HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.4 DublinRnchRznPh1 (2)
.
.
.
r
CITY CLERK
File # D@[3][{i]-[3][Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 23,1996
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
(Report Prepared by Carol R. Cirelli, Senior PlannerC/2-c..--
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Exhibit A: District Planned Development Plan, Phase I Site Plan,
20-Scale Plotting Maps, Boundary and Phasing Plan,
Architecture, Landscape and Open Space Design
Guidelines
il Exhibit B: Planned Development District Rezone Resolution
'\ Exhil:?it C: Draft Ordinance for the PD Rezone
Background Attachments
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Open Space Maintenance Responsibility
Attachment 3: Infrastructure Phasing
Attachment 4: January 16, 1996 Planning Commission Staff Report
(without exhibits and attachments) and January 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachment 5: Dublin and Livermore School District Letters and the
Dublin City Attorney Memo
RECOMMENDATION: ~o~en public hearing and hear staff presentation.
.w- 2) Take testimony from applicant and the public.
~ 3) Question staff, applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt resolution approving the Planned Development District
Rezone, Exhibit B
COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
P A File
Administration File
Senior Planner
ITEM No.M
g:\pa95-030\ccsr\crc
6) Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance (Exhibit C)
approving the Planned Development District Rezoning; and ~
7) Continue the item to the February 13, 1996 City Council meeting
for the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None
.
BACKGROUND:
In October of 1994, the City Council approved a Planned Development (PD) District Overlay
Zone (Prezone) for a portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (:tl,538 acres). This action was
consistent with Action Program 4C of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which requires the eastern
planning area to be placed into a PD District Overlay Zone. In January of 1995, the City Council
approved the annexation of the prezoned :t1,538 acre site. This annexation became effective on October
1,1995.
The first public hearing for this project was held before the Planning Commission on January 2,
1996. At that meeting, the Planning Commission expressed four items of concern and requested some
addition project information. As a result, the public hearing was continued to the January 16th Planning
Commission meeting where staff addre~sed these items of concern (see Attachment 4). After closing the
public hearing and deliberating, the Planning Commission adopted the resolution recommending City
Council approval of the Dublin Ranch Planned Development District Rezone.
ANALYSIS:
Project Description
.
Dublin Ranch, comprising all the Jennifer Lin Family property holdings, is located within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area and encompasses a total of 1,227 acres. A portion of Dublin
Ranch (1,037 acres) has been annexed to the City. This Planned Development (PD) District Rezone
request covers the first phase of the Dublin Ranch development and is located within the 1,037 acre
annexed area (Attachment 1). Future actions required for the project include a Development Agreement,
Tentative Map and Site Development Review.
The proposed Dublin Ranch Phase I project consists of rezoning an approximate 210 acre site to
PD Single Family Residential (109.8 acres; 570 dwelling units); PD Medium Density Residential (35.7
acres; 277 dwelling units);and PD Open Space (57.5 acres), for a maximum total of 847 dwelling units.
The request also includes a 5 acre neighborhood park and a 2 acre private recreational facility. The
densities for the Single Family and Medium Density residential are 5.2 and 7.8 dwelling units per acre,
respectively. Part of this rezone request also includes conceptual architectural and landscape/open space
design guidelines.
Consistency with the PD Prezone Overlay District and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
This rezone request is consistent with the purpose, intent and general provisions of the approved
PD Prezone for Eastern Dublin. The Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires that no development, other than
that allowed by the Interim Agricultural Designation, shall occur for any property within theprezoned
project area until the City adopts a Land Use and Development Plan for the development. The applicant's
request includes a Land Use and Development Plan.
.
2
.
The Dublin Ranch Phase I Land Use and Development Plan is consistent with the policies,
r standards, guidelines and implementation measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project is
located within the Foothill Residential subarea and the project is consistent with land use concepts and
development programs for this subarea. The proposed Dublin Ranch housing is predominantly lower
density, single family units. A small portion of Dublin Ranch Phase I (35.7 acres) is in the medium
density range. All of the lower density residential uses occur on the slightly sloping areas, while keeping
major ridgelands and higher elevation areas as open space. The project also includes the preservation and
enhancement of two intermittent creek corridors with natural vegetation, which serves as a connecting
open space corridor (from the hillside open space) extending into the development areas. This concept
promotes the integration of development with the natural setting and preserves a sense of natural open
space within a developed area.
Although the project presents three very minor adjustments to the adopted Eastern Dublin Land
Use Map and Specific Plan, overall the Land Use and DevelopmentPlan is consistent with the Specific
Plan policies, programs and design guidelines. First, three roadways, Fallon Road, Gleason Road and the
Transit Spine, would be realigned slightly for consistency with the Specific Plan's grading and viewshed
policies. The Specific Plan already allows for the possible realignment of certain roadways. Section 4.2,
page 23 of the Specific Plan states that "...the location of road alignments and land use boundaries in
Figure 4.1 [the Eastern Dublin Land Use Map] are approximate." These roadway realignments would
occur outside of Phase I, but within the Dublin Ranch properties only. They would not occur on other
. .
adjacent properties.
.
Second, the required neighborhood park would be relocated approximately 1 ,300 feet to the
southeast so that it is inore centrally located within the area designated for single family development.
The Specific Plan requires that park development be consistent with the standards and phasing
. recommended in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Sections 4.2 and 4.8.4 of the Specific Plan
and Policy 1.9 ofthe Master Plan appear to contemplate that the exact location of neighborhood parks will
not be known until such plans are prepared. The proposed park relocation actually promotes the Specific
Plan and Master Plan policies that encourage the central location of parks among the homes they will
serve; and the siting and design of neighborhood parks that provides a neighborhood identity and social
focus.
Third, a stream corridor will be re-created and relocated to an easterly channel. This is also a
positive adjustment in that the relocated stream corridor will be an additional 450 feet longer than the
current stream corridor shown on the Specific Plan's Land Use Map. The applicant has consulted with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department ofFish and Game, and the proposed relocation
will not cause any permitting problems. The proposed stream corridor changes still meets the intent of the
Specific Plan and, therefore, can be found to be consistent with the Specific Plan.
District Planned Development Plan
As the Specific Plan requires, the Dublin Ranch Phase I Land Use and Development Plan
application also includes a District Planned Development Plan (DPDP) (see Exhibit A). All of the
Specific Plan's DPDP requirements are met through the applicant's Land Use and Development Plan.
The DPDP goes one step further in graphically portraying the project's relationship with adjacent, and
other "subarea" land uses.
.
Community Theme
Dublin Ranch Phase I will have an "upscale rural" community theme that reinforces the rural
character of the project area's landscape and topography, and Dublin's historical rural and agricultural
3
ambiance. This community theme will be carried throughout the Dublin Ranch development through a
mix of architectural styles. Items such as rail fencing, stone pilasters and tree groves based upon local 1
farming and ranching foundations will reinforce this imagery.
Residcntial Development/Design Guidelines
.
The Dublin Ranch Phase I rezone is consistent with the location and housing diversity goals of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed medium density development will be located on flatter lands,
and the lower density development on slightly sloping areas. Secondly, a range of housing types will be
offered. Single family, detached units will be the predominate housing type developed in the single
family and medium density residential areas. Attached units will be permitted in the medium density
residential areas as an option. Nine distinct neighborhoods are proposed - six are designated as single
family residential and three as medium density residential (see Exhibit A, Phase I - Site Plan).
The densities for both residential land use categories are consistent with the Specific Plan. The
Single Family density (5.2 du/ac) falls within the upper Single Family density range (0 - 6 du/ac) and the
Medium Density (7.8 du/ac) falls within the lower density range (6 - 14 du/ac). These represent net
densities, not gross densities. In order to achieve appropriate and efficient residential development
intensity, residential development with densities at no lower than the mid-point of the density range
should be encouraged. This goal is achieved with the Single Family land use designation.
The project provides a range of housing types for those who are unable to afford a large home on a
large lot. The proposed residential setbacks for both Single Family and Medium Density residential areas
vary from the advisory guidelines ofthe Specific Plan's Community Design chapter. They are,
nonetheless, acceptable. Current planning practice for both neo-traditional and conventional communities
is ~oving awa~ from the 20 foot front/rear yard req~rements that were typically required in the past. .;.
BasIcally, certam consumer needs have changed. Dnveways can be shorter because contemporary .
vehicles are shorter. The project proposes reduced front yards (rather than the conventional 20 foot
setback) due to the historic under-utilization of this space. Benefits of reduced front yards are as follows:
1) improve streetscape scene with undulating the front of houses several feet; 2) reduce negative visual
impact of garages; and 3) allow space for front porch (with reduced front yard), making the front yard
more useable and attractive.
The attached resolution, Exhibit A, requires the following: 1) modification to the number of
dwelling units may occur, but the total number of units shall not exceed 847; 2) only detached units shall
be allowed in the Single Family District; 3) site design of the individual neighborhood may vary,
however, the concept of curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs cannot be altered; 4) the Design Guidelines
provide eight distinct architectural styles and elevations that may be utilized in an individual
neighborhood - additional styles can be permitted through Site Development Review if it is determined
that they would not change the overall character of the plan.
This PD District Rezone presents conceptual site, landscape and architectural plans. Final
architectural and landscape design and site planning will occur at the time of Site Development Review.
No formal amendment of this PD Rezone will be required as long as the Site Development Review
materials are in substantial conformance with this Dublin Ranch PD Rezone. The attached resolution
provides for different levels of approval for minor or major modifications to the PD Rezone. Also, these
changes would only be applicable to the District (Single Family; Medium) where modifications are
proposed, not the entire Dublin Ranch PD District Rezone.
.
4
.
.
.
Community Homeowners' Association
The applicant proposes to establish one or more community homeowners associations for Dublin
Ranch Phase I and record a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The lands
designated as open space (except the intem1ittent stream corridor open space); the private pathway,
community and neighborhood entries, including landscaping, monumentation, water features, lighting,
signage, walls and fences; landscaping and street trees along the collector streets; parkway sections of
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road immediately adjacent to the Phase I project area; and private community
recreation facilities will be owned and maintained by an overall community homeowners association to
which all residents of the Phase I development will belong. The benefits of requiring a single
homeowners association to be responsible for all of the private improvements will emphasize and promote
a sense of community identity and continuity of appearance.
Keeping the proposed fragmented, hillside open space under private ownership and maintenance is
consistent with the Specific Plan Policy 6-8. This policy states that pockets of open space within
development areas that are unsuitable for development (e.g. steep slopes) should remain in private
ovmership, with management and maintenance responsibilities resting with the individual landowners or
homeowners association.
As proposed, the neighborhood park and intermittent stream/open space corridors would be
constructed by the developer in conjunction with other amenities, and proposed to be transferred to the
City of Dublin upon completion. Attachment 2 outlines the facilities and areas that would be privately and
publicly owned and maintained.
The resolution includes a condition requiring the applicant to offer to the City the dedication of the
intermittent stream/open space and trail corridors as a condition of any Tentative Map approval for the
project. At that time, the City will need to decide whether it wants to own and maintain the intermittent
stream/open space and trail corridors as public facilities. Even if the City accepts the dedication of these
areas and improvements, no credit for these areas and improvements will be given towards parkland
dedication requirements in compliance with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Action Program 6G of the Specific Plan requires the dedication of land and improvements along
both sides of stream corridors. Action Program 21 of the Master Plan requires the acquisition of open
space trail corridors in Eastern Dublin per the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District adopted trail
plan. Eastern Dublin's intermittent stream and open space corridors will function as linear pedestrian
circulation routes linking neighborhoods, parks, surrounding open space areas and the Specific Plan's
regional trail system.
One or more separate homeowners associations will also be formed for the medium density
re<:idential neighborhoods. These associations will own and maintain private improvements such as
streets, security gates, and recreational amenities common to that particular residential area, which are not
for the use of the entire Dublin Ranch Phase I community.
The attached resolution (Exhibit B) includes a condition specifying that CC&Rs shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney prior to recordation of a Final
Subdivision Map.
Traffic Circulation
Access to the project will be through two community entries from Tassajara Road and these
entries will form one collector street that loops through the project site. Ultimately, Tassajara Road is
5
designated as a six lane divided arterial in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. An additional collector street
will intersect this loop and provide an easterly link through the site. A portion of a collector street
running in a north/south orientation will also be constructed to provide a direct link to the future easterly
extension of Gleason Road. The applicant does not intend to construct Fallon Road with this project since.
only a small portion of it would be required. The future construction of Fallon Road will occur with
future Dublin Ranch development phases.
The single family residential streets will be public streets based on a slightly modified version of
the City's design standards (e.g. increased landscaped parkways along streets, etc.). These modified
design standards are acceptable to the Public Works Department. The public streets do meet the City's
minimum roadway standards and they are consistent with the Specific Plan.
In addition, bike lanes and paths are proposed along portions of the residential collector streets,
connecting Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
Traffic Study
TJKM completed a traffic study dated December 1995, which analyzes Dublin Ranch's Phase I
potential traffic impacts on the adjacent street system. The study includes a level of service analysis for
roadway segments and intersections, and signal warrant analyses for unsignalized intersections and the
project entries. With the results of the analyses, the study specifies certain types of transportation
improvements that should be undertaken through construction and payment of traffic impact fees.
The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees, or construct the required improvements,
based on the adopted Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the proposed 1-580 Interchange Traffic . .:.
Impact Fee. The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee will cover partial roadway improvements and major
intersection signalization throughout the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area; the developers' fair
share of traffic improvements within remaining Dublin areas; and regional transportation improvements,
including freeway improvements. The 1-580 Interchange Traffic Impact Fee is the fee that will be agreed
upon by the City of Dublin and the City of Pleasant on for interchange improvements.
As a condition of project approval, the applicant will need to mitigate all traffic impacts identified
in the traffic study. The draft resolution contains all Public Works conditions related to traffic, site plan
and design guideline items. The Public Works Department will further identify and require appropriate
traffic mitigation measures as conditions of Tentative Map approval.
Parks and Open Space
As stated previously, the applicant will provide a neighborhood park and will be constructing the
park in compliance with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. This park will be designed and
inspected by the City. Upon completion of the park, the applicant will dedicate the park to the City and it
will be owned and maintained as a public park facility.
The applicant is also proposing a community-oriented recreational facility that would provide
additional recreational opportunities that would not be provided within the neighborhood park, i.e.
community pool and children's wading pool. A community homeowners association would own and
maintain this facility. Additional private recreation facilities will be required for the medium density ..
neighborhood. However, the specific design of these amenities will be at the discretion of the individual
builder! developer.
6
Consistent 'with the Specific Plan, the project provides for the establishment and protection of
. undeveloped, interconnected open space lands, for preserving portions of ridge land features, plant and
animal habitat and natural hillsides. The project is conditioned to comply with the City's slope
maintenance, surface drainage, wildfire maintenance and emergency access requirements for this open
space area.
.
The Specific Plan requires the enhancement and revegetation of certain intermittent stream
corridors for wildlife habitat opportunities. Multi-purpose trails (trails designed for shared use of
pedestrians and bicyclists) will occur along one side ofthe intermittent stream corridors. Multi-purpose
roads will occur along the edge of the project's natural open space areas and will serve as maintenance
roads, fire breaks and/or emergency vehicle access roads Some of these multi-purpose trails.
The applicant's provision of the 5 acre neighborhood park partially meets the City's park standard
requirements. The project, as currently proposed, is conditioned to provide a park dedication requirement
of 12 acres of active parkland, or park dedication in-lieu fees, or a combination of both dedication and
fees. The City may consider the applicant's request to improve (not design) the neighborhood park and
receive credit for those improvements. The City shall be responsible for designing the public
neighborhood park.
Although the applicant is proposing private recreational facilities, staff recommends that these
facilities not be credited towards meeting park dedication requirements, consistent with the City's Parks
and Recreation Master Plan goals of providing increased public access to recreational facilities. If park
credits are given towards private recreation facilities there would be insufficient funding and land to
construct the recreational facilities identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Park and Recreation
Master Plan.
.
However, condition of approval19A of the draft Resolution (Exhibit B) specifies that according to
the Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 9.28 Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes, the City
may consider the applicant's request for credit for the 2 acre private recreation facility. The condition also
describes the processing procedures for modifying this PD Rezone if the applicant decides not to construct
the private recreation facility. This is a new condition that staffhas added after the Planning
Commission's action of January 16th.
Utilitv Services
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) will provide water, sewer and recycled water
services to the project area. A new water main service line will be extended along Tassajara Road to the
project site. The main extension will be tied into the existing water mains along Dublin Boulevard and
Gleason Road creating a loop system. In addition, a new reservoir and pump station will need to be
constructed to serve the Dublin Phase I area. The precise location of this reservoir has yet to be
determined.
.
Sewer services to the Phase I project area will require connection to DSRSD's existing main in
Dublin Boulevard within the County's Santa Rita property. A gravity sewer main will likely be extended
easterly along Dublin Boulevard and then up Tassajara Road to the project site. There are limitations on
DSRSD's sewage export capacity. DSRSD is currently studying effective ways for 1) treating and
disposing of sewage waste that will be generated by planned and approved development within their
service area, and 2) phasing sewage facility construction. DSRSD expects to provide sewer services to
this area in 1998.
7
Portions of Dublin Ranch Phase I could ultimately be served with recycled water facilities.
Recycled water could be a non-potable water supply in addition to other water provided by DSRSD.
HO\vever, the integration of a recycled water system with Phase I development is not yet known at this
time.
DSRSD is in the process of completing ongoing water, sewer and recycled water studies. These
studies will determine the types of facilities that need to be constructed, the timing of these facilities, and
the Eastern Dublin areas that will be served.
.
The precise sequencing of on and off-site infrastructure improvements cannot be determined at
this time. However, Attachment 3 depicts the preliminary types of sewer, storm drain, water and recycled
water infrastructure systems that may be required for the project. The affected utility agencies will need
to determine whether these preliminary infrastructure systems are acceptable, and develop implementation
schedules. DSRSD will determine who shall design and build DSRSD's off-site improvements.
Because infrastructure sequencing is a requirement of the District Planned Development Plan
(DPDP), the applicant has submitted a Development Boundary and Phasing Plan (Exhibit A) that
indicates the anticipated phasing of on-site infrastructure improvements. Additionally, the draft resolution
includes a condition requiring that the development agreement for Dublin Ranch Phase I specify
provisio~s for the timing of on- and off-site infrastructure improvements.
Conditions have been incorporated into the draft resolution that require the applicant prior to
building permit issuance, to provide written documentation that adequate electric, gas, telephone and
postal services, and solid waste/landfill capacity are available.
Development Agreement
.
As the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan specifies, landowners/developers who wish to develop
property within the Specific Plan area are required to enter into a development agreement with the City.
This agreement could set forth a specific time schedule for obtaining required approvals and commencing
construction and the precise financial responsibilities of the developer. The agreement should identify the
necessary capital improvements, i.e., off-site infrastructure, public facilities, streets ~d utilities, the
method of financing these improvements, and provisions for assuring their timely financing and
construction. It should also provide the terms for reimbursement when a developer advances funding for
specific facilities which have community-wide or area benefits. In return, the developer benefits by the
City agreeing to process further development applications in accordance with its plans and laws in
existence at the time of the agreement.
The attached resolution includes a condition that the applicant enter into a development agreement
prior to tentative map approval and that the agreement shall contain, but not be limited to, provisions for
the financing and timing of infrastructure, payment of traffic, noise and public facilities impact fees,
affordable housing, and other provisions deemed appropriate by the parties.
School Impacts
The previous PD District Overlay Zone (PD Prezone) included a school facilities impact condition
that required the developer to enter into a written mitigation agreement with the affected school district ..
and the City prior to PD District Rezone (Land Use and Development Plan) approval. The agreement
would establish the method and manner offmancing and/or constructing school facilities necessary to
serve the student population generated by the development.
8
.
.
.
The applicant has proposed a new mitigation condition that only changes the timing of entering
. into this written agreement to a later date, or prior to Tentative Map approval for the project. Staff
believes this new condition is consistent with the existing Prezone condition and implements the existing
condition. The City has requested written confirmation from both the Dublin and Livermore school
districts indicating concurrence with this condition. The Dublin school district concurs with this
condition and the Livermore school district does not concur with delaying the timing of entering into the
agreement. Attachment 5 contains both school district letters and the City Attorney's memo, which
addressed the issue for the Planning Commission.
Environmental Analvsis
An Initial Study was prepared for the project dated November 17, 1995 and it found that the
project is exempt according to Section 15182 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines. The project is a residential
project undertaken pursuant to and in conformance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. No new effects
could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the Dublin Ranch project that were not
addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin project, and the PD
Rezone is within the scope ofthe Final Environmental Impact Report.
The draft resolution contains many of the FEIR mitigation measures as conditions of approval and
a general condition requiring the applicant to comply with all applica~le mitigation measures and action
progran1s of the Specific Plan and FEIR.
Staff Recommendations
The Planning Commission and staff found the project to be consistent with the City's General
Plan, the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations, policies and action programs, and
the PD District Overlay Zone (PD Prezone). Staff recommends that the City Council find the rezoning
(Land Use and Development Plan) to be consistent with the City's General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and PD District Overlay Zone (pD Prezone) and adopt Exhibit B approving the Dublin Ranch Phase
I Rezone request.
g:\pa95-030Iccsr\crc
9
(.
149.3 N:..
'IlU
I DOOLAN WEST ASSOCIATES
I 'RRA'
...."'.;;.,..,.I:.~,.>,:;:.../....,~';; -.- ,.,' ---..-.-'
;(, ::;'' . i'": _' :t,,:_" -'.~ :':".'.;' ". ':~.'..:. -~~~< ,~1
, _~ , ,. ;'.', ; i;.: t~:;; , ;<"
/
..y (A)
. /~ (
/ ""--~
DISTRICT PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I.
\ \~
,~.u~
(~ )fa:~
E BAY RE-;;~ .
IPlrnICDi~-=- .0 C.
\Ti(-\ 26.9' AC. U :
\ ' 269 DU
. r-
\' \ r2
!..\~ I J
/ .c.~t- <I:
/ ",OS ~
I I22A ~~
/ 1-~
((:@ I
I~~~:R:. N-=11
I 10.2 AC
102 DU
. -@
. ALAMEDA CO. ~
GLEASON RD.
RRA
TABULATION
PHASE FUTURE \ IASTIR
LAND ONE PHASES PLAN
USE AREA DU AREA DU AREA Dl!
H 7.0 245 7.0 245
MH 8.9 178 8.9 178
M 35.7 277 99.1 1071 134.8 1348
L 109.8 570 170.6 522 2[;0.4 1122
RAA 170.5 1 170.5 I
GC 49.1 49.1
CO 39.4 39.4
CP 101.5 101.5
NP 5.0 2.6 7.6
OS 59.5 131 190.5
ES 26.9 26.9
HS 20.6 211 6
TOTAL 210.0 847 827.2 2047 1037.2 2894
Rr:CEIV~'"
'?A' 0/5 ~Q ?:[)
AUG 1 0 1995
~~~~~
I . 4.3 AC. -t---...
\ 43 DU I
DUBLIN LAND CO. -,
,
C~
39.2 AC.
392 D.U.
DUBLIN RANCH
PH AS E I
~NSI:!: SPINE
(H\
~J
3.B AC.
133 D.U.
/
/
~;f /
...~~.
...---...,-"'~-
'OS\
...../
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT/
LAND USE AND DEVELUl'l\lENT PLAN
D II b Ii 11 , C a /if 0 r /l i a
AI JlIst 4, 1995
~UBLlN RD.
~----
\
~
North
- -
I ..... I
o 400 80U 12()U
(.
~o
l\lacKay & Somps . Engineering & Planning
\\illiam Hezmalha1ch Architects, Inc. .
Architecture and Planning
NUVIS . Landscape Architecture
EXHIBIT A
l.
~
~ POTENTIAL ZONE 2
~ WATER RESERVOiR LOCArlON
PHASE ONE - SITE PLAN
r---EMERGENCY ACCESS
TABULATION
AREA l'.ilt-- ....LQI A.CRE
SIZE
LI 55x100 18.7
L2 50x}W 12.7
L3 55x100 18.5
L4 50x80 18.5
L5 55xl011 18.4
L6 60x100 23.0
sub-total 109.8
MI 45x70 14.2
M2 45x70 7.7
M3 35x70 13.8
sub-total ---m
O.S. (Open Space) 59,5
N.P (Neighborhood Park) 5.0
TOTAL 210.0
INTERMITTENT
r STRI'AM CORRIDOH
Iill I2Etl'2lIY.
97 5.2
76 6.0
85 4.6
111 6.0
93 5.1
108 4.7
570 --s.2
101 7.1
48 6.2
128 9.3
277 ~
847 4.0
.
I!"'''r.
",::::t:J<:'t:r.' 'J
l.f1..C\f5. ~~- Il.
L!.;\,. , 0 \.:'4,
&Jj~.J .,. .J""
DUrJl{Mj~~,)ff\-
. \
DUBI--iIN RANCH
PHASE I
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT/
L\ND USI.: AND D!.:VI.:U WMENT PLAN
Dublin, California
:\ugUSl -f. Il)l):,
~
'T/
~
\
North
- -
I I I I
I _ I
o 2011 too (1110
l\1acKa) & Somps . Engineering & Planning
William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. .
Architecture and Planning
NUVIS . Landscape Architecture
__-:r""
-'
EXHIBIT A
le
~
'I
I
I
,
POTENTIAL ZONE 2
WATER RESERVOIR LOCATION
~
PHASE LINE
, .'
r: DUBLIN RANCH PHASE I
. ( , PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
\:~, : ' ,~ & LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN BOUNDARY
\ ., . ., r PARCEL BOUNDARY , !
e
~~
/ '
i /' _ '"_ \
1
\
r
I PRIVATE COMMUNITY
I RECREATIONAL FACILITY
INTERMITTENT
STREAM CORRIDOR
FUTURE
HIGH SCHOOL
~
----
..-"
*~
~~~
~'l'~
..--
\
.
- --------
-~\
BOUNDARY AND
PHASING PLAN
TABULATION
AREA PHASE 1 PHASE 2 EHASE 3 TI2IAL
Ll 97
L2 76
L3 85
L4 III
L5 93
L6 108
M1 101
M2 48
M3 128
SUB- TOTAL 306 413 128 847
PHASE 1
..
.
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
~R~~:E~
o A;!~ .i 0 l~gso
~Pf.t~
~.
DUBLIN RANCH
PHASE I
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT/
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Dublin, California
August 4, 1995
~
iWi
o 200 400 600
North
MacKay & Somps . Engineering & Planning
William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. .
Architecture and Planning
NUVIS . Landscape Architecture
EXHIBll~ A
.
.
.
C5l
~
s:
~~
::~
~ g:~
..c:: :S ~ 3 Ro
~"'::CI':l
.=.~o
r-j;'33
_ ~,.,~"O
__ :::IC-I;,I'J
-...... 0....,::.
'" ~ ll>
~~;:;g'
"0 :s ::r lTO
~ 0. >- ;.
~::;::::i:
,., ll> ::r ....
=.;; ~;.
~;:; _, ,., lTO
:1)~ F R<>
~t: ~ ~
.J;) 'n ;:; c:;
> J\ ~ '. ;;
:; ~\ \:; ~.
:..tt-- ()M
:... <.['... - '. ...
'.--
!.. .
I ~ ~...:~
~~
r'o-o
~r'
d~
tl 53 tn
::: tTJ Cl
C'.:r' :> t:l
- ZtTJ
:::' t:l <:
Cl~
~ ~O
~ tTl "'0
- r~
c. tTJ
2 ~z
""'t ~...,
:: mt?
.z'-
~ -l ~
~;;O
~S
z....:.
,0
()
~
~~
;;0:2
3 <;;
X:;.
.... -
:;;;;
-.D-':::>
v. v.
.e.
o
o
C'
o
o
~,,!;(:('11'~O...O/'
'._ <<.:. /0
)/.~r ~
"~f' l C~ rrl
;' ... ~ t:1 Z
~. . ," ...~ / t1 /~
'<<il,. ~m Q
..... y: .' /4 / t1~ / ~
, ' ' : ... m 0/ S3
.: '. ..~:~.::....-/.... I ~ ~~ ~
... 0 (")
..../ ~ (")
~ ~ ~
" .... ffi t1 en
_::, : / z en en
'., I : i-:1 >-3 :::cl
,': /....:::0 0
- 0 ...,.... >
: ~2 t1
I
~
'0-(
o
~
0=
'"O~
~Z
Ct:l
~~
>
z
n
=
. , 1:-'"
.... ..
)>)>
""'I ""'I
(t) (t)
0) 0)
r-r-
Q'\\o--'I.
Q'\CJl
OCJl
;:< ;:<
\0--'1.10--"
00
00
r'r'
o 0
..... .....
IJl IJl
~
o
()
~
o
:z
:s:
)>
"1j
(J)
-i
C'
~
)>
:;0
rn
)>
t'V
o
(f)
()
:r>
r-
rr1
--0
r-
o
~
~
-
Z
CJ
.
/:\1'>. ~'[>, <17) 11' . (S~~~~rrliRA;ih~;;1~ ;-,:-~.!7M ~;>
\J;!~ ~ ~j L~('fl (\,gj ~lD "';::.:' '.~,lIl oJ:f'!J'..~~. ',' ,~~SIDENrr:M:J~~
if u. V'l1 11-'- f/'11 .'1 ~ .' ^ . ..... \' .' ^", ", . ' 'l..LtC"t'O . .,1
11 ~It/. ., ", ' '. .,., ''t'! .' I' 111
--.....
~~ ~. ~ ~~:. <-'~~;~~'.:.L ..' .':"/ii~,'''Y .'.:......~. ~Yn71 ~~' ,.~:. ,.'
~ ~ ci ~ /n-~, r /.", . ~~~~~' C;1t)~. ::.", <;.':<:...... './ Qhi~'; ',,"', '~,,,,'
m c5 ~ ^ II ) ~ ~') a~ /11", fill" ~~.. ~ ~ ~ ' : ,;' .;.~. :'::':.);'f4 .'" ,1 \ ~t,~ . .,.., '
A ~ . ( \~ !I..\n-<';;~ /";'7\ l(~ ~ /1 ' rr~,'~ ". , ...'.:-. ..,..;. ,: .' if. ~ ":~\.
H.: ~ :.(~. ' "" fJ'b ..~ '.1.'" ..,'.'"" ,.' I .:..,...;.' '., . \
I~A~EMENTI'. '\. ''\ ""'P I ij. ':J~'f M rz"" ~ . 9-,,>:. '''r(.1'';';:~':~
H \ ,~~ I -. I . .. ~ ' ' -<::~w; , _. UlJ",j,.N~''''''' /"17\ "j :', .
\ (1 'p j={ q~ ::'j/~-JI;"~'~~~ ~".<..~:'~t)r~
\ \. 1\,- v. f :/ ,t.' /, ~ '. .,.'f,(:I::f:fl;J1f1 ,", I>-l, /~
~ .. . ~ I I,' , ~. .'t' ~ ,':...".~ ..,_
. \' ..1 .... .' ~ .... , . , ,; f ....J":f'~ ~~.' -
'\. " . ~ . . I , '::',.... :-r' ' . -... ,. ,"
\ '.... . "- ~ ---r--"' ~ ,::' Ii ,:::-- '- "-~-_l :- · . J ..' :'~. .-. '.: :: .', \5t:)~ fl\-J-..-......
\~ VI-'s~i /n~t:~~f'/7/~~~.~ · ':'-~-<'k~ - ) ..' .., . 'Q~
'\ ~~.~ \Et~~~j:: r1tbb!1i0fl ;~~\\\1\\\\)' t~----~~'iJ 7,,!~1',' rlA~
\ \: '''~'i\;;(t,:;~: I I~NY~Lbp~' I If', , :2"\:. ~ % r:JQ:..'~ . ~ . _
L:--ttt-tI [iIJt,,,,q. 1/ '~u ~:~~T~' . ~. ". " '-'.
rl <( , ~ r-.... [-.. ~f..l.1 <V' , . .:;.:' ~. ~ .', ,'.
