HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 EDublinGrazing&WildlifeMgtPln
CITY CLERK
File # D~~[(1]-[2][Q]
...
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 9,1996
SUBJECT:
Eastern Dublin Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire
Mahageme~t :plan CI2 L..-
(Report Prepared by Carol R. Cirelli, Senior Planner)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: .
Exhibit A:
Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment Area
Exhibit B:
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
Exhibit C:
Planning Commission minutes of June 4 and June 18
/ Exhibit D:
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific
Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures
Exhibit E:
Planning Commission Resolutions 96-19 and 96-23
~.'.
I Exhibit F:
City Council Resolution Approving Exhibits A and B
Exhibit G:
Wildfire Management Plan Implementation
Guidelines
R~COMMENDATION: 1)
2)
1JvrY ~~
5)
Hear staff presentation.
Take testimony from the public.
Question staff and the public.
Deliberate.
Adopt draft Resolution Exhibit F approving the Grazing
Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment Area and the City of Dublin Wildfire
Management Plan; or give staff direction and continue the
matter.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The City has been initially covering the consultant contract costs for
this project. The City is in the process of establishing a method for
-------------------------------------------------------~-----------
COPIES TO:
In-House Distribution
".
g: lcastdubl\wildfire\ccsr\crc.
ITEM NO. A2
recovering any costs associated with implementing the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. These contract costs will be recovered
through the processing of future development projects within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
DESCRIPTION:
.:
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion EIR requires the City
to prepare and adopt certain implementation plans and programs before Eastern Dublin development
occurs. The City has completed two of these plans: the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment Area (Exhibit A), arui~he _City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan (Exhibit
B).
The City hired the biological consulting firm of Sycamore Associates to prepare the Grazing
Management Plan, and the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority prepared the City of Dublin Wildfire
Management Plan with biological consulting assistance from Sycamore Associates.
Grazing Management Plan
Mitigation Measure 3.7/4 of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR
requires the City to prepare and adopt a Grazing Management Plan that promotes the protection of
riparian and wetland areas, increased plant diversity, and the recovery of native plants, in particular,
perennial grasses (see Exhibit D).
The primary intent of the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment Area (GMP) is to ensure that significant riparian and wetland resources of Tassajara Creek ....
and its major tributaries within the Eastern Dublin area are protected and enhanced, while allowing
grazing to continue on properties along the creek and tributaries, consistent with the Specific Plan. Ca~He
and horses grazing along Tassajara Creek and its major tributaries have reduced and degraded native
habitat. The GMP contains grazing management guidelines and suggested improvements that when
implemented, would reduce grazing impacts on native riparian and wetland areas.
This GMP complements another Eastern Dublin implementation measure, the Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program.
The GMP includes grazing management goals that cover the following general areas of resource
protection: riparian area protection, protection of sensitive species, recovery of native plant cover, fire
hazard management, prevention of soil erosion or degradation of soil resources, water quality protection,
and wildlife protection from rodenticide impacts. The GMP also includes the following management
measures that can be implemented to achieve these goals: grazing, water source development, fencing,
integrated pest management, and/or habitat protection and restoration.
The GMP identifies tiJ.e following selected improvements that would reduce impacts to riparian
resources and sensitive resources:
1)
The development of alternate watering sources, salt blocks and nutrient dispensers
strategically placed in upland, dry locations to greatly reduce the movement of cattle anu
horses into the riparian corridors along Tassajara Creek, major tributaries and springs and
seeps;
The GMP emphasizes that these riparian protection and restoration measures are practical and cost
effective while providing the means to protect sensitive environmental resources.
. future grazing within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area will be restricted to those
areas zoned Open Space and Rural Residential/Agriculture. The City will enforce the GMP as conditions
of rezone and tentative map approval for areas zoned Open Space and Rural Residential! Agriculture. In
situations where landowners are not applying for a rezone or tentative map, or have received rezone and
tentative map approvals but wish to continue grazing their lands until development begins, the City would
seek a cooperative and voluntary approach and,Would ask the land owners and lessees to voluntarily enter
- # - -
into an agreement to adopt measures consistent with the grazing plan.
The GMP suggests how landowners/ranchers can either voluntarily join a cooperative watershed
management group to devise ~ strategy or plan for complying with the GMP (the City would facilitate the
formation of this group), or work independently. The document also suggests some technical and funding
assistance.
The GMP also requires the City to monitor the progress of the grazing plan, i.e. conduct annual
site checks to determine whether watering troughs have been developed and are functionally maintaineci,
exclusionary fencing is being adequately maintained, etc. The GMP also suggests that the City develop a
working agreement with various agencies and consultants that have sensitive habitat maintenance
expertise to monitor the condition of vegetation within the riparian buffer along Tassajara Creek, its
tributaries and other wetland areas that are being grazed.
. Wildfire Management Plan
e Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0 of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR
requires the City, in consultation with the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRF A) and a qualified
wildlife biologist, to prepare a wildfire management plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
project area. The DRFA, in consultation with Sycamore Associates (biology consultants), prepared the
draft City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan_(WMP), see Exhibit B...
The intent of the WMP. is to reduce the public safety risk of open land wildfire within the City of
Dublin to the lowest practical level while reasonably protecting wildlife habitat and other open space
values.
The WMP addresses all eight bullets of Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0 (see Exhibit D.) The WMP
shall be applicable to all future developments throughout the City, not just Eastern Dublin. When the
WMP is implemented, a fire safety barrier will be established between the areas of human occupancy and
open space. This barrier will reduce the risk of open land wildfire with reasonable protection of wildlife
habitat and other open space values. The wildfire mitigation measures are outlined in the construction
requirements and vegetation reduction sections.
The WMP sets forth the process for determining who will own, use and maintain the open space.
The selection or formation of an entity responsible for the maintenance of open lands will be subject to the
. Fire Chief s approval and the City Council's fmal approval. Selection of a maintenance entity, financial
. obligations of the property owners and p~an implementation responsibilities are outlined in the
"Ownership and Financing of Maintenance for Open Space" section of the WMP.
The document includes vegetation establishment and maintenance guidelines for open lands that
ar~' to be removed from grazing use. These guidelines promote the removal of combustible materials and
..
.:>
landscaping of fire resistant qualities. The document also includes a list of suitable plant species for the
fire barrier zone and areas of plant use.
Finally: the WM~ includes moni~oring m~asures. All areas a~jacent to open space or undeveloped . .
lands shall be Inspected In accordance wIth the FIre Department's NUIsance Abatement Program. Also, . ......
any new grading, building or other activity that affects open space will be reevaluated. ....
Guidelines for implementing the WMP are included as Exhibit G of the staff report.
This WMP also satisfies the folIowing1]quirements of Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: 1) u~e of non-
combustible roof materials in all new construction; and 2) establish buffer zone behind homes that are
contiguous with the wildland area, which is to be landscaped with irrigated (wet banding) or equivalent
fire-resistive vegetation.
The Planning Commission has held hearings on these two items on June 4, 1996 and June 18,
1996 and has recommended approval of both plans to the City Council.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Grazing Management Plan and the Wildfire
Management Plan, as specified in the Draft Resolution, Exhibit F. Both documents satisfy the
reyuirements of the Eastern D~blin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and EIR.
e..
......
e..
4
:.
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN
GENERALPL~-AMENDMENT AREA.-
CITY OF DUBLIN
:.
March 1996
.
Prepared by:
Sycamore Associates LLC
910 Mountain View Drive
Lafayette, CA 94549
EXHIBIT A
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN
...>
'.'
.'.
Summary
The preparation of this grazing management plan was required by Mitigation Measure
3.7/4.0 of the EIR. for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific
Plan, which states, "Grazing management plans shall be developed by the City and
implemented soon after approval nfihe General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.--
Management plans shall favor protection of riparian and wetland areas, increased plant
diversity, and the recovery of native plants, in particular, perennial grasses. ..
Cattle and horses grazing along Tassajara Creek and major tributaries have reduced and
degraded native habitat. Cattle and horse impacts to riparian resources and sensitive
resources found at seeps and springs noted on Figures 3.7 -A and 3.7 -C of the EIR. for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan (attached) can be
reduced through the implementation of selected improvements. Those improvements
include:
· The development of alternate watering sources, salt blocks and nutrient dispensers
strategically placed in upland, dry locations to greatly reduce the movement of cattle
and horses into the riparian corridors along Tassajara Creek, major tributaries and
springs and seeps;
· Limited areas of exclusionary fencing to protect sensitive species around springs and
seeps and the arroyo willow riparian woodland area along Fallon Road.
..
.".
Implementation of these measures will be negotiated through voluntary short-term
agreements between the City of Dublin and landowners for those lands which will be
rezoned and developed in the future. The provisions of the grazing management plan will
be conditions for approval of rezones within the Eastern-Dublin General Plan Amendment
area, excluding the future study area (GP A) and will apply to those lands which will be
zoned rural residentiaIlagriculture or open space in the future.
Introduction
This grazing management plan was prepared concurrent with the Tassajara Creek
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program (Sycamore Associates, 1996) to fulfill the
requirements of the EIR. for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and
Specific Plan. The primary intent of this document is to ensure that significant riparian and
wetland resources ofTassajara Creek and major tributaries in the GP A area are protected
and enhanced, while allowing grazing to continue on properties along the creek and
tributaries, consistent with the Specific Plan. This document is prepared with the
understanding that cattle and horses have grazed this region and watered in the Tassajara
Creek corridor for many decades, and that any efforts to integrate riparian protection and
restoration must be done with the rancher's cooperation and land management expertise.
Riparian protection and restoration measures must be practical and cost-effective while .....
providing the means to protect sensitive environmental resources.
1
..
The preparation of this grazing management plan was required by the EIR for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan. Its authority springs from the
following element of the EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and
Specific Plan and from policies of the Specific Plan that describe the City's intention to
protect and enhance riparian resources.
:Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0 ofthe-O~m.. for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendme_nt
(GP A) and Specific Plan states, "Grazing-management plans shall be developed by the
City and implemented soon after approval of the General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. Management plans shallfavor protection of riparian and wetland areas, increased
plant diversity, and the recovery of native plants, in particular, perennial grasses. "
The purpose of this grazing management plan is twofold:
· To ensure compliance with the EIR. for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan which called for the preparation of grazing management plans;
· To provide land management recommendations to protect and enhance riparian and
wetland resources, water quality and the habitats of sensitive plant and wildlife species.
This grazing management plan is based upon information in the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan and EJR, other documents cited in the
references and personal communication with agency representatives and local ranchers.
".
Cattle and horses enter creeks to drink water, therefore development of alternate watering
sites are a focus of this grazing management plan. Protection of sensitive biological
resources and enhancement of riparian resources along Tassajara Creek, major tributaries
and springs and seeps in the GP A area should be accomplished through:
· The develgpment of alternate watering sources, salt blocks and nutrient dispensers
strategically placed in upland, dry locations to greatly reduce the movement of cattle
and horses into the riparian corridors along Tassajara Creek, major tributaries and
springs and seeps;
· Limited areas of exclusionary fencing to protect sensitive species around springs and
seeps and the arroyo willow riparian woodland area along Fallon Road.
.
Cooperative and voluntary protection of riparian and wetland resources are the basis of
this grazing management plan. It is viewed as preferable to a regulated approach which
would mandate costly protection measures, such as extensive fencing of the entire creek.
Landowners and grazing lessees have the greatest familiarity with the lands and resources,
the feasibility and the practical consequences of alternative practices. The motivation for
this approach is underscored by Program 6H of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan (page 67) which directs the City of Dublin to enact
and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance to protect water quality and
protection of stream channels. Successful implementation of the lower cost measures
described herein to discourage cattle and horse use of sensitive biological resource areas,
Tassajara Creek, and major tributaries would reduce the need for provisions in the soil
2
erosion and sediment control ordinance focusing on cattle and horse impacts to water
quality and soil erosion.
..
For the purpose of this document, minor tributaries are defined as grassy swales devoid of
shrub and tree vegetation, and major tributaries are defined as tributaries that support
shrubs and trees or are in close proximity to ponds, seeps or springs. The major tributaries
addressed in this grazing managemen~ plan are shown on Figures 3. 7-A and 3.7-C of-the
EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan.
This grazing management plan does not address in detail technical range management
issues such as residual dry matter, the control of exotic plants, range analysis, rest, or
grazing capacity, focusing instead on the means to protect the creek and wetland
resources.
Area Covered by Grazing Plan
This grazing plan covers all areas within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
area, excluding the future study area (hereinafter referred to as the GP A) that are currently
being grazed or will be grazed by domestic livestock in the future. Lands located outside
the City limits shall not be subject to this grazing plan.
Grazing has been a traditional land use throughout the region for decades. However, as
development in the Eastern Dublin GP A area proceeds, lands that currently support cattle
and horses will be converted to the land uses described on Figure 2B (Land Use Map,
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan) of the Specific Plan.
As described in the Specific Plan, future grazing within the Eastern Dublin GP A area will
be restricted to those areas zoned rural residential/agriculture or open space.
......
Rur'!1 Residential!agricultural Zone
Lands which will ultimately be zoned rural residential!agriculture within the Eastern
Dublin GP A area are in two disconnected areas which are not immediately adjacent to
Tassajara Creek. The smaller area would generate only a small amount offorage for cattle
or horses, supporting only a very limited herd year round, or a larger herd for a short
period of time. This small area is surrounded by land zoned medium density and
community park and is bounded on the west by Tassajara Road. When the park is
developed the boundary between it and the rural residential/agriculture land should be
fenced to prevent the movement of cattle or horses into park facilities. Once fenced,
livestock will be unable to move out of the area into Tassajara Creek or sensitive
resources along tributaries. The larger area that is zoned rural residential/agriculture, while
not adjacent to Tassajara Creek is bisected by tributaries to Tassajara Creek, one of which
supports red-legged frog at the location mapped on Figures 3. 7-A and 3. 7-C (Habitat and
Sensitive Species, EIR for Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific
Plan). Movement of cattle or horses from this area to the creek will be prevented by
fencing along Fallon Road and fencing around residential development to the south.
.
3
/
e.
Open Space Zone
F or the purposes of this grazing plan, all lands to be zoned open space within the Eastern
Dublin GP A area in the future are divided into :five areas, featured as OS 1 through 5 on
the attached Figure 2B. The accessibility of these areas to Tassajara Creek, riparian
resources along major tributaries, and seeps and springs is described below. The grazing
management guidelines in this grazing. plan were developed to reduce impacts of cattle and
horses on riparian resources along Tassajara Creek, major tributaries, and sensitive species
at seeps and springs within the areas designated as OS 1 through 5.
OS 1 Livestock will be contained within OS 1, unable to move to Tassajara Creek if the
boundary with Camp Parks to the west is fenced and iffencing or other development
barriers occur at the northern boundary of OS 1.
OS 2 and 3 These properties occur in narrow bands along Tassajara Creek. Iflivestock
grazing in these areas occurs in the future, livestock would have to be concentrated along
the creek because access to upland areas would be blocked by development and fencing
along the Camp Parks boundary.
e:
OS 4 Movement of livestock from OS 4 into Tassajara Creek will be blocked by fencing
along Tassajara Creek Road. Sensitive resources at seeps and springs along the major
tributary to Tassajara Creek do not occur within this property. .
OS 5 Fallon Road crosses a major tributary that occurs within this area. While
development will surround this area, arroyo willow riparian woodland does occur along
the margins of the tributary.
~hased Implementation of the Grazing Management Plan
Grazing may continue within the Eastern Dublin GP A until the landowner receives a zone
change approval, tentative map approval and grading permit consistent with land uses
noted on Figure 2B of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific
Plan. Compliance with this grazing management plan will be made a condition of rezone
or tentative map approval. After approval of zoning changes, grazing will be restricted to
those more limited areas which will be zoned rural residential/agriculture or open space.
Implementation of this grazing management plan should begin upon acceptance by the
City of Dublin for all areas currently being grazed within the Eastern Dublin GP A area.
Discussions with landowners should be held to discuss this grazing management plan and
to determine the need or desirability of a cooperative watershed management group to
expedite these improvements.
.
The cost of developing alternate watering sources (specified in this management plan) and
ex"1ensive exclusionary fencing (not specified in this management plan) can be very high,
and in the case of landowners who do not anticipate continuing grazing in the future, such
improvements may be infeasible. In addition, if grazing is to be phased out with
4
/'
:;;>
development, grazing-related impacts will be reduced and implementation of new grazing e. :....
management measures may not be necessary. The City of Dublin should anticipate
negotiating voluntary agreements with individual landowners in these situations to ensure
that grazing impacts to riparian resources, and sensitive resources at springs and seeps do
not continue beyond an agreed upon period of time. Guidelines 1-2, and 4-9 from the
"Grazing Management Guidelines" section below should be implemented as soon as
possible. Guideline 3, which will restfic:t access of open space-zoned lands along Tassajara
Creek to cattle, should be implemented concurrent with development of the northern
portion of the Eastern Dublin GP A area.
Ultimately, the elements of the grazing management plan will be focused on the properties
zoned rural residential!agriculture and open space noted on Figure 2B Land Use Map of
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan. Alternate watering
sources and limited exclusionary fencing to protect Tassajara Creek, major tributaries, and
seeps and springs will be required only if cattle or horses are being grazed on those lands.
Grazing Management Goals
The goals are guided by EIR Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0 for the protection and
enhancement of native biological resources. Goals cover the following general areas of
resource protection: riparian area protection, protection of sensitive species, recovery of
native plant cover, fire hazard management, prevention of soil erosion or degradation of
soil resources, water quality protection, and wildlife protection from rodenticide impacts. e
Management measures used to achieve these goals can include grazing, water source ..~:
development, fencing, integrated pest management, and/or habitat protection and restoration.
Grazing shall be conducted consistent with the goals described below.
_. Grazing Management Goall : Riparian habitat along Tassajara Creek and major
tributaries will be protected from excessive grazing in the future. Livestock impacts on
riparian vegetation, water quality and soil erosion will be reduced from current levels..
Grazing Management Goal 2 : Adverse impacts from grazing to habitats or populations of
sensitive wildlife and plant species including known occurrences and potential habitat for
the red-legged frog will be minimized in the future.
