HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Wanmei Properties-PDRPage 1 of 12
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
Wanmei Properties, Inc. Planned Development Rezone with related Stage
1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, a Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review (PLPA-2015-00023)
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Wanmei Properties, Inc., is requesting approval of a Planned
Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, a Vesting
Tentative Map and Site Development Review for 19 single family dwellings and
associated site improvements on 2.648 acres of land at 6237 Tassajara Road within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On June 13, 2017, the Planning Commission opened
the public hearing, took testimony, reviewed the project and continued the item to June
27, 2017. The Planning Commission continued the item in order to provide them with
additional time to review the City’s complete response to comments on the Mitigated
Negative Declaration before making a recommendation to the City Council, as a part of
those responses were in advertently omitted from their June 13, 2017 packet.
RECOMMENDATION:
Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public hearing, deliberate and adopt the
following Resolutions: a) Recommending City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for a Planned
Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, a Vesting
Tentative Map and Site Development Review for the Wanmei Properties, Inc. project; b)
Recommending City Council approval of a Planned Development Rezone with related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the Wanmei Properties, Inc. project; and c)
Recommending City Council approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review for the Wanmei Properties, Inc. project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The property at 6237 Tassajara Road is 2.648 acres (the “Project site”) as shown in
Figure 1. The project site is currently developed with a single family dwelling and the
property has been historically utilized by a variety of landscape contracting businesses.
Page 2 of 12
The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation is Medium
Density Residential (6.1-14.0 dwelling units per acre). While the density range allows for
16-37 units, the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan anticipated 20 units on the site. The
current Zoning designation is Planned
Development (PD Ord. 24-00) and allows
the existing single family dwelling and
landscape contracting uses to continue until
such time that the property redevelops
consistent with the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Surrounding uses include Quarry Lane
School to the north, open space to the east,
a tributary of Tassajara Creek to the south
and open space and Wallis Ranch
residential development on the west side of
Tassajara Road.
Background
When the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted in 1994, the project site was 3.8
acres in size and was designated as Medium Density Reside ntial and Open Space.
Although part of the original Specific Plan, the property was located outside of the City
limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence. In 2000, both the project site and Quarry
Lane School were annexed to the City of Dublin. Following annexation, a Planned
Development Prezone was adopted for the project site. The prezoning established an
interim agricultural zoning designation for the project site that allows existing residential
and agricultural uses approved under Alameda County’s Zoning Ordinance to remain
until such time that the landowner applies for a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan. In
addition, the prezoning established an Open Space designation that protects a tributary
of Tassajara Creek that is located south of the Project site. The creek restoration, open
space parcel transfer and fence barrier were completed in compliance with the Eastern
Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program (City Council Resolution 105-96).
In 2003, a lot line adjustment was recorded reducing the size of the project site from 3.8
acres to 2.648 acres for the purpose of transferring the Open Space portion of the
property from the Kobold family to the Lin family for the restoration of the tributary. The
restoration was completed in 2007 and the tributary is maintained in a permanent
conservation easement as part of the Dublin Ranch Preserve/Northern Drainage
Conservation Area. A 6-foot chain link fence with a 4-foot sheet metal barrier at the
bottom separates the project site from the adjacent tributary and was installed
concurrent with the restoration of the tributary to prevent migration of the California Red
Legged Frog onto the Project site.
Proposed Project
The current landowner, Wanmei Properties, Inc., has filed an application for a Planned
Page 3 of 12
Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, a Vesting
Tentative Map and a Site Development Review Permit to redevelop the 2.648 acres
with 19 single family homes at a density of 7.4 dwelling units per acre. Associated on-
site improvements include a private road; landscaping; common open space areas for
passive use; a secondary wildlife barrier consisting of a block wall with tubular steel on
top along the southern and eastern property lines; a new bioretention area; and, a
sound wall along Tassajara Road. The project will also include frontage improvements
along Tassajara Road including constructing a portion of the widening of Tassajara
Road; undergrounding all utilities; constructing curb, gutter and sidewalk; and, installi ng
landscaping. The proposed site plan, improvement plans, architecture, and landscape
plans are shown in the Project Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment 1).
ANALYSIS:
The General Plan/Specific Plan land use designation for the project site is Medium
Density Residential which allows 6.1-14.0 dwelling units per acre, or 16-37 attached or
detached units. The proposed project is 19 detached homes at a density of 7.4 dwelling
units per acre.
Planned Development Rezone
The application includes a Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan. The proposed Planned Development zoning meets the requirement
outlined in Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 2, Exhibit A)
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan
The permitted uses would be single family dwellings and associated accessory uses
such as home occupations, family day cares and second units. The maximum number
of units permitted, excluding second units, would be 19 at a density of 7.4 units per
acre. The Project would be constructed in one phase and would not be subject to
Inclusionary Zoning because it falls below the threshold of 20 units. The proposed
development standards are as follows:
Table 1. Development Standards
Standards
Min. Lot Width 40'
Min. Lot Depth 50'
Max. Stories 2 Stories
Max. Building Height 30'
Max. Lot Coverage 55%
Min. Usable Rear Yard(B) 250 SF Flat Area with a Min. Clear Depth of
10'
Setbacks
Min. Front Yard 10' (to Living Area or Garage)
Min. Rear Yard 5' Minimum with a 10' Average
Min. Side Yard 4'
Min. Driveway Depth 18' (if used towards guest parking)
Page 4 of 12
Parking
Required 2 per dwelling, enclosed in a garage
Guest Parking 2 spaces per dwelling, uncovered
A Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezone
with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans is included as Attachment 2. The
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan is included as Exhibit A of Attachment 1.
Setbacks to the Tributary – Stream Restoration Program
The Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program was adopted in 1996
(City Council Resolution 105-96) to satisfy Mitigation Measure 3.7/12.0 of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR. The Program’s restoration
guidelines state that setback requirements for tributaries will vary depending on site
conditions, environmental resources, the need to accommodate trails, and the nature of
adjacent development. The Program further states that, in general, setbacks should be
100-feet from the top of bank for major tributaries, according to the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, unless an exception is negotiated with the Department.
Proposed projects should justify proposed tributary setbacks based on flood flows,
existing vegetation, quality of habitat, bank conditions and treatments, and current and
proposed land uses.
In 2007 restoration of the creek tributary adjacent to the project site was completed in
accordance with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. The
tributary connects the 245-acre Northern Drainage Conservation Area to the east with
the 57-acre Tassajara Creek Conservation Area to the west. The restoration goals
included stabilizing the stream channel without encroaching onto the project site and
providing opportunities for wetland and riparian habitat creation.
The project proposes a 50-foot average structural setback from the top of bank of the
adjacent creek tributary. Improvements within the 50 -foot setback include a bioretention
area, a portion of the residential dwelling on Lot 19, passive open space areas, portions
of the private roadway, guest parking, private driveways and private front or rear yards.
Justification for the proposed setback includes:
The adjacent tributary has been completely restored in accordance with the
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program including bank
stabilization and revegetation;
The restored tributary has been designed to accommodate 100 year flood flows;
An existing species barrier was installed in conjunction with the restoration and
precludes the migration of special status species onto the project site. A
secondary exclusion fence would be built entirely on the project site as part of the
project; and,
The proposed project is being constructed within the existing disturbed footprint
of the project site which includes a rural residential homesite and has been
Page 5 of 12
utilized by various landscape contracting businesses prior to and following the
restoration of the tributary.
Creek Setback
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.20 (Watercourse Protection) establishes setbacks for
development that is adjacent to open channel watercourses. The purpose of the
setbacks is to safeguard watercourses by preventing activities that would contribute
significantly to flooding, erosion, or sedimentation; would inhibit access for watercourse
maintenance; or, would destroy riparian areas or inhibit their restoration. Development
is not permitted within the required setbacks unless an exception is granted by the
Public Works Director.
Figure 2. Creek Setbacks
The Applicant has requested to encroach into the required 20 -foot watercourse setback
(see Figure 2 above). Improvements within the setback would include, curb, gutter and
sidewalk; a portion of the private street; guest parking spaces; vegetation; and, a
bioretention area. The Public Works Director has conditionally approved the setback
encroachment based on the following:
The proposed encroachments will not further restrict or remove access to the
creek;
All proposed improvements will be outside of the 100-year flood plain;
The adjacent riparian corridor has been fully restored and there is no evidence
the encroachment would result in the destruction of any portion of the corridor;
All on-site stormwater runoff will be contained on-site and diverted to a proposed
bioretention area for sedimentation and treatment before discharging into the City
storm drain network;
Page 6 of 12
The proposed block wall that will serve as a secondary wildlife barrier will further
reduce runoff and prevent flooding, erosion and sedimentation within the nearby
watercourse; and
All proposed site improvements will be located behind the proposed block wall
that will serve as a secondary wildlife barrier.
Inclusionary Zoning
The Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (DMC 5.68) require all new residential projects of
20 or more units to provide 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units as affordable
units. The Project proposes to provide a maximum of 19 units and is therefore not
subject to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.
Public Art Compliance
Chapter 8.58 (Public Art Program) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance exempts residential
development projects of 20 units or less from providing public art. The Project proposes
to provide a maximum of 19 units and is therefore not subject to the Public Art Program.
The resolution recommending approval of the Planned Development zoning with related
Stage 1 and Sate 2 development plans is included as Attachment 1 with the Ordinance
included as Exhibit A.
Site Development Review
Site Design & Architecture
The subject property is long and narrow with the widest area located adjacent to
Tassajara Road. The proposed homes are oriented in a linear fashion to coincide with
the shape of the property and to provide for direct view of the tributary. Of the 19
homes, 16 are located on the north side of the private drive (adjacent to Quarry Lane
School) and 3 are located on the southwest side closest Tassajara Road. An illustration
of the proposed site plan is provided in Figure 3.
Page 7 of 12
The proposed architectural character of the project draws inspiration from a variety of
sources such as rural vernacular, bay area modern and prairie estate houses and the
streetscape is configured for maximum variety and to promote visual interes t. There
would be three floor plans, three elevation styles (Americana, Contemporary
Farmhouse and California Modern) and three color schemes for each elevation style
(refer to Exhibit A of Attachment 2). The floor plans range from 2,199 square feet to
2,459 square feet excluding the two-car garage and optional California Room. All
homes would be two-story with 3-4 bedrooms.
The roof forms vary with a mix of low and steep pitch gable roof forms and shed accent
roofs. The exterior building materials includ e a mix of board and batten, lap siding, and
stucco. The architecture of the individual elevation types is complemented with
variations in the siding, wood trim, post and columns along the front porch, window
shutters, and a metal awning on the California Modern elevation. A sample street
scene of the various plan types, color schemes and exterior cladding for the project is
shown in Figure 4.
Given the site constraints and the requirements for emergency vehicle access, parking
will not be allowed on the private street. The two required covered parking spaces for
each unit are provided in the units’ two-car garages. For the guest parking, 18 of the 19
homes provide for two guest parking spaces in the driveway. In addition, 9 guest
parking spaces are provided off the street with 4 near the west end and 5 on the east
end adjacent to the turn-around for a total of 45 guest parking spaces.
Figure 3. Site Layout
Page 8 of 12
Landscaping, Walls and Fencing
A preliminary landscape plan has been prepared for the Project (refer to Attachmen t 1,
Exhibit A, Sheets L1.0-L3.0). The preliminary landscape plan provides a general design
layout that demonstrates the location of landscaping and hardscape; a general plant
palette with the location, size and name of proposed plants and trees; and, wall and
fencing locations and materials. Common open space areas would include a
bioretention area and two passive recreation areas. The passive use areas would
provide opportunities for visual enjoyment of the tributary to the south of the Project.
The preliminary landscape plans identify six existing trees which would be removed to
facilitate redevelopment of the site (refer to Attachment 2, Exhibit A, Sheet L1.2). A total
of five walnut trees, with trunks ranging in size from 15-inches to 24-inches, and one
almond tree, with a trunk diameter of 18-inches, are proposed for removal. Four of the
trees are located to the rear of the existing single family home and two are located to
the south of home. Walnut and Almond trees are not protected species under the
Heritage Trees Ordinance (DMC 5.60). However, to compensate for the loss of these
existing trees the Applicant is proposing to plant six, 48-inch box Coast Live Oak trees.
As provided in Condition of Approval #33, Staff will work with the Applicant during the
Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan review to identify an appropriate location for these 6
oak trees.
A sound wall would be constructed along the project frontage to reduce exposure to
traffic noise from Tassajara Road. The sound wall is proposed to b e 8-feet high with a
stone façade and a thin brick cap. During the building permit review phase of the
project, the precise height, length and location of the wall will be evaluated by an
acoustical consultant to ensure that exposure to traffic noise from Tassajara Road is
effectively reduced to no greater than 65 dBA. Refer to Condition of Approval #24.
As previously noted, along the southern property line, on the adjacent tributary parcel, is
an existing 6-foot chain link fence with a 4-foot sheet metal barrier at the bottom. This
fence was installed in conjunction with the restoration of the tributary and serves as a
California Red Legged Frog barrier preventing migration of frogs from the tributary onto
the Project site. This existing fence would remain in place on the tributary parcel. On the
Project site, the Applicant proposes to construct a new 4-foot high block wall with 2-feet
of tubular steel on top within the southern and eastern property lines. The wall would be
constructed entirely on the Project site. This new wall would provide a more attractive
barrier between the Project and the tributary to the south as well as the open space
area to the east. If the owners of the tributary parcel were ever to consider removing the
existing chain link fence, the new wall could serve as the California Red Legged Frog
barrier.
Fencing on individual lots within the Project would be constructed with 5 -feet of solid
wood fencing and 1-foot of lattice on top for a total height of 6-feet. Alternatively, a 6-
foot solid wood fence may be constructed in side and/or rear yards where it is not visible
from the public way.
Page 9 of 12
Access, Circulation, and Parking
The Project would have one entry point off of Tassajara Road. A two -way private road
would be constructed to provide access to the 19 homes. Access to the site would be
limited to right in/right-out movements to and from Tassajara Road. The private road
would terminate in a cul-de-sac at the eastern edge of the Project.
The project would complement the ultimate improvement to the east side of Tassajara
Road along the project frontage. The improvements include a 6 -foot wide sidewalk and
an 8 foot wide bike lane along the project frontage would be installed along each side of
the private street in front of the new lots.
In accordance with the proposed Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan the Project would provide two parking spaces in an enclosed garage
and two uncovered guest spaces on the driveway (with the exception of Lot 8). A total of
nine guest parking spaces would be provided in designated areas along the street (refer
to Attachment 1, Exhibit A, Sheet A.2). Curbside parking would not be permitted within
the Project.
Vesting Tentative Map 8299
The Project includes Vesting Tentative Map 8299 to subdivide the 2.648 acre property
into 19 single family lots and a common area lot that would include the private street,
on-street guest parking and open space areas for passive use. A Resolution
recommending City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Map 8299 is included as
Attachment 1. Vesting Tentative Map 8299 is included in Exhibit A of Attachment 2,
Sheets C1.0-9.0.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING
ORDINANCE:
The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land
use designation of Medium Density Residential and the Zoning Ordinance requirements
for a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin
San Ramon Services District reviewed the project to ensure that the Project is
established in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of
Approval from these departments and agencies are included in the draft City Council
Resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review (Exhibit
A to Attachment 2).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared.
The project site was included in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Page 10 of 12
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 91103064) which was adopted by
the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution 51 -93). The Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EDSP EIR)
is a Program EIR that analyzed the broad environmental impacts of implementing the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Since an EIR had already been completed analyzing urban development on the project
site, a project specific supplemental environmental review process was completed in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Ac t (CEQA),
CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. An analysis in the
form of a modified Initial Study was prepared to determine whether there could be new
or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as a result of the Project
from those already addressed in the EDSP EIR or any other standards for requiring
supplemental CEQA review were met. The modified Initial Study concluded that there
were new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; theref ore, a
Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts
that remain to be addressed as identified in the Initial Study.
The Supplemental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated
for a 30-day public review period from March 17, 2016 to April 18, 2016. Following
release of the IS/MND for public review the City discovered new information pertaining
to a golden eagle nest located approximately 200-feet east of the project site which was
not known to be present at the time the EDSP EIR or IS/MND was prepared. After
receiving public comment the City prepared a revised supplemental IS/MND and
recirculated the document for a second 30-day public review period from October 22,
2016 to November 22, 2016 (Exhibit A of Attachment 3). The City received a number of
comment letters during both public review periods that have been incorporated into the
Response to Environmental Comments dated June 2017 (Attachment 4).
The project is subject to mitigations identified in the supplemental IS/MND and the
EDSP EIR as applicable. These mitigation measures have been accepted by the
Applicant. Furthermore, these mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
Project’s conditions of approval and the City will monito r the Applicant’s compliance with
them as the Project is constructed and operated under the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted in conjunction with any project approval.
The environmental effects of the project are discussed in detail in t he supplemental
MND for the project. However, the following is a summarized list of potential Project
impacts and the mitigation measures recommended by the supplemental MND to
reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Potential Impact – Aesthetics
The aesthetics analysis takes into consideration the construction phase and operation
of the project. Construction of the proposed project would add additional light sources in
the form of streetlights, building lighting and lighting from the resid ences. Residential
light and glare was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and installation of future
lighting could result in a significant impact on the adjacent tributary to the south,
passers-by on Tassajara Road and other nearby private properties. Mitigation Measure
AES-1 would ensure that the project adheres to the minimum light levels on -site and
that light is confined to the property.
Page 11 of 12
Potential Impact - Biological Resources
The project site is located to the north and immediately adjacent to a creek tributary
which is habitat to protected and special -status species. An existing 6-foot chain link
fence with a 4-foot sheet metal wildlife barrier (constructed in 2007) currently separates
the project site from the adjacent tributary precluding the migration of protected and
special-status species from the Northern Drainage Conservation Area onto the project
site. The project proposes to install an additional barrier on the southern and eastern
side of the project to further preclude migration of special-status species during
construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires the installation of a temporary protective barrier
along the eastern property line between the project site and the Northern Drainage
Conservation Area to ensure that the site is fully inaccessible to special-status species
during construction. Mitigation Measure BIO -2 requires pre-construction surveys to
identify, avoid and protect special-status species. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires the
construction of a permanent protective barrier within the southern and eastern
boundaries of the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO -4 limits impacts of construction
to the golden eagle during the golden eagle nesting season. Mitigation Measure BIO -5
restricts the use of rodenticides. Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 requires a pre-
construction survey for special status species such as the California Red -Legged Frog,
California Tiger Salamander and Burrowing Owl prior to any ground disturbance.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to
special-status species that the proposed project will be required to comply with. This
includes mitigation measures for potential impacts such as the loss of habitat
(vegetation and botanically sensitive habitats), San Joaquin kit fox, tri-colored blackbird,
Golden Eagle, and American badger, among others.
Potential Impact - Hazardous and Hazardous Materials
The project site has a history of being used for agricultural uses such as a contractor's
storage yard and for storage for vehicles, materials and similar equipment for a number
of years. As a result, there is a possibility of oil, gasoline and other chemicals to be
deposited in the soil. Mitigation HAZ-1 addresses the potential to release potentially
hazardous containments into the environmental as a result of grading to create building
pads, private streets and trenching for underground utilities.
The project site also has an existing building that needs to be demolished in order to
construct the proposed project. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would ensure that demolition
of the existing structure would reduce the potential impact for release of lead based
paints or asbestos to a less than significant level.
Potential Impact - Noise
The analysis noted that the addition of the new dwelling units would result in new
vehicle trips on the local and regional road network. Impacts associated with roadway
noise on residence were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and mitigated by Eastern
Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 which requires developers of housing projects
to complete an acoustic analysis to ensure that City and State noise standards can be
achieved. The project proposes the construction of an 8 -foot tall solid wall along the
Tassajara Road frontage to reduce noise levels. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would
Page 12 of 12
minimize potential Project impacts in regards to noise by requiring an acoustic
consultant to review the final grading the design building prior to building permit
issuance to ensure the proposed 8-foot wall is sufficient to reduce noise in outdoor use
areas and the interior to 65 dBA and 45 dBA respectively.
PUBLIC NOTICING:
In accordance with the City’s Policy, the Applicant installed a Planning Application
Notice Sign along the Project frontage. The sign includes details about the project and
how to find out more information. The project is also included on the City’s Project
Development website.
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project. The Public Notice was also
published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City.
Additionally, the Public Notice was provided to all persons who have expressed interest
in this Project. A copy of the Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant and posted
to the City’s website.
Additionally, the Applicant hosted a community outreach event on Friday, October 28,
2016 at the Project site. The event was attended by approximately six residents.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution for City Council Approval of Planned Development Rezone
1. Exhibit A to Resolution Draft Ordinance of Planned Development Rezone
2. Resolution for City Council Approval of Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development
Review
2. Exhibit A to Draft City Council Resolution of Vesting Tenative Map and Site
Development Review
2. Exhibit A to Draft City Council Resolution Project Plans
2. Exhibit B to Draft City Council Resolution Color and Material Board
3. Resolution for City Council Approval Mitigated Negative Declaration Report
3. Exhibit A Draft City Council Resolution Approving Mitigated Negative Declaration
Report
3. Exhibit A to City Council Resolution Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration
3. Exhibit B to City Council Resolution Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4. Response to Environmental Comments
1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 17-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC. PROJECT
LOCATED AT
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD
(APN 985-0072-002-00)
PLPA-2015-00023
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Wanmei Properties, Inc. proposes to develop 19
single-family detached homes on 2.648 acres of land at 6237 Tassajara Road within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezone
with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development and requested approvals are collectively
known as the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site consists of a single parcel located at 6237 Tassajara
Road that is 2.648 acres in size (APN 985-00072-002-00); and
WHEREAS, the site is developed with a single family dwelling and the property
has been historically utilized by various landscape contracting businesses ; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the
State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared;
and
WHEREAS, development of the Project site was addressed in the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
91103064) which was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution
51-93) (“Eastern Dublin EIR”); and
WHEREAS, since the Eastern Dublin EIR has been certified for the Project, the
City prepared a modified Initial Study dated March 2016 to determine whether
supplemental environmental review was required due to new or substantially more
severe environmental impacts from those already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
or other CEQA standards for supplemental review; and
ATTACHMENT 1
2 of 3
WHEREAS, upon completion of the modified Initial Study it was determined that
most of the significant effects of the Project: 1) have been adequately analyzed the
Easter Dublin EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards; and, 2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to the Eastern Dublin EIR including mitigation measures in that EIR.
For those impacts that presented new or substantially more severe impacts that those
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR or met other standards for supplemental review
under CEQA, a supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze
those effects ; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was circulated for public review from March 17, 2016 to April 18, 2016; and
WHEREAS, following release of the MND for public review the City discovered
new information pertaining to a golden eagle nest located approximately 200 -feet east
of the project site which was not known to be present at the time MND was prepared;
and
WHEREAS, after receiving public comment the City prepared a revised MND
and recirculated the document for public review from October 22, 2016 to November 22,
2016; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received a number of comment letters during both
public review periods that have been incorporated into the Response to Environmental
Comments dated June 2017; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 27, 2017 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project including the MND for the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017 and June 27, 2017 the Planning Commission held
properly noticed public hearings on the Project at which time all interested parties had
the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 17-
XX recommending that the City Council approve the MND for the Project, which
Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and is available for review at Dublin City
Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and all reports, recommendations and testimony
prior to making its recommendations on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and made a part of this Resolution.
3 of 3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned
Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans which draft
Ordinance (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference). The Planning
Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and
recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached draft Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
1 of 10
ORDINANCE NO. xx – 17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1
AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.
PROJECT LOCATED AT 6237 TASSAJARA ROAD (APN 985-0072-002-00)
PLPA-2015-00023
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: RECITALS
A. The Applicant, Wanmei Properties, Inc. proposes to develop 19 single-family
detached homes on 2.648 acres of land at 6237 Tassajara Road within the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area. The requested approvals include a Planned
Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting
Tentative Map and Site Development Review. The proposed development and
requested approvals are collectively known as the “Project”.
B. The Project site consists of a single parcel located at 6237 Tassajara Road that
is 2.648 acres in size (APN 985-00072-002-00). The site is developed with a single
family dwelling and the property has been historically utilized by various landscape
contracting businesses.
C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines
and City Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared.
D. Development of the Project site was addressed in the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
91103064) which was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993
(Resolution 51-93) (“Eastern Dublin EIR”).
E. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR had been certified for the Project, the City prepared
a modified Initial Study dated March 2016 to determine whether supplemental
environmental review was required due to new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or other CEQA
standards for supplemental review.
F. Upon completion of the modified Initial Study it was determined that most of the
significant effects of the Project: 1) have been adequately analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards; and, 2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to the Eastern Dublin EIR including mitigation measures in that
EIR. For those impacts that presented new or substantially more severe impacts
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 1
2 of 10
than those contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR or met other standards for
supplemental review under CEQA, a supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared to analyze those effects.
G. The Initial Study/ Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was
circulated for public review from March 17, 2016 to April 18, 2016.
H. Following release of the MND for public review the City discovered new
information pertaining to a golden eagle nest located approximately 200-feet east of
the project site which was not known to be present at the time the MND was
prepared. After receiving public comment the City prepared a revised MND and
recirculated the document for public review from October 22, 2016 to November 22,
2016. The City of Dublin received a number of comment letters during both public
review periods that have been incorporated into the Response to Environmental
Comments dated June 2017.
I. Following public hearings on June 13, 2017 and June 27, 2017 the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 17-XX recommending City Council approval of the
MND for the Project, Resolution 17-XX recommending City Council approval of the
Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans,
Resolution 17-XX recommending City Council approval of the Vesting Tentative
Map and Site Development Review, which Resolutions are incorporated herein by
reference and are available for review at Dublin City Hall during normal business
hours.
J. A Staff Report dated ______, 2017 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development Rezone
and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the City Council.
K. On ______, 2017, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project including the proposed Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage
1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, at which time all interested parties had the
opportunity to be heard.
L. On ______, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution XX-17 approving the
MND for the Project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and
available for review at Dublin City Hall during normal business hours.
M. On ______, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution XX-17 approving the
Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at Dublin City Hall during
normal business hours, and said approval is contingent upon City Council adoption
of this Ordinance.
3 of 10
N. The City Council considered the CEQA MND and all above-referenced reports,
recommendations and testimony and adopted the MND prior to taking action on the
Project.
SECTION 2: FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050 A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City
Council finds as follows:
1. The proposed Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans will be harmonious and compatible with existing and
potential development in the surrounding area in that the Project implements
the Medium Density Residential land use designation planned for in the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and accomplishes redevelopment of the
existing rural homesite as set forth in the Planned Development Prezone
(Ordinance 24-00). The proposed Rezone is compatible with other Medium
Density Residential land uses along Tassajara Road and will complete a
segment of the Tassajara Road widening as well as other frontage
improvements consistent with development to the north and south of the Project
site.
2. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning
district being proposed in that the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan have planned for Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 dwelling units per
acre) on the project site since adoption of the Specific Plan. The Project
proposes a development that would be 7.2 dwelling units per acre which is
consistent with the character and density of other residential land uses along
Tassajara Road. The project site conditions are documented in the Initial
Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and no site conditions were
identified that would present an impediment to development of the Project for
the intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic constraints
as the site is generally flat and has been developed as a rural homesite with
various landscape contracting businesses for many years.
3. The proposed Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare in that the Project is consistent with other Medium Density
Residential uses along Tassajara Road; the Project will adhere to all required
mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and, the Project will comply with all development
regulations and standards set forth in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plans and all conditions of approval imposed on the Vesting Tentative Map and
Site Development Review.
4 of 10
4. The proposed Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan in that the Project proposes the development of 19 single-
family detached homes at a density of 7.2 dwelling units per acre which is
consistent with the Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 dwelling units per
acre) land use designation for the site. The project includes an exception to the
100-foot biological setback set forth in the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive
Stream Restoration Program and the 20-foot watercourse setback set forth in
DMC Chapter 7.20. These exceptions are based on the fact that the adjacent
creek tributary has been completely restored including bank stabilization and
revegetation; the adjacent tributary accommodates 100-year flood flows; an
existing wildlife barrier and the proposed block wall that will also serve as a
secondary wildlife barrier will effectively preclude migration of special status
species onto the project site; all development will occur on-site within the
existing disturbed footprint of the property; and, all on-site stormwater runoff will
be contained and treated on-site before entering the City’s storm drain network.
B. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council
finds as follows:
1. The proposed Planned Development Zoning District meets the purpose and
intent of Chapter 8.32 in that, it creates development standards tailored to the
Project site and consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use
designation; it provides maximum flexibility and diversification in the
development of the property taking into consideration the irregular shape of the
parcel and the environmental sensitives of surrounding open space areas such
as the adjacent tributary; it maintains consistency with, and implements the
provisions of, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designation of Medium Density Residential; it protects the integrity and
character of surrounding uses in that it is consistent with other medium density
residential projects along Tassajara Road and the site layout takes into
consideration the environmental sensitives of surrounding open space areas
such as the adjacent tributary but locating structures as far as practical from the
wildlife corridor; it encourages the efficient use of the project site by utilizing a
small lot single family concept with minimal private landscaping while providing
passive use common areas adjacent to the open space corridors to the east
and south; it provides for effective development of public facilities and services
to the site; includes design features that result in a development that is
compatible with surrounding uses; and, allows for creative and imaginative
design that promotes amenities beyond those expected in conventional
developments.
2. Development under the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans would be
harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the
surrounding area in that the Project implements the Medium Density Residential
land use designation planned for in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
5 of 10
Specific Plan and accomplishes redevelopment of the existing rural homesite as
set forth in the Planned Development Prezone (Ordinance 24-00). The
proposed Rezone is compatible with other Medium Density Residential land
uses along Tassajara Road and will complete a segment of the Tassajara Road
widening as well as other frontage improvements consistent with properties to
the north and south of the Project site.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted a
Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project including the Planned
Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans by
Resolution XX-17 on ______, 2017 which Resolution is herein incorporated by
reference.
SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning
Map is amended to rezone the Wanmei Properties, Inc. property at 6237 Tassajara
Road (APN 985-0072-002-00) from Planned Development (Ord. 24-00) to Planned
Development (Ord. XX-17).
A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
SECTION 4: APPROVAL OF A STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The regulations for the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the
Property are set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for
the Project area which is hereby approved. This approval supersedes the Planned
Development Prezone previously approved in Ordinance 24-00. Any amendments
to the Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with
Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
PROJECT
SITE
6 of 10
The following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans meet all the requirements
for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans as set forth in Chapter 8.32 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Stage 1 Development Plan
1. Statement of Proposed Uses.
PD-Residential. The following uses are permitted in the PD-Residential:
a. Single Family Dwelling
b. Home Occupations, in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
c. Cottage Food Operations, in accordance with Chapter 8.65 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance
d. Family Day Care Home-Small, in accordance with the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
e. Family Day Care Home-Large, in accordance with Chapter 8.66 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance
f. Second Units, in accordance with Chapter 8.80 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance
g. Other similar and related uses as determined by the Community
Development Director
PD-Open Space. The following uses are permitted in the PD-Open Space:
a. Passive recreation including an open meadow, natural path and a picnic
area
b. Bioretention
c. Other similar and related uses as determined by the Community
Development Director
2. Stage 1 Site Plan.
Site Boundary
7 of 10
3. Site Area and Proposed Densities.
a. Site Area: 2.648 acres
b. Proposed Density: 7.2 dwelling units per acre
c. Maximum Number of Units: 19
4. Phasing Plan. The project shall be developed in a single phase.
5. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan.
6. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Consistency. The project is
consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designation of Medium Density Residential which permits residential
development within a density range of 6.1-14.0 dwelling units per acre.
7. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The project is not subject to the
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68) for the provision of affordable
housing because the Regulations only apply to new residential development
projects of 20 units are more.
8. Aerial Photo.
8 of 10
Stage 2 Development Plan
1. Statement of Compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. This Stage 2
Development Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Stage 1 Development
Plan.
2. Statement of Proposed Uses. Same as Stage 1 Development Plan
3. Stage 2 Site Plan. Same as Stage 1 Development Plan
4. Site Area and Proposed Densities. Same as Stage 1 Development Plan
5. Development Regulations.(A)
Lot Guidelines
Min. Lot Width 40'
Min. Lot Depth 50'
Max. Stories 2 Stories
Max. Building Height 30'
Max. Lot Coverage 55%
Min. Usable Rear Yard(B) 250 SF Flat Area with a Minimum Clear
Depth of 10'
Setbacks(C)
Principal Building
Min. Front Yard(D)(E) 10' (to Living Area or Garage)
Min. Rear Yard(F) 5' Minimum with a 10' Average
Min. Side Yard(G) 4'
Min. Driveway Depth 18' (if used towards guest parking)
Accessory Structures(H)
Parking
Parking 2 spaces per dwelling, enclosed in a
garage (I)
Guest Parking 2 spaces per dwelling, uncovered (J)
Footnotes:
(A) Unless otherwise noted, all terms shall be defined by Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
(B) The optional California Room is permitted to encroach into the flat useable rear yard area.
(C) Setbacks are measured from the property line.
(D) Front Yard Encroachments: Items typical of a residential nature such as entry stairs, railings,
and Entry Features (pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.40) may encroach into the
Front Yard setback a maximum of 3-feet. Roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, canopies may
encroach a maximum of 2½ feet. Air conditioning units are prohibited in the front yard. All
utilities are to be screened from public view to the maximum extent possible via walls, plantings,
enclosures, roof placements, etc.
(E) Minimum Front Yard Setback for Lot 8 is 5'.
(F) Rear Yard Encroachments:
1. Roof overhangs, cornices, eaves and canopies may extend into the required setback a
maximum of 2½ feet provided that no such feature shall be permitted within 3-feet of the
Rear Lot Line.
9 of 10
2. Accessory Structures may encroach into rear yard setbacks in accordance with Footnote H
below.
(G) Side Yard Encroachments:
1. Roof overhangs, cornices, eaves and canopies may extend into the required setback a
maximum of 2½ feet provided that no such feature shall be permitted within 3-feet of the
Side Lot Line.
2. Accessory Structures may encroach into side yard setbacks in accordance with Footnote H
below.
3. Air Conditioning units are prohibited in the Side Yard. An exception may be granted by the
Community Development Director for side yards that are not adjacent to another single
family lot and a minimum 3-foot wide path of travel can be provided around the air
conditioning unit.
(H) Accessory Structures shall be governed by Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 EXCEPT as
follows:
1. Detached Accessory Structures in the side and/or rear yards shall be subject to the
following:
a. Minimum 3-foot side yard setback.
b. No required rear yard setback.
c. Maximum 10-feet in height.
d. Maximum area of 120 square feet.
e. Exempt from Lot Coverage regulations.
f. May be located within the required flat, useable rear yard space.
2. Attached Accessory Structures shall be considered part of the principal structure and
shall be subject to Principal Building setbacks and Lot Coverage requirements.
(I) A minimum unobstructed inside dimension of 20-feet by 20-feet shall be maintained for a private
two-car garage. Conversion of garages to living space is not permitted.
(J) Residential driveways with a minimum depth of 18-feet and a minimum width of 16-feet may be
counted towards the number of required uncovered guest parking spaces. On-street guest
parking spaces shall maintain a minimum dimension of 9-feet wide by 20-feet deep. The
depth of the space may be reduced in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
6. Architectural Standards. The architectural character of the project draws
inspiration from a variety of sources such as rural vernacular, bay area modern
and prairie estate houses and is conceptually as follows:
7. Preliminary Landscape Plan. Same as Stage 1 Development Plan
8. Other Zoning Regulations. Except as specifically modified by the Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plans, all development within this Planned Development
Zoning District shall be subject to the regulations of the R-1 (Single Family
Residential) Zoning District and any other applicable provision of Title 8 of the
Dublin Municipal Code.
10 of 10
SECTION 5: POSTING OF ORDINANCE
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at
least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633
of the Government Code of the State of California.
SECTION 6: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days following its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City
of Dublin on this ________, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk
1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 17-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE
MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE WANMEI PROPERTIES,
INC. PROJECT LOCATED AT 6237 TASSAJARA ROAD (APN 985-0072-002-00)
PLPA-2015-00023
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Wanmei Properties, Inc. proposes to develop 19
single-family detached homes on 2.648 acres of land at 6237 Tassajara Road within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezone
with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development and requested approvals are collectively
known as the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site consists of a single parcel located at 6237 Tassajara
Road that is 2.648 acres in size (APN 985-00072-002-00); and
WHEREAS, the site is developed with a single family dwelling and the property
has been historically utilized by various landscape contracting businesses; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the
State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared;
and
WHEREAS, development of the Project site was addressed in the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
91103064) which was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution
51-93) (“Eastern Dublin EIR”); and
WHEREAS, since the Eastern Dublin EIR had been certified for the Project, the
City prepared a modified Initial Study dated March 2016 to determine whether
supplemental environmental review was required due to new or substantially more
severe environmental impacts already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or other
CEQA standards for supplemental review; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the modified Initial Study it was determined that
most of the significant effects of the Project: 1) have been adequately analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards; and, 2) have been avoided
ATTACHMENT 2
2 of 3
or mitigated pursuant to the Eastern Dublin EIR including mitigation measures in that
EIR. For those impacts that presented new or substantially more severe impacts than
those contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR or met other standards for supplemental
review under CEQA, a supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to
analyze those effects; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/ Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was circulated for public review from March 17, 2016 to April 18, 2016; and
WHEREAS, following release of the MND for public review the City discovered
new information pertaining to a golden eagle nest located approximately 200 -feet east
of the project site which was not known to be present at the time the MND Declaration
was prepared; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public comment the City prepared a revised MND
and recirculated the document for public review from October 22, 2016 to November 22,
2016; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received a number of comment letters during both
public review periods that have been incorporated into the Response to Environmental
Comments dated June 2017; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 27, 2017 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project including the MND for the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017 and June 27, 2017 the Planning Commission held
properly noticed public hearings on the Project at which time all interested parties had
the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 17-
XX recommending that the City Council approve the MND for the Project, which
Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and is available for review at Dublin City
Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 17-
XX recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezone with
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the Project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and is available for review at Dublin City Hall during
normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the MND and all
reports, recommendations and testimony prior to making its recommendations on the
Project.
3 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting
Tentative Map and Site Development Review which draft Resolution is attached as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The Planning Commission
recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and on the
findings set forth in the attached draft Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
1 of 45
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW FOR THE WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC. PROJECT LOCATED AT 6237
TASSAJARA ROAD (APN 985-0072-002-00)
PLPA-2015-00023
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Wanmei Properties, Inc. proposes to develop 19
single-family detached homes on 2.648 acres of land at 6237 Tassajara Road within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezone
with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development and requested approvals are collectively
known as the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site consists of a single parcel located at 6237 Tassajara
Road that is 2.648 acres in size (APN 985-00072-002-00); and
WHEREAS, the site is developed with a single family dwelling and the property
has been historically utilized by various landscape contracting businesses; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the
State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared;
and
WHEREAS, development of the Project site was addressed in the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
91103064) which was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution
51-93) (“Eastern Dublin EIR”); and
WHEREAS, since the Eastern Dublin EIR had been certified for the Project, the
City prepared a modified Initial Study dated March 2016 to determine whether
supplemental environmental review was required due to new or sub stantially more
severe environmental impacts already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or other
CEQA standards for supplemental review; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the modified Initial Study it was determined that
most of the significant effects of the Project: 1) have been adequately analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards; and, 2) have been avoided
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 2
2 of 45
or mitigated pursuant to the Eastern Dublin EIR including mitigation measures in that
EIR. For those impacts that presented new or substantially more severe impacts than
those contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR or met other standards for supplemental
review under CEQA, a supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to
analyze those effects; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was circulated for public review from March 17, 2016 to April 18, 2016; and
WHEREAS, following release of the MND for public review the City discovered
new information pertaining to a golden eagle nest located approximately 200-feet east
of the project site which was not known to be present at the time the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public comment the City prepared a revised MND
and recirculated the document for public review from October 22, 2016 to November 22,
2016; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received a number of comment letters during both
public review periods that have been incorporated into the Response to Environm ental
Comments dated June 2017; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 27, 2017 and incorporated herein by
reference, was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending that the City
Council adopt a Resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development
Review; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017 and June 27, 2017 the Planning Commission
held properly noticed public hearings on the Project, including the MND, at which time
all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard and adopted Re solution 17-XX,
incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt the Vesting
Tentative Map and Site Development Review; and
WHEREAS, on _____, 2017, the City Council held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, including the MND, at which time all interested parties had the
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated _____, 2017 and incorporated herein by
reference, was submitted to the City Council recommending approval of the Vesting
Tentative Map and Site Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the MND (including
comments received and responses to comments), all said reports, recommendations
and testimony and used its independent judgement prior to taking action on the Project;
and
3 of 45
WHEREAS, the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review, and all of
the documents incorporated herein by reference, are available for review in the
Community Development Department at Dublin City Hall during normal business hours .
The location and custodian of the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review
and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City
of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, f ile
reference PLPA-2015-00023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and are made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Vesting Tentative Map:
A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8299 subdivision map together with
the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the General Plan
and any applicable specific plan in that: 1) the proposed Map creates 19 lots for
the development of one single family dwelling per lot and is consistent with the
density range permitted under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
for medium density residential land uses; 2) the proposed Map includes
provisions for infrastructure and services that will support the development; and,
3) the proposed Map includes frontage improvements that will complete the
widening of Tassajara Road consistent with properties to the north and south of
the Project site.
B. The subdivision site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development in that: 1) the site is generally flat and the proposed Project will be
developed within the existing disturbed footprint of the site; and, 2) the si te
design has been integrated with the layout and topography of the property
including the placement of future residential dwellings as far as practical from the
adjacent creek tributary.
C. The tentative tract map is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision
design, or improvements of the tentative tract map are consistent with the city’s
general plan any applicable specific plan in that : 1) the proposed Map creates 19
lots for the development of one single family dwelling per lot and is consisten t
with the density range permitted under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan for medium density residential land uses; 2) the proposed Map
includes provisions for infrastructure and services that will support the
development; and, 3) the proposed Map includes frontage improvements that will
complete the widening of Tassajara Road consistent with properties to the north
and south of the Project site.
D. The subdivision design and proposed improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat in that: 1) an Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 of 45
has been prepared for the Project and all Mitigation Measures of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR as well as Mitigation
Measures contained in the Project level Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be implemented in conjunction with the Project ; and, 2)
development of the Project site will occur within the existing disturbed footprint of
the property.
E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious
public health concerns in that: 1) the proposed Map subdivides an existing parcel
for the development of 19 single family lots with one dwelling per lot consistent
with the Medium Density Residential land use designation set forth in the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and, 2) the design and
improvements will be constructed in accordance with all local regulations and
ordinances.
F. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will n ot conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision; or alternate easements are provided pursuant to
Government Code Section 66474(g) in that: 1) the Project site does not contain
an existing easements that would either grant the public access through, or use
of, the property.
G. The design or improvements of the tentative map are consistent with the city’s
general plan and any applicable specific plan in that: 1) the proposed Map
creates 19 lots for the development of one single family dwelling per lot and is
consistent with the density range permitted under the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan for medium density residential land uses; 2) the proposed
Map includes provisions for infrastructure and services that will support the
development; and, 3) the proposed Map includes frontage improvements that will
complete the widening of Tassajara Road cons istent with properties to the north
and south of the Project site.
H. The subdivision is designed to provide for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in that: 1) the proposed Map provides for the creation of 19
single family lots that are arranged in an east-west configuration which provides
the majority of the homes with southern exposure.
I. The tentative tract map, including design and improvement, shall comply with all
the applicable provisions and requirements of the zoning ordinance, the latest
municipal stormwater permit issued to the city by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, this title, any other ordinance of the city and the Subdivision M ap
Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review:
5 of 45
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of DMC Chapter 8.104, with the
General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines in
that: 1) the Project is well designed and compatible with surrounding properties;
2) the Project is consistent with the regulations and standards of a medium
density residential development; 3) the Project has been designed in accordance
with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and, 4) the Project will
provide adequate circulation for automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance in
that: 1) the Project contributes to orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and
structural development compatible with the intended use, proposed subdivision
and the surrounding properties; 2) the Project provides a quality architectural and
landscape design to complement existing and planned uses in the area; and, 3)
the Project complies with the development regulations set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance, where applicable, and with the related Planned Development Zoning
District including the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the Project site.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties and the lot in which the project is proposed in that: 1) the size and
mass of the proposed residential dwellings are consistent with other medium
density residential developments in the vicinity; and, 2) the Project will contribute
to housing opportunities as anticipated in the General Plan Housing Element and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved
development in that: 1) the Project site is 2.648 acres in size, is generally flat and
is proposed to be developed with 19 single family dwellings; 2) the Project
provides medium density residential development in an area planned for
residential uses; 3) the Project is consistent with the related Planned
Development Zoning District for the Project site; and, 4) the Project site will be
fully served by a network of infrastructure including roadways, services and
facilities.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed in that: 1) the
Project site is completely disturbed, generally flat and does not contain any major
topographic features; and, 2) slight grade differentials between the Project site
and Quarry Lane School to the north will be addr essed, if necessary, with low
retaining walls.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the
design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings,
screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar
elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and
compatible with other development in the vicinity in that: 1) the Project provides a
quality architectural and landscape design to complement existing and planned
uses in the area; 2) the proposed single family dwellings reflect the architectural
6 of 45
styles and development standards for similar residential neighborhoods in the
vicinity; and, 3) the colors and materials proposed compliment the archite ctural
styles and are compatible with similar developments in the vicinity.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into
the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive
environment for the public in that: 1) the Project site will be attractively
landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubs and ground covers; 2) open space
areas for passive use will be landscaped to provide an attractive environment for
residents to observe the adjacent creek tributary; 3) the Project will comply with
sustainable landscape practices and the City’s Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance; and, 4) the Project frontage will be fully improved and landscaped to
provide an attractive environment from Tassajara Road.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians and automobiles in that: 1) all infrastructure including, streets,
sidewalks and street lighting will be constructed in accordance with the General
Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and all applicable local ordinances and
regulations; and, 2) development of the Project will conform to the improvement
standards allowing residents safe and efficient use of these facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby
approve the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review for the Wanmei
Properties, Inc. project at 6237 Tassajara Road, subject to the following conditions of
approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with as indicated
in the table below (see column When Required, Prior to) and shall be subject to
Planning Division review and approval. The following codes represent those
departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of
approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PW] Public Works; [ADM] Administration/City
Attorney; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; and, [DSR] Dublin Sa n Ramon Services District.
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Responsibl
e Dept./
Agency
When
Required/
Prior to:
Source
GENERAL
1. Approval. This Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review approval is for the
construction of 19 single family detached homes
at 6237 Tassajara Road (PLPA-2015-00023). This
approval shall be as generally depicted and
indicated on the plans prepared by Dahlin
PL Planning
7 of 45
Group, Reed Associates and Greenwood &
Moore, Inc. dated December 16, 2015 and date
stamp received June 1, 2017 (Exhibit A), the
color and material board date stamp received
June 1, 2017 (Exhibit B) and other plans, text
and diagrams related to this approval, stamped
approved and on file in the Community
Development Department, except as modified
by the following Conditions of Approval.
This Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review approval is contingent
upon adoption of the related Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Planned Development
Zoning for the project.
2. Effective Date. This Vesting Tentative Map and
Site Development Review approval becomes
effective concurrently with the effective date of
the related Ordinance adopting the Planned
Development Zoning for the project.
PL
3. Permit Expiration.
Site Development Review: Construction or use
shall commence within one (1) year of the
effective date of the approval or the approval
shall lapse and become null and void.
Vesting Tentative Map: The Vesting Tentative
Maps shall have that life determined by the
Subdivision Map Act, including but not limited
to Section 66452.6
PL 1 year from
approval
DMC
8.96.020.
D
4. Time Extension. The original approving
decision-maker may grant a time extension of
approval for a period not to exceed six (6)
months pursuant to DMC 8.96.020.E.
PL 1 year from
approval
DMC
8.96.020.
E
5. Modifications. The Community Development
Director may consider modifications or changes
to this approval pursuant to DMC 8.104.
PL On-going DMC
8.104
6. Revocation. This approval shall be revocable for
cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
PL On-going DMC
8.96.020.I
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The
Applicant/ Developer shall comply with all
applicable requirements and standard
conditions of the following: City of Dublin
Various Issuance of
building
permits or
installation
Various
8 of 45
Building Division, Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau,
Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Police
Services, Dublin San Ramon Services District,
Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7,
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority,
Alameda County Public and Environmental
Health, and the California Department of Health
Services. Prior to issuance of building permits or
the installation of any improvements related to
this project, the Applicant/Developer shall
supply written statements from each applicable
department or agency to the Planning Division,
indicating that all conditions required have been
or will be met.
of
improvemen
ts
8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all
applicable fees in effect, including, but not
limited to, Planning fees; Building fees; Traffic
Impact Fees; TVTC fees; Dublin San Ramon
Services District fees; Public Facilities fees;
Dublin Unified School District School Impact
fees (per agreement between Developer and
School District); Fire Facilities Impact fees; Noise
Mitigation fees; Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu
fees; Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and
Water Connection fees; and/or, any other fee
that may be adopted and applicable.
Various Issuance of
building
permits
Various
9. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin
and its agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to
attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of
the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal
board, Planning Commission, City Council,
Community Development Director, Zoning
Administrator or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City to the exten t
such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37
or other applicable law; provided, however, that
the Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying the Developer of any said
ADM On-going Admin/Ci
ty
Attorney
9 of 45
claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
10. Clarifications to the Conditions of Approval. In
the event there needs to be clarification to
these Conditions of Approval, the Community
Development Director has the authority to
clarify the intent of these Conditions of
Approval to the Applicant without going to a
public hearing. The Community Development
Director also has the authority to make minor
modifications to these Conditions of Approval
without going to a public hearing in order for
the Applicant to fulfill needed improvements or
mitigations resulting from impacts to this
project.
PL On-going Planning
11. Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer
shall control all activities on the project site so
as not to create a nuisance to
existing/surrounding businesses and/or
residences.
PL Through
construction
and on-going
Planning
12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be
responsible for clean-up and disposal of project
related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and
litter-free project site.
PL Through
construction
Planning
13. Property Maintenance. The
Applicant/Developer and property owner shall
be responsible for maintaining the project site
in a clean and litter free condition during
construction and through completion. In
accordance with the City of Dublin Residential
Property Maintenance Ordinance the
Applicant/Property Owner shall maintain the
site and all structures thereon in good condition
at all times and shall keep the site clear of
weeds, trash, junk, and debris and graffiti
vandalism on a regular and continuous basis.
PL On-going DMC
5.64.040
14. Noise/Nuisances. The Applicant/Developer shall
control all activities on the project site so as not
to create unusual or unnecessary noise which
annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the
health, repose, peace or safety of any
reasonable person of normal sensitivity present
PL On-going DMC
5.28
10 of 45
in the area.
15. Accessory/Temporary Structures and Uses. A
Temporary Use Permit is required for all
construction trailers, construction equipment
storage yards, security trailers and storage
containers used during construction.
PL Placement
on-site
DMC
8.108
16. Equipment Screening. All electrical and/or
mechanical equipment shall be screened from
public view. Any roof-mounted equipment shall
be completely screened from view by materials
architecturally compatible with the building and
to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. The Building Permit
plans shall show the location of all equipment
and screening for review and approval by the
Community Development Director.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
17. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units on
interior lots shall be placed at the rear of the
home (outside of the side yard) and a minimum
of 3-feet of clear access shall be maintained
around the unit. The Community Development
Director may allow less than 3-feet clear if no
other feasible location can be provided and
both side yards are equipped with gates for
access to the rear of the home. Lots 1, 16 and
17 may place the air conditioning unit in the
side yard that is not adjacent to another home.
Final placement of all air conditioning units shall
be subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Director.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
18. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
adopted by City Council Resolution XX-17 as
part of the Initial Study / Supplemental
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
PL On-going Planning
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
19. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Developer
shall comply with the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and any subsequent or prior
environmental documents pertaining to this
project including all mitigation measures, action
PL Permit
Issuance and
On-going
Planning
11 of 45
programs, and implementation measures on file
with the Community Development Department.
20. Tentative Map Conditions of Approval. All
applicable Tentative Map Conditions of
Approval shall apply to this Site Development
Review.
PL Permit
Issuance and
On-going
Planning
21. Glare/Reflective Finishes. The use of reflective
finishes on building exteriors is prohibited. In
order to control the effects of glare, reflective
glass is prohibited on all east-facing windows.
PL Permit
Issuance and
On-going
Planning
22. Light and Glare. Lighting is required over
exterior entrances/doors. Exterior lighting used
after daylight hours shall be adequate to
provide for security needs. All exterior building
and site lighting fixtures shall be directed
downwards and not onto adjacent properties;
all light sources shall be shielded from direct off-
site viewing.
PL Permit
Issuance and
On-going
Planning
23. Satellite Dishes. Prior to the issuance of Building
Permits, the Developer's Architect shall prepare
a plan for review and approval by the Director
of Community Development and the Building
Official that provides a consistent and
unobtrusive location for the placement of
individual satellite dishes on individual units.
Individual conduit will be run from the
individual residential unit to the location on the
building to limit the amount of exposed cable
required to activate any satellite dish. It is
preferred that where chimneys exist, that the
mounting of the dish be incorporated into the
chimney.
The Covenants Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&R's) shall contain language stating that the
individual units contain conduit and central
locations for satellite dish connections and
failure to use those conduits and locations (if
the resident has or wants a satellite dish) will
constitute a violation of those CC&R's. The
penalty for that violation shall be specified.
Additionally, prior to the issuance of building
permits for any neighborhood, the developer
shall prepare a disclosure statement, to be
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
12 of 45
reviewed by the Community Development
Director, and signed by every first time home
purchaser indicating that utilizing this dedicated
conduit and central mounting location is a
requirement if a satellite dish is installed.
24. Sound Attenuation. Prior to the issuance of
building permits for any building where sound
attenuation is required, plans shall be submitted
for review and approval of the Community
Development Director that indicate compliance
with recommendations contained in the
acoustical report for the exterior noise
attenuation as applied by the City of Dublin
General Plan Noise Element. Said Plans shall
indicate design continuity with the original
approval for any barriers required for exterior
noise attenuation and should be designed to
blend with the approved architecture and to be
unobtrusive.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
25. Herpetological Barrier. The secondary
herpetological barrier shall have a 4-foot
concrete base with 2-feet of decorative steel on
top for a total height of 6-feet. The secondary
barrier shall be in addition to the existing barrier
located along the southern property line. The
secondary barrier shall also be extended along
the eastern property line to fully preclude
special status species from migrating onto the
project site. The final design shall be generally
consistent with the preliminary design shown
on Sheet L3.0 (Landscape Fence and Amenities
Details) of the project plans. Modifications to
the proposed barrier may be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development
Director through a Site Development Review
Waiver.
PL Issuance of
building
permits and
through
completion
Planning
26. Permanent Signage. This Site Development
Review approval includes approval of a
neighborhood identification sign on the
community wall near the main entrance to the
project. The location and final design shall be
generally consistent with the preliminary design
shown on Sheet A.17 (Soundwall and Details) of
the project plans. The Applicant/Developer shall
PL On-going DMC 8.84
13 of 45
obtain a Zoning Clearance and, if applicable,
building permits, prior to installation of the sign.
CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED)
27. Residential Security Requirements. The
property owner and/or their designee shall
comply with the City of Dublin Residential
Security Requirements.
PL, B Permit
Issuance and
On-going
DMC
7.34.160
28. Security During Construction.
a) Fencing: The perimeter of the
construction site shall be fenced and
locked at all times when workers are not
present. All construction activities shall
be confined to within the fenced area.
Construction materials and/or
equipment shall not be operated or
stored outside of the fenced area or
within the public right-of-way unless
approved in advance by the Public
Works Director.
b) Address Sign: A temporary address sign
of sufficient size and color contrast to be
seen during night time hours with
existing street lighting is to be posted on
the perimeter street adjacent to
construction activities.
c) Emergency Contact: Prior to any phase
of construction, Applicant/Developer will
file with the Dublin Police Department
an Emergency Contact Business Card
that will provide 24-hour phone contact
numbers of persons responsible for the
construction site.
d) Materials & Tools: Good security
practices shall be followed with respect
to storage of building materials and too ls
at the construction site.
e) Security Lighting & Patrols: Security
lighting and patrols shall be employed as
necessary.
PL, B, PW During
construction
and through
completion
Planning
29. Lighting Levels. The Applicant/Developer shall
prepare a photometric plan to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, Community Development
Director and Dublin Police Services. Exterior
lighting shall be provided along the roadway
PL Permit
Issuance and
On-going
Planning
14 of 45
and parking areas as well as residential
dwellings, and shall be of a design and
placement so as not to cause glare on adjoining
properties or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used
after daylight hours shall be adequate to
provide for security needs. The photometric
plan shall show light measurements for the
entire project site including any light spillover
onto adjacent properties.
30. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be kept at a
minimal height and fullness giving patrol officers
and the general public surveillance capabilities
of the area.
PL Permit
Issuance and
On-going
Planning
31. Graffiti. The site shall be kept clear of graffiti
vandalism on a regular and continuous basis.
Graffiti resistant materials shall be used
including but not limited to graffiti resistant
paints for the structures and graffiti resistant
film for windows or glass.
PL Permit
Issuance and
On-going
DMC
5.68
PLANNING DIVISION - LANDSCAPING
32. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final
Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be prepared
and stamped by a State licensed landscape
architect or registered engineer and shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City
Engineer (public Right-of-Way landscaping) and
the Community Development Director (on-site
landscaping).
Plans Coordination. The Final Landscape and
Irrigation Plans shall be coordinated with the
Civil Improvement Plans, Joint Trench Plans, and
Street Lighting Plans. All said Plans shall be
submitted for review on the same size sheet
and plotted at the same drawing scale for
consistency, improved legibility and
interdisciplinary coordination.
Utility Placement and Coordination. Utilities
shall be coordinated with proposed tree
locations to eliminate conflicts between trees
and utilities. Typical utility plans shall be
submitted for each house type to serve as a
guide during the preparation of final grading,
PL, PW Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
15 of 45
planting and utility plans. Utilities may have to
be relocated in order to provide the required
separation between trees and utilities. The
Applicant shall submit a final tree/utility
coordination plan as part of the construction
document review process to demonstrate that
this condition has been satisfied.
The final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be
approved by the Community Development
Director and the Public Works Director, or their
designees. Plans shall be generally consistent
with the preliminary landscape plan prepared
by Reed Associates Landscape Architecture,
with an issue date of 12-16-15 and consisting of
Sheets L1.0, L1.1, L1.2, L2.0, and L3.0, except as
modified by the Conditions of Approval
contained herein or as required by the
Community Development Director.
33. Final Planting and Irrigation Design. The final
planting and irrigation design shall:
a. Utilize plant material that will be capable
of healthy growth within the given range
of soil and climate.
b. Provide landscape screening that is of a
height and density so that it provides a
positive visual impact within three years
from the time of planting.
c. Provide that 75% of the proposed trees
on the site are a minimum of 24 inch box
in size, and at least 50% of the proposed
shrubs on the site are a minimum of 5
gallons in size.
d. Provide concrete paving for all walkways
providing access to homes and guest
parking; provide concrete curbing at the
edges of all planters and paving surfaces,
where appropriate.
e. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the
master vesting tentative map and
conditions detailed in the Site
Development Review approval.
f. That all cut-and-fill slopes graded and
not constructed by September 1, of any
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
16 of 45
given year, are hydroseeded with
perennial or native grasses and flowers,
and that stockpiles of loose soil existing
on that date are hydroseeded in a similar
manner.
g. Specify that the area under the drip line
of all existing oaks, walnuts, etc., which
are to be saved are fenced during
construction and grading operations and
no activity is permitted under them that
will cause soil compaction or damage to
the tree, if applicable.
h. Include a warranty from the owners
and/or contractors to warrant all trees,
shrubs and ground cover and the
irrigation system for one year from the
date of project acceptance by the City.
i. That a permanent maintenance
agreement on all landscaping will be
required from the owner insuring regular
irrigation, fertilization and weed
abatement, if applicable.
j. Staff will work with the Applicant during
the Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan
review to identify an appropriate
location for the six (48” box) oak trees.
34. Tree Preservation.
The location, details and requirements
for Tree Protection Fencing shall be
included as part of the civil grading
and/or demolition plans.
Tree preservation techniques, and
guarantees, shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community
Development Director prior to the
issuance of a demolition and/or grading
permit.
Developer shall retain the services of a
certified arborist to supervise any
necessary pruning of the existing 36”
DBH Oak Tree that extends over the
south property line. Construction
pruning shall be completed before Tree
Protection Fencing is installed.
PL, PW Issuance of
demolition
and/or
grading
permit
Planning
17 of 45
Tree Protection Fencing shall be installed
before demolition and grading work.
Tree Protection Fencing shall be
maintained in place until acceptance of
the project.
35. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations. Final
landscape and irrigation plans shall comply with
the Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
DMC 8.88
36. Bio-Retention Areas. The design of bio-
retention areas shall be enhanced to create an
open space landscape feature that is attractive,
conserves water, and requires minimal
maintenance.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
37. Tree Clearances. The following clearances shall
be used as a guideline for the planting of trees.
Minor deviations may be approved by the
Community Development Director based on
specific site conditions.
a. 6' from the face of building walls or roof
eaves
b. 7’ from fire hydrants, storm drains,
sanitary sewers and/or gas lines
c. 5' from top of wing of driveways,
mailboxes, water, telephone and/or
electrical mains
d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign
returns
e. 20' from either side of a streetlight
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
38. Irrigation System Warranty. Developer shall
warranty the irrigation system and planting for a
period of one year from the date of installation.
Developer shall submit a landscape
maintenance plan for Common Area
landscaping including a reasonable estimate of
expenses for the first five years for approval by
the Community Development Director.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
39. Walls, Fences and Mailboxes. Developer shall
include final plans and details for all site walls,
fencing, lighting and amenities including site
signage, benches, tables and mailboxes with the
final landscape and irrigation plans. Specifically,
the Applicant shall submit “shop drawings” for
the soundwall/project wall, retaining walls, the
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
18 of 45
herpetological low wall and railing for review
and approval prior to approval of the
construction documents. Mailboxes base (post)
shall be upgraded to be a decorative base.
Mailbox locations shall be integrated within the
landscape and shall comply with USPS
requirements. Colors of site furnishings and
amenities shall be coordinated.
40. Sustainable Landscape Practices. The landscape
design shall demonstrate compliance with
sustainable landscape practices as detailed in
the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines by
earning a minimum of 60 points or more on the
Bay-Friendly scorecard, meeting 9 of the 9
required practices and specifying that 75% of
the non-turf planting only requires occasional,
little or no shearing or summer water once
established. Final selection and placement of
trees, shrubs and ground cover plants shall
ensure compliance with this requirement.
Herbaceous plants shall be used along walks to
reduce maintenance and the visibility of the
sheared branches of woody ground cover
plants. Planters for medium sized trees shall be
a minimum of six feet wide. Small trees or
shrubs shall be selected for planting areas less
than six feet wide.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
41. Copies of Approved Plans. The Applicant shall
provide the Planning Division with two full size
copies; one ½ sized copy; and, one electronic
copy of the approved landscape and irrigation
plans.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
42. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and
Maintenance Agreement. The
Applicant/Developer shall complete and submit
to the Dublin Planning Division the Standard
Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance
Agreement.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
43. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The landscape
plans shall include root barrier and tree staking
details.
PL Issuance of
building
permits
Planning
BUILDING DIVISION
44. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building
19 of 45
construction shall conform to all building codes
and ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit.
Completion
45. Retaining Walls. All retaining walls over 30
inches in height and in a walkway shall be
provided with guardrails. All retaining walls over
36 inches in height without a surcharge or any
retaining wall with a surcharge shall obtain
permits and inspections from the Building &
Safety Division. See the Dublin Municipal Code
for the complete exception.
