. Neilsen School
has a capacity of 707 students (647 in permanent facilities and 60 additional students in
portable classrooms). The portable classrooms are currently being used for remedial
reading and computer classes. The current enrollment, as of November 8, 1988, is 585
students or 122 short of capacity. Space is available at Neilsen School for additional
portable classrooms. The Dublin Joint Unified School District has experienced a falling
enrollment during the past five years and a gradual decline in the school age population.
The DJUSD has recently seen this decline stop and begin to reverse itself. There are,
however, no indications that the school population will increase dramatically over the
next five years. The District does not have a development fee.
The District does not operate a bus system and all parents are responsible for their
children getting to and from school. The DJUSD does coordinate with Wheels, the local
transportation system, to arrange transportation schedules to coincide with school
schedules so children can get to school on time.
Impacts
The Dublin Joint Unified School District has a student generation rate of 0.2 students per
dwelling unit. The District could accommodate elementary school children from an
additional 2,855 dwelling units, and the Neilsen School could accommodate students from
an additional 610 dwelling units (122 additional students). The project would produce an
additional 63 students at build-out. Absorption of the 63 new students would leave
Neilsen School with a surplus capacity of 59 places.
86184 4-69
4.7 Public Services
TABLE 4.7-15
ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY
FOR DUBLIN JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Enrollments Surplus
School Capacity 1987 1988 Dif Capacity
Fredrickson 693 535 558 +23 +135
Murray 647 404 333 -71 +314
Nielsen 7071 599 585 -14 +122
Subtotal 2,047 1,538 1,476 -68 +571
Wells Middle 9302 793 779 -14 +151
Dublin High 2,000 843 872 +29 +1,128
1Nielsen School has 647 permanent places and 60 in 2 portable classrooms.
2Wells Middle has 750 permanent places and 180 in 4 portable classrooms.
East of the proposed Donlan Canyon project is the Hansen property (the General Plan land
use designation would allow for a maximum 222 dwelling units on the developable portion
of the site) and north of the Hansen project are other developments (Bordeaux Estates,
Pulte Homes, Silvergate Highlands, Kildard, Vista Green and Estate Homes) which will
have 600 dwelling units. The total number of students that would need school placements
from those 822 homes would be 165 (106 more than the Neilsen School's capacity after
absorption of the 63 new students from the Donlan Canyon Property). The Nielsen School
is currently utilizing portable classrooms and has room on the site for additional portable
classrooms. The District does not anticipate significant adverse impacts from the
proposed project given the existing surplus capacity and space for portable classrooms at
the Neilsen School, as well as the two unused schools available in the District. The
projects would not all come on line at the same time nor would they all be built out at the
same time. Hence, there would be a phasing in of persons to the elementary school and
normal progression through the school alleviating some of the potential crowding of the
Nielsen school.
86184 4-70
4.7 Public Services
Mitigation Measures
4.7.6 The Dublin Joint Unified School District could require additional facilities. The
District could implement an impact fee and this would be the extent of mitigation
required by law.
PARKS
Settin
The City of Dublin currently has a total of about 148 acres of parkland and open space.
The City maintains all the parks within the City limits. The City of Dublin has about 90
acres of undeveloped open space, (Dougherty Hills Open Space), leaving about 58 acres of
park and recreation facilities. Dougherty Hills is currently enclosed by fence and
unavailable to the general population. Table 4.7-2 shows all the parks and open spaces and
their acreage.
The nearest park to the proposed project is Mape Park on Plata Way adjacent to the
Neilsen School. The General Plan does not contain provisions for additional parks in this
part of town and does not state any service standards. The City has a parkland
dedication/in-lieu fee payment requirement as part of its subdivision ordinance that
applies to residential developments. The parkland dedication is 0.011 acres per unit on
units with a lot size 5,000 square feet or larger and 0.009 acres per unit on units with lots
smaller than 5,000 square feet. The in-lieu is calculated as the market value of the
required acreage at the time of final map filing.
Impacts
The City's Subdivision Ordinance would require approximately two acres of parkland
dedication or equivalent in-lieu fee payment from the proposed project. Funds from the
in-lieu fee payment can be used for acquisition or development purposes.
Mitigation Measures
4.7.7 The project sponsor would need to comply with the park dedication requirement
of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Increased property tax revenues could be used to
partially offset the annual costs.
86184 4-71
4.7 Public Services
TABLE 4.7-2
CITY OF DUBLIN PARKS AND ACREAGE
Stagecoach Park .47 acres Dolan Park 5.00 acres
Mape Park 3.00 acres Alamo Creek 6.00 acres
Dublin Swin Center 3.10 acres Shannon Park 9.50 acres
Kolb Park 4.70 acres Dublin Sports 23.00 acres
Dougherty Hills Open Space 90 acres
SOLID WASTE
Settin
Solid waste collection in Dublin is provided under exclusive contract by the Livermore-
Dublin Disposal Service. They collected approximately 17,600 tons in 1988 within the
City of Dublin. Collected waste is delivered to the Altamont Landfill, located east of
Livermore, for disposal. The landfill received about 1,620,000 tons of solid waste in
calender year 1988. This landfill is estimated to have a remaining capacity of about 37
years for both permitted and not fully permitted areas of the landfill.
Impact
The proposed project would generate approximately 473 tons of solid waste per year. This
would be a 3% increase in solid waste collected within Dublin and a 0.03% increase in the
solid waste stream to the Altamont Landfill. The Oakland Scavenger Company has
indicated that it has the capacity to provide service to the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
4.7.8 No mitigation measures are required.
86184 4-72
4.7 Public Services
WATERS
Setting
Water service in the vicinity of the proposed project is provided by the Dublin San Ramon
Service District (DSRSD). The Donlan Canyon parcel would have to be annexed into the
DSRSD to obtain water services, as well as sewer services. The District is in the process
of completing a Water Master Plan which should be completed by the end of the year
1989. The Water Master Plan includes the project site and the whole western area. Due
to variation in elevation within the District there are currently three water zones. These
zones are pressure zones, each established so that 30 to 35 psi would be available in each
zone.
Down the hill from the Valley Christian Center toward I-680, there is a permanent Zone
III reservoir, pumping station and pipeline network to provide a proper level of water
,service to the Zone III strata.
The Water Master Plan will recommend two new zones be created, each required to have
storage space, pumping station and pipeline network. In addition, increasing the psi from
30 - 35 to 45 - 50 will require storage containers to be on higher ground. The new Zone IV
would begin at 750 feet and extend to 1,000 feet, with water storage at 1,100 feet. The
new Zone V, beginning at 1,000 feet and extending to 1,250 feet would be required to have
water storage tanks no lower than 1,350 feet.9
Impact
The Donlan Canyon project would generate a demand for 56,980 gallons per day of
water.10 The District does not anticipate problems meeting the daily water demands of
the project.
The development in this area (Silvergate, Bordeaux Estates, Estate Homes, Hansen Ranch
and Donlan Canyon) will strain the storage capacity of the District in Zone III. New
storage facilities would have to be found for Zone III users in the project area, as well as
new storage facilities, pumping stations, and pipeline network for any new zone. The
proposed project has 300 condominiums that are in Zone III and 17 single-family dwelling
units that would be in the new Zone IV. To service the project, new storage and
infrastructure facilities would have to be developed.
86184 4-73
4.7 Public Services
The project sponsor would be required to connect water facilities to the DSRSD system
and to install these facilities at his expense in accordance with District specifications. In
addition, the project sponsor would be responsible for some portion of the District' system
improvement to Zone III and Zone IV if these are not included in the system hookup fee.
The storage facilities for Zone IV must be at or above 1,100 feet.
Mitigation Measures
4.7.9 Mitigation would involve paying assessments outlined in the previous paragraph.
4.7.10 In addition, the project sponsor must provide adequate storage for both zones.
The project sponsor would be responsible for paying a fair share of any system
improvements on- and off-site.
WASTEWATER 11
Settin
The Dublin San Ramon Service District maintains a sewer system which, as of November
10, 1988, had 4,000 single-family equivalent (DUE) sewer permits available. The Donlan
Canyon project would have to be annexed to the DSRSD to receive services. Sewer
allotment in the District is on a first-come, first-served basis determined by the order in
which project file final maps.
The DSRSD is part of the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency
(LAVWMA) which has a capacity of 11.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and is currently
using 9.5 mgd leaving an excess of 2 mgd.
Impacts
The Donlan Canyon project will generate approximately 51,740 gallons of wastewater.
This would be a negligible increase of the existing treatment capacity and would utilize
approximately 0.025% of the increased capacity.
The closest hook-up is on Silvergate near Dublin Boulevard. Associated with service
provision are hook-up costs to the DSRSD. These costs would need to be determined for
both Zone IV and Zone V. The hook-up fee for Zone III is based on 220 gallons per day
86184 4-74
4.7 Public Services
usage and is $3,000. If the usage is 180 gallons per day the $3,000 base fee is multiplied
by .82 and becomes $2,500. This accounts for the difference in usage due to difference in
dwelling type.13
Mitigation Measures
4.7.11 The cost of sanitary sewers necessary to provide service would accrue to the
project sponsor. All material and workmanship for the sewers and appurtenances must
conform to all requirements of the officially adopted sewerage code of the District and
would be subject to field inspection by the District. Any necessary relocation of existing
public utilities would be accomplished at no expense to Dublin San Ramon Service
District.
4.7.12 Mitigation would also involve payment of District hook-up fees and financial
responsibility for on- and off-site improvements above and beyond planned District
improvement.
GAS, ELECTRICITY, COMMUNICATIONS 14
Settin
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) currently services the Dublin area with gas and
electricity, and Pacific Bell Telephone Company is a large provider of service in the area.
Cable television is available through Viacom Cablevision.
Impacts
PG&E would provide gas and electricity to the project through the extension of existing
facilities. These would be made under the rules on file with the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) and any relocation of these facilities would be done at the
developer's expense.
Pacific Bell Telephone Company expects to be in a position to provide telephone service
to applicants in the Donlan Canyon project. These services would be provided in
accordance with requirements of and at rates and charges specified in tariffs on file with
the CPUC. This project would be served with underground distribution facilities. As part
of this service the customer on his/her property will be responsible for: 1) furnishing,
86184 4-75
4.7 Public Services
installing and maintaining conduit for the service connection wire or cable if Pacific Bell
requires it, and 2) providing or paying the cost of the underground supporting structure
(usually it is a trench) if Pacific Bell determines buried wire or cable is to be used for the
service connection.
Viacom Cablevision has stated that they can adequately furnish television cable service to
the residents of the Donlan Canyon project.
Mitigation Measures
4.7.13 The project sponsor would pay for any expenses incurred through relocation of
PG&E facilities for the proposed project.
4.7.14 The homeowner would pay for underground conduit and any other facilities
deemed necessary by Pacific Telephone for providing service to the dwelling units.
1Tom Hathcox, Fire Marshall, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, telephone communi-
cation, November 3, 1988.
2Letter dated October 6, 1988 from Tom Hathcox to Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner,
City of Dublin.
3Sargeant D. DiFranco, Crime Prevention Officer, Alameda County Sheriff's Department,
telephone communication, November 3, 1988.
4Stanley L. Maleski, Business Manager, Dublin Joint Unified School District, telephone
communication, November 7, 1988.
5Jean Jones, Administrative Secretary to Assistant Superintendent, Dublin Joint Unified
School District, telephone communication, November 9, 1988.
6Diane Lowart, Dublin Recreation Director, telephone communication, November 3, 1988,
and Steve Loweree, Public Works Superintendent, City of Dublin, telephone communi-
cation, November 7, 1988.
7Dick Edminster, Alameda County Planning Department, telephone communication,
November 9, 1988. Henry Radcliff, Livermore-Dublin Disposal Service, telephone
conversation, March 21, 1989.
86184 4-76
4.7 Public Services
8Emil Kattan, Assistant Civil Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone
communication November 8, 1988, and Barbara Darlington, Office Engineer, Dublin San
Ramon Service District, telephone communication, November 3, 1988.
9Max Bergit, Bergit Engineers, Walnut Creek, telephone communication, November 9,
1988, concerning the Water Master Plan and elements thereof.
10 Water consumption was based on 17 s..f. x 44 gpd plus 300 m.f. x 350 gpd for the total of
112,480 gpd.
11 Emil Kattan, Assistant Civil Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone
communication, November 9, 1988.
12 Wastewater use was figured on the basis of 17 s.f. x 220 gpd plus 300 m.f. x 160 gpd for a
total of 51,740 gpd. Figures from Dublin San Ramon Service District.
13 Op. cit., Emil Kattan.
14 Roger Myers, Senior Business Representative, Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
telephone communication, November 15, 1988, Dario Lorenzana, Engineer, Pacific Bell,
telephone communication, November 15, 1988, and Bud Hartwig, Engineering Supervisor,
Viacom Cablevision, telephone communication, November 15, 1988.
15 Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Grace Rensch, Historic Spots in
California, Third Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1966, page 13.
86184 4-77
4.8 Fiscal Analysis
4.8 FISCAL ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This section analyzes the proposed project's net fiscal impact to the City of Dublin and
Dublin Joint Unified School District (DJUSD). Capital and operating revenues and costs
are estimated and a cost/revenue balance is calculated. Marginal Costs, the incremental
costs of additional resources, are used.when available; otherwise average costs are used.
All projections of project revenue and costs are based upon full occupancy at buildout.
Currently, the project site is located in Alameda County. It is anticipated the site would
be annexed by the City of Dublin.
SETTING
The proposed project consists of two taxable parcel units, assessor parcel 941-18-3
currently assessed at $897 and assessor parcel 941-18-4 currently assessed at $128,475.
The two parcels have a total assessed value of $129,372. The 1% property tax generated
by the project site in fiscal year 1987-1988 is $1,294. The distribution of the 1% property
tax depends upon the Tax Rate Area in which the parcels are located. The parcels are
located in Tax Rate Area 26001.1 The current distribution of the property tax revenue is
shown in Table 4.8-1. Alameda County General Fund receives 31.04% of the property tax
which amounts to $402 while the City of Dublin receives $89 and educational agencies
(including the DJUSD) receive $375.2
IMPACTS
The primary services provided to the site by the City of Dublin are police protection, fire
protection, recreation programs, street maintenance, and park maintenance. The Dublin
San Ramon Service District (DSRSD) provides water and sewer services, while the
Doughterty Regional Fire Authority provides fire protection as a joint powers authority
for cities of San Ramon and Dublin.
Revenues
One Time Revenues. The proposed project would generate revenues from building, plan
check, utility hookup, and other fees paid by the developer prior to obtaining the required
building permits. These fees are structured to offset the costs of providing the respective
86184 4-78
4.8 Fiscal Analysis
TABLE 4.8-1
DISTRIBUTION OF DONLAN CANYON SITE'S CURRENT
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (1987-1988)
Share
Agency % Revenue
Alameda County General Fund 31.04 $ 402
Dublin San Ramon Service District 21.23 275
City of Dublin 6.95 89
Educational Agencies 28.98 375
County Library 5.00 65
Flood Control 2.52 33
BAAQMD .23 3
County Mosquito Abatement .15 2
BART •67 8
East Bay Regional Park 3.20 41
Alameda County Resource Center .03 1
Total 100.00 $1,294
1The Alameda County Auditor's Office did not have current figures for the new Dublin
Joint Unified School District, so the figures here include all educational agencies.
86184 4-79
4.8 Fiscal Analysis
services. The Dublin San Ramon Service District charges a one-time annexation fee of
$1,000 and a hook-up cost of $3,100 per single-family dwelling unit (this fee is pro-rated
in multiple-family dwelling units). Other one time fees charged by DSRSD are a water
fee (meter) of $256 per dwelling unit (du), an $830 per du, and a $200 per du for the
District. This one time fee totals $5,386 per du or approximately $1,707,362 for the
proposed project would be paid to the DSRSD. These fees are based on Zone I and Zone II
costs and still need to be determined for Zone III and IV. Zones are determined on water
level/pumping heights.
The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority charges fees of $600 per dwelling unit and $600
per 2,000 square feet of buildings other than dwelling units. A total of $190,200 would be
paid by the project sponsor to the DRFA.
The Dublin Unified School District does not charge an impact fee at this time.
Property Tax.3 Development of the proposed project will increase the property tax base
on the site. The total worth of the project at buildout would be about $31,350,000 and the
1% property tax on that amount would be $313,500. See Table 4.8-2 for buildout value by
type of house.
The distribution of the projected project property tax is shown in Table 4.8-3. The City
of Dublin would receive $88,344. Educational agencies would receive a total of $90,852.
Sales Tax. The City of Dublin receives sales tax at the rate of 1% of taxable sales.
Assuming that 100% of all City income was spent within the City, 44% of the sales in
Dublin occurred from City residents. The estimates of sales tax from the proposed
project are based upon an average sales tax revenue factor of $98.05 per resident. At
buildout, the proposed project would generate approximately $99,521 in sales tax
revenue.
4
State Subventions. The City would also receive subventions from the State based on the
increase in population on the site. Revenue estimates for the Donlan Canyon project
would be $36,148 for the motor vehicle in-lieu fee and $4,192 for the cigarette tax for a
total of $40,340 collectively.5 The other major revenue source applicable to Donlan
86184 4-80
4.8 Fiscal Analysis
TABLE 4.8-2
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT VALUE
Dwelling Unit Type Number DU Median Price Total Value
Single-Family Detached 17 $ 300,000 $ 5,100,000
Condominiums Small 150 85,000 12,750,000
Condominiums Large 150 90,000 13,500,000
TOTAL $ 31,350,000
TABLE 4.8-3
DISTRIBUTION OF INCREASED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Share
Agency % Revenues
Alameda County 31.04 $ 97,310
City of Dublin 28.18 88,344
Educational Agencies 28.98 90,852
County Library 5.00 15,675
Flood Control 2.52 7,900
BAAQMD 0.23 721
County Mosquito Abatement 0.15 470
BART 0.67 2,100
East Bay Regional Park District 3.20 10,031
Alameda County Resource Center 0.03 94
TOTAL 100.00 $ 313,500
86184 4-81
4.8 Fiscal Analysis
Canyon properties is the utility franchise tax charged to electric, gas, garbage and cable
television franchisers. This tax is charged to households and would be approximately
$13,770 for the Donlan Canyon proposed project.6
Costs
City of Dublin. Costs would be incurred for providing police, fire protection, parkland
development and maintenance, recreation, street maintenance, and general government
services. The Police Department generally identifies its staffing standards as requiring
one officer per 1,000 residents within the City. The addition of 1,015 new residents would
incur costs at the rate of 1.01 times the cost of one police officer. The mean cost per
officer is $77,473 yielding total police costs associated with the project of $78,248.7 The
cost for fire protection for the project would be $90,254, based on a per capita cost of
$88.92 and a population of 1,015. The City's Parks and Recreation Department would
incur capital costs for the acquisition and development of the two acres of parkland
already identified in the public services section. Operation and maintenance costs would
be incurred on an annual basis when the two acres were developed. This is the first year
that the City of Dublin has taken the responsibility for maintenance of all its parks.
Previously, much of the park acreage was maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Service
District. The average cost per acre for parks in Dublin is about $7,800. The park
proposed with the project would cost about $15,600 per year.8 The average costs of
providing recreation programs is $11.22 per resident based upon 1987-88 net recreation
cost, and this factor yields annual recreation costs to the City of $11,388 from the
proposed Donlan Canyon project.9 The project would also generate street maintenance
costs for the City of Dublin. The proposed project would build approximately 1 mile of
road and would cost approximately $5,806.10 The proposed project would require 17.6
new street lights (one mile with one light every 300 feet).
The City could also incur an increase in general government costs. These costs include
those of financial and personnel administration, the executive and legislative bodies and
their staffs, electronic data processing, city or county clerk and attorney, courts, and
maintenance of public buildings. Frequently, all costs for pensions and insurance will be
allocated to the general government budget as well.
86184 4-82
4.8 c fiscal Analysis
General government costs are not typically sensitive to small changes in population. The
proposed project would add approximately 1,015 residents to the City's population, an
increase of 4.69%.11 Providing general government services to these additional residents
would not be expected to require additional resources. Thus, it would be expected that
the marginal general government costs, that is, the increase in general government costs
associated with the proposed project, would be zero. However, an estimate of the costs
can be made based upon the actual general government expenditures for FY 1987-1988.
The actual general government cost for FY 1987-1988 amounted to $795,979. The
Average cost of general government per resident is $36.80. This factor would yield an
annual general government cost to the City of $37,352 from the proposed Donlan Canyon
project.
Dublin San Ramon Service District. Water and sewer service would require new facilities.
Thus, capital expenditures as well as annual operation and maintenance costs would be
incurred.
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. The fire authority expects to provide services to the
proposed project without requiring additional equipment (see Section 4.7, Public Services).
Schools. The Dublin Unified School District would not incur capital costs to service the
proposed project. Increased enrollments would increase annual costs. Cumulative
impacts would require increased capital expenditures for facilities in the Dublin Unified
School District.
Cost/Revenue Balance
City of Dublin. The City would incur capital costs for police services, fire services,
street maintenance and general government. The capital costs of increased parkland
would be offset by the project sponsor's dedication or in lieu fee payment. However, park
maintenance costs could be incurred.
Table 4.8-4 summarized the net fiscal impact to the City of Dublin anticipated from the
proposed project. The cost/revenue balance expected from the proposed project would be
approximately $3,128 of revenues exceeding costs.
86184 4-83
4.8 Fiscal Analysis
TABLE 4.8-4
ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACTS TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FROM THE DONLAN CANYON PROJECT
REVENUE
Property taxes $ 88,344
Sales Taxes 99,521
Subventions 40,340
Franchise Tax 13,770
Total 241,975
COSTS
Police $ 78,248
Fire 90,314
Parks 15,600
Recreation 11,388
Street Maintenance 5,806
General Government 37,352
Total $ 238,708
COST/REVENUE BALANCE $ +3,267
1These costs are adequate for flatland areas of Dublin. Hillside development may require
higher costs for maintenance because of increased chance of flood and slide damage to
public facilities.
Source: EIP Associates
86184 4-84
4.8 Fiscal Analysis
Dublin San Ramon Service District. The direct capital costs for water and sewer service
would be paid by the project sponsor. Indirect capital costs would be recovered through
hookup charges to other new development. Annual water and sewer costs would be
covered through annual user charges. The net fiscal impact to the DSRSD would be an
increase of approximately $66,556.
Schools. The net capital fiscal impact to the Dublin Unified School District would be
zero. The increase in property tax revenues allocated to the District would first go to the
State to be redistributed for annual costs based on average daily attendance records.
MITIGATION MEASURES
4.8.1 The project sponsor would be required to comply with the City of Dublin's Park
Dedication .Ordinance.
1Thomas Lum, Auditor's Office, Alameda County, telephone communication, November
17, 1988.
2Ibid., There are no figures yet for the 1988-89 fiscal year and the Dublin Unified School
District is a new district, therefore it was not possible to get the percentage of the 1%
property tax that went to the DUSD. The only figure available was one which included
all educational agencies.