Grazing Management Goal 3 : Fire hazards may be managed through the appropriately
timed rotation of domestic livestock which will consume vegetative material likely to
develop into significant fire hazards.
Grazing Management Goal 4: Soil erosion within the Tassajara Creek corridor, major
tributaries and seeps and springs will not be exacerbated by cattle and horse grazing in the
future.
e.:.
5
I
;>
..
Grazing Management Goal 5: Adverse impacts to water quality in the Tassajara Creek
corridor, major tributaries, seeps and springs associated with cattle and horse grazing 'will
be reduced in the future.
Grazing Management Goal 6: Native plant cover, including perennial grasses and native
plant diversity in riparian and wetland areas will be protected from excessive grazing
through the development of alternate.-watering sources in upland locations away from..
known occurrences of sensitive plant species.
Grazing Management Goal 7: Local wildlife will not suffer adverse impacts from the use
of rodenticides used in ranching operations to control ground squirrels.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
'.
City of Dublin Role
The City of Dublin will be responsible for enforcing implementation of this grazing plan.
Landowners shall be required to comply with this grazing plan as conditions of rezone or
tentative map approval. The City has no control over lessees except through the property
owners. In cases where property owners are not applying for rezone or tentative map
approvals, the City would ask the property owners and lessees to voluntarily enter into an
agreement to adopt measures consistent with this grazing plan. The City of Dublin should
initiate discussions with landowners and grazing lessees watering cattle or horses along
Tassajara Creek or major tributaries to review this grazing plan with the goal of
developing alternate watering sources and exclusionary fencing.
Should landowners wish to pursue a cooperative watershed management group, the City
of Dublin should take a leadership role in the formation and management of the group,
working with landowners and grazing lessees, East Bay Regional Parks District, Alameda
County Resource Conservation District, and the Farm Services Agency.
The City of Dublin will be able to enforce the provisions of this grazing management plan
during review of applications for rezone and tentative map applications. Applications
could be denied if not in compliance with the grazing management plan.
The City of Dublin should work with Camp Parks staff to ensure that the fences along the
Camp Parks border that abuts the Eastern Dublin GP A area are maintained to keep
livestock within Camp Parks boundaries.
Monitoring ohhis grazing plan by the City of Dublin will be required, and is described
below in the section on Monitoring and Evaluation Standards.
e
6
7
Lando'wner Responsibilities: Cooperative Watershed Management Group and/or
Individual Landowner Implementation
Landowners who graze livestock within the Eastern Dublin GP A area will be responsible
as conditions of project approval for implementing the measures described herein to
protect riparian resources and seeps and springs. Should landowners wish to secure
assistance developing alternate watering sources, a cooperative watershed management
group among ranchers, grazing lessees, the City of Dublin, East Bay Regional Parks. .
District, Alameda County Resource Conservation District, and the Farm Services Agency
should be instituted. City of Dublin staff would facilitate formation of the group and lead
meetings. Alternatively, should landowners who graze cattle and horses on lands adjacent
to Tassajara Creek, major tributaries or seeps and springs prefer to independently develop
alternate water sources and protect sensitive biological resources without any cost-sharing
assistance, there may be no need for such a watershed management group. Cooperation
with a watershed management group would be voluntary, but the protections described
below in the guidelines will be required whether ranchers work with the group or prefer to
work independently.
Focus of Cooperative Watershed Management Group
If instituted, the focus of the group should be on the development of alternate water and
nutrient sources, and their location away from riparian areas along Tassajara Creek, major
tributaries and sensitive resources at springs and seeps. Other issues could include pest
management, soil conservation, restoration of native plants, and enhancement of native
wildlife populations.
Technical and Funding Assistance
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil Conservation
Service) can provide technical assistance, while the Farm Services Agency administers the
Agriculture Conservation Program cost-sharing program. Cost-sharing assistance for
landowners may be available through the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP),
administered by the Farm Services Agency for developing watering troughs away from
springs or seeps, or pumping water from the creek. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service can offer technical assistance, and already has extensive contacts with the ranching
community. A watershed-based cooperative approach between interested parties would
facilitate the acquisition of cost-sharing funds and/or a grant for implementing
improvements. Management of such a group is time-consuming however. If a watershed
management group is formed, the City of Dublin should anticipate taking a lead in its
formation and management. A longer lead time is now required to get cost-sharing grants
and a watershed approach with multiple cooperators is preferred by the disbursing agency.
GRAZING MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
e.
e.::
Grazing generates income, reduces fire hazard, and helps retain the rural ambiance of the area.
Recognizing the intensification of use anticipated by the Specific Plan, the adaptations of e. .
7
~
.
grazing practices described in this document will be needed to meet the expectations of
ranchers, the City of Dublin and future residents of the area.
Grazing within the Eastern Dublin GP A area should be consistent with the goals described
above and the guidelines developed in this section. This section describes grazing
management guidelines that will help ensure the resource protection required by the Specific
Plan.
Protection of Riparian Areas, Springs and Seeps
Cattle and horses need watering sources, but left uncontrolled, can damage riparian and
wetland vegetation, cause soil disturbance, degrade water quality, reduce the limited area of
this critically important habitat area, and reduce the value of riparian, spring and seep habitats.
e.
Tassajara Creek, m~ortributaries, and the seeps and springs featured on Figure 3.7-A of the
ElR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan are critically
important in supporting wildlife and wetland vegetation given the hot, dry, rainIess summers of
the region. These water sources increase the habitat value of the surrounding area for wildlife,
and provide habitat for plant and animal species that require aquatic habitat or a wetland
environment for all or part of their life stages. The red-legged frog populations and areas of
native vegetation noted on Figures 3. 7 -A and 3.7 -C are largely dependent on the wetland and
riparian resources of the area, particularly deep pools that hold water year-round. To protect
these resources, cattle and horse watering should be shifted away from the creek, major
tnbutaries, and seeps or springs to troughs in upland locations, if possible. There is evidence in
the literature that cattle even prefer drinking from a trough to a stream (Clawson, 1993).
Supplemental feeding stations in upland locations will also reduce cattle and horse use of the
creek, tnbutaries, seeps and springs. Development of alternate watering sources can only occur
if sufficient water is available however. There may be cases where the development of alternate
water sources is infeasible because of water scarcity. Landowners and the City of Dublin will
have to negotiate solutions in these situations.
Guideline 1: Watering troughs and nutrient dispensers should be developed in upland locations
above the top of banks ofTassaJara Creek and major tributaries throughout the Eastern Dublin
GP A area where livestock grazing currently occurs adjacent to the Tassajara Creek, major
tributaries, springs or seeps.
Watering troughs should be fed by lines regulated by shut-off valves to prevent any overflow of
the troughs or excess drainage of the springs or seeps. Gravity flow pipeline systems should be
installed, as needed, to transport water from wells, isolated springs or seeps, or pool areas
along dry creeks to storage sites outside of the riparian area. In some cases, a pump may be
required to :fill troughs where large grade differences occur. Sufficient water should remain to
protect wetland values when a water source is developed to accommodate grazing animals.
.
Guideline 2: ExcIosures should be constructed to protect wetland areas and their ecotones
(i.e. the transition between habitats) around the springs, seeps, and spring-fed ponds where
grazing occurs. These excIosures should be gated to allow for the option of limited springtime
8
1
grazing, to keep surrounding vegetation from becoming weedy and rank. Gates shall be closed e.. .
to cattle and horses during the late springtime to keep wetland vegetation from being grazed .
heavily when adjacent hillsides begin to dry. Alternate sources of drinking water for grazing
animals should be provided outside of the enclosed area. Exclosures must not present barriers
to wildlife. Three to five-strand barbed wire fences are compatible with wildlife passage. Hog
wire could be used if wild pigs are a problem in the area, but hog wire would impede the
passage of native wildlife and is therefore l~ss preferable than barbed wire.
Guideline 3: Livestock grazing in open space areas OS 2 and 3 (discussed above in "Area
Covered by Grazing Plan", and graphically represented on attached Figure 2B) should be
discontinued when adjacent development occurs in the future because access to upland forage
would be eliminated, and all livestock use would be concentrated within the riparian area.
Movement of livestock into OS 2 from lands to the north of the Eastern Dublin GP A area
should be prevented through the installation oflirnited exclusionary fencing. Ownership and
management options for these areas are explored in the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream
Restoration Plan (Sycamore Associates, 1996).
Guideline 4: Livestock grazing should be excluded from the arroyo willow riparian woodland
along the Fallon Road tributary through the installation of exclusionary fencing.
Management of Rare, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants
No rare or endangered plants were found during field surveys for the EIR. The alkali springs
are sufficiently degraded to merit no special protection from grazing, but may be considered as
mitigation sites for future development.
e:.
.'
Wildlife Habitat Protection
Plant communities are not static but change in reaction to climate, fire, drought, plant
competition, and other events. Wlldlife communities change in response to changes in the plant
community. WIldlife species native to this region evolved with these plant communities, and
developed preferences for various successional stages. Some species are adapted only to
certain habitat conditions, and when those conditions disappear, so do dependent wildlife
SpecIes.
Known occurrences of sensitive wildlife species within the areas to be zoned rural
residential/agriculture or open space in the Eastern Dublin GP A area include: golden eagle nest
on northeastern tnbutary, raptor nests, red-legged frog populations east ofTassajara Creek,
and potential kit fox den sites. Grazing is not incompatible with the protection of the golden
eagle or raptor nests, therefore livestock need not be excluded from the areas adjacent to these
nests. Kit fox surveys conducted during the preparation of the EIR failed to detect the presence
of kit fox but potential den sites were found (see Figure 3. 7-C). Because grazing is compatible
with kit fox habitat, no exclusionary fencing is needed.
Guideline 5: Exclusionary fencing shall be installed around the known locations of red-legged
frog populations on tributaries in the northeast portion of the Eastern Dublin GP A area. ..
Exclosures shall be gated to allow the option oflirnited springtime grazing to keep surrounding
9
/0
.:.
vegetation from becoming weedy and rank. Exclosures must not present baniers to native
wildlife. Three to five-strand barbed wire fences are compatible with wildlife passage and
should be used. Gates shall be closed to cattle and horses during the late springtime to keep
wetland vegetation from being grazed heavily when adjacent hillsides begin to dry.
Fire Hazard Reduction
Grazing can be used to significantly-muce1he volume and height of fuels in the Eastern Dublin
GP A area's non-native grasslands. Fuel loads can be optimally managed through the
determination of carrying capacity and close monitoring of stocking numbers, timing and
duration of grazing. Fuel levels can be managed, and the goal is to leave the optimal amount to
protect soil resources and assure grass stocking for the following year. Stock rotation however,
requires the availability and feasibility of alternate range. The most significant sources of
ignition lie along Tassajara and Fallon roads. Cattle and horse grazing in the rural
residential/agriculture and open space areas adjacent to these roads will reduce fuel loads.
Guideline 6: Excessive fuel loads in rural residential/agriculture and open space areas adjacent
to Tassajara and Fallon roads can be managed by cattle and horse grazing. Optimal herd sizes,
timing and rotation can be determined using the infonnation provided in the Forest Service
Range Environmental Analysis Handbook (1984) and the East Bay Regional Parks District
Wildland Management Policies and Guidelines (1992).
-.
Soil Erosion and Water Quality Protection
Cattle and horse use ofTassajara Creek, major tributaries, seeps and springs will be greatly
reduced through the development of alternate watering sources, and with exclusionary fencing
around springs and seeps. Reducing cattle and horse use of the creek will serve to protect
water quality as well as reduce soil erosion along livestock tracks down into the creek. The
protection measures descnbed in Guideline 1 above will serve to protect water quality and
reduce soil erosion.
Native Plant Cover
Native plant cover along Tassajara Creek, 1nbutaries, seeps and springs will be protected by the
development of aIternate watering sources and limited exclusionary fencing. These measures
are descnbed in Guideline 1. Restoration plantings are discussed in the Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Plan (Sycamore Associates, 1996).
-.
~geForageU~tion
The amount of mulch or residual dry matter (dead plant matter, RDM) remaining in anyone
year can influence plant productivity and plant composition the following growing season.
Low amounts of mulch tend to favor the growth of undesirable plants (Heady 1956, Hooper
and Heady 1970). An optimum mixture of desirable plant species results on non-native
grassland where 600 to 800 pounds per acre are left (pitt and Heady 1978, Bartolome et aI.
1980). Too much mulch results in a thatch, v,.wch inhibits new plant growth (Clawson and
McDougald 1982). In general, more mulch is needed in steep areas than on flat land. Plant
cover is another important variable that needs consideration.
10
/ I
Guideline 7: Forage utilization by grazing animals should be managed by landowners to
assure that appropriate amounts ofRDM remain on the ground at the end of the season.
Various residual mulch guidelines exist for different sites in the California annual grassland type
(Clawson and McDougald 1982, U.S. Forest Service 1984).
.:..
. .
In general, four to six inches of standing vegetation should remain at the end of the grazing
season. Individual areas may have ~al circumstances that require that additional mulch.
remain. Residue requirements will vary according to the need to promote soil stability,
maintain plant productivity, or protect wildlife habitat. Plant cover should be sufficient to
minimize bare areas subject to erosion.
Supplemental Feeding
In fall and early winter domestic livestock are often unable to consume enough. forage to meet
their nutritional needs. This deficiency may be offset by feeding grains, molasses, or hay.
During the late winter and spring, an adequate diet of all the essential nutrients, with the
possible exception of salt and certain minerals, can be obtained from the natural forage. Forage
quality follows a declining trend as the seasons progress, and further supplementation is often
necessary. In order to minimize cattle and horse impacts on riparian and wetland resources,
supplemental feeding stations should be located in upland locations away from these areas.
Guideline 8: Supplemental feeding of cattle and horses, if needed, should be provided outside
of the riparian buffer along T assajara Creek, major tributaries and away from the wetland areas
around springs and seeps.
e..
Rodenticide and Herbicide Use
Rodenticides are known to hann native wildlife, including carnivores and other non-target
species, especially raptors and kit fox. Furthermore, the squirrel populations that are often the
target of rodenticide poisoning are beneficial to many native wildlife species of the region, _
including kit fox, burrowing owl, red legged frog and California tiger salamander. Program 6N
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan stipulates that
"The use of rodenticides and herbicides within the project area should be restricted to
avoid impacts on wildlife. The City of Dublin shall require any poisoning programs to be
done in cooperation with and under supervision of the Alameda County Department of
Agriculture. "
Guideline 9: To protect wildlife populations and habitat, the use ofrodenticides within the
project area should be restricted. Ground squirrels should be controlled by trapping and
shooting or accepted integrated pest management (IPM.) procedures and practices consistent
with other City of Dublin regulations. Landowners are encouraged to assess the extent of
pest infestations and define the actual threat prior to initiating a control program. The use of
herbicides to control noxious weeds should be consistent with label precautions.
e:
11
'p-
.::.
MONITORING
Monitoring by the City of Dublin
Through discussions with landowners and grazing lessees, the City should negotiate voluntary
agreements for the installation of watering troughs, supplemental feeding stations and
exclusionary fencing around springs and seeps consistent with this grazing management plan.
Compliance with the grazing management plan will be conditions for rezone and tentative.map
approval.
The City of Dublin will conduct annual site checks to determine whether watering troughs have
been developed and are functionally maintained, and if exclusionary fencing around springs,
seeps and red-legged frog locations has been installed, is being adequately maintained, and if
management of limited springtime grazing is protecting the wetland resources. Should any
measures agreed upon by the City of Dublin and landowners or the cooperative watershed
management group be inadequately implemented, the City of Dublin should send a letter to the
responsible landowner, asking that corrective measures be taken to ensure compliance with the
grazing management plan and the individual timetable and agreement between the City and the
landowner.
..
City staff should also develop a working agreement with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the ~AJameda County Resource Conservation District or a private consultant to
monitor the condition of the vegetation in the riparian buffer along Tassajara Creek, tributaries
and springs and seeps in areas being grazed. Adjustments in the location of supplemental
feeding stations or the need for additional exclusionary fencing should be developed with the
technical assistance available through these parties.
.
12
I~
REFERENCES
e~:
Bartolome,lW., M.C. Stroud, and H.F. Heady. 1980. Influence of Natural Mulch on Forage
Production on Differing California Annual Range Sites. Journal of Range Management
33 :4-8.
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Genefar Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and FEIR, - -
December 1992.
Clawson, Jeffrey E. 1993. The Use of Off-stream Water Developments and Various Water
Gap Configurations to Modify the Watering Behavior of Grazing Cattle. Unpublished
Masters Thesis. Oregon State University.
Clawson, W.J. and N.K McDougald. 1982. Residual Dry Matter as Utilization Standards for
California Annual Range. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal
Science.
East Bay Regional Park District 1992. Wildland Management Policies and Guidelines.
Adopted August 18, 1992.
Heady, H.F. 1956. Changes in a California Annual Plant Community Induced by Manipulation
of Natural Mulch. Ecology 37:798-812.
......
..
Hooper, IF. and H.F. Heady. 1970. An Economic Analysis of Optimum Rates of Grazing in
the California Annual-type Grassland. Journal of Range Management 23:307-311.
Pitt, M.D. and H.F. Heady. 1978. Responses of Annual Vegetation to Temperature and
Rainfall Patterns in Northern California. Ecology 59-2:336-350.
Sycamore Associates, Balance Hydrologics and dk Associates. 1996. Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Plan. (draft)
U.S. Forest Service 1984. Range Environmental Analysis Handbook.
e.
16
\'7
.
~--~#1
----# ,
#----#~ II
--~
,I'- c2,....~~
~s~~ ,
COS\~tco. ,
__~;\..;'JJ. I
---~~ I
-~1 '
--~-~~lJ~L !