B Through
Completion
Building
46. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is
requested to occur in phases, then all physical
improvements within each phase shall be
required to be completed prior to occupancy of
any buildings within that phase except for items
specifically excluded in an approved Phased
Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items,
approved by the Department of Community
Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall
be submitted to the Directors of Community
Development and Public Works for review and
approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the
request for occupancy of any building covered
by said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing
shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all
parcels in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the
subdivision approval. No individual building
shall be occupied until the adjoining area is
finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all
reasonable expected services and amenities,
and separated from remaining additional
construction activity. Subject to approval of the
Director of Community Development, the
completion of landscaping may be deferred due
to inclement weather with the posting of a bond
for the value of the deferred landscaping and
associated improvements.
B Occupancy of
any affected
building
Building
47. Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of
construction plans to the Building & Safety
Division for plan check. Each set of plans shall
have attached an annotated copy of these
B Issuance of
Building
Permits
Building
20 of 45
Conditions of Approval. The notations shall
clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval
will or have been complied with. Construction
plans will not be accepted without the
annotated resolutions attached to each set of
plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible
for obtaining the approvals of all participation
non-City agencies prior to the issuance of
building permits.
48. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall
be fully dimensioned (including building
elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all
existing and proposed conditions on site), and
prepared and signed by a California licensed
Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations
shall be prepared and signed by a California
licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan,
landscape plan and details shall be consistent
with each other.
B Issuance of
building
permits
Building
49. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units
and ventilation ducts shall be screened from
public view with materials compatible to the
main building and shall not be roof mounted.
Units shall be permanently installed on concrete
pads or other non-movable materials approved
by the Chief Building Official and Director of
Community Development. Air conditioning units
shall be located such that each dwelling unit has
one side yard with an unobstructed width of not
less than 36 inches. Air conditioning units shall
be located in accordance with the Planned
Development Zoning text and these conditions
of approval.
B Occupancy of
Unit
Building
50. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction
fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of
all work under construction.
B Through
Completion
Building
51. Addressing
a) Provide a site plan with the City of
Dublin’s address grid overlaid on the
plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight all
exterior door openings on plans (front,
rear, garage, etc.). The site plan shall
include a single large format page
showing the entire project and individual
B
a) Prior to
release of
addresses
Building
21 of 45
sheets for each neighborhood. 3 copies
on full size sheets and 5 copies reduced
sheets.
b) Provide plan for display of addresses.
The Building Official shall approve plan
prior to issuance of the first building
permit. (Prior to permitting)
c) Address signage shall be provided as per
the Dublin Residential Security Code.
d) Exterior address numbers shall be
backlight and be posted in such a way
that they may be seen from the street.
e) Driveways servicing more than one (1)
individual dwelling unit shall have a
minimum of 4 inch high identificat ion
numbers, noting the range of unit
numbers placed at the entrance to each
driveway at a height between 36 and 42
inches above grade. The light source
shall be provided with an uninterruptible
AC power source or controlled only by
photoelectric device.
b) Prior to
permitting
c) Occupancy
of any Unit
d) Permit
issuance, and
through
completion
e) Prior to
permit
issuance, and
through
completion
52. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record
shall be retained to provide observation services
for all components of the lateral and vertical
design of the building, including nailing, hold-
downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and
structural frame of building. A written report
shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to
scheduling the final frame inspection.
B Scheduling
the final
frame
inspection
Building
53. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils
report shall review and approve the foundation
design. A letter shall be submitted to the
Building Division on the approval.
B Permit
issuance
Building
54. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall
provide the Building Division with 2 reduced
(1/2 size) copies of the City of Dublin stamped
approved plan.
B 30 days after
permit and
each revision
issuance
Building
55. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their
roofing material coated with light colored gravel
or painted with light colored or reflective
B Through
Completion
Building
22 of 45
material designed for Cool Roofs.
56. Solar Zone – CA Energy Code. Show the location
of the Solar Zone on the site plan. Detail the
orientation of the Solar Zone. This information
shall be shown in the master plan check on the
overall site plan, the individual roof plans and
the plot plans. This condition of approval will be
waived if the project meets the exceptions
provided in the CA Energy Code.
B Through
Completion
Building
57. Wildfire Management. Provide in the master
drawing set, a sheet detailing which lots are
adjacent to open space and subject to the
Wildfire Management provisions of the code.
Add a note to the plot plan that for each lot that
is subject to wildfire management.
B Through
Completion
Building
58. Accessible Parking. The required number of
parking stalls, the design and location of the
accessible parking stalls shall be as required by
the CA Building Code.
B Through
Completion
Building
59. Recreation Centers. Building permits are
required for all recreation centers, swimming
pools, spas, and associated amenities and are
required to meet the accessibility and building
codes. Pool and Deck area shall be considered
conceptual in nature only, items such as exiting
and permit requirements shall be reviewed
during the permitting process.
B Through
Completion
Building
60. Options. Selected options that affect the square
footage of the dwellings shall be listed on the
building permit application. Selected options
that affect the footprint of the dwelling shall be
shown on the plot plan
B Through
Completion
Building
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
61. Fire Access During Construction.
a) Fire Access. Access roads, turnarounds,
pullouts and fire operation areas are Fire
Lanes and shall be maintained clear and
free of obstructions, including the
parking of vehicles.
b) Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall
not be blocked, including after hours,
other than by approved gates/barriers
that provide for emergency access.
F Through
completion
and on-going
Fire
23 of 45
c) Site Utilities. Site utilities that would
require the access road to be dug up or
made impassible shall be installed prior
to combustible construction
commencing.
d) Entrance flare, angle of departure,
width, turning radii, grades, turnaround,
vertical clearances, road surface,
bridges/crossings, gates/key-switch, and
within required 150-feet distance to Fire
Lane.
e) Personnel Access. Approved route to
furthermost portion of exterior wall.
Route width, slope, surface, obstructions
must be considered.
f) Fire access is required to be approved
all-weather access. Show on the plans
the location of the all-weather access
and a description of the construction.
Access road must be designed to support
the imposed loads of fire apparatus.
62. Dublin Municipal Code.
a) 5.08.130 Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
Section 503.1 amended by adding
Section 503.1.2.1. The minimum number
of access roads serving residential
development(s) shall be based upon the
number of dwelling units served and
shall be as follows:
1-25 units – One public or private
access road.
The maximum length of a single access
road shall be no greater than 1,000 feet.
The length may be modified for special
circumstances in accordance with
Section 103.1.2.
b) 5.08.140 Specifications. Section 503.2.3
is amended by adding Section 503.2.3.1.
Fire and Emergency Access Roads
approved for construction sites shall be
designed to meet the requirements of
Section 503.2. The approved all-weather
surface shall be considered as first lift of
asphalt and the access shall be approved
F Through
completion
and on-going
Fire
24 of 45
by the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of combustible
storage or any construction on the site.
Fire apparatus roadways shall have a
minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet
and an unobstructed vertical clearance
of not less than 13 feet, 6 inches.
Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be
posted with signs or shall have red curbs
painted with labels on one side;
roadways under 28 feet wide shall be
posted with signs or shall have red curbs
painted with labels on both sides of the
street as follows: “NO STOPPING FIRE
LANE-CVC 22500.1”
Fire apparatus roadways must extend to
within 150 feet of the most remote first
floor exterior wall of any building (CFC
2007, Section 503.1.1).
The maximum grade for a fire apparatus
roadway is 12% (CFC 2007, Section
503.2.7).
Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150
feet in length must make provisions for
approved apparatus turnarounds (CFC
2007, Section 503.2.5).
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
63. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements.
Prior to approval of the first Final Map, the
Developer shall submit an “Ownership and
Maintenance” exhibit indicating the areas
maintained by the City of Dublin and the
Homeowner’s Association. The “Ownership and
Maintenance” exhibit shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer.
PW Final Map
and Ongoing
Public
Works
64. Landscape Features within Public Right of Way.
The Developer shall enter into an “Agreement
for Long Term Encroachments” with the City to
allow the Homeowner’s Association to maintain
the curb & gutter, sidewalk, landscape and
PW First Final
Map;
Modify with
Successive
Final Maps
Public
Works
25 of 45
decorative features within public Right of Way
including frontage landscaping, decorative
pavements and special features (i.e., walls,
portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on
the Site Development Review package. The
Agreement shall identify the ownership of the
special features and maintenance
responsibilities. The Homeowner’s Association
will be responsible for maintaining the surface
of all decorative pavements including
restoration required as the result of utility
repairs.
65. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs). A Homeowners Association shall be
formed by recordation of a declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to
govern use and maintenance of the landscape
features, decorative pavement and other
features within the public right of way
contained in the Agreement for Long Term
Encroachments; all open space and common
area landscaping; and all stormwater treatment
measures. Said declaration shall set forth the
Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations.
The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision that
prohibits the amendment of those provisions of
the CC&Rs requested by City without the City’s
approval. The CC&Rs shall ensure that there is
adequate provision for the maintenance, in
good repair and on a regular basis, of all private
streets, alleyways and motor courts;
landscaping & irrigation; decorative pavements;
median islands; fences; walls; drainage and
stormwater treatment features; lighting; signs
and other related improvements. The CC&Rs
shall also contain all other items required by
these conditions. The Developer shall submit a
copy of the CC&R document to the City for
review and approval.
PW First Final
Map;
Modify with
Successive
Final Maps
Public
Works
66. Tassajara Road Frontage Improvements. The
Developer shall install complete roadway and
utility improvements along the project’s
Tassajara Road frontage as shown on the
tentative map, with modifications as necessary
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
26 of 45
to conform to the four lane ultimate precise
alignment currently being prepared by the City
of Dublin. Minor variations to the typical curb-
to-curb and right-of-way widths as shown on
the final adopted four lane precise plan may be
permitted along the project frontage as
determined by the City Engineer.
Required roadway and utility improvements for
the widening of Tassajara Road along the
project’s frontage shall include, but are not
limited to: installation of pavement (minimum
half-street width, or further as necessary for
smooth transition), curb, gutter, sidewalk,
driveway or street-type connection at private
street intersection, drainage improvements,
stormwater treatment measures, street trees,
landscaping, irrigation, street lights, utility
relocations, signing and striping.
Pavement removal, conforms and transitions
will be required as necessary to conform to
existing improvements in Tassajara Road, as
determined by the City Engineer. In addition,
the installation of a maximum 16’ wide raised or
striped median and the re-striping of the
existing southbound drop lane transition on the
west side of Tassajara Road shall be required, as
determined by the City Engineer.
Applicable Tassajara Road improvement costs
shall be credited appropriately against the
project’s Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
(EDTIF) in an amount not to exceed the costs
included in the 2010 EDTIF Update or
subsequent updates.
67. Tassajara Road Improvement (Between
Shadow Hill Drive and Existing Bridge).
Developer shall install new pavement section,
striping, drainage and any other unfinished
improvements within the area. These
improvement cost shall be credited
appropriately against the project’s Traffic
Impact Fee.
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
27 of 45
68. Public Service Easements (PSE). A 5’ Public
Service Easement(s) shall be dedicated along
the project’s Tassajara Road to allow for the
proper placement of public utility vaults, boxes,
appurtenances or similar items behind the back-
of-sidewalk. Private improvements such as
fences, gates or trellises shall not be located
within the public service easements.
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
69. Private Streets. The Developer shall establish
private street access rights and install complete
street improvements for the proposed private
streets and alley ways within the development
as shown on the Tentative Map.
PW Final Map Public
Works
70. Improvements adjacent to Drainage
Conservation Area and Creek. Developer shall
construct all improvements within the property
boundary and shall not encroachment into the
adjacent creek or conservation area.
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
71. Intersection Sight Distance. On-street parking
shall be restricted within the triangles created
by the Safe Stopping Sight Distance zones
(Visibility Zones) at the project entrance. In
addition, all landscaping and architectural
features shall be no more than 30-inches tall
inside the Visibility Zones at the project
entrances. The Visibility Zones shall be
determined by the traffic analysis. The traffic
analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the
Traffic Engineer.
PW First Final
Map
Public
Works
72. Private street and common area subdivision
improvements. Common area improvements,
private streets, private alleys and all other
subdivision improvements owned or maintained
by the homeowners’ owners association are
subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to Final Map approval and shall
be included in the Tract Improvement
Agreement. Such improvements include, but are
not limited to: curb & gutter, pavement areas,
sidewalks, access ramps & driveways; enhanced
street paving; parking spaces; street lights
(wired underground) and appurtenances;
drainage facilities; utilities; landscape and
irrigation facilities; open space landscaping;
PW First Final
Map
Public
Works
28 of 45
stormwater treatment facilities; striping and
signage; and fire hydrants.
73. Private Street and Sidewalk Improvements.
The private sidewalk internal to the project shall
be minimum width of four feet (4’) and a foot
by five foot (5’x5’) “turnaround” areas shall be
provided at intervals of no less than two
hundred feet (200’).
PW First Final
Map
Public
Works
74. Private Street Easements. Public Utility
Easements (PUE), Sanitary Sewer Easements
(SSE) and Water Line Easements (WLE) shall be
established over all private streets within the
subdivisions. The PUE, SSE and WLE dedication
statements on the Final Map are to recite that
the easements are available for, but not limited
to, the installation, access and maintenance of
sanitary and storm sewers, water, electrical and
communication facilities. Project entry
monument signs and walls shall not be located
within these easements.
PW First Final
Map
Public
Works
75. Private Street Easements. The Developer shall
dedicate Emergency Vehicle Access Easements
(EVAE) over the clear pavement width of all
private streets and alleys. Easement geometry
shall be subject to the approval of the City
Engineer and Fire Marshall.
PW First Final
Map
Public
Works
76. Monuments. Final Maps shall include private
street monuments to be set in all private
streets. Private street monuments shall be set at
all intersections and as determined by the City
Engineer.
PW First Final
Map
Public
Works
77. Curb Ramps. Curb ramp layouts are not
approved at this time. The number, location and
layout of all curb ramps shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer with the
Improvement Plans associated with each Final
Map. All pedestrian ramps shall be designed and
constructed to provide direct access to marked
or unmarked crosswalks. Each pedestrian ramp
shall be oriented such that it is aligned and
parallel to the marked or unmarked crosswalk it
is intended to serve. Pedestrian ramps serving
more than one marked or unmarked crosswalk
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
29 of 45
shall not be provided, unless specifically
approved by the City Engineer.
78. Stormwater Management. The provided
Stormwater Management Plan, Sheet C5.0 of
the Tentative Map, prepared by Greenwood &
Moore Inc. dated 12/16/2015 is approved in
concept only, except as noted below. The final
Stormwater Management Plan is subject to City
Engineer approval prior to approval of the Tract
Improvement Plans. Approval is subject to the
developer providing the necessary plans,
details, and calculations that demonstrate the
plan complies with the standards issued by the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
79. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater
Management Plan shall incorporate trash
capture measures such as inlet filters or
hydrodynamic separator units to address the
requirements of Provision C.10 of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
80. Storm Water Treatment Measures
Maintenance Agreement. Developer shall enter
into an Agreement with the City of Dublin that
guarantees the property owner’s perpetual
maintenance obligation for all stormwater
treatment measures installed as part of the
project. Said Agreement is required pursuant to
Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional
Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-
0074. Said permit requires the City to provide
verification and assurance that all treatment
devices will be properly operated and
maintained. The Agreement shall be recorded
against the property and shall run with the land.
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
81. Stormwater Source Control. “No Dumping
Drains to Bay” storm drain medallions per City
Standard Detail CD-704 shall be placed on all
public and private storm drain inlets.
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
82. Utilities. All new utility service connections,
including electrical and communications, shall
PW First Final
Map and On-
Public
Works
30 of 45
be installed underground. Electrical
transformers shall be installed in underground
vaults within an appropriate utility easement or
public service easement.
going
83. Landscape Plans. Developer shall submit design
development Landscape Plans with the first plan
check for the street improvement plans and
final map for each respective tract. The
Landscape Plans shall show details, sections and
supplemental information as necessary for
design coordination of the various civil design
features and elements including utility location
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Complete Landscape Plans shall be concurrently
approved with the Tract Improvement
Agreement and Final Map.
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
84. Street Light and Joint Trench Plans. Streetlight
Plans and Joint Trench Plans shall be submitted
with the first plan check for the street
improvement plans and final map for each
respective tract. The final streetlight plan and
joint trench plan shall be completed prior to
Final Map approval for each respective
subdivision.
PW First Final
Map and On-
going
Public
Works
85. Geotechnical Report. The Developer shall
submit a design level geotechnical investigation
report defining and delineating any seismic
hazard. The report shall be prepared in
accordance with guidelines published by the
State of California. The report is subject to
review and approval by a City selected peer
review consultant prior to the approval of the
Final map. The applicant shall pay all costs
related to the required peer review. The
recommendations of those geotechnical reports
shall be incorporated into the project plans
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
PW Issuance of
Grading
Permits or
First Final
Map
Public
Works
86. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a
detailed soils report prepared by a qualified
engineer, registered with the State of California.
The required report shall include
recommendations regarding pavement sections
for all project streets including all perimeter
streets and internal public/private streets.
PW Issuance of
Grading
Permits or
First Final
Map
Public
Works
31 of 45
Grading operations shall be in accordance with
recommendations contained in the required
soils report and grading shall be supervised by
an engineer registered in the State of California
to do such work.
87. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval.
The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be
retained to review all final grading plans and
specifications. The Project Geotechnical
Engineer shall approve all grading plans prior to
City approval and issuance of grading permits.
PW Issuance of
Grading
Permits or
First Final
Map
Public
Works
88. Grading. The disposal site and haul truck route
for any off-haul dirt materials shall be subject to
the review and approval by the City Engineer
prior to the approval the improvement plans or
issuance of a Grading Permit. If the Developer
does not own the parcel on which the proposed
disposal site is located, the Developer shall
provide the City with a Letter of Consent, signed
by the current owner, approving the placement
of off-haul material on their parcel. A grading
plan may be required for the placement of the
off-haul material.
PW Issuance of
Grading
Permits or
First Final
Map
Public
Works
89. Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The Developer
shall provide adequate dust control measures at
all times during the grading and hauling
operations. All trucks hauling export and import
materials shall be provided with tarp cover at all
times. Spillage of haul materials and mud-
tracking on the haul routes shall be prevented
at all times. Developer shall be responsible for
sweeping of streets within, surrounding and
adjacent to the project if it is determined that
the tracking or accumulation of material on the
streets is due to its construction activities.
PW On-going Public
Works
90. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition,
excavation and grading on any portion of the
project site, all underground obstructions (i.e.,
debris, septic tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical
waste) shall be identified and removed pursuant
to Federal, State and local regulations and
subject to the review and approval by the City.
Excavations shall be properly backfilled using
structural fill, subject to the review and
PW Issuance of
Grading
Permits or
First Final
Map
Public
Works
32 of 45
approval of the City Engineer.
91. Resource Agency Permits. Prior to the start of
any grading of the site as necessary, permits
shall be obtained from the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the State of California
Department of Fish and Game, and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service for the grading or alteration
of wetland areas within the site, if applicable.
The project shall be modified as needed to
respond to the conditions of the permits.
PW Issuance of
Grading
Permit
Public
Works
92. Tassajara Road Bus Shelter. The Developer shall
construct a bus shelter along the Tassajara Road
frontage of the adjoining Quarry Lane School
property to the north of the project site. The
bus shelter shall be located north of the Quarry
Lane School driveway, adjacent to the existing
bus stop pullout, and within the existing
landscape area behind the sidewalk. The final
location of the bus shelter shall be approved by
LAVTA and the City Engineer. The bus shelter
shall have solar panel scalability for future
needs for any DC voltage signage in the bus
shelter. The Developer shall pay the cost of
procuring and installing the bus shelter.
PW First Final
Map and
Ongoing
Public
Works
93. Signal Interconnect. The Developer shall extend
the existing Signal Interconnect along Tassajara
Road from the existing termination point at
Quarry Lane Traffic Signal cabinet to the
southerly limit of this project. The Conduit will
be extended and installed as part of the
frontage improvements on Tassajara Road.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plan
Public
Works
94. DO NOT BLOCK Pavement Markings. The
Developer shall install the DO NOT BLOCK
pavement Markings on Tassajara Road at the
project entrance driveway. The final design of
the markings shall be approved by the City
Traffic Engineer.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plan
Public
Works
PUBLIC WORKS – STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
95. Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin
Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval
contained below (“Standard Condition”) unless
specifically modified by Project Specific
PW On-going Public
Works
33 of 45
Conditions of Approval above.
96. Developer shall comply with the Subdivision
Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, and
Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public
Works Standards and Policies, the most current
requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to
accessibility, and all building and fire codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit. All public improvements constructed by
Developer and to be dedicated to the City are
hereby identified as “public works” under Labor
Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in
constructing such improvements, shall comply
with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code.
Sects. 1720 and following).
PW On-going Public
Works
97. If there are conflicts between the Tentative Map
approval and the SDR approval pertaining to
mapping or public improvements the Tentative
Map shall take precedent.
PW On-going Public
Works
AGREEMENTS AND BONDS
98. Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement
Agreement with the City for all public
improvements including any required offsite
storm drainage or roadway improvements that
are needed to serve the Tract that have not
been bonded with another Tract Improvement
Agreement.
PW First Final
Map and
Successive
Maps
Public
Works
99. Developer shall provide performance (100%),
and labor & material (100%) securities to
guarantee the tract improvements, approved by
the City Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract
Improvement Agreement and approval of the
Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the
improvements, the performance security may
be replaced with a maintenance bond that is
25% of the value of the performance security.)
PW First Final
Map and
Successive
Maps
Public
Works
FEES
100. Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu
fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in
City of Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any
resolution revising these amounts and as
implemented by the Administrative Guidelines
PW On-going Public
Works
34 of 45
adopted by Resolution 195-99.
PERMITS
101. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit
from the Public Works Department for all
construction activity within the public right-of-
way of any street where the City has accepted
the improvements. The encroachment permit
may require surety for slurry seal and restriping.
At the discretion of the City Engineer an
encroachment for work specifically included in
an Improvement Agreement may not be
required.
PW Start of Work Public
Works
102. Developer shall obtain a Grading/Sitework
Permit from the Public Works Department for
all grading and private site improvements that
serves more than one lot or residential
condominium unit.
PW Start of Work Public
Works
103. Developer shall obtain all permits required by
other agencies including, but not limited to
Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Zone 7, California
Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the
permits to the Public Works Department.
PW Start of Work Public
Works
SUBMITTALS
104. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall
comply with the requirements of the “City of
Dublin Public Works Department Improvement
Plan Submittal Requirements”, and the “City of
Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List”.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans or
Final Map
Public
Works
105. Developer will be responsible for submittals and
reviews to obtain the approvals of all
participating non-City agencies. The Alameda
County Fire Department and the Dublin San
Ramon Services District shall approve and sign
the Improvement Plans.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans or
Final Map
Public
Works
106. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report,
which includes street pavement sections and
grading recommendations.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans,
Grading
Plans, or
Final Map
Public
Works
35 of 45
107. Developer shall provide the Public Works
Department a digital vectorized file of the
“master” files for the project when the Final
Map has been approved. Digital raster copies
are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files
shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing
format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the
precision of the Final Map. All objects and
entities in layers shall be colored by layer and
named in English. All submitted drawings shall
use the Global Coordinate System of USA,
California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone
III, and U.S. foot.
PW Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts and
Release of
Bonds
Public
Works
FINAL MAP
108. The Final Map shall be substantially in
accordance with the Tentative Map approved
with this application, unless otherwise modified
by these conditions. Multiple final maps may be
filed in phases, provided that each phase is
consistent with the tentative map, that phasing
progresses in an orderly and logical manner and
adequate infrastructure is installed with each
phase to serve that phase as a stand-alone
project that is not dependent upon future
phasing for infrastructure.
PW Approval of
Final Map
Public
Works
109. All rights-of-way and easement dedications
required by the Tentative Map shall be shown
on the Final Map.
PW Final Map Public
Works
110. Any phasing of the final mapping or
improvements of a Tentative Map is subject to
the approval and conditions of the City
Engineer.
PW Approval of
Final Map
Public
Works
111. Street names shall be assigned to each
public/private street pursuant to Municipal
Code Chapter 7.08. The approved street names
shall be indicated on the Final Map.
PW Approval of
Final Map
Public
Works
112. The Final Map shall include the street
monuments to be set in all public streets.
PW Monuments
to be Shown
on Final Map
and Installed
Prior to
Acceptance
Public
Works
36 of 45
of
Improvemen
ts
EASEMENTS
113. Developer shall obtain abandonment from all
applicable public agencies of existing easements
and right of ways within the development that
will no longer be used.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans or
Appropriate
Final Map
Public
Works
114. Developer shall acquire easements, and/or
obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent
property owners for any improvements on their
property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry
shall be in writing and copies furnished to the
City Engineer.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans or
Appropriate
Final Map
Public
Works
GRADING
115. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included
with the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall
include detailed design, location, and
maintenance criteria of all erosion and
sedimentation control measures.
PW Approval of
Grading
Plans or
Issuance of
Grading
Permits, and
On-going
Public
Works
116. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included
with the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall
include detailed design, location, and
maintenance criteria of all erosion and
sedimentation control measures.
PW Approval of
Grading
Plans or
Issuance of
Grading
Permits, and
On-going
Public
Works
117. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls
shall not cross property lines, or shall be located
a minimum of 2’ below the finished grade of the
upper lot.
PW Approval of
Grading
Plans or
Issuance of
Grading
Permits, and
On-going
Public
Works
IMPROVEMENTS
118. The public improvements shall be constructed
generally as shown on the Tentative Map
and/or Site Development Review. However, the
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans or
Public
Works
37 of 45
approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site
Development Review is not an approval of the
specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer,
water, and street improvements.
Start of
Construction,
and On-going
119. All public improvements shall conform to the
City of Dublin Standard Plans and design
requirements and as approved by the City
Engineer.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans or
Start of
Construction,
and On-going
Public
Works
120. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope
with minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around
bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be at
minimum 0.5% slope.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans or
Start of
Construction,
and On-going
Public
Works
121. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets
shall be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets
curb returns shall be minimum 30-foot radius
(36-foot with bump outs) and private
streets/alleys shall be a minimum 20-foot
radius, or as approved by the City Engineer.
Curb ramp locations and design shall conform to
the most current Title 24 and Americans with
Disabilities Act requirements and as approved
by the City Traffic Engineer.
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans or
Start of
Construction,
and On-going
Public
Works
122. Any decorative pavers/paving installed within
City right-of-way shall be done to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Where
decorative paving is installed at signalized
intersections, pre-formed traffic signal loops
shall be put under the decorative pavement.
Decorative pavements shall not interfere with
the placement of traffic control devices,
including pavement markings. All turn lane
stripes, stop bars and crosswalks shall be
delineated with concrete bands or color pavers
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Maintenance costs of the decorative paving
shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners
Association
PW Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans or
Start of
Construction,
and On-going
Public
Works
123. Developer shall install all traffic signs and
pavement marking as required by the City
PW Occupancy of
Units or
Public
Works
38 of 45
Engineer. Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts
124. Street light standards and luminaries shall be
designed and installed per approval of the City
Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for
streetlights is 5%.
PW Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts
Public
Works
125. Developer shall construct all potable and
recycled water and sanitary sewer facilities
required to serve the project in accordance with
DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications
and requirements.
PW Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts
Public
Works
126. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the
Alameda County Fire Department. A raised
reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in
the street opposite each hydrant.
PW Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts
Public
Works
127. Developer shall furnish and install street name
signs for the project to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
PW Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts
Public
Works
128. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV
and communication improvements within the
fronting streets and as necessary to serve the
project and the future adjacent parcels as
approved by the City Engineer and the various
Public Utility agencies.
PW Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts
Public
Works
129. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV
utilities, shall be underground in accordance
with the City policies and ordinances. All utilities
shall be located and provided within public
utility easements and sized to meet utility
company standards.
PW Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts
Public
Works
130. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless
specifically approved otherwise by the City
Engineer, shall be underground and placed in
PW Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance
Public
Works
39 of 45
landscape areas and screened from public view.
Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval, landscape
drawings shall be submitted to the City showing
the location of all utility vaults, boxes and
structures and adjacent landscape features and
plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed
by the City Engineer prior to construction of the
joint trench improvements.
of
Improvemen
ts
131. Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters
at the locations designated and approved by the
LAVTA and the City Engineer. The Developer
shall pay the cost of procuring and installing
these improvements.
PW Prior to
Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts
Public
Works
CONSTRUCTION
132. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented
between October 15th and April 15th unless
otherwise allowed in writing by the City
Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for
maintaining erosion and sediment control
measures for one year following the City’s
acceptance of the subdivision improvements.
PW On-going as
Needed
Public
Works
133. If archaeological materials are encountered
during construction, construction within 100
feet of these materials shall be halted until a
professional Archaeologist who is certified by
the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or
the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA)
has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate
mitigation measures.
PW On-going as
Needed
Public
Works
134. Construction activities, including the
maintenance and warming of equipment, shall
be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-
City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday
work will be considered by the City Engineer on
a case-by-case basis.
PW On-going as
Needed
Public
Works
135. Developer shall prepare a construction noise
management plan that identifies measures to
be taken to minimize construction noise on
PW Start of
Construction
Implementati
Public
Works
40 of 45
surrounding developed properties. The plan
shall include hours of construction operation,
use of mufflers on construction equipment,
speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes
and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise
management measures shall be provided prior
to project construction.
on On-going
as Needed
136. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction
traffic interface with public traffic on any
existing public street. Construction traffic and
parking may be subject to specific requirements
by the City Engineer.
PW Start of
Construction;
Implementati
on On-going
as Needed
Public
Works
137. Developer shall be responsible for controlling
any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem
due to construction activities.
PW On-going Public
Works
138. Developer shall be responsible for watering or
other dust-palliative measures to control dust as
conditions warrant or as directed by the City
Engineer.
PW Start of
Construction;
Implementati
on On-going
as Needed
Public
Works
139. Developer shall provide the Public Works
Department with a letter from a registered civil
engineer or surveyor stating that the building
pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the
grades shown on the approved Grading Plans,
and that the top & toe of banks and retaining
walls are at the locations shown on the
approved Grading Plans.
PW Issuance of
Building
Permits or
Acceptance
of
Improvemen
ts
Public
Works
NPDES
140. Prior to any clearing or grading, Developer shall
provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent
(NOI) has been sent to the California State
Water Resources Control Board per the
requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall
be provided to the Public Works Departmen t
and be kept at the construction site.
PW Start of Any
Construction
Activities
Public
Works
141. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project
construction activities. The SWPPP shall include
the erosion control measures in accordance
with the regulations outlined in the most
PW SWPPP to be
Prepared
Prior to
Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans;
Public
Works
41 of 45
current version of the ABAG Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook or State
Construction Best Management Practices
Handbook. The Developer is responsible f or
ensuring that all contractors implement all
storm water pollution prevention measures in
the SWPPP.
Implementati
on Prior to
Start of
Construction
and On-going
as Needed
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD)
142. Prior to issuance of any building permit,
complete improvement plans shall be submitted
to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of
the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the
DSRSD “Standard Procedures, Specifications and
Drawings for Design and Installation of Water
and Wastewater Facilities”, all applicable DSRSD
Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
DSR Issuance of
any building
permit
DSRSD
143. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient
capacity to accommodate future flow demands
in addition to each development project's
demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in
conformance with DSRSD utility master
planning.
DSR DSRSD
144. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity
flow to DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewer system.
Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may
only be allowed under extreme circumstances
following a case by case review with DSRSD
staff. Any pumping station will require specif ic
review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary
design reports, design criteria, and final plans
and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the
right to require payment of present worth 20
year maintenance costs as well as other
conditions within a separate agreement with
the applicant for any project that requires a
pumping station.
DSR DSRSD
145. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems
for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be
designed to be looped or interconnected to
avoid dead end sections in accordance with
requirements of the DSRSD Standard
Specifications and sound engineering practice.
DSR DSRSD
146. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer DSR DSRSD
42 of 45
lines to be located in public streets rather than
in off-street locations to the fullest extent
possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or
water easements must be established over the
alignment of each public sewer or water line in
an off -street or private street location to
provide access for future maintenance and/or
replacement.
147. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit
or a site development permit, the locations and
widths of all proposed easement dedications for
water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and
approved by DSRSD.
DSR Approval of a
grading
permit or
site
development
permit
DSRSD
148. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities
shall be by separate instrument irrevocably
offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on
the Final Map.
DSR Final Map
approval
DSRSD
149. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation,
the Final Map shall be submitted to and
approved by DSRSD for easement locations,
widths, and restrictions.
DSR Final Map
approval
DSRSD
150. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building
Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District, whichever comes first,
all utility connection fees including DSRSD and
Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees,
connection fees, and fees associated with a
wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to
DSRSD in accordance with the rates and
schedules established in the DSRSD Code.
DSR Issuance of
any building
permit or
construction
permit
DSRSD
151. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building
Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San
Ramon Services District, whichever comes first,
all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall
be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing
of improvement plans shall contain a signature
block for the District Engineer indicating
approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities
shown. Prior to approval by the District
Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required
DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer’s estimate
of construction costs for the sewer and water
DSR Issuance of
any building
permit or
construction
permit
DSRSD
43 of 45
systems, a performance bond, a one-year
maintenance bond, and a comprehensive
general liability insurance policy in the amounts
and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The
applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for
final improvement drawing review by DSRSD
before signature by the District Engineer.
152. No sewer line or waterline construction shall
be permitted unless the proper utility
construction permit has been issued by DSRSD.
A construction permit will only be issued after
all fees have been paid.
DSR DSRSD
153. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of
Directors, commissions, employees, and agents
of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend
the same from any litigation, claims, or fines
resulting from the construction and completion
of the project.
DSR On-going DSRSD
154. Improvement plans shall include recycled water
improvements as required by DSRSD. Services
for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled
water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of
the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and
conform to the requirements therein.
DSR DSRSD
155. Above ground backflow prevention
devices/double detector check valves shall be
installed on fire protection systems connected to
the DSRSD water main. The applicant shall
collaborate with the Fire Department and with
DSRSD to size and configure its fire system.
The applicant shall minimize the number of
backflow prevention devices/double detector
check valves installed on its fire protection
system. The applicant shall minimize the visual
impact of the backflow prevention
devices/double detector check valves through
strategic placement and landscaping.
DSR DSRSD
156. Development plans will not be approved until
landscape plans are submitted and approved.
DSR Issuance of
building
permit
DSRSD
157. Grading for construction shall be done with
recycled water.
DSR Through
completion
DSRSD
158. Temporary potable irrigation meters in areas DSR DSRSD
44 of 45
with recycled water service shall only be
allowed for cross-connection and coverage
testing for a maximum of 14 calendar days.
159. Where the narrow width of a proposed alley or
cul-de-sac would make the standard spacing
between water mains and sewer mains
unworkable, the developer must request an
exemption from DSRSD’s standard spacing
requirements between mains. Such an
exemption may be granted, but only if:
1) The spacing between the sewer and
water main is the maximum width
possible using the proposed width of the
alley.
2) In no case is the spacing between the
sewer and water main less than five (5)
feet measured edge to edge.
3) The vertical separation between the
water line and the sewer line is at least
one (1) foot with the sewer line deeper
than the water line.
4) The material for the water line is Class
200 pressure rated PVC water pipe (DR
14 per AWWA C900-97 & C905-97) and
the material for the sewer main is PVC
pipe using bell and spigot joints using
rubber gaskets meeting the
requirements of ASTM D3034, SDR26,
cell classification 12454-B or 12454-C.
Developer should be aware that the exemption
is not guaranteed to be granted, but may be
granted if all special provisions for the narrow
alleyway are followed.
DSR DSRSD
160. To more accurately determine how much sewer
capacity should be allocated to this project,
applicant shall submit to the District a one-year
interior water consumption history of a similar
establishment.
DSR DSRSD
161. The project is located within the District
Recycled Water Use Zone (Ord. 301), which
calls for installation of recycled water irrigation
systems to allow for the future use of recycled
water for approved landscape irrigation
demands. Recycled water will be available as
DSR DSRSD
45 of 45
described in the DSRSD Water Master Plan
Update, December 2005. Unless specifically
exempted by the District Engineer, compliance
with Ordinance 301, as may be amended or
superseded, is required. Applicant must submit
landscape irrigation plans to DSRSD. All
irrigation facilities shall be in compliance with
District’s “Recycled Water Use Guidelines” and
Dept. of Health Services requirements for
recycled water irrigation design.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ____, 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
6237 TASSAJARA
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD DUBLIN, CA
P.D. SUBMITTAL 04 December 16th, 2015
BY WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.
SHEET INDEX VICINITY MAP
PROJECT
LOCATION
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
A.7
A.8
A.9
A.10
A.11
A.12
A.13
A.14
A.15
A.16
A.17
A.18
A.19
A.20
ARCHITECTURE
LANDSCAPE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ZONING EXHIBITS
CIVIL
L1.0
L1.1
L1.2
L2.0
L3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
4.0
4.1
4.2
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
A1
0
1
2
SITE PLAN
STREETSCAPE ELEVATION
WINDOW
ADJACENCY EXHIBITS
REAR YARD EXHIBIT
PLAN 1A FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1A ELEVATIONS
PLAN 1B FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 1B ELEVATIONS
PLAN 2A FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2A ELEVATIONS
PLAN 2C FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2C ELEVATIONS
PLAN 3B FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3B ELEVATIONS
SITE SECTION SITE
SOUNDWALL DETAILS
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
PERSPECTIVES
ENTRY PERSPECTIVE
PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN
PLANTING PLAN
EXISTING TREE INVENTORY
PLAN
LANDSCAPE HYDROZONE PLAN
LANDSCAPE FENCE AND
AMENITIES DETAILS
COVER SHEET
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
SECTIONS
STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN
UTILITY PLAN
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
SITE LINE ANALYSIS
ADDRESS GRID OVERLAY
SITE AERIAL VIEW, VICINITY MAP &
SHEET INDEX
STAGE I & II COVER SHEET
STAGE I PLANNED DEVELOPEMENT
PLAN
STAGE II PLANNED DEVELOPEMENT
PLAN
TOTAL : 40
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.2
ARCHIETCTURAL
SITE PLAN
50’ SETBACK FROM EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
UNIT SUMMARY:
PLAN 1A = 2 (10.5%)
PLAN 1B = 2 (10.5%)
PLAN 2A = 5 (26%)
PLAN 2C = 6 (32%)
PLAN 3B = 4 (21%)
TOTAL = 19
SITE SUMMARY:
SITE: 2.64
UNITS : 19 DU
DENSITY: 7.2 DU/AC
PARKING:
COVERED: 38 STALLS (2:1)
GUEST: 45 STALLS (2:3:1)
LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
BUILDING COVERAGE - LIVING
PAVING COVERAGE
BUILDING COVERAGE -
PORCH & OPT. CALIF. ROOM
COMMON OPEN SPACE
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
*
*
**
WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT
NOTES:
BUILDINGS ON LOTS THAT ARE
ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE OR
UNDEVELOPED LAND SHALL
COMPLY WITH THE WILDFIRE
MANAGEMENT PLAN AS SPECIFIES
IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
*BUILDINGS WHERE WILDFIRE
PROTECTION IS REQUIRED
PER WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT
PLAN, MATERIALS AND METHODS
OF CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CBC
CHAPTER 7A.
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.3
PLAN 3b
PLAN 3b
PLAN 1a
PLAN 1b
PLAN 1b
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2a
PLAN 1a
2
3 4
5
6 7
8
9 10 11 12
14
15 16
17
18
19
1
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
8'
S
OU
N
D
8'
S
O
U
N
D
W
A
L
L
PLAN 2a
PLAN
2a
PLAN
3bPLAN
2c
WAL
L
PLAN
3b
13
PLAN 2a
PLAN 2a
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
STREETSCAPE
ELEVATION
ELEVATION 2C
CALIFORNIA MODERN
ELEVATION 3C
GENERAL ROOF MASSING
• PREDOMINANTLY LOW PITCH GABLE ROOF FORMS
• VARIED PLATE HEIGHTS
• SHED ACCENT ROOFS
ROOF MATERAL
• DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING
EXTERIOR FINISH
• LIGHT SAND OR SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH
• LAP SIDING WITH 8” EXPOSURES
• WOOD BAY WINDOWS
• BOLD ACCENT COLORS & PANELS
WINDOWS AND DOORS
• PREDOMINATLY SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS
• HORIZONTAL WINDOW MULLIONS
• ACCENT PAINTED ENTRY DOORS
• METAL GARAGE DOORS.
TRIM AND ACCENTS
• WOOD AND SMOOTH FOAM TRIM
• METAL AWNING
FARMHOUSE
ELEVATION 2A
GENERAL ROOF MASSING
• PREDOMINANTLY LOW PITCH GABLE ROOF FORMS
• VARIED PLATE HEIGHTS
• SHED ACCENT ROOFS
ROOF MATERAL
• DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING
• STANDING SEAM METAL ACCENT ROOFS
EXTERIOR FINISH
• BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING
• LAP SIDING WITH 8” EXPOSURES
• BOLD ACCENT COLORS & PANELS
WINDOWS AND DOORS
• PREDOMINATLY SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS
• HORIZONTAL WINDOW MULLIONS
• ACCENT PAINTED ENTRY DOORS
• METAL GARAGE DOORS.
TRIM AND ACCENTS
• WOOD AND SMOOTH FOAM TRIM
• WOOD BRACES & RAILINGS
• WOOD PLASTER SMOOTH PORCH
• POSTS & COLUMNS
• WOOD BRACES & CORBELS
ELEVATION 2A
CONTEMPORARY FARMHOUSE
ELEVATION 3B
GENERAL ROOF MASSING
• PREDOMINANTLY STEEP PITCHED GABLE ROOF FORMS
WITH LOW PITCHED ROOF OVER MAIN BODIES
• VARIED PLATE HEIGHTS
• SHED ACCENT ROOFS
ROOF MATERAL
• DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING
EXTERIOR FINISH
• LIGHT SAND OR SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH
• BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING
• WOOD BAY WINDOWS @ ENHANCED PLAN
WINDOWS AND DOORS
• PREDOMINATLY SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS
• ACCENT PAINTED ENTRY DOORS
• METAL GARAGE DOORS.
TRIM AND ACCENTS
• WOOD AND SMOOTH FOAM TRIM
• WOOD PLASTER SMOOTH PORCH
• POSTS & COLUMNS
• WOOD BRACES & CORBELS
ELEVATION 3B
AMERICANA FARMHOUSE
ELEVATION 1B
GENERAL ROOF MASSING
• PREDOMINANTLY STEEP PITCHED GABLE ROOF FORMS
WITH LOW PITCHED ROOF OVER MAIN BODIES
• VARIED PLATE HEIGHTS
• SHED ACCENT ROOFS
ROOF MATERAL
• DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING
• STANDING SEAM METAL ACCENT ROOFS
EXTERIOR FINISH
• BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING
• LAP SIDING WITH 8” EXPOSURES
• BOLD ACCENT COLORS & PANELS
WINDOWS AND DOORS
• PREDOMINATLY SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS
• HORIZONTAL WINDOW MULLIONS
• ACCENT PAINTED ENTRY DOORS
• METAL GARAGE DOORS.
TRIM AND ACCENTS
• WOOD AND SMOOTH FOAM TRIM
• WOOD BRACES & RAILINGS
• WOOD PLASTER SMOOTH PORCH
• POSTS & COLUMNS
• WOOD BRACES & CORBELS
ELEVATION 1B
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.4
WINDOW
ADJACENCY EXHIBIT
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
A ACTIVE SIDE
P PASSIVE SIDE
1ST FLOOR BUILDING
1ST FLOOR WINDOWS
2ND FLOOR BUILDING
2ND FLOOR WINDOWS
LEGEND
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.5
REAR YARD
EXHIBIT
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.6
PLAN 1A FLOOR PLAN
DN
MASTER
BEDROOM
16'-8" x 12'-11"
9'-0" CEILING
W.I.C.
18.5 L.F.BEDROOM 2
12'-10" x 12'-0"
9'-0" CEILING
BEDROOM 3
11'-2" x 10'-9"
9'-0" CEILING
BONUS ROOM
20'-2" x 10'-7"
SLOPED CEILING
BATH 2
OPEN TO BELOW MASTER
BATH
LINEN
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
ROOF PLAN
1/8” SCALE
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR
READY BUILDINGS REQUIRED IN THE 2013
BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
WILL BE MET USING EXCEPTION 7 PER SEC-
TION 110. 10(b)1A
NOTE:
1. VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CIVIL ENGINEER & PER P.D.
2. A/C CONDENSER SHALL NOT EXCEED 50db AT PROP. LINE
PER CITY ORDINANCE
3.PROVIDE CONDUIT AND FACE PLATE FOR FUTURE
SATELLITE DISH INSTALLATION. LOCATION SHALL BE AS
CLOSE TO SOUTHEAST ELEVATION W/O BEING ON THE
FRONT FACADE OF ANY HOME.
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.7
PLAN 1A ELEVATION
AMERICANA
T.O.RIDGE
T.O.CURB / SLAB
CARRIAGE
STYLE METAL
GARAGE
DOORS
W/ LITES
AND FAUX
HARDWARE
SHUTTERS WOOD
PANEL
INLAY
ENTRY
PORCH
40 YEAR
COMPOSITION
SHINGLE
ROOFING
LAP SIDING
ENTRY DOOR,
COLOR
VARIES PER
ELEVATION
WINDOW TRIM
DECORATIVE
EXTERIOR
LIGHT
+2
8
’
-
4
”
REAR ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”
DECORATIVE
EXTERIOR
LIGHT
COVERED ENTRY
PORCH W/
DECORATIVE ROUND
COLUMNS AND
SHAPED
PEDIMENT
ROOF
DORMERS O/
GARAGE
2X TRIM
WINDOW
TRIM O/
GROOVED
PANEL
DECORATIVE
WOOD
SHUTTERS
WOOD
POTSHELF
W/ SHAPED
CORBELS
CEMENT FIBER
LAP SIDING W/
8” EXPOSURE
AND 2X WOOD
CORNER TRIM
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.8
PLAN 1B FLOOR PLAN
DN
MASTER
BEDROOM
16'-8" x 12'-11"
9'-0" CEILING
W.I.C.
18.5 L.F.BEDROOM 2
12'-10" x 12'-0"
9'-0" CEILING
BEDROOM 3
11'-2" x 10'-9"
9'-0" CEILING
BONUS ROOM
20'-2" x 10'-7"
SLOPED CEILING
BATH 2
OPEN TO BELOW MASTER
BATH
LINEN
FIRST FLOOR PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR
READY BUILDINGS REQUIRED IN THE 2013
BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
WILL BE MET USING EXCEPTION 7 PER SEC-
TION 110. 10(b)1A
NOTE:
1. VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CIVIL ENGINEER & PER P.D.
2. A/C CONDENSER SHALL NOT EXCEED 50db AT PROP. LINE
PER CITY ORDINANCE
3.PROVIDE CONDUIT AND FACE PLATE FOR FUTURE
SATELLITE DISH INSTALLATION. LOCATION SHALL BE AS
CLOSE TO SOUTHEAST ELEVATION W/O BEING ON THE
FRONT FACADE OF ANY HOME.
ROOF PLAN
1/8” SCALE
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.9
RIGHT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION PLAN 1B ELEVATION
CONTEMPORARY
FARMHOUSE
T.O.RIDGE
T.O.CURB / SLAB
GABLE END
VERTICAL
GROOVED
PANEL W/ TRIM
AT ROOF
DORMERS
CARRIAGE
STYLE METAL
GARAGE
DOORS
W/ LITES
AND FAUX
HARDWARE
BOARD & BATT
SIDING
40 YEAR
COMPOSITION
SHINGLE
ROOFING
3-COAT
STUCCO
ENTRY DOOR,
COLOR
VARIES PER
ELEVATION
+2
8
’
-
4
”
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”
2X TRIM
WINDOW
2X TRIM
WINDOW
BOARD & BATT
SIDING W/
CORNER TRIM
DECORATIVE
WOOD
SHUTTERS
W/ SMOOTH
PANELS
WOOD PORCH
RAILING W/ SHAPED
TOP RAIL
WOOD POSTS
AND SHAPED
KNEE BRACES
COVERED
PORCH W/
STANDING
SEAM METAL
ROOF
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.10
READING LOFT
12'-10" x 12'-0"
9'-1" CEILING
BEDROOM 2
10'-2" x 11'-9"
9'-1" CEILING
BEDROOM 3
10'-4" x 11'-9"
9'-1" CEILING
LAUNDRY
6'-4" x 9'-5"
9'-1" CEILING
LINEN
DN
OPEN TO
BELOW
CO
A
T
S
BE
L
O
W
W.I.C
9 LF
W.I.C
15 LF
BATH 2
MASTER
BEDROOM
19'-9" x 14'-0"
9'-1" CEILING
LINEN W.I.C
20 LF
MASTER
BATH
36"x60"
OPT. CALIFORNIA ROOM
TASSAJARA_PLAN 2
SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2A FLOOR PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR
READY BUILDINGS REQUIRED IN THE
2013 BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS WILL BE MET USING
EXCEPTION 7 PER SECTION 110. 10(b)1A
ROOF PLAN
1/8” SCALE
NOTE:
1. VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CIVIL ENGINEER & PER P.D.
2. A/C CONDENSER SHALL NOT EXCEED 50db AT PROP. LINE
PER CITY ORDINANCE
3.PROVIDE CONDUIT AND FACE PLATE FOR FUTURE
SATELLITE DISH INSTALLATION. LOCATION SHALL BE AS
CLOSE TO SOUTHEAST ELEVATION W/O BEING ON THE
FRONT FACADE OF ANY HOME.
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.11
PLAN 2A ELEVATION
AMERICANA
REAR ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION ENHANCED RIGHT
ELEVATION @ LOT 19
ENHANCED REAR
ELEVATION @ LOT 19
T.O.RIDGE
T.O.CURB / SLAB
GABLE END
TREATMENT
W/ SMOOTH
PANEL AND
BELLY BAND
TRIM
SHAPED
CORBELS
SHUTTERS &
POTSHELF
SHUTTERS &
POTSHELF
40 YEAR
COMPOSITION
SHINGLE
ROOFING
WINDOW
TRIM
LAP SIDING
W/ 8”
EXPOSURE
GARAGE DOOR
+3
0
’
-
1
”
FRONT ELEVATION
SHUTTERS
POTSHELF
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”
DECORATIVE
WOOD
SHUTTERS
W/ GROVED
PANEL
WOOD
POTSHELF
W/ SHAPED
CORBELS
CEMENT
FIBER LAP
SIDING W/ 8”
EXPOSURE
AND 2X WOOD
CORNER TRIM
VINYL
WINDOWS W/
WOOD TRIM
CARRIAGE STYLE
METAL GARAGE
DOORS W/ LITES AND
FAUX HARDWARE
PORCH COLUMN
PORCH BEAM
W/ CORBELS
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.12
READING LOFT
12'-10" x 12'-0"
9'-1" CEILING
BEDROOM 2
10'-2" x 11'-9"
9'-1" CEILING
BEDROOM 3
10'-4" x 11'-9"
9'-1" CEILING
LAUNDRY
6'-4" x 9'-5"
9'-1" CEILING
LINEN
DN
OPEN TO
BELOW
W.I.C
9 LF
W.I.C
15 LF
BATH 2
MASTER
BEDROOM
19'-9" x 14'-0"
9'-1" CEILING
LINEN W.I.C
20 LF
MASTER
BATH
36"x60"
OPT. CALIFORNIA ROOM
TASSAJARA_PLAN 4
SECOND FLOOR
PLAN 2C FLOOR PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR
READY BUILDINGS REQUIRED IN THE
2013 BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS WILL BE MET USING
EXCEPTION 7 PER SECTION 110. 10(b)1A
ROOF PLAN
1/8” SCALE
NOTE:
1. VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CIVIL ENGINEER & PER P.D.
2. A/C CONDENSER SHALL NOT EXCEED 50db AT PROP. LINE
PER CITY ORDINANCE
3.PROVIDE CONDUIT AND FACE PLATE FOR FUTURE
SATELLITE DISH INSTALLATION. LOCATION SHALL BE AS
CLOSE TO SOUTHEAST ELEVATION W/O BEING ON THE
FRONT FACADE OF ANY HOME.
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.13
PLAN 2C ELEVATION
CALIFORNIA MODERN
LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION
T.O.RIDGE
T.O.CURB / SLAB
+2
6
’
-
1
1
”
40 YEAR
COMPOSITION
SHINGLE
ROOFING
3-COAT
STUCCO
3-COAT
STUCCO
METAL ROLL UP
GARAGE DOOR WITH
FROSTED PRIVACY
LITES
ENTRY DOOR &
AWNING WITH IMPACT
RATED SAFETY
GLAZING
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”
LAP SIDING W/ 6”
EXPOSURE AND
METAL CORNER
TRIM
LAP SIDING W/
6” EXPOSURE
GROVED
PANELS INLAY
W/ 2X TRIM
METAL AWNING
WITH PERF.
ALUMINUM
COVER
+ CABLE
SUPPORTS
ENTRY DOOR
RIGHT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.14
PLAN 3B FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR
READY BUILDINGS REQUIRED IN THE
2013 BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS WILL BE MET USING
EXCEPTION 7 PER SECTION 110. 10(b)1A
ROOF PLAN
1/8” SCALE
NOTE:
1. VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CIVIL ENGINEER & PER P.D.
2. A/C CONDENSER SHALL NOT EXCEED 50db AT PROP. LINE
PER CITY ORDINANCE
3. PROVIDE CONDUIT AND FACE PLATE FOR FUTURE
SATELLITE DISH INSTALLATION. LOCATION SHALL BE AS
CLOSE TO SOUTHEAST ELEVATION W/O BEING ON THE
FRONT FACADE OF ANY HOME.
POWDER
COATS
ENTRY
9'-1" CEILING
2-CAR GARAGE
22'-0" x 20'-1"
9'-1" CEILING
PORCH
UP
LIVING
16'-3" x 16'-3"
9'-1" CEILING
KITCHEN
9'-1" CEILING
DINING
12'-4" x 16'-5"
9'-1" CEILING
OPT. CALIF.
ROOM
18'-0" x 11'-0"
9'-1" CEILING
3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS + LOFT
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
OPT.CALIF.ROOM:
974 SQ. FT.
1389 SQ. FT.
2363 SQ. FT.
481 SQ. FT.
204 SQ. FT.
PLAN THREE
A/C
75
'
-
0
"
43'-0"
16
'
-
0
"
22'-0"
11
'
-
6
"
4'-0"
M IN.
4'-0"
M IN.
18
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
6
"
22'-7 1/2"
WH
12
4
12
6
12
6
12
6
ATTIC ACCESS & FAU
12
6
12
6
12
6
RIDGE
RI
D
G
E
RI
D
G
E
RI
D
G
E
VAL
L
E
Y
V
A
L
L
E
Y
VAL
L
E
Y
VALLEY
ROOF BELOW
12
6
BEDROOM 2
10'-11" x 12'-4"
9'-1" CEILING
MASTER
BATH
W.I.C.
23 L.F.
DN
MASTER BEDROOM
16'-5" x 18'-6"
9'-1" CEILING
BEDROOM 3
10'-9" x 12'-0"
9'-1" CEILING
OP
E
N
T
O
B
E
L
O
W
BATH 2
LAUNDRY
+4
2
"
L
O
W
L
I
N
E
N
LOFT / OPT.
BEDROOM 4
11'-11" x 10'-6"
POWDER
COATS
ENTRY
9'-1" CEILING
2-CAR GARAGE
22'-0" x 20'-1"
9'-1" CEILING
PORCH
UP
LIVING
16'-3" x 16'-3"
9'-1" CEILING
KITCHEN
9'-1" CEILING
DINING
12'-4" x 16'-5"
9'-1" CEILING
OPT. CALIF.
ROOM
18'-0" x 11'-0"
9'-1" CEILING
3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS + LOFT
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
OPT.CALIF.ROOM:
974 SQ. FT.
1389 SQ. FT.
2363 SQ. FT.
481 SQ. FT.
204 SQ. FT.
PLAN THREE
A/C
75
'
-
0
"
43'-0"
16
'
-
0
"
22'-0"
11
'
-
6
"
4'-0"
M IN.
4'-0"
M IN.
18
'
-
6
"
22
'
-
6
"
22'-7 1/2"
WH
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.15
PLAN 3B ELEVATION
CONTEMPORARY
FARMHOUSE
REAR ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
T.O.RIDGE
T.O.CURB / SLAB
40 YEAR
COMPOSITION
SHINGLE
ROOFING
DECORATIVE
WOOD
SHUTTERS
CARRIAGE STYLE
METAL GARAGE
DOORS W/ LITES AND
FAUX HARDWARE
WOOD POTSHELF
WOOD POTSHELF
+2
8
’
-
1
1
”
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”
VINYL WINDOWS
W/ DECORATIVE
WOOD SHUTTERS
DECORATIVE
WOOD POTSHELF
W/ SHAPED
CORBELS
BOARD
& BATT
SIDING AT
GABLE END
W/ BELLY
BAND TRIM
ENHANCED REAR
ELEVATION @ LOT 1
ENHANCED RIGHT
ELEVATION @ LOT 1
GROVED PANEL
INLAY W/ 2X TRIM
SHAPED
CORBELS
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.16
CONCEPTUAL SITE SECTION A-A
CONCEPTUAL SITE SECTION B-B
CONCEPTUAL SITE SECTION C-C
CONCEPTUAL
SITE SECTIONS
PLAN 3b
PLAN 3b
PLAN 1a
PLAN 1b
PLAN 1b
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2a
PLAN 1a
2
3 4
5
6 7
8
9 10 11 12
14
15 16
17
18
19
1
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
8'
S
OU
N
D
8'
S
O
U
N
D
W
A
L
L
PLAN 2a
PLAN
2a
PLAN
3bPLAN
2c
WAL
L
PLAN
3b
13
PLAN 2a
PLAN 2a
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2cA
A
B
B
C
C
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.17
GRADE
SOUND WALL DETAIL SECTION 3”=1’
THIN BRICK
HEADER
COURSE
SLOPE 5 DEG.
TO DRAIN
O/ MORTAR
O/ 8X8
CONCRETE
MASONRY
UNIT
STONE VENEER
REINFORCED CONCRETE
BLOCK WALL
CONTINUOUS
STRIP
FOOTING, BY
OTHERS
STUCCO
WITH
TROWEL
FINISH
HE
I
G
H
T
V
A
R
I
E
S
WI
T
H
S
I
T
E
SOUNDWALL AND
DETAILS
SOUND WALL PLAN 1/8”=1’
SOUNDWALL ELEVATION
RETAINING WALL SECTION
@ BIORETENTION AREA
1/2”=1’
ENTRANCE DETAIL
6’ GOOD NEIGHBOR
WOOD FENCE
L-SHAPE CMU
RETAINING WALL
BIORETENTION AREA
- SEE LANDSCAPE
DRAINAGE
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.18
Product depicted on this spec sheet is protected by United States Federal and/or State laws including US Patent, Trademark and/or Copyright and unfair competition laws.
Unauthorized reproduction or use carries severe legal penalties.
Job Name:
Job Type:
Quantity:
Family:Berkeley™
Product Category:Outdoor Lantern
Item#:8563-51
Finish:RUST
Certification:E87611CCC
Lamping
Light Type:B10.5 Cand
Socket Type:E12 Cand
Max Wattage:60
Bulbs Included:N
Dimmable:Y
CRI:N/A
Color Temp:0
Initial Lumens:N/A
Delivered Lumens:N/A
Rated Life Hours:N/A
Photo Cell Included:N/A
Ballast:N/A
Shipping
Carton Weight:12.01
Carton Width:13
Carton Height:22
Carton Length:14.5
Carton Cubic Feet:2.4
Master Pack:1
Master Pack Weight:N/A
Master Pack Width:N/A
Master Pack Height:N/A
Master Pack Length:N/A
Master Cubic Feet:N/A
*Multi-Pack:1
Small Package Shippable:Y
*For additional information, please contact Customer Care: 1-800-221-7977.
Measurements
Width:10
Height:19
Length:N/A
Min Overall Height:0
Max Overall Height:0
Height Adjustable:N
Extension:11.5
Net Weight:5.49
Back Plate/Canopy Width:5.13
Back Plate/Canopy Height:7.38
Canopy Length:N/A
Center to Top of Fixture:3
Center to Bottom of Fixture:16
Slope:N
Chain Length:N/A
Wire Length:7
Shade
*Shade Description:Clear
*Shade Material:Seeded Glass
*Shade Quantity:4
*Shade Number:G8563
*Shade Width:N/A
*Shade Height:N/A
*Shade Length:N/A
Miscellaneous
Safety Cable Included:N
POST AND COLUMNS DETAIL
A. ROUND PREFABRICATED PORCH COLUMN
B. WOOD TRIM AND SMOOTH PANEL PORCH COLUMN
C. WOOD PORCH POST AND SHAPED WOOD BRACKETS
A B C
WINDOWS AND SHUTTER DETAILS
SCALE : 1/2” = 1’- 0”
METAL AWNING DETAIL
SCALE : 1-1/2” = 1’- 0”
POT SHELF & CORBEL DETAIL
SCALE : 3” = 1’- 0”
RAKE AND BELLY BAND DETAIL
SCALE : 1-1/2” = 1’- 0”
ARCHITECTURAL
DETAILS
FARMHOUSE / AMERICANA
STYLE LIGHT
CALIFORNIA MODERN STYLE
LIGHT
Product depicted on this spec sheet is protected by United States Federal and/or State laws including US Patent, Trademark and/or Copyright and unfair competition laws.
Unauthorized reproduction or use carries severe legal penalties.
Job Name:
Job Type:
Quantity:
Family:Berkeley™
Product Category:Outdoor Lantern
Item#:8563-51
Finish:RUST
Certification:E87611CCC
Lamping
Light Type:B10.5 Cand
Socket Type:E12 Cand
Max Wattage:60
Bulbs Included:N
Dimmable:Y
CRI:N/A
Color Temp:0
Initial Lumens:N/A
Delivered Lumens:N/A
Rated Life Hours:N/A
Photo Cell Included:N/A
Ballast:N/A
Shipping
Carton Weight:12.01
Carton Width:13
Carton Height:22
Carton Length:14.5
Carton Cubic Feet:2.4
Master Pack:1
Master Pack Weight:N/A
Master Pack Width:N/A
Master Pack Height:N/A
Master Pack Length:N/A
Master Cubic Feet:N/A
*Multi-Pack:1
Small Package Shippable:Y
*For additional information, please contact Customer Care: 1-800-221-7977.
Measurements
Width:10
Height:19
Length:N/A
Min Overall Height:0
Max Overall Height:0
Height Adjustable:N
Extension:11.5
Net Weight:5.49
Back Plate/Canopy Width:5.13
Back Plate/Canopy Height:7.38
Canopy Length:N/A
Center to Top of Fixture:3
Center to Bottom of Fixture:16
Slope:N
Chain Length:N/A
Wire Length:7
Shade
*Shade Description:Clear
*Shade Material:Seeded Glass
*Shade Quantity:4
*Shade Number:G8563
*Shade Width:N/A
*Shade Height:N/A
*Shade Length:N/A
Miscellaneous
Safety Cable Included:N
Product depicted on this spec sheet is protected by United States Federal and/or State laws including US Patent, Trademark and/or Copyright and unfair competition laws.
Unauthorized reproduction or use carries severe legal penalties.
Job Name:
Job Type:
Quantity:
Family:Delancy™
Product Category:Wall Mount
Item#:71193-A357-PL
Finish:Iron Oxide
Certification:3057374
Lamping
Light Type:SEMI SPIRAL
Socket Type:GU24
Max Wattage:26
Bulbs Included:Y
Dimmable:N
CRI:N/A
Color Temp:2700
Initial Lumens:N/A
Delivered Lumens:N/A
Rated Life Hours:N/A
Photo Cell Included:N/A
Ballast:N/A
Shipping
Carton Weight:11
Carton Width:13
Carton Height:24.75
Carton Length:15.13
Carton Cubic Feet:2.817
Master Pack:1
Master Pack Weight:N/A
Master Pack Width:N/A
Master Pack Height:N/A
Master Pack Length:N/A
Master Cubic Feet:N/A
*Multi-Pack:1
Small Package Shippable:Y
*For additional information, please contact Customer Care: 1-800-221-7977.