3The figures in this section and in Table 4.8-2 are based on estimates made in fiscal year
1987-1988 by the developer. Given the continual rise in housing prices in the Bay Area,
these prices are likely conservative and and do not reflect any increases during the 1988-
1989 fiscal year.
4Sales tax was figured on the following basis. Assuming that 100% of all City income was
spent within the City would mean that 44% of the sales in Dublin occurred from City
residents. The actual sales tax figures as indicated in the June 30, 1988 Financial Report
were $4,819,541 and DOF figure of 21,628 population were used. This equals $98.05 per
resident. (Total expected increase in sales tax revenue can be determined by using the
population figures for the Donlan Canyon project (1015) times sales tax revenue per
person ($98.05).
5Based on a memo from Philip Molina, Finance Officer, City of Dublin (May 16, 1989), per
capita factors of $35.88 for the motor vehicle in-lieu fee and $4.13 for the cigarette tax
were established.
86184 4-85
4.8 Fiscal Analysis
6Franchise tax revenue is figured on the following: 1988-89 estimated taxes for gas of
$30,234; electric of $128,569; garbage of $69,138; and, CATV of $69,135. The total
taxes equalled $297,076, divided by resident population of 21,628, generating a tax of
$13.73 per person. This capita tax ($43.95) times 317 dwelling units yields $13,932.
7The figure of cost per officer of $77,473 is taken from a telephone communication with
Mr. Phillip S. Molina, Finance Officer, City of Dublin, June 23, 1989.
8The City. of Dublin has budgeted $308,100 for contracted work this year for park
maintenance. An additional $50,000 is estimated for utilities for parks. Telephone
communication with Steve Loweree, Public Works Supervisor, City of Dublin,
November 7, 1988.
9Total recreation cost for the City of Dublin was taken from the actual 1987-1988 net
recreation cost and was $242,605. A recreation per capita factor was figured by dividing
the total by the population (219628) and multiplying by the Donlan Canyon population
(1,015).
10 The cost per mile in the previous year for the Hansen project was figured at $4,696 per
mile. Using this figure and last year's budget expenditure and this year's estimated
expenditures the figure of $5,806 was calculated.
11 Total population of Dublin is 21,628. Projected project population is 1,015. These
figures come from a discussion with Mr. Phillip Molina, Finance Officer, City of Dublin,
June 23, 1989.
86184 4-86
r iy
BAY AREAA: :R QJX
MANAGEMENT DI STRICT
ALAMEDA COUNTY LETTER 15
Edward R Carn.r),ii
Shirlf;y J C, May 15, 1989
ir:Q-Ch a irp,r,;rjr,
Chuck Corica
Fronk H. Orjawa
C0l`JTPA COSTA COUNTY
Paul L. Cooper f
Sunn,.-:aright McP,�ak City of Dublin Planning Dep8rtment__, 14AY 18 10 9
MARIN COUNTY P.O. Box 2340
Al Aramburu
UBUN
NAPA COUNTY Dublin, CA 94568
Bob White
SAN ZRANCISCO COUNTY Attention: Maureen O'Halloran
H,,irry G. Britt Senior Planner
Jim Gonzalez
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Gus J. Nicolcoulos Dear Ms. O'Halloran:
Anna Esnco
SAANT,� CL:,RA CCLI�TY
.'Jartria ,ger We have reviewed the Draft EIR (DEIR) for the Donlan Canyon
R o C 0;r I c.On,- Residential Development. The 179-acre residential development will include
Rc::-rta H Hu-
Susanne V.Ii:3,:n 17 single-family homes and 300 units of multi-family housing. The site is two
(char ce,sc._
miles west of the intersection of Interstate 580 and Interstate 680, just beyond
SCIL.AiNG COUNTY
Cs"y Da,.-s incorporated Dublin. The development will generate approximately 1987
(Secretar... vehicle trips per day, and will result in the extension of urban services into an
SONCMA C`L_,'!7','
unincorporated area of Alameda County.
The DEIR estimate of the current worst-case carbon monoxide (CO)
concentration at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard
exceeds the State and federal 8-hour standard. Although the impact of 15- 1
project-generated traffic can be partially mitigated by roadway improvements,
the analysis indicates that the estimated worst-case 8-hour carbon monoxide
concentration will still exceed State and federal standards. We understand
that the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority operates a transit route
serving the area surrounding this intersection. We strongly encourage the
City to promote the extension of transit service to the Donlan Canyon project
as a means of reducing auto use and potential CO exceedances. You may
also wish to devise additional mitigation measures.
The discovery that an existing intersection may already be exposing
citizens to substandard ambient air is evidence that the City would benefit
from an air quality element in its General Plan. Such an element could identify
problem areas, and effectively integrate the implementation of air quality
conservation measures into the urban development process. Our Board 15-2
encourages all cities and counties in the District to include an air quality
element or section in their general plans. (BAAQMD Resolution #1666, N-Ia�:
1986).
93`) F 1.1.1 S S VR 1:E F • S A'N F R A N 0 S 0), CA 1.11:0 R N 1A IN 1 o9 • (415) 771-()()()k)
1-71
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
May 15, 1989
Page 2
Page 5-3 of the DER indicates that one of the cumulative and growth-
inducing impacts of the Donlan Canyon project is that it increases the
probability of development on the nearby Gleason and Fletcher properties.
Pages 4-91 and 4-92 of the DER list the projects included in the traffic 15-"
analysis of the cumulative effects of local development. It appears that the
development of the Fletcher and Gleason properties was neither included on
that list, nor considered in the analysis. If the traffic volumes generated by the
incomplete traffic analysis were used in the CO analysis, it is likely that the CO
analysis underestimates the cumulative effects of local development on CO
concentrations. We recommend that the Final EIR include a more thorough
discussion of the cumulative impacts of development in western Dublin,
including the Fletcher and Gleason properties. The cumulative impacts on
traffic and air quality should be addressed.
If you have any questions, please contact Thomas Infusino, Planner, at
(415) 771-6000, extension 281.
Sincerely,
Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
MF:TI:lh
3-72
3. Written Comments and Responses
15-1 The BAAQMD requested that the City extend transit service to the project site as a
means of reducing auto use and potential CO exceedances. At present, the nearest
transit stop to the project site is at the Dublin/Silvergate intersection. The project
traffic consultant did not suggest the extension of transit services to the site as a
mitigation, because, taken by itself, the project is not large enough to warrant it.
However, development of the project site would continue the trend toward
urbanization of the land west of Dublin, including parcels currently under
agricultural contract. The extension of transit routes in to these newly developed
areas would be warranted and advisable to reduce the number of motor vehicle trips
and the potential for consequent CO problems.
15-2 By urging that the City add an air quality element to its General Plan, the BAAQMD
continues to show its concern over the possible development of air quality problems
in the rapidly growing San Ramon Valley. The adoption of an air quality element by
the City would promote the effective integration of air quality mitigation measures
into the urban development process.
15-3 The Fletcher and Gleason properties referred to by the comment letter are actually
the same as the Donlan Canyon property. Another name for the site is Blaylock,
Fletcher and Gleason. The DEIR made reference to 'other parcels on the west,
Fletcher and Gleason." This should be changed to eliminate the phrase "Fletcher
and Gleason." The Nielsen parcel was not included in the cumulative base as there
are currently no definite plans for development of the property.
86184 3-73
ALAMEDA
COLUSA MARIN
Northwest Information Center
California CONTRA COSTA MENDOCINO SAN MATEO Department of Anthropology
DEL NORTE MONTEREY SANTA CLARA
Archaeological ;, HUMBOLDT NAPA SANTA CRUZ Sonoma State University
LAKE SAN BENITO SOLANO Rohnert Park, California 94928
Inventory SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA (707)6644494
YOLO
LETTER 16
26 April 1989
Maureen O'Halloran
City of Dublin Planning Department
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
re: DEIR, Donlan Canyon - General Plan Amendment, PA 87-012
Dear Ms. O'Halloran:
The above referenced DEIR states that there is the possibility of
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites within the proposed
project area. This office concurs that there is such a possibility.
The DEIR assumes that cultural resources in the project area are
disturbed, and that disturbed resources are not of value. There is no 16- 1
indication in the report that a study has been conducted to determine
if there are prehistoric or historic resources within the project
area. Furthermore, disturbance does not necessarily mean that a
cultural resource is without value.
Cultural resources can often only be identified and evaluated by
professional archaeologists and it is unlikely that such resources
could be identified if encountered during construction and that work
would then be halted. It is recommended that a field study be
conducted by a professional archaeologist, or similarly qualified
person, in order to identify cultural resources that should not be
adversely affected.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. It you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Christian Gerike
Assistant Coordinator
3-75
3. Written Comments and Responses
16-1 Comments noted. There is no intent to deny value to either disturbed or non-
disturbed cultural resources. The statements in Impacts, page 4-113 of the DEIR,
are ones of condition, not of value judgments. The mitigation measures state
procedures to be followed if any cultural resources are discovered. It does not
distinguish between disturbed and undisturbed. The report does indicate plainly that
"There is no record of an archaeological survey of the project area."
86184 3-76
IFTF .)t CALIFORNIA GF.OP.GF DWY.MOW),
.:+TINE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION - .LETTER � 7
15 Capitol Mail, Room 288
xromento, California 95814
116) 322.7791
April 4, 1989
Ms. Maureen O'Halloran
City of Dublin
Planning Department
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
Re: SCH# 88100406-Donlan Canyon/GPA PA 87-012
Dear Ms. O'Halloran:
In the review of the project by staff members of the Native American
Heritage Commission, due to the past experience in similar situations,
that certain comments be submitted for your consideration.
The concern of the Native American Heritage Commission is in those
places where the prehistoric sites underlie areas which have been previ-
ously developed and thought to be free of cultural resources. When a foun-
dation is dug to comply with the building codes and requirements of today,
or utility lines are buried to meet health and safety standards, previously
undisturbed soil becomes impacted.
Page 4-113, Paragraph 4.12.1 , should be amended to use the language em-
ployed in the California Codes and in CEQA, Appendix K, to avoid possible 17- 1
confusion if the mitigation measures are needed at some point during con-
struction.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix K, deals with the dis-
covery of archaeological sites and the procedures to follow. It also con-
tains the instructions to follow when human remains are found during any
phase of development.
The Native American Heritage Commission has prepared a pamphlet for use
by lead agencies, planners, developers and property owners. It provides an
easy-to-read breakdown of the California Codes pertaining to Native
American human remains and their disposition. I have included a copy of
this brochure for your information.
1.77
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
this office.
Sincerely,
William Anthony Johnson
Staff Analyst
Enclosure
cc: Marilyn Nishikawa, SCH
RE :C. EIYEI
3-70
%V11ATTO DO
The following actions most be lake])
immediately ])pull the discovery of
remains at a wns(►'uclio]) site:
a) Stop work immediately and V 0
contact the County Coroner.
b) The Coroner has two working ' _
days to examine remains after
being notified by the person
responsible for the excavation.
If the remains are Native
American, (lie Coroner has 24
hours to notify the Native
American heritage
Commission.
A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR: c) The Native American llerilage
Commission will immediately
CORONERS notify the person it believes to
be the most likely descendent
NATIVE AMERICAN of the deceased Native
MOST LIKELY DESCENDENTS American.
CITY AND COUNTY PLANNERS d) The most likely descendent has
24 hours to make recommenda- A PROFESSIONAL
PROPERTY OWNERS lions to file owner, or represen-
GUIDE
tative, for the treatment or
DEVELOPERS disposition, with proper
dignity,of the remains and FOR THE PRESERVA'T'ION AND
grave goods. PROTECTION OF NATIVE
AMLRICAN REMAINS
e) If the descendent doesn't make AND ASSOCIATED GRAVE GOODS
rcx:ounnendations wilhin 24
hours the owner may reinter
the remains in an area of the
properly secure from further
disturbance, or: 1,Olt ADDITIONAL INI,ORMATION:
If the owner does])'( accept the call the NA'T'IVE AMERICAN
descendents rccommenda- llhatl'1 AGIs COMMISSION
lions, the])►tiller re the at ('916) 322-7791 or virile to: Published by the
descendent ns►y request '`'`,;�:.
mediation by lite Native Calili
fhe following excerpts from California law Section 27491 of the Government Crxlc or any other from Section i1197.98 of the Public tilt 447 (Chapter 4(4, Statutes of 1987):
concerning Native American remains are related provisions of law concerning investigation of Resources Code:
provided for your reference: the CircmlhhSLUICC,,manner and cause of any death,and On January I, 1988,Senate[till 447 went into effect.
the recommendations concerning fire Ire:umenl and (a) Whenever the commission receives notification This legislation amended Section 5097.99 of the Public
From Chapter 1492,Statutes of 1982,which disposition of the human remains have been made to of a discovery of Native American human remains Resources Code,making it a felony to obtain or
added Section 7050.5 to the Health and Safety Code, fhe person responsible for the excavation,or to his or from a county coroner pursuant to subdivision(c)of possess Native American remains or associated grave
amended Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources her authorized representative,in the manner provided in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,it goods:
Code and added Sections 5097.98 and 509799 to the Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The shall immediately notify those persons it believes to
Public Resources Code: coroner shall make his or tier detenninafion within two be most likely descended from the deceased Native (a) No person shall obtain or possess any Native
working bays from the'time the person responsible for American. The descendents may,with the American artifacts or human remains which are taken
(a)The Legislature finds as follows: the excavation,or his or her authorized representative, permission of the owner of the land,or his or her from a Native American grave or cairn on or after
notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of authorized representative,inspect die site of the January I, 1984,except as otherwise provided by law or
(1) Native American human burials and skeletal the human remains. discovery of the Native American remains and may in accordance with an agreement reached pursuant to
remains are subject to vandalism and inadvertent recommend to the owner or the person responsible for subdivision 0)of Section 5097.94 or pursuant to
destruction at an increasing rate. (c) If the coroner determines[hat die remains are not the excavation work means for[re Ling or disposing, Section 5097.98.
(2) Stale laws do not provide for the protection subject to his or tier authority and if die coroner with appropriate dignity,die human remains and any
of these burials and remains from vandalism and recognizes the human remains to be those of a Nafive asuociafel grave goods. The descendent,shall (b) Any person who knowingly or willfully obtains or
destruction. American,or ha,reason to believe that they are(hose complete their inspection and make their possesses any Native American artifact,or human
(3) There is no regular means at this[imc by of a Native American,he or she shall contact,by reeonn uenllation within 24 hours of their notification remains which are taken from a Native American grave
which Native American descendent,can make known telephone within 24 hours,fhe Native American by the Native American heritage Commission. The or cairn after January 1, 1988,except as otherwise
[heir concerns regarding the treatment and disposition Heritage Commission. recommendation may include the scientific removal provided by law or in accordance with an agreement
of Native American burials,skeletal remains,and and nondesunctive analysis of human remains and reached pursuant to subdivision(1)of Section 5097.94
items associated with Native American burials. From Section 5097.94 of the Public items associated with Native American burials. or pursuant to Section 5097.98,is guilty of a felony
Resources Code: which is punishable by imprisonment in the state
(b)The purpose of this act is: (b) Whenever the commission is unable to identify a prison.
The commission shall have the following powers and descendem,or the descendent identified fails to make a
(1) To provide protection to Native American duties: recomnientluion,or die landowner or his or her (c) Any person who removes,without authority of
human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism authorized representative rejects the recommendation law,any Native American artifacts or human remains
and inadvertent destruction. ...(k) To mediate,upon application of either of the of the descendent and the mediation provided for in from a Native American grave or cairn with an intent to
(2) To provide a regular means by which Native parties,disputes.rising between landowners and subdivision(k)of Section 5097.94 fails to provide sell or dissect or with malice or wantonness is guilty of
American descendent,can make known their concerns known descendents relating to the tre anent and measures acceptable to the landowner,the landowner a felony which is ptinishnble by imprisonment in the
regarding die nett for sensitive treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the state prison.
disposition of Native American burials,skeletal skelcud remains,and items associated with Native human remains and items associated with Native
remains,and items associated with Native American American burials. American burials with appropriate dignity on die
burials. property in a location not subject to further
The agreements shall provide protection to Native subsurface disturbance.
From Section 7050.5 of the Health and American human burials and skeletal remains from
Safety Code: vandalism anti inadvertent destruction and provide for
sensitive treatment and disposition of Native American
(b) In the event of discovery or recognition of any burials,skeletal remains,and associated grave gouts
human remains in any location other than a dedicated consistent with the planned use of,or die approved
cemetery,there shall be no further excavation or project on,the land.
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner (1) To assist interested landowners in developing;
of the county in which tic human remains arc agicenrams with appropriate Nafive American groups
discovered ha,determined,in accordance Willi r'l:gilrr for ircaling or dislxlsinp„with apprtoptiaic dignity,o['
10(comnicucing will Scclion 27:1(4))of 1':ul 1 I.I the human nanain.s and any itcnhs asshxiafcd With
lhvi%ion 2 of'I 3 of Ili,(iovcnanrnl r'ud�,Thal Nalivc Aniviic:ur huriails.
Ilse ivinains are not Stihicci to Ilic piovlsll ns Ili »ur»
W
G7
O
3. Written Comments and Responses
17-1 Comments noted. Mitigation Measure 4.12.1 on Page 4-113 of the DEIR does
contain the spirit of CEQA requirements in Appendix K concerning archaeological
resources, sites, and human remains. If more specific language from CEQA is
preferred, the specific preferred language should be identified by the writer. The
intent here is to follow CEQA guidelines and to be sensitive to Native American
concerns.
86184 3-81
LET' 'ER 8
j, . DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
211 MAIN STREET
y.r
!i SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 - 1905
May 8, 1989
Enviromental Branch
To: Ms. Maureen O'Halloran MAY ,
City of Dublin ` ` �3
Development Services DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340 SIC
Dublin, California 94568
SUBJECT: Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment PA 87-012
Your request for comments from this office was received on 6 April
1989 by your undated notice.
The proposed activity is an administrative action and therefore will
not require Department of the Army authorization. However, any 18- 1
construction resulting from this action may require Department of the Army
authorization.
A copy of our pamphlet "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program,
A Guide for Applicants", is enclosed and should be forwarded to the
applicant. For additional information please contact our Regulatory
Functions Branch at 415-974-0418.
Any inpacts on wetlands, threatened or endangered species, other
valuable fish and wildlife resources, or on cultural resources are among
the important environmental considerations for all Corps permit
applicants.
Questions concerning our AB 884 review can be referred to the
undersigned at 415-974-0443. , Thank you for including us in your review
process.
Roderick A. Chisholm, II
Chief, Environmental Branch
Planning/Engineering Division
Enclosure
3-33
3. Written Comments and Responses
18-1 Comment noted.
86184 3-84
LgTTER 19
SUBJECT: PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon General Plan
Amendment request to include 197+ acre
project site within the City's Primary
Planning Area designating 19.1 acres for
medium-high density residential and 164.9
acres for open space located north of
Dublin Boulevard, west of Silvergate
Drive, an unincorporated portion of
Alameda County.
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that this application was a General Plan Amendment
request to include 197+ acre project within the City's Primary Planning Area,
and designate 19.1 acres for medium-high density, 13 acres for single-family
and 164.9 acres as open space. Other applications pending the General Plan
Amendment action would include the Planned Development Prezoning, Subdivision
and Annexation.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that on October 13, 1986, the City Council authorized
the General Plan Amendment study to include this development which is referred
to as Donlan Canyon. On March 29, 1989, the Draft Environmental Impact Report
was released for public review and comment. The public review period ends May
15th.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the purpose of this meeting was for the Planning
Commission to accept written and verbal public comment on the Draft EIR during
the 45-day review period. She indicated that the Planning Commission should
hear comments from Staff, EIP Associates, the City's environmental consultants
for the project, and TJKM. Mark Trembley was present from EIP and Chris
Kinzel from TJKM was present for traffic issues.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-58 ` May 1, 1989 —�
3-3
I
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planni-.o; Commission should also 1) hear the
Applicant's presentation and comments on :r+q, Draft EIR, 2) hear the public
comments on the Draft '!".IR; and 3) consider ..,:)ntinuing the item to the May 15th
Planning Commission me ting and/or request ,L.other field trip. The last field
trip was held in Fsbru.ury of 1988.
Mark Trembley, represent;::ive of EIP Associates, discussed the environmental
impacts that were in the !graft EIR. He discussed the geology, vegetation, and
visual impacts of the proprsed project. He indicated that these impacts could
be mitigated and these mitigation mea;;i;res were included in the Draft EIR.
Mr. Trembley discussed the vi,.�ual impacts from Highway I-580. Lots 2-9, 16,
17 and 18 would be visible anc *he mitigated alternatives were included in the
Draft EIR.
Mr. Trembley indicated that all imj..l.cts could be mitigated to less than
significant levels if mitigation mea.:ures were adopted.
Mike Gleason, property owner, describ•!.d his property development. He
indicated that there would be single .`.amity homes adjacent to the Hansen Hill
proposed development and multi-family tomes developed between the ridges. He
indicated the apartments would not be ,,old as condominiums.
Mr. Gleason showed the Planning Commission photographs of his proposed
development. He indicated that he would provide the Commission with a photo
montage which would show the visual effects from various viewpoints. He
indicated that a portion of the property would be dedicated to either the City
or the East Bay Regional Parks District which would include hiking trails and
park-like surroundings.
George Thomas, The Paragon Group, indicated that his company develops and
maintains apartments and has been doing so for 10-20 years. There was no
indication that the apartments would be ?old as condominiums.
Cm. Zika asked Mr. Trembley for clarificen-Aon on development alternatives.
Mr. Trembley indicated that there were a N-a:riety of alternatives. The first
alternative would be to not develop the laid at all (no project) . Alternative
2: mitigated alternative eliminates lots 2-? and lots 16-18; alternative 3
neighborhood density ratios were: 3.3 - 3.J dwelling units per acre; single-
family low density at .5 - 2.8 dwelling units per acre; medium-low density
multi-family at 6.1 - 8.2 dwelling units per acre or medium density at 6.1 -
14 dwelling units per acre.
William Pennington was concerned with the water shortage and questioned if
there was enough water for the new developments in Dublin. He indicated that
he preferred Dublin to be a small community.
Marjorie LaBar, PARC, indicated that she liked the idea of a portion of the
property being dedicated for park land and trails. She had concerns over the
18 single-family homes being an eyesore. The multi-family units needed to be
screened so that they would not be visible from I-580.
DID
Regular Meeting PCM-8-59 May 1, 1989
3-36
Marie Cronin indicated that she was not opposed to the development; however
she had concerns over the high density of the multi-family homes. She
indicated chat there could be as much as 900 people living in the cluster of
multi-family homes and requested the density to be reduced.
2av Kahn had concerns over the traffic and circulation on Dublin Boulevard and '
San Ramon Road. He indicated that the level of service was at "E" now and
this was very uncomfortable.
Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue, agreed with Marjorie LaBar, He had concerns
over traffic, visual impacts and cost of mitigation. He would like to see
these costs allocated to the developers.
Steve Jackson, 6558 Paloverde, Castro Valley, had concerns over the additional
traffic impact on the Castro Valley area. He was concerned over the visual
impact and indicated that these houses could be seen from the Altamont Pass.
He questioned if the Williamson Act was still in affect.
Bob Walker, East Bay Regional Park District, indicated that the project
proposal would be preserving the land for trails linked to an overall trail
system and encouraged the City to work towards this goal. He indicated that
he was pleased with the development.
Mr. Al Bilotti, 8116 Creekside Drive, had concerns with water and pollution
and indicated that area was starting to look like Los Angeles, He had
concerns over traffic, available drinking water, and sewer capacity, He
questioned where the water is coming from,
Mr. R. Ramariz, 8686 Davona Drive, had concerns over impacts on schools, air
quality, and fire control. He was not against development, however, he did
not want to see the residents of the City over-burdened.
Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on the Williamson Act and services.
Mr. Tong indicated that this project was not part of the Williamson Act. He
indicated that the water services would be provided by Dublin San Ramon
Services District. A water master plan would be published at the and of the
year and the developer would be contributing towards the extra tanks needed.
Cm. Okun asked what the definition of "significant" impacts would be. He
asked who would be responsible for the mitigations. He had concerns over
landslides.
Mr. Trembley indicated that the definition is shown on Footnote 1, page 3-14.
He indicated the City would need to implement a monitoring program and the
developer/applicant would be responsible for the mitigation measures. In
regards to landslides, he indicated that there was shallow debris flow and the
unstable material would be removed; however, he did not find any severe
problems.
Cm. Zika asked Mr. Gleason who would be responsible for the open space, the
City or the East Bay Regional Park District.
Mr. Gleason indicated that there were no agreements as of yet, however, a
liaison between the City and the Park District should be formed,
Regular Meeting PCM-8-60 May 1, 1989
3-37
Cm. Zika asked Mr. Kinzel for clarification on the level of service concerns 9 '
on Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. V
Mr. Chris Kinzel, TJKM, indicated that when the traffic study was initiated,
the level of service was "D". A recent study done in April showed a level of
service "E"; however, the City Council recently adopted mitigation measures by
a plan line and this should bring the level of service back down to "D" . The
intersection will continue to degrade and will reach level of service "F"
sometime in the future with or without the project.
Cm. Zika asked when the street improvements would be implemented.
Mr. Kinzel indicated that the widening should take about 3 to 6 months and
there should be little disruption in traffic, The City is considering a
traffic impact fee ordinance which would make the developer responsible for
the cost impacts.
Cm. Burnham asked Mr. Kinzel about installing a signal at I-580 and San Ramon
Road.
Mr. Kinzel indicated yes, a signal could be installed at the I-580 and San
Ramon Road intersection; however one has not been approved,
Mr. Tong indicated that off-ramp improvements were included in the downtown
plan and the CIP would be reviewed in June.
Cm. Burnham asked if Dublin Boulevard would be extended to the West.
Mr. Kinzel indicated that it was a possibility and would be funded by the
developer. An intersection at Schaefer Ranch was also being considered.
Mr. Gleason asked what the actual impacts of his project was for the
intersection.
Mr. Kinzel indicated that there was approximately a 38 difference.
Mr. Gleason indicated that the mitigation cost would be worked out with the
developer, He stated that apartments were needed and the water district had
the capacity for the project. He indicated that the fire department's
conditions have been met.
Cm. Zika asked if the proposed road would be connected with the Hansen Hill
project.
Mr. Gleason indicated yes.
Cm. Burnham asked if the units would have fire sprinkler systems built in
them.
Mr. Gleason indicated yes.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-61 May 1, 1989
Cm. Zika asked if these units would be considered apartments or condominiums.
Mr. Gleason indicated that they would be apartments.
Ms. Cronin indicated her concerns over the open space. She indicated that
park dedication would mean within the park system and the land would not be
allowed to be sold.
Cm. Burnham asked if grazing would be allowed on the open space.
Mr. Gleason indicated that grazing could prevent fires,
Ms. Cronin indicated that she would not want grazing to be allowed.
Cm. Barnes discussed the upcoming field trip. The field trip would be on May
13th at 9:00 a.m. and the meeting place would be at the end of the Dublin
Boulevard.
Cm. Zika had concerns over the traffic congestion.
Cm. Okun asked how much dirt would be graded.
Mr. Trembley indicated that there would be approximately 324,000 cubic yards
of dirt moved, The Draft EIR discusses this issue on page 4-57.
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the May 15, 1989
meeting with a field trip to be held on Saturday, May 13th at 9:00 a.m.
3-39
PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon General Plan
Amendment request to include 197+ acre
project site within the City's Primary
Planning Area designating 19.1 acres for
medium-high density residential and 164.9
acres for open space located north of
Dublin Boulevard, westof Silvergate Drive,
an unincor2orated portion of Alameda
County (continued from the May 1, 1989
meeting)
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that this application had been continued from the
May 1, 1989 Planning Commission meeting in order to receive additional
comments on the Draft EIR and a field trip had been held on May 13, 1989, She
indicated that the public review period for the Draft EIR ends on May 15,
1989.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that at the May 1st Planning Commission meeting the
following comments were discussed: placement of single-family units; view of
multi-family units from I-580; density of multi-family area; traffic and
circulation at Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection; trails in the
open space area; impacts on schools; public services; and soil stability. She
indicated that the Final EIR will include responses to all of the comments
received during the public review period and should be ready for review at the
June 19, 1989 meeting.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Jennifer Toth from EIP Associates and Chris
Kinzel, TJKM, were in the audience if any questions arised.
Mr. Mike Gleason, the Applicant, thanked everyone for coming to the field
trip. He indicated that he had made some grading revisions to the development
so that the visual impacts from I-580 would be eliminated. He stated that
units would not project above major or minor ridgelines. He showed
photographs of the proposed revision and indicated tha ill
would disguise the homes from the scenic corridor:
Regular Meeting PCM-8-2 May 15, 1989
3-90
Mr. Gleason indicated that the cumulative traffic impacts with or without the
project would be a LOS F. The mitigation measures would bring the impacts to
LOS D.
Mr. Bob Doyle, East Bay Regional Park District, was on the field trip and he
introduced Maxine Turner, Chief of Planning for East Bay Regional Parks
District who was in the audience.
Mr. George Thomas indicated that he would be available to answer any questions
or concerns.
Cm. Burnham asked Mr, Chris Kinzel, TJKM, if the Hopyard Road overpass
construction had any affect on the level of service on Dublin Boulevard and
San Ramon Road intersection when the counts were taken.
Mr, Kinzel indicated yes it may have, however, this has not been studied or
analyzed. The Hopyard overpass had been monitored for a number of years.
There has been some increase in traffic during the last year. There has been
some development in the downtown area and in the hills and the level of
service was now in the "E" range. However, after mitigation measures have
been adopted, the range will and up at a level of service "D", which would
include all new proposed development.
Zev Kahn asked what the impacts would be when Bart was built.
Mr. Kinzel indicated that with the possible Bart construction, the west side
of the Hopyard overpass would have to be replaced.
Marjorie LaBar, PARC, had concerns over preserving the open space area and
would like to sea alternative proposals for the front area of the site.
Cm. Zika had concerns over traffic congestion. He indicated that an
additional patrol car would be needed and wanted this issue addressed in the
Final EIR.
Cm. Burnham and Mr. Gleason discussed the possible dedication of open space
for park land and trails.
Cm. Zika asked if there were provisions for an access road to the 170 acres of
land that would be dedicated.
Mr. Thomas and Mr. Gleason indicated that there would be a staging area with a
loop access on the property, with trails through the trees.
Cm. Okun had concerns over the traffic congestion on Dublin Boulevard and San
Ramon Road.
Mr. Kinzel indicated that the mitigation measures for this project were
extensive. The mitigation measures would add a significant traffic capacity
on the two boulevards, which would include additional lanes.
Ms. Marjorie LaBar asked if the development fees or bonds could be used by the
City to make improvements before congestion gets critical.
Regular Meeting PCH-8-3 May 15, 1989
1 '
J-91
i
Mr. Tong indicated that contributions usually take place at the Planned
Development and Tentative Map approvals. Details of the impact fees are
worked out at that time. These improvements would have to be in the CIP which
is established in June.
The Planning Commission continued the item to the June 19th Planning
Commission meeting.
3-92
3. Written Comments anI Responses
19-1 Most comments related to traffic concerned the intersection of Dublin Boulevard to
San Ramon Road. The DEIR describes the existing and projected levels of service
and the mitigation measures that are required to achieve acceptable service levels
in the future. The City will establish prorated cost requirements for this
development prior to project approval.
19-2 Other comments concerned the fact that traffic counts taken since the publication
of the DEIR show that the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon intersection may have
recently degraded from level of service D to level of service E. Responses made by
TJKM representatives indicated that traffic volumes considered by the DEIR in its
cumulative scenario may have contributed to the degradation as some of the
cumulative development is now occurring. This will result in no additional future
traffic and the future volumes, levels of service and mitigation requirements would
be as reported in the DEIR.
86184 3-93
•. .; ! fJ i f/r� r.
.p ej, ,• f . . ♦ J� / .•, ?Y�•L�rr �!'Y I,r 1 /. ri/• ��i ,.��f 7 .�. Jr. x; Y .)r , ...
1
t
3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
All imoacts. that Were Identified Curia, the course o' tl;-:is environmental analysis are
itemized in the followir:, section. The level of si—gnificance of these IiripaCtS is preSEnfEC.
both with and Without mitigation measures.1 The I"'i:t:zated impact Im7IIES that all
mitigations should be ir:pleme-ited, unless otherwise i c ca_ed in this summary. Adverse
iri�'aCts that are unavoidable a-c' which cannot be �_tEC to a IESS than sig. :iesnt
le`.el are noted. 1^:s Sum rnary S: OUIC be used in CC; L'"c::0:i witi-, a t lorou,hi resdi^, C'
t%e r?70rt in Order to have ti._ full CEscripti0n of 1,T:mss_._ and ri°.:Lic-a'_IOn measures. Th--
Su":n:%ary is inten(f e as an o v e r v i e ti's t e report Se-`-25 as ...: basis for this suSi1-1,a'v.
Level e' ..._..:_
ICs 1C2
j'rit^c t �• it.`. Miti,.=_ion
Miti,at_o- '•i tior Re_cons bili:v
Geolc;; and Soils
I1. ct Sigc 'ica::_ M.ce-_te P-o eet Saonsc-
CorISt-uctlon in areas of known Si0:)=-
in5ta�ility and known. landslide de2cs:tt.
itli'i—atton
R°: •cve and/or repair landslides locate
iP a-eas of develop;,2^.t. Slides acu:fir._
:,
t`:2orocosed multi- a^,,:_C unit
development area s`ould be repaired
threuc-h removal of ~Water from wet beds
and actual slide ma__.
I,—..c°ct rrro ect Spit Jar
in areas of ;'.Op2 ir.s,abili:�'.
}7i I ,
/mil/] Q n �•�,_ 1 n.p,-t c.-i 5 �
;I . .,, .. I ,,., 1,'-," li,.' 4 t cV,.-
v
14
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Level of Significance
Without With Mitigation
Mitigation Mitigation Resoonsibility
Geology
All grading activities should be
conducted under the supervision of a
registered professional in the state of
California specializing in the field of soil
and geologic engineering. Said soil
engineer shall have a full-time repre-
sentative on.site during grading and
certify that the grading was done to
their soecifications and recommenda-
tions. All activities must conform to the
requirements of City of Dublin
Ordinance 58-87.
Impact Significant Moderate Project Sponsor
GroundshLaking from seismic events along
nearby active faults.
Mitigation
All construction should be completed in
accordance with the rECUirementts for
Zone 4 Of the Uniform Building Cede.
Sponsor
S ig-rii fican IL Not Project
Impact
Previous land uses or on-site fill Ci ificant
material may have a-ffectled the shallow
groundwater underlying the fill material.
Mitigation aer
Install one groundwater monitorin- well
and sample in accordance with EPA
procedures and the samples analyzed for
total petroleum hydrocarbons on a
regLlar basis.
Impact
Significant Not Project Sponsor
a
Petroleum hydrocarbons and oil a nd -.,--11 n i f i c an t
grease identified in the shallow
subsu-, ace in the artificial fill area
could affect construction work2rs-
ilJjtizatkon
All construction ac., . in the
artificial fill area should be undert','Ken
in accordance with a site safety plan.
S 6 IS 4
• e J-! F l( u r J a r .'n t .; .. ,i7/� w ,J .i:�fl.fA/Y.y.,y1i},J-J 4J 'k.fi"v i.. ,ti 7ri !�,{'�,y,f pv' 'Y i�'''�•J��� �H._�' t/� /i /
'� :. /'f%" ! -;f^..Jf ryi�. l.s,.;/, , r r irr;I'c y'� 7 f�,,,.a{f it�.f..,'/J�, aJi�.(tr h y)iJ•rx•�.�t. t" � ,(�,v�"• ,y T,ji % '
,� / f.IJf .b%f .f<4.�. .. r .✓ r4r :,.a.J-�Y{ii,i/! q.l•�T {pf/J.L �q:', hr7.1!? Y'� ,.Y7�r�/•�� .� f / ,
;,,%'t J 'H' .i aJ'�4, J ;S'r L, .S� f y l J��;��,, eS r{{�jl�;f ,c�f �� .N, />� f�"f .tf G •� rN�fs��dS.q.•�IKr/�� �;`t � %'(.
! f •/ 1. /� '"S � / +5 {Y J�'!;/ r 1/�(J`sY'•4l�fW r%�f^� �.•v%.'�/ `��� a.i,,�s>/�JI°•f.fYTt'T���fi/Yf!.+,�" J'f f' i if.56
•/ .v� ".. ! nS,/. J{. 4 •.+d ✓ ,1 �• � ! r. /. �G+" /IZrn/' ,)r f rx / (`'-/
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
f Level of Significance
Without With Mitigation
i Mitigation 'Mitigation Resoonsibilitv
Soils
Impact Significant Not Project Sponsor
Damage to structures from expansive Significant
soils.
Mitization
Follow recommendations from
geotechnical engineers for project site.
Hydrology
Impact Significant Not Project_ Spor_or
Damage to structures and settlement S:—snlIic2rii
from questionable quality of artificial
fill near mouth of canyon.
;�titi�ation
Follow recommendations from
geotechnical engineers for project sit--.
Impact Significant Not Project Sporso:
Increases in flooding potential at Significant
Interstate 580 culvert from watershed
development.
Mitization
Construct detention basins) on-site
_ upstream from Interstate 580 culvert.
Imeact Significant Not Project Sponsor
Increases In flooding potential upstream Si,g*:Iilcan„
from proposed culve,tir.g of Donlan
Creek.
Mitiszation
Establish a maintenance program for the
culvert and upstream open creek charnel
through a homeow-,e:s' association,
which is agreed upon by the City, an,d the
project sponsor.
S ii 1 S-1
3 :i
h�f�i�e r"�rrf'•;♦%• J�',..�'•!�,v I✓r J J•r y-I A I r;,:"!,:n I.,1 - ..'•! ✓ );. ♦r/rt M 7rr/f r:r�<>;l r�../i r!,r-f';� ;fr,�.f.'tr om iS7♦..i j.'(�.r�i r.I'✓f{Yf�'"�f/W�,•t 41 �•r/N�/'7'�f'�2°A'r7
i��♦t l�y.f y iy ir?,'.."1.r♦i•X r 1 f.`!I r I_�E N�/t.t .y.,l.;_?
U,'.j
�o?'l•' yfh�"
V
P!-
N J-✓'�f tz:.r�r ir i�f r r r f,�t r yr r�4.'*
t•,%�r rr r 3 r
u.
,J f��72'•'.� nl +r �.. N .i� r J.
!. J� jf fi �Y�i4$�J r I i, rr r ! .r iCfrsrif
. .. r
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
-Level of Si?nificance__
Without With Mitigation
Mitigation !Mitigation Responsibility
Hydrology continued
Significant Not Project Sponsor
Impact
Increased sedimentation during Significant
construction activities to downstream
areas, resulting in potential increases in
flooding along Dublin Creek.
Mitization
Implement erosion and sediment control
measures during construction at and near
Donlan Creek.
Impact Significant Not Project Sponsor
Open upper end of storm drain pipe will Significant
allow debris to be wedged into pipe and
could be an attractive nuisance for
children playing in the area.
Mitigation
A moveable trash rack should be
designed to cover the upstream end o,
the s,or, , drain pipe. -
Impact Significant Not Project Sponsor
The plugging of the upper, end of the Si;rai-Li cant
storm drain pipe could cause flooding of
the apartment site.
Mitigation
Design a floodway through the project
that would preclude inundation of
habitable structures.
Vegetation and Wildlife
Impact Potentially Not Project Sponsor
Grassland, oak/bay woodland, and Significant Significant
riparian vegetation will be displaced by
proposed buildings, roads, parking and
grading.
SG1S4 3-4
r c r. T �%'/Y,f f t r 's4 '' /t /J .!,^'/,+" ry t+t- r• :? :/r;., ';9
it '�..':i. I. r,/,r/'t U{;v5.� ;/% �.� pI y, y 4. J /,��rr/y M1l'N�'p.��� �"�'.$.�y�r'• �� 'C49' r J r•r
, /? o. .r '%" •a,. .a•'' 'f t.rr. %i::>/ r:r.��riaL %.�/. _r. si. r. /rjJ,!:•,:,.yr/ln• 73 'J.F';.Yb SY+ �yJ r,•� 1�,,uj^ /.';•,•'..
'•jr l .• f / /. / i_r� �. AI/<h� W'. J. I 1' .J I!i-4f.< Y• .�a 7%' li lJf rk
'� t'✓j y..- ,.!
rJ ..Jt r��I/ ' r J- r s ! .�. 'X fr�.>:`' .✓ �' !,e �s r
r J j it 1r a% Xr '3'..r/ T t, t+ �' r r.6.�/ f y� .r�'i f x•- ,j"1 J ,,'" •La{� J° �� �j�� r
�!rW'fe t4 j s✓7�J i+ y E '1p�rr�ll� j�� �r�J tx�J�r¢I J /J�o�/ y�?J
- ,. rf Y.., t .�� lri� . f','/•� �Y Ni*� a"lY r .x. � ,r
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
' Level of Si?nificance
Without With Mitigation
Mitigation Mitigation Responsibility
1
_ Vegetation and Wildlife continued
Mitigation
Preservation of remaining 171 acres as
parkland. Dedication area use should be
limited to protect the natural resources.
Existing unpaved roads which enter, this
area should be blocked off to prevent
access by motorized vehicles. Grazins
should be discontinued, if possible. If
grazing is continued, a maximum
carrying capacity of the land should be
established and enforced to prevent
overgrazing and denudation of slopes and
woodland understory.
Imoact Potentiallv Not Project Sponsor
Careless construction and gradir, co :ld Significant Significant
disturb vegetation outside of the
proposed construction and grading zone-s.
Mitigation
Temporary fencing should be p:ovidec -
during construction for hose areas c:
rioarian and/or oak/bay woodland habitat
not intended to be included in the
construction or grad-n-- zones.
Impact Potentiallv Not Project Sponsor
Clearing during construction could lead Si`nificart Significant
to erosion and siltation. covering
downslope vegetation and adversely
affecting water quality.
Mitigation
An erosion and siltation control plan
should be incorporated within the
grading plan for the project prior to
construction of the project.
A revec-etation effort or, all graded
slopes should be uncle:taken as soon as
possible after elearin?
"�i j j
d f� n !«.r .%�F ,!/ _ i.It r.w y.1! !� .r •' .� 7r��t
1! lt't'1 rlP� / 1%�/! .d. M .�. 4••I !i• / „ ! /,`
ray �. rr 1,• r , ,{L /�
f i:. ti !, yi • �, t ,,rr./ 7,1 d'�` � ryr� � �1+. r�+i 1 L,<• 1✓ Y.� rL h S �'1L'i l• F. r/ .t'1-r.a• � � ! u
,14/_•t•i,s''.'.`. ''/ro r� r1. .,fvtfP.,h l�.Q� r,J .f;Y/p r�ir�,� ,�yfly'!jk-�����ji 1.,1i�.�`r//;.f�r''f"y'_ �-'... ,�,�C.� � .�� t�IJ� r..{r.�..� r .�/.� r. /�.
y A/�y...,I,,!T••i:'lis,�, i. ,•t a!t'��.: 51 i. .q'+r� J lJ�/i�r ,/� �i�/ fig•W�Js'/!r/ 7 �:j.,i3' �,, ,�(J� �fd r,��lh i�{�j�� � /`a',
, t. .•/. Y ��'Ygf lYf+47 ��;r .."1�.�'ty%yIi, 7;Cf n ,1F / J fa�'6 1 f ih N� f� yi/Y '.��.IS�i ..�-l`/
�Ss r .. Lr ..� i 1._!/•'� r! /Y '/�•J[.fililr•'�'/'r/! � h /t_"= sue' li � �J / t7 i'/ I/ j
• .. • � .N /�'rI F/•�C/ ! iyJ f: :S^i �lry/�w�r / Y f �
J
aril .r
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Level of Significance
Without With Mitigation
Mitigation Mitigation Responsibility
;• Vegetation and Wildlife continued
Impact Potentially Not Project Sponsor
Riparian vegetation will be removed Significant Significant
along the lower portion of Donlan Creek.
Mitieation
The creation of the new habitat corridor
on Lot 1, as approved by the California
Department of Fish and Game, should be
.- undertaken as soon as possible after
construction and should consist of the
minimum habitat widths (20 to 40 feet)
and vegetation types as preliminarily
proposed.
Potentially Not Project Sponsor
Impact
Development of Lot 1 will require the Significant 5 gniI nt
removal of 230 trees.
Mitization
A tree size and location survey to be
undertaken prior to prezoning anc
tentative map application submittal. a
grading study to be undertaken to try
and save as many trees as possible
especially 24 large ones. Any tree
removed with a trunk diameter greater
than 6 inches at DBH should be replacer
with a similar native species on a 3 to 1
basis. Replacement trees should be at
least five gallon container stock size.
The 24 large trees removed should be
replaced with bay trees at a size cf 10
gallons or greater. A maintenance
program should be estaNished for th ese
trees to provide water, fertilizer,
pruning, and protection from browsinc by
wildlife and vandalizing.
Impact Potentially- Not Project Sponsor
Inappropriate landsca--e plant propose Significar-t S:gn:ficant
in project.
S6164 :i-�
I .( r - i' •w.7! � r LjG' 5 Il. x t //!' /Y'N t f r r':/r 1 r: f,:,
.,/ r • .,/ r w � � / ','r. i� ✓i' `•''t/'7 i ../t fF'I ar•.I'"`� :1,: fj�� � +�'/r arc✓ r"f"_ 6/ � Ji{h r a,/ Ds / ."n � 7 1!'d'../....