I ___~/ A";~ \ II I
os 2 I -~--~i;!r~r \. I
..-r .U I
..>1~\~ RRA ..... I I
,-:'Yg; ~------7)----~ L--------l
,:J~>/ ,.0 M fiiMH ~W L ~ RRA If I II
~-...~...;~~@! ~~~\ \ '
'''6:s'i ;.\i t:~.D: ~ .:;\~-\ ~ ,----------J I I I
.... '.-\ f;'........':> ~~~'.f "- .J I '
','(<?:..,:y.,?c~}:i::'~MH MH t: . I
. ..I...~..-'\.
t[;~',-// ",...~", 'eA, L..---, FUTURE STUDY AREA I
5,~ I ....,: t
V M" . A~1~':-"':~ Iii
~*:;.~.::~-...:.-.:/.os;t~' ...:.,'~.~ \__J f', I AGRICULTURE :
/\t t,~::/'./;.>'''' L i'_.'kp9 I \ ~ ~ l J
(/;r~r,J2i1 JF\II' \(~:J I:.t~;:;-rl\' :~V cfJ '\ "7~~-----l ru
1-:J..o;''Io-~ I "" ~.~\...v \ ,. \ \
" .J':;; "':.\.'W:!:~::,;-:. L ~\ ~) .: \ RRA
I .i~ 1 ..,,~..' :\., 1! ~ ::: f!J I .J \ I 2743.9 Acres
"',21,,\ I t' . ~-'-,...- ':':/."J" b-;' I I
M ~ M {c" :::.: ~ \ztt:'::1':"';7{{;: ":,.~ A . \ f. \.. \
os 3 # I V",./' ". ~.~r\\~:l~.\ ~I /.' It / \
/ .' ' I f';{) L \ L \}~~;8~~:4\ '0. 4 L !;i II '
I tJj :';' . -..1 'd:;' \2 m0~' ..,;,~'("..;..;:.\ L J I L 'L
r3' :':~<,:I ~.:.:. ~.;."-;.;.':;:1\ ~~:'~<5j .------ I~ J I
[0J-:--------------1t.. ,.....: ..:.,J ",:;., :;....:..'..1 . '- M''Io. I " >.I'" I
. ". .' 1'" ...... . ...... . ,...... I: ~ I
::.,)'...,.;.-.,:;.':;.:':.':Gi't'<:".:>..:::...:.:......i:f . lMf~::?"~:@<"'::t' M.;...., f I L I
11.. ~~..;:.:..;,~.~::.:.::.;:,~..::~>.'..:.:...':~.i'00: M I !::.~;:f:..?-:.>.;.lj .....' 'C......::: ". .... . .'-1' . M 'I I I
~.. .. ',' .:;f,..J}' j':::..;,.:::.,. .J.......... .' 1',,' \' MH .~........~ I
,:-:.:::,':.::::-~~'X' I '. .....r:fr.-.---...I~,,~;...-~"A ' t-. .~; ....., ~ ';""'. : 4:;;: .; I
fl':::'::::;';':::::::-:':":,':;::::::::::'::" 1! L 4~'" cv' '.~I~ MH .:..;J M ~ '\:'" .,,: I ....:.. .,@.;@\ 1..(' ~ I I
--:::\(.:;:::.}.I ~:-:. P'.' p . ~~~I '.. "...;-: .... '~.; ';..~....~.:....~...... .;.;.....;......~...:t. /J l / I II
MH .,':........,' I MH' M ~'1 .,' '. ". I~ H .... H -,<I H.',', H . ~.~ 1 MH i~:'1 IX. \---,
, ~...:::::::.::.::. i ,. '.'- M ~;.. '. . ~ /_ 't H ",., ~...:...!{;>,,;~ ::,~]j;:l --- - ,
...............1__. ~. ........... ............... . .......................................~ ~ .. . ....----, ~ -----
l:::::tt::.::::/{::'::;::::}:{}:I- ~~ l;'.j::::~::j:::%:::::::::::::::I~ .?:<:}\:::.:.::::?:.:::::#..::??:.::::::::::}::::::::;::.::'.~\~ .:.: :..: '::.:: . .::- I! r' ......,~'
d}//::t::}}::::?:::{~~~ !;':~:::::::::i:i::::!~:::::n::f:~ ::::::::::/:/::::.:::::'::'.:r:tr:ft::\t{t:t::::~ ~ .:: ......... :"JL
-----p:::::=-- -- -.. -======== ===-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- :::; -- --- --
I \ I
I I I
I
.
.
* General Commercial may be permitted by a Planned Development Zoning Process (see text for complete discussion)
* * Will convert to Future Study Area/Agriculture where determined inconsistent with APA (see text for complete discussion)
"'_I~.l.-j -
-
)11M __,
---"
~
...4.1;,... . ..._ ~ _ """__~
)11 " ....... ......:...::......:;.:..:.::,:;.....................:...::..........:...... . . .'.:.,,:' .:.......:...:.:.....:.:,...........::.:.:......:..;.....;.....~,.....:..~....'..:..:....:...::,:.....:.;..'.....::...:.'................:............. ......... ........
'1oJ' ...-:~:.<:...:,).::.~:...::::..:::.::':...:..:::..::'...>:....;; ':'" ...:...;........ .'.:
. ,'"
.' ." .,. .: .
General Plan
-Eastern Extended Planning Area
LAND USE MAP
Legend
COMMERCIAL
~ Neighbahood Commp.rcial
~ Genei,,1 Commercial
ti:B"TIJ Campus OtfJ.:::e
r:l Industrial Park
RESIDENTIAL
c::E:] High Density 25- culac
~ Medium-High Density 14.25 dulac
CD Medium Density 6-14 du/ac
~ Low DenSity 0-5 dUlac
~ Rural AesidentiaVAgriCL;lture 1 du/l00 ac
PUBLlC/ SE MI-PUBlIC/ 0 PEN
f~'{::;:':)'.1 Public/Semi-Public Facility
@ Elementary School
@ Junior High School
@ High School
@ Public/Semi'Public
L=:J Parks & Recreation
o City Park
~ Community Park
@ Neighborhood Park
I CJ l Neighborhood Square
r.t;).d Open Space
~ Stream Corridor(Will be designated as apen space)
CIACULA TION
Arterial Street
Collector Street
Transit &:ine
SOl Boundary
General Plan Amendment Study Area
Specific Plan Study Area
,"'--
,;
EASTERN
DUBLIN
May 10, t993
WaUace Roberts & Todd
Figure 28
Acres
10
'0
o 1000
M
2000 Feet
I/<
I
1/2 t.fl' 3/':
~
l ......
-
....
C'G
....
--
.c
C'G
J:
......
c
Q)
E
'0
C
Q)
E
<
c
co
0..
(tj
....
Q)
c
Q)
CJ
co
Q)
....
<
c
co
0..
(J
--=
'0
Q)
Q.
(fJ
-0
Q)
0.
o
Qj
>'
~:
en
Q)
'-
o
-
c c
ill crl
.c 'C
tcrl
0.9-
Za:
......
c
Q)
.~
E
'-
Q)
......
c
j-
-0
Q)
:;:::
....
JB
~
.c
CI)
Q)
....
LL
I~
c
o
0...
-1'0
CI) c
o...CCl
Q)'
Q) :12
CI)'C
-, crl
CI)......
~~
.- 0
'-10
0.-
W'W
z
-
..J
ma:
:J-
ew
z ·
a:Q.
wU)
I- ·
(1)<(
<(0.
wG
<
I
t--.
.
CO)
CD
"-
::J
tn
u:
::!:
..,
..
..
...
0 ~
0
0 2
'"
~
crl
Q)
"-
<
"C
C
CD
tn
CD
-J
~'O
~c
c crl
, CI)
c CI)
o crl
ZO>
"0
C
crl
0.
o
0>'-
c 0
'f (ij
"- c
crl 0
-.-
>-Ctl
"- ......
02
CI)
E
crl
Q)
"-
......
CI)
'0
c
ro
U5
CI)
ro
......
0>
'co
~
<{
'0
c
crl
3:'0
o 0
_0
=3:
3: c
o crl
>,.-
o ......
...... crl
"-0...
<{'C
.c
CI)
"-
crl
E
...
,
.J
.j
. J
1
'1
,
.
"C
"C
o
....
olJ
en
1::
CD
.a
o
a:
CIl
o
.!
Cij
==
o
.
;
'j
..
I
I
~....
:_.::h
~::::.:::.
[]
,
[J
~
~
~
[TI,\
"
I
e
~
.. !;
II
<
~
Q)
'0
:J
a:
l~~'
"' ""Q N'
).! ". II"'
,.,
"
1:11
.'" :" 'I[ I
1;!1
II III
~'I ~ ill I
I 0 {I
. ,lOll. j
I. I
Jl
l .
~,
"
'"
'y
nfil~
(~I~J~ \1')
,,~.
. . (
~.. .
. '0.
"'::-'... ~.
....1.... P.
r...~...,- 'J'
d ......."
q:.::::n
r;'~
"
""
:0
...
::
..
c:
;;;
"
III
\;
('[1'
m
.....
<!:
-+oJ
C
UJ m c 0
E 0 -0 en
Q) '';::; Q) c
-0 ('[1 c ..c Q) Z I
.- C 0 0 0-0
(.) m 0 ~ ..... r--
('[1 ('[1 ~ - cwi
Q) E -+oJ ..J
m en -+oJ m 0 en ~-
a. <!: ..... m en t 0 C
<!: ~ c Q) Q) -+oJ OJ f
('[1'-
en c 3'= ..... C :::l 0) -0 m~ a: ::J
c -+oJ
('[1 ('[1 co2 CD -0 0 ~ ..... c :J OJ
0.. ..co.. ..... ('[1'- u:
Q) 0.. 0) c ...., - :::l -
> ('[1 -0 ~ co 0 -0 -+oJ mIT C W
0 CD CD 0.. Q) :s2 -ro('[1
.- ..... ~ - ..... 0) E 0
.... m 'cu m c c ('[1 "tJ
.- C 0 -+oJ ...c CD ..... 0) ._ J Z . "tJ
UJ m m -0....... -0 CD CD '';::; ~ c 0
"C CJ Q. Q) 0 ....... c. co a. t-
o en ..... a:
c: c UJ ~ -0 CD o..UJ
0:0 ....... ~
Q) Q) .(!J Q) 0 0....... en
0) I 0: a.. <!:.8 W en
en i I 1::
Q) i I {( I- CD
...J i i . ~ . .c
i . " 0
. en <C a:
'. CD
.' <C
a. u
..!!!
W G ~
I
i.
)',. ..
. ,
;;
.e
!~
o
E
~ .
:::;
1':('\
, '.,
, .
r.:. .'
I.- .
'.';
,,' ',,1
<>
. .
uO/le::l
to:::::::
. :':::.:;11
........
\l
"
,.,
...
.."
.
.
t.
\
\. \
.:..;
.,
-\
. \
\ ~~dJ
I j" " /j.!
. ,~) /.
./</\1
\
')
)\ . .
, /
~,' .
'\ /'"
I. ,
..'
.; ~ ":'..,~'!. / I ('
o (:'., 'i."
'v ~ , . " .
i . {11".:.... ",.....
.~ '~, ./\ \
I '\'/~ ". (,'
I ;.C" \
. \ .J>:<
",- ...."]#.'
.... .::.. I.: :.: ~':. : \.
,\'f'\'..
. )
..'
~: ~'
I. ';J (';
..' :::F:1:1',': I
~ 1"; i','~:~ ;
: i: ;",':~::~
. t:: /0'(.:11
: i....ji ~'I.11
.,. i 'Ii
,.
,I
\, )
,~ .
1/ II'
'"
..
Q.
..
..
..
c
.;;
"
CD
..
"
c
..
'0 /
J! /
//
,//
/
,./.
/
;/ .
\ . ("
, if ( ,:'
!. \. " I '
~.I//\J ,
(f :<) lJ I I
, I \' i' () \,/ }
',' " '... /il
'. \ . .\ \
,I,>.) \.", \\..... .
, } I
(
.' 1
"
/1
[
I' ..
;.!f~'
//
,.,n
/ . ~'
/ ,.~
'; /.
//
.! .
. J".:'i'1 ' .
l (. . \
\.' \
'.
. \ \ I
,
\ \\
. .,
'. I
'.
i'
(/. .
If' .)
. \ ,: "Jllillll!!'
. .. II.
\
.
I ,
~
.
(-:-c'
\
,.:"
.;.-.
~.;..
,'....
'.
If
City Of Dublin
Wildfire Management
Plan
Developed by:
The City of Dublin
in cooperation \Nith the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
Adopted:
1996
Resolution No.
G.7i~Jti~ l":"J="'j,i)\ j:')~ B
r~- . 't " '" I- "" .
,a fl';\~,j \-.lJ.,: ,,-:.1 ~
ij,~ I; ~';'J ~~? ttt Ji ~
~'~~Q~Q1;m g
CITY OF DUBLIN WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PURPOSE . , .
The purpose of this plan is to reduce the risk of open land wildfire to the lowest practical level consisten~"
with reasonable protection of wildlife habitat and other open space values.
AUTHORITY
Adopted by the Dublin City Council Resolution Number
dated
, 1996.
REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED
This plan, when implemented, will create effects or satisfy requirements as follows:
.
Implementation of the Wildfire Management Plan is the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
.
Vegetation and habitat (in open space) will only change as a result of natural forces or other
actions, since this plan does not impose requirements into open space.
.
This plan, when implemented, provides a Fire Buffer Zone between open space/undeveloped lands
and developed properties; therefore, no additional brush control measures are required where this
plan is utilized.
Vegetation growth within areas affected by this plan will be monitored in two ways. First, all areas .::::.
will be inspected in accordance with the Fire Department's Nuisance Abatement Program. Second,
whenever any building, grading or other activity affects open space or Fire Buffers, it will be
reevaluated.
.
Wildlife habitat will be evaluated by the City when any change is proposed in open space areas.
APPLICABILITY
This Wildfire Management Plan applies to all new development within the City of Dublin.
DEFINITIONS
Adiacent to Doen 80ace - This refers to, commercial parcels and residential lots which have a point of
contact with open space.
Adiacent to Undevelooed Land - This refers to, commercial parcels and residential lots which have a
point of contact with undeveloped land.
Fire Buffer Zone - Areas A, B, C and D of the "Vegetation Establishment and Maintenance Guidelines"
contained in this plan.
ei'
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page 1
11
";.
..
"
'.
..
}O
Irrigated - To supply water to the Fire Buffer Zone artificially by means of pipes, pumps, etc.
Landscape Plan - This plan specifies the plantings which are to be utilized in areas A, B, C and 0 of
the Fire Buffer Zone,
Open Space - For purposes of this plan, open space is defined as those lands which are set aside to
remain permanently undeveloped.
Undeveloped Land - For purposes of this plan, undeveloped land is that land which is available for
development but no Tentative map has been approved, and land designated for governmental use for
which no development plan has been approved.
Vicinity Plan - Areas within 300 feet of boundaries or property lines of subdivisions, commercial parcels
and residential lots. Vicinity Plans include property lines I structures, slope, vegetation, fuel breaks,
water supply systems and access roads,
ALTERNATIVE METHODS
An applicant wishing to use alternative methods shall submit their request to the Fire Chief in
accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 103 as amended by the City or its designee.
An applicant wishing to appeal a requirement placed upon them by the requirements of this plan shall
file their appeal in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, Section 103 as amended by the City or its
designee.
OWNERSHIP AND FINANCING OF MAINTENANCE FOR OPEN SPACE
The City requires that a responsible entity be selected or formed to be responsible for owning and
maintaining open space. The City also requires that the owner of record and maintenance responsibilities
to be disclosed to potential purchasers of property,
Ownership of Open Lands
Possible Forms of Ownership
The City will evaluate each proposed project on
a case by case basis to determine ownership of
open space affiliated with the project. A
determination of ownership will be made in the
Master Tentative Map development agreement,
or in conjunction with tract map approval. Once
ownership is determined, responsibility for
maintenance will be assigned.
The City will assign one or more forms of
ownership to all open space as it is developed,
City Owned - When the City determines that the
needs will be best served by City ownership of
the open space, the developer will be required to
prepare the land according to all approved
specifications and other requirements prior to
transfer of ownership to the City.
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page 2
Developer/Home Owner Association Owned -
When the developer retains control of the open
space, the City will require that the developer
post a bond adequate to ensure Fire Buffer Zone
development. The development agreement or
site plan approval will specify performance
standards for the developer to meet, regarding
open space development.
Other Governmental Agency Owned - Only with
the City's approval can the ownershipof open
space be transferred to another governmental
body.
Possible Maintenance Sources
Where not in conflict with other City policies
maintenance of the open space will be the
responsibility of one party, A determination of
responsibility for maintenance will be made in
conjunction with tract map approval or in the
development agreement.
City Provided - When the City elects to maintain
open space, all associated expenses will be the
responsibility of the City.
Home Owner Association Provided - When the
City requires a Home Owner Association to own
open space, all maintenance will be in
accordance with City specifications at the
expense of the Home Owner Association.
Other Governmental Agency Provided - When
the City approves ownership by a Governmental
Agency, that Governmental Agency will provide
maintenance, All maintenance will be.~
accordance with City specifications at tW::',:':'
expense of that Governmental Agency. ' ,
Possible Funding Sources for Maintenance
The City will determine which is the most
appropriate method of funding' open space
maintenance on a case by case basis.
Methods include:
· New Assessment District
· Annex to Existing Assessment District
Privately Funded by a homeowner's
association or similar body
Other Funding Source
Notice to Owners
The developer will be responsible for disclosing
to all purchasers of property the ownership and
maintenance responsibilities and funding
mechanism for open space which is affiliated wit~:, ,
the purchaser's property. In addition to arw,:::'
notices required by law, this disclosure will be""
recorded on the title at time of sale of the
property,
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Plans will be examined for compliance with the Wildfire Management Plan in accordance with the
following schedule:
Tentative Map
Tentative map submittals will address the
following issues:
City of Dublin Wildlfjre Management Plan
July 9, 1996
~I
Ownership of open space and Fire Buffer
Zone
Maintenance of open space and Fire Buffer
Zone
.,'
Page 3
:'.
:.
.
'" r,
Ir-
e
Funding mechanism for maintenance of open
space and Fire Buffer Zone,
Site Development Review
Plans submitted for site development review will
address the following issues:
Design of the Fire Buffer Zone
Maintenance and Irrigation Plan for the Fire
Buffer Zone
Maintenance Plan for Open Space
· Maintenance Specifications
Budget for the Maintenance Program
· Preliminary Landscape plan for privately
owned properties
· Vicinity Plan
Building Plan Review
Building plan submittals will address the following
issues:
Final Landscape plans
Construction requirements for properties
adjacent to open space and undeveloped
lands
Final ADproval of the Completed Proiect Prior to
Occupancy
All sites, tracts and buildings will be subject to a
final inspection by each approving department.