SOx80 LOTS ~ g t-t,~ i5 ~. ~'!!.'I~. '/'.... '.: ';;'~" '. .' .... ,', .,'J.,.~
'<, ...... "4 0:: /,~::...cn "'~ . ~~' . '11.~ ~
n-r'). g ~ i f? g '. h' '>;<A~ P!' : \.), j~ ,;' .. ...... /:' .~''''
-...... / f-o. u 0::::' :::f}. '-::Y(' /~::;::{ :"?'; / .~." ;:...
. ~.J 'i--, ~' d [-..::; 'I :,>..:I:~,--:-X A ~ ...,,~/ . ' .'. ':/,-:< . ~ '~
~ t-t:\ tJ ~ t5 ,~ ".".:;/:' ~.,:,,;: ,...' 7~ . '" ~L' r:;" ',.;7K
. ,
. -} .. ""
o ~ Ii-: A'" ~\,~'. . ,
..,.X. ~v1~,/."~- "~'f' .. ~~~~. 'b' "
~ J ~,:.:.( ~ ~'~ " 'h;\~ -<..~<::) ^-..<l;-~ O. ,
.. . "" ~ . ,~ ~. ....;. (Y rL v.><.. ..'=' ~ <l;-'~ <d '/'. ~ . ~ ~
, . ..~.. ~f'i~'J d . 7- ~~ //i";I" .~ ~r
"
o
, fi/):' ~ .,.~.>'~'." 'i~.~6jf'"'''-.7 -y-~"'~ -~. /< 1Jj..~....,
''''., ~ .~~/ :. ' " ~.. ;' .., .",/1' ~ .~ J-..--.... -- " --< (GJ) ,,:- "'" 't" ....
, ,...~-:- ~ ' .~" '~~' .... - :; '" ':' ......,..... \
:T-' "L:: 'y I ~ ' ',,'
~
.
.,.-
,"
~~
4'
(:0
~
r .
- t-~___
--.' -
~;'~..L ~
. .::.. .:':'-.....
'::::'~"" .
~ .
(I; ,
t~
'0~
~ .;,',-
I ',,-s..
.
.......-
20 SCALE PLOTTING
Area L2 50x80 Lots
Area L3 55xlOO Lots
LOCATION MAP
DUBLIN RANCH
PI-IAS E I
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT/
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Dublin, California
~
August 4, 1995
Rev. November 1995
North
i\..ri
o 200 400 600
MacKay & Somps . Engineering & Planning
William lIezmalhalch _Architects, Inc, .
Architecture and Planning R l..' C f:
NUVIS . Landscape Architectur .., ___
v
-:x
) 1(
f Mr cr;; r US'
DUtiW-YP,-^; l'
t:,(.
~':\,,,':.lS ,. (~:( 1 I,
---
~ J) \---I~\ \ \\,..., '-"'--..., r --------- ~
-< / " '~,\\f>>' ~---- ,......,......-
_,,_ ...............--:.....// ': ?r.S~~r.C'\O? \00:<& GRADED;;t _--------,/
:. '- ....--- k'" ... '. ;"10 Q -// ---:;!:~~
.'----_ --.... . , ,.GRAD~D SL, PE ~\\t\G ~ ~~ ". .. .\\--- ..........::v-::-- .'
_-------- ',~~.,.(i)\r.rJ)~r.t\'\ )~~~r\'.,.,. rs, _~~ ~ ,
---------------- ////~'\:',,\'-!>,S€.rcY ( \<.\ ~\ r\\)~~L ..':~ ~_~-::::-~~-- ..~ \~
/// /k(ro ,..,~ _ \1'~r /xtJ~ - 3
.... ,," , 11"":,"" \' ~ \ ' ,T,L_ ~
" r. \ \ I .~ . "",....-_.. ~
---------.... ........,.....,--,.... 4:':""'" ~""" "-1 ~~~~- ~ ~ " 1. o? ~c~~ ';"~~{( ~ \
-::.:~~---------- _~__~-"L /,--' ~.:.:.. .. . ~~N/ ~l ..\~,-,~ri~~. \ ~\]'\ '1,0 " ~~\J~\..jts-
-_.JL- ~~.' :\ , ") r1~..........." "'1 ~_-
~____ -------~r-~l}--. ' 't"" ' Ll\.oiI \ ~~\N.RE..x YAR l- 1\ Gr.v-
VjJ-JJ ^ ---~/J.(fj~ ~~ '= A ~~O~~Q' ~OG~ 3'i 4'WALK
~~--:-Gt2 &J \J,r~ ~~.>C'7 _~ ~'1:::V 42'.. '_ . .'
, ,-r .............. ~~~__16.~-...J2' ~ ~/~:~' ,.:,'
.- 32' /4' WALK //~ ';] 'V '~., S' =-=-.(p=-o' ~~"- "'"I==' j -iGATED ENTRY ( ~ \ ,. ",:,~
_ ,1>1/'<:. __ 12 ~ ,.....----- _~~+-, ~ ~~ "". \"1
~'~ ;' , "C R\) ( / {{ ." "7' '\:~k-;: """'" """ ~ i.' {\~EA ~-3
~ ~.~_ - 4~~~~ M Z. 0 I,' t ~~( \ ,I' · \ I . ef;), .' .
'7'7'''7'''7'''''' '..' < . , ' ,"
1-~1!l. ' ;j~~ ..' ..1" >ib\ tRAGEt; .......... .. ,~,~ . 't\;" · L /1;, ~-." ,',. ::,,:"'< ':,,~
<I~ (;.. \.lQ:}~ II \ _~~~,_ ~'.,.j.{~tf:,,? ,-,,' ~, s>'9 ,'..
1 '~ " '.rI1' , .: 5' MIN. tr...,n.,.,,\.:,..,., -~, -:[ .~~\ '.~ : ',,' ~~7-'- 15\ "". '~i' ,
\. 'K --V . J t+. . . . i0.. ' ,..,.,. " .'
~,-- .~. '. .' -__ -~'.:: /.. ~ .Jr,' :':/', ~ ~I.~ ~~ ~_:::4'WALK
4' WALK . ~- FlRE':;;;;WlIf.ELTRAC~' ~ ~~ 1 6' ~ .': \'-' tJ\1 ~. , BUf.,: ~ 32' -~
32 -- ':4 ',- "(. >t~. , ~ ----
,'~, r"", 'J:'!O-lO' '... < )~,. .,.~:,'fj}O~ ',~~:' "'?:>" >,;.,'.; "': ~/1~i~l~""'",~ =-?::.';.0:. '"
~~ \\- , ' .." fJ . ~ '< / /" t >(': " ~ \~~~ P' .......-...., CX'~i;., .. 'k. ~,
.PROPERT~<":'}(') ~? . ~(~-,-'.1.~~' . '~~;J8~. , '\'~',~:)r} . : . / /I\'~,' ~~~~1~~~~,~.~~."~'~r.)
LINE' T..I ..." ~ "r-:~.\.~.li~_.,'~..h '~y,,-'" ~":~'I :,,',~--;-\..:J"r
L " ":". "...',:~ V I n I I l ~.",::'., '... ." ,:"""-
.
RAIL FENCE ON BERM MASONRY SOUND BARRIER
( )
24' 10' 24'
34'
MASONRY SOUND BARRIER RAIL FENCE ON BEAM
{ )
34'
20 SCALE PLOTTING
Area M-2 45x70 Lots
Area M-3 35x70 Lots
STUDY AREA
J
~..
LOCATION MAP
DUBLIN RANCH
PHASE I
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT/
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Dublin, California
August 4. 1995
~Ex. A- FG=;
North f' 0 it ;;L 0 20 40 60
MacKay & Somps . Engineering & Planning
William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc, .
Architecture and Planning
NUVIS . Landscape Architecture
.
\ \'\ .. .' \
~ : A-/ C ;~~~(\((\~
/,'" ~ ~~ \\~\~~\;;....w~~~\\\\i
,'" /', ~'ltr ~\\ ~y lk-Iij '"' t ,\\\\\}
V ,~\\\" ]iJ~~:~f-: \~. ).\\ \~
, , - \ ~-- \\ V~\"
I ~ \ l ' ~/:=- l-'~t: .. ~ ~\ \ \ ~ '\~~
\ Q:li tl iV ~ ',< ~-6 , , ,~.... ~~
\1 ~ll ~ ~\\~ .' , . ~ \\
, h- \ \ ~~. ........ + '~~~
~ II rr I ~I ~C~~(. ~h'~"~~,, ~. ..' \~\\ J
o : ( ~ -'i"\" ~'')+ I.~ 1\
~ I ;i \\ \ / \ :, .. .~~ '~-\,\:::\\\
: ~ t-- .:1 \ ..-! ~\ \ \ \
JI ~ ' \ . _.... . . -. 11~ ~
\, \, . .f-~". I ('
\', \'1< ~ =hl..,.(, ..' \ f
\ ~Fi ,\~ ~~~~ i TJ ',.. '. ~\~~~
\ ' (IL'JJ ~. '0-'''-''-'
'\ ll.! ~ ...~ I ~-'" T..~/' ,.. 'l\\
~ ::~,.i- 'f;~\\D~". 'I((ni~ ~lJ . . ~~. '\ . ~.~-l1~~~~~~~~,:0;%""
~ ,-:-,.\'\\'-. . l~;ll[I\~.I-'-. .. ~ \ .', '~VI---(9~ ~ =.6 ~-~
\ 'l ~ // I , .t- · · . !. -"I. -'-
, J.~ r / 'fl I f--- .ri :l" '.' Y--7, · J'\". 'f-' I
, p~ 15 .+' / J,/ '-: L.r. \~\.. .~_ J ~ ~7 ~' ',~J. ',~ - I
b~ ~~.," /. )~(L-b-3!~~~~~~~~t r\ ~ _ \ ~~~ii:. (-;~f:-~.' I
, ';.J ~ '1 tf~~ '1 '177 "\ . .f:r-~.', -~ I ~'- , :(' -....; ~~~......
f ,," .. f):-,'- . ~ ,,.. ~y .) ·
, 1_ ,_ t'J/ ;)1./ !. ....: " ~)' [r) ----_.. /t' " , -\ ~\. ~.. ~
\ ~f:fill~ l'-'(}/ '..... . ;'J .' Jdt~.:.~. ".,'
~ p~ ~\~ . ,;\ V, ...' · Pl.. '~'---" ~ - i. ..: -, ~ ~'" ...
..., ,I- nl~}1 I;: . . ... .~~..I '~l.l..I.-..- p.\@
, <, " ~ I I IV;' ~......' .. -1111 -Fi-~~"'.. .....AA '..~ll
.. tIJ I}- - ~~.." I f f-t,.. I "!! ·
tIJ I if r. ,j ft" ", ~ ~ II II ... "'....!~ -\ \ \ .,' ", ';
~ . I '/ .. ,~f5 ~ ' I ''ItT · ·
\ '~, ~ ~~~{!j~<:t...... ~;::::_-="" '0= iL~4,. .~ ~~
:__ Q ~ .,~..~ "<::::-., ,'. \\,-J "" ... .- ~:\ ·
l , ~ "101 b~~ '>-- "" '-\ .l \~~ \\. \'1\ 1-\ f.-- ;\..-y ,.
i l ~ t}. exJ j ( " , .r\' '..'\\'(:!'+.=-' ;'1 X.. /~ i>- i.~, i.
,'~ \;\ (--::. _:0 ___ _ I '\-\i"Y "'. -~-" ~'~- ,~,
I, .-\\":1
\ ~ p]S:~P'
" J:. M.J:'l- " .~\
\1 ~ ,_ \ ....... ---;;O~\.:'l..
\ .~ J~ f:\\ :\ .___0::/-
\ iT lYrt '=:. ~ --:'v~~ /'
- ','!, ~\ -Illi'ir~:"~~'/ -- __-?;3::-~~
, , I - ~- --' ...-
_ ~ ' '--...-:. - - - ----=- _=_ :UfURE ~ - ----- ---- --
, ' '--.--__-- 1.-:-_---
~..~l." ,'~.(-- ---~ \
_~~~, ' ' 'J:\
)
VEIIICULAR
CIRCULATION PLAN
.
Legend
.-~
t )Community Entry
411"
~.'i1~ Neighborhood Entry
...~1!1 Single Family
.
DO()O Neighborhood Entry
QcoQ Medium Density
__ Arterial Street
..... Collector Road
..... Residential Street
0000000 Private Residential
Street
l;;)l;;)~Q" Elnergency Vehicular Access
DUBLIN RANCH
PHASE I
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Dublin, California
August 4,1995
Rev, November 1995
\
~ RECEIVED
\lJ ~Of\'r ~5, n..Ji
North f(.rJ- 'a... ~~ 10..(2-- 200 400 600
V"'truBLtN' PLAN~.G... A I I 1 ') r1
E;"f · f'\ 01 ~ I ''0 v
MacKay & Somps · Engineering & Planning
William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. .
Architecture and Planning
NUVIS . Landscape Architectur~ I III
"
,',
I~All. FENCE (2-RAIL)-
'.. ACCENT WALL
SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER
PLANTINq
ENTRY PILASTER WITlI
DUBLIN RANCII LOGO
PLAQUE (BOTII SIDES)
STREET TREES (DOUDLE ROW)
PEDESTRIAN GA TEW A Y
STONE PILASTER
FLOWERING ACCENT TREES
EVERGREEN TREES
COMMUNITY WALL (SOUND DARRIER)
~.-'
fr' 'WLFEl-;Ci, (J'RML)
SIDEW ALK
I.
. ",~~~
,..,\---' "
'.;' -'-~" - ..----).,. /'
----------'-
'.__: ~J~=' .,..'~..
Water Feature at South Tassajara Entry
FLOWERING ACCENT TREES
ENTRY PILASTER AT PEDESTRIAN GATEWAY
WITH DUBLIN RANClI LOGO PLAQUE
SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
.
," ,11,:-
",
."
Elevation
I 10' I
MEDIAN
~-J.
COMMUNITY WALL
WITII EVERGREEN VINES
ACCENT WALL (BOTII SlIlES)
WATER FEATURE AT SOUTll
TASSAJARA ROAD ENTRY
LOW STONE WALL
PEDESTRIAN GATEWAY
COMMUNITY ENTH.Y
AT TASSA~JARA ROAD
Sheet Index
Plan
Elcvation
Watcr Fcaturc
DUBLIN RANCH
PHASE I
DESIGN GUIDELINES
D8f ,ljn;!: C~;.r~rO~'lja
~' ~~ ",v,, I
; . '. ,. 1...:.
,.~ :.: .
V E 0 August 4, 1995
, teE I
:~tt\'?19goD/3'K.A p'5110 ~ )/
OLLoe.ur Q..r,l!LC-.hv Not to Scale
',1~1 'N PlANNl'"
MacKay & SOlllpS . En~incrrin~ & Planning
William lIC1.m;,Ihalc:h Architects, Inc. .
Architecture and (,hmning
NUVIS . Landscape Architecture
"
Iff
.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE PROVISIONS
Residential development standards, architectural design and landscape and open space
elements have been defined and discussed to ensure the desired character and quality of
Dublin Ranch. These guidelines will encourage and influence development to meet overall
community goals and the community theme.
Guidelines presented here are directed towards Specific Plan designated land uses
occurring within the limits of the initial development phase. It is anticipated that as
additional development phases and land uses occur, specific provisions applicable to them
will be incorporated into future amendments of the design guideline document.
These recommendations establish the minimum requirements necessary for the design and
planning of Dublin Ranch. In the development standards, only exceptions to the Dublin
City zoning ordinance are delineated. Permitted land uses follow the Specific Plan
designations, which are single family residential, medium density residential and open
space. Conditional uses will rely upon the provisions of the City's zoning ordinance.
.
Guidelines will be imposed and enforced within agreements between the developer and
individual builders. No homeowner's association will be responsible for guideline
enforcement. Additionally, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
("Declaration") may impose standards for maintenance of residences and/or appropriate
use restrictions. Design review control will be exercised by the developer over the initial
construction of improvements and residences. After the initial construction is complete,
design review control will be exercised by the City.
Ex.A 7rft'L
......:.
....., .-.,.. 17 ,- lIt..
o ". , .
. ~." . . . . -.
. . '.:- .~....&..."."..,. "...., -
--- '.~ '- .......
~ECEIVEO
fu w;; O.3()
~L~O~~ ,
:" ~~L1N PLANNI"~
~.,:::n /" 'l-v~pr: ~u
'i:2 ffi" "j ~. '<.. U'h' i
. 'J.; ,,- '".LJ "
. . L:i '\6
.
DUBLIN RANCH
Phase I
DESIGN GUIDELINES
."
Prepared by:
MacKay & Somps
William HelzmaIhalch Architects, Inc.
NUVIS
ex.A- lif.
"., '..- I? ~- /~z
.. ~ . .
- -_" r. ...~... ......... ,:; ~. _ . _
.
...,
'.' ..
" '
, .
.
Dublin Ranch houSe I Desif!n Guidelines. AUf!us/4. 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARCHITECTURE
Purpose
Architectural Styles
California Craftsman/Bungalow
California Traditional
European Eclectic
Spanish Colonial Revival
Monterey
Ranch Style
American Farmhouse
Renaissance Revival
Architectural Treatment
Elevation Treatment
Roof Considerations
Materials and Colors
LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE
Entries
Community Entries
Single Family Neighborhood Entries
Medium Density Neighborhood Entries
Vehicular Circulation
Arterial Streets
Residential Collectors
Residential Streets
Private Residential Streets
Street Furniture
Page i
'[ ;;.J>,.; ,'., " J....l '~Xi I
;_ ~ ' f, .. 1<.;~ '
(ff~~, '!~~':" LL
III -1
III-2
III -4
III-6
III- 7
III-8
III -10
III -12
III-l4
III-I 6
III-I 8
III-I 8
III - 20
III - 22
IV-I
IV-I
IV-6
IV-7
IV-9
IV-9
IV-I2
IV-I4 J;X.frp'l J' 8
IV-IS {/ V ,
IV-I7
RECEIVED
:P-f\ q5 - 030
AUG 1 U 1995,
J)00L {N RfHJ ~t1
DUBLIN PLANNING
Dublin R=h Pnu.se I Desif!n Guidelines. AUf!USf 4.1995,
Recreation Facilities
Neighborhood Park
Private Community Recreation Facility
Medium Density Recreation Facilities
Open Space
Open Space Corridors
Intermittent Stream Corridors
Pedestrian Pathways
Multi-Purpose Trails
Ownership and Maintenance
General Landscape
Recommended Plant Palette
Irrigation
Pilasters, Walls and Fences
Stone and Stucco Pilasters
Stone Pilasters
C.ommunity Wall
Stone Accent Wall
Rail Fence
Sound Barrier
View Fences
Good Neighbor Fences
Guardrail
Page ii
I ..~" ." r'" J
_ '. . ( ,..II, . t~ \.1
I J: , ,,- .... .... 'r&
e:ff~~ ,,~
: -'=~ ,-:~ Iff
-- --. -..
IV -19
IV -19
IV -22
IV -22
IV -23
IV-23
IV -24
IV-25
IV -26
IV-27
IV -28
IV-28
IV - 34
IV-35
IV-35
IV-37
IV-38
IV-39
IV - 3 9
IV -41
IV -42
IV-43
IV -44
..
.'
ex.;r {>'j 10 IJ 12-
RECElv!l...'
-P-4 '=ts-030
.^.U G 1 g 1995
Du.bQ...U1 !2..flJ n r.
DUBLIN PLANNING
.
.'
.
Dub/In Ranch Df!sl~n GUidelines' AI.IRI.IS[.J. 1995
HOUSE SITING CONSIDERATIONS
Siting Criteria
One important goal of these guidelines is to create a street scene
possessing both functional and visual variety. Plotting and design
criteria are intended to provide this variety in appearance as well as
a sense of individuality for each home. Projects where nearly
identical buildings line streets without variation in placement and
architectural form are discouraged. This and the following section
lists plotting and massing techniques which will aid in the creation
of a successful street scene. \Vhile it is not necessary that every
method be utilized, selective and appropriate use will greatly
contribute to achievin~e jesAed results. R E C E r V E D
C 7' rr . ~1I!6 <32, PA 9~-a30
Page 11-3 ;::>". ,,,',. ""~'i\L.a.tv~ AU,6 1_.0. ~
E2 1.::-; .i:::': . f.;rk. O~\ IUv',tlU
l tfu~~Ur.....~ ~TJ~IlN PLANNIt\:G
- - - -. " -- ,.'
..t
- t1
0r~~/~r-
'"
~~~.~
E:E~g
Dublin Ranch Design Guidelmes' Auiusr.J. 1995
Treatment of Corner Conditions
.
The treatment of corner lots is key to initiating a successful site
plan. Units occupying corner lots on public streets should be
selected and placed so that:
· The driveway and garage is placed against the interior side
yard.
· A clear line of site across the corner is maximized.
· The wall adjacent to the exterior side yard is as short as
possible.
· The exterior side and front yard setbacks are maximized,
Plotting on Cross Slope Conditions
When plotting where the elevation difference between lots is
greater than 3 feet, the units should be placed so that the driveway
is on the high side of the lot.
Plotting on Lots at the Bottom of a Slope
e:
When plotting and designing the home, maximize the rear yard
depth and consider stepping back the rear elevations second story
to avoid a "canyon-like" rear yard.
Rear Elevations on Elevated Lots
Rows of units seen from a distance on elevated lots are generally
perceived by their contrast against the background or sk)'-line.
Here the dominate impact is the overall shape of the building and
roof lines instead of the surface articulation or materials. Where
possible, maximize the rear yard setback from the top of slope.
Design the rear elevation and roof plane to minimize visual impact.
These buildings should appear as varied as practical with particular
attention given to avoiding repetitious architectural elements such
as fIreplace placement and gable ends.
Page 11-4
~~;; ~.~ ;~~"
t@m~
,z,~~'- ..
/)v A-~ i'~tEIV.ED .
C f\' r\ f J VlR lj5- 080
":~"'lt,;.il'~i" ' .^:~Hr 1 q 1235
I !;iI.:, D-uXl.n Riu: t '-, .
",~p ~...~: ?~c 'ilj~[IN PLANN\N~~'
e
e:
.
Dublm Ranch DeslJ!n GUldelmes . A U~SI':. 1995
IT
12'
.....................
. .' :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::."'. :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ . :*....
. .;111;1;11;11\:: ;, .'IIII,IJI.
'tffit .
15'
IT
10'
Var:ying Setbacks and Profiles
A varied building setback is necessary along the street frontage.
Strict compliance to the minimum garage setback may contribute
to a repetitious and monotonous appearance along the street.
'Where garages are adjacent to one another along interior lot lines, a
2' minimum difference in setbacks is desired.
With exception of zero lot line products and lots along substantial
street slopes, plans should be reversed and plotted so that garages
and entries are adjacent to each other. This creates an undulating
sense of setback. Occasionally, this pattern should be broken so
that it will not become overly repetitious nor reflected by the units
directly across the street.
Page 11-5
ir;;~ :i
L ~r=.:'
ex. k P? /j ~ ~z.
RECEIVED
. {'iJ:).i:\, . o~- ().~C
';~.:, , :::. '-'
t
, . ;;l3 ,-,9\ lb2Ut Q,(J.Jil.,CJD
.,. ''''..' ,HL", ~L1N PLANNfN8
. "
Dublm Ranch Design Guidelrnes' August':. 1995
Impact of Garage on the Street Scene
e
The home and the yard rather than the garage should be the
primary emphasis of the elevation as seen from the street, Design
techniques to reduce the emphasis on the garage should include:
· Sening back the garage in relationship to the front of the house.
· The garage should be incorporated with the architecture of the
house. The design treatment should strive to reduce the
overall visual mass of the garage.
· Architectural forms should de-emphasize the garage by
highlighting other parts of the house.
· Possible options include tandem garages, detached garages and
garages located at the rear of the lot.
The use of swing-in driveways and garages on lots at least 55 feet
in width ""ill break the continuous view of garage doors along the
street. This typically allows for a substantial reduction in the
required front setback for that unit which in turn provides for
greater variation in street scene,
e:
~..fr fj/t/ ~ it..
Page 11-6
.;:::; '. .. ~..' ~~ It''J~\i~j
l~ f:.: ~-:
t ~.. ~.~~
. ,._11 (
, ~':L.
.1tL
RECEIVED
rPr g5-0-o0
AUG 1 U 1995
"'\ (' " \') (, -r.!'k 1
.' JU--0-.U \ t'v..'-\ 'tJo"---"
~ :~lIN PLANNIt-' ~
.
.,::
.::...
;'I.
"~.~ ..;.,
,.~ .....
~ .... .. ....~ .:~"
j .,.." .-=-. .,. ~~
III \4.. .......1 '..===-~. ." :'
~-"~.'~,~:
=--~ , 4~~-; ." .'
"f ,; . ;\
~ m ,~,.:, ~. .
,- - -.. ":; .,....!i::-'.
r,p..; ~ I
. : ---.. - ~
,rl.. ~ _~~
I'~' . '.'-
~.~. t=.-~-'-" .
I ",..: ..=----r~_ ..... .
.... --- -
Dublm Ranch Deslf!n GUldelznes . Au,r:usl .:. J 995
BUILDING M..ASS A.1\"D FORM
Relationship of One and Two Story Buildings
A key technique for creating a sense of variety within a project is
to vary the heights and forms of the homes, In the case of low and
medium density projects, this is accomplished by utilizing both one
and two story buildings.
To improve the visual relationship between adjacent one and two
story buildings, it is occasionally desirable to introduce some sort
of intermediate transition between them. This may be done by
creating a single story architectural element \\1thin certain two
story buildings to lessen their apparent height.
Treatment of Mass
Exterior mass and form can be manipulated to improve the street
scape by controlling the impact of the units as they relate to corner
conditions, adjacent units, setbacks and the street.
Units located at street corners should be either single story (if a
single story plan is included) or have a significant single story
element adjacent to the exterior side yard.
Interlocking Mass
Stepping the second story mass can be used to improve the street
scene. As an example, the second story can be set back in relation
to the garage face below it. If the designers envision the building
form as a series of interlocking masses rather than a box, they will
be able to achieve a more aesthetic and attractive design solution.
There will be some exceptions to this concept when dealing with
styles such as Monterey.
Massing and Form.
Building mass should be formulated to reflect interior uses, to
create a positive relationship with adjacent homes and land use, to
provide visual emphasis and to reflect the architectural style.
Methods for maximizing the variety of architectural form within
these constraints include: &t< ' A- z::;t::; /6 ~ 8'2-
. 1.J r<E8,VED
ie'.": ' ~ S -c30
AUa 1 0 1995
Du..bQ5:(I R..C,,--u:J'V
:. '_'!3UN PLANNlf\' ~
Page II-?
L E&6J.~,tr7
~.. :~-~ ~..- :~;~. (I (",
. .
Dublzn Ranch Desl.f!n GUldrIznes' Augusl':, /995
· Creating recessed alcoves or projected overhangs whiC.
shadows.
· Sculpting major chimney forms.
· Utilizing dormers, bay V'.-indows and other architectural .
projections.
. Porch/entry projections.
Creating a Varied Street Scene
The last section addresses the use of massing to improve the street
sce:ire: Generally, these techniques include:
· Minimizing visual impact of the garage.
· Giving attention to composition of building mass.
· Stepping second stories.
· Incorporating single story elements into two story buildings.
· Considering effects of cross slopes in plotting.
· Avoiding obviously repetitious patterns.
. Varying setbacks.
· Reversing and varying adjacent house plan forms.
· Opening corner lots through selective plan form and red.>
building heights.
~;2':; .:,:
L ...: f';'" i~-
t. ~ CIll
~ , l1:oPJ /(0 ~ .
//1' r r{ECEIVE D'
. >.' : ' ". . ,:::.n q 5' - 030
-p~.t,l FAUG 1 0 1995
~(,,'\ QcJ1tlv
. "BlIN PLANNIf\'-'
Page 11-8
'. '.::: .~.~_. :'." , [1\
Dubltn Ranch Design CUldcltnc.< . AU("LIst';. /995
e
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
e:.
".
PURPOSE
The goal of these architectural guidelines is to provide general
design criteria and guidance for the development of the various
neighborhoods at Dublin Ranch. These guidelines have been
developed to establish a high level of product quality, to assure
both variety and compatibility and to enhance the community's
overall value.
These guidelines do not propose rigid adherence to a single or
extremely limited number of styles. Rather, the goal is to promote
both visual compatibility and variety in a community setting
achieved by utilizing a number of compatible traditional and
contemporary styles and through architectural innovation.
Page 111-1
Each neighborhood at Dublin Ranch can take on its O\\lIl theme and
character to create a diversity of architectural styles throughout the
project. The project will remain unified through the use of
landscaping and enr:. ~o~~entationG?< . A- 1>' 17 << 12-
f!.-" ,.' , , ~... E eEl V E .....
L"-: fj' i ; '.. ._t;f'_~: ...~.;.-" u
~ t::; ~ -.ti ~ '\l-f:V ~. .:t 5' ; 0 3 a
t ~ AU G 1 0 1~~:,
c.;.....,;)..7,_ {" ~l Ov3slL~
',,- --.... '; ,U, ,~ - ~UN PLANN'~I-
e'
-......--
--
~-
. ...~.. -
~ ""~\\.'t".. .. )~....f,."
, . ~~\~~ \~. i'~' ~.,
." ~ ". '1.\ ..'
, ~l\'f' .....t ~:'"':Y,,\\"'\J'
,'" \~... \'.,- "..v.-
.\.... ~ \\*~.~:<\.~\\
Dublzn Ranch Dcslf!n GuidelIncs' Augusl':. /995
ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
.
"
.,.
Dublin Ranch represents an opportunity to develop a uruque
community combining the most positive aspects of a master
planned development 'with the most favorable building types and
styles of long established neighborhoods. These guidelines are
based on the prior learning curves of earlier planned communities
and can thus implement the successes achieved while avoiding the
negative aspects sometimes created.
Key to a successful project is the development of an appropriate
architectural vocabulary and theme which avoids two alternative
pitfalls found in some residential developments. One of these is
the selection of a single "trendy" style which when used
everywhere is monotonous, repetitious and, as a result. quickly
becomes dated. The other extreme to be avoided is the
combination of strongly contradictory styles and incompatible
designs which lead to visual chaos.
To achieve a successful middle ground, Dublin Ranch will create a
living environment w!llch ~as a flexible yet i~entifiable Vi.:::..:
appearance that establIshes Itself at the communIty entry, the ~.
maintained along the major roadway and past the recreation and
park facilities to the specific project entries and individual homes.
The goal is to provide both variety and compatibility while
creating a sense of familiarity. The styles selected convey visual
significance not only to the designer but also to residents and
guests.
F or concept and inspiration, we have turned to the greater Dublin
area's own architectural past. In small towns of both the East Bay
and the Central Valley, one finds attractive established
neighborhoods composed of homes built during the opening
decades of this century. These neighborhoods consist of a mixture
of interesting and different, yet compatible styles. From among
these "period" or eclectic styles, we have selected those which are
not only attractive and compatible but can also be reasonably
integrated into a modern merchant-built home.
"c~i:j...
?.-...: :
e-x. fr f'j /? ,;
;d: eEl V E D
PA 95-06
.Qub9i.rv Rx1VJV
:, '..91 IN PLANNl"'-
Page 1lI-2
L fi&~ '~\)ff5'
, ' ,...::2.%
.,
. . .:\\'.-1-- ,
"".. ,<- . . ~ . .... - ~
~~'" ','
:.....l...~~' ":- )-'1',:",:\'\ '.~~:,
- _..t..-... .
~
......~b~ -..:
~"h~
[ 40
~!
,.
- ,
- I:
I.
~I
. . i.
_ ..=.r..::.- I
.
.'
