HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Jordan Rch GP East Dub SP19- - 182
`O`�LIFOU��
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
CITY COUNCIL File #400- 20/420- 30/450 -30
June 5, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo, City Manager(` 4x� T a
SUBJECT: Jordan Ranch 2, General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments,
Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plans, and CEQA Addendum
Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
amendments accompanied by consistent Planned Development Zoning for Subarea 1 - a
10.7 -acre Public /Semi - Public school site proposed for an underlay land use designation of
Medium Density Residential (MDR); Subarea 2 — 7.8 acres north of Central Parkway, including
approximately 5.3 acres of Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) and a 2.0 -acre Semi -
Public site proposed for MDR, with an underlay land use designation of Public /Semi - Public;
Subarea 3 — 6.6 acres south of Central Parkway of Mixed Use to MHDR; and Subarea 4 - 4.6
acres of a 52.7 -acre Open Space at the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway to
Mixed Use including non - residential use at .35 FAR and /or as many as 115 units. The proposed
land use amendments and rezoning would result in up to 964 units across all of Jordan Ranch.
The Project application also included a Revised Vesting Tentative subdivision map and related
Site Development Review approvals applicable to Subareas 2 and 3 approved by the Planning
Commission at their meeting of May 8, 2012.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The Applicant has elected to make a public art in -lieu contribution payment in accordance with
Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code. Additionally, a Community Benefit Payment,
secured by the Development Agreement, obligated the developer to make payments to convert
the Semi - Public Site and to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing obligation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: Conduct public hearing, deliberate, adopt Resolution
adopting a CEQA Addendum for the project known as Jordan Ranch 2 specific to four subareas
and adopting a related Statement of Overriding Considerations; adopt Resolution approving the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments for the project known as Jordan
Ranch 2 specific to four subareas; and waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance approving
a Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
Amendments for the project known as Jordan Ranch 2 specific to four subareas.
Page 1 of 10 ITEM NO. 6.1
L 41 -
Submitted By
Director of Community Development
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Jordan Ranch is approximately 189.4 acres of gently rolling hills, and grasslands historically
used for cattle grazing within Fallon Village. Generally, it is located south of Positano Parkway,
east of Fallon Road, west of the Croak properties that extend to the City limits, and north of the
currently- vacant Chen property.
The general vicinity of Jordan Ranch is shown as follows:
{, CIJR1IN LiVFRIVIORF
1
PI _ SANTON
rI.,CHYI i Y 500
Q
LIARMOF E
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
On December 13, 2005, the City Council adopted General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendments, and Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) Zoning (PA 04 -040) for the Fallon
Village area. The Fallon Village project area encompasses 1,134 acres including Jordan
Ranch. The PD rezoning established the maximum number of residential units at 3,108 units for
the Fallon Village area with a maximum of 1,064 residential units and up to 83,635 square feet
of non - residential (commercial) use for Jordan Ranch. The amended land use plan and
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) also addressed the requirements of the
Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Airport Protection Area (APA) adopted after the 2002
annexation.
In 2010, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved PA 09 -011 for
Jordan Ranch which included:
Page 2 of 10
• A Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan to establish the mix of
unit types, development regulations, and allow a maximum of 781 units.
• Site Development Review for six neighborhoods in Jordan Ranch
• Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 to establish the overall subdivision pattern, and
• Development Agreement which, among other things, allowed the developer to make a
Community Benefit Payment to convert the Semi - Public site to residential uses and to
satisfy the Inclusionary Housing obligation. Payments have been made to date according
to the schedule in the Development Agreement. A portion of those funds were used to
relocate the YMCA to Dublin with the remaining funds left in reserve to facilitate future
Semi - Public endeavors by the City.
The Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review on December 13, 2011 for 166
Single - Family detached units for Brookfield Homes. These units are located north of the Open
Space corridor and are currently under construction.
Current Proposal
The current proposal includes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to
change the land use designations and Planned Development zoning for the four subareas
shown in the Figure 2 below.
a
Figure 2 — Subarea Map
ANALYSIS:
General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Page 3 of 10
On February 1, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution 11 -11 approving a General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Initiation Study based on the current proposal.
Table 1: Proposed Land Use Amendments by Subarea
*Change in acreage is a result of roadway alignments and other minor adjustments to provide 10.0 acre net usable to the school
district.
Subarea 1: The current Land Use Designation for the 10.1 acre area known as Subarea 1 is
Public /Semi - Public to be developed as an elementary school. The proposal is to create an
underlying land use designation of Medium Density (6.1 to 14 du /ac) residential in the event that
the School District determines that this site is not needed.
Subarea 2: The current Land Use Designation for this 8 -acre site is Semi - Public and Medium -
High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 du /ac). The proposal is to redesignate this site for Medium
Density Residential (6.1 to 14 du /ac) land uses with an underlying land use designation of
Public /Semi - Public in the event that the School District does move forward with the acquisition
of the School site in Subarea 1 (directly adjacent to this site) and determines additional land
area is needed. The Development Agreement provides for the conversion of the Semi - Public
site and obligates the property owner to provide a Community Benefit Payment. Payments have
been made and a portion of the funds were used to relocate the YMCA to Dublin. The
remaining payments would be used to facilitate other Semi - Public opportunities within Dublin.
Subarea 3: Currently the land use designation is Mixed Use. The proposal is to change the land
use designation to Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 du /ac). The purpose of this
proposal is to eliminate the ground floor commercial uses, the loft units and the live -work units.
The Neighborhood Square designation will remain unchanged.
Page 4 of 10
Existing
PROPOSED
Land Use Designations
Land Use Designations
Public /Semi - Public
Public /Semi - Public
(Elementary School) w/
(Elementary School)
underlay- Medium Density Residential
SUBAREA 1
(6.1 - 14 du /ac)
Acres
Acres*
10.1
10.7
Medium High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
(14.1 to 25 du /ac) and
(6.1 - 14 du /ac)
Public /Semi - Public
(underlay Public /Semi - Public — School)
SUBAREA 2
Acres
Acres*
7.8
MHDR
5.3
P /SP
2.7
subtotal
8.0
Mixed Use
Medium High Density Residential
SUBAREA 3
Acres
Acres
6.6
6.6
Open Space
Mixed Use
SUBAREA 4
Acres
4.6
Acres
4.6
Acres
29.7
Totals:
*Change in acreage is a result of roadway alignments and other minor adjustments to provide 10.0 acre net usable to the school
district.
Subarea 1: The current Land Use Designation for the 10.1 acre area known as Subarea 1 is
Public /Semi - Public to be developed as an elementary school. The proposal is to create an
underlying land use designation of Medium Density (6.1 to 14 du /ac) residential in the event that
the School District determines that this site is not needed.
Subarea 2: The current Land Use Designation for this 8 -acre site is Semi - Public and Medium -
High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 du /ac). The proposal is to redesignate this site for Medium
Density Residential (6.1 to 14 du /ac) land uses with an underlying land use designation of
Public /Semi - Public in the event that the School District does move forward with the acquisition
of the School site in Subarea 1 (directly adjacent to this site) and determines additional land
area is needed. The Development Agreement provides for the conversion of the Semi - Public
site and obligates the property owner to provide a Community Benefit Payment. Payments have
been made and a portion of the funds were used to relocate the YMCA to Dublin. The
remaining payments would be used to facilitate other Semi - Public opportunities within Dublin.
Subarea 3: Currently the land use designation is Mixed Use. The proposal is to change the land
use designation to Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 du /ac). The purpose of this
proposal is to eliminate the ground floor commercial uses, the loft units and the live -work units.
The Neighborhood Square designation will remain unchanged.
Page 4 of 10
Subarea 4: Subarea 4 is currently designated as Open Space. The Applicant is proposing to
change the land use to Mixed Use to allow for a combination of up to 5,000 sf of retail
commercial and up to 115 residential units. With a maximum of 1.0 FAR for the Mixed -Use
designation (i.e., 196,020 sf for the site), there is adequate room for development of the
potential future commercial and residential uses.
The project proposal includes related amendments to the various figures, texts, and tables in the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the
documents. A Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment for Jordan Ranch 2 is included as Attachment 1.
Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments
Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning Amendment:
The Applicant proposes to amend the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning to be consistent
with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use amendments shown in Table 1
above.