Departments will give final approval only after all
conditions which have been placed on it by that
department have been complied with.
Fees
All fees to all departments must be current before
any of the following actions are taken:
Tentative Map Approval
Site Development Review
Issuance of a Building Permit
Final inspection of a Completed Project
prior to occupancy
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS ON LOTS OR PARCELS ADJACENT TO
OPEN SPACE AND UNDEVELOPED LAND
Roof Covering
Roof covering shall be Class A roof
coverings. For roof coverings where the
profile allows a space between the roof
covering and roof decking, the space at the
eve ends shall be fire stopped to preclude
entry of flames or embers. Roof decking
shall be solid. Space sheathing shall be
prohibited,
Protection of Eaves
Eaves shall be protected on the exposed
underside by materials approved for one-
hour-rated fire-resistive construction. Fascias
City of Dublin Wildlfire Management Plan
July 9,1996
are required and must be protected on the
backside by materials approved for one-hour-
rated fire-resistive construction or 2-inch (51
mm) nominal dimension lumber.
Gutters and DownsDouts
Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed
of noncombustible material.
Exterior Walls
Exterior walls of buildings or structures shall
be constructed with materials approved for
one-hour-rated fire-resistive construction on
Page 4
the exterior side or with noncombustible
materials.
tempered glass or multilayered glazed
panels.
Exception: Heavy timber construction. Such
material shall extend from the top of the
foundation to the underside of the roof
sheathing.
Unenclosed Underiloor Protection
Vents
Attic ventilation openings, foundation o~
underiloor vents, or other ventilation openings
in vertical exterior walls and vents through
roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches
each. Such vents shall be covered with
noncumbustible corrosion-resistant mesh with
openings not to exceed 1/4 inch.
Buildings or structures shall have all
underfloor areas enclosed to the ground with
exterior walls.
Exception: Complete enclosures may be
omitted where the underside of all exposed
floors and all exposed structural columns,
beams and supporting walls are protected as
required for exterior one-hour-rated fire-
resistive construction or heavy timber
construction.
Attic ventilation openings shall not be located
in soffits, in eave overhangs, between rafters
at eaves, or in other overhang areas,
Underiloor ventilation openings shall be
located as close to grade as practical.
Detached Accessory Structures and Fences
Appendages and Proiections
Detached accessory structures located less
than 50 feet from a building containing
habitable space shall have exterior walls
constructed with materials approved for one-
hour fire-resistive construction, heavy tim~er.""
construction or constructed wIth ,:
noncombustible materials on the exterior "
side. When the detached structure is located
and constructed so that the structure or any
portion thereof projects over a descending
slope surface, the area below the structure
shaH have all underiloor areas enclosed to
within 6 inches of the ground, with exterior
walls.
Fences shall be separated from the
perimeter of buildings containing habitable
space by connection to buildings as shown in
Figure 1 when the fence is made of
combustible material.
Unenclosed accessory structures attached to
buildings with habitable spaces and
projections I such as decks I shall be of one-
hour-rated fire-resistive construction, heavy
timber construction or constructed with
noncombustible materials.
When the attached structure is located and
constructed so that the structure or any
portion thereof projects over a descending
slope surface, the area below the structure
shall have all underiloor areas enclosed to
within 6 inches of the ground, with exterior
walls.
Windows
Exterior windows, window walls and skylights
shall be tempered glass or multilayered
glazed panels.
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
Exterior doors
Automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be
required in all buildings that are adjacent to
open space or undeveloped land, The
installation of the automatic fire sprinkler
systems shall be in accordance with
standards approved by the City.
..
Exterior doors, other than vehicular access
doors to garages, shall be non-combustible or
solid core not less than 1-3/4" thick. When
windows are within doors, they shall be of
City of Dublin Wildlfjre Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page 5
J- /'')
:::.
'.
.'.
I-II
r
T~
18'
6'-0' MIN,
DEPTH OR
REF"ER TO
PROJECT
SoIl.S
REPORT.
MASONRY
Figure 1
City of Dublin Wildlfjre Management Plan
July 9, 1996
EXTERIOR
-BUILDING
LINE
I
24'
L
~4~
Pl.AN
[[Sj
L24~
DIA.
ELEVATION
PILASTER
1/2' SPACE
4' EXTERIOR MINIMUM
VENEER
4 - tt5
MINIMUM
16' SQUARE
CONCRETE
BLOCK
PILASTER
EXTERIOR
VENEER
TO MATCH
EXTERIOR FINISH
(STUCCO, BRICK, STONE. ETC.)
24'X24'X18'
CONCRETE
GRADE BEAM
NOTES,
1, FILL ALL CELLS VITH GROUT,
2, MORTAR SHALl. BE GRADE 'N',
3, CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF" 2500 psi.
4. REBAR SHALL BE GRADE 60.
5. NO SPECIAL INSPECTION.
AT
FENCE/BUILDING
SCALE' 1'=1'
Page 6
STANDARDS FOR VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE
The City requires that all new development utilize the following standards for vegetation
establishment and maintenance.
.'
, ,
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES
0% TO 10% SLOPE
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES
10% TO 20% SLOPE
I
I
i
i
I I
"--- ,OO'----!
i I
1 1
I I
I ,
lh. ~ .".1
llCl'MlSl.Ol'E
UPSlOPE
""
I
I 1
-...-
i '
A=
The First 3 Feet
Maintain an area of non combustible material -
flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc.
The shaded areas (upslope) of A, B, C and D remain a constant
distance of30 feet combined. The shaded area begins from the
midsection ofa structure, The unshaded areas (downslope) ofB,
C and D increase with slope as detailed below:
."':',:,
..
B=
4 thru 13 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
A=
The First 3 Feet
Maintain an area of noncombustible material -
flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc.
B=
4 thru 19 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns, Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less,
c=
14 thru 30 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns. Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less.
c=
20 thru 45 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns, Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
less,
D= 46 thru 70 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns, Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
Jess,
."
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page 7
/1~
;' /
<.
'.
.
r /
/(;/
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT GUIDELINES
20% TO 30% SLOPE
DOY>NSLOPE
lnl.OPf
...
i
,
!
j
I
i
, i
I i
~I
The shaded areas (upslope) ofB, C and D remain a constant
distance of 30 feet combined, The shaded area begins from the
midsection ofa structure, The unshaded areas (downslope) ofB,
C and D increase with slope as detailed below:
A=
The First 3 feet
Maintain an area of noncombustible material -
flowers, plants, concrete, gravel, soil, etc,
B=
4 thru 14 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns, Prune
limbs of remaining trees to 15 feet or one-third
.. the total live crown height, whichever is less.
c=
25 thru 55 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns, Prune
limbs of remaining trees to 15 feet or one-third
the total live crown height, whichever is less.
D=
56 thru 100 feet
Thin trees to 10 feet between crowns, Prune
limbs of all remaining trees to 15 feet or one-
third the total live crown height, whichever is
Jess,
VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT
GUIDELINES GREATER THAN 30% SLOPE
\.\'hen developed, slopes of greater than 30% shall be
evaluated on a case by case basis.
City of Dublin \Vildfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
VEGET AnON ESTABLISHMENT
GUIDELINES IN OTHER OPEN SPACE
There are no requirements for vegetation reduction or
modification in open space that is not affected by the
guidelines for 0% to 10% Slope, 10% to 20% Slope,
20% to 30% Slope or Greater than 30% Slope.
VEGETATION MAINTENANCE
The city requires that a maintenance program be
established for Fire Buffer Zone Areas A, B, C and
D that wiII maintain plant speci~s according to city
approved specifications. Maintenance programs
should specifically prevent the introduction of
unapproved species and plan for removal of bio
mass, overgrowth and dead foliage. The
maintenance program should also plan for the
replacement of dead plants and plants which are
beyond useful life,
IRRIGA nON
Where required for the establishment and/or
maintenance of plant species irrigation will be
utilized.
OPEN SPACE ACCESS
All open space areas shall have two points of access
suitable for wildland fire apparatus. Minimum
unobstructed width of the access way must be 20
feet. Access points must be no more than 1500"
from the furthest point of open space, Gates, when
utilized, must meet the key control requirements of
the fire department.
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
VEGETATION ON APPROVED LOTS
1.
Plant species as shown for the area on the
Plant Species List may be established or
retained in the appropriate area.
2.
Lawns and native grasses may be utilized in
all areas, except Area A where native grass
is prohibited, provided they are kept mowed
to a height of three to four inches. When
native grasses are utilized mowing will be
limited to the months of May thru
November.
Page 8
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
VEGET A nON INTO PERMANENTLY
DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE
.','
..
Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into designated open
space the plantings established in the Fire Buffer
Zone will include only native grasses and native trees
shown on the Plant Species List. Grasses in the Open
Space Fire Buffer Zone will be kept mowed to a
height of three to four inches. Mowing will only
occur from the months of May thru November.
Where trees are established and/or maintained they
will be estasblished and maintained in accordance
with the appropriate zone. In Open Space where
other than native grasses and native trees are utilized,
plantings will be irrigated,
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
VEGET A nON ON UNDEVELOPED LAND
Where Fire Buffer Zones extend into undeveloped
land the plantings established in the Fire Buffer Zone
will include only native grasses and native trees
shown on the Plan Species List. Grasses in the
Undeveloped Land Fire Buffer Zone will be kept
mowed to a height of three to four inches, Mowing
will only occur from the months of May thru
November. Where trees are established and
maintained they will be established and maintained in
accordance with the appropriate zone, In
undeveloped land where other than native grasses
and native trees are utilized, plantings will be
irrigated,
.:",
DISCING
Discing is not permitted in any Fire Buffer Zone or
Open Space for Fire Protection purposes,
TREES
Trees from the Plant Species List or trees with like
characteristics may be utilized in any zone.
."
,'.
City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan
July 9, 1996
Page 9
,.., n
). /
'r<\
'Y;o,
Cie Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
.:.,:"<:':~
, i
I)
This table outlines plant species appropriate for planting in conjunction with the "Standards for Vegetation Establishment and Maintenance Guidelines."
Spccics Namc \ Charactcristics
Spccics - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Li HI e Form Leaf Little High Mineral Freczc
Volume (dcnse (thic1< Dcad Moisturc Content Scnsitivc
or low) or large) Matter Contcnt
AREA A
This area must contain non-combustible material. Irrigated flowers are the only suitable plant life.
AREA B
This area is suitable for all of the plant species shown for Area A above, and the following plant species,
Aeonium arboreum- Atropurpureum Aeonium sue * * * * * 0 yes
Aeonium undulatum Saucer Plant suc -(c -(c * * -cr 0 yes
Agapanthus orientalis blue Lily of the Nile peren -cr -cr * -cr J 0 yes
Agapanthus "Peter Pan" Dwarf Lily of tile Nile peren -cr f:r -cr * * 0 yes
Agave americana "Alba Picata"'" Agave suc 0 0 * * * * no
Agave attenuata "Nova"'" Blue Agave sue 0 0 f:r * * * yes
Aloe arborenscens Toreh Aloe sue * * * * * 0 yes
Aloe "Johnson's Hybrid" No Common Name sue -cr f:r -cr f:r * 0 yes
Aloe nobilis Aloe sue -(r -cr -(c f:r f:r 0 yes
Aloe Striata Coral Aloe sue -cr * * * -cr 0 yes
Aloe vera Medicinal Aloe sue -cr -cr * * * 0 yes
Aloe X spinosissima Spider Aloe sue * * -cr * fr 0 yes
Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree tree 0 0 f:r -cr * 0 no
Arctotheca ealendua Capeweed gr evr * * * * 0 * no
Almeria alliacea'" Sea Pink gr evr f:r -cr 0 * -cr 0 no
Almeria maritma'" Sea Pink gr evr -(r -cr 0 -cr -cr 0 no
Page 10
f":l
---4
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Species NlIme Cha racteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Li We Form Leaf Little High Mineral Freeze
Volume (dense (thick Dead Moisture Con ten t Sensitive
or low) or la rge) Malter Content
Armerica pseupaemeria Sea Pink gr evr -C, -C, 0 * * 0 no
(formosana)
Carissa grandiOora "Tutter" Natal Plum shrub 0 0 * 7 "C, 0 yes
Carpobrofus edulis Hottentot Fig sue * * * 0 "C, 0 yes
Cercis occidentalis'" Western Redbud shrub * * -c, * * 0 no
Copro50rna kirkii "Verde Vista" Prostrate Mirror Plant sue * * * * * 0 yes
Cotyledon barbenyii No common name sue "C, * * * * 0 yes
Cotyledon macrantha No common name suc * * * * *1 0 yes
Cotyledon orbieulata No common name suc * * * * -c, 0 yes
Crassula arborescens Silver Jade Plant sue * * * * * 0 yes
Crassula argentea "Pink Beauty" Pin Jade Plant sue * * * * * 0 no
Crassula lactca Cras5ula suc * * * * * 0 yes
CrassuJa lactea "Taylor's Patch" Crassula sue * "C, * * * 0 yes
Crassula multicava Crassula suc -.c, * "C, * -.c, 0 yes
Crassula tetragona Crassula sue * * * * * 0 yes
Delospenna alba White Trailing Ice Plant \ sue * * * 't'r * 0 no
Dietes "Lemon Drop" No Common Name per en -cr * "C, -cr * 0 no
Dietes bicolor Yellow Wild Iris peren -cr -c( -cr -cr * 0 no
Dietes vegeta White Fortnight Lily peren * -c( * * * 0 no
Drosanlhermum f10ribundum rosca Ice Plant peren "C, "C, * * * 0 no
Drosanthennum hispidum lee Pant peren * * "C( * * 0 no
;,.
.
.:1
,', ,: Page 11
.,."...... '.
\",)'.
\)
CI. Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
:'.
.',..,...".,
"
Species Name Characteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Li ttI e Form Leaf Little High Mineral Freezc
VolullIc (dcnsc (thick Dead Moisturc Contcnt Scnsitivc
or low) or large) Mattcr Con ten t
Duchesnea indica Mock Strawberry grd cvr -(( * -(( -(( {:( 0 no
Dymondia margaretae No Common Name grd cvr {:( 1:( 1:( -(( -(( 0 110
Eeheveria "Blue Wave" Eeheveria sue 1:( -(( {:( 1:( -(( 0 no
Eeheveria "Pinkie" Echeveria sue -(( -(( -(( -(( -(( 0 no
Eeheveria "Topsy Turvy" Eeheveria suc -(( -(( -(( -(( -(( 0 no
Erigeron "Moerheimii"'" Fleabane 1 ok ok 0 7 0 0
peren 110
Erigeron karvinskianus'" Santa Barbara Daisy peren ok ok 0 7 q 0 no
Fejoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava shrub 0 0 1:( -(( 0 -(( no
Festuea ruba creeping* Red Fescue grd cvr 1:( -(( 0 * 0 0 no
Fragaria ehileoensis* Wild Strawberry grd cvr 1:( {:( {:( -(( 1:( 0 no
Gazania "Mitsuwa Orange" Orange Gazania grd cvr * * 0 * -(( 0 no
Gazania "Mitsuwa Yellow" Yellow Gazania grd cvr -(( -(( 0 -(( * 0 no
IlemeroeaIlis (assorted) Day Lily peren 1:( 1:( * * * 0 no
Ilesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca suc 1:( 1:( 1:( ....^r * 0 7
Jasminum Iigistifolium Shiny Leaf Jasmine vine 1:( 0 0 -(( * 0 no
Juniperus conferta Shore Juniper shrub 1:( -(( 0 0 0 oils 110
Kalanchoe pumila Kalanchoe suc -(( 1:( * -(( * 0 7
Kniphofia uvaria Red Hot Poker pem {:( -(( -(( 0 * 0 no
Lampranthus aurantiaeus Bush Gold suc -(( -(( -(( -(( -(( 0 yes
Lampranthus speetabilis rosea Trailing Ice Plant suc * * -(( * -(( 0 yes
Macademea "Dr. Beaumont" Macademea tree 0 0 -(( -(( * 0 yes
Page 12
<0)
---
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Species Name Characteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Spccies - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Little High Mincral Frcczc
Volumc (dcnse (thick Dead Moisture Contcnt Sensitive
or low) or large) Matter Contcnt
Malephora crocea Croceum Ice Plant sue -.cr -tr * * * 0 yes
Myoporum Parvifolium Prostrate Myoporul11 grd cvr -.cr -.cr 0 -tr 0 0 yes
Nerine l11asonorum Nerine bulb -tr -tr 1:r 1:r * 0 no
Nerium oleander "Mrs, Roeding" Dwarf Pink Oleander shrub 0 0 0 -.cr * 0 no
Neriul11 oleander "Petite Salmon" Dwarf Salmon Oleander shrub 0 0 0 * * 0 no
Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium peren 0 -.cr -.cr -tr *\ 0 no
Phonnium tenax "Maori Maiden" New Zealand Flax peren 0 0 0 * 0 0 no
Phomium tenax "Maori Queen" New Zealand Flax peren 0 0 0 * 0 0 no
Phomlium tenax "Maori Sunset" New Zealand Flax peren 0 0 0 * 0 0 no
Pittosporum c. "Compacta" Dwarf Karo shrub 0 0 1:r -tr 1:( 0 no
Piltosporum tobira "Wheeler's Mock Orange shrub * * * * * 0 no
Dwarf'
Punica Granatum "Nan a" Dwarf Pomegrante shrub 0 ~ 0 * 0 0 no
Quercus agrifolia* Coast Live Oak tree 0 1:r 0 -cr 0 0 no
Ribes viburnifolium* Evergreen Currant shrub 0 0 * 0 * 0 no
Scaevola "Mauve Clusters" Fan Flower grd cvr * * 0 * * 0 no
Schinus molle California Pepper tree 0 0 0 * 0 0 no
Sedum acre Stonecrop suc * * * * * 0 yes
Sedum album Stonecrop suc * -tr -.cr * * 0 yes
Sedul11 brevi folium Stonecrop suc * -t( * * * 0 yes
Sedum confusum Stonecrop sue 1:( * * * * 0 yes
, ,
..
Pape 13
,.\)
\'
~)f Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
.')
