HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Jordan Rch Attch 5-103~c~~~~~
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE
EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE 2002 EDPO AND 2005
FALLON VILLAGE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND
APPROVE ITS FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED
FOR THE JORDAN RANCH PROJECT
PA 09-011
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to develop a 780 unit residential project on an
approximately 189.7 acre site. The Project consists of single and multi-family units, a 6.6 acre
residential/retail mixed use site, and a range of public parks, public and semi-public uses, open
spaces and roadways. The related applications include a PD-Planned Development Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Development
Agreement. The Project reduces a previous approval for 1,064 units by 284 units. The above
activities and applications are further described in applications on file with the City and are
collectively referred to as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located east of Fallon Road and Positano Parkway, south
of the Positano residential community under construction, west of the Croak property and north
of the Chen property; and
WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental
Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May
10, 1993 (incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant
impacts from development of the Eastern ~ublin area, somE ~f which could not be mitigated to
less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference);
and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Supplemental EIR in 2002 for the 1,120-acre East
Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) project in Eastern Dublin, including the Jordan Ranch property
("2002 SEIR", SCH # 2001052114). The 2002 SEIR assessed the impacts of annexing these
properties to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, detaching the
properties from the Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District, prezoning the properties to
the PD-Planned Development district and adopting a related Stage 1 Development Plan for
future development of residential, retail, office, open space and other uses. The SEIR was
certified on April 2, 2002 by City Council Resolution No. 40-02; and
WHEREAS, in 2005 the City prepared a second Supplemental EIR to analyze the Fallon
Village project, consisting of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment, and
a PD-rezoning and revised Stage 1 Development Plan for the same properties as the EDPO
project, including the Jordan Ranch site. The second SEIR ("2005 SEIR", SCH #2005062010)
was certified on December 5, 2005 by City Council Resolution No. 222-05. The 2005 SEIR
Page 1 of 3 Attachment 5
~~~~
analyzed the revised Stage 1 Development Plan, including a maximum of 1,064 units~on the
Jordan Ranch site, at a programmatic level anticipating that the analysis would be used for
approval of future development projects unless project or other changes were to require
additional environmental review under CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15163; and •
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the Project required
additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the
Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated May 11, 2010 describing the Project,
including the reduced number of units from the number assumed in the 2005 SEIR, and finding
that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR. The Addendum and related Initial Study are attached as
Exhibits A and B and are incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR and the two SEIRs identified significant unavoidable
impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the
Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding
Considerations; and
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission staff report dated May 11, 2010 and incorporated
herein by reference analyzed the Project and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum
and approval of the applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project on May 11, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern
Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR before making recommendations or taking action on the
Project applications. The Planning Commission further considered all reports, recommendations
and testimony before making any recommendation or taking any action; and
WHEREAS, all of the above referenced resolutions are incorporated by reference and
are available for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development
Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council make the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental
review is required under CEQA for the proposed Project. These findings are based on
information contained in the Addendum and related Initial Study, the Eastern Dublin EIR, the
2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR, the Planning Commission staff report, and all other information
contained in the record before the Planning Commission. These findings constitute a summary
of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are
set forth in the Addendum and related Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, 2005 SEIR
and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding
that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference:
2 of 3
3 ~ ~ ~ t~~ !
1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previously
approved Eastern Dublin, EDPO and Fallon Village projects that will require major revisions to
the EIRs due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of
previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant
effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for the projects which
were addressed in the previous EIRs. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more
severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior EIRs. All previously adopted
mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable.
2. The Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project
that were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR or 2005 SEIR.
3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial
changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet
any other standards in CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and
15163.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends the following
to the City Council:
1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project
because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards
under CEQA section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 are met.
2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under
CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project.
3. The City Council consider the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study attached
as Exhibits A and B, and approve its findings that no further environmental review is required
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 for the Jordan Ranch Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council adopt any further required CEQA findings.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of May, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA#120091PA 09-011 Jordan RanchlPC Meeting 5.11.101PC RESO CEQA FINAL 5.11.90.DOC
3 of 3
. 32~ ~~~~ ~
.----
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A
STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
~ FOR JORDAN RANCH
PA 09-011
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Mission Valley Properties, on behalf of BJP ROF Jordan
Ranch LLC, submitted applications for an area of approximately 189.4 acres known as Jordan
Ranch within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, the applications include: a) Stage 2 Development Plan; b) Site Development
Review; c) Vesting Tentative Map 8024; and d) Development Agreement. The project proposes
a total of 252 Low Density Residential units, 205 Medium Density Residential units, 309 units
Medium High Density Residential units, 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of commercial use and 14
attached residential lofts as Mixed Use, Neighborhood Park, portion of a Community Park,
Neighborhood Square, Elementary School site, Semi-Public use site, open space, and other
related improvements. The applications collectively define this "Project;" and
WHEREAS, the Project site is mostly located north of the Central Parkway extension,
east of Fallon Road, generally west of Croak Road, and immediately south of the Cantara
neighborhood under construction within the previously approved residential community known
as Positano, also within the Fallon Village Project Area; and .
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 10-XX (incorporated herein by reference) on May 11, 2010
recommending that the City Council consider a CEQA Addendum and approve its findings that
the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in previously certified
EIRs and that no further environmental review is required for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the previously certified EIRs identified significant unavoidable impacts from
~ievelopment of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore,
approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone for the Fallon Village Project
area, including Jordan Ranch, provided for various land uses including the development of
3,108 units on 1,132 acres. This total included up to 1,064 units as part of Jordan Ranch; and
~,,._
WHEREAS, the resulting density by land use for Jordan Ranch is consistent with the
respective land use category of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
as follows:
Page 1 of 2
Attarhmpnt (~
33 ~ ~ ~ ~l ~
Units Descri tion/Unit Acres Densit
252 du Low Densit Residential 52.7 ac 4.8 du/ac
111 du
d
/
94
du Medium Density Residential 29.2 ac 6.9 u
ac
126 du Medium High Density
d
/
92 du Residential 15.8 ac 14.1 u
ac
105 du Mixed Use 6.6 ac 15.9 du/ac
780 du 104.3 ac dulac
; and
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 11, 2010 and incorporated
herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and the CEQA Addendum and
recommended approval of the applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing held on May
11, 2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered the CEQA Addendum, prior related environmental documents, and all said reports,
recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission, based on
the findings in the attached draft Ordinance, recommends that the City Council approve the
Ordinance aftached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which Ordinance adopts
a Stage 2 Development Plan which, among other things, establishes the maximum number of
development units within Jordan Ranch and provides development regulations for the Jordan
Ranch community.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May, 2010 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA#120091PA 09-011 Jordan RanchlPC Meeting 5.11.101FINAL PC Reso-Stage2.doc
2 Of 2
3~~ ~~ c~~r
~-
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR JORDAN RANCH
PA 09-011
WHEREAS, a request has been made by BJP ROF Jordan Ranch LLC (Mission Valley
Properties) ("Applicant") for approval of a Development Agreement for the property known as
Jordan Ranch (Fallon Village Project Area), an area of approximately 189.4 acres (PA 09-
011); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants are principals of BJP ROF Jordan Ranch LLC (Mission
Valley Properties) a limited liability corporation ("Developer") and party to the Development
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Development Agreements are required as an implementing measure of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the project site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the 1993
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive
planning framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the
City certified a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 ~SCH No.
91103064, Resolution 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereafter "Eastern
Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") that is available for review in the City Planning Department and
is incorporated herein by reference. The program EIR was integral to the planning process
and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives,
and area-wide mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the program EIR also identified some impacts resulting from
implementation that could not be mitigated, and the City adopted a statement of overriding
considerations for such impacts. The City also adopted a mitigation monitoring program,
which included a series of ineasures intended to reduce impacts from the implementation of
the plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SCH # 2001052114) for the Eastern Dublin Property Owners Annexation area ("EDPO SEIR"
on April 2, 2002 (Resolution 40-02, incorporated herein by_reference); and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on December 6, 2005, the City Council certified a
Supplemental EIR (SCH#2005062010) for the Fallon Village Project ("2005 SEIR")
(Resolution 222-05, incorporated herein by reference). The 2005 SEIR addressed a Stage 1
Planned Development Rezone and Amendment for the 1,132-acre Fallon Village Project Area
(PA 04-040) including the EDPO area, and three actions pertaining to the Braddock & Logan
project on 472 acres (PA 05-036). The Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone and
Amendment provided for various land uses including the development of 3,108 units on 1,132
1
Attachment 7
33~~ ~i~~
acres. This total included 1,064 units as part of PA 05-036 with the remaining'units allocated
by land use to the other properties within the Fallon Village Project area; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance 33-05 adopting
a PD-Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone amendment for the Fallon Village Project Area
(PA 04-040); and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2010, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-XX (incorporated herein by
reference) recommending that the City Council consider a CEQA Addendum and approve its
findings that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in previously
certified EIRs (the Eastern Dublin EIR, the EDPO SEIR, and the 2005 SEIR) and that no further
environmental review is required for the Project ; and
WHEREAS, the previously adopted mitigation monitoring programs and all adopted
mitigation measures continue to apply to the project area; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement is attached to this resolution as
Exhibit A to the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the application on
May 11, 2010; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered the Addendum and prior environmental documentation, and all said reports,
recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby mal~e the following findings and determinations regarding the amended
Development Agre~ment:
1. The Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan in that: a) the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan land use designation for the subject site is Single-Family
Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Community Park,
Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square, Semi-Public, Elementary School, and Open Space,
and that the Developer's project is consistent with that designation; b) the project is consistent
with the fiscal policies in relation to provision of infrastructure and public services of the City's
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan; c) the Agreement sets forth the rules the Developer
and City will be governed by during the development process which is required by the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and the Mitigation Monitoring Programs of the Eastern Dublin EIR, EDPO
SEIR and 2005 SEIR.
Page 2 of 3
,
33 ~ ~,;~ ~'~~~
2. The Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations
prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located in that the project
approvals include Planned Development Rezone, Site Development Review, and Vesting
Tentative Map.
3. The Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and
good land use practice in that the Developer's project will implement land use guidelines set
forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan.
4. The Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in
that the development will proceed in accordance with the Agreement and any Conditions of
Approval for the Project.
5. The Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or
the preservation of property values in that the development will be consistent with the City of
Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the Development
Agreement between the City of Dublin and BJP ROF Jordan Ranch LLC (Mission Valley
Properties) for the Jordan Ranch project (PA 09-011) which is included in Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
1424795.1
Planning Commission Chairperson
G:IPA#120091PA 09-011 Jordan RanchlPC Meeting 5.11.101FINAL PC Reso-DA.doc
Page 3 of 3
33~ ~ ~ I
~
RESOLUTION NO. 10- XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVfNG SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8024
FOR JORDAN RANCH
(APN 985-0027-007-02)
PA 09-011
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Mission Valley Properties, on behalf of BJP ROF Jordan Ranch
LLC, submitted applications for an area of approximately 189.4 acres known as Jordan Ranch
within the Fallon Village Project Area (PA 04-040) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, the project site generally is located north of the Dublin Boulevard extension,
east of Fallon Road and its intersection with Positano Parkway, generally west of Croak Road, and
immediately south of the Cantara neighborhood under construction within the previously approved
residential community known as Positano, also within the Fallon Village Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Fallon Village project (PA 04-040) was approved by the City Council on
December 6, 2005, by Ordinance 33-05 adopting a PD-Sfage 1 Planned Development Rezone
amendment for an area of 1,132 acres (including Jordan Ranch). The Stage 1 Planned
Development Rezone and Amendment provided for various land uses including the development
of 3,108 units, including 1,064 units for Jordan Ranch; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a Stage 2 Development Plan in accordance with
Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.32. The project proposes a total of 252 Low Density
Residential units, 205 Medium Density Residential units, 309 units Medium High Density
Residential units, 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of commercial use and 14 attached residential lofts
as Mixed Use), Neighborhood Park, portion of a Community Park, Neighborhood Square,
Elementary School site, Semi-Public use site, open space, and other related improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for Site Development Review and Master Vesting
Tentative Tract Map to develop 780 units which includes 457 detached units, 309 attached units,
and Mixed Use (consisting of 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of commercial use and 14 attached
residential lofts) within six neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the complete application submitted is available and on file in the Community
Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act .(CEQA), together with State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff has prepared an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #91103064) (the "Eastern Dublin
EIR") certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93, Supplemental EIR for the East Dublin
Property Owners area (SCH #2001052114) ("EDPO SEIR") certified by the City Council by
Atta~hmPnt R
33~.~ ~t`~ l
Resolution No. 40-02, and the Supplementai EIR for the Fallon Village Project Area
(SCH#2005062010) ("2005 SEIR") certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 222-05. By
Resolution 10-XX, dated May 11, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council consider the Addendum and approve its findings that the impacts of the Jordan Ranch
project were adequately addressed in the previously certified EIRs and that no further
environmental review is necessary for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application for this
project on May 11, 2010; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
approve a Site Development Review subject to the findings and conditions contained herein; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations for the Site Development
Review:
Site Development Review
A. The proposed site design for the development of the Jordan Ranch project, as
conditioned, is consistent with Chapter 8.104 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, complies
with the policies of the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Stage 1
Planned Development zoning, the Stage 2 Development Plan, and with all other
requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance in that it will create various housing
opportunities for the residents; establish a village center; provide recreational
opportunities; allow for proper maintenance and emergency access; and preserve open
space, hillsides, and habitat.
B. Approval of the site layout, architectural design, landscaping, and public improvements
is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.104, Site Development Review of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties,
and the lot on which the project is proposed because it is within the context of
development in the area; it is consistent with the Fallon Village Project area
development, succeeding the Positano project immediately to the north, and continues
with implementation of the plan adopted with Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone
Amendment by coordinating improvements, circulation, drainage, trail systems, and
open space corridors with the adjacent properties.
D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed
improvements because it provides a variety of housing types, maintains natural features
preserves open space, and creates a village center within the recommended density for
the site.
2
33~~4~ ~,~~
E. Impacts to the existing slopes and topography are addressed by preserving the
predominant natural drainage way on the site as open space, and by participating in the
Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) program.
F. Architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building materials and colors,
screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been
incorporated into the project, and as conditions of approval, in order to ensure
compatibility with the design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings
within and adjacent to the project.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage
of plant materials, provisions and similar elements have been considered to ensure
visual relief and an attractive environment.
H. The proposed project site has been adequately designed to ensure proper pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular traffic circulation, and the parking provided exceeds the
requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby
approves with conditions Site Development Review. This approval is based on findings that the
proposed Site Development Review is consistent with the Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map, the
Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone for the Fallon Village Project area, Stage 2 Development
Plan, General Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This approval shall conform generally to
the plans prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, Dahlin Group, and Gates + Associates dated April
15, 2010 and April 22, 2010 labeled Exhibit A- Stage II Submittal, Site Development Review,
Exhibit B- Planned Unit Development Tract 8024, and Exhibit C- Vesting Tentative Map Tract
8024 to this Resolution, consisting of the packages, sheets, booklets, and plans on file with the
Community Development Department and the ApplicanYs written statement.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
buildinq permits or establishment of use, and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and
approval. The followinq codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitorinq
compliance of the conditions of approval. fPL.I Planninq, fBl Buildinq, fP01 Police, (PWl Public
Works ADMI Administration/Citv Attorney, fFINI Finance, fFl Alameda Countv Fire Department,
IDSRI Dublin San Ramon Services District, fC01 Alameda County Department of Environmental
Health, fZ71 Zone 7.
NO. ~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Agency I Required, I Source
Prior to:
1. Approval: This Site Development Review PL Building Standard
approval for Jordan Ranch, PA 09-011, Permit Conditions
establishes the detailed design concepts and (SC)
regulations for the project. Development
pursuant to this Site Development Review
enerall shall conform to the ro'ect lans
3
33~ ~~~~'j
submitted by Mission Valley Properties, dated
received May 3, 2010, on file in the Community
Development Department, and other plans, text,
and diagrams relating to this Site Development
Review, unless modified by the Conditions of
A rovat contained herein.
2. Approval: The approval of this Site PL Building Standard
Development Review is subject to the City Permit Conditions
Council approval, and effectiveness, of the Stage (SC)
2 Development Plans and the City Council's
approval of the CEQA Addendum's finding that
no additional environmental review is required
see PC Resolution No. 10-XX .
3. Permit Expiration: Approved use shall PL n/a Standard
commence within two (2) years of Site Conditions
Development Review (SDR) approval, or the (SC)
SDR shall lapse and become null and void.
Commencement of use means the actual use
pursuant to the approval, or, demonstrating
substantial progress toward commencing such
use. If there is a dispute as to whether the SDR
has expired, the City may hold a noticed public
hearing to determine the matter. Such a
determination may be processed concurrently
with revocation proceedings in appropriate
circumstances. If a SDR expires, a new
application must be made and processed
according to the requirements of the Dublin
Zonin Ordinance.
4. Indemnification: The Developer shall defend, PL, B In accordance Standard
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin w/govt code Conditions
and its agents, officers, and employees from any Section (SC)
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of 66499.37
Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to .
attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of
the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal
board, Planning Commission, City Council,
Community Development Director, Zoning
Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37.
or other applicable law; provided, however, that
The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying The Developer of any said
claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
33~ ~ ~~r
5. Modifications: The Community Development
Director may consider modifications or changes
to this Site Development Review approval if the
modifications or changes proposed comply with
Section 8.104.100 of the Zonin Ordinance. PL Building
permits Standard
Conditions
(SC)
6. Fees: Applicant/Developer shall pay all FIN Building Standard
applicable fees in effect, including, but not limited Permit Conditions
to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact (SC)
Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services
District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified
School District School Impact fees (per
agreement between Developer and School
District), Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise
Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu
fees, Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and
Water Connection fees; or any other fee that
ma be ado ted and a licable.
7. Public Art Project: If the project is required to P&CS In City
comply with Subsections 8.58.050.A and accordance Attorney
8.58.050.D of Chapter 8.58 (Public Art Program) w/DA
of the Dublin Municipal Code, then
ApplicanUDeveloper shall be required to comply
with the requirements of this condition. Based
on the current temporary suspension of Sections
8.58.050.A and 8.58.050.D established by
Ordinance No 06-09, if the project receives an ~
occupancy authorization on or before May 21,
2011 the requirement of this condition shall be
extinguished.
Applicant/Developer shall comply with the Public
Art Compliance Report submitted by
Applicant/Developer, dated May 4, 2010 and on
file with the Planning Department.
Applicant/Developer proposes to comply with the
requirement on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood
basis. In particular Applicant/Developer shall
make a public art in-lieu contribution to satisfy
the obligation for Neighborhoods 1 through 6.
Pursuant to Subsection 8.58.070.C, the public art
in-lieu contribution payments for Neighborhoods
1 through 6 shall be made for each
neighborhood prior to the issuance of the first
building permit within the neighborhood. Under
Subsection 8.58.070.C, the total building
valuation of each neighborhood will be
determined by the Building Official at the time of
first building permit issuance for each
neighborhood. Based on the Project Plans, the
Buildin Official has estimated the total buildin
33°I ~.~ ~GI/
valuation of each neighborhood, and for
informational purposes an estimate of the
amount of the public art in-lieu contribution is
provided below for each neighborhood.
Total Building Public art
Valuation Contribution (0.5%)
Neighborhood 1 $95,879,780 $479,398.90
Neighborhood 2 $24,371,170 $121,855.85
Neighborhood 3 $24,062,785 $120,313.93
Neighborhood 4 $43,150,260 $215,751.30
Neighborhood 5 $25,943,660 $144,718.30
Neighborhood 6 $32,751,608 $163,758.04
"The applicant is not proposing to provide Public Art."
8. Mitigation Monitoring Program: The PL, BL Building EDSP
Developer shall comply with the Eastern Dublin Permits EIR
Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program
and subsequent environmental documents
pertaining to this site including all mitigation
measures, action programs, and implementation
measures on file with the Community
Develo ment De artment.
9. Tentative Map Conditions of Approval: All PL Building Standard
applicable Conditions of Approval for Tentative Permits Conditions
Map 8024 shall apply to this Site Development (SC)
Review.
10. Grading / Sitework Permit: Developer shall PW Prior to Standard
obtain a Grading / Sitework Permit from the Building Conditions
Public Works Department for all grading and Permits (SC)
private site improvements for each
Nei hborhood.
11. Landscape Design Development Submittal: PW, PL W/Civil Standard
Developer shall submit design development Improvemen Conditions
landscape plans, for all landscaping t Plans (SC)
improvements showing details, sections and
supplemental information including topography
as necessary for design coordination of the
various design features and elements including
utility location to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The design development landscape
plans for each Neighborhood shall be submitted
for review with the second submittal of the civil
plans for the private site improvements for that
Nei hborhood.
12. Walkways: Prior to the occupancy of any unit, BL Occupancy Standard
that unit shall have continuous walkway access Conditions
from the unit to the nearest ublic street. (SC
13. Satellite Dishes: Prior to the issuance of PL Building Planning
Buildin Permits, the Develo er's Architect shall Permits
3~ o ~. ~ ~j
prepare a plan for review and approval by the '
Director of Community Development and the
Building Official that provides a consistent and
unobtrusive location for the placement of
individual satellite dishes on individual units.
Individual conduit will be run from the individual
residential unit to the location on the building to
limit the amount of exposed cable required to
activate any satellite dish. It is preferred that
where chimneys exist, that the mounting of the
dish be incorporated into the chimney. In
Neighborhoods 4,5 and 6 a single consistent
location on each model shall be indentified for a
satellite dish.
The Covenants Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&R's) shall contain language stating that the
individual units contain conduit and central
locations for satellite dish connections and failure
to use those conduits and locations (if the
resident has or wants a satellite dish) will
constitute a violation of those CC&R's. The
penalty for that violation shall be specified.
Additionally, prior to the issuance of building
permits for any neighborhood, the developer
shall prepare a disclosure statement, to be
reviewed by the Community Development
Director, and signed by every first time home
purchaser indicating that utilizing this dedicated
conduit and central mounting location is a
re uirement if a satellite dish is installed.
ENVIRO NMENTAL
14. A pre-construction survey shall be completed by P Prior to 2005
a qualified biologist for Lawrence's Goldfinch, a grading permit SEIR
USFWS bird species of special concern, prior to
an round disturbin activities.
15. The following measures to protect any P Prior to 2005
unrecorded cultural resources shall be grading permit SEIR
completed before issuance of a grading permit.
a) Spot monitoring of construction
excavations shall be undertaken during
site clearing and excavations of up to five.
feet in depth. The monitoring program
shall be at the discretion of the Project
archeologist.
b) Project grading specifications shall include
warning language to alert the contractor
as to the potential for buried cultural
resources.
c A minimum of one meetin shall be held
~ ~-t I ~ ~f~l/
between the Project archeologist and -'y
grading contractors for a briefing on
procedures to be followed in the event of
discovering a cultural artifact.
d) If any cultural artifacts are exposed or
discovered during site clearing or grading,
operations shall cease within a 30-foot
radius of the find and the Project
archeologist consulted for evaluation and
further recommendations. Possible
recommendations could include further
evaluation, collection, recordation and
analysis of such find, followed by
' completion of a professional report.
e) Treatment of any Native American burials
found during construction shall be in
accordance with the requirements of the
State of California Public Resources Code,
in consultation with the Native American
Herita e Commission.
16. The Applicant shall complete implementation of P Prior to 2005
remediation of contaminants on the site and occupancy SEIR
secure a closure letter from the Alameda County
Environmental Health Department or equivalent
agency with jurisdiction prior to issuance of a
grading permit. This condition may be modified
by the Dublin Community Development Director
if the Project Applicant demonstrates that any
contaminated areas lie outside of habitable
areas. In this instance, remediation shall be
completed and a closure letter shall be furnished
to the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the first dwelling within the Project
area.
17. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the P Prior to first 2005
Project shall be reviewed for consistency by the Building SEIR
Alameda Count Air ort Land Use Commission. Permit
18. The Project Developer shall comply with all P On-going 2005
applicable mitigation measures contained in the SEIR
1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002
Supplemental EIR and the 2005 Supplemental
EIR.
19. A minimum six-foot tall noise barrier shall be P Prior to 2005
constructed along the western side of the Project issuan~e of SEIR
adjacent to Fallon Road and Positano Parkway first building
to reduce anticipated traffic noise to acceptable Permit,
City standards. The exact height and location of Neighborhood
the barrier shall be determined by the site 1
specific acoustical study to be performed when
Nei hborhood 1 is develo ed.
3y z ~ !~`31
20. A site specific acoustical study shall be prepared P Prior to 2005
for each Neighborhood as the site plans are issuance of SEIR
being refined and building architectural drawings first Building
are available. The site specific acoustical studies Permit
shall identify required noise control measures
(noise barriers and building acoustical
treatments) to be incorporated into each
Nei hborhood's final desi n.
PLANNING `
21. Time Extension. The original approving PL Building Standard
decision-maker may, upon the Applicant's written Permits CofA
request for an extension of approval prior to
expiration, and upon the determination that any
Conditions of Approval remain adequate to
assure that applicable findings of approval will
continue to be met, grant a time extension of
approval for a period not to exceed six (6)
months. All time extension requests shall be
noticed and a public hearing or public meeting
shall be held as re uired b the articular Permit.
22. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development PL Building Standard
Review approval shall be revocable for cause in Permits CofA
accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or
conditions of this permit shall be subject to
citation.
23. Sound Attenuation. Prior to the issuance of PL Building Standard
building permits for any building where sound Permits CofA
attenuation is required, plans shall be submitted
for review and approval of the Community
Development Director that indicate compliance
with recommendations contained in the
acoustical report for the exterior noise
attenuation as applied by the City of Dublin
General Plan Noise Element. Said Plans shall
indicate design continuity with the original
approval for any barriers required for exterior
noise attenuation and should be designed to
blend with the approved architecture and to be
unobtrusive.
24. Equipment Screening. All electrical and/or PL Building EDSPEIR
mechanical equipment shall be screened from. BL Permits
public view. Any roof-mounted equipment shall
be completely screened from view by materials
architecturally compatible with the building and to
the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
25. Master Sign Program. If it is the Developer's PL Building Standard
intent to provide signage, it will be necessary to Permits CofA
re are a Master Si n Pro ram.
3~3~49/
26. Colors. The exterior paint colors of the buildings PL Building Standard
are subject to City review and approval Permits CofA
consistent with the color and material boards
presented. The Applicant may be required to
paint a portion of the building with the proposed
color for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development prior to painting the
~ entire structure.
27. Occupancy Permits. Final inspection or PL Occupancy Standard
occupancy permits will not be granted until all BL CofA
construction and landscaping is complete in
accordance with approved plans and the
conditions required by the City. During inclement
weather bonding for landscaping shall be
allowed.
28. Lath Inspection. Prior to Lath Inspection from PL Prior to Lath Standard
the Building Department, the developer shall BL Inspection CofA
contact the Planning Division and request a
separate lath inspection to assure the correct
placement of stone, wood, etc. and all
architectural features associated with the
individual unit under construction.
29. Screed Line. The screed line shall follow grade BL Prior to Lath Standard
on sloped sites to the requirements of the Inspection CofA
applicable building code. The screed line shall
follow the steep slopes so as not to create large
exposed foundation areas. Stucco, stone, etc.
shall follow the screed line.
LANDSC APING- '
30. Plant Standards: All the trees shall be a PL Landscape Standard
minimum 15 gallon in size; at least 70% of the Plan review CofA
shrubs shall be a minimum 5 gallons in size and
round cover a minimum 1 allon in size.
31. Landscape Screening: Landscape screening is PL Ongoing Standard
of a height and density so that it provides a CofA
positive visual impact within three years from the
time of lantin .
32. Landscape Edges: Concrete curbs or bands PL Building Standard
shall be used at the edges of all planters Permits CofA
adjacent to paved surfaces. The design width
and depth of the concrete edge to be to the
satisfaction of the Community Development~
Director and Cit En ineer.
33. Lighting: The Developer shall prepare a lighting PL Building Standard
chart to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Permits CofA
Director of Community Development and Dublin
Police Services. Exterior lighting shall be of a
design and placement so as not to cause glare
onto adjoining properties, businesses or to
vehicular traffic.
io
3 4-! ~ ~~° ~~~
34. Maintenance: Permanent provisions for all PL Ongoing Standard
landscaping maintenance shall be included in the BL CofA
CC&Rs insuring regular irrigation, fertilization,
weed abatement and plant replacement. All
shrubs, ground cover, trees, and the irrigation
system shall be guaranteed by the contractor for
one year.
BUILDIN G '
35. Building Codes and Ordinances: All project BL Through Standard
construction shall conform to all building codes Completion CofA
and ordinances in effect at the time of building
ermit.
36. Retaining Walls: All retaining walls over 30 BL Through Standard
inches in height, below and within 3 feet of a Completion CofA
walkway shall be provided with guardrails. All
retaining walls over 24 inches with a surcharge or
36 inches without a surcharge shall obtain
permits and inspections from the Building
Division.