Stage 2 Amended Development Plan
The Stage 2 Development Plan Amendment encompasses only Subarea 2 and 3. The property
owner will need to obtain approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan prior to development of
Subareas 1 and 4.
Subarea 2: The Applicant has requested Development Regulations to allow for Single - Family
detached units identified as "3,200 square foot lots" for Subarea 2 designated as Medium
Density Residential. These revised land use standards would not apply to other areas in Jordan
Ranch. As currently adopted, Single - Family detached units in the Medium Density Residential
areas of Jordan Ranch are limited to an alley - loaded access configuration. The Applicant
proposed to add a category that allows for front - loaded access to garages from the public street.
While the unit type is defined as "3,200 square foot lots," the actual minimum lot size required is
3,225 square feet due to the minimum lot dimension of 43 feet x 75 feet. No lot has been
plotted with less than the minimum dimensions or lot area.
The proposed Development Regulations for the Medium Density Residential lots in Subarea 2
(3,200 square foot lots) are shown in Table 2 below:
Page 5 of 10
Table 2: Development Regulations — Sub area 2 Medium Density Residential -
3,200 square foot lots (new category)
Standards
Medium Density Residential
Single - Family Detached
Subarea 2
3,200 sf Lots
Lot Size
3,225 sf
Minimum Lot Dimensions
43 feet x 75 feet
Minimum Street Frontage
@cu I -de- sac /knuckles
25 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
50%
Maximum Building Height
35 feet
Maximum Stories
3
Minimum Front Yard Setbacks
to living area
15 feet
to porch /deck
10 feet
to front of garage
18 feet
Encroachments
2 feet maximum into required setback
Minimum Side Yard Setback
Side yard setback
4 feet minimum
corner lot (setback from side street)
9 feet
porch /deck
4 feet (7 feet @ corner)
Encroachments
2 feet maximum into required setback
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
Living Space
10 feet
One -story Garage
5 feet
Encroachments
2 feet maximum into required setback
Usable Private Rear Yard Space
400 sf [contiguous] flat area
minimum dimension: 18 feet in one direction
Required Parking
Guest Parking
2 covered spaces per unit
1 space
Subarea 3: With the change in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as well as
the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning Amendment from Mixed Use to Medium -High Density
Residential uses, the Applicant is proposing to eliminate the loft, live -work and commercial uses
but retain the previously reviewed and approved townhouses. Slight changes are proposed to
the Stage 2 Development Plan to accommodate this amendment. Architectural Design
Standards and Landscape Design Standards would remain from the previous approval.
Page 6 of 10
NEIGHBORHOO C
J D SQUARE
2.] ACRES
9 E SITE OPTION 28 b
-o l09 zoo
11 March 26, 2012 P,o'.d N, 184.009
Figure 3: Stage 2 Amended Development Plan
The residential density and product mix for Jordan Ranch that would result from the requested
amendments would be a total of 964 units if both Subarea 1 (the Elementary School site) and
Subarea 2 are developed as Medium Density Residential. This figure is 184 units above the
781 units approved previously with PA 09 -011, but less than the 1,064 units initially approved for
Jordan Ranch under PA 04 -040. Fewer units would be constructed if the Elementary School is
built on Subarea 1 and all or a portion of Subarea 2 is built out as additional area for the
Elementary School. Total commercial or non - residential use would be up to 5,000 square feet
which is 5,000 to 7,000 square feet less than approved previously with PA 09 -011 in Subarea 3.
Table 3: Subarea Development - Underlay /Overlay Alternatives
As Approved
per PA 09 -011
�a
with Subarea 2
as School
without
School
ac du
ac
du
ac
1
du
e
Subarea 1 10.1 0
�
0
10.1
100
10.1 100
s
i
I
56
8.0
0
8.0 56
Subarea 3 6.6 105
6.6
1
6.6
r
43 X 75 LOTS- 66 UNITS
6.6 109
Subarea 4 4.6 0
4.6
115
4.6
115
4.6 115
Totals 1 29.31 197
1 29.7(1)1
280
1 29.31
TO WN/FUTi 109 UNITS
69DU NTSDE GARAGES:
1 29.3 380
_
\
i
_
v
TANDEM GARAGES_
40 UNITS
TOWN /FLAT GUEST PARKING:
134 SPACES
I
NEIGHBORHOO C
J D SQUARE
2.] ACRES
9 E SITE OPTION 28 b
-o l09 zoo
11 March 26, 2012 P,o'.d N, 184.009
Figure 3: Stage 2 Amended Development Plan
The residential density and product mix for Jordan Ranch that would result from the requested
amendments would be a total of 964 units if both Subarea 1 (the Elementary School site) and
Subarea 2 are developed as Medium Density Residential. This figure is 184 units above the
781 units approved previously with PA 09 -011, but less than the 1,064 units initially approved for
Jordan Ranch under PA 04 -040. Fewer units would be constructed if the Elementary School is
built on Subarea 1 and all or a portion of Subarea 2 is built out as additional area for the
Elementary School. Total commercial or non - residential use would be up to 5,000 square feet
which is 5,000 to 7,000 square feet less than approved previously with PA 09 -011 in Subarea 3.
Table 3: Subarea Development - Underlay /Overlay Alternatives
As Approved
per PA 09 -011
with Subarea 1
as School
with Subarea 2
as School
without
School
ac du
ac
du
ac
1
du
ac du
Subarea 1 10.1 0
10.7
0
10.1
100
10.1 100
Subarea 2 8.0 92
7.8(l)
56
8.0
0
8.0 56
Subarea 3 6.6 105
6.6
109
6.6
109
6.6 109
Subarea 4 4.6 0
4.6
115
4.6
115
4.6 115
Totals 1 29.31 197
1 29.7(1)1
280
1 29.31
324
1 29.3 380
(,) Additional acreage (.4 acres) included from adjacent right -of -way.
The proposed Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 - Planned
Development Zoning). A City Council Ordinance approving the Planned Development Zoning
and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments for Jordan Ranch 2 is
included as Attachment 2.
Page 7 of 10
Planning Commission Action:
At their meeting of May 8, 2012, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development
Review for Subareas 2 and 3 and revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 by Resolution 12-
23 (Attachment 3 & 4). Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 would be revised to reflect the land
use, zoning, and Site Development Review applicable to the Subareas. This approval is subject
to the City Council adoption of the proposed GPA /EDSPA and Planned Development
Amendments. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council adopt the
proposed CEQA Addendum (Resolution 12 -20), GPA /EDSPA (Resolution 12 -21), and PD
Zoning Amendment (Resolution 12 -22). Please refer to Attachment 5 for the Draft Planning
Commission Minutes from the May 8, 2012 meeting.
CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE
The application includes a request for Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage
2 Development Plan Amendment that is consistent with the proposed land use amendments
under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Stage 2 Planned Development
zoning and Development Regulations would be applicable to the revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 8024 and Site Development Reviews for Subarea 2 and 3 approved by the Planning
Commission by Resolution 12 -23 (Attachment 3). The SDR approval is consistent with Planned
Development zoning standards adopted along with this application.
The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and
Sustainability Element of the General Plan. The project itself is a portion of the larger Fallon
Village community plan that has implemented pathways, gathering spaces, and open spaces.
The Project will adhere to the City of Dublin Green Building Ordinance. The proposed project
Applicant will further the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the
General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and opportunities for
future generations.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services
and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of
Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local
Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies
have been included in the attached Resolution for the Site Development Review and the Vesting
Tentative Map (Attachment 3) previously approved by the Planning Commission which is
dependent on City Council action.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants
within 300 feet of the Jordan Ranch property. A Public Notice was also published in the Valley
Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been
provided to the Applicant.
Page 8 of 10
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project is part of the larger project known as Fallon Village (formerly known as the
Eastern Dublin Property Owners, or EDPO). In 2002, a number of owners in Eastern Dublin
filed applications for annexation of portions of the current project site to the City and to the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD.) At that time, the City prepared and certified a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH # 2001052114, Resolution 40 -02) for
that project. The SEIR was a supplement to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR certified by the City
Council on May 10, 1993 (SCH # 91103064, Resolution 51 -930). Both the 1993 EIR and 2002
SEIR are incorporated herein by reference.