.:,...:-::,
, '<I
Specics Namc Characteristics
Speicics - Latin Namc Spccics - Comlllon Namc Form Littlc Form Leaf Little High Mincral Frccze
VolulIlc ( dcnsc (thick Dcad Moisturc Contcnt Scnsitiyc
or low) OI.largc) Mattcr Contcnt
Sedum lineare Stonecrop sue ~ -Cc * * * 0 yes
Sedull1 rosea Rose Root sue oC( * * oC( 1:( 0 yes
Sedum rubrotinctum Stonecrop suc * * 1:, * * 0 yes
Sedum spathulifolium "Purpureum"* Stonecrop suc * * * * * 0 yes
Senecio cinerea Dusty Miller peren oC, * 0 * 0 * no
Senecia klein ia "Mandraliscae" No Common Name peren * oC, 0 * * 0 yes
Thevetia peruviana neriifolia Yellow Oleander shrub 0 0 0 * h 0 no
Trachelospennum jasminoides Star Jasmine vine 0 0 * * * 0 no
Tulbaghia violacea "Silver Lace" Society Garlic peren * * 0 0 * 0 no
Yucca Whipplei* Yucca peren oC( 0 0 * * 0 110
AREA C
This area is suitable for all of the plant species shown for Areas A and B above, and the following plant species,
Achillea millefolium "Cerise Queen"* Pink Yarrow \ oC( oC( 0 1:( * * no
peren
Achillea miIlefolium "Red Beauty"* Red Yarrow peren * * 0 * * * no
Achillea millefolium white* White Yarrow peren 1:( oC( 0 * * * no
Achillea taygetea "Moonshine"* Yarrow peren 1:( 1:( 0 * * * no
Achillea tomentosa* Wooly Yarrow peren * * 0 1:( * * no
Ajuga reptans Carpet Bugle grd evr * * 0 * oC, 0 no
Arctostaphylos "Carmel Sur"* Manzanita shrub * * 0 0 0 * no
Arctostaphylos "Emerald Carpet"* Manzanita shrub 1:( * 0 0 0 0 no
Page 14
Species Name Characteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Li ttI c Form Lcaf Littlc High Mincral Freezc
Volumc ( densc (thick Dcad Moisture Content Sensitive
01' low) or largc) Mattcr Con tcn t
Arctostaphylos "Woods Red"* Manzanita shrub 7 7 0 0 0 7 no
Arctotheca calendu la Cape Weed grd cvr T:r -cr T:r T:c 0 -cr yes
Artemisia "Canyon Gray"* Silver Wormwood shrub 0 0 0 0 0 -cr no
Artemisia Caucasica Caucasian Sagebrush grd cvr f( f( 0 0 0 f( no
Artemisia pycnoccphala* No Common Name shrub T:r T:r 0 0 0 .."r Yl'S
Atriplex nuttalli cuneata* Saltbrush shrub 7 7 0 * * * yes
Atriplex muttalli gardneri* Saltbrush shrub 7 7 0 * *l -cr yes
Atriplex semibaccata Australian Saltbrush shrub 1,."r * 0 * * * yes
Centaurea gymnocarpa Dusty Miller peren -cr T:r 0 * 0 * 110
Centranthus ruber Red Valerian peren * -cr 0 T:r T:( 0 no
Centranthus ruber "Albus" White Valerian peren * T:r 0 * * 0 no
Cheiranthus Erysimum Cheiri Wallflower peren T:r T:( 0 * * 0 no
Coreopsis Ianceolata "Sun Ray" Coreopsis peren T:r -cr 0 -cr -cr 0 no
Diplacus longifolius* Monkey Flower peren 0 0 0 0 0 0 no
Diplacus puciceus* Red Monkey Flower peren 0 0 0 0 0 0 no
Elymus condensatus "Canyon Princc"* No Common Name grd cvr -cr T:r 0 0 0 0 no
Eriogonum crocatum * Coastal Wild Gum peren T:r -cr 0 0 0 0 no
Eriogonum grandiflora rubesens* Island Buckwheat shrub -cr * 0 0 0 0 no
Eschscholzia califomica* California Poppy peren -cr -cr * * * 0 no
Galvesia speciosa* Island Bush Snapdragon shrub 0 0 0 T:r -cr 0 no
Gaura I indheimerii * Gaura peren T:r 0 0 7 -cr 0 no
',\.~
'v)
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
.
..
, ."
....'
Page 15
",\
~
Cif. Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
...,"
"
..,.,;'
)
Spccics Namc Characteristics
Spcicics - Latin Namc Spccics - Common Name Form Littlc Form Lcaf Littlc dcad High Mincral Frcczc
Volume (dcnsc (thick Mattcr Moisturc Con tcn t Scnsitive
or low) or large) Con ten t
Ganzania leucolcana hybrids Trailing Yellow Gazania peren * -cr 0 -cr -cr 0 no
Gazania regens leucolaena Trailing Gazania peren y:, y:, 0 -cr -cr 0 no
Geranium incanum Stork's Bill Geranium peren -cr y:, 0 0 y:, 0 no
Geranium sanguuineum Geranium peren -cr -cr -cr -cr -cr 0 no
Helichrysum petiolatum "nana" Curry Plant annual -cr y:, 0 0 0 * yes
Heuchera maxima'" Coral Bells or Island Alum grd cvr -cr -cr * -cr 0 0 no
Root
Iris "Pacific Coast Hybrids"'" California Iris percn y:, -cr 0 * *f 0 no
Koeleria glauca'" Blue Hair Grass peren y:, y:, 0 * 0 0 no
Lantana motevidensis Lantana grd cvr -cr * 0 0 * 0 no
Lavandula dentata French Lavender peren 0 0 0 0 -cr -cr no
LavanduJa stoechas Spanish Lavender peren 0 0 0 0 -cr * no
Limonium perezil Stat ice peren * y:, * -cr * * yes
Linaria maroccana Toad-Flax annual y:, y:, 0 0 -cr 0 no
Myoponlm parvifollium "Prostratum" No Common Name grd cvr -cr -cr * * * 0 no
Oenothera berlandieri Mexican Evening Primrose peren * -cr 0 * y:, 0 no
Osteospennum fruticosum African Daisy grd cvr -cr y:{ 0 * * 0 no
Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium peren y:{ y:{ * * * 0 yes
Penstemon "Firebird"'" Red Penstemon peren y:{ -cr 0 -cr -cr 0 no
Penstemon "Midnight"'" Beard Tongue percn -cr -cr 0 * -cr 0 no
Penstemon "Skyline"'" Penstemon peren -cr y:{ 0 -cr y:, 0 no
Page 16
~ ~l"
'........
'v\
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
Species Name Characteristics
Spcicics - Latin Na/llc Spccics - CO/llmon Name Form Li HI e 1'01'/11 Lcaf Li HI c High Mincral F,'cczc
Volu/IIc (dcnsc (thick Dcad Moisturc Contcnt Scnsitivc
or low) orlargc) Mattcr Contcnt
Penstemon heterophyllus'" Penstemon peren T:c * 0 * * 0 no
Perovskia atriplicifolia Russian Sage peren 0 0 0 0 0 * no
Phyla nodiflora Lippia grd cvr -(c * 0 * * * no
Rosmarinus officinalis "Prostrata" Rosemary shrub * -(c 0 0 0 oils no
Salvia "Allen Chickering"'" Sage shrub 7 7 7 0 0 * no
Salvia allrea Sage peren 0 0 * 0 0 * no
Salvia chamaedryoides Sage shrub * * 0 0 <p * no
Salvia leucantha'" Mexican Brush Sage shrub 0 0 0 0 0 * no
Salvia lellcopylla'" Purple Sage shrub 0 0 0 0 0 * no
Salvia sonomensis "Dara's Choice"'" Sage peren -(:c -(:( 0 0 0 * no
Santolin Chamaecyparissus Grey Lavender Cotton peren 0 -(:( 0 0 0 T:c no
Santolina virens Green Lavender Cotton peren 0 * 0 0 0 -(:r no
Senecia "Vira- Vira" Dusty Miller shrub 0 0 0 *' 0 *' no
Silene maritima No Common Name peren -(:r * 0 * *' *' no
Sisyrichium californicum'" Yellow-Eyed Grass peren *' -(:( 0 *' *' 0 no
Stachysbyzanlina Lamb Ears peren -(:( -(( 0 * * 0 no
Thyme praecox articus Thyme peren * -(:c 0 * * oils no
Thyme pseudolanuginosus Thyme peren *' * 0 * * oils no
Trichostema lanatum '" Woody Blue Curls shrub 0 0 0 * 0 oils no
Vinca major Periwinkle grd cvr * * 0 * * 0 no
Vinca minor Myrtle shrub 0 0 '* -(:( '* 0 no
:.
.
P:H!C 17
....)
~~
Ci.f Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
.")
.'.,',::..,
"I
Species Name Characteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Li ttI e Form Leaf Li ttI e High Mineral Frceze
Volumc (densc (thick Dcad Moisturc Content Scnsitivc
or low) or la rgc) Mattcr Content
Yucca whipplei'" Yucca peren * * * * -{:c 0 7
AREA D
This area is suitable for all of the plant species shown for Areas At Band C above, and the following plant species,
Alnus rhombifloira'" White Alder tree 0 * 0 * * 0 no
Arctostaphylos "Dr. Hurd"'" Manzanita shrub * * 0 7 0 0 no
Arctostaphylos pajaroenses Pajaro Manzaita shrub 0 0 0 7 0 0 no
"Paradise"'"
Carpobrolus edulis Iceplant Sea Fig sue -{:c * * * d 0 no
Cercocarpus betuloides'" Mt. Mahogany shrub 0 0 0 * 0 0 no
Ceanolhus "Anchor Bay"'" Mountain Lilac shrub -{:c * 0 0 * 0 no
Ceanothus "Frosty Blue"'" Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 0 7 * 0 no
Ceanthothus "Joyce Coulter"'" Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 0 0 * 0 no
Ceanothus "Ray Hartman"'" Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 * 7 * 0 no
Ceanothus "Snow Flurry"'" Mountain Lilac shrub 0 0 * 7 * 0 no
Ceanolhus "Wheeler Canyon"'" Mountain Lilac shrub 7 7 7 7 * 0 no
Ceanothus "Yankee Point"'" Mountain Lilac shrub * * 0 * * 0 no
Ceanolhus "Point Reyes"'" Mounlian Lilac shrub -{:c -{:c 0 0 -{:c 0 no
Ceanolhus griseus horizontal is'" M'ountain Lilac shrub -{:c * 0 0 * 0 no
Heteromeles arbutifolia'" Toyon shrub 0 0 -{:c * * 0 no
Prunus Iyonil'" Catalina Cherry shrub 0 0 -{:c * * 0 no
Quercus agrifolia'" Coffee Berry shrub 0 0 * * * 0 no
Page 18
'\})
........"
City of Dublin }Jlant Species amI Area of Use Table
Species Name Characteristics
Speicies - Latin Name Species - Common Name Form Little Form Leaf Li tt1 e High Mineral Freeze
Volume (dense (thick Dead Moisture Content Sensitive
or low) or large) Matter Content
RJlal11nUS crocea* Redberry \ shrub 0 0 '* '* '* 0
no
Romneya coulteri* Matilija Poppy peren 0 0 * '* '* 0 no
GRASSES
Brol11us carinatus California brome grass '* 0 0 0 '* 0 no
Calamagrosti foliosa Leafy reed grass
Calal11agrostis nutkaensis Sand reed grass
Danthonia californica California oat grass grass f, 0 0 0 ~ 0 no
Deschampsia caespitosa holcifonllis no common name grass '* 0 0 0 '* 0 no
Elymus californicus California bottlebrush grass
Elymus glallcus Blue wildrye grass fr 0 0 0 * 0 no
E1Yl11uS triticoides Creeping wildrye grass '* 0 0 0 '* 0 no
Elymus virescens Coastal wildrye grass '* 0 0 0 '* 0 no
Festuca californica California fescue grass f, 0 0 0 '* 0 110
Fescue californica California fescue grass '* 0 0 0 fr 0 no
Fescue idahoensis 'Tomales Bay' Idaho fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Festuca rubra Red fescue grass f, 0 0 0 * 0 no
Festuca rubra "lana's Blue" Red fescue grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Koeleria macrantha no common name grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
Melka californica Western melic grass grass * 0 0 0 f, 0 no
Melka imperfecta Small flower melic grass grass * 0 0 0 * 0 no
.
.,:
, '.'.
.
Page 19
~\
~.
Ci.' Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
.::
.':i
Spccics Na mc Charactcristics
Spcicics - Latin Name Spccics - Common Namc Form Littlc Form Lcaf Littlc High Mincral Frcczc
Volulllc (dcnsc (thick Dcad Moisture Con tcn t Scnsitivc
or low) or largc) Mattcl' Con tcn t
Stipa sps. Needlegrass grass -.cr 0 0 0 -.cr 0 no
TREES
The following is a list of trees that have a combination of characteristics which make them less flammable and as such are permitted in Areas B, C and D,
Spcices - Latin Name Spccics - Common Namc Characteristics
Acer (many)** Maple . Growth structure which naturally provides for adequate separation between the tree canopy
Aesculus californica+ Buckeye and ground (Citrus and Sequioa trees are exceptions),
Citrus (many) Orange, lemon, lime . Leaf shape, and size which make it less likely to ignite, Generally leaves are big or thick.
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree
Fraxinus (deciduous) Ash . High moisture content of the foliage, Usually deciduous trees have a higher moisture
content.
Liquidamber Sweet Gum . Little dead wood in the tree canopy, The listed trees generally do not hold onto or
Persimmon Persimmon accumulate dead wood.
Pistachia chinensis Pistachio Note: Other trees that have the same characteristics as the trees shown on this list may be utilized.
Populus* Poplar! Cottonwood Approval will be granted on a case by case bases.
Prunus (deciduous) Plums/Apples/Peaches
Pyrus (deciduous) Pears -
Robiniana ambigua** Locust Hybrids
Salix (free form)** Willows (tree form)
Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood I
Page 20
"....
-.IU
Legenu:
City of Dublin Plant Species and Area of Use Table
7
Unknown Property
1:,
o
**
peren
grd cvr
sue
Has the Property
Docs Not Have the Properly
*
Native
Some of this particular species
are Native
Perennial
Ground Cover
Succulent
:.
--
.,
Page 21
'."
, '
':.
o.
70
Regular Meeting June 4, } 996
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, in the
Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner
Lockhart.
---~ * '" - * '" '" '" * '" '" '"
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Geist, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; Eddie Peabody, Community Development
Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, Tasha Huston, Associate Planner
and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Jennings
",,,,lOlO * lO",,,,lO,,,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG .
Cm. Lockhart led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
",,,,lO,,, '" *lO",lO",
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The minutes of the May 21, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted.
lOlOlOlO * lO****
ORALCO~CATIONS
None
**** * *"'***
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
~
to None
lOlO*",.. if"'''*lO
Pl:JBUC HEARING
8. ]
PA 96-014 Trumark Homes PD Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and
Site Development Review A request for a PD Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision
Map and Site Development Review to allow 92 single family demched residential units
on approximately 8,9 acres of land. The project is located along the Southern Pacific
Right of Way west of Dougherry Road,
Regular Meeting
fHp::mi]
51
EXHIBIT JL",4"~'
Cm, Lockhart asked for the staff report.
.'..,
.. ".
]eri Ram, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She gave a history ofthe project. She stated that
the previous approvals by the Planning Commission and the Cit)' Council were for a General Plan
Amendment also a Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program. She showed the site plan
on the overhead projector. She stated the project was the same configuration, however, the circulation
has been slightly modified for better access for fire and police. She went over the parking for: each unit.
She stated each unit had a two car garage and the project allowed for .75 guest parking per unit. She
stated the project is dense, and the Applicant has opened the project up by providing single sto1')' plans
along the entry street of the subdivision. Some units have exclusive use easements where they cannot
build within the easement, however, they can plant in that area. She explained the elevations were a 360
degree design; the design concept in the front of the units will carry around to the side and back of the
units. She showed the Planning Commission the color and materials that will be used, Staffwas
recommended that a higher grade roof shingle be used, and because there was a lot of roof in this
development, it was necessary to use the higher grade to make the project look better. Conditions of
approval have been added, one is the higher grade of shingle and the other is to pay the required fees.
This would include the Public Facilities Fee. There was a provision stating that ifthe fee is recalculated,
the developer would pay no more than ~he current rate of $3,332, There was two portions to the fee and
the $3,332 relates to the community parks portion of the fee. The neighborhood parks portion of the fee
will be calculated by the City's Quimby Ordinance which will be calculated at the time of final map
based on the market value of the land, She stated the developer would not pay more than $3,332 per unit
in the community parks portion of the Public Facility Fees. The Planned Development Rezone changes
the zoning district from M-I Light Industrial to R-l Residential. She stated Staff recommends approval
of the project
.'.,",.
,'.
Cm. Zika asked what would happen ifthe Public Facility Fee was recalculated and the fee was lower?
Mr. Peabody stated that would not pay higher than $3,332 for part one of the fee, however if it were
lower, then they would pay the lower fee.
Cm. Johnson asked about parking along the street.
Ms. Ram stated there would be parking on the main street but not on the cul-de-sacs.
Cm. Johnson asked where cars would be placed ifpeople used their garages for storage, or they had a
third car. Where would they park their cars? He had a concern about that situation.
Ms, Ram stated that the applicant had provided more parking than what is typically seen around Dublin.
There would also be CC&R's that would restrict parking.
Mr. Peabody stated he lived in a development where there is no parking on the street, and he only had a 5
foot driveway, The CC&R's would have to be enforced, Once someone is cited or towed, they learn
quickly to obey.the rules.
Cm, Zika asked where the homeo\\'TIers garbage cans would go with our new garbage collection in
Dublin.
e:
~I
Regular Meeting
[6-4pcmiJ
52
June 4, 1996
:,.
'.""'.
..
.
7'J-
Ms. Ram stated the Livennore Dublin Disposal Services did indicate that they could service the area,
She lived in a development where she put her garbage can out near the street and they picked it up.
Cm. Lockhart asked if the garbage company would have to use the driveways to turn around.
Ms. Ram stated the garbage company i~91:ated they had enough room to turn around,
Cm. Johnson stated on his standard cul-de-sac in his neighborhood, there was not enough room for the
truck to turn around. Where would the~' store the garbage cans?