~,~
. L ..\ ~~\:=---
I,
"f'
. . ~:~
~.? r
!IDl F'
IUD:'
lur
Dublm Ranch DcslJ:n Guidclmc.<' AUJ:Us/4. 1995
These styles are:
· California CraftsmanlBungalow
. California Traditional
. European Eclectic
. Spanish Colonial Revival
. Monterey
. Ranch Style
. American Farmhouse
. Renaissance Revival
These closely associated architectural styles have each evolved in
California since the turn of the century and examples are well
represented in the East Bay and Central Valley area, Their
inherent attractiveness, informality and sense of elegance have
enabled these styles to remain pop~lar. over a long period of time.
It is not the intent of the Architectural Guidelines to mandate
specific styles. However, the styles shown here possess
characteristics which the designer and builder should consider
when choosing a desired style or image. Specifically, the styles:
. are visually compatible with each other
. possess general market appeal and community acceptance
· can be successfully expressed in a modern merchant built home
. are capable of contemporary interpretation and variation
· have a historic background and precedence in the East Bay and
Central Valley area
The following sections will address each style, defining those
elements that are characteristic. The text and graphics are intended
to provide general direction, guidance and hopefully inspiration to
the builders and architects as they design contemporary
interpretations of these historic styles.
Ex. A F)/91?;'
Page 111-3
f';i~f ~C'~~'r
~cCErVED
pp. QS--030
AU6 ~1 0 1995
~"\. \(xlJ'\t)" I
::-'-_'9UN PLANN,,,,.l)
r. '>~- :J.. " Ill"
.: -.. . -,. ._. ',~,., ~ i;=:: ". .'~.
...........
Dublzn Ranch Desiym GUldelme.' . .-IuiuSI.. 1995
California Craftsman/Bungalow
.
Background
The Craftsman style was inspired by the English Arts and cr.'
Movement of the late 19th century. That movement rejected both
Victorian elaboration and the emerging machine esthetics. It did
stress the importance of insuring that all exterior and interior
elements receive both tasteful and "artful" attention. The
movement influenced numerous California architects such as
Green and Green and Bernard Maybeck. The resulting Craftsman
Style responded with extensive built-in elements and by treating
details such as windows or ceilings as if they were furniture. The
overall affect was the creation of a natural, warm, livable home.
The Bungalow began in California, evolving from the Craftsman
heritage, and quickly spread to other parts' of the country where it
was adapted to a multitude of different styles. It became so
popular after 1905 that it is often credited as being the first style to
be built in quantity by merchant builders.
Characteristics
Page I11-4
Form: Simple box-like massing. One and two story box like
volumes with a predominate horizontal appearance. The buildi. '
invariably has a full or partial width elevated front p~ch or stoop.
..... .. D:f:, J:7 )0 l~ EtVE_t: 80
t~~~~~ll;lr)~ AUG 1,0 1995
:.,:,: .c>.__ .I.l.\., Dub7lJl.J vCL.fLtJv
_.C . ~ . '~nNPrAr~I\II~'
.
.
.
DublIn Ranch DesiRn Guidelines' AURusl~. /995
~
The entry stoop is an integral part of the massing of the building
\\'hile tapered porch posts are the most obvious California
Bungalow feature,
Columns for supponing the porch roofs are a distinctive and
variable detail. Typically short. square upper columns rest upon
more massive piers, or upon a solid porch balustrade. These
columns, piers, or balustrades frequently begin directly at ground
level and extend v.rithout break to a level well above the porch
floor. Commonly the piers or columns have sloping (banered)
sides. Materials used for piers, columns, and solid balustrades are
varied. Stone, clapboard, shingle, brick and stucco are all
common; they frequently occur in combination.
Roof: Low pitched (4:12) gabled roof v.rith eave overhangs and
elaborate expo.sed rafter tails. . Widespread use of decorative beams
and braces under the gables. The porch is typically a covered
eX"1ension of the front gabled roof.
Rafters, ridge beams, and purlins are usually exposed and eX"1ended
beyond the wall and roof. Along the sloping, or rake, edges, three
or more beams (usually false) extend through the wall to the roof
edge. These are either plain. or embellished by a triangular knee
brace,
Roofmaterials typically are asphalt shingles, tile, shake or shingle.
Materials: Horizontal wood siding, shingles and stucco are the
primary material. Stone or brick is frequently used for the porch
base, lower half of columns and chimney.
Colors: Colors can range from earth tones to pastels, with low
contrasts between colors and materials.
Elements: Horizontal groups of three or more windows typically
found on second floor.
fY. It P0 z( '~ ~
Page JII-5
....: :
~:;:~:; \; ~'.
r:..iJ ~~ t.~ i.r
I..t;;c.:.~
E!ECEIVED
1ft. 9"6 - 030
~ U 1995
. " lJ QcUl.C1"
- ,,~! IN PLANN1[\1 ~
.,,' {..\ L.~\., ;'
, .,.. '1\'.'
-.ut;.~ ~
,..3 J . - 1'1
~~'_.~ ..... ","-,:;' ,._~ ~\.".
Dublm Ranch Dcs/!!n Guidclzncs' August':. 1995
California Traditional
.
r :~~..~ . . 1.,".
Background
The California Traditional style is a mixtUre of several Sly]'
including Craftsman Prairie and California Ranch. The style has
developed in the Bay Area since the 1940s by architects such as
Cliff May and William Wurster. It initiated the current acceptance
of the informal open room plan and the strong relationship between
indoor and outdoor living areas.
Characteristics
Form: One and two story forms with expressed volumes and large
expanses of exterior glass.
Roof: Simple hips and gables. Typical 4:12 pitch with substantial
eave overhangs. Roof of shingle, shake or flat tile.
Materials: Horizontal wood siding or stucco with occasional use of
masonry entry features.
Elements:
openmgs.
Bay and corner \\rindows, pillars, pop-outs and recessed
Exposed beams and an emphasis on covered entrie~
~,r:: e0 z z, ~_.
:,-~ eEl V E D
K\- y-s-..... 03 D
AUG. 1 0 1995
~ ewwu
'" IIN PLANNII\.'
~~: . ,'..'
'... ~ f1,... fr
c ;,;w ~
,~wifJ 'if
_ = .3,.?,_ ';- l ( l~.
Page 1lI-6
Dubhn Ranch Design Guzdefrncs . Aupusl'; J CJ95
.
European Eclectic
. ,
..-;..~
Background
....
European Eclectic is a picturesque style derived from medieval
Norman and Tudor domestic architecture. The resulting English
and French "cottage look" became extremely poplar nationwide
after the adoption of brick and stone veneering techniques in the
1920's.
Characteristics
Form: One and two story asymmetric forms typically with a
lowered roof plate on the second story combined with dormer
windows.
Roof: Steep 6 to 8:12 roofs with minimum overhangs. The
English version typically has a dominate front facing cross gable
while the French derivative is usually hipped with occasional use
of a tower element. Curved roof lines are also found.
Materials: Brick and stone veneers, half timbers and some stucco
or plaster. Frequent mixing of materials.
Page Ill-I ~':.. .' '/"-"". k ~""\t.j
J J ',' f1~.~ ik~j~l.%,J \l
Elements: Massive chimneys and tall, narrow multi-light
windows in multiple groupings. Bay windows, shutters and
dormer windows are widely used. e-x. f\ PU}' 1,7) ~ Y2
;{~E~~~~~(\
~1~v
~ . .~! IN PLANNIl\'"
.
Dublm Ranch DeslPn Guidclmc.' . AU.f!l1sr.t. J 995
Spanish Colonial Revival
.
Background
.
Spanish Colonial Revival, also known as Spanish Eclectic is an
adaptation of Mission Revival enriched with additional Latin
American details and elements. The style attained widespread
popularity after its use in the Panama-California Exposition of
19l5.
Characteristics
Form: Simple one and two story volumes incorporating
courtyards. patios, colonnades, archways and balconies. The wall
predominates over window openings and appears massive. This
style is frequently asymmetric in form.
Page /lJ-8
Roof: Widespread use of gable and shed roofs frequently
combined with hipped wing elements. The roof is often
asymmetrically broken up into elements of different heights.
Typically with a near flush eave and rake but occasionally is found
with a 12" to l8" eave and exposed rafter ends. Barrel and S-.
roofs. /?:?<.A po) p~. c(j"
. . :d:CEIVED
f+r '15- 03b
~ lC)ty
: . ,~, !N PLANN'f\' .
,~'::l. ;';
., ....
L:;: M Ek~.' ;.;~;f! rr
",..-:ltI r-l(f
.:...-.:.:..._.....~.~...._.~.. ......~
.
.
..
Duhl1n Ranch Deslj'n GUidelInes' AUf!USI./. 1995
~.
n
...... ....
-0
f ,
Materials: Troweled plaster or stucco walls \\1th linle or no
texture, Frequent use Of\\Tought iron rails and grills.
Elements: Deep inset v.'indows \\1th irregular placement. Focal
point entry door of wood typically covered or recesses in elaborate
surrounds. Frequent use of "French" door openings into patio and
covered areas.
tt. (\ p') )) Sb
"\Zi.~ t: ~~:.t.. :~'.:.~:7}r.~~\~~/
p; ~; I I' ....',..11f~. .:"':;"~"-',;JI'.,,.. '(1
f;;:; f- ~~~ '_liLl';iL1'.
:<cCEIVEC'
f~ q-s- - 63D
~O~~
, G"l. S,.6o..J'1.,Q,1,,,
. 'I:l!1lN PtAf\~Nlr
Page Ilf-9
'" 1'" III
~ ..I,,) r.7"' ".
- . ' ."'
~ ---... '.
_:0.._ ,"
. ..., ,-
. .
Dublin Ranch Design GUldclml',< . Augur!':. J 995
Monterey
.
-J
~
........u
Background
The Monterey style is a combination of the original SPani';'(.
Colonial adobe construction methods and American East Coast
Colonial architecture. First built by Thomas Larkin in l835 at
Monterey, it introduces two story residential construction and
shingle roofs to California. The Monterey Style and its single
story counterpart eventually had a major influence on the
development of modern architecture in the 1930's.
Characteristics
Form: Simple two story masses, usually with a projecting second
story balcony of wood spanning all or most of the building width.
Roof: Wood or flat tile usually gabled but occasionally hipped.
The principle roof covers the balcony. Exposed rafter tails widely
used.
Page 111-10
Materials: Plaster or stucco with occasional wood siding on the
second story. The balcony roof and numerous details such as
shutters are of wood. (?;X.A P] 'd..'
:, t: eEl V E D
F>A. Vj~-C30
AUG 1 0 ~
n).JJ~..('n RiLn,.r.h
; "~I/N PLANN'f\" ~
. '':: c.. ,., ......., .'
/,,' "".' ",' " ,. ',. I:~'l r 'A\I" I
f-i.:" ".; f'" '.,.. ~. '..~ -i.';
r. f ....~... ;'. r; ~r~ \1
",.~~ 'v "8 ~
',",," J " ,- I ! I
_:.,'::"" . _..~, " ,t. "~'"
.
H
.
.
Dublzn Ranch Deslrn GUidelines' AU~I':. 1995
Elements: The full v.idth porch and balcony are the dominate
feature of the Monterey style,
Protected upper and lower story spaces for congregating,
observing, and relaxing. Provides a transitional indoor/outdoor
area SlUTounding the structure, shaded from the sun or protected
from rain. Upper balcony is either supponed from below v.ith
wood posts or cantilevered.
Simple wood picket balcony rails, inset "French" doors and multi-
pane windows with shuners.
Wood doors, sometimes "French", and wood double-hung
windows with an Eastern American influence, Rectangular in
shape and positioned venically. Monterey Colonial structures
supported more windows than other Spanish Colonial styles
structures. Sometimes shutters are applied.
Adjacent patios for outdoor living orientation, fireplaces, picket
fencing, and incorporation of balconies.
i""Zr-:,~ i"r~l
r. .".. '" ""."
t~ i;;1 l~.,"
Ct5~~
~. A P9 J"7% it
Page 1Il-11
,,~: Wf.,jV4/ :, t: eEl V ED
'\#~iLr li J?ti-'C15- .~B'O
'. ~~o&tJu
. :' ~ 7. ':-, (LL . 'q, IN PLANN'~' -
Dublin Ranch Desll!n GUldehnes. Auiu,sl':. 1995
Ranch Style
.
. -
Background
The Ranch Style is a "Western" style derived from an ecle..'.:.:
nllX'1Ure of Bungalow, Adobe Ranch, Rural Farm, Mediterranean
and Prairie sources.
Characteristics
Form: Low, horizontal rambling profile arranged linearly and
relating to outdoor spaces (gardens, courts, patios).
Roofs: Low pitch, hip and gable with wood shakes and sometimes
tile. Wide projecting eaves with exposed rafters and/or fascia
boards.
Materials: Plaster, wood siding (board and batten, clapboards),
and sometimes stone or masonry.
Page 1lI-12 "
Elements: Multi-paned windows in varying sizes and types,
sometimes configured in horizontal bands. French or sliding glass
doors used to open indoor to outdoor spaces (porches, verandas,
decks, etc.). '. ,.~""'.' ..... 1>x-.,;1 J~ ~3 .:' .
1,.--,. " C/"r\ I j .
fBih~ ~~?f,'~~E~~r'bCD
. "_. .-.. AUG 1_0 1~
1 ......11'j- '\ ~
o,',~ 1 ~- . O~~\.., :1 \.tl. v
· . "".... .,~ .~""'PLANN",.
.
11 .,
I 1 J It l,
II ." I ~' I
. "
.
."
Dublin Ranch Dcslgn Guidcizncs' Auplsr./ 1995
Porches and verandas serve as indoor/outdoor spaces for protection
from climatic conditions. A covered gathering area. fronting or
surrounding another outdoor gathering space (patio. courtyard,
garden, etc.). Often roofed or trellised and supported by simple
wood post and beam construction.
tx-A 7'5 2q c& 'il--
". ....... _.0:.'
. ......... ,".-..' :.....:- .,'.:: . .',
E~P .:~:
~.o; ~; fJ i.......
~ Ii t::&a
PagelIl-13
"""" "
Dublin Ranch Design GUIdelines' Auyusr 4. 1995
American Farmhouse
.
; s.~",\. _... l~,'~
. ~'~:.. ~::.l. ,:(,...
(....".. . T".....~:.~
Background
..
American Farmhouse represents a practical and picturesque
country house. Its beginnings are traced to both Colonial and Cape
Cod styles begun in New England. As the American Frontier
moved westward, the American Farmhouse style evolved
according to availability of materials and technological
advancements, such as balloon framing. A predominate feature on
all variations of the American Farmhouse is the front porch. .
Form: One and two story massing with a predominately gabled
roof. Most hip roofs occurring at the first story roof lines.
Dormers and symmetrical elevations occur most often on the New
England Farmhouse variation. The asymmetrical, casual cottage
look, with a more decorated appearance, is typical of the Midwest
American Farmhouse. Porches usually ran the length of the front
elevation.
Roofs: Predominant gable with shake/shingle or flat tile roofmg.
Roof slope is moderate with a4:12 to 6:l2 typical pitch.
Page II1-14
Materials: Board and batten, clapboard, stucco, stone and bric. .
used singularly or in combination. Stone and brick used mostly on .....,.
chimneys a:;:.~:.~rr:~~.~.r:::-~:",,--~.-t:ls.!s P5 30 6b '6 2.-
~ ',( c eEl V E D
; A1ffi (f 199r--'
UU,b[LI 1 0J I "",
.;'
g;~r. ~ t$~~V
5 fih~ ~.'~
".~ .~,~ ,-,.. f l L
.
.'
, '
.
Dublzn Ranch DeslRn Guidelznes' AuRW'':. 1995
Multi-pane 'windows v.ith shuners. Front door is usually an accent
feature with a "rustic" appearance.
Porch railing usually a vertical wood balusrrade or picket. Roof
ornamentation consists of cupolas, weathervanes and dovecotes,
ex. It f'5 31 ~ 't2--
Page 1lI-15
- ":" . ' ,(:,~':.~ ~..~..\~, j
F'::>' ;'.' .>f
L'- f:: :"" ; " ~
~, c eEl V E D
:pA-CfS- c3D
All R 1 n jqqli
~...J.X\ ~_.Ll,n..cJ"\.)
. . 'QJ 1t\J PlANNJ,..'
. , '-. YL. r."lll.
Dubltn Ranch Des/?n GUIdelines' .4U~~Sf':, 199,,~
Renaissance Revival
.
~ \\'^"
.;i.., ~~..:..... '-:''':';.' .....
_ =-o.~,~...~, ~~ \ ~~\,:' .
..-:\: ~""\:. .......
~:.:'I~~"...
...............~~...........~-.....---.--
-~---.,-... -
I~':'
-.-.-..- ~--
Background
Renaissance Revival became popular in the l890's as a dram.:'~'
contrast to the Gothic inspired Shingle or Queen Anne styles. Its
more formal and classical appearance remained popular until the
1930's. Originally developed for expensive landmark residences,
it became more widespread with the development of masonry
veneering after 1920.
Characteristics
Form: Simple vertical box like form with a strongly symmetrical
facade and shallow pitch roof. Centrally placed entry with small
classical columns or pilasters. Window design and size different
from floor to floor.
Roof: Shallow pitched roof is usually a single hip or hip with
projecting wing(s). Although this style is occasionally found with
a flat roof, it would be inappropriate at Dublin Ranch. Roof
material is typically barrel tile or slate. The roof commonly has
broad overhangs and box eaves with brackets beneath.
Materials: Invariably has stucco and/or a masonry clad exten., ,
Wood clad walls are nev.er.u. sed/;:V IL91~lJ) ~V c ~, V ED
"'" "V /\: 1\[ J D: PFt -15- OM
Pagelll-16 1~~B'i '::.' :.'..:::.r.\:,;'~~"i..' .o.uAUG J 0 1~95
.. '"1..,";' ".:,.!::".:,.,., ~~
L,..."': .' ..." . . -,....,.
-....... ,"", "'1 ~u
. . . S'~ : "11.1....' I/~ PL NN''''
.
.
.
Dublzn Ranch Dcsifn GUldclznc.~ . .'fURlJSI';, J 995
Elements: Classical details including door surrounds, corner
quoins, rusticated base. pediment windows, molded cornices and
belt courses,
[:;<It pC? "3?;> 1 yz-
Page 111-17
L''::;;:: \,"r; .:.. f,...\. I..,.,~\V~' .
t... . .. . -~ ..... :... '-':.1' -
l:.~ t'~; "_,j L:: :. .."-, ~.~T
l: tw~ -0 \",.. C-
: :Cl: eEl V E J)
-p <4- =t5- 030
AUG 1 0 1995
,f;2U.-\:X.tn ~2.xtn.c~\
",'~' 'N PLANNW
,:' I-I ~ - ,IH
DublIn Ranch DcslJ!n Guidelines' August':. 1995
ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT
.
~~~,~,,,
.~,:~..t-~...., .
;."';..;~; Jt::'- --: ,
......-
. ..":~., ..
~~~~~.".
:.:;:..: !. :~"'.
~ir'~' 00
Elevation Treatment
The following section provides guidance concerning elevations...
Major Elevations
Proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness creates a
successful project design. The differences between the plans and
elevations must be readily discernible and create variety, yet at the
same time design elements, styles and materials should not contrast
to such an extent as to result in visual chaos.
Creation of Form and Relief
Recesses and Shadow
The manner in which light strikes or frames a building is
instrumental in how that structure is perceived. The effect of
sunlight is a strong design consideration since shadow and shade
gives the building a sense of both depth and substance.
Projections, offsets, overhangs and recesses are all tools in the
creation of shadow.
~~ [Lh~
e~. It P7 3c(.-
'" , ~(t: eEl V ED. .
:PPe q5 - 0 2::()
W 1 0 1~95
"~I IN ~ANN'~~
Page 111-18
....-.: .:.~........~ .
.
.':
..
.
Duhlln Ranch Dcslgn GUldc/1ncs' AU('USI':, 1995
ArchilecrurQ/ Projeclions
Projections not only create shadow but also provide strong visual
focal points. This can be used to emphasize some aspect of the
design such as an entry or major \"lindow. It can also distract the
observer's anemion away from other elements such as the garage
or a large wall plane.
Stepping Forms
Elevations may be stepped both horizontally and venically,
Desired changes in material best occur at a step,
Entry StQtement
The entry should be designed to serve as a focal point of the
elevation and be readily discernible. The approaching observer
should be dra\\-'I1 into it by its visual impact.
Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations
Interior Conditions
There is a tendency to "build out" plans to the maximum at side
and rear conditions without articulated treatment on those wall
planes. This results in a two story stucco box, producing a canyon-
like effect without vertical or horizontal relief.
One solution is to create a single stor)' plate at the rear by recessing
the second story. Another option is to improve the articulation of
the plan forms by offsetting the garage and providing plans that do
not utilize the full lot width or depth. One should recess or project
the plan and elevation to enhance usable and accessible yard space.
It is also desirable within the limits or economic reality that front,
side and rear elevations share common materials and degrees of
articulation.
Backing onto Major Streets
The rear and sides of homes backing onto major streets are highly
visible from surrounding areas and must be treated in a similar
manner to the front elevation. This is particularly true of second
story conditions v.~sible above th~ fence line~ \'X. 3 ~ dA ~ 2--
, tx. r \ t'-~.;,:-~, t: C ~I V En
~F'0 ~ r-' ~ . :r.::n. qs - C' ~O
.. ~'~.; -~ ?_l." .~-:.~ 1::;) r~'b:1 \ T\ 0
Page 1I1-19
", ; ~LI~'-' i:, .~. '.'!,-:<J
L'l C-j~~.. ....../..I ~)t~
f..f ~.~ ~ .
~ .4 [_ ':,- ht",~
-" ~.i:;;;_ "._..
Dublin Ranch Dcsl?n GUldC!!mcs . Aupusl.J. J 995
American Farm Example
California Craftsman!
Bungalow Example
.
Roof Considerations
Allowable Roof Pitch
The principle roof forms shall have a pitch of be!\\'een 3 1/2: l2 and
6: 12 depending upon dwelling style and character. A single roof
pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches
tend to lessen the apparent building mass.
Roof Types
The use of different roof types will add variety and interest to the
street scene. Changing the roof form on a given plan is the best
method of creating alternative elevations. However, the roof
characteristics should be consistent with whatever historical style
might be chosen.
Acceptable Roof Types
.'"
There is no single type or form of roof that is preferred. Hip, gable
and sheds may within reason be used separately or together on the
same roof. Care should be taken to avoid a canyon effect in side
and rear yard when both buildings have front to rear gables.
Likewise repetitious gable ends along rear elevations should be
avoided. Roof forms with pitch changes at a porch or projection
are acceptable.
Inappropriate Roof Types
Roof forms having dual pitches such as Gambrel or Mansard
should not be used. Flat roofs are not permitted.
Design of Rakes and Eaves
The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types
based on climatic and stylistic considerations. Moderate or
extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. Tight
fascias with ap?rop~~~~..~~17~: ~~,~~.~~Rta!?~ k 2/ _ .':
,-.,'--- vt;'t r \ p5 JIld.
Fil~ ~~~V ; ::i:~~~~~CJ
AIIG 1 n 1~95
JU"lb8n ~u
, ...., TN PLANNlf"
Page IlI-2D
,:~ .l{~ _ r ': J it
.
..,
.
Dublin Ranch DesIgn Guidelines' AU?US1 4. 1995
-,
Single fascia boards, double fascia boards, or exposed rafters when
adequately scaled are acceptable, Care should be taken to ensure
material sizes avoid a weak or flimsy appearance, Exposed rafter
tails without fascias should be at least 3x,
Overhang Projections and Covered Porches
Substantial overhangs are encouraged as a response to solar and
climatic conditions. The inclusion of covered porches and entries
expand sheltered living spaces, create entry statements and provide
elevation relief. Covered porches may differ from the roof in both
pitch and material but front porches should retain at least one of
these two characteristics.
Stepping the Roof Form
Steps in the roof respond to the interior room arrangement and
provide visual relief and interest. A vertical step ",rithin the ridge
line should be at least l8" in order to create visual impact and
allow for adequate weatherproof mg.
Solar Panels
Solar panels should be parallel to the roof slope and integrated into
the roof design. The frames should match either the roof or fascia
color. The plumbing should not be exposed and the equipment
must be enclosed and screened from view.
e-f. A ?C) 7;1Cf; '6
Page 111-21
'.~~~ to; . .l.
t,~ r"; "~ ..
.. ,
.o:CEIVED
. f'ft- q:5 - 6-'30
G 1 0 1995
J~\;J.C.J:f\ ull'\..d\J
.~, ,'... P!ANN""
L'.~::' .~?, ',~ ,\ \1-.
Dublin Ranch DcsIJ:n GUldellncs . AU~SI';, J 99:'
1\1 A TERlALS A.1"\D COLORS
e
The materials and colors used at Dublin Ranch should reflect a
general theme of environmental harmony \\;th the surrounding
community, topography and elements. The preferred styles at
Dublin Ranch will contribute to achieving this goal.
The historic materials and colors used for the CraftsmanlBungalow
style demonstrates the concept of a building's organic growth from
its site. The use of natural or natural appearing materials and
colors reflecting the local environment, such as earth tones is
desirable.
Architectural styles of European Eclectic, Spanish Colonial,
Monterey, Ranch Style and American Fannhouse share a
"common sense" characteristic. Their historic predecessors were
built from materials of the local area. It is preferred that a general
reference to indigenous materials and colors be used at Dublin
Ranch. The use of elements such as red clay tile, white washed
plaster, half timbering and wrought iron will provide variety and
contrast. New interpretations of these classic combinations of '.
materials and inherent colors are encouraged as they relate te/:.
general feeling of environmental unity. .
Artificial colors not reflected in the environment should be avoided
(such as mauve and coral). Greens may be botanically inspired
including blue greens and greens with earthy influences like olive,
moss green and sage. Examples of blues would be cornflower,
indigo and slate. Spice tones should influence the warm colors
used with the inclusion of russet, cinnabar and ochre.
A variety of natural materials and earth based colors will provide
the diversity needed for visual interest while unifying the buildings
with their settings and creating a timeless appeal.
Knowledgeable experts anticipate color for the mid-to-Iate nineties
to reflect this environmental trend as consumers' awareness rises.
With the approach of a new century, the tendency has been to hold
on to past traditions before moving ahead. The use of traditional
materials and colors will lead to new visual interpretations.
The material and color guidelines set forth are not intended to be a
restricti:,e framewo~k in which ~o desi~n. They are ~e~t to be t'" "
foundatIOn and basIS from which uruque and creatr~~,)deas m~.'
grow. ~. A f1 ~pj~tt~IVEI)
':';1):.':. 'f ,'., .. fJ+ ~-5-03b
PageIIl-22 frfiH i;:),. t~~W AUG 1, U J995
a ~ II:t} . J ..:;. " .UJJ~"l K.4J1.1:JU
',' ...: .(,!:, ~;'; J\L~ ,'1:1111\1 PLANN''''
.
.
e"
'-.\
.." ~' '-
.;; .., \:~'\.,
:Y '- ,"
-, :: ..;' ~ i ~I
"~d .-i. ,;7~?
" -:('\,1 '-" '~,- :'l.JJ1~~
I~, 'x" "
\1 ~ I I -
!,--,~~
----= 0 ~X~~?1.-o I I ' ,
.0f) ,
\\ .. , .
~- \ ,~\~,
. \
"~
Dublin Ranch Dt:sign Guidelines . Augus/4, 1995
LA1\T})SCAPE AAT}) OPEN SPACE
ENTRIES
A hierarchy of elements, designed to be subtle and blend with the
natural beauty of the site, have been established for community and
neighborhood entries to ensure that a cohesive "upscale rural" theme is
maintained throughout Dublin Ranch. The uniform use of forms and
materials will impart visual images of the community.
Community entries announce a clear sense of arrival and set the stage
for Dublin Ranch. Although community entries shall be more detailed
than neighborhood entries all entries shall be designed to portray a
consistent community image.
Refer to the section titled "Pilasters, Walls and Fences" for additional
detailed information.
Community Entries
Both community entries on Tassajara Road will be similar in form.
Symmetrical low stone walls will meander through the landscape
visually drawing the motorist and pedestrian into the community.
Pedestrians will pass through a gateway of stone and stucco pilasters
which each contain the community logo. Enhanced street paving and
a low profile monument sign wall located within the median will identify
ones arrival to Dublin Ranch. At the southernmost community entry,
considered to be the primary project entry, a low cascading water
element will occur with water spilling over a stone weir.
The entry on the Fallon Road extension, to be built in a later phase, will
be unique to the community since it crosses an intennittent stream
corridor. A low profile monument sign wall within the median and
enhanced street paving will be identical to the Tassajara Road entries.
Stone and stucco pilasters and a rail fence will serve as the vehicular
and pedestrian gateway.
[x.1t p131JD?;2-
. ";".,.. f' 0,
~-7f., ...1.
~ ~' ii.. i;., .
~ E~!m
, J. ~ i ~"'\' ..
fe,,,., 't!
. .1)'; i~~ '~'
.n: eEl V E Q
-7A- <:.15- 066
AUG 1 0, 1~~5
'JU-010-n ~
'')/ ,~" PLANN'''' U
Page lV-I
L'~;"~ ~.!,. ' ,~~.[ if.."
.
.:
.,:'
, .,
'h~~\~
\.~~'~~ .~ jU
~i .; ~ ....
Dublin Rmtch Dcsi?" Gujddims . AUflUS/4, 1995
Landscape Treatment
Rolling la'WIlS shall be placed to accentuate the low stone walls at the
Tassajara Road entries, Beyond the low stone walls flowering accent
trees shall provide a foreground for a dense row of evergreen trees,
:Masses of shrubs and ground covers of varying heights shall be planted
to create a layering effect. Evergreen vines shall be planted adjacent to
the community wall to soften its visual appearance,
Plant materials at the Fallon Road extension entry shall be similar to the
Tassajara Road entries while introducing riparian species compatible
with the intermittent stream corridor~
Planting within the median shall consist of low shrubs, perennials and
groundcover with evergreen trees identical to those planted at the
community entry.
STONE Pll.ASTER
- NEIGHBORHOOD PLAQUE
ON PILASTER
RAIL FENCE I:!.RAIL)
MEDLo\1\' TREE
STREET TREES
(DOUBLE ROW)
SIDEWALK
E1'. 'TRY PILASTER WITH
DUBLIN RANCH LOGO
PLAQUE
STOl'-o'E PILASTER
GUARDRAIL
~x. k pCJ t/}S6 6-V
Page IV-4
~ECEIVEO
.:?.t?r q5- C30 Community Entry at Fallon Road
,^.lJG 1,,0 ~
l2w::J0S\' . \.Clu
- ~1SLlN PLANNING
" .rol -,-II L.
Dublin Rnnch Daif(TI Guiddina . AIJ~ 4,1995
r-l
.....
.;:::;:=o~
--~ $'
....A / ~ .-r?: '
~ '-" 5!.~ 0;:; ~ -,::>.'
p ~ -.oP2: r:~ ~
~ .~~~ -" ""\L~
~Af1 ...;B . ~-;- " :....... I. \'< l?-
~'7 . I~~r ...-:=~. I 'r..::,.
""* .:;J; -~> /" A'-.
I~ I . [>-0/'1
<"t? I .
~ 1: \
. !\lEDIA!' TREE
.
SHRl'B A]'\D GROL~DCOVER PLA~TJNG \\'ITH Al'.'}:l:AL COLOR ACCE~TS
STO:\E PILASTER
\\'ITH PRECAST CAP -.-.-"
"- STUCCO INSET
I
I STONE VENEER
I
COI\I\ll ":\ITY IDE:-\TIFlCA TIO:-\
:::--
r: -'8 ~.,
. 'f""-,',.,l;-.
../,-.r- -'"'C4r..-,
.,...11 ,r. -. .
Monument Sign Wall
Paving Materials
Concrete interlocking pavers shall be required at the community entries
to provide an acoustical, tactile and visual sense of arrival. This wi1l
encourage the motorist to slow down and acknowledge the comm4 . .
atmosphere. .' . .