The Fallon Village project proposed in 2005 (for PA 04 -040) included the same properties as the
EDPO, as well as, a specific proposal for the Braddock and Logan properties (PA 05 -038), now
referenced as Positano. Based on the results of an Initial Study, the City prepared a Draft SEIR
to the 1993 and 2002 EIRs which was circulated for public review from August 23, 2005 through
October 6, 2005 (SCH #2005062010). A Final SEIR for Fallon Village dated October 2005 was
reviewed and certified by the City Council on December 6, 2005 by Resolution No. 222 -05.
Significant unavoidable impacts were identified in these EIR's that required the City Council to
adopt Statements of Overriding Considerations with the approval of each related project.
Subsequently, an Addendum addressing PA 09 -011 was adopted on June 1, 2010 by City
Council Resolution 80 -10.
Consistent with CEQA, Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, an
Initial Study was prepared by the City, as the Lead Agency, to determine whether there would be
significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of the current project beyond or different
from those already addressed in the previous CEQA documents. Consistent with CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15164, a determination was made to prepare an Addendum to the
environmental documents certified previously.
A City Council Resolution approving the CEQA Addendum is included as Attachment 6. The
Initial Study and an Addendum (Exhibit A) to previous CEQA documents concluded that the
proposed project did not identify any new or more severe significant impacts that were not
analyzed previously referenced above, and that no further environmental review under CEQA is
required. Pursuant to the 2002 Citizens for a Better Environment case, approval of the
Addendum will include a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B) for significant
unavoidable impacts identified in the prior EIRs that are applicable to the project or project site.
The CEQA Addendum and all of the EIRs, Resolutions, and Ordinances referenced above are
incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during normal
business hours.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendments for the project known as Jordan Ranch 2 specific
to four subareas
2. Ordinance approving a Planned Development rezone with related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments for the project
known as Jordan Ranch 2 specific to four subareas
3. Planning Commission Resolution 12 -23 approving a Site
Development Review Permit and Revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 8024 for the project known as Jordan Ranch 2 specific to
Subareas 2 and 3
Page 9 of 10
4. May 8, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report, without attachments
5. Draft Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 2012
6. Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum for the project known as
Jordan Ranch 2 specific to four subareas and adopting a related
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 10 of 10
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENTS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS JORDAN RANCH 2
SPECIFIC TO FOUR SUBAREAS
(PLPA- 2010- 00068)
WHEREAS, Mission Valley Properties representing BJP ROF Jordan Ranch LLC
( "Applicant ") submitted applications for Jordan Ranch 2, specific to four (4) subareas ( "Project
Site "). The applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments to change land use designations; 2) Planned Development Rezoning with related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan amendments; 3) Site Development Review (SDR) for
Subareas 2 and 3; and 4) Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 8024. The Project Site and the
applications are collectively known as the "Project ;" and
WHEREAS, Jordan Ranch is part of a larger project known as Fallon Village and
generally is located north of the extension of Central Parkway, south of Positano Parkway, east
of Fallon Road, and west of Croak Road; and
WHEREAS, consistent with California Government Code section 65352.3, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City
on the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments. None of the contacted tribes
requested a consultation within the 90 -day statutory consultation period and no further action is
required under section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, the land uses in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are
proposed to be amended as follows:
Subarea 1) 10.7 -acre Elementary School site proposed for an underlay land use
designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) (6.1 to 14.0 dwelling
units per acre) with conceptual development proposed at 10 units per acre,
or 100 units; and
Subarea 2) 7.8 acres north of Central Parkway, including approximately 5.3 acres of
Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25 dwelling units per
acre) and a 2.0 -acre Semi - Public overlay site, combined as Subarea 2 and
proposed for MDR, or 56 units, with an underlay land use designation of
Public /Semi - Public; and
Subarea 3) 6.6 acres south of Central Parkway of Mixed Use to MHDR, or 109 units,
within Subarea 3; and
Subarea 4) 4.6 acres of a 52.7 -acre Open Space corridor facing Fallon Road (north of
central Parkway) to Mixed Use including 115 multifamily units at 25 units
per acre and 5,000 square feet of non - residential use at .35 FAR; and
1
WHEREAS, the Project would amend corresponding text, tables, and figures related to
amendments to land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
including but not limited to area wide land use diagrams, land use summary tables, and
environmental resource exhibits; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would
change the existing land use designations for the four Subareas as described above; and
WHEREAS, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum has been
prepared for the Project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report for the Planning Commission, dated May 8, 2012 and
incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the proposed
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, and the related CEQA Addendum;
and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12 -21
(incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council approve the General
Plan and Specific Plan Amendments for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the CEQA Addendum, prior CEQA
documents, and testimony prior to taking any action; and
WHEREAS, a City Council Staff Report, dated , 2012 and incorporated
herein by reference, described and analyzed the CEQA Addendum and the Project, including
the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the CEQA Addendum, prior CEQA documents,
the Staff Report, the Planning Commission recommendation, and the Project at a noticed public
hearing held on 2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity
to be heard; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution XX -12,
adopting the CEQA Addendum for the Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by
reference.
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 Dublin City Council approves the following
Amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the
amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent, and that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
as amended is consistent with the General Plan, as amended (strikeout and bold text will not be
shown in the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan).
2
A. Amend the Land Use Map (Figure 1 -1 a) of the General Plan as shown below-
* D U B L I N G E N E R A L P L A N (Fi'guee 1 -raj
L A N U IJ S E PW'i A R as arraencl ecJ thrra u'g Pa lucre a, 2012
�y
{rid �n
7�y� �DM�J�6b 666,11, 1 ryxfiJ11` ^r `roil „F 1.
0
FW➢e'g /5ummriPv&I2 /Open Spar -a
Gvunmme'sl/YmrdwbiN
Nwrvtc.�nm CUWin
Pl rn'ng Anusl'mitc y..� - IT:�p�. .m �`o.' .,... ..�._
�� Mp nmKiv.h
,.:.. a........
IS fkxrrwv.n.. GW:C.... py mnwyunnk
F..�..�=.�Ndm g .. ae....d.y .a : "^ w.,•••.
.,.. 1iOY1..
wlm
�
urw
cu
R'c
/��'-,ry ..
rip
o!✓
. , e......erm�o.,;,�.en..
m .vne.na a mr u., r.. x a..av aar.v�
Fv ✓� «x
Tr V If J d n.0
-
a v..
3
B. Amend the Land Use Map (Figure 4.1) of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as follows-
i. a �,,...,- e° wl to
i r~°
Parks Reserve FOfces Training Area
(Camp Parks)
C.—ly of Alameda
11
P-- PA M-ND
121
'.) TI
,le'',
) k j HI 1N4
Figure 4.1
Land Use Map
Sp.dfi. PI.. LU
KOZ
C. Table 2.1 in the General Plan will be amended as follows as follows:
TABLE 2.1*
LAND USE SUMMARY: EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA
(Amended: Resolutions 223 -05, 58 -07, 37 -08, 210 -08, 176 -09, 76 -10, 55 -12, XX -12)
Classification
Acres
Intensity **
Units
Factor
Yield
RESIDENTIAL
Du's /acre
Du's
Persons /du
Population
High Density
69.9
35
2,447
2.0
4,894
Medium -High Density
132.4
133.7
20
2,-64-6
2,674
2.0
5-,2-3-2
5,348
Medium - Density * **
561.2
569 (i)
10
5 2
5,690
2.0
11,224
11,380
Single Family * * * * * * **
859.85
4
3,439
3.2
11,005
Estate Residential
30.4
0.13
4
3.2
13
Mixed Use * * **
36
115
2.0
1-92
230
Rural Residential
555.45
.01
6
3.2
19
TOTAL
2,209.2
2,218.3
14,220
14,375
32,579
32,889
COMMERCIAL
Acres
Floor Area
Ratio
(Gross)
Square Feet
(millions)
Square Feet
/ Employee
Jobs
General Commercial
347.9
.35/.25
4.228
510
8,290
General Commercial/Campus
Office * * * **
72.7
.28
.887
385
2,303
Mixed Use
64
4.6
.3/1.0
X83
.005
490
4-74
10
Mixed Use 2 /Campus Office * * * * * * * **
25.33
.45
.497
260
1,910
Neighborhood Commercial
57.5
.35/.30
.819
490
1,671
Campus Office
164.03
.75/.35
2.644
260
10,168
Industrial Park * * * * **
114.7
.25/.28
1.329
590
2,253
TOTAL:
799.6
786.76
1
10.497
1 10.402
26 66
26,605
PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION
City Park
56.3
1 park
Community Park
97.0
2 parks
Neighborhood Park
47.1
8 parks
Neighborhood Square
16.6
6 parks
Regional Park
11.7
1 park
TOTAL:
228.7
18 parks
OPEN SPACE
776r.9
772.3
PUBLIC /SEMI - PUBLIC
Public /Semi - Public
98
.25
1.07
590
1,809
Semi - Public* * * * * * *
3.