Measurements
Width:10
Height:21.25
Length:N/A
Min Overall Height:N/A
Max Overall Height:N/A
Height Adjustable:N
Extension:12.38
Net Weight:7.76
Back Plate/Canopy Width:4.75
Back Plate/Canopy Height:10.63
Canopy Length:N/A
Center to Top of Fixture:3
Center to Bottom of Fixture:18.38
Slope:N
Chain Length:N/A
Wire Length:7
Shade
*Shade Description:Double French Scavo
*Shade Material:GLASS
*Shade Quantity:1
*Shade Number:G71193A
*Shade Width:N/A
*Shade Height:N/A
*Shade Length:N/A
Miscellaneous
Safety Cable Included:N
Product depicted on this spec sheet is protected by United States Federal and/or State laws including US Patent, Trademark and/or Copyright and unfair competition laws.
Unauthorized reproduction or use carries severe legal penalties.
Job Name:
Job Type:
Quantity:
Family:Delancy™
Product Category:Wall Mount
Item#:71193-A357-PL
Finish:Iron Oxide
Certification:3057374
Lamping
Light Type:SEMI SPIRAL
Socket Type:GU24
Max Wattage:26
Bulbs Included:Y
Dimmable:N
CRI:N/A
Color Temp:2700
Initial Lumens:N/A
Delivered Lumens:N/A
Rated Life Hours:N/A
Photo Cell Included:N/A
Ballast:N/A
Shipping
Carton Weight:11
Carton Width:13
Carton Height:24.75
Carton Length:15.13
Carton Cubic Feet:2.817
Master Pack:1
Master Pack Weight:N/A
Master Pack Width:N/A
Master Pack Height:N/A
Master Pack Length:N/A
Master Cubic Feet:N/A
*Multi-Pack:1
Small Package Shippable:Y
*For additional information, please contact Customer Care: 1-800-221-7977.
Measurements
Width:10
Height:21.25
Length:N/A
Min Overall Height:N/A
Max Overall Height:N/A
Height Adjustable:N
Extension:12.38
Net Weight:7.76
Back Plate/Canopy Width:4.75
Back Plate/Canopy Height:10.63
Canopy Length:N/A
Center to Top of Fixture:3
Center to Bottom of Fixture:18.38
Slope:N
Chain Length:N/A
Wire Length:7
Shade
*Shade Description:Double French Scavo
*Shade Material:GLASS
*Shade Quantity:1
*Shade Number:G71193A
*Shade Width:N/A
*Shade Height:N/A
*Shade Length:N/A
Miscellaneous
Safety Cable Included:N
Product depicted on this spec sheet is protected by United States Federal and/or State laws including US Patent, Trademark and/or Copyright and unfair competition laws.
Unauthorized reproduction or use carries severe legal penalties.
Job Name:
Job Type:
Quantity:
Family:Delancy™
Product Category:Wall Mount
Item#:71193-A357-PL
Finish:Iron Oxide
Certification:3057374
Lamping
Light Type:SEMI SPIRAL
Socket Type:GU24
Max Wattage:26
Bulbs Included:Y
Dimmable:N
CRI:N/A
Color Temp:2700
Initial Lumens:N/A
Delivered Lumens:N/A
Rated Life Hours:N/A
Photo Cell Included:N/A
Ballast:N/A
Shipping
Carton Weight:11
Carton Width:13
Carton Height:24.75
Carton Length:15.13
Carton Cubic Feet:2.817
Master Pack:1
Master Pack Weight:N/A
Master Pack Width:N/A
Master Pack Height:N/A
Master Pack Length:N/A
Master Cubic Feet:N/A
*Multi-Pack:1
Small Package Shippable:Y
*For additional information, please contact Customer Care: 1-800-221-7977.
Measurements
Width:10
Height:21.25
Length:N/A
Min Overall Height:N/A
Max Overall Height:N/A
Height Adjustable:N
Extension:12.38
Net Weight:7.76
Back Plate/Canopy Width:4.75
Back Plate/Canopy Height:10.63
Canopy Length:N/A
Center to Top of Fixture:3
Center to Bottom of Fixture:18.38
Slope:N
Chain Length:N/A
Wire Length:7
Shade
*Shade Description:Double French Scavo
*Shade Material:GLASS
*Shade Quantity:1
*Shade Number:G71193A
*Shade Width:N/A
*Shade Height:N/A
*Shade Length:N/A
Miscellaneous
Safety Cable Included:N
Product depicted on this spec sheet is protected by United States Federal and/or State laws including US Patent, Trademark and/or Copyright and unfair competition laws.
Unauthorized reproduction or use carries severe legal penalties.
Job Name:
Job Type:
Quantity:
Family:Delancy™
Product Category:Wall Mount
Item#:71193-A357-PL
Finish:Iron Oxide
Certification:3057374
Lamping
Light Type:SEMI SPIRAL
Socket Type:GU24
Max Wattage:26
Bulbs Included:Y
Dimmable:N
CRI:N/A
Color Temp:2700
Initial Lumens:N/A
Delivered Lumens:N/A
Rated Life Hours:N/A
Photo Cell Included:N/A
Ballast:N/A
Shipping
Carton Weight:11
Carton Width:13
Carton Height:24.75
Carton Length:15.13
Carton Cubic Feet:2.817
Master Pack:1
Master Pack Weight:N/A
Master Pack Width:N/A
Master Pack Height:N/A
Master Pack Length:N/A
Master Cubic Feet:N/A
*Multi-Pack:1
Small Package Shippable:Y
*For additional information, please contact Customer Care: 1-800-221-7977.
Measurements
Width:10
Height:21.25
Length:N/A
Min Overall Height:N/A
Max Overall Height:N/A
Height Adjustable:N
Extension:12.38
Net Weight:7.76
Back Plate/Canopy Width:4.75
Back Plate/Canopy Height:10.63
Canopy Length:N/A
Center to Top of Fixture:3
Center to Bottom of Fixture:18.38
Slope:N
Chain Length:N/A
Wire Length:7
Shade
*Shade Description:Double French Scavo
*Shade Material:GLASS
*Shade Quantity:1
*Shade Number:G71193A
*Shade Width:N/A
*Shade Height:N/A
*Shade Length:N/A
Miscellaneous
Safety Cable Included:N
Product depicted on this spec sheet is protected by United States Federal and/or State laws including US Patent, Trademark and/or Copyright and unfair competition laws.
Unauthorized reproduction or use carries severe legal penalties.
Job Name:
Job Type:
Quantity:
Family:Berkeley™
Product Category:Outdoor Lantern
Item#:8563-51
Finish:RUST
Certification:E87611CCC
Lamping
Light Type:B10.5 Cand
Socket Type:E12 Cand
Max Wattage:60
Bulbs Included:N
Dimmable:Y
CRI:N/A
Color Temp:0
Initial Lumens:N/A
Delivered Lumens:N/A
Rated Life Hours:N/A
Photo Cell Included:N/A
Ballast:N/A
Shipping
Carton Weight:12.01
Carton Width:13
Carton Height:22
Carton Length:14.5
Carton Cubic Feet:2.4
Master Pack:1
Master Pack Weight:N/A
Master Pack Width:N/A
Master Pack Height:N/A
Master Pack Length:N/A
Master Cubic Feet:N/A
*Multi-Pack:1
Small Package Shippable:Y
*For additional information, please contact Customer Care: 1-800-221-7977.
Measurements
Width:10
Height:19
Length:N/A
Min Overall Height:0
Max Overall Height:0
Height Adjustable:N
Extension:11.5
Net Weight:5.49
Back Plate/Canopy Width:5.13
Back Plate/Canopy Height:7.38
Canopy Length:N/A
Center to Top of Fixture:3
Center to Bottom of Fixture:16
Slope:N
Chain Length:N/A
Wire Length:7
Shade
*Shade Description:Clear
*Shade Material:Seeded Glass
*Shade Quantity:4
*Shade Number:G8563
*Shade Width:N/A
*Shade Height:N/A
*Shade Length:N/A
Miscellaneous
Safety Cable Included:N
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.19
SITE PERSPECTIVES
STREET VIEW 1
STREET VIEW 2
1
2
PLAN 3b
PLAN 3b
PLAN 1a
PLAN 1b
PLAN 1b
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2a
PLAN 1a
2
3 4
5
6 7
8
9 10 11 12
14
15 16
17
18
19
1
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
8'
SO
UND
8'
S
OU
N
D
WA
L
L
PLAN 2a
PLAN
2a
PLAN
3bPLAN
2c
WAL
L
PLAN
3b
13
PLAN 2a
PLAN 2a
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC.5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1092.004
12-16-2015
JOB NO.
DATE
A.20
ENTRY PERSPECTIVE
ENTRY VIEW
PLAN 3b
PLAN 3b
PLAN 1a
PLAN 1b
PLAN 1b
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2a
PLAN 1a
2
3 4
5
6 7
8
9 10 11 12
14
15 16
17
18
19
1
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
8' S
OU
N
D
8'
S
O
U
N
D
W
A
L
L
PLAN 2a
PLAN
2a
PLAN
3bPLAN
2c
WAL
L
PLAN
3b
13
PLAN 2a
PLAN 2a
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
PLAN
2c
VE
S
T
I
N
G
T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
TR
A
C
T
M
A
P
8
2
9
9
GVGVWVWV
T
I G
R
N E L A
E
Y
M.R
ISS
O
F
E
O O NO
E
F
TE
R
E
D
F
R
P
R
RE E
AI
N
CI
L
I
V
F
A
C
O
R
O
F
I
L
STA
R EG
E
N
J
E
IS
T
I G
R
N E L A
E
Y
M.R
ISS
O
F
E
O O NO
E
F
TE
R
E
D
F
R
P
R
RE E
AI
N
CI
L
I
V
F
A
C
O
R
O
F
I
L
STA
R EG
E
N
J
E
IS
M G
T
I G
R
N E L A
E
Y
M.
R
ISS
O
F
E
O O NO
E
F
TE
R
E
D
F
R
P
R
RE E
AI
N
CI
L
I
V
F
A
C
O
R
O
F
I
L
STA
R EG
E
N
J
E
IS
T
I G
R
N E L A
E
Y
M.R
ISS
O
F
E
O O NO
E
F
TE
R
E
D
F
R
P
R
RE E
AI
N
CI
L
I
V
F
A
C
O
R
O
F
I
L
STA
R EG
E
N
J
E
IS
T
I G
R
N E L A
E
Y
M.R
ISS
O
F
E
O O NO
E
F
TE
R
E
D
F
R
P
R
RE E
AI
N
CI
L
I
V
F
A
C
O
R
O
F
I
L
STA
R EG
E
N
J
E
IS
T
I G
R
N E L A
E
Y
M.R
ISS
O
F
E
O O NO
E
F
TE
R
E
D
F
R
P
R
RE E
AI
N
CI
L
I
V
F
A
C
O
R
O
F
I
L
STA
R EG
E
N
J
E
IS
T
I G
R
N E L A
E
Y
M.R
ISS
O
F
E
O O NO
E
F
TE
R
E
D
F
R
P
R
RE E
AI
N
CI
L
I
V
F
A
C
O
R
O
F
I
L
STA
R EG
E
N
J
E
IS
T
I G
R
N E L A
E
Y
M.R
ISS
O
F
E
O O NO
E
F
TE
R
E
D
F
R
P
R
RE E
AI
N
CI
L
I
V
F
A
C
O
R
O
F
I
L
STA
R EG
E
N
J
E
IS
T
I G
R
N E L A
E
Y
M.R
ISS
O
F
E
O O NO
E
F
TE
R
E
D
F
R
P
R
RE E
AI
N
CI
L
I
V
F
A
C
O
R
O
F
I
L
STA
R EG
E
N
J
E
IS
COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS
TASSAJARA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
TASSAJARA COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
SCHEME 1 - AMERICANA
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
1092.004
10-02-15
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
JOB NO.
DATE
ROOF MATERIAL
PONDEROSA
5503 Sierra Madre by Eagle Roofing
BODY COLOR
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Collonade Gray SW 7641 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR
DOORS & WINDOW TRIM, SECONDARY DOORS, COLUMNS, FASCIA &
EAVES DETAIL
Ibis White SW 7000 by Sherwin Williams
ACCENT COLOR
FRONT DOOR & SHUTTERS
Hombury Gray SW 7622 by Sherwin Williams
TASSAJARA COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
SCHEME 2 - AMERICANA
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
1092.004
10-02-15
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
JOB NO.
DATE
ROOF MATERIAL
PONDEROSA
5503 Sierra Madre by Eagle Roofing
BODY COLOR
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Less Brown SW 6040 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR
DOORS & WINDOW TRIM, SECONDARY DOORS, COLUMNS, FASCIA &
EAVES DETAIL
Cotton White SW 7104 by Sherwin Williams
ACCENT COLOR
FRONT DOOR & SHUTTERS
Gris SW 7659 by Sherwin Williams
TASSAJARA COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
SCHEME 3 - AMERICANA
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
1092.004
10-02-15
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
JOB NO.
DATE
ROOF MATERIAL
PONDEROSA
5503 Sierra Madre by Eagle Roofing
BODY COLOR
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Sleep Blue SW 6225 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR
DOORS & WINDOW TRIM, SECONDARY DOORS, COLUMNS, FASCIA &
EAVES DETAIL
Extra White SW 7006 by Sherwin Williams
ACCENT COLOR
FRONT DOOR & SHUTTERS
Peppercorn SW 7674 by Sherwin Williams
TASSAJARA COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
SCHEME 1 - FARMHOUSE
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
1092.004
10-02-15
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
JOB NO.
DATE
ROOF MATERIAL
PONDEROSA
5503 Sierra Madre by Eagle Roofing
BODY COLOR
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Egret White SW 7570 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR
DOORS & WINDOW TRIM, SECONDARY DOORS, COLUMNS, FASCIA &
EAVES DETAIL
Cotton White SW 7104 by Sherwin Williams
ACCENT COLOR
FRONT DOOR, SHUTTERS & SEAM METAL ROOFING
Westchester Gray SW 2849 by Sherwin Williams
TASSAJARA COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
SCHEME 2 - FARMHOUSE
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
1092.004
10-02-15
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
JOB NO.
DATE
ROOF MATERIAL
PONDEROSA
5689 Brown Range by Eagle Roofing
BODY COLOR
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Carriage Door SW 7594 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR
DOORS & WINDOW TRIM, SECONDARY DOORS, COLUMNS, FASCIA &
EAVES DETAIL
White Heron SW 7627 by Sherwin-Williams
ACCENT COLOR
FRONT DOOR, SHUTTERS & SEAM METAL ROOFING
Iron Ore SW 7069 by Sherwin-Williams
TASSAJARA COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
SCHEME 3 - FARMHOUSE
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
1092.004
10-02-15
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
JOB NO.
DATE
ROOF MATERIAL
PONDEROSA
5689 Brown Range by Eagle Roofing
BODY COLOR
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Pussywillow SW 7643 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR
DOORS & WINDOW TRIM, SECONDARY DOORS, COLUMNS, FASCIA &
EAVES DETAIL
Pavestone SW 7642 by Sherwin-Williams
ACCENT COLOR
FRONT DOOR, SHUTTERS & SEAM METAL ROOFING
Urbane Bronze SW 7048 by Sherwin-Williams
TASSAJARA COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
SCHEME 1 - CALIFORNIA MODERN
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
1092.004
10-02-15
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
JOB NO.
DATE
ROOF MATERIAL
PONDEROSA
5689 Brown Range by Eagle Roofing
BODY COLOR 1
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Heron Plume SW 6070 by Sherwin-Williams
BODY COLOR 2
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Software SW 7074 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR 1
DOORS & WINDOW TRIM, FASCIA & EAVES DETAIL
Backdrop SW 7025 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR 2
WINDOW GRID & GARAGE DOOR
Popular Gray SW 6071 by Sherwin-Williams
ACCENT COLOR 1
FRONT DOOR
Shade-Grown SW 6188 by Sherwin-Williams
ACCENT COLOR 2
METAL AWNING
Greenblack SW 6994 by Sherwin-Williams
TASSAJARA COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
SCHEME 2 - CALIFORNIA MODERN
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
1092.004
10-02-15
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
JOB NO.
DATE
ROOF MATERIAL
PONDEROSA
5689 Brown Range by Eagle Roofing
BODY COLOR 1
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Sticks & Stones SW 7503 by Sherwin-Williams
BODY COLOR 2
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Cityscape SW 7067 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR
DOORS & WINDOW TRIM, SECONDARY DOORS, FASCIA & EAVES
DETAIL
Rookwood Brown SW 2806 by Sherwin-Williams
ACCENT COLOR
FRONT DOOR, GARAGE DOOR & METAL AWNING
Greenblack SW 6994 by Sherwin-Williams
TASSAJARA COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
SCHEME 3 - CALIFORNIA MODERN
6237 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN CA
WANMEI PROPERTIES
1092.004
10-02-15
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
JOB NO.
DATE
ROOF MATERIAL
PONDEROSA
5689 Brown Range by Eagle Roofing
BODY COLOR 1
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Griffin SW 7026 by Sherwin-Williams
BODY COLOR 2
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
Pavestone SW 7642 by Sherwin-Williams
TRIM COLOR
DOORS & WINDOW TRIM, SECONDARY DOORS, GARAGE DOOR,
FASCIA & EAVES DETAIL
Oyster White SW 7637 by Sherwin-Williams
ACCENT COLOR 1
FRONT DOOR
Reddened Earth SW 6053 by Sherwin-Williams
ACCENT COLOR 2
METAL AWNING
Greenblack SW 6994 by Sherwin-Williams
1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 17-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH
RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS, A VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE WANMEI
PROPERTIES, INC. PROJECT LOCATED AT 6237 TASSAJARA ROAD (APN
985-0072-002-00)
PLPA-2015-00023
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Wanmei Properties, Inc. proposes to develop 19
single-family detached homes on 2.648 acres of land at 6237 Tassajara Road within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezone
with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development and requested approvals are collectively
known as the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site consists of a single parcel located at 6237 Tassajara
Road that is 2.648 acres in size (APN 985-00072-002-00); and
WHEREAS, the site is developed with a single family dwelling and the property
has been historically utilized by various landscape contracting businesses ; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the
State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared;
and
WHEREAS, development of the Project site was addressed in the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
91103064) which was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution
51-93) (“Eastern Dublin EIR”); and
WHEREAS, since the Eastern Dublin EIR had been certified for the Project, the
City prepared a modified Initial Study dated March 2016 to determine whether
supplemental environmental review was required due to new or substantially more
severe environmental impacts from those already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
or other CEQA standards for supplemental review; and
ATTACHMENT 3
2 of 3
WHEREAS, upon completion of the modified Initial Study it was determined that
most of the significant effects of the Project: 1) have been adequately analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards; and, 2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to the Eastern Dublin EIR including mitigation measures in that
EIR. For those impacts that presented new or substantially more severe impacts than
those contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR o r met other standards for supplemental
review under CEQA, a supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to
analyze those effects; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was circulated for public review from March 17, 2016 to April 18, 2016; and
WHEREAS, following release of the MND for public review the City discovered
new information pertaining to a golden eagle nest located approximately 200 -feet east
of the project site which was not known to be present at the time the MND was
prepared; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public comment the City prepared a revised MND
and recirculated the document for public review from October 22, 2016 to November 22,
2016; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received a number of comment letters during both
public review periods that have been incorporated into the Response to Environmental
Comments dated June 2017; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 27, 2017 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project including the MND for the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017 and June 27, 2017 the Planning Commission held
properly noticed public hearings on the Project at which time all interested parties had
the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the MND
(including comments received and responses to comments), all said reports,
recommendations and testimony and used its independent judgement prior to making
its recommendations on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Supplemental
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Project which draft Resolution is attached as Exhibit A and incorporation herein by
3 of 3
reference. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report
analysis and recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached draft
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVAL OF A SUPPLEMETNAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLANS, A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW FOR THE WANMEI PROPERTIES, INC. PROJECT LOCATED AT 6237
TASSAJARA ROAD
(APN 985-0072-002-00)
PLPA-2015-00023
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Wanmei Properties, Inc. propose s to develop 19
single-family detached homes on 2.648 acres of land at 6237 Tassajara Road within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezone
with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development and requested approvals are collectively
known as the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site consists of a single parcel located at 6237 Tassajara
Road that is 2.648 acres in size (APN 985-00072-002-00); and
WHEREAS, the site is developed with a single family dwelling and the property
has been historically utilized by various landscape contracting businesses ; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the
State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations, require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared;
and
WHEREAS, development of the Project site was addressed in the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
91103064) which was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution
51-93) (“Eastern Dublin EIR”); and
WHEREAS, since the Eastern Dublin EIR had been certified for the Project, the
City prepared a modified Initial Study dated March 2016 to determine whether
supplemental environmental review was required due to new or substantially more
severe environmental impacts from those already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
or other CEQA standards for supplemental review; and
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 3
2 of 4
WHEREAS, upon completion of the modified Initial Study it was determined that
most of the significant effects of the Project: 1) have been adequately analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards; and, 2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to the Eastern Dublin EIR including mitigation measures in that
EIR. For those impacts that presented new or substantially more severe impacts than
those contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR or met other standards for supplemental
review under CEQA, a supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was circulated for public review from March 17, 2016 to April 18, 2016; and
WHEREAS, following release of the MND for public review the City discovered
new information pertaining to a golden eagle nest located approximately 200 -feet east
of the project site which was not known to be present at the time the MND was
prepared; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public comment the City prepared a revised MND
and recirculated the document for public review from October 22, 2016 to November 22,
2016; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received a number of comment letters during both
public review periods that have been incorporated into the Response to Environmental
Comments dated June 2017; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 27, 2017 and incorporated herein by
reference, was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending that the City
Council adopt the MND; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017 and June 27, 2017 the Planning Commission held
properly noticed public hearings on the Project, including the MND, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard and adopted Resolution 17-XX,
incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council adopt the MND;
and
WHEREAS, on ______, 2017, the City Council held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, including the MND, at which time all interested parties had the
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated _____, 2017 and incorporated herein by
reference, was submitted to the City Council recommending approval of the MND; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the MND(including
comments received and responses to comments), all said reports, recommendations
and testimony and used its independent judgement prior to taking action on the Project;
and
3 of 4
WHEREAS, the MND and related Project and environmental documents
(including the Eastern Dublin EIR), and all of the documents incorporated herein by
reference, are available for review in the Community Development Department at
Dublin City Hall during normal business ho urs. The location and custodian of the MND
and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City
of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file
reference PLPA-2015-00023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council finds as
follows:
A. The Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the MND including
comments received during the public review period, prior to taking action on the
Project.
B. The MND adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project. On the
basis of the whole record before it, the City Council finds that there is no
substantial evidence that the Project as approved with mitigation will have a
significant effect on the environment.
C. The MND has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Regulations.
D. The MND is complete and adequate and reflects the City’s independent
judgement and analysis as to the environmental effects of the Project.
E. Following adoption of this Resolution, City staff is authorized and directed to file
with the County of Alameda a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based on the above findings, the Dublin City
Council adopts the supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit
A) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit B) for the
Project and the mitigation measures in the MND are imposed as conditions of approval
of the Project
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of _______, 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4 of 4
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Wanmei Development Project
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin
City File: PLPA 2015-00023
Revised and Recirculated
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
October 2016
EXHIBIT A
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2
City Contact Person ...................................................................................................... 3
Project Location and Context ...................................................................................... 3
Applicant ........................................................................................................................ 4
Prior Environmental Review Documents ................................................................. .5
Project Description ........................................................................................................ 5
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................. 17
Determination ................................................................................................................ 17
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 19
Earlier Analysis .. m .................... ~ ........ ~ ........................................................................ 20
Discussion of Checklist ................................................................................................ 32
1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 32
2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ..................................................... 35
3. Air Quality ............................................................................................. 36
4. Biological Resources ............................................................................. 37
5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 47
6. Geology and Soils ................................................................................. 47
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. .51
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................... .52
9. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................... .53
10. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 56
11. Mineral Resources ................................................................................. 57
12. Noise ....................................................................................................... 57
13. Population and Housing ...................................................................... 60
14. Public Services ....................................................................................... 60
15. Recreation ............................................................................................... 62
16. Transportation/ Traffic ......................................................................... 62
17. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 65
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................. 67
Initial Study Preparers ................................................................................................. 68
Agencies and Organizations Consulted .................................................................... 58
References ...................................................................................................................... 68
Attachment 1-Biological Resource Assessment/Peer Review Report/ Golden Eagle
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 69
Attachment 2-Acoustic Report .................................................................................... 70
Introduction
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
This Revised & Recirculated Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of
implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a
completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental
topics addressed in the checklist.
Following circulation of the original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
dated March 2016 by the City o,fDublin that ended on April21, 2016, the City became aware o,f
new information regarding biological resources that could result in potentially sign{ficant
impacts to protected species that were not ident{fied or analyzed in the original IS/MND.
SpecWcally, it was brought to the City's attention that a Golden Eagle nest was noted
approximately 200 feet southeast o,fthe project site; the project site is located at 6237 Tassajara
Road in Eastern Dublin. The nest was not known at the time the original IS/MND was prepared
and therefore was not identWed or analyzed in original project IS/MND document. This new
information required a II substantial revision II o,f the IS/MND and recirculation o,f the revised
document for public review.
Prior to becoming aware o,f the new information regarding the golden eagle nest, the City had
released a draft IS/MND for a 30-day public review period. Several comments on the original
IS/MND noted that an active Golden Eagle nest had been established southeast o,f the project site
on an adjacent property. The adjacent property is the Northern Drainage Conservation Area, an
undeveloped biological resources mitigation area. Golden eagles and active nests are protected
species that have the potential to be a.(fected by the proposed development. Other comments
raised questions or provided additional information on California Red-Legged Frog, the proposed
creek setback exceptions, and other matters. In the course of preparing written responses to the
public comments, staff determined that discovery o,fthe Golden Eagle nest required a substantial
revision ofthe original IS/MND under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. The City decided that
the Revised IS/MND would also address prior public comments on Cal{fornia Red-Legged Frog
and the proposed creek setback exceptions.
The City has substantially revised portions o,f the original IS/MND and is recirculating the
revised document for public review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. More
specifically, the updated Biological Resources section r~flects the presence o,f the golden eagle nest
offsite but near the project site and analyzes whether implementation o,f the project could result
in potentially significant impacts on this nest. The City has also taken this opportunity to add
discussion on the California Red-Legged Frog to the Biological Resources section and to mod{fy
the Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality sections to provide more discussion on
the proposed creek setback exceptions. The Revised IS/MND also includes information the City
prepared in response to comments on the original IS/MND where the comments related to the
above issues.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 2
October 2016
Recirculation of the Revised IS/MND provides the public an opportunity to review and comment
on the added discussion on the eagle nest, Cal{fornia Red-Legged Frog, and creek setbacks. The
public review period for the Revised IS/MND will be 30 days, same as for the original IS/MND.
This Revised IS/MND updates the Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology
and Water Quality sections based on prior public comments on the original IS/MND. The
City o,fDublin requests that reviewers limit their comments to these revised discussions.
Following the recirculation period, the City will prepare written responses to the original
comments that were not addressed in the Revised IS!MND and to comments on the Revised
IS/MND. CEQA does not require written responses to comments on an IS!MND, however,
the City has chosen to provide responses, given the public interest in this project.
In this Revised IS/MND, new text added to or changed from the original Initial Study are in
italics and underlined to delineate changed and updated information included in this v~rsion
o,f the Initial Study.
City of Dublin Contact Person
Marnie Delgado
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
(925) 833 6610
Project Location and Context
The City of Dublin consists of approximately 14.9 square miles of land area lying in
eastern Alameda County, also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley, or the Tri-
Valley area. Surrounding jurisdictions include San Ramon and unincorporated
Contra Costa County to the north, unincorporated Alameda County to the east and
west and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to the south.
The proposed project is located on the east side of Tassajara Road in the Eastern
Extended planning area just south of Quarry Lane School.
Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and
other major features. Exhibit 2 shows the location of the project site in relation to
Tassajara Road, Quarry Lane School and other features.
The project site contains 2.64 acres of land in a linear shape between Quarry Lane
School to the north and a tributary of Tassajara Creek to the south. The street
address is 6237 Tassajara Road and the County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is
985-0072-002-00.
The site contains native and introduced tree and other vegetation species, as further
described in the Biological Resources section of this Initial Study. The site has
historically been used as landscape contracting business with outdoor storage and
contains one single-family structure and a number of accessory outbuildings.
Building materials and similar equipment are currently stored on the site. It has a
gradual slope to the south, towards the tributary. A 6-foot chain link fence with a 4-
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 3
October 2016
gradual slope to the south, towards the tributary. A 6-foot chain link fence with a 4-
foot tall sheet metal barrier at the base has been installed along the southern
property line to provide a wildlife barrier between the project and the adjacent
tributary.
Surrounding land uses include Quarry Lane School to the north. This is a private K-
12 school located at a higher topographic elevation from the project site. To the east
of the project site are open spaces lands that are part of the Northern Drainage
Conservation Area (see Exhibit 3). Immediately south of the project site is an
unnamed tributary of Tassajara Creek (further described below). South of the
unnamed tributary there is a mix of single-family dwellings and open spaces
associated with the residential development. Tassajara Road is located immediately
west ofthe site.
The project site is located immediately north of an offsite unnamed tributary of
Tassajara Creek, a major regional watercourse located west of the project site. The
tributary was previously part of the project parcel but was subsequently parceled off
to be restored and incorporated into a 245-acre permanent conservation easement
with open space lands to the east, known as the Northern Drainage Conservation Area
(NDCA) (see Exhibit 3). The restoration of the creek and the open space lands to the
east serve as mitigation for development allowed on portions of the nearby Dublin
Ranch development. This mitigation was required by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB). Today, the tributary is a separate parcel owned and
managed by the Center for Natural Lands Management and is not part of the project
property. The tributary is maintained in a natural open space area and provides
suitable habitat for a number of special-status, protected wildlife species. As part of
the restoration of the tributary, a 6-foot chain link fence and 4-foot sheet metal
barrier was installed along the southern boundary of the project site to prevent
migration of the California Red Legged Frog (CRLF) onto the project site. No changes fo
the existing barrier are proposed. However, the applicant proposes to construct a secondary
barrier within the project site that would consist of a 4-foot solid block wall with an
additional2-feet o,fornamental steel on top. The secondary barrier would be located
completely within the project site along the southern property line and eastern property line.
The off-site tributary has been dedicated as part of a permanent conservation area
and is managed accordingly. No development is proposed within the tributary.
The final design, use o,f materials and color of the proposed barrier would be subfect to
Design Review by the City of Dublin.
Applicant:
W anmei Properties, LLC
520 Mill Creek Road
Fremont CA 94539
Attn: Hayes Shair
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 4
October 2016
Prior Environmental Review Documents
The project has been included in a previous EIR, as noted below:
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (State
Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution
No. 51-93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the
"Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts related to the
urbanization of the Eastern Dublin area:
Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation;
Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils,
Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural
Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93)
for the following impacts:
Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic,
extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone
service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy
uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation
of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and
concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of
visual character.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate.
The Eastern Dublin project approved the current Medium Density Residential land
use designation; the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed up to 20 dwelling units for the
project site. The proposed project does not amend the current General Plan land use
designation or density.
Project Description
Overview. The proposed project includes subdivision of the site to create up to 19
individual lots on the site and construction of one single-family dwelling and related
improvements on each lot. The existing dwelling on the site and stored materials
would be removed to allow construction of proposed improvements.
The proposed development plan is shown on Exhibit 4. The applicant proposes to
construct a single access road from Tassajara Road that would serve 16 dwellings on
the north side of the road and three dwellings on the south side of the on-site road.
Lot sizes range from 2,886 square feet to 5,316 square feet. The average lot size in the
proposed subdivision would be 3,564 square feet.
The specific size and location of individual lots, the size of future dwellings on each
lot, the design of the dwellings and the height of individual dwellings have been
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 5
October 2016
proposed as part of a Site Development Review application for consistency with the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and other City land use regulations and policies
regarding achieving quality design.
Access, Circulation & Parking. Proposed dwellings would be served by a single
private two-way road extending east from Tassajara Road. The road would
terminate in a cul-de-sac on the eastern side of the site. The cul-de-sac would be
designed to meet Alameda County Fire Department fire equipment turn-around
dimensional criteria. No traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of the
private road and Tassajara Road. Access to the site would be limited to right-
in/right-out movements to and from Tassajara Road. A sidewalk currently exists on
the east side of Tassajara Road north of the site, adjacent to Quarry Lane School. No
sidewalk exists along the project's Tassajara Road frontage. Future improvements
included in the project would be a 6-foot wide sidewalk along the project frontage
and an 8 foot wide bike lane along the east side of Tassajara Road.
A sidewalk would be installed along each side of the private street in front of the lots
only.
Each house would include a 2-car garage. The project also proposes 45 guest parking
spaces. The majority of on-site guest parking spaces would be accommodated within
private driveways associated with individual single-family dwellings. Nine (9) on-
site guest parking spaces would be located along the south side of the private road,
with four spaces located near the entrance off of Tassajara Road and the remainder
located on the eastern portion of the site past the proposed cul-de-sac feature.
Building Elevations. The applicant proposes to construct dwellings using a number
of differing architectural styles. These are depicted on Exhibit 5. Exterior house
designs are summarized as follows:
• Farmhouse, which would include a low-pitched gable roof and shed accent
roofs. Exterior finishes would include board-and-batten siding combined
with lap siding. Roofs would consist of composition shingle roofing with
standing seam metal accents. Accent features would include wood and
smooth foam trim, wood braces and railings, posts and columns, wood braces
and corbels and style appropriate metal garage doors.
• Contemporary Farmhouse, similar to the farmhouse design but with a steeper
pitched gabled roof in combination with a lower pitched roof over portions of
the dwelling. Exterior finishes would include light sand or smooth stucco
with vertical board and batten siding accents. Roofs would consist of
composition shingle roofing. Accent features would include wood and
smooth foam trim, posts and columns, wood braces and corbels and style
appropriate metal garage doors.
• California Modern which would be designed with a low-pitched gable roof and
a light sand or smooth stucco finish with lap siding accents. Roofing would
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 6
October 2016
be composition shingle. Accent features would include wood and smooth
foam trim, metal awnings and style appropriate metal garage doors.
• American Farmhouse which would feature steeply pitched gable roofs, board
and batten vertical siding. Roof would be composition shingle. Accent
features would include wood and smooth foam trim, wood braces and
railings, posts and columns, wood braces and corbels and style appropriate
metal garage doors.
Grading, Water Quality and Infrastructure. The project site would be graded to
accommodate the proposed road, dwellings and other improvements. The preliminary
grading plan indicates that approximately 2320 cubic yards of material would need to
be removed from the site. Drainage and related water quality improvements, as
required by the City of Dublin, would be installed in accordance with City standards.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a water quality pond that also provides
for stormwater detention and retention on the southwest corner of the site.
Utilities, including water, sewer, and natural gas and communication facilities would be
extended into the site from Tassajara Road. These utilities would be located
underground. The City of Dublin will also require long-term operational water quality
features as part of the project in accordance with City standards, including but not
limited to covering of solid waste and recycling containers.
Landscaping and walls. The applicant would landscape the project frontage along
Tassajara Road. Exhibit 6 shows the general location and type of proposed landscaping.
A solid noise barrier wall would also be constructed behind the landscaped area along
Tassajara Road. The height of the noise barrier is proposed at eight feet and the final
height will be determined based on the final grading plan and confirmed by a qualified
acoustic consultant. As noted above, there is an existing 6-foot chain link fence and 4-
foot sheet metal barrier along the southern property line that serves to prevent migration of
California Red-Legged Frogs (CRLF) from the adjacent tributary onto the profect site. No
changes to the existing barrier are proposed. The applicant proposes to construct a secondary
barrier within the project site that would be a 4-foot solid block wall with an additional2:feet of
ornamental steel on top. The secondary barrier would be located within the project site within the
southern property line and eastern property line.
Creek Setbacks. Exhibit 7 depicts various setback distances ,from the top o,fbank ofthe tributary
iust south of the site. The exhibit shows the 1 00-foot setback for major tributaries and the 50-foot
~etbackfor minor tributaries established by the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream '
Restoration Program. The project is also subject to the City's Watercourse Protection Ordinance
(Ordinance 52-87 and DMC chapter 7.20) which requires a 20-foot creek setback to safeguard
watercourses; this setback is also shown on Exhibit 7.
Requested land use approvals. The following land use approvals are required and I or
requested from the City of Dublin to construct the project. These are described in more
detail below.
Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan. A PD
Rezoning and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan has been requested.
City of Dublin Page 7
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND October 2016
Wanmei Properties Project
Vesting Tentative Map. Approval of a subdivision map is required to create lots for
individual dwellings, roads and utilities.
Site Development Review (SDR). A Site Development Review (SDR) Permit is required
to approve exterior designs of proposed dwellings, landscaping and related
improvements.
Watercourse Setback Exception. Approval by the Public Works Director to encroach
into the required 20-foot setback for flooding, erosion and sedimentation protection
pursuant to DMC Chapter 7.20.
Creek Setback Encroachment. Approval by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife to
encroach into the required 100-foot setback for flooding and biological resource protection
pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 8
October 2016
SAN
FRANCISCO
t..o.
0
CITY OF DUBLIN
WANMEI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
BAY
Livermore
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
0 2 4 6 8 10 miles
[CITY OF PLEASANTON]
CITY OF DUBLIN
WANMEI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
--·-·-·, .
. 1-·-·-·-·1
r .
I .
I .
~~~~---------~
[CITY OF
LIVERMORE]
Exhibit 2
LOCAL SETTING
CITY OF DUBLIN
WANMEI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
Exhibit 3
SURROUNDING OPEN SPACE LANDS
SO URCE: Dahlin Group and Reed Assoc iates , 12-16-2015.
CITY OF DUBLIN
WANMEIDEVELOPMENTPROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE
BUILDING COVERAGE -LIVING
PAVING COVERAGE
BUILDING COVERAGE -
PORCH & OPT. CALIF. ROOM
COMMON OPEN SPACE
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
50 ' SETBACK FROM EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
SITE SUMMARY:
SITE: 2.64
UNITS : 19 DU
DENSITY: 7.2 DU/AC
UNIT SUMMA RY:
PLAN 1A= 2 (10.5%)
PLAN 1B = 2 (10.5%)
PLAN 2A = 5 (26%)
PLAN 2C = 6 (32%)
PLAN 3B = 4 (21%)
TOTAL = 19
PARKING:
COVERED: 38 STALLS (2:1)
GUEST: 45 STALLS (2:3:1)
W IL DFIRE MANA GEMENT
~
BUILDINGS ON LOTS THAT ARE
ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE OR
UNDEVELOPED LAND SHALL
COMPLY WITH THE WILDFIRE
MANAGEMENT PLAN AS SPECIF IES
IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
* BUILDINGS WHERE WILDFIRE
PROTECTION IS REQU IRED
PER WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT
PLAN, MATERIALS AND METHODS
OF CONSTRUCllON MUST COMPLY
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CBC
CHAPTER 7A.
Exhibit 4
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ELEVATION 2A
FARMHOUSE
ELEVATION 2A
GENERAL ROOF MASSING
PREOOMINANTl Y LOW PITCH GABLE ROOF FORMS
VARIED PlATE HEIGHTS
• SHED ACCENT ROOFS
ROOF MATERAL
DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION SHINGlE ROOFING
• STANDING SEAM METAL ACCENT ROOFS
EXTERIOR FINISH
BOARD AND BATIEN SIDING
LAP SIDING WITH 8" EXPOSURES
• BOLDACCENTCOLORS&PANELS
WINOOWS AND DOORS
PREOOMINATLY SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL WINDOW MULLIONS
• ACCENT PAINTED ENTRY DOORS
• METAL GARAGE DOORS
TRIM ANDACCENTS
WOOD AND SMOOTH FOAM TRIM
WOOD BRACES & RAILINGS
WOOD PLASTER SMOOTH PORCH
POSTS & COLUMNS
WOOD BRACES & CORBELS
ELEVATION 38
CONTEMPORARY FARMHOUSE
ELEVATION 38
GENERAL ROOF MASSING
PREDOMINANTlY STEEP PITCHED GABLE ROOF FORMS
W ITH LC'JW PlTCHED ROOF OVER MAIN BODIES
• VARIED PlATE HEIGHTS
• SHED ACCENT ROOFS
ROOF MATERAL
• DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION SHINGlE ROOFING
EXTERIOR FINISH
• LIGHT SAND OR SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH
• BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING
• WOOD BAY WINDOWS @ ENHANCED PLAN
WINDOWS AND OOORS
PREOOMINAn Y SINGlE HUNG WINDOWS
• ACCENT PAINTED ENTRY DOORS
• METAl GARAGE DOORS
TRIM AND ACCENTS
WOOD AND SMOOTH FOAM TRIM
WOOD PLASTER SMOOTH PORCH
POSTS & COLUMNS
WOOD BRACES & CORBELS
SOURCE: Dahlin Group and Reed Associates, 12-16-2015.
CITY OF DUBLIN
WANMEI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
ELEVATION 2C
CALIFORNIA MODERN
ELEVATIONJC
GENERAL ROOF MASSING
PREOOMINANn Y LOW PITCH GABLE ROOF FORMS
VARIED PLATE HEIGHTS
• SHED ACCENT ROOFS
ROOF MA.TERAL
• DIMENSIONAl COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING
EXTERIOR ANISH
LIGHT SAND OR SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH
LAP SIDING WITH 8' EXPOSURES
WOOD BAY WINDOWS
BOLD ACCENT COLORS & PANELS
WINDOWS AND DOORS
PREOOt.tNATlY SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL WINDOW MULLIONS
ACCENT PAINTED ENTRY DOORS
METAL GARAGE DOORS
TRIM AND ACCENTS
WOOD AND SMOOTH FOAM TRIM
• METAL AWNING
ELEVATION 18
AMERICANA FARMHOUSE
ELEVATION 1B
GENERAL ROOF MASSING
PREOOMINANTL Y STEEP PITCHED GABLE ROOF FORMS
WITH LOW PITCHED ROOF OVER MAIN BODIES
VARIED PlATE HEIGHTS
SHED ACCENT ROOFS
ROOF MATERAl
DIMENSIONAl COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING
• STANDING SEAM METAL ACCENT ROOFS
EXTERIOR FINISH
BOARD AND BAITEN SIDING
LAP SIDING WITH 8" EXPOSURES
• BOLO ACCENT COLORS & PANELS
WINDOWS AND DOORS
PREOOMINATl.Y SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS
HORIZONTAL WINDOW MULLIONS
ACCENT PAINTED ENTRY DOORS
METAL GARAGE DOORS
TRIM AND ACCENTS
WOOD AND SMOOTH FOAM TRIM
WOOD BRACES & RAILINGS
WOOD PLASTER SMOOTH PORCH
POSTS & COLUMNS
WOOD BRACES & CORBELS
Exhibit 5
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
,. .. (..s ""
I caew._ NOlES I
I AU.PI...AHl'EDAREASSWUflfl!BGATB;)'Mfl.I~AUJQ,I,I.,fC~Il03.Att:>ISl'STS4
NC<:M'I..lNGf'Mfl.lCUIREHTWATB!COOSBIVA~~S.
1 I.AIVSCNlE~TOc:a.R.Y'Mll-I'SUSTANAa.E~PllACTnS'ASWM.fDN
1\.E '6AYfte£lY L»>5CAPE ~&YfA!lt.N3 A~ c.' 60~S.
l. 'G'B+SPACF AQEAS TOllE IUHTED 'M11-I AI£ l<fSISTAHT R.A'fT MArew.L
SOURCE: Reed Associates, Landscape Architecture, 12-16-2015.
CITY OF DUBLIN
WANMEI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
"
I TREE CI>H:)p'f L..E<Et:l -
~MRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK
TREE 6-4tl' BOX SIZE
6ALANGE -:.Z-4' BOX SIZE
0 PISTAC.IA C . 'KEITH DAVEY'' KEITH DAVEY c..HINESE PIST.....c.H IO
24' BOX SIZE
G ACER~'601't-!AJ..I..'
G)~T~~.~~·
RED~TMAPU:
2-4' BOX SIZE
ROBE~TS' CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE
2<4 ' BOX SIZE
Exhibit 6
~
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
,...
~
#.
.,.
SOURCE: Greenwood & Moore, Inc., 72-76-2075.
CITY OF DUBLIN
WANMEI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
SI.BR•
200~ 3-45003
,QUARRY AN[ S~Hoo;. \ I
~
I
!!..-=
~
,..
~
i
I 80JII"TtWTDI llfiU. .:;l HJ1 -~0
fOIIIIOI(IW~
2 a. »f'J Qlt!p
J .......... .,...
• C',J118Noi,~I'{JI:Of'r"o.JIU'I
~~bflJ,jc;:o.JDQ.
'-~ .... em" Clf ~ !ltNCWIJ
Ofla.i.CD-H&
'..unounno .,._,_
t IIColtMfiCo w.u
• "1: 1'-.o ttwurt
10 J' IAU WIIMN HtW"'ttlCIOit.At _.
··-~~QIIl.llliiiT[ --,~ ... -...
,l.~ll~U~
"ti:~<~"IJ(TA1~'!41..-.1"1'
t. "~' cu. 11((1 ~ WOIDfC "NN ,._tM"" .......
tJ~CCN:JI(l!A!~ .,.,....
•ti"Cl('YTTIWWI~"''''
•tfti''IO"OIQIII{lll_,..~,
·~~110011
'' u" •ar mJO o..n
Exhibit 7
CREEK SETBACKS
1. Project description: Redevelopment of the existing rural residential home
site and storage yard to allow construction of up to 19
individual lots on the site and construction of one
single-family dwelling on each lot. Other
improvements would include grading of the site,
construction of an on-site private street, open parking
spaces, utility extensions, water quality
improvements, a noise barrier along Tassajara Road,
construction ofa secondary CRLF barrier on the project
site and road improvements along the Tassajara Road
frontage.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
3. Contact person: Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner
4. Project location: East side of Tassajara Road at 6237 Tassajara Road
(Assessors Parcel Number 985-0072-002-00)
5. Project sponsor: W anmei Properties, LLC
Medium Density Residential 6. General Plan designation:
7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development
8. Public agency required approvals:
City of Dublin
• Approval of PD-Planned Development Stage 1 & 2 zoning and
Development Plan (City of Dublin);
• Approval of Tentative & Final Vesting Tentative Map (City of
Dublin);
• Approval of a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit;
• Approval of watercourse setback exception (City o,(Dublin Public Works
Department)
• Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board);
• Issuance of demolition, building and grading permits (City of
Dublin); and
• Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD)
• Encroachment into creek setback (City of Dublin & Calif Department
o,fFish & Wildlife)
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 16
October 2016
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics -Agricultural -Air Quality
Resources
X Biological -Cultural Resources -Geology I Soils
Resources
X Hazards and -Hydrology /Water -Land Use/
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
-Mineral Resources X Noise -Population/
Housing
-Public Services -Recreation -Transportation/
Circulation
-Utilities I Service -Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
__ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
__ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
__ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 17
October 2016
the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the
effects that remain to be addressed.
_X_ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because at least one or
more potentially significant effects 1) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including mitigation measures as described in the
attached sheets. A supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but
must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed as identified in this Initial
Study.
__ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
proposed project.
signature: ------17'S~'----f----"'-~-'------------A. __
Printed N am/!____,j~e,.'-'-./-'-"J+--"t\-...:....=..::GL4.~~;--------
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Date: t i> ( ( 'i (t 6,
For: ~ OJf ~J, L...
Page 18
October 2016
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that
are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a
fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will
not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) In some instances, an "LS, Less-than-Significant Impact" response may reflect
that a specific environmental topic has been analyzed in a previous CEQA
document and appropriate mitigation measures have been included in a
previous CEQA document to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
In a few instances, some previously analyzed topics were determined to be
significant and unavoidable and mitigation of such impact to a less-than-
significant level is not feasible. In approving the Eastern Dublin project, the
City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. A
Statement of Overriding Considerations would also be required for the project
if it could result in the identified significant unavoidable impacts.
3) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
4) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant
impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5) "Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an
effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 19
October 2016
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in
parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at
the end of the checklist)
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other
CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
or Negative Declaration. Reference: CEQA Guideline Section 15063.
Portions of the environmental analysis for this Initial Study refer to information
contained in the following EIR listed below.
• Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH
# 91103064, certified by City Council Resolution No. 51-93 on May 10,
1993. This document is also known as the Eastern Dublin EIR in this
Initial Study. Multiple subsequent documents to this EIR have been
certified by the City.
The related impacts and mitigations for each resource area are briefly summarized
in the initial study discussion sections below. The certified EIR should be consulted
for full discussion of the referenced impacts and mitigation measures. These
documents are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review
at the Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, during normal
business hours.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 20
October 2016
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources at end of checklist used to determine each potential impact).
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1, 6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1, 3, 6)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 1, 6)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day o nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 6)
2. Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as show on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 1, 6)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use
or a Williamson Act contract? ( 1, 6)
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of forestland (as defined by PRC Sec.
12220(g), timberland (as defined in PRC Sec.
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined in PRC Sec. 51104 (g)?
(Source: 1, 2)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? (1, 2)
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
that, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural
use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest
use? (Source: 1, 2)
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
X
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 21
October 2016
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air
quality management district may be relied
on to make the following determinations).
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 1, 2, 8)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors? ( 1 ,2,9)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (7, 9)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (9)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (1, 2. 3, 8)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (1, 2, 3)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or
other means? (1, 2, 3)
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
X
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 22
October 2016
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (1, 2, 3)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 9)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1, 2)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 1, 2)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? ( 1 ,2)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault? (Source: 1)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (1)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source: 1)
iv) Landslides? (Source: 1)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 1))
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 23
October 2016
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in
on-and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (1)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 1)
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for wastewater disposal?
(7)
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? (9)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? (2,
5)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(6)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 1, 2, 6)
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 24
October 2016
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? (8)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (Source: 8)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 9)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 1, 2. 6, 9)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(9)
9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 1, 2, 4)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g. the
production rate of existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
(Source: 1, 2, 7)
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 25
October 2016
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-
site? (Source: 1, 2, 6)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on-or off-site? (Source: 1,
2, 6)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Source: 1, 2, 6)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? (Source: 1, 2, 6)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 1, 7)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 1, 7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 1, 7)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1 ,2, 6)
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 26
October 2016
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Source: 1, 2, 7)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 9)
11. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state? (2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2)
12. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (4)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Source: 4)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels without the project? ( 4)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? (4)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working n the
project area to excessive noise levels? (9)
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 27
October 2016
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (9)
13. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (1, 2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (1, 2)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 1, 2)
14. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Source: 1, 2, 7)
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities
15. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated? (Source: 1, 2, 5)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 1, 2, 5)
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 28
October 2016
16. Transportation and Traffic. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation, including mass
transit and all non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and
mass transit? (Source: 1, 2, 7)
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not
limited to, level of service and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?_(Source: 1, 2, 7)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Source: 1, 2)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as
farm equipment? (Source: 7)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4)
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle or
pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the
performance of safety of such facilities? (7)
17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (Source: 2, 7)
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Less than
Significant Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
X
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 29
October 2016
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (7)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (7)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (7)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (Source: 7)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (7)
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number of or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 30
October 2016
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR
Less than
Significant
Impact
2) Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin (Amended as of October 6, 2015)
No Impact/
No New
Impact
X
X
3) Biological Resource Report (LSA) dated January 15, 2014 & WRA Peer review
letter dated October 6, 2014
4) Project Acoustic Report (RGD) dated March 10, 2016
5) Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2012 update
6) Site Visit
7) Discussion with City staff or service provider
8) Assessment a,[ Golden Eagle Nest, 6237 Tassajara Road by WRA, dated Tuly 28,2016
21_ Other Source
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 31
October 2016
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS:
LS/M:
LS:
N/NNI:
1. Aesthetics
Project Impacts
Potentially Significant
Less Than Significant After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact/No New Impact
a-c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista, damage scenic resources
(including a scenic highway) or substantially degrade the visual character of a site?
NNI. The project site is presently used as a storage yard for construction
materials and related material. One single-family structure is located near
Tassajara Road. No parks, playgrounds, scenic vistas or other public
gathering places are located on the site. A number of non-native trees (five
walnut trees and one almond tree) have been planted on the site that would
be removed to accommodate the proposed project. The applicant proposes to
plant six 48-inch Coast Live Oak trees as replacement trees on the site in
accordance with the preliminary landscape plan.
Applicable impacts and mitigation measures included in Eastern Dublin EIR
and other regulations affecting scenic qualities applicable to the site included
in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document
include:
Eastern Dublin EIR
Impact 3.8/ A, Standardized "Tract" Development identifies the potential
impact for development to inadequately respond to natural site
conditions. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0, which requires
consistency with EDSP Goal6.3.4 to establish a visually distinctive
community that preserves the character of the landscape, reduced this
impact to a level of insignificance.
Impact 3.8/ B, Alteration of Rural and Open Space Visual Character was
identified as a significant and unavoidable impact even with adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, which would implement the EDSP land plan
with retention of predominant natural features and encouraging a sense of
openness in Eastern Dublin. This impact was included in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations when adopting the underlying project (City
Council Resolution No. 53-93).
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 32
October 2016
Impact 3.81 C, Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features identifies the
potential of EDSP buildings and related improvements to obscure or alter
existing features and reduce the visual uniqueness of the Eastern
Extended Planning Area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8 I 3.0,
which would implement EDSP Policy 6-28 to preserve streams and other
natural features, reduced this impact to a level of insignificance.
Impact 3.8ID, Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides notes that grading
and excavation of building sites in hillside areas would compromise the
visual quality of the EDSP area. Mitigation Measures 3.814.0 through
3.814.5 are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce Impact 3.8ID to a
level of insignificance. These Mitigation Measures require implementation
of EDSP Policies 6-32 through 6-38 requiring grading techniques to
minimize disturbance of hillsides.
Impact 3.8IE, Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges states that structures
built in proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment the profile of
visually sensitive ridgelines. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.8 I 5.0 through 3.8 I 5.2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level. These measures require the implementation of EDSP Policies 6-29
and 6-30 and Parks and Open Space Element Guiding Policy 3.4.1.A.3
restrict structures on the hillsides that appear above major ridgelines and
Implementing Policy 3.4.l.B.4, use subdivision design and site design
review process to preserve or enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline
as viewed from freeways (I-580 or I-680) or major arterial streets.
Impact 3.8IF, Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands states that
buildout of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will alter the visual character
of the Eastern Dublin area by reducing valley grasses and agricultural
fields. No mitigation was identified for this impact and it was deemed to
be significant and unavoidable. This impact was included in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the project (City Council Resolution No.
53-93).
Impact 3.8 I G, Alteration of Visual Character of Watercourses found a
potentially significant impact with regard to planned development
adjacent to watercourses that would reduce the visibility and function of
watercourses as a distinct landscape. Mitigation Measure 3 .81 6.0 reduced
this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring development
adjacent to creeks to maintain visual access to such streams. The proposed
project would not significantly change existing visual access for future residents
and their guests to the adjacent unnamed tributary of Tassajara Creek. The
existing 6-foot chain link fence and 4-foot sheet metal barrier would remain. A
secondary CRLF barrier consisting of a 4-foot solid block wall with 2-,(eet of
ornamental steel on top would be built inside the existing barrier and would
extend up the easterly property boundary.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 33
October 2016
Impact 3.8/I, Scenic Vistas, includes alteration of the character of existing
scenic vistas and important sightlines. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1, this impact would be reduced to a level of
insignificance. Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 requires adherence to EDSP
Policy 6-5 to preserve views of open space areas and Measure 3.8/7.1
requires the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area and to
identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. The City adopted the Eastern
Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document by Resolution
34-96 on March 26, 1996 to implement this measure.
Impact 3.8 I J, Scenic Routes, identifies that urban development within the
EDSP area will significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on
scenic routes in Eastern Dublin. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.8/8.0 and 8.1 will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These
two measures require implementation of EDSP Action Programs 6Q and
6R that requires the City to adopt scenic corridor policies. The City
adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards by
Resolution No. 34-96 on March 26, 1996. The City adopted the Eastern
Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document in 1996 to
implement this measure.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
Overall implementing policies for scenic corridors (which include the
project site) include:
1. Maintain a sense of place for Eastern Dublin with relation to natural
landforms and topography.
2. Allow the traveler along a Scenic Corridor to experience the varied
features of the landscape
3. Assure that development along the Scenic Corridors is well planned
and sensitively sited to respect the natural topography.
4. Achieve high-quality design and visual character for all development
visible from designated Scenic Corridors, generally within 700 feet of a
Scenic Corridor.
5. Assure that landscaping adjacent to the Scenic Corridors harmonizes
with the scenic environment.
The frontage improvements along Tassajara Road would include the widening
of Tassajara Road to connect with existing improvements to the north and
south of the project site; landscaping, an 8-foot wide bike lane and the
construction of a noise attenuating wall. The wall is proposed to be a
maximum of 8-feet in height and will be designed at the minimum height
necessary to provide sufficient sound attenuation. Near the project entry, the
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 34
October 2016
height of the wall would be reduced to frame the entrance and minimize the
overall appearance of the wall. The design of the project frontage is consistent
with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan design guidelines for the Foothill
Residential Planning Subarea and Standard 6.2 of the Scenic Corridor Policies
and Standards document.
With adherence to the above Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures and
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, there would be no new
or more severe significant impacts related to scenic vistas, damage to scenic
resources, including scenic highways, or substantial degradation of the visual
character than identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No additional analysis is
required. For significant and unavoidable impacts, such as Alteration of
Rural/ Open Space Character and Visual Character of Flatlands, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted when approving the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (City Council Resolution No. 53-93).
d) Create light or glare? LS/M. Minimal lighting sources are present on the site,
primarily lighting associated with the existing house. Construction of the
proposed project would add additional light sources in the form of streetlights
along the proposed roadway as well as building and security lighting.
Residential light and glare was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
installation of future lighting could result in a significant impact on the
adjacent tributary to the south, passers-by on Tassajara Road and other nearby
private properties. Adherence to the following would reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure AES-1. As part of final building and improvement
plans, exterior light fixtures, including street lights, building security
lights and exterior house lights shall be equipped with appropriate
lenses or shielding to ensure that light is directed downward and does
not spill over off of the project site. Minimum light levels on the site as
required by Section 7.32.300 of the Dublin Municipal Code shall be
maintained. If required by the Community Development Department,
the applicant shall furnish detailed illumination plans demonstrating
that no spill over of light shall occur.
2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Project Impacts
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act
Conservation Agreement or convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use? NNI.
Impacts with respect to conversion of prime farmland to urban uses,
discontinuation of agricultural land uses and indirect impacts of non-renewal
of Williamson Act land conservation contracts were analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR for the entire Eastern Extended Planning Area. These impacts were
deemed insignificant except for the cumulative loss of agricultural lands, which
was significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.1/F).
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 35
October 2016
The project site is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and a
storage yard. No existing farming or agricultural operations exist on the site
and the site is not zoned for agriculture. The Eastern Dublin EIR denotes that
the project site is considered "farmland of local importance" (Figure 3.1-B).
Figure 3.1-C contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR notes that no Williamson Act
contract existed on the site as of the preparation of the EIR. Approval and
construction of the project would result in no new or more severe significant
impacts related to agricultural lands than identified in the prior EIR and no
additional analysis is required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? NI. No
forest land exists within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; therefore, no impact
would result with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required.
e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a
non-forest use? NI. See item "d," above.
3. Air Quality
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NNI.
Future residential development of the project site is anticipated in the Dublin
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the related EDEIR. The
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has assumed development of up to 20 dwellings
on this site (EDSP Appendix 4). This type and amount of development is
included in current land use projections prepared by the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG), which are used for air quality emissions included
in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan. Approval
and construction of the project would be consistent with the regional air quality
plan and would result in no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts related to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively
considerable air pollutants? NNI. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed impacts
related to both project-level air quality impacts as well as cumulative impacts
to regional air quality. Identified impacts in this EIR included Impact 3.11/ A
(dust deposition from construction activity), Impact 3.11 /B (construction
equipment and vehicle emissions), Impact 3.11 I C (mobile sources of Reactive
Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide) and Impact 3.11/E (stationary source
emissions). All of these air quality impacts were found to be significant and
unavoidable and in approving the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for
the project and cumulative air quality emissions (City Council Resolution No.
53-93). The proposed project is consistent with the use and density assumptions
in the EDEIR and no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 36
October 2016
would result than identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No additional analysis
is required.
Also, the proposed project includes construction of up to 18 net single-family
dwellings (including a deduction for the existing on-site dwelling), which
number falls below the Criteria Air Pollutants Screening Criteria as established
in Table 3-1 of the May 2011 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Air Quality Guidelines. Under the screening criteria, projects
containing 325 dwellings or fewer would fall below Nitrous Oxide pollutant
generation and developments containing up to 114 single-family dwellings
would fall below construction criteria pollutant screening size. Therefore, no
impacts would result in terms of exceeding air quality standard or result in
cumulatively considerable air pollutants.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? NNI. No sensitive
receptors, including but not limited to schools, day care centers, hospitals or
similar land uses exist on the project site. A private school, Quarry Lane School, is
located immediately north of the project site. However, the estimated number of
vehicle trips to and from the site (estimated to be 175 daily trips, as documented in
section 16, Traffic and Transportation of this Initial Study) would not generate a
significant amount of pollutants as noted in subsections "b" and "c," above so no
significant impacts would result with respect to this topic. Similarly, the site is not
located adjacent to any freeways or major highway corridors that would release
significant air emissions. The proposed project is consistent with the use and
density assumptions in the EDEIR and no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts would result than identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No
additional analysis is required.
e) Create objectionable odors? NI. The project would not result in new land uses that
would emit objectionable odors. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
4. Biological Resources
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, special-status species
riparian habitat or wetlands? LS/M. This section is based on a biological analysis
of the site prepared by LSA Associates ("Biological Resource Report for the
6237 Tassajara Road Property, Dublin, Alameda County, California," dated
January 15, 2014.) This report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study
and is included as Attachment 1 to this Initial Study. The LSA report was peer-
reviewed by a City consultant, WRA. The WRA peer review report (dated
October 6, 2014) is also included in Attachment 1 to this Initial Study and is
also incorporated by reference into this document. The LSA report notes that
the project site has been disturbed for urban uses (a residential structure,
driveways, landscape contractor storage and similar storage uses) and contains
no candidate, special-status or sensitive plant or wildlife species or their
respective habitats. On-site vegetation includes five walnut tree, one almond
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 37
October 2016
tree and weedy vegetation in the southwest corner of the site that includes wild
oat, ripgut brome, bristly ox-tongue and cheeseweed. The proposed project
includes removal of the 5 walnut trees and one almond tree and replacing these
with 6 48-inch box coast live oak trees as part of proposed landscaping. None of
these are classified as protected or sensitive species. The LSA report notes that
wildlife species anticipated to be on the site includes Sierran treefrog, western
fence lizard, mourning dove, American crow, western scrub-jay, northern
mockingbird and house finch. None of these species are classified as protected
or sensitive wildlife species. Lack of candidate, special-status and protected
species on the site was confirmed in the WRA peer review report.