Pilasters, Walls and Fences
Low stone 'Walls shall meander through the community entries, bisecting
stone and stucco pilasters at the pedestrian gateway. As a backdrop,
the community wall with stone and stucco pilasters shall be placed
behind the entry at the property line of neighboring houses. Accent
walls shall be placed perpendicular to the community wall and tie into
the gateway pilaster. Beyond the pedestrian gateway, running parallel
with the residential collector street, a rail fence reflecting the "upscale
rural" theme shall be placed within the parkway.
Signage
A low profile stone and stucco monument sign wall identifYing Dublin
Ranch shall be located within the median. Letters shall be attached to
the stucco silhouette surrounded by a random stone pattern.
Incorporated into designated gateway stone and stucco pilasters.
prominent locations are ornamental plaques incorporating the Dub
Ranch logo. ~ A f~ .1?J SA z: z-
t/^ · .& E \. E IV E
,~" , ., . .. :f'A' -)-
Page JV.5 g:: f ~ ~ ~ VI" ~g~. 1 D 1995
'-"'--'-II ~
. "'~' _r3-,ilL..~" CUSUN PLANN'~.!-
.
.,'
.'
Dublin Ranch Duipt GuUidme.$ . AU[l1Lf/'( 1995
Single-Family Neighborhood Entries
Neighborhood entries for single-family homes repeat key elements
from the conununity entries such as the rail fence. Terminating the rail ' ,
fence on each side of the entry will be a principal stone and stucco
pilasters \\lith the neighborhood and Dublin Ranch logos. The pilasters
will act as a neighborhood gateway for pedestrians and motorists.
Landscape Treatment
To maintain a continuous visual image of the shaded collector street,
the designated street tree shall be carried through to the neighborhood
entries. Trees beyond the entry, along the residential streets, shall
consist of the designated street tree for that particular neighborhood,
Accent planting shall be in the form of shrubs, perennials, annuals,
ground cover and evergreen flowering vines. Planting shall provide
clear visibility for motorist and pedestrians.
Pilasters, WalIs and F em:es
As dictated by front, rear or side loaded homes adjacent to the collector
street, the community wall shall be placed 5' behind the back of the
walk to define the neighborhood entry. Terminating the community
wall shall be a stone and stucco pilaster which transitions to a rail fence.
At the terminus of the rail fence, a stone and stucco pilaster \\lith an
ornamental plaque will identify each neighborhood.
STONE AND STUCCO P.llJ.STER
'if;~~ COLLECTORSlltEETlllEE . ~ ~
~~ii [RESIDEN11ALSTllEITlllEE ;~~r 't'~-;r:JSo
~:"?~~'- ~ . ~ .-
,II!::". ",/_~~:...~"I'~..... .;......:-:.~..~~_-::; ..;,g~"'ik';. o. "lito."
.'-:-<:J-:- :.;:~. . ~~"?' :..~ .:;:~.:;,~ r~)'.;. =-... .,:-;-rc~ ~': ~ . c ~ ".~
.._~ ..~~ "'.....~; ~....''''1...:'..:::JJ..Vr,'\-t f";':' 4_'" ~~ ~ ~ ~ AT" . c....~
"""":; . r-; ~ K"'" ,,:-;;;,..,.-;" """, ,;;";;~ < -"'4.': "11"'''''''&
E~"""""'~~~'""'_:;~:.':""~.i'~ .,,"~ "'-"b."'"/PV"':~ "'- ""..?>J:~ :r,~
'~"::;':':'''''~.~-:;';'~':,,'::;''.r~~':;,-o~ .:~~ ~'::-~~ ..,.' - ~.<S':" . ~'-,~::.
~~~r:."'~~~ .-:.~ ;=~'" .~;,,~~_h' ~~: /;7"". . "~_ '~~~~
~'~~~~' ~'~'~:q~~;.~: PIL'.STER\\lTHDUBLNRAl'CHLOGOPUoOUE '.=':'~. ~ r i" -::-'-.,>'...... ~- ?f!::
~~".(~=.Y .:.; _ _ I
. ~ - "' ~ . . ~ F=" : , -" .
" -~.::., J-',J '.' .~..c=z... ,..--:-. ~ l ----':~.f:-
." j;" ,. .. " ~ ~ "os.. "':; ~ - :::::.J -
~. .,"';"'.~, ~;;" ,~.;,. I' ~~no"""'''_
. WALK LANE USE LA.'IE LANE WALK
~ r.
46' R.O, \\" . SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLAh"TlNG
I L-- RAIL FENCE l3"lWL)
bJ A L- PILASTER \\'ITH NElGHBORHOOD
~". ptj L/fj c3~~UE
P. ~ eEl V E D Smgle Family Entry
~'~5 ---<96 \::)
AUG 1. 0 1995 II
QvxX....c('\ ~i (\..r\.C ArJ ' .. ".:' ,t':L ~;~ t."...
It,ll'" ~
Poge IV-6 .
~ . . - ,,t. ~j"~\i
~;~ lL~,. ....: ~;r
~tlb.iA~
!IT''
Dublin Raru:h Dt:.sif.!" Guidt:!incs " AU'?=J.f, 15195
Signage
.
Identification of each neighborhood shall consist of an ornamental
plaque on the stone and stucco pilaster terminating the rail fence'
located on the right side of the entry. The plaque may contain either the
neighborhood name or logo. The stone and stucco pilaster located on
the left side of the entry shall display the Dublin Ranch logo.
Medium Density Neighborhood Entries
Entries for medium density neighborhoods will reflect similar design
elements of the community entries, such as the community wall, stone
and stucco pilasters and enhanced paving. The location of multiple
stone and stucco pilasters have been designed with flexibility in mind to
allow the option of providing a gated neighborhood. A stone and
stucco pilaster to be placed in a cemer median of the entry is capable of
integrating a vehicular gate along with pedestrian gates for controlled
access.
Landscape Treatment
.....
Flowering accent trees shall be placed within the parkway with a
ground plane of shrubs, perennials, annuals and groundcover.
Evergreen flowering vines shall be provided to aid in softening the
community wall. Planting within the median shall consist of perennials,
annuals and low ground cover.
- PERLS:-.IWANNVAl. COLOR
OPTIUI-oAl. PILASTER
, 4'
, W AI.X
3' :
"
, <:"'r;o s' ''";. ~~ PEDESTRIA"I GATEWA Y ~'::~""i'7:ri~.
~:-'-"".J ~~:~ --'" .~.
,~'k.,~'~~~~'k~-: f~~";.g ~;.,~ ";
~~'ro '_'" ~. ~-"("l;:
~'!-'-...'.v"" '., ,.~~ ,...;~ '~,,_ ~':'-i:.'
~~" ,~y_ 4,."::,;" ~ ~~.~ "'~ ~
~).~"'''''1.:-'9.rj~~(''''::4'' ~ ~-? ~-~~-:...~~
,-,.IL'i.. ~r~. i:.~"',,'~."'~---~ ~:::...~-~;::~~<....
t~-~,.l....~. o. Of ..,.it~-~. _ :.,.?r \
. "'_'_," ~y ~r. "'-:... ....~: - ~ . .... c.-.. . ...
.,~ ~'-. . " ~..",. ";:' -, '~r. .--.::",., ,,':It"', '" ~.
~ ,<' :-.......... - ::"to. <<- . _:i..~,~~~ 1
,'.- ~1' ,.:;.:~. :;-~~-d.~
-= ~ -"'~'. " ...,.... . ' ,.. -..;.---- ~
~ ., ' z:r=.c- ,- . ~
ri~ . .:' ~"t.:"", ,,"~
J2" S' 12" : /3' 4' LACCENTWAlL J
1l\AFFlC MEDIAN 1l\AFFlC . W Al.K COMMUNITY WAlL WlTIl
LANE LANE EVERGREEN FLOWERJNG VINES
I' NElGHBORHOOD 1DEN1lFl.~"'"
43' R.O,W.ATEJo."TRY .
. EN1lt Y PII.Jo.STER WInl DUll '
LOGO PLAQUE
~. A p'J ~s ~kllE.&fPyEntry
fK"'\"':>- U6U
AUG 1 0 1995
t2L0;)Q,J..~~ .QmV.JD
r:'9!.lN PLANNINC;
I' ....."',.. ,'.. ,
:, ".. :'~' 'f.,., r.~r" .
~" E f!..l;i ~~~ t. el/
-''..,.. ., "qL"
PageIV-7
Dub/in R=h DesiR" Guiddincs . Au~I~, 1995
.
Paving Materials
Enhanced paving in the form of concrete interlocking pavers, identical
in shape and color to those used at the community entries, shall be .
placed within the medium density neighborhood entries. Interlocking
pavers shall define the crosswalk area and a reasonable dimension
beyond the intersection curb return.
Pilasters, Walls and Fences
The community wall shall be placed adjacent to the medium density
entry road and ternnn:rre with stone and stucco pilasters. Freestanding
stone and stucco pilasters shall be placed within the pad..~ay and
median and align with those at the community wall. The pilasters
within the park.~ay shall contain an ornamental plaque with the
neighborhood logo while the median pilaster shall contain the Dublin
Ranch logo. \Vhere space allows, accent walls shall be placed between
the community theme wall and the stone and stucco pilaster at the back
of the walk.
.
Signage
Identification of each neighborhood shall consist of a ornamental
oblong plaque to be placed on the right accent wall. In the case where
an accent wall is not feasible, the neighborhood identification sign shall
still be placed on the right side of the entry closest to the collector road
and consist of an ornamental plaque on the freestanding stone and
stucco pilasters within the parkway. Each builder shall select their own
typeface with a height not to exceed 6".
.
ex,(t r5 ~'0 g i~
PageIV-8
i "'",....: 'I. .t_'~-U
f~~~ J(ir\~
~ ,,-,: .,-
~" f: '" E , V E D
?A- 06-030
r\'\~U G 1 D 1995
'~,b.e)..r\) ();,
, -, 'H I r 1(Jj,j 1..tJ1.)
, .......J PLANNING
':"S:~_ '.1f{
Dublin Ranch Desi[m Guidtdines . AUflUS1.(. 1995
VEHICULAR CIRCULA nON
.
A hierarchy of streets comprise a cohesive circulation system to carry
motorists into and through Dublin Ranch while creating a pleasant.
community character. Streets, including pedestrian walks, provide a
favorable atmosphere for recreation pursuits and efficient travel
throughout the community.
Arterial streets define the edges of the community, while residential
collectors serve as the prominent parkway linking together
neighborhoods. Residential streets are designed to be more intimate in
scale and create a sense of neighborhood identity. Consistency in
community walls, fencing, site furnishings and plant materials used
throughout the right-of-ways will provide a cohesive and unifYing
character.
Arterial Streets
Both Tassajara Road and the Fallon Road extension provide
O?portunities for ~temative typ~s of travel su~h as pub~c tr~..
bICYcles and pedestnans. Commuruty walls and rail fences will pro...,-:.,
definition between housing and arterial streets. A meandering wa1K.,,"..
separated from the street, will provide for a safer pedestrian
environment. Masses of planting within a landscaped park.-way shall be
designed for viewing at a higher rate of speed, while the use of
flowering plants will provide visual interest for the pedestrian.
Dimensions
Tassajara Road shall be a four lane (future six lane) arterial road with
a 142' right-of-way and includes a 38' (future 14') median. The
landscaped parkway adjacent to Dublin Ranch is 30' wide which
includes a 10' landscape setback. Finish grade between the curb and
community wall shall be contoured to minimize the height of the sound
barrier. A meandering 5' walk shall gently undulate to provide a
comfortable walking experience. For pedestrian safety the walk shall
return to the curb at all intersections with aCCessIble curb ramps for ease
in crossing. An 8' wide bicycle lane shall be included as part of the
roadway design.
Ex- A ptjL('7.::~
Page lV-9
'\.tfW
~i~~ ~tJtl
~ECEIVEO
~ftqs-020
U lJ . I u 1995
S)ul:&.lCl Q[u'U::,hJ
r ~~~gl!N PLANNW .
., .' t:' 7 ,..IN
.
.'.,..
, .
.'
, ' ,
-'
~'
-
~
~
~.
'""", ""!"
MEDlA~ .
BY OTHERS~
(
I:"
TRAFFIC'
LANE
STREET TREES
~
~..'.....-:.
,. -
J~'
TR"FFIC'
LANE
Dublin Ronch Daifm Guidelines . Au~.(. 1995
The Fallon Road extension shall be a four lane (future six lane) arterial
road with a l22' right-of-way and includes a 38' (future 14') median, "
The landscaped parkway adjacent to Fallon Road is 10' wide which
includes a lO' landscape setback. An 8' wide bicycle lane shall be
included as part of the roadway design.
Landscape Treatment
The Tassajara Road parkway shall be densely landscaped with
deciduous and evergreen trees, This will provide a buffer adjacent to
residential development as well as providing an attractive environment
for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. Deciduous street trees and
evergreen accent trees along with a variety of plant materials of varying
heights will create a layering effect. Drifts 'of shrubs and groundcover
should be repeated in elongated patterns over large areas for viewing
at a higher travel speed. Deciduous and flowering evergreen vines shall
be planted adjacent to the community wall (sound barrier) to soften its
visual appearance and minimize graffiti. Finish grades of the parkway
will vaxy due to sculptured contours to miirimize the height of the sound
barrier.
The Fallon Road extension, to be built in a later phase, is designed to
be more rural in character and shall utilize similar plant materials as
Tassajara Road with the inclusion of riparian species. The density of
planting shall be reduced to transition to the intermittent stream
corridor landscape. Deciduous street trees and evergreen accent trees,
along with native shrubs and ground covers shall be planted within the
parkway. Deciduous and flowering evergreen vines shall be planted
adjacent to the community wall.
..: :-''':1 :<:. ~';':b.'~''''';;r",
_:~. -. :"~~ ~ ~
,}; ~ "," , - ~-:~~:.;~ -, ~~,
......' . ,~"~,.~,,.,~;..u
-, :-..;,,' -~ :. ': ...~29jt>
.," .'~..Y'~~';'
...... !,,/'~.' '_'~ "1~~:"Ii"""(''';
-, .' .... ',. ,-;. :"-11
' '. " , /f..., 'l.J
;1 -' ,_~';_~_j
i. '"'
ACCENT TREES
C;OMMUNITY W Al.l. (SOUND BARRIER'
pu.l>'TEf) "'ITll DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN
FLOWERING VINES
SIIRUBS AND GROUNOC;OVRRS
: r I
: R1C'YCJ.E I
. LAJo.:E !
,. j
\l...~u.: :
-----
I 10' I MEDIUM
j LASDSCAPE! DENSITY
I SETBAC!; I RE_~IDf.NTIAL
ex. A f'7 ~g ~ (1-
20' PAR!; '" A Y
I~:!' R.nv.'
Page IV-10 -\ - -,,' '. O' t~Y
trot'-: ~. l, , . ').J'
r~~~ 'J jt.
Arterial Streit a ~~aYail:Road
+>R '-: ~ c:Y::.-
h _ r~~~
_, s--. ,> ',.'3~rr" PLANNI~':::;
Dublin Rench Daign Guiddin~ . A~rusl.(, 1995
Pilasters, Walls and F e~es
.
The Tassajara Road streetscape shall be characterized by alternating the
community wall with the rail fence. The rail fence shall be placed
where there is an adjacent frontage road which runs parallel to
Tassajara Road in the medium density neighborhoods. This parallel
private residential street allows Tassajara Road to maintain an open
feeling. The community wall ( sound barrier) of varying heights shall
be placed adjacent to residential lots which side or back onto Tassajara
Road. Where possible, grading shall be contoured to minimize the
height of the barrier. The incorporation of stone and stucco pilasters
as accents for the community wall (sound barrier) and stone pilasters
for the rail fence shall provide visual interest and continuity while
reflecting the character of the community.
Adjacent to areas where the rail fence is located within the Tassajara
Road parkway side yard fencing between homes shall be designed for
sound attenuation. Fencing which meets the criteria for sound barriers
shall be designed to reflect the character of the community and
neighborhood.
Due to the alignment of the intermittent stream corridor adjacent .~:'.:::,
Fallon Road extension, a more open feeling can be achieved wi ;' :'
placernent of the rail fence. The fence shall be placed at the top of the
stream bank at the 10' parkway limit. The community wall shall
separate lots that back onto the intermittent stream corridor contiguous
to the Fallon Road extension. The community wall (sound barrier) shall
be placed at the rear property line oflots which back onto the Fallon
Road extension.
JRAIL fENCE (3-RA'I) STONE AND STUCCO
PILASTER
rJ COMMlJNITY WALL
1~1
, : '.
I~J
~
.....
/3x.1+,.,
Page IV-II
Community WalL' Rail Fence~~t16i 0
"'f:5-C?
...:;;i-; i'.: /., . >:U'p' y 1\ ~Up .1 0 1995
~ L.; i:' ~:. '. ~.ul K6uLt'-h
. f5 ~,~, ='rr1ii:<4 ~: '~t'N P!.ANNI~'
.
."
.,-:,
, ,
r I 6' I lIT
'ffiEE P!.Ah'TING! W Al.K PARK ViA Y
EASEMENT STRIP
D/1.blin Ranch Dc,if!n G/1.idclinc< . Auru</4 1995 . Rev, Novcmbcr 1005
Residential Collectors
To create a pedestrian friendly environment and sense of community,
the collector street shall have an expanded right-of-way to continue
the double row of shade trees planted on both sides of the walk which
begins at the community entries. This allows the walk to act as a safe
domain by minimizing the interaction of pedestrian and motorist.
Dimensions
The collector street shall be a two lane roadway with a 72' right-of-
way which includes a l6' landscaped parkway on both sides. An 8'
tree planting easement shall be established for the planting and
maintenance of the row of street trees behind the walk. Parking will
be allowed on both sides of the street. Pedestrian circulation will be
accommodated by a 6' walk separated by a 10' parkway,
Where there is a designated class II bicycle route bike lane, two
exceptions occur within the typical collector street section, The first
exception prohibits vehicular parking in instances where lots side or
back onto the loop collector or no residential lots are located adjacent
to the collector street. This creates an 8' wide bike lane, but permits
emergency parking for automobiles so as not to block through traffic.
The second exception occurs where lots front onto the loop collector
street. In this instance, the walk will be separated by a 5' parkway.
This will permit an 8' parking lane at the curb, a 5' bike lane and then
the 12' traffic lane. A dou ble row of street trees shall still be
provided.
STREET TREES (DOUBL.E ROW)
GROUNOCOVER
PAR~ING I
LANE
12'
TRAme
LANE
12'
TRAFFIC
lANE
72' R.O,W,
Page [V,,12
" lIT
PARKING PARKWAY
lANE STRIP
6' -;:-- U.NDSc;.r.PE BY HOMEOWNER
Vi Al.K 'ffiEE P!.Ah"TING
EAS
Typical Residential Collector
ex. A ~ f;/) f6 tL
RECEIVEr;
nit q5 o~
r t\jV 1 5 1995 .
(,.~ ',,, It{, [~BLI~~~~J ();
Dublin Ronch Dc<irn G/lidcline< . !\uru<14 1095 . Rev, Novcmbe~ 1995
FRONT
LOADING LOT
CONDmON
I l' 6' I 5' I l' I 5'
TR.EE PLAl>'TING WAIJ: PAR"WA y"AR"ING BIKE
EASEMEhT S11\1P I.ANF. LANE
12'
TRAFfIC
LANE
12'
TRAFfIC'
tANt:
Landscape Treatment
Gr
r
BllCE
L.ANE
10'
PARKWAY
STRIP
LOT BACKING OR SIDING
ONTO COllECTOR; OPEN
SPACE OR RECREATION
FACIL.lTY CONDITIOI'
Residential Collector Exceptions
The predominate feature of the residential collectors shall be the
double row of deciduous shade trees to create a canopy effect for
pedestrians and motorists. Only one species of tree shall be allowed
to clearly and consistently define the collectors. A low groundcover
of a single species shall be planted within the parkway. The "second"
row of trees shall be planted 5' from the edge of the walk within the
tree planting/landscape easement unless a community wall or rail
fence occurs, then the trees shall be planted between the two.
Shrubs and groundcovers shall be planted where a community Wale. .
or rail fence runs parallel to the walk or trail. Flowering deciduous ' ,
vines shall be planted adjacent to the community wall. Planting along
the rail fence should be predominately indigenous species when
transitioning into the open spaces or intermittent stream corridors.
El
Paving Materials
Concrete interlocking pavers shall be placed within the crosswalk area
at the intersection of the two residential collectors adjacent to the
neighborhood park. The use of enhanced street paving will provide
an acoustical, tactile and visual sense of arrival at the central core of
the community.
Pilasters, Walls and Fences
Where enclosure or definition of rear or side loaded lots are proposed
adjacent to the collector street, the community wall shall be placed 5'
behind the walk within a landscape easement to allow for planting.
To maintain and open vistas, a rail fence shall be placed 5' behind the
walk when adjacent to open space or intermittent stream corridors.
Stone and stucco pilasters shall be incorporated into the community
wall and stone pilasters with the rail fence to provide design
continuity throughout the community. C I 0 r;~ .,
~.A pjvJ 00 !~CEI'::~~()
- ~ crf1995
~" (/1 fMbu ~~~~W("
Page lV-J3
Dublin Ranch uesign Guidelines . Augusl 4, 1995
.
Residential Streets
Residential streets are pedestrian oriented and accommodate a lighter
volume of traffic. They have a strong influence on the character of
the neighborhood. Street trees shall act as the primary landscape
element affording each neighborhood the beauty and seasonal
character of a tree lined srreet.
Dimensions
The residential street shall be a two lane road with a 46' right-of-way
(36' curb to curb width) and includes a 5' monolithic sidewalk on
both sides of the street. Cul-de-sacs on residential streets of less than
600' length shall have a 44' right-of-way (34' curb to curb width) and
include a 5' monolithic sidewalk: on both sides of the street. The
right-of-way accommodates parallel parking on either side of the
street. An 8' tree planting easement shall be established f9r the
planting and maintenance of street trees behind the waik.
Landscape Treatment
.'.,
"
Each neighborhood shall create its own identity through the use of
one species of street tree per neighborhood which shall not to be
identical to any other neighborhood within the community. Through
the use of a single species per neighborhood, a grove effect will be
achieved. Each lot shall be required to have a minimum of one street
tree with three trees per corner lot. Street trees are to be planted 5'
behind the sidewalk on private property within the tree planting
easement.
STREET TREE
. ~-t'~:"j.:y: . ~ .
"~3:. -,.. ';..
~~,-:;jr:::~' ""~:;. ~
,~'~""''':-' ,..,c~)'f ~
'<'.~~~-~'-".. ~~~.;ti>
'J'9"7..~::":'~ ,~;-:;:~~~. .. ."
~~~~'~';..: ~"("':.~~'" ,
____ ~ ., -- ~Y9;. J-'C
","(;,~-",<.( -:... ~'" . ~
"".;--::,-;~,,:, :-:~.. .
. - '0', ~t"';~.~.... 1.-.......
-~;:.~+~~~. ~ .". .
I r I S' 7
11l.EE PI.AN11NG SIDE PARKING
EASEMENT WALK LANE
II'
TRAFFIC
LANE
II'
TRAFFIC
LANE
7
PARKING
LANE
S' , g' l~lANDSCAPEBYHOMEOWNER
SIDE 11l.EE PLANTING
WALK EASEMENT
.
46' R,Q,W.
, ,:';h', '-: (, :, \' ;1U
~w.~ ';~~'i'.
Page N-N
]ECEfVED
?kQs-03U
AUG 1 0 1QQ,
\J\..U.QL\ (\ Q;o.J1.t.Jv
' , ':'!IN PLANNIN ~
!;x.1r fJJ 5)- ~.1'2-
Residential Street
, '.',~ ,f ,-::_ ~::: IJ/~:
Dublin Ranch Desipn Guidelines . AUf'us14 /995 Rev, Januarv 7996
Pilasters, Walls and Fences .
All fencing visible from any residential street shall be a good
neighbor fence with an open lattice top.
Cul-de-sac Connections
Residential streets terminating in cul-de-sac's should be designed to
provide visual access to the natural open space. To define the open
space from residential lots a rail fence shall be tied into sideyard
fencing. 'The rail fence shall De placed on the property line and
continue out towards the street and terminating in a stone pilaster to
allow access into the open space. Removable bollards shall be placed
at the back of the sidewalk at the opening in the rail fence to control
motorized maintenance and emergency access into the open space.
Native or indigenous planting materials shall provide transitional
landscaping into the natural open space.
Private Residential Streets -Medium Density Neighborhood
Private residential streets are designed to serve the residents of
medium density neighborhood and should be more intimate in scale. .'..
Dimensions
The private residential streets shall have a 32' curb to curb dimension
with two travel lanes and a parking lane on one side only. A 4'
monolithic sidewalk will be constructed on one side of the street.
Courtyard driveways will have a 20' curb to curb dimension and will
not include a sidewalk and parking lane.
One additional option may include a 36' curb to curb width with
parking on both sides of the street and a 4' monolithic sidewalk
constructed on one side of the street
Landscape Treatment
Street trees shall act as the primary landscape element within each
medium density neighborhood. Through the use of a single species,
a grove effect similar to a planted orchard shall be achieved
supporting the character of the community. One street tree per lot
shall be required. Of the total trees, these may be placed throughout
the neighborhood where space allows.
I?X.A ~. S-3 r6 J'.
Page lV-i5
J:',...,~ 1 r.r-~; (
i rlt.2L ___ vr ..zI..
Dublin Ranch IX.si~ Gwiddines . A,,/l'Ul..(, 1995
.
the character of the community. One street tree per lot shall be
required. Of the total trees, these may be placed throughout the
neighborhood where space allows.
Pilasters, WaIls and Fences
Side yard fencing between homes which face or side onto the rail fence
bordering the Tassajara Road parkway shall be designed to meet the
criteria for sound attenuation. All other side yard fencing visible from
any street shall be a good neighborhood fence with an open lattice top.
Cul-de-sac Connections
.
Residential streets terminating in cul-de-sac's should be designed to be
visually Rcc.es5lble to the natural open space. To define the open space
from residential lots a rail fence shall be tied into sideyard fencing. The
rail fence shall be placed on the property line and continue out towards
the street and terminating in a stone pilaster to allow access into the
open space. Removable bolIards shall be placed at the back of the
sidewalk at the opening in the rail fence to control motorized
maintenance and emergency access into the open space. Native or
indigenous planting materials shall provide transitional landscaping into
the natural open space.
ef it PS S(~?/?-
..,:.
, ,
~:iL~ ,~tJPY
;i ~ eEl': ~ ,
"PR '15 - C30
AU 6 1 [l )~'1'5
O...LbL~u tV-.llJ-Ltl ~
,- "'1' ''',I P~'..t. ,1 it' \J
PogeIV-16
~ y - ,- {Il
~~~
~~..~~
~'~I
~: ~L~ :ar.1 :
~
""-...
DubliJ1 Ranch D=i?" Guiddin= . August -f, 1995
STREET ~TIURE
.
Street furniture should reflect the conununity theme and architectural
styling of this "upscale rural" community. Benches and other pedestrian
amenities should be placed at community entries and parks. Additional
street furniture such as bollards, mailboxes, street lights and signals
shall be placed according to function to provide a cohesive theme,
Benches
Benches shall be coated mesh with arms and backs to provide for
comfort in all weather conditions.
Trash Receptacles
Trash receptacles shall complement the benches in design, color and
construction. They should be placed in convenient and accessible
locations from pedestrian walks and activity areas.
.
Bollards
Bollards shall be placed at the end of cul-de-sacs fronting open space
areas or any other areas where controlled emergency or maintenance
access is required or desired. Bollards shan be designed to match the
rail fence posts in character and color. A locking mechanism shall be
provided for easy removal by authorized persons.
Mailboxes
Mailboxes shall meet the U.S. Postal Service standards. When a
mailbox serves only one or two homes, it shall be paired on either side
of a post with boxes designed to reflect the character of Dublin Ranch.
When a centralized mailbox serving multiple units is required, as in the
medium density neighborhoods, it shall be designed to reflect the
character of the particular neighborhood incorporating the architectural
styling and color of the buildings.
Page IV-17
~~i:CEIVED
f'-A-g-r;- 030 .
rit~ ~~t}~YEx ~~~~~.
.n p0 ~ /1) '/V
~..,~::: ,,~[., r,~ JlL.
.
.
.,
Dublin Ranch I:ksi[(1t Guiddin= .. Auf!US1~, 1995
Street Light Standards
Street lighting plays a crucial role in enhancing the level of quality and
character of Dublin Ranch. Street light standards shall be a uniform
color and style to reflect a cohesive appearance, Street light standards
throughout the neighborhoods shall be a single pole with one fixture,
Those at the community entries shall be located within the median with
a cross arm and two fixtures. All lighting shall conform to the City of
Dublin, Pacific Gas and Electric and State of California safety standards
and illumination requirements.
Street Identification Signage
Street signs shall be designed to reflect the character of an "upscale
rural" community. Post shall be detailed and painted to match the street
light standards. Graphics on signs will display the Dublin Ranch logo
and the name of the street.
PageJV-18
. .---.'.~,~_. ""-. ,''--. ~{a:CEIVED
F~~ rz J"\:f)\bilV ":u~ ~.~-1~3D
emu l;J\lr 't ~ tQc.J"lt.\\.C.
k..~ JL'''''r-,1 PLANNltx .-c
~. t:5.. P1 t)& tl~ V
V
. ',' t~_, '. ,IlL
Dublin Ranch Desif'n Gllidelincs . Aurus14.1995 . Rev November 1995
RECREATION FACILITIES
.
Dublin Ranch offers the potential for a varied array of recreation
opportunities beyond the natural open spaces and intermittent stream
corridors, Pedestrian pathways and multi-use trail systems shall link
neighborhoods with a neighborhood park, a private community
recreation facility, open space, neighborhood amenities and future
phases of Du blin Ranch.
The neighborhood park shall be designed to provide recreational
needs for the residents of Dublin Ranch. Private community and
optional neighborhood recreation facilities shall provide additional
amenities not included within the neighborhood park. The repetitious
use of materials and landscape concepts within these facilities shall
maintain continuity of the community character.
Neighborhood Park
The proposed five-acre neighborhood park within this phase of
Dublin Ranch is centrally located to serve as the visual and social
center of the community. The park is bounded on two sides by
single-family neighborhoods and on the other two by cOllector.".:.
streets. An intermittent stream corridor runs along two sides of the'
park.
Residents shall be linked to the park via an internal pedestrian system
consisting of sidewalks, a pedestrian pathway and multi-use trails.
One end of the park is connected to the natural open space by
accessing an intermittent stream corridor trail.
Design Criteria
The neighborhood park shall be designed to meet the park standards
established in the City of Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan,
July 1994. It is preferable to locate the active use areas away from
private yards. This is accomplished with a landscaped buffer created
by the alignment of the intermittent stream corridor in some cases and
by lowering the grade of the park adjacent to private yards in others.
On-street parallel parking shall be available on adjacent collector
roads.
Page lV,,19
~. k P5 51E{;6V
R~CEIVE.,' '
f~QV~ ~f~5'
~ 10-:,50.. \o:-f
N pl..ft,~,r.M J G
. '" ~ 7,.. .Ill.
l-\
1\
'\,.." .-
.
, ,
. \
PARKS/OPENSPACEI
PEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION PLAN
.
r
I
I
--- - =-----.
/' E:-=-~_ \ .----
,
1- L 1
l?i I
t~ 1
~ I I
--'-'.k~_"j~!j~ /1'1
~. QQ~ - I~ \11
, - I~ >-.\
- I~\~\
, ~\t\
~\
\Po\
~\
\\
~;~
~l~~
"~~~~,
I fll/ '
\ //
I, /,~
I /;/;/
1:::::..- ,.,//
--- -.--/
.--/ ~~~ --
---- - ~
--- ,,~
----- -----== ---- I
I
Legend
'* Neighborhood Park
* Private Community
~ Recreation Facility
~ Potential Medium-Density
~ Recreation Facility
............... Intermittent Stream
Corridor Multi-Use Trail
..... Pedestrian Pathway
QQQQQ Maintenance/Fire Access Road
....... Bicycle Route Bike Lane
- BicycleIPedestrian Pathway
OPEN SPACE
DUBLIN RANCH
PI lASE I
DESIGN GUIDELINES
\
Dublin, California
~
August 4,1995
Rev. November 1995
Rev. December 28, 1995
.