11.1
.25
Schools
Elementary School
63.2(')
5 schools
Junior High School
25.2
1 school
High School
0
0 school
School Subtotal
88.4
6 schools
TOTAL:
297.9
285.9
TABLE 2.1*
LAND USE SUMMARY: EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA
(Amended: Resolutions 223 -05, 58 -07, 37 -08, 210 -08, 176 -09, 76 -10, 55 -12, XX -12)
Classification
Acres
Intensity **
Units
Factor
Yield
TRANSIT CENTER (Total)
90.7
General Commercial
356.8 acres
- Campus Office (including ancillary
4.122 MSF
General Commercial /Campus
Office
72.7 acres
.28 FAR
.887 MSF
retail)
38.3
.25 -.28 FAR
.747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial
61.4 acres
- High - Density Residential
31.5
Mixed Use
6.4aGres
4.6 acres
.30 -1.0 FAR
P
.005 MSF
- Park
12.2
.35 -.75 FAR
3.730 MSF
- Public /Semi- Public (Transit- Related)
8.7
GRAND TOTAL
432
4,382.66
Table Notes:
*Table 2.1 appears as Table "2A" in the Eastern Dublin GPA. It was relabeled herein for formatting purposes.
* *Numbers represent a mid -range considered reasonable given the permitted density range (except the MU land use).
** *50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties shall have private, flat yards.
* ** *For the purpose of this table, Mixed Use acreage only will be considered Commercial, not residential, to avoid duplication in tabulation of overall total
acres.
* * ** *The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General Commercial /Campus Office is the average of the figure used for General Commercial and Campus
Office uses.
** * ** *The .28 FAR figure utilized for Industrial Park refers to Industrial Park areas within Fallon Village.
* * * * ** *The location of Semi- Public sites on the Croak and Chen properties ofFallon Village will be determined at the time ofPD -Stage 2 Development Plan
approval. The Semi -Public site on Croak will be 2.0 net acres; and the Semi - Public site on Chen will be 2.5 net acres. For the purposes of this table, 2.0 acres
of Single Family Residential land on Croak was changed to Semi -Public and 2.5 acres of Medium High Density residential land on Chen was changed to Semi -
Public. These assumptions may change at the time of PD -Stage 2 Development Plan approval.
* * * * * ** *The General Plan originally considered 68 units on Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow
development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report.
* * * * * * ** *The Mixed Use 2 /Campus Office land use designation allows for either a mixed use project with residential land uses comprising up to 50% ofthe
project's development area (248,259 square feet) or an all Campus Office project (with no residential uses) with up to 496,519 square feet of development.
Table 2.1 has been amended to reflect a Campus Office project. If the project is developed as a mixed -use project with residential uses, the table shall be
amended at that time to reflect that.
(1) Public /Semi - Public approved as underlying land use on Subarea 2 of Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2010 - 00068). Specific development to be determined at Stage 2
Development Plan.
(2) Medium Density Residential approved as underlying land use on Subarea 1 of Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2010 - 00068). Up to 100 units possible as determined at Stage 2
Development Plan.
D. Table 4.1 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows:
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 66 -03, 47 -04, 223 -05, 58 -07, 37 -08, 210 - 08,176 -09, 55 -12, XX -12)
Land Use Description
LAND AREA
DENSITY
YIELD
COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL
General Commercial
356.8 acres
.25 -.35 FAR
4.122 MSF
General Commercial /Campus
Office
72.7 acres
.28 FAR
.887 MSF
Industrial Park*
61.3 acres
.25 -.28 FAR
.747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial
61.4 acres
.30 -.35 FAR
.871 MSF
Mixed Use
6.4aGres
4.6 acres
.30 -1.0 FAR
P
.005 MSF
Campus Office
192.66 acres
.35 -.75 FAR
3.730 MSF
31
Subtotal
'51,x, 3 ae
749.5 acres
10.,� 44
10.36 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
High Density
68.2 acres
35 du /ac
2,387 du
Medium High Density
144.5 aG
145.8 acres
20 du /ac
2,858 du
2,916 du
Medium Density **
514.3 aGr
522.1(2) acres
10 du /ac
5,132 du
5,221 du
Single Family * * **
856.75 acres
4 du /ac
3,427 du
Estate Residential
30.4 acres
0.13 du /ac
4 du
Rural Residential /Agric.
553.25 acres
.01 du /ac
6 du
Mixed Use
6.4acres!n
4.6 acres * **
15 du /ac
96-du
115 du
Subtotal
13,910 du
14,076 du
2,181.1 acres
PUBLIC /SEMI- PUBLIC
Public /Semi - Public
95.2 acres
.24 FAR
.995 MSF
Semi - Public
9.3 ages
7.3 acres
.25 FAR
Subtotal
104,.5 a
102.5 acres
.995 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementary School
66.5 acres(')
5 schools
Junior High School
21.3 acres
1 school
Subtotal
87.8 acres
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
City Park
56.3 acres
1 park
Community Park
97.0 acres
3 parks
Neighborhood Park
49.0 acres
7 parks
Neighborhood Square
16.7 acres
6 parks
Subtotal
219 acres
17 parks
Open Space
734.8 aeres
730.2 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA
4,071 aaGm
�,-.2
4,070.1 acres
`The .28 FAR for Industrial Park refers to the Industrial Park areas in Fallon Village.
"50% of the units within the Medium Density land use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties shall have private, flat yards.
"`The 4.6 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Mixed Use cells. The 4.6 acres under Residential is not included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 5,000 square
feet of commercial and /or 115 units are anticipated on the mixed use site (total).
"" The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was amended to allow
development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report.
(1) Public /Semi - Public approved as underlying land use on Subarea 2 of Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2010 - 00068). Specific development to be determined at Stage 2
Development Plan.
(2) Medium Density Residential approved as underlying land use on Subarea 1 of Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2010 - 00068). Up to 100 units possible as determined at Stage 2
Development Plan.
E. Table 4.2 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows:
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04,223-05,58-07,37-08,176-09,55-12, XX -12)
Land Use Designation
Development
Sq Ft /Employees
Persons /du
Jobs
Commercial
Industrial Park
.747 MSF
590
1,266
General
Commercial /Campus
Office*
.887 MSF
385
2,303
General Commercial
4.122 MSF
510
8,082
Neighborhood Commercial
.885 MSF
490
1,806
Mixed Use **
X3.005 MSF
490
-17410
Campus Office
3.730 MSF
260
14,346
Public /Semi Public
.995 MSF
590
1,686
Semi - Public
590
TOTAL:
11.481
29
29,499
11.436 MSF
Residential
Population
High Density
2,387
2.0
4,774
Medium High Density
27858
2,866
2.0
F
5,732
Medium Density
5432
5,221
2.0
10,26
10,442
Single Family * **
3,427
3.2
10,966
Estate Residential
4
3.2
13
Mixed Use **
96
115
2.0
4-92
230
Rural Residential /A ric.
6
3.2
19
TOTAL:
118
14,026
31,944
31,834
'The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General Commercial /Campus Office is the average of the figures used for General Commercial and Campus
Office uses.
"Includes Mixed Use units (4.6 acres and 115 units) within Fallon Village Center. 5,000 square feet of commercial and 115 units are anticipated on the
mixed use site(total). The FAR for Mixed Use is the maximum area for all development (i.e. total of residential and commercial on designated sites).
* ** The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally considered 68 units on the Dublin Ranch North (Redgewick) property. The land use designation was
amended to allow development of 4 units. This change results in 64 excess single family units than what was analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin
Environmental Impact Report.