37. Phased Occupancy Plan: If occupancy is BL Prior to Standard
requested to occur in phases, then all physical Occupancy CofA
improvements within each phase shall be of any
completed prior to occupancy of any buildings affected
within that phase except for items specifically building
excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy
Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the
Department of Community Development. The
Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to
the Directors of Community Development and
Public Works for review and approval a minimum
of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of
any building covered by said Phased Occupancy
Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all parcels in each phase,
and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval. No
individual building shall be occupied until the
adjoining area is finished, ~afe, accessible, and
provided with all reasonable expected services
and amenities, and separated from remaining
additional construction activity. Subject to
approval of the Director of Community
Development, the completion of landscaping
may be deferred due to inclement weather with
the posting of a bond for the value of the
deferred landscaping and associated
improvements.
3~~r~ ~~!
38. Building Permits: To apply for building permits, BL Issuance of Standard
Applicant/Developer shall submit seven (7) sets Building CofA
of construction plans to the Building Division for Permits
plan check. Each set of plans shall have
attached an annotated copy of these Conditions
of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate
how all Conditions of Approval will or have been
~ complied with. Construction plans will not be
accepted without the annotated resolutions
attached to each set of plans.
Applicant/Developer will be responsible for
obtaining the approvals of all participation non-
City agencies prior to the issuance of building
ermits.
39. Construction Drawings: Construction plans BL Prior to Standard
shall be fully dimensioned (including building issuance of CofA
elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all building
existing and proposed conditions on site), and permits
prepared and signed by a California licensed
Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations
shall be prepared and signed by a California
licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan,
landscape plan and details shall be consistent
with each other.
40. Air Conditioning Units: Air conditioning units BL Occupancy Standard
and ventilation ducts shall be screened from of Unit CofA
public view with materials compatible to the main
building and shall not be roof mounted. Units
shall be permanently installed on concrete pads
or other non-movable materials approved by the
Building Official and Director of Community
Development. Air conditioning units shall be
located such that each dwelling unit has one side ~
yard with an unobstructed width of not less then
36 inches. Air conditioning units shall be located
in accordance with the PD text.
41. Temporary Fencing: Temporary Construction BL Through Standard
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all Completion CofA
work under construction.
42. Addressing BL Prior to Standard
a) Provide a site plan with the City of permit CofA
Dublin's address grid overlaid on the plans. issuance,
(1 to 30 scale). Highlight all exterior door and through
openings on plans (front, rear, garage, completion
etc.). (Prior to release of addresses)
b) Provide plan for display of addresses.
The Building Official and Director of
Community Development shall approve
plan prior to issuance of the first building
ermit. Prior to ermittin
tz
3~ ~~ ~`~I
c) Addresses will be required on the front of
the dwellings. Addresses are also
required near the garage door opening if
the opening is not on the same side of the
dwelling as the front door. (Prior to
permitting)
d) Town homes / Condos are required to
have address ranges posted on street
side of the buildings. (Occupancy of any
Unit)
e) Address signage shall be provided as per
the Dublin Residential Security Code.
(Occupancy of any Unit)
f) Provide a site plan with the approved
addresses in 1 to 400 scale prior to
approval or release of the project
addresses. (Prior to permitting)
Exterior address numbers shall be backlight and
be posted in such a way that they could be seen
from the street.
43. Engineer Observation: The Structural BL In Standard
Engineer of record shall be retained to provide conjunction CofA
observation services for all components of the with Building
lateral and vertical design of the building, Inspections
including nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof
diaphragm and structural frame of building. A
written report shall be submitted to the City
Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame
ins ection.
44. Foundation: Geotechnical Engineer for the BL Prior to Standard
soils report shall review and approve the permit CofA
foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to issuance
the Building Division on the approval. (Prior to
ermitissuance
45. Green Building measures as detailed may be BL Prior to first Standard
adjusted prior to master plan check application permit CofA
submittal with prior approval from the City's
Green Building Official. Provided that the design Through
of the project complies with the City of Dublin's Completion
Green Building Ordinance and State Law as
applicable. In addition, all changes are reflected
in the Master Plans. (Project)
Green Building measures as detailed may be
adjusted prior to master plan check
application submittal with prior approval from ~,
the City's Green Building Official. Provided
that the design of the project complies with
the City of Dublin's Green Building Ordinance ,
~ and State Law as a licable. In addition, all
13
3~t7 ~~ ~'~/
changes are reflected in the Master Plans.
(Project)
Homeowner Manual - if Applicant takes
advantage of this point the Manual shall be
submitted to the Green Building Official for
review or a third party reviewer with the
results submitted to the Cit . Pro'ect
46. Cool Roofs: Flat roof areas shall have their BL Through Standard
roofing material coated with light colored gravel Completion CofA
or painted with light colored or reflective material
desi ned for Cool Roofs.
47. Electronic File: The Applicant/Developer shall BL Prior to Standard
submit all building drawings and specifications issuance of CofA
for this project in an electronic format to the Building
satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the Permits
issuance of building permits. Additionally, all
revisions made to the building plans during the
project shall be incorporated into an "As Built"
electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance
of the final occu anc .
48. Construction trailer: Due to size and nature of BL Standard
the development, the Applicant/Developer shall CofA
provide a construction trailer with all hook ups for
use by City Inspection personnel during the time
of construction as determined necessary by the
Building Official. In the event that the City has
their own construction trailer, the
applicant/developer shall provide a site with
appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the ~
project site to accommodate this trailer. The
applicant/developer.shall cause the trailer to be
moved from its current location at the time
necessary as determined by the Building Official
at the a licant/develo er's ex ense.
49. Copies of Approved Plans: Applicant shall BL 30 days after Standard
provide City with 4 reduced (1/2 size) copies of permit and CofA
the approved plan. each
revision
issuance
50. Disabled Access: All commercial or public BL Prior to Standard
areas of the project shall be accessible to the issuance of CofA
disabled as required by State and Federal Laws. Building
This includes but is not limited to the commercial Permits
areas in the mixed-use lofts buildings, live work
units, ark and la round areas.
51. Accessory Structures: All shade / trellis BL Prior to Standard
structures in public areas shall obtain permits issuance of CofA
from the Building and Safety Division. Building
Permits
14
3y~ ~' ~ig~
FIRE
52. The project will need to comply with the F Prior to Standard
applicable Building and Fire Codes in effect at issuance of CofA
time of building permit submittal. Building plans Building
shall be provided for review and approval by the Permits
fire de artment.
53. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 300 feet. F Occupancy Standard
CofA
54. This project shall comply with the City of Dublin's F Occupancy Standard
Wildfire Management Ordinance. Wildfire CofA
management lots shall include the lots adjacent
to undeveloped land as shown on Sheet L-2.0, L-
2.1, L-2.2 (Exhibit A to Attachment 2) and Page
3-10 Exhibit B to Attachment 2.
55. A remote secondary point of public access shall F Building Standard
be provided prior to occupancy of the 76th unit pertmits for CofA
within phases 4, 5, or 6(Reference the 76 lot in
any phase,
December 16, 2009 Conceptual Phasing Plan 4,5,or 6
Ma
POLICE
56. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable PL Occupancy Standard
Cit of Dublin Residential Securit Re uirements. CofA
57. The Applicant shall keep the site clear of graffiti PL Standard
vandalism on a continuous basis at all times. CofA
Graffiti resistant materials should be used.
58. The Applicant shall work with Dublin Police PL Occupancy Standard
Services on an ongoing basis to establish an CofA
effective theft revention and securit ro ram.
59. The perimeter of the sites shall be fenced during PL Occupancy Standard
construction, a temporary address sign shall be CofA
placed at the site and security lighting and
patrols shall be employed as necessary. A
Business/Residence Site Emergency Response
Card shall be completed and returned to Dublin
Police Services. The card will be supplied to the
A licant b Dublin Police Services.
60. Addressing and building numbers shall be visible PL Occupancy Standard
from the a roaches to the buildin s. CofA
61. All entrances to the private property areas shall PL Occupancy Standard
be posted to identify the property as "Private CofA
Pro ert " er CPC 602L.
62. All entrances to the private parking areas shall~ PL Occupancy Standard
be posted with appropriate signs per City of CofA
Dublin Ordinance 6.04.200, to assist in removing
vehicles at the property owner's/manager's
request. A notice of a size at least seventeen i
inches by twenty-two inches (17"x22") with letters ~i
at least one inch (1 ") high. Design shall be I
induded in Master Sign Program.
IS
3 ~t°i ~' ~ER~
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT DSRSD `
63. Prior to issuance of any building permit, DSR Building Standard
complete improvement plans shall be submitted Permits CofA
to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of
the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code,
the DSRSD "Standard Pro~edures,
Specifications and Drawings for Design and
Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities",
all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all
DSRSD olicies.
64. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient DSR Improvement Standard
capacity to accommodate future flow demands in Plans CofA
addition fo each development project's demand.
Layout and sizing of mains shall be in
conformance with DSRSD utilit master lannin .
65. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity DSR Improvement Standard
flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Plans CofA
Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only
be allowed under extreme circumstances
following a case by case review with DSRSD
staff. Any pumping station will require specific
review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary
design reports, design criteria, and final plans
and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the
right to require payment of present worth 20 year
maintenance costs as well as other conditions
within a separate agreement with the Applicant
for an ro'ect that re uires a um in station.
66. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems DSR Improvement Standard
for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be Plans CofA
designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid
dead end sections in accordance with
requirements of the DSRSD Standard
S ecifications and sound en ineerin ractice.
67. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer DSR Improvement Standard
lines to be located in public streets rather than in Plans CofA
off-street locations to the fullest extent possible.
If unavoidable, then public sewer or water
easements must be established over the
alignment of each public sewer or water line in
an off-street or private street location to provide
access for future maintenance and/or.
re lacement.
68. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit DSR Improvement Standard
or a site development permit, the locations and Plans CofA
widths of all proposed easement dedications for
water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and
approved by DSRSD.
16
3 ~a ~f ~91
69. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities DSR Improvement Sta dard
shall be by separate instrument irrevocably Plans CofA
offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on
the Final Ma .
70. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the DSR Improvement Standard
Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by Plans CofA
DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and
restrictions.
71. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSR Improvement Standard
Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Plans CofA
Ramon Services District, whichever comes first,
all utility connection fees including DSRSD and
Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees,
connection fees, and fees associated with a
wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to
DSRSD in accordance with the rates and
schedules established in the DSRSD Code.
72. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSR Improvement Standard
Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Plans CofA
Ramon Services District, whichever comes first,
all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall
be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing
of improvement plans shall contain a signature
block for the District Engineer indicating approval
of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown.
Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the
Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and
provide an engineer's estimate of construction
costs for the sewer and water systems, a
performance bond, a one-year maintenance
bond, and a comprehensive general liability
insurance policy in the amounts and forms that
are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall
allow at least 15 working days for final
improvement drawing review by DSRSD before
si nature b the District En ineer.
73. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSR Improvement Standard
permitted unless the proper utility construction Plans CofA
permit has been issued by DSRSD. A
construction permit will only be issued after all of
the items in Condition No. 71 have been
satisfied.
74. The Applicant shall hold DSRSD, it's Board of DSR Improvement Standard
Directors, commissions, employees, and agents Plans CofA
of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend
the same from any litigation, claims, or fines
resulting from the construction and completion of
the ro'ect.
75. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSR Improvement Standard
im rovements as re uired b DSRSD. Services Plans CofA
i~
~ ~ ~1 ~ ~~/
for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled
water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of
the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and
conform to the re uirements therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding Master Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 8024:
Vestinq Tentative Tract Map
A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the intent of applicable
subdivision regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with
the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, as it relates to the
subject property in that it is a subdivision for implementation the Fallon Village Project
area, a community of various uses (including residential), in an area designated for this
type of development.
C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Planned Development zoning and is therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
D. The properties created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map will have adequate
access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of the Fallon Village
Project Area Master Plan and development in progress on surrounding and adjacent
properties.
E. Project design, architecture, and concept have been integrated with topography of the
project site created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map to minimize
overgrading and extensive use of retaining walls. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is
physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed.
F. The Mitigation Monitoring program adopted with the program EIR for the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Area, the EDPO SEIR, the 2005 SEIR, and subsequent environmental
documents would be applicable as appropriate for addressing or mitigating any potential
environmental impacts identified.
G. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map will not result in environmental damage or
substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns.
H. The design of the subdivisions will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at
large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The C~y ~
Engineer has reviewed the maps and title report and has not found any conflicting
easements of this nature.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby
approves with conditions Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 for Jordan Ranch. This approval is
based on findings that the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the Site Development
ig
~~~ :~~ ~~~
Review, Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone amendment for the Fallon Village Pro~ect area,
Stage 2 Development Plan, General Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and is contingent
upon the City Council approval, and effectiveness, of the Stage 2 Development Plans and the City
Council's approval of the CEQA Addendum's finding that no additional environmental review is
required (see PC Resolution No. 10-XX). This approval shall conform generally to the plans
prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar and the subconsultants labeled Exhibit A, B& C to this
Resolution, consisting of the packages, sheets, booklets, and plans dated April 22, 2010, and on
file with the Community Development Department and the ApplicanYs written statement.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
buildinq permits or establishment of use, and shall be subiect to Planninq Department review and
approval. The followinq codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitorin,y
compliance of the conditions of approval. fPL.j Planninq, fBl Buildinq, fP01 Police, fPWI Public
Works fADMI Administration/City Attornev, fFINI Finance, fFl Alameda Countv Fire Department,
~SR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, fC01 Alameda County Department of Environmental
Health, jZ71 Zone 7.
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
PUBLIC WORKS
76. General Public Works Conditions of PW Ongoing Standard
Approval: Developer shall comply with the C of A
City of Dublin General Public Works Conditions
of Approval subject to approval of the CEQA ~
Addendum for Tracts 8024 contained below
unless specifically modified by these Conditions
of A roval.
77. Development Agreement: A Development PW First Final Map Standard
Agreement between the City of Dublin and the C of A
Developer shall be recorded subject to
approval of the CEQA Addendum. The
Development Agreement shall include an
infrastructure-sequencing program that ties the
improvements required in these Conditions of
Approval to a specific phase of development
each final ma within Tract 8024.
78. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment PW First Final Map Standard
District: The Developer shall request the area C of A
to be annexed into a subzone of the Dublin
Ranch Street Lighting Maintenance
Assessment District and shall provide any
exhibits required for the annexation. In addition
Developer shall pay all administrative costs
associated with rocessin the annexation.
79. Ownership and Maintenance of PW Final Map and Project
Improvements: Ownership, dedications on Ongoing Specific
final map, and maintenance of street right-of-
ways, common area parcels, and open space
areas shall be b the Cit of Dublin, the
19
~~~ ~ ~ ~/
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN RE D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
Homeowner's Association, and a Geologic
Hazard Abatement District, as shown on the
Ownership and Maintenance Responsibility
Exhibit, Stage II submittal, Tract 8024,
prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar Associates,
dated A ril 22, 2010.
80. Landscape Features within Public Right of PW First Final Map; Standard
~ Way. The Developer shall enter into an Modify with C of A
"Agreement for Long Term Encroachments" Successive
with the City to allow the HOA to maintain the Final Maps
landscape and decorative features within public
Right ofi Way including frontage & median
landscaping, decorative pavements and special
features (i.e., walls, portals, benches, etc.) as
generally shown on Site Development Review
exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the
ownership of the special features and
maintenance responsibilities. The
Homeowner's Association will be responsible
for maintaining the surface of all decorative
pavements including restoration required as the
result of utilit re airs.
81. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions PW First Final Map; Standard
(CC&Rs). A Homeowners Association shall be Modify with C of A
formed by recordation of a declaration of Successive
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to Final Maps
govern use and maintenance of the landscape
features within the public right of way contained
in the Agreement for Long Term
Encroachments and the frontage landscaping
along Positano Parkway, Central Parkway,
Fallon Road, and interior streets. Said
declaration shall set forth the Association
name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The
CC&Rs shall ensure that there is adequate
provision for the maintenance, in good repair
and on a regular basis, of the landscaping &
irrigation, decorative pavements, median
islands, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs
and other related improvements. The CC&Rs
shall also contain all other items required by _
these conditions. The Developer shall submit a
copy of the CC&R document to the City for
review and a roval.
82. Public Streets: Developer shall construct PW Each Final Map Standard
street improvements and offer for dedication to C of A
the City of Dublin the rights of way for Fallon
Road, Central Parkwa , and interior streets as
zo
35 ~t ~-f ~ ~ l
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D S RCE
AGENCY Prior to:
shown on the Tentative Map, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. The right-of-way for Fallon
Road shall be dedicated along the entire length
of the project with the first final map to be filed.
The right-of-way for Central Parkway shall be
dedicated along it's entire length with the first
final ma to be filed for Nei hborhoods 2-6.
83. Positano Parkway/Street C Traffic Signal: A PW Final Map Project
traffic signal shall be installed at the Positano which creates Specific
Parkway Street C intersection. The existing 53~d lot
median island on Positano Parkway shall be
modified as shown on the tentative ma .
84. Central Parkway/ Street "I" Intersection/ PW First Final Map Project
Traffic Signal: Stop sign control will initially be for Specific
provided in conjunction with the first Neighborhoods
improvements allowed by the filing of the first 2-6 and prior to
final map. A traffic signal shall be installed at acceptance of
the Central Parkway/ Street "I" intersection prior improvements
to acceptance of improvements for the last final authorized by
map. A street-type driveway shall be provided last final map
on the south leg of the intersection to serve the
future communit ark.
85. Central Parkway/ School Road Intersection/ PW First Final Map Project
Traffic Signal: Traffic signa~ conduit and pull for Specific
boxes shall be installed at the Central Parkway/ Neighborhoods
School Road intersection to allow future 2-6
signalization of the intersection. The joint trench
shall include conduit to provide power to the
future signal cabinet. Curb extensions shall be
provided at the intersection as recommended in
the Jordan Ranch Traffic Analysis and Site
P/an Review, Fehr & Peers Transportation
Consultants, March 23, 2010 (henceforth "the
Fehr & Peers Review" .
86. Central Parkway/ Street "L" Intersection: PW First Final Map Project
Curb extensions shall be provided as for Specific
recommended in the Fehr & Peers Review. . Neighborhoods
2-6
87. Central Parkway/ Fallon Road Intersection/ First Final Map Project
Traffic Signal: In conjunction with the first final for Specific
map for Neighborhoods 2-6, the Central Neighborhoods
Parkway/ Fallon Road intersection shall be 2-6
constructed. Improvements shall generally be
in conformance with the recommendations of
the Fehr & Peers Review, or as approved by
the Senior Transportation Engineer. The
intersection shall be improved to include the
followin :
zi
3~~~ ~o y~t/
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP.
AGENCY WHEN R 'D
Prior to: SOURCE
• Westbound Central Parkway
Approach: 8' Median Island, Two 12'
Left Turn Lanes, One 12' Thru Lane, ~
One 6' Bicycie Lane, arid One 12'
Right Turn Lane (One Westbound
Thru Lane as shown on the Tentative
Map shall be eliminated)
• Eastbound Central Parkway
Approach: One 12' Thru Lane and
One 8' Shoulder/ Bicycle Lane (One
Eastbound thru Lane as shown on
the tentative map shall be
eliminated).
• Northbound Fallon Road Approach:
One 12' Left Turn Lane, One 12'
Thru Lane, one 5' Bicycle Lane, and
one 12' Right Turn Lane
• Southbound Fallon Road Approach:
One 12' Left Turn Lane, One 12'
Thru Lane, One 5' Bicycle Lane, and
One 12' Right Turn Lane
The final intersection alignment shall be as
determined by the City Traffic Engineer. The
existing traffic signal shall be modified to
accommodate the fourth le of the intersection.
88. Fallon Road Improvements: Fallon Road shall PW First Final Map Project
be improved in conjunction with the first final ~ Specific
map. Improvements shall consist of full
improvements (six lanes, median and
landscaping, and curb, gutter and sidewalk)
from Positano Parkway south to Street TT, and
construction of frontage improvements (20' of
pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk and
frontage landscaping) from Street TT south to
the southerly end of the Jordan Ranch frontage
as shown on the tentative map. In addition,
Fallon Road shall be restriped to shift
northbound traffic to the newly constructed
pavement (one lane from the south end of the
frontage to Street TT, transitioning to three ~
lanes north of Street TT) and to provide two
lanes southbound to Dublin Boulevard (the
location of the northbound transition pavement
from the existing Fallon Road pavement to the
new Fallon Road frontage improvements shall
be adjusted as needed). Median improvements
shall include a southbound left turn pocket at
Street TT in its ultimate ali nment. The
22
~~~r~ ~ ~`~!
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
improvements shall be bonded for with the first
final map and completed prior to occupancy of
the first unit. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
(EDTIF) Section 1 credits will be given for these
improvements as outlined in the 2010 EDTIF
U date or subse uent u dates.
89. Fallon Road/ Street TT Intersection: A PW First Final map Project
northbound right turn lane shall be provided on Specific
Fallon Road at the Street TT intersection.
90. Neighborhood 1 Traffic Calming Measures: PW Appticable Project
In addition to the Neighborhood 1 traffic Final map for Specific
calming measures shown on the Vesting Neighborhood
Tentative Map, channelizing islands with a 1
pedestrian refuge area shall be provide at Lots
49, 50, 76, 191, and 218 as shown on Figures
4 and 5 of the Fehr & Peers Review or as
a roved b Cit Traffic En ineer.
91. Street UU: Street UU shall be widened to 28' to PW Applicable Project
30' curb-to-curb. Final Map for Specific
Neighborhood
1
92. Offsite Grading Easement: Prior to issuance PW Issuance of Project
of grading permit for Neighborhoods 5 and 6, a Grading Specific
grading easement shall be obtained from the Permits for
owners of the adjoining Chen and Croak Neighborhoods
properties. This condition does not apply to 5 and 6
mass or remedial grading within the Jordan
ro ert .
93. Lot 16: Lot 16 shall be narrowed to allow a PW Applicable Project
decrease in the adjoining slope to the east of Final Map for Specific
Lot 16. The final design shall be as approved Neighborhood
b the Cit En ineer. 1
94. Fallon Road/ Fallon Sports Park Pedestrian PW First Final Map Project
Bicycle Overcrossing: The Fallon Road Specific
improvements shall include grading on the east
side of Fallon Road to provide an approach for
the future Class I bicycle/ pedestrian
overcrossing to the Fallon Sports Park. The
approach shall be located between Street TT
and Central Parkway, and shall be located at a ~
point determined by the City Engineer and the ._ __.
Parks and Community Services Director to
provide the optimum connection to the future
Phase 2 Fallon Sports Park improvements in
terms of grade and horizontal alignment. The
improvements shall include retaining walls if
needed to accommodate the approach, and a
ublic access easement shall be dedicated to
23
35~ ~ ~f ~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ' SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
the City as needed over the approach if the
limits of the approach are outside of the Fallon
Road right-of-way The improvements shall be
bonded for with the first final map and
completed prior to occupancy of the first unit.
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF)
Section 1 credits will be given for these
improvements as outlined in the 2010 EDTIF
U date or subse uent u dates.
95. Offsite Right-of-Way: Croak Property: Right- PW Final Map Project
of-way necessary for the improvement of which creates Specific
Central Parkway shall be acquired from the 76th lot in
Croak property as necessary. Acquisition of the Neighborhoods
Croak property shall be completed prior to filing 2-6
of the first final map for Neighborhoods 2-6.
Land acquisition costs shall be at the expense
of the developer. Acquisition of offsite right-of-
way covered by this condition shall be subject
to Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Ma Act.
96. La Vina Street Access: The extension of La PW Applicable Project
Vina Street to a connection with the existing Final Map for Specific
portion of La Vina Street within Tract 7853 shall Neighborhood
be completed in conjunction with applicable 1
final map for Neighborhood 1. The developer
shall be responsible for obtaining the needed
public street right-of-way through Parcel A
(future GHAD parcel) of Tract 7853 from the
develo er of Tract 7853.
97. Central Parkway Extension to Croak Road: PW Final Map Project
Croak Road Public Access: Central Parkway which creates Specific
shall be extended to Croak Road in conjunction 76th lot in
with the first final map for Neighborhoods 2-6, Neighborhoods
as shown on the tentative map or as modified 2-6
b the Cit En ineer.
98. Fallon Road/ I-580 Interchange Improvement PW First Final Map Project
Contribution: The developer shall pay a fair Specific
share portion of costs advanced by the Lin
Family for improvements to the Fallon Road/ I-
580 Interchange. The advance will be payable
at the time of filing of the first final map. The
developer's fair share has been determined to
be 2.7711 % of the balance of construction
funds advanced by the Lin Family. The amount
shall be calculated against the then-outstanding
balance as of the first final map.
City will provide a credit to developers in the
amount of developer's advance to be used by
develo er a ainst a ment of Section 2
24
3~g ¢~' l~~'~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D S RCE
AGENCY Prior to:
obligations of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact
Fee ("TIF"). In accordance with the City's TIF
Guidelines (Reso. 20-07), establishment of the
credit shall require the payment of an
administrative fee. The use of credits
(including limitations on the use of credits) and
manner of conversion of the credit to a right of
reimbursement will be as set forth in the City's
TIF Guidelines, subject to the following
provisions: (a) the credit shall be granted at the
time Developer makes the advance re.quired by
this condition; and (b) the credit may be used
onl to satisf Section 2 TIF obli ations. .
99. Traffic Impact Fees: The developer shall be PW Issuance of Standard
responsible for payment of the Eastern Dublin Building C of A
Traffic Impact Fee (Sections 1 and 2), the Permits
Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee, and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee.
Fees will be payable at issuance of building
ermits.
100. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum PW Issuance of Standard
Payment: The developer shall be responsible Building C of A
for payment of a minimum portion of the Permits
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in cash (11 %
Category 1 and 25% of Category 2), as
specified in the resolution establishing the
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. These
minimum cash payment shall be in addition to
any other payment noted in these conditions
and ma not be offset b fee credits.
101. Neighborhood Square: The Neighborhood PW First Final Map Project
Square, Parcel E, shall contain a minimum of for Specific
2.00 acres and be shown on the Final Map as Neighborhood
future parkland to be dedicated to the City of 2-6
Dublin on the map or by separate document.
The parcel line shall be at the back of sidewalk
on Central Parkway and back of curb on the
remaining frontages. The City will not accept
this Parcel until the site is rough graded,
including erosion control measures, as ~
generally shown on the tentative map, Sheet 9.
Neighborhood parkland credits will not be
provided until the site is rough graded and
offered to the Cit .
102. Neighborhood Park: The Neighborhood Park, PW First Final Map Project
Parcel U, shall contain a minimum of 5.00 for Specific
acres and be shown on the Final Map as future Neighborhood
arkland to be dedicated to the Cit of Dublin 1
25
3 ~°~ ~-~ ~`~I
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
on the map or by separate document. The
parcel line shall be at the back of curb. The City
will not accept this Parcel until the site is rough
graded, including erosion control measures, as
generally shown on the Tentative Map, Sheets
4 and 5, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Neighborhood parkland credits will not be .
provided until the site is rough graded and
offered to the Cit .
103. School Site: The Developer shall rough grade PW School Site to Project
the school site (Parcel J), including erosion Be reserved on Specific
control measures, as generally shown on the the First Final
Tentative Map, Sheet 7, to the satisfaction of Map for
the City Engineer. Grading shall be completed Neighborhoods
within 24 months of filing the first map for 2-6; Grading to
Neighborhoods 2-6, and will be specified in the be Completed
improvement agreement for these maps. The as Required
Developer shall be responsible for ongoing Under
erosion control, weed abatement, and trash Improvement
removal until the school site is accepted by the Agreement
Dublin Unified School District.
104. Neighborhood Park & School Utility Stubs: PW Applicable Standard
Utilities shall be stubbed to the Neighborhood Final Map C of A
Park, Neighborhood Square, and school site at
locations approved by the City's Parks
De artment and School District.
105. School District Conduit: One empty 3" PW Applicable Standard
conduit with pull wire, to accommodate future Final Map C of A
School District communication use, shall be
installed from the existing conduit in Fallon
Road at Central Parkway east in Central
Parkway to School Road and north in School
Road to the school site Parcel J.