2' f�i s % �' ". s r, ix lj / ,r ✓• ,�1 -� ? /r! � „/ '
r,t
�' .M'.r%�. J/ Y r E 1 /�._ ff r /"!/w7 4l//- / ff /!r It✓ a.�i f / / !7 /t /x//7b�,.l�fS.f. ! s� r If✓
�
r s! it'/"'�!� % yl/� x f ( =�' ��� yb�� fN! r• ��`�s}{ :�Ixr7 . 1�Pf �Ias ;• ��/ 1j /ty" / t 1�IIt,�d
,!. •..-.:•.., I+!.J•'.",• .; r ' .r r, i, rm I• !!; /! .r�i�,ii Fr !" f.,� j Jfi�} �Alar,� ��.'N;/'/ 1"v' ! '•�
. ... .. .. rte. .�_•�•_,. . . ,. .. ..
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
s
� Level of Significance
Without With Mitigation
Mitigation Mitigation Responsibility
Vegetation and Wildlife continued
Mitigation
' Eucalyptus should be eliminated from
the proposed landscaping because it can
become invasive in surrounding native
woodlands.
Impact Potentiallv Not Project Sponsor
Culverting of the lower portion of Lot 1 Significant Significant
prevents access by wildlife.
Mitigation
An additional leng`h of new habitat
should be established on the west side of
Lot 1 between the existing oak/bay
wocdland and the northerly end of t;:e
habitat proposed near Building 4.
Revegetation of this area will provide an
additional link between new habitat and
existing wildlife-h-bitat•.--Similar size
and type trees and understory should be
planted and maintained as proposes for
the remainder of the habitat area.
Special care should be taken in desi :in;
and planting this area as the slope wili1
be very steep west of proposed fire la: e.
Land Use
There are no mitigation measures
reeuired for Land Use. See Section -'..5
for a full discussion of issues.
Aesthetics and Visual Quality
Impact Significant Not Project Sponsor
Grading due to construction would a'_te*
CignIIlC3nt
the existing appe :'_ree of the si:-.
mope site veoetaticn and expose :o:l to
eresion.
SGIs4 3•i
, ��r 1`•r y'I li f , �" tl;d'1•rt�a r;j/.t./t�`P �j/ �i�y/' t ! o�' �' �,4"r-'tl .n }i Y d � '„p{ / G i f!,>
r• r. / � l -y j �� soya, r +.. �,+, , -� / t
i f����t��s''�� ,Y�l�;��*l'`i�y���/�i��� ',���ji;d',✓, �„ .y; / �', �,y,%..1�.' `'� � ;n .( ;�� �'�/,/3,�i�'
�IrlY f,f yt,g;l% /tti '�1J�/f`�y�•f/�'i��� n r•`,� � r } ., �j •f r ,r / �i �,j ,,�Y
pP%I/',%'�� � s/) � L�i�,u/ji✓)�y��Ys�1" 'f• Sf" I rru !i s'i" rsJ�,+�•�.
r,��srr'�/r�/,'r✓rr� `t%"•`i.�4.1�� r;{"fd�,y'�� r�' �`, ;,; � '��Y�4y-f7��.
r.'ra )i�r�lyl.;i'iy`Yti��� to" �f'�/ r?''•���%Y�:J��v.J�i F � w';/"��P, .., _��ts. i�� ,r �, . ra�'d,k.-% Gc(�~,
'%r r r. .��a•�-t f� %h R�;'�'1�i3•�v.'i.:�a ,f/�Irr�' �.� .��1`/Syf"+>✓ .�r,�s %'�•r.,
? ✓ Y s 'c, Lr G q', ss�/r.... �� �z .,?pS�. rs ��J � J.,- •I� .. ��ly'b` Ir
f/ �I•ir� n:. � �;i`�,'�,Yr �,fr.�f,�,�� r�•x'f�u.�;.�,��,i,�w/�, F,.,.�1-'-i�r ��y:�),:fiY�.�n� t7';� .�rf� 'ma,�ci'.'� 'i�j.�1 Grp •1• d��lu..7�j C-: r �
stiff r .y.•(...;;r �rjr ..� -1,5t'ludr�l7:!',..'Z"o.^..d�! v - -r� e1dL��� lb+afs`C.�lP:4rit it s..yir r/..
;ay/•.:v:.•:.nW.i,:.. .wN....✓ ..LGs.�/«/Mis-✓nr.KM1...,f .+71.. S �M•-%SYr.sitfOS>.f�di!'rt_✓l/�X,� .l:t
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
i A 4
'Lev cance''�
Without With `Mitigation
:! ti Mitigation Mitigation Responsibility -
' Aesthetics and Visual Quality continued
• '• Mitigation j
Round and feather graded slopes to
achieve a naturally contoured appear-
ance. Preserve mature trees determined
to be of importance. Revegetate/hydro-
seed disturbed slopes as soon as possible.
Impact Significant Not Proiect Sponsor
Grading activity may damage trees to be Significant
preserved.
Mitigation
Temporary fencing should be provided _
during construction so as not to disturb
the area beneath the drip line of the
retained trees. No work should be
allowed in this area.
Impact - Significant Not Project Sponsor
Visual character of the site would Significant
change from rural to suburban.
I Iitization
pDev
design guidelines which estab-
lish building colors, materials and fin-
ishes which are compatible with the sur-
rounding terrain. Road widths should
meet City standards. Rolled curbs and
gutters are okay for private streets.
Impact Significant Not Proiect Sponsor
Night lighting and glare would increase Si;nifiearlt
with the proposed project.
(Mitigation
Reflective finishes should not be used o,
site structures. Excessive exterior light-
ing should be avoided. focused down o:
shielded but not to the point of
compromising security. Lighting on
project access roads should be foe, sec
and directed to prevent light spill-over.
SG I S-1 3-S
.. ..i `e \\y sac o4��i yam;i \ S �t.».i� i�,•')• )7 K \ �.Y + ` s
' •u• •.. ., t. ti .b� t
.``\ .l' 7,r) ` .ttt ltl tti t.., a.? "�� �w G t �,)+ s � •t � ♦ `l:\1• .�;k�,•:
-:i. •• -� r l:� t \ �t ;.a�.>xr•,iy.\vt
c. ;\ \�' �: ` )i t .\v'.,� >• ) �; �7ii, z t''t ; A e Y �\ .,\ �. i ��^` i\+ .� a,
• ,''c•"+, t .� ,.i. uR 'ii .., \�� i11.) �. :;� \ l �i.'7 sril\a�..�. , ` K�� 1`�;� ) 1•
• ��;- , ' .5: V �t ' t i r •� �C �/ •. ti�'�t k � •1 t .r t i
\ \ ai + � ��.\\3u��,` ,\ , .. , \�i- , �\S. alt )1 J .. � +,t i�),.,rj ♦� � .,
t
�. ��• .[. s. 1�: t• )�s ,� �...�� ,��L.i.'.•., t L�., j.. �i .,,\v'. � ?C.'�', ,i r ;n`„�t•I'��\/•l -\\ :t
) o�'; ' '• ��'�?•\� "t'• 5, \). \ �:�'� tom_ r 4 1 �.�t � k+ -•. !v �. : ��, r4a)` .•;i
l r �r 3 /''t• l' 1Ii !1��yi ai:r•%t:ji( � ,'n�`i ' �t�`;'y s'� � , ' - it�� +ft!. 't• ,f jr,
�,.{'[/J' r �i ..iN;l"rli iyFFy�M�..,�rrS'l+,r(�' �• N r/' � !! f'-pi j ;t^ .i�'�wAf�1 yzli ':s � ,i. r �i/ '/.•j'•1',�!� I��1f
r✓.:.,: 1, •f,ii6� �i -Jl! ✓"si�/� � , P' •r•• / -�� r/r��/ �f�.. �r ;ff tY' .'IPs�'��' I �4r l jl%��i'rt�{Y,
�di'�y'�i�J��>.iy� �.�Ss��r.�.�ff`"�'l✓i'"7� •%P� ,'f" ,�'�s z� r� '/' �•u ''�` yr �'`/'+�,, '�'""'
�a•#; �•�✓�H {..lj. r.,'y, ,:sr. � -1>� � r � CT 'i� �. �. r. ,r i.d 57�,�'�rrr�;�,.rS� •r
,! r� '!,,'��'tfFt%'•�r(• yv'i �Nf�p1f,t r� �/ � {r' D.Yt% S :{v, f u! �i w. � .sir' Y'''«
•+ s^ i ,�,,,, �r Kv i"r/a �"Y v�c 5 �3 � fY� � :6 'r. f��, `�,yh,{r� r� s 4` ri
�'-�.i `�"�: M1"!�f�����,•I.�'' �7�\fit?tf,?;/.!.{. "`✓�,� /,'� jf,,�'t .-• �.7!'.�%fJ-'`•� :,1� Y,9j/�N����•� f�li�+� � „�: f f �r�,�.'
I"t,s:.✓ r./�r,,°i �., ,,y����:���y,s'1� r r r�{'; � l r � s .��: •d y£� '`f �r^r�'r/� �'�,,r�Q, �'X'A ar f �,�,,,' f��r�/p���j ' f
t .,✓,r �j,�,�Yr• .'i'�4;, ..L � /�"t�'" M;Gi��/ r s.,.S� .",,7".. r Try,^*!',,,-�ti�N r✓l`''3S' ti'.�` �`.n r t
"+-: '�r-� N�� _� {.{ ,rr ��i ! ", jib 1 .ty or.t!' f•Iiri }.:G !` /! .�!- { !•�', :;•;f%•� � ,w � :9.
;.e �• `1; !,. J' Zs ,. �'! )�. � Is !• •�l�f jr'rt /��1'' �•,r �X�rl,rv;♦lrl� ft' !d•�.„ f �. 4I.j e�t,'f;�E. Jf`.r � :.`e �,..!�,..
i�'!% •"R.:'�'.!nfir.l.fr.i���1'Ji�'-3' .�.:)%�{'yy�id �l�.��'z" '.:{., t,f.ef.y^7.?5��!'•)�.I/f!', �•'�,�/_ /1 L� "i!"!,q< ��t. �'�' t' Q.. �` ��•� i '6 'r '�,'ra
�,j' �•;. ..tt� ��•:, .,a T. / 4„S:�/ .{ ,� 4! /�1,. '`•�.' .✓'.'`C'i'f � �f,✓ ir•1.1+�-.�Yti'N� l r ,t,.' �l��w ry �;�4k
'.%•;�';S%' `14t�x�•i<!./ iz'�9:vr��. .r+ C lylJ, �^r,L.����O .r I� ���l,.fY -�.-.i�.c!� h•�rfy,v�/�Y,.:�•dt..�,l.' f�.:���,f'S.n,�'fi'
V�!Y,"i�•�''�I•:! .hi• �r ,.Cr.:'y .t!�!�•bi- r/r 'l7:
k:J'r.: �,:/• I i ✓1''f1 �!:^", r''' t"�f"''�^ :In E' a., > 7 s >r a' s r� Y-.
f',/-..r{'sf�,':.!•� y(''�✓'+i'7 s Y S. ll,,. `r7 J r 1 £ ,!{ z<ck�"tcf- ! lt.(nOx•' � �� .''l ri 7�..1 I�".
'.ta.:fl`L''.Ftlia..r'r.Jrfr.�/:l'���...a°'...w��........s1uu:�:r..f��.,rt�ii�i:w�.!'. •NFLw�rf�7'+n��yi.•rLd..dd.../(••6t!��1'�'!.`..b:.� �fr.:.L•_u:Lws...d'/ri(,�a.•k S:..IJQ`u�w .. ., Y:�o�.J../.G'.:i,rri�
Ej
Summary of Environmental Impacts
fLevel of Significance
Without With - Mitigation
1 , Mitigation Mitigation Responsibility
Aesthetics and Visual Quality continued
- • ; Imoact Significant Not Project Sponsor
Views from I-580 (a designated scenic Significant .
highway) would be impacted by develop-
ment of Lots 2-9 and 16-18, which are
within an area of "High" visual con-
straints.
Mitication
Parcels 2-9 and 16-18 should not be
developed as proposed.
Imoact Significant Not Project Sporscr
' Construction of single-family homes may Significant
interfere with views of the site's rid;e-
line.
Mitization
Site homes well below ridgelines.
Public Services
Fire Protection
Imoact Significant Not Project Sponsor
Due to undeveloped surrounding land, Significant
there is a higher risk of fire than in
subdivisions located in more developed
surroundings.
Mitigation
All roof covering must be of fire reta:C-
ant material. Fire-proof landscaping
should be used in pubiic areas.
Impact Significant Not Project Sponsor
Project is outside the 1.5 mile limit from Significant
the fire station per Building Code.
Mitization
All of the project rn,_,st be equipped. wi!h
_ automatic fire supD- res_sion syste-nn.
Grades are limited to 15:;L- by Fire Code.
8615-1 3.9
<.,\ ;t+:ai<, :A•'.'P''i 'M ,'n•'`!i1b\.-s'°u �y;•• xv::\: °et�:.::i i' 'r yt..nrs-.- -rKP::T`'•7\ •t•'1'\ c 'tt r "'4t;. aT•,.i.� •.,Y,,
�5,t,:�:'<\+,�.'\;�{iy �1 '� � -��. .,c�... � ems•, 'a '�tl ,•.. tpz t \ y ^
,'��`M , lI�:t\`. ,•';•- W-..r. ? t a t•. •ti" �7*i ..� ` t� y, 1 \, - � t.�' ,v4
'••�'• �•.� � �\��t �c� � \t 'L\ \ '!- 1 .� \�� t•! \\. i Li t�� t qt'.�-`� •'qv a \
t , t t�, �i` tt k r1 t'. ^\ a, 1°�t•�. - �\ �1,4 ��C ,S�t\ ;F� �? -.�. eS � L1 � - �.
4 t1 \���y,it t4� t'a '',•,l.♦ t .,ilr rt V '\ej \ ~'\i�t�y���t4 \il a �. ��`<.;A � t
.�,.. I e,i it r•"1: 3, Vii.:, +v a :``�?' '� �`�?.;? � ,ri Y?>:S.\.a1�•2•.Ka a ` V t' �:i�y'`„�C�<v\- .'a a'��t��iC\.< � i � , `f" Z� �•��• ti
tti�:.�•;ia^ t \ •a. �,:\\.a 1•�$' �`• .4'••„ adi.\a,••.t h!1 �•.•�tb,,i.�tt `y; ..�• .t,;.,�.• ..#`»E� •e•.i,`.4 t :l- •,,:�.:,�2a >, .3.�1tZ•
�}: •: :�•.:. \•Ft� awl �,� �•.. Za � '\. A,. � s. �•... t•.
-+ .• '' �;r .�; � y4 t• �r '` ��Nnj" �'11•:�:;�i�R�t�` ��: I, � +��;-?�R�1'x.: ay. � ���•�,�r.: t�.<�`::����s�,.t� Y`�•.\` `
I,Ly. _.,u•s.`.1J,T.�4�. .'`�,111���c�i��la�ti.'S��r.3�.�t�..a.�.�.`��a. v�«-i:r\...Z :� J v'•.�.�>. \\.: ?..,sM �'k`R.�'``a l•\.a. a.r��_�..__ !\t3.„�:�t::,oC'_.:G.^a.. .., .,.r...
r/�,r.y� �y� ay.Y,`�'y ,�rir �F,,P',f! f•GW,• 4 •r - f t +
V
c rr i f /`r"v %r •r ,a r / v r a � � 3�r G?"!f �! r,,...", .3 %7. r r y r;)
/54. c r r. 1 •l .✓� 3 r9, r� r' / L r rL ! �J,,'�� r >�, f
,.f,..�'�rr/ f ��/ 1,� + ��� rl 7 r �T 'J �1.rY t. �/,� : //�/'�r rr�/Z,Tlr�f��bC}1' �f f. :zL. d� 9,..x ti r'> �i:r.!�/. r.>•J�
r a r +r rY +J./f iKIR "� h/� � � � � •/�
��"I s / •,• / d r,;,r/ rr, r J" / r. Y�'r�� `1/ti ri�C�✓/,/ r It,:,,rr'i.✓ rrl.� :a�yd ti' r, '.,5 � '��/. ��,���i'1+�_�r'T�lf.�•.;��y
/i� / I i. �)f r y_ /�.,� �/ $` zi /, ,�' /j' ✓, (�ra'df %l 6••�"�'�YA��';Y .. 5 ) 4l'��!'. �',���: '/n,,� f
rJl'I�i!Xrr+`r/d/�(r4.
f't6r//y'p� .r' ' G .�tp ry�r,`��y';,'-1•,.1.;
Y r /r y,7ssf{y/ r Pf��lr ry `i1 { :1<fJ r1 •!I/ a 7n!
f t,�,., -/Y' ••(( //��ff
c t P / f ! -' / / ��ar � � '"•'d r J�7/ '+^✓ ��! •rr r •` ,ri?!r.
'cy ,,yy..''�/;,1s�.d / ri 0/ S .1, .*f �?J�t� "p t'•^ >/'. 7
• r. .c ,r•l .,rw .{µ l�rY S{!.s..lr .�r j��rJ,1
�. �r.� ! ��°7/ f lr.r •�. f;r r r �sr t )Y y.s r t'7
� S 1,r'r k/. ,,n �` rt j,llr- ✓+j, i+. /./ �r/y .'NJi ���r.i�r�+i•.�2�'/�{1'!�y-'��� 'd.� �.y.;.r„,p/%�)/%'r 7:�r, rM.Y�+' ry�ff,/. T'f �� /Y"P��:9✓�t ^j� .1..
+ / { ,q r + � rf ,fd>' �f 7 r /J/'�,}i-f� 'fi r�,,G, �/ >Yhkfi.; •'S..�.��/' ,✓'j,•'ii 7'1`� °:�ti�f t(Jr fJt f ,If
-i;' ~,ar .i'/:.,�.,,,,.: :r 'r. ,�, ;� r� ss j;l 'r/�/f-r,�•S,.,io h•,^�C'L�I '��, 4�.1 Fr f�,�°' fr�'r�Y/�',iJ.z;;9;:�9"zt`�la "'+{5;,;.'R / y
.. .r;. _ .. .. ......t.,_..,.,:.�1;.r„tt..,-t.. ,.., '�1....,1.w�,. ...•:,.._.,..�;�,....•/tom,......-,,..o...taf,v,TEiar:.R.c?LrYrr.. �7�,Lr/.�5`.�' .����L�-��.t' �.�.+rfrlr'�.:�.
. � • . 3. Summary of Env�tonmentaf'linpacts
Level of Significance' >" :
Without With Mitigation
Mitigation Mitigation Responsibility
_- Fire Protection continued
' Significant Not Project Sponsor
Imoact Signif icant
Road serving single family homes ex-
ceeds 600-foot length in Fire Code. :
t'
on
Road Road should meet Fire Code. This
requires either redesign to shorten road
or by allowing two access points into
project.
ImDSCt Potentially Not Project Sponsor
Project borders on open space with high Sioriificant Significant
fire potential.
Mitigation
Design fire break with City required
minimum 30 foot width, planted with
fire retardant vegetation. Allow open
space access every 300 feet required.
Poteatially Not Project Sponsor
Imoact ificant Si ificant
Dead end road serving single-family Sign
units is longer than 150 feet in length.
Exceed s Code restrictions.
flit_ gn
Dead end roads exceeding 150 feet must
have a turn-around approved by DRFA.
A minimum fire flow of 1,500 gpm must
be provided.
Police
Potentially Not Project Sponsor
Impact
Along with other projects in the area. Significant Significant
Donlan Canyon ne cessitates another
patrol unit.
Mit�tion
Another patrol unit should be provided
for the area.
S61S4 3•Id
_ :-�a• ;fir .>,r,:•e.. �.t;.,,�,. -Th a.,'.�t.y.;Y pia. ^ca.�sytt��.'e�,rr�+�•.:'ice':w.;.,;: :•.a,.., _'�
'�:v\. �'•r� :'l.t� � '.`!^'a. '�T r:::_ate-RTI `;C?YY� �5:��\,.?� y>` ��h. t f�+ e' •,l�\�3. �i f\�� .•;C:i"r.+y+...;..�.a.,tea•,,;,•;
�,\wl\. !`' \t ..le'�l;�\ 1 V��.\�..':'C t �`a ��..j1�1i7.�`,•i�`�,.2.�,�1 'fr. 14.��1+\ V� \.. ai :i,'�'; "�4�.:?\
�. 1 .:y" •C..\�.a.��\ t t T,i. 'a'7•.i�:.1 v�� ,�t 4..,sl.+.i..�. yt ,a
',t. '�\'� •'y.i may•,' i\ '.31�• \• ar ♦ 'F'� ..1... �'.v``�.� 1�,,.r. v t;,G•'.t:'.l,q':;.��' =Y:�...
`\ita �ti`i \� `t�1t;..S':=;• 1• t �;� \:\.\'' 1`.4C\'. tst+� �. ^ ,1 ..,•�`A`a ` l :�a. .r'?; .+. \. ",L i. � -q? t �\
1 1 t 1 !r ° 1.�1�°��? t�\ } 1 \� `)4\ �, �,.". �;, ♦'.. i w�.t\� .\4\1a,�..�,, u,`a.-;'l, j � � 1 r
\ _' 1 t l •a r° +. - s � `1„}\� 7.e > r•,. 4.•. t 1 t�\;..1. �.,..d l �J.r y \
� � 1 � ,a, z .�t t S``#:' •;+•;`^ is\ate\v,\.� �,>t.it _�a.S .i: ,�".jl t;t i}�, �``��.�°Vi 1Ot•`1�,".a1�4:1V\.T1�.,� �.a}�«a� C .J,., � �z,
++ R.. � c�.r� .'! �.. �.*� t@• •)`t,1��:Tote r,l�3� �e��t�� �.+ti� � ��lytc�t�. �e14'�,�'�.ti.,lr. � rzy�`alrial�c 7 srtly� t 7 '0.Y, i \ r�! �� �. S
.z ;1.: �°_ � �...�_,r.......,._�a�ta\....,..r�-t?.1 to�{.+\��.axw'.W Sl:ti.N�'+3_..y 1�i3_}rCC 1.�aR' _�.tla::`,t3.t t�1 R•38:.�1:� `F.'klw.aii•�a��'ii4�:tdaxi:.:���C :,'l;.ti���S.'`h 4..a4•`�aa;. ?.. ..v.., ,.';•
rt.�^7j�r r�j+yryp� .��� r.. 'yam, r. ,¢/rr >- .r• .r
.f' y
} /,r� yy��}•lrl }�ry� I i• Y' yL ` � r r .� i t
�//pp���.ryt•r��„F'_r•d��� ..{{?tt. ,+ !/�/j%J'� �I7,'/9�', ff`� 1/I r / - �F,! r r r / � .._ br L. �.