Although the unnamed creek tributary immediately south of the project site
does contain candidate, protected and special-status species, including
California red-legged frog (CRLF), a 6-foot chain link fence with a 4-foot sheet
metal CRLF barrier was constructed on the southern property line pursuant to
the City's adopted Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program
in approximately 2007 to preclude migration of the CRLF from the south onto the
project site. No changes to the existing barrier are proposed. However, the applicant
proposes to construct a secondary barrier within the project site that would be a 4-foot
solid block wall with an additional 2-,feet a,[ ornamental steel on top. The secondary
barrier would be located within the project site along the southern property line and
eastern property line. The project further proposes to extend the secondary CRLF
barrier on the eastern side of the project to preclude the migration of candidate,
protected and special status species from the Northern Drainage Conservation
Area onto the project site.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce
anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These are listed below and the project developer will be required to
comply with all applicable measures.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7 I 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat
loss (IM 3.7 I A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a
grazing management plan by the City of Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7 I 5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of
vegetation removal (IM 3.7 /B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation
Measure 3.7 I 5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as
quickly as possible.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7 I 6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or
degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7 I C) but not to a less-
than-significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be
taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas,
including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural
greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 38
October 2016
individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and
sedimentation plans and similar actions.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7 I 18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San
Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7 /D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures
require consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the
possibility of kit fox on project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides
and herbicides.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7 I 20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the tri-
colored blackbird (IM 3.7 I I) to a less-than-significant level. These
measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection
of impacted habitat areas. These measures also apply to burrowing owl
and badger species.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7 I 23.0-24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction
of Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7 /J) to a less-than-significant level.
These measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and
protection of impacted habitat areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7 I 25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden
Eagle foraging habitat (IM 3.7 /K) to a less-than-significant level. This
measure requires the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone
within the Eastern Dublin planning area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7 I 26.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and
other raptor electrocution (IM 3.7 I L) to a less-than-significant level. This
measure requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7 I 20.0, 27.0 reduced impacts related to American
badger (IM 3.7 /M, N) to a less-than-significant level. This measure
mandates a minimum buffer of 300 feet around burrowing owl nesting
sites and American badger breeding sites during the breeding season.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7 I 28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7 IS) to a less-than-significant level. This measure
requires follow-on special surveys for these species during appropriate
times of the year.
The unnamed tributary south of the site is subject to the requirements of the
"Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program" (City of Dublin,
1996). This document was prepared based on policies and programs contained
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and provides guidelines for the protection
and restoration of major and minor creeks in the Eastern Dublin planning area.
A minimum setback of 100-ft. from top of bank is established in this document
for major tributaries and 50-feet for minor tributaries unless an exception is
approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 39
October 2016
The setbacks serve a number ofpurposes, includingflood control as well as biological
protection. The Program further notes that biological setbacks for Tassajara Creek
tributaries can vary depending on several factors, including site conditions, local
topography, the presence a_[ environmental resources, the need to accommodate trails,
and the nature ofadjacent development. The LSA report identifies the adjacent creek is
a major tributary in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream
Restoration Program. As a major tributary, the Program establishes a 100-foot setback
from the top of the creek bank. The applicant is requesting an exception to this setback
and is proposing an average 50-foot structural setback based on a number o,(factors.
The first factor is current site conditions. The developable footprint of the site is fully
disturbed and contains a single family dwelling and accessory buildings many of which
are currently located within the 1 00-foot setback. The proposed project would be
contained within the current disturbedfootprint of the site. Another factor is the
absence of special-status species on the project site as documented in the LSA report.
Additionally, an existing CRLF barrier is in place along the southern property line to
prevent migration of the CRLF onto the project site. No changes to the existing barrier
are proposed. However, the applicant proposes to construct a secondary barrier within
the project site that would be a 4-foot solid block wall with an additional 2-feet of
ornamental steel on top. The secondary barrier would be located within the project site
along the southern property line and eastern property line. Due to the fact that, 1) the
project site is currently developed, 2) the proposed project will be constructed within
the disturbed footprint of the existing site, 3) there are no special-status species on the
project site, and 4) the existing CRLF barrier will be maintained on the southern
property line and a secondary barrier will be constructed along the southern and
eastern property lines, encroachment within the 100-foot setback will not have an
adverse impact on biological resources.
With respect to flood control, the adjacent creek was fully restored on/about 2007 and
has been designed to accommodate 100 year flood flows. The proposed project has been
designed to contain all stormwater runo[fon-site in a bioretention area where it would
be filtered and discharged into the City's storm drain system. During construction, the
project will be required to implement erosion control measures that will prevent
stormwater runo(ffrom the project site.
Although development of the proposed project would not have a significant
impact on candidate, protected or special-status wildlife species, the peer
review report by WRA (Attachment 2) recommends that the CRLF barrier
along the south side of the site be extended along the eastern edge of the
project site to prevent migration ofthe CRLF from the east onto the project site. The
following actions shall be taken to ensure that no impact occurs with respect to
potential impacts to candidate, protected and special-status species:
City of Dublin
Mitigation Measure BI0-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
project developer shall comply with the following:
a) The existing CRLF barrier along the south side of the site shall be
temporarily extended along the eastern edge of the project site so
that the site is fully inaccessible to the CRLF during construction.
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 40
October 2016
City of Dublin
Extension of the fencing shall be coordinated with a biologist
approved by the Dublin Community Development Department.
b) T~e temporary extension may be removed once the secondary barrier has
been constructed along the eastern property boundary.
£) Use of plastic mono-filament netting or similar material for erosion
control shall be prohibited on the site to ensure that no
entaglements with wildlife occur.
Mitigation Measure BI0-2. The project developer shall comply with
the following prior to the issuance of grading or demolition permit,
whichever occurs first:
a) Project grading and construction shall avoid disturbance to riparian
vegetation, including any area under the dripline of riparian trees
overhanging into the project site from the tributary. If disturbance
to riparian trees cannot be avoided, a Streambed Alteration
Agreement shall be obtained from the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
b) If demolition, grading and/ or tree removal on the site occur during
the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a pre-
construction bird survey (including raptors) shall be completed
within 30 days prior to initiation of demolition, grading and/ or
tree removal. If birds or their nests are found on the project site, a
100-foot buffer area around the nest(s) shall be established until the
birds have fledged. The width of the buffer may be reduced upon
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
c) If construction, tree removal or the removal or demolition of
buildings is initiated during the bat maternity period (April1
through August 31), a pre-construction bat emergence survey shall
be conducted within 30 days prior to initiation of construction, tree
removal or the removal or demolition of any building. Internal
entrance surveys shall be conducted if any buildings are to be
demolished at any time of year to determine if the building(s)
currently or previously supported roosting bats. If bats are found,
demolition shall be delayed and the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife shall be consulted.
Mitigation Measure BI0-3. Construction of the new, secondary CRLF
barrier inside the south side of the property and extension of the barrier inside
of the easterly property boundary shall adhere to the following requirements:
a) Construction of the new, secondary barrier along the southern and eastern
property lines, within the project site, and the temporary extension of the
existing CRLF barrier along the eastern property line, within the project
site, shall be accomplished without encroaching onto the adjacent
conservation easement areas and shall occur during the non-nesting or
breeding season for nearby birds.
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 41
October 2016
Impacts to Golden Eagle Nest
There is an active Golden Eagle nest located o;(fsite approximately 200-feet east of the
project location, in a row of mature eucalyptus trees. To assess the impacts of the
proposed projec_t on the eagle nest, the City commissioned a report from a
biologist/ornithologist experienced in golden eagle behavior from the firm of WRA. The
WRA eagle report is included in Attachment 1.
The nest structure is near the eastern edge of the eucalyptus stand, on the north side, and
visible to the naked eye from the eastern portion of the project site. At the time of the WRA
site visit in early May 2016, one eagle was observed on the nest, and it did not ,flush or
otherwise appear to be disturbed by the presence of the biologist or by other activities in the
general vicinity. To the best ~{WRA's knowledge, this nest site was first known to be
occupied in 2016. This is based on a letter to the City ~[Dublin from Colleen Lenihan dated
April22, 2016. Because golden eagles ~ften re-use individual nests across years, the nest
may be used again in subsequent years.
Direct project impacts. Direct impacts to the golden eagle nest tree (e.g., trimming or
completely removing the nest tree or adjacent trees) while the nest is active could result in
death or injury to eagle eggs or young and potentially adults as well, and would be a
potentially sign~ficant impact. However, the nest tree is located ~fj~{the project site
approximately 200-feet east ~[the site in a preserved open space are, and no homes, parking
areas or other improvements are proposed in or adjacent to the nest tree area. No direct
impacts to the tree and its immediate surrounds are anticipated as part ~f the proposed
project. Therefore, the potential for such direct impacts as a result ~{project construction is
considered low and would be less-than-signWcant.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act also involves protection from the loss or
degradation ofhabitat areas required for continued use of the vicinity by the golden eagle
pair. The project site is currently developed with active uses, including large and small
trucks delivering and picking up building materials as well as moving such materials
around on the proiect site. It does not contain trees of a suitable size or character to support
eagle nesting. Additionally, although Cal{fornia ground squirrels (a common prey item for
eagles in the region) inhabit the project site, the small size ~f the site, the developed nature
ofthe site and habitual human presence on the project site, and the availability of nearby
larger nearby preserved lands with grasslands and savannah for foraging all render the site
as incidental foraging habitat at best. Therefore, proposed project activities would not
result in a significant loss afar degradation to eagle habitat.
Project operational impacts. Project activities following construction (i.e., residential
use of the subdivision) are not expected to result in significant impacts to the eagle nest.
The eagle nest was built recently within 250 feet of an existing larger residential
subdivision to the south and within 300 feet ofa 72rivate school to the north, each with
unobstructed line-~f-site views from the nest site. Furthermore, the project site is currently
being used as a landscape materials storage yard with daily activity. This indicates that the
eagle is habituated to the existing conditions, including human activities, and would not be
significantly impacted by the operations ofa residential subdivision on the project site.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 42
October 2016
Project construction impacts. Indirect disturbances resultingfrom project-related
activities (e.g., noise, vibration and/or visual disruption from eagles viewing human
activity resultingfrom grading or construction) within the project Site have the potential
to adversely impact eagle nesting activities at the nearby nest site. {f the nest is active
(holding eggs or young) or otherwise being attended by eagles while such disturbances
occur, reduced reproductive ~ffort or success, including abandonment of the active nesL
may occur. This would be a sign~ficant impact. Implementation of the following measure
would reduce this impact to a less than signWcant level.
City of Dublin
Mitigation Measure BI0-4. The following measures shall be included in all
project construction plans and spec{fications.
a) All project construction shall occur between Tuly 1 and December 31, outside
of the greater eagle nesting season. Depending on the spec{fic golden eagle
pair, the Dublin Community Development Director may grant exceptions to
this requirement supported by technical information prepared by a qual{fied
biologist.
b) {fproject construction is scheduled to commence during the nesting
season, the following shall be implemented:
i) The known nest site near the profect site and other suitable nesting
substrates in a .25 mile vicinity shall be monitored by a qual{fied
biologist experienced in golden eagle behavior and approved by the City
o,fDublin and CDFW to determine whether a nest is active. Monitoring
visits shall be conducted starting Tanuary 1 and occur weekly at a
minimum through Tune 30 to ensure that the status ofthe nest (i.e., level
o,fattendance by adult eagles, known or presumed presence of eggs or
young) has been determined relative to the proposed project/construction
schedule. Proiect construction shall not commence while the nest is
' active. {f the nest is determined to be inactive, project construction may
commence as long as the nest remains inactive as determined by the
qual{fied biologist.
ii) {fa nest becomes active following the commencement o,fproject
construction activities, a qual{fied biologist shall constantly monitor the
nest during all construction activities. {f the birds exhibit abnormal
nesting behavior which may cause reproductive failure (nest
abandonment and loss a,{ eggs and/or young) the qual{fied biologist shall
have the authority to halt all profect construction activities. Project
construction shall not resume until the qual{fied biologist has consulted
with the City o,fDublin and CDFW and it is confirmed that the bird's
behavior has normalized or the young have l~ft the nest.
iii) Once the nest has become inactive as determined by the qual{fied
biologisL (e.g. ,following the fledging a,{ young), project construction
may continue without continual monitoring and shall revert to weekly
monitoring visits. ·
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 43
October 2016
In terms o,fpotentialloss o_fforaging area with the proposed development o,f the project, golden
eagles forage over broad areas and the close proximity o,f the project site to the eagle nest does
not necessarily indicate that it is important for foraging. The project site is relatively small
and has been ~ffectively developed for a number o,fyears, with a regular human presence on-
site and a school located directly adjacent. There are substantially larger, nearby preserved
and undeveloped lands that host ground squirrels, jackrabbits, and other golden eagle prey.
For these reasons, the project site provides incidental foraging habitat at best. Ther~fore, the
loss o,f the ground squirrel population within the project site would not constitute a
sign{ficant impact in terms o,fpotentialloss o,f,foraging habitat.
Rodenticide use. Introduction o,f toxic or otherwise harmful chemicals into the golden eagle
prey base (e.g., mice, rats, and ground squirrels) as a result o,fthe proposed project may pose
a potential indirect sign~ficant impact. Construction operations and residential subdivisions
and individuals occupying residences commonly use rodenticides to control the rodents such
as ground squirrels, mice, and rats. Because golden eagles may prey upon contaminated
rodents, the eagles themselves may incur adverse biological ~fleets such as reduced
fecundity, ability to forage, or death. The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
includes Conservation Action GOEA-4 to encourage land managers and yard maintenance
staff to use Integrated Pest Management CIPM) principles and cease using rodenticides in
exterior yard areas; ~(they are necessary, rodenticides should be used consistent with IPM
principles.
Mitigation Measure BI0-5. Rodenticides shall not be used outdoors, either
during project construction or after construction has finished, unless
absolutely necessary. The governing body o,fthe residential subdivision (e.g.,
Home Owners Association or equivalent) shall implement a restriction on the
use o,foutdoor rodenticides in their governing documents (e.g., Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions), unless absolutely required, and then they shall
be used consistent with IPM principles. IPM techniques include generally
limiting use of chemicals infavor of mechanical controlo,fpests.
Potential impacts to California red-legged frog species
As noted in the Environmental Setting section, above, the project site was thoroughly
reviewed by a qual{fied biological resources firm (LSA) who did not find any evidence of
California red-legged frogs on the project site and that due to the presence ofthe existing
4-foot metal barrier and the disturbed nature o,fthe project site, the project site does not
contain any evidence of red-legged frog occupancy. Similarly, the project site is not
expected to provide upland habitat for the CRLF because the existing 4-foot sheet metal
CRLF barrier prevents such movement in the project site direction.
However, to ensure that no CRLF species would be impacted by the proposed project, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure BI0-6. 30 days prior to commencing any grading activities or
any other activities that would disturb the ground su~face, a preconstruction survey
for CRLF shall completed by a qualified biologisL as approved by the Dublin
Community Development Department. ~fno CRLF are found to be present, grading
activities may be undertaken. If CRLF are found, all activity on the project site shall
cease and both the California Department ofFish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the
City of Dublin Page 44
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND October 2016
Wanmei Properties Project
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be contacted. Unless USFWS
authorizes relocation, any frogs found on-site must be allowed to leave the area on
their own.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
NNI. The project site consists of upland, non-wetland terrain as documented in
the LSA report (see Attachment 1). A wetland and riparian wetland area exists
just to the south of the site within an unnamed tributary of Tassajara Creek. No
new impacts would result from approval and construction of the proposed
project to wetlands or riparian habitat because redevelopment of the project site
would be limited to the existing disturbed footprint of the property; no
residential development is proposed in the wetland or riparian area offsite. No
changes to the existing CRLF barrier are proposed. However, the applicant proposes to
construct a secondary barrier within the project site that would be a 4-foot solid block
wall with an additional2-feet of ornamental steel on top. The secondary barrier would be
located on the proJect site within the southern property line and eastern property line.
Pursuant to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5 I 46.0, the City will
require the project developer to prepare a Storm Drainage Master Plan to
minimize flows of stormwater off of the project site. The project developer will
also be required to prepare and implement Best Management Practices during
construction and during the operation phase of the project to minimize flow of
polluted runoff into the adjacent creek area. Such BMPs will be as contained in
the ABAG Erosion Control Sediment Hand book and the State of California Best
Management Practices Handbook. These regulations require filtration and
treatment of storm water by flowing runoff through vegetated filters and similar
methods as approved by the City of Dublin.
With adherence to the above items, no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts would occur with respect to riparian habitat or federally or
state protected wetlands than previously analyzed in the prior EIR. No
additional analysis is required.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NNI. Development on the
project site is, and would continue to be, fenced off from the adjacent potential
fish and wildlife corridor present in the adjacent tributary (see Mitigation
Measure BI0-1). The fence/wall would preclude interaction between
subdivision residents and visitors and the tributary. There would therefore be
no interference with fish or wildlife movement within the tributary and no new
or substantially more severe significant impacts related to movement of fish or
wildlife species than previously analyzed in the prior EIR and no additional
analysis is required.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The
project lie within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS)
planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as
guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 45
October 2016
development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well.
The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and
mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development,
infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a
Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is
a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and
permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective
manner.
The proposed project is subject to compliance with the Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program which requires a 100-foot setback
from major tributaries and a 50-foot setback from minor tributaries unless an
exception is granted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The project
proposes an average 50-foot structural setback therefore an exception must be
approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The applicant is proposing an average 50-foot structural setback from the existing top of
creek bank in-lieu ofthe 100-foot wide setback set forth in the Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stieam Restoration Program. Portions of the project that would encroach
into the average 50·:foot structural setback include a water detention/retention basin,
landscaping, guest parking, private roadway, private porches and portions of residential
garages on Lots 8 and 19.
The existing site is fully developed within the 1 00-(oot setback and is actively used by
various landscape contracting businesses. The project proposes development within the
same ,footprint as the existing developed site and proposes to locate the single family homes
as far as practical from the top of creek bank. The creek corridor to the south is physically
separated from the project site by an existing CRLF barrier which would remain in place.
The future construction of the project and the proposed improvements within the 100-foot
setback would not result in signWcant impacts to special-status, protected or endangered
plant or wildl~{e species, since, as document in subsection "a," above, none have been
observed on the project site by qual{fied biologists. Mitigation Measure BI0-6 requires that
a pre-construction survey be conducted 30 days prior to any site disturbances to ensure
that no Cal~fornia Red Legged Frogs are on-site when construction commences. ~f CRLF is
.found BI0-6 prohibits the relocation unless directed by the United States Fish and Wildl~[e
Service. The existing CRLF barrier located on the southern edge of the project site would be
extended to fully enclose the eastern portion of the project site Extending the barrier would
preclude potential future migration of CRLF onto the project site ,from the south or east.
Ther~(ore, the continued encroachment o,{improvements within the 100-foot setback would
not result in a signWcant impact related to compliance with the Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 46
October 2016
5. Cultural Resources
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NNI. No historic
resources on the project site are identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although
one residential structure exists on the site, it is typical of existing dwellings
found along Tassajara Road in Eastern Dublin and does not qualify as a historic
resource. Development of the proposed project would result in no new or more
severe significant impacts related to historical resources than identified in the
prior EIR and no additional analysis is required.
b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological
resources, tribal resources, or human remains that may be interred outside of a formal
cemetery? NNI. No cultural resources are identified for the project site in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially
significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading,
trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/ or
paleontological resources on development sites within the Eastern Extended
Planning Area. Mitigation Measures 3.9 I 1.0 through 3.9 I 4.0 for Impact 3.9 I A
require subsurface testing for archeological resources, if such are found during
site disturbance; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development
of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant'' under
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (then Appendix K). Mitigation
Measures 3.9 I 5.0 and 3.9 I 6.0, also were adopted to address Impact 3.9 /B, the
potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources.
These measures require cessation of construction activities until uncovered
cultural resources can be assessed by a qualified archeologist and a remediation
plan approved by the City of Dublin consistent with CEQA Guidelines. These
measures would also protect any previously unidentified tribal resources if
encountered during construction.
The proposed project will be required to comply with above measures to
ensure these impacts will remain less-than-significant.
Development of the proposed subdivision would result in no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts related to subsurface
archeological, paleontological, or tribal resources, or human remains than
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is
required.
6. Geology and Soils
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? LS. The proposed project would allow construction of new dwellings
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 47
October 2016
on the site. Potential impacts related to soil and geologic impacts on future
residential construction are addressed in Seismic Safety Element of the Dublin
General Plan. This Element addresses impacts related to groundshaking,
ground rupture, and soil-based hazards, such as differential settlement,
liquefaction and landslides. Guiding Policy 8.2.l.A.1 of this Element states that
"geological hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away
from geological hazards in order to preserve life, protect property and
reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public
agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities."
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number impacts and related Mitigation
Measures to reduce anticipated geology and soils impacts for site-specific
development projects. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.611.0 reduced the primary effects of ground
shaking (Impact 3.6IB) by requiring conformity with seismic safety
requirements of applicable building codes. Even with adherence to this
mitigation, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.612.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the
secondary effects of seismic ground shaking to a less-than-significant
level (Impact 3.6 I C). These measures require placement of structures
set back from unstable landforms; stabilization of unsuitable land
forms; use of engineered retention structures and installation of
suitable subdrains and appropriate design of fill material; and,
preparation of design level geotechnical studies.
• Mitigation Measures 3.619.0 and 10.0 reduced impacts related to
substantial alteration of landforms in the Eastern Dublin area to a less-
than-significant level by limiting grading on steeply sloping areas and
by appropriate siting of roads and structures to minimize grading
(Impact 3.6ID).
• Mitigation Measures 3.6 I 11.0-13.0 reduced impacts related to shallow
groundwater to a less-than-significant level (Impacts 3.6IF and G).
These measures require submittal of detailed geotechnical
investigations to investigate possible risks of groundwater conditions
to proposed improvements, control of high groundwater through
installation of subdrains and removal of stock ponds then in the
Eastern Dublin area.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6114.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to shrink-
swell soil hazards to a less-than-significant level (Impact 3.6IH). These
measures require controlling moisture in the soil surrounding
individual development projects and appropriately designed
foundations.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6117.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural
slope stability to a less-than-significant level (Impact 3.6/I). These
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 48
October 2016
measures require appropriate siting of improvements to avoid
unstable soils, remedial grading where needed to remove unstable
soils and installation of subdrains and other improvements to
minimize soil stability impacts.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to stability
of cut-and-fill slope to a less-than-significant level (Impact 3.6/J).
These measures require minimizing the use of grading when siting
proposed improvements, conformance to local grading requirements,
minimizing the angle of cut-and-fill slopes to 3:1 and use of
engineering techniques to stabilize manufactured slopes.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6 I 27.0 and 28.0 reduced impacts related to
erosion and sedimentation to a less-than-significant level (Impacts
3.6/K and L). These measures require general limitations on grading to
avoid the rainy season of each year and require installation of erosion
control improvements.
The project site and proposed future improvements could be subject to
moderate to severe ground shaking due to seismic activity on regional faults as
well as potential ground failure as a result of liquefaction and landsliding into
the adjacent tributary. These impacts will be less-than-significant by adherence
to the above Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and compliance with the
City's grading regulations.
The City of Dublin Public Works Department will require, consistent with
Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and Dublin Municipal Code chapter
7.16 (Grading Regulations), the project developer to obtain a soils and
geotechnical report from a California registered geologist or equivalent to
assess soil conditions on the site and the presence of any potential soil hazards.
Depending on localized soil and geotechnical conditions, the report will
recommend site-specific grading and construction techniques to reduce
impacts related to seismic ground shaking, ground failure and landslide to a
less-than-significant level. Typically, such recommendations include but are
not limited to appropriate grading procedures, soil compaction, special designs
of building footings and foundations to withstand ground failure and similar
features. Construction and development of the project will result in no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts than have been previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? NNI. The
subdivider will be required by the City of Dublin to adhere to Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as set forth by the Alameda County Clean Water
Program to ensure less-than-significant impacts regarding substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil. BMPs would also avoid erosion into the adjacent
unnamed tributary. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 from
the Eastern Dublin EIR also require individual project developers to minimize
erosion off of project sites.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 49
October 2016
BMPs typically include but are not limited to installation of silt fences,
sandbags, desilting basins and similar measures to minimize substantial
erosion and loss of topsoil.
The project is subject to the City's Watercourse Protection Ordinance (Ordinance 52-87
and DMC chapter 7.20) which requires a 20-foot creek setback to safeguard watercourses
by preventing activities that would contribute significantly to flooding, erosion or
sedimentation. The project is also subject to the City a,{ Dublin Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program that requires a 100-foot wide setback from the
top o,fbankfrom the adjacent tributary to Tassajara Creek. These various setbacks are
depicted on Exhibit 7.
Encroachments into the 20-foot setback may be approved by the City's Public Works
Director. Portions o,f the proposed project, such as the private road and guest parking
spaces, would encroach into the required 20-foot setback area. The City a,( Dublin Public
Works Director may grant a setback encroachment {fit is determined that the proposed
encroachment would not increase on-or o,ffsite flooding or increase the amount o,f
sediment erodingfrom the project site into the creek.
The project is required to adhere to construction and post-construction erosion and
sediment controls to ensure that no sediment would erode into the adiacent creek.
Construction period sediment controls would consist a,( installation ~(silt fences and straw
bales along the boundary o,fthe profect to preclude runofffrom the site. Long-term
operational erosion and sediment controls to be implemented by the project developer would
include construction o,fa water quality pond in the south west portion o,f the site to collect
all stormwater and cleanse this water prior to discharge into the City's drainage system.
Ther~fore, there would not be a significant impact to increased sedimentation or erosion o,[f
ofthe site should the encroachment be approved by the City's Public Works Director.
With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and City
requirements to install erosion control BMPs to ensure that no sign{ficant erosion
or sedimentation would occur of!o,fthe profect site, no new or more severe
significant impacts would occur with respect to this project than have been
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive and that could result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? NNI. Potential geologic
impacts on future development in the Eastern Dublin area were analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
including but not limited to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-26.0 (identified
earlier in this Initial Study), will ensure that impacts related to unstable soils,
liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslide and other soil hazards will be less-
than-significant. Development of the proposed project would result in no new
or more severe significant impacts related to soil instability than previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI.
The City of Dublin will require proposed dwellings within the project to
connect to the local sewer system, maintained by the Dublin San Ramon
City of Dublin Page 50
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND October 2016
Wanmei Properties Project
Services District. No impacts would therefore result with regard to septic
systems.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Setting
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993, the issue of contribution of
greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as
evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State
CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of
greenhouse gasses. The topic of the project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions
and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Since the Eastern
Dublin EIR has already been approved, the determination of whether greenhouse
gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed
by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166
and Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not
required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).)
Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known
or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR. The issue of climate
change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to these CEQA reviews. The
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992.
The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was
extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses
of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid
2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in
California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the
recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential
environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order # S-03-05
establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in California. AB 32 was
adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was
known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993. Under
CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR
or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's
impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Project Impacts
a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As
discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA
Section 21166.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 51
October 2016
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project Impacts
a) Create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal hazardous materials? NI. Implementation of the proposed
project would not involve any industrial, manufacturing or similar land uses or
activities that would use, generate, transport or store significant quantities of
hazardous materials. Instead, the project would involve construction of a
housing development. No impact is anticipated with regard to this topic.
b, c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment or emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? LS/M. The topics of hazards and hazardous materials was not
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project site has been used as a
contractor's storage yard and for storage for vehicles, materials and similar
equipment for a number of years. There is a possibility of oil, gasoline and
other chemicals to be deposited in the soil. Grading of the site to create
building pads, the private street and trenching for underground utilities could
release potentially hazardous contaminants into the environment that would be
a significant impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
project applicant shall commission a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment from a qualified specialist to determine the presence or
absence of metal contaminants, petroleum deposits or other contaminants
above regulatory thresholds. If contaminated materials are detected on the
site at actionable levels, a Remediation Plan shall be prepared in
coordination with affected regulatory agencies and implemented prior to
commencement of grading operations. The Remediation Plan shall
include a worker safety plan, protections for employees and visitors on
adjacent properties and protection of the adjacent tributary.
Demolition of the existing structure on the site could release asbestos material
and/ or lead based paints into the environment, which would be a significant
impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
City of Dublin
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for
the existing structure, a licensed contractor shall determine the presence
or absence of lead based paints or asbestos material on the site. If found in
quantities at or above actionable levels as determined by the Alameda
County Fire Department and Dublin Building Department, these materials
shall be safely removed consistent with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) and other applicable standards and
disposed of in an appropriate location. Necessary permits and approvals
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 52
October 2016
shall be secured from appropriate regulatory agencies. The adjacent
tributary shall also be protected from migration of contaminated material.
d) Be listed on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied on the
Cortese List and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or
environment? NI. The site is not included on the Cortese List as of January 28,
2016. The Cortese List identifies one potentially contaminated site in Dublin,
which is the Parks RFTA (also known as Camp Parks). Parks RFTA is not
located near the project site and no impact would result with respect to this
topic.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip?
NI. The project site lies outside of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of
Livermore Municipal Airport (see Figure 3-1, Livermore Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan, County of Alameda, 2012). No impact would result with
respect to this topic.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Future housing units
constructed on the site will be located on private land, not public roads or
rights-of-way. The project has been reviewed by the Alameda County Fire
Department, Dublin Police Department and Community Development
Department to ensure that no interference with emergency plans would occur.
No impacts are anticipated with regard to this topic.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NNI. The area east
of the project site consists of undeveloped property within a conservation
easement area. Development of the proposed subdivision is subject to Eastern
Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/9.0 -12.0 and the City of Dublin Urban
Wildfire Management Plan that requires the project developer to incorporate
fire safety components, including buffer zones, exterior irrigation, fire trails
and fire breaks. With adherence to these measures, no new or substantially
more severe significant impact would result than has previously been analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NNI.
Construction of new dwellings anticipated in the proposed project are planned
for in the current Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
have been included in the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
wastewater master planning by the District. District wastewater facilities do
not exceed Regional Water Quality Control Board waste discharge
requirements or water quality standards (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD,
9/17/14).
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 53
October 2016
In addition, regarding surface water quality impacts, the City of Dublin
enforces the most recent NPDES water quality standards to ensure that
potentially polluted runoff from upland sites is prevented from entering into
creeks, streams and other bodies of water. This occurs during City review of all
development applications, including the project's proposed water quality pond
in the southwest corner of the site.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impact would result than
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is
required.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NNI.
The source of water to all dwellings in the City of Dublin is imported water
supplied by DSRSD and Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District
that relies primarily on imported water from other sources. Although Zone 7
does use local groundwater to augment the local water supply, the District
notes that groundwater resources are managed to ensure that no impact would
occur (source: letter from Elke Rank, Zone 7, 10115114).
Mitigation Measures 3.5149.0 and 50.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
minimized the impact of reduced groundwater recharge areas to an
insignificant level (Impact 3.5 I Z). The two Mitigation Measures require that
facilities be planned and management practices selected that protect and
enhance water quality and that Zone 7 programs for groundwater recharge be
supported.
There would be no new or more severe significant impact with lowering of the
water table or reducing the amount of groundwater recharge areas than
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is
required.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that
substantial siltation or erosion would occur? NNI. Construction of future housing
units could result in a greater quantity of stormwater runoff as a result of
increasing the amount of impervious surfaces. The City of Dublin enforces
Best Management Practices included in the Alameda County Clean Water Plan
to minimize siltation and erosion from individual sites, including the project
site. These include both construction and post-construction BMPs, including
but not limited to requiring installation of silt fences and straw bales on
construction sites and frequent sweeping of parking areas, covering of solid
waste dumpsters and other post-construction measures, such as the proposed
water quality pond. Implementation of BMPs is required for all new
development, so there would be no significant erosion impacts from altered
drainage patterns.
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5 I 44.0-48.0 reduced the potentially
significant impact of flooding from increased runoff (Impact 3.5IY). These
measures require storm drainage master planning (MM 3.5 I 46.0); natural
channel improvements wherever possible (MM 3.5 I 45.0); drainage facilities
City of Dublin Page 54
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND October 2016
Wanmei Properties Project
that minimize any increased potential for erosion or flooding (MM 3.5 I 44.0);
and, provision of facilities to control downstream flooding (MM 3.5 I 47.0).
These measures are applied to new housing developments in Eastern Dublin,
including the proposed project, to reduce impacts to drainage patterns and
erosion to a level of insignificance.
The project applicant has requested City approval of an encroachment for project
improvements within the required 20-foot setbackfrom top o,fbank o,fthe existing
watercourse immediately south o,fthe project site. An encroachment into the 100-foot
wide setbackfrom the top o,fbank of the adjacent creek as established by the Eastern
Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program has also been requested. Such an
encroachment must be approved by the Cal{fornia Department o,fFish & Wildl{fe.
Exhibit 7 shows the location o,f the City-required 20 foot setback from top o,f bank from
the creek on the project site, the 100-foot setback required by the Comprehensive
Stream Restoration Program and the average 50 foot-wide setback.
The Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program notes that setbacks are not fixed, but
/1 erosion and hydrologic conditions may allow for flexibility in the biological setbacks
for tributaries (p.592. /1 An applicant's revised setbacks should be just{fied based on
flood flows, existing vegetation, quality ofhabitat, bank conditions and treatments and
current and proposed land uses (p. 59).
For this project, no signWcant impacts are anticipated with respect to impacts to
special-status, candidate or otherwise protected biological species since the site has
been developedfor a dwelling and enclosed and open storage o,fconstruction materials
for a long period o,f time. The City-required erosion control plan would direct all
project stormwater runoff to an on-site water quality plan prior to discharge into the
City's stormwater system. Therefore, there would be no sign{ficant impacts to erosion
or flood flows into the adjacent creek should the encroachment into the creek setback be
approved by the California Department ofFish & Wildl{(e.
Development of the proposed project would result in no new or more severe
significant impacts related to soil erosion than previously analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required.
d,e) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project
site, create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? NNI. Refer to item "c," above. No
new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated with respect to this
topic.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? NNI. The City of Dublin requires all
individual development projects, including the proposed project, to meet Best
Management Practices to ensure that water quality would be protected. Best
Management Practices are described above in Section 9c of this Initial Study.
In addition, Mitigation Measures 3.5 I 52.0 -55.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin
EIR reduced the impact of non-point source pollution into local waterways,
including urban runoff, non-stormwater discharges, subsurface drainages and
City of Dublin Page 55
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND October 2016
Wanmei Properties Project
construction runoff (Impact 3.5 I AA). Implementation of the prior Mitigation
Measures requires each development to prepare project-specific water quality
investigations addressing this issue. For the project, this is reflected in the
proposed water quality pond in the southwest corner of the site and
implementation of the BMPs described above
Development of the housing units would result in no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts related to water quality than previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required.
g-i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance
Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? Nil. The project
site is located adjacent to and on the north side an unnamed tributary of
Tassajara Creek. Based on discussions with the City of Dublin staff, a 100-year
flood zone was established for the tributary adjacent to the site when a
restoration plan was prepared and subsequently implemented. All habitable
improvements proposed for the project would be located outside of a 100-year
flood hazard zone (source: Jayson Imai, Dublin Public Works Department
10 I 10 I 14). No impacts would result with respect to this topic.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NNI. The project site is
located inland from major bodies of water so there is no potential for
inundation by seiche or tsunami. As to mudflows, Mitigation Measures
3.6 I 17.0 through 19.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR provide protection
from slope failures of natural slopes (Impact 3.6/I) by limiting new
development on unstable soils, removal and replacement of unstable soils and
similar actions. No new or more significant severe impacts would occur with
respect to this topic than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no
additional analysis is required.
10. Land Use and Planning
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. Construction of future dwellings
would be allowed based on the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The site is substantially surrounded by existing development, a
major road and a conservation easement to the east and would not physically
divide an established community. No impacts are anticipated.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. No amendments
are required to the Dublin General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to
allow construction of anticipated dwellings. The proposed project is subject to
compliance with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration
Program which requires a 100-foot setback from major tributaries and a 50-foot
setback from minor tributaries unless an exception is granted by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The project proposes an average 50-foot
structural setback therefore an exception must be approved by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Additionally, the project is subject to the
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 56
October 2016
City's Watercourse Protection Ordinance (Ordinance 52-87 and DMC chapter
7.20) which requires a 20-foot creek setback to safeguard watercourses by
preventing activities that would contribute significantly to flooding, erosion or
sedimentation. Encroachments into this setback may be approved by the City's
Public Works Director. Portions of the proposed project, such as the private
road and guest parking spaces, would encroach into the required 20-foot
setback therefore approval of a setback encroachment must be granted by the
Public Works Director. Even with these exceptions, no impacts are anticipated
with respect to this topic since the project site does not contain any special
status species and the existing CRLF barrier will be extended along the eastern edge
of the project site to preclude migration of any special status species onto the
project site.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI.
No such plan has been adopted within the City of Dublin. There would
therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
11. Mineral Resources
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources?
NI. No impacts would occur to any mineral resources, since no such resources
are identified in the Dublin General Plan.
12. Noise
(Note: this portion of the Initial Study is based on a site-specific acoustic report
prepared for the project by the firm of RGD ("Environmental Noise Impact Study for
6237 Tassjara Road, Dublin CA," dated March 10, 2016. This report is included as
Attachment 2 to this Initial Study and incorporated herein by reference.)
Project Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? LS/M. Approval and
construction of the proposed project would add new dwelling units to a largely
vacant site. New auto trips would be added to the local and regional road
network and would potentially increase roadway noise along Tassajara Road.
The topic of noise was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Mitigation
Measure ;3.10/1.0 reduced impacts to housing located along major roadways to
a less-than-significant level by requiring developers of housing projects
proposed within a future 60 decibel CNEL noise contour to complete an
acoustic analysis to ensure that City and State noise standards can be achieved.
This measure has been addressed by preparation of the RGDL acoustic
analysis. Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 for Impact 3.10/D similarly requires
acoustic analyses for housing sites near Parks RFTA for compliance with City
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 57
October 2016
noise exposure levels; however, even with this mitigation, Impact 3.10/D was
determined to be significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was approved (City Council Resolution No. 53-93).
The Eastern Dublin EIR also determined that residences in existence as of
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR would be subject to increased roadway
noise and that mitigation of this impact to a less-than-significant level was
infeasible (Impact 3.10/B). This significant and unavoidable impact was
included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was adopted with
approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (City Council Resolution No. 53-
93).
Traffic impacts. The Noise Element of the City's General Plan considers a CNEL of
60 dBA or less as normally acceptable for residential development. The existing
noise level at homes closest to Tassajara Road (Lots 1 and 17) is a CNEL of 68 dBA.
In the future (2035), traffic noise levels are expected to increase by 1 dBA due to
increased traffic. This increase in future traffic would result in a future CNEL of 69
dBA at the closest homes. This would be a potentially significant impact.
According to MM 3.10/1.0 of the East Dublin SPEIR, an acoustical study must be
prepared to show how interior noise levels must be reduced to CNEL of 45 dBA.
For exposure to traffic noise, the Dublin General Plan establishes a CNEL of 60dB
or less as normally acceptable and 61-70 dB as conditionally acceptable for
residential uses. Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation
features in building design. Historically, the City has applied a CNEL of 65dB or
less as a goal for outdoor use areas such as private balconies, backyards and
common outdoor use areas. The project proposes the construction of an 8-foot tall
solid wall along the Tassajara Road frontage to reduce noise levels in private
backyards. To ensure that an exterior noise level of 65dB or less is achieved,
adherence to the following mitigation measure will reduce any potential impact to
a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. An acoustic consultant acceptable to
the City of Dublin Community Development Director shall review
final grading and design plans prior to issuance of a building permit to
ensure:
a) The exact height, length, location and design of the barrier wall
shall be sufficient to reduce noise in active outdoor use areas to
a CNEL of 65 dBA or less.
b) Window, door and exterior wall designs are sufficient to reduce
interior noise to a CNEL of 45 dBA or less.
Noise from Adjacent Quarry Lane School. Proposed residents would be exposed to
noise from school activities such as the sound of children playing outdoors from
Quarry Lane School, north of the site. During the site visit sounds of children
playing at the fenced in play area toward the east end of the project site was
documented. Based on those measurements, the noise from these activities would
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 58
October 2016
not exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA under a 11Worst case" scenario when children were
playing outdoors continuously from 7 am to 7 pm.
Although the sounds of children playing would be clearly audible, they would not
exceed the City's Noise Element standard of CNEL 60 dBA. Therefore, this is
considered less than significant. Although no mitigation is required, it is
recommended that future prospective homeowners be made aware of the presence
of the school play areas and associated noises of children playing.
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) and Alameda County Tail and
Sheriffs Office Training Facility. Activities at Parks RFTA that generate noise
include weapons training and helicopter overflights. At the Alameda County
facility there are small arms firing ranges and "scenario village" for police training
involving simulated enforcement and hostage situations.
According to the East Dublin Specific Plan DEIR (Impact IM 3.10/D) noise from
these activities have the potential to significantly impact the specific plan area and
as a result, the DEIR identified mitigation measure MM 3.10/3.0 which required an
acoustical study be prepared prior to future development in areas potentially
affected by this noise. The project site is located in one of those areas. The
completion of the RGD fulfills this Mitigation Measure with the finding of no
significant impact.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS.
The project does not include ground vibration sources that would affect the
neighboring land uses. Construction equipment can generate potentially
noticeable ground vibration. However, the distance between the project site and
the nearest buildings (at Quarry Lane School) is 28 feet, and ground vibration from
sources such as bulldozers and vibratory rollers would attenuate sufficiently with
this distance to a level that could be occasionally noticeable but would not
represent a significant risk for damage to existing structures. This impact would be
less-than-significant.
c,d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in permanent in ambient noise levels?
NNI. Future residential development on the site could cause a temporary
increase in ambient noise levels as a result of construction activities, including
but not limited to demolition of the existing structure, site grading and
preparation, and construction of dwellings and related site improvements. The
Eastern Dublin EIR includes Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 to reduce
construction noise impacts to a level of insignificance through preparation and
submittal of Construction Noise Management Plans to ensure compliance with
local noise standards.
Development on the project site must adhere to the Eastern Dublin Mitigation
Measures cited above and there will be no new or more severe significant
temporary noise impacts from construction activities than previously analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required. For potential
permanent increases in noise levels, see item "a", above.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 59
October 2016
e,f) Be located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a public or private
airport or airstrip? NNI. The project site lies outside of the Airport Influence
Area (AIA) of Livermore Municipal Airport (see Figure 3-1, Livermore
Municipal Airport. Land Use Compatibility Plan, County of Alameda, August
2012). As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR the 60 CNEL noise contour from the
Livermore Municipal Airport does not extend into the Eastern Extended
Planning area. No new or more significant severe impacts would occur with
respect to this topic than previous! y analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no
additional analysis is required.
13. Population and Housing
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NNI.
The project site has been planned to accommodate the proposed level of
residential uses included in this project, as documented in the Dublin General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. No substantial population growth
would be induced in this portion of Dublin. No new or more severe significant
impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic than previously analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people
requiring replacement housing? NI. Although a single-family dwelling exists on
the site and would be removed to accommodate project improvements.
removal of the residence would not displace a substantial number of dwellings
or population and no impact would result.
14. Public Services
Environmental Impacts
a) Fire protection? NNI. The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County
Fire Department for fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue and fire
inspection services. Additional housing constructed as part of the project could
result in an increase in the number of calls for emergency services. The
potential for increases in such calls have been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR.
Identified impacts to the provision of fire service were reduced to a less-than-
significant level in the Eastern Dublin EIR by adherence to Mitigation Measures
3.4/6.0 through 11.0. These measures require the timing of facilities to coincide
with new service demand from development; establishment of appropriate
funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital fire improvements;
acquisition of future fire stations in Eastern Dublin; and incorporation of Fire
Department safety recommendations into the design of all future individual
development projects in Eastern Dublin.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 60
October 2016
Future residential development in the Eastern Extended Planning Area,
including the proposed project, is subject to the above Mitigation Measures to
reduce fire service impacts to a less-than-significant level. Future site-specific
developments are also required to pay City of Dublin fire impact fees, which
include funds to construct new local fire facilities.
A representative of the Alameda County Fire Department has reviewed this
proposed project and has found that no new or expanded fire facilities would
be required to serve the additional population included in the proposed project
(Bonnie Terra, ACFD, 9/16/14). No new or substantially more severe
significant impacts would result from the proposed project than previously
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required.
b) Police protection? NNI. Similar to fire service, there would likely be an increase
in the number of calls for service to the Dublin Police Department based on an
increase in residential development.
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR included Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0 that
provides additional personnel and facilities and revisions to police beats as
necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police
protection service in Eastern Dublin. Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0 reduced
impacts to the Police Department by requiring incorporation of safety measures
into the requirements of future development projects, appropriate budgeting of
police services by the City and police review of individual development
projects in the Eastern Dublin area. These mitigation measures continue to
apply to this development project.
A representative from the Dublin Police Department has review the proposed
project and found that no new or more significant severe impacts would result
from project approval and construction (Capt. Tom McCarthy, 9/12/14). No
new or more significant severe impacts would result from the proposed project.
c) Schools? LS. Public educational services in Dublin are provided by the Dublin
Unified School District. The District maintains a number of K-12 schools
throughout Dublin. There are also a number of private educational facilities in
the community. Future dwellings included in the project were anticipated in
the Eastern Dublin EIR and would generate additional school-aged children
that would need to be accommodated by local schools, however new
residential development is subject to statutory school impact fees which will
provide for new public educational facilities in the community. Therefore,
impacts to schools are anticipated to be less-than-significant.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Any new public facilities that
would be constructed as part of the project would be constructed to City
standard so that a less than-significant impact would occur. The project
roadway would be a private facility and would not require City maintenance.
e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item 17 (f-g), below.
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 61
October 2016
15. Recreation
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NNI.
New dwellings built as a result of the proposed project would require new or
expanded parks in order to maintain the City's park goal. City park goals are to
provide a total of 5 usable acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which includes
3.5 acres of larger community parks per 1,000 residents and 1.5 acres of smaller
neighborhood parks and squares per 1,000 residents. The City also encourages
development of an integrated trail network and other open spaces which are not
included in the park ratio goals (source: City of Dublin Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, 2012). The City of Dublin requires housing developers to either
dedicate parkland to the City to meet City goals or pay an in-lieu public facility
fee that includes funding to allow the City to purchase parkland.
Potential impacts with respect to increased demand for park facilities as a result
of residential construction were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Impact
3.4/K identified a potentially significant impact with demand for increased park
facilities as a result of buildout of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. A
number of Mitigation Measures were included in the EIR to reduce this impact
to a less-than-significant impact. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0
through 28.0 addressed park mitigations. These measures called for the
acquisition and development of additional parks in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area, establishment of a continuous open space network that includes
natural open spaces, and required preparation of a Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
As allowed by City regulations, the applicant has proposed to pay park in-lieu
fees to the City of Dublin to satisfy park dedication requirements. No new or
more severe significant impacts would result with respect to this topic that has
not been previously analyzed.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NNI. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities
although additional park and recreation facilities would be required to serve the
increased population as a result of residential construction. A bike lane would
be installed along the project frontage, although this would be an off-site
improvement. The applicant has proposed to pay in-lieu fees to the City of
Dublin instead of constructing on-site recreational facilities as allowed by City
ordinance. No new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect
to this topic that has not been previously analyzed.
16. Transportation/Traffic
Project Impacts
a, b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and
street; or exceed LOS standards established by the County CMA for designated roads?
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 62
October 2016
NNI. There would likely be increases in traffic on local roads, regional roads
and freeways as a result of approving and constructing the proposed project.
Impacts of local and regional traffic from residential development have been
analyzed in the prior Eastern Dublin EIR. Many impacts related to
transportation and traffic can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by
construction of roadway and other transportation improvements; however, as
noted below, a number of transportation impacts have been determined to be
significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Impacts and mitigations from the Eastern Dublin EIR dealing with traffic and
transportation include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0 were adopted which reduced
impacts on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680
north of I-580 to a level of insignificance (Impact 3.3/ A and D).
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce
impacts on the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the I-580/680
interchange (Impacts 3.3/B, C and E). Even with mitigations, however,
significant cumulative impacts remained on I-580 freeway segments
between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of 2010,
on other segments of I-580 (Impact 3.3/B and E) and this impact was
included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (City Council
Resolution No. 53-93).
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/ 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 11.0 and 12.0 were adopted to
reduce impacts to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda
Drive/I-580 Eastbound Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road/ I-580 Westbound
Freeway Ramps, Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Freeway Ramps, Airway
Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps and along El Charro Road to
a level of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of
additional lanes at intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the
neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify
on-ramps and off-ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination
with Cal trans to modify certain interchanges. Development projects within
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area are also required to contribute a
proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional improvements through the
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program and the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee program (Impacts 3.3/F, G, HI, K and L).
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce cumulative
impacts on identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara
Road (Impact 3.3/M and N). The identified improvements reduced
Tassajara Road impacts to less than significant but Dublin Boulevard
impacts remained significant and unavoidable due to road widening
limitations. The impact at the Dublin Boulevard intersection was included
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (City Council Resolution No.
53-93).
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 63
October 2016
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0 to 15.3, 16.0 and 16.1 generally require
coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide
pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings (Impact
3.3 I 0 and P). These mitigations reduced the impacts to less-than-
significant.
Construction of the proposed project would generate an estimated 15 a.m. peak
hour trips, 19 p.m. peak hour trips and a total of 175 trips as shown on Table 2.
This estimate is likely conservative in that no deductions are taken for existing
trips to and from the project site. According to the City's traffic engineer, this
amount of project traffic would not generate a significant near-term or
cumulative traffic impact on local roads, regional roads or freeways (Obaid
Khan, Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin 10/13/14)
Table 2. Project Trip Generation
No. Dwellings A.M Peak P.M Peak Total Daily
Trips Trips Trips
Proposed 19 15 19 175
Development
Note: Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, gth edition
Based on the above, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts
with respect to traffic increases on local or regional roads, or Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) roads than previously analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. No additional analysis is required.
c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NNI. The proposed project would have
no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a residential subdivision in
Eastern Dublin.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS.
Proposed subdivision improvements have been reviewed by the City of Dublin
staff to ensure that City public works and engineering standards are met and
no traffic or transportation design hazards would be created. This would be a
less-than-significant impact.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NNI. Result in inadequate emergency access?
NNI. No impacts would occur with regard to emergency access. Residential
development would be on lands planned for urban development and subject to
City design standards for streets, fire and emergency access and other
improvements. The proposed project has been reviewed by the Dublin Public
Works Department and the Alameda County Fire Department to ensure that
adequate emergency access is provided. The road system for the proposed
subdivision has been reviewed by the Alameda County Fire Department staff
for consistency with Fire Department normal and emergency access. The Fire
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 64
October 2016
Department confirms that the design of the proposed project road is consistent with fire
access road requirements (Darrell Tones, Alameda County Fire Department, 6/23/16)
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
modes? NNI. The proposed project has been reviewed by the City of Dublin
Public Works Department to ensure the installation of sidewalks along adjacent
roads, a bike lane along the project frontage and transit stops (as appropriate
and as approved by the local transit agency). On-site bicycle parking would be
allowed within private garages attached to each dwelling. Therefore, no
impacts would result in terms of conflicts with policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation modes.
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NNI. Potentially
significant impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity and consistency
with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements were
analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and Impacts IM 3.5/ A through E and
G generally addressed the then lack of a wastewater service provider as well as
lack of a collection, treatment and disposal system. These impacts were
reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures
3.5/1.0a to 9.0 and 11.0 through 14.0 that required development of adequate
wastewater services and adherence to the Dublin San Ramon Services District's
Master Plan to upgrade the RWCQB-permitted capacity to accommodate
planned growth in the Eastern Extended Planning Area.
In terms of this proposal, a staff representative from the Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD) notes that the District has assumed residential
development on the project site for long-term master planning for wastewater
treatment and disposal services (Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 9/17/14). Therefore,
wastewater discharge requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board would not be exceeded and no new or more significant severe impacts
would be created than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no
additional analysis is required.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
NNI. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires the extension of both water and
wastewater improvements to serve future development proposed within
Eastern Dublin. A representative from DSRSD notes that the District has
assumed development of 20 units on this site and that the District can provide
water and waste water facilities without new or expanded facilities (Stan
Kolodzie, DSRSD, 9/17/14). No new or more severe significant impacts would
result with respect to this topic that has not been previously analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 65
October 2016
c) Require new storm drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities? NNI See
Hydrology section, 9(c, d, and e).
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NNI. The issue of an adequate long-term
water supply for the Eastern Extended Planning Area was analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. Impact 3.5 I Q identified a potentially significant impact
with an increased demand for water. The Eastern Dublin EIR included
Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 to 31.0 to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level. These measures required imposition of water conservation
techniques, implementation of water recycling and adding water supply
improvements.
The primary "retail" supplier of water in Dublin, Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD), prepared a comprehensive update to their Urban Water
Management Plan in 2010 to indicate that future site-specific development
projects included in the Dublin General Plan could be supplied with an
adequate amount of water. DSRSD has also commenced construction of a
recycled (reclaimed) water supply system in the Eastern Dublin area that
would supply non-potable irrigation water for future developments in the City
of Dublin. ·
Consistent with DSRSD's utility master planning through its Urban Water
Management Plan that anticipated development of the project site, the District
has indicated that a sufficient long-term supply of water can be provided to the
site as cited above. Future dwellings constructed as part of the project mat be
subject to water limitations based on future drought conditions, similar to all
other DSRSD water users. No new or more severe significant impacts would
result with respect to this topic that has not been previously analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? NNI. See item "a,"
above.
f,g) Solid waste disposal? NNI. Solid waste generation and disposal was found to be
a potentially significant impact in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR (see Impact
3.4/0 and P). Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.7 I 37.0 through 40 reduced
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures required
preparation of a solid waste management plan and updating of the City's
Source Reduction and Recycling Element/Household Hazardous Waste
Element.
There would be no new or more severe significant impacts related to solid
waste disposal than identified in the prior EIR and no additional analysis is
required
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 66
October 2016
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project
would not have a significant adverse impact on biological or cultural resources
or have the potential to restrict the range of rare or endangered species, beyond
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future
projects). No, cumulative impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed
in a prior EIR as identified in the Earlier Analysis section of this Initial Study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. Based on the preceding Initial
Study, no substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly have
been identified beyond those in the prior EIR
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 67
October 2016
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager and principal author
Tom Fraser, WRA, biological peer review
Jane Maxwell, report graphics
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Luke Sims, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner
Obaid Khan, City Transportation Engineer
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
Darrell Tones, Alameda County Fire Department
Jayson Imai, Senior Civil Engineer
Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney
Chief Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services (former)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
DSRSD
Stan Kolozdie
Zone 7
Elke Rank
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 91103064, May 10, 1993).
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, June 1996
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, City of Dublin,
June 1996
Municipal Code, City of Dublin
Dublin General Plan, updated through November 2014
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, updated through October 2014
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 68
October 2016
Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan, September 15,
2010
Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS), October 2010
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, July 2014
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2012 update
Dublin San Ramon Services District, Urban Water Management Plan, 2010 Update
Urban Wildfire Management Plan, City of Dublin, November 2010
6237 Tassajara Road Biological Resources Peer Review, WRA, October 2014
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Page 69
October 2016
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Attachtnent 1-
Biological Report
Peer Review Report
Golden Eagle Report
Page 70
October 2016
L sA I
LSA ASSOCIATES)
!57 PARK PLACE
PT. RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 91·801
January 15, 2014
Mr. Dennis Liu
Wanmei Properties, LLC
520 Mill Creek Road
Fremont, CA 94539
510.236.6810 TEL
5]0.236.3>1-80 FAX
DERKEC.
CARLS l\A D
fORT COLLINS
Subject: Biological Resources Report for the 6237 Tassajara Road Property
Dublin, Alameda County, California
Dear Mr. Liu:
FRESNO
IRVINE
PALM SPRINGS
RIVERSIDE
ROCKLIN
SAN LUIS OllloPO
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) has completed a reconnaissance-level biological survey of your 2.64-acre
property (site) and adjacent stream corridor at 6237 Tassajara Road in the City ofDublin (City). The
purpose of the survey was to document existing biological resources on and adjacent to the site for
purposes of determining applicability of local stream protection policies to any future development.
This report includes (I) a brief description of existing habitat conditions on and adjacent to the site
(i.e., stream corridor), (2) an overview of the conservation purposes of the adjacent Northern
Drainage Conservation Area and how they could affect site development, (3) an overview of City
policies regarding stream setbacks and how they could be applied to the site, and (4) an overview of
the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) and its potential application to site
development.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
LSA wildlife biologist Matt Ricketts visited the site and adjacent stream corridor on November 14,
2013. Mr. Ricketts recorded observations of plant and wildlife species on the site and along the
adjacent stream corridor into a field notebook and noted the condition of the existing chain-link fence
along the southern site boundary. Observations from each area are summarized below.
6237 Tassajara Road Property
The entire site has been developed and currently serves as a storage yard for old vehicles and other
equipment, and landscape contractor yard. With the exception of a few walnut (Juglans sp.) and
almond (Prunus sp.) trees (i.e., ornamental and/or remnant orchard trees) and weedy vegetation
growing in the southwest corner, the site is devoid of vegetation due to development. The empty lot at
the southwestern corner of the site supports scattered annual grasses and ruderal herbaceous species
such as wild oat (Avenafatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca
echioides), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). A few native California poppies (Eschscholzia
californica) are also present. A 6-foot-high chain link fence with a 3 .5-foot-high sheet metal barrier
along its base extends along the southem site boundary. The sheet metal barrier was specifically
installed to prevent animals from moving from the adjacent Northem Drainage Conservation Area
(see below) stream con·idor onto the site (Cathy Little, pers. comm.).
1/15/14 (P:\WMPJ30J\6237 Tassajara Bio Rpt-v2.doc)
I'LANNINC ENVIRON~IENT1\I. SCIENCES IH:SJON
RECEIVED
MAY 21:2014
DUBLIN PLANNING
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Wildlife species expected to occur on the site include common rural-adapted species such as Sierran
treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos),
northern mockingbird (Minzus polyglottos), and house finch (Cwpodacus mexicanus). The
ornamental trees provide nesting habitat for common bird species. Cotm11on mammals such as Botta's
pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), northern raccoon (Procyon
lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), roof rat (Rattus rattus), and house mouse (Mus
musculus) are also likely to occur.
No wetlands or other features potentially subject to regulatory jurisdiction (e.g., U.S. Am1y Corps of
Engineers [Corps] under the federal Clean Water Act) are present on the site.
Stream Corridor
The site is located immediately notth of a stream channel that is located within the 267 -acre Northern
Drainage Conservation Area unit of the Dublin Ranch Preserve, managed by the Center for Natural
Lands Management (CNLM). The 717-acre preserve was established in 2010 as mitigation for the
nearby Dublin Ranch development project (see below). The stream is an unnamed tributary to
Tassajara Creek, which flows to the west of the site. Woody vegetation along the approximately 880-
foot channel section that parallels the southern site boundary consists of native species that have been
planted as mitigation for the nearby Dublin Ranch development. The upper portions ofthe channel
bank supports remnant orchard h·ee snags likely retained as habitat for cavity-nesting birds, planted
valley oak (Quercus lobata) saplings, and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) shrubs. Native riparian
tree and shrub species planted on the lower bank and adjacent to the channel include box elder (Acer
negundo ), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), poison oak
(Toxicodendron diversilobum), and California rose (Rosa californica).
Wildlife observed along the stream channel include Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttalli), red-
breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber) (holes), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), bushtit
(Psaltriparus minimus), mourning dove, western scrub-jay, nmthem mockingbird, and house finch.
The increased structural diversity of the riparian trees and shrubs provides foraging and nesting
habitat for additional bird species such as western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculatus), song span·ow (Melospiza melodia), and American goldfinch (Spinus tristis). The
increased ground cover provides cover and foraging habitat for amphibians and reptiles such as
California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris),
western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), racer (Coluber constrictor), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and
common garter snake (T7wmnophis catenifer). In addition to the mammal species identified above,
the stream conidor provides habitat for species such as deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus),
California vole (Microtus cal!fornicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), black-tailed
jaclcrabbit (Lepus californicus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and coyote (Canis latrans).
LOCAL POLICIES AFFECTING SITE DEVELOPMENT
Northern Drainage Conservation Area-Dublin Ranch Preserve
As mentioned above, the site abuts the Northern Drainage Conservation Area (NDCA) unit of the
Dublin Ranch Preserve (preserve) to the south. The preserve was established in 2010 and is currently
managed by the CNLM as habitat for the following special-status species:
1/15/14 (P:\WMPI301\6237 Tassajnra Bio Rpt-v2.doc) 2
LSA ASSOClATI!S, INC.
• California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) -listed as threatened under federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA)
• California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) -listed as threatened under federal ESA
and California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
• Golden eagle (Aquila cluysaetos)-California Fully Protected Species
• Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)-California Species of Special Concern
• San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macro tis mutica) -listed as endangered under federal ESA and
threatened under CESA
Based on LSA's experience in the Dublin-San Ramon region, these species are the primary ones of
concern to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department ofFish and Wildlife
(CDFW), and local municipalities when evaluating potential development impacts on biological
resources. None of these species are expected to occur on the site due to past and ongoing
disturbance and consequent lack of habitat. California red-legged frogs (CRLF) are known to occur in
the NDCA (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2001, LSA 2013) and could potentially move and forage along
the adjacent stream corridor, but would be prevented from moving onto the site by the sheet metal
barrier at the base of the fence that parallels the southern site boundary. The stream corridor and
annual grasslands to the east are known to support CTS which potentially move through the area. The
only location where they could enter the site is along its east boundary, which does not have a
complete barrier fence. The NDCA has supported nesting golden eagles in most years since at least
the late 1980s and possibly even longer (I-I.T. Harvey Associates 2000). The current nest site is
located approximately 0.75 mile northeast of the site but is far enough away that site development
would not result in significant disturbance of the nesting pair. Burrowing owls sometimes occur on
developed sites but LSA did not observe any ground squirrel burrows or burrow surrogates on the site
during its November 14 site visit.
Implications for Site Development. The presence of the NDCA immediately adjacent to the 6237
Tassajara Road site has several implications for any future development. Based on a phone
conversation with LSA, preserve manager Cathy Little from the CNLM has the following concerns
regarding development of the site:
Potential sedimentation and hydrological impacts to the mmamed Tassajara Creek tributary.
Potential impacts to amphibians and reptiles using the adjacent stream corridor.
• Maintaining the existing chain link fence and sheet metal wildlife movement batrier in its current
location.
Currently, the sheet metal barrier ends at the southeastern corner of the site. The CNLM would
like to see the barrier extended to the northeastern comer of the site to provide additional
assurance that terrestrial wildlife cannot enter the site.
LSA believes that potential sedimentation and hydrology impacts can be addressed through the
implementation of erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs). All California construction
projects disturbing one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under the General Pennit
for Discharges of Storn1 Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit),
which requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
1/15/14 (P:\WMPI30116237 Tassajara 13io Rpt-v2.doc) 3
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC,
(SWPPP) that lists BMPs the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of
those BMPs. The statewide Construction Storm Water program is administered by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Potential impacts to amphibians and reptiles using the adjacent stream corridor can be avoided by not
damaging the existing sheet metal barrier during and after construction.
City of Dublin Policies
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program
(Program) was adopted by the City in June 2006 as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
(Specific Plan). Restoration goals contained in the Program are based on policies in the Specific Plan
document. The City is responsible for enforcing the Program policies and guidelines for all Eastern
Dublin rezoning and tentative map applications. Development setbacks for tributaries to Tassajara
Creek are discussed in Program guideline 6.1 (Creek Set Backs and Buffer Configuration), which
states, "In general, setbacks should be 100 feet from the existing top of bank for major tributaries
according to California Department of Fish and [Wildlife] standards, unless an exception is
negotiated with the Deparhnent. Setbacks for the minor tributaries ... should be a minimum of 50
feet. .. " The Program defines minor tributaries as "grassy swales not supporting shrub and tree
vegetation," and major tributaries as those that are "deeply incised, and support a dense canopy of
shrubs and trees." The tributary stream south of the site is not a grassy swale (although the southern
bank consists primarily of open grassland) but is not deeply incised and the vegetation along the
northern bank ranges from somewhat open to moderate canopy. Nevertheless, the presence of native
riparian vegetation likely qualifies the stream as a major tributary. The Program also states that
"biological setback requirements for the major tributaries in the northeastern portion of the study area
[in which the site is located] should be a minimum of 100 feet from top of bank." However,
"recommended minimum setbacks may be altered where prevailing conditions warrant a different
approach." The City also aclrnowledged that "the Program's recommended setbacks may be flexible
and negotiable depending on the results of detailed biological and hydrological studies submitted with
PD rezone, tentative map and final map applications" when responding to a July 15, 1996 letter from
MacKay & Somps expressing concems about the recently adopted Program. City planner Mamie
Delgado indicated the same (i.e., flexibility allowed in stream setbacks) in a phone conversation with
LSA on October 29, 2013.