106. Dublin Ranch Eastside Storm Drain Benefit PW First Final Map Standard
District (G-3 Culvert): In accordance with or first building C of A
Dublin Municipal Code section 7.74.290, permit, Project
Developer shall pay the applicable benefit whichever is Specific
char es for the ro ert . earlier
107. Geologic Hazard Abatement District: Prior to PW Each Final Standard
filing the first final map, the annexation of the ~ Map; Update C of A
entire project into the Fallon Village Geologic with
Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) covering Successive
the entire project shall be completed. The Maps as
board of directors for the GHAD shall be the Needed
City Council of the City of Dublin. The GHAD
shall be responsible for the ongoing
maintenance of the open space areas
includin benches and brow ditches,
26
~~o ~ ~~ i
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D S RCE
AGENCY Prior to:
maintenance roads or trails, and fencing) and
the water quality control pond, and shall include
a reserve for unforeseen repair of future slope
instability. Developer shall be responsible for
submitting all documents necessary for
annexation into the GHAD, including a plan of
control, which shall include an annual operating
budget for buildout of the project, and the
petition. Developer shall also be responsible for
all administrative costs associated with
processing the annexation. Initial assessments
against property owners shall not be lower than
ultimate assessments at buildout. The CC&Rs
for the project shall contain financial
mechanisms, such as deed assessments,
enforceable by the City that to ensure that the
property owners are obligated to pay the costs
of maintenance in the event that the GHAD is
dissolved or does not have sufficient resources
to perform its obligations. The CC&Rs shall
also include provisions that require the property
owners' association to pay the GHAD or City's
attorneys' fees in the event that either enforces
the Homeowner's Association's obligation to
fund maintenance of the open space areas and
the water quality control pond. The CC&Rs
shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and City Attorney to ensure
compliance with this condition of approval.
Ownership of GHAD-maintained parcels shall
be by the GHAD in fee as shown in the Vesting
Tentative Ma .
108. Remedial Grading Plan: The grading plan PW First Final Map Standard
shall include a remedial grading plan prepared or Issuance of C of A
by the project geotechnical consultant, outlining Grading
area of slide repair, benches, keyways, over- Permits
excavation at cut-fill transitions, subdrains, and
other recommendations of the consultant. The
remedial grading plan will be subject to review
and approval by the City's own geotechnical .
consultant.
109. Resource Agency Permits: Prior to the filing PW First Final Map Standard
of the first final map, and prior to the start of or Issuance of C of A
any grading of the site as necessary, permits Grading Permit
shall be obtained from the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Qualit Control Board, the State of
2~
3`~o i ~ ~9/
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
California Department of Fish and Game, and
the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the grading
or alteration of wetland areas within the site.
The project shall be modified as needed to
respond to the conditions of the permits. In the
event that permits require the creation of
permanent habitat or other mitigation measures
within the project limits, the developer shall
provided (1) conservation easements or other
land use restrictions over the project as
required by the resource agencies and (2)
provide funding for ongoing maintenance of
habitat areas in the form of an endowment (to
the City or a third party) or ongoing
assessments (through the GHAD). The City
reserves the right to modify or add conditions of
approval as needed in response to the final
ermit conditions from the resource a encies.
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRACT 8024
110. The Developer shall comply with the PW Ongoing Standard
Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin C of A
Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances, the City ~
of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies,
the most current requirements of the State
Code Title 24 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and
all building and fire codes and ordinances in
effect at the time of building permit. All public
improvements constructed by Developer and to
be dedicated to the City are hereby identified
as "public works" under Labor Code section
1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing
such improvements, shall comply with the
Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720
and followin .
111. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and PW Ongoing Standard
hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, C of A
officers, and employees from any claim, action,
or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set .
aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of
Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Community
Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or
any other department, committee, or agency of
the City related to this project (Tract 8024) to
the extent such actions are brought within the
time eriod re uired b Government Code
zs
3r~~ ~ ~ ~ f
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D SO RCE
AGENCY Prior to:
Section 66499.37 or other applicable law;
provided, however, that The Developer's duty
to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying
The Developer of any said claim, action, or
proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the
defense of such actions or roceedin s.
112. In the event that there needs to be clarification PW Ongoing Standard
to these Conditions of Approval, the Director of C of A
Community Development and the City Engineer
have the authority to clarify the intent of these
Conditions of Approval to the Developer without
going to a public hearing. The Director of
Community Development and the City Engineer
also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going
to a public hearing in order for the Developer to
fulfill needed improvements or mitigations
resultin from im acts of this ro'ect.
AGREE MENTS AND BONDS
113. The Developer shall enter into a Tract <PW First Final Map Standard
Improvement Agreement with the City for all and C of A
public improvements including any required Successive
offsite storm drainage or roadway Maps
improvements that are needed to serve the
Tract that have not been bonded with another
Tract Im rovement A reement.
114. The Developer shall provide performance PW First Final Map Standard
(100%), and labor & material (100%) securities and C of A
to guarantee the tract improvements, approved Successive
by the City Engineer, prior to execution of the Maps
Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of
the Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the
improvements, the performance security may
be replaced with a maintenance bond that is
25% of the value of the erformance securit .
FEES
115. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in PW Zone 7 and Standard
effect at the time of building permit issuance Parkland In- C of A
including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Lieu Fees Due
Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services Prior to Filing
District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Each Final
Unified School District School Impact fees, Map; Other
Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda Fees Required
County Fire Services fees; Noise Mitigation with Issuance
fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees; of Building
Alameda County Flood and Water Permits
Conservation District Zone 7 Draina e and
29
3t~3 ~' ~~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
Water Connection fees; and any other fees
either in effect at the time and/or as noted in
the Develo ment A reement.
116. Fire Fee Advance. Prior to the filing of the first PW First Final Map Project
final map, the developer shall make an Specific
advance payment of Fire Facilities Fees equal
to 5.71 %. of the then-outstanding amounts of
the advances made by DR Acquisitions and the
City General Fund to construct and equip,
respectively, Fire Station 18 and Fire Station
17. The advance will be used to repay a portion
of monies advanced by DR Acquisitions, LLC
and the City General Fund.
City will provide a credit to developer in the
amount of developer's advance of monies
pursuant to this condition. Developer shall be
responsible for the payment of an
Administrative Fee to establish the credit. The
credit may be used by developer against
payment of Fire Facilities Fee on this property
or any property where Developer has an
interest in the City of Dublin. The amount of
the credit, once established, shall not be
increased for inflation and shall not accrue
interest. The credits with written notice to City,
and payment of an administrative fee, may be
transferred by developer to another developer
of land in Dublin. Other aspects of the credit
shall be consistent with the City's Traffic Impact
Fee Guidelines.
117. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay PW Final Map Standard
in-lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set C of A
forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 214-02, or
in any resolution revising these amounts and as
implemented by the Administrative Guidelines
ado ted b Resolution 195-99.
PERMITS
118. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment PW Start of Work Standard
Permit from the Public Works Department for . C of A
all construction activity within the public right-of-
way of any street where the City has accepted
the improvements. The encroachment permit
may require surety for slurry seal and restriping.
At the discretion of the City Engineer an !
encroachment for work specifically included in
an Improvement Agreement may not be
re uired.
30
3~~ ~~' ~ql
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D SO CE
AGENCY Prior to:
119. Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework PW Start of Work Standard
Permit from the Public Works Department for C of A
all grading and private site improvements that
serves more that one lot or residential
condominium unit.
120. Developer shall obtain all permits required by PW Start of Work Standard
other agencies including, but not limited to C of A
Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Zone 7, California
Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the
ermits to the Public Works De artment.
SUBMITTALS
121. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall PW Approval of Standard
comply with the requirements of the "City of Improvement C of A
Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plans or Final
Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Map
Dublin Im rovement Plan Review Check List".
122. The Developer will be responsible for PW Approval of Standard
submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals Improvement C of A
of all participating non-City agencies. The Plans or Final
Alameda County Fire Department and the Map
Dublin San Ramon Services District shall
approve and sign the Improvement Plans.
123. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, PW Approval of Standard
which includes street pavement sections and Improvement C of A
grading recommendations. Plans, Grading
Plans, or Final
Ma
124. Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Acceptance of Standard
Department a digital vectorized file of the Improvements C of A
"master" files for the project when the Final and Release of
Map has been approved. Digital raster copies Bonds
are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files
shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing
format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the
precision of the Final Map. All objects and
entities in layers shall be colored by layer and
named in English. All submitted drawings shall
use the Global Coordinate System of USA,
California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone
III, and U.S. foot.
FINAL M AP
125. The Final Map shall be substantially in PW Approval of Standard
accordance with the Tentative Map approved Final Map C of A
with this a lication, unfess otherwise modified
31
3~~~' L~`~/
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
by these conditions. Multiple final maps may be
filed in phases, provided that each phase is
consistent with the tentative map, that phasing
progresses in an orderly and logical manner
and adequate infrastructure is installed with
each phase to serve that phase as a stand- ~
alone project that is not dependent upon future
hasin for infrastructure.
126. All rights-of-way and easement dedications PW Approval of Standard
required by the Tentative Map including the Final Map C of A
Public Service Easement shall be shown on the
Final Ma .
127. Street names shall be assigned to each PW Approval of Standard
public/private street pursuant to Municipal Code Final Map C of A
Chapter 7.08. The approved street names shall
be indicated on the Final Ma .
128. The Final Map shall include the street PW Monuments to Standard
monuments to be set in all public streets. be Shown on C of A
Final Map and
Installed Prior
to Acceptance
of
Im rovements
EASEM ENTS
129. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from PW Approval of Standard
all applicable public agencies of existing Improvement C of A
easements and right of ways within the Plans or
development that will no longer be used. Appropriate
Final Ma
130. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or PW Approval of Standard
obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property Improvement C of A
owners for any improvements on their property. Plans or
The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be Appropriate
in writing and copies furnished to the.City Final Map
En ineer.
GRADIN G
131. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with PW Approval of Standard
the recommendations of the Geotechnical Grading Plans C of A
Report, the approved Tentative Map and/or Site or Issuance of
Development Review, and the City design ~ Grading
standards & ordinances. In case of conflict Permits, and
between the soil engineer's recommendations Ongoing
and City ordinances, the City Engineer shall
determine which shall a I.
132. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be PW Approval of Standard
included with the Grading Plan approval. The Grading Plans C of A-
plan shall include detailed design, location, and or Issuance of
maintenance criteria of all erosion and Gradin
32
~~~ ~ w~ i
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D OURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
sedimentation control measures. Permits, and
On oin
133. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls PW Approval of Standard
shall not cross property lines, or shall be Grading Plans C of A
located a minimum of 2' below the finished or Issuance of
grade of the upper lot. Grading
Permits, and
On oin
134. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no PW Approval of Standard
steeper than 3:1 unless shown otherwise on Grading Plans C of A
the Tentative Map Grading Plan exhibits. The or Issuance of
toe of any slope along public streets shall be Grading
one foot back of walkway. The top of any slope Permits, and
along public streets shall be three feet back of Ongoing
walkway. Minor exception may be made in the
above slope design criteria to meet unforeseen
design constraints subject to the approval of
the Cit En ineer.
IMPROVEMENTS
135. The public improvements shall be constructed PW Approval of Standard
generally as shown on the Tentative Map Improvement C of A
and/or Site Development Review. However, Plans or Start
the approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site of
Development Review is not an approval of the Construction,
specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, and Ongoing
water, and street im rovements.
136. All public improvements shall conform to the PW Approval of Standard
City of Dublin Standard Plans and design Improvement C of A
requirements and as approved by the City Plans or Start
Engineer. of
Construction,
and On oin
137. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope PW Approval of Standard
with minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around Improvement C of A
bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be at Plans or Start
minimum 0.5% slope. - of
Construction,
and On oin
138. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets PW Approval of Standard
shall be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets ~ Improvement C of A
curb returns shall be 30-foot radius (36-foot Plans or Start
with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall of
be a minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved Construction,
by the City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and and Ongoing
design shall conform to the most current Title
24 and Americans with Disabilities Act
requirements and as approved by the City
Traffic En ineer.
33
~~~ ~ ~q ~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
139. Any decorative pavers installed within City right- PW Approval of Standard
of-way shall be done to the satisfaction of the Improvement C of A
City Engineer. Where decorative paving is Plans or Start
installed at signalized intersections, pre-formed of
traffic signal loops shall be put under the Construction,
decorative pavement. Decorative pavements and Ongoing
shall not interfere with the placement of traffic
control devices, including pavement markings.
All turn lane stripes, stop bars and crosswalks
shall be delineated with concrete bands or color
pavers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
Maintenance costs of the decorative paving
shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners
Association
140. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and PW Occupancy of Standard
pavement marking as required by the City Units or C of A
Engineer. Acceptance of
Im rovements
141. Street light standards and luminaries shall be PW Occupancy of Standard
designed and installed per approval of the City Units or C of A
Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for Acceptance of
streetli hts is 5%. Im rovements
142. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected PW Occupancy of Standard
with other new signals within the development Units or C of A
and to the existing City traffic signal system by Acceptance of
hard wire. Im rovements
143. The Developer shall construct bus stops and PW Occupancy of Standard
shelters at the locations designated and Units or C of A
approved by the LAVTA and the City Engineer. Acceptance of
The Developer shall pay the cost of procuring Improvements
and installin these im rovements.
144. Developer shall construct all potable and PW Occupancy of Standard
recycled water and sanitary sewer facilities Units or C of A
required to serve the project in accordance with Acceptance of
DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications Improvements
and re uirements.
145. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the PW Occupancy of Standard
Alameda County Fire Department. A raised Units or C of A
reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in Acceptance of
the street o osite each h drant. . Im rovements
146. The Developer shall furnish and install street PW Occupancy of Standard
name signs for the project to the satisfaction of Units or C of A
the City Engineer. Acceptance of
Im rovements
147. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable PW Occupancy of Standard
N and communication improvements within Units or C of A
the fronting streets and as necessary to serve Acceptance of
the ro'ect and the future ad'acent arcels as Im rovements
34
~~~ ~ ~~e
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN REQ'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
approved by the City Engineer and the various
Public Utilit a encies.
148. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV PW Occupancy of Standard
utilities, shall be underground in accordance Units or C of A
with the City policies and ordinances. All Acceptance of
utilities shall be located and provided within Improvements
public utility easements and sized to meet utility
com an standards.
149. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless PW Occupancy of Standard
specifically approved otherwise by the City Units or C of A
Engineer, shall be underground and placed in Acceptance of
landscape areas and screened from public Improvements
view. Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval,
landscape drawings shall be submitted to the
City showing the location of all utility vaults,
boxes and structures and adjacent landscape
features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans
shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to
construction of the 'oint trench im rovements.
CONST RUCTION
150. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented PW Ongoing as Standard
befinreen October 15th and April 15th unless Needed C of A
otherwise allowed in writing by the City
Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for
maintaining erosion and sediment control
measures for one year following the City's
acce tance of the subdivision im rovements.
151. If archaeological materials are encountered PW Ongoing as 1993
during construction, construction within 30 feet Needed EDEIR
of these materials shall be halted until a MM
professional Archaeologist who is certified by
the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or
the Society of Professional Archaeology
(SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate
miti ation measures.
152. Construction activities, including the PW Ongoing as Standard
maintenance and warming of equipment, shall Needed C of A
be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-
City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday
work will be considered by the City Engineer on
a case-b -case basis.
153. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of Standard
management plan that identifies measures to Construction C of A
be taken to minimize construction noise on Implementation
surroundin develo ed ro erties. The lan On oin as
35
3!~°I ~~91
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN RE 'D SOURCE
AGENCY Prior to:
shall include hours of construction operation, Needed
use of mufflers on construction equipment,
speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes
and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise
management measures shall be provided prior
to ro'ect construction.
154. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction PW Start of Standard
traffic interface with public traffic on any Construction; C of A
existing public street. Construction traffic and Implementation
parking may be subject to specific requirements Ongoing as
b the Cit En ineer. Needed
155. The Developer shall be responsible for PW Ongoing Standard
controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest C of A
roblem due to construction activities.
156. The Developer shall be responsible for PW Start of Standard
watering or other dust-palliative measures to Construction; C of A
control dust as conditions warrant or as Implementation
directed by the City Engineer. Ongoing as
Needed
157. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of Standard
Department with a letter from a registered civil Building C of A
engineer or surveyor stating that the building Permits or
pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the Acceptance of
grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, Improvements
and that the top & toe of banks and retaining
walls are at the locations shown on the
a roved Gradin Plans.
NPDES
158. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer PW Start of Any Standard
shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Construction C of A
Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California Activities
State Water Resources Control Board per the
requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works
Department and be kept at the construction
site.
159. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan PW SWPPP to be Standard
(SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Prepared Prior C of A
Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project to Approval of
construction activities. The SWPPP shall Improvement
include the erosion control measures in Plans:
accordance with the regulations outlined in the Implementation
most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Prior to Start of
Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction I
Construction Best Management Practices and Ongoing
Handbook. The Developer is responsible for as Needed
ensurin that all contractors im lement all
36
~~~ ~ ~~i
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP.
AGENCY WHEN REQ'D
Prior to: OURCE
storm water pollution prevention measures in
the SWPPP.
160. The Homeowner's Association shall enter into PW First Final Map; Standard
an agreement with the City of Dublin that Modify as C of A
guarantees the perpetual maintenance needed with
obligation for all storm water treatment Successive
measures installed as part of the project. Said Maps
agreement is required pursuant to Provision
C.3.h. of RWQCB Order R2-2009-0074 for the
issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES
municipal storm water permit. Said permit
requires the City to provide verification and
assurance that all treatment devices will be
properly operated and maintained. This
condition shall not apply if the water quality
treatment measures are maintained by a GHAD
or other ublic entit .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA#120091PA 09-011 Jordan RanchlPC Meeting 5.11.101FINAL PC Reso SDRTMap 5.11.10.DOC
37
DRAFT ~ ~ ~ DRAFT
3~~ C~
mmissioner Schaub suggested continuing the item to a date uncertain and ask~~ for thr
alte tives as to what the City could approve. He stated that he would like to an
alternati o the monopine being 50 feet tall.
Commissioner enberg agreed that alternatives should be presente She stated that
Shannon Park has a wl s antenna that resembles a light pole and is v discreet. She stated
that the Commission shoul k at the Ordinance in regards to the ' ent of the co-location and
if there is another alternative to c catin~.
It was suggested by the Commission t altern ' e locations and disguises should be
reviewed by the Applicant.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seco d by Cm. hrenberg, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm.
Swalwell absent, the Planning Com ' sion continued the i to a date uncertain:
RESOLUTION NO. 10 -
LUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A MODIFICATION TO A LEGAL
CONFORMING MONOPINE LOCATED AT 6407 TASSAJARA ROAD
PLPA 2009-00036
8.3 PA 09-011 Jordan Ranch Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 2 Development
Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map 8024, Development Agreement,
and approving findings in a CEQA Addendum.
Mike Porto, Cor~sulting Planner presented the Project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Schaub asked if tandem parking is prohibited in the CC&Rs. Mr. Porto stated
that tandem parking is not mentioned in the.CC&Rs.
Commissioner Schaub stated that he is concerned with tandem parking as it never seems to be a
successful idea for parking requirements.
Mr. Porto continued presenting the Staff Report.
Vice Chair Brown stated that he would like to see a safe walking and biking corridor that
extends down to the school, without having to negotiate streets.
Chair King agreed that there is no easy access from the open space trail to the school.
Referring to the HOA Maintenance Map, Mr. Porto stated that there will be a walkway down
the middle of the widened open space where the trail meets the open space. He stated there are
~>t~rr~an::r~~ ("«na~~:ssact~a ~1~~x~y _~1, 2t3t€~
`~4~°6i ~~~r~ s~~~£r~~~ 60
At*~nhmnr.+ 0
DRAFT 312 '~ DRA~fi
also bump-outs alon Street I to hel narrow the intersection down to create a cross~lk across
g P
that street. He further stated there is a sidewalk along both sides of Street K and, again, bump-
outs to reduce and slow-down traffic along the school road.
Chair King asked what the path across the middle of the open space will be made of. Mr. Porto
replied that he thinks it will be decomposed granite. He stated that it is an impervious surface
and water does get through it, not usually causing muddiness. Mr. Porto further stated that the
trail will be bordered on each side by a redwood header which could raise the trail a little bit.
Chair King asked if there is any room in the commercial area for sites other than office units,
like a market store. Mr. Porto replied that one of the issues discovered in supplying mixed use
developments is the ability to expand laterally. He stated that this can cause a problem for
successful businesses because they will have to relocate as they will be unable to expand where
they are. The Project has been designed to allow lateral expansion and could accommodate a
smaller market.
Mr. Porto stated that commercial units like the ones at Avalon Bay or The Groves are having a
hard time selling because of their limit on flexibility. He stated that the commercial portion of
the Jordan Ranch Project allows for the maximum flexibility.
Chair King asked if the City can make provisions regarding specific parking requirements in the
CC&Rs. Mr. Porto replied that the developer writes the CC&Rs and then submits them to the
City for review. He stated that the CC&Rs are reviewed by Public Works, Community
Development and then the City Attorney. He further stated that the Planning Commission
would have the opportunity to condition the Project if it is something the Commission feels
strongly about.
Vice Chair Brown asked if the signage is defined for the live/work units. Mr. Porto replied no,
it would be part of the Master Sign Program which is required through the Conditions of
Approval.
Vice Chair Brown stated his concern with the availability of paths leading directly to the school
property.
Mr. Porto stated that there is another project that has yet to come before the Commission that is
directly adjacent to the school property. He stated that there is a park there, medium density
residential, as well as low density residential beyond that.
Chair King stated that some of the side views on the elevations seem dull, like the Italianate
Design as depicted in A5-20. Mr. Porto stated that these are the alley-loads and the side
elevations are plain because they're being utilized by the house next door for private yard
space. He stated that the City doesri t want windows looking into private yards.
Mr. Porto stated that with alley loads, windows and embellishments are very limited because
the City didri t want to have people looking into adjacent private areas. He stated that some
units do have windows but they are small and above head-height.
~#'Cr~rrszn~ ~'~mrrr~,s.a~ic>~a S"ri~~~ :t 1, 2U1fJ
~~~~~t~~~ ~~~~~=r£~~ 61
DRAFT DRAFT
~-~ 3 ~ ~~ ~
Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that she noticed a parcel that is retained by the o ner on
Fallon and Central Parkway. She asked if that parcel will be discussed. Mr. Porto replied no,
stating that if anything were to occur on that site it would be reviewed by the Commission.
Chair King opened the public hearing.
Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Properties, thanked Staff for all their hard work and spoke in favor
of the Project.
Mr. Fryer stated, in regards to the flex units and tandem parking, the tandem portions for the
flex units have not been included in the parking count. The Project provides double the guest
parking requirement to compensate for tandem parking.
Mr. Fryer stated that the trail is an ADA-compliant trail and stated that the decomposed granite
material holds up well in weather. He stated that the trail is intended to be safe and pedestrian-
friendly connection.
Mr. Fryer stated that a lot of time was spent on ensuring safe connectivity internal to the Project
as well as external to surrounding projects. He stated the intention is to provide a safe
environment for children to travel through the neighborhood to attend school.
Mr. Fryer stated, in regards to the commercial element, that there is a lot of commercial planned
in the Gateway and on the Chen property; however, the Jordan Ranch mixed-use was intended
to be the hub of Fallon Village. He stated that Mission Valley Properties has spent a lot of time
talking to commercial brokers to put together a proposal that is viable and will not cause an
economic struggle. He further stated that it meets the technical language of the Stage 1 Plan and
is an attempt to create vitality and viability in that area, and to be a destination that delivers.
Commissioner Schaub asked if the commercial portion will be sold separately. Mr. Fryer
replied yes, the commercial will be independently accessed. He stated that because it is flex-
space, if someone comes in with a certain commercial need or intended use, they can use it.
Mr. Fryer stated, in regards to the parcel that will be retained, that the open space corridor has
been a challenge with the agencies because of concerns with long-term viable habitat. He stated
that the issues are unsettled but are being worked out daily to try and satisfy the requirements
of all the different agencies.
Mr. Fryer clarified that the parcel being retained on the street is being retained to allow
flexibility while working out issues with the different agencies. He stated that if the site is
impacted, the developer has the flexibility to suggest other uses for that parcel that fronts Fallon
Road.
Mr. Fryer addressed the comp roof issue, stating that it is the intent of Mission Valley to provide
quality architecture. He stated that in an effort to create their own identity, the comp roofs are
~'l~~tnnz~ag ~'camrra~,rsic~~a __ S~~a~ T 1, Z(?3t2
~i~~~~~tr `~e~tir~r~ 62
DRAFT ~ "~ ~ ~ D~F1~ I
the best way of deliverin the intent of this architectural st le. He further stated tha~he same
g Y
roofs are used in Alamo, Diablo, Menlo Park and Palo Alto.
After a brief discussion regarding comp roofs, Mr. Fryer concluded that Mission Valley Homes
has the intention of providing quality architecture and to have a theme that runs through the
Project instead of following the look of other developments. He stated that Mission Valley
Homes is open to hearing the Commissions suggestions and comments; however, they feel that
comp roofs is the best option to help create an identity while keeping safety, quality and
aesthetics in mind.
Chair King stated that he appreciates the effort to make the development friendly for children
and pedestrians. He stated that he likes the Gateway entry features and feels Dublin could use
more of those.
Chair King asked if the sidewalks on Street K follow the standard sidewalk width. Mr. Fryer
replied yes.
Chair King asked what the width is between the open space path and the street that intersects
with Street K. Mr. Fryer replied that it was approximately 30 feet wide.
Chair King asked if it would be simple to widen the sidewalk on Street K. Mr. Fryer replied
that it would depend on what was being made smaller to widen the sidewalk.
Commissioner Schaub suggested a no-parking area on the streets to widen the sidewalk. Mr.
Fryer replied yes; however, street parking is being considered for parking requirements.
Mr. Porto stated that bump-outs were put on the street to help slow and control traffic. Mr.
Porto asked Mark Lander, City Engineer, what the width of the roadway at the crossing is. Mr.
Lander replied that he believes it is currently proposed at 24 to 28 feet, which consists of travel
each way with no parking. He further stated that the rest of the street is proposed at 36 feet
wide which consists of two travel lanes and an eight foot parking lane on both sides. Mr.
Lander clarified that at the bump-outs, parking is restricted and the distance for pedestrian
crossing is narrowed by approximately one-third.
Vice Chair Brown stated that it is important to lessen vehicular traffic and make it friendlier for
walking and biking. He asked if there was a way to eliminate vehicular traffic going into the
school.
Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that not many parents allow their children to walk and bike
to school due to safety reasons. She stated that another impact is traffic congestion around the
school and in the neighborhood. Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that she agrees with Vice
Chair Browri s concerns regarding pedestrian access; however, the known fact that parents are
driving their children to school will limit the circulation in causing more traffic.
Commissioner Schaub stated that he doesri t believe Street K is a functioning road for cars.
~'Crrnnin,~ ~'cars~anz~~za~n ~6~rr~ 11, 2t~1t~
~;~~~~f~r't~tez~i~rg 63
DRAFT ~~~ ~j~'~ ~
Mr. Baker stated that it is important to look at the larger picture of the Fallon Village Project. He
stated that the Project was intended to have trails down both sides of the open space to provide
added pedestrian connectivity from the north and west. He clarified that with the crossing, the
Project is enabling children and patrons of the school and village center to walk down to those
areas without having to use public streets. Mr. Baker stated that the Project has tried to mitigate
the small sections of streets by narrowing the streets with bump-outs to help calm the traffic
and keep pedestrians safe.
Chair King demonstrated the traffic circulation and stated that it seems vehicle traffic would be
minimal. Commissioner Schaub replied that the vehicles will have to travel in one direction;
however, it is unknown at this time what is going to be located on the other side by Croak Road.
Mr. Fryer stated that the road doesri t necessarily align with an access point to the school. He
stated there is not currently a configuration for Street K, as it may just be a means of circulation
and is not a critical street to the internal circulation.
Mr. Fryer stated that the intent is to have ideas of ways to truncate Street K so that it essentially
served as an access point for the alleys that run north and south to it, while discontinuing the
streets so that it becomes open space in between for pedestrians. Mr. Fryer clarified that
alternatives and suggestions are welcome.
Chair King stated that he likes the architecture and space for public art. Mr. Fryer stated that
should the public art requirement be reinstated it would most likely be handled through the in-
lieu fee.
Chair King asked if it would be feasible to require the HOA's CC&Rs have a provision that
parking restrictions be consistent with the City's. Mr. Fryer replied yes, it can be added as a
Condition.
Emily Bonato, Dahlin Group Architecture Planning, presented the comp shingle roof samples.
She stated that the history of farmhouses and ranches on the property dictated the architectural
theme of the Project. She clarified that because farmhouses are fairly simple in style, it was
decided that comp roofs offer more flexibility for the roof detail like dormers, pitch breaks, and
drop plates. Ms. Bonato clarified that because there is so much movement in the roof, tile roofs
would be difficult to work with.
Ms. Bonato presented a roof presentation, showing other projects with comp shingle roofs.
Commissioner Schaub asked what the difference is between 40- and 50-year comp roofs. Ms.
Bonato replied that 50-year comp roofs tend to be a little bit thicker and can come with highly
upgraded features which areri t suggested for this Project.
Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that Dublin is very windy and with such a big open space,
does the wind affect what kind of roofing material is used. Ms. Bonato answered no; the open
space actually provides a better view of the roofs. She clarified that the comp roofs will offer
Cd'l~anrzarrg ~'c~mrrr~s3~tc~r~ _ w~~€ra}° .11, 2t1 td?
~i~~~a~l:rr :;iAeeti~a,y 64
DRAFT DRAFT
more color which lessens the perspective of a monotonous roof. Ms. Bonato confirmed that the
40-year comp roof manufacturers do take heavy winds into account. ~-~~ ~',~~ f~U ~
,,~~' i
Chair King stated that he was hoping to avoid the look of the traditional tar-paper roof. He
stated that the examples shown on A1-A4 look dark and he would prefer lighter or different
colors. Ms. Bonato replied that having variety is the intention and cautioned that the picture
may not accurately depict the true colors of the Project.
Commissioner Schaub stated that he would like to make 40-year comp roofs a Condition. Ms.
Bonato replied that a 40-year comp roof is their minimum suggestion.
Mr. Baker stated that the Commission could Condition a 40-year comp roof.
Vice Chair Brown agreed to Condition 40-year comp roofs.
Chair King closed the public hearing
Chair King asked Vice Chair Brown what he would like to see done with Street K.
Mr. Porto stated that access is needed for driveways and demonstrated where Street K could be
cut-off. He stated that he would have to check with Fire regarding the EVA requirement but
access could be designed to allow a fire truck if needed while prohibit vehicles from driving
across. Mr. Porto confirmed that the Commission could Condition the cut-off.
Mr. Porto confirmed that Fire has been good about allowing smaller cul-de-sacs as long as there
is alternative access for Emergency Vehicles.
After a discussion regarding tandem parking, Mr. Porto clarified that in the area where tandem
parking is being utilized, the guest parking requirement is 0.5 parking spaces per unit. He
stated that the Project is supplying 1.15 guest spaces per unit which is more than double the
requirement. Mr. Porto stated the problem in the past has been projects meeting the minimum
code, not exceeding it. He clarified that, in this case, there would be tandem parking; however,
there would be an excess of other parking available.
Mr. Lander stated that Condition 88A: Street K shall be eliminated betzveen the alleyzuays serving Lots
73 £~ 94, zoith a pedestrian pathway connection provided between the two stub segments. The pathzuays
shall be upgraded to EVA standards if required by the Fire Department can be added.
Mr. Baker clarified that the Site Plan for the PD and the SDR both show Street K and would
need to be changed as well, per the new Condition.
Regarding adding a Condition for roofing, Mr. Porto suggested Condition 29A Composition Roofs:
the proposed composition roofing shall have a 40-year life and shall provide variation of color (some
lighter colors). Evidence of u~arranty shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits.
~'~znrzi-n~ C,'trmmzssivsa ~9rf~a} 11, 2~1.1t1
~'~°~r~ra~ar ~-~Be~1in~ (5
DRAFT ij"~'j ~DRAF~
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Swalwell
being absent, the Planning Commission approved, with Conditions to 88A and 29A regarding
the composition roofs:
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE
EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THE 2002 EDPO AND 2005
FALLON VILLAGE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND
APPROVE ITS FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED
FOR THE JORDAN RANCH PROJECT
PA 09-011
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A
STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR JORDAN RANCH
PA 09-011
RESOLUTION NO. 10- BS
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8024
FOR JORDAN RANCH
(APN 985-0027-007-02)
PA 09-011
,r.'Crrra~aing E"omm~ss~vn _ _ St~ra~ 17, 2~?.1L7
~'~~~x~rrs~te~rzr~,~ 66
DRAFT 3 '-1 ~' ~D~FT
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR JORDAN RANCH
PA 09-011
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/ or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
ADIOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:37:16 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Morgan King
Chair Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Planning Manager
G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2010 ~ PLANNING COMNIISSION ~ 511.10.doc
~i'~r~nx~a~ ('oas~rrriss~i~?ri w~9r~} ll, 2(1.1t~
~~~~a~~dr ~~ta~~ri~a~ 67
~~~~~~~e
RESOLUTION NO. XX -10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
**************
CONSIDERING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, AND THE 2002 EAST DUBLIN PROPERTY OWNERS (EDPO) AND 2005
FALLON VILLAGE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND
APPROVING ITS FINDINGS THAT NO FURTHER ENVIf20NMENTAL REVIEW IS
REQUIRED FOR THE JORDAN RANCH PROJECT
PA 09-011
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to develop a 780-unit residential project on an
approximately 189.7 acre site. The Project consists of single and multi-family units, ~~.6 acre
residential/retail mixed use site, and a range of public parks, public and semi-public uses, open
spaces and roadways. The related applications include a PD-Planned Development Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Development
Agreement. The Project reduces a previous approval fcr 1,064 units by 284 units. The above
activities and applications are further described in applications on file with the City and are
collectively referred to as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located east of Fallon Road and Positano Parkway, south
of the Positano residential community under construction, west of the Croak property and narth
of the Chen property; and
WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmertal
Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103Q64) on May
10, 1993 (incorporated herein by reference). The Ea~tern Dublin EIR identified significant
impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to
less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Ftesolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference);
and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Supplemental EIR in 2002 for the 1,120-acr~ East
Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) project in Eastern Dublin, including the Jordan Ranch pro~erty
("2002 SEIR", SCH # 2001052114). The 2002 SEIR assessed the impacts of annexing these
properties to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, detaching the
properties from the Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District, prezoning the properties to
the PD-Planned Development district and adopting a related Stage 1 Development Plan for
future development of residential, retail, office, open space and other uses. The SFIR was
certified on April 2, 2002 by City Council Resolution No. 40-02; and
WHEREAS, in 2005 the City prepared a second Supplemental EIR to analyze the Fallon
Village project, consisting of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment, and
a PD-rezoning and revised Stage 1 Development Plan for the same properties as the EDPO
project, including the Jordan Ranch site. The second SEIR ("2005 SEIR", SCH #2005062010)
was certified on December 5, 2005 by City Council Resolution No. 222-05. The 2005 SEIR
analyzed the revised Stage 1 Development Plan, including a maximum of 1,064 units on the
Jordan Ranch site, at a programmatic level anticipating that the analysis would be used for
Att~nhmnn* 1(1
3S0 ~~~~
approval of future development projects unless project or other changes were to require
additional environmental review under CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15163; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the Project required
additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15163. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated
May 11, 2010 describing the Project, including the reduced number of units from the number
assumed in the 2005 SEIR, and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been
adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR. The Addendum
and related Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR identified significant
unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area and Fallon Village area,
some of which would apply to the Project. Therefore, approval of the Project must be supported
by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project on May 11, 2010 and adopted Resolution No. 10-23 recommending the City Council
consider the Addendum and adopt its findings that no further environmental review is required
for the Project under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-25
approving a site development review and a vesting tentative map for the Project, adopted
Resolution No. 10-24 recommending City Council approval of an Ordinance approving a Stage
2 Pfanned Development, and adopted Resolution No. 10-26 recommending City Council
approval of an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement. The Planning Commission
considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR before
making recommendations or taking action on the Project applic~tions.
WHEREAS, a staff report dated June 1, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference
analyzed the Project and recommended consideration of the CEQA Addendum and approval of
its findings, as well as approval of the applications for a Stage 2 Planned Development and
Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project's
Stage 2 Planned Development, Development Agreement and CEQA Addendum on June 1,
2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin
EIR, 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR before taking action on the Project applications and further
considered all reports, recommendations and testimony; and
WHEREAS, all of the above resolutions, ordinances, the Addendum, Initial Study,
Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, and 2005 SEIR are incorporated by reference and are available
for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development Department,
Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
2 of 4
3~si ~'.f ~I `~ ~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council make the following findings to
support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the
proposed Project. These findings are based on information contained in the Addendum and
related Initial Study, the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR, the Planning
Commission staff report, the City Council staff report, and all other information contained in the
record before the Planning Commission and City Council. These findings constitute a summary
of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are
set forth in the Addendum and related Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, 2005 SEIR
and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding
that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference:
1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previously
approved Eastern Dublin, EDPO and Fallon Village projects that will require major revisions to
the EIRs due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of
previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant
effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for the projects which
were addressed in the previous EIRs. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more
severe significant impacts than those identified ,in the prior EIRs. All previously adopted
mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable.
2. The Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project
that were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR or 2005 SEIR.
3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial
changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet
any other standards in CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and
15163.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as follows:
1. The City Council finds that no further environmental review under CEQA is
required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a
whole that any of the standards under CEQA section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines sections
15162 and 15163 are met.
2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under
CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR, negative declaration, or conduct further environmental review for the
proposed Project.
3. The City Council considered the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study
attached as Exhibit A, and approved its findings that no further environmental review is
required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 for the Jordan Ranch
Project prior to approving the land use applications for the Project.
4. The City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations
attached as Exhibit B for those significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the certified
Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, and 2005 SEIR applicable to the Project.
3 of 4
3~~- ~ L~~~~ ~
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
1Sr day of June, 2010, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:IPA#120091PA 09-011 Jordan RanchlCC Meeting 6.1.10110-02-09FORM-ORDINANCE NEW.doc
4of4
3~3 ~ ~`~1
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE JORDAN ~tANCH PROJECT
PA 09-011
May l l., 2010
'The Jordan Ranch has been the subject of several prior approvals and related Environmental
Impac# Reports ("EIRs"). Tl2is Addendum evaiuates whether further environmental review is
required for minor changes to the project, primarily the elimina#ion of 284 dwelling units. No
change is proposed to the General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. an~d the proposed
project is consistent with the PD-Planned Develapment zoning and related Stage 1
Development Plan approved in 2005. Through this Addendutrt and the attached Inirial Study,
the Ciry has determined that the prior EIRs adequately identify the impacts and mitigation
measures for the proposed project and that no further environmental review is reqaired under
CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Gaidelines section 1 S 162 and 15163.
Prior EnvironmentaI Review
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolufion No. 51-93, certifying an
Enviz'onmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR", SCH #91103064}. The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and
Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993,
assessing a reduced development praject alternative. The City Council adopted Resoluhon
No. 53-93 approving a General Plan A~nendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area
alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1494, the City C.ouncil adopted a second
Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastem Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR
evaluated the potential environmental efFects flf urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30
year period. Since certificatian of the EIR, many irnplementing proj ects have been ~roposed,
relying to various degrees on the certified EIR.
A Supplerrien#al EIR was prepared in 2002 for the 1,120-acre East Dublin Property Owners
~EDPO) portion of the Eastern DubIin planning area, including the Jordan Ranch property
("2002 SEIR", SCH # 2Q410521 i4}. The 2002 SEIR a~sessed the impacts of annexing these
properties to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Servir.es District {DSRSD),
detaching the properties from the Livermnre Area Parks and Recreation District, pxezoning
the properties to the PD-Planned Development district and adopting a related Stage 1
Development Plan for future development of residential, retail, office, open space and other
uses. The SEIR was certified on April 2, 2002 by City Council Resolution No. 40-02.
A second Supplemental EIR was prepared in 2005 to analyze the Fallon Village project,
consisting of a General Pian and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment, and a PD-rezoning
and revised Stage 1 Development Plan for the same properties as the EDPO project, including
the Jordan Ranch site. The Fallon Village project proposed to rnodify land use patterns
primarily with respect to biological resource areas. The Fallon Village project also 'vncluded a
FD-Stage 2 Development Plan for proposed subdivisions on approximately 486 acres in the
Exhibit A to
. . . , . , .,
~~~~ ~~~
northerly portion of the Fallon Village area known as Posi#ano. The second SEIR ("2005
SEIR", SCH #2005062010) was certified on December 5, 2005 by City Council Resolution
No. 222-05. The 2005 SEIR analyzed the revised Stage I Development Plan properties,
including the Jordan Ranch site, at a prograrrunatic level anticipating that the analysis would
be used for approval of future developrnent projects unless project or other changes were to
require additional envirozumental review under CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA
Guidelines sections l 5162 and 15163. The 2005 SEIR analyzed the Stage 2 Development
Plan for Positano at a project level consistent with the proposed subdivisian level of detaiI
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the
J'ordan Ranch portion of the EDPO and Fallon Village areas, as described below.
Project Description
~n 20Q5, the City approved amendrnents to the General Plan and Eastern Dubliz~ Specific Plan
as well as PD-Planxzed Development zoning and a related S#age i Development Plan. The
approvals anticipated a primarily residential development with mixed residential densities
across the site and an approximately 6 acre residential-retail mixed use site. The maximum
nnrriber af dwelling units was established at 1,064.
The current application includes requests for approval of a PD-Pianned Development zezoning
and assoaiated Stage 2 Developzuent Plan, Site Development Review (SDR}, Vesting
Tentative Tract Ivlap and a Development Agreement. The Project site is the 189.7-acre portion
of Fallon Village known as the Jordan Ranch. The site is bounded on the west by Fallon Road
and Positano Pazkway, on the north by the Positano residential commwnity being developed
by Braddoclc & Logan, on the on the east by proper(y owned by the Croak family and on the
south by property owned by the Chen family.
The proposed development implements the 2005 approvals and remains primarily residential;
however, the number of dwelling uni#s is reduced by 284, for a totai of 780 single and mu~tz-
family dwelling units. A gortion of these units would be located on a 6.6 acre mixed-use site
~+ith 12,000 sq. ft. of retail uses. The project also includes a range of public parks, public and
semi-public uses, open spaces and roadways. The development would be oriented around a
major drainage swaie that runs northeast to southwest across the site. The proposed project is
described in more detail iun the attached Initial Study.
Prior CEQA AnaIyses and Determinahons
As suinmarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study, the Jordan
Ranch property has been planned for uzbanization since the Eastern Dublin approvals in 1993
and has been the subjec# of three previously certified EIRs. The Eastern Dublin EIIt
identified numerous environmental impacts, and numerous mitigations were adopted upor~
approval of the Eastem Dublin General PIan Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified
impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. Simi~arly, the 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR identified supplemental
impacts and mitigation measures, as welI as additional significant unavoidable impacts for
which statements of overriding cor-siderations were adopted. All previously adopted
Page 2
~~sS` ~~~~1
mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dubiin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
the 2002 SEIR and the 2a05 5ETR that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue
to apply to the currentIy proposed Project as further discussed in the attached Initial Study.
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this
Proj ect.
Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the
appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the
City reviewed the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous Supplemental EIRs to determine if any
further environmentaI review was required for the actions proposed for this Project site.
The City prepared an updated Initial Study for the Jordan Ranch proposed Project dated May
11, 2010, attached and incorporated herein by reference. Through this Initial Study, the City
has determined #hat no subsequent EIR, or Nega~ive Declaration is required for this Project.
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA
Guidelines Secfion 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental
review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or
negative declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substanfial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant
impacts? The:re are z~o substantial changes to the Project anaIyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, as supplemented by #he 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. The Project
maintains the general land use pattems for the site as established in the'2005 PD
Stage 1 Development Plan and proposes a decrease of approxim~tely 284 dwellings
assumed on the site in the prior EIRs. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, tl~e
decreased number of dwellings is not a substantial char~ge, will not result in ~
additional or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no addi~ional or
different mitigation measures are required.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions in which the Project is undertaken
involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the
conditions assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 SEIR or the 2005 SEIR. This is
documented in the ai#ached Inihai Study prepared for this Project dated May I 1, 2010.
c) Is there new information ofsubstantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a
significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; orprevious effects are more severe;
or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined
to adopt them; or mitigatian measures eonsiderabty differentfrom those in the previous
EIR would suhstantially reduce signi, ficant eff'ects but the applicant declines to adopt
them? As documented in~he attached Initial Study, there is no new information showing a
new or more severe significant e#~ect beyond those identified in the prior EIRs. Similarly,
the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are required for
the Project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The
Page 3
=~ ~ ~ ~i~/
previously certified EIRs adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with
the proposed development of Jordan Ranich.
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subseguent negative declaration
be prepared? No subsequent negative declazation or mitigated negative declaration is
required because there aze no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyand
those identified in the Eastem Dublin EIR and previous SEIRs, as documented in the
attached Initial Study.
Conclusion. 'i'his Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based
on the attached Initial Study dated May 11, 2010. The Addendum and Initial Study review the
proposed Planned Development xez~ning and related Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR,
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Developznent Agreement as discussed above.
Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Siudy, the City determines that fihe
above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration
under CEQA section 21166 or CE~A Guidelines Secdons 15162 and 15163. The City furthez~
deternunes that che Eastern Dublin EJR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR adequately address
the po#ential environmental impacts of #he proposed 7ordan Ranch Project as documented in
the attached Initial Study.
As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulateii for
public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmentai documents before maldng
a decision on this project.
The Initiai Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR and all resolutions cited
above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review dnring normal
business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Ha11, 100 Civic
Piaza, Dublin CA.
Page 4
3~~ ~'~ I
~
Initial Stud
Y
Project:
Jordan Ranch Property
File # PA 09-011
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Apri12010
Exhibit B to
. . . , . _ ,.
~~g ~ ~~r
Table of Contents
Introduction ..............................................................................................................2
Prior Environmental Impact Reports ...............
................................
.......................
Applicant/Contact Person ................................ .......................................................5
Project Description ............................................ .......................................................5
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................ 20
Determination ......................................................................................................... 20
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................. 22
Environxnental Impacts .......................................................................................... 23
Earlier Analyses / Incorporation by Reference ..................................................... 32
Discusson of Checklist ........................................................................................... 34
1. Aesthetics ............................................... ......................................................34
2. Agricultural Resources ......................... ...................................................... 37
3. Air Quality ............................................. ......................................................38
4. Biological Resources ............................. ......................................................47
5. Cultural Resources ................................ ......................................................52
6. Geology and Soils ................................. ......................................................55
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..... ......................................................58
8. Hydrology and Water Quality ............. ......................................................61
9. Land Use and Planning ........................ ...................................................... 66
10. Mineral Resources ............................... ......................................................67
11. Noise .................................................... ......................................................67
12. Population and Housing .................... ......................................................74
13. Public Services ..................................... ......................................................74
14. Recreation .................................................................................................. 77
15. Transportation/Traffic .............................................................................79
16. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................... 87
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................91
Initial Study Preparers ...........................................................................................92
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ........ ....................................................... 92
References ........................................................ .......:...............................................92
Appendix .......................................................... ....................:.................................. 93
~`~,~ ~i
INITIAL STUDY
Jordan Ranch Property/Fallon Village Area
PA # 09-011
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Pub. Res. Code ~~ 21000 et seq.,) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, ~§ 15000-15387). This Initial Study analyzes
whether any further environmental review is required for the jordan Ranch Project
under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15163. Development of the Jordan Ranch property has been
previously analyzed in three environmental impact reports which have been certified
by the City: (1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Environxnental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064; (2) East Dublin
Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2001052114); and (3) Fallon Village Project Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2005062010). This Initial
Study analyzes whether the proposed Jordan Ranch Project will result in any new or
substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in
these prior EIRs or whether any other of the other standards requiring further
environmental review under CEQA are met.
This Initial Study assesses program changes and development-level activities to
implement that program through Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, including a
Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR approval, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, a
Development Agreement, and related development permits on the Jordan Ranch
Property ("Project site"), all of which are described below in the Project Description.
These entitlements are referred to herein as the "Project."
Prior Environmental Impact Reports
This Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. A considerable
amount of CEQA work has been done already for future development in Eastern
Dublin, including the Project site. A Program Environmental Impact Report was
certified through Resolution No. 51-93 by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No.
91103064; ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR"). That EIR evaluated the following impacts:
Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 201D
PA 09-011
~90~ ~~
1
Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and
Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air
Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. As part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan through Resolution No. 53-93, the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts:
cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of
certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption
of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water
treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system,
inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground
shaking, loss of degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise
and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally
adequate.
In 2001, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) requested annexation, pre-zoning
and related approvals for a 1,120 acre Project Area, including the Jordan Ranch
Property. The Project Area was within the development area previously approved by
the City in 1993; and was within the scope of the project/program analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. In response to EDPO and consistent with the City's practice for
projects in Eastern Dublin, in 2001 the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the
annexation and pre-zoning requests would require additional environmental review
beyond that set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. That 2001 Initial Study disclosed that
many of the anticipated impacts of the proposed annexation and pre-zoning were
adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was predictable given the
comprehensive plaruung for the development area; the Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of
buildout under the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations and policies; the long term 20-30 year focus of the Dublin General Plan,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR analyses; the fact that annexation
and pre-zoning actions were specifically contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and
the fact that the annexation request proposed the same land uses analyzed for the
Project Area in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although the 2001 Initial Study concluded that
the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed annexation and rezoning, it also identified the potential for
some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City determined that the potential new and / or
substantially intensified impacts required review at an EIR level and concluded that a
Supplemental EIR should be prepared. So, in 2001 and 2002, the Eastern Dublin EIR was
updated and supplemented by the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan
and Annexation Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). That
Supplemental EIR, referred to in this Initial Study as the "2002 SEIR," provided updated
analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation,
schools, and utilities. In certifying the 2002 SEIR and approving the prezoning, the City
Council, through Resolution No. 40-02, adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for cumulative air quality and cumulative traffic impacts. The 2002 SEIR
was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. ~
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
3 ~ I .~c~~- ~
In 2005, a second Supplemental EIR (identified as the "2005 Supplement" or "2005
SEIR" in this Initial Study) was prepared and certified by the City of Dublin for the
Fallon Village project, which included the same properties as the 2002 SEIR (see City
Council Resolution No. 222-05). The second SEIR addressed new and detailed
information for the proposed development areas, and, as well as several changes in
circumstances since the prior EIRs which could have affected the impacts and / or
mitigations previously identified for the Fallon Village Project. Such changes in the
previously analyzed project and circumstances included, but were not limited to: 1)
continued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond with potential changes in
commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect air quality and noise
within or on the Project area; 2) changes in the provision and distribution of some
public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater, and storm drainage), 3)
changes in circulation patterns on the Fallon Village site; 4) completion of a Resource
Management Plan (RMP) for biological and cultural resources on the Fallon Village site
and additional site-specific biological and cultural resources studies which did not
previously exist; 5) changes in the development density and intensity in the Fallon
Village Project area that may increase impacts over those previously reviewed; and 6)
submittal of Stage 2 Development Plans, subdivision maps and other permit
applications containing detailed development plans for the northern portion of Fallon
Village known as Positano not previously reviewed at a project level.
Unlike the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR was a
combination Program-level document and a Project-level document. The program-level
portion of 2005 SEIR focused on the new or substantially increased significant impacts
of potential future development pursuant to a proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan amendments for the entire 1,138-acre
project area, including the Jordan Ranch Project site. Additionally, the 2005
Supplemental EIR reviewed proposed individual development projects for the northern
portion of the area, the environmental impacts they would generate, and the avoidance
and mitigation measures they would employ at a project-level. The Jordan Ranch
property was analyzed at a program level in this document. However, it was intended
to be used as the environmental review for the approval of future project level
entitlements (such as the Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning and SDR) unless the
standards under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections
15162 and 15163 were met.
Mitigation Measures contained in the three previous Environmental Impact Reports
applicable to the Project site will be applied to the current Project.
The Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR are collectively referred to herein as
"prior EIRs" or "previous EIRs."
This Initial Study has been prepared to address requested land use entitlements for the
Jordan Ranch Property within the Fallon Village area as described more fully below.
This Initial Study fizrther examines whether additional environmental review is
required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The resolutions, ordinances
and prior EIRs referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~a u~ ~
~
review by the public during normal business hours at the Community Development
Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568.
Applicant/Contact Person
Mission Valley Properties
Attn: Mr. Kevin Fryer
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: (925) 467 9900
Project Description
Project location and context
The Project includes proposed land use entitlements for an approximately 187.9-acre
site located in Eastern Dublin, California. Exhibit 1 shows the Project site location in
Eastern Dublin. The site is bounded on the west by Fallon Road and Positano Parkway,
on the north by the Positano residential community being developed by Braddock &
Logan, on the on the east by property owned by the Croak family and on the south by
property owned by the Chen family.
Access to the site is provided by Fallon Road, a major arterial roadway in the Eastern
Dublin Planning Area. Fallon Road has a major interchange with the I-580 freeway
south of the Project site, extends north adjacent to and west of the Jordan Ranch
property, then turns to the west to provide access to other properties in Eastern Dublin,
eventually connecting with Tassajara Road. Positano Parkway intersects with Fallon
Road adjacent to Jordan Ranch and extends north into the Positano development.
Central Parkway would be extended east of Fallon Road as part of the Project to
provide access to the development area southeast of the drainage swale. Regional
access to the site is provided by Interstate 580 to the south.
Exhibit 2 shows the Jordan Ranch in context with other surrounding properties and
features.
The Project site is currently vacant and was previously used for cattle grazing. It
formerly contained a single-family dwelling and associated outbuildings. Surrounding
land uses include Dublin Sports Park, being developed on the west side of Fallon Road,
west of the Project site, single family residences in the Positano community to the north
and generally vacant lands to the east and south.
Site topography is characterized by rolling hills and grasslands with shallow to
moderate topographic relief. The previous use of the site was as a cattle ranch. The site
contains three generally north-south-running drainage courses as well as a number of
naturally occurring and man-made ponds. A number of native and non-native stands of
trees are present on the property.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
3 ~ ~ s;~ ~`~'~
Project background and prior planning approvals
The Jordan Ranch Property is located in the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP)
area. Previous City of Dublin land use approvals regarding the Project site include:
1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and S~ecific Plan
In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
(EDGPA) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The approved project was a
modified version of the original EDGPA for the 6,920-acre Eastern Dublin planning
area. The original EDGPA proposed to change commercial land use designations on
County property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and agriculture / open space
designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban uses. At the same time,
a new EDSP addressed 3,328 acres within the larger 6,920-acre EDGPA. The EDSP
supplements the EDGPA with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs
and regulations.
The original EDGPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area
with a mixed-use urban community. At buildout, the EDGPA planning area was
projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres
designated for Rural Residential with a 100-acre minimum parcel size. Approximately
10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres, 571 acres of
designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned. Buildout was expected
to occur over a 20-30 year period from the start of construction.
The EDSP encompassed 3,328 acres in the western portion of the EDGPA planning area.
Seventy percent of the EDGPA residential development and 94% of the new commercial
space was planned for the Specific Plan area. The land use plan called for compact
villages with residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment-generating
commercial uses are generally provided along arterials with transit access.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was based on the origina16,920-acre planning area and land use
designations, and 3,328-acre Specific Plan area, both as described above. As required by
CEQA, the EIR also identified project alternatives, including a Reduced Planning Area
(RPA) alternative, which the City Council adopted in a modified form in 1993.
The adopted modified RPA alternative reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres, provided
for buildout of the Specific Plan area and buildout of the EDGPA area only within the
Dublin Sphere of Influence.
2002 Prezoning and Annexation. In 2001, an application was filed with the City by a
number of owners in the Eastern Dublin area to annex the area to the City and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District area (DSRSD). Applications were also filed for
prezoning to the PD-Planned Development Zoning District and a related Stage 1
Development Plan to guide future development of the Fallon Village area. The
annexation and prezoning were approved. These actions all included the Jordan
Property.
Ciry of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~y ~~~~
As required by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the 2002 prezoning included a Stage 1
Development Plan. The 2002 Stage 1 Development Plan covered the entire Fallon
Village Project area and reflects the general land use types, densities and locations
established in the 1993 Eastern Dubliri project approvals. At the time of annexation, the
residential land use intensity was established by using the mid-point of the allowable
density ranges. Retail, industrial and office land use intensity was established by
defined floor area ratio. In approving the 2002 Stage 1 Development Plan, the City
further established ma~cimum development intensities by property. The Stage 1
Development Plan also included a master landscape plan and development phasin~
plan.
Resource Man~ement Plan. In 2003, the City retained a team of consultants to prepare
a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Project area. The RMP implements
mitigation measure SM-BIO-1 adopted with the 2002 annexation and prezoning
approvals. The purpose of the RMP was to address impacts to biological resources in a
coordinated manner across the entire Fallon Village Project area. The effort included
conducting necessary biological analyses and developing necessary protection and / or
management methods. The RMP was accepted by the Dublin City Council in September
2004 and was used as one of the key documents in formulating the amended 2005 Stage
1 Development Plan.
2005 General Plan and Eastern Dublin S~ecific Plan Amendments. These amendments
proposed to include all of the Fallon Village Project area into the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. Also proposed was a Planned Development Rezoning amending the then-existing
Stage 1 Development Plan to modify overall land use patterns within the Fallon Village
area and adopting a Stage 2 Development Plan, a Development Agreement and
Subdivision Map for the approximately 486 acres in the northerly portion of the Fallon
Village area. The 2005 Project also included Williamson Act Contract cancellation for
certain properties.
The 2005 GPA, current Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Stage 1 PD Rezoning designate
the Project site as a mix of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,
Medium-High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Park,
Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square, Open Space and Elementary School site.