Ms. Ram stated the garbage can be stored in the side or rear yard.
Mike Maples, Trumark Homes, thanked staff for all their work they had put in the project. He gave a
history of how this project came about. He stated that they proposed a Homeowners Association to
address and keep an eye on some of the issues that were raised. He stated that the landscaping was
enhanced with more mature trees and plants and they would be maintained by the Homeowners
Association, He stated the parking has been reworked to 2.75 parking spaces permit, and the buyer
profile was targeted to smaller families. He stated that a strong Homeowners Association would ensure
compliance on the parking issue. The garbage company did not anticipate a problem because of the short
streets, They have cameras on the back of their trucks and are used to help back up the large trucks, He
went over the privacy issue and certain lots would require to have staggered windows to avoid line of
site, He stated the price for these units would be about $190,000 to $235,000.
Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Maples ifhe had a concern with the higher grade shingle.
Mr. Maples stated he agreed with everything staffrecommended.
Cm, Lockhart asked if anyone would like to address this issue.
Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Jennings absent,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 96-16
APPROVING PA 96-014 TRUMARK HOMES
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE Al\"D ESTABLISH
FTh"DINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, Al\"D DEVELOPMEl\! STANDARDS FOR A
PD, PLA...~1]\1J:D DEVELOP,MKNT REZONING
.A...1'\1)
Resolution No. 96-17
APPROVING P A 96-014 TRUMARK HOMES
VESTING TEl\!ATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
A,1'I1) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Regular Meeting
f6-4pcmi]
53
June 4, 1996
8.2 P A 94-028 Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment and EIR The Applicants are . '
.proposing residential and commercial development for their collective parcels totaling
500:!: acres. The project is located along the northern side of the 1-580 freeway, adjacent
to the City's western boundary. The proposed project includes the following: A General
Plan Amendment; Planned Development Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map,
Development Agreel1'iei'lr and-subsequent Annex.ation, The project components
scheduled for consideration at the June 4, ] 996 Planning Commission meeting include
the Environmental Impact Report and the General Plan Amendment documents.
Cm. Lockhart asked for the staff report,
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staffreport. She gave a brief history of the project. She
stated that the project applicants approached the City in ] 994 with the proposal for development of
approximately 500 acres in the Western Dublin eA"tended planning area, She also stated the draft ErR
was distributed in December, 1995. Two meetings were held before the Planning Commission regarding
the draft ErR, in order to receive public comments. The City received comments and the responses to
these comments have been incorporated into the final EIR. The final EIR was distributed on May 23,
1996 for public review. She stated the EIR was an information document that addressed environmental
impacts and to provide the appropriate mitigation needed in order to help the decision makers. She
stated that the EIR and the responses to comments addresses the issues raised. She asked the Planning
Commission to review the responses to comments and indicate any questions or areas that need
clarification, The General Plan Amendment document is a policy document that modifies the City's
current land use' in certain areas to accommodate the annex.ation ~fthe project. She stated staff .
recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending City Council
certification of the EIR and adoption of the General Plan Amendment.
Cm. Zika asked if the school issue between Dublin and Castro Valley had been resolved?
Ms. Huston stated there was discussions between the two districts and the EIR does have a mitigatIon
measure that states the school district issue would need to be resolved before the tentative map
certification.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were built in time lines that had to be addressed before we can proceed.
Mr. Peabody stated school mitigation must be resolved at the time of a Tentative Map. He stated there
was active discussions between the two school districts on this issue,
Cm. Zika asked how many of the home,S being built would actually be in the Castro Valley School
District?
Mr. Peabody answered all of the homes would be in the Castro Valley School District.
Cm. Zika stated-that was a problem. He also asked about the location ofthe park?
Ms. Huston responded that it was concept land uses and the definite area of where the park would go
does not have to be determined at this time.
.
L/5
Regular Meeting
[6-4pcmi]
54
June 4, 1996
~.
.. .
.
.
U ij
I
Cm, Zika stated that he wanted his concerns regarding the school issues be made aware to the developer
and that these issues need to be resolved.
Cm. Johnson asked about the extension of Dublin Boulevard to Schaefer Ranch.
Ms, Huston stated that the primary access was based on the General Plan Amendment document and
would be from Eden Canyon for the re4'OO1nder of the properties.
Cm, Zika stated that ifthey had put in a connector road, from Dublin Boulevard to Schaefer Ranch this
project would not have gotten this far.
Jim Parsons, Applicant from P A Design Resources, stated they were the land planners and civil
engineers for the project, He stated he had reviewed the ErR and response to comments, and felt WPM
had done a good job, developed solid mitigation measures, response to comments and prepared a good
General Plan Amendment. He thanked staff and especially Tasha for the good job that helped get this
project to where it is today. He stated that they hoped the Planning Commission would close the public
hearing and recommend certification of the Final ErR and adoption of the General Plan Amendment to
the City Council. He responded to the comment on the school issues. They are continuing to work on
this issue, there was a meeting scheduled on JUlie 7 and they were hoping for resolution between the
districts soon. The parks issue was taken seriously, and they are looking into a system of parks that
address the needs of the City. Mr. Parsons responded to the Dublin Boulevard e),,'tension issue and that a
road will go out there however, the project was designed in keeping with direction received during the
joint study sessions and that the road does not provide primary access to the property to the west.
Cm.Johnson stated he still did not like the future planning of the project in relation with the fire safety
issues beyond this project site. He asked if the fire department had any concerns?
Mr. Parsons responded that the Fire Department has been involved with a high level of detail.
Chief Diekman, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, stated that they were not concerned with the issues
beyond this project. He stated that the location is outside of their service area and there were no future
planning areas beyond it. They work well with the neighboring cities and the strategic operating plan
that allows them to serve that area in its current condition.
Cm. Lockhart asked if anyone wished to address this issue, hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Geist, seconded by Cm. Zika and with a vote of 3-1-1, Cm. Johnson voted against the
motion, with Cm. Jennings absent, the Planning Commission majority voted to adopt
Resolution No. 96-18
RECOMME1\:j)lNG CITY COUNCil., CERTIFICATION
OF THE FINAL E1\~7JRONMEI\.'T'fAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR THE
SCHAEFER R<\..'NCH PROJECT GE1\:"'ERAL PLkN AMENDMENT A1\1J)
ADOPTION OF THE SCHAEFER RA:..N'CH PROJECT
GEN"ERAL PLA.1\i' Al\1EI\.1J) ME1\ 'T
Regular Meeting
l6-4pcmi]
55
June 4, 1996
9,
NEW OR UNFD\TJSHED BUSINESS
.'
9.1 Eastern Dublin Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan As the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan ErR requires, the City has
completed a Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan that will
promote the protectioJ:L6friparian and wetland areas and reduce the risk of open land
wildfire while protecting wildlife habitat and other open space values.
LOCATION: Wildfire Management Plan - Citywide
Grazing Management Plan - Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Area
Cm. Lockhart asked for the staff report.
Carol Cirelli, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. She gave reasons why the Eastern Dublin Grazing
Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan were necessary. She stated the measure requires that the City
adopt a Grazing Management Plan that would protect the wetland and riparian areas. The Eastern Dublin project
would result in a loss of approximately 3700 acres of open space/grazing lands. She stated that there were two
major measures regarding the project, ~trategically placing salt blocks, nutrient dispensers and water sources in
the upland dryer locations which will reduce the movement ofthe cattle and the horses into the riparian corridor
along the creek. The second major measure was placing limited exclusionary fencing to protect the species
around the creek. She stated land owners would be asked to enter into agreements for land owner to adopt these
measures on a voluntary basis, The City would take a lead in encouraging this. She stated the document
included 9 grazing management guidelines. 1) Install watering troughs and nutrient dispensers above Tassajfl-'=!!.
Creek. 2) Construct enclosures around springs, seeps and spring fed ponds. 3) Discontinue livestock gr~',:'\
within Tassajara Creek, 4) Install exclusionary fencing around the Arroyo Willow riparian woodland alon~
Fallon Road tributary. 5) Install Exclusionary fencing around the known locations of the red-legged frog
populations, 6) Manage excessive fuel loads within the rural residential/agriculture and open space areas
through cattle and horse grazing. 7) Manage animal grazing and forage utilization for assuring that appropriate
amounts ofRDM remain on the ground at the end of the season. 8) Provide supplemental feeding of cattle and
horses and 9) Restrict use of rod en tic ides. The document also includes some monitoring conditions that state the_
City will be monitoring the progress of the Grazing Plan. Ms. Cirelli then presented the Wildfire Management
Plan. She stated the plan was prepared in conjunction with DRF A. The plan includes 5 main topic areas. 1)
Ownership and Financing of maintenance for open space. 2) Plan submittal requirements for Tentative Map,
SDR and building permits. 3) Building construction requirements. 4) Vegetation establishment and maintenance
standards and 5) Plant species list. There are still some unresolved issues with the plan, and tonight we received a
letter from the Lin Family regarding this issue. Stafffeels both the Grazing Management Plan and the Wildfire
Management Plan satisfy the requirements of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
EIR. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval.
Cm. Zika asked who would monitor the grazing plan?
Ms, Cirelli stated it would be City staff, the planning department,
Cm Zika asked about the extra nutrients that are being put out, would that hurt existing wildlife.
Ms, Cirelli said'a biologist had recommended the ex.'!ra nutrients and that it would not have any negative impact
on wildlife.
."
tj5
Regular Meeting
[6-4pcmiJ
56
June 4, 1996
.
:.
.
V~
Cm, Zika asked if a kit fox has been seen in Eastern Dublin? He stated that the red legged frog was put on the
endangered species list after the big frog jumping contest. He asked if the homes required sprinkler systems that
back up against the open land?
Ms, Cirelli stated yes to last question,
Cm, Lockhart asked if a plan goes thro~gh a pl]ase and stops, would the houses at the edge of the first phase also
require sprinklers? .
Cm, Johnson asked if someone monitored the open land behind his house on Via Zapata?
Ms, Cirelli stated no. She continued to state that the Grazing Management Plan would only apply to Eastern
Dublin.
Chief Diekman spoke in regards to the fire protection issues, They had consulted with fire experts and many of
the requirements were due to what was learned by the Oakland fires in the East Bay hills. He explained the
concept of the plan. He stated the sprinkler requirements came from learning that the buildings that were
sprinklered in the East Bay hills, stopped the fire from entering the interior of those buildings. Property required
to have sprinklers are based on whether they back up to open space land which has no future development plans.
If the open space land was going to be developed the buildings would not be required to have sprinklers.
Cm. Johnson asked about an area behind Via Zapata that has an open area and a creek, would those houses
require to have sprinklers?
Chief Diekman stated the answer may vary, if there was a drainage canal arrangement then probably not. If there
was open space involved with the drainage canal the answer would probably be yes,
Cm. Johnson asked if the houses along Tassajara Creek would be required to have sprinklers?
Chief Di elan an stated given the little bit of information, probably yes. Schaefer Ranch would all be sprinklered
due to the open space and the response time required to reach that development.
The Planning Commission took a few moments to review a letter received from Dave Chadbourne.
Dave Chadbourne, McKay and Somps, stated they represent the Dublin Ranch properties. He summarized the
issues outlined in his letter. They had a few main issues of concern. The approach to the plans seemed to be
driven by a heavily forested project, Dublin Ranch has only a few trees through out the 1037 acres, He stated the
irrigation requirements would be costly with no other alternatives. He stated the City's irrigation requirements
was not standard practice compared to other communities in the area. Another concern was the 30 foot
unvegetated buffer which was in conflict with the Specific Plan and EIR. This was a large matter, and they
recognized the need for the plan, but they feel there should be more flexibility to the plan.
Cm. Zika responded that once an open field catches fire, one could only run. He stated there must be some type
of measures taken to ensure the homes were protected. He felt if there wasn't any plans for development to the
area, he would vote for the fire sprinklers in the homes.
Dave stated that the 125 foot irrigated buffer would be a bigger concern for them. He felt the plans were geared
towards the Schaefer Ranch project with a lot more woodland areas versus grass land areas.
Bob Harris, Lin Property representative, stated they have been studying the issues, and had met with the Fire
Chief. He indicated that Chief Diekman made some revisions to the plan, but they were not able to review the
plans until the packets went out to the Planning Commission. He asked the item be continued so that they could
discuss the situation further with the Fire Chief. He felt the ]25 foot buffer was not realistic when other cities
Regular Meeting
[6-4pcmi]
57
June 4, 1996
1
~
]
j
,I
,1
J
i
~
~
-j
j
.j
,j
YJ
have 30-40 feet. They had hire? a consultant to h.elp develop a Homeowners Association and the consulta.'
stated he had n~ver seen a requIrement such as this fire buffer. '
Cm. Johnson asked what about the rest of the City, do we have a regulation regarding open space?
Mr. Peabody stated no, not at the moment.
Cm. Johnson asked who monitors this-~;~a?
Chief Diekman thought Mr. Harris raised some good issues. EspeciaJly on how to determine if land was
destined to be developed. He gave an example of how a buffer zone worked. He stated the California
Department of Forestry looked at the plan, and would like to use it as a standard for some oftheir areas. He felt
the buffer should not be the City's burden to provide an alternative, it should be the developers burden to offer
alternatives, apply for a variance and go through the board of appeals or the City Council. He stated DRF A
would not voluntarily modify the sprinkler requirements or the buffer requirements.
Cm. Johnson asked ifthe sprinkler system would have to maintain the area 120 feet away from the property?
Chief Diekman responded that only in extreme cases and the plant species required it. He stated that the wildfire
management plan was a new incoming Tequirement and there were very few communities in California that use
this plan. Dublin is amongst one of the first cities to use this plan.
Cm. Zika asked ifthis plan was a set of guidelines?
Chief Diekman 'answered yes,
.'"
, "
Cm. Zika asked what type of plant would grow without water.
Chief Diekman stated there were plant species that occur naturally. Some times, in developments, there is not
irrigation, but the plants grow. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that these types of issues be looked at.
This is a first in Dublin and this plan sets guidelines for a developer. If a developer had an innovative and
creative project that could address these issues, bring them forward to the City.
Cm. Lockhart stated his house backs up to open space and he felt that the owner has some responsibility to
maintain that open space so that it does not create a hazard to his property. He stated the developer would have
to go 125 feet against a open area,
Chief Diekman stated this plan would establish who's responsible for it and how it would be done,
Cm. Lockhart stated that the developer was being asked to go 125 feet out, because DRF A does not want to have
to ask the homeowner to cut their weeds.
Chief Diekman stated the buffer was a direct benefit to that development. He stated that the tax payers pay for
the fire department to maintain areas in Dublin, The guidelines to the document was not to incur on going costs
to the City.
Cm. Geist asked ifthe developer backs up to another property, and the property owner does not give permission
to go onto his property,
Mr. .Peabody stated if a 125 foot buffer was to be built and a homeo'wners association would be part of the .' '~t
the Issue would be taken care of. ",' ·
Cm. Zika suggested that his item be postponed:
Regular Meeting
[6-4pcmi)
58
June 4, 1996
-.
.'
"
-;
;
-i
-:
.
'c$
Mr. Peabody stated Staff needed direction from the Planning Commission on how to proceed with the item. Or
instruct Staff and interested parties to get together and have the matter resolved by the City Council.
Cm. Johnson stated staff may need time to address the letter from Dave Chadbourne,
Cm. Lockhart stated in a perfect world;_we want everyone to be safe from fires, however, wewant the houses to
be affordable, He stated that maybe they would need more feedback from Chief Diekman and the Property
owners the Lin family,
em, Zika stated that the language may need to be modified stating these are guidelines, however, there could be
options from developers,
Mr. Peabody stated that there was language that addressed that, however, maybe the language might need to be
more prominent.
Cm, Lockhart stated he would like to see it less restrictive than 125 feet from the building.
On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Lockart and with a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Jennings absent, the
Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption to City Council of the Grazing Management Plan
and to continue the \Vildfire Management Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
A7~lj~lur ~
Community Development Director
Regular Meeting
[6-4pcmi)
59
June 4, 1996
Regular Meeting June 18, 1996
DJlfJlJJ/Ju
."
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, in
the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers, The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by
Commissioner Jennings.
**** * *****
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson, Lockhart; Eddie Peabody, Community Development
Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate
Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Zika
**** * *****
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
**** * *****
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
.'
The minutes ofthe June 4, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATION .
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1
P A 96-024 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add text to the General
Plan relating to the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan permitting the location of Small-
Scale Transfer and Storage Facilities and of Industrial Transfer/Storage Facilities in the Business
ParkfIndustrial: Outdoor Storage, Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage, and Industrial Park
designations of the General Plan; and to amend the Zoning Ordinance to adopt defmitions of terms, adopt
standards and procedures for processing conditional use permits for facilities under the Alameda County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and adopt local siting criteria consistent with the County Plan, and
amend the M-I (Light Industrial) 'll1d M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning Districts to allow the location of
Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facilities and ofIndustrial Transfer/Storage Facilities as conditional uses
subject to adopted procedures and siting criteria. The Planning Commission or City Council may establish
other development standards, zoning district, and/or development regulations consistent with the purpose
and intent of the General Plan or applicable City policy,
.",.,
"
Regular Meeting
[6-18pcmi]
60
June 18. 1996
1/1
.
'.
'.
5C?
Cm, Jennings asked for the staff report,
Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner presented the staff report. He explained the Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
He stated a bill was passed in 1986 requiring every county to have a Hazardous Waste Management Plan and it
must be adopted by June 1996, He explained that this plan would require a General Plan Amendment and to
establish a guiding policy stating that we will reduce the amount of resources that are used. He stated that the
Ordinance adopts the definitions of "Industrial Transfer!Storagerrreatment Facility" and "Small Scale Transfer and
Storage Facility", and a "Residual Repository" establishin"g the above facilities as conditional uses in the M-l (Light
Industrial) and M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning districts, He gave a brief overview of the Zoning Ordinance -
Amendment. He concluded his presentation,
Cm, Jennings asked for comments from the Audience. Hearing none, she asked for questions from the Planning
Commission,
Cm. Geist asked what the fair share portion meant.