Program guideline 6.9 (Lighting in Habitat Areas) is primarily intended for trail planning but given
the site's proximity to a stream conidor supporting high-quality wildlife habitat (riparian trees and
shrubs), the City may require similar lighting requirements for any new development. Specifically,
the Program indicates that "lighting in habitat areas should be avoided wherever possible because
lighting has a deh·imental effect on certain wildlife species." For trail segments with lighting sihtated
within 50 feet of wildlife habitat, "low elevation light poles, low intensity street lights and shielding
the internal silvering of the globe or use of external opaque reflectors to direct light at the ground
should be employed to prevent adverse impacts to wildlife."
Dublin Municipal Code. Stream setbacks are addressed in Chapter 7.20, Article III of the City's
Municipal Code (Code), which was adopted as a result of Ordinance 52-87. Section 7.20.220 states,
"the purpose of setbacks is to safeguard watercourses by preventing activities that would contribute
significantly to flooding, erosion, or sedimentation, would inhibit access for watercourse
maintenance, or would destroy riparian areas or inhibit their restoration. Accordingly, no
. 1115114 (P:\WMPI30!\6237 Tnssajara Bio Rpt-v2.doc) 4
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
development shall be pern1itted within setbacks except as otherwise provided herein." Although the
Code does not provide specific setback distances, it defines the Director of Public Works as the
primary City staff member responsible for permitting limited development within setbacks and
determining setback limits. Section 70.20.230 states that the Director of Public Works "may grant a
permit for [limited development within a setback] provided that the above specified purpose would be
satisfied. In such cases, the permit applicant shall submit sufficiently detailed plans and
specifications, and any additional material required by the Director of Public Works, to demonstrate
that a proposed development adjacent to an open channel watercourse would meet the requirements."
Implications for Site Development. Restoration goals and policies of the above-described Program
indicate that 100 feet is the standard setback limit for development adjacent to open watercourses.
Development of the 6237 Tassajara Road site occurred before implementation of the East Dublin
Specific Plan and resulting Program, since the distance between the existing southern site boundary
and top ofbank of the adjacent tributary channel varies from 0 to 30 feet (LSA obs.). However, given
that the site is highly disturbed and was developed prior to establishment of stream setbacks by the
City, it is LSA' s professional opinion that further development of the site within 100 feet of top of
bank would not result in significant impacts to existing biological resources of the stream corridor
provided that construction is confined to the existing disturbed area and the existing chain link fence
with sheet metal barrier is retained and protected during and after construction. LSA recommends that
the fence be identified in future project plans as an "Environmentally Sensitive Area" (ESA) feature
that should be avoided during construction.
Lighting associated with any new development could adversely affect wildlife habitat quality of the
adjacent stream corridor. In addition to City guidelines in the Program, LSA recommends that any
lighting structures within 50 feet of the stream corridor be directed away from the corridor.
Construction of walls and other structures and/or planting of vegetation to shield the stream corridor
against light (Gaston et al. 20 12) could also be effective in reducing light trespass onto adjacent
wildlife habitat.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a collaborative document developed by
multiple federal, State, and local entities (e.g., Alameda County, East Bay Regional Park District,
RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS) that is intended to "provide an effective framework to protect, enhance,
and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the
environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development projects"
(ICF International 201 0). The EACCS enables project proponents to comply with federal and State
regulatory requirements within a framework of comprehensive conservation goals and objectives by
implementing standardized mitigation requirements. Although the EACCS does not directly result in
permits from any regulatory agencies, the standardized avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures for species and natural communities provides more certainty for project proponents and
local agencies of regulatory expectations and costs. This approach is expected to streamline the
environmental pennitting process, reducing the overall cost of environmental petmitting and
consolidating mitigation. The EACCS addresses 19 "focal species" comprised of 13 wildlife and 6
plant species that meet one of the following criteria: (1) listed under the federal ESA as threatened or
endangered, or proposed for listing; (2) listed under CESA as threatened or endangered, or proposed
for listing; (3) listed under the Native Plant Protection Act as rare; or (4) expected be listed under the
1115114 (P:\ WMP 1301\6237 Tassajara Bio Rpt-v2.doc) 5
LSA ASSOCIATES, lNC.
federal or State ESA in the foreseeable future. The five special-status species discussed above (CRLF,
CTS, bun-owing owl, San Joaquin kit fox, and golden eagle) are focal species of the EACCS.
Implications for Site Development. Since the entire site has been developed and provides no habitat
for any EACCS focal species, the only policy potentially applicable to site development is
Conservation Objective 10.2: "Avoid or minimize direct impacts on streams during project
construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance
measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3." As long as development activities are limited to the existing
disturbed area and the existing fence along the southern boundary is maintained, the only EACCS
avoidance and minimization measure pertinent to the 6237 Tassajara Road site is GEN-12 from Table
3-2 (see attached; Table 3-3 is not applicable to the site since it focuses on impacts to focal species).
Specifically, LSA concurs that plastic mono-filament netting or similar netting material should not be
used for erosion control purposes on or adjacent to the site.
The site is located within Conservation Zone 3 (CZ-3) in the northern portion of the EACCS study
area. Conservation priorities for CZ-3 include the following:
• Protection ofCTS critical habitat.
• Protection ofknown occurrences of San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplexjoaquiniana) and surveys of
other potential habitat.
Protection oflmown occunences of Congdon's tarplant ( Centromadia panJ!i ssp. congdonii) and
surveys of other potential habitat.
• Protection oflmown CTS and CRLF breeding habitat, sufficient upland habitat sunounding those
sites, and connections between breeding and upland habitat (typically aruma! grassland).
• Protection of CRLF critical habitat.
• Protection and restoration of mixed riparian forest and scrub and mixed willow riparian scrub
along Tassajara, Cottonwood, and Cayetano Creeks.
Site development would not conflict with any of these conservation priorities since no habitat for San
Joaquin spearscale (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] lB species\ Congdon's tarplant (also CR,PR
IB), CTS, or CRLF is present on the site due to its history of disturbance. The adjacent stream
conidor supports mixed willow riparian scrub but would not be directly affected by site development.
In summary, it is LSA's professional opinion that the EACCS has limited applicability to the site
since its primary intent is to mitigate for projects that impact undeveloped habitat.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on LSA's research on local and regional policies regarding biological resources in the site
vicinity and on adjacent preserve lands, future site planning should incorporate the following:
1 Special-status plants in California are assigned to one of five "Rare Plant Ranks" by a collaborative group
jointly managed by the CDFW and California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Rare Plant Rank !B species
are considered rare, threatened, or endangered in Califomia and elsewhere. Impacts to plants ranked lA,
lB, 2A, and 2B are typically considered significant under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), depending on the policy of the lead agency.
1/15/14 (P:\ WMP 130116237 Tassajnrn Bio Rpt-1'2.doc) 6
LSA ASSOCIATllS, INC.
• The existing chain-link fence and sheet metal barrier that parallels the southern site boundary is
an important component of the adjacent NDCA since it prevents animals from moving onto the
site. The fence should remain intact during and after any future construction. In addition, the
NDCA preserve manager would like to see the fence and ban-ier extended from its current end at
the southeastern comer of the property to the northeastern comer.
• Erosion control BMPs should be implemented along the southern site boundary during
construction to prevent excess sedimentation and construction-related runoff from entering the
stream coiTidor.
• The site is located within 50 feet of the top ofbank of a major tributary to Tassajara Creek and is
thus within the typical! 00-foot setback prescribed by the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream
Restoration Program. However, as long as future development, including private or public
roadways, remains within the existing disturbance footprint on the site and the ban-ier fence
remains intact and is extended as recommended above, LSA believes that impacts to the adjacent
stream con-idor can be mininrized or avoided.
Any proposed lighting within 50 feet of the stream corridor should be designed to nrinimize light
trespass onto the stream conidor (e.g., fully shielded, directed away from stream, vegetation or
structural barrier along southern boundary).
Based on LSA 's understanding, the development proposal is to establish a 50-foot building setback
from top of bank. Implementation of this measure as well as other recommendations in this report
would minimize and/or avoid impacts to biological resources in the adjacent stream corridor. We
hope the above infonnation is useful to you for future site planning. Please call me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
-~~N.-~-j,f~
Malcolm J. Sproul
Principal
Attachments: Table 3-2 from Eastem Alameda County Conservation Strategy
cc: Sophia Liu
Hayes Shair
REFERENCES
Gaston, K.J., T.W. Davies, J. Bennie, and J. Hopkins. 2012. Reducing the ecological consequences of
night-time light pollution: options and developments. Joumal of Applied Ecology 49:1256-
1266.
1/15114 (P:\WMP 130116237 Tassiljara Bio Rpl-v2.doc) 7
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2000. Dublin Ranch Area A Golden Eagle Report. Project 555-29. April
17.
H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2001. Dublin Ranch: 2000 Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile
Surveys. Prepared for Martin W. Inderbitzen, Pleasanton, CA. Project No. 555-31. March 5.
ICF International. 2010. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Final Draft. October. (ICF
00906.08.) San Jose, CA. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering
Committee, Livermore, CA.
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2013. Results of2013 California Red-legged Frog Surveys: Dublin
Ranch Preserve. Submitted to Center for Natural Lands Management, Temecula, CA. Project
No. CNM1301. September.
1/15114 (P:\ WMP 1301\6237 Tnssajuro Bio Rpt-v2.doc) 8
October 6, 2014
Mr. Jerry Haag
Urban Planner
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, California 94704
Re: 6237 Tassajara Road Biological Resources Peer Review
Dear Jerry,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
This letter provides a peer review of the environmental documents related to the 6237 Tassajara
Road (Project Area) development project (Project) in Dublin, California. The intent of this letter
is to summarize a previous environmental assessment, provide current site conditions, and
address regulatory and species occurrence information in order to provide updated
recommendations regarding biological resources within and adjacent to the Project Area. The
updated Project layout and grading footprint are also considered in this review.
The Project Area is approximately 2.64 acres located in the city of Dublin, California, at 6237
Tassajara Road, south of the Quarry Lane School and north of a stream corridor that is a
tributary of Tassajara Creek. Tassajara Road borders the site to the west and open grasslands
border the site to the east. These grasslands as well as the stream corridor are a part of the
Northern Drainage Conservation Area (NDCA), which is a unit of the Dublin Ranch Preserve.
The Dublin Ranch Preserve was created in 2010 as mitigation for the Dublin Ranch
development project and is managed by the Center for Natural Lands Management. Currently,
the Project Area is used to store landscape materials and other equipment and vehicles. The
Project aims to build several single family homes on the site.
Previous Environmental Review
A Biological Resources Report of the Project Area was completed by LSA Associates, Inc.
(LSA) in January 2014. The report documented biological resources on and adjacent to the
Project Area for the purposes of determining the applicability of local stream protection policies
to any future development. It then discussed the biological findings in context of local policy and
provided recommendations for preventing the degradation and loss of sensitive biological
resources.
The 2014 LSA report concluded that the Project will not impact biological resources within the
Project Area. The entire Project Area was developed and devoid of vegetation except for a few
walnut (Juglans sp) trees and other ornamental species and ruderal herbaceous vegetation in
the southwest corner. No wetlands or other jurisdictional water features were determined to be
present. The only wildlife species expected to occur within the Project Area were urban adapted
species.
1
The LSA report stated that the Project is not anticipated to conflict with local policy priorities,
including the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS, ICF 201 0), Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2010), and City of Dublin municipal codes (City of
Dublin 2014), and that the current setback from the creek top of bank, delineated by the existing
chain link fence (estimated at 0 to 30 feet from the top of bank), would not impact the NDCA
provided all future construction and development was confined to the existing disturbed area.
The report recommended the following measures to minimize any Project impacts to the NDCA:
• The use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion and
runoff and prevent sedimentation and hydrological impacts into the creek and riparian
vegetation.
• Maintaining the chain link fence and sheet metal wildlife barrier in its current functional
state to prevent small terrestrial wildlife species from entering the Project Area during
and after construction.
• Extending the chain link fence and sheet metal barrier along the Project Area's east
edge such that the entire Project Area becomes inaccessible to small terrestrial wildlife
• Lighting structures associated with the Project within 50 feet of the NDCA be directed
away from the stream corridor to prevent a reduction in habitat quality, and that walls
and/or planted vegetation along the boundary between the Project Area and the NDCA
may be effective in reducing light trespass into the NDCA.
• Prohibit the use of plastic mono-filament netting or similar netting material for erosion
control on or adjacent to the site to prevent wildlife entanglement.
WRA Assessment
Methods
A review of local regulations was conducted to determine which policies apply to the Project
area and its development. Also, a literature search was completed of the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2014), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) quadrangle
species lists, and other relevant literature pertaining to documented occurrences of special-
status plant and wildlife species within 5 miles of the Project Area. A biological resources
assessment site visit was conducted by WRA botanist Scott Batiuk and WRA wildlife biologist
Claire Woolf on September 3, 2014. The Project Area and surrounding areas, including the
NDCA, (Study Area) were traversed on foot to determine (1) plant communities present within
the Study Area, (2) if existing conditions provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or
wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present in order to assess the potential for direct
and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources. Biological communities within the Project
Area were documented and the extent of the riparian vegetation in the Project Area was
observed. Plant and wildlife species observed during the September 3 assessment are listed in
Attachment 1.
Current Site Conditions
The September 3, 2014 assessment conducted by WRA found conditions consistent with the
description provided in LSA's report. The Project Area is primarily composed of ruderal
herbaceous and developed biological communities, characterized by non-native weedy plants
such as black mustard (Brassica nigra), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and milk thistle
2
(Silybum marianum). Occasional ornamental and remnant orchard trees, including cedar
(Cedrus sp.) and walnut (Juglans regia grafted onto Juglans hindsi1), are also present. The site
is paved with compacted gravel and contains landscape materials, debris piles, and several
trailers and other temporary buildings. A chain-link fence encompasses the Project Area, and
along the southern boundary adjacent to the NDCA the fence contains 3-foot, partially-buried
metal sheeting that serves to prevent California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californese,
CTS), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii, CRLF), and other terrestrial wildlife from
entering the Project Area from the NDCA. Portions of the Project Area boundary that do not
contain the sheet metal barrier include the western edge of the Project Area along Tassajara
Road, the northern boundary of the Project Area and about 100 feet along the northeast
boundary abutting the grasslands within the NDCA. California ground squirrels
(Otospermophi/us beecheyl) have colonized the site, living in burrows and the debris piles within
the Project Area. While the Project Area does not contain rooted riparian vegetation, the dripline
of several trees along the stream corridor, including red willow (Salix laevigata) and box elder
(Acer negundo), extends over the fence into the Project Area.
Local Regulations
East Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and Dublin Municipal Code (DMC)
The EDSP was developed to provide a planning framework for future development and growth
in a 3,300-acre area in eastern Dublin. It was initially released in 1994 and was updated in
2010. The Project Area is located in the EDSP Area, and therefore, is subject to the following
relevant goals, policies, and programs described in the EDSP:
Goal: To protect and enhance existing biological resources in eastern Dublin
Policy 6-1 0: Riparian and wetland areas shall be incorporated into greenbelt and
open space areas as a means of preserving their hydrologic and habitat value.
Unavoidable loss of riparian habitat due to development should be replaced with
similar habitat on a 3:1 in kind basis. Loss of wetlands must be mitigated consistent
with the Corps' current policy.
Program 6H: The City should enact and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control
ordinance establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of water
quality and protection of stream channels. The ordinance should regulate grading and
development activities adjacent to streams and wetland areas, and require
revegetation of all ground disturbances immediately after construction to reduce
erosion potential. Until such an ordinance is in place, the City shall require project
applicants to provide a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of the
project submittal.
Policy 6-15: Avoid development and potentially destructive activities in areas with
high-value habitat including:
• northern riparian forest
•
•
arroyo willow riparian woodland
freshwater marsh
Exceptions may only be granted where an owner's reasonable beneficial use of the
land cannot be otherwise provided.
3
Policy 6-20: Maintain a natural open space zone (i.e., no development) around the
golden eagle nest located in the northeast corner of the planning area (see
Figure 6.3 for the designated setback). Exceptions to this setback have to be approved
by the USFWS based on field examinations of the site to determine what constitutes
"harassment" of the eagles at this particular location. Construction within this
protection zone will not be allowed unless it is determined that the eagles have ceased
to use the nest site for two consecutive years as verified by the USFWS.
Policy 6-21: Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation cover should
be minimized and should be restricted to those areas actually designated for the
construction of improvements.
Policy 6-22: All areas of disturbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible
to prevent erosion. Native trees (preferably those species already on the site),
shrubs, herbs, and grasses should be used for revegetation of areas to remain as
natural open space. The introduction of non-native plant species should be
avoided.
Program 6L: The City shall require development applicants to conduct a pre-
construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat modification (clearing
construction and road site, etc.) to verify the presence or absence of sensitive
species, especially San Joaquin kit fox, nesting raptors, red-legged frog, western
pond turtle, California tiger salamander, and other species of special concern.
WRA was unable to locate the Program Guideline 6.9 (Lighting in Habitat Areas) in the EDSP that
was referenced in the LSA report. No additional sections of the DMC other than the stream setback
guidelines listed in the LSA report were found to be relevant to biological resources for this Project.
WRA agrees with the LSA report that in order to follow the program policies and guidelines in the
EDSP and DMC, it is recommended that the Project avoid all impacts to vegetation and water quality
along the NDCA stream corridor, avoid the use of plastic monofilament for erosion control, and
maintain and extend the chain link fence and sheet metal wildlife barrier throughout the duration
of the Project and in perpetuity. WRA also agrees with LSA that the Project Area is not within the
golden eagle buffer zone described in the EDSP. WRA believes LSA's arguments are valid in that the
stream setback distance can be delineated by the existing fence line without additional biological
impacts. However, WRA will defer to the City of Dublin planning staff to determine the appropriate
creek setbacks for this Project.
In addition to the LSA report, and in order to follow the guidelines in the EDCP, WRA recommends
pre-construction surveys of the Project Area to verify the presence or absence of several special-
status wildlife species, including burrowing owl, American badger, roosting special-status bats, and
nesting birds. Burrowing owl and other special-status wildlife species are discussed further in the
special-status wildlife section of this document.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS)
In December 2010, the final draft of the EACCS was made available to local agencies looking
for guidance in conservation and mitigation practices. This document was made in consultation
4
with several prominent regulatory agencies including the USFWS, the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife [CDFW; formerly the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)], and
the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. Currently, the EACCS has not been
formally accepted by the City of Dublin and is a non-binding document. However, it does
provide up-to-date information and mitigation suggestions for focal special-status plant and
wildlife species in the area, many of which must be considered for the Project, including
Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonit), California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonit), golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macroitis mutica),
and American badger (Taxidea taxus).
The EACCS also provides a list of specific conservation objectives for each focal species, as
well as avoidance and minimization measures to reduce negative impacts. These measures
include biological monitoring, worker environmental training, construction BMPs and erosion
control measures around wetlands and streams, exclusion fencing around the work area, pre-
construction surveys, work windows, and avoidance of active nests or dens. The EACCS also
includes objectives relating to the preservation and reduction of impacts on streams and riparian
communities.
LSA states the Project Area provides no habitat for any EACCS focal species due to the
developed nature of the site. WRA believes it is unlikely that all but one of the EACCS focal
species will occur within the Project Area. Burrowing owl has a moderate potential of occurring
within the Project Area. Burrowing owl and the other EACCS focal species are discussed along
with non EACCS focal species in the special-status wildlife section below.
Biological Communities and Special-Status Species
Biological Communities
As stated above, the Project Area is primarily ruderal herbaceous and developed biological
communities, which are not considered sensitive communities. However, the dripline of riparian
vegetation rooted outside of the Project Area in the NDCA extends over the fence into the
Project Area in several places. Riparian vegetation is considered sensitive habitat by the
CDFW.
Special Status Plants
No special-status plant species have the potential to be found within the Project Area due to the
heavily and actively disturbed nature of the Project Area. Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia
parryi ssp. congdonit), a disturbance-tolerant species, has been documented in the vicinity of
the Project Area. However, this species was not observed during the September 3, 2014 site
visit, which occurred during peak blooming time for this species.
Special-Status Wildlife
Twenty-three special-status wildlife species have been documented within 5 miles of the Project
Area. Seventeen of these species have moderate or high potential of occurring within the
5
Project Area or in the adjacent NDCA, and are listed in Table 1 below. Of these 23 species, 17
have potential to occur in or adjacent to the Project Area in the NDCA, and seven of these 23
species have potential to occur in the Project Area. The 17 species with potential to occur in or
adjacent to the Project Area as well as the species with potential to occur in the Project Area are
listed below in Table 1. The remaining seven species documented in the vicinity of the Project
area are unlikely to be found within the Project Area or NDCA due to a lack of suitable habitat,
including ephemeral pools, dense wetland vegetation, and scrub. The species with potential to
occur within and adjacent to the Project Area are discussed further, along with nesting migratory
birds which are afforded regulatory protections under the 1918 federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (FGC).
T bl 1 S . I t t a e ;pec1a -s a us WI 'th t t' I t 1 e spec1es WI po en 1a d' o occur 1n or a IJacen t t th P . t A 0 e rOJeC rea
Scientific Name Common Name Regulatory Status
Vu/pes macroitis mutica San Joaquin kit fox Federal Endangered, State Threatened
Taxidea taxus American badger CDFW Species of Special Concern
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat* State Candidate (Threatened), CDFW
Species of Special Concern, Western Bat
Working Group High Priority Species
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat* CDFW Species of Special Concern,
Western Bat Working Group High Priority
Species
Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite* California Fully Protected Species
Circus cyaneus northern harrier CDFW Species of Special Concern
Athene cunicu/aria burrowing owl* CDFW Species of Special Concern,
USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle California Fully Protected Species,
USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
Picoides nuttallii Nuttall's woodpecker* USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
Baeolophus inornatus oak titmouse* USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
Lanius /udovicianus loggerhead shrike* CDFW Species of Special Concern,
USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow CDFW Species of Special Concern
Setophaga (Dendroica) yellow warbler CDFW Species of Special Concern,
petechia brewsteri USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
Spinus (= Cardue/is) /awrencei Lawrence's goldfinch USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern
Ambystoma ca/iforniense California tiger salamander Federal Threatened, State Threatened,
CDFW Species of Special Concern
Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Federal Threatened, CDFW Species of
Special Concern
Actinemys marmorata Pacific (formerly western) CDFW Species of Special Concern
pond turtle
(*) Denotes species with potential to occur in the Project Area
There is suitable habitat within the stream corridor and upland habitats within the NDCA for
California tiger salamander (CTS), Pacific pond turtle (PPT), and California red-legged frog
(CRLF). The stream corridor contains areas where water could pool, supporting breeding CRLF,
and the stream corridor is a moist aquatic dispersal corridor for all three of these species. The
upland grassland habitats contain burrows to support estivating CTS and CRLF as well as
6
breeding PPT. All three of these species have been documented within 0.3 mile of the Project
Area in Tassajara Creek (CDFW 2014). Critical habitat for CRLF has been designated just
across Tassajara Road in Tassajara Creek, and critical habitat for CTS has been designated 3
miles east of the Project Area.
It is unlikely that PPT would be found within the Project Area. The sheet metal barrier is a
significant barrier to movement for this species. There is no grassland upland breeding habitat
for this species within the Project Area, as the Project Area is disturbed and contains little
grassy vegetation to support nesting. Therefore, although PPT could feasibly access the Project
Area from the northeast corner abutting the NDCA through the gap in the barrier, it is unlikely to
be found in the Project Area due to a lack of suitable habitat and higher quality grassland upland
habitat within the NDCA.
No aquatic or seasonal depression habitat to support breeding CTS or CRLF exists within the
Project Area. Additionally, with the presence of the sheet metal barrier and ample suitable
habitat nearby, it is unlikely for CTS or CRLF to estivate within the site. While several burrows
suitable for estivation in these species exist within the eastern half of the Project Area, these
two species would have to pass through more suitable grassland habitat in the NDCA before
entering the disturbed Project Area. The Project Area contains minimal vegetation, and these
two species would be more likely to suffer predation and desiccation within the Project Area due
to lack of cover. Therefore, it is unlikely CRLF and CTS would estivate within the Project Area.
Golden eagle was observed during the September 3, 2014 site visit soaring high above the
Project Area and NDCA. Due to its developed nature, relatively small size, and enclosure by
fencing reducing visibility, the Project Area provides poor foraging habitat and no nesting habitat
for this species. While the NDCA provides grassland foraging habitat, nesting is unlikely due to
the small size of the trees in the NDCA near the Project Area. Eagles have nested some
distance away in the higher quality nesting habitat found elsewhere in the NDCA.
White-tailed kite, northern harrier, oak titmouse, yellow warbler, grasshopper sparrow,
loggerhead shrike, and Lawrence's goldfinch all have moderate to high potential to occur and
breed within the grassland and riparian habitats within the NDCA. These seven species may
forage or occasionally venture into the Project Area, including the riparian trees that overhang
the site. The Project Area only provides marginal breeding habitat for white-tailed kite,
loggerhead shrike, oak titmouse, and Nuttall's woodpecker . Due to the lack of grassland
vegetation necessary to support breeding northern harrier, grasshopper sparrow, and
Lawrence's goldfinch as well as the lack of dense riparian vegetation to support breeding yellow
warblers, the Project Area is unlikely to support breeding in these four bird species.
The grassland within the NDCA and overhanging riparian trees in the Project Area support
nesting in these species, and non-riparian trees within the Project Area provide marginal
breeding habitat for loggerhead shrike, oak titmouse, Nuttall's woodpecker and white-tailed kite.
Additionally, nesting bird and raptor species are protected by the MBTA and FGC regardless of
status. Other common nesting birds and raptors may also occur within the Project Area.
Two special-status bat species, pallid bat and Townsend's big-eared bat, may use the
accessible buildings, sheds, and trailers throughout the Project Area for day and night roosting
throughout the year or as maternity roosts during the summer maternity season. Townsend's
big-eared bat is highly sensitive to human disturbance, as it roosts in the open, hanging from
walls rather than using crevices like many other bat species. However, a 1998 report prepared
for CDFG states that "The expanding human population along the California coast, in the
7
greater San Francisco Bay Area, and San Diego County has made it increasingly difficult for C.
townsendii to find roosts that are free from human disturbance. There was evidence of some
human traffic at or near all the currently occupied roosts," (Pierson and Rainey 1998.) The
buildings and sheds within the Project Area appear relatively undisturbed, and given this
species in the San Francisco Bay Area has been known to use roosts with some element of
human disturbance, Townsend's big-eared bat has a moderate potential to occur in the Project
Area.
Burrowing owl (BUOW) has moderate potential to be found within the Project Area. This species
has been extensively documented in the greater Dublin area; 2009 studies found many
breeding pairs within 2 miles of the Project Area (CDFW 2014), the closest of which occurred
within 1 mile of the Project Area. One suitably -sized burrow was found during the September 3,
2014 site visit. No sign of owl occupancy (feathers, pellets, whitewash) was found. However,
California ground squirrels, the primary excavators of burrows used by BUOW, have colonized
the Project Area and many individuals were observed during the September 3, 2014 site visit in
burrows and in the many debris piles throughout the site. It is highly likely that additional
burrows of suitable dimensions for burrowing owl will be excavated, thus making the site more
attractive to the owl. BUOW is highly tolerant of disturbance, and the disturbed nature of the site
alone is not enough to exclude the possibility of it inhabiting the site before Project activities
begin. However, while this species has a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area, it
is unlikely to nest there. The Project Area is mostly enclosed by fencing, creating a visual
barrier and providing perches for potential predators. These conditions likely act as a deterrent
to nesting. Furthermore, given that no sign of BUOW was observed during the September 3,
2014 site visit, and that there is ample, higher quality open habitat in the NDCA and north Dublin
hills, the Project Area is suitable for wintering owls, but nesting is unlikely.
American badger has been documented extensively in the grassland hills to the north, east, and
west of the Project Area (CDFW 2014). This species has high potential to be in the high quality
grasslands of the NDCA. However, this species is unlikely to be found within the Project Area,
as the Project Area does not contain any suitably-sized burrows for this species that could be
potential dens during the September 3, 2014 site visit, and the developed nature of the Project
Area likely precludes colonization. Furthermore, there are ample, large expanses of higher
quality habitat nearby in the NDCA and open grasslands of the north Dublin hills.
San Joaquin kit fox historically was found in the arid grassland and scrubland habitats in the
Dublin/Livermore area, but is believed to be extirpated west of the Altamont Hills (Sproul and
Flett 1993). The most recent CNDDB record of kit fox within 5 miles of the Project Area was
from 1989. However, SJKF is included as a focal species in the EACCS and is therefore
included in this assessment. Due to the unconfirmed presence of this species from the greater
Dublin area in the past 25 years and that the Project Area is highly disturbed, does not contain
suitably-sized burrows for this species, and there is much higher quality habitat nearby, this
species is unlikely to be found within the Project Area.
Identification of Impacts and Recommended Minimization Measures
The NDCA stream corridor and its associated riparian vegetation adjacent to the Project Area
are sensitive biological communities regulated by CDFW. Seventeen special-status species
have potential to occur in the NDCA adjacent to the Project Area; of eleven species may be
indirectly impacted by the project including: white-tailed kite, northern harrier, BUOW, golden
8
eagle, Nuttall's woodpecker, oak titmouse, loggerhead shrike, grasshopper sparrow, yellow
warbler, and Lawrence's goldfinch. Indirect impacts to these species from project activities
include noise, vibrations, and light from construction that may disrupt nesting birds. Indirect
impacts to other species including CTS, CRLF, PPT, American badger, San Joaquin kit fox,
roosting bats, and foraging raptors are unlikely to occur as a result of the project except in cases
where there is a reduction in size or quality of habitat present in the NDCA.
Burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, oak titmouse, Nuttall's woodpecker, pallid
bat, and Townsend's big-eared bat, as well as birds protected under the MBTA and FGC have
potential to occur within the Project Area. These protected biological resources may be directly
impacted by Project activities such as tree and vegetation removal, building demolition, and
ground disturbance causing mortality due to contact with construction equipment or personnel,
predation, desiccation, entrapment in artificial structures, burial from burrow excavation, etc.
Because the Project Area is highly disturbed and will likely be completely altered, temporary
impacts are not anticipated.
In addition to the maintenance and extension of the exclusion barrier, avoidance of plastic
monofilament, and the use of construction BMPs recommendations in the LSA report, WRA
recommends the following measures be taken to avoid impacts to biological resources within
the Project Area.
• Avoid impacts to all riparian vegetation, including the dripline of riparian trees
overhanging into the Project Area from the NDCA. If impacts cannot be avoided, a
CDFW Section 1602 permit will be needed.
• If construction, demolition, or tree removal activities are initiated during the nesting bird
season (February 1 through August 31 ), a pre-construction bird survey (including
raptors) shall be conducted prior to commencement of activities. If birds are found to be
nesting within the Project Area a buffer zone around the nest (distance dependent on
species) shall be established by the biologist until the young have fledged. Consultation
with CDFW may be required dependent on species.
• If construction, tree removal, or the removal or demolition of buildings is initiated,
especially during the bat maternity season from April 1 to August 31, a pre-construction
bat emergence survey shall be conducted. Internal entrances surveys should be
conducted if any buildings are to be demolished at any time of year to determine if the
building(s) currently or previously supported roosting bats. If bats are found to be
roosting within the Project Area, consultation with CDFW may be required dependent
upon bat species found and roost type.
• A Pre-construction survey for burrowing owl is recommended within 30 days of any
construction activities in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), which also contains guidance pertaining to avoidance and
minimization measures for this species if active burrows are found on the site. If active
burrows are found, an appropriate setback relative to the guidance is required;
consultation with CDFW may be required if burrowing owl is observed during the nesting
season.
9
Conclusion
The Project Area is highly disturbed. No sensitive biological communities are located within the
Project Area, and no special-status plants are likely to occur on the site. Burrowing owl, white-
tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, oak titmouse, Nuttall's woodpecker, pallid bat, and Townsend's
big-eared bat, have potential to occur within the Project Area. All other special-status wildlife
species in the area are only likely to be found within the NDCA and any riparian trees
overhanging the Project Area. Nesting birds and raptors protected by the MBTA and FGC may
nest within the Project Area.
WRA generally agrees with the 2014 LSA report's analysis, with the addition of several other
potential biological impacts, including:
• Potential impacts to overhanging riparian trees within the Project Area
• Potential impacts to burrowing owl
• Potential impacts to special-status birds and other nesting birds and raptors protected
by the MBTA and FGC
• Potential impacts to roosting bats
Avoidance and minimization measures recommended by WRA consist of maintaining and
extending the sheet metal barrier to prevent wildlife incursion into the Project Area, construction
BMPs to prevent erosion and runoff into the NDCA, the avoidance of plastic monofilament, and
pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl, nesting birds and raptors, and an emergence survey
for roosting bats.
I will be happy to discuss any of the above topics more thoroughly if you wish. Please contact
me or Claire Woolf with any questions or to discuss any issues further.
Sincerely,
Tom Fraser
President
Phone: (415) 454-8868 x118
Email: fraser@wra-ca.com
Claire Woolf
Wildlife Biologist
Phone: (415) 454-8868 x190, (707) 290-4339 (cell)
Email: woolf@wra-ca.com
10
References
City of Dublin. 1999. Heritage Tree Ordinance.
[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl
mitigation. Online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/BUOWStaffReport.pdf.
Accessed September 2014.
Pierson, E. and W. Rainey. 1998. Distribution, status, and management of Townsend's big-
eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendi1) in California. Prepared for the California
Department of Fish and Game, and submitted to the Bird and Mammal Conservation
Program (BMCP). Technical report number 96-7.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Data
Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, CA. Accessed
September 2014.
City of Dublin. 2014. City Municipal Code. Current as of September 2, 2014. Online at:
http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/dublin.html. Accessed September 2014.
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Online at:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org; most recently accessed: September 2014.
ICF International. 2010. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). Final draft,
December 2010. Online at: http://www.eastalco-conservation.org/documents.html.
Accessed September 2014.
Richmond, B. H. Green, and Rice, D.C. 2012. Alameda County Breeding Bird Atlas. Published
by the Golden Gate Audubon Society and the Ohlone Audubon Socitey.
Sproul, MJ and M A Flett. 1993. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox in the northwest margin of its
range. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 29:61-69.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Standard Recommendations for Protection of
the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox prior to or during Ground Disturbance. Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office.
[USFWS] 2014 Quadrangle Species Lists, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service. Online at:
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm . Accessed
September 2014.
[USFWS] 2003. Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a
Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. Online at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentiD=83915 Accessed September
2014.
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2010. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of
11
Dublin. Updated in 2010. Online at: http://dublinca.gov/index.aspx?NID=175. Accessed
September 2014.
Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2014. Species accounts. Online at:
http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html. Accessed
September 2014.
Attachment 1:
Plant and wildlife species observed in the Pro ect Area during the September 3, 2014 site visit
Scientific Name Common Name Polygonum aviculare dooryard
Plants
Acer neg undo boxelder
Avena sp. oat
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush
ssp. consanguinea
knotweed
Prunus dulcis domestic almond
Quercus doug/asii blue oak
Rumex crispus curly dock
Salix Jaevigata red willow
Brassica nigra black mustard Sa/sola sp. russian thistle
Bromus catharticus rescuegrass Silybum marianum milk thistle
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Stipa miliacea var. smile grass
Carduus Italian thistle mi/iacea
pycnocephal us
Cirsium vulgare bull thistle
Toxicodendron poison oak
diversi/obum
Conium macu/atum poison hemlock
Convolvulus field bindweed
arvensis
Oittrichia graveolens stinkwort
Wildlife
Anna's
Ca/ypte anna hummingbird
Nuttall's
Epi/obium annual willowherb
brachycarpum
Picoides nuttallii woodpecker
Corvus
Erigeron bonariensis Flax-leaved
horseweed
Erigeron canadensis Canadian
horseweed
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass
brachvrhvnchos American crow
black-capped
Poeci/e atricapil/us chickadee
Aphelocoma
californica western scrub-iav
Foenicu/um vulgare fennel Zenaida macroura mourninq dove
Helminthotheca bristly ox-tongue
echioides
Hordeum murinum mouse barley
Thrvomanes bewickii Bewick's wren
Carpodacus
mexicanus house finch
Jug/ans hindsii northern California orange-crowned
black walnut Oreoth/vpis ce/ata warbler
Jug/ans regia English walnut Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Falco sparverius American kestrel
Lepidium Jatifolium perennial
oepperweed
Malva nicaeensis bull mallow
Malvel/a /eprosa alkali mallow
Aquila chrysaetos golden eaQie
Meleaqris qallopavo wild turkey
Sceloporus western fence
occidental is lizard
Marrubium vulgare horehound Otospermophi/us California Qround
12
I beecheyi I squirrel
13
July 28, 2016
Jerry Haag
2029 University Ave
Berkeley, CA 94704
jphaag@pacbell.net
wra
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Re: Assessment of Golden Eagle Nest Adjacent to 6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin,
California
Dear Mr. Haag:
This letter provides an assessment of potential impacts to golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos;
hereafter eagle may be used) that have been documented to nest in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed Wanmei residential project located at 6237 Tassajara Road (Project Site) in
Dublin, Alameda County, California. The purpose of the assessment is to 1) address potential
adverse impacts to golden eagles that may nest near the Project Site during anticipated
development activities there, and 2) provide an adequate mitigation measure to avoid these
impacts.
Existing Conditions and Eagle Nest Status
On May 3, 2016 from 8:50AM to 10:00 AM, the Project Site and adjacent Project Area were
examined directly by WRA wildlife biologist Claire Woolf to note existing conditions and baseline
disturbance levels. The Project Areas examined included the location of the nearby active eagle
nest located within regional preserve lands to the east of the Project Site. Additionally, ambient
noise levels (decibels) from within the Project Site were measured throughout much of the site
visit using the Sound Meter app on an Android smartphone. To avoid any potential disturbance
to the eagle nest, minimal time was spent within the eastern portion of the property. The
biologist did not directly approach the nest, and did not enter the preserve during the site visit.
The Project Site is situated adjacent to mixed suburban developments and preserved open
space. Regional preserve lands are present to the south and east, Quarry Lane School is
located to the north, and Tassajara Road lies to the west. The Project Site is currently used as a
laydown yard/staging facility for a landscape company. The entire Project Site is developed or
otherwise highly disturbed, and consists of compacted earth, gravel areas, and patches of
ruderal vegetation. Various trailers and storage structures are found throughout, including
several metal shipping containers located at the eastern boundary of the property. Materials
such as bark, trees and plants, stakes, and paving stones are neatly staged on the Project Site,
and a small number of debris piles are also present.
No work activities were occurring within the yard at the time of the site visit, but the presence of
several parked personal vehicles and the tidy condition of the yard suggests that it is frequently
occupied and used. Ambient noise levels within the Project Site ranged from 35 to 70 decibels
(the latter during an airplane flyover), and averaged approximately 50 decibels. Sources of
2169-G Francisco Blvd. East, San Rafael, CA 94901 ph: 415-454-8868 info@wra-ca.com www.wra-ca.com
baseline noise included auto traffic on Tassajara Road, and children playing at the adjacent
school.
The active eagle nest is located approximately 200 feet from the eastern end of the Project Site
within a row of mature eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) trees. The nest structure is near the eastern
edge of the eucalyptus stand, on the north side, and visible to the naked eye from the eastern
portion of the Project Site. At the time of the site visit, one eagle was observed on the nest, and
it did not flush or otherwise appear to be disturbed by the presence of the biologist or by other
activities in the general vicinity. To the best of WRA's knowledge, this nest site was first known
to be occupied in 2016. Because golden eagles often re-use individual nests across years, the
nest may be used again in subsequent years.
Golden Eagle Regulatory Background
State and Federal Protections
Golden eagle has various protections at both the state and federal level, and is considered a
special-status species. Within the context of environmental review, the term "special-status" is
typically used to refer to wildlife (and plant) species with heightened legal protections beyond
baseline levels, if any such exist. While golden eagle is not currently listed under the federal or
California Endangered Species Acts, this species has a somewhat analogous level of protection
under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (hereafter Act; 16 U.S.C. 668-668c,
enacted in 1940 and subsequently amended several times). The Act prohibits the taking,
possession and/or commerce of eagles and establishes civil penalties for violations. In 2009,
the definition of "take" in the context of the Act was refined as follows (72 FR 31132; 50 CFR
22.3):
" ... disturb means to agitate or bother [an eagle] to a degree that causes, or is
likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an
eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal
breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by
substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior".
In addition to its protection under the Act, golden eagle is also named as a Fully Protected
Species under the California Fish and Game Code (i.e., section 3511) and as such legal "take"
(in this context, essentially injury or death of an eagle, including young and eggs) cannot be
authorized by the state. Along with most other native birds, golden eagle also has baseline
protections under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (and subsequent
amendments) and the California Fish and Game Code (i.e., sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513).
Both the federal statute and state codes prohibit the unauthorized and deliberate "take" of
covered species, including their active nests (those with eggs and/or young). Finally, golden
eagle is also named as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bird of Conservation Concern
(BCC). Although BCC species generally have no heightened legal status, they are typically
given special consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Local and Regional Protections
Golden eagle receives conservation attention and protection at the local level. The Project Site
lies within the bounds of the East Dublin Specific Plan (Specific Plan; City of Dublin 1994 ),
which provides a planning framework for the future growth and development of the portions of
Dublin east of the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. The Specific Plan retains a large
area in the northeast portion of the planning area as a rural/residential zone to preserve
2
adequate foraging area for eagles. Additionally, the Specific Plan contains Policy 6-20 that
addresses a previously-identified eagle nest within the Specific Plan boundaries:
Maintain a natural open space zone (i.e., no development) around the golden eagle nest
located in the northeast corner of the planning area (see Figure 6.3 for the designated
setback). Exceptions to this setback will have to be approved by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), based on field examinations of the site to determine what
constitutes "harassment" of the eagles at this particular location. Construction within this
protection zone will not be allowed unless it is determined that the eagles have ceased
to use the nest site for two consecutive years as verified by the USFWS.
Presumably, the Specific Plan would treat other golden eagle nests found within the planning
area in a similar fashion. The Project Site is also within the study area for the East Alameda
County Conservation Strategy (EACCS; ICF International 201 0), within which golden eagle is
treated as a focal species. The EACCS is intended to provide an effective framework to protect,
enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and
streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and
development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the EACCS and uses the document to
provide a baseline inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities during project-
level planning and environmental permitting. However, the EACCS is only a framework for
guidance by regulatory agencies, and does not include incidental take permits for threatened or
endangered species similar to that provided by a Habitat Conservation Plan. The EACCS
provides goals and objectives for maintaining the local nesting golden eagle population at a
level that allows for its long-term viability. These goals include:
• Avoiding impacts to eagles, as well as their nests and habitat.
• Monitoring all eagle nest sites and surrounding habitat.
• Enhancing existing, suitable eagle habitat.
The EACCS also provides guidance and recommendations for obtaining these goals in the form
of recommended general and species-specific avoidance and minimization measures. Relevant
measures from the EACCS are discussed in the Recommendations section below.
Potential Impacts
Direct impacts to the focal golden eagle nest tree (e.g., trimming or completely removing the
nest tree or adjacent trees) while the nest is active would presumably result in death or injury to
eagle eggs or young, and potentially adults as well. Any such action would constitute a violation
of the Bald and Golden Protection Act, as well the MBTA and multiple sections of the California
Fish and Game Code. However, given that the nest tree is in a preserved area outside the
Project Site and no direct impacts to the tree and its immediate surrounds are anticipated, the
potential for such direct impacts is not relevant to proposed activities within the Project Site.
Another potential violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act would involve the loss or
degradation of habitat areas required for continued use of the vicinity by the focal golden eagle
pair, as a result of project activities. However, the Project Site is already developed and does
not contain trees of a suitable size or character to support eagle nesting. Additionally, although
California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi; a common prey item for eagles in the
region) inhabit the Project Site, the small size of the site, the availability of nearby larger nearby
preserved lands with grasslands and savannah for foraging, and habitual human presence
within the Project Site all render the site as incidental foraging habitat at best. Therefore, WRA
3
does not believe that the proposed project activities will result in a loss of or degradation to
eagle habitat.
Project activities following construction (i.e., residential use of the constructed subdivision) are
not expected to result in significant impacts to the eagle nest. The eagle nest was built recently
within 250 feet of an existing larger residential subdivision to the south and within 300 feet of a
school to the north. There are unobstructed views of the nest site from both of these areas,
indicating that the nest is routinely subject to visual as well as acoustic disturbances.
Furthermore, the Project Site is currently being used as a stockyard with daily activity. This
indicates that the eagle is habituated to the existing conditions, including human activities and
would not be significantly impacted by the operations of a residential subdivision in the Project
Site.
Indirect disturbances resulting from project-related activities (e.g., noise, vibration and/or visual
disruption resulting from grading or construction) within the Project Site have the potential to
adversely impact eagle nesting activities at the nearby nest site. If the nest is active (holding
eggs or young) or otherwise being attended by eagles while such disturbances occur, reduced
reproductive effort or success, including abandonment of the active nest, may occur. Such an
outcome would presumably constitute a violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act;
furthermore, regulatory agencies and local government entities may also interpret such an
outcome as constituting violations of the federal and state baseline protection mechanisms
outlined above.
Introduction of toxic or otherwise harmful chemicals into the golden eagle prey base (e.g., mice,
rats, and ground squirrels) may pose a potential indirect significant impact. Construction
operations and residential subdivisions and individuals occupying residences commonly use
rodenticides to control the rodents such as ground squirrels, mice, and rats. Because golden
eagles may prey upon contaminated rodents, the eagles themselves may incur adverse
biological effects such as reduced fecundity, ability to forage, or death. The East Alameda
County Conservation Strategy includes Conservation Action GOEA-4 to encourage land
managers to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles and cease using rodenticides in
protected areas; if they are necessary, use rodenticides consistent with IPM principles.
Recommendations
As discussed above, significant impacts to a golden eagle nest and/or nesting activities may
result from proposed construction activities within the Project Site. To avoid such impacts,
recommended mitigation measures are detailed below. The measures are based on avoidance
and minimization measures in the EACCS and the Specific Plan, in combination with WRA's
best professional judgment.
• To the fullest extent feasible, all work within the Project Site shall occur between July
1 and December 31, outside of the greater eagle nesting season.
• If work within the Project Site cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, the
following shall be implemented:
o The known nest site near the Project Site and other suitable nesting
substrates in the vicinity shall be monitored by a qualified biologist familiar
with golden eagles and their behavior to determine whether the nest is active.
Monitoring visits shall be conducted starting January 1 and occur weekly at a
4
minimum through June 30 to ensure that the status of the nest (i.e., level of
attendance by adult eagles, known or presumed presence of eggs or young)
has been determined relative to the proposed project/construction schedule.
Work within the Project Site shall not commence while the nest is active. If
the nest is determined to be inactive, work may commence as long as the
nest remains inactive as determined by the qualified biologist.
o If the nest becomes active following the commencement of construction
activities, a qualified biologist shall constantly monitor the nest during all
construction activities. Construction can be halted at any time if deemed
necessary by the biologist to avoid nest abandonment or otherwise
significantly impact the nesting eagles.
o Once the nest has become inactive as determined by the biologist, (e.g.,
following the fledging of young), construction may continue without continual
monitoring and revert to weekly monitoring visits.
• To avoid significant impacts to the eagle via their prey base in the vicinity of the
Project Site, rodenticides shall not be used outdoors, either during construction
within the Project Site or after construction has finished, unless absolutely
necessary. The governing body of the residential subdivision (e.g., Home Owners
Association) shall implement a restriction on the use of outdoor rodenticides in their
governing documents (e.g., Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), unless
absolutely required, and then they shall be used with IPM principles.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Jason Yakich
Associate Wildlife Biologist
References
City of Dublin. 1994 East Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared by Wallace Roberts & Todd. Updated
October 7, 2014. Available online at:
http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DocumentCenterNiew/7776 Accessed: May 2016.
[ICF] ICF International. 2010. Final Draft: East Alameda County Conservation Strategy.
Prepared for: East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee.
October. Available online at: http://www.eastalco-conservation.org/ Accessed: May
2016.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Interim Golden Eagle Inventory and Monitoring
Protocols; and Other Recommendations. Available online at:
5
City of Dublin
Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Wanmei Properties Project
Attachtnent 2-
Acoustic Report
Page 71
October 2016
ACOUSTICS
Acoustical(~ Audiovjsual Chonsultants
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE IMPACT STUDY FOR:
6237 Tassajara Road
Dublin, CA
RGD Project#: 14-058
PREPARED FOR:
Jerry Haag
Urban Planner
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
PREPARED BY:
Alan Rosen,
Principal Consultant
Harold S. Goldberg, P.E.
Principal Consultant
DATE:
10 March 2016
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page 1
10 March 2016
1. Introduction
The project consists of 19 single family dwelling units to be constructed on 2.64
acres along Tassajara Road in Dublin, CA. The site is currently developed with a
single family residence along Tasasjara Road and appears to support a
commercial landscaping business with mostly outdoor storage areas at various
locations around the site.
The nearest noise sensitive receptor is the Quarry Lane School which is north and
adjacent to the site. There is a significant elevation difference between the project
site and school. Near Tassajara Road, the project site and school are at about the
same elevation. Toward the east side of the project site, the school is about 30 feet
above the project site. Other nearby uses include residential areas to the south
and east, and Tassajara Creek Regional Park and Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area to the west.
The study assesses the potential for the project to generate significant noise
impacts as well as the compatibility of the project with the existing and future noise
environment based on Dublin's noise and land use compatibility standards.
2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals
ACOUSTICS
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an
instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound
with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound
levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a
level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is
used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in
a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most
local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans,
EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the
A-weighted sound level is reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many
descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual
descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken
together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The
maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of
a single event such as a car passby or airplane flyover.
To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq
can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15
minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the
sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources
such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the Lgo
which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound
1100 Larhp;.;1 Landw:g Cud•:>:: ~5-! ! La+~put. Ca!dorni3 o.~~:;;9 ! TEL .;.JS 4o·~ 0150 ! FAX.;;:; ·~c·t 0:1~~ i RGDACOUSTICS.COM
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page2
10 March 2016
Level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These
descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during
nighttime hours (and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account
for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours.
In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A
10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
3. Acoustical Criteria
mmm
ACOUSTICS
3.1. City of Dublin General Plan
The Noise Element of the City's General Plan has policies regarding noise and
land use compatibility. Table 1 provides guidelines for the compatibility of land
uses with various noise exposures. The City uses the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor. A CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered
normally acceptable for residential land use.
Table 1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (dB)
Land Use Catego!Y Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
AcceRtable Acceptable UnacceRtable UnacceRtable
(Noise Insulation)
Features Reguired
Residential 60 or less 60.70 70.75 Over 75
Motels, hotels 60 or less 60.70 70.80 Over 80
Schools, churches, nursing 60 or less 60.70 70.80 Over 80
homes
Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60.65 65.70 Over 70
Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70.75 75.80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 70.75 Over75
Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design. Conventional construction,
but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
3.2. East Dublin Specific Plan and EIR
The project site is located in the East Dublin Specific Plan Area. The EIR for
the specific plan area adopted several mitigation measures to address
potential noise impacts on project sites with the specific plan area. Impacts
and associated mitigation measures applicable to this project are:
1100 larksput L<:~r:dmg Circk~ :~ 3~A i Lark~pw. Cahiortil~) 9:'·939 1 TEL .qs 4().: 0!50 ! FAX .;Js ._;64 011S I RGDACOUSTICS.COM
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page 3
10 March 2016
ACOUSTICS
MM 3.10/1.0 Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise:
Require that an acoustical study be submitted with all residential projects
located within the future CNEL 60 contour. The goal of the acoustical study is
to show how the interior noise level will be controlled to a CNEL of 45 dB as
required by Title 24, Part II. The title 24 goal of CNEL 45 should be applied to
single -family homes.
MM 3.10/4.0 Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise:
Developers shall submit to the City a Construction Noise Management Program
that identifies measures to be taken to minimize impacts on existing planning area
residents. The program will include a schedule for grading and other major noise
generating activities that will limit these activities to the shortest possible number of
days. Hours of construction shall be limited in keeping with Dublin ordinances. The
program for construction vehicle access to the site shall minimize construction truck
traffic through residential areas. If construction traffic must travel through residential
areas then a mitigation plan should be developed. The program may include
barriers, berms or restrictions on hours.
MM 3.1015.0 Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise:
In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all operations should comply
with local noise standards relating to construction activities. When construction
occurs near residential areas, then it should be limited to normal daytime hours to
minimize the impact. Stationary equipment should be adequately muffled and
located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible.
3.3. City of Dublin Noise Ordinance
Chapter 5.28 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code prohibits " ... loud, or
disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which
annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety
of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area".
The noise ordinance states that it is appropriate to consider the level and
character of the noise as well as the level and character of the background
noise. Since the City's Noise Ordinance does not contain quantifiable noise
level limits, it is not possible to apply the noise ordinance as a threshold for
assessing project generated noise in the context of this noise study.
3.4. Increase in Noise
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines require the determination
of whether a project will generate a substantial increase in noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project. CEQA does not specify
a method for determining when a project would cause a significant increase in
noise. Likewise, the City of Dublin does not have criteria for determining when a
noise increase is significant. An FAA Draft Policy discusses screening and
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page4
10 March 2016
impact thresholds for increases in aircraft noise. These thresholds are used to
assess the significance of noise increases due to the project as follows -an
increase in CNEL is significant if it is:
• 5 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is less than 60 dBA or
• 3 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is 60 dBA or greater and less
than 65 dBA or
• 1.5 dBA or greater and the future CNEL is 65 dBA or greater.
4. Existing Noise Environment
ACOUSTICS
To quantify the existing ambient noise levels noise measurements were made at
the project site. The major source of noise during the ambient measurements was
traffic on Tassajara Road. Noise from children playing was also clearly audible at
the site. Noises from small single engine aircraft flyovers (most likely private
aircraft originating from Livermore Municipal Airport) were also audible. Figure 1
shows the project site and the noise measurement locations. Table 2 shows the
results of the short-term noise measurements. Figure 2 shows the results of the
long-term noise measurements.
The noise at L T-1 is dominated by vehicular traffic on Tassajara Road. Location
ST -2 represents the noise environment at project homes that would be located
closest to the roadway. The CNEL at location ST-2 is 68 dBA based on a
comparison of the noise level measured at ST-1 with the 24 hour measurement at
LT-1.
Locations ST-1 and ST-3 represent the noise exposure of future homes that would
be located toward the center and eastern end of the site. The noise environment at
these locations was a combination of the sounds of children playing at the adjacent
school, distant roadway traffic and occasional aircraft flyovers.
Noise from distant gun shots, presumably from the Parks RFTA or Alameda
County Sheriff Training Facility, was heard briefly at 1:04pm on October 1ih. This
was just after we completed the short term noise measurements so the level of the
noise (dBA) was not quantified. Nevertheless, noise from the gunshots was
relatively low as compared to other noises (e.g. children playing, traffic and aircraft
flyovers). Although it was noticeable, it tended to blend in with the background
sound.
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page 5
10 March 2016
Figure 1: Site Plan and Ambient Noise Measurement Locations
Table 2: Short-Term Ambient Noise Measurement Results
Height A-Weighted Noise Level, dBA
Location above Date/Time
ground Leq Lmax L1o Lso Lgo CNEL
ST-1 5ft 16 October 2014 49 64 59 47 36 46** 11:45-12:00 PM
ST-1 24ft 18 October 2014 55 72 65 49 37 52** 11 :30-1:00 PM
ST-2 5ft 16 October 2014 69 87 80 63 50 68* 12:15-12:30 PM
ST-3 5ft 16 October 2014 57 65 62 56 52 54** 12:35-1:50PM
*CNEL based on correlation w1th simultaneous measurement at long-term measurement locat1on.
**CNEL due to children playing is calculated assuming the activity continues from 7 AM to 7 PM
mmm
ACOUSTICS
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page 6
10 March 2016
AC0US1' ICS
<{
!D
"0
Figure 2: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results
Location L T -1: Tassajara Road
2 ao~~~~~~==~~~==~~~~~~~~~==~~~~~~~
s
It)
: 70ty~~~~~~~~~~~~7*~==~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~ 60~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<I>
....1
<I>
VI
~50~==~~==~==~~~~~~~~~~~~----~--~~~--~
"0
$
.t::
Cl
!
~ 30~~~~~----~~~--==~~==~--~~~------~~~~_,
~
~ 20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C? 0 0 0 C? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C? 0 0
N ~ "" t.ii 10 ~ co c'ri 0 N N ~ 0 '""" N c'i "" t.ii 10 ~ co c'ri 0 '""" N ~
'""" '""" ..--'""" '""" ..--'""" '""" N N N '""" '""" ..--'"""
Time of Day
At location ST-1, the outdoor athletic field and playground area are immediately
adjacent to the project site though barely visible due to their elevation above the
project site. In order to quantify the sound of children playing, measurements were
made at ground level and 24 feet above ground (elevated receptor would have a
greater exposure to the sound).
During our measurements, children were in the play area from 11:30 to 1:00 pm.
The maximum sound levels of children playing (voices, screaming) ranged from 51
to 57 dBA (Lmax) at 5-1/2 feet above ground. At 24 feet, the noise levels were
higher due to loss of shielding by terrain and maximum levels ranged from 57 to
68 dBA. For the purposes of determining the CNEL we assumed a "worst case"
scenario whereby the children are playing outdoors continuously throughout the
day. In that case, the CNEL is 46 dBA at the first floor elevation and 52 dBA at
second floor elevations.
At location ST-3, noise from children playing in the front play yard (adjacent to the
parking lot) was clearly audible and similar in to the noise level of cars on
Tassajara with maximum noise levels ranging from 52 to 58 dBA. The CNEL at
location ST-3 is 53 dBA presuming continuous use of the play area by children.
The CNEL at this location is higher than at ST-1 due to the proximity of Tassajara
Road.
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page 7
10 March 2016
5. Impact Assessment
5. 1. Will the project expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Traffic
The City's General Plan considers a CNEL of 60 dBA or less as normally
acceptable for residential development. The existing noise level at homes
closest to Tassajara Road (Lots 1 and 17) is a CNEL of 68 dBA. In the future
(2035), traffic noise levels are expected to increase by 1 dBA due to increased
traffic.1 This increase in future traffic will result in a future CNEL of 69 dBA at
the closest homes. This is a potentially significant impact.
According to MM 3.10/1.0 of the East Dublin SP EIR, an acoustical study must
be prepared to show how interior noise levels will be reduced to CNEL of
45 dBA. For exterior noise (e.g. patios), the general plan does not provide
specific noise level limits. In the past, the City has adopted a CNEL of 65 dBA
or less (which is considered conditionally acceptable) as a goal for outdoor use
areas. A noise barrier will be required to reduce noise levels in the backyards
of homes along Tassajara Road. The barrier would need to range in height
from 6 to 8 feet. This is a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 5.1-1: Require an acoustical consultant review the project
during the design phase and verify the following prior to issuance of building
permit:
a. Exact height, length and location of noise barrier to reduce noise in
outdoor use areas to a CNEL that is no greater than 65 dBA.
b. Exact window and exterior wall constructions that will reduce interior
noise to a CNEL of 45 dBA or less.
Noise from Adjacent Quarry Lane School
Proposed residences would be exposed to noise from school activities such as
the sound of children playing outdoors. During our site visit we documented
the sounds of children playing at the fenced in play area toward the east end of
the project site (see discussion in existing noise section for additional
information on noise levels). Based on those measurements, the noise from
these activities would not exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA under a "worst case"
scenario when children were playing outdoors continuously from 7 am to 7 pm.
Although the sounds of children playing would be clearly audible, they would
not exceed the City's Noise Element standard of CNEL 60 dBA. Therefore, this
is considered less than significant. However, it is recommended that future
1 Email from Obaid Khan, City of Dublin to Jerry Haag, 31 October 2014.
mmm
ACOUSTICS
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page 8
10 March 2016
prospective homeowners be made aware of the presence of the school play
areas and associated noises of children playing.
5. 2. Will the project expose people to or generate excessive ground borne vibration
or ground borne noise levels?
The project does not include ground vibration sources that would affect the
neighboring Quarry Lane residential land uses. Construction equipment
generates can generate potentially feelable ground vibration. However, the
distance between the project site and the nearest buildings (at Quarry Lane
School) is 28 feet, and ground vibration from sources such as bulldozers and
vibratory rollers would attenuate sufficiently with this distance to a level that
could be occasionally noticeable but would not represent a significant risk for
damage to existing structures.
5. 3. Will the project create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
The main operational noise source associated with the project is traffic from future
residents. Traffic volumes provided by the City of Dublin2 indicates that traffic will
increase by 175 trips as a result of the project. The resulting increase in CNEL at
existing uses along Tassajara Road would be less than 0.5 dBA. Therefore, this is
a less than significant impact.
5. 4. Will the project create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
Many different types of equipment will be needed to construct the project. This
equipment includes excavators, backhoes, cranes, graders, trenchers, dump
trucks, loaders, compactors, bulldozers, pavers, concrete trucks, air
compressors, pneumatic equipment, roller compaction equipment, hand
compaction equipment and other heavy machinery. Construction is not
expected to require pile driving.
Table 3 presents typical construction equipment noise levels at a reference
distance of 50 feet. The noisier activities tend to occur during the grading and
foundation phases of construction. After the building shells are constructed, the
noise levels are significantly lessened as the activities begin to occur indoors.
Most machinery used in the construction of the proposed project produce
maximum noise levels of up to 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. This includes
concrete mixer trucks, cranes, bulldozers, dump trucks, graders, pavers,
pneumatic tools, rollers and scrapers. Several of these machines may operate
within a small area during the same time frame, and the additive effect of these
noise sources must be considered. If three of these machines operate
2 Email from Jerry Haag, 10 November 2014
ACOUSTICS
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page 9
10 March 2016
ACOUSTICS
simultaneously for a length of time, the maximum noise level produced may reach
90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
Table 3: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description Lmax (dBA) at 50 feet
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor 78
Concrete Mixer Truck 79
Concrete Pump Truck 81
Crane 81
Bulldozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Front End Loader 79
Generator 81
Grader 85
Hoe Ram 90
Jackhammer 89
Paver 77
Pneumatic Tools 85
Roller 80
Scraper 84
Tractor 84
Warning Horn 83
Welder/T arch 74
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction No1se Model, 2006
The East Dublin Specific Plan DEIR includes two mitigation measures to
address construction noise:
EDSP MM 3.10/4.0: Developers shall submit to the City a Construction Noise
Management Program that identifies measures to be taken to minimize
impacts on existing planning area residents. The program will include a
schedule for grading and other major noise-generating activities to the shortest
possible number of days. Hours of construction activities shall be limited in
keeping with Dublin ordinances. The Program for construction vehicle access
to the site shall minimize construction truck traffic through residential areas. If
construction traffic must travel through residential areas then a mitigation plan
should be developed. The program may include barriers, berms or restrictions
on hours.
EDSP MM 3.10/5.0: In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all
operations should comply with local noise standards relating to construction
activities. When construction occurs near residential areas, then it should be
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA
Environmental Noise Impact Study
Page 10
10 March 2016
ACOUSTICS
limited to normal daytime hours to minimize the impact. Stationary equipment
should be adequately muffled and located as far away from sensitive receptors
as possible.