F. Table 4.3 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows:
TABLE 4.3
CITY OF DUBLIN
PROJECTED JOBS /HOUSING BALANCE
(Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05,58-07,37-08,55-12, XX -12)
PLANNING
Dwelling
Jobs
Employed
Balancez
RatiO3
AREA
Units
Density
Residents'
Mixed Use
6 4
Existing City of
7,100
12,210
12,000
-210
1.02:1.0
Dublin4
6A
20 du/a
Q2sf
4.6
Eastern Dublin
13,91
29,424
21,741
4=9 Elt+ a
1.35:1.0
Specific Plan Area
14,0265
25 du /ac
22,722
-6,702
1.30:1.0
TOTAL:
21,01
41,634
33,741
-7,893
1.2
Medium High Residential
21,126
20 du /ac
34,722
-6,912
1.20:1.0
'Projections assume a ratio of 1.62 employed residents per household based on ABAG's Projections '90.
2 The "balance' refers to the number of employed residents in relation to the number of jobs (i.e., a positive number means there are more
employed residents than jobs).
3 Ratio of jobs to employed residents
4 Taken from ABAG's Projections '90.
6Underlying Medium Density Residential on Jordan school site not shown (PLPA 2010 - 00068). Up to 100 units possible and determined at PD
Stage 2 Development Plan.
G. Table 4.9 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan will be amended as follows:
I
TABLE 4.9
FALLON VILLAGE
CENTER
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Designation
Acres
Density
Development Potential
Mixed Use
6 4
30FIA R
93,63=9 s
4.6
.35 FAR
70,132 sf
Commercial subtotal
6A
20 du/a
Q2sf
4.6
25 du /ac
70,032 sf
Mixed Use - Residential units
(1)
4=9 Elt+ a
25 du /ac
115 du
Medium Density Residential
3-38
10 du /ac
339 (4
37.0 (2)
370 du
Medium High Residential
23�
20 du /ac
542 El
16.7
334 du
Residential Subtotal
57-.6
--
976 d
53.7
819 du
Neighborhood Park
2.7
--
--
I
Community Park
18.3
-- --
Open Space
3.6
-- --
Park/Open Space Subtotal
24.6
-- 1 community park
1 neighborhood square
Semi - Public
4:5
-- --
2.5
Total
934
-- 83,365 s 70,032 sf
85.4
commercial
97-6-du 819 du
1 community park
1 neighborhood square
1 Within the 4.6 acres of Mixed Use designation, there is a potential for 115 dwelling units.
2 Underlying Medium Density Residential on Jordan school site not shown (PLPA 2010 - 00068). Up to 100 units possible and determined at
Stage 2 Development Plan.
NOTE: The prior Junior High School land use designation has been changed to Medium High Density Residential.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect thirty days after the
date of adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2012 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPA #120101PLPA- 2010 -00068 Jordan Ranch Phase 2 GPA InitiatioMCC Meeting 6.5.1ZCC Reso Jordan 2 gpa spa.doc
10
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE
WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE PROJECT
KNOWN AS JORDAN RANCH 2 SPECIFIC TO FOUR SUBAREAS
(APNs 985 - 0027 - 007 -02 and 985 - 0027 - 006 -04)
PLPA- 2010 -00068
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: RECITALS
A. On December 13, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 32 -05 approving Planned
Development Zoning and a related Stage 1 Development Plan for the entire 1,134 -acre Fallon
Village project area (PA 04 -040). On December 2, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
45 -08 amending the Stage 1 Development Plan to establish revised standards for private yards in
Medium Density Residential land use designations on the Jordan and Croak properties. On June
22, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance 13 -10 approving a Stage 2 Development Plan for
Jordan Ranch consistent with then - existing land use designations.
B. The Stage 1 Development Plans in Ordinance 32 -05 and 45 -08 continue to apply to the
Project site except as amended herein consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan
amendments, which, among other things establishes overlay and /or underlay designations in
Subareas 1 and 2. These designations are related to the potential development of an elementary
school on Subarea 1 and possibly portions of Subarea 2. If the school is not built, Medium Density
Residential detached units are allowed.
C. The Stage 2 Development Plan amends Ordinance 13 -10 as to Subareas 2 and 3.
SECTION 2: FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows.
The proposed Planned Development rezoning and Development Plan
amendments for the four subareas (the "Property') will be harmonious and
compatible with existing and potential development in surrounding areas because:
the proposed zoning amendments would allow residential development of the
Property consistent with development approved for other areas of Jordan Ranch.
2. The Property is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the Planned
Development Zoning District proposed because: 1) it is compatible with the overall
plan for Jordan Ranch; 2) The Project will be developed under standards
consistent with those adopted for other development in Jordan Ranch; 3) the
rezoning and Development Plan amendments will allow the construction of
residential communities consistent with the density and character of Jordan
Ranch; and 4) the Project will implement all applicable mitigation measures from
prior CEQA reviews and all applicable City grading, construction and development
ordinances .
3. The proposed Planned Development rezoning and Development Plan
Amendments for the Property will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare because: 1) structures will be constructed and neighborhoods
laid out in compliance with building and fire department safety regulations and
codes, 2) development resulting from the proposed rezoning of the Property would
be subject to development standards previously approved for Residential and
Mixed Use adopted with Planned Development PA 04 -040 and PA 09 -011 and as
set forth in this Ordinance, and 3) development resulting from the proposed zoning
amendments to the Property would be subject to conditions of approval under the
authority to preserve public health, safety, and welfare.
4. The proposed Planned Development rezoning and Development Plan
amendments for the Property are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the Property has been designated for
the requested use under the companion General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan approved by Resolution XX -12 on XX, XX 2012, and 2) the
requested zoning is consistent with this land use.
B. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows.
The proposed Planned Development zoning amendments and Development
Plans for the Property meet the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 Planned
Development Zoning District of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the
proposed project is consistent with and implements the intent of the companion
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, and ; 2) the
proposed project complies with the purposes stated in Section 8.32.010 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance by coordinating future development of the Project site
with similar existing and planned residential development in neighboring areas..
2. Development under the Planned Development District Development Plan will be
harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the
surrounding area because: 1) the proposed zoning amendments to the Property
are consistent with development of planned communities within the Jordan Ranch;
and 2) adequate hillside slope preservation, drainage, and bio- retention measures
will be incorporated to prevent run -off onto adjacent and surrounding
developments.
C. The City Council approved a CEQA Addendum for the Project, including the proposed PD
rezoning, by Resolution XX -12, on XX, XX, 2012, which resolution is incorporated herein by
reference.
2
SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map
is amended to rezone the Property to PD- Planned Development for the four Subareas as shown
below:
SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set
forth in the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plans adopted through Ordinances 32 -05 and 45 -08
and the Jordan Ranch Stage 2 Development Plan adopted through Ordinance 13 -10, except as
amended below for the Project area, which amendments are hereby approved. Any further
amendments to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans shall be in accordance with section
8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
3
Stage 1 Development Plan for Sub Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4
1. Permitted, conditionally permitted, and accessory uses as set forth in Ordinance 32 -05
for the residential, public /semi - public and mixed use areas identified on the Subarea 1 -4
diagrams of "proposed zoning" below. Mixed Use: The maximum would be 115 multi - family
units at 25 units per acre and 5,000 square feet of commercial building area at .35 FAR. The
combined residential and commercial uses shall not exceed 1.0 FAR.
SUBAREA 1
Il
SUBAREA 2
SFWPUPUC
v,
't A'1111
EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING
Semi /Public (overlay 2.0 acres) and PD- Medium Density Residential /with
Medium -High Density Residential underlay Public /Semi - Public
+/- 8.0 Gross Acres 6.1 to 14 DU / Acre
+/- 7.8 Gross Acres
SUBAREA 3
5
SUBAREA 4
2. Site plan. See Subarea 1 -4 diagrams in No. 1 above.
3. Site area and proposed densities. See Subarea 1 -4 diagrams in no. 1 above.
4. Maximum number of residential units and non - residential square footages. As shown
in table below.