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~,
3~~ ~-`~ ~`~i
Table 1. Jordan Ranch Existing Stage 1 Planned Development Land Uses
Land Use Acres Density
(units/acre) Non-
Residential
S . Ft. Dwellings
Sin le-Famil 48.0 4 -- 192
Medium Density
Residential 23.4 10 -- 234
Medium-High
Densit Residential 21.8 20 -- 542
Mixed Use 6.4 15/0.3 FAR 83,635 96
Elementar School 10.0 -- -- --
Nei hborhood Park 5.8 -- -- --
Neighborhood
S uare 2.7 -- -- --
Communi Park 11.1 -- -- --
Semi-Public 2.4 -- -- --
O en S ace 60.5 -- -- --
Total 189.7 -- 83,635 1,064
Source: Dublin City Council Resolution No. 223-05 approved December 6, 2005
Project Characteristics
Overview
The application indudes a request to the City of Dublin for a Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezoning and Development Plan, Site Development Review (SDR), a
Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement.
Sta~e 2 Rezoning and Development Plan. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan for
this Project includes construction of a mix of 780 dwelling units, up to 12,000 square
feet of commercial uses, a range of public parks, public and semi-public uses, open
spaces and roadways. Table 2 includes a statistical summary of proposed uses.
City of Dublin Page 8
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~1~ y ~/
~
Table 2. Jordan Ranch Proposed Stage 2 Planned Development Land Uses
Land Use Density
Ran e* Dwellings Gross
Acres*'` Units/Acre
Low Density
Residential 0.9-6.0 du / ac 252 52.7 4.8
Medium Density
Residential 6.1-14.0 du/ac ' 201 29.2 6.9
Medium-High
Densit Residential 14.1-25 du/ac. 222 15.8 14.1
Mixed Use MU (105 units
+ up to 12,000
sf retail)
105
6.6
15.9
School -- -- 10. i
Communi Park -- -- 11.1
Nei hborhood Park -- -- 5•S
Neighborhood
S uare -- --
- 2•7
Semi-Public -- -- 2.7 (2.0 net)
O en S ace -- -- 52•~
Total -- 780 189.7*** 4.1
* Densiry range contained in existing Stage 1 Planned Development approval
"` Approx. gross acreages of the areas proposed in the Jordan Ranch Project
**" Includes land use adjustment for dedication of land for Positano Pkwy.
Source: Project Applicant, 2010
Development under the proposed Development Plan would be oriented around a major
northeast to southwest drainage swale, which would be preserved as the major open
space feature of the Jordan Ranch Project.
Land uses northwest of the Open Space are would consist of Low Density, single family
dwellings on individual lots as well as a Neighborhood Park. Uses southeast of the
Open Space area would include a mix of cluster houses, small-lot alley-oriented
dwellings, three-story townhouses and townhouses with flats, a community park,
neighborhood square, a mixed -area, public / semi-public uses and a school site.
Exhibit 3 depicts the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan.
Following is a brief description of each major residential component:
Single family dwellings: Up to 252 dwellings would be built in the northwest portion
of the Project site, one on each subdivided lot. Dwellings would be of one-and two-
story construction with attached garages. Dwellings would be setback from adjacent
streets and from interior lot lines.
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~39 ~ ~~ ~.~j ~
~
Cluster dwellings: Up to 111 cluster dwellings would be built on the southeast side of
the main Open Space corridor. This dwelling type would include small two-story
dwellings ranging from approximately 1,596 to 2,111 square feet each. Dwellings
would be constructed in clusters of four dwellings served by private access drives to
individual garages. Maximum building heights would be up to 30 feet above
finished grade.
Small lot alley units: Small lot alley-oriented dwellings would be sited in the
approximate center of the eastern portion of the Project site. Up to 94 dwellings of
this type would be built. Small lot dwellings would contain between 1,510 to 1,931
square feet in four floor plan types. These dwellings would include both two-story
and three-story construction with a maximum height of up to 30 feet above finished
grade. Each dwelling would have a two-car garage access from an alley to the rear of
the dwelling.
Townhouses: Up to 218 townhouse units would be built in the southeast portion of
the Project site. These units would be built as both three-plex and six-plex attached
dwellings in a three-story configuration Townhouses would contain between 1,711
to 2,136 square feet in four floor plans. A two-car garage would be provided for each
dwelling. Maximum heights of the townhouses would be up to 40 feet above final
grade.
Mixed Use Units: The Mixed-Use portion of the Project would be on approximately
6.6 acres of the site on the south side of the extension of Central Parkway adjacent to
the eastern property line of the Project site. This component of the Project would
include up to 105 dwellings and up to 12,000 square feet of retail space. The
proposed design of this area would include flex-retail space on the ground floor
with residential lofts on upper floors.
Buildings in the Mixed-Use component would be constructed in complexes of 7
units each with a three-story configuration. Maximum building heights would be up
to 40 feet above finished grade. Each dwelling would include an enclosed 2-car
garage plus one guest space per each unit.
Precise land uses within the Mixed-Use component of the Project are not known at
this time, but are regulated by the listing of Permitted Uses contained in the existing
Stage 1 Planned Development zoning. Typical uses could be retail commercial uses
(including but not limited to retail sales of clothing, gifts, books and similar), office
and service uses (including but not limited to accountants, architects, hair salons,
travel agents), eating and drinking establishments and residential dwellings.
Parks: The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan includes an approximate 11.1-acre
(gross) Community Park to be located between Central Parkway and the southern
property line, an approximate 5.8-acre Neighborhood Park on the east side of the
Single-Family Home portion of the Site and northwest of the central Open Space
feature. An approximately 2.7-acre Neighborhood Square would be sited in the
southeast corner of the site.
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
`~ ~~..~ ~ ~r
Park sites are shown on Exhibit 3.
Public/Semi-Public Uses: An approximate 2-acre site has been reserved in the
southeast portion of the Project Site for a future semi-public use. This use or uses
will be determined in the future and will be consistent with the intent of the City to
provide a site for such uses as a child-care facility, church or similar use. A 10.1-acre
(gross) Elementary School Site has been reserved on the eastern portion of the
Project site.
Open Space: The primary Open Space feature would be located in the approximate
center of the Project site, in an area currently devoted to site drainage. As required
by the Resource Management Plan, the Open Space area would preserve existing
biological resources on the Jordan ranch property, including wetland features. The
Open Space area would also contain a trail network.
Buildin,~ Desi~ris. The overall design of the site is intended to reflect a time when
simple farmhouses, cottages and barns were the predominant built structures among
the hillsides. The design intent is to create a community that touches upon the history of
the site. To accomplish this, a rural palette of architectural styles is used to develop the
theme: Farmhouse, Cottage, Shingle, Italianate, and Folk Victorian.
The simplicity of the structures is the key element used to evoke this theme. Homes are
proposed to have a basic massing and form, which is the framework of the design
theme. This is an important feature because the architectural style would not have
much ornamentation. Pitch breaks, dormers, lifts and dropped plates accent the
simplicity of the massing and are features that are common to the style.
Modest materials associated with local rural buildings are also important features of the
Project's design theme. These materials are proposed to be used in different
combinations to create both traditional and more contemporary interpretations of the
architectural styles. Examples include:
Elevation Materials:
Lap siding
Shingle siding
Board and Batt siding
Stucco
Roofing Materials:
Composition Shingle
Standing seam metal roofing
Accent Materials:
Brick
Stone
Shutters
Potshelves
City of Dublin Page 11
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~9 ~,~~~-~~
Access and Circulation. Primary access to the Project site would continue to the
provided by Fallon Road. Central Parkway would also be extended in an east-west
direction through the southern portion of the site that would provide access to the
townhouse neighborhoods, the Community Park, the Neighborhood Square, the mixed-
use area and the Semi-Public area. It is intended that Central Parkway would be
extended further east to connect with Croak Road off of the Project site, which is not
part of this Project.
The neighborhood in the northwest portion of the site would be served by three
roadway connections with Fallon Road, one to Positano Parkway and one to the single-
family neighborhood to the north (La Vina).
A number of smaller local roadways would be constructed throughout the Jordan
Ranch site linking each of the neighborhoods, parks and other uses with Central
Parkway and Fallon Road. These roads are shown on Exhibit 3.
Roads would be a mix of public roads, within the single-family neighborhoods, and
private roads in the small lot alley dwellings, townhouse and mixed use
neighborhoods.
In terms of pedestrian access, sidewalks would be provided adjacent to all public roads
and a public trail would be constructed adjacent to both sides of the Open Space
corridor. There would also be a pedestrian and bicycle trail link between the northwest
and southeastern portions of the Project though the Open Space area.
Parkin . Each of the various Project components would include on-site parking for
various uses. Generally, each dwelling would include an enclosed 2-car garage on each
lot. There would also be various open guest parking spaces throughout the Small Lot
Alley Home complex, the Townhouse Complexes and the Mixed-Use Complex.
Utility Services: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSIZSD) would provide domestic
and recycled water to the site as well as wastewater treatment and disposal services.
The Project site has been annexed into DSRSD as part of previous actions relative to
Fallon Village (formerly EDPO) and such services are planned to the Project Site in
accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan.
The Project Developer will be required to install local water•lines as well as paying fees
to DSRSD to assist in funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern
Dublin, consistent with applicable Facility Master Plans.
Wastewater service would require the Project developer to install local underground
sewer lines to transport wastewater to DSRSD's regional treatment plant. Sewer lines
are all proposed to be gravity flow.
Recycled water would be provided to the Project site for use in irrigation of common
open space areas and other areas. This would reduce the need for potable water for the
proposed Project.
Ciry of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~ ~ `-7' ~'
Preliminary drainage plans including collecting stormwater runoff in a series of
underground pipes within streets and easements and transporting drainage flows to a
central pipeline within the main Open Space area. Low-flow stormwater would enter a
water quality pond in the southwest corner of the Jordan Ranch property (described
below) for filtration and cleansing pursuant to clean water requirements before
entering the G-3 regional drainage facility south of the site. Stormwater generated by
development of urban uses on the Jordan Ranch would then flow into the Arroyo
Mocho and ultimately into San Francisco Bay.
Water Quality Protection. The proposed Project will be subject to Best Management
Practices to support water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. For the
jordan Ranch Project, surface stormwater runoff would flow into a multi-purpose
drainage basin located in the southwest portion of the site that would detain water and
also serve as a bio-swale to filter and cleanse stormwater run-off prior to entering the
regional drainage system.
Project Gradin~. The applicant proposes to grade the Project site to allow construction
of the various development areas, extend roadways and improve site drainage.
It is anticipated that grading quantities will balance on site with no need for
import or export of fill material.
Inclusiona~ Housin~Rec~uirements: Dublin s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68)
requires that 12.5 percent of the number of dwelling units in each development project
be restricted for occupancy by very low, low and moderate income households.
Provision of up to 5% of these the 12.5% of the inclusionary units may be satisfied
through payment of an in-lieu fee to the City. Implementation of the City's inclusionary
requirement for this Project will be identified in the Development Agreement.
Phasin~. It anticipated that the proposed Project would be constructed in several
phases. Phasing for the overall proposed Project is unknown and subject to market
demands. Utility connections, access, grading and emergency services would be
provided to meet the requirements of the City of Dublin and other potentially affected
service providers.
Public Art. Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the
Project applicant proposes to pay applicable public art fees to the City to satisfy
requirements for providing public art.
Development A~reement. A Development Agreement is proposed to be executed
between the City of Dublin and the applicant, pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. The terms of the Development Agreement will not result in any significant
environmental impacts beyond those caused by the implementation of the Jordan
Ranch Project that are analyzed in this Initial Study.
Requested land use entitlements
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~~ ~~~~
The following land use entitlements have been requested to allow implementation of
the proposed Project:
• Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and a Stage 2 PD Development Plan;
~ Site Design Review (SDR) approval;
~ A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and
• A Developmerit Agreement.
City of Dublin Page 14
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~~~~
Exhibit 1-Site Location in Eastern Dublin
Ciry of Dublin Page 15
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-I~11
Exhibit 2- Jordan Ranch Site Context
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~ay-~~ ~~~
E~ibit 3-Proposed Stage 2 Development Plan
City of Dublin Page 17
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
y~~~ ~~~
1. Project description The applicant requests approval of a Stage 2
Planned Development rezoning, a Stage 2 PD
Development Plan, Site Development Review
~ approval and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision
map to allow the development of up to 780
dwellings and 12,000 square feet of retail
commercial uses along with a Community
Park, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood
Square, Public/Semi-Public site and a major
Open Space feature on a 189.7 acre site. The
Project also includes approval of a
Development Agreement, extension of
roadways, site grading and extension of
utilities to the site.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
3. Contact person: Mike Porto, Dublin Planning Departrnent
(925) 833 6610
4. Project location: East of Fallon Road, north and south of the
planned extension of Central Parkway
5. Project contact person: Kevin Fryer
Mission Valley Properties
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: (925) 467 9900
6. Existing General Plan Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac.),
Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac.),
Medium-High Density Residential (14.1-25.0
du / ac.), Mixed Use ,Elementary School,
Community Park, Neighborhood Park,
Neighborhood Square, Semi-Public and Open
Space.
8. Existing & Proposed PD-Planned Development
Zoning:
9. Other public agency necessary, potential and/or desired approvals:
Ciry of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~ ~~~
• Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and
Building Permits (Dublin)
• Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
~ Encroachment permits (Dublin)
• Finding of Consistency with Alameda
Co. Airport Land Use Plan (Alameda
County Airport Land Use Commission)
• Notice of Intent (State Water Resources
Control Board)
• 404 Permits (US Army Corps of
Engineers)
• Streambed Alteration Permit (California
Department of Fish and Game)
• Permits from San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Permits from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
t Service
Ciry of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~~ ~`f~~
~
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this
Project, involving at least one impact that is a"potentially significant impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
- Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology / Soils
Resources ~
- Hazards and - Hydrology / Water - Land Use /
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/
Housin
- Public Services - Recreation - Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities / Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Si 'ficance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Addendum will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on
the environxnent, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
Project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project may have a potentially significant
effect, or a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but
at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~ y ~~
focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must
only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant
effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards; and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project, except for
those impacts which were identified as significant and unavoidable and for
which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by the
City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, the
2002 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the 2005 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report will be prepared.
Signature:
Date: April 30, 2010
Printed Name: Michael Porto, Planning Consultant
For: City of Dublin Planning Department
Ciry of Dublin Page 21
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
yn~! ~~I
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers. Certain "no impact"
answers are supported by the information sources the lead agency cites in
the parenthesis following each question. A"no impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone), or, in this case, there is no
impact of the proposed project beyond tliat which was considered
previously in the 1993 EIR, and / or the 2002 SEIR, and / or the 2005 SEIR,
and / or for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted
by the City Council at the time the 1993 EIR and / or the 2002 SEIR and / or
2005 SEIR was certified. A"no impact" answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as
well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as
direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. It there are one or more "potentially
significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures
has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a"less than
significant impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-Ot 1
~~ a ~ ~ `~/
EnvirOnmental ImpSCts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,2,6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1,2,6)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 6)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: l, 6)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,3, 4)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 6,7)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,3,6)
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following deternunations). Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2,3,4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less T'han
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 23
April 30, 2010
~' ~ I ~~ ~`~~
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(2,3,4)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 2,3,4)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Source: 6,7)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?(Source: 2,3 ,4,7)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or
other means?
(Source: Source: 2,3,4,7)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3,4)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3,4)
Potentially
Sign~cant
Impact I.ess Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 24
April 30, 2010
~-.z ~ ~i9i
fl Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 1,3,4)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,4,6)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,4,6)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2,4,6)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
intened outside of a formal cemetery? (Z)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2,
5,7)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 6)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (2, 6)
iv) Landslides? (2, 5)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 2,6)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 2, 6)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 2, 6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation L.ess than
Sign~cant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 25
April 30, 2010
~1 ~J ~ ~~~
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: i, 2)
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazazd to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 2, 4, 7)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 2, 4, 7)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2, 4, 7)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 7)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted
within two miles of a public airport of public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2, 4)
fl For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2, 4)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(Source: 2, 4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation L.ess than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 26
April 30, 2010
~~~~~gi
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,2,7)
8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 4)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (2,4)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2,4)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 4, 7)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 6)
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 4)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 2,7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 27
April 30, 2010
4i ~ ~ ~q~
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 2,7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (2)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 4)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,
2,4)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(1, 2,4)
10. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1,
2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source: l, 2)
11. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (5)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 4, 5)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (5)
Ciry of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 28
April 30, 2010
~- /~ ~ ~!`~/
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (5)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working n the project area to excessive noise
levels? (2,4)
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2,4)
12. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 2, 7)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (6, 7)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Source: 6, 7)
13. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities; the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service rations,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? (Sources: 2)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
' X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 29
April 30, 2010
~`~73b~~r
14. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Source: 2,4)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2,4)
15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (4)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (4)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as fann
equipment? (4)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4)
~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? (48)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(4)
Ciry of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 30
April 30, 2010
~~~~~~~
16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (2,4)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(2, 6)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (4,7
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?(3)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (4)
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (2)
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Ciry of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 31
April 30, 2010
~~ ~~~~~~~
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
1. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR
3. 2002 Supplemental EIR
4. 2005 Supplemental EIR
5. Project Acoustic Report (2010)
6. Site Visit
7. Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review. ~
The following Environmental Impact Reports have been used in the preparation
of the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business
hours. Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference
into this Initial Study.
• Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH
#91103064)
• East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, January 2002 and Final SEIR
(March 2002) (SCH #2001052114)
• Fallon Village Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,
August 2005 and Final SEIR (SCH #2005062010)
Ciry of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~ ~~i
This Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental review than that
performed in these prior certified EIRs is required for the Jordan Ranch Project
under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines
section 15162 and 15163. This Initial ~tudy analyzes whether the proposed Jordan
Ranch Project will result in any new or substantially more severe significant
environmental impacts than those analyzed in the prior EIIZs or whether any other
of the standards requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met.
If the Initial Study determines that there are no new or substantially more severe
environxnental impacts than those analyzed in the prior EIRs and no CEQA
standard for subsequent or supplemental review is met, then the impact is identified
as "No New Impact."
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial StudylJordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~i~~ ~~`~l
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Settin~
The Project is set in an existing rural area of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to
urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993.
The Project site is characterized by a combination of rolling hills and grasslands with
shallow to moderate topographic relief. Portions of the site adjacent to Fallon Road are
typically flatter and contained a farmstead, since removed. A number of native and
non-native trees are located on the Site and no major rock outcroppings are found on
the Site.
The closest scenic highway to the Project site is the I-580 freeway to the south. The
Jordan Ranch property has limited visibitility from I-580 from the south, with direct
views blocked by low hills located directly south of the site, north of the freeway. No
portions of the Project site are identified as a"Visually Sensitive Ridgeline-Restricted
Development."
Surrounding properties consist of similar uses, including moderate to steeply sloping
areas to the east and south, towards the I-580 freeway. There are no existing public
parks, trails, public vistas or other public gathering places on the Site.
As a largely rural, undeveloped area, no light sources exist on the Project site.
Regulatory framework and Previous EIRs
Dublin General Plan. The Project Site is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended
Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 in Section 2.1.4 of the General Plan states that
"proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further,
Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all
applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
(EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 3,400 acres of land in
the Eastern Dublin area.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project.
These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.8 / 1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract
development (IM 3.8/B) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires
future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~i~~~ y~1~
character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Mitigation Measure 3.8 / 2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8 / B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8 / B would remain
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8 / 3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural
features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8 / C) but
not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features.
Mitigation Measures 3.8 / 4.0-4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of hillsides (IM 3.8 /D) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require implementation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies
including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading,
use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction,
using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside
to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes.
Mitigation Measures 3.8 / 5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of ridges (IM 3.8 / E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north
and east but allow development on foreground hills. The measures also limit
development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would
extend above a ridge top.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8 / 7.0 and 7/ 1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8 / I)
to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of
designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of
the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds.
Neither the 2002 nor the 2005 Supplemental EIRs identified additional visual impacts or
mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Many of the mitigation measures are also EDSP policies and programs. The 2005 SEIR
contains an extensive listing of EDSP policies related to visual resources in the Fallon
Village Project area (DEIR pp. 196-197).
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. in 1996, the City of Dublin adopted
' scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern Dublin
Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document identifies the Site as lying within
Zone 5, the Fallon Village Open Space area. This corridor area is defined primarily by
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~a~ ~~~ ~~ I
lands adjacent to public rights-of-way, which should be park, rural residential, open
slopes or riparian drainage areas.
Policy 11 states that development should "celebrate open space, with distant views as
well as with foreground view and right-of-way landscaping."
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to all applicable mitigation measures
from previous EIRs and other land use regulations dealing with aesthetics, visual
conditions and light and glare.
Project Im~acts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. Approval and
implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impacts regarding
scenic vistas, since no such areas exist on the Site. Approval and implementation
of the Project would create several public gathering places on the site, including
a Community Park, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square and central Open
Space feature, so that residents and visitors would have an opportunity to take
advantage of views of nearby and distant hillsides. No new or substantially more
severe impacts regarding substantial adverse unpacts on scenic vistas have been
identified with regard to the proposed Project that have not been analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or other SEIRs.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic
highway? No New Impact. The proposed Project would include grading of the
site to create flat building pads, parking areas, park areas, roads and similar
areas, all of which would change the visual character of the Project site. Such
grading has been anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as the two
subsequent SEIRs and the proposed Jordan Ranch Project will be required to
adhere to existing Mitigation Measures (identified in the Regulatory Framework
section, above) to reduce potential damage to scenic resources to a less-than-
significant level. The majority of proposed buildings on site would be blocked
from the south by the existing low hills immediately to the south. No
development would occur on any visually sensitive ridge tops as defined in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Motorists using I-580 would likely see proposed grading of the higher elevations
of the site. Graded areas would be revegetated as required by Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 28.0 to ensure that graded areas would blend in with
existing natural slopes.
All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and visual
policies contained in the EDSP would apply to this Project. The Project would
result in no new or substantially more severe significant impacts regarding
scenic resources than have been analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New
Impact. The proposed Project includes approving and implementing
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~ ~ ~ `7 ~~
development-level land use entitlements on the Project site. Aesthetic impacts
would include disturbance of existing vegetation, paving of undeveloped land to
create project roadways and grading to create development areas. The Eastern
Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and
aesthetics impacts of implementing the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Impact 3.8/B: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter
the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following measure to mitigate this impact
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the Project site
which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features..." However, the
EIR conduded that even with adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and
open space in the Project area would remain a potentially significant impact.
A potential visual impact would be grading and recontouring of the site, which
would be required to facilitate the proposed development. The Eastern Dublin
EIR addresses this potential through Impact 3.8/B and includes mitigation to
reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. The proposed Project
includes the same overall types, locations and intensity of land use as assumed in
prior EIRs, however, fewer dwellings would be constructed on the site than have
been previously analyzed. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan shows the
dwellings can be accommodated consistent with adopted mitigation measures
and EDSP policies. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts have
been identified in this Initial Study than were previously analyzed in the prior
EIRs.
d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The Project site contains no light sources
and construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in
the form of streetlights along collector and interior roads as well as new housing
and yard lights. The potential effect of increased light and glare was analyzed in
the Initial Studies for the 2002 SEIR (p. 77) and the 2005 SEIR. These analyses
concluded that no significant light and glare impacts would result from
development of the EDSP in the Fallon Village area. City development
requirements to restrict spillover of unwanted light will apply to this proposed
Project. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts have
been identified with respect to light and glare impacts than have been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Settin~ and Previous CEQA Documents
Figure 3.1-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the Project site as "lands of
locally important farmlands." Impact 3.1 / F found that the cumulative loss of
agricultural lands was a significant and unavoidable impact of urban development in
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
425~~ ~1 ~E
the Eastern Dublin planning area. Impact 3.1 / C found the discontinuance of
agricultural operations to be less-than-significant.
The Project site is currently vacant and has historically been used for cattle grazing,
although no cattle are currently on the site. Existing zoning is PD-Planned
Development. No Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements have been recorded
on the Project site based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Figure
3.1-C.)
The 2002 SEIR found no new supplemental impacts with respect to prime agricultural
lands in the Fallon Village area beyond those analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR.
The Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR (Appendix 1) found that potential impacts to
agricultural resources were less-than-significant and no supplemental analysis of this
topic was included in that SEIR.
Project Im~acts
a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use ? No New Impact.
Conversion of the site to urban uses was planned in the Eastern Dublin GPA and
SP, and analyzed in the EDEIR and 2002 SEIR. The Project site is vacant and is
not currently used for agricultural production or cattle grazing, although it was
farmed in the past. The site is surrounded on two sides--north and west --with
urban development. The property north of the site has been developed with the
Positano residential community. A Community Park is being built just west of
the site by the City of Dublin. Therefore, approval and implementation of the
proposed Project would result in no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts than have been analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No
New Impact. The proposed Project is presently zoned for urban uses and would
not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning and would not conflict with a
Williamson Act Agreement, since none exist on the Property. Therefore, no
impacts would result with respect to these topics.
3. Air Quality
Air ~ollution climatolo~v. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is
determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to
transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are
wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
The Project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub
regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The
Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains.
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~a~~jygl
Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San
Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air
pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, pratected valley, the area
has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared
to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion
conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically.
Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly
prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both
morning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution
potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall.
High temperatures increase the poteritial for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally
generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors froin
upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between
the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
Ambient air c~uality standards
Criteria Pollutants. Both the U. S. Environxnental Protection Agency and the California
Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common
pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that
represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each
pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants
because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria
documents. Table 3 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects
and major sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are
summarized in Table 4.
The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related
effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the
California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and
particulate matter (PMIO and PMZ.S).
Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that
consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets
of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and
can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust.
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~a~ ~ ~~~
"Inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined
as "suspended particulate matter" or PMlo. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5). PMZ.S, by definition, is included in PMIO-
Ambient air c~ualitv. The state and federal ambient air quality standards cover a wide
variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either
due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD
maintains a network of monitoring sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the Project site is
in Livermore. Table 5 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring
site for the period 2005-2007. Table 5 shows that the federal ambient air quality
standards for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley, and state standards for ozone
and PMIO are exceeded.
Attainment status and regional air quality plans. The federal Clean Air Act and the
California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air
quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state
ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas." Because of the
differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non-attainment
areas is different under the federal and state legislation.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as
a non-attainment area for the federal S-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PMlo and PM2.5 standards.
Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is a non-attainment area for ozone
and particulate matter (PMlo and PM2.5). The county is either attainment or unclassified
for other pollutants.
Air districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air.
Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future
emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and combine that
information with air monitoririg data (used to assess progress in improving air quality)
and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in
order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor
vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area
Goverrunents. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone
standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard.
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial StudylJordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~ ~~i
Table 3. Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Ozone A highly reactive photochemical Eye Irritation The major sources
pollutant created by the action of Respiratory function ozone precursors are
sunshine on ozone precursors impairment. combustion sources
(primarily reactive hydrocarbons such as factories and
and oxides of nitrogen. Often automobiles, and
called photochemical smog. evaporation of
solvents and fuels.
Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, Impairment of oxygen Automobile exhaust,
Monoxide colorless gas that is highly toxic. It transport in the combustion of fuels,
is formed by the incomplete bloodstream. combustion of wood
combustion of fuels. Aggravation of in woodstoves and
cardiovascular disease. fireplaces.
Fatigue, headache,
confusion, dizziness.
~ Can be fatal in the case
of very high
concentrations.
Nitrogen Reddish-brown gas that discolors Increased risk of acute Automobile and
Dioxide the air, formed during combustion. and chronic respiratory diesel truck exhaust,
disease. industrial processes,
fossil-fueled power
lants.
Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas Aggravation of chronic Diesel vehicle
with a pungent, initating odor. obstruction lung exhaust, oil-
disease. powered power
IncTeased risk of acute plants, industrial
and chronic respiratory processes.
disease.
Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, Aggravation of chronic Combustion,
Matter soot, aerosols and other matter disease and heart/lung automobiles, field
which are small enough to remain disease symptoms. burning, factories
suspended in the air for a long and unpaved roads.
period of time. Also a result of
photochemical
processes.