Mr. Carrington stated it basically gets down to sharing the responsibility among cities and taking a regional
approach in taking care ofthe hazardous waste problem, Alameda County is recycling the waste oil in the Bay Area
with a finn called Evergreen, He stated that it was a joint responsibility and these facilities are regional in nature,
Cm, Jennings closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Geist and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm, Zika absent, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -20
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PA 96-024 ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND
RESOLUTION NO. 96-21
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF P A 96-024 ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
8.2 P A 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Planned Development Prezone -The Applicants are proposing
'residential and commercial development for their collective parcels totaling 500:1: acres, The
project is located along the northern side of the 1-580 freeway, adjacent to the City's western
boundary, The Planning Commission considered the EIR and General Plan Amendment at their
June 4 meeting and recommended certification and approval by the City Council. The project
component scheduled for consideration at the June 18, 1996 Planning Commission meeting is the
Planned Development Prezoning to establish an overlay zone and general land use provisions for
the site,
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report.
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated the prezoning was the third component of
the Schaefer Ranch project, She stated there were three items associated with the proposed Planned Development
Regular Meeting
[6-18pcrni]
61
June 18, 1996
Prezoning that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The zoning district map, the development
standards and conditions or provisions of the planned development. She stated once the zoning district maps are
established, any subdivision map or Site Development Review application must to be consistent with the land uses.
The exact location of the park is tentative and under review, and when approved, the map would be revised to show
where the parks would be. Staff recommends approval of the zoning district map as the land use and development
plan for the project. The development standards address yard areas, setbacks and building heights, She stated that
one Staff recommendation waS to change the set backs to 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other, She stated the
10 foot setback was important for privacy reasons. Jand~caping and storage. She stated that the prezoning approval
included several provisions or conditions to address issues with providing public services to the development. The
recommended provisions to address the issues were included in the Resolutions with the staff report. Ms, Huston
noted one correction needed in the Resolution on page 21, section G, fourth line of the paragraph should state,
"from Silvergate Drive to San Ramon, which were identified in the City's adopted Capital Improvement Program."
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending the City Council adoption of
the Planned Development Prezoning, She stated that a letter was passed out prior to the meeting, that addressed
comments from the Applicant regarding the conditions of approval.
Cm. Lockhart asked about the side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, was it two 5 foot setbacks, or a 5 and 10 feet
setback?
Ms. Huston stated there had to be 15 feet total between buildings,
Cm. Lockhart asked why this did not apply to neighborhood "D"?
Ms. Huston stated neighborhood "D" was the duet neighborhood and it was common for duet's to have smaller
setbacks.
Jim Parsons, PA Designs Resources, stated that Exhibit I, page 18 of28 of the Staff Report, shows the development
standards. He said much tim,; was spent on these design standards, He stated there would be three distinct
neighborhoods, the duet neighborhood (neighborhood "B"), smaller lot single family (neighborhood "C"), the larger
lots single family (neighborhood "D") and the custom homes (neighborhood "A"). He stated that they agreed with
the standards that Staff had proposed on neighborhood "B". He stated neighborhood "c" was the area they had
difficulty with Staff s standards. He felt that if they comply with those standards, it would squeeze the house up, and
emphasize the garage, which they _9id not want to do. They also had a problem not allowing any projections into the
side yard, he asked that the chimney be allowed to encroach 2 feet into the side yard. In regards to neighborhood
"A", Schaefer was able to acquire the rights to the Gibbs property that promoted some redesign, to include some 2
acre lots and they would like the minimum lot size to be changed from 3 acres to 2 acres. He stated in
neighborhood "A", there was an area where they could not meet the 100 feet between buildings, and they were
requesting it be changed to 50 feet. He asked for flexibility in the maximum height for neighborhood "A" from 35
feet to 38 feet, and neighborhoods "B", "c" and "D" to 35 feet. Also in regards to the custom homes, he requested
that architectural features be allowed to project above the height limits by 4 to 7 feet.
Dave Brandt, the applicants attorney, had four minor requests for changes to the Conditions of Approval. He stated
that in paragraph F on page 14 of the Staff Report requires the applicant to fund an updated public facilities fee but
does not indicate when this would occur. He asked the Commission to modify the condition to indicate the
requirement to state "prior to the approval of the final subdivision map application". He raised some issues
regarding Condition H which requires the applicant to contribute a traffic impact fee, but it was not clear when this
would occur. He asked that Condition I, the policy on the school district, be modified to reflect that the mitigation
agreement will not be necessary until the project is annexed into Dublin Unified School District or prior to Tentative
Map approval. He felt Condition K, dedication of open space, had a legal problem with the language requiring when
the applicant must demonstrate compliance. He stated that they recommend the Planning Commission modify the
condition to require that evidence be submitted at the dedication of the final map.
Mr, Peabody stated that Staff would like to respond to each of the issues raised.
Regular Meeting
[ 6-18pcmi]
62
June 18, 1996
5/
.'
.~'
.:
,~.
':.
:.
c::....
./er-
Linda Chavez, EBRPD, clarified Condition K, dedication of open space. The district is interested in the open space,
but prior to the Tentative Map, they cannot fonnally take action prior to approval of the Tentative Map, She had
spoke with Tasha and agreed there was a issue of clarification.
Jim Parsons stated that with the modifications raised, they hoped that an agreement could be made tonight, and go
forward to the City Council.
=-=-= --
Cm, Lockhart stated some changes should be discussed with Staff before it could be recommended to City Council.
Jim Parsons stated they got the staff report by fax, and did not have time to really look at it, and he did not have a
chance to talk with Staff on all these changes, This was the first time Staff had heard some of these changes.
Mr. Peabody stated it was difficult to change conditions at the last moment. One change included an architectural
issue regarding how high a building should be. These changes involve technical discussions, and may not be able to
be addressed tonight,
Ms, Huston restated the requests for changes in the applicant's letter passed out at the meeting. Starting with
paragraph F, Public Facilities Fees Provision on page 21 of28 of the Staff Report, the request was to require the
condition be specified prior to any subdivision map.
Mr, Peabody stated the reason for the condition was because there were two projects that require the public facility
fee, Trumark and this project. The intent was that we get started on completing the study, so by the Tentative Map
stage, the study would be done, and we know that the fee exists, That was the reason for the language at this point.
Ms. Huston stated that this type of condition was typical prior to Tentative Map approval, rather than final map
approval.
Ms. Huston went over Paragraph H of the Resolution, Traffic Impact Fee Provision, The applicant's request was
that the fees were payable prior to issuance of any building pennits, This was common practice and Staff agreed.
Paragraph I of the Resolution, School Facilities Impact Mitigation Provision, the applicant requests that the wording
be changed from "prior to Council approval of the Planned Development Prezoning," to "prior to annexation of the
project or prior to approval of any tentative subdivision maps, whichever comes first." Tasha stated staff would be
in agreement with that change,
Cm. Johnson asked what happened if the Castro Valley and Dublin School Districts never came to an agreement
regarding schooling for the Schaefer area,
Mr. Peabody stated that if they do not come to an agreement, the area is and would still be in the Castro Valley
School District and any service for that area will come from Castro Valley. The applicant will be responsible to
provide a signed school mitigation agreement before the Tentative Map will be approved.
Cm, Johnson stated that there were some cities in the area with the same situation and it creates a problem. He felt
these issues need to be worked out in advance,
Mr, Peabody stated that Staff was in agreement with him.
Ms, Huston clarified the applicant's reques~ regarding Paragraph K, to specify at the final map approvaL Staffs
intention with this condition was that the applicant present evidence to the City that the District will be willing to
accept the open space and a letter of intent would be satisfactory. She stated that the first sentence of the paragraph
could be changed from "Prior to the City's approval of a Land Use and Development Plan and Tentative
Subdivision Map" and state "prior to the City's approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map," with all other wording
kept the same,
Regular Meeting
[6-18pcmi]
63
June 18, 1996
Linda Chavez stated that they .liIT interested in the open space area, the District does not have a problem writing
letters saying they are interested, they just can't go to the Board before the Tentative Map stage,
.:';.:
Mr. Peabody stated that the Tentative Map would need a note that we dedicate this property to EBRPD.
Cm, Jennings asked ifEBRPD can supply the letter of intent or interest.
Linda Chavez stated that they can't do that untilthe Tentative Map was approved.
Ms. Huston stated the issues brought up by the applicant, involve setbacks, height increases and lot size.
Mr, Peabody responded to the requested changes and stated we did not have a Tentative Map or lot size, and
neighborhood "B" and "C", could be desigQed to have 15 foot set backs between houses, 5 and 10 feet on each side.
He felt the lots were large enough for the 15 foot setbacks. The change from 3 acres to 2 acres minimum lot size for
estate lots would have to be discussed before making that decision. Without seeing some housing types, 100 feet
between buildings could not be addressed until staff sees the housing design, Mr. Peabody recommended how the
Planning Commission could address the issue on set backs, The standards could be 20 feet, minimum 15 feet, with
minor revision to.be made by ~taff. This would only apply to one area.
Ms. Huston stated that on the side yard aggregate for neighborhood "C", the staff report should be corrected to state
15 feet.
Mr, Peabody stated that on building height they were willing to go up to 35 feet maximum. The architectural
features and elements should not exceed 5 feet maximum and subject to approval by Staff.
Cm. Geist asked about chimney projection in the side yard set back,
.~""'.
,.
Mr. Peabody stated that with two fireplaces across from each other, you could be down 4 feet.
Mr. Parsons suggested that he and Staffrefrne the numbers at the Tentative Map stage and they could live with the
conditions. He would be happy with the understanding that the development standards could be further defmed
after discussions with Staff.
Mr. Peabody stated the Planning Commission could give that authority to Staff, but did not feel comfortable with
having flexibility on the side yard set backs
Cm. Jennings wanted to clarify some of the issues raised. The minimum lot size for neighborhood "A" was 2 to 10.
The rear yard setbacks of20 foot minimum was fine, the side yard setbacks for neighborhood "B" of 5 feet and 10
feet was acceptable.
Jim Parsons stated he did not h'ave a problem with rear yard setback distance, only with level areas because some
lots are designed to slope, He stated that the side yard setbacks for neighborhood "C" was a problem.
Cm. Lockhart asked if what the applicant was asking was to go from 15 feet to down to 11 feet?
Mr. Parsons stated that they wanted the side yards between two houses to be 5 and 5, with a ] 0 foot total separation.
Mr. Brandt asked staff to read the proposed changes to condition K, Dedication of Open Space Provision,
Ms, Huston stated Staff recommended the condition would read: "Prior to the approval of a Land Use and
Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map for this project, the Applicants shall present to the City evidence
.~:
Regular Meeting
[6-18pcmi]
64
June 18, 1996
,..-/1
-:;:;;
.
.""
, ,
.
5t/
of the East Bay Regional Parks District's agreement to accept ownership and operational and maintenance
responsibility for the proposed Open Space, in a form acceptable to the City of Dublin.
Bob Y ohai, Schaefer Heights, asked Cm. Jennings if the minimum lot size was 2 acres for neighborhood "A".
Cm. Jennings responded yes and closed the public hearing.
Cm, Lockhart stated everything was settled but ~_set ba~ks for neighborhood "C". He felt that after looking ~t
different developments with 5 yard setbacks, this was not something he could support. He felt is was necessary to
have design standards that we would like within the eastern and western areas.
Cm. Jennings stated that Staff will make the necessary changes and meet with the developers,
Mr. Peabody summarized some ofthe issues, minimum lot size for neighborhood "A" will be 2 acres. The rear
setbacks for neighborhood "B" shall be 20 feet with a minimum clear level zone subject to minor modifications by
Staff. The side yard setbacks shall be as Staff recommends in the Staff Report. The side yard aggregate for
neighborhood "c" will be 15 feet. The 1 00 feet side yard aggregate setback for neighborhood "A" as a policy shall
be a direction and minor deviations from that setback can be approved by Staff based on design of individual
houses. The building height shall be 35 foot maximum or two stories at anyone point. However, architectural
features and elements may exceed this provision by a 2 foot maximum, and a gable element may exceed this
provision by 5 foot maximum.
On motion by Cm. Geist, seconded by Cm, Johnson, with Cm, Zika absent and with a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 96-22
FINDING PA 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING
WITHIN SCOPE OF FINAL EIR
~ND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR
P A 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT PD PREZONING
9.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1 City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan (continued) As the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan EIR requires, the City has completed a draft Wildfire Management Plan
that will reduce the risk of open land wildfire while protecting wildlife habitat and other open
space values,
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report,
Chief Diekman presented the updated version of the Wildfire Management Plan. He outlined the changes to the
plan, He stated that the definition for open space should state "the area should remain permanently undeveloped"
and page 2 had a change to variances appealed, remove variances and refer to it as alternative methods, Also on
page 2, the ownership oflands he stated that they inserted master Tentative Map. On page 3, under the developer
Homeowner Association, they inserted insure fire buffer zone improvements, and inserted where not in conflict with
other city policies. On pages 7 and 8, they changed some distances and wording within the various requirements of
the zones. The l~nguage in ti:c various requirements came out of a plan that was modeled from a plan to deal with
cleaning up existing land or establishing new land. On page 8 they added a new section that stated establishment
Regular Meeting
[6-18pcmi]
65
June 18, 1996
and maintenance of vegetation on approved lots, Also establishment and maintenance of vegetation designated
open space. They added to the species list and they added to the characteristic of trees,
.
Cm, Johnson asked about irrigation of land 120 feet from building,
Chief Diekman stated there is a requirement for irrigation for the plant species that require it for appropriate
maintenance, He stated that what they were trying to accomplish in the open space was a fire barrier. They are
recommending that it be natural grasses and kep1.m.owe<! to no more than 3-4 inches during the months of May
through November, He stated that this plan doesnot permit disking in any area, -
Cm, Johnson asked if water sprinklers will be installed and ifthe houses will be sprinklered,
Chief Diekman stated all houses that directly front onto open space will be required to have the construction
requirements and design requirements of this plan,
Bob Harris, Dublin Ranch, stated he met with the Fire Chief and resolved several issues. He had a few questions,
and wanted to make some comments for the record, He requested changes be made on page 2, defmition of
undeveloped land, he wanted it to read" no Tentative Map or master Tentative Map has been approved." He stated
that a subdivision map act was'very precise as to what a tentative map requires, He stated that they would be
submitting a Master Tentative Map on their first phase and he wanted to make sure that was the same as a Tentative
Map, He went over building permit review, construction requirements for properties adjacent to open space and
undeveloped land. The status may be different when they come in for their Tentative Map opposed to when they
come in for their Site Development Review. At Tentative Map stage they may have a portion of their property
adjacent to undeveloped land and at the time of building permit, it may have changed.
Chief Diekman stated that the Developer was not inclined to add to their construction cost, in this particular case the
fire sprinklers and the other requirements placed on buildings. The Fire Department wanted reasonable insurance
that the area adjacent to the property being built will be developed. If it is not going to be built, then they must
follow the proper requirements, He stated that the purpose of the plan is to make it environmentally safe. He stated
that requirements will be placed on projects one at a time.
..,
Mr. Harris stated phase I of their project is a few hundred acres with 9 distinct neighborhoods. Each of those
neighborhoods will be a separate Tentative Map and be sold separately to individual builders. They will then file a
master Tentative Map to create the neighborhoods. He stated that he needed to know what to tell the individual
builders regarding the fire sprinklers and special building requirements. He thought that the Fire Chief understood
this,
Cm. Geist indicated how she understood the requirements. She gave an example of a plan with the worse case
scenario and there was nothing on the border of those two properties and there is no tentative map on the other side
of that property, then it will r~quire to be sprinkled and maintained. If someone does establish a Master Tentative
Map or Tentative'Map, then w requirements go away.
Chief Diekman agreed with Cm, Geist. He stated that was why they put the requirements on at the building permit
stage, These requirements were not to restrain, but to create windows of opportunities,
Mr, Harris thought the Fire Chief said the Tentative Map was the vehicle to allow them to dispense the requirement
for sprinkling. He thought that on Phase I they would not be required to sprinkler between neighborhoods, If they
were adjacent to land they did not own, then he thought the sprinklers would apply,
Cm, Johnson stated that if all the 9 developers were to get building permits and Tentative Maps in at the same time,
the buildings would not require to be sprinklered.
Mr, Harris stated that the buildings would not all be built at once.
.'
Regular Meeting
[ 6-18pcmi]
66
June 18, 1996
55
:.
".
.
5/
"""
Cm, Lockhart asked what happened if they ,sold the land off, and the new buyer decided not to build, what assurance
would the Fire Chief have that it would ever be developed.
Mr. Harris stated that they would do a master grading penn it, and clear the whole area. To have the buildings
sprinklered was $1,00 per foot, and on 2,000 square foot house, this would be $2,000 of unnecessary costs added to
the house.
Cm. Jennings felt that sprinklers would be a good selling point with homeowners insurance and such.
Cm, Johnson stated that he understood the reason for the sprinklers, but how often do we have major fire stonns.
CheifDiekman stated about 10-13 major fires per year, and in the last 5-6 years, maybe 3-4 fires with significant
loss ofJife and property. He was referring to the East Dublin Mitigation Measures and trying to comply with the
requirements, He stated that there was land that may have been intended to develop but was never finished for
various reasons throughout the State. From a fire protection stands point, undeveloped and open space have the
same risk. Even if graded, it does not guarantee that something might not happen.
Bob Harris commented that the various fires referred to by Chief Diekman were in heavy tree growth areas, not
areas like the grass areas in Eastern Dublin, He felt this was not necessary in this area, He asked for relief, by
adding the word, Master Tentative Map to the definition of undeveloped land.
Cm. Lockhart stated the Planning Commission had to look out for the whole Eastern Dublin area, and he understood
both situations. He asked if there was a way in the 9 neighborhoods of development, to put a time limit on
Tentative Maps, '
Bob Harris stated they could put that in their contract of sale, He never heard of these types of requirements on this
type ofJand. It creates the potential for increasing the price of housing. There is no guarantee these houses will sell
if the costs get to? high.
Cm. Johnson asked if the Master Tentative Plan came in and graded all the streets, what would happen?
Mr. Peabody stated they would do a major street, but would not do roads down to the super pads.