\
i\...M
o 200 400 600
~. It e1 f;~ h0-6L
MacKay & Somps · Engineering & Planning
William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. .
Architecture and Planning
NUVIS · Landscape Architecture
, ~t> ,II;
I
North
Page IV-20
Dublin Ranch Iksilm Guiddina , AUJlUSf 4. 1995
.
.'
TOT LOT
f:'TER."HTTE~T STREA\l CROSSP.'G
P.'TER.,....lITTE~T STREA!'-1 CORRlDOR
P.'TER."lITTEST STREA!\l ~ &~
CROSS~G i i
I"
I'IC'\lC AREA
..........
~ TO NEIGHBORHOOD
. ,i
""
SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT
BAShETBALL COURT
ART/SCULPTURE
OPEN LAWN AREA
FOR INFORMAL PLA Y
PEDESTRlAN El'o<TR Y
SEA TfNG/GA THERlNG AREA ~
PICNIC SHELTER
i l~\
COLLE !?~
LrOi< S~ ---
RE/.;'T
~ECEIVED
ff\ q~ - 030
f.'\.~UG 1 0 1995
't.l^-'.bL~ R-cL~
~v Jj"." DU91.1!" PLANNING
C;"t n r r1 71. Sh 1V
Conceptual Neighb~~bood Park
.0
Page JV~:2J
. (P9 ,-- llf
. - ---......~~~ .'
. ".0.___
. .... .,.. . ." "\i~ I
~~~~~\ijJr
Dublin Ranch Iksi[.:11 Guiddina , A'UJlUSf 4. ) 995
-----..
Landscape Treatment
.
Landscaping vvithin the public right of way shall be consistent 'With the
character of the collector streets and include a double row of broad
deciduous canopy trees. Tree planting 'Within the park shall consist
primarily of deciduous shade trees to provide seasonal interest and
allow shade in the summer and warmth in the winter. The groundplane
shall be dominated by lawn areas for organized and passive activities.
Shrub and ground cover plantings shall be limited to the perimeter edges
of the park and consist of primarily indigenous plants which are
compatible with the intennittent stream corridor. Slopes adjacent to
residential neighborhoods shall be more densely planted to create a
significant buffer to private yards adjacent to the park. At focal points
such as the central gathering area. accent plantings of shrubs, perennials
and ground cover should have a more ornamental appearance.
Private Community Recreation Facility
A private community-oriented recreational facility will be included to
provide additional recreational opportunities that would not be
accommodated within the neighborhood park.
.
Design Criteria
A multi-pwpose building designed to be architecturally compatible with
the community will act as a meeting place for organized functions. In
addition to a multi-purpose building, recreational amenities such as a
swimming pool and children's wading pool with seating and sunbathing
areas may be installed. Design elements and site furnishings within the
facility shall be thematically consistent with those used throughout the
community.
Medium Density Recreation Facilities
The incorporation of additional private recreation facilities within the
medium density neighborhoods shall be required. however. the specific
elements which are included will be left up to the individual
builder/developer. Potential amenities within the recreation areas might
consist of swimming pools. tennis courts, tot lots, and/or
picnidbarbecue areas. Design shall be compatIble with the architecra
styling of the neighborhood in which it serves. 0D 56 ~.
~. P\ r~ECEIVED
~ u~ - 03::J
PageJV~22 ." ~~~~~. 'JV~\~I AUo f-u 1995
.., D b~ _ ~ Qilnu
?1 -' -- 7.?'d ,'.- \ tL ~~_iSl!N PLANNING '"\.-
Dublin Ranch Dcsirn Guidcliru~ . AurusI4 1095 Rev Novemher 1095
.
OPEN SPACE
Open Space Corridors
The community's open space system shall provide a network of
interconnected, undeveloped lands that preserve the ridgeline and
natural hills.
Regulated elements encompassed and protected within the open space
generally include steep slopes, sensitive habitat areas and visually
sensitive ridge lands. Along with the City of Dublin's open space
requirements, the project shall comply with applicable California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and United States Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) permitting requirements.
Within the open space areas, surface drainage and wildland fire
hazard maintenance shall be required.
Design Criteria
....
.. .
New plantings shall blend into the existing and contextual landscape
and consist of indigenous plant species. Proposed planting should
occur in natural, informal groupings, frame desired views and/or
activities, screen undesirable views and provide privacy to
homeowners, .
Disturbance and removal of native vegetation should be minimized.
Revegetation shall commence as quickly as practical after rough
grading operations to minimize erosion and maintain food sources for
wildlife.
Although temporary lITIgation may be permitted to establish
vegetation, long term inigation in natural open spaces and intermittent
stream conidors is unacceptable.
Multi-use roads will occur along portions of the perimeter of the
natural open space areas to provide emergency and maintenance
access as well as fire breaks. A secondary use of these roads will be
to provide pedestrian links with other trail systems to provide access
throughout the project and to other local and regional systems.
.7.f.
w.. A P1 &r~t~
-a.:CE'IH:" .
~- q ._~
,~v '!~ ~~,
[OJjtPl~rZ~c
....,
--
Page JV-23
.ut.
Dub/in Ranch De<irn Guidelines . Auous/4 1995 Rev. November /995
.~
- -.....~ 'f 1\ ~
I I -~
I 5:1 SLOPE +/- TYP._J. . ~2' .J~.:I SLOPE +/- ITPJ 10' J 3:J SLOPE +/- TYP. ~
'j Mu=SE ~JN{;~L
J 00' +/. V ARlES
W1DELY SPACED RII'ARL'\.N
TREE SPECIES .
RlPARLfLl\) VEGETATION
FENCE
~
~
Intermittent Stream Corridor
Intermittent Stream Corridors
Intermittent stream corridors should function as linear circulation
corridors linking neighborhoods, parks and surrounding open space.
In addition these corridors provide effective wildlife habitat
opportunities. Intermittent stream corridors should provide
community identity by maintaining and building upon the histOriCZ..
character of the site.
A multi-use trail shall be placed along one side of the intermittent
stream channel. It will link with other trail systems to provide access
throughout the project and to other local and regional systems.
Design Criteria
Construction of the intermittent stream corridor shall depict a
naturalized form with a gentle curvilinear alignment. A straight
geometric channel is to be avoided. If drop structures are needed to
stabilize the channel, natural materials such as boulders or logs shall
be utilized.
Native trees, shrubs and goundcovers should be installed within the
stream corridor based on species, water requirements, user safety and
surveillance visibility.
Page N-24
Channel shading is a critical factor for the development of wildlife
corridors. When feasible, vegetation should be installed in dense
masses along the stream. Concentrated plantings within 8' of the
streambed will provide the most shading. Barriers, such as fences,
that will impede the movement of wildlife within the stream COrridor. /
shall be prohibited. ~ .1\ , tpv (j ,
f., C ,. I .. ..
n.. .... 1: ..:...;
.pf.f q- u~u
~1!V r 5 1995,
&.4t bf-. -r 0.. ':>SCl.- 10-
DUpLIN ~..A~'J'.J,tT
~'. _.": .7 ~ -." t \ t..
.
..
.
~ \IV ~
. ~. ,.",,,,,,
12'
MULTI-USE
TRAn..
~
..,.-'
Multi-Use Trail
Dublin Ranch De~ipn Guidelinc~
AUPU~f 4 1995 . Rev. November j99S
During and after construction of adjacent lands, specific site erosion
control practices shall be employed to limit sedimentation into the
stream corridor.
Human access to the stream corridor shall be controlled via trail
placement and interpretive signage. The multi-use trail should be set
back as far from the channel as possible. Homeowners shall be
apprised of the enforcement of pet leash laws within the corridors,
Multi-Use Trail
The multi-use trail will serve as a shared bicycle and pedestrain trail
linking residential areas and the neighborhood park to community-
wide open spaces and to other local and regional trail systems.
Dimensions
Multi-use trails shall be twelve feet (12') wide. Removable bollards
should be placed at all entry points to prevent unauthorized motorized
access.
Materials
Multi-use trails shall be paved with asphaltic concrete, Striping shall
meet City standards.
Sign age
Appropriate directional and informational signage shall be provided.
Bic.)'c1e Route Bike Lane
The bicycle route bike lane, occurring within the roadway, will serve
to link residential areas and the neighborhood park to community-
wide open spaces and other local and regional trail systems.
Dimensions
Bike lanes shall be a minimum of 5' wide,
Materials
Striping shall meet City standards,
Sign age
Appropriate directional and informational signage shall be provided. (/_
. M t23JbOI/
PageN.25 ~. c; F~~CJ'VS;;"
") -0 3D
7J III c ~!)V 1 ~1995
-- {J~ f- 6l. I G..S5c
- Di1~i.f~.Aa~.J.r.
Dublin Ranch De<irn Guidelines
liuf'us/4 /995 . Rev N()vcmber /99<;
e
NA TIVE TREES, SHRUBS
AND GROUND COVERS
VIEW FENCE
LANDSCAPED AREA
1
,
2: J SLOPE MAX.
40' +/- V ARIES
Pedestrian Pathway
e..
Pedestrian Pathway
The pedestrian pathway represents the interior pedestrian circulation
route linking neighborhoods to parks and the private community
recreation facility. Where feasible, the pedestrian pathway should be
accessible for all users.
Dimensions
The width of the pedestrian pathway shall be 6'. Removable bollards
should be placed at all entry points at the collector and residential
streets to prevent unauthorized motorized access.
Materials
The pedestrian pathway shall be constructed of concrete with a non-
slip surface.
Signage
Page N.26
Appropriate directional and locational sign age shall be provid '0 e...
() 0 2-.-/ .
61 . . v;:
tI or=; '0-1D
~ !~J 1 5 19?',
{}i).f 10. 55a.
6 DUiJ ~ PI.A~ r-ll
, . "'1.Y., ~,- .itl..
Dublin Ra~h Dnipn GlJidelinc<
Auru<f 4 /00<; . Rev November /905
.....
.
SLOPE TO BE HYDROSEEDED
rW1TH N<\TIVE GRI\SSES AND WILDFLO\\'ERS
WHERE DISTURBED
LANDSCAPING
I." BY HOMEOWNER
\ .:.
../~~ /1r-
~. J....~
C n'""'f <-,-~;:;.
';';:;;::"r <' ~
~~ ',. f":-r
--:..~ - <;;lr...o~..-:-."
. ~'Y._~r-~*
/" - ~.I'
--.~. ~: :~~-~ ~.~ -~ ~~
b ,. " , ';;A~~ ~
.::;:(:....~... . "r.'~
~~'I'~n~"
,.,...,......,,..II.r...,:-,..~ ~
-- J!J'~ '~:..,
q'
j ~
s
CONCRETE-LINED SW ALE
12'
MULTI-USE 18' MIN.
ROAD
,"
FENCE AT RESIDENTIAL LOT
Maintenance/Fire Access Road
Maintenance/Fire Access Road
... .
..
Maintenance/fIre access roads occur primarily between residential lots
and natural open space. They will also serve as fIrebreaks and in
some instances as an access road for emergency and maintenance
vehicles. Although its primary function is vehicular and service-
oriented, pedestrians will be permitted to access and use this road to
connect to various trail systems, open space areas and other
residential areas. Where potential conflicts with adjacent housing
occur, residential views shall be screened from the road through the
use of fencing and vegetation.
Dimensions
Maintenance/fIre access roads shall be twelve feet (12') wide.
Removable bollards should be placed at all entry points to prevent
unauthorized motorized access.
Materials
Roads shall be of crushed gravel or rock. Appropriate grades and
surfacing shall meet local and state codes.
Ownership and Maintenance
.':..
. .
Lands designated as open space and private community recreation
facilities shall be owned and maintained by a community
homeowners association. Management and maintenance includes
trail systems, with the exception of the intermittent stream corridor
multi-use trail; drainage systems; landscape maintenance; vegetation
monitoring and \vildland flIe practices.
~.p.
fJ ltG bb ?fv
R~Cr::('.:;:.;
pA qc:: /D?D
"-1:/-'-lf( NOV 15 1995 '
.. -. . '''-.. '" '., -'. E It<) t cSJ, ICi..SS~ 0-.
DUaLlt~A~.J~~,N ~
Page N-27
Dublin Ron.ch Dcsi[.:11 Guiddiru.s , Au?=f~. 1995
GENERAL LANDSCAPE
.
The beauty of the existing rolling topography and natural landscape is
the basis for the Dublin Ranch landscape concept and planting themes, "
Rows of trees delineating entries and streets shall depict the historical
aspect of orchards and create a sense of community.
Indigenous and horticulturally adaptive plant materials shall serve as
unifying elements throughout Dublin Ranch, Trees shall be used to
define a hierarchy of entries, streets and neighborhoods providing
individuality and distinctiveness. Oak trees, native to the Tassajara Hills
have been incorporated into the plant palette to reflect the historical
landscape of the Tri-Valley.
Recommended Plant Palette
Following are recommended plant palettes which establish the desired
character of Dublin Ranch, Plants have been selected to enhance
entries and streets, provide shade where necessary and transition areas
to open spaces and intermittent stream corridors. Special attention has
been p~d to the sele~on of indigenous and oma:n~ntal plants. wr"'-'
are hortIculturally adapnve to the natural charactenstlcs of the SIte :f!I!!' ....
are suited to the climate and soils,
Community Entries
Street Trees
Platanus acerifolia 'Yarwood'
Pyrus cal1eryana 'Aristocrat'
London Plane Tree
Flowering Pear
-~. --
Accent Trees
Pnmus ce.rasifera Thundercloud'
Purple-leaf Plum
~
\#
Background and Median Tree
T ristania conferta
Brisbane Box
PJaIllIlUS racemosa
Shrubs
ArbUIllS unedo 'CompacLa'
Arctostaphylos 'Howard McMinn'
Ceanothus 'Concha'
Cistus hybrjdus
. r, . ...... .... ~4 r, f~\"v1'
?~~~ 'j~i~ ~
Strawbeny Tree
Manzanita
Wild Lilac
White Rockrose
~.fIr f5 0io ~-~'
~ECEIVED ..
'":VA- 45 ~o~O .
AUG 1 .0 1995
DUb2...ui RG.f\-C_J,0
:,"~IIN pLANNII\:,
7 b ,- 11 ~- - ---.,
... . .,t.
.'~ '". .,..
Page lV-28
Dublin Ranch Desipl Guidelines, AUf:USI-1. 1995
.
Perenni aJ s
Hemerocallis hybrids
Heuchera sanguinium
Lavandula stoechas
Groun d covers
Coprosma pumila 'Verde Vista'
Rosmarinus o. 'Collingv.'ood Ingram'
Vines
Hardenbergia violaceae
Day Lily
Coral Bells
Spanish Lavender
No Common Name
Ros...."'ITIaI)'
Happy Wanderer
Neighborhood Entries - Single-Family
Street Tree
Platanus acerifolia 'Yarwood'
Shrubs
Carpenteria californica
Cistus ladanifer
Escallonia' Fradesii'
Grewia caffra
Lepstospermum s. 'Apple Blossom'
...
Perennials
Hemerocallis hybrids
Lavandula stoechas
Tulbaghia violacea
Groundcovers
Convolvulus mauritanicus
Coprosma pumila 'Verde Vista'
Hypericum calycinum
Vines
Gelsemium sempervirens
Macfadyena unguis-cati
London Plane Tree
Bush Anemone
Crimson Spot Rockrose
Escallonia
Lavender Star Flower
New Zealand Tea Tree
Day Lily
Spanish Lavender
Society Garlic
Ground Morning Glory
No Common Name
St Johns Wort
Carolina Jessamine
Yellow Cats Claw
Neighborhood Entries - Medium Density
Street Tree
Predetermined street tree
Accent Tree
Lagerstroemia indica
Malus floribunda
Pnmus serru1ata 'Kwanzan'
..
..
.. .:~ '~"'~,~:i).'U
t~~tb~ ~~~ ~
Page IV-30
Crape Myrtle
Flowering Crabapple
Flowering Cherry
~d: eEl V E 0 t::;y j,
f'~ '-175 --036 (.If" r\
AUG 1 0 1995
~S\ \dv\d-\
~. ~ ." I f P'.! Dr 1<, ~ ~ , I ,.. I -..
P5 b7~~
.:?? c': HI. .
'''''t
Dublin }(anch Dr:sipl Guidelinr:s , Au~f 4. 1995
. I' .:_.-"-" . .
,:::---.:!~,. ...~ .
..:., ~,~".~/:' -, ....:.".
- "~'~. ."
-_:~::~~~~{~ ..
. .... '.. ).. \ ~.~,.".... ... '--.
.. - 'il~i1f~~i
Quercus agrifolia
Shrubs
Buxus m. japonica
GrevelJia 'Canbera'
Leptospennurn s. 'Gaiety Girl'
Nerium oleander 'Petite Pink'
Perennial s
Agapanthus a. 'Peter Pan'
Dietes vegata
Hemerocallis hybrids
Tulbaghia violacea
Ground covers
Cistus 'Skanbergii'
Rosmarinus 0, 'Collingwood Ingram'
Trachelospennurn asiaticum
Vines
Gelsernium sempervirens
Macfadyena unguis-cati
Arterial Streets
Street Tree
Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat'
Accent Tree
Quercus agrifolia
Liquidambar styraciflua
Shrubs
Abelia grandiflora
Alyogyne huegelii
P.rctostaphylos d. 'Howard McMinn'
Arbutus Wledo 'Compacta'
Berberis mentorensis
Ceanothus 'Concha'
Cistus purpureus
Nandina domestica
Perennials
Hemerocallis hybrids
Kniphofia uvaria
Lavandula stoechas
Limoniurn perezii
Japanese Box-wood
No Common Name
Australian Tea Tree
Petite Oleander
.
Lily-of-the- Nile
Fortnight Lily
Day Lily
Society Garlic
Rockrose
Rosemary
Asiatic Star Jasmine
Carolina Jessamine
Yellow Cats Claw
Flowering Pear
.'..
Coast Live Oak
American Sweet Gum
Glossy Abelia
Blue Hibiscus
Manzanita
Strawberry Tree
Mentor Barberry
Wild Lilac
Orchid Rockrose
Heavenly Bamboo
Day Lily
Red-Hot-Poker
Spanish Lavender
Sea Lavender
Groundcovers
~~o=~':'~~~~~:a~' i::;~=,s Rose cv Ii- ex; bJ.3, &
Rosmarinus o. 'Collingwood Ingram' Rosemary c:;;;. (' · (\ r J ...
:;,.,~. :... '(-~.v~~J :~ ~1~-~30 .',
t~~th~ ;,j~'ri AUG 1 01995
Page IV-31 7 f Du..~~\) I<...G~
.....II.r,~:!uN PLANNIr-.::.
.
.
......
Dublin Ranch Des;[.:11 Guidelines , Augusf 4. 1995
Vines
Hardenbergia violaceae
Macfadyena unguis-cati
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Happy Wanderer
Yellow Cats Claw
Virginia Creeper
Residential Collector
Street Tree
Platanus acerifolia 'Yarwood'
London Plane Tree
Shrubs
Alyogyne huegelii
Cistus purpureus
Grevellia 'Canberra'
Nandina domestica
Viburnum tinus 'Spring Bouquet'
Blue Hibiscus
Orchid Rockrose
No Common Name
Heavenly Bamboo
Laurustinus
Perennials
Dietes bicolor
Limonium perezii
Fortnight Lily
Sea Lavender
Groundcovers
Coprosma ptunila 'Verde Vista'
No Common Name
Vines
Ficus pumila
Macfadyena unguis-cati
Creeping Fig .
Yellow Cats Claw
Residential Streets
Designated Street Trees bv Neighborhood
Acer macropbyllwn (L-5) BigleafMaple
Pistacia chinensis (L-l) Chinese Pistache
Quercus agrifolia (L~) Coast Live Oak
Gingko biloba 'Autumn Gold' (L-2) Maindenhair Tree
Magnolia g. 'Samuel Sommer' (L-4) Southern Magnolia
Zelkova secrata (L~3) SawleafZelkova
Alternative Street Trees
F raxinus uhdei
Olea europaea 'Swan Hill'
Quercus palustris
Quercus suber
Shamel Ash
Olive
Pin Oak
Cork Oak
t~~!:; ~;;
.~ ~~~
~tt~~t'
ex.1e P5 &'7 ~ )52
:~ E: eEl V E D
-f+t-CJ5-o so
AUG 1 0 1995
OJ..u.:ili.Ui Qft1\tJl)
: .",~!!\! PLANNIr-..:'
Page IV-32
.7'7 1!
, ,
Dublin Ranch Design Guidelines . August 4. 1995
Private Residential Streets
Designated Street Trees bv Neighborhood
Gleditsia tricanthos var. inermis (M-3) Honey Locust
Nyssa sylvatica (M- l) Sour Gum
Tilia cordata (M-2) Little-Leaf Linden
Alternative Street Trees
Arbutus 'Marina'
Laurus nobilis
Rhus lances
Neighborhood Park
.~ ~~:~~'..' -
Trees
Acer buergeranum
Cercis canadensis
Platanus acerifolia 'Yarwood'
Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat'
Quercus lobata
. .~
. . .
.'.~' -'H;~/--
.... .-~
Jii.
Quercus lobata
y
Shrubs
Arbutus unedo 'Compact'
Arctostaphylos d. 'Howard McMinn'
Buddleia davidii
Ceanothus 'Concha'
Cistus ladanifer
Grevellia 'Canberra'
Leptospennum s, 'Gaiety Girl'
Prunus caroliana
Perennials
Dietes bicolor
Hemerocallis hybrids
Limonium perezii
Groundcovers
CoproSIllH pumila 'Verde Vista'
Hypericum calycinum
Rosa banksiae 'Alba Plena'
Open Space Revegetation
Hvdroseed Mix
Native grasses and wildflowers
',,; ~ ;.~ ;:.-.'
i::fu~
"~~ I."~W
~~t~ ~
Page IV.33
Strawberry Tree
Grecian Laurel
African Sumac
Trident Maple
Eastern Redbud
London Plane Tree
Flowering Pear
Valley Oak
Strawberry Tree
Manzanita
Butterfly Bush
Wild Lilac
Crimson-spot Rockrose
No Common Name
Australian Tea Tree
Carolina Cherry Laurel
Fortnight Lily
Day Lily
Sea Lavender
No Common Name
St Johns Wort
Lady Bank's Rose
.
....
. -',
;;E ce:;E t pJ P .V
?Pr q5-0~
t\UG) 0 1995
ULLbLCl-V 1.u~
_"'~tN PLANNIt\> ~
.. fO '.'-llf
)
! I
Ii
J
'.
I
n.IIOI{Cil:i\( 'Y
VUIICI.I.:
ACCI:SS
~
i\1l'1 II-PlIRPOSI: mAl!.
CONCEPTUAL
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Tree Legend
""1.(/1;,.11.\"""
I"'"''
OPI:N
SPACL
(.'.mm..lljll"'.n"....
1"'II""",."k,.lh,,"dc":"...1
I Jl'.l.",. ",uk,r.
t..,,, 1'1" 1,..11';,,,,.
I ~J I .J, jjl. ll".
I' (ll
I' ~" 01
\oJ;loh",Io,,,.Jf"f,j,-,. .\1,'J,..no/ln''''j
(""1,\1.:11.
II,.'....",,;,.,
I" I'll(
I (II
I !1I
1'll"H>'K''',:',l..Io.."..,;,"."
1:''''''''''1:1'", .'.tj(
i' '"'lJ(
(""hll.,.'I.,. ,,' .1" 1'1
NU( i 1 I !lOR III )OIlI:NTR Y -SIN( ill'
[',\i\lII.Y TYPIC,\!.
j(,."J,.",;.,/('"tf.","/",
l'I.I.1l1l,.""I..h.'\'..,,,,,.,.l
\,-,!:"'...rlf'hJ,If..1
I'"t~"., L,,,,.,,,,,
(InOi"I..1
\'-'I;IoI""h....JI.-:'
ijll\l\~"l"l"hJ \"lLw,",l,.,I.J
(1];'1'<11,,(
,\','1/:/,,,..,/,,,,,,11.1
/dl",. "''',11,
Un, p'" '"I LbeL I'd
\,',/;hh",Io,.."II."
\\"t,l""h. f:l.",.!.l;,:,. \.,<;,...1 ~
"...." .e,,, ~.l>^... ,.;
II", ;,.: ;.,. :1.,,, fu
\"'I);"f.."Io,),~II.1
\":1 no...r"I,b\;u".
il,~I.:.1 \1..","
0""1"" I..!
\,',);hb,.,/',,,.,ll..1l
l.l'"'I.,,, ~,;'J1,,:,~
11<" I.d: ': .:
,\"11;/01""",,,,,1,\1./
~;).".. .)1..11__
(1l"I,dt"t
\,'il;"t>",I"",J .".~
1'1\'.';"IJ.U
10llk k~i'1 "oJ,'"
(ho" I""1.'.1
NI'.I( ill!lORII()()D
I-Nmy- i\ll:JJIIIi\l
Dl,NSITY TYPICAL
INTERi\lITTI:NT
STREA;..!
CORRIDOR
\,',;:/'b"'/',,,,,/,\I_I
l,lcJ'bo~llldJllhm >.' '''''''''..
J J,,,,c~ tv,.J.1
11""I'<II"t
COMi\1\ iNITY
I:NTRY
S,',;:"b,'r""..JI'oj'~
A';"f b"'lt:<I~I',"1Il
C<l.O~ ~~'U,lclh'~
l'I~(..n,,~ I~,"o""'.~
I'~",. cAllc,).". .'\"..t,,,I~t
I}<l~'~"'\ l"h.IlA
JllJ.."I\hi:i,'
\..~"I,I:lIt<,Jh"J
~~ ;" 0 I
'q :' ~-,)(
llJ ".flll
I ~ ;u I J (
I" (MOl
('()i\'IMliNITY
FNTRY
CO!'vlMUNITY
[} ~ \ ENTRY
Q\~
'10 ""
ELEMENTARY ,\, '"
SCHOOL "". '"
,,/.' .~
" .j i' '
~.'\:~ '-.
"'-.....\f '-.
)1;~'
'TYPICAL Lcns ;1/ '
\ILLUSTRATlVE ONLY01
//
/ /:;;:;
I ///
9,' :>-:--/
~ ....-. ----
____ ---\l..Oi'\Y . '.....-
-....-. :;....--
.....-....- /-:=-. ~=.:. -----
....---: ----' . ....--- .
....-....-: so:- .....---....- I
....--- . \ \'. i'.::.---- I
l'i\II:R(iINCY _ , i\IIllTI-PURPOSE TRAIL .....-....- ;:/;....-l/
\:~I:C~~_ .~..~ ~,. _--::~_~- - _= . 11Iflii'~3:/'---
~~"'l\r--.----~-
In/..,...i,/.'n,.'>",'ojm(""id."
'\~~'11'l' .;~hli>llllC~
I-'IAblHJJI~.;..:mll.;l
Q'l~l':". ~1;!lt"Ii,l
Q'ICI..<l~ 1"Il.ll.
S.Ii~ bC>l~~I&
S~h~ 1..",1"1'"
('Jl.l"",'.jJl."kc',c
('.111",,,,,, ~ldU;..IC
c.'.I>ll"cOjk
\ .' ~ c ~ tJ.k
KdWdl"...
\''''JoW,II.,,,"'
I.. IU (j{
\1, '011)(
I" ,.)'oC
'"
;., j"ll(
I' ~'o I) C
(.
-,"",,<\ AJlucn ~lul! he III'>lJlIcJ lIum I ~ t:.ol1d<l c.",I.""D
1-"", ~JJ'h,'''.jllnh;'mJl''lI1lJl\-.h'',h
!",h"." ,j "". ,n.l """, t" h,' ,.".J II:, ~
(,,,!oklo"n
DUBLIN RANCH
PHASE I
r
I
I I [lUll SClIOOL
...--
/' ['::.:':"
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Dublin, California
.July 20, 1995
PI~IVATE RESIDENTIAL STRITT
~
North
~
() 200 ,tOO 600
\
MacKay & Somps . Engineering & Planning
William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. .
Architecture and Planning
NUVIS . Landscape Architecture
.
"
EXHIBIT A
.
.
..
Dublin Ranch Design Guidelines , AUf<USt 4. 1995
~~"}~:q'~y_... ....
071 .'f.- .' / .. .
I "0 . '.. /~ t.:
-y'"""'.....; ~ .<i.
.....~ I~~'"'
. J~"'" \ \i~'::~
Q~~--Jt&?V...; ·
6J-~.' ,~. \ '~~i:
1 .
: ~ i .(,'
. ~.~
,.' ..' ~
. -.
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Intermittent Stream Corridor Revegetation
Trees
Aesculus californica
Platanus racemosa
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus lobata
Salix lasiolepis
Salix laevigata
California Buckeye
California Sycamore
Coast Live Oak
Valley Oak
Arroyo Willow
Red Willow
Shrubs
Baccharis pilularis
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Rhamnus californica
Coyote Brush
T oyon
Coffee Berry
Irrigation
Irrigation throughout the public right-of-ways, landscape setbacks,
parks and temporary irrigated open spaces shall be accomplished by
means of automatically controlled spray, bubbler and drip irrigation
systems. The design shall incorporate water saving techniques and
equipment. and shall meet the water efficient landscape ordinance
. adopted by the City of Dublin and AB325. All irrigation systems shall
be efficiently designed to reduce overspray onto walks, walls, street and
. other non-landscaped areas and into natural open space areas.
All irrigation systems within the public right of way, such as arterial
streetscapes, the neighborhood park and the intermittent stream
corridor shall be designed to accommodate the use of recycled water in
the event that it will be available in the future.
Drip or other water conserving irrigation systems should be
recommended for installation throughout Dublin Ranch. 'When spray
systems are installed, low gallonageJIow precipitation spray heads
should be used in accordance with soil infiltration rates.
Irrigation systems shall be valved separately depending on plant
ecosystems, orientation and exposure to sun, shade and wind. The
design shall be sensitive to the water requirements of the plant material
selected and similar water using plants shall be valved together. Slope
and soil conditions shall also be considered when valving irrigation
systems.
~x.A PJ' 7>~ ~
r.":'~i;': .:,'. '~I'~,'p~:""'V\'
.~ j;i ~lr ..& ,,'<.
. r~&:: -Q
:.d:CEIVED
:pf'I % - 0-00
AUG 1 0 1995
~~ Rc.;"~ c) ....;
._, 'N P1ANNH'~
~.?--- III
Page IV-34
Dublin Ran.ch uesign Guidelines . August 4.1995
-
c~
) r -..\
} .,.).
.:...;/}\
.~ .: .." .
f 18" f\
4.5"
PILASTER, WALLS AND FENCES
.
Pilasters, walls and fencing are pan of the common elements that
compose the consistent and recurring community theme. Due to the
high visibility of walls and fences, their location and design have a
direct affect on the overall community appearance. Patterns and
textures within Dublin Ranch have been chosen to complement the
proposed architectural styles and the "upscale rural" theme.
Stone and Stucco Pilasters
Location
Stone and stucco pilasters shall be placed at pedestrian gateways,
within the median of the medium density entry and any terminus or
change in directi~n of the community walls.
Dimensions (Conceptual)
Free standing gateway pilasters at the community and neighborhood
entries shall be 4'-9 1/2" in height. All other pilasters shall be 6,.g
112" in height with the exception where a sound barrier is higher thr"
6'. In those instances, pilasters shall be 9 1/2" above the cap of the ....
wall.
All pilasters shall have a 4.5 degree batter with an 18" square
dimension below the cap. The 4'-9 1/2" pilasters shall be 27" at the
base and the 6'-9 112" pilaster 30" at the base.