Source: Donald Bailanti, 2009
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property Apri130, 2010
PA 09-011
~~ ~~~~
~
Table 4. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
• Standard
Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.075 PPM 0.07 PPM
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.18 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PMlo Annual Average -- 20 Ng/m3
24-Hour 150 ~ag / m3 50 N/ m3
PMZ,S Annual 15 Ng/m3 12 Ng/m3
24-Hour 35 Ng / m3 --
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 Ng/m3 --
30 Day Average -- 1.5 N/ m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 Ng/m3 --
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM --
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM --
PPM = Parts per Million
g/m 3= Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04 / 01 / 08)
http:/ /www.arb.ca.~ov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~i3o ~~~
~
Table 5. Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005-2007
Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In:
2005 2006 2007
Ozone State 1-Hour 6 13 2
Ozone State 8-Hour 7 15 3
Ozone Federal8-Hour 1 5 1
PMlo Federa124-Hour 0 0 0
PMlo State 24-Hour 0 3 2
PM2.5 Federa124-Hour 0 0 0
Carbon
Monoxide State/Federal
8-Hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen
Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 0
Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http:
//www.arb.ca.gov./adam/cg i-bin/adamto p/d2wstart)
Sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where
sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the
chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools
playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and
medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site include existing
residences just north of the site (Positano) and proposed City parks on the Project site
and to the west of the site. A school site is included on the east side of the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and the
SEIRs in 2002 and 2005, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change
has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in
2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which
set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the Project's
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 and 2005 SEIRs. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and
SEIRs have been certified , the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate
change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on
supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not
required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).)
Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known
or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR and SEIIts were
certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~f`~l ~ ,~I ~'~~
the certification of these EIIts. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce
climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early
1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were
extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2005, the Governor issued
Executive Order # S-03-05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in
California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on
climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in
May 1993 and the certification of the SEIRs in 2002 and 2005. Under CEQA standards, it
is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative
declaration. No environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required
under CEQA.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed both construction and operational
impacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality
impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 reduced project construction dust impacts
(IM 3.11 / A) to less than significant through measures such as watering
construction sites, covering exposed construction surfaces and trucks, and
cleaning construction vehicles. The cumulative impact remained
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related
to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11 /B) but not to a less-
than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site
equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even
with adherence to these mitigations, this impact remained significant and
unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11 /5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG
and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures
require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures,
many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to
adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C remained significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11 /E) but not to a less-than-
significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable.
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~~~~i
2002 SEIR. The 2002 Supplemental EIR found two supplemental air quality impacts, as
follows:
• Supplemental Impact AQ-1 found that mobile source emissions of Reactive
Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM-10)
would be significant as related to the overall EDPO Project. Even with adherence
to the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, these emissions would be a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
~ Supplemental Impact AQ-2 found that emission of carbon monoxide that would
be generated from vehicle trips as a result of project buildout would not exceed
local, state or federal standards for emission of carbon monoxide. This impact
was therefore less-than-significant.
2005 SEIR. The 2005 Supplemental EIR found three supplemental air quality impacts, as
follows:
Supplemental Impact SM-AQ-1 identified supplemental impacts with respect to
construction related air quality impacts and that the overall development
envelope associated with the Fallon Village project was larger than analyzed in
previous CEQA documents. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-1
requires more stringent measures to be undertaken by individual developers in
the Fallon Village area to reduce construction air quality impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Supplemental Impacts SM-AQ-2 and SM-AQ-3 found that regional air emissions
associated with vehide trips in the overall Fallon Village project area would
exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors. The SEIR
included Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 to reduce these impacts,
however, the items included in this Supplemental Mitigation Measure would not
reduce regional emissions below BAAQMD standards and these impacts
remained significant and unavoidable.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures
set forth in previous CEQA documents.
Pro~ect Im~acts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11 / E regarding increased
stationary source air emissions from future development of Eastern Dublin that
would remain significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.11 / 12.0 and 13.0. The Eastern Dublin EIR also assumed increased development
in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay
Area, and identified cumulative mobile source impact IM 3.11 / C as significant and
unavoidable, even after mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specifie Plan, the City adopted a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for these two impacts.
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~~ ~' - ~/ °I I
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (ABAG) Clean Air Plan is
predicated on population projections for local agencies within the District based on
ABAG's Projections '09, which, in turn is based on a compilation of local agency
general plan documents. Development allowed under the proposed Project would
be consistent with the type and amount of development allowed under the Dublin
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would contain
approximately 284 fewer residential units than currently approved. There would
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than has been previously analyzed in
the prior EIRs.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? No New Impact.
Pro~ct and cumulative air emission im~acts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11 / C).
Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact,
including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program,
encouragement of mixed-use developments and similar measures, any reduction
of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
This conclusion was reiterated in both the 2002 and 2005 SEIR documents.
Construction air impacts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for
construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust
controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air
pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-
significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11 / 1.0 in the East Dublin EIR identifies the
construction controls that provide reduction of air emissions during construction
phases of development projects and the Project applicant will be required to
adhere to these requirements. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0
has been supplemented with 2005 SEIR Mitigation MeasureSM-AQ-1 to ensure
that current BAAQMD construction air quality impacts are reduced to a less-
than-significant level. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact.
See item "b."
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors? No New Impact The proposed Project would include primarily a residential
development with a small non-residential (approximately 12,000 square foot)
component that would be retail use as part of a mixed-use development. This type
of use and its limited size, unlike manufacturing, industrial or similar land uses,
does notgenerate significant pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors.
Therefore, significant impacts on adjacent sensitive residence uses would not
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~ ~~i ~i~~
~
result. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior
EIIZs.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Settin~
Much of the Environmental Setting section for the Jordan Ranch property is based on a
document entitled "Biological Assessment for the Jordan Ranch Development Project"
dated October 2009 authored by Olberding Environmental, Inc. This document
confirms the biological conditions on the Project site previously described in the prior
EIRs. It also contains the proposed plan for implementing the mitigations measures
required in the prior EIRs. This document is hereby incorporated by reference into this
Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development
Department during normal business hqurs.
Plant communities
Seven habitat types have been identified on the Jordan Ranch site. These include:
Annual grasslands. Annual grasslands consist of grass and forb species such a wild
oat, soft chess, ripgut brome, thistle and similar species. Much of the property is
characterized by this species type.
Wetlands. A number of seasonal and perennial wetlands, seeps and others waters are
present on the Project site. Perennial wetlands were found in the southwestern
corner of the site, at the confluence of a number of drainage swales. Seasonal
wetlands were primarily found within drainage swales as well as a number of
seasonal ponds on the site.
Wetland drainage swale. A number of major northeast-southwest trending drainage
swales are present on the site. Vegetation types in the swale areas include grasses
and forbs, such as rabbits foot grass, Italian rye grasses, spike rush, curley dock and
creeping wild rye. Three patches of Congdon's Tarplant have also been observed in
the swale areas.
Riparian. Riparian habitat was observed in the southwestern corner of the site at the
confluence of three swales. A number of willow trees form a dense to moderately
dense canopy over the lower reaches of the swale area.
Stock pond/ornamental pond. Three stock ponds are found on the site within the
drainage swales. A 0.29-acre pond is the largest of the ponds found on the site and is
located adjacent to the former homestead, since removed. The pond is surrounded
riparian vegetation, such as cattails, common rush and fiddle dock.
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~/ ~~ ~~ ~t =~'~ ~
~~-~
Alkali meadow. Alkali meadow habitat is located at the northern portion of the site in
association with the wetland drainage swales, Vegetation in this habitat includes salt
grass, common tarweed, Mediterranean barley and similar vegetative types.
Developed/landscaped. The portion of the Project site formerly occupied by the
residence and associated outbuildings is characterized by non-native ornamental
landscaping, such as eucalyptus trees, juniper and similar material.
Special-status species and habitats
The three previous EIRs which include the surrounding Fallon Village Project and
Eastern Dublin area, identify a wide range of special-status plant and wildlife species.
These are identified in Section 3.7 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, Section 3.3 of the 2002
Supplemental EIR and Section 4.7 of the 2005 Supplemental EIR.
A more recent biological resource analysis has been prepared for the Jordan Ranch
property by Olberding Environmental, Inc. in October 2009. This report is incorporated
by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours. The 2009 Olberding report
identified the presence of wetlands and waters of the State of California on the site. One
special-status plant species was found on the site: Congdon's tarplant. Drainages and
stock ponds on the site provide suitable breeding and forging habitat for California
Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) species and such species have been identified on the site.
Stock ponds also provide suitable breeding habitat for the western pond turtle,
although such species were not found.
Annual grassland habitat on the site provides suitable habitat for a variety protected
bird / raptor species, including golden eagle, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk,
northern harrier, while-tailed kite and Long-billed Curlew.
Previous EIRs
The regulatory framework for this Project includes previous EIRs and regulations for
protection of biological resources.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
management plan by the City of Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation
removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0
requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011 '
~.3 ~ ~ ~i 9~
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7 / C) to a less-than-significant level. These
measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream
corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development
projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of
individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
~ Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit
fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require
consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit
fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires
completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black shouldered kite, sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard, as well as
other protected species.
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
2002 Supplement. This EIR identified a large number of supplemental biological
mitigation measures for the entire Fallon Village project area, identified as
Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-1 through SM-BIO-45. The supplemental
mitigation measures require completion of rare plant and wildlife surveys, preparation
of a Resource Management Plan (RMP), avoid or replace wetlands.
2005 Supplement. This Supplement identifies additional supplemental impacts and
mitigation measures, as listed below. A number of the supplemental mitigation
measures are revisions to mitigation measures contained in earlier EIRs. Supplemental
mitigation measures are:
Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 requires the restoration or enhancement of
riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (on an acreage basis), preferably within the
proposed aquatic and buffer zone or corridor zone management areas on-site. If
mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall
mitigate impacts to central coast riparian scrub through the restoration or
enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off-site
location acceptable to the City.
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~ `~ ~ - ~l`~l
~
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 requires that if avoidance is infeasible, then
mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for CRLF shall be preserved
and protected in perpetuity.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 requires individual developers of parcels to create
and / or enlarge suitable breeding ponds at a 2:1 ratio, in or adjacent to areas
currently supporting CTS and with sufficient surrounding upland habitat to
provide a high likelihood of establishment and persistence of a breeding
population.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 requires developers of individual parcels to
acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland habitat at a 1:1 ratio in or adjacent
to areas currently supporting CTS and within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding
pond.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 (revised) requires special steps to be taken by
individual developers if special-status plants cannot be avoided during project
construction.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (revised) requires that during the breeding season
(February 1-August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a
particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding season but prior to the
initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG
protocols to determine whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if present, the
number of nesting pairs of Burrowing Owls present on the parcel.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 (revised) requires pre-construction surveys for
burrowing owls be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any ground
disturbance between September 1 and January 31.
Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (revised) requires that if construction is scheduled
during the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1- August 31), pre-
construction surveys should be conducted on the entire site-specific Project area
and ,within 500 feet of such Project area prior to any ground disturbance. A
minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) shall be maintained during the breeding
season around active burrowing owl nesting.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-5 (revised) requires that if destruction of occupied
(breeding or non-breeding season) burrowing owl burrows, or any burrows that
were found to be occupied during pre-construction surveys, is unavoidable, a
strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing
burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures
set forth in previous EIRs and the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration
Program.
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
y 3 ~ ~j`~~
~
Resource Management Plan (RMP). Consultants working for the City of Dublin completed
a Resource Management Plan in 2004. Completion of the RMP was required as a result
of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 contained in the 2002 Supplemental
EIR. The RMP evaluated potential impacts to sensitive biological resources on the
Eastern Dublin Property Owners' area, an approximately 1120-acre area that was
analyzed in both the 2002 and 2005 Supplemental EIRs. The RMP includes a
comprehensive analysis of sensitive plant and wildlife species within the area, potential
habitat for such species and the presence of wetlands and other waters. The RMP also
includes a constraints analysis to guide future development of properties included in
the RMP study area.
Project Im~acts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant
species, seventeen special status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species,
and ten special status invertebrate species which could potentially occur within
the entire Eastern Dublin planning area (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21.)
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, new special status species have been
addressed in the 2002 and 2005 SEIR documents. No new species have been
identified on the Project site as part of this Initial Study and no supplemental
impacts would result.
As identified in the previous EIRs and the most recent Olberding Report and
WRA peer review letter (Appendix 1), approval and implementation of the
proposed Project could impact individual species and habitats for Contra Costa
Goldfields, a federally listed endangered plant species, California Tiger
Salamander, California red-legged frog, Western pond turde, Burrowing owl,
Great Horned owl, Red-Shouldered hawk, ferruginous hawk, American Kestrel,
loggerhead shrike and American badger.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status
species (Policies 6-17 and 6-20). The proposed development Project will adhere to
the Specific Plan policies and all previously adopted mitigation measures, as
applicable.
As recommended in the WRA peer review letter, no additional preconstruction
surveys for California Tiger Salamander and California Red-Legged Frog are
needed since presence of these species on the site have been confirmed.
However, as a condition of approval which implements the mitigation measures
in the prior EIRs for protection of special status species and the applicant agrees
to, the WRA report recommends a pre-construction survey for Lawrence's
Goldfinch, a USFWS bird species of special concern.
As identified in previous EIRs for the Eastern Dublin area, impacts associated
with loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats on a Project and
cumulative level (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.7/ C, and 2002 SEIR Impact BIO 3)
will remain Significant and Unavoidable for this Project as well. There would
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~' ~ ~~~
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitaf or federally protected wetlands?
No New Impact. The 2005 SEIR and RMP identify ponds and wetland area on
the Jordan Ranch property. Implementation of the proposed Project would
impact these wetland areas, associated riparian habitat and special-status species
within and adjacent to these wetland areas.
Consistent with adopted Mitigation Measures in previous CEQA documents, the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Project applicant will provide a combination of
preserved on-site weflands and suitable replacement wetland habitat and
foraging area off of the Project site. The Project applicant will also obtain
necessary federal, state and local permits in order to undertake this mitigation
plan. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the
prior EIRs.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. The
existing major drainage northeast-southwest trending drainage swale on the
Project site would remain and be enhanced to ensure that existing movement of
wildlife species would not be blocked. This would be a less-than-significant
impact. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
e, fl Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New
Impact. The Project Property contains a number of trees that would be removed
when the property is graded. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the
Project applicant will adhere to the City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance and
replace heritage trees lost at a ratio consistent with the City's Heritage Tree
Ordinance. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settin~
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the two Supplemental EIRs contain a comprehensive
listing of historic, archeological, Native American and other cultural resources in the
overall Eastern Dublin area. No structures on the Jordan property are identified as
historic sites in the Eastern Dublin EIR (reference Chapter 3.9, Cultural Resources).
The Jordan Ranch site does not contain any structures, so that no~above ground historic
resources are present on the site.
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~40 ~9/
As required by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-CUL-3 contained in the 2005
SEIR, a site-specific cultural resources assessment was prepared by the firm of Basin
Research Associates dated June 9, 2009. The Basin Report is incorporated by reference
into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Development Services
Departrnent during normal business hours.
The Basin Report summarized comprehensive research on Site CA-Ala-508H on the
Project site, including a field visit and subsurface testing using a backhoe. The Report
found a less-than-significant quantity of subsurface cultural material at this identified
site. Previous archeological materials reported in the 2005 SEIR on the Jordan Ranch site
were not found. The one artifact found (a slab metate) was likely a former surface
artifact that was buried through natural or mechanical means. The Basin Report did not
recommend additional testing, however, the following recommendations should be
included as conditions of Project approval which implements the mitigation measures
in the prior EIRs for protection of cultural resources and the applicant agrees to:
a) Spot monitoring of construction excavations shall be undertaken during site
clearing and excavations of up to five feet in depth. The monitoring program
shall be at the discretion of the Project archeologist.
b) Project grading specifications shall include warning language to alert the
contractor as to the potential for buried cultural resources.
c) A minimum of one meeting shall be held between the Project archeologist and
grading contractors for a briefing on procedures to be followed in the event of
discovering a cultural artifact.
d) If any cultural artifacts are exposed or discovered during site clearing or grading,
operations shall cease within a 30-foot radius of the find and the Project
archeologist consulted for evaluation and further recommendations. Possible
recommendations could include further evaluation, collection, recordation and
analysis of such find, followed by completion of a professional report.
e) Treatment of any Native American burials found during construction shall be in
accordance with the requirements of the State of California Public Resources
Code, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission.
Previous EIRs.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated
impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. Mitigation
measure applicable to this Project include:
Mitigation Measures 3.9 / 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result
of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources. These measures
require approval of a program for testing for presence or absence of midden
deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of such resources on
State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to develop a
protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA.
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~iti~ y ~ i
~
• Mitigation Measures 3.9 / 5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less-than-
significant level.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR sets forth no new cultural resource impacts or mitigation
measures.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified Supplemental Impact CUL-3 regarding cultural
resource site C-ALA-508H on the Jordan site. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-
CUL-3 requires a detailed cultural resources assessment for the identified cultural site
prior to the approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan on the Jordan Ranch. The
assessment shall determine of the cultural site is eligible for listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources and any recommendations made in the cultural
resources assessment shall be incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan as
conditions of approval. This assessment has been performed by Basin Research
Associates as described above.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable cultural resource
mitigation measures contained in previous EIRs.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. No
historic resources exist on the Jordan Ranch based on a historic resources survey
conducted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR, so there would no impacts with
regard to historic resources on the site that have not been analyzed in previous
EIRs. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the
prior EIRs.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources or human remains? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin
EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction
activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover
significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites.
Mitigation Measures 3.9 / 1.0 through 3.9 / 4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) require
subsurface testing for archeological resources if such are found during site
disturbance; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a
protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Appendix
K of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9 / 5.0 and 3.9 / 6.0, described
above, also were adopted to address Eastern Dublin IM 9/ B, the potential
disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and would
apply to the Project as may be appropriate.
The Basin Report completed for the proposed Project did not identify the
presence of significant archeological resources on the Project site, although a
number of recommendations are included in the Report (listed above) that will
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~i~ia ~' y9/
made conditions of Project approval which implement the mitigation measures
in the prior EIRs for protection of cultural resources and the applicant agrees to.
No new or substantially more severe impacts with regard to archeological or
paleontological impacts have been identified than were previously analyzed in
the prior EIRs.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No
New Impact. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human
resources could be uncovered on the Jordan Ranch during grading and
construction activities. At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the
potential for impacts on unknown and unsurveyed human remains was not a
separate CEQA checklist item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. Former Appendix K, Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed
human remains, which provisions now have been incorporated into CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 and apply to the Project pursuant to Mitigation
Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. However, this potential impact was analyzed as part
of the 2005 SEIR and addressed by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-CUL-1.
Recommendation of Item "e" of the Basin Report, above, also applies to the
potential discovery of Native American resources.
No new or more substantially severe impacts are anticipated with regard to
disturbance of human remains than have been previously identified and no new
mitigation measures are required.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Settin~
Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the
Eastern Dublin EIR and reviewed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. As a
result of the 2002 review, it was determined that soils, geologic and seismic
conditions did not present any new potentially significant impacts when
compared with the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore not reassessed in detail in
the 2002 SEIR.
No new or more severe soil or geotechnical ixnpacts were identified on the
Jordan Ranch site in the 2005 SEIR.
Topography on the Jordan Project site is chazacterized by low to moderately
sloping hills that are divided by three drainage swales. Swales trend from
northeast to southwest with a generally flatter area in the southwest corner of the
site which formerly housed a farmstead complex, since removed.
Previous EIRs
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~'~ 1-r~l
~
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General
Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of
earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6 / B) but not to a less-than-significant level.
This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure
facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/2.0-8.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects
of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9 / C) to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of
unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of
engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered
fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial
alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations
require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of
homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM
3.6 / H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation
of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of
moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design.
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope
stability (IM 3.6 / I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate
formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical
reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on
downslopes of unstable soils, removal / reconstruction of potentially unstable
slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage
improvements.
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope
stability (IM 3.6 / J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include
developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associated
cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building
codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and
minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas
and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas.
~ Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term
construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6 / K) to a less-than-
significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid
the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control
measures.
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~ ~~i
~
• Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and
sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes
installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects,
including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded
areas and similar measures.
2005 Supplemental EIR. The 2005 SEIR included one additional mitigation measure.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure GEO-1 deals with grading of steeper slopes on
properties north of the Jordan Ranch and does not apply to this Project.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable soil, geologic and
seismic mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Project Im~acts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? No New Impact. Although the Project is not located within an
Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the Eastern Dublin EIR
identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground shaking (Impacts
3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced
to a less-than-significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to
lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure
failure, major structural damage and loss of life.
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6 / 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on
proposed project improvements to a less-than-significant level.
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 20.0 through 3.6 / 26.0 by the Project
developer will ensure that effects of landsliding and ground failure on proposed
Project improvements will be less-than-significant.
There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the
prior EIRs.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact.
Construction of the proposed project improvements on the Jordan Ranch would
modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and
infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and
sedimentation caused by grading activities (see Eastern Dublin EIR Impact
3.6 / K). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface
and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/L). The
Project applicant will be required, as a standard condition of Project approval by
the City of Dublin, to prepare and implement an erosion control plan, consistent
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~iy.~ r~~ I
.~
with City of Dublin and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
an erosion control plan, impacts related to substantial erosion and loss of topsoil
would be less-than-significant. There would therefore be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been
previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Portions of the Project
site are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential, which have the
potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern Dublin
EIR Impact 3.6/H). With adherence to the mitigation measures contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, potential shrink-swell impacts would be less-than-significant.
Consistent with applicable mitigation measures, the Project developer has
retained a qualified soils and geotechnical consultant to prepare a site-specific
analysis of the Project site. Recommendations included in the Project soils report
will be reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and will be
included in grading and constructions plans and specifications to comply with
Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and EDSP policies regarding soil
hazards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No
New Impact. Proposed residences on the Project site would be connected to
sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard
to septic systems. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Settin~
The 2005 SEIR, prepared for the Fallon Village Project area of which the Jordan Ranch
Property site is a component, identified a number of Supplemental Impacts and
Supplemental Mitigation Measures for individual properties included in the Fallon
Village project area. _
Supplemental Impact HAZ-2 identified the possibility of soil and/or groundwater
contamination and the exposure of individuals from release of such materials, including
portions of the Jordan Property. Supplemental Mitigation Measure HAZ-3b requires
remediation of contamination on a number of sites within the Fallon Village area,
including the Jordan Ranch. In addition, Supplemental Mitigation Measure 3b requires
the Jordan Ranch owner to inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Services
Department of an unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (diesel and gasoline) in the
vicinity of a removed underground storage tank on the property. Additional subsurface
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~~~~
investigation was then required to identify the extent of possible contamination and to
evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination. Also, the supplemental
mitigation measure required completion of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to
determine if any soil or groundwater contamination exists near former barn structures..
A Phase I& II Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared for the Jordan Ranch
by the firm of ATC Associates, Inc., dated June 9, 2008. The report is hereby
incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and the report is available for review at
the Dublin Development Services Department during normal business hours.
Previous EIRs
The 2005 SEIR contains the following supplemental mitigation measures related to
hazards and hazardous materials.
• Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-1 requires preparation of site-specific analysis
to determine the presence of lead based paint and / or asbestos in structures to be
demolished in the Fallon Village area.
Supplemental Mitigation HAZ-2 requires the removal of identified hazardous
conditions on sites in the Fallon Village area prior to future development on
properties.
Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3b requires remediation of contaminated
areas of the Jordan Ranch property. In addition, the Jordan Ranch owner shall
inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Department of an
unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel) in the vicinity of
an underground storage tank that had been previously removed. Additional
subsurface investigations are required to determine the lateral and horizontal
extent of any potential contamination and, if found, is required to be removed as
directed by the Alameda County Environmental Health Department. The
additional investigations were also required to determine the extent of
contamination caused by diesel fuel storage drums, weed killer and other
contaminants in former barn structures on the Jordan site.
• Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3f requires abandonment and destruction of
any private wells on the site.
• Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3g requires septic systems and leach fields
within the Fallon Village project area to be pumped out and removed under
permits from the Alameda County Environmental Health Departrnent.
Potential hazard and hazardous material impacts were not analyzed in either the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2002 SEIR.
The proposed Project on the Jordan Ranch Property will be required to adhere to the
above mitigation measures.
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~y~~ ~~i
Pro,~ect Im~acts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact
, with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the
proposed project involves construction of a primarily residential development on
the Jordan Ranch Property. There would be no use, storage or transport of
significant quantities of hazardous materials associated with the proposed
development. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? No New Impact. The 2005 SEIR and supplemental environmental site
investigations identified the presence of contaminated soils and groundwater on
the site as a result of previous agricultural operations on the site. To comply with
2005 Supplemental Mitigation Measures, the Project Applicant has completed a
Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment and has contacted the Alameda
County Environmental Health Department. Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ 3b
requires remediation of identified contaminated areas. In order to implement this
Mitigation Measure, a condition of Project approval will require the Applicant to
complete implementation of remediation of contaminants on the site and secure a
closure letter from the Alameda County Environmental Health Department or
equivalent agency with jurisdiction prior to commencement of grading activities.
This impact would therefore be less-than-significant and no new or substantially
more severe impacts with respect to release of hazardous materials have been
identified in this Initial Study than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New
Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would have a less-
than-significant impact with respect to this topic. A school site is shown on the
Exhibit 3, the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan. However, the remainder of the
Project site would be remediated for soil and groundwater contamination prior to
the development of the future school facility. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. No properties
comprising the Project area are listed on the State of California Department of
Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of April 15, 2010. There
is therefore no impact with regard to this topic. There would therefore be no new
or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than
has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No
New Impact. The Project site is located north of the Livermore Airport and outside
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~$ ~ ~~i
of any airport safety zone and the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the airport.
However, the Project site does lie within the airport height referral area of the
airport, as documented on Figure 3.1-D. Pursuant to Supplemental Noise
Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 contained in the 2005 SEIR, Jordan Ranch Project
developers will be required to provide notification to future purchases of
dwellings about the presence of Livermore Airport. Adherence to this
supplemental measure reduced impacts related to the Livermore Airport to a less-
than-significant level. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed
Project would include the construction of a primarily residential development on
private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways
would be blocked. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The
Project site is located in a portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area with
undeveloped properties to the south and east of the site. However, this impact was
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and, with adherence to mitigation measures
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, impacts related to wildland fire would be
less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include Mitigation Measure
3.4 / 6.0, requiring project developers to assist in funding new fire stations and
other facilities in Eastern Dublin, Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0 requiring use of non-
combustible roof materials, and maintaining water fire flow and pressure,
establishing low-fuel buffers between structures and wildland areas and installing
fire sprinklers in buildings. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Settin~
Local surface water
The Project site is located within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed, a sub-basin of the
Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and through the
Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek near
Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City.
The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
City of Dublin Page 61
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~~ ~~i
Surface water quality
Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the
discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San
Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990
expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges
from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that
disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of
the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local
governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay.
In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment
Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that
define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant
control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities,
and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities.
Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay
Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the
implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with
stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged
into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a
series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control;
and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin
Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes.
Surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from existing
structures, parking areas and open space uses on the project area, including but not
limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources.
Flooding
The Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency FEMA (Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel
# 06001C0328G and 06001C0329G).
More detailed information on hydrology and surface water quality for the Fallon
Village area (that includes the Jordan Ranch) is contained in Chapter 4.4 of the 2005
SEIR.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the
General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~C ~ ~' y 9/
Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 44.0-48.0 would reduce impacts related potential
flooding due to increased runoff into creeks (IM 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant
level. These mitigation measures requires new storm drainage facilities as part of
new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for
individual development projects and requires new flood control facilities to
alleviate downstream flooding potential.
Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 51.0 - 55.0 would reduce impacts related to non-point
source pollution (IM 3.5 / AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part
of development projects and that the City should develop community-based
programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source
pollution.
2005 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR identified two Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures related to hydrology and water quality:
Supplemental Impact SD-1 found that surface water quality standards had been
updated from regulations in effect when the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was
certified. Mitigation Measure SD-1 requires that properties in the Stage 1
Development Plan adhere to water quality source control and hydrologic design
recommendations contained in the February 2005 ENGEO report. These
recommendations relate to limiting the volume and quantity of stormwater
runoff entering local and regional drainage facilities.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SD-2 requires that individual development
projects in the Fallon Village area comply with hydromodification provisions
contained in the Alameda County Clean Water Program. If no Alameda County
Clean Water Program permit has been approved before individual development
proposals are approved by the City of Dublin, applicants may be required to
submit hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to be reviewed and approved by the
City of Dublin and Zone 7. Payment of Zone 7 fees is also required.
The issue of hydrology was not assessed in the 2002 SEIR.
The proposed Project on the Jordan Ranch Property will be required to adhere to the
above mitigation measures.
Project Im~acts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact.
Adherence to mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005
SEIR and the Alameda County Clean Water Program as enforced by the City of
Dublin will ensure that the proposed Project would not violate water quality
standards or any waste discharge requirement~. The Project developer proposes to
construct a water quality basin in the southwestern portion of the site to intercept
storm water and cleanse contaminants and erosion from runoff prior to entering
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
y5! ~. L{~ ~
the G-3 facility. The water quality basin would be constructed to City of Dublin,
Zone 7 and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and specifications.