Amended Jordan Ranch Residential Product Type by Land Use /Neighborhood
Land Use Designation Proposed Uses Neighborhood Unit Count Gross Acres Units /AC
Medium Density Residential
3,200 SF Lots
6.1 -14.0 du /ac
(Subarea 2)
5
56(1)
7.8
7.2
Medium -High Density
3 Story Towns w.
Residential
Flats
(Subarea 3)
6
109
6.6
16.5
Combination
of .35FAR on up to
5k SF
Mixed -Use
retail /commercial
and 115 Residential
Units
(Subarea 4)
115(2)
4.6
25.0
Elementary School
Elementary School/
with
Medium Density
Medium Density Residential
Residential
Underlay
Underlay
(Subarea 1)
100(3)
10.7(1)
9.3
Open Space
48.1
TOTAL
280(4)
77.8
ki) Some or all units may be eliminated if DUSD acquires some or all of this site with underlying Land Use Designation of Elementary School. School acreage would increase
accordingly.
(2) Mixed -Use Site (.35 FAR for retail /commercial component and up to 25 du /ac for residential component). This designation provides for the combination of medium to
medium high density residential housing and non - residential use, such as office or retail. Office or retail uses could include such uses as stores, restaurants, business and
professional offices, and entertainment facilities.
(3) School site will ONLY include residential units if the School District elects not to acquire the site. 100 units is an approximate total based on size and min -point of Medium
Density range.
(4) Maximum number of units for Jordan Ranch is 964 if all 56 3,200 sf lots in Subarea 2 and 100 units at Elementary School site are developed for residential uses.
5. Phasing Plan. The 189.4 -acre Jordan Ranch project is identified in two Phases. Phase 1
corresponds to Neighborhood 1 north and west of the Open Space Corridor. Phase 2
includes the rest of Jordan Ranch, including the Project.
6. Master Landscaping Plan. See Stage 2 Development Plan #6 below.
7. General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan consistency. The Stage 1 (and Stage 2)
Development Plan amendments are consistent with the companion General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments approved through Resolution XX -12, on
2012.
7
8. Consistency with Inclusionary Zoning regulations. The approved Jordan Ranch project
encompassed 781 units which provided a community benefit payment in -lieu of providing
inclusionary housing. This was memorialized in the Development Agreement applicable to
this property. As Sub Area 2 has been reduced in units ( -36) from the original approval and
the number of units in Sub Area 3 have also been increased by 4 units, an overage of 32
units has been created and would be applicable to satisfying a portion of the requirement for
inclusionary housing on the additional units that could be built on Sub Area 1 and 4. In
conjunction with subsequent entitlements, once the development potential of Sub Area 1 and
4 are determined, a revised Development Agreement will be executed to determine the
applicant's full compliance with the inclusionary housing ordinance. All subdivision maps and
Site Development Reviews are subject to compliance with this agreement as a condition of
approval.
Stage 2 Development Plan for Sub Areas 2 and 3
1. Permitted Uses and site plan: See Stage 1 Development Plan, No. 1.
2. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements: Except as specifically modified by
the provisions of this Planned Development District Amend ment/Development Plan, all
applicable general requirements and procedures of Ordinances 32 -05, 45 -08 and 13 -10 and
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to the land uses designated in this Planned
Development District zoning amendment.
3. Development Regulations /Architectural Standards: Development Regulations would
remain consistent with the Development Standards/ Regulations established at the Stage 1
and Stage 2 Planned Development zoning adopted with Ordinance 32 -05, as amended by
Ordinances 45 -08 and 13 -10. However, a new category is hereby added to Medium Density
Residential allowing "3,200 square foot lots" configured with front loaded garage access from
a public street, as opposed to alley- access. The following Development regulations area
adopted for this type of development in Subareas 2.
Standards
Medium Density Residential
Single - Family Detached
Subarea 2
3,200 sf Lots
Lot Size
3,225 sf
Minimum Lot Dimensions
43 feet x 75 feet
Minimum Street Frontage
@cul -de- sac /knuckles
25 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
50%
Maximum Building Height
35 feet
Maximum Stories
3
Minimum Front Yard Setbacks
to living area
15 feet
to porch /deck
10 feet
to front of garage
18 feet
Encroachments
2 feet maximum into required setback
8
Minimum Side Yard Setback
Side yard setback
4 feet minimum
corner lot (setback from side street)
9 feet
porch /deck
4 feet (7 feet @ corner)
Encroachments
2 feet maximum into required setback
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
Living Space
10 feet
One -story Garage
5 feet
Encroachments
2 feet maximum into required setback
Usable Private Rear Yard Space
400 sf [contiguous] flat area
minimum dimension: 18 feet in one direction
Required Parking
Guest Parking
2 covered spaces per unit
1 space
4. Phasing Plan. The 189.4 -acre Jordan Ranch project is identified in two Phases. Phase
2 includes the Project area.
5. Site Plan. As shown below.
I �
I
J�
9
' +. 43 X 75 LOTS: 56 UNITS
TOWN /FLATS: 109 UNITS
SIDE BY SIDE GARAGES:
69 UNITS
DEM 40 UNISGARAGES:
TOWN /FLAT GUEST PARKING:
134 SPACES
SITE OPTION 28 b
�o ,o ,60 Boa
.North 26, 2012 Project No.: 184.009
6. Landscaping Plan. As generally depicted below.
PW94CYV r I FCU0.avMX (� /l J_ y
,
AYk�
� dJ
M
M
4 ,✓ wr„
� uree+ r
uCJ,+`a.
LMVN .t,rnv AGCieNT NY.dANTIWC
,J'.,... �'�. "'✓ ,( ., e, A7GUIiNItiW41F TTR ..... ....... ._.... uu ......
SHRUBXA6 4 NDCOVEN
r
.. ffiNNM1IXNS'
ST MET
W, IN Pii, NTINk9 ANA4,'A"4C
TOWNS dTOWN /PU.A95
''� I�rFIk�6V0iP,adlYbkb
I. TYP'CALIANMCAfF
I( rIP ITbPt�.trfituiY)r;',C'.i n
10
ua
r
1
/ /� /��v"'�✓✓� \ \d\
a
STRI:Fr Me
GkgUNIC]k 'K I-
I*LANTI11. A@6EA,. T.
d"•
11
/b�ry4
Sk /MR4M4, d»kl42WN1'�C:4WH9%
A14D C1NA(ASG'&
I�
^^'
/'
RJ A
F a..M
x� K.UWACCENT PAANTIPtl4:
.....,,
., ,.� ......
.... .......
AY COMM, TYM
i mn l rl"
SSMALL . OMNLMIE04TA4'TIi Y"MM".
M
M
4 ,✓ wr„
� uree+ r
uCJ,+`a.
LMVN .t,rnv AGCieNT NY.dANTIWC
,J'.,... �'�. "'✓ ,( ., e, A7GUIiNItiW41F TTR ..... ....... ._.... uu ......
SHRUBXA6 4 NDCOVEN
r
.. ffiNNM1IXNS'
ST MET
W, IN Pii, NTINk9 ANA4,'A"4C
TOWNS dTOWN /PU.A95
''� I�rFIk�6V0iP,adlYbkb
I. TYP'CALIANMCAfF
I( rIP ITbPt�.trfituiY)r;',C'.i n
10
OpCIA- B,',-L,(XQ048)
WM .,dC lunmer C.I., C.pp.,- (A 42049)
COMMUNITY THEMEWALL
'
I I P"A "', P 11 I—[ "'d "d, ",.I,
q,
NY ew,±pvY.r4ie:rirA
".1 1 "A 1 11 � I A" I 14 " q
IM"I �, .,R I T,6, N i, W�
VIEW FENCE
.. . . ..... ....
GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE
LATTICE TOP FENCE
ld, Wh,
Al "0, ? 11"
I A I pl., 11 11 1 1-1111- W - ,
6' 6" 3
WORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE
.. .... .....
/8
" 6�
11`1111"-,��., "A j �. , order
.0 .... I "J, , ,,J, —fi
3.51 GARDEN FENCE
[L
3 u)
V7
Z
a
PENC ING
FENCING STYLES
>--, 1r11
LEG KND
MMW IYSWMIW YIU6Nnn MMx4 z
u
r ¶ i J
W
Zn >
SIREETVV
. .. . ..... ✓ 11 2
CL In
T
HP)L
Rff2 T .......... . . . ....
e.