Since the project will be required to comply with the aforementioned mitigation
measures, construction noise is considered a less than significant impact.
5. 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels.
The project is located outside the Livermore Airport CNEL 55 dBA noise
contour. It is also outside the Airport Influence Area and Airport Protection Area
(Livermore Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012). Therefore, the project is
considered compatible with the airport land use plan.
5. 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Not applicable.
* * *
Wanmei Development Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Date June 2017
Project Name Wanmei Development Project
PLPA-2015-00023
Project Location The project site is located 6327 Tassajara Road
(APN# 985-0072-002-00) in the City of Dublin, CA.
Project Applicant Hayes Shair
Wanmei Properties, LLC
520 Mill Creek Road
Fremont CA 94539
State Clearinghouse Number 2016032063
Contact Amy Million
Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925/833-6610
amy.million@dublin.ca.gov
EXHIBIT B
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish
monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation measures (MMs) adopted as part of the
project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant project impacts.
The MMRP identifies the following for each MM:
Timing. In each case, a timeframe for performance of the mitigation measure, or review of
evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The measures are designed to ensure
that impact-related components of Project implementation do not proceed without
establishing that the mitigation is implemented or assured. All activities are subject to the
approval of all required permits from local, State, and federal agencies with permitting
authority over the specific activity.
Responsible Party or Designated Representative. In each case, unless otherwise indicated,
the applicant is the Responsible Party for implementing the mitigation. The City or a
Designated Representative will also monitor the performance and implementation of the
mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently
overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official
who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one
official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required.
The numbering system corresponds with the numbering system used in the Final EIR. The last
column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting
when implementation of the MM has been completed. The ongoing documentation and
monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Dublin. The completed
MMRP will be kept on file at the City of Dublin Community Development Department.
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures. By reference, included in this MMRP are the
mitigation measures established in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (SCH# 91103064) that
are applicable to the project.
Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
MM AES-1. As part of final building and improvement
plans, exterior light fixtures, including street lights,
building security lights and exterior house lights shall be
equipped with appropriate lenses or shielding to ensure
that light is directed downward and does not spill over
off of the project site. Minimum light levels on the site as
required by Section 7.32.300 of the Dublin Municipal
Code shall be maintained. If required by the Community
Development Department, the applicant shall furnish
detailed illumination plans demonstrating that no
spillover of light shall occur.
Notes on construction
plans; site inspection
Prior to issuance of
building permit /
improvement plans
City of Dublin
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
project developer shall comply with the following:
a) The existing CRLF barrier along the south side
of the site shall be temporarily extended
along the eastern edge of the project site so
that the site is fully inaccessible to the CRLF
during construction. Extension of the fencing
shall be coordinated with a biologist
approved by the Dublin Community
Development Department.
b) The temporary extension may be removed
once the secondary barrier has been
Notes on construction
plans; site inspection
Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 4
Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
constructed along the eastern property
boundary.
c) Use of plastic mono-filament netting or similar
material for erosion control shall be prohibited
on the site to ensure that no entanglements with
wildlife occur.
MM BIO-2. The project developer shall comply with the
following prior to the issuance of grading or demolition
permit, whichever occurs first:
a) Project grading and construction shall avoid
disturbance to riparian vegetation, including any
area under the dripline of riparian trees
overhanging into the project site from the
tributary. If disturbance to riparian trees cannot
be avoided, a Streambed Alteration Agreement
shall be obtained from the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife.
b) If demolition, grading and/ or tree removal on
the project site or within 250 feet of the project
site boundaries occur during the nesting bird
season (February 1 through August 31), a pre-
construction bird survey (including raptors) shall
be completed within 30 days prior to initiation of
demolition, grading and/ or tree removal. If birds
or their nests are found on the project site, a 100-
foot buffer area around the nest(s) shall be
established until the birds have fledged. The
width of the buffer may be reduced upon
consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
Submittal of
documentation; notes on
construction plans ; site
inspection
Prior to issuance of
grading or
demolition permit,
whichever occurs
first
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 5
Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
c) If construction, tree removal or the removal or
demolition of buildings is initiated during the
bat maternity period (April1 through August 31),
a pre-construction bat emergence survey shall be
conducted within 30 days prior to initiation of
construction, tree removal or the removal or
demolition of any building. Internal entrance
surveys shall be conducted if any buildings are to
be demolished at any time of year to determine if
the building(s) currently or previously supported
roosting bats. If bats are found, demolition shall
be delayed and the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife shall be consulted.
MM BIO-3. Construction of the new, secondary CRLF
barrier inside the south side of the property and
extension of the barrier inside of the easterly property
boundary shall adhere to the following requirement:
a) Construction of the new, secondary barrier along
the southern and eastern property lines, within
the project site, and the temporary extension of
the existing CRLF barrier along the eastern
property line, within the project site, shall be
accomplished without encroaching onto the
adjacent conservation easement areas and shall
occur during the non-nesting or breeding season
for nearby birds.
Submittal of
documentation; notes on
construction plans ; site
inspection
Prior to the first
ground-disturbing
activities; during
construction
City of Dublin
MM BIO-4. The following measures shall be included
in all project construction plans and specifications.
a) All project construction shall occur between July
Submittal of
documentation; notes on
construction plans ; site
inspection
Prior to the first
ground-disturbing
activities; during
construction
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 6
Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
1 and December 31, outside of the golden eagle
nesting season. Depending on the specific golden
eagle pair, the Dublin Community Development
Director may grant exceptions to this
requirement supported by technical information
prepared by a qualified biologist that
demonstrates that no adverse impacts on the
golden eagle nesting will occur based on
compliance with subsection (b) of this mitigation
measure.
b) If project construction is scheduled to
commence during the nesting season, the
following shall be implemented:
i) The known nest site near the project site
and other suitable nesting substrates in a .25
mile vicinity shall be monitored by a
qualified biologist experienced in golden
eagle behavior and approved by the City of
Dublin and CDFW to determine whether a
nest is active. Monitoring visits shall be
conducted starting January 1 and occur
weekly at a minimum through June 30 to
ensure that the status of the nest (i.e., level
of attendance by adult eagles, known or
presumed presence of eggs or young) has
been determined relative to the proposed
project/construction schedule. Project
construction shall not commence while the
nest is active. If the nest is determined to be
inactive, project construction may
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 7
Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
commence as long as the nest remains
inactive as determined by the qualified
biologist.
ii) If a nest becomes active following the
commencement of project construction
activities, a qualified biologist shall
constantly monitor the nest during all
construction activities. If the birds exhibit
abnormal nesting behavior which may cause
reproductive failure (nest abandonment and
loss of eggs and/or young) the qualified
biologist shall have the authority to halt all
project construction activities. Project
construction shall not resume until the
qualified biologist has consulted with the
City of Dublin and CDFW and it is confirmed
that the bird’s behavior has normalized or
the young have left the nest.
iii) Once the nest has become inactive as
determined by the qualified biologist, (e.g.,
following the fledging of young), project
construction may continue without
continual monitoring and shall revert to
weekly, at a minimum, monitoring visits.
MM BIO-5. Rodenticides shall not be used outdoors,
either during project construction or after
construction has finished, unless a biologist
approved by the City determines that there is no
other feasible alternative and specific steps are
implemented to minimize potential adverse effects
Construction Phase:
Notes on construction
plans; site inspection
Occupancy Phase:
Submittal of
Construction Phase:
Approval of building
permit/grading
permit;
Occupancy Phase:
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 8
Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
on special status species and such use is consistent
with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles.
The governing body of the residential subdivision
(e.g., Home Owners Association or equivalent) shall
include this restriction in their governing documents
(e.g., Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) which
shall be approved by the City. IPM techniques
include generally limiting use of chemicals in favor of
mechanical control of pests. Failure to comply with
this provision shall be enforced by the use of
monetary fines.
documentation (e.g.,
Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions);
Prior to first
occupancy permit
MM BIO-6. 30 days prior to commencing any grading
activities or any other activities that would disturb the
ground surface, preconstruction surveys for California
Red Legged Frog (CRLF) and California Tiger Salamander
(CTS) shall completed by a qualified biologist, as
approved by the Dublin Community Development
Department, and following the most recent survey
protocols by applicable regulatory agencies. If no CRLF
or CTS are found to be present, grading activities may be
undertaken. If CRLF or CTS are found, all activity on the
project site shall cease and both the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be
contacted. Unless USFWS authorizes relocation, any
frogs or salamanders found on-site must be allowed to
leave the area on their own prior to conducting any
grading activities.
Submittal of
documentation; notes on
construction plans ; site
inspection
Prior to the first
ground-disturbing
activities; during
construction
City of Dublin
MM BIO-7. Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities Submittal of Prior to the first City of Dublin
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 9
Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
on the site, the project developer shall:
a) Retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the
Dublin Community Development Department, to
conduct two pre-construction surveys for
burrowing owl for the entire site. The first survey
shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to
ground-disturbing activities and the second
completed within 48 hours of ground disturbance.
Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the
CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If
the surveys determine the presence of Burrowing
Owls on the site, these additional steps shall be
taken.
b) If direct impacts to Burrowing Owl cannot be
avoided as part of the project, the developer shall
implement the following to reduce or eliminate
impacts to Burrowing Owl:
1. Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during
the nesting period, from February 1 through
August 31;
2. Avoid impacting burrows occupied during
the non-breeding season by migratory or non-
migratory owls;
3. Avoid direct destruction of burrows
through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over
the area to remove shrubs), disking and
cultivation;
4. Develop and implement a worker
awareness program to increase worker
recognition of owls and commitment to owl
documentation; notes on
construction plans ; site
inspection
ground-disturbing
activities; during
construction
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 10
Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
protection;
5. Place signs or other marker to ensure
construction equipment does not collapse
burrows; and
6. Prohibit fumigation, use of treated bait or
other poisons near owl burrows.
c) If avoidance is not feasible, the project developer,
developer biologist and CDFW staff shall prepare a
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan that is consistent
with the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of
burrowing owls shall be implemented as per the
Staff Report. The Plan shall include replacement of
impacted habitat, burrows and burrowing owl at a
ratio approved by CDFW. The Plan shall be
consistent with the requirements of Appendix A of
the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. The Plan shall be
approved by City of Dublin and CDFW prior to the
first ground-disturbing activity.
Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project
applicant shall commission a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment from a qualified specialist to determine the
presence or absence of metal contaminants, petroleum
deposits or other contaminants above regulatory thresholds.
If contaminated materials are detected on the site at
actionable levels, a Remediation Plan shall be prepared in
coordination with affected regulatory agencies and
implemented prior to commencement of grading operations.
The Remediation Plan shall include a worker safety plan,
protections for employees and visitors on adjacent properties
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 11
Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
and protection of the adjacent tributary.
MM HAZ-2. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the
existing structure, a licensed contractor shall determine the
presence or absence of lead based paints or asbestos material
on the site. If found in quantities at or above actionable levels
as determined by the Alameda County Fire Department and
Dublin Building Department, these materials shall be safely
removed consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and other applicable standards and
disposed of in an appropriate location. Necessary permits and
approvals shall be secured from appropriate regulatory
agencies. The adjacent tributary shall also be protected from
migration of contaminated material.
Submittal of
documentation; notes on
construction plans
Prior to issuance of a
building permit for
demolition
City of Dublin
Noise
MM NOISE-1. An acoustic consultant acceptable to the City of
Dublin Community Development Director shall review final
grading and design plans prior to issuance of a building permit
to ensure:
a) The exact height, length, location and design of the
barrier wall shall be sufficient to reduce noise in active
outdoor use areas to a CNEL of 65 dBA or less.
b) Window, door and exterior wall designs are sufficient
to reduce interior noise to a CNEL of 45 dBA or less.
Submittal of
documentation; notes on
construction plans
Prior to issuance of
building permits or
grading permit
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
Wanmei Development Project
June 2017
Response to Environmental Comments
Introduction
The proposed project includes redevelopment of the existing rural residential home site and
storage yard to allow creation of up to 19 individual lots on the site and construction of one
single‐family dwelling on each lot. Other improvements would include grading of the site,
construction of an on‐site private street, open parking spaces, utility extensions, water quality
improvements, a noise barrier and road improvements along the Tassajara Road frontage and
construction of a new biological barrier along the southern and eastern property lines, all on
the project property. Requested land use entitlements include approval of a PD‐Planned
Development rezoning with related Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan, a vesting tentative
subdivision map, and Site Development Review (SDR).
The project site is located on the east side of Tassajara Road at 6237 Tassajara Road (Assessors
Parcel Number 985‐0072‐002‐00).
The City of Dublin circulated an Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on
March 17, 2016 for a 30‐day public review period that ended on April 18, 2016.
CEQA does not require the City to prepare written responses to comments received on a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City has nevertheless prepared these written responses
because of the public interest in the project and to resolve any confusion or misperceptions
about the current project.
Revised and Recirculated IS/MND
Shortly after releasing the MND for public review, the City learned that an active Golden Eagle
nest had been discovered adjacent to the property to the east. The draft MND described the
potential for Golden Eagle nests in Eastern Dublin generally, as disclosed in the certified Eastern
Dublin EIR. However, neither the prior EIR nor the MND discussed potential impacts related to
Golden Eagle nests on or near the project site. Based on this new information about the
adjacent active nest, the City determined that portions of the biological analysis in the draft
MND should be revised and recirculated for public review, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15073.5.
The description of the proposed project has not significantly changed as part of the Revised and
Recirculated Initial Study. The one minor change to the project applicant has slightly revised the
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Dublin Page 2
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
project description to include the construction a secondary barrier all within the project site
that would consist of a 4‐foot solid block wall with an additional 2‐feet of ornamental steel on
top. The secondary barrier would be located completely within the project site along the
southern property line and eastern property line.
All other project features would remain the same.
The circulation period for the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND extended from October 22, 2016
through November 22, 2016.
Corrections and Modifications
These responses to comments also contain clarifications and minor corrections to information
presented in the draft MND. In the course of preparing the responses, the City generated new
information as well as clarifications and modifications to the draft MND. The City has carefully
reviewed the responses in this document against the recirculation standards of CEQA Guidelines
section 15073.5. None of the new information, clarifications or modifications in this document
requires "substantial revision" of the MND as defined in the Guidelines, therefore the City has
determined that no recirculation is required.
The following minor changes and modifications are hereby made to the Initial Study document.
1) Revised Mitigation Measure BIO‐1. This measure is hereby amended by reference to read as
follows:
Mitigation Measure BIO‐1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project
developer shall comply with the following:
a) The existing CRLF barrier along the south side of the site shall be
temporarily extended along the eastern edge of the project site so that
the site is fully inaccessible to the CRLF during construction. Extension of
the fencing shall be coordinated with a biologist approved by the Dublin
Community Development Department.
b) The temporary extension may be removed once the secondary barrier has
been constructed along the eastern property boundary.
c) Use of plastic mono‐filament netting or similar material for erosion
control shall be prohibited on the site to ensure that no entanglements
with wildlife occur.
2) Revised Mitigation Measure BIO‐2. This measure is hereby amended by reference to read as
follows:
City of Dublin Page 3
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Mitigation Measure BIO‐2.
a) Project grading and construction shall avoid disturbance to riparian vegetation,
including any area under the dripline of riparian trees overhanging into the project
site from the tributary. If disturbance to riparian trees cannot be avoided, a
Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained from the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife.
b) If demolition, grading and/ or tree removal on the project site or within 250 feet of
the project site boundaries occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 through
August 31), a pre‐ construction bird survey (including raptors) shall be completed
within 30 days prior to initiation of demolition, grading and/ or tree removal. If birds
or their nests are found on the project site, a 100‐foot buffer area around the nest(s)
shall be established until the birds have fledged. The width of the buffer may be
reduced upon consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
c) If construction, tree removal or the removal or demolition of buildings is initiated
during the bat maternity period (April1 through August 31), a pre‐construction bat
emergence survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to initiation of
construction, tree removal or the removal or demolition of any building. Internal
entrance surveys shall be conducted if any buildings are to be demolished at any
time of year to determine if the building(s) currently or previously supported
roosting bats. If bats are found, demolition shall be delayed and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be consulted.
3) New Mitigation Measure BIO‐3. This mitigation measure is added by reference to read as
follows:
Mitigation Measure BIO‐3. Construction of the new, secondary CRLF barrier
inside the south side of the property and extension of the barrier inside of
the easterly property boundary shall adhere to the following requirement:
a) Construction of the new, secondary barrier along the southern and
eastern property lines, within the project site, and the temporary
extension of the existing CRLF barrier along the eastern property line,
within the project site, shall be accomplished without encroaching onto
the adjacent conservation easement areas and shall occur during the
non‐nesting or breeding season for nearby birds.
4) New Mitigation Measure BIO‐4. This mitigation measure is hereby added by reference to
read as follows:
City of Dublin Page 4
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
a) All project construction shall occur between July 1 and December 31, outside
of the golden eagle nesting season. Depending on the specific golden eagle
pair, the Dublin Community Development Director may grant exceptions to
this requirement supported by technical information prepared by a qualified
biologist that demonstrates that no adverse impacts on the golden eagle
nesting will occur based on compliance with subsection (b) of this mitigation
measure.
b) If project construction is scheduled to commence during the nesting
season, the following shall be implemented:
i) The known nest site near the project site and other suitable nesting
substrates in a .25 mile vicinity shall be monitored by a qualified
biologist experienced in golden eagle behavior and approved by the
City of Dublin and CDFW to determine whether a nest is active.
Monitoring visits shall be conducted starting January 1 and occur
weekly at a minimum through June 30 to ensure that the status of the
nest (i.e., level of attendance by adult eagles, known or presumed
presence of eggs or young) has been determined relative to the
proposed project/construction schedule. Project construction shall not
commence while the nest is active. If the nest is determined to be
inactive, project construction may commence as long as the nest
remains inactive as determined by the qualified biologist.
ii) If a nest becomes active following the commencement of project
construction activities, a qualified biologist shall constantly monitor the
nest during all construction activities. If the birds exhibit abnormal
nesting behavior which may cause reproductive failure (nest
abandonment and loss of eggs and/or young) the qualified biologist
shall have the authority to halt all project construction activities.
Project construction shall not resume until the qualified biologist has
consulted with the City of Dublin and CDFW and it is confirmed that the
bird’s behavior has normalized or the young have left the nest.
iii) Once the nest has become inactive as determined by the qualified
biologist, (e.g., following the fledging of young), project construction
may continue without continual monitoring and shall revert to weekly
monitoring visits, at a minimum.
5) New Mitigation Measure BIO-5. This mitigation measure is hereby added by reference to
read as follows:
Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Rodenticides shall not be used outdoors, either
during project construction or after construction has finished, unless a biologist
City of Dublin Page 5
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
approved by the City determines that there is no other feasible alternative and
specific steps are implemented to minimize potential adverse effects on special
status species and such use is consistent with Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) principles. The governing body of the residential subdivision (e.g., Home
Owners Association or equivalent) shall include this restriction in their governing
documents (e.g., Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) which shall be
approved by the City. IPM techniques include generally limiting use of chemicals
in favor of mechanical control of pests. Failure to comply with this provision shall
be enforced by the use of monetary fines.
6) New Mitigation Measure BIO-6. This mitigation measure is hereby added by reference to
read as follows:
Mitigation Measure BIO-6. 30 days prior to commencing any grading
activities or any other activities that would disturb the ground surface,
preconstruction surveys for California Red Legged Frog (CRLF) and California
Tiger Salamander (CTS) shall completed by a qualified biologist, as approved
by the Dublin Community Development Department, and following the most
recent survey protocols by applicable regulatory agencies. If no CRLF or CTS
are found to be present, grading activities may be undertaken. If CRLF or CTS
are found, all activity on the project site shall cease and both the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall be contacted. Unless USFWS authorizes
relocation, any frogs or salamanders found on-site must be allowed to leave
the area on their own prior to commencement of ground disturbance
activities.
7) New Mitigation Measure BIO-7. This mitigation measure is hereby added by reference to
protect burrowing owl to read as follows:
Mitigation Measure BIO-7. Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities on the
site, the project developer shall:
a) Retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the Dublin Community
Development Department, to conduct two pre-construction surveys for
burrowing owl for the entire site. The first survey shall be conducted no
more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities and the second
completed within 48 hours of ground disturbance. Surveys shall be
conducted in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation. If the surveys determine the presence of Burrowing Owls on
the site, these additional steps shall be taken.
City of Dublin Page 6
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
b) If direct impacts to Burrowing Owl cannot be avoided as part of the
project, the developer shall implement the following to reduce or
eliminate impacts to Burrowing Owl:
1. Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from
February 1 through August 31;
2. Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by
migratory or non-migratory owls;
3. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a
heavy chain over the area to remove shrubs), disking and cultivation;
4. Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase
worker recognition of owls and commitment to owl protection;
5. Place signs or other marker to ensure construction equipment does
not collapse burrows;
6. Prohibit fumigation, use of treated bait or other poisons near owl
burrows.
c) If avoidance is not feasible, the project developer, developer biologist
and CDFW staff shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan that is
consistent with the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of burrowing
owls shall be implemented as per the Staff Report. The Plan shall
include replacement of impacted habitat, burrows and burrowing owl
at a ratio approved by CDFW. The Plan shall be consistent with the
requirements Of Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. The Plan
shall be approved by City of Dublin and CDFW prior to the first
ground-disturbing activity.
Master Response for Potential Impacts Due to Encroachment into 100-foot Creek Setback
Several comments were received regarding the applicant’s request to encroach into the
recommended 100-foot setback area from the top of the bank of the creek tributary located
south and east of the project site. The project proposes a 50-foot setback from the top of the
creek bank to the buildings. The 100-foot setback is recommended under the Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program (City of Dublin, 1996) (“Stream Restoration
Program”). The Program was prepared based on policies and programs contained in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and provides guidelines for the protection and restoration of major and
minor creeks in the Eastern Dublin planning area. The recommended setbacks may be altered
where prevailing conditions warrant a different approach. The purposes of the setbacks are to
protect resources relating to the stream, provide a wildlife corridor and protect the stream
from erosion impacts.
Since as early as 1993, prior to the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the project site
has been utilized as a landscape contracting and storage yard. The following site improvements
City of Dublin Page 7
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
are or have been located within the 100 foot setback area: a single-family home, a garage,
several storage sheds, asphalt concrete and various concrete flatwork, a large concrete slab
towards the rear of the site, wooden fences, trailers, and a herpetological fence consisting of a
sheet metal barrier attached to a standard chain-link fence. The contracting yard use included
daily trips by flatbed trucks, excavators, bulldozers, and dump trucks to move hundreds of cubic
yards of dirt, gravel, organic matter, planting, wood chips, pavers, and bricks for storage on-site
and transportation off-site.
The herpetological fence was constructed in 2007 as part of the restoration of the stream
adjacent to the site in accordance with the Stream Restoration Program. The fence was
constructed to prevent wildlife from accessing the adjacent developed site and protect the
steam from the existing contracting and storage yard. The fence is within the 100-foot setback
area. The majority of the site, except for the northeast and northwest corners, is located within
the 100-foot setback area.
The above facts, including the already-completed restoration of the stream adjacent to the
project site and the presence of the fence, establish a basis for an exception to the
recommended 100-foot setback area under the Stream Restoration Plan. The project proposes
a 50-foot setback to the edge of buildings. The proposed project includes a roadway and
related improvements within the 50-foot setback area.
Commenters raised issues with respect to potential impacts of the project on biological
resources within the adjacent creek tributary as well as potential erosion and water quality
impacts from the project on the adjacent tributary due to encroachment into the
recommended 100-foot setback area.
The proposed project’s development within a portion of the recommended 100-foot setback
area would not result in any significant impacts on biological resources or water quality of creek
tributary for the following reasons:
• The creek tributary adjacent to the site has already been restored pursuant to the City
of Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program in 2007 under the direction of a
qualified biological resources firm.
• As part of the approved restoration project, a six-foot tall chain link fence with a 4-foot
tall sheet metal barrier was installed on the north property line of the creek tributary as
part of the restoration project to preclude special-status wildlife species migration onto
the project site from the adjacent creek tributary. The fence also prevents the use of the
site as a wildlife corridor. As documented in the Revised and Recirculated Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, a secondary exclusion fence would be built
entirely on the project site with no construction occurring within the creek tributary.
City of Dublin Page 8
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
• The project site has been highly disturbed since at least 1993, the earliest site aerial
photos available. The site is developed with a single-family dwelling, a garage, several
storage sheds and several large concrete slabs. The site has historically been used for
storage of landscape and building materials, much of which continues to the presen t
time. The site is subject to continuous use by heavy and light trucks, autos and other
mechanical equipment as part of storage uses.
• Based on two recent surveys of the site by qualified biologists, no rare, threatened or
special-status wildlife species have been observed on the site.
• Should the project be approved by the City of Dublin, a number of Mitigation Measures
included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would be required to
protect special-status biological resources from potential impacts by the project,
including resources within the adjacent creek tributary. These include BIO-1
(Construction of the new, secondary CRLF barrier inside the south side of the property
and extension of the barrier inside of the easterly property boundary), BIO-2 (protection
of riparian vegetation and nesting birds and bats), BIO-3 (prohibits encroachment into
adjacent creek tributary for construction of the CRLF fence) and BIO-6 (requires
preconstruction surveys for potential presence of CRLF) and other applicable mitigation
measure required under the EDSP EIR.
• The project includes plans for water quality and protection plans, subject to approval of
the City of Dublin, to ensure that no polluted runoff or erosion would enter the stream.
Proposed plans include the use of vegetated swales along the proposed road to filter
pollutants from stormwater. Following this initial cleansing, stormwater would flow into
a water quality basin to remove any remaining pollutants prior to entering the City’s
local storm water drainage system. Thus, there would be no erosion or pollutants from
stormwater run-off entering the stream.
• As documented on page 56 of the Revised and Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the development portion of the project site has been determined
to be outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. This determination was made at the
time the adjacent creek tributary was restored in 2007.
• Also, as documented in the Revised and Recirculated Initial Study. Mitigated Negative
Declaration and this document, the Stream Restoration Program allows for a reduction
in the 100-foot setback from the top of bank for creek tributaries in certain
circumstances. Based on the factors cited above, the project’s reduction in the setback
is allowed under the Program.
City of Dublin Page 9
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Comments Received For Initial IS/MND
The following comment letters were received by the City during the first 30-day comment
period (March 17, 2016 – April 18, 2016).
Commenter
Date
Federal Agencies
none
State Agencies
1.1 Office of Planning and Research 4/22/16
1.2 California Department of Fish & Wildlife 4/18/16
Local Agencies
2.1 Alameda County Public Works
Department
4/8/16
2.2 Dublin San Ramon Services District 4/18/16
2.3 East Bay Regional Park District 4/18/16
2.4 Alameda County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District-Zone 7
4/20/16
Interested Persons/Organizations
3.1 Christopher Page 4/17/16
3.2 Kerrie Chabot 4/18/16
3.3 Stuart Flashman 4/18/16
3.4 Patricia Curtin 4/21/16
3.5 Colleen Lenihan 4/22/16
Copies of these letters with City responses follow.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE a/PLANNING AND RESEARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLA.NNING UNIT
EDMUND G. BROWN Jll.
GOVERJ\OR
April22, 2016
Mamie R. Delgado
City of Dublin
I 00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Wamnei Properties, LLC
SCH#: 20 1603206o
Dear Mamie R. Delgado:
Letter 1.11
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state
agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has
listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on April21, 2016, and the
comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,
please notifY the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State
Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 211 04(c) ofthe California Public Resources Code states that:
''A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which arc within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed conunents, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with. the State Clearinghouse review requirements for
draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the
State Ch::aringhouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review
process.
Sincerely,
~)~_::~z:r:
Scott I\-1organ
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 lOth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
(916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
Type
Description
2016032063
Wanmei Properties, LLC
Dublin, City of
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
Proposed subdivision of 2.64 acres of land into 19 lots and construction of one single family dwelling
on each lot. Other improvements include construction of a private roadway through the approximate
center of the site, provision of on~site guest parking, on~site landscaping frontage improvements along
Tassajara Road, construction of a water quality basin and utility extensions.
Lead Agency Contact
Name
Agency
Phone
email
Address
City
Mamie R Delgado
City of Dublin
925-833-6610
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin
Fax
State CA Zip 94568
Project Location
County
City
Region
Lat!Long
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township
Proximity to:
Alameda
Dublin
37" 43' 35.65" N /121° 52' 16.02" W
East side of Tassajara Road & South of Silvera Ranch Drive
985-0072-002-00
Range Section Base
Highways 580
Airports
Railways
Waten.vays
Schools
T assajara Creek & tribulary (Kobold Reach)
Quarry Lane (Private)
Land Use
Project Issues
Reviewing
Agencies
The site is designated for Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. THe site is zoned PD
AestheticNisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic~Historic; Drainage/Absorption: Flood
Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services;
Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities: Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid
Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation: Water Quality; Water Supply
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water
Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Air Resources Board; State Water
Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2;
Resources Agency; Native American Heritage Commission
Date Received 03/23/2016 Start of Review 03/23/2016 End of Review 04/21/2016
Note; Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
City of Dublin Page 12
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Letter 1.1: State of California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
Response: This comment is acknowledged and no additional response is required.
State of California-The Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Bay Delta Region
7329 Silverado Trail
Napa, CA 94558
(707) 944-5500
www.wildlife.ca.gov
April 18, 2016
Ms. Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Delgado:
l~{A\Z
"r 1 1-\Jo
"G'
Letter 1.21
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
Subject: Wanmei Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
SCH #2016032063, City of Dublin, Alameda County
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Wanmei Development Project (Project). CDFW is
providing comments on the IS/MND as a Trustee Agency and Responsible Agency.
CDFW is a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1.2.1
Section 15386 with responsibility under CEQA for commenting on projects that could affect
biological resources. As trustee for the State's fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has
jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of the fish, wildlife, native plants,
and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of such species for the benefit
and use by the people of California. CDFW also acts as a Responsible Agency pursuant to
CEQA Section 15381 if a project requires discretionary approval, such as issuance of a
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) [Fish and Game Code
(FGC) section 2080 et seq.], or Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) (FGC section
1600 et seq.).
Under CESA, CDFW has regulatory authority over activities that could result in take of a species
listed, or is a candidate for listing, by the State as threatened or endangered. If the proposed
Project or activities could result in take of a state listed or candidate species, the Project
proponent (Wanmei Properties, LLC) should apply for an ITP for the Project. Fish and Game
Code Section 86 defines take as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt,
pursue, catch, capture, or kill".
Under the LSAA Program, CDFW has regulatory authority over projects that could divert or
obstruct the natural flow, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank or
channel (which may include associated riparian, wetland and pond habitat) of a river or stream.
CDFW may require a LSAA with the Project proponent, for activities proposed in or near
streams, wetlands or ponds located within the Project area.
CDFW has jurisdiction over actions that may result in the disturbance or destruction of active
nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections protecting birds,
their eggs and nests include 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction
of the nests or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any
Conserving Ca{ijomia's Wi(dlife Since 1870
Ms. Marnie R. Delgado
April18, 2016
Page 2
birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory
nongame bird). Species designated as Fully Protected may not be taken or possessed at any
time (Fish and Game Code Section 3511 ).
CDFW is submitting comments on the IS/MND as a means to inform the City of Dublin (City), as
the Lead Agency, of our concerns regarding sensitive species and their habitats, including
wetland and riparian resources which could potentially be affected by the Project. On
April 5, 2016, the City notified CDFW the deadline to submit comments was extended to
April 21, 2016.
Project Location and Description
The proposed Project is located on the east side of Tassajara Road, south of the Quarry Lane 1.2.2
School and north of the Northern Drainage Conservation Area (NCDA) and a tributary to
Tassajara Creek. The street address Is 6237 Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin, in Alameda
County. The Project site is approximately 2.65 acres.
The site contains native and introduced tree and other vegetation species and has been
historically used as a landscape contracting business with outdoor storage. The site has one
single-family structure and a number of accessory outbuildings. The proposed Project includes
subdivision of the site to create up to 19 individual lots and construction of 19 single-family
dwellings along with a single access road with sidewalks from Tassajara Road.
Biological Resources
CDFW is concerned that the IS/MND does not provide adequate avoidance, minimization, and 1.2.3
mitigation measures for special status species such as California red-legged frog (Rana
draytonii) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). California red-legged frog is federally listed as
threatened and a California Species of Special Concern. Golden eagles are listed as fully
protected by Fish and Game Code section 3511 and is a CDFW Bird Species of Special
Concern. Nests and eggs are protected by the Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5.
Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time so potential impacts to
these species must be avoided. Failure to adequately consider potential impacts of the Project
on special-status species and the requirements of all their life history stages may lead to
elimination or reduction of local populations.
In an email from the City to CDFW, dated April5, 2016, the City acknowledged that its staff is 1.2.4
aware of a new golden eagle nest which has been constructed this year within 300 feet of the
Project location, in the NDCA. However, the IS/MND does not include appropriate and effective
take avoidance measures for nesting golden eagles close to the Project location. CDFW is
providing the following recommendations to avoid impacts to golden eagles:
o The Project proponent should consult with a biologist/ornithologist, experienced in
golden eagle behavior and approved by CDFW to provide baseline data and advise the
proponent with scheduling Project activities.
o Project construction should be limited to outside the nesting season, typically August-
January, depending on the specific golden eagle pair.
Ms. Mamie R. Delgado
April 18,2016
Page3
o A qualified biological monitor experienced in golden eagle behavior and approved by
CDFW should be assigned to monitor the behavior of golden eagles and other rapiers
nesting within disturbance distance of the Project actlvitles. Even within species,
disturbance distances can vary according to time of year or geographical location. The
biological monitor should have authority to order the cessation of all Project activities
within disturbance distance of any raptor nest if the birds exhibit abnormal nesting
behavior which may cause reproductive failure (nest abandonment and loss of eggs
and/or young). Abnonmal nesting behaviors which may cause reproductive hanm
Include, but are not limited to: defensive flights/vocalizations directed towards project
personnel, standing up from a brooding position, Interrupted feeding patterns, and flying
away from the nest. Project activities within line of sight of the nest should not resume
until the biological monitor has consulted with CDFW and both the biological monitor and
CDFW conflnm that the bird's behavior has normalized or the young have left the nest.
o Use of rodenticldes at the construction site and housing development should be
prohibited. Use of pesticides or rodenticides is also not recommended in areas where
raptors are foraging, breeding, or nesting. Second-generation rodenticides such as
brodifacoum are used widely In the United States to kill rats and other rodents.
Unfortunately, they also kill many raptors, which are attracted to the poisoned rodents as
they are in their final stages of death.
o Golden eagles and raptors in general show high site fidelity to a nest tree. Public access
near the nest tree should be limited and discouraged during construction and during
future nesting seasons.
California red-legged frogs can also spend prolonged time in small mammal burrows (D'Amore
2007; Tatarian 2008). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2010) designates an upper
protective buffer limit of one mile. Minimum distances around aquatic habitat should be
determined by local known dispersal distances. Activities that will decrease ground squirrel
populations, impede movement, or cause take of California red-legged frogs in uplands are
advised to also be avoided. CDFW also recommends a qualified biological monitor experienced
In the identification and life history of California red-legged frogs be on-site during demolition
and removal of exlst!ng structures or containers currently in the Project area. Unless USFWS
authorizes relocation, any frogs found on-site must be allowed to leave the area on their own.·
The IS/MND notes that the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program
requires a 1 DO-foot setback from major tributaries and a 50 foot-setback from minor tributaries.
However, the Project proposes an "average structural setback" of 50-feet from the top of the
bank of the tributary within the NCDA. A 50-foot setback from streams may be adequate in
some cases; however, the topography, adjacent land use, and species use must also be taken
into consideration and a larger setback or a minimum 50-foot setback, not an average, including
roads and trails is recommended to prevent sediment and pollutants from entering the streams
and to protect species from injury or death. Excessive erosion from roads and runoff from
hardscape can cause amphibian breeding ponds or streams to fill with sediment and/or smother
amphibian eggs or result In a shortened hydroperiod resulting in death of larvae before
metamorphosis can be completed.
1.2.5 i
1.2.6 ;
Ms. Mamie R. Delgado
April 18, 2016
Page 4
Conclusion
CDFW is concerned that Project as described in the IS/MND could result in the "take" of species
listed by the State as fully protected. or may require an LSAA. CDFW recommends that the City
consult with CDFW permitting staff and apply for any necessary State permits.
Issuance of an LSAA is subject to CEQA. CDFW recommends the City work with CDFW. as
well as other resource agencies. to address the issues identified, and in developing mitigation
measures that are capable of reducing impacts to less-than-significant. CDFW recommends
that the MND be revised to address our concerns and incorporate our recommendations.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Marcia Grefsrud, Environmental Scientist. at
(707) 644-2812; or Ms. Brenda Blinn. Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory). at
(707) 944-5541.
Sincerely,
~/do---
Scott Wilson
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
cc: State Clearinghouse
Ryan Olah. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -Ryan Olah@fws.gov
Cathy Little. Center for Natural Lands Management -· clittle@cnlm.org
References
D'Amore, A. J. 2007. Conservation of California red-legged frogs: distribution correlates, spatial
dynamics and behavioral interactions with an invasive species. Ph.D. thesis, University
of California, Santa Cruz. 154 pp.
Tatarian, P. J. 2008. Movement patterns of California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonil) in an
inland California environment. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2): 155-169.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog.
Federal Register 75(51): 12816-12959. Available URL accessed 6/13/2013
http://www.gpo :qov/fdsys/search/citation. result. FR.action?federaiRegister. volume=201 0
&federa1Register.paqe=12816&publication=FR
1.2.7.
City of Dublin Page 17
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
1.2) State of California Department of Fish & Wildlife
Response 1.2.1: This comment is acknowledged. Please see the following responses regarding
potential project impacts on biological resources, including those regulated by CDFW.
Additional information on potential biological resources impacts and mitigation measures are
included in the Responses to Revised and Recirculated IS/MND section, following the responses
to the original IS/MND.
Response 1.2.2: The description correctly summarizes the IS/MND. This comment is
acknowledged and no further response is required.
Response 1.2.3: This comment is acknowledged. The commenter provides more detail on its
concerns for CRLF and golden eagle under Comments 1.2.4 and 1.2.5, respectively, which are
addressed in related responses below. The commenter is also directed to the responses to the
Revised and Recirculated IS/MND, following this response section.
Response 1.2.4: The City became aware of this nest near the project site after release of the
IS/MND in March of 2016. The City revised and recirculated portions of the IS/ MND to identify,
analyze, and mitigate potential impacts to the newly discovered golden eagle nest. The revised
and recirculated discussion, see the following section of this document, considered and
included commenter’s recommended mitigation measure to the fullest extent feasible.
Response 1.2.5: City believes that the biological analysis prepared as part of the Initial Study is
based on the most current standards published by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife
and provides adequate mitigation measures to protect red-legged frog species that may be
located on a portion of the Northern Drainage Conservation Drainage located immediately
south of the proposed project. Proposed project elements include constructing a new
herpetological exclusion fence along the southern boundary of the project site to preclude
migration of red-legged frogs and red-legged frogs onto the project site and to prevent human
activity on the Conservation Drainage property. In addition, adherence to Mitigation Measure
AES-1 would prohibit spill-over of project generated light and glare onto the adjacent
Conservation Drainage property.
Surveys of the Northern Drainage Conservation Area upstream of Fallon Road have detected
red-legged frogs. The closest recent observation has been from a series of step pools in the
creek located approximately 4,100 feet (0.78 miles) away. The drainage adjacent to the project
site has ephemeral to intermittent flow and provides only a movement corridor for CRLF when
water is present. There are no deep pools that could provide useable habitat for longer-term
occupancy, or breeding. MM BIO-3 in the original and Recirculated and Revised MND ensures
that extension and upgrading of the existing barrier along the southern and eastern boundaries
of the project site, as document in the introductory section of this document, will not have a
City of Dublin Page 18
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
significant impact on the adjacent offsite tributary and any CRLF that might inhabit areas off the
site.
To augment the mitigation protection during on-site construction activities, the City’s peer
reviewer recommends adding a mitigation to provide an on-site biological monitor to prevent
harm to species during demolition and removal of existing structures. This recommendation
was added to MM BIO-3 in the recirculated draft MND.
Based on the biological analysis prepared by the firm of LSA and peer-reviewed by WRA (both
documents attached to the IS/MND) the project site provides minimal upland habitat for CRLF
species. However, to ensure that no significant impacts occur to CRLF species, the Revised and
Recirculated IS/MND contains Mitigation Measure BIO-6 that requires preconstruction surveys
of the site immediately prior to start of construction. If CRLF individuals are identified, they
shall be allowed to leave the site on their own.
Response 1.2.6: As noted in Response 1.2.5, the adjacent tributary does not provide suitable
breeding habitat for CRLF, so the project will have no effect on amphibian eggs or larvae.
Preventing erosion and pollutants from harming the water quality and aquatic resources in the
tributary would still be a concern but with the proposed onsite treatment basin and compliance
with water quality regulations, there would be no potential for significant impacts from runoff
even with the reduced setbacks. The commenter is directed to Section 9 of the IS/MND,
Hydrology and Water Quality. Subsections “a” and “c” of Section 9 document that potentially
significant impacts related to stormwater runoff from the site with the possibility of exceeding
water quality standards or increasing the amount of polluted runoff was addressed in the
Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, cited in the IS/MND. The IS/MND states that the
City of Dublin enforces Best Management Practices required by the Alameda County Clean
Water Program and the federal Clean Water Act to limit runoff of stormwater and especially
polluted stormwater off of the site. This will be implemented on the site by the construction of
an on-site water quality basin on the lower topographic portion of the site. Additional
protection from potential impacts of polluted stormwater from the site is provided by
adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 48.0. These require the
project developer to prepare and have approved by the City a storm water master plan and
upgrade drainage facilities to limit off-site water runoff.
The commenter is also directed to the Master Response for Potential Impacts Due to
Encroachment into 100-foot Creek Setback, above.
Response 1.2.7: The need to obtain a LSAA is noted on page 13 of the IS/MND. The City’s Public
Works staff is responsible for implementing and enforcing federal and state water quality
standards and is satisfied that the project water quality treatment basin and the mitigation
measures in the EDEIR and MND have adequately addressed and mitigated any potentially
significant impacts. City of Dublin staff and project developer will consult with CDFW staff
City of Dublin Page 19
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
throughout the process of obtaining this permit. The City consulted with CDFW as part of the
development of the MND.
Response 1.2.8: The MND provides the CEQA coverage for any future LSAA issuance needed as
part of the Project. CDFG is a responsible agency for the Project under CEQA. Also see
Response to 1.2.7.
CONSTRUCllONANDDEVELOPMENTSHMCESDEPARTMENT
ConstructionSeiVices(510)670-5450 • FAX($10)732-6173
DevclopmentSeiVices(510)670-rBll' FAX(SlO)Gl0-5269
Public Works Agency DanielWoldeswbei;PhJJ,I~E.DkrxtJJr
--ALwncda Count>r ----951 TnrncrCOLnt o Hcyv.rartJ, CA 94-545-2698 <.1 wvvw.acgov.orglpvva
Mamie Delgado
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Delgado:
April 8, 20 16
Letter2.11
Subject: Wanmei Properties, Inc.-Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Reference is made to your transmittal on March 23, 2016, of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wanmei Properties, Inc. Planned Development Rezone,
Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review, located at 6237 Tassajara Road in the City
of Dublin. Per our cursory review of the transmitted material, we hereby offer the following
comments regarding storm drainage that should be considered in the determination of project
status:
1. Although the project site is located in Zone 7, nmoff ultimately drains to the Alameda Creek
Federal Project in westem Alameda County. This flood control facility is maintained by the
Alameda County Flood Control District. The District is concemed vvith augmentation in
runoff fi·om the site that may impact flow capacity in the Federal Project and in the
watercourses between the site and the Federal Project, as well as the potential for nmo!f fi·om
the project to increase the rate of erosion along those same watercourses that could cause
localized damage and result in deposition of silt in the Federal Project. There should be no
augmentation in nmoff quantity or duration fi·om the project site that wi II adversely impact
downstream drainage facilities.
2. Any proposed development of the property should provide measures t0 prevent the discharge
of contaminated materials into public storm drainage facilities. Storm Water" Quality Control
issues must be appropriately addressed. lt is the responsibility of the Applicant to comply
with the R WQCB's C.3 requirements and other Federal or local water quality standards and
regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration tor this pr()ject. If you have questions, please call me at (51 0) 670-5209.
Very truly yours,
h( . Ro~elll~rie I' Leon
AssistaYlt E1 ¥Jneer
Constn1ction & Development Services
"ToSeTveandPn?SeTveOurCommunit)l'
2.1.1
2.1.2
City of Dublin Page 21
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Letter 2.1: Alameda County Public Works Agency
Response 2.1.1 The comment identifies general concerns regarding the duration and amount
of runoff. The commenter is directed to Section 9 of the IS/MND, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Subsections “a” and “c” of this section document that potentially significant impacts related to
stormwater runoff from the site with the possibility of exceeding water quality standards or
increasing the amount of polluted runoff was addressed in the Eastern Dublin Environmental
Impact Report, cited in the IS/MND. The IS/MND states that the City of Dublin enforces Best
Management Practices required by the Alameda County Clean Water Program and the federal
Clean Water Act to limit runoff of stormwater and especially polluted stormwater off of the
site.
As part of the normal and customary development review process, the City required the project
applicant to submit a detailed hydrology and drainage study consistent with City of Dublin and
Zone 7 requirements to forecast total and peak project runoff. This information, which was
carefully reviewed by the City Public Works Department and was used to size the on-site
drainage basin to minimize site runoff, pollution and erosion off of the site. This will limit
deposition of project-created runoff into off-site Federal drainage ways.
Additional protection from potential impacts of polluted stormwater from the site is provided
by adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 48.0. These require
the project developer to prepare and have approved by the City a storm water master plan and
upgrade drainage facilities to limit off-site water runoff. The applicant is working with the
Dublin Public Works Department to implement water quality measures to comply with this
Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measure. Also see Response 2.1.2.
There would therefore be minimal, if any, increase in the amount of project runoff quantity or
duration that could impact Alameda Creek or other downstream drainage facilities.
Response 2.1.2: The commenters state that the project should prevent contaminated material
from being discharged into the public storm drain system will be enforced by the Dublin Public
Works Department. The Department will require that the project developer and future
homeowners adhere to both construction and post-construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to protect local water resources. This would generally require frequent sweeping of
parking lots, covering of exterior solid waste and recycling containers and on-going
maintenance of the water quality pond and related water quality features.
Any proposed development on the property must provide measures to prevent discharge of
contaminated materials into the public storm drain system. The applicant is required to comply
with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s C.3 water quality requirements as well as
other federal and local water quality standards and regulations.
Dublin San Ramon
Services District
Water. wastewater, recycled water
Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568-3018
Aprill8, 2016
Subject: Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
phone (925) 828-0515
fax (925) 829-1180
www.dsrsd.com
Letter 2.2
Wanmei Properties, Inc. Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review (PLPA 2015.00023)
Dear Ms. Delgado:
Thank you for providing Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) the opportunity to review and comment on the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Wanmei Properties, Inc. Planned Development Rezone, Vesting
Tentative Map and Site Development Review. This study analyzes the impact of anticipated small changes to the land
uses planned for the Wanmei Development Project located at 6237 Tassajara Road in eastern Dublin. DSRSD has a
significant role In the area to be developed by the Project. Our agency took note of the list of environmental issues
covered by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have included our comments below on the
environmental topics that bear on our agency's responsibilities in the area of the Project.
Land Use and Planning
Generally, DSRSD serves as the potable water, recycled water, wastewater collection and wastewater treatment
utility for the area of the Project and surrounding areas. As the provider for these utilities, DSRSD is responsible
for the planning and development of the infrastructure necessary for those services. Our intent is to ensure the
infrastructure is adequately planned to meet the interim as well as the ultimate build-out needs of the area.
Specifically, the study confirms that the development project will conform to the General Plan land uses outlined
in the eastern Dublin EIR. The study states that the proposed development includes up to 19 medium density
residential units. DSRSD agrees with the conclusions on pages 48 and 49 of this study that there would be no new
significant impacts than have been analyzed in the previous CEQA documents; the eastern Dublin EIR.
DSRSD is the utility provider for the currently developed sections of Dublin surrounding the Project. The
development for the Project must be done in a way that does not disrupt or eliminate the services for the active
portions of the City of Dublin near the Project. Those services are to remain ongoing throughout the construction
and completion of the Project.
Potable Water Supplv and Service
Generally, the wholesale provider for the District is Zone 7 Water Agency. Zone 7 provides potable water to
retailers in the Tri-Valley area Including DSRSD, City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore and California Water Company
(also in livermore). Zone 7 provides wholesale water to the Tri-Valley area and regulates the withdrawal and
recharge of the underlying groundwater. Zone 7 prepares a Sustainable Water Supply Report annually. The most
recent Sustainable Water Supply Report should be used as part of the basis for determination of available water
supply for future water demand.
Specifically, DSRSD will provide potable water to the Project. DSRSD agrees with the conclusion of the study on
page 58 that states a sufficient long-term supply-of water can be supplied to the development site and that future
2.2.1
2.2.2 .
Dublin San Ramon
Services District
Water, wastewater, recycled water
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568-3018
phonel925)828-0515
fax (925) 829-1180
www.dsrsd.com
Mike Porto
September 15, 2015
Page 2 of 2
dwellings constructed as part of the project may be subject to water limitations based on future drought
conditions, similar to all other DSRSD water users.
Recycled Water Supplv and Service
Generally, DSRSD provides recycled water service to sections of the City of Dublin around the Project DSRSD owns
and operates a facility for recovering recycled water at its wastewater treatment plant at 7399 Johnson Drive in
Pleasanton. This is a potable water conservatiOn element. An increase in the use of recycled water in the Tri-
Valley area has an impact on reducing the total potable water demand on Zone Ts water supply.
Specifically, as a condition of potable water service, DSRSD will require the Project to plan for and build a recycled
water distribution network for landscape irrigation in public areas of the Project. DSRSD will be able to provide the
recycled water supply for the project.
Wastewater Treatment and DiWD?QI
Generally, DSRSD provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for the area of the Project. DSRSD
believes that current capacity at the wastewater treatment plant is adequate to serve the proposed Project. The
Project would increase the amount of treated wastewater leaving the Tri-Valley area. Disposal of treated effluent
from DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant is the responsibility of the livermore Amador Valley Water
Management Agency (LAVWMA). LAVWMA currently exports secondary treated wastewater to the East Bay
Dischargers Authority (EBDA) interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge to the San Francisco Bay via a deepwater
outfall. Water treated at DSRSD's treatment plant that is not converted to recycled water for landscape irrigation
is disposed of through the LAVWMA system.
Specifically, DSRSD agrees with the conclusions of the study on pages 57 and 58 that state the demands of the
Project will not exceed the existing wastewater treatment capacity of OSRSD, and that no new wastewater
treatment and disposal facilities are required by the impact of the Project.
Thank you for notifying DSRSD of the upcoming Draft Supplemental EIR. Please contact me at (925) 875-2253 or
Rhodora Biagtan at (925) 875-2255 should you have any questions.
SK/ST
cc: Rhodora Biagtan, Principal Engineer
Ryan Pendergraft, Junior Engineer
File: Dublin CEOA/Chron
\\00\DataVof\ENGDEPl\CEQA\DSRSD Response to CEQA Documents\City of Dublin\2016\Comments Initial Study and MND -Wanmei Properties, Inc.
Planned Oevel Rezone, VTMap and SDR C4-18-16.docx
2.2.3
City of Dublin Page 24
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Letter 2.2: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
Response 2.2.1: The City of Dublin staff will impose standard conditions of approval to the SDR
and Vesting Tentative Map to ensure that water and wastewater infrastructure is adequately
extended to the project site and that no disruption of water or wastewater service for adjacent
properties occur during construction of the proposed project.
Zone 7’s 2016 Annual Review of Sustainable Water Supply shows that the District has sufficient
water to meet project demand (source:
http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf_docs/water_supply/2016_annl-sstnble-ws.pdf)
Response 2.2.2: This comment is acknowledged. See response to Comment 2.2.1 above.
Response 2.2.3: This comment is acknowledged. The City of Dublin will require, as a condition
of project approval, that common landscaped areas in the project site be irrigated with recycled
water.
Response 2.2.4: This comment is acknowledged and no further discussion is required.
2950 PERAlTA OAKS COURT PO BOX Slat OAKlAND CALIFORNIA 94605-038! T· i-BBS-EGPARKS F-510-569.4319 TRS RELAY 7Jl WWWEBPARKS ORG
April 18,2016
Luke Sims
Community Development Director
I 00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2.3
RE: Wanmei Planned Development-Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Dear Mr. Sims-
The East Bay Regional Park District has reviewed the Initial Study and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Wanmei Planned Development. The District manages open
space in the vicinity of the project site and operates the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail to the west. The
District sponsors the Golden Eagle Monitoring Team (GMT), a volunteer-based organization that monitors
Golden Eagle activity and nesting throughout the East Bay. Golden eagles are listed as a fully protected
species in the State of California.
The MND failed to identify the presence of nesting Golden Eagles in the project vicinity. Biologists working
with the GMT has confirmed the presence of an active Golden Eagles nest approximately 250 feet east of the
Wanmei project site. Additional information and project specific mitigation should be identified to ensure the
project doesn't result in take of Golden Eagles.
The District recommends that the City of Dublin revise the MND and biologic analysis to ensure that
mitigation measures identified are sufficient to avoid project level impacts. The City should explore the
following measures to address the potential for impacts and take to fully protected species prior to adoption
of the MND and approval of the project:
I. Conduct project level biological studies and monitoring during nesting season of the project site
and a surrounding buffer zone, to be agreed specified and agreed upon by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
2. Specifically identify a temporal buffer to be imposed on project construction that avoids
construction activity during the Golden Eagle nesting season. If any phases of construction are
allowed to proceed during this temporal buffer, a bio-monitor with "stop work" authority should
be in place to determine if the construction activity Is affecting the eagle's nesting behavior;
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please feel free to contact me at (51 0) 544-2623, or
bholt@~. should you have any questions.
Resr,'ec~l~, . . \ .
/\/ '->-/::::~
Snan'W. Holt
(Prliicipal Planner
Doug S1dan
President
W>~rd4
Beverly Lane
Vice-President
\.Y~rd 6
Dennis Wacspi
Treasurer
w~rQ 3
Bo::~rd of Otrcctors
Omnc Burgis
Sccrccry
Ward 7
Whttncy Dotson John Sutter
W::~rd I Ward2
Ayn Wu:!skamp
WardS
Robert E Ooyfc
Gcncrnl Manager
City of Dublin Page 26
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Letter 2.3: East Bay Regional Park District
Response: The city became aware of the golden eagle nest after the draft MND was released
for public review. Portions of the MND have been revised and recirculated to address potential
impacts and mitigation measures to ensure so significant on the active nest. The mitigations
include those recommended by EBRPD in their comments.
ALAMEDA COUN1Y FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7
100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY • LIVERMORE, CA 94551 • PHONE (925) 454-5000 • FAX (925) 454-5727
Cily of Dublin
Communily Development Department
I 00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Attn: Mamie R. Delgado
April20, 2016
Letter2A i
Re: Comments Wanmei Properties I Tassajara Rd JS/}dND
Mamie,
Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has reviewed the referenced JSIMND in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide
water supply, flood protection, and grow1dwater and stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valley.
We have a few comments for your consideration:
I. On p.47, Section c): 2nd paragraph alludes to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.6/44.0-48.0
reducing the significant impact of flooding from increased nmoff. It's not clear how these 4 measures will
be implemented as part of this Project, how they lessen the impact, or who is responsible for
implementing.
2. On p.48, Section g-i): The JSIMND indicates that a I 00-year flood zone was established for the tributary
adjacent to the site. Please provide the documentation on how that flood zone was established.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. lfyou have any general questions on this letter, please
feel free to contact me at (925) 454-5005 or via email at erank(ib.zonc7water.com . Further. questions related to
.tlood zones may be directed to Jeff Tang, 925-454-5075, or itang@zone7waler.com.
Sincerely,
&~10
ElkeRank
ce: Carol Mahoney, Jeff Tang, Joe Seto, file
2.4.1
2.4.2
City of Dublin Page 28
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Letter 2.4: Zone 7 Water Agency
Response 2.4.1: The water quality mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR
(Mitigation Measures 3.6/44.0 through 48.0) will be implemented for this proposed project as it
has been systematically done for all other development projects that have been proposed and
constructed in the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area. The project includes drainage
improvements as part of the project to limit peak stormwater flows from the site that could
cause downstream flooding. More specifically, the applicant proposes a pond on the southwest
corner of the site to accommodate peak stormwater from the site (see IS/MND Exhibit 6,
Landscaping and Planting Plan). Design details of the pond to ensure that downstream flooding
will not occur will be prepared by the project civil engineer and confirmed by the Dublin Public
Works Department to meet C.3 standards. The pond would then be constructed and
maintained by the project developer or project homeowners’ association to ensure continued
peak operation.
Comment 2.4.2: The 100-year flood level for the portion of the Northern Drainage property
immediately south of the project site was determined as part of the restoration program
completed prior to the current project. This action was confirmed by Jayson Imai, former civil
engineer with the Dublin Public Works Department.
Marnie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Chris <chris_p2@earthlink.net>
Thursday, March 17, 2016 6:13 PM
Mamie Delgado; Luke Sims
Subject: Fwd: New Housing Project-6237 Tassajara Road -PLPA-2015-00023
Importance:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
High
Follow up
Flagged
Dear Mamie Delgado and Luke Sims
Letter 3.11
We would request that this project not be approved. We would request that no rezoning be undertaken such that 3.1.1
its present zoning of Rural Property be maintained until there is appropriate Public opinion reported regarding
this property.
The loss of Rural properties downgrades Dublin's environment and increases traffic on an inadequate road infra-3.1.2
structure.
Please attend this request.
Thank you,
Christopher Page
I Public Notice-Notice oflntent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration-Wa
I Debra LeClair
i
[Sent: Thursday, March 17,2016 9:46AM
[ To: Debra LeClair
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City of Dublin Community Development Department is circulating the following Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarat
PROJECT: Wanmei Properties, Inc. Planned Development Rezone, Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review (PLPJl
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of 19 single family detached homes and associated site improvements .on 2.648 acr
Dublin Specific Plan area. The project requires approval of a Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage
Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review.
LOCATION: 6237 Tassajara Road (APN 985-0072-002)
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANTICIPATED: None.
COMMENT PERIOD: The public comment period begins on Thursday, March 17, 2016 and ends at 5:00pm on Mo
1
City of Dublin Page 30
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Email Comment 3.1: Christopher Page
Response 3.1.1: This comment regarding the merits of the project is noted, but are not a
comment on the environmental aspects of the proposed project. This comment letter will be
reviewed by City of Dublin decision makers prior to acting on this project.
Response 3.1.2: In terms of potential traffic impacts on local and regional roadways, the
commenter is directed to Section 16 of the Initial Study, Traffic and Transportation. Based on
estimated build-out of the project, relative few vehicles would be added to the roadway system
and no significant impact would occur with respect to this topic.
Marnie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
kerriechabot@comcast.net
Monday, April18, 2016 7:54 PM
Marnie Delgado
W, Billie
Wanmei project
Letter 3.2 I
I am completely against the idea of 19 homes on this small plot of land located off Tassajara, called 3.2.1
the Wanmei Project.
Please put on hold, come back with a new idea-especially now with impacted schools.
Kerrie Chabot
17 year resident
1
3.2.2
City of Dublin Page 32
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Email Comment 3.2: Kerrie Chabot
Response 3.2.1: This comment regarding the merit of the project is noted, but is not a comment
on the environmental aspects of the proposed project or the draft MND. This comment letter
will be reviewed by City of Dublin decision makers prior to acting on this project.
Response 3.2.2: The commenter is directed to Section 14 of the Initial Study, Public Services.
Subsection “c” concludes that payment of statutory impact fees to the Dublin Unified School
District will provide full mitigation for any impacts caused by the project on the school district.
Law Offices of
Stuart M. Flashman
5626 Ocean View Drive
Oakland, CA 94618-1533
(510) 652-5373 (voice & FAX)
e-mail: §H! .. CQL!itullusb .com
Letter 3.3 I
delivery by electronic mail to t111l!Tii~.t;lg_[gado@dublin.cagQy_
Ms. Mamie Delgado City of Dublin Commmunity Development Dept.
1 00 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568
April18, 2016
RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for Wanmei Development Project (PLPA 2015-00023)
Dear Ms. Delgado:
I am writing to you on behalf of my clients, The San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club and Ms. Shawna Sorenson, with regard to the above-referenced
environmental review document. I have reviewed that document as well as further evidence provided by rn~ clients, which, I believe, has already been discussed with you in a meeting on April 11 with Ms. Sorenson and through communication from Colleen
Linehan, a local wildlife expert. Based on that evidence, it appears to me that the issuance of a MND for this project is improper and would violate the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as well as potentially the California Endangered
Species Act and the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
As you know, the project site is located adjacent to the Northern Drainage
Conservation Area ("NDCA"), which the Draft MND acknowledges is a valuable wildlife habitat. The Draft MND points to current and proposed barriers between the project site and the NDCA as being adequate mitigation for any biological impacts from the Project.
(Draft MND at pp. 37-38.) However, as Ms. Sorenson has documented and pointed out to you, there are potentially significant biological impacts that have been neither identified nor analyzed in the Draft MND. These impacts involve the Golden Eagle, and
specifically a golden eagle nesting site located in close proximity to the Project site.
Golden eagles build large and prominent nests in trees. These nests are usually used for multiple seasons. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/Golden Eagle !?tatu§_E_:;J_ct Sheet.pdf. While
it is generally recognized that an existing home located near to a nesting site may not disrupt nesting or foraging activities, construction activities near a nesting site may adversely impact reproduction. {ld.) This would be considered a significant impact. It
should be noted that the only site visit for the LSA biological assessment, upon which the MND relies, was done in November 2013.1 While there may not have been a nest
in proximity to the Project site at that time, there is one now. In addition, as the peer review of the biological assessment for the project noted, the Project site had been
1 While the site visit was in 2013, the report was not written until January 2014, and was not received by
the City until May 2014. The peer review report, written on October 2014, and based on a site visit in September 2014, did not notice a nest near the site, but did note a golden eagle observed flying over the
site.
colonized by California ground squirrels. Grounds squirrels are a favored prey for the
golden eagle. https://www.nationaleaglecent_er.org/eagle-diet-feeding[. Thus, while the
Project site may not, in general, constitute good foraging habitat for golden eagles, with the proximity of a nest, the ground squirrel colony on the site is likely to be a major food
source for the eagles and their young, especially during the nesting season. Again, the
impact of removing this food source was neither identified nor discussed.
The golden eagle is a fully protected species under the California Endangered
Species Act. http_s:/LW_Ift!.W.\,'1/ilq[ife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Golden-Eagles.
Consequently, the lead agency should have identified the potentially significant impacts
and consulted with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, as a responsible and trustee agency, before preparing an environmental review document. (See, Public
Resources Code §21 080.3) It appears this did not occur. (Draft MND at p. 60.)
In addition, the golden eagle is a protected species under federal law, under the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ("BGEPA"), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
"MBTA"), and the Lacey Act ("LA"). In particular, under the BGEPA, it is a violation to
conduct an unauthorized take of a golden eagle. Further, the definition of "take" under
the BGEPA is quite broad. It means pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb.
btlp://wvvwj)l,ls.g_qy{Jl§Pitatconservation(Go!gen Eagle Status Fact Sheet.Qdf Those
protections extend to both active and inactive nests. (I d.) It was incumbent on the City, once it was notified of the existence of the nearby nest, to investigate and confirm that
fact, and then consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service about restrictions that would
be required under federal law. The City's failure to do so violates not only CEQA, but also federal law.