A final water quality plan will be approved for this Project by the City prior to
commencement of any grading or construction, whichever occurs first. There
would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New
Impact. The Project site has been slated for future urban uses since adoption of the
1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and not for open
spaces or water recharge purposes. Similarly, proposed residential uses on the
Project Site would rely on imported water sources provided by Zone 7 and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District, not locally pumped groundwater. No
supplemental impacts would therefore occur with regard to this topic. As
identified in Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5 / 49.0, and as identified in
subsection "a," above, the Project will include features to minimize surface and
groundwater pollution, consistent with Alameda County Clean Water Program
and City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to this irnpact than has been
previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would
be added to the Project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways
and similar surfaces. Although the existing main drainage swale would be used for
primary Project drainage, existing drainage patterns would be slightly modified
based on proposed development to channelize exisfing sheet flow into the main
swale and then transported to Zone 7's G3 box culvert just west of Fallon Road
and north of the I-580 freeway.
As identified in subsection "a," a water quality basin would be constructed on the
site to minimize impacts related to siltation and erosion, consistent with the
Alameda County Clean Water Program.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5 / 46.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
would reduce changed drainage patterns to a less-than-significant level. This
mitigation measure requires the Project developer to prepare a Master Drainage
Plan for the proposed Project prior to commencement of construction.
Adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the
2005 SEIR will reduce impacts from developments such as the proposed Project
related to siltation and erosion to a less-than-significant level.
There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 64
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property . April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~5~ ~ ~~
~
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that
would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. The Eastern
Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR identified a number of mitigation measures to which the
proposed Project must conform to reduce drainage and flooding impacts to a less-
than-significant level. These include preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for the
Project, as required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 and Project
developer contribution~s to funding regional drainage improvements, as required
by Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 47.0 and 48.0. Payment of local and regional drainage
fees to the City of Dublin and Zone 7 will meet the requirements of these
mitigation measures. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. The ability of downstream
drainage facilities to accommodate additional quantities of stormwater runoff from
the Project site have been addressed in previous EIRs and the proposed Jordan
development Project will comply with applicable mitigation measures to ensure
that drainage impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Consistent
with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5 / 46.0, the Project developer's civil
engineer is required to prepare a Master Plan of Drainage to accommodate
increased Project stormwater runoff. And mnsistent with Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measures 2.6/47.0 and 48.0, the Project developer will be required to
pay regional drainage fees to assist in funding backbone drainage facilities
identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? No New Impact. This is a less-than-significant
issue and has been addressed above in item "a."
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? No New Impact. The Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone
as mapped by FEMA. This is identified in the Environmental Setting section of this
Initial Study. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The Project Site
is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be
impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence tc~ mitigation measures contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR as identified in subsection 6 of this Initial Study (Geology
and Soils) will ensure that impacts from mudflows would be less-than-significant.
These measures include Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 20.0, that requires
City of Dublin Page 65
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~-~~'~j~l
grading plans that minimize areas to be graded, Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 22.0,
requiring completion of site specific geotechnnical investigations and installation
of retaining structures and Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 23.0, requiring placements of
subsurface keys and benches to stabilize graded slopes. There would therefore be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact
than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settin~
Existing land uses
The Project site is currently vacant and contains no buildings. The site is used for cattle
grazing.
Regulator, s~n~
Land use on the Project site is regulated by the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), both of which were adopted in 1993. The General Plan and
EDSP presently designate the Project site for a combination of Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, Neighborhood
Commercial, Community Park, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square, Open
Space, Semi-Public and an Elementary School site. ~
The applicant has requested City of Dublin approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for
the Project site as well as a Site Development Review (SDR) permit and a Vesting
Subdivision Map to implement the current General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and approved Stage 1 Planned Development Plan land use designations. Approval of
the requested land use entitlements would provide for a reduction in the amount of
development on the site of approximately 284 dwellings.
Project Im~acts
a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The Project site
is vacant. Development of dwellings and other land uses on the site as proposed
in the Stage 2 Development Plan would not divide any established communities
on the site and no impact would result. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact.
Proposed land uses are fully consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The applicant will be required to comply with all
other land use policies and regulations as a condition of Project approval. No
impact would result. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 66
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~ ~~° yq~
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No
New Impact. The Project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area
or natural community conservation plan area. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Settin~
No significant quantities of mineral resources exist on the Project site according to the
Eastern Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR or any of the Supplemental EIRs that affect the Project site.
Pro~ct Im~acts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No
New Impact. None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or
applicable EIRs indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the Project
site, so no impacts would occur.
11. Noise
Environmental Settin~
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an instrument
called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound with a
microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are
expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a level that
corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used.
A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner
similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General
Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and
HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the A-weighted sound level is
reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors
that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone
does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more
accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level
(Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a car passby or
airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is
used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for
periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is
the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources
City of Dublin Page 67
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~
such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90
which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day / Night Average Sound Level
(DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors
are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during nighttime hours
(and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples
increased sensitivity during these hours. The CNEL and Ldn are typically less that one
decibel from each other.
In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just noticeable
difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dB change is
perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
The major noise sources that affect the Project site are vehicular traffic on Interstate 580
and aircraft overflights. Existing terrain between the site and Interstate 580 affords some
acoustical shielding of parcels, particularly those along the future Central Parkway, east
of Fallon Road. Livermore Municipal Airport is to the southeast and flights from the
Airport pass directly over the site.
As required by existing mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents, a
site-specific acoustic analysis was prepared for this application by the firm of Rosen ,
Goldberg, Der & Lewitz dated April 29, 2010. This report is hereby incorporated by
reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours.
Noise measurements were made on and around the Project site to quantify the existing
noise environment. These included three continuous 48-hour noise measurement and
two short-term, one-hour measurements. The noise measurement locations are shown
on Exhibit 4.
The short-term measurement results were correlated with simultaneous measurements
at the long-term monitoring location to determine the Ldn at the short-term
measurement locations. Table 6 shows the results of the short-term measurements.
A total of 181 airplanes flew over or near the site during the two-day measurements.
There was an average of 91 airplanes per day. The number of planes includes only those
flyovers that generated an Lmax of at least 60 dBA at Location B, since airplanes with
noise levels below this threshold are difficult to accurately identify. The typical Lmax of
the louder airplanes (top 30%) was about 71 dBA. The loudest airplane generated an
Lmax of 80 dBA.
City of Dublin Page 68
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~.~~ ~ 9~
~
Table 6. Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
A-Weighted Noise Level, dBA
D
/Ti
Location ate
me
Ley Lm~ ~o Lso ~o CNEL"
Fallon Road at setback
of proposed residential
1 lot, 80 feet from center 6-Apr-10 60 75 63 54 45 62
of roadway, 20 feet 14:15 -14:30
above pavement
elevation
Positano Parkway at
setback proposed
2 residential lot, 51 feet 6-Apr-10 49 65 52 43 40 56
from center of 14:45 -15:00
roadway, 9 feet above
avement elevation
*Estimate of CNEL based on comparison of short-term measurements with results of long-term
measurements.
Source: Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, 2010
The 1993 EIR addresses aircraft noise from Livermore Municipal Airport. Aircraft
noise is identified as an insignificant impact in this document (IM 3.10 / C). The 2002
SEIR inclucied a discussion of any changes in the noise environment during the ten
years between documents. The 2002 SEIR references the Eastern Dublin EIR for aircraft
noise and therefore still considered aircraft flyover noise to be an insignificant impact.
The 2005 SEIR, found aircraft noise to be a less than significant impact after
implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1, which implements
AB 2776 requirements within the AIA (the Project Site is within the AIA) will need to
have full disclosure regarding the presence of flyovers.
Regulatorv settin~
The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies the following primary sources
of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the
community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use
~3'Pe•
City of Dublin Page 69
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Properry April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~,~ ~~ L~ ~.~'
~
Table 7. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally
Acce table Conditionally
Acce table Normally
Unacce table Clearly
Unacce table
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lod in Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Schools, churches,
nursin homes 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Neighborhood
arks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+
Office / Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ --
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.10 / 1.0 would reduce impacts related to exposure of
proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10 / A) to a less-than-significant
level. This mitigation measure requires that all future development projects have
an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City
noise exposure levels.
• Mitigation Measures 3.10 / 4.0 and 5.0 would reduce impacts related to
construction noise (IM 10 / E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans
and to limit hours of construction operations.
2002 SEIR. The 2002 Supplement contains two supplemental mitigation measures
dealing with noise impacts, as follows:
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires a noise insulation plan
for general commercial and industrial land uses for specific development
projects located within a 70 decibel noise contour.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 limits heavy truck traffic to
designated arterial roads and truck routes in~ the Fallon Village area.
City of Dublin Page 70
Initial StudylJordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
4 ~ ~~~~~
The 2002 SEIR found that exposure of proposed and existing housing to noise levels in
excess of City standards established in the Noise Element was a significant and
unavoidable impact.
2005 SEIR. The SEIR ~repared in 2005 contains the following supplemental noise
mitigation measures:
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires that residents of
residential developments in the Fallon Village area receive written notification of
aircraft overflights from Livermore Airport
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 requires an acoustical study
must be prepared for future residential projects in the Fallon Village area.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation
measures contained in the previous EIRs.
Project Impacts
a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in a substantial
increases in permanent in ambient noise levels ? No New Impact.,Future traffic noise
levels would be CNEL 71 dBA at the backyards of proposed single-family homes
along Fallon Road, and 65 dBA at the backyards of the homes along Positano
Parkway in Neighborhood 1(see Exhibit 3).
As recommended in the Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz report prepared in
accordance with Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2, a
minimum six-foot tall noise barrier shall be constructed along the western
side of the Project adjacent to Fallon Road and Positano Parkway to reduce
anticipated traffic noise to acceptable City standards. The exact height and
location of the barrier shall be determined by a follow-on site-specific
acoustical study to be performed when Neighborhood 1 is developed.
The Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz study also recommends completion of site
specific acoustical studies for each Neighborhood as the site plans are being
refined and building architectural drawings are available. The site specific
acoustical studies shall identify any required specific noise control measures
(noise barriers and building acoustical treatments) to be incorporated into each
Neighborhood's final design.
Based on information included in the Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz acoustic
study, there would be no new or substantially more severe noise impacts with
respect to generation of noise in excess of City standards than have been
previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No
New Impact. According to the Project applicant, normal construction methods
City of Dublin Page 71
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~ ~~~ - ~
~~' ~~~ ~
would be used to build the proposed Project so there would be limited and less-
than-significant generation of groundborne noise or vibration. There would
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? No New Impact. The proposed Project is required to
adhere to construction noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin
EIR to minimize the impacts of construction noise, including Mitigation Measure
3.10 / 4.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.10 / 5.0, to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level. No new or more substantially severe impacts with respect to
construction noise have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the Project site.
e, ~ For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? No New Impact. The Project site is located within the height
referral area of the Livermore Airport and adherence to Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-NOISE-1 contained in the 2005 SEIR will reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 72
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Properry April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~GD ~l~/
~
Exhibit 4 Noise Measurement Locations
City of Dubiin Page 73
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property . April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~i~~ ~ ~,
~
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Settin~
The Project site is currently vacant and contains no dwellings.
Project Im~acts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New
Impact. The Project site has been planned for a mix of residential and commercial
land uses, parks, open spaces and other land uses since adoption of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1993. The Eastern Dublin
EIR analyzed the growth inducing impact (Impact 3.5/T) related to providing
water service to the Eastern Dublin area. The configuration of uses on the site and
surrounding areas was slightly modified in 2002 and in 2005 as identified in the
Project Description section of this Initial Study. The current proposal would result
in construction of a decrease of 284 dwellings from existing City land use
approvals. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No
New Impact. The Project site currently contains no dwelling units and no impact
would result with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site.
There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
13. Public Services
Environmental Settin~
The following provide essential services to the Project Site:
~ Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18, located
northwest of the Project area at 4800 Fallon Road.
• Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin
Police Services Department.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area.
• Library Services: Alameda County Library service
City of Dublin Page 74
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~6~ ~ ~~
_~
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Previous EIRs
Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and
police protection include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to
cover up-front costs if capital fire improvements.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations
on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention
into the requirements of development approval.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval,
that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in
place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open
space interface.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department
and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project
area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and
revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for
police protection service in Eastern Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 3.0-5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project
approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect
traffic safety and crime prevention.
Public Services were not addressed in either the 2002 Supplemental EIR.
The topic of Community Services was analyzed in the 2005 SEIR and no supplemental
impacts were identified regarding this topic.
The proposed Development Plan on the Jordan Ranch is required to adhere to Eastern
Dublin mitigation measures.
Project Im~acts
a) Fire protection? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project and construction
of a residential development on the Jordan Ranch Property would increase the
number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be
responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's
contract fire department. The proposed Project is required to adhere to mitigation
measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funcling new
fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 7.0), so that impacts to
City of Dublin Page 75
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~ ~~i
~
the Alameda County Fire Department related to approval and construction of the
proposed Project would be less-than-significant. Consistent with Eastern Dublin
EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed development on the Project site will be
conditioned to meet Fire Departrnent requirements including but not limited to
maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site
access and using fire retardant building materials. Proposed development on the
Site will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire
Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 12.0).
Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service
beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra,
Alameda County Fire Department, 4/ 15 / 10).
b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be a less-
than-significant impact with regard to police protection, based on the following
mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation
Measures include paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in
funding new police facilities (Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 1.0) incorporating Police
Department safety and security requirements into the proposed Project, including
but not limited to adequate locking devices, lighting and ensuring adequate
surveillance for structures and parking areas (Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 3.0-5.0).
Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service beyond
that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Chief Nice, Dublin Police
Services, 4/27/10).
c) Schools? No New Impact. There would be a less-than-significant impact to school
service should the proposed Project be approved since payment of mandated
statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide
mitigation of educational impacts pursuant to CEQA. There would therefore be no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact
than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact.
Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of
Dublin with a less-than-significant impact in regard to this topic. New public
facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There
would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
e) Solid waste generation? No New Impact. See item 16 "e" and "f," below.
City of Dublin Page 76
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~i6y y ~3~
~
14. Recreation
Environmental Settin~
No neighborhood or community parks and / or recreation services or facilities are
currently located on the Project site. The Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan designate a number of future park sites on the Jordan Ranch. These
include a 5.8-acre community park, a 2.7-acre neighborhood square and an 11-acre
community park.
The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services. The nearest
City of Dublin community park to the project area is Emerald Glen Park, located on the
southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, west of the Project area. A
major sports park is being developed just west of the Jordan Ranch site on the
northwest corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway.
These parks will be constructed from a combination of City public facilities impact fees
and developer dedications of land at the time development on adjacent properties
occur.
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of mitigation measures
related to parks and recreational facilities, as follows.
Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 20.0-28.0 calls for the acquisition and development of
new parks and other outdoor facilities in Eastern Dublin, requiring land
dedication and/or park in-lieu fees for new subdivisions and similar techniques
to provide for additional park and recreational features. Implementation of all of
the mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a
ratio of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin.
Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 29.0-31.0 requires that each new development in
Eastern Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities.
Development of a parks implementation plan was also called for, to identify and
prioritize parkland in Eastern Dublin. Finally, adoption of a park in lieu fee
program was required as a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance. Consistent with these mitigations, the City requires residential
project developers to dedicate parkland at the time of subdivision approval and
pay Public Facility Fees (which includes park in-lieu fees) to fund both the
development of neighborhood and community park facilities as well as other
community facilities. ~
City of Dublin Page 77
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011 ~
~f~5 , L~`~`
• Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 32.0 requires the establishment of a trail system with
connections to planned regional and subregional trails, which would reduce this
impact to an insignificant level.
• Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 33.0-36.0 call for use of naiural stream corridors and
major ridgelines to create a comprehensive, integrated trail system that allows
safe and convenient pedestrian access, and required developers to dedicate
public access along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate trail and
staging areas.
2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR described a proposed action of that project to detach the
Project area from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District (LARPD) as part of
the larger reorganization that also included annexation of the Project area to the City of
Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. Under the reorganization proposal, the
City of Dublin would provide parks and recreation facilities and services to Project area
residents as part of the larger spectrum of municipal services. The reorganization was
approved by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission in 2002 and
the Site now receives park and recreation facilities and services provided by the City of
Dublin.
No supplemental park and recreation impacts were identified in the 2005 SEIR.
The Project developers will be required to comply with all applicable mitigation
measures contained in the previous EIRs.
Project Im~acts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New
Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the use
of nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing
the on-site permanent population on the site. However, the Project applicants are
required to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, including
payment of City public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and/or improve
parks throughout the community that could be used by Project residents. This
would include future construction of the neighborhood square, neighborhood
park and community park on the jordan site. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? No New Impact. See item "a," above Since proposed development on the
Jordan Ranch site property will be subject to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation
measures, impacts related to provision or construction of recreational facilities
would be less-than-significant. There would therefore be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been
previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 78
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~ ~ ~~~
~
15. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Settin~
Existing roadways
The Project site is served by Fallon Road, a north-south arterial roadway in east Dublin,
as well as Central Parkway and Positano Parkway, both east-west collectors.
Fallon Road is a north-south two to four lane arterial extending from I-580 to about 2
miles north of I-580. It will be extended to connect to Tassajara Road to the north in the
future. As a part of on-going development in east Dublin, it will eventually be widened
to eight lanes south of Dublin Boulevard, six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and
Gleason Drive, and four lanes north of Gleason Drive.
Positano Parkway extends in an east-west arc from Fallon Road to the planned
extension of Croak Road northeast of the Project site. Positano Parkway is a two-lane
roadway that forms a portion of the Project's western boundary and provides primary
access to the Positano residential development, north of Jordan Ranch.
Central Parkway is a two-lane roadway extending from Arnold Road to Lockhart Street.
An extension between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road is planned for opening in 2010.
Central Parkway is planned for widening to four lanes in the future.
Interstate 580 (I-580) is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local
cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations
such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed Project, I 580
carries between 184,000 and 196,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans 2003
Traffic Volumes on California State Highways) with interchanges at Dougherty
Road / Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road / Santa Rita Road and Fallon
Road / El Charro Road. Phase 1 improvements to the I-580 / Fallon Road interchange
were completed in early 2010.
Existing transit service
Transit service to the Project area is provided by the following:
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels)."Wheels" is the fixed-route
transit service provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Bus Lines that
currently provide service to east Dublin (Tassajara Road and east) include routes 1
(including 1A/ 1AV, 1B / 1BV,1C, lE), 12, 50, 54 and 202.
Route 1 consists of four weekday routes and one Saturday route that provide service
between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and the Dublin Ranch area, including
Fallon Middle School, at approximately 30-minute lieadways. The routes operate on
weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 7:30 a.m. to 10:15
a.m. and from 3:20 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
City of Dublin Page 79
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~ ~~~i
~
Route 12 provides service between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and the
Livermore Transit Center at approximate 30-minute headways on weekdays between
5:30 a.m. and11:00 p.m. Route 12 provides service on weekends between 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. at one hour headways.
Route 50 provides service between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Hacienda
Business Park via the Tassajara / Koll Center Park & Ride, with weekday morning and
afternoon service at 15-minute headways.
Route 54 provides service in the morning and afternoon matching ACE train arrivals
and departures, connecting between the Pleasanton ACE station and the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station with intermediate stops, including the Tassajara/Koll
Center Park & Ride.
Route 202 provides one weekday morning (westbound) run and one weekday
afternoon (eastbound) run between Fallon Road and Dublin High School.
A new service, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), is slated to commence in early 2011. This new
route will provide express bus service between Livermore, the Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station and Stoneridge Mall via Dublin Boulevard.
Bay Area Ra~id Transit (BART) system. BART provides regional rail transit access from
the Dublin/Pleasanton station. BART runs at 15- to 20-minute headways between 4:00
AM and 12:00 AM on weekdays. Saturday service is available every 20 minutes
between 6:00 AM and 12:45 AM. Service is also available on Sunday from 8:00 AM to
12:45 AM with 20-minute headways.
A new West Dublin-Pleasanton station is under construction and is expected to be
operational in 2011. In addition, long-range planning studies of potentially extending
BART lines to Livermore are being conducted. The studies also will examine alternative
means of improving transit service to Livermore in the BART corridor until funds are
available to construct the BART extension.
ACE Commuter Train. Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) offers an alternative to the
automobile for regional commute trips between the Central Valley and the South Bay
Area with stops in Livermore and Pleasanton. Because ACE primarily serves commute
trips to the Bay area, the trains run westbound in the morning and eastbound in the
evening. There is one ACE station in Pleasanton near the intersection of Bernal Avenue
and Pleasanton Avenue. Livermore has two ACE stations, one in Downtown near the
Livermore Avenue / Railroad Avenue intersection and the other on Vasco Road, at the
Vasco Road/Brisa Street intersection. In the morning, westbound trains stop at
Pleasanton at approximately 5:40 a.m., 6:45 a.m. and 7:55 a.m. In the evening, eastbound
trains stop at Pleasanton at approximately 4:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR includes the following mitigation measures
Ciry of Dublin Page 80
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
`'/6g ~~/
~
~ Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 1.0 and 3.3 / 4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts
on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of I-580 to a
level of insignificance.
• Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the I-580 / 680 interchange. Even with
mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on I-580 freeway
segments between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of
2010, on other segments of I-580.
Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 6.0 - 5.0, 10.0 and 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts
to the Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive / I-580 Eastbound
Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway
Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard intersections and long El Charro Road to a level of
insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at
intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton
and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps and
interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain
interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are
also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional
improvements through the Eastern Dublin traffic impact fee program and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee program.
• Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
~ Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 15.0 -15.3 and 16.0 -16.1 generally require
coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide
pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings.
2002 SEIR. The following mitigation measures were included in the 2002 SEIR.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-1 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of widening
the I-580 / Hacienda Drive eastbound ramp to include an additional left turn
lane.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-2 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of widening
the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 to 41anes as well as
modifying the westbound loop on-ramp to meet Caltrans design standards.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-3 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of converting
the east bound I-580 / Santa Rita to a shared left-turn / through lane.
City of Dublin Page 81
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~~~~i
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-4 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to install a signal at the Dublin
Boulevard/Street D intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-5 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of installing a
traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-6 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of
reconfiguring the Dublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-7 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to construct an additional through lane on
northbound Fallon Road, an additional left-turn lane and an additional through
lane on southbound Fallon Road.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-8 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to fund a feasibility study for possibly
relocating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection further north and
adding a new signalized intersection south of the relocated Fallon Road / Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-9 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village to fund widening Fallon Road between the I-580
freeway and Dublin Boulevard to eight lanes, for widening Fallon Road between
Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to six lanes and for widening Fallon
Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Fallon
Road / I-580 overcrossing shall also be widened to six lanes.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-10 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to widen Central Parkway between
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to four lanes.
2005 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR contained the following traffic and transportation mitigation
measures:
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-1 requires individual project
developers in the Fallon Village area to advance construction of the Dougherty
Road / Dublin Boulevard intersection improvements or, if the City's Traffic
Impact Fee Program is updated in the future to fund these improvements, use of
traffic fees would mitigate this cumulative impact.
~ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-2 requires all project developers in
the Fallon Village area to fund the widening of the I-580 eastbound off ramp at
Santa Rita Road to accommodate additional peak hour cumulative traffic.
City of Dublin Page 82
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~ ~-i ~~
~
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-3 requires project developers in the
Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of funding to widen the Central
Parkway/Hacienda Drive intersection to accommodate anticipated cumulative
traffic. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the proposed
Project.
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the proposed Project.
Some of the required improvements have already been completed, some are underway,
and some are planned for the future with funding provided through the Eastern Dublin
TIF Program
Project Im~acts
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity?
No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the
Project site with a mix of Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density
Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Parks, Open Space, Semi-Public and an
Elementary School site and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts
thereof. Land uses on the Project site were subsequently amended to redesignate
the Site in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR as noted in the Project
Description section of this Initial Study. If approved, the maximum number of
dwellings on the site would be reduced by approximately 284 dwellings from the
existing approved Project entitlement analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
Estimated trips from the Project under proposed land use designations are shown
on Table 8. As shown in the following table, buildout of land uses as proposed in
the Stage 2 Development Plan would result in a reduction of 3,710 total daily trips.
During the a.m. peak hour, there would be an estimated increase of 258 trips. In
the p.m. peak hour, there would be an estimated reduction of 358 trips. The
reported increase of traffic during the a.m. peak hour is due to the fact that the
2005 SEIR included the school site as part of the project description but did not
include school-generated traffic in the assessment of impacts. This exclusion does
not change the overall conclusions presented in the 2005 SEIR, as the majority of
school trips would remain internal to the development, or be part of another trip
destined outside the area. Furthermore, traffic conditions are generally worse
during the p.m. peak hour, so the expected reduction in p.m. peak hour trips with
the proposed Project will lessen previously stated impacts on the transportation
system.
The additional a.m. peak hour trips will not create any new significant impacts
under the CEQA standards of significance. However, in order to address certain
traffic operations issues, appropriate traffic control devices and lane
configurations for various intersections within the Project and immediately
adjacent to the Project have been identified and incorporated into the Project
through the Conditions of Approval.
Ciry of Dublin Page 83
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
L~"~/~ l--~~1
In reviewing buildout impacts of adding proposed Project traffic to intersections
near the Project site (see Table 4.2.7 of the 2005 SEIR), the addition of 258 a.m. and
a reduction of 358 p.m. peak hour trips to peak hour traffic at the intersections
listed in Table 4.2.7 of the 2005 SEIR would not result in any new significant
impacts.
Table 8. Jordan Ranch Project-Proposed and Previous Project Trips
Project Component Size Daily
Low Density Residential - z52 DU 2
410
Neighborhood 1' ,
Medium Density Residential 111 DU 1
060
- Neighborhood 2' ,
Medium Density Residential 94 DU 900
- Neighborhood 3'
Medium High Density Z18 DU 460
1
ResidentialZ ,
Village Commerclal 105 DU 710
ResidentialZ
Village Commercial - Retail3 9,982 SF 430
Village Commercial - Office4 5,100 SF 60
~I Elementary Schools'`~ students 1,240
AM Peak Hour
In Out Total
47 142 189
21 62 83
18 53 71
22 89 111
11 43 54
6 4 10
7 1 8
255 209 464
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
160 95 255
71 41 112
60 35 95
88 47 135
42 23 65
18 19 37
1 7 8
37 39 76
Trips Analyzed in EIR 11,980 198 534 732 679 462 1,141
Difference From EIR Analysis -3,710 189 69 258 -202 -156 -358
Notes:
1. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Single Family Home (Land Use 210):
Daily Rate: T = 9.57 (D)
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.75 (D) (inbound = 25%, outbound = 75%)
PM Peak Hour Rate: T- 1.01 (D) (inbound = 63%, outbound = 37%)
Where: T= trip ends, and D= Dwelling Units
2. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Apartments (Land Use 220):
Daily Rate: T = 6.72
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.51 (D) (inbound = 20%, outbound = 80%)
PM Peak Hour Rate T= 0.62 (D) + 17.65 (inbound = 65%, outbound = 35%)
Where: T= trip ends, and D= Dwelling Units
3. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Retail (Land Use 820):
Daily Rate: T = 42.94 (X)
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 1.03 (X) (inbound = 61 %, outbound = 39%)
PM Peak Hour Rate T= 3.75 (X) (inbound = 48%, outbound = 52%)
Where: T= trip ends, and X= 1,000 Square Feet
4. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Office (Land Use 710):
Daily Rate: T =11.01 (X)
City of Dublin Page 84
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~ ~ ~9,
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 1.55 (X) (inbound = 88%, outbound = 12%)
PM Peak Hour Rate T= 1.49 (X) (inbound = 17%, outbound = 83%)
Where: T= trip ends, and X= 1,000 Squar~ Feet
5. Based on information from other school districts, an estimated 0.30 elementary school students
would be generated per single-family home, and 0.05 elementary school students would be
generated per apartment unit. This results in approximately 45 elementary school students
residing in Jordan Ranch immediately adjacent to the school site (neighborhoods 2- 6). The
number of students expected to come from neighborhoods 2 through 6 were subtracted from
the total number of students, as it is anticipated that these students would bicycle or walk to
school, or be dropped off by a parent on their way to work. The residential trip generation was
not reduced to account for student drop-off/pick-up, as it was assumed that this trip would be
part of another trip destined outside Jordan Ranch.
6. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Elementary School (Land Use 520):
Daily Rate: T = 2.45 (S)
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.92 (S) (inbound = 55%, outbound = 45%)
PM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.15 (S) (inbound = 49%, outbound = 51 %)
Where: T= trip ends, and S= number of students
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 7th and 8th Editions, Jordan Ranch Stage ll Submittal - Site
Development Review, October 1, 2009, and Fehr & Peers, 2010.