!•✓'r,.f:.,il l,,r Y;7,,{!'7/'r��/f�' ��•� j�y�.Frr1��r�/.r' ��s•� «. �J�Y h"rt i 'v � f'' '/, r �f � �i.J� � /
!!r1r!Y J:. s,1�:�/.xf �'.,r+� !A k'.�t c.r i!�,,i,�[.i`i�r'JrS'/ rw�i�l,�irf./�.f�9�,,,J,,nr�iY,i,,r/ ;C7�y'h�sfNl _ ��/F`'' ':�:"%I��✓��r Pr'"':.,5^+ 7i; ,t ''> � r� �r�r,���/��".
1;•;;.. .t,:' ;;i•.' r ,f �(' ;'t'a wr t��. � ./f� r rl' w.r;'.:G r `�r 4' '✓ y4^;:1,- :r7',tt�w•...�5 � ��.f.'1 It/ !y� .�. i .rt/•�,r1',.
r.,,� r/'�� :r J� ,6 y r/ ,!'f�-fJf.��„ � � ,�1�,/;�/.j..l r,��„� ns f� r'sr.i u�'•�.!'�a''/',�d�. !y� �i3 4'� ,. � I�• .6: r n/"' s /✓� d1'%(
l t,,,r. .� / 'r r'r';<t/iar .��/�/s��liit• 'r.i.`f v, t! ,+i, `l,Y��yf .k� - ''!J b�. . %tlyir�:t..'.7�C F'.`rr. ,,r'r'Q.j�,/rj'7J d2• �-/ � . /j!° ,Jj ri";:%i°,rye
111 V t1��f�r;�/�..„1+r7 "�/F •��•. ,h/'�j)� y� s; � �t � . A%el
J"rJ• ri o�'/ �'✓S .IL•if/..rl/.H '(fl p '^y9.'�,r� �•,,.i' r 4 (�t .�. ,��la. �t i •, C �� ,,.,./:�r/ ;J�> .�' W.fry.�'
+�1'i� �r�.�/\ 'rf j- rsw%;y ( 1'R� *�r�:�/rs r!•i�'�5'�� Ni F`1 r. ����'f��y�•�'y?�sJ�,l��" _,s..t/ .Ifr � j�ir'�''�i, •r !,;Ftr wr�d,`` } r/ �.:yyi'T'�n'�
4- J r t + rlr!C i b "4r 7 �' f/' r r,.:'�! �•r it
f 'r,i• er /e s a tJ J,p 1 u I "✓/ �•y•�,y/" ( w�y� �I�rf'�1r6. ¢r �+1Y>r!��1� �.. �•�;
•;sr,+..fr- rrGiJ/ ff J s •1' /. 1 r n�tF r„ T r° vsgr
) �i'v`"'f' - d. //' "'� f•A.,'. .r,' , rj• l fCJ �+' .h'r Y•,.r s
� .r„ ..�l .;'/' !•j:�':� + 3 Arta ac of r� �•rr,�!,(1 i y,�J i�!r'ss`/�'...�'r r � '.r{zr !J'•��< "s,. / ° 'f�i
J /s,J�,ii; !', y.�'I:r ..a>N,li. f! l�rn;•�*,,n;' /.y�y.'r//f;;i• X61 i.' :r't'�7 +,f-' 3'Y.? �.x.�st{ `! s" '/ ! '�1� (� , i%'1wu y,^s,•.�. 7'! r- /{7:•..tl.
Jy:..s.Y%4 Jo:a..i.-�7 it �^f! �S•r/?'„t;,.4�i r!,1. .%%✓.fj,ir�t� .�/•' F. c , rf �!/�.+'
t r r �•l •r°�•.>, rt. %r- may. rrui�a y ..I l n„14vr. �Jhy.•a`%l t. Y` fL'r.fd! i'."�j�t!(�iM'3 rr G�::zr �r „fit y�;•'.
lt- 1,y., :/. ,s ..f�. _G',�._.i'i• t 5•! S.,,J,,.•[• er//f „
V.a/r 14rfr ,.//f, r(4 :f!`�:>.>:,�fi? f..y�( a< .lr .,.:Jr rte•. ;•�, t ':t'r;. �.,.,aiu`��;.
r.�l:`Y,�.` j:r' o Jri:'��' �J r...�+•I,'� ° t.A r ' !.^rL !,jln/. ��. , l..f..f i�r,.i c�!%!.v%a l�jr :aa�y%-.i�✓�� rt''�t r/ ��:PF,/� :R.`��>✓,d'S';�',.;1 a r.ro�t�Jir ''GJ.
.;b:• :it •�- / - ! i .T'-, ” l fr r r,. ry r. '�4'ii,.- ,.i yy�� r ,, ! / � La o
-'.r,::;:r.. r!. 1/N .f,(...� )J/ A ra� 1 ,.e rr ! r :7f r /YiaJ'f✓rn rT"i�f,rJl ;+l �j•v r<,. '� l'j
r, .! t r f , ,rl' .!. /,r, d;•r!' r off kj�!' c'1;— yi�r,. a 1�4 i y' sr/�r� j ' r
�r k�y. f/� /, r �`ra,:J� / ! ,f:.r fJ"i..,r ifK�:r r�`V r .r i !t r'% j�:2..fi�..�"i,<,I/7����✓r✓L°
1�._::i_.'1. ,.>._,....u.,..J•-•:r3./✓.. .�..:.....t;.r..i_:r—un...r1.'�'.,.'Y:wfdi':S.L51sa./ti:lrnl.:u.; i.1.o.l;:L:s:.a: :r': .� .L.7 L{.fL'!5i•�.tLY,cl,'./:1a n..:.r�,.z'6"�/,..C.�..__,,..;...s
.3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
r'
Level of Significance
ificance
- Without With Mitigation
Mitigation Mitigation Responsibility
Imoact Potentially Not Project Sponsor
Personal security for homes on the site Significant Significant
a r
=.': •i is impact seen by police.
Mitigation
List of security measures is contained in
,> Section 3.8.
Schools ! _
Imoact Potentiallv Not Project Sponsor/
The project, by itself, would not impact Significant Significant School District
the DUSD. Cumulatively there could be
overcrowding in the DUSD elementary
schools.
i litigation
The District could implement an impact
fee and this would be the extent of the
mitigation required by law.
P arks
Imoact Not Not Proiect Sponsor
The City's subdivision ordinance would Significan: Significant
require about 2 acres of parkland or
equivalent in-lieu fee payment.
Mitigation
The project sponsor would be required to
comply with the City's subdivision
ordinance.
: Solid Waste
Imoact Not Not Project SponS37
The proposed project would generate Significa _ Significant
about 473 tons of solid waste per year.
Aliti�-ation
No mitigation measure is required. Tars
is within allowable City limits.
Sr1S4 1l
.. 1 :.��•..,�: l � �t�.. R `h'c+������r.-,1 t t\T "�1`V:�^�1-� ail ? x! ^!ro 7.•:.,wl a.••.�»tj ti, c
,. , �t��r �.� \>• �,��� i4r�:`���� � , i e�� a� i\t ���`. jA�roX\��` �i�n <`�� ;yo-">�`�;;�r ` �`�
.i�i �•1 ii• •� .+'.;•YS p r�1� +,��t i� i
;a :, it ?i.-`? :�.
Jt�tt�����
: �r � f •\ 'ae�.
;'\ .'`a-,t•. \';,:• Sx�:f .»,:ta�.,....2�SA �.`• .�•'rl"2 'hll: e .� :1�. <' 0`,�•�. '�?T,� '$ �, i� 'd '�q,�,`r
.., ..•�:.~ :}; ._ ...�a.��r::c,• C'r,`?.o,'hti.�}`_:1\�yl�S.v..t�.,w �..� \�:��b' ��`i,�?!A ,l� �<h •il ro'll:�S. � ii.e ��„',K� 7`"� Vii''<� ti ,•s
i3 r i,r r, 7 f' �/T U f/� /r �ji r IrT,�/,6riF 1''` � r�' /` r.Li,•Fl,*� F � f � 1 } '�,�7' �t 3 1f n r1 '!
.7:Y,'! y /. _� � r � r J• � �lf.�' �, ,/��' r rn y .�1.1 t' Y';'q i � * /! � f, / "/4'r��`. � L .�[.•%S � j{
;.�r9•!� /,, 'sr / p. •*r.r I /,1. r+ii4r �.. ,4.9H,'i, lsr�/'�./r�JjY� �C,�v�ryj��!/f«d�3,/�..�� �•I'r�: l�f"i'!. ir���f 'R,.6�y,�.�.T*xS�r r
`"}° ',i •! / v�i/T/r � slS �5r h� r -�a1F�irf� /A ' F: INV,,sa. y/ i q ryN
%fl r .s ,,,,, r .i f/!/��,.? r.. J• is t i r� .y. :<
�j �'� T"'rit/ (i 3 ✓"r l�/ v 'V' �i ! 1:'F.7t•Y� -� ww: ��R�i,
r!l-. r r .v •f » ./. Jt '! J i! ��/�j� •"g�%i% glp� C��' r �'J w �%,/ ,. �
�r `tr .q i .r�:/ zc r;'�•,'� ';:��...r/" f�'��%'�!'/�f�J/��: a Wi'7,r/�,�(�,� E�:b�r���,�yi„ �.,,��'iyV' ,r r ,,f� ,�Y,{�s"{,�j�'��y��sr ;�.' ��'� '�,±�i� ;�
' r r:✓t'.r ✓, r l:+•Ni:,.;w .'' S i..ra w. .�v/.J.,',�s._,._f r•��• ,/�Jd�lrir�i��G/'�'�/,i��C�tF�' ,.� :J'���' �, �w n ?�.� �L .'L `�d,
7•F J ,•:,./ ' •.in./r,�; �.J f' 7/J.a art 't} �v ��,v`a s. nf� Srl>/- �� "✓�;�` �1 ,�y/>�'tt o�.rt �'`,fs -r y.
..:� { 1r,r ,F'�:ire::i..s'�IY.�'o//•'7i„d^!':"r•3.;. '�1��' lr�'(�,bi„p F` � ,s• !� ,�/tj'• ./�_ .Y,+JY ` ,r ..�%fF/• Y J� Ir`
�(.y � •✓..r../< ...1`u...>./'S..>:f�.�.� :-w'w:--.� �� ' yr xt%'J, �':Lr� � JJrj,�- %."f',ij � /) yl( J. fly 'teori✓ i ri, wjj � T� N f�
";��._._...,,......,✓:' .r. � 1��,rlsr':i,' ./t:�Y��ts�;y...'35G:(9..'.,.�i.�i; 3�:�:s ,_ °t.�,.€_,•;t2ull4c:l. s:&�..L, .�'i��.c t..c.)
i V 3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
•Level of Significance r
Without With Mitigation
Mitigation Mitigation Resoonsibility
'a Water
I.
Not --Not Project Sponsor
mpact
The proposed project would generate a Significant Significant
' need for about 57,000 gpd. -
:; Mitigation � - ” � _ •
.6
Project sponsor would pay required fees
to DSRSD and to Zone 7.
Sewer
Impact ;Not Not Project Sponsor
The proposed project would generate Significant Significant
about 51,740 gpd. -
Mitigation
Project sponsor would pay required fees
to DSRSD.
Fiscal Analysis
ImDact
There would be a positive revenue flow
to the City with development of the
project.
There are no mitigation measures
needed.
Traffic and Circulation
Not Project Sponsor/
Imoact Si ificant City
Increase in LOS to level F for exi_tirt Si�nific .rt
plus Project plus Cumulative traffic
volumes. Increase in LOS to level E for
existing plus Project.
Aitigation
Major geometric improvements woud be
needed as stated in Section 4.°
S61S•1 '-1`
:74.l
t, �`. '.?n}\ n �.♦ a � i 1`i, {k` i .-?� �' � fi+.� >\ '` \ ,. i''+ t sa'tyi,x , � -a1.l �:'
at �^ � \♦ '� \ ` \ S r .,\ r'tr+a`7,. 1yS 4t \ + �} 1 to � �, . t ..
�\4r:�c "�.� ♦ tin :>\ tty.. t �1\.\ \,.t. i^.r t w' 7,)� � � >,�,a. �� , :\
33
' i Y � \'1 !�i ` X � t ,t f. �73 1. � ,�i t\ ♦ � �. t. v.4 1,.t\V�� t -.j
L a ; `r 3E �•,'" t ' �h\i♦ 1\'. e �,?N " � t�S'"'?.� i�ti,�f\�•{r..y1 \ •`1� t ,l•>"!••� .a:,,
♦ .,.,.: r..�,� c -♦ V-3a\ l .t ., i 4 �`;:.. _�, S��\�
. S:•i:�.•.`i•`_"�..\-t:�."^.~2..,....,. n`..�.``.;,- _ � .r•.;t;,�i��\\'`,.Y\4')'ti ?\�tt`'1N�t,wv}Q•, .wi i;:r&,';a,.t.*.;:`"�t�.t. ..��t•.A�'�11 L�y!�.'t..•C.3t�(*.[,�..!'�\ •F�,ti.
,,A 1 1 8 *t1.` i�"...w..�{,:Ttt4,.�,•di'L weti Y;,d;tiw l�.tV-"K @\�i�:F��\y.1'.t. •,i.i,\ �t F�\7,V;?',t ti Y
. !r� _•.+ti L,
]:!!v v'X.y•.i`s`�..ft;'C.... ... ,.0 l<.�. 1��\..-,,L.
r
t��r j✓rn%�rt di!'� t.r •y�?� uP ��rX� ,! /�'r�i�' /' {).', ry /f �'�,! ,S�'.i r/l }yy�
�r��:jr'Y f'•;�✓f:u'�R'� .Yr >!l!� :��J��i..'��, ''�lJ'y �± ,r ,.f! �`'�t'��ax �./ij�a'-11T� ,�_ � /..",V'Yt��t��. .i/ 7: »' 'r�../',r��r„'L��-.lJt i''
i;, .Z, � ,•�v. s t '1 may. ��•, M v�9.��v. �.�-JS .w .l r A ;, t ./.�, ,i.,..
s , � ✓y,. 11 T,.ft '!:� t r '.�' �!/' S1• ! y �•r�,rr� �yf'y1ti� 5+'.r %r' �.�•' ��'� ?. � J� g'sr/ 11��J,'.�y ��• ,
.1'.. ,.1,,,,.; �,^:.�1 / Vn,1,';[r:!/ �y.Jti{'�.n� 1• :s� 7'r/A CJ'.'!�"If't"',d,T� reoll,,</ _ ''Y yl ,� �}1.-;x'r:rg i,� n :,' ll, l t...ir,r`�✓l, '�-'�I' •r '�'�y 'p 4,� �'•r�,S; nl ��'r a/
v ':" %"°�f/�y..lrv�✓� 't" r.j N per' ;'/. �,r " � 1. a•'e r f r. �' rtJr;.a �� .1.�
4% i i J4 a H t �, _��Y ♦ r �.� t
rnn�7" ,}. r. r r.:;y ! �P 3.G' JX 4r:t�rs°''7i.•r�/�i;3�'F��f� T��1'y.Y%iP(�Y:i 7''Y"�j /t .1��. j�'Jn'Fri,.�,'✓1-t��7l �>�Y•{1'u� �1�{Liyvyzz �✓r di Ih.
r :✓ ;.6.1 r a.7✓ f•✓i; %1'~ If3:d�•7��,�,,Ja r�.� r,. / J .� �r r ✓� i� i 'rFr �/ °•{y /n� ,:F ,T!
� +r ti r a� �..!i'✓):• r:1: .�1�LI- 7 JY'2✓ ::�.hw.Qii/✓/•/:�:i' 1��:L ( 1!'l i�''L•��4�i'�l�`,r.�"/ryl7,b ri�). !,{a :..�.Ii.'. yY�1 l I pr��%. ,.
! /s :' r"r' .w%.9.w..n i" 1, K a !:d J y'Ln•+ i3 �.'t. 1S „✓i•_ a / x' r•''-✓' r+,/ 1 ,/ f'' r
a•.' 4
y CCr,•���i 'j•:p .'sf / ,�,'�.,i {.fJ �'�'�. r 'AJr s-��=" utr`/ r ,ri d K r +1 iI./✓ �-1,
,
:5.. 'i 1•�' �� /.-n�.� rr h 1 r �/.:�'..� libl o! -11 / t IJ+r'L k��,��'•° %/.. a,�'i?�1f �. .� t%r ! t .. r f ,�, :.•
%f..fG.:.T.,.. .........'�.��..1..,:ilr.. �, :GiiL:putt"...... .•'w+•A.-.:�wr ...:iji�c:Y�C.r°.✓:u..s 53:C;h.ar....:L:'Q..:�.-.d.+l,�ai'Lt.lr...:.�'rUi:'ir:.:.':ri.....rt..t.%-.k. .�..,... �J�'3i::_..rn._... .
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts .
?I
- -- Level of Significance
`t Without With Mitigation
x>. j Mitigation :, ?Mitigation Responsibility
Air Quality
'';• ; Impact Potentially Not Project Sponsor
- Construction activities would temporar- Significant Significant
ily increase TSP and PiNflo concentra- _
tions near project site.
Mitigation
Watering of exposed earth surfaces
during construction activities. Daily
clean-up of mud and dust_ onto street
surfaces. Tarpaulin haul trucks.
Replant and repair disturbed earth to
reduce soil, wind erosion.
Imoact Potentially Not Project Sponsor
Traffic-related air pollutant emissions Significant Significant
would be generated b y the project.
Mitigation
See mitigation mea-sures proposed by -
TJK-1i and Associates.
Imoact Potentially Not Project Sponsor
Increased CO levels are probable. Significant Significant
ill itiPation
City of Dublin should institute CO "hot
' spot" monitoring prog,am under the
guidance of the BAAQMD.
Noise
Imoact Significant Not Project Sponsor
Temporar y high none levels on and icant
around site durin.7 construction.
Alitization
Construction work should be limited to
d3vli;ht hours and weekdays. High noise
potential equipment ar:d operations
should be muffled c, controlled.
SG1S4 3 13
• n t t -c�.J \ �, a ,. \ .�F ��� , � •^`3s��ae. s r-\, �`ax :\ � u `, .' c w ".' j
•' T �1•�.i�T1��11 `IS'a � � '1s ` a i� .k' \ a, T ` Y\ .0 j �i ;•:
,.',.'. .' .',':;. ,: 1 ,`,l -tea•` � �aTa�. aa� 1t �l� �y�'1\ ,!r{� � r aT�� ` a �.��
\
• � 1 � \ a\.t'a 7�` y a1\,a�`\ \.\ �\ 4* yy�� t t r �, � � i, tva.tw r
T r,l,a�i'��� 1i�'i `aT;�. `• ,�� -:, � .�;�iaf�•" s\„�i y '.``� � ��. Ty..,� ,��101 � � `ti
_�?
�rye/Y}.,r. � ,r� � !��,�/>'i � ;j: •r/.��,-���`'�. ' �'%1 'i;��.�y��� �. taa.� rY r '/�j� �. •a� �/`�i pl"• ,�' ;C�^A,�,�r
rj;t.,�,�,. _ '.• ^'% ` t "/mi;" / ':;� '/y f?°r+'�+/.flJ ���.;fj,F ./»6}y.l dt, �,.,. / '�''! ��e�" � .�✓ ,r /{ �A„'3•' 'q,'f t
: ✓ . . .py ,1 Y�il f
j 1�
I� "� rj _v f �i a "�rs`v iJ'r%/! i.�i �a.A' i rI , .:s / �� • J. c `� ti• I�,
C!, ;.1'{ r� .1X �, r /7��rr / f)/ry�i��r r r •y yf` Y •6 f L 3- .� � �
(y r :4•,:,;"!v ' ,i1Y! �✓ 1 r r F r r9 �.£ Z my ,�`v a s � 4 r r�' s l
r., h� �/� �!A � r � A •v�" / l�.. �.a�j�
4,t r•'s* r. -•rr r y ;r o /. r �'7 �• I/ w C�6,.:OJ•Le:G:1:+Ss.tljC's }} ` ws y •'_• "
�.t•,+L...✓.-.:•[-.......:. ,.-......s...�,-».JC....r.,t,...,...,..J ...,..�.L.�.✓!�'r.6✓�,S'ii��
01, � QEyw•w+% � ./•. �� •.f�.n�.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Level of Significance
Without With "Mitigation
_. ?Mitigation Mitigation Responsibility
Noise continued
is
Significant Not Project Sponsor
Impact
New homes impacted by noise generated Signi icant
by cumulative traffic using local
roadways, especially I-580.
Mitigation
Provision should be made for acoustic
analysis of project structures and instal-
lation of any additional noise insulation
required by condominium/apartment
units to meet Title 25 requirements.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
It is unlikely that there is any prehistoric Significant Not Project Sponsor
site/remnants in the project area not Sigtificant
previously disturbed.
Therefore, mitigation measures are not
warranted unless arc::aeological or -••
historic resources are encountered.
As defined in Chapter 2.5 of the California Environmental Quality ?pct, Section 21065,
"Significant Effect on the Environment means a sl:bsta tial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in the environment.
"Insignificant," "Low," "Moderate" and "High" are not defined in Section 21068, but are
used in this document as terms to provide a frame of re!erence for the reader as to the
magnitude and importance of the various impacts discussed. Accordi noiy, the following
definitions, as used in the EIR, are provided as follows:
Significant - constitutes substantial long- or s wort-:erm altt'ratlOnS t0 a\i5tl;t�
environmental conuitlJnS.
High - constitutes less than substantial long or s..iert-term alterations to existing
environmental conditions.
Moderate - constitutes less than high or substantial and not excessive a?parent lon;- er
short-term alterations to existinc environmental cord::io:t_ (not a high or low impact).
Low - constitutes minor or short-term alterations to ex:s:in; environcier:tal condi:ions
(not a moderate or insignificant impact).
Not Significant - constitutes no apparent a!te-;::io;:s to existin; environme
di;ion s. .
861S4 3-la
' n •,�•. 1 1.:,;`l �titi� L'l s .+Y 1'; ��. - � lf\y. < �`- t�- tie -
' a _ w y .. s . s�� J� .l Y •.3�� \4�. �ti 1. ;it 'ti:..t K, a y -1 ) t� w'y 1`e .
`t` �" ti its`+ :� ;t�:.4�\t.��,�,1=Stiv� �y.�r�...�:�_ .�1t�'t/L}`n� ti v11�- �� 'v,•^^•> ' �ti� �'..J. i�l> t'�a;\...� \\�v... , h
\ ,•<'>.t�`C`..3tt, SyK•C:� t1.'r„`•s.C��!•-'t-N �.f .;+;�•..� •^C�•.ro t. -;�•��' :i
- \ \ro % ' ,`•�\ a r�`�v v{� ^�>'G��rti,c;it,�la N,t`.,a�, 't t'.2. �\ `�: � t ti. ...�. ., :a k\A� ^ t
' . •�:• t;
t,” ti" s�� `1t. l.�.,�.ct z � ':N^c,-•.e .`��.�,. .�� � :;ti :f'°')r'' t� ��' ��.•},. ��•`` `4 .ti�>;
\ w � � t ! �+t ,wfs \_i•�' T• � Z S' ".,yty ro• \�S.Y'.a 1�7d ��.. '
�� ;,, �..at`Y.,'y;1�1 :fir :�At.�:Sji�J�' •9 �.75 1'C��,:3.'.:.�1'c3•��:-�t�\`c�;t_=:�.�2.t.t .�.ve�,1..7Y;;ti." [,.3<��!jtiC42 .t�'.•. �.i>> �
fy:; TENTATIVE MAP
...;. 5926
TRACT N0.