--77w: — -------
-- -------- ---
. .. . . .............
lF, I q
1-11
FENCING
1-C NC INC; D IA"AM
11
IT
011 k"o
U 1
�' J(
xkn
1
!7�
r
( �
corn aws OPENsunr.E
l w
cw�aa
SPACE DIAGRAM
�„ Larnntr d�w.rl�„fA . +Pa cP IW ^rd rI�+Va'w
m�wmw�m'mi
12
IL
177
W
Flosit.". Parkway Iffioton Ave—A
>
k' CL
U)
4k'
�lv
'K"
PA110" Road & SUR,"
RJA
a
6F,
A,
7'�
Fallon Road Central Park Wy
yl I
ham err d� General Parkway & Panorama OPP
Ids, r Zui "Min
CNTHIN� D..GEAM
PYx 49A
I-EKTrANY MoNQUIll
WITH RAIL I ENCt
SEC INDARYMONGLInt
WHAMOLPENCE
A 'CPNT TREES AND
4' (X0RP6MIENNJAt3
smo rmmymomotuni
wi rH NAIL PENCE
EM—cl
A6 ....... . . IVEIT-f=-I I-.=- C.E.
C FNI At, PIOMAY & MW )RAPAW DMV
P1 AN
13
cl m
(L
W j
(n ✓
< z
1 2
CL
u L
z
RJA
ENTRIES
ENTRY LANDSCAOING
& TYPICAL INTERSECTION
q
Lu
LEGEND - -------
0 w
mp t,)
IT1 "IV V'
: C,H 6�7
Q
z
w
L �u
u u
L
z
no
............
0� e)
X),,
,14 R -to
z
.. ....... ....
IL
CENTRAL PARKWAY
15
M
dWWVWVAAOV,4 ^Oklt
AWO,
�-Ad Pf
6,� T-Oio,lo 1�,,
I I �
(am
jrf I
jj 1''
I i% 40A I f U i I m.
C�l OP
g
111yoll
J, i AW.
an
VNII IMILL
MM V17MVA6RFl
mol ,, a k, T 6
L-5 "FAR KA"ITIOKIWE
MANI, WIf6CI&C SMUCIVRIS
MOIN L:V6A-AAIIW
VLAYVRUCTURF
MANI :
1AIM I
14
Lira
MARF VK
"Wil,KPID ll,�
)-yo-l"Iflomw
MAW
0
4 W�
0 [L
Z
u
Z,�
I
LA SCAWP PALETTE
FRUIMINARY MAMPIAU
PAW k
WAIIN-0111,11
M
1-01-1 "MIll,
MASH MWICI-W
.-I 1,11.1,1WAK1011-
1111
AW11 1,11 wMll.11
WNI DAMCOWR,
WKS tWIlIM1161 f wom"ItAusMi"Ho
GINUKWISM'"
15
LANIICAIIl
a,IMI
rRELIMMARY MATERIALS
1,
7
n
z Z
Z
LM p
ut cm
C'00C WTUAL GESIGN
7. Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. See paragraph 8, Stage 1 Development Plan.
8. Site area, maximum proposed densities, maximum residential units and
nonresidential square footages. The following table provides the acreage per land use
designation and unit count by residential product type for Jordan Ranch, as amended. See
Site plan for figures in Subareas 2 and 3.
PD ZONING /LAND USE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR Jordan Ranch (PA 04 -040, PA 09 -011, and PLPA 2010 - 00068)
LAND USE
DESIGNATION
APPROVED PER
PA 09 -011
PROPOSED
PLPA 2010 -00068
Acres
Units
Acres
Units
Low Density Residential
.9- 6.0du/ac
52.7
ac
253 du
52.7
ac (2)
253 du (3)
Medium Density
Residential
6.1 - 14 d u /ac
23.4
ac
201 du
37.0
ac
357 du (4)
Medium -High Density
Residential
14.1 - 25 d u /ac
22.3
ac
222 du
16.7
ac
239 du
Mixed Use
6.6
ac
105
du
4.6
ac
115
du
Semi - Public
2.0
ac
0
ac
Elementary School
10.1
ac
10.7
ac
Community Park
11.1
ac
11.1
ac
Neighborhood Park
5.8
ac
5.8
ac
Neighborhood Square
2.7
ac
2.7
ac
son
Open Space
52.7
ac
48.1
ac
Total
189.4
ac
781 du
10K - 12K sf
189.4
ac
964 du
5,000 sf
NOTES:
Acreage figures are gross. A portion of acreage to be dedicated toward street is included in each acreage figure.
2� Includes the 1.5 acres dedicated for Positano Parkway.
(3) Additional unit approved with Vesting Tentative Map 8024.
(4) Includes 100 units on the Elementary School site.
(5) Semi- Public is an overlay use within Medium High Density Residential.
9. Other zoning regulations. Pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, section 8.32.060.C,
the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project shall be governed by
the provisions of the closest comparable zoning district as determined by the Community
Development Director and of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as provided in the Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plans, as amended.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption. The City
Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places
in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
16
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
day of , 2012, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G:IPA #120101PLPA- 2010 -00068 Jordan Ranch Phase 2 GPA InitiatioMCC Meeting 6.5.1ZCC PD Ord.doc
17
RESOLUTION NO. 12- 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND
REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8024 FOR THE PROJECT
KNOWN AS JORDAN RANCH 2 SPECIFIC TO SUBAREAS 2 AND 3
(APNs 985 - 0027 - 007 -02 and 985 - 0027 - 006 -04)
PLPA- 2010 -00068
WHEREAS, the Applicant Mission Valley Properties representing BJP ROF Jordan
Ranch LLC ( "Applicant ") submitted applications for Jordan Ranch 2, specific to four (4) subareas
( "Project Site "); and
WHEREAS, the applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments to change land use designations; and 2) Planned Development Zoning with
related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the applications also include: a) Site Development Review (SDR) for
Subarea 2 (proposed for 56 Single - Family detached residential units in the PD- Medium Density
Residential zone) and Subarea 3 (proposed for 109 multifamily units in the PD- Medium High
Density Residential zone), and b) revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024; and
WHEREAS, some or all of Subarea 2 may be developed for school uses related to the
school site in Subarea 1 to the north, as further reflected in the Public /Semi - Public underlay land
use and zoning designations for Subarea 2. The portions of Subarea 2 not developed for school
uses are subject to the Medium Density Residential land use designation and related PD
zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site and applications collectively define this "Project" and are
available and on file in the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, Jordan Ranch is part of a larger project known as Fallon Village and
generally is located north of the extension of Central Parkway, south of Positano Parkway, east
of Fallon Road, and west of Croak Road; and
WHEREAS, the Project site generally is vacant land that has been rough graded in
connection with prior approvals; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum, adopt General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the project as stated above, and adopt Planned
Development (PD) Zoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan amendments
(Resolutions 12 -20, 12 -21, and 12 -22, respectively, which resolutions are incorporated herein by
reference); 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 the Site Development Review for Subareas 2 and 3 and the revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 8024; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on
May 8, 2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use independent judgment and
considered the CEQA Addendum and prior CEQA documents, all said reports,
recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth prior to taking any action on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed
Site Development Review for Jordan Ranch 2:
Site Development Review:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning
Ordinance, with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans and design
guidelines because: 1) The project will not undermine the architectural character and
scale of development in which the proposed project is to be located; 2) the project will
provide a unique, varied, and distinct housing opportunity; 3) the project is consistent
with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of
Medium Density Residential for Subarea 2, and Medium High Density Residential and
Neighborhood Square for Subarea 3; and 4) the project complies with the
development standards established in the Stage 2 Development Plan.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because:
1) the project contributes to orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and structural
development compatible with the existing site layout and subdivision mapping and
blends well with the surrounding properties; and 2) the project complies with the
development regulations, as amended, set forth in the applicable PD Ordinance.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties, and the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) the project
augments available housing and residential product type in the vicinity; 2) the size and
mass of the proposed houses are consistent with the lot sizes and other residential
developments in the surrounding area; and 3) the project will provide a more complete
street scene.
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because: the proposed homes to be developed on the property meet all of the
development standards established to regulate development in the Project overall as
referenced in the approved Stage 2 Development Plan, as amended.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the
infrastructure is under construction including streets and utilities, 2) the project site will
be graded in accordance with the related Tract Map for the Project Site, and 3)
2
retaining walls will be constructed to establish the required lot size and building
envelope.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design,
site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other
developments in the vicinity because: 1) the development will be similar to homes
already being constructed in the general vicinity; 2) the proposed houses will utilize
architectural styles from previously adopted Design Guidelines, Architectural
Standards, and development regulations consistent with development planned and
approved for Jordan Ranch and Fallon Village overall; and 4) the color and materials
proposed will be harmonious with colors and material approved and being utilized for
residential areas within Jordan Ranch..