Mr, Harris also commented on the wording on pages 8 - 9, there was an understanding with Chief Diekman, that on
property they do not own, but adjacent to their property, the fire buffer zones that the plan required, the areas would
have to maintained weed free, If they were maintained to the minimum foot set back, some cases there would be
units 25 feet adjacent to areas they have no control over.
Chief Diekman stated the intent of the plan was that these kinds of deals and understandings were made within the
maintenance plan developed for each property. If they bring forward the lots to be developed that way, then DRFA
has the authority to mow the property. There would have to be negotiations between DRFA, the City and the
developer addressing certain areas of the project to finalize the map, He stated that he met with the wildfire
ecologist and her point of few was the project was unrestrictive and that most plans would not allow a developer to
develop lots that close to adjacent property.
Bob Harris stated that was not in the plan, and wanted what the Chief said entered into the record,
Cm, Jennings asked Mr. Harris ifhe wanted something more specific for the undeveloped land.
Mr, Harris asked again that the conversation just taken be placed into the minutes. He stated that to his
understanding, normal setbach for development can occur even ifthe fire buffer zone would extend into adjacent
property not owned by developer if maintenance of the fire buffer zone was guaranteed by the developer through a
Regular Meeting
[6-18pcmi]
67
June 18, 1996
funding program paid for by the developer, If the adjacent property owner does not keep his weeds down in the fire
buffer zone and the City would do it and get reimbursed, They would layout a proposal to the Chief that shows a
development adjacent to the property they do not own. They would try to get the adjacent property owner to
maintain the fire buffer zone. If the property owner refuses to maintain it, Mr. Harris said they would fund the
program for the City to maintain the fire buffer zone.
.:"
Cm. Jennings asked the Chiefwhat he thought about what Mr. Harris said.
Chief Diekman stated it was very consistent with the thought process of the plan,
Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Harris what happens when he goes away, who will then do the maintenance.
Mr, Harris stated they would propose a program for maintenance,
Cm, Lockhart asked about maintaining the fire buffer on someone else's property.
Mr. Harris stated they want to p1aintain the safety of the units that go on their property, He stated that he knew this
particular piece of property was purchased for development. He stated that this program described was acceptable
to them.
Cm. Geist asked about possible funding sources for maintenance, what about undeveloped space,
Chief Diekman stated that they want to be able to encroach onto someone else's property.
Cm, Johnson stated sometimes there are two pieces of undeveloped land adjacent to one another and both pieces of
property are graded back 30 feet, do those sites require that the open land be maintained,
Chief Diekman stated they disk around the property. People know they have a valuable feed source for animal
grazing. We do have an existing Weed Abatement Ordinance, and wanted to introduce a slightly different plan
more environmentally sensitive to the current needs of today. He stated weed abatement takes a lot of staff time,
and they are trying to make development responsible for their own weed abatement.
.'::,.,.
, '
Bob Harris stated on page 5 of the Staff Report under "detached accessory structures and fences", adjacent to open
space and undeveloped land, they have to build to special construction requirements which are one hour fire walls.
He asked if there was a need for the pilaster on every house? He wanted a clause to be added that said "unless
determination is made by the City, other requirements under this section negate the need for such a separation,"
Chief Diekman stated he would not support that recommendation. They do not want wood fences on the side of
houses adjacent to open space. He stated that the standards they took this from read "you should not have a wood
fence within 12 feet of the house." He stated that they tried to fmd ways to reduce this and the pilaster was a good
approach. He would not support that change.
Mr. Harris stated that he only wanted an alternate plan to be submitted,
Chief Diekman said this was already in there on page 2 "there is a mechanism for providing for an alternative
method."
Bob Harris stated there was not a need for prohibiting disking. He asked that disking be allowed in areas adjacent to
undeveloped land,
Chief Diekman stated that the Wildfire Biologist was very strong against disking and felt we should follow her
advice,
.
Regular Meeting
[6-18pcmi]
68
June 18, 1996
S1
.
.'
.
"..- '/
-:;>:6
Cm, Johnson asked Ms, Cirelli her opinion on disking.
Ms. Cirelli said the Fire Biologist stated that disking should not be allowed in order to maintain the integrity of the
natural habitat areas, however, she understood Mr. Harris' point. She agreed with Chief Diekman to leave it as it is.
Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing,
Cm. Geist asked Chief Diekman about Mr, Harris'-condition on Tentative Map or Master Tentative Map.
Chief Diekman stated that Master Tentative Map would not be helpful to the plan,
Cm, Jennings stated other than the amendment to page 2 of the Staff Report, were there any other amendments,
There were no other amendments.
On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Geist with changes that were made and with a vote of, 4-0-1 with
Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 96-23
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
THE CITY OF DUBLIN WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
9.2 Capital Improvement Program (1996-2001) Conformance to General Plan (Govt. Code 65402)
Cm. Jennings ask'ed for the staff report.
Mr. Ambrose, City Manager presented the Staff Report. He stated that there was a section in the Government Code
that requires certain projects to be brought before the Planning Commission. He stated that the Capital
Improvement Program for the next five years was identified in four major categories; 1) General Improvements; 2)
Community Improvements; 3) Parks; and 4) Streets. We do not have the infrastructure necessary for Eastern
Dublin development included in the Capital Improvement Program for this upcoming fiscal year. We will be
working with the development community, the Dublin Unified School District, and DSRSD on a long term
financing program for Eastern Dublin. These items will be developed during fiscal year 1996-97. This Capital
Improvement Program is also gearing towards repair and maintenance for the Civic Center. The new projects
consist of the Arroyo Vista handicap accessibility renovations, a proposed project to repair landscape in the area of
San Ramon Road. He stated the 1-580 off ramp to San Ramon Road towards the Dublin Park Hotel area be
landscaped to look attractive. The Heritage Center was requesting a paved parking lot. The Swim center needs to
have the chlorine system replaced, He said there was a couple of drainage repair projects, as a result of recent winter
storms. He stated that there was land dedicated to us as open space that had some slides that have occurred and
now have to be maintained which caused a major financial liability.
Cm. Lockhart asked if the repair that will be done to the open space was just for aesthetics?
Mr, Ambrose responded no. He stated that we have had some slide problems that have plugged the drains, and
flooded some yards and family rooms.
Cm, Johnson asked where the open space area was.
Mr. Ambrose responded that it was on the east side of the Dougherty Hills at the Ridge Creek development. St.
Raymonds Church will also need some repairs and the Swim Center needs the exterior painted, The CIP also
Regular Meeting
[ 6-18pcmi]
69
June 18,1996
includes the local cost associated with the 580/680 connector project. Mr. Ambrose thanked the Commission and
recommended them to adopt Resolution No. 96-024. .
On motion by Cm, Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm, Zika absent, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 96-024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING THAT THE 1996-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
9.3 Wells Middle School and Valley High School additions and new buildings conformance to the
General Plan (Government Code 65402)
Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report,
Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. He explained that whenever there
was a major alteration or improvement to a building within the School District it had to come before the Planning
Commission for approval. Although we do not have jurisdiction over school improvements, they must send them to
the Planning Commission for approval as to conformance to the General Plan. He explained that the school will be
remodeling their existing site.
On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm, Geist. and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Zika absent, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted
.'
RESOLUTION NO. 96-025
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED WELLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
AND VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ADDITIONS AND NEW BUILDINGS
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr, Peabody went over the upcoming addenda for the Planning Commission. He handed out a schedule showing
them what to expect in then next 6-8 months. The largest project now is the Stream Corridor and Schaefer Ranch.
He went over the Opus project and stated that Tri Valley Crossing had submitted their site plans,
Cm, Johnson asked about the truck parking problem and where could these trucks park?
Mr. Peabody responded that there was a truck parking place at Dougherty Road and Houston Court.
Cm. Johnson stated it was a licensed truck stop, but does not have the space for parking over night.
Mr. Peabody stated we would look into the issue, It was approved for a truck stop, with a scale and a filling station. .
Regular Meeting
[6-18pcmi]
70
June 18, 1996
,..........
'::;;1
,:.
:'.
.
06
10,
OTHER BUSINESS (CommissionfStafflnfonnational Only Reports)
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
A TrEST:
Community Development Director
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
Regular Meeting
[ 6-18pcmi]
71
June 18, 1996
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR MITIGATION MEASURES
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN
.
MM 3.7/4.0
Grazing management plans shall be developed by the City and implemented soon after
approval of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Management plans shall favor
protection of riparian and wetland areas, increased plant diversity, and the recovery of
native plants, in particular, e~!~nnial grasses,
WILDFlRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
MM 3.4/12.0 The City, in consultation with DRF A and a qualified wildlife biologist, shall prepare a wildfire
management plan for the project area.
· The plan objective should be to reduce the risk of open land wildfire to the lowest practical
level consistent with reasonable protection of wildlife habitat and other open space values,
· The plan should define how the open lands of the project will be owned, used and
maintained (consistent with the open space management plan), what wildfire hazard
mitigation measures will be implemented, and how vegetation and wildlife habitat are likely
to change over time as a result,
· The selection or formation of an entity responsible for maintenance of the open lands
should be subject to the Fire Chief s approval, and any financial obligations of property
owners to the maintenance entity should be disclosed to potential purchasers,
, ,
.::
· Where open lands are to be removed from grazing use, one or a combination of brush
control measures, such as mowing, discing, herbicide application or the removal of
combustible materials, should be selected to achieve the objectives of the plan.
· Any park districts and/or open space agencies with ownership or management
responsibilities within the Project area shall be requested to participate in and/or provide
input to the preparation of the wildfire management plan for the project area.
· Where new landscape planting is proposed, fire-resistant qualities should be a major
consideration. New planting near structures should be irrigated. As a basic rule, a
minimum of thirty feet shall be provided between new or existing homes and non-irrigated
grassland.
· The plan should specify who will be responsible for its implementation, and how its
implementation will be paid for.
. Since the scientific basis for wildland management is still inexact, it is also important that
the plan provide for periodic monitoring of vegetation growth, wildlife habitat and fire risk,
and for adoption of amendments if necessary to achieve the objectives of the plan on an ..-
ongoing basis. ' .
g:eastdubln\stream\mm3-43-7
EXH~ IT 0
G/
'e_---
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECO:MMENDlNG THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GRAZING MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR THE EASTERN DUBLlN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
on May 10, 1993 and the Dublin voters approyed the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment an_d Specific Plan
on November 2, 1993; and -- - , -
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan contains :Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0 that requires the City to prepare and approve
a Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area; and
WHEREAS, both the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area
(GMP) implements :Mitigation Measure 3,7/4.0 of the FElR and is consistent with the policies and action
programs of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Chapter 6 - Resource Management of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to the extent that the guidelines and standards of the GMP document will promote the
protection of riparian and wetland areas while allowing grazing to continue within the Eastern Dublin area; and
WHEREAS, the GMP shall be applicable to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area and shall
be implemented on a voluntary basis until such time that Eastern Dublin land owners receive tentative map
approval, or are issued grading permits consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. Future grazing within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area shall be restricted to those areas
zoned Open Space and Rural Residential! Agriculture. The GMP shall be enforced as conditions of rezone and
. tentative map approval for areas zoned Open Space and Rural Residential!Agriculture; and
WHEREAS, the City shall initiate any voluntary, cooperative measures with Eastern Dublin land owners
for purposes of implementing the GMP, and shall monitor the progress of the GMP implementation; and
WHEREAS, the GMP project has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and no new effects could occur and no new
mitigation measures would be required for the project that were 1l0t.addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) for tbe Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and the project is within the
scope of the FEIR. The project implements mitigation measures of the FEIR and an initial study will be
conducted for each development application that is required to comply with the GMP document; and
"1flEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council approval of the GMP; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the GMP as defined in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Staff
Report dated June 4, 1996,
PASSED, APPROVED A1\1J> ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 1996,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSEJ\"T:
',.
~~
Commissioners Lockhart, Johnson, Zika and Geist
None
Commissioners Jennings
ATrn~ ~ ~
c ./t. D 1 D~11
ommurnty eve opment or V
;,;J- g:\eastdubllslr=\6-4p..."T'CS\crc
EXHIBIT &
RESOLUTION NO. 96 - 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT- THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CITY OF DUBL~ WILD~
MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
on May 10, 1993 and the Dublin voters approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
on November 2, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan contains :Mitigation Measure 3,4/12.0 that requires the City to prepare and
approve a Wildfire Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin project area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan (WMP) implements :Mitigation Measure
3.4/12.0 of the FEIR and is consistent with the policies and action programs of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Chapter 8 - Community Services and Facilities of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent
that the guidelines and standards of the WMP document will promote the reduction in the risk of open land
wildfire to the lowest level consistent with reasonable protection of wildlife habitat and other open space values
within the Eastern Dublin area; and
WHEREAS, the WMP shall be applicable to all future developments throughout the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the WMP project has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and no new effects could occur and no new
mitigation measures would be required for the project that were not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and the project is within t.'" ':,
scope of the FEIR. The project implements mitigation measures ofthe FEIR and an initial study will be .:'
conducted for each development application that is required to comply with the WMP document; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend
to the City Council approval of the WMP; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the WMP as defined in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Staff
Report dated June 18, 1996.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSE1\'T:
Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Geist and Lockhart
None
Commissioner Zika
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
g:\eastdubl\wiJdfire\6-18reso \ere
e:
0:3
".
RESOLUTION NO. - 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
APPROVING THE GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA AND
THE CITY OF DUBLIN=-WJLDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan on May 10, 1993 and the Dublin voters approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan on November 2, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan contains Mitigation Measures 3,7/4,0 and 3.4/12,0 that require the City to
prepare and approve a Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment area; and
WHEREAS, both the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Area (GMP) and City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan (WMP) implement Mitigation Measures
3.7/4,0 and 3.4/12.0 of the FEIR, respectively, and are consistent with the policies and action programs of
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Chapter 6 - Resource Management and Chapter 8 -
Community Services and Facilities of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent that the guidelines and
standards of both documents will promote the protection of riparian and wetland areas while allowing
',::" grazing to continue within the Eastern Dublin area, and reduction in the risk of open land wildfire to the
<.lowest level consistent with reasonable protection of wildlife habitat and other open space values within the
City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the WMP shall be applicable to all new developments within the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the "Construction Requirements for Buildings on Lots or
Parcels Adjacent to Open Space and Undeveloped Land" set forth in the Wildfire Management Plan are
reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological and topographical 'conditions, As documented in
Section 8.3.2 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and in Part I, pages 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 of the
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (certified
by the City Council on May 10, 1993), the risk of wildfire is particularly great for residences near open
space and undeveloped land due to the dry grassland and windy conditions which exist in the area, the
heightened potential for fires resulting from vandalism and human carelessness due to the increased
population in these areas, and the fact that the relatively remote location can make access for fire fighting
equipment and personnel difficult; and
WHEREAS, the GMP shall be applicable to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area.
The GMP shall be enforced as conditions of rezone and tentative map approval for areas zoned Open
Space and Rural Residentiall Agriculture, Grazing may continue within the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment area until land owners receive zone change approval, tentative map approval and grading
permits consistent with the adopted Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment land uses. The GMP shall be
implemented on a voluntary basis if land owners are not applying for a rezone or tentative map approvals,
or if they have received rezone and tentative map approvals but wish to continue grazing their lands until
development begins, or until grading permits are issued consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan
. ," Amendment and Specific Plan; and
'. WHEREAS, the City shall initiate any voluntary, cooperative measures with Eastern Dublin land
owners for purposes of implementing the GMP, and shall monitor the progress of the GMP
implementation; and
EXHIBIT F
t/
WHEREAS, the GMP and WMP projects have been reviewed in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and no new effects
could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the projects that were not addressed in
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan, and the projects are within the scope of the FEIR, The projects implement mitigation
measures of the FEIR and an initial study will be conducted for each development application that is
required to comply with the GMP and WMP documents; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
GMP and WMP. ---- - :
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
approve the GMP and WMP as defined in Exhibits A and B, respectively, of the City Council Staff Report
dated July 9, 1996.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 1996.
.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
.:"
City Clerk
g:\eastdubl\wi1dfire\ccres\crc
.
c;
"~......, , ............, ...., ,...', ........' 'lWmHEIRllMiWSiA!' , ' :::::~;:::::::i~[ii,:!:i~~t~~[;;;i[[:::::;;~~~~l~;~~~[;:::ii,~:i,i,~[[~~~~~~::~~~[~:~i~::~~~~!~i;:~ii~~:il~~!l~1~~l~[i:~~~~l~
...........~m~
.:.
.
bG,
City
-Planning
Inquiry About Future
Development
Developer
Development Initiation
--.- ""
City
-Planning
-Fire
-Finance
Master Tentative Map or Tentative
Map, Approval
Developer
Site Development Plan Submittal
City
-Planning
-Fire
-Finance
-Building
Building Plan Approval
City
-Fire
-Building
-Finance
Final Construction Inspection and
Sign-Off
Property Owner
Transfer of Property
City
-Fire
Inspect Properties for Compliance
With Wildfire Management
Requirements
City
-Planning
Evaluate Wildlife Habitat
g: \adm in \ch iejl wildfire. tab
_ Provide wildfire management guideline to developer,
_ Developer makes proposal to city regarding the
ownership of open lands (space),
_ Developer makes proposal to city regarding the
source of maintenance for the open space.
_ Developer makes proposal to city regarding the
funding source for open space maintenance.
_ City decides and records ownership of open space.
_ City decides and records maintenance source for
open space.
_ City decides and records funding source for open
space maintenance,
_ Certification that all fees are current.
_ Developer makes specific proposals for:
Design of the fire buffer zone.
_ Maintenance and irrigation plan for the fire buffer
zone.
Maintenance plan for open space,
Maintenance specifications.
- Budget for the maintenance program, proposed.
_ Submits preliminary landscape plan for privately
owned properties,
_ Submits a vicinity plan.
_ Plans which meet the requirements of the Wildfire
Management Plan will be approved,
_ Certification that all fees are current.
_ Certification that all requirements are satisfied.
_ Certification that all fees are current.
_ Notify purchaser of open space ownership,
maintenance and funding responsibilities by
recording on title.
-
Inspection in conjunction with annual Weed
Abatement Program.
Citizen complaint initiated inspections.
All permit applications generate inspections.
.
.
-
Whenever a change is proposed by city or others,
the impact on habitat will be reviewed.
EXHI IT G-