Si
_ .,. ;•,N ar1.. DONLAN CANYON
_ ♦Ill nf.nl n•w .�^•�'
fO"' w ro•n' �''� ' f.•.f•ero+ :/-' UlA1Lt1.0
' '- N r••• �(' wan• •••^' '1°.••;��• v DONLAN('-ntJ1fON/��sUCIN L.,
••'..',•;•,•• �rl lift+'-JM \ !fir' 'w l.;"i wN �n"/ w.n'"i•i .r.r..3r 1�'�. 131f: .'•�.,.
r .. i w r d / • q'.n' r '.Ir... l�''Q' 1'•:,, � 21.1;T':'r
`•P•. -1-�+�r,C'w r i»...��.. f,?��. ( �� ��
all .1 y/ l•.t�. �;\ ^,-_. _ a I.._..__.�-�`�';,`, h•`S_`y ,
-` r1 ,_ 1 7-.. 5 �l r°': v - v''�"-�• '\. ��• .__.- - �� \ '\/9 't.' [1 ' -•� �'�, I yam• Nye��
C4'. - _ •?`.-.i _1 .. •-���\'�....fir:.J. 1/\))i)��J ) �• � y B I '��^.,._-' .t
,Cry` - ,at.i -. - -=� �•�I\ ,lJ��ji._._=`=-'�1~\ .. - /i''. •%'''/"-'/"'- .( Cam. .:%��` V C,!.' �i� � " L`r- ,
= 'fir'-• _ 11 ,f
1. ,. `• 4 . n - --- ?��,�l.�,. -% •'�%• 1 �,-•It•1•i 1.1 u_ ... •�_ i -I :,A fj�..
rte: s. _I><• -i .,��.r t. r :.:_ T:� / _�._:'L': PAn�o .ru•.- �J q 517E I . ....�
T�sr' 6 _-_' t �. G � ' „n ,S LocA��o/J
^�., _ ,'I•'' .r M•,1l .' t �'� '..::�i__ ._-. _ _ •'J 4) .\;• I �+ l I I,1 :l♦
_� �s:.�'. , Jt tTiON. \,\; fl l.,,`�)!-� 'j.C..� �'�-�\: ~•"�` •�'CJr _/ _ _ .s. `\. I If I 1'`\;J' 1
107
lol � _ �^ ,:' 1 PARCEL A. ��:���r--ice__-� �v� I /•a,ems (t
t, t •' 'lf 1, 651.100150.11. 10.
(��y�.�t?~.•... .•{'.3.ji.r• r• 1►.600.�.FF. II. 54.0w..
i' $0.f 1. 1]. 50.r 1. \'� \ •1 .\,'. '/'�•
�y�..�^'i ;F-�'7• I. 25.000. )00•50.11. \ i�`�, �. •� :41
7.�Y'`/"`�r'� • 1 x.ou01 S0.I1. 1). U• 150.I1. \ �.\ \[�I\��. u �� {II ,
•,,.• 11, 16.)00 \. ~� It' j..
LOT /
6. 21.xn. ISQ.17. ti fin•,,,.,,, \\ �� -
t:.. c
r. v.atllm It. It. Ir.IUO�w.17.
t. 25.1001 so.11. 50.I1. + t -C.. - ti � �' • ,`"� .1 I n.,,\�
:'• 1.
Maio,$4.i1. •/ 112. , ;- _ `\ "- _ n<;.i.n.u: � �.
S-•_..`;.', /Cris �1 S� ',I ✓/'�--�� ~1 n'���j �t ��';"..'i� t�1/� .•- r 1
Meat \ (j�e f.
O' '1`•• - A Vl Ka ],MA.] � ,J � 1.1~ • \�`-�•�.._ :�` )•,•♦.• Al
r Y4 ice_-�•. �1,t•/'1
'�^'• 61.tl tAl 101 CS -
.,, 1
j A_�3 t,'_'•" " u rlww r•w fuuuw, u[1 1_ i / �_. �� y`, (--\
1 � �::3' i.. w fie. ..1 ••� C. \ __� LI_
1..'.' 11 rlVilnl• .sr .r•r nal•M1I .1 nlM1•[lam• \ // ..` /j }/f /���1'l��•II
t �g%J4!�,.,f� _ .. [^M1 u�l s�''�°I lywlrur.rt� ��1� �� � i/.- r"yl.'•�I n.
w� wwfw Ml Pml wl• `y"
fis
F__ruo:442
n Irlufswllwa nl.w mw si.e ul r.wm>a. p11^11rn1 u.1.1 .r i J '1 n'.r�/�� "' ✓�•7 1• ��'j1�' "
w.•1 r,1.. u w++ vl 1apB1 r.•Il.Im• u I.n / / .:-.
(((���,,�-- � p inn p..to.f1 wl[ ul 1.nm.[.w►wwlwan• v rin - � ... _ � =
yr rrtl 1L 1�1 p,af l w.11. / �� t•,� � I l hl�_/�J-I� 1. /�(J
_ lu•M1Ua tl.1w pa• �••.. >A� U� s�
1 u u/w1.1 ro.un. Lbw Iw aa•IIM1I 1.1 flu./la 1...un• u.en.r.n. .• •�
_ nLlQUor
aw on•u .••� 1 1111
r.r•/[. 11111 VaM+'r.• �.•�' '
11 dill Rl4 rw F•w•Ha l•� VI 1w1. V^�'
uaw►u .,,1• r i l l
W
It
�1 pl QIl n1Ul 1
u /11n11Iw Iotw• K•u y `
nl mu.Y• '� C ,tl LL• I�
11 tinnlsl•n. r,l. at> wl wr•f l<I aNiIw WIII
!� / :' I.1g1 plow p Irenr• t -
JAN 171989
_i
DUBLIN PLANNING
t.•
ACT NO. 5926 �.
TR
YON ;• ::.�:'r ;:t�
DONL• CAN
- °"ar''G CANYON ASSOCIATES
3^ DONLIW ;•'i z:
�T CREEK. CA.9�S96
_ l_�—'♦\ f 1535 OLYMPIC BLVD WALN ,�: ,�i::- •�'��' ryb
_.. • F '•• {;�.• ..fir,,.
�-- ILL .l i -•• ''::%",� .';3;=�
_ r _• `�> 0'-10 1.• FILL
shy. \� •— •i. Q
'-20'
FILL
UT
,.... _ __;: . ...Y cur
100-201 IBIT
EXH
• �.ti'., _.—.._ r'-� 197 t ACRES ;• ..� ;y:','; +t-
,c,� TOTAL ACREAGE
'�• L' "� ' --:-_ ,.+: AREA 13.G ACRES •:,•.;`-,a': •�;•
FILL z'.
;���\ ��� +r2 :✓:a" �. �• AREA 15.8 ACRES
.\N, ,� '\ , ,'• ,...� CUT
1,, ��...,•w..,. •.7•-•
\\ � :' ' ��: . � \; �_ �.. �; .•�'�--�\:'_,.,_ _ p AREA IS LESS THAN 15X
GRAD
TOTAL ACREAGE i-, ;• _';
♦ .\. \\ 'f �;.�'• ��-`-Y �- �� = •- ';• _.,`'cry r',
• ,.. 0 '\\\.\•\.` •, ` ,`,�� 1 ."r .. ^ ;�fl' _- '�;:'>• '1\ ' '•ill\�`.' ``\- ` `%��°Y'':%'':i~t�
T►� \.•:� .�\• •\ ', ',\�'".. 1' ` 1 / `'�`♦'♦ `ray '- �' •''n Vil`'Y'r=+v "
.y ,\.\ •,•\ \.. \ ' ' .." . .J ..._.. ::�:`L %:., ::•'-. , \\ CUT •:v-`i+'r�Y°���
\•\, ' \`•. \I�`1,• ' __ -'_` '1 �.t1:.? �-' i�•i::G.' ;J 01-10
1' _—_ :a CC.z::, r 10'-20 t' •\ •;`�
20'-3U'
/
./ aa �:
�� , � '" '• �\\\�\\ \ -♦\ 'I '~•'1 ,'[ � /ice- _f, � '1 Ir1• IH• �580).... r-fs:�:.. s�:+:
C CUT
SCALE 1'1 s 400 \ ' �q 0 -1 Ya%•. '.
: •� r.+ 400
0 800 -� '��•*y:y`,
co
to
' • - "`-� � ICJ. . .... . '
, Ly
.. d
�•r-.�-.. , ,�n w ms.µ-_
;•.�,.; ::; " . 5926
TRACT N0.
J: w �: •o•• rr.sr• . '.'../ , a''': /.-- UIIlA N,CA
ANYON
�i ;} t, /y,.. i1,� -��� �•� DONLAN CANY0I.1 AS:OCIAI ES
SINGLE IOUOT _
�[•a•� ', - \ ( w r'o.'rr�ii:i w��;/��� 3 •. � 13•'-�.•. FAI91 LY -- - -AL'�`La�--_�_.��----
'r• ~---- - ` IIUT CREEK, CA.91596
14 OLYMPIC BLVD
:7t • •1t 1535 OL
PROJECT ST
.`' '\` — MULT 1 FAMILY
co
:vy,:..; ,•`•�:. •a: z \�� ';\' ;\w-1�` _...+. PARCEL A. �j �. ..•. ..._.f�+-r�-..�_ � •a• ra,
ej
•yip.�.�„?.' � ?'
%SUPrAR Y PROJECT •.�\\ \���.1 � t{ 1 rA- •4� „°e t J��/i�•�.,i�l 4v� .��.+ .''�J"t •\ '�
Li t':Y;`;'•;�" .�. \\\\ \ 1 / `.:1'111. .. .. �:•.�: ., .��,IIy 1�{< - .. 1 Tf�
►' Vi,
197 t TOTAL ACRES
�t � •�,� .f• "•
rt �c t AC. PARK LAUD
�.- 171 a �\
LOTS
7-
FAMILY i .lf�'--._.\�` �t \ / •�+~
17 SINGLE
0 AP ART. UNITS 300 CO ND . \ ,.•r _ 'i �., �,...y�- sr- .<<
A �\ t �'J: r � �" �— _ �` � /, f• _
32.1 GRADED ACRES \ �� \\ :t / :--;• �'° ~\�i `S%tftty' `•
L ,:^' , '.' \\ \ \\ `•-��� i''V..;f� ) /�,� r%••i � I / l\j ..\. ./1•�:!�t 'Cr.R�fe�D
SINGLE FAMILY
i - \ 'fit \ 4�• •- \�� �2,��/f11��(r'_ I+ t<a - 1
`
0.76 AC. ROADS
BLDG. (ASSUME 3, 000
1.4 - \� � \ r Z (1f1 � ��t ttt;�. �` "4,`� `N7•n�,,•�!�
1.2 - AC.
�:-� \ �• / �+/ rye%'�' �:i14 wn'.'.;t,•r•,�.t'
•���' .. •1E 5)10 t3t 600 S.F.
-.-t-
i .{. N �.•
4 AC. ROADS S PARKING �'- / - / / J J
•�.. 070 AC. EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD
AU
.
--
;*?ti .=: ' 2.5 AC. BLDG. (EXCLUDING REC. BLDG.) /
s1 #"'' 0.09 AC. REC. BLDG.
in
• 4 u,
TREE INVENTORY
��• DEMOLITION PLAN
TRACT N0. 5926 '`{�' `= tk"14 `
r 6
-���
- _ DONLAN CANYON ^r
— TREE COVER IXh7t fJ,CA �' 1
DONLAN CANYON ASSOCIATES
ALIQUOT
:/'�.-�-__�. ��/_ •''•- y..•�^ .. _ :� ter\
', �_�,�,�:�-%�-'•--�"� - - .�.,, 1555 OLYMPIC DLVO WALNUT CREE K CA.94096 �.
TP
ly
�'y"-• '
••t\ — -� ••. �i---' \�-� �, 7Y� ys...,.-,yam;
\ _� ;%• . .. GRAD E TRY.R INVY.IITORY �� {:• ,rt
-._��.,..-�•--�\ ti� -__ ''AREA TREE INVENTORY AREA IS THE AREA .•".,�r��i�'�'ti�•
^# fir•
�� \ ��\• __`J �``__ WITHIN OUTSIDE CRAUP.D DAYLIGHT LIRE �•`.•`••• GaX4
AND 25' OUTSIDE SAID DAYLIGHT LINE. j;�.t'.y`}w
DRIPLINE COVERS 5.3 1 ACRES OF LAND.
�,L tint .1q•`
OAKS TOTAL TO DE
TREE COUNT REMOVED
:\\\. ':�• �\\'\ \ COVERS' AFFECTED 29
`� \\ `�.'�•\. \� RIPARIAN Ii--z4 1
- 9s 31 12 7
-N HABITAT\\\\\\,\\ - - �y-��-� ��- �• ` _0.5 ACRES ...... ... 37• +
\\ • -� 230 OARS 67
\
,t\\, t \\\ \\'. \`\ \ t1' 11 I /' .� /jfjj � \..`•� ,` DAYS
X \��.\\'�..\.\�• \\� \�\,\\. 1\' ,� _ - �` �� �, '' 6'-12' .270 101
89 40 Z. s`�in�wttty�y„r� Yj
\\ 35'-36' 15 12 't2• l:� \`�^ltv
379 DAYS 158
\ .\{ \\`\ •�' �'� I �;-• .\ \� �• QD� 1� r \ DUCKEYES iyy,-`+" 'I
- / .- .;�\s .\\,\ \\�•\�•.•� lk 6•-12' 9 DUCKEYES 5 j:'�t`+a •S''-e. �t�
CN
's• \�\\\\\\\F�1�` i WILLOWS SEVERAL
t• .�•!J � � ��� '_l.,
.•'� ��. %•~+,r.. J ;\ t r �•, - 9�a TOTAL, THEM DRIPLINE IS 67.21 ACRES. cL;:':x'•�1��{ �'Z
USING THE DEN-ITY ESTABLISHED ABOVE
400 �/f., '_ INDICATES A TOTAL OF 7.900 1 TREES.
u _
WE ARP. PROPOSING TO REMOVE 230 TREES
400 800 f � -.�,: OR LESS THAN 3%.
a
s+.,�•'?•-•^7C\"',a •V /
j
GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT MAP
,��•. ����`;:, , �^� TRACT N0. 5926
DONLAN CANYON
���`:�` ,_tom; •• �•�` _ ��= _ DONLN•l CAI lYOPlA.^-,SOCU1T[S� .
1. ,. - - . '' , ;«;<:":. ;.l • 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
�� :'''!••w. y •� - .�. .4>':.:x::>:ii;:;;t>'
ALIQUOT
+ ,r " � _ \_ _ "\ � x:,:%-.;:•; 1' 13,0 ACRES — ----- -
;I�;;:, ,L-' ,�� • �' � „ '• f,�,,;;;;';%�"�"`� 1.3 UNITS / ACME 103 OLYMPIC BLVD WALI,UT CREEX, CA,9496 -
1 1 e ^t` ` ^�• f
f`\�Y
j..3, OPEN SPACE / PARK LAND
•�a•2, ^ {� ^.sr;' 164,9 ACRES
171 ACRES INCLUDING_ GRADED AREAS,
�•� � _,� ,• , _ .. =_ice � _ - � \• � •' -
300 CONDOMINIUM / APARTMENT UNITS
19,1 ACRES
15.7 UNITS / ACRE
:. i 1. . ..•, 1 �� + \ •�-. ice"
SCALE, 1' = 400' i:. '- = ,..'.\. �' L
frL 0 400 800 �' �� +? _.. Q �',•.. �., _pt
4' _
JAN 17 1989
,�'��,r�..,'�.h;-J J'��1+.yr c,�,1,.�,.r'•++a s���./�✓,!r 7.9'I..��r'r/�ti�•''/fr%�;t;.Nal�.r„•:a<y f,f.;,.';'-•1�.R�✓''!•,c.;1�,t+,:r j!%>`��/fi�J•r�7'J/f/.l1rJ'1,/�,t.1�,r�"S/t:�f i r r•�r;1.N rf rJ r,)�isz��t,�;,/i,r�.��,,��'i:...t d�t r t i./'(.S'�,.f.J g r r Ji.i,f ar.!'r,;o_j i/.,s.'y;r'f,�,,�,.r7.!..'�.r 1>/.Y,:�'.�'•%-',.":�+s i/,•S,✓r f�i f r9i,,A/STk.wt!u aR;r�Ir y,r J ip•i 1-,,r r'�l y I''J”Ff�'✓•�f ff. sia 3't:r.'%i,�a�,?��i�,r!/ff,/,��tl.'•r M✓r'�,r/f!'/i;u.ryf.jY k''7 r 1.''/1 fL1r/y�°
J.am,-f�x.s"l e✓!K f�✓!-y r,,�l r f.,.:,',..,r,p'�r,.7,�;l�w 1/,.r1�„l a.ir,y.:;,..i t a tfryr r.�t”�,y r t
lA: p
d l
li .�
�r �
.x kYv
;.
L/
c
YK/•,,..,, /r , yr. -,�y
i
APPLICABLE
GENERAL PLAN- POLICIES
2.1.3.A. Avoid abrupt transitions between single-family development and
higher density development on adjoining sites.
2.1.4.A. Consider residential development proposals (including support
facilities such as neighborhood shopping centers, schools and
parks) on moderate slopes, with multi-family densities typically
considered on flatter land and next to business park areas.
2.1.4.0. Approval of residential development in the extended planning area
will require determination that:
- Utilities and public safety services will be provided at urban
standards without financial burden to Dublin residents and
businesses.
- Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the
ridgelands.
- Timing of development will not result in premature termination
of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands.
- The fiscal impact of new residential development in the Extended
Planning Area supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute
the fiscal base of the remainder of the City.
3.1.A Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as
open space for their natural resource value.
3.13 Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent (disregarding minor
surface humps or hollows) as permanent open space for public
health and safety.
3.23 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.
3.3.E Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above
major ridgelines.
lit
MERET
1 -
AS
Ai 7
1
�:.r1r, i�•i i�....
6.3.A Encourage housing of varied types, sizes, and prices to meet
current and future housing needs of all Dublin residents.
7.1.A Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream
quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource.
7.1.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.
7.1.D Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all
riparian vegetation, improve access, and prevent flooding caused
by blockage of streams.
7.1.E: Require revegetation of creek banks with species characteristic of
local riparian vegetation, where construction requires creek bank
alteration.
ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN POLICIES ADOPTED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 1989
Section 5: "Strive to phase development and road improvements outside the
Downtown Specific Plan Area so that the operating Level of Service
(LOS) for major street intersections in Dublin shall not be worse
than LOS D. "
Section 8: "A fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the
perimeter of residential development situated adjacent to
undeveloped open space land."
Section 7: 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."
B. "Require that land designated as open space 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 lo.:
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 spree
areas shall be desi;ned to minimize grading to the maximiun eKten-
possible so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic va-lue
and characteristics of the open space area."
2 -
. . 1 /r rY r. /�� fH.(1 r�jPNin/ 1 i7�f✓r �!/ � r� / / i r ' ., l:,
17
• jP t�r� 'I^;7 � ,/ ,;%/ t l��rr r �� vP ✓P 1�f'��4r 7 rNf � s'�
' . .�, /,;, t Y.�.y r°,•�; T� �f"�1kr,
l 0. r � r7� / ,,. �✓ t,s!%ter"'f i1 H+a�i'7 a.. �r�'rr�.,r: � !I ri! ?. r,
• ,. /i., ,.r � ,,-,i:,, 1�9�,/,ry I rP' .,/�y4;iry,•d}��%�. 't`'. �r,,/f�, r .r .r. i ,.,. / NP<;,�./.� .% .i
F. "Prohibit development within designated open space areas
except that designed to enhance public safety and the
environmental setting."
G. "Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian
trails within designated open space areas."
3 -
�r
Land Use and Circulation Section
Dublin General Plan -t
r,/ Ficskicntial
' I _
Primary Planning Area SindkrFNu„YtyFlc,:..knt.-i
• i -.
•ti �F' Y •'C• 'R{ •.S. 1 I sit).}
Hevfxcd to Inraudl: tat y r}nu1+JI •+ ... ...
cir:,f:grcw 1hro1101 July 31, �1{' ^S ® nk.\1iWll ltn;h[�ahrt�'}ii5�? rf�d
�'vrn\ ' jCst't'•t �t-���t`: l (� Cotnrmrcial/hxlustrial
ro �.��Il� ` '�� ' •�;i 1 }� > �ti: {. :::� %%'%/ RataiVOtficc�
„�. 'err•: ///
"� � r �LI`.�. u,.,.r .,•\.'\,`• ,,• i'll`C�{�:.4.. l ittl''r'�' �.rJ... •.t:1. �/.%i!: R@fall/Qf(K;D 8 AU'OrT)GU•:d
. _�”; j 'rr -.� I� kl.o..1 •i-.JI1• _'t-- /,. �• 9� �> ����Fi�, •.'� — --
•`i� .f.>> _, j//�/((.. `1�.1;. -.�� Ic• i', �,, .�`' 'a},i.:;�:'. i� ,',�.Y -.( 1" 3 i -- i Business Park/Indus"
- ��'�>"��r��=✓L1i-- i :,'J,^. tC.\ ��t�:-..���:.�, ,.. �.'o`�„t;,1:,,• r. ,.,y,: �;�'l(p� '� � t-----..
r' , (t- F!'/ 1.� 1'” `�.i�\, ,:•f�. .,�� 1 t. 1 �'FI y1�.� _'1�� '•t•• ,�}� 1q F.. _-I `.
c !1/'1'± �. L'•`/ ' �,. �1) ��' i_i.l ll. b' `t7•F t E3usine ss
Parl/irx u_.r il:
fl' ' i l
W,.r `irA r '/ >• '(/ .••- - S:.) _.r. ;�..• ✓, ``) ),•I 4.\, .H �UtCji7�Y StLY:h,`J
�r
11fll:.. -�.r- awwe,ny,n s.l..w _ ..� Y�,' •}
<",��; :.�' ` .t- t a'1 1�''? '1ti�` X11 I��I�// ./l jli 1' ,'' •t1 "'S ubl;c/Sera{-PubhcJO -n
..... ,�' r r, 1�`'.Ir � r... •c .\y!` � - ,,,�. �; 1 ,.. era.
i'�s, t < ?• 1" { 5:'' >{ 2 t•:f 1 ) :• i L, i Pub4a/cSCrni-Pudw Fac,llty
w.
n. ,. .;J•., I 14 ,( j :� a �.i::.::.. 11,'I;�1 J _ <>\. ''l r�"'i• �(''�_ .,J II ~t1,1, ./•, 1,. `
,f`: ?1.. �/�;: 111 11.7 Y •y4•_,'r�1: :..i' nl•� (..,, h
'Y� i �` I %1. /f 11�•t)]� `1• �rY"' 1�1 :i.:. n.L'C'' '1'����.Y::�i .ty.. , ter; •��.. .V ��: _
j./. cl`• ✓ `',r�r •\'�'.;.��`' t,1t. (f,� - :` 1. ,�y •7"�.. i:4.�c•�, �.I. �`�II4(- >, /....__,'�, t R �1 Parks/Fic�c:ltwYi __..