Page IV-35
JrPRECAST CONCRETE CAP
::,,-- , DUBLIN RANCH LOGO PLAQUE
;'-----"~
: ji=STUCCO
,;. STONE VENEER
::':..;, 1", '.I'~" i
__ ':;:,'" ,';: . r...,::;\l.
tf"' LL p:.; ,.llli r i r .
.. I.:~~ ....,'QY
It E eEl V E D J;:;Y. ft 057<<
7f> 9';-030 (/f' ,\ '.
AU 6 1. 0 t!l!lS , Entry Pilaster
~'/ fu1.C.iv
. ':~!!N PlANNI~
. .. .?J :-.111.
.
.-
.---
i
. \
,
'~ .;"
I : I
\ : k
- \-1)
--1 ': \
....
--
- . .
. .-
-" -- -.--
::: ~e 0 ~ I~ ~
;; ~ Q . .
~I": ;; '" Q . .
:,::1:: ~ '" ~ . . >
z - ... =.> ~ . . ct:l
c: t;"-< '" " . . ~ L
:: =
<>3 Ci :;: < :::::: - ('j -
~ t:l ~ - - L
-~ 'l> ~ ~:;. -. ... - ,....
~ t":l - - -
cng.=cn ~ C:::~rft ~. ;; !: -. -. - -
... - >-
UJ ~ =..:, -<: - - -
. _.'" c
- s 3 .z c:t) n .. - "=j - =
-..., - -J :z
t"""~3"'O C1 ;; :;: -J t":l t":l -
;5! - 1ft ~' ~ ~ :.: ~. ("; -
;;-~"" " ..D_ HL = - -
:2 - - - 0
:::I C - ~~V)< ~ Z 7.2:F- - n n - . .
0..,::-- n -.
V'l I't> to: -::~ C1 ... ("; ("',l ("',l -
- - ~ -
,.., -'Tl zPt15lm >- - - -- -- ~J
;; ~ n ::. ~:C""".) C W N -" H
"'0 = ::r:r.: Z E U1 aC - r.n ;; ~ I I -<
~ c. > ;. . l.}l $! - H ~ i~ :::::: :::::: - :z
~..,.,r':> '-' ... ... -
D - -
.,_f"l"' ~ -. -. - (]
- -=
f"l~::r" L' ~ --
- ::r::l =..- ;" > ...,:;: -
:::::s "':r.: ~ - g - :2
I't> _.f"l ~ - 2 .., c;-
f"l::S-~ N -. ~ Z r; C1
..... \1Q ~ 0 ~ $:)
c co UJ
., -'"':l E
"' ~ ~ (1 -
.r.. j>- 'wi
~ . :::I l
. = -
--c- :i" \.;: == ~
..:::J
:J'Q ~g Ul :z
, ~
::::.:: ~
.
.---
-===;:: ~. .
.:~--
Dublin Rand, D=ign Guidelines. AJ/Ji1"lSI~. 1995
Materials
Stone and stucco pilasters shall be square with a battered form, smaller
at the top with a precast concrete cap. The stone pattern shall be .
primarily random running bond stacked stone with random angular
larger stone accents. The stone will cover approximately two-thirds of
the pilaster height, with an irregular edge adjacent to the stucco finish
at the top. Finish and color of the stucco shall be identical to the
community wall.
Only those pilasters which act as gateways into the community and
neighborhoods shall receive an oval ornamental plaque containing the
Dublin Ranch logo.
Stone Pilasters
Location
Stone pilasters shall be placed at the terminus and change of direction
of all rail fences and guardrails and at each end of the monument sign
wall.
Dimensions
The height of the pilaster at the two-rail fence and guard rail shall be 3'-
9 1/2". At the three-rail fence the height shall be 4'-9 1/2". The
monument sign wall pilasters shall be 3'-9 112" in the front, closer to the
intersection, and 6' in the back.
All pilasters shall have a 4.5 degree batter with a 18" square dimension
below the cap. The 3'-9 1/2" pilaster shall be 25" at the base, the 4'_9
1/2" pilasters, 27" and the 6' pilaster, 30".
Materials
Stone pilasters shall be square with a battered form and a precast
concrete cap. The stone pattern shall be primarily random running bond
stacked stone with random angular larger stone accents. 1
~~c~vf5 7<) 4
-rPr q5 -~~o
AUG 1 0 1995
J)Jb21i} RfiflcJV
.,ll\! t"LANNIN
.:;~,~- :-.t. 'b'~',\~V
t!:t '. .: ", i' ~ ~:':i "\'.
fj ~&~ .#~F
Page lV-37
'. : -~r :-:- .111
Dublin Nmch Lksign Guidelines. AJ/g=t~. 1995
- STO~E'sn;cco PILASTER
1A T CHA1"iGE IN DIRECTIO)\;
STONE/STuCCO PILASTER
ATENDO~WALL~
..::.J ..- .c=J
'I
J.
INTERJv1EDIA TE
STUCCO COLU1vrN
",:,
I;
q
I,
I
Jl
INTERMEDIA TE
STUCCO COLUMN
I
!:
I
~ STONE/STUCCO PILASTER
'1 EVERY THIRD WALL PANEL
,
Community Wall
.
Location
The community wall shall be incorporated into high visibility areas such
as at community and neighborhood entries and adjacent to arterial and
collector street as applicable.
Dimensions
Height of the community wall shall be 6'- 0". Spacing of stone and
stucco pilasters and intermediate stucco columns shall be determined by
the length of the precast wall panel and shall always be equally spaced.
Typical spacing will be such that two stucco columns will be placed
between stone and stucco columns. For walls which must provide
sound attenuation refer to page IV-41, Sound Barriers.
Materials
The community wall shall consist of a precast wall panel with a st.. .
finish of a soft neutral color to compliment the stone and stucco.
pilasters. A continuous concrete cap to match the stucco shall run the
length of the wall panels. A horizontal groove to provide architectural
interest and a trim line for vines shall be incorporated into the wall panel
12" below the wall cap. Two intermediate stucco columns, to match
the color and finish of the precast wall panels, shall be equally spaced
between stone and stucco pilasters.
- I}.;TERMEDIA TE PILASTERS TO MATCH
COLOR AND FINISH OF WALL PANELS
,PRECAST CONCRETE CAP
I ,STUCCO CONCRETE WALL CAP
~
~-j
:D
RECEIVED
.- . "PA: ClS- 03 as
t~~~ .~tt~rf~~~~
D:"':9L1N PlANNING .
~-
~
-\::>;
:::-
.
'0 :
..............-
STONE VENEER
PRECAST WALL PANEL-STUCCO FINISH l
PATh.TTED A SOFT. NEUTRAL COLOR
HORlZONT AL GROOVE
Community Wall with Pilaster
-.' -= f~.___ .-.~ lit:
.
.'.
...
Dub/in Ranch Iksign Guidt:lines . AJ/g=t~, 1995
STO:\E A:\D STL'CCO PILASTER
- COt'CRETE WALL CAP
: I HORJZO~TAL GROO\'[
: rSTUCCO ACC[~T WALL
_: il
~:-tl
J8"R~=<~ <::::.'
~ ~ ~
5L ~ ~,
Accent Wall
Stone Accent Wall
Location
, '
Stone accent walls shall be incorporated into the gateway columns at
the community entries on Tassajara Road. 'Where space allows, they
should also be incorporated into the gateway pilasters at the entries for
medium density neighborhoods.
Dimensions
Height of the accent walls shall be 6' sloping down to 4'-6". The curved
potion at slope shall have an 18" radius.
Materials
The stone accent walls shall slope down towards the street. The stone
pattern shall be primarily random running bond stacked stone with
random angular larger stone accents.
Rail Fence
Location
The rail fence shall be designated for areas adjacent to open space
and/or areas where definition of a solid enclosure is not desired. The
design of the rail fence is reminiscent of an agrarian image. A two-rail
fence shall be installed to provide delineation of areas while maintaining
views adjacent to the Fallon Road extension,.: natural ~en tface,
intermittent stream corridors and neigllborhood park. ~: ~ ~ G~
..~><. ~,,~~2 71-~ <(LAue.1 0 1Sss
PagelV-39 ~t~~ ~Ci"i~ ~~LA~~
,f? .~ II{
Dub/in Rench Iksign Guidelines . AJ/Ji1"lSl~. 1 995
.
- PRECAST CO~CREn::
CAP
,- STONE PILASTER
FENCE POST (S' o,c,)
RAIL
~,
1
II
c:.: ~
11
! i
I
1 I
ro-,
~
...--.-
Rail Fence (2-RaiI) with Pilaster
=-
----PRECAST CONCRETE
CAP
r- STONE PILASTER I FENCE POST (S' o.c.) J R:\IL
~:> '" . <=l
I
J.~ I
;,- is~ I
:;;5 I
::;;3.- I
;;;r; , I
.
~
;,-
Rail Fence (3-RaiI) with Pilaster
A three-rail fence shall alternate with the community wall within.,..
Tassajara Road parkway. Location of the three-rail fence should be
determined by the street layout within the medium density
neighborhoods. It is preferred that when there is a frontage road that
the three-rail fence be used.
Dimensions
The two rail fence shall be held at 3' in height and the three-rail fence
at 4' in height to the top rail.
Materials
The rail fence should be constructed of a high grade durable injection
molded white vinyl or concrete to simulate a wood rail fence. Stone
pilasters will occur at any terminus and change in direction of the rail
fence. Intermediate posts shall be approximately 8' on center.
Page lV-40
~CEIVE}~)
~. A f11i ~~1/ A,uiri ~
...", '" 0 - PLANNIN ,.
,..;,~\: .". . .. ~l,'t~'.' p!!!ttlN ~,
~;p~: :Li> .#~u :.;,:~ q- . '-' .
~. d~& .~ '. " ~ _.... _~ 1,.--/ IL.
e..
. ..
.
.--
- -
.
rPRECAST CONCRETE CAP
FifSTUCCO CCONCRETE WALL CAP
tI) :tI)rr ' "
t.:lt.:l:
i:2 ;02-
< .<-
> ;>: . STONE VENEER _ HORlZONTAL GROOVE
II
-'r-r
Dublin Ranch Desif'n Guidelines . AUf'uSI 4.1995
Sound Barriers
Location
Sound barriers within the Tassajara Road parkway shall be placed
where lots within the medium density neighborhoods are side or rear
loading. As a sound barrier for front loading lots, side yard fencing
between homes shall be designed for sound attenuation and
incorporate the architectural design of the neighborhood. The sound
barrier adjacent to the Fallon Road extension shall be placed on the
property line of the single-family residential neighborhood.
Dimensions
The height of the barrier shall be determined by sound attenuation
requirements as recommended by an acoustical study with a
minimum height of 6'- 0". If a required sound barrier is greater than
6'-0", berming shall be utilized to minimize the height of the wall
when used within the Tassajara Road parkway. Berming is optional
in other applications requiring a sound barrier greater than 6' -0'.
Materials
Sound barrier walls within the public right-of-way shall be identical in
form, materials and color to the community wall. Side yard fencing
which must provide sound attenuation shall be designed to reflect the
architectural style of the buildings and be consnucted airtight.
I INTERMEDIA TE PILASTERS TO MATCH
COLOR AND FINISH OF WALL PANELS
PRECAST WALL PANEL-STUCCO FINISH l
PAINTED A SOFT, NEUTRAL COLOR _
I
--j '1--
.-:... ..
PagelV-41
Dublin Ranch Design Guidelines . AJ/~~, 1995
View Fences
.
Location
View fences shall be located where homes back onto natural open
space.
Dimensions
View fences shall be 6' in height. When a half and half view fence is
desired for privacy, the open wire portion shall be a maximum of 3'
from the top rail.
Materials
View fencing shall consist of wood and wire mesh. Where privacy is
of concern, the view fence can be solid wood on the bottom with an
open wire mesh on top. Where privacy may not be of concern the view
fence may be all wire mesh.
.--
r WOOD POST (8' o,c,)
-
r WIRE MESH
- --=3 -
- ~ ~.. : : - - _: ' . , -
=i l--- - - .; :-" -. . _ .
- -.~I .- -
! .=~:;:: ,~o-:::--
d~t..!.,'r.:::l:::-
-'v--
View Fence (Full)
,
- -'l<-I]
'..::::> ; 01
, I
.
! .
--
II ; I ! I
I! I.! "I j ! II
j I," I I I i
RECEIV~
;>p,- "15"- ~~ View F':.'S~ W!"f and Half)
_AU8 1 0 ..I )~.; , -. . N'.:....\t.
U~I \{[t~.~~ ~ Bfk~ .~~PV
~.~~ ~N~' -~6 rll Y"7/". .- CJ() ':.-- 11/
r=WIRE MESH
I I VERTICAL BOARDS
~
,;,t.....
......,.- rWOOD POST(" 0.'.)
'X' d~
< ""-Sl
~, -~
~
Page lV-42
Dublin Ranch D~p1 Guidelincs . AJ/g=t~, 1995
.
Good Neighbor Fences
Location
Good neighbor fences shall occur between lots and adjacent to
residential streets. Where fencing faces onto streets, a 12" high lattice
panel shall be incorporated into the top portion of the good neighbor
fence.
Dimensions
Good neighbor fences shall be 6' in height.
Materials
Good neighbor fences shall be constructed of wood.
.~-
I WOOD POST (8' o,c,)
..
~< ~~~U~~~~~~~~_~;
· . !,(1
~ - -I
j
LATTICE
\ " ,I I.: ' i I I'. '
I. , I I I' , 1 ,
t I I ,;. 1 l . I ! i
'I ' " I I ' I
- < I :. '1;,' i 1
I I' . ~ ~ I 1 I! I ,
, ; ; : f f :! I :
, : .
, r
VERTICAL BOARDS
i Ii
, I .
, I '
, .
.... -
G<.od Neighbor Fence with Lattice
-'I.--
]]]1'1' I
I I II )
i
: f
I ' I I I I
,: , I
IL-.
[WOOD POST (8' o.c,)
[ERTICAL BOARDS
\::
.__::.
-'00-
Page IV-43
R ~C E I V E D
t"?c C15 - 030 Good Neighbor Fence
~tii~~J"jL~~CP~
F)('. ~ j?~C6'1 9-. ~"1____'lf- '-,- .17;-
Dublin Nmch D=if!" Guidelines . AJ/~I~, 1995
Guardrail
.
Location
Guardrails shall be used where the residential collector street crosses
an intermittent stream corridor.
Dimensions
Height of guard rail shall be 3'-6" which includes a 6" raised curb.
Materials
The design of the guardrail shall be consistent with the Dublin Ranch
theme by incorporating stone pilasters with a two rail steel fence similar
in design and color to the rail fence. A stone pilaster shall terminate the
guardrail at both ends. A 6" raised concrete curb at the base of the
guardrail shall be placed between the pilasters.
.".
PRECAST CONCRETE
CAP
co
, -
~ '-?
STONE PILASTER
FENCE POST (8' o.c.)
RAn-
0..1
Guardrail
;.
fi~~ ,~tttJi RECEIV.[ D
f{t- ~-D6~
-f"/ ft-r 'tZ,Sb'P/(UG 1 9199
" · J UJJo2..ln Kr' n (\ 1", .,
_ . Ci .., . .~LtN PLANNfN':::' '^----" v
. /1./ ':'111 '-
-,
..
PagelV-U
.
..
.-
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE CONCERNING P A 95-030 DUBLIN
RANCH PHASE I
WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Lin, submitted a Planned
Development (PD) District Rezone request (P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I) for rezoning an
approximate 210 acre site to PD Single Family (Low Density) Residential (109.8 acres; 570
dwelling units); PD Medium Density Residential (35.7 acres; 277 dwelling units); and PD Open
Space (57.5 acres). The PD Rezone request also includes a 5 acre neighborhood park and a 2 acre
private recreational facility. The project is generally located east of Tassajara Road and
approximately 4,000 feet north of the Interstate 580 Freeway, within the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan project area; and
\VHEREAS, on October 10, 1994, the City Council approved a Planned Development District
Overlay Zone (Prezone) for a 1,538 acre site located within the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan project area (P A 94-030); and
"WHEREAS, on November 14, 1994, the Alameda County LAFCo approved the Eastern Dublin
Reorganization for P A 94-030; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the Alameda County LAFCo unanimously disapproved the
request to reconsider the Eastern Dublin Reorganization approval (P A 94-030); and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 1995, the City Council ordered the territory designated as
AnnexationJDetachment No. 10 annexed to the City of Dublin, which includes the 1,538 acre site
and annexed to the Dublin San Ramon Services District and detached from the Livermore Area
Recreation and Park District (P A 94-030); and
WHEREAS, AnnexationJDetachmentNo. 10 became effective on October 1,1995; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Ranch Phase I project site is located within the 1,538 acre site that has
been prezoned and annexed, and the Applicant's request complies with the existing Planned
Development District Prezone provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's PD Rezone request amends the initial PD Prezone and includes a
District Planned Development Plan as required under Section 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and a Land Use and Development Plan as required under the City's Zoning
Ordinance, Title 8, Chapter 2, Section 8-31.16; and
1
EXHIBIT 13
g:\pa95-030\ccres\crc
\VHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider this request on January 2
and January 16, 1996; and
.
\VHEREAS, proper notice of these Planning Commission public hearings was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the PD Rezone
subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing to consider this request on January 23, 1996;
and
WHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects as required by law for the City
Council hearing; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for the project dated November 17, 1995 and found
that the project is exempt according to section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project
is a residential project undertaken purs~ant to and in conformance with the adopted Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and none of the events described in section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines
have occurred since the adoption of the Specific Plan or certification of its EIR. No new effects
could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the Dublin Ranch Phase I PD
Rezone project that were not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern
Dublin project, and the PD Rezone is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report;
and .
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending City Council approval of the Planned
Development District Rezone subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, written
and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing as herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find:
I. The proposed PD Rezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general provisions
and purpose of the PD District Overly Zone (PD Prezone), the City General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provisions and design guidelines; and
2. The rezoning, as conditioned, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of
being compatible with existing land uses in the area, and will not overburden public
services; and
"
j.
The rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements.
e.
2
g: \pa9 5-03 O\ccres \crc
.
.
.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch
Phase I subject to the general provisions listed below:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Purpose
This approval is for a Planned Development (PD) District Rezoning for P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch
Phase 1. This PD District Rezone that includes a Land Use and Development Plan and District Planned
Development Plan is consistent with the initial Planned Development (PD) District Prezone and amends
the initial Prezone with more detailed land use and development plan provisions. The PD District Rezone
allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies
and action programs ofthe General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met. More particularly, the
PD District Rezone is intended to ensure the following policies:
I. Concentrate development on less environmentally and visually sensitive or constrained
portions of the plan area and preserve significant open space areas and natural and
topographic landscape features with minimum alteration ofland forms.
2. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning, building design and construction to
create a range of housing types and prices, and to provide housing for all segments of the
community.
.,
J.
Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
4. Develop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.
5. Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile.
B. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements
Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and
general requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to this PD District.
C. General Provisions and Development Standards
1.
Intent: This approval is for the Planned Development (PD), District Rezone P A 95-030
Dublin Ranch Phase 1. This approval rezones 109.8 acres to PD Single Family Residential
(570 dwelling units; 5.2 du/ac); 35.7 acres to PD Medium Density Residential (277
dwelling units; 7.8 du/ac), for a total maximum of 847 dwelling units; and 57.5 acres to PD
Open space. The number of dwelling units and mix of dwelling unit types (i.e. ratio of
Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential) can vary under each residential
land use category while staying within the approved density ranges. However, the total
number of units shall not exceed the maximum number of dwelling units, which is 847.
This approval also rezones 5 acres for PD neighborhood park and 2 acres for a private
3
g:\pa95-030\ccres\crc
recreational facility. Development shall be generally consistent with the following PD
Rezone submittals labeled Exhibit A on file with the Dublin Planning Department:
.
a. District Planned Development Plan, Land Use and Development Plan, comprising
the Phase I Site Plan, 20-Scale Plotting Maps, and Boundary and Phasing Plan,
prepared by MacKay and Somps, William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. and
NUVIS dated received August 10, 1995 and November 15,1995.
b. Dublin Ranch Phase I Architecture and Landscape and Open Space Design
Guidelines prepared by MacKay and Somps, William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc.
and NUVIS dated received August 10, 1995 and November 15, 1995.
2. Single Family Residential: Development standards within the Single Family land use
designation shall conform to the City of Dublin R-1 District provisions and the PD District
Overlay Zone for P A 94-030 Eastern Dublin (City Council Resolution No.1 04-94). As the
R-l District base zone, all the R -1 District provisions shall apply, except those superseded
by the following provisions. Only detached single family units are allowed in this District.
Lot Size:
4,000 sq. ft. minimum
Median Lot Width:
50 feet
Minimum Lot Frontage:
35 feet
.-
Minimum Lot Depth:
80 feet
Front yard Depth (setback from back of sidewalk):
Minimum 12 feet to porch or living area.
Minimum 17 feet to garage, except for side opening garages
(minimum 15 feet to side opening garages).
Driveways less than 20 feet in length require automatic
garage door openers and "roll up" doors
Side Yard (setback):
Minimum 5 feet to living area - Minimum 10 feet at comer
conditions
Rear Yard (setback):
Garages located at the rear half of a lot have no minimum
side yard. Building restrictions for zero lot line structures
shall be applied as conditions of Site Development Review
approval.
5 feet minimum. Include a useable yard equal to 10% of the .
lot size with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any
4
g: \pa9 5 -03 O\ccres\crc
.
.-
.
direction. Garages located in the rear half of a lot have a 3
foot minimum rear setback.
Minimum Building
Separation:
10 feet (excluding allowable encroaclunents).
Maximum Building
Height:
30 feet or 2 stories at anyone point.
3. Medium Density Residential: Development standards for attached and detached units
within the Medium Density land use designation shall conform to the City of Dublin R-S
District provisions and the PD District Overlay Zone for P A 94-030 Eastern Dublin (City
Council Resolution No.1 04-94). As the R-S District base zone, all the R-S District
provisions shall apply, except those superseded by the following:
Attached Standards:
Front Yard Depth:
Minimum 10 feet to porch or living area.
Minimum 5 feet to garage.
Side Yard (setback):
Minimum 5 feet including encroaclunents (UBC standards).
Rear Yard (setback):
Minimum 10 feet to living area.
Yard Space:
Provide a useable yard of 150 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 10 feet in any direction.
Upper floor units shall have a deck of at least 50 square feet
with a minimum dimension of 5 feet.
Minimum Building
Separation:
10 feet including encroaclunents (UBC building standards).
Maximum Building
Height:
30 feet, or 2.5 stories at anyone point.
Detached Standards:
Minimum Lot Size:
2,000 square feet
Median Lot Width:
30 feet at building setback; 35 feet at comer conditions
Average Lot Depth:
Not Applicable
Front Yard Depth (setback from back of sidewalk):
5
g: \pa9 5 -03 O\ccres \crc
g:\pa9 5-03 O\ccres\crc
4.
Side Yard (setback):
Rear Yard (setback):
Minimum Building
Separation:
Maximum Building
Height:
Additional Standards:
Garages:
Adjacent Uses:
Encroachment:
Front Yard
Landscaping:
Minimum lO feet to porch or living area.
.
Minimum 5 feet to garage without driveway, or greater than
17 feet to garage with driveway, except for side opening
garages.
Driveways less than 20 feet in length require automatic
garage door openers and "roll up" doors.
3 feet minimum- 6 feet at corner conditions.
Garages have 0 foot side yards.
5 feet minimum. Provide a minimum useable yard of 150 sq.
ft. with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction.
Garages may have 0 feet rear yards.
6 feet
Garages may be attached.
Reciprocal easements may be used to satisfy yard
requirements.
30 feet, or 2.5 stories at anyone point.
.~.
-'
Parking requirements may be met with tandem garages.
Interior side yard setbacks adjacent to common open space, parks,
greenbelts and stream corridors shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
The following encroachments shall be allowed to project up to 2 feet
into yard setbacks: eaves, architectural projections, fireplaces,
(including log storage and entertainment niche), balconies, bay
windows, window seats, exterior stairs, second floor overhangs,
decks, porches and air conditioning equipment. All non-fire rated
encroachments must be at least 3 feet from property lines.
The applicant/developer shall install front yard landscaping within all
the medium density neighborhoods.
Curvilinear Streets: Site design of the individual neighborhoods may vary from that
shown in Dublin Ranch Phase I Rezone (PA 95-030) if the number of units in a
6
.--
.
neighborhood is adjusted or attached units are substituted for detached (in medium density
neighborhoods only). However, the concept of curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs cannot
be altered.
5.
Architectural Design: Eight distinct architectural styles are described in the Dublin
Ranch Phase I Architecture and Landscape and Open Space Design Guidelines and
architectural elevations. Any or all of these styles can be utilized in an individual
neighborhood. Additional styles can be permitted at Site Development Review if it is
determined they would not change the overall character of the Dublin Ranch Phase I plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council approves ofPA 95-030
Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any
building. and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes
represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance ofthe conditions of
approval: [PL] Planning. [B] Building. [P] Parks and Community Services. [PO] Police. [PW] Public
Works. [ADM] Administration/City Attorney. [FIN] Finance. [F] Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.
[DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District. [CO] Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District [Zone 7].
. GENERAL
.
1. The Land Use and Development Plan, District Planned Development Plan and Architecture and
Landscape and Open space Design Guidelines for Dublin Ranch Phase I (pA 95-030) are
conceptual in nature. No formal amendment of this PD Rezone will be required as long as the
materials submitted for the Tentative Map and Site Development Review are in substantial
conformance with this PD Rezone and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planning Director
shall determine conformance or non-conformance and appropriate processing procedures for
modifying this PD Rezone (i.e. staff approval, Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use
Permit, or City Council approval of new PD Rezone). Major modifications, or revisions not found
to be in substantial conformance with this PD Rezone shall require a new PD Rezone. A
subsequent PD rezone may address all or a portion of the area covered by this PD Rezone. [PL]
2. Prior to obtaining building permits, the applicant must receive Site Development Review (SDR)
approval as established in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, unless the Planning Director
approved a SDR waiver and a zoning approval is granted upon the determination that the
construction constitutes a minor project and building permit plans are in accord with the intent and
objectives of the SDR procedures. [PL]
"
.).
Except as may be specifically provided for within these General Provisions for P A 95-030,
development shall comply with the City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions
(see Attachment A-I). [PL]
7
g:\pa95-030\ccres\crc
4.
Except as may be specifically provided for within this PD, development shall comply with the
City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements (Attachment A-2). [PO]
.
5. The design, location and material of all fencing and retaining walls shall be subject Site
Development Review approval unless the Planning Director waives the SDR requirement. [PL]
6. The applicant shall comply with all applicable grading guidelines as indicated on page 103 of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. [PW, PL]
7. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of one or more Dublin
Ranch Phase I homeowners associations shall be submitted with the Tentative Map and/or Site
Development Review application, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning
Director and City Attorney prior to recordation of the final Subdivision Map, or prior to Site
Development Review approval. [PL, ADM]
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
8. The Dublin Ranch Phase I project proponent and the City of Dublin shall enter into a development
agreement prior to Tentative Map approval, which shall contain, but not be limited to, provisions
for financing and timing of on and off-site infrastructure, payment of traffic, noise and public
facilities impact fees, affordable housing, and other provisions deemed necessary by the City to
find the project consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. At some future date, the
applicant shall be responsible for paying all fees required by the Development Agreement. [PLl
..
SCHOOL fACILITIES IMP ACT MITIGATION
9. No tentative subdivision map for all or any part of the area covered by this Land Use and
Development Plan shall be approved by the City Council until the applicant has entered into a
written mitigation agreement with the affected school district(s) and the City. The mitigation
agreement shall establish the method and manner of financing and/or constructing school facilities
necessary to serve the student population generated by the development. The mitigation
agreement shall address the level of mitigation necessary, the amount of any school impact fees,
the time of payment of any such fees and similar matters. The City shall be a party to any such
agreement only for the purpose of assuring uniformity with respect to different property owners
and appropriate land use planning. [pL, ADM]
NOISE
10. A noise study shall be required for the Tentative Map application submittal to show how interior
noise levels will be controlled to acceptable limits. [pL, B]
SCENIC CORRIDOR POLICIES
11.
The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and
Development Standards. If the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corrido~ PoliciesfiandhDeve.lopmthent .
Standards have not been adopted prior to approving the TentatIve Map or t e proJect, e
8
g: \pa9 5 -03 O\ccres\crc
.
.:
.
applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan's scenic corridor,
development standards and grading policies and action programs through a detailed visual analysis
submitted with the Tentative Map application. [PL]
LANDSCAPE/OPEN SPACE/TRAILS
12. As part of the Tentative Map approval, the applicant shall be conditioned to offer to dedicate the
intermittent stream/open space and trail corridors. If the City accepts this dedication of
improvements, no credit for these areas and improvements shall be given towards parkland
dedication requirements. [P, PL, PW]
13. All graded cut and fill slope areas shall be revegetated as described in Policy 6-22 of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, subject to Site Development Review approval. [PL, PW]
14. All landscape within the open space and common areas, including the neighborhood park and the
intermittent stream and open space corridor shall be subject to Site Development Review approval.
The proposed landscape plans to be submitted with the Site Development Review application shall
take into consideration Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone commepts prepared by Singer, Hodges,
Evans, dated received October 10, 1995. [PL]
15.
Appropriate all weather surface (e.g. crushed gravel or rock) vehicular access to open space,
various trail systems and some residential areas, as shown on Exhibit A, shall be provided and
maintained on a continuous basis, to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, Public Works Director and
Planning Director. [F, PW, P]
16. A minimum 25 foot setback from the intermittent stream/open space corridors shall be encouraged
wherever possible. Setbacks for this purpose shall be measured from the edge of drainage
corridors as shown on Figures 4.1,6.2 and 7.33 of the Specific Plan. [PL]
BUILDING
17. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit. [B]
18. The following information shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application: 1) Dublin
Ranch Phase I Geotechnical Report dated June 19, 1995; 2) solar panel guidelines; 3) clarification
of new Zone 2 or Zone 3 water reservoir location and need; 4) City of Pleasant on's water reservoir
details (i.e., fences, retaining walls, roadway for access). [B]
P ARKS AND RECREATION
19.
The applicant shall comply with the City's Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 9.28 Dedication of
Land for Park and Recreation Purposes and the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan park
dedication and design requirements by either dedicating 12 acres of park land, or paying park
dedication in-lieu fees, or providing a combination of both park land dedication and in-lieu fees
based on the maximum number of units proposed, prior to Final Subdivision Map approval. The
9
g:\pa95-030\ccres\crc
City may consider the applicant's request to improve the public neighborhood park and receive
credit for those improvements to the public park. The City shall be responsible for designing and
inspecting the public park. [P, PW, PL] .
19A. At the time of Tentative Map approval, the City may consider the applicant's request for credit for
the two (2) acre private recreation facility in accordance with the Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter
9,28 Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes. Should the City deny the applicant's
request, the applicant may delete the private recreation facility from the Land Use and
Development Plan (LUDP), and through the Planning Director's review and approval of the
modified LUDP and Tentative Map, develop the site in conformance with the Single Family
Residential land use designation and zoning. The maximum number of units that could be allowed
for this 2- acre site is 12 dwelling units. In this case, a maximum of 859 dwelling units could be
allowed for the Dublin Ranch Phase I Rezone project. [P, PW, PL]
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
20.
The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Stream Corridor Restoration Program and the
Grazing Management Plan. The project's intermittent stream enhancement and restoration
improvements shall comply with the Plan requirements and shall be submitted with the Tentative
Map application for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. If a Stream Corridor Restoration Program
and the Grazing Management Plan have not been adopted prior to approving the Tentative Map for
the project, the applicant shall provide project specific stream corridor restoration and grazing
management requirements and shall submit this plan during the Tentative Map project review.
[PL, Zone 7, PW]
....
..