Based on the evidence of potentially significant biological impacts from the
Project, the Draft MND must be withdrawn, and, after consultation with Responsible and
trustee agencies, the City should prepare an Environmental impact Report for the
Project.
cc: R. Schneider S. Sorenson
D. Bell, EBRPD C. Linehan
M. Grefsrud, CDF&W
H. Beeler, USF&WS
Most sincerely
~1~ Stuart M. Fleshman
City of Dublin Page 35
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Letter 3.3: Stuart Flashman
Response 3.3: This comment is noted. Please see the text above where the City has prepared a
Revised and Recirculated IS/MND to assess potential project impacts on the golden eagle nest
and include mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
WENDEL . ROSEN
BlACK & DJ;AN ~Lt
1111 Broadway, 24th floor
Oakland. CA 94607-4036
T: 510-834-6600
F: 510-808-4745
April21, 2016
VIA EMAIL MARNIE.DELGADO@DUBLIN.CA.GOV
Mamie R. Delgado
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
VNNt.wendel.com
pcurtin@wendel.com
Letter 3.4
Re: Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Wanmei Development Project (PLPA 2105-00023) at 6237 Tassajara Road,
Dublin
Dear Ms. Delgado:
We represent Dr. Sabri Arac, the Founder and Headmaster of the Quarry Lane School,
located at 6363 Tassajara Road. We are writing to offer comments on the Initial Study related to
the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wanmei Development Project dated March
20 I 6. The Quarry Lane School is located directly north of the proposed development project.
Having closely reviewed the Initial Study ("Study"), we conclude that pursuant to the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") there is a fair argument that the proposed
Wanmei Development Project ("Project") may have a significant effect on the environment and
therefore requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). We also
conclude that the Study provides insufficient information about the effects of ce1tain aspects of
the Project and fails to examine altematives. Instead, the Study relies on future review by other
agencies, and thus creates questions as to the whole of the action contemplated and a need for
altematives to be examined in an EIR. In addition, the Study fails to identify and analyze a
required Project component, a development agreement required by the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
We urge the Dublin Planning Department to, in an EIR, revisit several issues raised by
the Study but not fully addressed, including the following:
• The Project's request for an exception to the Eastem Dublin Comprehensive
Stream Restoration Program's l 00-foot setback (from top of bank ntle) and a
need for future approval from the Califomia Department ofFish and Wildlife.
020571.000114290010.1
3.4.1
Mamie R. Delgado
April21, 2016
Page2
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP
1.
• The Project's request for an exception to a 20-foot creek setback rule in the
Dublin Watercourse Protection Ordinance and a need for future approval by
Dublin's Public Works Director.
• The Study's failure to consider the project's impacts on traffic and congestion
given the close proximity to the Quarry Lane School.
• A lack of detail in the Study about how the Project's cul-de-sac would meet the
Alameda County Fire Deprutment fire equipment tum-around dimensional
criteria.
• The Study's failure to fully consider construction impacts on the nearby unnamed
tributary creek related to constructing a new wildlife barrier and the availability of
alternative construction methods.
• The Study's failure to acknowledge that the Project is required to obtain a
development agreement under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Future California Depar.tment of Fish and Wildlife Approval of an Exception
to Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program 100-Foot
Setback (from Top of Bank) Rule.
The U!Ulamed tributary ("Creek") to the south of the Project is a major tributary. The
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program ("Restoration Program") requires a
minimum setback from top of bank from major tributaries of 100 feet. The Project proposes an
average 50: foot setback from top of bank. The setback exception must be approved by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("Fish and Wildlife").
The fact that the setback exception must be approved by Fish and Wildlife raises at least
two issues, which must be addressed in an EIR.
(a) The Study effectively assumes that Fish and Wildlife will approve the
exception because it does not provide an alternative to the Project if the agency does not approve
the exception. The Study concludes that there are no protected or special status plant or wildlife
species present on the project site that would be impacted should the setback exception be
approved. But the Study does not analyze the Project in the instance that the setback exception is
not approved. Presumably if the setback exception is not approved, the Project would be a
different project, with plan modifications and adjustments-if the proposed Project is indeed
feasible.
Under CEQA a project (or action) reviewed must encompass all components of the
activity that is being approved. The tenn "project" refers to the whole of the action (CEQA
Guideline Section 15378). As part of an E!R, the Project would be required to consider
alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126}. It's clear that an alternative to the Project would
020571.000 I \4290010.1 2
3.4.2 .
Mamie R. Delgado
April21, 2016
Page3
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP
be a development that includes a 100-foot setback as required under the Restoration Program.
That alternative must be reviewed as part of an EIR.
(b) The Study conditions the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on
another agency's future review of environmental impacts, without evidence of the likelihood of
effective mitigation by the other agency. According to case law interpreting CEQA, this
approach is insufficient to support a city's determination by that potentially significant impacts
will be mitigated. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 CA3d 296 (1988).
Again, the Study states that there are no protected or special status plants or wildlife
species present on the project site that would be impacted should the setback exception be
approved. But, there are special status plants and/or wildlife species (including the red-legged
frog) in the Creek, which could be impacted by the reduction to the setback. The Study relies on
the fact that the Project proposes a fence and metal wildlife barrier to reach the conclusion that
no wildlife species will encroach onto the Project site. But, the Study does not discuss the
possibility of the construction above the Creek impacting the species in the Creek area, which is
precisely why there is a required setback. There is a fair argument that the Creek and its
inhabitants would be more impacted by environmental conditions, such as soil erosion, with a
50-foot setback than with the required 100-foot setback. This must be analyzed in an EIR.
2. Future Dublin's Public Works Director Approval of an Exception to the
Dublin Watercourse Protection Ordinance's 20-Foot Creek Setback Rule.
The Dublin Watercourse Protection Ordinance ("Watercourse Ordinance") requires a 20-
foot creek setback to safeguard watercourses by preventing activities that would contribute
significantly to flooding, erosion and sedimentation. But reductions in the setback may be
approved by the Dublin Public Works Director ("Director") (Ordinance 52-87 and Dublin
Municipal Code Section 7 .20).
Portions of the Project, such as a private road and guest pru·king spaces, would encroach
into the required 20-foot setback. As a result, the Project's proposed encroachment into the
setback would have to be approved by the Director. The Study concludes that no impacts would
result from the Project's encroachment into the required 20-foot setback because the exception
must be approved by the Director.
The Study's conclusions in #2, suffer from the same flaws as the Study's conclusion in
# 1 above. The Study does not analyze the Project in the instance that the setback exception is
not approved by the Director. Presumably, if the setback exception is not approved, the Project
would be a different project, including plan modifications and adjustments-if indeed the Project
is still feasible without the setback exception.
As stated above, under CEQA the project (or action) reviewed must encompass all
components of the activity that is being approved. The tetm "project" refers to the whole of the
action (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). As part of an EIR, the Project would be required to
consider alternatives to the Project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126). It's clear that an
020571.000114290010, I 3
3.4.3'
Mamie R. Delgado
Apri121, 2016
Page4
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP
alternative to the Project described in the Study would be a development where the 20-foot
setback is maintained as required under the Watercourse Ordinance. That alternative must be
reviewed as part of an EIR.
Again, the Study concludes that there are no protected or special status plants or wildlife
species present on the project site that would be impacted should the setback exception be
approved. But, there are special status plants or wildlife species (including the red-legged frog)
in the Creek, which could be impacted by the reduction in setback.
The Study does not discuss the impact of the construction or development above the
Creek on the species in the Creek, which is precisely the kind of impact the setback is intended
to protect against. It is entirely possible that the absence of the 20-foot setback would impact the
Creek and its inhabitants. As a result, this issue must be studied in an EIR.
In addition, the conclusory statement that no impacts will result if the Director grants an
exception is not an adequate measure to ensure an impact will not occur. To the contrary, there
is a fair argument that an environmental impact may occur if the setback is decreased allowing
less protection to the Creek and the species therein.
3. The Study fails to Consider the Project's Impacts on the Traffic and
Congestion at the Quarry Lane School.
The Study notes that local and regional traffic related to residential development has been
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, that a number of transportation impacts have
been determined to be significant and unavoidable, and that the EIR includes mitigation
measures. However, none of the EIR mitigation measures address the Project's traffic impacts in
the context of the Project's close proximity to the Quarry Lane School and its unique traffic
patterns and volumes. This context must be studied as part of an EIR on the Project because
there is a fair argument that the combination of the Project and the existing traffic may result in a
significant effect on the environment.
The entrance to the Quarry Lane School is approximately 30 yards north of the Project's
proposed new access road and on the same side (east) of the street and includes a stoplight.
Quarry Lane is pmmitted for an enrollment of950 students, who are delivered to school almost
exclusively by automobile between 7:30a.m. and 8:45a.m. and picked up from school between
2:45 p.m. and 4:30p.m., five days a week. Into this mix, the Project proposes to add a
development that will add 175 traffic trips per day.
The Study briefly notes that the Project's new road would generate approximately 175
daily auto trips and concludes that there would be, "no new or more severe significant impacts
with respect to traffic increases on local or regional roads ... than previously analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR." There is no evidence in the Study to support this conclusory statement but
yet, the Study concludes that no additional analysis is required. The Study's conclusion is flawed
because the Eastern Dublin EIR did not specifically examine the intersection and stoplight at
Tassajara Road and the Quarry Lane School and its related auto backups --or take into account a
020571.0001\4290010.1 4
3.4.4
Mamie R. Delgado
April21, 2016
PageS
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP
new road with at least 175 daily trips 30 yards from the intersection. An EIR is necessary to
analyze this very real impact.
4. The Study Does Not Provide Any Information About How the Project's Cul-
De-Sac Meets the Alameda County Fke Department Fire Emergency Access
Requirements.
The Project proposes to serve 19 separate homes with a single, private two-way road
extending east from Tassajara Road that ends in a cul-de-sac. The Study states that the cul-de-
sac would be designed to meet the Alameda County Fire Department fire equipment tum-around
dimensional criteria, and states that the project has been reviewed by the Alameda County Fire
Department, "to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided." However, the Study says
nothing more about emergency access, the dimensional criteria, or how the Fire Department's
review ensured that adequate emergency access is provided.
Again, the Study provides one alternative, and in this instance, does not explain why the
alternative is satisfactory. Without more information, it is impossible to determine the road's
impact on the environment or whether it is the best approach, given the circumstances. An EIR
should include more information 011 the road and cul-de-sac and implications for emergency
access.
5. The Initial Study Fails to Examine Construction Impacts on the Nearby
Creek Related to the Construction of a New Wildlife Barrier and the
Availability of Alternative Construction Methods.
The Study determines that impacts on protected wildlife species (including amphibians
and reptiles) can be avoided by "not damaging" the existing sheet metal barrier during and after
construction. Mitigation Measure BI0-3(a-c) states that replacement of the wildlife barrier shall
be (1) Installed only within the project boundary; (2) Accomplished without encroaching onto
conservation easement areas; and (3) That to the extent feasible, the existing wildlife barrier will
remain in place until a new barrier is constmcted. But, the Study says almost nothing about the
construction process and how it may or may not impact the Creek. Aside from limiting
construction to the north side of the existing wildlife barrier, how will the Project manage
construction soils disturbances, erosion, construction debris, dust and other effects resulting from
the construction process that could impact the creek? Morever, the vagueness of this Mitigation
Measure (i.e., use of the term "to the extent feasible") does not allow one to conclude that the
impact will be mitigated.
Once again, the Study reaches conclusions about protecting the environment without
explaining how or why protection methods may or may not succeed. Mitigation measures must
provide certainty that the measure will mitigate the impact in question which is clearly lacking in
this instance. See, Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco v. Regents of the State of
California, 47 Cal. 3d 376 (1998). An EIR is needed to examine more elosely the construction
of the new wildlife ban-ier and its potential impacts on the Creek and wildlife.
020571.0001\4290010.1 5
3.4.5
3.4.6
Mamie R. Delgado
April21, 2016
Page6
WENDEL, ROSEN, BlACK & DEAN LLP
6. The Study Fails to Aclmowledge that the Project is Required to Obtain a
Development Agreement Under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The Study notes that the following land use approvals are required and/or requested from
the City of Dublin to construct the Project: Planned Development Rezoning and Development
Plan; Vesting Tentative Map; Site Development Review; Watercourse Setback Exception. The
Study does not identify a development agreement, yet one is required tmder the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan.
Specifically, in Section 11.3 Development Agreements (related to "implementing
actions") the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states the following: "The Chy shall require all
applicants for development in eastern Dublin to enter into a mutually acceptable development
agreement with the City for their respective area. Agreements should only be arranged where the
developer is prepared to proceed promptly in accordance with a specific time schedule for
seeking the required approvals and commencing construction ... ".
This critical Project component must be included and analyzed in an EIR.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Study. Pease continue to keep us on
the mailings for any and all notices relating the this Project.
Very truly yours,
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP
Patricia E. Curtin
PEC:slk
cc: Dr. Sabri Arac, Founder and Headmaster of Quarry Lane School
020571.0001\4290010.1 6
3.4.7
City of Dublin Page 42
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Letter 3.4: Patricia Curtin
Response 3.4.1: This comment is noted. There is no assumption that a setback exception would
be granted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The MND discloses that this other
agency approval is required in order for the proposed project to be built.
The commenter is correct in that if the setback exception is not granted by the Department of
Fish & Wildlife, the applicant would be required to redesign and refile the application with the
City of Dublin. A new CEQA document would then be prepared to assess the new project.
Under CEQA and CEQA Guidelines there is no requirement for an IS/MND to analyze
alternatives to the proposed project.
Response 3.4.2: In regard to the claim that the project is conditioned on approval of the creek
exception by another agency (the California Department of Fish & Wildlife), see the above
response. The City of Dublin believes that with the application of mitigation measures
contained in the original MND in combination with mitigation measures contained in the
Revised and Recirculated IS/MND, the impacts on the adjacent creek would be less than
significant. The evidence to support this determination is set forth in the Master Response for
Potential Impacts Due to Encroachment into 100-foot Creek Setback.
The Revised and Recirculated IS/MND clearly and comprehensively analyzes all impacts of the
proposed project on the adjacent creek to the south and east. Potential impacts of erosion of
soil onto the adjacent creek are analyzed in Section 9 of the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND
and no significant impacts were found with respect to soil erosion or any other impact.
Response 3.4.3: In regard to the claim that the project is conditioned on approval of the creek
exception by the City’s Public Works Director, see the Response to Comment 3.4.3, where the
City notes that if the requested exception is not granted, the proposed project could not
proceed and a changed project would then need to be filed. This would start a new CEQA
process.
In terms of a fair argument that the project could result in impacts on adjacent properties,
specifically the adjacent creek, the commenter is directed to Responses to Comments 3.4.2 and
3.15R (contained in the following section) and the Revised and Recirculated MND. This
comment letter and responses deal with potential biological issues. Potential biological impacts
of the project are also discussed in Comments 3.3R and 3.4R.
Response 3.4.4: The commenter is factually incorrect to assert that the proposed project would
generate 175 peak hour trips at buildout. The IS/MND clearly notes that the project would
generate up to 175 total trips in a one-day, 24-hour period. Table 2 of the document indicates
City of Dublin Page 43
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
that the 19 single-family dwellings in the project would generate up to 15 vehicle trips in the
a.m. peak and up to 19 trips in the p.m. peak period. The p.m. peak period for the school is
identified by the commenter as ending at 4:30 p.m. Generally, for traffic purposes, the p.m.
peak period comments at 5 p.m., well after classes have been dismissed for the day. The City of
Dublin traffic engineer notes that the addition of up to 15 a.m. peak hour trips at the signalized
school entrance and Tassajara Road would be insignificant and would not result in a significant
impact. No EIR is needed to address this topic.
The City notes that the existing back up of traffic on Tassajara Road as a result of the adjacent
Quarry Lane School is not an impact of the proposed project.
The commenter is also directed to the Responses to Comment 3.16R and the Master Response
for Potential Impacts Due to Encroachment into 100-foot Creek Setback.
Response 3.4.5: The commenter is directed to Section 16, subsection “e” of the Revised and
Recirculated IS/MND. This document notes that the Alameda County Fire Department staff
working for the City of Dublin, has reviewed the proposed project and the project is consistent
with emergency access provisions required by the California Fire Code, as well as the cul-de-
sac/turnaround on the eastern side of the project site. Therefore, the impact is analyzed in the
MND and the conclusion on less than significant impacts is supported by substantial evidence.
No EIR is needed with respect to this topic.
Response 3.4.6: The City notes that the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND includes revisions to
the description of the project. The revised project is discussed in the Revised and Recirculated
section of this document, found on page 1. Based on discussions with the applicant, the project
has been revised to retain the existing chain link and metal fence along the southern boundary
of the site. In addition, a separate, second block wall is proposed to be constructed inside the
existing barrier completely on the project site along the southern and eastern potions of the
project site under MM BIO-3. All construction would occur on the project site, including
installation of footings and the wall itself, so there would be no encroachment into the adjacent
creek. The new wall would effectively preclude soil disturbance, erosion or other impacts from
the project site into the creek. In addition, the City of Dublin Public Works Department will
require as a standard condition of approval, that all stormwater runoff be directed into a storm
water quality pond prior to entering the public drainage system and to preclude runoff from the
project boundary.
Response 3.4.6: Pursuant to City Council Resolution 203-12, adopted by the Dublin City Council
on December 4, 2012, a Development Agreement is no longer a required implementation
measure for projects within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Colleen I enihan
Marnie Delgado
(flthy little
Comments on Wanmei Project
Friday, April 22, 2016 7:51:30 AM
Clenihan Wanmei comment.docx
Good Morning Marnie,
Letter 3.5/
Here is my comment letter. Thank you for accepting it this morning.
Please feel free to call me with any questions about the two golden eagle nests in
the NDCA. Both nests are active and doing well, one with 5 week old chicks and the
new second nest incubating eggs.
Enjoy the day,
colleen
Colteen Lenihan, fhD
Hope ir. the thing with re;:Jthe.-s
That perches in the soul
--E..mil~ Dickinson
Mamie Delgado, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mamie Delgado,
Subject: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wanmei
Development project in relation to a recently recorded golden eagle nest adjacent to
the proposed project site.
I am providing comments as a raptor ecologist, consulting biologist, and the contract
golden eagle biologist for the Northern Drainage Conservation Area in Dublin, CA. I
have been studying golden eagles in the tri-city area for 27 years. Specifically, I have
monitored golden eagles within the Dublin Ranch project area since 1990. Golden
eagles have been highly successful in this area and continue to produce young
within the 267-acre Northern Drainage Conservation Area (NDCA) that was set
aside for the protection and restoration of special status species that reside in the
grasslands of Dublin. Currently, the Center for Natural Lands Management provides
permanent protection and management for species within the NDCA including
nesting and foraging habitat for the golden eagle.
In late March 2016, a local resident of Dublin Ranch noticed a second pair of golden
eagles occupying the western portion of the NDCA. She contacted me and together
we observed the new pair at a nest within a line of eucalyptus trees. At that time, I
was able to verity that this was a second pair of golden eagles, distinct from the pair
that I monitor in the eastern portion of the NDCA. Moreover, this second pair is
currently incubating eggs. This exciting news is a testament to the success of
perpetual stewardship of eagle habitat within the Dublin area and I look forward to
monitoring their progress during the 2016-breeding season.
As you know golden eagles are protected under the following regulations:
1. "The Eagle Act" (Act; USFWS 2009). Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(72 FR 31131). Regulatory definition of"disturb," specifically prohibited as
"take" by the Eagle Act means: to agitate or bother a Bald or Golden Eagle to a
degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information
available, injury to an eagle; a decrease in its productivity, by substantially
interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or nest
abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or
sheltering behavior.
2. Additional protection for the Golden Eagle comes under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. C. 703), and at the state level under the
California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code section 3503.5. Within California,
Golden Eagles are also considered a Species of Special Concern. Under these
3.5.1
various legal measures active nest sites are protected during the breeding
season and any disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of
reproductive effort is considered "take" by the USFWS and the CDFW.
I'd like to use this comment opportunity to suggest that additional protection
measures be added to the Wanmei Project for the protection of nesting eagles. From
past experience, I can relate how collaborative stewardship within the City of Dublin
has allowed golden eagles to nest almost continuously within the NDCA for more
than 30 years. However, rapid landscape conversion of the Dublin area requires the
local eagle population to adapt quicldy to an array of new threats that need to be
addressed through forethought and collaboration.
1. Public access.
The NDCA is a preserve that provides protection and habitat for a host of special
status species. For this reason, it is closed to public access. Golden eagles, in
particular, are highly sensitive to human intrusion during the breeding season and
as such need a measure of solitude while raising chicks. To prevent trespass into
the nest area, the southern and western NDCA boundary must be secured.
Additional fencing and signage are needed as barriers in easily accessible areas
along the Wanmei Project Area's common boundary with the NDCA.
Specifically, for the 2016 breeding season, the access point leading to the north end
of the Dublin Ranch trail at the corner of Westford Court should be cordoned off
until the chicks fledge in mid-july.
2. Construction. noise and human activity.
Golden eagle experts routinely recommend a 0.5-mile or at least a "line of sight"
spatial buffer in which no human activity is allowed around an active golden eagle
nest. Usually, golden eagle nests are located in remote areas where human
disturbance is infrequent such as ranches, wilderness, and open space parks. The
golden eagles nesting near the Project site are likely more tolerant than their near
neighbors to the east or the rest of the local population that inhabit private
rangelands within the Diablo Range. Still, construction activity related to a housing
development within 300' of a pair of nesting eagles will carry the very real
possibility of disturbance that could lead to failure to initiate breeding or later
abandonment of eggs or young chicks. For this reason, development within close
proximity of a known nest site should be conducted under a split schedule to avoid
disturbance that leads to take. Under this scenario the bulk of development activity
would occur from August through December. During the breeding season, january
through july, activity would stop or be limited to lower intensity work performed
under the guidance and monitoring of a "qualified eagle biologist".
3. Rodenticide use within the City of Dublin.
The female golden eagle, affectionately named "Bella" by the City of Dublin
disappeared in late 2014. High-resolution photographs revealed she was afflicted
with mange for at least 2-years, her condition was apparent and rapidly
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
deteriorating. Certainly she succumbed to mange. Fortunately, her mate recruited a
new female and this newly constituted pair continues to nest successfully in the
eastern portion of the NDCA. But increasing reports of mange in California golden
eagles suggest a "serious, unique outbreak of an emerging disease that could prove
fatal to wild Golden Eagles" (Mete et al. 2014). Microscopic feather mites induce
mange by burrowing into the skin, causing itchiness, skin lesions and severe feather
loss. Complications including infection, starvation and hypothermia can, as in Bella's
case, lead to death (Mete et al. 2014). Researchers suspect that eagles exposed to
lead or anti-coagulant rodenticides (ACR) become immuno-suppressed and
therefore more susceptible to mange. The primary prey species for Golden eagles in
the Dublin area is the California ground squirrel. This species is commonly
considered a pest leading many people to shoot or poison squirrels that are then
consumed by wildlife. In addition, housing development in the area increases the
use of rodenticides to control other rodents such as mice and rats. Unfortunately,
rodenticides kill more than pest species. They are dangerous poisons toxic to pets,
children and wildlife. As such, golden eagles in the Dublin area are being exposed to
both lead and ACR poisons that cause immuno-suppression and susceptibility to
fatal mange.
To prevent further fatalities to wildlife in Dublin please consider prohibiting the use
ofrodenticides. Further information is available through the group RATS, "Raptors
are the Solution". Here is a link to their informative website, including
downloadable posters: http: //www.raptorsarethesolution.org
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Colleen Lenihan, Ph.D.
Raptor Ecologist
415-608-3838
306 Starling Road
Mill Valley, CA 94941
cc: Cathy Little, clittle@cnlm.org
Literature cited
Mete, A., Stephenson, N., Rogers, K., Hawkins, M.G., Sadar, M., Guzman, D., Bell, D.A., Smallwood, K. S.,
Wells, A., Shipman, J., Foley, J. 2014. Knemidocoptic Mange in wild Golden Eagles, California,
USA. Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 20, No. 10,1716-1718
City of Dublin Page 48
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Letter 3.5: Colleen Lenihan
Response 3.5.1: This comment is noted. The City has prepared a Revised and Recirculated
IS/MND following the receipt of this letter. The Revised and Recirculated document does
analyze potential impacts to the nearby golden eagle and provide mitigation measures to
reduce such impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Response 3.5.2: This comment is noted. The proposed project does include a new block wall
barrier to be constructed along the southern and western boundary of the site to preclude
public access from the project site onto the Northern Drainage Conservation Area.
The commenter’s request to cordon off a public accessway on the nearby Dublin Ranch area
cannot be fulfilled since this area is not located on the project site.
Response 3.5.3: This comment is acknowledged by the City and, in response, a new mitigation
measure is included in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND. This is Mitigation Measure BIO-4
that limits project construction and requires oversight of construction activities by a qualified
biologist.
Response 3.5.4: This comment is acknowledged by the City and, in response, a Mitigation
Measure Bio-5 has been included in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND to generally restrict
the use of rodenticides within the project unless these are absolutely required as documented
in writing by a qualified biologist. If rodenticides are used, use shall only be allowed as part of a
comprehensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program.
City of Dublin Page 49
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Revised and Recirculated IS/MND
Comments Received For Revised and Recirculated IS/MND
The following comment letters were received by the City during the revised and recirculated
30‐day comment period (October 22, 2016 through November 22, 2016).
Commenter
Date
Federal Agencies
none ‐‐
State Agencies
1.1R Office of Planning and Research 11/22/16
Local Agencies
2.1R Alameda County Public Works
Department
10/28/16
2.2R Dublin San Ramon Services District 11/21/16
Interested Persons/Organizations
3.1R Albert Lee 11/10/16
3.2R Joe DiDonato 11/11/16
3.3R Stuart Flashman 11/17/16
3.4R Dan Scannell Not dated
3.5R Tamara Reus Not dated
3.6R Jennet Herdmen 11/21/16
3.7R Mary Morehead 11/22/16
3.8R Billie Withrow 11/22/16
3.9R Carla Supanich 11/22/16
3.10R Kerrie Chabot 11/22/16
3.11R Lucia Miller 11/22/16
3.12R Catherine Kuo 11/22/16
3.13R Helen Zhang 11/22/16
3.14R Patricia Curtin 11/22/16
3.15R Olberding Environmental, Inc 11/22/16
3.16R TJKM Transportation Consultants 11/16/16
3.17R Colleen Lenihan 11/22/16
3.18R Richard Guarienti 11/11/16
3.19R Marie Marshall 11/22/16
Copies of these letters with City responses follow.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ofPLANNING AND RESEARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLfu"'NING UNIT
EDMUND G. BROWN ,JR. I<r~ALEX
DIRECTOR GoVERNOR
November22, 2016
Mamie R. Delgado
City of Dublin
I 00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
NOV 2 9 2016
Subject: Wanmei Properties, LLC Revised & Recirculated Initial Study!MND
SCHII: 20 I 6032063
Dear Mamie R. Delgado:
Letter 1.1R I
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state
agencies for review. The review perJod closed on November 21, 2016, and no state agencies submitted
comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental document<;, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincere~ ~
~?·'~
Stott Morgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 lOth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
(916} 445-0613 FAX (916} 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
Type
Description
2016032063
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
Wanmei Properties, LLC Revised & Recirculated Initial Study/MND
Dublin, City of
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
Note: Revised
Proposed subdivision of 2.64 acres of land into 19 lots and construction of one single family dwelling
on each lot. Other improvements include construction of a private roadway through the approximate
center of the site, provision of on·site guest parking, on-site landscaping frontage improvements along
Tassajara Road, construction of a water quality basin and· utility extensions.
Lead Agency Contact
Name
Agency
Phone
email
Marnie R. Delgado
City of Dublin
925-833-6610
Address 100 Civic Plaza
City Dublin
Project Location
County Alameda
City Dublin
Region
Lat! Long 37" 43' 35.65" N /121" 52' 16.02" W
Fax
State CA Zip 94568
Cross Streets East side of Tassajara Road & South of Silvera Ranch Drive
Parcel No. 985-0072-002-00
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways 580
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Tassajara Creek & tributary (l<obold Reach)
Quarry Lane (Private)
Land Use
Project Issues
Reviewing
Agencies
The site is designated for Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. THe site is zoned PD
Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding;
Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks:
Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation;
Vegetation; VVater Quality; Water Supply; Biological Resources; Cumulative Effects; 'vVetland/Riparian
Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3; Cal Fire; Department of Parks and
Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission
Date Received 1012112016 Start of Review 10/2112016 EndofReview 1112112016
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
City of Dublin Page 52
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Letter 1.1R: State of California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
Response : This comment is acknowledged and no additional response is required.
''::~r'·f:::~'\.£0}tSJRUCTIONANDDEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTMiENT .'t, ••. <·.,~' \{,,..,, ,J ., -""
NOV 0 1 2016
Coru;tm:tionServiC€5(510)670-5450 • FAX(Sl0)732-6173
DevelopmentSe!vices(S10) 670-6601 • FAX(510) 670-5269
Public vVorks Agency DUBUN f'LAi'lNING IJameJwotdesenbetPltD,PE,/Y.ro.tvr
--Aiarm:cb County--------------------------
951 TumerCnurt • Haywdrd, CA 94545-2698 • wwwacgov.olJ"Jpwd
Mamie Delgado
Community Development Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Mamie
October 28, 20 16
Letter 2.1R I,
Subject: Wanmei Properties -Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Reterence is made to your letter dated Ocrober 19, 2016, transmitting Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and Initial Study for Wanmei Prope1ties, located at 6:237 Tassajara Road in
the City of Dublin.
This project was previously reviewed by this offi.ce. Comments provided as contained in
our April 8, 2016 letter were addressed.
We do not have additional comments to offer at this time ..
If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 670-5209.
ineer
and Development Services
RDL!rdl
"ToServennd Prt'ServeOurCommunil)l'
City of Dublin Page 54
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
2.1R: Alameda County Public Works Agency
Response: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is needed.
Dublin San Ramon
Services District
1'\'tlter, wastewater. recycled water
Marnie R. Delgado, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Delgado:
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568·3018
Letter 2.2R !
phone (925) 828-0515
fax (925) 829·1180
www.dsrsd.com
November 21, 2016
Subject: Comments on Revised and Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for Wanmei Development Project 6237 Tassajara Rd., Dublin {PlPA 2015-00023)
Thank you for providing Dublin San Ramon Services District {DSRSD) the opportunity to review and comment
on the Revised and Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wanmei Development
Project at 6237 Tassajara Road in Dublin. This revised study addresses a new golden eagle nest found
southeast of the development site and also addresses questions regarding the California red-legged frog
found in the area of the project. DSRSD has a significant role in the area to be developed by the project. Our
agency took note of the list of environmental issues covered by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration. In our response to the initial study of April18, 2016 we included our comments on the topics
that bear on our agency's responsibilities in the area of the project.
The Revised and Recirculated Initial Study/MND alters the Initial Study/MND only regarding the eagle nest
and the California red-legged frog. The adjusted actions taken in the Initial Study and Mitigation, as a result
of these environmental factors, will not change DSRSD's involvement in the project which is to provide
potable water, recycled water and wastewater collection services to the project DSRSD does not have any
additional comments regarding the Revised and Recirculated Initial Study/MND.
SK/ST
cc: Rhodora Biagtan, Principal Engineer
Ryan Pendergraft, Junior Engineer
File: Dublin CEQA/Chron
Sincerely,
City of Dublin Page 56
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
2.2R: Dublin San Ramon Services District
Response: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is needed. Also see the
response to Comment 2.2.
Marnie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Delgado,
Jina and Albert Lee <lee94568@gmail.com>
Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:22 PM
Marnie Delgado
Wanmei Properties Tassajara Rd Project
In regards to the proposed project at 6237 Tassajara Rd:
Letter 3.1R
It is amazing to me that the city is pushing to develop this tiny sliver of land at the expense of the ;vildlife that
exists in the area. Most people perceive Dublin right now as trying to develop every possible square inch of
land, and this project only enhances that image. This seems unnecessary to allow tllis project to proceed, when
schools are bursting at the seams, and while CC and SB hide behind legal jargon, the reality is that there are
already dangerous traffic situations at every school in Dublin, and there are portable buildings housing so many
of the students already.
Please stop the madness and build the appropriate infrastructure (ie, a 2nd comprehensive high school) before
developing more houses. Just across the street, we have a brand new 800 home development. What value do
these 19 homes add to Dublin?
-Albert T. Lee
Bridgestone Circle, Dublin, CA
1
City of Dublin Page 58
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.1R: Albert Lee
Response: This comment is acknowledged. The issues of public services and transportation
environmental impacts were addressed in both the original and Revised and Recirculated
IS/MND documents. No environmental impacts were noted for these topics. However, the
IS/MND note that potential impacts to the local public school system would be mitigated by
payment of mandatory school impact fees. Impacts to infrastructure were discussed in Sections
14 and 17 of the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND. Transportation and Traffic impacts were
addressed in section 16 of the same document.
Both the original and Revised and Recirculated IS/MND documents contain a number of
measures intended to reduce impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level.
These are included in section 4 of the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND.
No response is required to the commenter’s request not to approve this project, since this is
not an environmental topic.
Mamie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Ms. Delgado,
Joe DiDonato <jdidonato@att.net>
Friday, November 11, 2016 2:32 PM
Marnie Delgado
Wanmei development Project
Dublin Marnie Delgado 11-11-16-signed.pdf
Letter 3.2R
I am submitting this letter in response to the MND for the Wanmei Development Project in Dublin, CA. I have also
electronically copied the letter to Ms. Marcia Grefsrud of the CDFW. Thank you.
Joseph E. DiDonato
Wildlife Consulting & Photography
2624 Eagle Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 326-8175
www.Facebook.com/WildlifeConsultingandPhotography
1
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Wanmei Development Project, Dublin
November 7, 2016
Dear Ms. Delgado,
I am writing to add comment to the MND for the Wanmei Development Project in Dublin. Specifically I
am responding to the new information included in this latest version regarding the presence of the
golden eagle nest immediately adjacent to the site.
First let me introduce my background as a biologist familiar with the special status species of the East
Bay Area. I spent 20 years with East Bay Regional Park District as Wildlife Program Manager and
Stewardship Manager before my retirement in 2009. I have been actively involved in the management
of raptors and their habitats and have worked on the raptor and wind energy development studies in
the Altamont Pass since 1987. I am currently a consulting biologist that focuses on endangered and
threatened species and conservation banking. I am also actively involved in a Bay-wide Golden Eagle
Monitoring Team that monitors the nesting activity of golden eagles in the area. I have worked closely
with volunteers in monitoring eagle nests, including the one identified in your MND. I am currently
working with the American Eagle Institute and the East Bay Regional Park District to trap and outfit
golden eagles with radio backpacks to study their movements and the effects of human disturbance and
development on the species.
As you are probably aware, the main cause for the decline of sensitive and special status species is the
loss of habitat. While there are other significant impacts, habitat lost to development eliminates nesting
and foraging areas. Direct and indirect impacts from housing development, public use of adjacent areas,
and natural stressors have significantly reduced the golden eagle population in eastern Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties. You can see this very clearly when travelling on highway 580 and looking north.
The entire habitat from Dublin to Livermore that was formerly occupied by eagles has now been filled in
with developments. The remaining eagles are squeezed into smaller, less productive areas, forcing them
to travel greater distances for adequate forage. Any additional pressure on these birds drastically
increases the chance of nest failure and abandonment and exposes them to hazards outside of their
territory. Golden eagles are protected by several federal and state regulations and are listed as a state
"Fully Protected" species. The latter means that there is no allowance for any take of the eagles or their
nests while the territory is occupied. An occupied territory is not limited to territories with active nests
(as eagles often do not nest every year yet still maintain territories).
The eagle nest near the project site was first recorded by a volunteer working with the Golden Eagle
Monitoring Team (GMT), a volunteer organization that closely monitors the golden eagle populations in
the East Bay. During 2016, one young was successfully fledged from the nest. Additionally, many
neighbors claim that the eagles have been using the area for many years so it is likely that this nest has
been well established for many years. While I understand your consultants have assessed the nest site
in 2016 and determined that this project would have a "less than significant" impact, their assessment is
3.2R.1
3.2R.2
3.2R.3
based on a small number of recent site visits, only one of which was within the nesting season. In fact
the site visit recorded on May 3, 2016, includes limited details of an eagle in a nest that appeared
"undisturbed and did not flush". There is no details on whether this was a nestling (which could not
have physically flushed from the nest at that age) or an adult that may have been brooding chicks.
There is no detail given as to the response of the bird, if any, from which to judge disturbance.
Disturbance to nesting birds can be acute and immediate or have less noticeable effects. In the case of
this nest and its proximity to the proposed development site, construction and human presence may
keep adult birds from entering a nest site to feed and protect young, or return to incubate eggs. I
understand that there is proposed monitoring of the nest during construction. Does the monitor have
adequate capability to recognize stress or behavior associated with disturbance? I was recently hired by
the SF PUC to instruct their biological and watershed staff on recognizing signs of disturbance to nesting
bald eagles near a construction site. This included a two hour classroom lecture with slides and a one
hour field visit to the site. In addition to the training, the CDFW still implemented a minimal mandatory
buffer zone of 900' from the nest allowing only for minor intrusion for weedeating and maintenance of
landscape plants by trained staff.
While human activity during construction will be monitored during construction per the MND, there is
no follow up once the construction is complete and occupants of the new houses are active in the area
all year. How will the nest site be protected in the long term? How will homeowners be informed of the
regulatory protection for this nest? I suggest that the developer mitigate any future impacts to the nest
by funding an annual allowance of $20,000 to pay for long term monitoring. This funding could be held
by the county, CNLM, or the East Bay Regional Park District with requirements for an annual report
and/or public education. This money could be used to pay for the capture of and attachment of radio
back packs for up to two eagles per year. This could include the adu It territorial birds and/or the
nestlings. The data gathered would aid in management of these birds and potentially lead to
restrictions on activities affecting the birds. Additionally, a portion of this funding can be used to
support the Golden Eagle Monitoring Team's efforts to monitor this nest, respond to emergencies
(eaglets on the ground in backyards, injuries, and transportation to wildlife hospitals, etc.) that may
occur.
Additional potential mitigation measures include vegetative screening between the development and
the nest grove, public educational panels and brochures, restrictions on pesticides and herbicides,
limitations on pets roaming, and restrictions on fireworks use and other noise abatement especially
during the nesting season.
While I am grateful that the county recirculated the MND after learning of the eagle nest, I believe the
county and the developer have a responsibility to fully address and mitigate for the short term and long
term impacts that will occur. This may require further analysis of the short and long term impacts to this
nest before authorizing any major ground disturbance in the area. Populations of golden eagles are a
treasure to the community and unfortunately have been lost due to short-sighted assessments and little
follow up to insure their continued existence. You have a responsibility to implement a comprehensive
analysis of these impacts under CEQA and I believe this MND does not thoroughly assess these impacts.
Sincerely,
Cj~ Cvw~na:&
Joseph DiDonato
Wildlife Biologist
3.2R.4
3.2R.S
3.2R.6
City of Dublin Page 62
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.2R: Joe DiDonato
Response 3.2R.1: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required.
Response 3.2R.2: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required.
Response 3.2R.3: The site visit(s) was conducted by a qualified ornithologist to determine
occupancy of the nest and to determine baseline of eagles' behavior in response to current site
conditions, not chronology of nest. WRA biologists are trained to minimize any unnecessary
stress to the eagle occupying the nest in the course of observing to determine occupancy. This
was not a monitoring visit but rather a visit to determine if the nest was active. As noted,
"disturbance to nesting birds can be acute and immediate or have less noticeable effects. In the
case of this nest and its proximity to the proposed development site, construction and human
presence may keep adult birds from entering a nest site to feed and protect young, or return to
incubate eggs." The ability to recognize changes in the effects of stress upon eagle behavior
requires a biologist with seasons of nest monitoring; therefore the qualifications of the biologist
would include a strong background in raptor nest monitoring; all WRA biologists have many
seasons of nest monitoring experience. Nest monitoring prior to construction would closely
follow guidelines set forth by USFWS, 2010, "Interim Golden Eagle Inventory and Monitoring
Protocols; and Other Recommendations." Environmental training for all personnel on site will
include a comprehensive eagle awareness program.
Response 3.2R.4: This comment is noted and will be submitted to Dublin decision-makers at
public hearings when considering the project. The commenter is directed to the Clarifications
and Modifications section of this document which includes new and revised Mitigation
Measures to place limitations on use of rodenticides. See also Response 3.2R.5.
Response 3.2R.5: Additional mitigation measures have been incorporated into the IS/MND to
limit potential disturbance to the Golden Eagle. See Mitigation Measure BIO-4 that requires
monitoring of the golden eagle nest by a qualified eagle biologist during construction and to
have the authority to halt construction if activities are deemed to be causing harm to the
eagles.
As stated in the IS/MND, the Golden Eagle nest is located approximately 200 feet to the east of
the project site within a row of mature eucalyptus trees. The eagle nest was built within 250
feet of an existing larger residential subdivision to the south, within 800 feet of Tassajara Road
to the east and within 300 feet of a school to the north. There are unobstructed views of the
nest site from both developments to the north and south, indicating that the nest is routinely
subject to visual as well as acoustic disturbances. The baseline noise from the area includes the
auto traffic on Tassajara Road, children playing at the adjacent school and human activity from
the residential subdivision. In addition, the Project Site is currently being used as a stockyard
with daily activity. This indicates that the eagle is habituated to the existing conditions,
City of Dublin Page 63
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
including human activities. In terms of operational noise, it is expected that the operation of
the proposed project consisting of residential homes would not significantly exceed existing
noise from the historic and on-going contractor business operations on the site that includes
use of heavy trucks, forklifts and related sources.
Therefore, potential impacts to nearby golden eagles would be less-than-significant.
Response 3.2R.6: The Revised and Recirculated IS/MND adequately discloses potentially
significant project and cumulative impacts on local and regional Golden Eagle populations. The
document also provides adequate measures to reduce any identified impacts to a less-than-
significant level. See Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
Law Offices of
Stuart M. Flashman
5626 Ocean View Drive
Oakland, CA 94618-1533
(510) 652-5373 (voice & FAX)
e-mail: stu@stuflash.com
Letter 3.3R
delivery by electronic mail to m£mL~~cJ~!g_§_cl_o@cl1!R!io_,g_<;W.9-'!_
November 17, 2016
Ms. Mamie Delgado
City of Dublin Comrnmunity Development Dept.
1 00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Revised and Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for
Wanmei Development Project (PLPA 2015-00023)
Dear Ms. Delgado:
I am writing to you on behalf of my client, The San Francisco Bay Chapter of the
Sierra Club, with regard to the above-referenced environmental review document. As you know, in April of this year I submitted a letter commenting on the earlier MND for
this project. That letter pointed out that there is a golden eagle nest located approximately 200 feet from the project site.
In response to that letter, and other communications confirming the existence of that nest, the City withdrew the MND and requested further study of the golden eagle
nest from its biological consultant. The consultant, WRA, provided the City with a letter dated July 28, 2016, which letter appears as part of Attachment 1 to the revised and
recirculated MND.
In the letter, a biologist working for WRA confirmed the existence of the nest and that, when a WRA biologist visited the project site on May 3, 2016, the nest was in active use. The letter also acknowledged that both the City's own policies and the
federal Golden Eagle Protection Act (hereinafter, Act") provide protection to golden eagle nests. In particular, under the Act, "take of a golden eagle is a violation of the Act and subject to civil penalties." "Take", under the Act, is defined broadly to include
agitating or bothering an eagle to a degree as to cause, among other things, interference with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or nest abandonment. Thus, as the letter points out, any activity that resulted in disturbing
eagles occupying the nest so that it interfered with the birds' normal behavior or caused
them to abandon the nest would be considered a significant impact under CEQA.
The letter then went on to suggest that such a potentially significant impact could
be mitigated by adopting a number of measures, including attempting to conduct construction work, as much as possible, outside of the eagles' nesting period. If work
was done during the nesting period, the letter proposed monitoring the nest on a weekly
basis to see if it had become active-i.e., whether the eagles had returned and
occupied the nest. The letter suggested that work could begin during the nesting period so long as the nest was not yet occupied at that point. If the nest was found to have
become occupied while construction was in progress, presumably during a weekly
monitoring visit, a biologist would "constantly monitor the nest." Construction would be
halted if the biologist deemed it necessary to avoid nest abandonment "or if the construction work would otherwise significantly impact the nesting eagles." The letter
also recommended avoiding the use of rodenticides outdoors "unless absolutely necessary."
To be blunt, these mitigation measures are inadequate to ensure that no significant impact on nesting eagles would occur. First, weekly visits by a biologist are
insufficient to ensure that construction activities during the nesting season would not
3.3R.1
Ms. Mamie Delgado -Wanrnei Development Project
11/1712016
Page 2
cause abandonment of the nest. If, for example, a biologist visited the site on a Monday, but on Wednesday of that same week the eagle pair returned, only to find
noisy construction activities occurring at the project site, those activities would likely
cause the eagles to reject and abandon the nesting site. Under the Act, that would be
an illegal take of the eagles, and a significant impact.
Further, if the eagles returned and were not immediately scared off by the
construction activities, continuous monitoring of the site by a biologist would still not
necessarily suffice to avoid nest abandonment. For example, if loud construction
activities resulted in scaring off the parent birds while the eggs were being incubated, stopping that activity after the birds had already fled from the nest would not necessarily
ensure the birds' prompt return. The result could then be that the egg would not hatch
or the nest actually be abandoned. Either of these would again be a take of the eagles
in violation of the Act, and a significant impact.
In this regard, I received comments from Mr. Joe DiDonato, who, I understand, has separately written to you about this eagle nest. His comment to me in regard to
noise was as follows:
Regarding disturbance, most [wildlife authorities] agree that sudden loud
sounds or quick movement are more likely to disturb birds than repetitive, monotonous noise. So, the buzzing activity of a schoolyard or neighborhood may be more tolerated by a bird than the sudden banging,
sawing, backup beeper, yelling and loud noise associated with
construction.
Thus the fact that the birds may tolerate a housing development or school 250 or
more feet away provides no assurance that the birds will tolerate loud construction
noise 200 feet away. There are, therefore, strong indications that such noise will disrupt the nesting pair's activities, resulting in a significant impact. Indeed, the effect of adding
an additional nearby source of noise, particularly the often loud and unpredictable noises from construction activity (e.g., hammering, sawing, operation of power tools
such as circular saws, nail guns, impact wrenches, and power drills, motorized
equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes, back-up beepers, etc. -see list on p. 9 of noise report, Attachment 2 to MND), is likely to have a cumulative effect in rousing and
disturbing nesting birds. As Mr. DiDonato notes:
While these birds may have acclimated to the sounds of the [existing]
neighborhood, they are less acclimated to a rapid change in activity
associated with the startup of a construction project. [emphasis added]
Of equal importance, there are critical periods during nesting when even a
temporary disturbance of nesting behavior will be a significant impact. I quote Mr. DiDonato again:
The most critical periods when a nesting bird is most likely to abandon
their nest (even for a short period) are: 1) when they are incubating and as a result of flushing the eggs are exposed to weather and predators, 2) when the young are very small and cannot thermoregulate on their own (0-14 days) and exposure could kill them, 3) when the young are alone in
the nest at a later age (8-10 weeks) and as a result of a disturbance
prematurely leave the nest.
An additional concern is the degree of knowledge/training that the biologist
observing the site will need. Mr. DiDonato emphasized to me that the initial signs of disturbance can be subtle and easily missed unless the observer is very experienced
and observant:
Eagles respond in different ways to disturbance. It may be as simple as
panting, staring at you, standing up on the nest, pausing from feeding
3.3R.2
3.3R.3
3.3R.4
Ms. Mamie Delgado -Wanmei Development Project
j 1/17/2016
Page 3
young or incubating, vocalizing, flushing, leaving a nest for extended periods, refusing to bring food to the nest, or flying around the nest or
observer. Repeated disturbances can cause abandonment or cause
young or eggs to die. Unless an observer is trained at identifying these
(sometimes) subtle actions, it can be difficult to determine if disturbance is happening. Ironically, Audubon members and other bird watchers are
often a source of disturbance in their attempt to get a better view of a bird.
[emphasis added]
A separate concern is the condition placed on the prohibition of outdoor use of rodenticides. "Unless absolutely necessary" is a subjective term. One person's view of
necessity may be different from another's. To assure protection of the eagles, the prohibition on outdoor use of rodenticides must be absolute. Other rodent control methods, such as trapping, are feasible without the risk to eagles and other wildlife.
Finally, even after the construction is finished, there will be noise and disturbance
associated with the new residents of the project. The noise and disturbance from these new residents will add to the disturbance the birds already endure from the other two
nearby developed areas, both of which are further from the nest site than the new
project will be. The cumulative impact may well be significant. Unfortunately, once construction has been completed, there will be no biologist on site to monitor the birds
and their nest to assure lack of significant disturbance and resulting disruption of the
eagles' activities.
In short, Mr. DiDonato's comments, both those in his letter and those he has
transmitted through me in this letter, clearly indicate that the mitigation measures
proposed by WRA are insufficient to assure that any impacts on the eagle and their nest
from this project will be insignificant. The Revised MND should therefore be withdrawn
and replaced by an environmental impact report ("EIR"). That EIR must include: 1) detailed study of the eagles and their nest; 2) identification of potentially significant
impacts from the project on both the eagles and their nest; 3) description of all feasible mitigation measures and a reasonable range of project alternatives, including a smaller project located further from the nest site, that could reduce or avoid impacts. The EIR must identify both impacts that can be mitigated or avoided and impacts that must be
considered significant and unavoidable. Only at that point would the City be in a position to properly evaluate and weigh this project's potential environmental damage
against its benefits and make an informed decision about whether to approve it.
cc: R. Schneider S. Sorenson
D. Bell, EBRPD
J. DiDonato M. Grefsrud, CDF&W
H. Beeler, USF&WS
Most sincerely
~1.~
Stuart M. Fleshman
3.3R.5
3.3R.6
3.3R.7
City of Dublin Page 67
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.3R: Stuart Flashman
Response 3.3R.1: The proposed mitigation measures are adequate to ensure no significant
impact would occur. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 of the IS/MND indicates that weekly golden
eagle monitoring is for the purpose of determining whether or not the nest used in previous
years and other nests within 0.25 mile are active between January 1 and June 30. This measure
also states that if a nest is active at any point during construction, it will then be constantly
monitored during all construction activities. If a nest is active prior to construction, the IS/MND
states that project construction shall not commence while the nest is active.
Response 3.3R.2: The Revised and Recirculated IS/MND states that: “if the birds exhibit
abnormal nesting behavior the biologist monitoring the site shall have the authority to halt all
project construction activities.”
Thus, construction activities would be stopped. Also in Mitigation Measure BIO-4, if project
construction has stopped due to abnormal eagle nesting behavior, it “shall not resume until t he
qualified biologist has consulted with the City of Dublin and CDFW and it is confirmed that the
bird’s behavior has normalized or the young have left the nest.”
WRA’s professional opinion is that the current mitigation measures related to monitoring ar e
sufficient to avoid significant impacts to golden eagle.
Response 3.3R.3: The commenter is directed to Comment 3.2R from Mr. DiDonato. See
especially Response to Comment 3.2R.4 dealing with project generated noise.
Response 3.3R.4: The commenter is directed to Comment 3.2R from Mr. DiDonato.
Response 3.3R5: Construction will no longer use rodenticides but will utilize trapping (live/kill)
traps for rodent control. Exceptions may be granted where use of rodenticides is needed under
exceptional circumstances as determined in writing by a qualified biologist. See Mitigation
Measure BIO-5.
Response 3.3R.6: Sounds associated with the schoolyard and existing occupied residence are
not monotonous, and often include interruptive sounds. Therefore the baseline includes
irregular, sometimes loud noises and the presence of people on foot and in vehicles within the
maintenance yard, housing development, and street. It should be noted that "…reaction to
disturbance near the nest varies with the type and duration of the disturbance, individual
tolerance levels and the timing of the disturbance in the breeding cycle." Quarry Lane School is
within line of sight of the nest at a higher topographic location and experiences routine (nearly
daily) activity as does the current residential area located to the south of the project. The
golden eagle (hereafter eagle) pair has a tolerance for current, existing ambient disturbances of
City of Dublin Page 68
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
roughly the same magnitude and extent of those which would presumably be present once
construction is complete.
Response 3.3R.7: The Revised and Recirculated IS/MND adequately analyzes impacts to
biological resources and other topics mandated by CEQA. The IS/MND contains substantial
evidence to support its conclusion that the impact on the eagles during Project construction
and occupancy will be reduced to less than significant with identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, no EIR is required under CEQA standards.
Ms. Marnie Delgado
City of Dublin
Commmunity Development Dept.
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 945 68
Letter 3.4R
RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Wanmei Development Project
I am submitting these comments on behalf of myself (a 20+ year resident of Dublin
and former DSRSD elected official) and Dubliners for Change, a grassroots Dublin
organization of which I am the current chair. These comments are in regards to the
Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wanmei Project. Please note
that these comments include (1) general comments on the deficiency of the MND
and (2) specific comments on specific environmental impacts resulting from the
proposed development.
General comments on deficient MND
The mitigated negative declaration has a number of faulty assumptions and
deficiencies, too many to cover in this letter Relying primarily upon the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR from May 10, 1993 is a
significant problem. For example, the number of car trips estimated in the 1993 EIR
has been proven to be faulty (i.e., significantly underestimated) by subsequent
Dublin traffic survey data on actual car trips. The 1993 EIR analysis and findings are
based, in part, on certain planned DUSD facilities which have not been built (znct high
school, etc.) and the absence of these facilities has significantly increased traffic
from eastern Dublin and western Dublin (to Dublin High and to other DUSD schools
which are not at capacity) which has also not been addressed in any EIRs. These
traffic impacts can obviously not be legally mitigated in a MND by a Statement of
Overriding Considerations adopted by the Dublin City Council. The Negative
Declaration actually undermines itself by noting that "a number of transportation
impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable," such as the 175
estimated new day trips resulting from the project. Again, the 175 day trip
estimates is based upon standard industry projection metrics and is not based upon
the results of Dublin traffic surveys, and again, the number of car trips has been
historically underestimated, and there has been no mitigation efforts, especially for
the traffic tojfrom DUSD facilities. Even if the City is stating that 175 trips per day is
accurate (again, easily refutable), are you saying that this number is not significant?
That no mitigation is needed? In summary, the MND has a number of deficiencies,
and I have summarized only a few here.
We request at a minimum that a full Environmental Impact Report be
prepared to evaluate these impacts and to evaluate the cumulative impacts of
this project in the context of all the other develnpment activity occurring in
the project vicinity.
Specific comments on Environmental Impacts
3.4R.l
If this project is approved, there will be significant impacts on the existing
environment, including impacts on various protected wildlife species that currently
reside in and around the Northern Drainage Conservation Area (NDCA) and the
tributary.
As LSA and WRA noted, several endangered species have been identified in the
surrounding areas and as WRA indicated, several of these species have the
"potential to occur" in the project area. Local residents have seen the fully protected
white-tailed kite on the project site perched on the tree near the residential dwelling
and on trees along the tributary. Also seen on the project site were northern
harriers and loggerhead shrikes. Looking at the NDCA and the surrounding
landscape, you will notice that there are groups of eucalyptus trees west of Fallon
Rd. and 200ft east of the project site. A handful of young individual trees are on the
southern part of NDCA, but the majority of trees are along the tributary. If the
project site were to be developed, the trees with branches hanging down onto the
property will be impacted and it is important to note that an evaluation has not been
conducted of the species residing in these trees, species that could be impacted by
the project. In addition to the possibility of there being protected bird species in the
trees, we know that golden eagles often feed on birds. The trees along the tributary
are ideal for providing shelter and nesting environment for various birds that are a
food source for golden eagles. Any disturbance to these trees could have a
significant impact on the food source for the golden eagles.
As mentioned in the reports, the project site has trailers, piles of debris, small
wooden and various structures on and off the ground. The project area itself is a
perfect incubator for rats, mice and related species that occasionally are important
components of the golden eagle's diet and that of white-tailed kites and northern
harriers. Any disturbance in the current footprint of the site could potentially have
adverse effects on the food supply of various protected species. We recommend that
the City of Dublin officially notify the owner(s) of the property not to clear out the
site as it could have significant impact on golden eagles, white-tailed kites and
northern harriers.
As for prohibiting the use of rodenticides via the Home Owners Association, this is a
step in the right direction. But how will this be monitored and enforced? Local
residents are currently experiencing a tremendous increase in infestation of rodents
and this has been discussed in local social media sites. There have been neighborly
exchanges on using poisons, sticky pads and various other traps. Many people have
expressed concerns over the use of poison but local residents have seen dead rats
and mice in their neighborhoods, likely the result of rodenticide usage. In theory, it
sounds good to make this part of HOA restrictions, but we believe it will be
impossible to enforce. Besides poison, residents have seen rats on sticky pads where
the rat had dragged the pad onto the street. If the same were to occur near the
project area, protected species could be hit by vehicles while feeding on the street. It
is too risky to make assumptions about effectiveness and then rely on the by-laws of
a HOA to enforce proper handling ofrodenticides and other methods of getting rid
of rodents.
3.4R.2
3.4R.3
3.4R.4
We grant that the Quarry Lane School was built before the golden eagle nest was
discovered. However, it is important to note the time frame of disturbances caused
by a school verses people living in houses. School starts and ends at specific times,
and throughout the day, there are prolonged periods when school children are
inside the building; on weekends, the school is closed. The disturbances caused by
the school currently allow a window of opportunity for the eagles to hunt relatively
undisturbed. However, the same cannot be said about the occupants of this
proposed development. There will be activity occurring throughout the day and on
weekends. In addition, we are very concerned that once people become aware that
golden eagles nest nearby, they will venture out and attempt to find the nest. It
should be noted that although there are other houses further up on the hills, none
are at the same level as the tree where the golden eagle nest is located. Currently, it
is difficult to gain access to NDCA, but when residences are built so close to a
protected area, there is a high probability that people will ignore signs and venture
out to explore the NDCA. This is already occurring in the Creekview area where
there are signs stating that the area is protected, yet often you will find people and
dogs walking the protected area.
As for starting construction from july 1" until December 31'', this is unacceptable
and unjustifiable. We note that the golden eagle pair at Creekview nest in Dublin had
a late breeding season and the fledgling left the nest in late july. Even the fledgling
from the NDCA pair was seen near the eucalyptus trees near the project site in mid-
August 2016. There is no specific data that show when this fledgling left the vicinity
of the project site. To base construction dates on general assumptions could be
detrimental for a successful breeding season for the golden eagle pair. In reality, we
do not know what caused the golden eagles at Creekview to breed so late in the
season. One cannot presume, much less guarantee with these dates that
construction would have no significant impact on fledglings who remain in the area
until mid-August or later.
Current usage of the project site is vastly different than the proposed development.
There will be a significant increase in human activities including noise (e.g.,
potential use of fireworks on 4th of july-it is, after all, legal to set off fireworks in
Dublin, block parties, loud music. etc) as well as an increase in chemical fumes and
aerosols (car exhaust, fertilizers, insecticides, etc.). Currently, the existing
residential structure and lights are only at the front of the property whereas the
proposed project will have residential structures bordering the NDCA, and there will
be a road with streetlights. Additionally, at night, there will be light from incoming
cars, which likely will illuminate the area in NDCA. All these factors increase the
risks of disturbing the golden eagles and other protected species in the area.
There is so much at stake here especially after loss of other hunting grounds in the
area for the golden eagles. Potential cumulative impacts must be evaluated. Many in
the community used to see golden eagles hunting in places where construction now
is occurring-Wallis Ranch, Moeller Ranch, Terrace Ridge. By allowing this project
to proceed might be the last straw that drives away the golden eagles from nesting
3.4R.5
3.4R.6
in the area. This is a huge risk and gamble that the City of Dublin should not take.
The project area should be protected from any development and our
recommendation is that staff invokes the legislative process to eliminate the
proposed residential units from the General and Eastern Dublin Specific Plans. At a
minimum the potential cumulative impacts on the golden eagles and other
protected species must be evaluated.
Respectfully submitted,
Dan Scannell, Chair
Dubliners for Change
877 4 Bandon Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
City of Dublin Page 73
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.4R: Dan Scannell
Response 3.4R.1: The 1993 EIR is a certified EIR that analyzed development in Eastern Dublin
including the project site. Under CEQA, a supplemental EIR or MND is only required where
there is new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than identified in the 1993
EIR. The analysis in the IS/MND provides substantial evidence that there will be no new
significant traffic impact resulting from the Project than identified in the 1993 EIR (Section 16 of
IS/MND). The IS/MND shows that any potential impacts on adjacent intersections are less than
significant given the limited number of peak hour trips from the project.
In terms of traffic conditions in the Eastern Dublin area, the commenter is incorrect in his
assertion that the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR underestimated future vehicle trips in the Eastern
Dublin area. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, on which the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated
and identified the need for six vehicle travel lanes for Tassajara Road, from the southern City
boundary to the north, In 2015, the City commissioned a traffic analysis from DKS Associates
(“Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara, Capacity Analysis, Final Report, March 2015”) which
documents that future traffic volumes on this arterial roadway are expected to be less than
originally planned, so that the number of travel lanes can be reduced from six lanes to four
lanes. This report is available for public review in the Dublin Public Works Department during
normal business hours and is hereby incorporated into this report by reference.
In terms of the number of anticipated vehicle trips to and from the project (175 trips), this
number is based on the latest trip generation for single-family dwellings and is based on
information contained in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation. Information is
based on the distillation of trips from many similar projects through the nation, including
California. This reference is professionally recognized and used by planners and engineers
throughout California for estimating vehicle trips. The City uses ITE Trip Generation rates for
the analysis of traffic impacts from projects located in Dublin.
Response 3.4R.2: This comment is noted. As required by the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND,
the project will comply with mitigation measure BIO-2 and avoid disturbance to riparian
vegetation, including area under driplines. If disturbance cannot be avoided, the project
applicant will be required to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.
In terms of the potential presence of other species near the site, including but not limited to
white-tailed kite, northern harrier and loggerhead shrike, the potential presence of these
species and others have been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR with appropriate mitigation
provided. See Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 through 26.0. The project developer will be
required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures to protect these species.
Response 3.4R.3: As noted in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project site
has been heavily developed for many years with a residence, other structures, concrete slabs
City of Dublin Page 74
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
and stored construction materials. Based on a recent biological survey of the site completed by
LSA Associates dated May 9, 2017 which is hereby incorporated by reference into this
document and as documented in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND, the site does not
support habitat for rare, threatened or special-status wildlife species.
Response 3.4R.4: As required by Mitigation Measure BIO-5, construction and operation of the
project would not use rodenticides, but would utilize trapping (live/kill) traps for rodent control.
Rodenticides could be used if absolutely necessary, as documented by a qualified biologist.
Enforcement of such, as with all other tenants is the responsibility of the representative of the
HOA and failure to comply is enforced by the use of monetary fines – see Mitigation Measure
BIO-5.
Response 3.4R.5: The commenter is only partially correct in his assertion that residential
structures would border the NDCA. As shown on Exhibit 4 of the Revised and Recirculated
IS/MND, there would only be three proposed dwellings near the NCDA property south of the
project site. Sixteen of the proposed 19 dwellings would be located along the northern property
line with one single-family dwelling bordering the eastern project boundary. The NCDA
property would be largely buffered by the private road. No significant impacts are anticipated
with respect to this condition. In addition, the project developer would construct an additional
permanent barrier between the adjacent NCDA property and project site on southern and
eastern property line to ensure no migration of special-status species onto the site.
Mitigation Measure AES-1 would limit spillover of light off of the project site by requiring cut-
off lenses, other shielding and requiring exterior light fixtures to be directed downward. This
impact is therefore less-than-significant.
Sounds associated with the schoolyard and existing occupied residence are not monotonous,
and often include interruptive sounds. Therefore the baseline includes irregular, sometimes
loud noises and the presence of people on foot and in vehicles within the maintenance yard,
housing development, and street. It should be noted that "…reaction to disturbance near the
nest varies with the type and duration of the disturbance, individual tolerance levels and the
timing of the disturbance in the breeding cycle" (Driscoll, 2010). Quarry Lane School is within
line of sight of the nest at a higher topographic location, and experiences routine (nearly daily)
activity as does the current residential area. The golden eagle (hereafter eagle) pair has a
tolerance for current, existing ambient disturbances of roughly the same magnitude and extent
of those which would be present once construction is complete..