I" . . . � .. �i`. r.1 �/ � ) �)i•;?� .''% ,fir,, r I�• S. C.•1 �: 1 �u•r y Y ... _ ..
�\C ��.
. , ( Circulation
ilti�i% ;/f/1'7�-� 1. P.1..'' .' aSl1 ! auNw d.. �, h : , �i ,r�..: y. \G.'�'•' _s AildrizdStrc'c)t
./,t-
..;r. '/A 1 - J 1�j1 �(' /'•\' • 1/ C ? �t 1 •k. :\��' �'' \',.�•.'..='. `. V -1 Collector Stl ct t
XT.YCS_•'.� � "].fir t '�7.. '.1-' .t•' k. 't �' rn"�,1,�)�j~[( C' ��. ��-.': , .n J� •.-' r•:\ ^,r
� � � �;..��+y� .r._ 1 �..�� yll�/ ,•• ,+?,�•�` �,. .h •r C.r�t�� .�r\ .�\t,, t n.• -!//%:�.',1 i<:'ti;• �§� — DART
}� 4•��}�l�f. t{�//.��� '�{/r/��/1.�.�'l ;� }\ +-A ,
•_ �, �/ fir, l `rf �1'`:t 1'�1•Y�4>\.'.�'� ���e "\S .�' '.i;.:a�'w�. -j'f .ri}/' '/. ?. '�' .... Trans(vrtatOnCotrk:.v
I 111.;.l': 1 I\ $ ,-• .�1 y `t'Y r,�/.,. .� 1 r t' '�;%:�:�•.•.
L f.I
' � L. .r S r 1i ` 1`'I. ,� j' 1 '..1 %�',: j 1 �''1"�''+,- w 1:?/'.7;y J n•..}`:.:
.Ti� _ •,._ �t1 E � ,-1,' f,�.''.•:� 'u/1: �l •'•:�.•.•.:v.�i•:::::•:}�.
- � ' t ;.s. r �1�• •rJ�� Cr t��rf1l��•t� fC.. ��• '��. � f1 �>'�::' ir.•r �/ ,/./.,i; ..
A.': 2,:� �� �f• c /� :is : ';: .•'o
' � '�~ }•'r .��fri 'rS•�� 'i. r/ •���"•\l�' ` r�� �:� , �� -Via;•.`-.'>,:l�.:�/, .-w •f�1/%t ,,�,•`;:;1..',' ;;%% ��� �
) .�
.�. Q^ - :,1.1• _,�-`� / ,Y /� ,�,.�rl', ,;itr/1! /rltrr, 'r.••�.•.•.•.•.:�:•.•::j�
r-' t'�'°?' c', . . /t'l. �1�,t{'-�;,: •'..1: � % '� / rl��//f .///rrl.lj'r`�. .•.•...,.;::•'.•'.•'•:•:•:•:•::•:•:.�� •, ��
% !fff�f fff
f i.•.•.•.•.•.•.•. /i . . .
0,:�6). + :.fir C: 1�»I :/ / �;:•.:�:' Von /j i
Cn
'L :}!�,`' \ � / / '�� ;:fir; •"°�=:'.;��•% /%/
"
,
-- ._.._._._......_......._....__....._.__._........_._......_.......__..............._..._.........................................._........_.................................
AU -
III IE111IAtE 560
Dublin General Plan
G� GUIDING POLICY
Consider residential development
9�
• ,�
proposals(including support facilities)
on moderate slopes,with multi-lamiy
densities typically considered on!!attar
Y,� :':%�•' `� � land and next to business park areas.
s':- - `f� •:Tassa)ara Creek IMPLEMENTATION POLICY
Rc Iona! Park The location,extent and density -
' •:•:•:•: :•.•:• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
of residential development will be
,r • t
.:.Parks•Reserve: :•.�:•,•:•:•:•:•:•.••..,•••••,•,�' determined when municipal services
:-••`•••`:;::.�::i . t...., ,_t < can be provided and through General
;•Forces Traininct•,:•,r: .;-,•,��'
•,:, . . . .. . . . Plan refinement studies.
GUIDING POLICY : Area•:•:•:'. . .
�.,•-;
Consider residential development Z n. �,•,•,•. . . ;•i'• •� ,
•� w �, �• Rehabilitation Center
proposals(including support facilities)
on moderate slopes,with mulli•lamily '� -Z J �; :�.•.• /
•t_ /
densities typically considered on flatter j Z S ��0 ;l�.
land. < -� �, 2
y •� p >
IMPLEMENTATION POLICY i o D, /
-� The location extent and density
of residential development will be �.�•
;> determined when municipal services ��'�'�'•
can be provided and through Getters! `••••'�'•'�'�' __
WAY Plan rshnoment studios. —"'-''�'� e��Or `�,.,•,•,• /. //.a,.
o
STONERIDGE Oa
-IPA
Extended Planning Area
p 1 mile '
I I
Residential/Open Space(see note)
i
Business Park/Industrial:Low Coverage
titer
Business Park/Industrial
��
c
r�
lY!tl '°� Y' 1 �( :{• ••�•?,, )`( �Url.`�.; ,�l C •I�D. \ /r �N1' �' :�1V`C 3 Y 'qA1' , ,)✓� • ( a• !
'/I3 H--a`.Y���1 S'. I, ",. )\. � a. ,, \'l 1 �` �� �� 1�'t';•�; .11'' '\ 1�1 l 1.)•_�'-j 1•L\ I i � '
ft) ^, r l) ';':: )'�i�: !� t''L)'t�\\';\1`` \ /,��1\�1;.` L .\ li.\ -_ \✓ '�• •l. rrr J�
`%`-'Y 1+'<G��� Vy ��•:�.�'; ,'wti �'"`'• � \ \ l�\� �,•• \ !� x^"'11 � '^^
{� �� rte'+. -�' � _I t , / \. `'.��� .�/ � -.�.;�� \ � i1111 a-`" •\ `�J J({/
•r_ J A� ��a \>\• is .Ili./-t^./i�%•<,_� •.i �(`�� .��•'• ,`' ��J.1\\"t';\1L1 _ t'1.�`-1111,. \\• .u111i� �' '' '
' ���J '� 'i•� J : n.}(. .� •.,•3 .�: /S�}�; .\•'• -, � fJ .� �L�� '1.111•.J•1.. � �.\�1_ :1• /r. I
��� ;. i• Ltl-/ r. r; '� �1 - -; N •;a;., I � 1),I,1(� r � 1''tl ', �'' .rlf L—� I
,r iJ�'' , \�t �1/ ^�� ( 1� r�,r`'.� IY �' !.- •�(•.• %�(�•' ft !.1 l,r.f' '-� 1�1 f „r .M'' :� I_
`'',t. ! ,11111 \ II�/�.� �r •�' �a .. \'.� iV - r.l =`�•�,�•:
ON
''� I r t�•._i< 11 � \ ,i '
riI.
;,l �, �.,! � 1 DTI �\ 'z� ;�•: 'S�j�� ��-r \<<' t.\` - _(_
till ��/rJ11fi1� tYy�?C�\�'�:�• �, •�� � � �_L J •� �`'i
Syir
T j q i`� r(f� 1ti .I.l:J- .iu•{�hi� i(�F( �iL.:\ l'j i
'�,�' �.
{ i?1►� ��1i r���'�::'1 �Y: °. I � �� i, r. C;ii ,..__r�- tt^,'
�: r ( :a'i�`:" _ •j(N,,1 (: 0'•>� '� `:�:
'
l
'�\�7 - ay - •�:,.I+ - ll) fC\� ..%'^�••• '1 L/ /q(�."l;t)/:'1 ,1 .11 'I/,: \_�,`'•' ''•P� ,•t''.,:;�' \�'-' � �__ �'r•`=
I Y �
' `\. I 7���"'� \'i1'•„ h< �QJ'' •r,'�.'• \'.' \'' � r1r!•jl \�r�5`ti��,. :;�p�:... l,•. :a"--•:i•;. '.\r: / .\ ��.�
['�,?( -`lD'J'1 `'i:. •!��•� �� `�^ 1,,-� 1.1 •�,;Y�\;•. .;,��*�•Z?:�.% - 5;�� �: 1�. )�,•;).� 'I :,?,
ati )l: �rl �1' �„,� 'I 1'•'1 QOf�y \. r;..�.,sir 1''�•� f( , =s.
>>:.�':�>a� � ao. _ -a=, .�,ti•!r:). - �.�:�11�1• ';�!i':2�..; •)�::,'• .) I, ,•:: <:':C� ':.:,i' 1�•>1'} J � \ �.�.
' �h1 �� . -'I������ ���.iv—'J-� f"f•�>:a� \`JI•I I `�����i,,;� < . , '\•..• h�i�• �/ :',21'1.3// / a `� 1
L l•..'. �.\ t �.
•r"�- L�.I��- 1!I'�1�,k� �� yrf,.-�-,/['.:f�fJ�t'� 1'.�'M%• .t. .,. ��.::��•/� h� •\`` •r•�':�. '•>a t`:... ����j• ! �, �• / i�� 11 FjjM
\1V' i ..I�c. -WLJi P�'�17L`. r-" .�.� � �;� �'�B; i/)fj I1.,';.� '''1 j _ =�!1•
-)h�Y I ���,�•, r,\ 'tom �.\i`��iNI`II '� �1t \ K?_.( \\\ \ \. .'�'.�(- `.r •�1!`i�t_ Z.� •,,
r� ., /���)r 1 1 /, =f('n 1��) -����` ,.1,�¢`{"h��l r��2 . / -��\\ ;(:' •':�a .`' .tt...��f��l.,�.,' �`:)»..:���•.`f' � !r � ;I \
VU�, il±., /•I Q!� ��:d %� 11 t 1 �(Q/ (� ! ,. \'�� '�: � : '�`:)•i•;�:: � � / { ' I Yhl 4'CO�^
7.1 �•. �.••.\�✓ ''•.� Zt.J
Sl9 L ._ `/ :\; '•\:,- `-�� _ 27!7 �1�;:; .;.r/ ` \ ,
TIP-
7
N� `. :,
'�v.�h L.)� .�.•�'a••:,, •�•)`' 'tip•. ./._ \..a �_. `•-v-" _ _„ r :�"�_.' t-
' ,:::Jl' 1�t\` CITY OF DUBLIN
1t' t,
�.:...;� ..,'ii 111 ) _. _ to
1 t
_ _ MAP BASE �
�� •.._..... .................................................................................... I Y I •I..t.a.a..a. SCALx l►a.tl001L () (: A If
.r
\� 1� \•' � ��„ '_ �'/^- \.-.• `(jam^1 - -•��r�.
���� � l �,. '' y ',•---'��-.':�_. '�� � �'. v_ ." � 1 l _ � SOURCE: EIP ASSOCIATES � �•'•"';
FEETr��p
1
` ;:11 �`\ •;� �`�;__,,�_ � .-SAO �\,�. � '��' _ I \• \• � 1 : ,.'2
l :....w ` .� ` 'mss.-�i�`'.�\ \` LCD —' •• � ... . `��� •� \ � l � ' \\ 1 ` -`}S�_
Ile
7.
\ � whir � 'I � ,•
�.. ;-iZ-. .;.•l \\\ ,/ ?mot ..>•''•. '\\\ \��\`\\\\� � \ .,\. .� ^`, �.• 1. �.... l ; �\ Z\ ay.:�'(.w.�\
- • _ �� Prominont Knoll ( Valley
1 � M1nor Rldne �IC'"1 � T.nw p1Rw.
FIGURE 4.6-7 3'
VISUAL FEATURES MAP _ ---
/ LEGEND
VISUAL FEATURES;
Focal Point Minor Ridge
Prominent Knoll
Ago I� , � _ _ _ � •�•,;'� Grassland
Tree Masses Drainage y
.��� ;:y' ;';�' ` Major Ridge
one-
•:' �::'� , \ `i:• \ •' , - r / --- •-�%• `sue
�-... �.. � '.\`\ ';' J` ��• ` `�\.S \t�; �" � - J lam— �% 7 �b
cA `' '_'— .• ` . � '�-.. `�' 1. •.,• r• ` •.,
_-- - : -.I• _ i •• •J. yam_ ` \ �• "��
SOURCE: EIS As50CI—AT ES ^_ �� --'•=•''�
1 •
On
- - \'.: .
IS
\ / / 1, i� l � i �\ .� `�\ �••.�._ ,�•• ,. ��' �• � _-•.i)
•: ', \,`�'�• C�. Imo''. `� � •�"•, � J,' ••.._• .\ �\\ `��e,��'::'; _ i
t ,
•� �' �;. \. �• \'•'',;'•�\ \'.\ , , 1
C W3
19 ANIMENEW lb 4p 4dMZlW
e \ � `:t .\ � ` '\'••�. ',.�� .�ice^ , �� •t•:�•�••.". �••. `� �/
•'/� ', . ti ;, � '\,� 1 1' \ •\ \�• � Orr �,. �' '� �;',: ._. .....,=�' � I � .
! ��•-_..-.. _ ._..._. 1 � '. ,• • t , �1,1 �\•\;j `\ ,11� ` '1\'.+ , 1\'':\ '+`.♦ •.. ..i , / :: ��Il<S;t•'1- '! ..ti\ �'`'�!\; '�. ,/"•. - .• - t `i
... . ..:. - •. ,'' i 1 �; I f \1 \11 ` I,+ l �It l It �t 1'.. .'. ,`t '_... '1 ,' ,. .._.....�,)i'i- ,\�;'\•�'\ \; \'- +'�`' '♦ � f ':
�.... _ .. / ,• 11 �\\� 1t\\, `1'1t 1 i 11+1 t.;.n\, 1 ' t' r:i 1. ♦� ♦\ '�, ♦ `\,'� \\ `' \ �.... mil\ -�
c
-•ti
r
F'
1 ,
\
IIAU-SI;li 1lllrl. RANCH
i3:t�•,' , GI•:til:ItAL. PLAN Atllittlllllill'1'
r.
,.•- I,AII IJ 11';li 111"';1 r:ll'
1� ill
Luw UcnaJ.Ly ;Initlr: I'uu111y tlo
o• • .tea JU.J UCYC:1) .
J 7 . Z 'ACYCJ
n S* Lru1m
0'1.U n c r u u
It '`r+:.ls .i �`.,' + •1 r�T 1 �\�� � `' { _.._ (:u 1 C L t.r t:L 1.a (J I. ,,G V
\J .• 1 n c,1;
{`�%�-./,J tea; ' `T�L tl� `?. 1 ,:J��)\I �ic�.� ;trt"�, \��t l 1��''• j/ " �L; I.()YJ 1)1•:11::I't'Y i 1 Ilt:l.l:-1'A111 I.Y t c
2ti.-�•<'�`�i�• �I' C7 l:-�1/•(% '�Y����� _-�\` �i,�ri jam•\ �i'1i•,`\\�=`•�: 1� .l 1. �...�`��\\r ,,•►.:'Yv, '„��
,; ;�!�, .:`�•{+'.`�'•� i' sr �^tom• Tr�=J f j''''iy, 'i t( '�!
`� •. :r..li\1��1' ��'1•:�;i- _ �.�:; f'J t lr
;' .�♦�'- `.i ::� r:. �i 'LY� � - Y ��//��• ;\I at \\ �r�
Dx
^'-';�J:� `1n1•' y'
.i-t- ^• =•S., ) \`t`a� I��n>t�'i?i'L'',{�. 1 I� IJ l��' �1��, �t) �l�/,'%r (��,��,y�iisl;�l,`i, � �� �J�,"_ 'T'- -��I� �iJ� s �•R
�, '�.�pf r� t J., I ,r 1' (� l �' �/• i }�� �1( ct. ; r.� t/JJ.r
-=�:�•'' Q`. � :�' �� `;;G��`,�'Q ,��/ ; .,�•�. •�_�:i�J'l,"1'1:;11 � ,t,��: ..� {�� \l.t; �_ C
''�`. r?`��`�4'�,� , �� .` ���. +` 1�' ��� ..fit �'�� (i.�v ���j�r /•''('1://l.Y'`f��: II�•5••( 1 f 1 )' :�;� � •l�3,)i��'�'•i(J�="�(',
u f ) . t .
, / } ,, �,r�. 1 l'•,• u� r,•. ,, �1 j' ;^r \ .r•
?\:: . 1.Ij—,M v::'•.i' s .t;�r . .: :n ��! '�i: t:' i ,, S:, 7l• ti .1` Z'`
�� • � flI `S _l*•-
7y.
�i',�. .\`�-�.
•�`� V ),j�t• /•\�( 1.,M,,•' � Itl� 'I• �� 'iI (I(,,J! , lit )(., ♦ Cy 'J14:�•(J
•`�,/Sjf.l�:' LCM u1;t15I'11 �� 1 •t!J`�-tl /" l)\S;�' ;(.l\li,'.7 '' LUH 1)Ial';J.7"( Vl�, f �V•''� i
a1'► •- .sa;- �. ��: 11'[�;..'l+ i ,►�: 1't•� \:'• 11 ,Il•�`. .f _ 't'" II(;I.I' I)A:1tl.f•"i;. ,rJ..'ri _ { '�
` . �at;�a SINS_ NILl U;1;�:;t`t^I�� r,� ,.tl;.'cl.;zzz u�._ y l _
I�c I." ;t 1,1'tr'f
, .L,;: �`� `�==: •` '' --___ �1`� -.!!� dd t: 99444 �•L�_.���� _.I \
mmimml
OPER»1111
mop
% ;: _ _ ,LI
wr
�.�r.,r-_.!•7r�-c!�^T" 5.:,w°.. �•�i'._i."• `r�iir •s; •:�. ''t 't.' ..
69 r1t�-1•,t, tt. ',,.'•,1' 'F'i:1:)� \':,M'...1; •jA' '1,:j1� '•j'•
�r�t+ 0,11 fit. 't:.�il•
?• ��`:a> � kk
:.4`.\iS. I:a.ti ♦• ,L�(\.\•, :(.Tt'' r. 5::.f.• ,11' 'h'rv� l 1''. ;i•
Ur
�"!t r. l .�•i \ '\`� :.\., iIi":,s. .. ••
\1v�'.�\: ii 1s•� `:..`v.,1. ♦ .•t.4,,�1 c{ `''.�'TI�,: ..�.. .si•„ .d��•� ;(..) ��..a`�' �\'.'t:.• I:•a'
J1.44��'`\ .�-j. ,\'ft V•�p�),1't�♦\..1. ,�`•1•.�r''•:Y ,t.•t.�t,.,,•,;i:�..\(�{.Ir '.y !�i•,s .•y•,:' ':t':., ::I .. •.t. .. ..
:
u.°3'tY���J r i l �`•{{�. ✓,., .(. +"• 1 a�,i;. .l:'j) 1 /
rs�,yN ' f ♦" � ,�. I:'1•, i�1:.+•F •tr�l. ify.iy:J��'tt' Vii• •�,:+ ,,. .. _ ,
{ - a,', �Y. .1;: •li:' •',. d.,,: v.''.i',;t .'i' ',t ... I( r
:.`�\. 11: ,•!' >t:fir(" •� i�:'i.• a� .rr�t. .R':':S;•'�:•'' ,,. ',,:'t•.. .. . ,
� �� 'il' j• +.t \, i1•,l• :r �C ir��1:.1. f' •1�.\'/• ,,..,r ..'^,J• .ti t.'ti � ., ,: '..' , ',r .. ,
�.t. � M.;;3'���r'�'��i�ll�'.��1't'• "1','a�'v;. i�'�t�J':Y' .:1+•j;11`:' :.�.1:t: •..:• 'S• ! ',• '
3 ` yy tvti-•�-'),'tt` 1•�•i` ��t �,J:;r' X•ti.1 ;.t;t l: ,. 1 fr..e'.' f t, ..� r'''
,�. ,�,; r •t ., '�••�•�.: `tJ 1;L .X. ;. ,tl �1'` �;r11 .�:..'•.�';'. •.Iris., �' �'
f .:,;� � a V, r.. •!. � s,�V� +t• 1''i 1(:J,.. !•,r V /',1 ', hl'I ' ''',' ::r' 'ti � � � ..
tA`k�d;n
.J., ,>✓' ' ..+-. ►, 41 ` • �w S.�,� 1^`�Y. {..T ij,il S E,: �(i\: 114,.•. 1, �..,,,. 1 ,
it! r? ti' l I, ,'i) 1• , :\ '):
`• _ y "` ..�T.t�i� •`�� {i: ,•c� �'�f4''•>':�1ri.L1�'?V'���'::'�.,:..:j,l�`_::�,�•,i.�:' 'Yi�'�'`., t! •'� .. '.
-:. 1S+LLB\1�'�.t .F 1'.Y .s s'^.. .t:`9,'i,. \y,, ,t• 1.tS • ,
v:~ �. �'.0`'.1'� tJ \ ,aaj-,��`::� �.+ . {Ja•a1;�J'•�1 a�:>• ', ��'••It,: 'i .. (•..
—'-'- f'.. \��r;y.��;.�{`:��tir:" .ts' •�•ti r!.'.j.;.•�;:`y��;.�.:n:.ttl •1, . ... ..., .. 1 •
r r•
a
RESOLUTION NO. 89 042
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
FOR PA 87-012 DONLAN CANYON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held five public hearings on PA 87-012
Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment and EIR on May 1 and 15, 1989, June 19,
1989, July 5, 1989, and July 17, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and reviewed the Staff analysis
and recommendation on the environmental effects of Donlan Canyon (the
"project") ; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , together with
the State CEQA guidelines, *require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project has been
prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR dated March 24, 1989 and
Final EIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR dated June 15, 1989, which
documents are incorporated herein by this reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find as follows:
1. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and
hereby finds and certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the State
EIR guidelines.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that there are significant adverse
impacts which can be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened by
changes or alterations required in or incorporated into the project, as
follows:
a. The General Plan Amendment would allow certain growth and land use
changes and intensification in the project area. However, changes
and intensification must be consistent with and conform with the
land use designations and policies of the City's existing General
Plan and the General Plan Amendments.
b. Project construction could impact oak/bay woodland vegetation on
site. However, mitigation measures will be incorporated into the
development phase of the project which will reduce these impacts.