21. The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for
mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts (e.g. Applicant shall submit a
preconstruction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to verify the
presence of sensitive species. A biologist shall prepare the survey and shall be subject to the
Planning Department review and approval). Any updated surveys and/or studies that may be
completed by a biologist prior to Tentative Map application submittal shall be submitted with the
Tentative Map application. [PL]
PARKING
22. The availability of adequate on-street parking within the Medium Density Residential area shall be
re-assessed prior to Tentative Map approval to determine its adequacy. [PL, PW]
TRAFFIC/PUBLIC WORKS
23. The Applicant shall meet all City of Dublin minimum roadway standards for public streets prior to
Tentative Map approval. All minor modifications to the City's roadway standards shall be subject
to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. [PW]
24.
Applicant shall pay a traffic impact fee or construct required improvements based on the adopted ..-..
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (per Resolution No. 1-95) and the proposed 1-580 Interchange
10
g;\pa95-030\ccres\crc
.
.
.
Traffic Impact Fee (fee that will be agreed upon by the City of Dublin and City of Pleasant on for
interchange improvements), as such fees may hereafter be modified or amended.. These fees shall
be paid prior to final inspection of each unit, unless and until, the City Council amends Resolution
1-95 to make the fee payable prior to issuance of building permits. [PW, B]
j-
-).
The applicant shall submit an update of the traffic study prepared by TJKM dated December, 1995
with the Tentative Map application and the study shall be subject to review and approval by the
Public Works Director. Appropriate traffic mitigation measures will be identified and included as
conditions of Tentative Map approval. Such traffic mitigation may include, but not be limited to:
[PW]
a. Traffic signalization
b. Roadway shoulder construction
c. Frontage improvements
d. pavement widening
e. Overlays of existing pavement
f. Dedications of right-of-way
g. Restriping
26.
\\There decorative paving is installed in public streets, pre-formed traffic signal loops shall be used
under the decorative paving. Where possible, irrigation laterals shall not be placed under the
decorative paving. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be included in a landscape
and lighting maintenance assessment district or other funding mechanism acceptable to the City
Manager. Decorative paving plans shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application
submittal and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. [pW,
ADM]
27. Street lights on arterial streets shall be the City Standard cobra head luminaries with galvanized
poles. Where decorative lights are to be used on residential streets, these lights shall be designed
so as to not shine into adjacent windows, shall be easily accessible for purchase over a long period
oftime (e.g. 30 or more years), and shall be designed so that the efficiency of the lights do not
require close spacing to meet illumination requirements. A street lighting plan demonstrating
compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application and shall be
subject to the Public Works Director's review and approval. [PW]
28. Street name signs shall display the name of the street together with a City Standard shamrock logo.
Posts shall be galvanized steel pipe. A street sign plan shall be submitted with the Tentative Map
application and shall be subject to the Public Works Director's review and approval. [PW]
29. The applicant shall construct a minimum 10 foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path between the looped
residential collector street and Fallon Road, as shown on Exhibit A. [pW, PL]
FIRE
30.
Applicant shall comply with all DRF A fire standards, including minimum standards for
emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees, including a Fire Capital Impact Fee. [F]
11
g: \pa9 5 -0 3 O\ccres\crc
31.
A fire buffer zone between the development area and open space area shall be provided and
maintained by a home owners association on a continuous basis to the satisfaction of the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. [F]
.
"j
.)_.
The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Wildfire Management Plan. The Plan
requirements shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. If a
Wildfire Management Plan has not been adopted prior to approving the CC&Rs for the project, the
applicant shall provide a project specific wildfire management plan and shall submit this plan
during the Tentative Map project review. [F, PL, PW]
UTILITY SERVICESIPOST AL SERVICES
33. The location and siting of project specific wastewater, storm drainage and potable water system
infrastructure shall be consistent with the resource management policies of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. [PL, PW, DSR]
34.
35.
All on- and off-site potable and recycled water and wastewater facilities shall be constructed in
conformance with DSRSD Major Infrastructure Policy (Res. 29-94). The applicant shall submit
plans for the potable and recycled water and sewer system to service this development acceptable
to DSRSD, pay fees required by DSRSD and receive DSRSD's approval prior to issuance of any
building permit. Developer-dedicated facilities shall be in conformance with the DSRSD Standard
Specifications and Drawings. [B, PW, DSR]
..
The applicant shall provide a "will" serve letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of the grading
permit for the grading that creates individual building sites, which states that the Dublin Ranch
Phase I project can be served by DSRSD for water and sewer prior to occupancy. [B, PW]
36. A recycled water distribution system for the landscaping within Dublin Ranch Phase I area shall
be provided per the City of Dublin, Zone 7, and DSRSD requirements. The landscaping areas
must meet City of Dublin Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements. [PW, Zone 7,
DSR]
37. Applicant shall provide Public Utility Easements per requirements of the City of Dublin and/or
public utility companies as necessary to serve this area with utility services. [PW]
38. The applicant shall confer with local postal authorities to determine the required type of mail units
and provide a letter from the Postal Service stating their satisfaction at the time the Tentative Map
and Site Development Review submittal is made. Specific locations for such units shall be to the
satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Dublin Planning Department. [PL]
39.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide "will serve" letters from
appropriate agencies documenting that adequate electric, gas, telephone and landfill capacity is
available prior to occupancy. [PL] -
.
12
g: \pa95 -03 O\ccres\crc
.
..45.
e:
40.
The applicant shall work with DSRSD to help fund a recycled water distribution system computer
model that reflects the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment.
[DSR]
41. The applicant shall comply with all Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District - Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees. [Zone 7, PW]
MISCELLANEOUS EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL
ErR MrTrGA TION MEASURES
42. Applicant shall work with LA VTA to establish the need, bus route(s), bus turnouts, bus stop sign
locations, bus shelter locations, and other transit amenities for this project prior to Site
Development Review approval. [PW]
43. Applicant shall design bus turnouts, transit shelters and pedestrian paths (sidewalks) consistent
with the proposed LA VTA routes and stops and the City of Dublin's requirements and standards
prior to issuance of building permits for the residential units. Conceptual design plans shall be
submitted with the Tentative Map application submittal and subject to the Public Works Director
review and approval. Construction shall be undertaken as part of the street improvement work.
[PW]
44. The applicant shall comply with the City's erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. [PW]
The applicant shall comply with all visual resource mitigation measures of the FEIR relative to
grading, scenic corridors, scenic vista preservation, and similar visual resources. [PL, PW]
46. The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements.
[ADM]
47. All new reservoir construction shall comply with DSRSD's requirements. [DSR, PW]
48. The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR), respectively, that have not been made specific conditions of approval of
this PD Rezone. [PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
13
g: \pa9 5 -03 O\eeres \ere
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE
REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF T ASSAJARA ROAD AND APPROXIMA TEL Y 4,000 FEET
NORTH OF THE INTERSTATE 580 FREEWAY WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA.
.
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section ],
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner:
Approximately 2 I 0 acres consisting of lands within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area and located east of
Tassajara Road and approximately 4,000 feet north of the Interstate 580 Freeway, more specifically described as Assessor's
Parcel Numbers 946-1040-2, 946-1040-1-2, 946-680-4, 946-1040-3-2 (por), 99B-3046-2-9 (por), and 946-680-3 (por), are
rezoned to a Planned Development (PD) District, PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I, PO Single Family Residential (109,8
acres; 570 dwelling units); PD Medium Density Residential (35.7 acres; 277 dwelling units) for a total of847 dwelling units
and 57.5 acres PD Open Space, as shown on Exhibit A (District Planned Development Plan, Phase I Site Plan, 20-Scale
Plotting Maps, Boundary and Phasing Plan, Architecture, Landscape and Open Space Design Guidelines dated received
August 10, 1995 and November 15, 1995) and Exhibit B (Approval, Findings and General Provisions of the PD, Planned
Development Rezoning), on file with the City of Dublin Planning Department, are hereby adopted as regulations for the
future use, improvement, and maintenance of the property within this District.
A map depicting the rezoning area (Dublin Ranch Phase I) is outlined below:
VICINITY MAP
N,T,S,
~
..-----
Section 2,
...
..
d
This Ordinance shall take effect and enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. Before the expiration of
fifteen (15) days after its passage, it shall be published once, in a local newspaper published in Alameda County and
available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _ day of February, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
..
A TrEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT c
g:\oa#\1995\pa95030Iordinanc.doc
.
.
.
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
~
ti
~ DUBUN ~
~ 8
~
@
1-580
~~"
~ ~ ~-.v
Q..~
~
PLEAS ANTO N
AttacbnBtt J
~
... ~
z
~
!~
uP:
...:l
r.:l
)
I
I
~.
! \
Ii
, \
L-,~
'iIf~
COMMUNITY
ENTRY
NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY-SINGLE
L Y TYPICAL I_~ I
TOR STREET I ' I
t~ I
~i.1
.\W ,~,
lJ~, ! \ ~ 1/
: ~:t~);)~) , \'~~,"- , . ~ ri ~~~TTENT
~' t.~ ~1--\ ~ , ~~ It::~1 _ ~\ CORRIDOR
" . ~~'~~~0.\~~, ~
I~:n-", ..~, . ,.~~~~'"' \ \ COMMUNITY
" iIIP~~;JJ<:~\::i:- )"t, '.~~ _ \ ENTRY
.' \ 1I~?7 ' , " ~~};iJ;~y?,: " .. ~' ' ~ ~
\_, " m ',' '1:i < ' ' "' a~- ..,,- ~l \"~\.
, ~ ~ ~~" " "'f Ill); nrni't',':~" ,,', ~~~:~TARY ~"-
l'~~, "~.X~- 1 ~:C4 ~~\ ""~~"- "-
;ii., , ~ ~\ !I.")C1 :,~ > J:' ----
, ____--:~ /' *::~ :.'1:. ~'2::t' ,. '.'-l,,,- 1 !II ~--
, lit: /' r:-=-~ .= / " ' ~ ~ ~ T'- TYPICAL LOTS /1 I --
, i i,' ~~~.~ PRIVATE COMMUNITY \ILLUSTRATIVEONLY//jl
.. ~ ; i~.:><>_ ' HIGH SCHOOL RECREATION FACILITY /.0/1
~ \9:~;V: : //~./
" )'. 'i'~ ", ' ....- /'./
. ,\tr:(Q~ ' f----- ./'
.. 1,\' ',' .- L9 ft ~::= : '____ ,....-' ~g ;.- ....-:-
, ,-,(. \ 1 ~',~
. ' i ,,',' t:' .I~ ~. PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL STREET .-----:.~~----....-....- I
EMERGENCY' Jb''(:'~r ~ ....-....-~~~ 1\
VEHICLE ,';\ "i' .:~~ !8:1EJ -- ----:~/~
ACCESS " ,'", , _ - - - - -_ FUTURE'-:: _-----
_~.J-- -- "---~--- ___--
~.~~}< ?==r~- -- ---:--
~,.~' ~,\;~
~'::X \1" 'I,b
r. \9
/ , .
,'\\ -
'~,
,~-':: '
:f\
~
r~/,' '.
,~~,~,
. ). -- "
" . 'JI:' . , . "1t---l'--
...' f~~1 ~~"J
-~.~~, ',.""
. .... ~
). \ " 'oJ ,"-
CITY OF ~ J.--f: . ,.......a\ \:
. PLEASANTON .' ,).-fB:.1X~ '.
ATER RESERVOIR . '= ." ,L;\ .r:(,..(""Q~~
/ ~ r....., . f....,"j~".'J r;'N . .
.1 ~ .' , Y' ,,", ~,
h .Y'#I'!~':J(Ir~ ' '
, .k;. L IT '1--.,...'
" : 'C:I. ..,/ ~-" "
~{I},j .
(0.
.-( ~
'-H:
: ,..-t--'
:~, .-'1--'1' .
..~.t6'
STREET
OPEN SPACE
MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITIES
.
, ill \i':
MEDIUM DENSITY~ ~ oi-ti::
SECONDARY III ~....
lNfRY/EXIT I~
\: ~~,.
.~t-',.i.;'
, ItD<J:.(?J .
''9')<
ARTE~ALSTREET KY
SECTION ..
APPROXIMATE OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE BOUNDARY
Legend
.. Publicly Maintained
MEDIUM DEN
SECONDARY
ENrRY /EXIT
~ Community Home Owners'
Association Maintained
~
.
DUBLIN RANCH
PHASE I
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT/
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Dublin, California
November 1995
~
North
r-\..J\
o 200 400 600
.
MacKay & Somps · Engineering & Planning
William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. ·
Architecture and Planning
NUVIS · Landscape Architecture
Attachm1t ~
SANITARY
SEWER
~
.
LEGEND:
NTS
....
DSRSD INSTALLED
.~_..
--...
- .---.~
.----
---- .
,,-- .
....-- .
~-'
.-
DEVELOPER INSTALLED
...
~-
.
. ,
::1
, .
. .
.:.~
..
AttachnInt .3
. . ...../o~ 111-'
. '. " c.'.
. ---~I'f:"-' . ".. _.to:
STORM
DRAIN
~
.
AREA WHICH DRAINS TO
T A5SAJARA CREEK VIA
GLEASON ROAD
NTS
.'
D
AREA WHICH DRAINS
TO G-3 CHANNEL VIA
TASSAJARA ROAD
-~_..
r'"'l'
,"
,.....""
-----
;
"
\
~--
. ---
<I" ~.-r-.
...---
~
.-
,r---'
~~~~~-~-----~~~~~~._~
.tl./' ........;... .',...~
. .../. \, . ,.... f.. , .'
'. , . f, " I . l
~Q:Zc,:t/. .1
t
- 1
. i
.
, ,
,
"-
.:'
...........
G-3 CHANNEL
(EXISTING)
.:
~'.," ""/0 'j <'7/1' J
~..:::..: ....., - ".": t..--
WATER
~
.
LEGEND:
NTS
....
DSRSD INSTALLED
DEVELOPER INSTALLED
...,....-
.->r'--'- .r -
_ r"'-'
. ...--
,.--r-' '
_...--
..
-.:......:,. t..",=..~
.", ~... .....".._~-:'~~~.:~>
~ >.:
.
." ..:.
r-'A~
:~ ~~~~~
- i
. \
.
. .
t.
. -:;
, . l
.
i
.
_" ".s"
.. _" '.1_' '" , .T
.... 9- .- ... -..a
..-
H.att
.
6100 IF OF
18" MAJN
r::'.~,,:llo r,~ !Ji
6 . .. ....._ ..__......___ .!'"
-- .. - ~. "'---.
RECYCLED
WATER
~
LEGEND:
NTS
.
..,..
DSRSD INSTALLED
DEVELOPER
INSTALLED
~-~
---- .
.....-. -
------ ~
.--- .
.---
.-
~ .....,-r-
.,.-..-J"
-~
rr;:.;'~5_~..M~.~--:--:-"~.".1
" {j~ -.} .. . .. .:..-~. . . . . ~
. !, . \ .,... l' /'" , . . '.
: :~i~i~;~;~~. ....: ~ f../::/:' - : >: : t
..\.. . . t _. . lY. J. I'
'"--":~ ~~;~~~;~~r) : : : ~ t
. i.
- I
. , I
~
. .
-~
.
I.
.
~-
2200 LF OF
8" MAIN
.:':"
:.".
2400 LF OF
10" MAIN
."
[,':C:: 111._ f. I(
7...._-"'0
e
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 16, 1996
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Planning Staff
oR~
Carol R. Cirelli, Senior Planner
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I Rezone
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT:
The applicant is reque'sting a Planned Development (PD) District
Rezone approval for an approximate 210 acre site. The project
involves rezoning the site to: PO Single Family Residential (109.8
acres; 570 dwelling units); PO Medium Density Residential (35.7
acres; 277 dwelling units) for a total 847 dwelling units and 57.5
acres PD Open Space. This rezone request also includes a 5 acre
neighborhood park and a 2 acre private recreational facility.
e>
APPLICANT:
Ted C. Fairfield
Consulting Civil Engineer
P.O. Box 1148
5510 Sunol Boulevard
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROPERTY OWNER:
Jennifer Un
C/O Ted C. Fairfield
Consulting Civil Engineer
P.O. Box 1148
5510 Sunol Boulevard
Pleasanton, CA 94566
LOCATION:
East of Tassajara Road and approximately 4,000 feet north of the
Interstate 580 Freeway within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
project area.
ASSESSOR
PARCEL NO.(S):
946-680-3; 94-680-4; 946-1040-1-2; 946-1040-2; 946-1040-3-2;
998-3046-2-6; 99B-3046-2-9
Item No.
8,1
Copies To:
Applicant '
Property Owner
PA File
Senior Planner
Admin. File
e
Atfachnmt JL~r 34:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Single Family; Medium Density; Open Space
.
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family; Medium Density; Open Space
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
,
PD Single Family; PD Medium Density; PD Open Space/
Cattle Grazing and Agriculture
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North: Cattle Grazing; Agriculture/PD Community Park;
Agricultural District;
South: Cattle Grazing; Agriculture/ PD Medium Density
Residential; PD Single Family Residential; PD Open
Space
East: Cattle Grazing; AgriculturelPD Open Space
West: Equestrian Facility/PD Medium Density
ZONING HISTORY:
October 10, 1994:
Dublin City Council approved the Eastern Dublin Planned
Development District Overlay Zone (Prezone) for a 1,538 acre site
(PA 94-030).
.
November 14, 1994: Alameda County LAFCo approved the Eastern Dublin Reorganization
request for PA 94-030.
January 12, 1995:
Alameda County LAFCo unanimously disapproved the request to
reconsider the Eastern Dublin Reorganization approval.
January 23, 1995:
Dublin City Council approved Eastern Dublin Annexation/Detachment
No.10 (PA 94-030).
October 1, 1995:
Eastern Dublin Reorganization (Annexation/Detachment No.1 0)
became effective for a 1,538 acre site (PA 94-030).
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-31.0 Planned Development District of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance applies to this
project.
BACKGROUND:
A public hearing for this project was held before the Planning Commission on
January 2, 1996. Because some of the Commissioners requested additional project
information, the Commission, with a split vote, closed the public hearing and continued the
item to the January 16, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
.,:.
2
DU';:' J 01=, hi).
; f\"-."L _ 4o:..B:.
.
ANAL YSIS:
The Planning Commission requested additional project information covering the
following four items: 1) school district responses to the modified school mitigation
condition; 2) Dublin San Ramon Services District's (DSRSD) project comments; 3) Medium
Density neighborhood roadway widths (i.e. adequacy of fire vehicle access and parking),
and 4) number of units (i.e. clarifying the process for approving a certain number of units
for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project).
This report also includes responses to a letter received after the January 2nd public
hearing, the Contra Costa County letter presented at the public hearing, and a landowner's
concern. Lastly, additional minor draft Resolution revisions were made clarifying certain
conditions of approval.
School District
A second letter was sent to both school districts (Livermore and Dublin) asking for
written confirmation and concurrence of the revised school mitigation agreement. As of
this date, only the LiverfTlore Valley Joint Unified School District submitted a written
response (see Attachment 1). The City Attorney has submitted an update of this issue (see
Attachment 2).
DSRSD
.':
DSRSD submitted a letter (see Attachment 3) clarifying their concerns with the
previous January 2nd Planning Commission staff report. The letter specifies that the
infrastructure illustrations, (Attachment 3 of the January 2 staff report), portrayed a
reasonable preliminary plan for off-site potable and recycled water and wastewater
collection system improvements. However, the attachment's references to the
responsibility for construction may be premature or inaccurate. In accordance with the
District Policy for Major Infrastructure (Res. 29-94), DSRSD will determine who shall design
and build the District's off-site improvements.
DSRSD also revised condition of approval #34. Exhibit 8 incorporates the revised
condition.
Medium Densitv Neighborhood Roadway Widths
The Commission had concerns with fire access and parking availability within the
Medium Density Neighborhood. The applicant is now proposing that the minimum width of
roadways be 32 feet with parking on one side, not 30 feet as previously proposed. Exhibit
A from the January 2nd staff report will be revised to incorporate this change, and these
changes are depicted in Exhibit A of this staff report.
.,
DRFA's Fire Prevention Officer stated that there would be no fire access problems
even with a 30 foot wide roadway and parking on one side. The Uniform Fire Code and
DRFA's code requires a minimum 20 foot free and clear right-of-way (10 feet in each
direction). The Commission was also concerned with the length of the roadways through
the Medium Density area. According to DRFA, there are adequate egress and ingress points
all along the abutting Tassajara Road, providing adequate emergency access. Attachment 6
provides additional information. A DRFA official will be present at the January 16 meeting
to answer any additional questions.
. r ': 3 or:ji,- ~
" .
.--- .
3
Regarding parKing, the applicant has calculated the number of off-street parking
spaces that would be available throughout the Medium Density area. This information will
be presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
.
Number of Units
This PD rezone approval will set the maximum number of residential units that can
be constructed for the entire Dublin Ranch Phase I project. The maximum number of units
for this PD rezone would be 847. When the applicant applies for future Tentative Map
approvals, the City would be approving a certain number of units for each residential
category. As the draft Resolution specifies, the number of dwelling units and mix of
dwelling unit types can vary under each residential land use category while staying within
the approved density ranges.
Hypothetically, if an approved Tentative Map for Dublin Ranch requires an
amendment due to the discovery of a seismic or geologic safety problem, the City may
approve a decrease in the number of units that was previously approved for the Tentative
Map. However, the total number of units approved for the Tentative Map amendment could
not exceed 847 unless a new PD rezone is approved for a different maximum number of
units.
The following chart depicts the maximum and minimum number of units that would
be allowed within each residential land use category for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project.
Maximum Capacity (regulated by PD Rezone) - 847 Dwelling Units
.,.,'
..
Land Use Designation Density Range Dwelling Units Allowed
Single Family 0.9 du/ac - 6.0 du/ac 99 dus (min) to 659 dus
(max)
Medium Density 6.1 du/ac - 14.0 du/ac 218 dus (min) to 500 dus
(max)
Letters and Landowner Concerns
A letter was received after the January 2nd public hearing requesting that the City
consider requiring the applicant to provide an interim bicycle path along the north side of 1-
580 (see Attachment 4). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires this bicycle route. This
required bicycle route does not run through the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. Attachment 5
is Public Works' response to this letter and the Contra Costa County's letter.
The Dublin Land Company landowner expressed concern over the conceptual
alignment of Gleason Road as shown on the applicant's site plan. This roadway
configuration, which complies with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, cuts through the
northern portion of the Dublin Land Company property, located just south of the project's
Medium Density area, and leaves a narrow strip of land (approx. 900' x 120', or approx. 2
acres) for development. Public Works and Planning Staff informed the landowner that it
would be best if he resolved this issue with the Dublin Ranch landowner.
..:
4
~ Yf
f\("\':'"' "... .
Pr,Ul: _ 1.1;"-..
.
Minor Resolution Changes
Draft Resolution Exhibit B, includes the revised conditions that were presented at
the January 2 meeting, DSRSD's revised condition #34, and minor condition revisions for
language clarification. These revised conditions (nos. 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 23, 24, 34-36,
43, 48) are indicated with strikethroughs, and bold and italicized letters.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT:
ACTION:
.'
ATTACHMENTS:
1 )
2)
3)
4)
5)
Open public hearing and hear staff presentation.
Take testimony from the applicant and the public.
Question staff, the applicant and the public.
Close public hearing and deliberate
Adopt Resolution Exhibit B relating to PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch
Phase I PD Rezone, or give staff direction and continue the matter.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution
recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development District
Rezone, Exhibit B.
To approve the project as presented, a Planning Commissioner may make a
motion such as:
I move to adopt the Resolution approving the Planned Development District
Rezone, Exhibit B, for PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
(Refer to January 2, 1996 Planning Commission staff report Exhibit
A); Exhibit A Revisions Depicting Roadway Width Modification for
Medium Density Residential
Planned Development District Rezone Resolution
Attachment 1:
Background Attachments:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
g:\pa95030\ 1,16pcsr
.
Letter from Robert E. Thurbon, representing LVJUSD, dated January
9, 1996
Dublin City Attorney Correspondence
DSRSD Letter dated January 9, 1996
Letter from Robert S. Allen dated January 3, 1996
Public Works Memos dated January 11, 1996
Memo from DRFA dated January 5, 1996
5
pr,('I,..R M ~\ /
, 11'.,):'....!-- VI' ~
.
Regular Meeting - January 2, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 2, 1996, in the
Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner
Zika.
**********
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Zika, Geist, Johnson and Lockhart; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director; Carol
Cirelli, Senior Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Jennings
**********
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIffi FLAG
Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
**********
ADDmONS OR REVISIONS TO TIffi AGENDA
The minutes of the December 5, 1995 , meeting were approved as submitted.
.
***********
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
6.1 Election of Officers
This item was postponed until Cm. Jennings could attend the meeting.
**********
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Tong indicated that staff had received three written communications regarding public hearing item 8.1
which would be discussed with that item.
**********
PUBLIC HEARING
.
8.1 PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Planned Development Rezone The applicant is requesting a
Planned Development (PD) District Rezone approval for an approximate 210 acre site. The
project involves rezoning the site to: PD Single Family Residential (109.8 acres; 570 dwelling
units); PD Medium Density Residential (35.7 acres; 277 dwelling units) for a total 847
dwelling units and 57.5 acres PD Open Space. This rezone request also includes a 5 acre
neighborhood park and a 2 acre private recreational facility. The project is located within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, east of Tassajara Road and approximately 4,000 feet north
of the 1-580 freeway.
Regular Meeting
[1-2-96pc]
1
January 2, 1996
Cm. Zika asked for the staff report.
.1
Ms. Cirelli, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated that the Applicant was present and would
make a brief presentation of the project. Ms. Cirelli indicated this was the first major residential project
being processed within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. She showed on an overhead the general
location of the project. Ms. Cirelli showed the three major zoning land use designations: single family
residential, medium density residential and open space. She gave the project's proposed densities, She
indicated that this project was in the recently annexed property. She stated that the City Zoning Ordinance
states that no development agreement, tentative map and site development review will be done for this
project. Proposed were three minor adjustments to the adopted Eastern Dublin Land Use Plan, which occur
all on the Jennifer Lin properties. The project was consistent with the housing goals of the Specific Plan, A
range of housing types will be offered. This was not a typical City of Dublin residential rezoning project. It
proposed higher density/more compact residential development consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. The higher density projects are more common practice these days for both the neo-traditional
communities as well as conventional communities and they satisfy consumer needs. The setbacks vary with
the advisory design guidelines of the Specific Plan, however, they are still acceptable. Ms. Cirelli discussed
traffic circulation, open space areas and utility service districts. The draft Resolution addressed traffic
issues and included a Condition that appropriate traffic mitigation measures will be identified and included
as conditions oftentati've map approval. The Applicant proposed to dedicate and construct a five acre
neighborhood park. A private recreational facility was also proposed providing recreational opportunities
that will not be provided with a neighborhood park, such as a community pool and a child's wading pool.
The private recreational facility would be owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. Staff
recommended that the private facility not be credited towards meeting the park dedication requirements.
DSRSD would be providing water, sewer, and recycled water services to the area. They are currently
studying effective ways to service the project. As required by the Specific Plan, the Applicant must enter
into a Development Agreement with the City that could set forth a specific time schedule for obtaining
required Planning and Building approvals and commencing construction of the project and the precise
financial responsibilities of the Developer, It should address the method of financing and provisions for
assurance of timely financing and construction. School district jurisdiction issues have yet to be resolved.
Ms. Cirelli indicated that there were changes to the Conditions of Approval in the staff report. Those
changes to the Condition of Approval were:
.:
#6 The word "applicable" has been added before the word "grading"
#19 A sentence has been added to this condition stating "The City may consider the applicant's
request to improve the neighborhood park and receive credit for those improvements."
#23 A sentence has been added to this condition stating "All minor modifications to the City's
roadway standards shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director."
#24 The words "or construct required improvements" have been added after "The applicant shall
pay a traffic impact fee."
#34 The last sentence of this condition has been replaced with "These facilities shall be constructed
as necessary in conjunction with DSRSD's phasing plan."
#36 The first sentence has been revised to read "A recycled water system for the landscaping
within the Dublin Ranch Phase I area shall be provided per the City of Dublin, Zone 7 and
DSRSD requirements."
.".,
..
Regular Meeting
[1-2-96pc]
2
January 2. 1996
.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the PD Rezoning for Dublin Ranch, Phase I to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the PD District Overlay Zone and
recommend City Council approval of the Rezone request. She stated the City had also received three letters
concerning the project. Ms. Cirelli concluded her presentation and asked the Planning Commission if they
had any questions,
Cm Zika asked if we are violating the condition on page 9 of III that there must be an agreement with the
school district prior to the PD Rezone approval.
Ms. Cirelli stated that the City was implementing the Condition by still requiring that the developer enter
into a written mitigation agreement with the effective school districts, but simply changing when that needs
to occur.
Cm. Lockhart asked what would happen if the school district would not enter into an agreement. If they do
not agree, would that void the Planning Commission action?
Mr. Tong stated that would have to be resolved at the City Council level, if the school districts rejected the
Condition.
Cm. Geist asked if there was any indication of when the school districts would respond.
Ms. Cirelli stated there was no indication as of this date.
Mr. Tong stated as oftoday, the Livermore school district controls the area now.
.'.'.
, '
Mr. Zika stated he heard they wanted control of the area, but would have to bus the kids to Dublin.
Cm. Lockhart asked for clarification on page 2 of III regarding the history of the zoning, on January 12,
1995. He asked who requested that LA vca reconsider the reorganization approval.
Ms. Cirelli stated it was the Sierra Club in conjunction with the Greenbelt Alliance group.
Cm. Geist asked for verification on the change to the Condition #19, which park does it refer to.
Ms. Cirelli said the neighborhood park that they are proposing was the one that they are considering to
improve.
Cm. Zika asked why there would be a re-alignment of the roads.
Ms. Cirelli indicated to allow the topography in the grading. Due to the topography, some of the roads had
to be re-aligned to accommodate their land use configuration in certain areas.
Cm. Zika asked if a decision was made tonight, how much was in concrete and how much could the project
change.
Ms. Cirelli stated that there was a Condition that addressed that. Staff could make minor changes to the
architectural and the landscape plans, which are conceptual at this time, however, major changes would
require a new PD rezone.
Cm. Zika asked if Staff could allow the setbacks to be changed from 3 feet to 2 1/2 feet.
.
Ms. Cirelli answered if Staff determined that it was a minor change that did not require a Conditional Use
Permit approval or a new PD Rezone approval, Staff could approve that. She said for that circumstance,
Regular Meeting
[1-2-96pc]
3
January 2, 1996
Staff may not approve the change from 3 to 2.5 feet because Staff may recommend that 3 feet should be the e
absolute minimum setback.
Mr. Tong stated that with that particular hypothetical situation, Staff would not go less than 3 feet because of
Building Code issues, However, some architectural details may prove to be minor and Staff could approve
them.
Cm. Zika asked if 847 units were approved, does that give the Applicant a right to those units no matter
what happens to the project in the future.
Mr. Tong stated that this approval would not give them rights to those 847 units, there would be other
requirements that would have to be met. If they were not able to meet those requirements, they may not be
given permission to build 847 units.
Cm. Geist asked if the proposed mix of units, single family versus medium or high density, could not be
modified.
Ms. Cirelli answered no, there was not a set amount of each type of unit, that the mix of units could be
modified as long as it still equaled 847 units.
Ted Fairfield, consulting civil engineer and representative for the Lin family, stated Staff did a Commendable
job in preparing and presenting the staff report and wanted to add only a few things. He has represented the
Lin's on several projects, and indicated that the Lin's would be serving as the master developer. He stated
that the initial application was actually:filed 10 years ago, and they would like to get approval now. This
was another step in defining the :first phase of the project. He indicated that they will be coming back with a
development agreement and tentative map for approval. Project improvements would likely start in 1997,
and in 1998 ifDSRSD gets their capacity together, they want to be:first in line for taking advantage of that. ,
He introduced his planning team who were available to answer questions in individual areas of expertise.
e:
Martin Inderbitzen, attorney for the project, also thanked Staff for their semce. He said that Ms. Cirelli had
been very giving of her time and they appreciate the good working relationship. Other than issues raised
during Ms. Cirelli's presentation, he had one small change to Condition #36. He indicated the need to
include the words "shall be provided" in the sentence somewhere.