The Eastern Dublin EIR found that buildout of the Eastern Dublin planning area
would result in a number of significant and unavoidable impacts. Such impacts
included additional vehicular trips to the I-580 and I-680 freeways (Impacts
3.3 / B and C), cumulative freeway impacts (Impact 3.3 / E), the addition of
vehicles to the Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps, Cumulative impacts on
Dublin Boulevard (Impact 3.3M) and cumulative impacts on Tassajara Road
(Impact 3.3 / N). A Statement of Overriding Considerations was approved in
adopting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by City Council Resolution No. 53-93.
The 2002 SEIR identified four significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, as
follows:
• Supplemental Impact Traffic-6 found that the Dublin
Boulevard / Dougherty Road intersection would be significant and
unavoidable in the 2025 cumulative buildout conditions during the a.m.
and p.m. peak periods.
• Supplemental Impact Traffic-7 identified a significant and unavoidable
impact at the Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard intersection in the p.m.
peak hour during the 2025 cumulative buildout period.
~ Supplemental Impact Traffic-8 found that increases in traffic volumes at
the Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection during the p.m. peak hour
in the Year 2025 cumulative buildout would be significant and
unavoidable.
• Supplemental Impact Traffic-11 found that freeway segments along both
the I-580 and I-680 freeways would operate at an unacceptable level of
service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under cumulative
buildout conditions.
Ciry of Dublin Page 85
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~'~3~. ~~~
The 2005 SEIR found two significant and unavoidable supplemental traffic
impacts. Supplemental Impact TIZA-4 found a significant and unavoidable impact
with respect to cumulative impacts to local freeways and Supplemental Impact
TRA-5 found a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to consistency
with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan.
Based on the foregoing, there will be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads)? No New Impact. The Alameda County 2009 Congestion
Management Program describes the City's obligation to conduct an analysis of
impacts on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS)-designated roadways
and transit systems if the proposed Project will generate 100 or more new p.m.
peak hour trips. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would
generate fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the previously approved Project, so
analysis of impacts on the MTS is not required.
The 2005 SEIR conducted a full traffic analysis of the impacts on LOS on local and
regional roadways of the Fallon Village Project, including the development of 1064
residential units and 83,635 non-residential square feet proposed for the Jordan
Ranch Property at that time. The traffic analysis was conducted in accordance
with regional agency standards. The current Jordan Ranch Project has 284 fewer
residential units than that previously analyzed. Based on the reduction of overall
vehicle trips for the current proposal compared to the one previously analyzed, no
new or substantially more severe impacts on roadway levels of service would
result from the proposed Project than previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed Project would have no
impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a primarily residential development
and related entiflements. There would be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or an incompatible use? No New
Impact. Approval of the proposed Project and future development would add
new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where
none currently exist. The EDSP and the Dublin Municipal Code contain design
standards intended to assure that access to and from a development area, and
circulation within the area, will be safe and efficient. Since Project facilities will be
required to be constructed to these design standards, no significant impacts with
regard to creating design hazards or unsafe conditions are anticipated. There
would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 86
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~~~~~,
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. The proposed Project would
provide multiple points of entry from Fallon Road, Central Parkway, Positano
Parkway, and La Vina Street, which connects the Project site to the tract to the
north. No new or significantly more severe impacts are therefore anticipated with
respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed in Project CEQA
documents.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? No New Impact. No impacts to parking requirements
are anticipated since the Project would exceed City parking requirements. Based
on information submitted with the application, the proposed 780 dwellings within
the Jordan Ranch would be required to provide 2,179 parking spaces, including
1,560 covered spaces for the dwellings plus 619 uncovered guest spaces. A total of
2,335 spaces are proposed, including some spaces on Project streets. This would
result in a surplus of 156 spaces and no new or substantially more severe
significant impact would occur than analyzed in previous CEQA documents for
the Project site.
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No New Impact. The proposed
Project would include constr~xction of sidewalks along public roads to facilitate
pedestrian access. Six-foot wide bicycle lanes are proposed along both sides of the
extension of Central Parkway. Bicyclists could use roads to access Fallon Road and
other roads, so that no significant impacts to this topic would result with respect to
this topic.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Settin~
The Project area is served by the following service providers:
• Water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
~ Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD.
• Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7.
• Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
• Communications: A T & T.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level
City of Dublin Page 87
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011 -
~~ ~ u~~
.--
of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSILSD water
system. Impact 3.5 / Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant
impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures
require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded
b development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
E~R is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This
impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 31.0-32.0, which requires improvement to
the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 34.0-38.0. These
mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a"will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5 / T identified a potentially
significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant
and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated
through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD
to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new
development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site
wastewater treatment, requires a"will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all
sewer faalities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 / C noted an
impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer
demand from the Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5 / G found that lack of wastewater
disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is
presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management
Agency. Impact 3.5 / E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a
potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through
adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5 / 8.0, which requires that wastewater treatment and
disposal be made available to meet anticipated development in Eastern Dublin.
2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR identified two supplemental impacts related to utilities and
service systems. Supplemental Impact UTS-1 identified an uncertain energy supply
within this portion of PG & E's service territory. Mitigation Measures SM-UTS-1
required City discretionary review prior to installation of any on-site power generators
and SM-UTS-2 requires that applicants for Site Development Review approvals obtain
will serve letters from PG & E prior to approval of such applications.
City of Dublin Page 88
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
47~~ 4~ `~/
Supplemental Impact SM-2 identified a supplemental impact with regard to constraints
of PG & E's local distribution system. This impact would be mitigated by adherence to
Supplemental Mitigation Measures UTS-1 and 2.
2005 SEIR. No supplemental impacts or mitigation measures related to utilities or
service systems were identified in the 2005 SEIR.
All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR will apply
to the proposed Project.
An SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (WSA)was approved by the DSRSD Board of
Directors for development envisioned in the 2005 SEIR. This WSA was approved in
2005 by Minute Order No. 05-32 by the DSRSD Board of Directors. This document is
incorporated by reference into this document and is available for review at the Dublin
San Ramon Services District during normal business hours.
Project Im~acts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. The
Project site is located within the service area of DSRSD and the Project applicants
have requested water and wastewater service from the District. Applicable
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to this Project
to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that water and
wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements
mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, impacts
associated with this topic would be less-than-significant. No new or substantially
more severe supplemental impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than
have been analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
No New Impact. The EDSP and Eastern Dublin EIR require developers of each
individual project in the Eastern Dublin area to fiznd their fair share contribution
to construct major, backbone infrastructure systems as well as to either fund or
construct local water and wastewater facilities shown in the EDSP. Therefore,
although new water and wastewater facilities would be needed to serve proposed
development on the Jordan Ranch, these facilities have been identified in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended in 2005 and as analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
Section 3.4 of the 2005 SEIR includes a description of water and wastewater
facilities that are will be built as part of the overall Fallon Village project, which
, includes the Jordan Ranch Site. As part of Project review by the City of Dublin,
DSRSD and Zone 7 staffs, the Project developer(s) will either be required to
construct a portion of these identified facilities in order to support the proposed
Project or pay development impact fees to assist in the construction of regional
water and wastewater facilities. The 2005 SEIR did not identify any significant
supplemental or more severe water or wastewater impacts than was analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR.
City of Dublin Page 89
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~l °~ 7 ~ ~~'~l
The water and wastewater facilities needed to serve the proposed Project are '
substantially sixnilar to those analyzed in the prior EIRs. There would therefore be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact
than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed development
project would require new drainage facilities to support proposed development.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended in 2005 and analyzed in the 2005
SEIR (p. 24), identifies storm drain facilities to be constructed as part of the larger
Fallon Village Project to ensure that adequate drainage is provided. The Project
applicant will be required to either construct these facilities or pay development
impact fees to assist in the construction of regional drainage facilities. The 2005
SEIR did not identify supplemental or more severe drainage impacts than
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and impacts related to drainage facilities
would be less-than-significant.
The storm drainage facilities needed to serve the proposed Project are substantially
similar to those analyzed in the prior EIRs. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. The provision of water
supplies was addressed in the 2002 SEIR, since the Fallon Village project was
proposed to be annexed into the City of Dublin and DSRSD at that time. Under a
previous legal settlement agreement, DSRSD was required to approve a
Programmatic Water Service Analysis prior to annexation. This analysis was
included as part of the 2002 SEIR (pages 3.7-4-6) and found that DSRSD had
identified an adequate long-term water supply for the overall Fallon Village
Project. DSRSD has approved a WSA for the Fallon Village Project and the Jordan
Ranch Project water demand is within the amount included in the WSA. The
decrease in residential units by 284 will result in a lower water demand than
included in the WSA. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? No New Impact. See
response to "a," above.
f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The Project area is within the franchise area of
Amador Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial
solid waste pick-up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal
were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a less-than-significant would result
with regard to this topic. Since development under the proposed Project would
generally be consistent with previous land use approvals that were analyzed in the
various CEQA documents identified in the Initial Study, no new or substantially
more severe impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed in prior
EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 90
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
4~~' ~. ~ ~~
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No
New Impact: The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state
and local solid waste regulations should the proposed reorganization be approved.
No impacts are anticipated in this regard. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No New
Impact. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species
or their respective species, reduce the range or number of endangered plant or
animal species or eliminate examples of major period of California history or
prehistory in the eastern Dublin area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR and two Supplemental EIRs. The proposed Project would
cause no new or substantially more significant impacts on biological or cultural
resources beyond those identified in previous EIRs.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No
New Impact. Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified with
regard to cumulative biological, air quality and transportation issues for the
overall Eastern Dublin project, of which the Jordan Ranch Property is a
component. The proposed Project on the Jordan Ranch would not result in new or
substantially more severe significant cumulative impacts than have been
previously analyzed in the prior EIRs by the City.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. No such impacts have
been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. There would
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 91
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~7~~ ~~ -
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Planning Consultant
Mark Lander, City Engineer
Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer
Timothy Cremin, Assistant City Attorney
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
Chief Nice, Dublin Police Services
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
Applicant Representatives
Kevin Fryer
References
Bay Area Air Qualitv Mana~ement District CEQA Guidelines, Revised
December 1999
Biological Assessment for the Tordan Ranch Develo~ment Project, Olberding
Environmental, inc., October 2009
Biological Resource Analysis for the Tordan Ranch Pro~erty, Olberding
Environmental, Inc., October 2009
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06
Eastern Dublin S~ecific Plan and General Plan Environmental Im~act Re~ort,
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Eastern Dublin Pro~erties Stage 1 Develo~ment Plan and Annexation, Draft
Su~lemental EIR, City of Dublin, January 2002
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates &
Associates, 1996
City of Dublin Page 92
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~'~~~ ~ ~~
Fallon Vill ~e Project, Draft Su~~lemental EIR, August 2005
Jordan Ranch Traffic Analysis and Site Plan Review-Technical Memorandum,
Fehr & Peers Associates, March 2010
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment for the Tordan Ranch, ATC
Associates, Inc., June 2008
.nd the Former
ATC Associates, May,
2008
Resource Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin Pro~erties, WRA and Zander
Associates, 2004
Special-Status Plant Survey Report for the Tordan Ranch Pro~erty, Olberding
Environmental, Inc, September 2009
City of Dublin Page 93
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
~~i U~rl
~
Appendix
-WRA Biological Resource Letter
City of Dublin Page 94
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
March 15, 2010
Jerry Haag
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, California 94704
RE: Jordan Ranch Biological Studies Peer Review
Dear Mr. Haag,
WRA biologists have reviewed the Jordan Ranch biological documents prepared by Olberding
Environmental, Inc. and all additional documentation provided regarding the development
project of the Jordan Ranch Property (Project Area), located in Dublin, Alameda County,
California. This letter sets forth our evaluation of the biological studies to determine the
following:
• If there are other potentially occurring or known special status plant or wildlife species on
the site that the reports fail to discuss;
• If there are any sensitive habitats potentially occurring or known that could support
special status plant or wildlife species on the site;
• If the reports accurately disclose the extent of the proposed project's impacts to any
sensitive biological resources on the site; and,
• If proposed mitigation measures are consistent with the Resource Management Plan for
the East Dublin Properties.
This letter summarizes the methods and results of the peer review.
METHODS
On February 9, 2010, a WRA biologist conducted a site reconnaissance of the Project Area.
Prior to the site visit, background information on potentially occurring federal- and state-listed
endangered, threatened and rare plant and wildlife species and sensitive natural communities
was compiled through a review of the following resources:
• California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB) (CDFG 2010)
• CDFG publication "Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
California" (Jennings and Hayes 1994) ,
• CDFG publication "Bird Species of Special Concern in California" (Shuford and Gardali
2008)
• Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties (WRA and Zander
Associates, 2004).
Database searches focused on the Livermore 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle. Additionally, aerial
photographs of the Project Area were reviewed.
2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 454-8868 tel (415) 454-0129 fax info~wra-ca.com www.wta-ca.com
u~~ ~-~ ~
~
The following biological and project documents were reviewed:
• Burrowing Owl and Raptor Survey for the Jordan Ranch Property, Alameda County,
California. Prepared for BJP-ROF Jordan Ranch, LLC. Prepared by Olberding
Environmental, Inc. August 2008.
• Special-Status Plant Survey Report for the Jordan Ranch Property, Alameda County,
California. Prepared for BJP-ROF Jordan Ranch, LLC. Prepared by Olberding
Environmental, Inc. September 2009.
• Biological Resource Analysis for the Jordan Ranch Property, Alameda County,
California. Prepared for BJP-ROF Jordan Ranch, LLC. Prepared by Olberding
Environmental, Inc. October 2009.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Assessment for the Jordan Ranch Development
Project (Corps File No. 25091 S), Alameda County, California. Prepared for BJP-ROF
Jordan Ranch, LLC. Prepared by Olberding Environmental, Inc. October 2009.
• Preliminary Site Plan, Jordan Property, Dublin, California. Prepared by RJA. December
1, 2009.
RESULTS
The comments below are generally broken down by report; however, there are some areas of
overlap.
Burrowina Owl and Raptor Surve
WRA concurs with the methodology, findings, and recommendations of the Burrowing Owl and
Raptor Survey report. It should be noted that the Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperi~) and Sharp~
shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) were removed from the list of Bird Species of Special Concern
in 2008 (Shuford and Gardali). Also, although all raptors (and all native bird species) are
protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code, the following
species are not considered special status raptors:
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)
American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)
Barn Owl (Tyto alba)
Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus)
Special-Status Plant Survev Report
WRA concurs with the methodology, findings, and recommendations of the Special-Status Plant
Survey Report for the Jordan Ranch Property.
~~,~ ~i
Bioloqical Resources Analvsis
The Biological Resources Analysis states that it includes a"review of information related to
species of plants and animals that could potentially utilize" the Project Area. Within this context,
we analyzed the site and the report and found that the following should be addressed based on
a recent literature review:
Remove the following species from Table 2 in Attachment 2(they either have been removed
from the CDFG Species of Special Concern list, or have never been designated as such):
Cooper's Hawk
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Great Horned Owl
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
American Kestrel
Barn Owl
Based on our survey of the site and a CDFG publication (Shuford and Gardali 2008), several
special status wildlife species that occur in the San Francisco Bay region were not addressed in
the biological analysis. To be consistent with recent agency actions, the potential for
occurrence of this species on the site should be assessed. The following table supplements
Table 2 in Attachment 2.
Species Status Habitat Notes Potential to Occur On-site
Long-billed Curlew SSC, Coastal estuaries, open Moderate Potential. The grazed
Numenius americanus BCC grasslands, and croplands grasslands provide suitable winter
are used in winter while foraging habitat for flocks of this nomadic
upland short-grass prairies species. Because it does not nest on the
and wet meadows are used site, no potential impacts to this species
for nesting. will occur.
Yellow Warbler SSC Prefer dense riparian Unlikely. The fragmented willows along
Dendroica petechia vegetation for breeding. the central drainage do not provide typical
habitat for this bird.
Saltmarsh Common SSC, Found in freshwater Unlikely. Cattails and fragmented
Yellowthroat BCC marshes, coastal swales, willows provide potential habitat, but the
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa riparian thickets, brackish Project Area may be within a zone of
marshes, and saltwater gradation between this and another
marshes. subspecies of Common Yellowthroat;
also, the species was rarely encountered
in central Contra Costa County (Glover
2009).
Yellow-breasted Chat SSC Found in dense, brushy Unlikely. The fragmented willows along
Icteria virens thickets and tangles near ~ the central drainage do not provide typical
water, and in thick habitat for this bird.
understory in riparian
woodland.
4
~~~ ~-~-
~
Species Status Habitat Notes Potential to Occur On-site
Grasshopper Sparrow SSC Generally prefers Unlikely. Grazed and arid conditions in
Ammodramus moderately open, tall the Project Area are generally not
savannarum grasslands and prairies with preferred by this species (Glover 2009).
patchy bare ground.
BryanYs Savannah SSC Generally occurs in tidal Unlikely. The Project Area is located
Sparrow marshes, coastal prairie, east of the mapped distribution of this
Passerculus and grasslands along coast, species (Shuford and Gardali 2008).
sandwichensis alaudinus and inland in the fog belt.
Lawrence's Goldfinch BCC Inhabits oak woodlands, Moderate Potential. Scattered willows
Carduelis lawrencei chaparral, riparian and perennial water source in the central
woodlands, pinyon-juniper drainage provide suitable habitat for this
associates, and weedy somewhaf nomadic bird. Pre-
water during the breeding construction surveys and avoidance
season. (Section 8.0 of the report) will reduce
project-related impacts to a less than
significant level.
Western Red Bat SSC They are typically solitary, Unlikely. Trees on the site are scattered
Lasiurus blossevillii roosting primarily in the small willows along the central drainage,
foliage of trees or shrubs. or the eucalyptus trees near the
Day roosts are commonly in residence site; both areas provide poor
edge habitats adjacent to roosting habitat.
streams or open fields, in
orchards, and sometimes in
urban areas possibly and
association with riparian
habitat (particularly willows,
cottonwoods, and
sycamores).
Ringtail CFP It is typically found in remote Unlikely. The Project Area lacks typical
Bassariscus astutus areas with trees, brush, and dense cover associated with the Ringtail.
rock crevices for cover. It is
often found in riparian
forests or steep, rocky
canyons.
SSC: CDFG Species of Special Concern
CFP: California fully protected
BCC: USFWS Bird Species of Conservation Concern
As of March 2010, the California Tiger Salamander is a candidate for listing under the California
Endangered Species Act. The Fish and Game Commission determined that listing was
warranted, and formal listing is anticipated in mid-2010. It is currently subject to the protections
of the California Endangered Species Act.
WRA concurs with most of the recommendations provided in Section 8.0 of the Biological
Resources Analysis; however, it is our opinion that further CTS and/or CRLF pre-construction
surveys (as recommended on Page 34), are unnecessary. Presence of these federal-listed
species has been confirmed, and further surveys are not warranted.
5
~~ ~ ~~~
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bioloqical Assessment
It is assumed that the Biological Assessment has not been submitted to the USFWS. Due to
the level of impact, it is likely that the USFWS will require detailed information regarding the
proposed off-site mitigation area and its management. These and other comments regarding
the Biological Assessment are summarized below:
• Recommend including installation of permanent CTS/CRLF barrier along perimeter
fencing to prevent dispersal into adjacent developed areas.
• Although consistent with RMP, agencies unlikely to accept on-site
preservation/enhancement as mitigation for on-site impacts to CTS/CRLF. How will the
on-site preserve be managed?
• Agencies could require more off-site mitigation acreage, as allowed under Section
3.3.1.2 of the RMP, and as a result of the impending state listing of CTS in mid-2010.
For example, CDFG may require mitigation for impacts to CTS upland habitat within 1.3
miles of a known or potential breeding pond (similar to situation in Santa Rosa Plain,
Sonoma County).
• Agencies may not permit off-site relocation of salvaged amphibians.
• Applicant will need to request a consistency determination (Fish and Game Code
2080.1) from CDFG regarding the dual-listed CTS.
• List of Attachments in Table of Contents do not match actual attachments.
• Has USFWS approved use of the Mulqueeney Ranch as off-site mitigation? How will
habitat management at the off-site mitigation area be funded?
• It is recommended that a detailed mitigation and monitoring plan be developed; the
Biological Assessment does not include detailed information regarding the off-site
mitigation area, and how it will be managed and monitored. These details will likely
need to be in place before USFWS will prepare the Biological Opinion, and CDFG
considers a consistency determination.
CONCLUSION
WRA recommends that field survey reports be updated as indicated; otherwise, we concur with
the general conclusions and recommendations of the Burrowing Owl, Rare Plant, and Biological
Resources Analysis reports.
The Biological Assessment does not include a management plan for the off-site mitigation area,
and does not indicate the source of funding for management and monitoring. The USFWS will
likely require more detail prior to issuing a Biological Opinion for the project.
Recently, the Fish and Game Commission determined that listing of the CTS was warranted,
and formal listing is anticipated in mid-2010. It is currently subject to the protections of the
California Endangered Species Act. Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1 states the
requirements and procedures for a 2080.1 Consistency Determination. Section 2080.1 allows
an applicant who has obtained a federal incidental take statement pursuant to a federal Section
7 consultation or a federal Section 10(a) incidental take permit to notify the Director in writing
that the applicant has been issued an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit
pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The applicant must submit the federal
6
~~~~ ~ y~~
opinion incidental take statement or permit to the Director of Fish and Game for a determination
as to whether the federal document is "consistent" with CESA. Receipt of the application by the
Director starts a 30-day clock for processing the Consistency Determination.
In order for the Department to issue a Consistency Determination, the Department must
determine that the conditions specified in the federal incidental take statement or the federal
incidental take permit are consistent with CESA. If the Department determines that the federal
statemenUpermit is not consistent with CESA, the applicant must apply for a State Incidental
Take Permit under section 2081(b) of the Fish and Game Code.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Dreier
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
7
Exhibit C
~ ~.. ~,
Statement of Overriding Considerations for Jordan Ranch Project.
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of
Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993). The City
Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern
Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
project.
In 2002, the City Council considered an annexation and prezoning project on the Eastern Dublin
Property Owners Project site, which includes the Jordan Ranch site. That project was approved
for future development of up to 2,526 dwellings at a variety of densities, up to 1,421,450 square
feet of office development, commercial and similar non-residential land uses, a junior high
school, elementary schools, parks, utility extensions and open spaces. The City prepared a
Supplemental EIR for the 2002 project ("2002 SEIR") which identified supplemental impacts that
could be mitigated to less than significant. The 2002 SEIR also identified supplemental air
quality, biology, noise, and traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to less-than-significant
and, therefore, would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
In 2005, the City prepared a second Supplemental EIR to analyze the Fallon Village project,
consisting of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment, and a PD-rezoning
and revised Stage 1 Development Plan for the same properties as the EDPO project, including
the Jordan Ranch site ("2005 SEIR"). The 2005 SEIR analyzed the revised Stage 1
Development Plan, including a maximum of 1,064 units on the Jordan Ranch site. The 2005
SEIR was certified on December 5, 2005 by City Council Resolution No. 222-05. The 2005
SEIR indentified supplemental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant. It also
identified certain supplemental transportation, cultural resources and air quality impact~ that
could not be mitigated to less than significant, and, therefore, would result in significant and
unavoidable environmental impacts.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use
approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, the 2002 approvals on the Project site, and the
2005 approvals for the Project site. (Resolutions 53-93, 40-02, and respectively.) Pursuant
to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the
previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the Jordan Ranch project upon approval
of the Project even though the City Council finds that no further CEQA environmental review is
required for the Project based on the certified Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR.~
The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation
measures adopted with the prior approvals and by the environmental protection measures
incorporated into the Jordan Ranch Project or adopted through the Project approvals, which will
be implemented with the development of the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council
recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse
environmental affects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, and 2005 SEIR. The
City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse
'".. ublic officials must still o on record and ex lain s ecificall wh the are a rovin the later ro ect des ite its
• p g P P Y Y Y PP g P J P
significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis in original) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources
Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App.4th 98.
Exhibit C to
• . . ^ . ~ n
~~ r~~ ~~
impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific
economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, land use, or other benefits and
considerations, as set forth below, that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts on the
environment and support approval of the project.
2. Unavoidable Siqnificant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for
future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Jordan Ranch project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual
Impact 3.8/B, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character; Visual Impact 3.8/F, Alteration of
Visual Character of Flatlands: Although development has occurred south of the project area,
the site is largely undeveloped open space land. Future development of the Jordan Ranch site
will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land and character.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/8, 3.3/E. I-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway
Impacts: While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned
improvements, transportation demand management, the I-580 Smart Corridor program and
other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/l, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative
Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The Jordan Ranch project will be required to implement all
applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIF program.
Even with mitigation, however, these impacts continue to be unavoidable, as anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable
Natural Resources and Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in
energy usage through increased water treatment, disposal and operation of water distribution
system: Future development of the Fallon Village project will contribute to increased energy
consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/8. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary
Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the Jordan Ranch project could be
subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning
area.
Biological Resources Impact 3.7/C. Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat.
Even with mitigation, biologically sensitive habitat will be lost to development.
Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, 8, C, and E. Future development of the Jordan Ranch project
will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, and mobile and
stationary source emissions.
3. Unavoidable Siqnificant Adverse Impacts from the 2002 Supplemental EIR. The
following unavoidable supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the 2002
Supplemental EIR for the Project site.
2 of 4
~~~~~~~i
Supplemental Impact Noise 1: Exposure of existing houses to noise levels in excess of
standards established in the general plan.
Supplemental Impact Traffic 6: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario,
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Supplemental Impact Traffic 7: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario,
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Supplemental Impact Traffic 8: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario,
Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Supplementa/ Impact Traffic 11: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario,
freeway segments on I-580 and I-680 in the project area.
4. Unavoidable Siqnificant Adverse Impacts from the Fallon Villaqe 2005
Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts were
identified in the 2005 Supplemental EIR for the Fallon Village project.
Supplemental Impact TRA-1: Project contribution to impact the Dublin/Dougherty
intersection (DSEIR p. 64): The developers will be required to advance money for road
widening and other improvements but the improvements will not create enough capacity to
reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels.
Supplemental Impact TRA-4: Cumulative impacts to local freeways (DSEIR p. 69):
Traffic generated by the project will contribute to unacceptable levels of service on I-580 and I-
680 segments during peak a.m. and p.m. hours.
Supplemental Impact TRA-5: Consistency with Alameda County Congestion
Management Plan (DSEIR p. 73): Traffic generated by the project will exceed County
monitoring standards.
Supplemental Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the Fallon Ranch House (DSEIR p. 218.)
Supplemental lmpacts AQ-2, AQ-3: Increase in regional emissions (DSEIR pp. 239-240.):
The project's emissions increase exceeds BAAQMD thresholds on project and cumulative
levels.
4. Overridinq Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the
Eastern Dublin project approvals and implementing development against the significant and
potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as set forth in
Resolution 53-93. In 2002, the City Council balanced those unavoidable impacts as well as the
supplemental unavoidable impacts identified in the 2002 SEIR, against its benefits, and
determined that the unavoidable impacts were outweighed by the benefits of the 2002 project as
set forth in Resolution 40-02. In 2005, the City Council balanced those unavoidable impacts as
well as the supplemental unavoidable impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR, against its benefits,
and determined that the unavoidable impacts were outweighed by the benefits of the 2005
project as set forth in Resolution . The City Council now balances those unavoidable
impacts that apply to future development on the Project site, against its benefits, and hereby
determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as
3 of 4
~~~~ ~~~
further set forth below. The City declares that each one of the benefits included below,
independent of any other benefits, would be sufficient to justify approval of the Project and
override the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The substantial evidence
demonstrating the benefits of the Project are found in these findings, and in the documents
found in the administrative record for the Project.
The need for and desire of the City to implement and bring to fruition its long-range planning
goals and policies. This long-range planning is reflected in the City's 1993, 2002, and 2005
approvals for Eastern Dublin and the project site, and as set forth in the City's General Plan (as
amended), Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended), and Zoning regulations (as amended).
The City has carefully and systematically planned for the incremental development of its eastern
lands, and the development that comprises the Fallon Village project, which includes the Jordan
Ranch site. The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings for the Jordan
Ranch project and has determined that approval of the project would implement the City's long-
term program-level and development-level planning for Eastern Dublin in general and the
Jordan Ranch project site in particular.
Consistent with this planning vision for Eastern Dublin, the Jordan Ranch project provides for
development of a mix of uses, but also preserves important visual and biological resources
through the central open space corridor. The Project will provide up to 780 units of needed
housing with diverse densities and building types and will help implement policies contained in
the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Project will also provide up to 12,000 square feet
of commercial or non-residential land uses. The Project will provide new substantial property
tax revenue for the City, County, and State through the transfer and reassessment of property
due to the improvement of the property and the corresponding increase in value. The Project
will contribute funds to construct schools, parks, and other community facilities that are a benefit
City-wide. In particular, the Project will provide a$5,000,000. Community Benefit Payment and
other public benefits as required under the Development Agreement. Development of the site
will provide substantial construction jobs, including construction employment opportunities for
Dublin residents.
4 of 4