Mitigation will include:
i. Temporary fencing shall be provided during construction for
those areas not to be graded.
ii. Detailed tree survey/horticultural report, tree preservation
study and tree replacement plan and revegetation plan shall
be undertaken and recommendations implemented.
iii. Grading stud* shall try to save as many trees as possible.
Trees with trunk diameter greater than 6 inches shall be
replaced with similar native species on a 3 to 1 basis.
iv. Oak woodlands located within -the proposed low density single
family residential area shall be preserved as open space. PD
Prezoning regulations and CC&R's shall restrict development,
prohibit grading and prohibit tree removal.
A TT A
c. Project construction would disturb riparian habitat areas, ..
However, impacts will be minimized in that the following mitigation'
will be implemented with project development:
i. A new riparian habitat corridor as approved by the California
Department of Fish & Game shall be created with minimum 20 to
40 feet width.
ii. Revegetation with native species shall be undertaken within
riparian habitat and graded areas,
d. Project construction could impact wildlife with culverting the
lower portion of Donlan Creek through proposed Lot 1 and removal of
riparian and oak woodlands will reduce wildlife habitats and reduce
availability of water for wildlife. However, the following
mitigation will reduce this impact:
i. Disturbed areas shall be revegetated.
ii. An additional length of new habitat shall be established on
the west side of Lot 1.
e. Project construction could impact visual quality. However, the
following mitigation will reduce this impact:
A. Site specific visual impact study shall be undertaken and
recommendation implemented.
ii. A visual berm shall be incorporated to effectively screen
views of single family area from I-580.
iii. Mature trees shall be planted along visual berm to screen
single-family residential and water tanks.
iv. PD Prezoning regulations shall restrict development within
areas of high visual constraints.
f. Project construction could impact soils and geology conditions
resulting in reactivation or initiation of slope instability with
grading activities, landscaping and related irrigation associated
with the proposed development. However, the following mitigation
will reduce this impact:
i. Project specific grading plans, detailed geotechnical reports
and soils engineer recommendations concerning slides and
other soils and geologic conditions shall be reviewed and
implemented at the subdivision stage of the planning process.
ii. All construction shall comply with Uniform Building Code.
g. Project construction could increase flooding potential. However,
the following mitigation minimize the impact to an insignificant
level:
i. A maintenance program for the culvert and upstream open creek
shall be established.
ii. A detention basin and on-site upstream, from the I-580
culvert shall be constructed,
iii. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be implemented
during construction.
h. Project construction could increase fire risk. However, the
impacts will be reduced by the following mitigation:
i. The project development will incorporate mitigation measures.
DRFA (Fire Department) requirements including non-combustible
roofs, automatic fire suppression system.
ii. Payment of fire impact fee as contribution to fund
construction of future fire station.
-2-
i, Project construction could result in noise impacts. However, the
following mitigation will reduce the impacts to an insignificant
level:
J. The proposed multi-family development shall comply to Title
25 requirements relating to noise insulation.
ii. Construction work activities shall be limited to weekday
daylight hours,
j . Project development when combined with the cumulative impacts of
other projects have the potential for decrease in the level of
service (LOS) at Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road to LOS F and will
impact the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate drive.
However, implementation of mitigation to widen the eastbound
intersection to have two right turn lanes, two left turn lanes and
two through lanes will minimize the potential impact and reduce LOS
to an acceptable level. In addition, mitigation to redesign the
Dublin Boulevard and.Silvergate Drive intersection and to widen
Dublin Boulevard will minimize the impacts.
3. The Planning Commission hereby finds that there are identified
insignificant impacts, as follows:
a. Development within the project site could impact parks, recreation,
telephone, gas, electric and .other utilities. However, the
potential impacts are considered insignificant in that project
specific mitigation will be established and implemented at
subsequent levels of review. Additionally, costs for utilities
will be borne by the developer and homeowner.
b. Development in the project site would generate an increase in
demand for water and sewer services. However, the capacity of the
facilities are anticipated to be adequate to accommodate the
increased demand so as to render the potential impacts
insignificant.
c. Development within the project site will generate an increase in
school enrollment and a corresponding increase in school operating
costs. However, the potential impact is considered insignificant
in that the student increase is considered within the facilities
capacity and State law allows school districts to impose
development impact fees.
d. Development of the project site will result in an insignificant
impact to historic and archaeological resources in that there are
no known historic or archaeological resources on the site.
Additionally, mitigation will be implemented during the
construction stage of development requiring construction activity
to stop and retention of a qualified archaeologist to examine the
site if archaeological material is encountered during the project
construction.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds that six (6) alternatives, as more
fully set forth in the Final EIR, were considered and are found to be
infeasible, for specific economic, social or other considerations, as
follows:
Alternative #1 - No Project
The "no project" alternative assumes that the site would remain in open
space, allowing one dwelling unit on the site. The "no project"
alternative fails to provide needed housing, along with the associated
increase in property tax revenues, and is thus considered infeasible.
Alternative #2 - Mitigation Alternative
This alternative assumes 171 acres of proposed open space. Single family-
lots would be reduced to 6 due to visual constraints. Multi-family would
remain as proposed. Public service impacts would be slightly reduced.
-3-
There would be a small reduction in traffic flow on proposed Hansen Hill '-
Ranch site. This alternative is infeasible in 'that it would not•meet the
housing needs or associated tax revenue.
Alternative #3 - Neighborhood Context
This alternative assumes restrictions to development according to lot
size, slope and biotic resources. The proposed 171 acres of open space
would be eliminated as the entire 197 acre site would be open 'for .
development consideration. Only single family would be considered with a
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Allowable density would be 3.3
to 3.5 du/acre. Development would be scattered throughout the site on
approximately 60 acres considered developable, Traffic generated would
be less. There would be a decrease in continguous wildlife habitat, a
decrease in visual quality. This alternative is infeasible in that it
would not provide an adequate number of housing units and the associated
increase in the property tax revenues.
Alternative #4 - Single Family Low Density
This alternative assumes single family development over. the entire 197
acre site. Density range would be .5 to 2.8 DU/acre. The 171 acres of
open space would be eliminated. Developable acreage would. be similar to
Alternative 3. Total number of units would range from 30 to 168.
Impacts would be similar to neighborhood context alternative with
exception. of a decrease in visual impact due to reduction in number of
units. This alternative is infeasible in that it would not meet housing
needs or associated tax revenue. ,
Alternative #5 - Medium Low Density Mutli-Family
This alternative assumes multi-family on the site. A density of 6.1 to
8.0 DU/acre on 16 acres would be allowed resulting in 98 to 128 units.
This alternative would result in slight decreases in traffic flow, noise,
required public services. This alternative is infeasible in that it
would not meet the housing needs or associated tax revenue.
Alternative #6 - Medium Density Multi-Family
This alternative assumes 6.l to -14 DU/Acre on 16 acres with a unit yield
of 98 to 224. Single family development would not be' considered.
Impacts would be similar to Alternative #5.'". This alternative is
infeasible in that it would not meet the housing needs or property tax
revenues. -
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission',-does hereby recommend
the City Council certify that the Final :EIR for General .Plan Amendment PA 87-
012 Donlan Canyon is complete and adequate with the mitigation measure ,
stipulations and corrections, and recommends that the mitigation me sasures set
forth in the Final EIR be incorporated in the implementation of.the General .
Plan, as amended.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, "1989.
Ic
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Planning Commi ' i erson
ATTE T:
Planning Director
-4-
/ -. ..� .! yN .: }.,✓ !h-r'i. .'lids.
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 043
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR PA 87-012 DONLAN CANYON
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code 21081.6 requires the City to adopt a
reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions imposed
to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in order to ensure
compliance during project implementation; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
89-042 making findings recommending City Council certification of the Donlan
Canyon EIR as complete and adequate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT.THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend the City Council adopt the "Donlan Canyon Mitigation
Monitoring Program" attached hereto as Attachment B-1 as the monitoring program
required by Public Resources Code 21081.6.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 1989.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Planning Commi Sion C person
ATTEST:
Planning Director
ATTAC
rJe C"-Alt 'nhA(CA-
C w.�
RESpLUTION 110. 89 - 044
OF THE YZ-AtI:iI2,G CO:"'�ZSSZON
A RESOLUT OF TKE CZT.1 OF DUB-L"' "
AMENDMENTS
OF GENEPAL
COUNCIL ADOPTION *i CATrfON
CZT'� 87_012 DONLA1 requested a
RECO:MF'11DZ:tG FOR YA Group have
paragon the
tes/ es currentll in , 5 Primary
Canyon Associa 197+ acres of Dublin
vzAS, Donlan to hate within City high density
the desig the
�E., Brent Stud] County+ tial, medium-
plan P.men of Alameda faml1 residers nations; and
eneral ortion land use desig
or orated p density single-corridor Plan
ninc 2 loa- corri General
+fanning P.re am Opel' space stream Council authorized a
ace
cesidential City
1986, the roperty; and La'a, it
EREAS, on October 3' Canyon p and Zoning
Study for the Donlan of State Planning of Dublin to
ent of the City plan;
Amendm to the provisions Commission the City' s General
WHEREAS and duty of one Pr posed amendments to
is the function end action hearings on
and recomm noticed public
review five CS) Imp Report Plaand 6
and
commission
Yield ental act Rep 1989 ,
Planning COQ dment/.Environm 1989; 1988 5 13,
WHEREAS, the plan Pmen June 19 , and May
General 15, 1989 ' on Februar`I 97 ,
the Donlan Canyon 1g89; May d trips
on May 1, ced feel n
applications two noticed ubl_shed i..
July 17 , 1989 and uolic hearings was Within
�'
1989; and planning Conmisand mailed to propertyt and
uildingswith California State 'Law,
W"HEAS> no ice o ublic b to the
noted in p dance amendments
ro�ect in accor ending the
the Yerald' n he p submitted recomm and Density and
300 feet of was submi Designation
the Staff analysis s-plan Land Use
WHEREAS, Ling to Gen accordance with
General plan relaArea;
and reviewed in
Planning ent been Act;
Primary p1 nl Amendm h Quality an
the General Environmental prep
Pursuant
EREAS, o f the Calif°r has been P
the Provisions
rvamental Impact Report (EIR)
an Envi submitted to
WHEREAS, was
to CEQA; and is of the Applicant' s proposal
taff all oral
WHEREAS+ a S on; and all written and
the Planning Commissi
ission considered
v Comm and
EREAS,
the planninb ublic hearings' adopted Resolution �O'
the P Commission the Donlan
submitted at tiOn of ,
testimony 1989 , the Planning certifica
AS, on July 17 , ending City Council
VRERE dings recommending Q Commission does
89_042 making fin and complete. planning
Careyon EIR as adequate SOLVED THAT TH Dublin Y1
E
THEREFORE, BE ZT at urban
rOW, be provided bus inesses•
find that*. services will residents and
hereby o blic safety den to Dublin
and p cial bur disfigure the
_ Utilities finan
with will not
standards means of access
site �radin; and
osed termination of
- FroP premature
rido lands result in F
will not g lands.
develOpment on ad3oinin�
Timing °f ural,operations in the Extended the.
ricult development dilute
viable ag residential draw upon and
impact of new r and does not
_ The fiscal a supports itself Of the City.
Planning Are` remainder
fiscal base Of
the
• Y
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recom,mend the City Council approve the following General Plan Amendments for PA
27-012 Donlan Canyon:
1. Amend Figure 1 Dublin General Plan Primary Planning Area to include
the entire Donlan Canyon site (AP.T 941-018-03 and APIT 941-018-04) within the
Primary Planning Area.
2. Amend the land use designation on the Donlan Canyon site as noted
on Attachment C-1 to include:
164.9+ acres Open Space; Stream Corridor
13+ acres Low Density Single Family Residential.
(0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre)
19.1+ acres Medium High Density Residential
(14.1 to 25 DU/Acre)
3. Amend Table 1, Development Policies for Residential sites, page 8
and Figure 4 sites for Housing Development page 9 adding the Donlan Canyon
General Plan Amendment site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby recommend
the City Council direct the Staff to edit, format and print the up-to-date
Dublin General Plan with all approved revisions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby recommend
the City Council direct that the Applicant is responsible for all costs the
City incurs in providing an up-to-date Dublin General Plan resulting from the
adoption of PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 1989.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
?a&t-)7 al./,
Planning Commissio a r erson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-2-
PA 87-012 DONLAN CANYON
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT: George E. Thomas
Paragon Group
Pacific Mutual Building
523 West Sixth Street, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90014
PROPERTY OWNER: Mike Gleason
P. 0. Box 107
Port Costa, CA 94569
LOCATION: North of Dublin Boulevard, West of Silvergate
Drive in an unincorporated portion of Alameda
County
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-018-03 and 941-018-04
PARCEL SIZE: 197+ acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: The project site is located within the City's
Extended Planning Area, designated
residential/open space
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: A, Agricultural/Grazing (Alameda County) .
Current land use grazing and construction yard
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: Agricultural/Grazing Land, Alameda
County, Zoned A
South: CalTrans Right-of-Way
East Valley Christian Center
West Agricultural/Grazing Land, Alameda
County Zoned A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) which finds the proposed
project may have a significant adverse impact on
the environment.
MAJOR POLICY ISSUES:
1. Ridgelines - Single Family
Policy 3.3.F addresses preserving or enhancing ridgelines which form the
skyline as viewed from major arterial streets and freeways, through the
Subdivision or Site Development Review processes. This policy would not
preclude designating the saddle area as residential in the General Plan,
however, the ridgelines/skyline issue would need to be addressed at the
Tentative Map stage.
2. Oak Woodland - Single-Family
The proposed sizes of these lots within the oak woodlands are: Lot 11 =
34,800 square feet, Lot 12 — 20,500 square feet and Lot 13 — 29,500 square
feet.
General Plan Policy 7.33 ("7.3.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") is not applicable to these lots in that the policy
specifically relates to lots with oak woodlands on slopes less than 30%.
All
9A Al -6 12
3. Oak Woodland/Riparian Vegetation Removal - Multi-Family
The total tree dripline on the site is 67.2 acres with an estimated
7,900 trees. A significantly large number of these trees are located within
the 164.9 acres the Applicant proposes as the open space land use designation.
PROCESSING ISSUES
1. EIR
The Final EIR includes copies of all written comments received during
the public review period on the Draft EIR, copies of the minutes from the May
1, 1989 and May 15, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and responses to all
public hearings and written comments received.
The Draft EIR/Final EIR identifies the impacts anticipated with the
proposed project and contains mitigation measures to minimize the significant
effects to less than significant.
The Draft EIR identifies six alternatives to the proposed project: 1)
no project alternative, 2) mitigated alternative, 3) neighborhood context
alternative, 4) single-family low-density alternative, 5) medium-low density
multi-family alternative, and 6) medium density, multi-family alternative.
2. EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program
Effective as of January 1, 1989, California State law requires adoption
of a monitoring program when certifying an EIR or mitigated Negative
Declaration. The purpose of the Monitoring Program is to ensure compliance
with the mitigation measures imposed to avoid the significant environmental
impacts of the project.
The Monitoring Program was prepared by Staff and was reviewed by the
City Attorney.
3. General Plan Amendment
Low Density Single Family
The Low-Density Single-Family Residential category was recently added to
the City's General Plan as part of the Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan
Amendment approved by the City Council in February 1989.
Access to this portion of the project will be gained through the Hansen
Hill Ranch project via Silvergate Drive or Dublin Boulevard/Valley Christian
Center site.
Medium-High Density Residential
There are currently four sites within the City that are designated
Medium-High Density Residential on the General Plan (See Attachment 5 General
Plan Map) .
Developments with a similar density include (see Attachment 7 Project
Locations) :
Project Location Density
Village I Dougherty/Amador Valley Blvd. 14.3 DU/Acres
Amador Lakes Stagecoach 14.3 DU/Acres
Kildara Amador Valley Boulevard/ 13.38 DU/Acres
San Ramon Road
The three projects range from 2 and 3 story rental units to 2-story
townhouse units.
-2-
za
a�
J
a Z
J
<
wZ
z �'.'
LLJ
Q9
I
j
CD
Lo
b
Z
Lo
a)
tr)
4-
(7)
dti
L)
Y
Ld
w
z
OCl)
:5- 0 z
Z c)
0
Cl) Cy Sw
< U) -� Z�
<
z 03
Z 6
O1z 0
it)
OR CO) Jo
U)
C/)
CD
I
./ llflll�'l
C/)
LU
fag."
LLJ
WW
—1
00-1
CD
LLJ
./ llflll�'l
C/)
fag."
LLJ
[PURI-1 mi
I = ---
��..
gazC
LLJ
FE
C/)
C/)
C)
LLJ
C)
CD
CD
CY)
Lr)
�n
r--1
r-A
�1' f I I� I' I. iilllrur�,i�`II i�l�,
�1` � ' �II'��� 4 !I!!Irl�j��p��A����iai�Vl
. iii'�I�I.° I Moo, 0
II
in m .9
LU co z
C"
ILU
0 CD z
Lu =i
ce
-4
a I
fag."
[PURI-1 mi
I = ---
��..
gazC
QD
C\j
LO 0)
d
Z
F�
C)
cr
FMO
0�
U co
70
0
U)
< U)
a6 z
.j
z
0�z
��S
I
0
D 41
N
w
w
ir
L)
:3
F-
z
cl
0
ir)
�j C/)
LLI
0 +1
t%%..
CF)
U5 -s
rr. LU
U)
LLJ
C)
in z 0
F—
CD CD CD CDC D CD CD
r--i C114 r—i C**-4 V) -T Lr)
CD CD 00000
a r--q --A ^, i Kr-% —t-
Lr)
(n (f)
Lli Lu F—
Of �
U u Cl)(D
< <
LU C/)C:x
LLJ
Lo 00 of
pn Lo C/) <r
r-1 r--1 �
C::z
-.Li
Lij
LU Qr- C)
LLJ C::z 4<�—
ck�-
C:::c � 1=1 LU
Lli = C:) C) C:) C) C)
.j ccc = F— r-1 CSI tn -Zi- Ln
—i F— <c I I I I I
F--4 emu.: F— 4% %* oft ft* %
LL Lr:)C:) CD CD CD C:) C:)
— I U . r—i 04 M zr
----------
sir
3-
LU co 2
> z : -d' :5
.LU C= 0-
() cm z
LU --.;
M
a
C)
C)
C15c� W
cr) v � � LU co
Q 1.4 H
,.a U cn E w o
`^ �� 0 Q
U W O O N M r-i 10 O V r-i r--1 +1 W E^4 M c
O
an HH a
N
w aa0 E '� wft
z H�� w a°
U) U A A U U' 'J� 'W H 01
F�
0
Z Z c\j .- A
4 Z A +� E 0 �,� wW
W U 0 09 z�,
O 0 L O D ���� 3 . H C1 ao N C Q1 Ln Ch 01 A E
(n om `" E-4 U r-4 N � co � n E pk z•
Q 'rYiC7ACn N M G) HWH HdP
Z F� p. V Q J� a o �ap� AAH OM
Z Q H � o 0 �
J z O U a G
m WE �-
o � � Z v � H � z s s s e s e W s V� E H E-4
N Qo
W ♦♦ zNH N�r�D N�r1G N V
C) 4 H a U� r�NM+ r NM+ r O �'OIL'+HV �a
W Q z Q yam. i��1 fW H A H s }H s e e s U ■ E H
U J W fri H a O 1G M �l1 �C w M Ln N 'a tC H O (n p� a
cr W Z O E E 3 A r•-I M M r-i M M a1 3 E 0 H 3 0
Fmo C. g — ,
I
J " 11 1 II
, IIq I
Up
r
1 I 11
a �
0 (%i
1
i— a_ Q X
V
�..) Q I '
LL Q 1 f
LL 9: Q L!1' ;.
o '
r i
1
l
X, q\3
�Iljll.�ll�ll�ll`I�I�II')Irl°
IIIIII
f' 1 \.'��� �', � � � � 1 11 1 r '� '� , \ I. I, �' 1� \. •'' � / ! li I 1 I r l .: 1 I S i .
:I.I. ��i� I - /` ,�t i l�l 11 II �I 1 4( / �': "7"l ^r ",.1:1,1 1' J'•1 ,I:'jl!�
, .. ,. -.'� � LL,,'' // i/ ' I I` 111 I I:, ..7. '�' ', ♦ :I , `II �' L. \ \)�`)rf'r'.
a / ilY.;r ' \ `1` ' '1 ' I y.�l. 161 , •. I I 1..,1 Ii 111 III a / �.
, /� /"— ,/fir/ �/r� /- /> q � I II.I 1 1, I I 1;`1 i;�IIII ril; �1 � � •,r!' Ir
l
q {/ "
i 1 1
'1
Ui r / / / ;' 1 '/ / -a 1 : l , l i . 1 . _-i �' 'J I I I j 1, :II !'r l 1 .1 i I J!,• :'I
11111 IIfI I.I IlI II I III' Y / �: l
\ \ � '.n 1 •.:1�•i�l
1 I II
W tl `' � � !+; 'ip f,I IIII of I� <,•. /" % / /.�� .
-
LL�
p 1.
Ill ,j,.
I w
r /
.I I
' 1
\
F
3 �
hhh
o �o
g h h
„ � N
a � d
2 2 �
N V N
000
�h2
0)
U
W
it
U
F-
z
�31
U
U
z
W
O
O.'
`
>
U)
1
Q
CJ ��/
C
OJ
w
Cn
Z
z
I--
U
A
�
J
cp
o
D
Z
0)
U
W
it
U
F-
z
�31
U
CT I� I� O N
r-i r—i r-i M M
IV
z
W
Cl)
z
`
>
,
1
E-
1_..1
w
Cn
Z
I--
�
A
O
Z
J
-
Cn
Q
(—
Cn
}-
-J
Q
O
cl:�
U
�z
CL
U
Q
Q
w
E
Q
Q
Q
Q
ce-
a.
tL
w
Q
Cn
Cn
I—
-
W
O
A
Cn
O
U
J
A
Q
i�
I---
Q
C7
Z
Cr
U
Z
O
0
LL.I
U
U
:)
U)
O
I�
r-i
O
-
CT I� I� O N
r-i r—i r-i M M
IV
W
J
M M C
�h22
z
W
z
`
>
,
1
p
w
o
Cc
cd
W
J
M M C
�h22
�S
0
n
I
C7
A
O
O
U
W
U:
W
ce-
Cn
Cn
Cn
CD
Cn
C)
W
Z
Q
Z
U
U
A
Q
-
Of
J
-
C)
Q
?-
U
(D
A
CL
U
X
A
J Cn
Z
W
J
pQ W
oa
W
00
C)
2:
CD
A
-O
Cn
Or-
-
-
U=
A
W
C.7
U
>-
O
Q
Q
2
A
W
—I
-
>-
O
W
J
tY
�
�' LL
J
�
pU
C
Q
U
r—I Cn
L
-
U
-
V
LL-
Q
Q
U
Q
U
Q
1
W¢
W
LD
0
0¢
C3)
J
I�
N cD
�
Lf)
O
Z
O
r-i M
J
�-
O
N
O
cn
�
�S
0