Cm. Zika asked who would provide for that the Condition.
Mr. Inderbitzen explained why that change in wording happened. DSRSD had requested this Condition and
it would be determined in the future who would provide for that Condition. He stated pages 108 through
III of the staff report were not related to the Conditions, they were just for visual aid. He walked staff
through the project by showing various plans on the walls and offered a brief explanation. He showed the
,landscaping exhibits and how the major entry to the City into the project would look. He talked about the
street sections to the project. He addressed some of the school issues. He explained about the credit for park
improvements and what they were asking for. [8:38]
Cm. Lockhart asked about the stream corridor relocation, why are they doing it and what effect would that
have.
Mr. Inderbitzen explained the situation. He said that now, the stream corridor in a certain area does not
serve much and they thought if they reconstructed it along the park area it would get more use and look
better. Now there is nothing there, it is basically grass land, and with the change, it will become something
nice.
Cm. Lockhart asked how wildlife would be affected.
e,
Regular Meeting
[1-2-96pc]
4
January 2, 1996
.
Mr. Inderbitzen said that there was not a threatened or endangered species in that area, The plan had been
previewed by the Corps. of Engineers, and they have indicated that it fits within the approval of the Nation-
wide permit.
Cm. Lockhart indicated that on page 8 it stated that a new reservoir was required, yet the location has yet to
be determined, but page 110 showed a tentative location of the reservoir.
Mr. Inderbitzen indicated the exhibit on page 110 was the exhibit that he referred to earlier which was to be
a visual aid only.
Cm. Zika asked about the 30, 32, and 36 foot wide streets, and how can you get two parking lanes and two
lanes of traffic on a 30-foot wide street.
Will Haynes, He7:m:llh:llch Architect and Planners, answered that 36 wide streets were the minimum if
parking was to be on both sides. The 32-foot wide street was for parking on one side. The 30-foot wide
street would be a case where there would be parking along one side of the street section. He indicated that
they had gone through an initial study counting the parking spaces throughout the development to insure
they meet the standard as far as the city's parking requirements.
Ms. Cirelli stated that Condition #22, on page 102, addressed the issue. Adequate parking will be re-
assessed prior to the tentative map approval.
Cm. Johnson stated that there were some areas in Dublin that have no parking on the street. However, in
medium density areas, these would be considered private streets not public streets.
...,
"
Cm. Zika asked for information on other streets in Dublin that have 30-foot wide streets.
Mr. Haynes stated he would find some. He said they would allow five parking spaces in medium density
areas. He addressed the side yard setbacks, and said there would be a reciprocal easement and both side
yards go to one unit, so there ,would be a six foot sideyard on a patio home, so each house would get zero on
one side and six feet on the other.
Cm. Zika declared a 10 minute break.
Cindy Souza, resident of Dublin, asked about the supply and demand. She felt that there are many houses that are on
the market now that are not selling, why do we need 847 more. She stated that property values have decreased and
traffic was becoming more congested. She opposed the project She asked how was the growth policy determined in
Dublin.
Cm. Zika stated that all property values have gone down. and that Dublin does not have a growth policy.
Ms. Souza felt the valley was growing out of control. and asked how the demand was determined. She felt the 1990's
was the era for the developers and they are just out to making money. She asked if there had been a growth study
done in this area.
Cm. Lockhart quoted out of the Tri-Valley Subregional Planning Strategy indicated that there would be a 50,000
housing shortage in comparison to jobs in the future,
.
Ms. Carolyn Morgan. 5184 Doolan Road. Livermore. had questions. She felt the school situation needed to be
answered. Also. would the City be liable if the project was approved and promised sewage in 5 years. and DSRSD
did not come through. could they back out of the annexation.
Mr. Tong clarified that as part of the annexation, DSRSD committed to providing the sewer for the annexation area
within three years., by October. 1998.
Regular Meeting
[1-2-96pc]
5
January 2. 1996
Ms. Morgan, felt the word leap-frog development applies to this project. She was concerned that the project was no.
consistent with the General plan.
MaIjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, addressed several issues including school jurisdiction and infrastructure issues.
She wondered if a five-acre park would be sufficient for the area, especially \vith high density units with small yards.
She had concerns with the off-street and on-street parking. She asked that the project be put on the back burner
until more westerly projects were approved.
John Donahoe, Ruggeri-Jensen and Associate, representing the Pao-Lin property, south of the Phase I application,
addressed the transit spine in Phase I and stated they would be working with the Dublin Ranch project team to help
clarify some issues. Also, the issue of recreating and relocating the stream corridor had been addressed in his letter,
but he wanted to assure that whatever happened to the streets or the stream corridors, these features, when backed up
to the Pao-Lin property, were either exactly or as close as possible to the Specific Plan location. He wanted to go on
record supporting the project and the project team.
Ms. LaBar then asked why was there no ElR on the project.
Ms. Cirelli indicated that Staff did conduct an Initial Study and found that the project was exempt according to
,Section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Ms. LaBar indicated that in the past this issue was brought up and they were told that there would be individual
impact reports as projects came on line. She felt that stream bed relocation study should be done in more depth.
Ms. Cirelli stated that the project had been distributed to the Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers and
Staff did not get any comments from either agency. She said this approval would be for the Rezone, which was more .'"
. of a policy level decision making effort vs. a construction level effort that will be conducted at the tentative map stage, '
Ms. LaBar asked if the comment period would be reopened in the future.
Ms. Cirelli stated that yes, the tentative map and SDR approval would require further review and public hearings.
Cm. Lockhart asked if Mr. Indetbitzen wanted to address any issues that had been brought up. He asked about the
leap frog development, school district issues and DSRSD issues.
Mr. Indetbitzen stated that he would like to see if the Planning Commission was going to take action that night, he
would answer any issues that needed to be addressed. However, if the Planning Commission was going to continue
the project in two weeks there might be some additional information available that would answer some of the
questions raised. He said the school district would do nothing if they did not have to without the Applicant :first
moving forward and forcing the schools district to face some of these issues. He indicated they were consistent with
the Phasing and in compliance with the Specific Plan. He felt environmental issues were to be raised during the
tentative map phase of the project .
Cm. Lockhart felt that waiting would not accomplish anything. He felt DSRSD and school district issues would not
be resolved in a couple weeks. He felt that the Planning Commission would just be moving the project along one step
further.
Cm. Zika wanted to hear DSRSD' s concerns, more on the school problem and whether this action would move them
towards some type of resolution, also more on the 30 foot-wide streets and asked if the DRF A had any concerns.
Ms, Cirelli stated DRF A gave Staff their Standard Conditions of Approval for the project, and they will be .',
commenting again with future tentative map and SDR applications when there would be more detailed development
plans submitted.
Regular Meeting
[1-2-96pc]
6
January 2, 1996
.
.'
.:
Cm. Lockhart stated they would just be approving a PD Rezone, and the 30 foot streets issue would be dealt with at a
later date.
Cm, Zika stated that they would be granting a specific number of units and did not feel comfortable until he heard
from DRFA and DSRSD. He asked for clarification on the process and what the Planning Commission's options
were.
Mr. Tong outlined the options available to the Planning Commission. They could close the public hearing and take
action, or close the public hearing and continue the iteIIl, or reopen the hearing on specific items such as the 30 foot-
wide streets and DRF A comments, or the Planning Commission could keep the public hearing open and continue the
meeting in two weeks.
Mr. Tong indicated procedurally, the public hearing needed to be closed before a vote was taken.
Cm. Zika closed the pubic hearing.
On motion by Cm. Lockhart to recommend adoption of the Resolution approving the Planned Development
District Rezone, Exhibit B, for P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I, seconded by Cm. Johnson, including the
changes to the Conditions of Approval that were outlined earlier in the meeting, and with a vote of 2 for, 2
abstained,and 1 absent, the motion failed to carry for lack of a majority of3 votes in favor.
Cm. Zika stated that he would continue the matter and reopen the public hearing on the specific items ofDSRSD,
streets, schools and number of units to be addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting,
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Tong indicated there would be a study session on the City of Dublin Housing Program and Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance in the Regional Meeting Room at 6:00 p.m.
Cm. Geist asked about the delay in PetSmart.
Mr. Tong indicated that PetSmart wanted to wait until after the holidays to complete their construction and open.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ATTEST:
~u
Regular Meeting
[1-2-96pc]
7
January 2, 1996
J HI ~ 16' ':4:=,
11 : 1SHI'1 BF:E'~lr~ 1:'[II::NI'iEL
F' . 2.- ::
m!
-'
BREON, O'DONNELL. MILLER, BRO\VN & DANNlS
.
ATTCR,'\PYS A' :./',W
: ^ PROi'ESSJOKAL COR.PORATION
Keit:-. ".: E:-~~n
~~M~;:\71 [,. ~)'D':lOnC:~
;).~:d G, ~!:::e
!'ri.J.:i!1~ 3~c\Vn
Gr<l:<''l ), ,).,::::.
Em; R, Urrhl'.
6;icjld ,-\. ;:1!::!8'~
."ilnl;." Sci.::::'<
7i ~t('\'.:n..\on StreL't
Ninrt~t1th l~oor
S'l\ F!~r.d.(O, c.\ 94105
Ttl; ",::;/543-4:::
h. 4:5/;45.~3~1
Mthryn L:I~<
.\\....Iiyn J. CliWldnd
I.a:J6~ S. ;ce:nre::
(Oir. Rirdt
D;'~~:~ ^ ho;:
B~"'\t T. j ~i'
Cloud" p, ,..dr1tll
;and';! 0, ;>artn'
Ptlt! W. :;lUrg~E
~cri. E. Rt)'/lo:ris
Guy ^ 3';'-.:-'1
January 16,1996
2SSC \'i. Teil'"
S\liltSA
rolo! \'e,d.,., CA 90274
Td: 310i3i'1,6857
FlU(: 310/373,6~5
li~2 Mere Reid
Suit; F110
~lin.!.i. :A 93907
Tel: 40.!(,6;,~~'O
j,.c, "l'~eje', CA
Tel. 'JP!(O,2.;:2,\
:anc r ;,,~I:i~C'::
Jri.a~h:! B:;C'~: "ell
5",(:1.<\:,(':::,"".;
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
GlIStB M~ CA
'lei; ii f,/b62.6::7;
Laurence Toni
Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
e.
Re: Dublin Ranch Phase a, Land Use Development Plan
Our file 5180.1.000 ;
Dear Mr. Tong:
This letter is to advise that the Dublin Unified School District and the Lin Family, owners of the
above-referenced project, have readied a mutually satisfactory agreement regarding the imposition of
the condition regarding school impaet mitigation (copy enclosed). Therefore, the District has no
objection to the City's approval of the Land Use and Development Plan being considered by it on
Janumy16, !
Very truly yours,
BREON, O'DONNELL, MILLER,
BROWN & DANNIS
r1~~
Priscilla Brown
PB:kmd
Enclosure
.
cc: Vince Anaclerio, Superintendent, Dublin Unified School District
\51"'"000."",,1.196 AttacbnInt S--
.
.
.
01/0C' '96 17: 11
I D : THUFB!]~'J2.:\(QUt",)t3E:LCiCJD
FHI<: '~j1t::S4824~~1
~'HI;E
THURBON & YOUNGBLOOD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I..e~ "1:6PO"'~J! P\O"O, llurl'l: IO~
&..C......t..TO, C"L.II"OI'INIA "~I:I
H~e:PHONI:
'''C_"'.'L.r
l"I/HC..~:J~
("lClC..~2""\
January 9, 1996
Lawrence L. Tong
City of Dublin
Post Office Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
VIA FACSIMILE AND
FIRST CLASS KAIL
Re: Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
Dear Mr. Tong:
I am in receipt of your correspondence dated January 4, 1996.
I apologize for the delay in my original response to this issue,
however, I understood Libby's request, to be a request fo:::" a
response confirming our agreement with Mr. Inderbitzen's proposal
for the school mitigation condition result regarding the above-
referenced project. The purpose of this letter is to set forth our
position regarding the issue and is being provided to you in
accordance with your January 4, 1996 correspondence so that you may
incorporate our comments accordingly.
The District appreciates the efforts the City has undertaken
to adopt school impact mitigation conditions and the efforts that
you and the Planning staff have expended in getting to where we are
today. At first glance, Mr. Inderbitzen's suggestion for
resolution of the school issue has some appeal. However,
conditions attached to tentative maps may be more susceptible to
legal challenge than simply enforcing the original condition in
accordance with the requirements established when the City adopted
the condition pursuant to its earlier legislative act. The
original condition basically requires project proponents to comply
with the school mitigation requirements prior to the final
legislative act affecting a project.
Mr. Inderbitz~n has proposed, as I understand it, that as the
final legislative .act- approaches that the condition be modified for
the subject project to read that "no tentative subdivision map for
all or any part of the area covered by this land use and
development plan shall be approved by the City Council until the
applicant has entered into a written mitigation agreement with the
affected school district (s) and the City. II As a general rule,
conditions placed on a subdivision map are enforceable and it would
seem, at first glance that such a condition would provide adequate
protection to schools. However, cities and counties, when
considering requiring developers to mitigate their impacts on
schools, act from their strongest position when they deny or
condition the project pursuant to a legislative act.
I understand that it is the intent of the City and Mr.
Inderbitzen that the restriction on approval of subdivision maps
occur pursuant to a legislative act. However, if the City does not
01/09 ~SH3 17:12
I [I : THUF:E:ut',J:l '(UUI,JbELUUD
FA>::: ~011:,I:;4~(:4:~ll
~'HI:1E
"
Lawrence L. Tong
City of Dublin
Re: Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
January 9, 1996
Page 2
.
require the project proponent to enter into a written mitigation
agreement consistent with the original condition, a subsequent
purchaser of the property may choose to challenge the City's
ability to deny a tentative subdivision map based on mitigation of
school impacts because approval of a tentative subdivision map is
not a legislative act. This puts the City at some risk and
ultimately, reduces the protection that the school districts have
from the condition as originally adopted by the City. This may not
seem like a significant issue today, but it could be an issue in
the future.
For example, we 'are currently involved in litigation with
another county over a very similar issue. Specifically in that
case, the County 1 during a rezoning process and a CEQA review,
recommended. that a condition be adopted requiring a proj ect
proponent to enter into an agreement with affected school districts
to mitigate the development's impacts on the school district. The
condition was similar to the one proposed in Dublin and the
condition was placed on the tentative map stating that prior to
approval of the final map, the project proponent had to negotiate
a written agreement with the affected school districts regarding
school impact mitigation. Once all legislative actions had been
taken and the condition attached to the tentative map, the project
proponent sold portions of the project to other individuals and the
process of working towards a final map took many months.
.
During that time financial conditions for the parties involved
changed, County Counsel retired and a new County counsel came into
the picture and ultimately a new Planning Director was hired by the
County. Thereafter, portions of the project had been sold a second
time, counsel for the new owners decided that they could
successfully challenge a school mitigation condition attached to
the tentative map. ~e have been in litigation on the issue for
several months and-while we are close to settling the matter, the
school district's position has been compromised during settlement
discussions. When faced with the legal challenge, County Counsel
and the new Planning Director, as well as the County Board of
Supervisors took a neutral position and refused to enforce the
condition based on the threat of litigation from the new owners of
the project. Ultimately, the County approved the final map
notwithstanding the condition which led to the current litigation.
Arguably, from a technical standpoint, placing the proposed
condition on a tentative map should protect the City and the ."
affected school districts. However, under the current state of the
law in California the City, if challenged in the future, may find
itself in the position of not being able to enforce the condition
as originally anticipated. Mr. Inderbitzen has represented that
there is no intent to sell portions of the project at this time.
.
.
.
'.I: .'I'-}~ ,,~it:, 17:1:::
] II : THUF;E:D!"r '/DI.l!"jl;ELDCiIJ
F H>< : '~~11~;I::4~(:,:E~1
~'~,("E
.::)
Lawrence L. Tong
City of Dublin
Re: Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
January 9/ 1996
Page 3
However, as we all know, the complete development process takes a
long period of time and based on economic issues circumstances may
change in the future. In short, enforcement of the original
condition at this point in time, as adopted by the City, presents
little legal risk and secures the interests the City sought to
protect with the original condition. Modifying the condition as
suggested merely delays, what we all anticipate will be the
inevitable (a mutual agreement ,between the developer and the school
district) and unnecessarily weakens the City's legal position as it
relates to enforcing the condition as a tentative map condition.
The District recognizes the need for Mr. Inderbitzen and his
client to continue their development process without unreasonable
delays. To that end, the District is prepared to meet with Mr.
Inderbitzen and his client, on a daily basis if necessary, to
arrive at an equitable agreement which will satisfy the original
condition adopted by the City and allow Mr. Inderbitzen and his
clients to proceed with their development uninterrupted. I have
contacted Mr. Inderbitzen and advised him of our position in this
matter. I suggested that we immediately begin meeting to reach an
acceptable agreement between the parties which will comply with the
original condition and allow his project to continue uninterrupted.
In the meantime, we respectfully request that the City adhere to
the condition as originally adopted.
If you need further clarification or have any questions,
please feel free to call me.
Very truly yours,
THURBON & YOUNGBLOOD
By:
'Ii! 2. dLJ
ROBERT E. THURBON
RET:mbp
cc: Dr. Joyce Mahdesian
Mike White
Libby Silver, City Attorney
MICHAEL R. NAVE
STEVEN R. MEYERS
ELIZABEni H, SILVER
MICHAEL S, RIBACK
KENNEni A. WILSON
CLIFFORD F, CAMPBELL
MICHAEL F, RODRIQUEZ
KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP
WENDY A. ROBERTS
DAVlDW. SKINNER
STEVENT. MATIAS
RICK W, JARVIS
LARISSA M, SETO
DEBBIE F. LATHAM
WAYNE K SNODGRASS
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
SANTA ROSA OFFICE
.'
GATEWAY PLAZA
777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300
SAN lEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577
TELEPHONE: (510) 351-4300
FACSIMilE: (510) 351-4481
555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230
SANTA ROSA, CA 95401
TELEPHONE: ClO7) 545-8009
FACSIMILE: ClO7) 545-6617
MEMORANDUM
IltCtlv
'. t/}
JAM .,
q I 6 lSqs
DU8l/IV PI.4 ..
IVIVING
OF COUNSEL
ANDREA J, SAL 1ZMAN
TO:
Planning Commission
City of Dublin
DATE: January 11, 1996
FROM:
Eliza,b~th H. Silver
City Attorney
RE:
Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
The staff has asked me to address several issues which may arise at your continued .',"
public hearing on January 16 on the Dublin Ranch Phase I PUD.
Environmental Review
Because the project before you -- a PD rezone -- is a residential project undertaken
pursuant to and in conformity -with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan the PD rezone is
exempt from CEQA, as indicated in the Agenda Statement for your January 2 meeting.
(State CEQA Guidelines, section 15182.) If the PD rezone is approved, the applicant will
still need to process a tentative map and site development review before development can
occur. No further environmental review is required at tentative map approval or at site
development review unless the initial study performed at that time disclosures some new
environmental impact not previously addressed in the Program EIR prepared for the
Specific Plan. (Ibid.)
Condition Requiring School Mitigation Agreement Prior to Tentative Map Approval
In 1994 the Council prezoned 1500 acres, including the property in question, and
imposed a condition on the prezoning C'Prezoning Condition") which stated that
applicants for PD rezonings must enter into a school mitigation agreement -with the
affected school district prior to PD rezoning. The mitigation agreement would require
developers to pay school impact fees in excess of the amount of school mitigation fees that
.
.
.'.'
.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
Planning Commission, City of Dublin
Elizabeth H. Silver, City Attorney
Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
January 11, 1996
2
State law requires developers to pay. The Council imposed the Pre zoning Condition
because the Specific Plan includes a policy (Policy 8-3) requiring adequate school facilities
and the Council concluded that the amount of the State school impact fees is not
adequate to fund the necessary schools. The Council was authorized to impose such a
condition because the prezoning is a "legislative" act and because the Specific Plan includes
Policy 8-3. The school districts have no power to impose school impact fees over and
above the amount required to be paid by State law.
The applicant has requested that the Pre zoning ~dition be satisfied by a
condition imposed on the PD rezoning C'Proposed Rezoning Condition") which states that
no tentative map shall be approved until the applicant enters into a mitigation agreement
with the affected school district. The staff believes, and I concur, that the Proposed
Rezoning Condition is consistent with and would implement the Prezoning Condition.
Both the applicant and the staff notified both the Dublin Unified School District
and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District of the Proposed Rezoning
Condition. The Dublin district has indicated its concurrence with the Proposed Rezoning
Condition provided it receives certain assurances from the applicant. The applicant and
the Dublin district are in the process of preparing an agreement to provide such
assurances.
The Livermore district has submitted a letter Ganuary 9, 1996 letter from Robert
Thurbon to La:wrence Tong) which, although not stated explicitly, appears to object to the
Proposed Rezoning Condition. The Livermore district's reason for objecting are misplaced,
in my opinion. Mr. Thurbon's primary concern appears to be that the Prezoning
Condition would be modified. That is not, however, what the applicant is requesting.
The Prezoing Condition would not be modified. Rather, the Proposed Rezoning
Condition would be the means of complying with the Prezoning Condition.
Mr. Thurbon is also concerned that a condition requiring a mitigation agreement
-which is imposed as a condition of tentative map approval may not be legally binding. I
concur with Mr. Thurbon. It is clear from California case law that the City Council
cannot impose a legally binding condition requiring a school mitigation agreement when
approving a tentative map because approval of a tentative map is not a "legislative act".
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
Planning Commission, City of Dublin
Elizabeth H. Silver, City Attorney
Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
January 11, 1996
3
.
The case Mr. Thurbon described involved a condition imposed on the tentative map.
That, however, is not what the applicant is requesting and the staff is recommending. The
Proposed Rezoning Condition would be imposed on the PD rezoning, which is a
"legislative" act. The Council has the power to impose such a condition in this case when
taking a "legislative" act.
The question before the Planning Commission is whether it believes that the
proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan and the zoning on the property. If
the Commissi'on believes that the Proposed Rezoning Condition is consistent vvith and
implements the Prezoning Condition, the Commission can make the required finding of
consistency notvvithstanding the fact that one or both school districts may have voiced
objections to the Proposed Rezoning Condition. There is no legal requirement that the
school districts agree vvith the Proposed Rezoning Condition because, as noted above, it is .~
the City Council and not the districts that has the power to impose the requirement for a
mitigation agreement which includes a fee.
As indicated above, I believe that the Proposed Rezoning Condition is consistent
vvith and implements the Prezoning Condition and provides adequate protection to the
City that adequate school facilities \vill be available for the students who will reside in the
homes to be constructed on the property.
Very truly yours,
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
~s;~
Elizabeth H. Silver
EHS:rja
J:\vVPD\tv1NRSW\114\MEMO\80\COMMISSI.W61
.
01/22 '96 16:17
ID:THURBON&YOUNGBLOOD
FAX:9166492491
PAGE 1
..
THURBON & YOUNGBLOOD
ATTOIUfIlY: AT LAW
1485 RESPONSE rtO^D
SUITE 10S
SACRAMENtO, C^ 95815
FACSIMILE 916..649.2491
TELEPHONE 910..649..3204
Facsimile. Cover Sheet
Date:
~j2L \ 9. Lt
Time: ~ '. D'S --f · f""I' .
CONFIDENTlALllY NOTE:
The infonnatlon tontalned in this faaimlle (fax) message is legally prl"i1e.ed and confideotlal
Inform'tlon Intended only for the use of the receiver or flrm n.med bilow. If the reader of this messa..
Is not the intended roc:elver, you are hereby natlfled that any dissemInatIon, dlstl'ibution or copy of this
fax i. stricti hi.. If h VI l'eCeivttd thiJ fax in error lease Immec:n.t.1 notl the sender at
Sender: ~c>k~LL.r-~1<.l . Flle #:
Re: ~ue.\i ~ .. K A.Io.?,,,c.h 'P..~ 4. 'S ~. ..:I: ~~ '2.c.f\J~ .
Pages: '5 (including this cover page)
R~ceiver: C~ Cbu..&C( LM('""b;~
Firm: C i~ pU u.6J " ~
Telecopy #; j - S/O ...J'!3 3"" (, S' J omce #:
MESSAGE:
11
If
all pages are Dot received, or if caples are illegible, please call our omce at the
following number (916) 649-3204.
01/22 '96 16: 18
ID:THURBON&YOUNGBLOOD
FAX:9166492491
PAGE
2
THURaON & YOUNGBLOOD
AT-rO"'....KYS AT ..."'W
,...,'" ".IIPONSI; RQAD, SUITE 105
AjI,CRA"'I~TO, eALlFOA~I.a. 01111I18
TtLEPHONE
(91fllll-4l1,~2Q"
FACSfl.4ll.C
It"e, o"1Il.a~1Il1
January 22, 1996
City Council Members
City of Oublin
Post Office Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
Dear Honorable Council Members I
I represent Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District.
On Tuesday, January 23, 1996, you will be considering whether or
not to approve The Dublin Ranch Phase I Rezone. The proposed
action includes a request that the school impact mitigation
requirement previously adopted by the Council, be modified to allow
the developer to comply w~th the original condition prior to the
approval of the tentative map. Tl1e condition as originally adopted
by the City council requires the developer to enter into a
mitigation agreement with the affected school district (in this
case Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District) prior to
approval of the action you are currently considering. The
developer ha.s not ent.ered into an agreement with the School
District. Instead, the developer has lobbied City staff and the
Planning Commission to modify the condition in an effort to avoid
entering into a mitigation agreement with the Livermore Valley
Joint Unified School District.
The action was considered by the Planning Commission one week
ago. I appeared at the Planning Commission meeting and voiced
Livermore Valley Joint unified school District's objection to the
proposed modification. The Planning Commission, as well as members
from the audience addressing the Commission, expressed concern
regarding timely availability of school facilities to serve
students which will be generated by the new development. The
developer and representatives of the City have made no secret about
their desire to proceed with a sohool district reor9~nization and
attempt to take territory away from Livermore and place it in the
Dublin Pistrict. I understand that a strong sense of community is
the driving force behind ene reorganization movement. However, it
is partioularly troubling that the Planning Commission voted to
modify the school impact mitigation condition when the Commission
strongly expressed ita concerns that quality schools be available
concurrent with new development and the East Dublin Specific Plan
specifioally requires schools to be available concurrent with new
01/22 ' 96 16: 18
ID:THURBON&YOUNGBLOOD
FAX:9166492491
PAGE
3
.
City Council Members
City of Dublin
Re: Dublin Ranch Phase I PO Rezone
Janua.ry 22, 1996
Page 2
development. Delaying a achool impact mitigation agreement until
approval of a tentative subdivision map, regardless of which school
district serves the territory in question, is in direct conflict
with the City's desire to insure that adequate school facilities
are available concurrent with new development.
I previously outlined some of the District's oonoerno in
correspondence to Mr. Tong, and also expressed the District' s
concerns CO the Planning Commission at its recent meeting. We were
quite disappointed that the Commission publicly expressed a concern
that schools be concurrently available in the affected area, but
then seemed to summarily ignore the issues raised by the District.
Interestingly, the City apparently sought a response from the
Dublin Unified School District regarding its poeition on the
modification to the mitigation condition and made a point of noting
in the Commission record that the Dublin School District did not
object to the proposed modification. The Commission's reliance on
Dublin School District's non-objection is partioularly troublesome
because the action being considered affects cerritory that is only
in the Livermore Valley Joint Unified Sohool District.
The fact that the City entertained comments from Dublin on the
iaaue, much less relied on their non-objection, suggests, as we
have suspected for some time, that the motivation for modifying the
condition is related to the desire of the developer and the City to
remove territory from Livermore and place it in the Dublin
District. Modifying the condition to further the political agenda
of certain interested individuals is not consistent with the
perception the developer and City have attempted to foste~ among
the community. Specifically, that the City and developer's primary
goal is to insure that adequate schools will be available
concurrently with the new development.
A school district reorganization will require a vote of the
registered votera within the Dublin School District and the
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. In other words,
the proceaa to reorganize is a lengthy one and is ultimately
dependent upon a vote of the Dublin and Livermore oonstituencies.
The City, the Dublin District, the developer, and the Livermore
District do not have a final say in the matter and cannot control,
other than through the voting process, which District will serve
the territory. A~ this ti~., the affected school district is the
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, and not the Dublin
School District. Furthermore, the council, wisely, and with
foresight, adopted the original school impact mitigation condition
to insure that school facilities would be available to serve the
01/22 '96 16: 19
ID:THURBON&YOUNGBLOOD
FAX:9166492491
PAGE
4
~
City Council Members
,City,of,Dubli-n
Re: DUblin Ranch Phase I
January 22, 1996
Page 3
PD Rezone
proposed development. At that time, the council was making the
needs of future students a first priority. Making the condition
effective at the time a tentative map is approved makes absolutely
no sense in light of the Commission's stated goal, the goal set
forth in the original condition and the requirement as set forth in
the East Dublin Specifio Plan that schools be available concurrent
with new development.
It taKes a minimum of five years to develop new school
facilities to tJerve new students generaCed by new development.
Regardless of whether Livermore or Dublin aerve the student
population to be generated by this project, it is essential that
che sChool district required to serve the students gain every
advantage possible in order to provide both interim, and permanent
school facilities to meet the needs of the students. Delaying the
effectiveness of the condition adoptQd by the Council undermines
Livermore's efforts to provide adequate interim and permanent
school facilities to serve the proposed project. Waiting for the
outoome of an election on district reorganization, which may taken
18-24 months sends a message to the Dublin community, as well as
potential homeowners and studentst that the City is willing to put
the needs of the potential students secondary to the political
agenda of removing terricory from Livermore in the name of
IIcommunity identity. II
Livermore will be challenging any effort to remove territory
from its District. Livermore is the district that is legally
obligated to aerve the territory which will be affected by this
proposed a.ction. Dublin Uni.fied School District does not serve the
territory whioh will be affect~d by this action and the City's
reliance on Dublin's non-objection is misplaced. The City
originally adopted the condition to assist the Livermore Valley
Joint Unified School District and the Dublin Unified School
District as development proceeds in East Dublin. The condition was
well thought out and was drafted to be effective with your current
legislative action because to require compliance concurrent with
legislative action placee the City in its strongest legal position
when it requires developers to mitigate thei~ impacts on echoola.
There is no legal or practical need to modify the condition in any
way, or to delay compliance. Modifying the condition or delaying
the effectiveness of the condic1on only subjects the City to legal
challenge, and without regard to which sohool district is required
to serve the students, negatively impacts the serving school
district's efforts to provide adequate housing concurrent with the
proposed project.
01/22 '96 16:20
ID:THURBON&YOUNGBLOOD
FAX:9166492491
PAGE
5
City Council Members
City of Dublin
Rei Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
January 22, 1996
Page 4
There is no legal, practioal or reasonable basis to delay
requiring the developer to enter into a mitigation agreement with
the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. If there is
concern that Dublin may someday serve the subject territory, the
developer may also enter into an agreement with Dublin (although
the condition does not require the developer to do so because:
Dublin does not currently serve the territory) which will then
allow Dublin to plan in the event it does someday serve the
territory.
With due respect to the City Council, comments and actions to
date suggest that this action will be forced upon Livermore,
whether we like it or not and without regard to negative
consequences that will impact the Oistrict and students to be
served by the District. We respectfully request that the Council
specifically reject the proposed modification to the school impact
mitigation condition and that the condition be enforced as
originally adopted. Livermore Valley Joint unified School District
is the district legally required to serve students in the Dublin
Ranch Phase I area. The District is prepared to take all
appropriate action, inoluding legal action, to insure its ability
to provide school fac11icies to serve students generated by this
projeot,
Very truly yours,
THORBON & YOUNGBLOOD
By' K f ~
ROBERT E. THURBON
REl':mbp
co: Dr. Joyce Mahdesian
Mike White