Response 3.4R.6: As documented by the City’s biologist (WRA), preferential foraging habitat
occurs to the east of the site within the open space lands of the 245-acre Northern Drainage
Conservation Area (NCDA), which will not be impacted by the proposed project. The proposed
project site does not include high quality foraging habitat for golden eagles. The open space
lands of the 245-acre NCDA do provide high quality foraging habitat. The golden eagles are not
City of Dublin Page 75
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
expected to utilize the Project site for foraging given existing conditions. The project site has
been historically used for landscaping and contracting storage yard and has been developed
with storage structures, human activity, compacted earth and gravel which do not support
foraging. Given the disturbed nature of the Project site and availability of high-quality foraging
habitat elsewhere, the project would not result in a significant impact due to loss of eagle
foraging habitat.
SENT VIA E-MAIL
Marnie R. Delgado
Senior Planner
City of Dubliln
P.O. Box 1191, Livermore, CA 94551
www.fov.org
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
marnie.delgado@dublin.ca.gov
Letter 3.5R i
Re: Wanmei Properties, Inc. Planned Development Rezone,
Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review, PLPA 2015-
00023
Dear Ms. Delgado,
Friends of the Vineyards (FOV) is a Tri-Valley based organization formed to protect and
preserve the agricultural, open space, and natural resources of our region. We object to
the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Wanmei Development
Project in Dublin. The revised initial study in support of the MND raises several issues
of concern.
The MND would allow encroachment into the 100 foot creek setback. The 100 foot
setback is designed to serve flood control and biological species protection. The
developer should not be allowed to encroach upon half the intended setback. The
planned construction and use of the project site as a residential subdivision is a
significantly more intensive use than that involved with the current level of
encroachment by the landscape materials company presently located on the site. If this
project is approved, the developer will be able to rely on the existing chain link fence
and a proposed secondary barrier to protect the red legged frogs. The setback limit is
intended to facilitate that objective and additional fencing within the setback limits
should not be deemed adequate to provide the necessary protection.
The MND proposes that the Golden Eagle nesting area and foraging habitat impacts
can be mitigated. The loss of any habitat raises great concerns in an era of increasing
drought and impacts from climate change. The determination that prey species will be
3.5R.l
3.5R.2
Friends of the Vineyards
Wanmei Properties Development Application #PLPA-2015-00023
Page Two
available in other protected areas fails to acknowledge that the loss of prey in an
adjacent site is a significant impact. Animals don't understand property lines.
Moreover, the conclusion that the impacts will not be significant because the land is
already developed in the project site is flawed. The project site is currently occupied by
a landscape materials company that does not involve an on-going intensive human
presence. The proposed project would involve numerous residential houses, additional
traffic, noise, and lighting impacts which would be present 24 hours a day. People bring
pets who can eat prey species. Cats can eat red-legged frogs. The cumulative impacts
from this development as well as the other residential development and school in the
vicinity of the nesting site have not been addressed.
The MND acknowledges there is a risk of significant impacts on rodent species from the
use of pesticides and attempts to identify possible mitigation, including future
Homeowner's Association rules to prevent the use of toxic pesticides by homeowners.
This provision is dubious in that it is highly unlikely that most residents will read the
rules when purchasing their homes, and there is no guarantee that the future
association will be able or willing to enforce these rules in any meaningful way. This is
questionable mitigation at best, raising a substantial risk of future harm to golden eagles
who may ingest the toxins in the prey species.
The preservation of wildlife is a high priority for our organization and our communities.
We should be concerned about loss of any habitat. When will it be too much? We
should not favor development at the expense of protected species, and must ensure
that the full environmental consequences of a project are understood before moving
forward. FOV requests that the City reject the MND and take such further action as is
necessary to comply with CEQA and federal law.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue, and ask that these comments
be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tamara Reus
President
Friends of the Vineyards
3.SR.3
3.5R.4
3.5R.S
City of Dublin Page 78
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.5R: Tamara Reus
Response 3.5R.1: The commenter is directed to the Master Response for Potential Impacts Due
to Encroachment into 100-foot Creek Setback that appears earlier in this document.
Response 3.5R.2: The proposed development site does not contain trees of suitable size and
character for nesting Golden Eagle. No impacts to the row of introduced non-native trees
located within the preserve, where the current nest occurs would occur as a result of
development of this area. Due to the current usage of the site as an active materials storage
yard for landscaping, the project site does not provide significant forage for the Golden Eagle
pair as determined by the golden eagle biologists retained by the City of Dublin.
Response 3.5R.3: The proposed development site does not contain trees of suitable size and
character for nesting Golden Eagle. No impacts to the row of introduced non-native trees
located within the preserve, where the current nest occurs, would occur as a result of
development of the project site. Due to the current usage of the site as an active materials
storage yard for landscaping, it does not provide significant forage for the Golden Eagle pair.
The debris piles, landscaping supply piles and other stored items, currently on site potentially
offer refuge for prey species, however these anthropomorphic habitats are temporary and are
removed, changed and utilized as needed by current site tenants. Human-caused alterations
cannot be considered as host sites for potential prey species when they are consistently
altered. Preferential foraging habitat occurs to the east of the site within the open space lands
of the 245-acre Northern Drainage Conservation Area. Forage pressure would not be increased
because it is unlikely that the eagles are using an area containing storage structures, human
activity, concrete pads, compacted earth and gravel for foraging.
Response 3.5R.4: As required by Mitigation Measure BIO-5, construction and operation of the
project would not use rodenticides, but would utilize trapping (live/kill) traps for rodent control
unless these methods are infeasible. Rodenticides only could be used is approved in writing by
a qualified biologist – See Mitigation Measure BIO-5.
Response 3.5R.5: The commenter’s opinion on the merits of the proposed development project
is noted and will be considered by Dublin decision-makers during public hearings on the
project. The commenter’s specific comments on the sufficiency of the CEQA analysis for the
Project have been addressed in above Responses to Comments 3.5R.1-3.5R.5.
Mamie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Jennet Herdman <jennetherdman@gmail.com>
Monday, November 21, 2016 11:18 PM
Mamie Delgado
Letter 3.6R I
Subject: Protected Golden Eagle in Dublin -No Building Please
Dear Mamie,
Construction of 19 single family detached homes on 2.648 acres is being planned in Dublin. (The Wanmei 3.6R.l
Project) However, there has been a Golden Eagle living on the land. This animal is federally protected. There
are several envirorunental groups that oppose this building. The site is not vested and the city is under no
obligation to approve the project. We don't need to build more homes.
In addition to this being an area with a protected Golden eagle living in it, it is an area brimming with homes 3.6R.2
and no schools to support the growth. I am a third grade school teacher at John Green Elementary in East
Dublin and I have experienced first hand the overcrowding and there really is no end in sight. My class is over
the capacity right now. (All third grade classes are.) We need to secure the schools before we build any more
homes. The students who live at Wallis Ranch haven't had time to sign up in our schools, and when they do, we
will be devestating to the connnunity when we find there isn't enough space. We need time to callibrate the
nun1ber of students to the schools. The middle schools and highschool are full. I personally know SIX families
who have moved from Dublin because the schools are overcrowded. To build 19 MORE homes is ludicrous.
I feel strongly that we should not build more houses and we should not take away the envirorunent of the 3.6R.3
Golden Eagle. The eagle is a beautiful bird who's habitat is being threatened. We can stop that.
Please Listen,
Jennet Herdman
Third Grade Teacher
John Green Elementary
1
City of Dublin Page 80
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.6R: Jennet Herdman
Response 3.6R.1: There is no Golden Eagle nest on the site. The Revised and Recirculated
IS/MND documents that a Golden Eagle nest has been identified approximately 200 feet east of
the site, but not on the project site. The Revised and Recirculated IS/MND discloses that eagles
are protected species and also includes a range of mitigation measures to ensure that the
proposed project would not result in a significant impact on these eagles.
The comment regarding the opinion that the proposed project should not be approved is
noted, but is not a comment on the environmental aspects of the proposed project or the
IS/MND. This comment letter will be submitted to City of Dublin decision makers prior to acting
on this project.
Response 3.6R.2: The comment regarding local school overcrowding is noted. The issue of
additional students anticipated to be generated by the proposed project is analyzed in Section
14, Public Services, of the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND. The IS/MND documents that
additional school aged students would be generated by the project, but that payment of school
impact fees to the Dublin Unified School District would mitigate project impacts on the school
district.
Response 3.6R.3: As noted above, eagle biologists working for the City have determined that
the project site does not provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for golden eagle. The
Revised and Recirculated IS/MND contains a number of measures to ensure that impacts to th e
nearby Golden Eagle nest and its associated habitat would be less-than-significant. The
commenter’s opinion that the project should not be approved by the City is noted and will be
provided to the City decision-makers.
Mamie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mary Morehead <marymorehead354@gmail.com>
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:29 AM
Marnie Delgado
Wanmei
Letter 3.7R
I am a resident of Dublin for the past 16 years. I am against the W anrnei project that will construct houses on
land which is habitat to the Golden Eagle. •
No to this project.
Thank: you,
Mary Morehead
1
City of Dublin Page 82
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.7R: Mary Morehead
Comment 3.7R: The commenter is directed to the Response to Comment 3.6R.3 regarding
potential impacts to Golden Eagle and eagle habitat. Commenter’s opposition to the Project
will be provided to the City decision-makers.
Marnie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Mamie
Billie Withrow <billiejwithrow@gmail.com>
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:17 AM
Mamie Delgado
Wanmei Project
Letter 3.8R I
I am writing to express my opposition to the Wanmei Project on Tassajara. It is not in the best interest of Dublin, or
Dublin's natural resources. It will be threatening several flora and fauna in the area, contributing to traffic, pollution, and
school overcrowding, even with the proposed mitigations.
I live in Silvera Ranch and see a plethora of wildlife in the area daily, including the protected Golden Eagle, deer, turkeys,
hawks, coyotes, fox, raccoons, and opossum.
I am the Secretary of Dubliners For Change <http://www.dublinersforchange.com> and am in complete agreement of the
3.8R.l
3.8R.2
letter sent to you by Dan Scannell, Co-Chair of our organization. Please consider that beautiful area for something other 3.8R.3
than more packed housing.
Thank You.
Billie J Withrow
Secretary-Dub liners For Change
1
City of Dublin Page 84
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.8R: Billie Withrow
Response 3.8R.1: The commenter’s opinions on the merits of the proposed project are noted
and will be considered by Dublin decision makers during public hearings on the project. The
measures included in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND will adequately reduce potential
project impacts related to biological resources (flora and fauna) to a less-than-significant level.
No significant impacts are identified in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND with respect to air
pollution, schools or traffic. Also see Responses 3.1R, 3.5R.2 and 3.9R.
Mamie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marnie-
Letter 3.9R
Carla Supanich <carlasupanich@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:56 AM
Marnie Delgado
Wanmei project
I oppose the Wanmei project. Our town does not need more homes at this time -our school campuses are over crowded,
our traffic is incredibly heavy-a new normal) -our infrastructure cannot support it to the satisfaction of most of our
residence. Not to mention the Golden Eagle habitat that will be impacted. Please Do Not approve this project. The City
Council needs to focus on right sizing our infrastructure to adequately support the needs of our community. It's not
desirable work-but it is needed for our long term sustainability.
Regards,
Carla Supanich
12 year Dublin resident
1
City of Dublin Page 86
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.9R: Carla Supanich
Response 3.9R: See the Response to Comments 3.8R and 3.16R.2 for comments on traffic. Also
see Response 3.5R.2 regarding potential school impacts and Responses 3.5R2-3.5R3 regarding
impact on eagle habitat. Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and 5 address protection of nearby Golden
Eagles and their nests. The commenter’s opinions on the merits of the proposed project are
noted and will be considered by Dublin decision makers during public hearings on the project.
Marnie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good morning Marnie,
kerriechabot@comcast.net
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 11:08 AM
Chabot, Kerrie
Marnie Delgado
Dublin's Wanmei Project proposal
Letter 3.10R
I am writing to express my opposition to the Wanmei Project on Tassajara.lt is not in the best interest of Dublin, nor
Dublin's natural resources. This project will contribute to traffic, pollution, and school overcrowding, even with the
proposed mitigations.
!live in Dublin Ranch and see wildlife in the area daily, including the protected Golden Eagle, deer, turkeys, hawks,
coyotes, fox, raccoons, and opossum. Please do not contribute to taking away the little we have remaining of these species.
Please reconsider this area for something other than more packed housing, perhaps a dog park.
Thank You.
Kerrie Chabot, resident 17 years
1
3.10R.l
3.10R.;
3.10R.3
City of Dublin Page 88
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.10R: Kerrie Chabot
Response 3.10R.1: The commenter’s opinion on the merits of the project is noted and will be
considered by Dublin public officials during public hearings on the project.
No significant impacts to traffic, pollution or school overcrowding are identified in the Revised
and Recirculated IS/MND as a result of this project. See Responses to Comments 3.5R.2
addressing potential school impacts and Response 3.16R.2 addressing potential traffic impacts.
Response 3.10R.2: The commenter’s opinion on the merits of the project is noted and will be
considered by Dublin public officials during public hearings on the project. The project site has
been designated for urban uses in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
since it’s adoption in 1993. Regional impacts to biological species were analyzed in the EDSP
EIR for the General Plan and Specific Plan. The project will be required to adhere to overall
biological mitigation measures contained in the EIR as well as project-specific biological
resource mitigation measures contained in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND to ensure that
these impacts will be less-than-significant.
As noted in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND, the project site itself does not provide
suitable habitat for golden eagle nests or foraging.
Response 3.10R.3: The commenter’s opinion on the merits of the project is noted and will be
considered by Dublin public officials during public hearings on the project.
.
Marnie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Delgado-
Lucia Miller <axgal@me.com>
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 12:37 PM
Marnie Delgado
Wanmei project
I am writing to voice my opinion on the Wanmei project.
Letter 3.11R I
I am a 30+ year homeowner in Dublin. I have watched development encroach just about every aspect of our city. The 3.11R.l
dynamics have changed because of this and so has our schools, environment, wildlife and more. Needless to say, I am not
pleased with much of it.
I am opposed to the Wanmei project. Here is why:
-We currently have overcrowded schools. We have not sufficiently solved that problem and more students on an already 3.11R.:
burdened system is not needed.
-The property has much wildlife, including the Golden Eagle, which is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act of 1940.
-A "19" unit proposal. Hmmm not 20. Perhaps that would force them to contribute to the Public Art Fund or more. I
don't like or trust these games. What else is the developer trying to "dodge"?
Dublin does not need more housing. Residents of this fine city have made that pretty clear. Is anyone listening?
Thank you-
Lucia Miller
7511 Calle Verde Rd
Dublin CA
gxga!@me.corn
1
3.11R.3
3.11R.'
3.11R.5
City of Dublin Page 90
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.11R: Lucia Miller
Response 3.11R.1: The commenter’s opinion on the merits of the project is noted and will be
considered by Dublin public officials during public hearings on the project.
Response 3.11R2: The topic of school impacts of the proposed project were analyzed in Section
14 of the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND. The document notes that the project would
generate additional students to be accommodated by the public school system, but that, under
CEQA, payment of school impact fees is considered full mitigation for this topic.
Response 3.11R.3: The commenter’s assertion that the project site contains much wildlife is not
supported by information contained in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND. Section 4 of that
document notes that no protected or special-status species have been observed on the site by
two different biologist. The document does note the presence of a Golden Eagle nest
approximately 200 feet east of the project site, but not on the project site itself. A number of
measures are included in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND to reduce impacts to golden
eagles to a less-than-significant level. See also Response to Comments 3.5R2 and 3.5R3.
Response 3.11R.4: The commenter’s opinion on status of the Public Art Fund is noted. This
comment regarding the merit of the project is noted, but is not a comment on the
environmental aspects of the proposed project or the draft MND. This comment letter will be
reviewed by City of Dublin decision makers prior to acting on this project.
Mamie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Ms. Delgado,
Catherine Kuo <catherinekuo@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 12:39 PM
Marnie Delgado
NO to Wanmei/Kobald 19 homes
Letter 3.12R \
As residents, home owners and voters in Dublin since 1999, we ask that you NOT consider this new
Wanmei/Kobald project.
Please protect this open land between Quarry Lane and creekside, and do not allow a new residential
project to move forward.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Catherine & William Kuo
1
City of Dublin Page 92
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.12R: Catherine and William Kuo
Response 3.12R: The commenter’s opinions on the merits of the project are noted and will be
considered by Dublin public officials during public hearings on the project. As stated elsewhere
in this document, the project site has been designated for urban residential uses in the Dublin
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan since 1993. Changes to these two documents to
redesignate the site as open space or a similar non-urban use would take Planning Commission
and City Council actions to amend the General Plan and Specific Plan.
Marnie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi,
Helen Zhang < helen.zhang@comcast.net>
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:57 PM
Marnie Delgado
No on the Wanmei Project
Letter 3.13R!
I'm dismayed to hear about this proposed project and would like to urge you to reject it. 3.13R.:
-It encroaches on delicate creek-side land.
-The area is teaming with wildlife, including the Golden Eagle, a protected species under the Bald and Golden Eagle 3.13R.;
Protection Act of 1940.
-It adds 19 more houses to our already overcrowded schools. Any new middle school students must commute across 3.13R.3
town to Wells Middle School, adding to traffic congestion.
-The developer has surreptitiously chosen to request 19 units, 1 shy of the number (20) which would have required 3.13R.•
them to contribute to the Public Art Fund.
Dublin citizens have been disgusted by the rampant development that has placed serious pressure on our road, schools,
and general infrastructure. We are losing precious open space and animal habitat at an alarming rate. Please hear the
citizens and stop this insanity!
Thank you!
Helen Zhang
1
City of Dublin Page 94
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.13R: Helen Zhang
Response 3.13R: The commenter’s opinions on the merits of the project are noted and will be
considered by Dublin public officials during public hearings on the project. Also refer to the
Response to Comment 3.12R, above, about the possibility of other uses for the project site.
:
WENDEL . ROSEN
BLACK&. Dl!AN L~r
1111 Broadway, 241h Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-4036
r: 510-834-6600
F: 510-808-4745
November 22, 2016
VIA EMAIL TO MARNIE.DELGADO@DUBLIN.CA.GOV
Mamie R. Delgado
Senior Planner, Community Development
City of Dublin
I 00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
W'NW.wendel.com
rselna®vvende!.com
Letter 3.14R
Re: Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Wanmei
Development Project (PLPA 2105-00023) at 6237 Tassajara Rd., Dublin
Dear Ms. Delgado:·
We represent Sabri Arac, Founder and Headmaster or the Quarry Lane School, located at
6363 Tassajara Road in Dublin. We are writing to offer comments on the Revised Initial Study
released to the puhlic on Oct. 19. 2016related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
("!S/MND") for the proposed Wanmei Development Project ("Project") at 6237 Tassajara Road.
This letter covers the revised discussion regarding Golden Eagle nesting, the Califomia Red-
Legged Frog (and other special status species), proposed creek setback reductions, nesting
raptors and riparian trees. We also have taken the opportunity to provide information ontraffic
issues included in both versions of the IS/MND. Under the Califomia Environmental-Quality Act
("CEQA") we are entitled to comment on the entire recirculated IS/MND, not just revisions.
One note about distribution of the !S/MND: The IS/MND misidentifies the owner of the
unnamed tributary of the Tassajara Creek, which is adjacent to the Project site and central to an
analysis of environmental impacts. On page 4, second full paragraph, the IS/MND identifies the
unnamed tributary OW!ler and manager as the Center for Natural Lands Management ("CNLM").
In fact, the oW!ler is Wildlife Management, LLC. Wildlife Management LLC is included on the
distribution list; CNLM is not. Given that CNLM is responsible for the management and
preservation of the tributary, we believe CNLM should have been on the distribution list.
This letter generally provides a summary of assessments by two environmental experts
retained by Mr. Arac, which we have attached. The environmental experts' letters represent the
views of Wendel Rosen and our client, Mr. Arac. As such, we do not fully repeat comments
made by the experts. Instead we highlight the experts' salient points and urge you to read their
letters in their entirety. In addition, we add one comment about the presence of the Golden
Eagles and the insufficiency of mitigation measures related to the Eagles. Finally, we attach
019341.0001\4500140.1
3.14R.1
3.14R.2
Mamie R. Delgado
November 22, 2016
Page2
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP
comments we submitted to the previous IS/MND dated April 21, 2016 and ask that the City of
Dublin review those comments once again.
Having closely reviewed the IS/MND and attached environmental assessments in
conjunction with the reports provided by environmental consultants retained by Mr. Arac, we
conclude that pursuant to CEQA there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant
effects on the environment, and therefore requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR").
Biological Resources
The IS/MND analysis and related biological studies indicate that the Project will have
significant impacts on the environment and therefore requires an EIR as follows:
• It is more likely than not that special status species are present on the Project site
and could continue to exist on the Project site because a metal barrier meant to
keep species off the site only covers the site's southern boundary. The site's old
vehicles, stockpiled materials and debris all provide habitat for the California
Red-Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander. In addition, ground squirrel
bun·ows, which also provide habitat for the California R,ed-Legged Frog and
California Tiger Salamander, were observed on the site on November 2, 2016.
• The IS/MND indicates no special status species were observed on the Project
site, but no survey methodology has been provided and there is no indication that
proper protocol surveys were followed in malcing the determination that no
special status species are present on the Project site.
• Developing 50 feet closer to the unnamed creek than is i!llowed by the Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program would harm the creek and its
environs as the primary passageway allowing special status species to move freely
between habitat units containing several special status species. The habitat units'
conservation areas were specifically established to mitigate development allowed
by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As a result, encroaching into the required
setbacks would mean that the mitigation is unfulfilled and voided.
• A reduced setback could also negatively impact the nesting of passerine bird
species from late January through August. Nesting passerine birds and their
nesting activities are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Nesting
buffers range from I 00-300 feet from active nests and are determined by
negotiations with regulators. This conflict with the proposed reduced setbacks
was not addressed in the IS/MND or any other environmental review.
• Currently, several trees riparian trees, which are important to various species,
hang over the Project site and cannot be altered without approval from regulators
and Third Party beneficiaries. ·
Q 19341.0001\4500140.1
3.14R.3
3.14R.4
3.14R.5
3.14R.6
3.14R.7
Marnie R. Delgado
November 22,2016
Page3
WENDEL. ROSEN, BlACK & DEAN LLP
• The IS/MND makes no mention of an existing Red-Tailed Hawk nest located only
250 feet from the Project site or additional nesting raptors located within the
existing creek corridor.
• Regarding the presence of Golden Eagles, Mitigation Measure, BI0-5 fails as a
mitigation, because it limits the use ofrodenticides "un\ess absolutely necessary."
"Absolutely necessary" is not defined in the IS/MND rendering it completely
subjective and open to any number of interpretations. IfBI0-5 is to remain as a
mitigation, it must define "absolutely necessary." A Mitigation measure must
provide certainty that the measure will mitigate the impact in question, which is
clearly lacldng in this instance. See, Laurel Heights Improvement Ass 'n of San
Francisco v. Regents of the State of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (1998).
Transportation/Traffic
The IS/lv!ND traffic analysis related to 6237 Tassajara Road appears to rely entirely on
the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and related Statement of Overriding Considerations. While the
Statement of Overriding Considerations references "cumulative traffic," the EIR mitigation
measures do not focus on the section ofTassajara Road near 6237 Tassajara or its closest
intersection at Tassajara Road and Wallis Ranch Drive.
The IS/MND's analysis of transportation and traffic, and an assessment conducted by a
traffic expe11 retained by Mr. Arac, indicate that the proposed development will have significant
impacts on the environment, and therefore, must be studied as part of an EIR; as follows:
• The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed a maxinmm density of 65 housing units at 6363
Tassajara Road. Subsequently, the City of Dublin approved the Quarry Lane
School for 950 students at 6363 Tassajara Road. Currently the school population
is 689 students and approximately 80 teachers. The school places much higher
traffic demands on Tassajara Road than were contemplated in the EIR and is a
unique use that contributes to special traffic demand.s and safety issues. A new
housing project directly next door to the school would exacerbate those issues.
• Contrary to ISIMND Section 16 (d) --Transportation/Traffic Project Impacts,
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? --
project impacts may very well substantially increase road hazards by adding new
housing development traffic to congestion created partly by the school and pattly
by existing traffic patterns. As one example, most Project homeowners and guests
will desire to travel south on Tassajara Road toward Interstate 580, which will
require the motorists to cut across all northernbound lanes of traffic in order to
enter the northbound left turn lane to make aU-turn to travel south to I-580. This
hazard has not been accounted for in the EIR, related Statement of Oven'iding
Considerations, or the IS/MND.
019341.0001\4500140.1
3.14R.8
3.14R.9
3.14R.10
3.14R.ll
Mamie R. Delgado
November 22, 2016
Page 4
WENDEL. ROSEN, BlACK & DEAN LLP
As stated above, we conclude that under CEQA there is a fair argU11lent that the Project
will have significant effects on the environment, and thus requires the preparation of a new
Environmental Impact Report. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate under CEQA. -· ·-.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND. Please continue to keep is on
the mailing list for any and all notices relating to the Project.
Very truly yours,
WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP
Robert W. Selna
RWS
cc: Dr. Sabri Arac, Founder and Headmaster of the Quarry Lane School
cc: Cathy Little, Northern and Central California Center for Natural Lands Management
cc: Marcia Grefsrud, Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife
cc: Brena Blinn, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
019341.000114500140.1
3.14R.12
City of Dublin Page 99
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.14R: Robert Selna
Comment 3.14R.1: The City of Dublin followed all required CEQA notification procedures for the
Revised and Recirculated IS/MND. Adjacent property owners, including Wildlife Management
LLC, were sent notices. It is responsibility of the actual property owner (Wildlife Management)
to notify their contractors and agents of the pending Revised and Recirculated IS/MND.
General notice of IS/MND was also provided in the local newspaper of record in the Dublin area
Nonetheless, the issue regarding notice to the property owner v. management entity does not
in any way diminish or change the analysis or conclusions set forth in the CEQA document.
Response 3.14R.2: This comment is noted and the comments by the environmental experts and
the commenter’s prior comment letter are responded to in this document. Since an EI R has
already been certified for the Project (the 1993 EIR), the substantial evidence test, not the fair
argument test, applies to the decision of whether a supplemental EIR should be prepared for
the Project. The record for the Project, including the IS/MND, provides substantial evidence
that a supplemental EIR is not required under CEQA standards for any impact area, including
biological impacts. The commenter’s information does not refute the substantial evidence
supporting the City’s determination that a supplemental EIR is not required.
Response 3.14R.3: The biological reports discuss local documented occurrences of special
status species adjacent to the project site (p. 3 and pp. 5-8 of the LSA and WRA reports,
respectively). Both LSA and WRA found it extremely unlikely that the listed California red-
legged frog (CRLF) and California tiger salamander (CTS) would occur within the project site
(LSA report page 3 and WRA report pages 6 and 7). The Project Site does not contain aquatic
features and thus does not provide breeding habitat for either species or non-breeding aquatic
habitat (in the case of CRLF). Protocol-level survey methods for both species are focused on
potential aquatic breeding habitat or otherwise typical upland habitat areas (for CTS), neither
of which is present in the project site. While the project site does contain ground squirrel
burrows and debris piles, it is unlikely CTS and CRLF utilize these as refugia. Ingress/egress
points from adjacent preserved areas are limited to portions of the site not containing wildlife
exclusion fencing, i.e., the north and west borders and the northern portion of the east border.
However, areas north and west of the site are paved and developed and regularly used by
vehicles and people.
Regarding the unfenced eastern portion of the project site, as stated in the WRA report, these
two species would have to pass through more suitable grassland habitat in the NDCA before
entering the disturbed project site. The site contains minimal vegetation. These species use of
burrows or under debris on-site is very unlikely due to the regular disturbance of the debris
piles, the regular human and vehicular disturbance throughout the site, and the lack of easily
accessible aquatic habitat due to the presence of the barrier fence to the south. Therefore, it is
City of Dublin Page 100
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
unlikely CRLF and CTS would shelter or estivate within the project site. The project would be
required to mitigate any potential for impact to these species, however unlikely, by conducting
a CRLF pre-construction survey prior to ground disturbance (Mitigation Measure BIO-6) and by
extending the existing CRLF barrier along the eastern project boundary and constructing a
secondary barrier consisting of a 4-foot block wall with 2-feet of ornamental steel on top along
the southern and eastern project boundaries.
Response 3.14R.4: The biological reports do discuss local documented occurrences of special
status species adjacent to the project site (p. 3 and pp. 5-8 of the LSA and WRA reports,
respectively). The IS/MND asserts that the “LSA report notes that the project site…contains no
candidate, special-status or sensitive plant or wildlife species or their respective habitats,” and,
“lack of candidate, special-status and protected species on the site was confirmed in the WRA
peer review report.” However, neither the LSA nor WRA reports constitute the confirmation
of presence or absence of any sensitive species. These reports evaluated the likelihood of
occurrence of these species and do not represent protocol-level survey efforts that may
confirm the species’ presence or absence. LSA conducted a further site visit evaluating the
conditions on the project site on May 9, 2017. LSA confirmed the conditions were unchanged
from its prior site evaluation and that there are no protected species or habitat for protected
species located on the project site.
In WRA’s professional opinion, protocol-level surveys are not warranted for the proposed
project. Protocol-level survey methods for both CTS and CRLF are dependent upon presence of
potential aquatic breeding habitat or otherwise typical upland habitat areas (for CTS), neither
of which is present in the project site. In order to confirm the absence of species on the site, a
CRLF and CTS pre-construction survey is required prior to ground disturbance (Mitigation
Measure BIO-6).
Response 3.14R.5: As outlined in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND, the Project would be
required to obtain the necessary permit approval from CDFW and Dublin Public Works Director
for exceptions to the creek setback guidelines. See Master Response for Potential Impacts Due
to Encroachment into 100-foot Creek Setback.
Response 3.14R.6: See Master Response for Potential Impacts Due to Encroachment into 100-
foot Creek Setback. Special-status wildlife species (including white-tailed kite, northern harrier,
and loggerhead shrike) were evaluated by WRA, whose report was included as an attachment
to the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND. Red-tailed hawk is not considered a special-status
species (the species has no special governmental protection beyond baseline levels) and thus it
was not specifically evaluated in the LSA and WRA reports. However, like most native birds,
red-tailed hawk receives baseline protection under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
the California Fish and Game Code. Per the IS/MND (and the recommendations of WRA), the
project will comply with Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b) and avoid disturbance to active bird nests
of covered species, including red-tailed hawk, within 100 feet of the project site boundaries. In
City of Dublin Page 101
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
WRA’s report, nesting bird buffers were recommended based on the ju dgment of a qualified
biologist and the LSA report did not provide guidance as to buffer distance.
The development will also be responsible for complying with a number of Mitigation Measures
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, including but not limited to Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0,
3.7/5.0, 3.7/2.0. 3.7/3.0, 3.7/6.0. 3.7/20.0. 3.7/21.03.7/23.0, 3.7/21.8 and 3.7/25.0.
Response 3.14R.7: The project applicant will apply for applicable permits from the California
Department of Fish & Wildlife, if necessary. Also see Response 3.14R.6.
Response 3.14R.8: Special-status wildlife species (including white-tailed kite, northern harrier,
and loggerhead shrike) were evaluated by WRA, whose report was included as an attachment
to the IS/MND. Red-tailed hawk is not considered a special-status species (the species has no
special governmental protection beyond baseline levels), and thus it was not specifically
evaluated in the LSA and WRA reports. However, like most native birds, red-tailed hawk
receives baseline protection under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish
and Game Code. Per the IS/MND (and the recommendations of WRA), the project will comply
with Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b) and avoid disturbance to active bird nests of covered species,
including red-tailed hawk, within 100 feet of the project site boundaries. In WRA’s report,
nesting bird buffers are recommended based on the judgment of a qualified biologist. The LSA
project report did not provide guidance as to buffer distance.
The development will also be responsible for complying with a number of Mitigation Measures
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR pertaining to special-status bird species. These Mitigation
Measure are 3.7/3.7/20.0, 3.7/21.0. 3.7/22.0. 3.7/23.9, 3.7/24.0 and 3.7/25.0.
Response 3.14R.9: Construction will no longer use rodenticides, but would generally use
trapping (live/kill) traps for rodent control. The use of rodenticides only could be allowed if
absolutely necessary with the written approval of a qualified biologist. See Mitigation Measure
BIO-5.
Response 3.14R.10: The Response to Comment 3.4.4 is referenced here to respond to this latest
comment dealing with potential traffic impacts of the proposed project.
Response 3.14R.11: The commenter is directed to Response to Comment 3.16R.3 dealing with
potential traffic safety related to the proposed project.
Response 3.14R.12: Since an EIR has already been certified for the Project (the 1993 EIR), the
substantial evidence test, not the fair argument test, applies to the decision of whether a
supplemental EIR should be prepared for the Project. The record for the Project, including the
IS/MND, provides substantial evidence that a supplemental EIR is not required under CEQA
standards for any impact area, including biological impacts. The commenter’s information does
City of Dublin Page 102
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
not refute the substantial evidence supporting the City’s determination that a supplement al EIR
is not required.
OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL. INC.
Wetland Regulation and Permitting
November 12,2016
Ms. Patricia Curtin
Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLP
!Ill Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607-4036
Letter 3.15R
Subject: Feasibility Assessment-'Wanmei Development Project (PLPA 2105-00023) at
6237 Tassajara Road, Dublin, California
Dear Ms. Curtin:
Olberding Environmental, Inc. (Olberding Environmental) has completed an evaluation of the
proposed Wanmei Development Project (PLPA 21 05-00023) located at 6237 Tassajara Road,
Dublin, California. Our assessment/evaluation focused on potential impacts to special status species
and/or suitable habitat which could support these species and regulatory permitting requirements
associated with the proposed residential development project. This evaluation also included a review
of the proposed development activities specific to the following agencies: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department ofFish and
Wildlife (CDFW), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). These agencies
would typically have potential jurisdiction over a residential development projects along a creek
corridor with potential impacts to special status species.
A site evaluation was completed on November 2, 20 16. The evaluation was completed from adjacent
properties where existing habitat conditions were observed. During the site visit an on-site
assessment was performed specific to potential regulatory constrains associated with agency
jurisdictions, habitat impacts, habitat quality, potential presence of special-status species and
applicable regulatory requirements related to the implementation of a proposed project at this
location.
Prior to the site visit reference materials including the City of Dublin Initial Study/MND and several
technical documents prepared by other environmental consulting firms were reviewed in order to
identify previously recognized constraints and suggested mitigation measures. During our review it
was noted that the following species were identified as having the potential to occur on-site and all
but the San Joaquin kit fox have been observed on the adjacent properties.
3170 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 260 ·San Ramon, CA 94583 ·Office: (925) 866-2111 Fax: (925) 866-2126
Email: jeffiG>olberdingenv.com
3.15R.l
Special Status Species Occurance
Special status species observed on adjacent properties or !mow to historically occur in the
vicinity of the development property include:
• Califomia tiger salamander (Ambystoma califomiense)
• Califomia red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
• San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)
• Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
• Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
The Initial Study/MND indicates that no special-status species were observed on the property.
However, no survey methodology has been provided. There is no indication whether USFWS/CDFW
protocol surveys were performed in making this negative finding determination. For instance,
protocol surveys for California tiger salamander are performed over a two year period. If protocol
surveys were not performed the USFWS/CDFW will generally assume presence in the case of
Califomia red-legged frog and Califomia tiger salamander. This is especially true for the proposed
development site as both the City ofDublin and resource agencies are aware of the actual occurrence
of these species on the adjacent property. In fact, the City ofDublin and resource agencies approved
the establishment of a large mitigation site/open space preserve (Northem Drainage Conservation
Area) on the adjacent property to mitigate other City approved development projects and their
impacts to these species.
The general biological survey prepared for the development project did not identifY or address off-
site raptor nests or presence/absence of burrowing owl. Both burrowing owl and raptor species
including the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) are known to occur within the Northem Drainage
Conservation Area. An active red-tailed hawk nest is located approximately 250 feet to the east of
the development project within a large grove of eucalyptus trees. Other raptors observed within the
adjacent riparian area included American kestrel (Falco sparverius). These species are protected by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As such, CDFW generally requires buffers of300 feet around active
raptor nest. The Initial Study/MND does not include infonnation on potential project disturbance to
nesting rap tor species which are located off-site but within disturbance buffers. Mitigation measures
associated with burrowing owl and raptor nesting site are generally negotiated with CDFW.
CmTent land uses associated with the subject development property are restricted to a storage yard
for vehicles and landscape materials. These would be considered low intensity uses with little
disturbance to wildlife utilizing the adjacent riparian corridor. In an attempt to limit species use of
the development property the land owner has installed a 4-foot sheet of metal along the southern
property boundary to preclude migration of California red-legged frog onto the site. However, the
2
3.15R.2
3.15R.3
3.15R.4
metal fencing does not occur along the eastern property interface with the Northern Drainage
Conservation Area nor the western property boundary which is open to the unnamed creek corridor.
Therefore, the intended result of eliminating the potential for special status species fi·om the property
has not been achieved as all terrestrial species including California red-legged frog and California
tiger salamander have the ability to access the property. Both ground squirrels and burrows were
observed on the development property during the November site visit. In addition to the ground
squirrel burrows the site contains structures, old vehicles and stockpiled materials and debris. All of
these provide potential cover habitat for California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander.
Therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that the developed state of the property precludes use by special
status species. The Initial Study/MND has not provided a thorough analysis of the status of special
status species and requires protocol surveys to make a negative finding for both California red-legged
frog and California tiger salamander as required by both USFWS and CDFW.
Fragmentation of Habitat and Connectivity
Additionally, it was recognized that the adjacent creek corridor provides suitable habitat for nesting
passerine bird species as well as roost sites for numerous bat species. The Wanmei property is
situated adjacent to an unnamed tributary creek which connects the Tassajara Creek corridor and
Camp Parks open space with the 267-acre Northern Drainage Conservation Area unit of the Dublin
Ranch Preserve, Fallon Preserve and Moller Preserve as well as thousands of acres of other open
space properties to the notth and east. The unnamed creek located adjacent to the planned residential
development project is the primary passage which allows species to freely move along the existing
riparian corridor. The Northern Drainage Conservation Area, Fallon Preserve and Moller Preserve
where all established to mitigate development allowed by the City of Dublin within the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area.
This mitigation was negotiated and accepted by the various regulatory agencies overseeing these
development projects. The intent of this mitigation was to permanently protect occupied special
status species habitat and allow for continued connectivity between these large expansive tracts of
open space to the north and east with the Tassajara Creek corridor and Camp Parks. The restoration
and preservation work which has occurred along the wmamed creek was intentional and for the
specific purpose of ensuring connectivity between the two habitat units containing special status
species.
As discussed above, the creek and associated riparian habitat provides a dispersal corridor for many
local terrestrial species including California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander,
allowing connectivity with the Tassajara Creek corridor and the large semi-isolated open space
containing Camp Parks. Extensive development along Tassajara Road (extending from the county
3
3.15R.5
3.15R.6
3.15R.7
line to Interstate 580) has resulted in a fragmented landscape greatly reducing the ability of many
species to forage and disperse between the two areas. This corridor has regional importance as it is
one of only two remaining creek corridors allowing wildlife species (including federally and state
listed species) to move between Camp Parks and the vast acres of open space to the east and north.
Without sufficient connectivity, existing populations of specials status species and other terrestrial
wildlife species within the Camp Parks open space and Tassajara Creek CO!Tidor would be further
isolated and negatively impacted.
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restomtion Program
The Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program provides guidelines for the
protection and restoration of creeks in the Eastern Dublin planning area. A minimum setback of I 00
feet from the top of bank is required unless an exception is approved by the CDFW. The proposed
development project suggests a wall at the edge of the riparian corridor. Section of this wall would
be located beneath the drip line ofthe riparian corridor requiring authorization (Streambed Alteration
Agreement) from CDFW. Additionally, a development access road would be located within the 100
setback area also requiring an exception from CDFW.
The existing riparian corridor would potentially be utilized by passerine bird species for nesting
purposes from late January through August. Nesting passerine birds are protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As such, setback buffers would be required so as not to disrupt nesting
activities during the identified time frame. Nesting buffers generally range from 100-300 feet from
the active nest and are determined through negotiations with CDFW.
Development along the unnamed creek would require a streambed alteration agreement from CDFW
if work is to occur between the creek top of bank or within the identified riparian corridor. This
would include all work (including the installation of any wall or existing sheet metal barrier)
occurring below the drip line of any riparian tree. It is not mentioned if the 4-foot sheet metal wall
was installed in coordination with CDFW. The installation of the metal wall would have required a
Streambed Alteration Agreement as it is considered "work" within the riparian dripline of the
unnamed creek channel. Installation would also have had to receive authorization from the City of
Dublin as the activity occurred within the identified creek setback area. During the November site
visit several riparian trees were observed to overhang onto the development property. These trees are
associated with the Northern Drainage Conservation Area. Any disturbance to the trees such as
removal or even trimming branches would require authorizations from the preserve property owner,
land manager, grantee (CNLM), CDFW and all Third Party beneficiaries associated with the
conservation easement that has been placed on the open space.
4
3.15R.8
3.15R.9
3.15R.10
Summary
Inadequate documentation of Special Status Species: The Initial Study!MND provides an
inaccurate assessment as to the potential for both California red-legged frog and California tiger
salamander to occur on the prope1ty. Additionally, no mention is given to an existing red-tailed hawk
nest located only 250 feet from the property or additional nesting raptors located within the existing
creek corridor. Known species occmTences on the adjacent properties have not been discussed.
• The development property is located directly adjacent to a large open space area specifically
established by the City of Dublin and resource agencies to mitigate those special status
species listed above. The City is aware of occupied habitat within the preserve, however, the
CEQA document fails to acknowledge that these species have a high potential to occur on
site given the dispersal capabilities of the species, lack of complete barrier to dispersal and
the availability of California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander to utilize stored
vehicles, landscape materials, structures and debris piles as cover habitat.
e Ground squin·el activity was observed on the development project indicating that potential
burrows are available tor use by California red-legged frog, Califomia tiger salamander and
burrowing owl.
• It appears that the only survey conducted to validate presence/absence of Califomia red-
legged frog and California tiger salamander consisted of a single day visual survey performed
in association with a general habitat assessment.
• A negative findings determination would require that USFWS protocol surveys be
pelforrned. Otherwise, the USFWS and CDFW assume presence of California red-legged
frog and Califomia tiger salamander.
• The sheet metal barrier along the riparian corridor is irrelevant as to precluding terrestrial
wildlife species including California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. The
fence does not completely enclose the property allowing both species the ability to access the
property. There is no metal fence separating the property from the Northem Drainage
Conservation Area s to the east or the creek corridor to the west.
o The general biological survey fails to mention presence of a red-tailed hawk nest within 250
feet of the development prope1ty. CDFW setback buffer requirements prohibit any
development activity within 300 feet of an active raptor nest during the nesting season
(Febnmryl-August 31).
Allowing Fragmentation and Reducing Connectivity of Special Status Species Habitat: The
unnamed creek located adjacent to the plmmed residential development project is one of only two
riparian corridors which allow species to freely move along the existing riparian corridor into the
Tassajara Creek and Camp Parks open space. The Northem Drainage Conservation Area, Fallon
Preserve and Moller Preserve where all established to mitigate development allowed by the City of
Dublin within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
5
3.15R.ll
3.15R.12
3.15R.l3
3.15R.l4
3.15R.l5
3.15R.l6
3.15R.l7
3.15R.18\
• Past City and resource agency approvals associated with development projects within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area were made with the intent of providing a large preserve in
northeast Dublin and allowing connectivity to the Tassajara Creek corridor and Camp Parks
open space. The restoration and preservation work which has occurred along the unnamed
creek was intentional and for the specific purpose of ensuring connectivity between the two
habitat units. Allowing development of this property would be in direct conflict with this
intent and remove any future restoration oppottunities that are available on this property.
• Development of the property would lead to further fragmentation of an already negatively
impacted landscape.
• Habitat fragmentation and reduction of connectivity between the Tassajara Creek corridor
and Camp Parks open space areas with the large open space provided by the preserves would
negatively impact existing populations of not only special status species but local wildlife
species as well.
Inconsistency with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Sto·eam Restoration Program:
• A minimum setback of 100 feet from the top of bank is required unless an exception is
approved by the CDFW.
• A any portions of a proposed access road and wall located beneath the drip line of the riparian
corridor would require authorization (Streambed Alteration Agreement) from CDFW.
• Buffers for nesting birds generally range from 100-300 feet from the active nest and are
determined through negotiations with CDFW.
• Any disturbance to the riparian trees such as removal or even trimming branches would
require authorizations from the preserve property owner, land manager, grantee (CNLM),
CDFW and all Third Party beneficiaries associated with the conservation easement.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 472-4343.
~~
Jeff Olberding
Wetland Regulatory Scientist
6
3.15R.19
3.15R.20
3.15R.21
3.15R.22:
City of Dublin Page 109
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.15R: Jeff Olberding
Response 3.15R.1: This comment is noted for background information.
Response 3.15R.2: There is no evidence that special-status species occur on the site. The
IS/MND asserts that the “LSA report notes that the Project site…contains no candidate, special-
status or sensitive plant or wildlife species or their respective habitats,” and, “lack of candidate,
special-status and protected species on the site was confirmed in the WRA peer review report.”
WRA evaluated the occurrence of habitat for special-status species and did not find any habitat
that warranted protocol-level surveys.
Response 3.15R.3: Based on nearby documented occurrences and the presence of suitable if
relatively low-quality habitat, there is some potential for burrowing owl to occur within the
project site. The project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0 contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, as updated by Mitigation Measure BIO-8. This measure is consistent
with the most recent CDFW requirements and requires pre-construction surveys for species of
special concern in Eastern Dublin, including burrowing owl. If burrowing owl is found, active
sites shall be avoided and appropriate permits obtained from biological resource agencies. LSA
Associates conducted a further site visit evaluating the conditions on the project site on May 9,
2017. LSA confirmed the conditions were unchanged from its prior site evaluation and that
there are no protected species or habitat for protected species located on the project site.
Response 3.15R.4: Ingress/egress points from adjacent preserved areas are limited to portions
of the site not containing wildlife exclusion fencing, i.e., the north and west borders and the
northern portion of the east border. However, areas north and west of the site are paved and
developed and regularly used by vehicles and people. Regarding the unfenced eastern portion
of the project site, as stated in the WRA report, these two species would have to pass through
more suitable grassland habitat in the NDCA before entering the disturbed project site. The
project site contains minimal vegetation and no suitable habitat.
Response 3.15R.5: The biological reports do discuss local documented occurrences of special
status species adjacent to the Project Site (p. 3 and pp. 5-8 of the LSA and WRA reports,
respectively). Both LSA and WRA found it extremely unlikely that the listed California red-
legged frog (CRLF) and California tiger salamander (CTS) would occur within the project site
(LSA report page 3 and WRA report pages 6 and 7). The project site does not contain aquatic
features and thus does not provide breeding habitat for either species or non-breeding aquatic
habitat (in the case of CRLF). Protocol-level survey methods for both species are focused on
potential aquatic breeding habitat or otherwise typical upland habitat areas (for CTS), neither of
which is present on the site. While the project site does contain ground squirrel burrows and
debris piles, it is unlikely CTS and CRLF utilize these as refugia. Ingress/egress points from
City of Dublin Page 110
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
adjacent preserved areas are limited to portions of the site not containing wildlife exclusion
fencing, i.e., the north and west borders and the northern portion of the east border.
However, areas north and west of the site are paved and developed and regularly used by
vehicles and people. Regarding the unfenced eastern portion of the Project Site, as stated in the
WRA report, these two species would have to pass through more suitable grassland habitat in
the NDCA before entering the disturbed project site. The project site contains minimal
vegetation and no suitable habitat for the species. Moreover, it is even more unlikely for these
species to remain there in burrows or under debris due to the regular disturbance of the debris
piles, the regular human and vehicular disturbance throughout the site, and the lack of easily
accessible aquatic habitat due to the presence of the barrier fence to the south. Therefore, it is
unlikely CRLF and CTS would shelter or estivate within the project site. The project would
minimize any potential for impact to these species, however unlikely, by conducting a CRLF and
CTS pre-construction survey prior to ground disturbance (Mitigation Measure BIO-6), and by
completing the wildlife exclusion fence and constructing a permanent wall around the south
and east portions of the project site.
Response 3.15R.6: The project site itself does not function as an effective wildlife corridor
because it does not directly connect noncontiguous habitat areas. Corridors are defined as
“spaces identifiable by species using it that facilitates patches of otherwise disjunct habitat”
(Lidicker 1999 in Hilty et al. 2006). Thus, the corridor has to provide a connection to habitat
areas that would not otherwise be connected. By this definition, the site is not a corridor for
wildlife because the preserved tributary to the south of the project site already provides this
connection with a restored natural pathway between the Northern Drainage Conservation Area
to the east and Tassajara Creek to the west. Wildlife seeking to move between these two areas
would naturally choose the direct, continuous tributary corridor rather than regularly
wandering through the developed project site.
Given that the land to the immediate north and west of the site is already developed with the
Quarry Lane School and Tassajara Road, and there are substantially larger tracts of developed
land in close proximity to the north, south and east, the project would not result in any
fragmentation of the open space in the vicinity. Fragmentation is defined as “the
transformation of a continuous habitat into habitat patches that vary in size and configuration”
(Fahrig 2003 in Hilty et al. 2006). The site does not provide continuous habitat for wildlife to
pass through in order to access other habitat areas, unlike the preserve adjacent to the project
site.
Response 3.15R.7: Urban development along Tassajara Road and elsewhere in Eastern
Development was fully analyzed by the City of Dublin in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project was
analyzed for future residential uses, the same as proposed in the project. No changes are
proposed in the type of development or density than is assumed in the Dublin General Plan and
City of Dublin Page 111
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, the concerns regarding wildlife corridors and
connectivity have already been fully analyzed.
The commenter is also directed to the Response to Comment 3.13R.6, above.
Response 3.15R.8: The applicant will apply for required permits from the California Department
of Fish & Wildlife, if needed. Also, see the Master Response for Potential Impacts Due to
Encroachment into 100-foot Creek Setback.
Response 3.15R.9: Per the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND, the project would comply with
Mitigation Measure BIO-2, as revised by this document, and avoid disturbance to active bird
nests. The mitigation measure does not state a specific distance outside the project site which
would also be surveyed. Thus, the mitigation measure will change as documented below, to
include areas within 250 feet of the project site boundaries in addition to the project site itself.
The WRA report, recommended the size of nesting bird buffers be determined based on the
judgment of a qualified biologist considering specific species, location of the nest, and extent of
visual and noise disturbance.
Response 3.15R.10: The applicant will apply for required permits from the California
Department of Fish & Wildlife, if needed. See also Master Response for Potential Impacts Due
to Encroachment into 100-foot Creek Setback.
Response 3.15R.11: As stated in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND, impacts to special-status
species are anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation. The site is already highly
disturbed and thus does not contain habitat for the vast majority of local protected species.
Impacts to protected species with potential to occur on the Project Site will be avoided through
the Mitigation Measures outlined in the Revised and Recirculated IS/MND (avoidance of
riparian trees, nesting bird and roosting bat surveys, extending the existing CRLF barrier and
constructing a secondary barrier, prohibition on the use of rodenticides, golden eagle nest
avoidance measures, pre-construction survey for CRLF).
Response 3.15R.12: The commenter is directed to the response to Comment 3.13R.11
regarding the potential presence of special-status species on the site.
Response 3.15R.13: Based on nearby documented occurrences and the presence of suitable if
relatively low-quality habitat, there is some potential for burrowing owl to occur within the
project site. The applicant is required to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.7/20,0 contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR and complete pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl.
Impacts to other protected species with potential to occur on the Project Site will be avoided
through the Mitigation Measures outlined in the IS/MND (avoidance of riparian trees, nesting
bird and roosting bat surveys, extending the existing CRLF barrier and constructing a secondary
City of Dublin Page 112
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
barrier, a general prohibition on the use of rodenticides except under special conditions, golden
eagle nest avoidance measures, pre-construction survey for CRLF).
Response 3.15R.14: In WRA’s professional opinion, protocol-level surveys are not warranted for
the proposed project. Protocol-level survey methods for both CTS and CRLF species are
dependent upon presence of suitable habitat for these species, potential aquatic breeding
habitat or otherwise typical upland habitat areas (for CTS), neither of which is present in the
project site. Therefore, protocol-level studies are not needed. Mitigation Measure BIO-6
requires pre-construction survey of the project site for CRLF and CTA species prior to ground
disturbance activities.
Response 3.15R.15: This comment is noted for information. The commenter is directed to
Responses to Comments 3.13R11 through 13 regarding the potential presence of special-status
species on the site.
Response 3.15R.16: Potential Ingress/egress points from adjacent preserved areas are limited
to portions of the site not containing wildlife exclusion fencing, i.e., the north and west borders
and the northern portion of the east border. However, areas north and west of the site are
paved and developed and regularly used by vehicles and people. Regarding the unfenced
eastern portion of the project site, as stated in the WRA report, these two species would have
to pass through more suitable grassland habitat in the NDCA before entering the disturbed
project site. The site contains minimal vegetation with no suitable habitat. Moreover, it is even
more unlikely for these species to remain there in burrows or under debris due to the regular
disturbance of the debris piles, the regular human and vehicular disturbance throughout the
site, and the lack of easily accessible aquatic habitat due to the presence of the barrier fence to
the south. Therefore, it is unlikely CRLF and CTS would shelter or estivate within the project
site. The project is minimizing any potential for impact to these species, however unlikely, by
conducting a CRLF and CTS pre-construction survey prior to ground disturbance (Mitigation
Measure BIO-6), and by extending the existing CRLF barrier and constructing a secondar y
barrier consisting of a 4-foot block wall with 2-feet of ornamental steel on top along the
southern and eastern project boundaries.
Response 3.15R.17: Pre-construction nesting bird surveys will be conducted per (see
Replacement Mitigation Measure BIO -2).
Response 3.15R.18: This comment is noted and has been responded to as part of Comment
3.15R.7.
Response 3.15R.19: The project property has been designated for urban uses in the City’s
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan since 1994. If it were the intent of the City and
appropriate regulatory agencies to include this property in the Northern Drainage Conservation
Area it would have been purchased some years ago to preclude development. Since this action
City of Dublin Page 113
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
was not taken, the current property owner desires to develop this site as set forth in the City’s
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Revised and Recirculated IS/MND contains
measures to mitigate impacts to identified biological resources.
Response 3.15R.20: The commenter is directed to Response to Comment 3.13.19, above. The
City also notes that the site has been used as a landscape and contractors storage yard for
many years.
Response 3.15R.21: See Response to Comment 3.15R.7.
Response 3.13R.22: The project generally complies with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive
Stream Restoration Program. As allowed by the Program, the applicant is requesting an
exception from the 100-foot setback requirement. As documented in the Revised and
Recirculated IS/MND, no significant impacts would occur with respect to biological resources.
See Master Response for Potential Impacts Due to Encroachment into 100-foot Creek Setback.
~~.TJKM
November 16, 2016
Patricia E. Curtin
Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLP
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Subject: Wanmei Development Project in the City of Dublin
Dear Ms. Curtin:
Letter 3.16R
TJKM was asked by representatives of the Quarry Lane School to review the traffic aspects of the
proposed Wanmei Development Project, a 19-unit single family home development to be
located at 6237 Tassajara Road in Dublin. The development is immediately south of the Quarry
Lane School on the east side ofTassajara Road.
QLS has been located at this site for a number of years and, as a private school serving a multi-
city area, has most of its students arriving via private auto. The school has been very creative in
scheduling the start and end of school for various classes in order to minimize the overlap of
arriving and departing students. Nonetheless, during periods before and after school, there is
considerable back up in the northbound direction of Tassajara Road as parents queue up in their
cars to deliver or pick up their children. This line at times extends more than 500 feet to the
south of the signalized entrance to the school. The school employs personnel to expedite the
flow of vehicles to and from the campus at its signalized entrance.
The photo, taken on November 15 at about 3 p.m., shows northbound traffic backed up from
the signalized entrance to the school. The last vehicle in the picture is located about 480 feet
PLEASANTON • SAN JOSE + SANTA ROSA + SACRAMENTO + FRESNO
Corporate Office: 4305 Hacienda Orive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 • Phone: 925.463.0611 + www.TJKM.com
DBE #40772 + SBE #38780
3.16R.l
TJKM Ms. Patricia Curtin
November 16, 2016
2
from the signalized entrance to the school. In the photo, the driveway for the new subdivision
will be located at approximately the location of the yellow car in front of the white sign in the
front yard of the home (which will be removed) which is next to the school. The driveway will be
located about 230 feet south of the signalized intersection, meaning in this photo it will be near
the midpoint of the line of vehicles.
This line up exists on most school days both before and after school. It does not appear that
traffic from the new homes, estimated in the environmental document to be about 175 vehicle
trips per day, will cause significant problems for the operation of the school, including the lines
of traffic in the morning and evening. However, there is concern that the reverse may be true-
the lines of traffic related to the school may cause the new homeowners some delays and
difficulty in getting to and from their homes. This is likely to be at the worst in the morning
periods when school arrivals and homeowners' departure for work occur simultaneously. TJKM
foresees that future owners of the 19 planned homes could raise complaints against the school
and even the City for "creating" this situation.
The City, in its environmental analysis of this project, does not appear to have addressed this
issue. TJKM suggests that additional analysis of access to the development should be
considered, particularly in light of the school operations. Most of the homeowners exiting the
new street, even without lines of school-bound traffic, will want to travel south on Tassajara
Road. Since a median is present, this means cutting across all northbound lanes of traffic and
entering the northbound left turn lane to make a U-turn to travel south. The 230-foot distance
between the driveway and the point of U-turn is very short; this issue should also be addressed
in further studies.
We will be happy to respond to any questions about this matter.
Chris D. Kinzel, P.E.
Vice President
3.16R.2 I
3.16R.3
City of Dublin Page 116
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.16R: Chris Kinzel, TJKM Associates
Response 3.16R.1: This comment is noted as background information regarding local traffic
conditions associated with Quarry Lane School. Specific comments on alleged Project traffic
impacts are addressed below.
Response 3.16R2: This comment is noted, however, the commenter notes that the addition of
project traffic is not anticipated to be significant impact of the project. The queuing of cars
along Tassajara Road during student drop-off and pick-up is part of the existing condition. The
impacts of existing conditions on the project are not required to be analyzed under CEQA. See
also Response to Comments 3.4.4 and 3.16R.3
Response 3.16R.3: This comment is noted, however, the situation described by the commenter
would not be a significant environmental issue that requires additional study. During the a.m.
peak period, the length of school vehicles queuing at the signal will be anticipated to be moving
at a slow rate of speed with a number of stops due to the red light signals. This will provide
ample opportunity for project vehicles to “edge out” into the slow stream of traffic to be able
to access the left turn lane safely.
Marnie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Letter 3.17R
Colleen Lenihan <colleenlenihan@comcast.net>
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:31 PM
Marnie Delgado
Cathy Little
Wanmei Golden Eagle negative declaration
Hi Mamie, 3.17R.l
Thank you for sending me the Revised Study conceming the Wanmei project. I have read the lVlND and concur
with the general assessment of project impacts. In addition, the mitigation measures seem appropriate. My main
concem for this nest during the 2017 nesting season has to do with timing. The eagle pair commenced nesting
later than most during 2016, laying eggs on March 29 th. In comparison, the Redgewick eagle pair laid on
February I. Currently both pairs remain resident as territory holders defending foraging areas within the NDCA
and surrounding open lands. It is likely both pairs will nest next year and the new Round hill pair may initiate
egg laying later which could impact the Wanmei development schedule. Secondly, the act of monitoring
breeding golden eagles can cause nest disturbance. The Roundl1ill nest is highly visible but difficult to observe
from an appropriate distance, meaning a location in which the observer does not cause an eagle to react to their
presence. Choosing an appropriate Observation Point (OP) is critically inlportant in order to monitor normal
eagle behavior. As such, the best observation point should be located at a distance that will not cause the
breeding pair to react negatively to the observer. One of the best OP's from which to monitor the Roundhill nest
is at the Quarry Lane school, not only because it offers a clear view but also because the eagles are used to
human activity in the area, making tl1em less likely to react to monitoring efforts. I an1 hoping the school will
allow the presence of eagle observers on tl1eir campus. Perhaps you can help secure a committment from them
for this activity?
3.17R.2
Once again, I will be monitoring both golden eagle pairs within the NDCA as the Center for Natural Lands
Management's raptor biologist. As always, I will infonn the City of Dublin when I first notice nesting activity
by either pair. If you can, please keep me informed ofWanrnei's development schedule. I am more than happy
to interact collaboratively and cooperatively to ensure that the Roundhill pair is not disturbed by tl1e
development process. We have successfully worked together for over 25 years now to keep eagles breeding in
Dublin. I'm hoping 2017 will be another great year for golden eagles raising chicks in Dublin, California.
Thank you so much for your continued support and stewardship of golden eagles!
Feel free to caii me at any time with questions.
colleen
Colleen Lenihnn, FhD
+I 5M)58..-+)36 home phonc/f<lx
+ t .5-608-)8)8 bird phone
Hope i$ the thing with Feathers
That perches in the soul
-Lmi!_y Dickinson
1
City of Dublin Page 118
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.17R: Colleen Lenihan
Response 3.17R.1: These comments are noted. The commenter’s concern about timing of
potential 2017 egg lying will be transmitted to the eagle monitor jointly selected by the
applicant and the City. See Mitigation Measures BIO-4 on protocol that will be used with regard
to monitoring eagle and its nest.
Response 3.17R.2: These comments are noted and no further response is required.
Marnie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Richard Guarienti <guari@comcast.net>
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:43 PM
Marnie Delgado
Wanmai project
]_,etter 3.18R I
Please do not pursue this project of building 19 homes on non-vested land. We have too many homes in the pipeline
already to be built on vested land without adding more. The need to protect our current open space is more critical at this
time.
Richard Guarienti
Dublin resident.
Sent from my iPad
1
City of Dublin Page 120
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.18R: Richard Guarienti
Response 3.18R.1: The commenter’s opinions on the merits of the project are noted and will be
considered by the City of Dublin during the public hearing process.
Mamie Delgado
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mamie Delgado,
klmarshall@juno.com
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:44 PM
Marnie Delgado
Wanmei project
Letter 3.19R
Developing the Wanmei project in such a way as to endanger the health of the eagles that nest there would be
teiTibly wrong. We live in an area that is rich with wildlife which makes our lives so much better. I feel very
strong about this and hope that the city will feel that the eagles are worth it. There is not just one but two nests
in this area and city should feel privileged that they are there. Our city has built tall cement buildings all over
the city and it is not too much too ask that this one area be protected. I will keep this short, but it is important
to get my input in this matter that means a great deal to our area. Marie Marshall
1
City of Dublin Page 122
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
3.19R: Marie Marshall
Response 3.19R: The commenter’s opinions on the merits of the project are noted and will be
considered by the City of Dublin during the public hearing process. Concerns about impacts to
nearby Golden Eagles are addressed in Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and 5.
City of Dublin Page 123
Response to Comments June 2017
Wanmei Development Project
REFERENCES:
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity
Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento. Accessed: December 2016.
Hilty, J.A., W. Lidicker Jr., and A.M. Merenlender. 2006. Corridor Ecology; The Science and
Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press, Washington DC.
Kochert, M. N., Karen Steenhof, C. L. McIntyre and E. H. Craig. (2002). Golden Eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species‐
Account/bna/species/goleag
Rich, C. and T. Longcore, eds. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Sproul, MJ and M A Flett. 1993. Status of the San Joaquin kit fox in the northwest margin of its
range. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 29:61–69.