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for
the public because: 1) all perimeter landscaping, walls, fences, and hardscape are
proposed for construction in accordance with the PD zoning for the Project; and 2) the
project front yard landscaping and sideyard fencing is consistent with other
developments currently under construction in the vicinity and conform to the
requirements of the Stage 2 Development Plan and the Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclists,
pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including streets,
parkways, pathways, sidewalks, and streetlighting are proposed for construction in
accordance with the PD zoning for the Project and provide connectivity between the
subareas and between the project and other areas of Jordan Ranch; and 2)
development of this Project will conform to the major improvements already installed
allowing residents the safe and efficient use of these facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 8024:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024
A. The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 is consistent with the intent of
applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances addressing the Project Site.
B. The design and improvements of the proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map
8024 is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as
amended, to allow Medium Density Residential for Subarea 2 and Medium High Density
Residential and Parks /Public Recreation for Subarea 3, and are consistent with nearby
residential neighborhoods designated for this type of development.
3
C. The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 is consistent with the Planned
Development zoning approved for the Project through Ordinance XX -12, and therefore
consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The properties created by the proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 will
have adequate access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of the
Jordan Ranch and Fallon Village project - related improvements.
E. Project design, architecture, and concept have been integrated with topography of the
project site created by the proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 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 Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring programs adopted with the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIRs would be applicable as appropriate for
addressing or mitigating any potential environmental impacts of developing the Project
and Project Site, as documented in the CEQA Addendum.
G. The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 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 subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at
large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City
Engineer has reviewed the map 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 does
hereby approve the Site Development Review for Subarea 2 (Jordan Ranch proposed for 56
Single - Family detached residential units in the PD- Medium Density residential zone) and
Subarea 3 (Jordan Ranch proposed for 109 multifamily units in the PD- Medium High Density
Residential zone), as shown on plans prepared by The Dahlin Group Architecture and Planning;
Ruggeri- Jensen -Azar Engineers, Planners & Surveyors; and Gates + Associates Landscape
Architecture dated received April 24, 2012 subject to the conditions included below.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 for Jordan Ranch for as many as
964 units prepared by Ruggeri- Jensen -Azar Engineers, Planners & Surveyors dated April 2,
2012 subject to the Conditions included below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the
issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning
Department review and approval. The following codes represent those
departments /agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of
approval. FPL.1 Planning, FB1 Building, FP01 Police, FPWI Public Works FP &CS1 Parks &
Community Services, FADMI Administration /City Attorney, FFIN1 Finance, FF1 Alameda
4
County Fire Department, FDSRI Dublin San Ramon Services District, FCO1 Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health, FZ71 Zone 7.
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
PLANNING
DIVISION
1.
Approval. This Site Development Review approval is
PL
Ongoing
Standard
for the construction of Subarea 2 (Jordan Ranch
proposed for 56 Single - Family detached residential
units in the PD- Medium Density residential zone) and
Subarea 3 (Jordan Ranch proposed for 109
multifamily units in the PD- Medium High Density
Residential zone) within Vesting Tentative Tract Map
8024. This approval shall be as generally depicted
and indicated on the plans prepared by Ruggeri -
Jensen -Azar and dated received April 24, 2012 on file
in the Community Development Department, and as
specified by the following Conditions of Approval for
this project. Approval is subject to the City Council
adopting the CEQA Addendum, General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and PD
Rezone.
2.
Time Extension. The original approving decision-
PL
One year
Standard
maker may, upon the Applicant's written request for an
following
extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the
approval date
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
required by the particular Permit.
3.
Compliance with previous approvals: The
PL
On -going
Standard
Applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval
for Jordan Ranch as approved by the Planning
Commission, Resolution No. 10 -25 on May 11, 2010,
except as modified by the current Project approvals.
4.
Permit Expiration: Construction or use shall
PL
One year from
Standard
commence within one (1) year of Site Development
approval
Review (SDR) approval, or the SDR shall lapse and
become null and void. Commencement of
construction or use means the actual construction or
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
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
appropriate circumstances. If a SDR expires, a new
application must be made and processed according to
the requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
5.
Revocation of permit. The permit shall be revocable
PL
Ongoing
Standard
for cause in accordance with Chapter 8.96 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms
or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation.
6.
Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall comply
PL, PW
Issuance of
Standard
with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and obtain all
Building
necessary permits required by other agencies
Permits
(Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7,
California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps
of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
State Water Quality Control Board) and shall submit
copies of the permits to the Public Works Department.
7.
Requirements and Standard Conditions. The
Various
Issuance of
Standard
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable
Building
Alameda County Fire, Dublin Public Works
Permits
Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin
Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control
District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental
Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the
California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to
issuance of building permits or the installation of any
improvements related to this project, the Developer
shall supply written statements from each such
agency or department to the Planning Department,
indicating that all applicable conditions required have
been or will be met.
8.
Modifications: The Community Development
PL
On -going
Standard
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 Zoning Ordinance.
9.
Satellite Dishes: The Applicant/Developer's Architect
PL
Issuance of
Project
shall prepare a plan for review and approval by the
building permit
Specific
Director of Community Development and the Building
Official that provides a consistent and unobtrusive
location for the placement of individual satellite dishes.
Individual conduit will be run on the interior of the unit
to the satellite location on the exterior of the home to
limit the amount of exposed cable required to activate
any satellite dish. It is preferred that where chimneys
exist, the mounting of the dish be incorporated into the
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
chimney. In instances where chimneys do not exist,
then the plan shall show a common and consistent
location for satellite dish placement to eliminate the
over proliferation, haphazard and irregular placement.
10.
Indemnification: The Applicant/Developer shall
PL, B
On going
Standard
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from
any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack,
set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of
Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning
Commission, City Council, Community Development
Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other
department, committee, or agency of the City to the
extent such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or
other applicable law; provided, however, that The
Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying The Applicant/Developer of any said
claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
11.
Retaining Walls: The Applicant/Developer shall
PL
Issuance of
Project
indicate on the plot plans, with dimensions, the precise
building permit
Specific
location of the point on the side yard retaining walls
where the wall material will change from precision
block (able to be stuccoed) to split face block. The
intent of this condition is to assure that the entire
portion of the wall visible to the street (from the
perpendicular side -yard fence to the end of the wall
closest to the street) is able to be enhanced with
stucco material as required in the Planned
Development Plan. Also, it is intended that the
perpendicular side yard fence should be located at the
transition point of the two block materials. No stucco
wall face should occur behind the perpendicular side
yard fence. Potential issues may arise in the field
conditions which will be addressed on a case -by -case
basis as directed by the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned
Development Plan.
12.
Clean up. The Applicant/Developer shall be
PL
Ongoing
Standard
responsible for clean -up and disposal of project
related trash and for maintaining a clean, litter -free
site.
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
13.
Controlling Activities. The Applicant /Developer
PO, PL
Ongoing
Standard
shall control all activities on the project site so as not
to create a nuisance to the surrounding residences.
14.
Noise /Nuisances. No loudspeakers or amplified
PO, PL
Ongoing
Standard
music shall be permitted to project or be placed
outside of the residential buildings during construction.
15.
Accessory Structures. The use of any accessory
PL, B, F
Ongoing
Standard
structures, such as storage sheds or trailer /container
units used for storage or for any other purpose during
construction, shall not be allowed on the site at any
time unless a Temporary Use Permit is applied for and
approved.
16.
Final building and site development plans shall be
PL
Issuance of
Project
reviewed and approved by the Community
building permit
Specific
Development Department staff prior to the issuance of
a building permit. All such plans shall insure:
a. That standard residential security requirements as
established by the Dublin Police Department are
provided.
b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and
other appropriate physical features for the
handicapped, are provided throughout the site for
all publicly used facilities.
c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for
all parking stalls, if necessary.
d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not
directed onto adjacent properties and the light
source is shielded from direct offsite viewing.
e. That all mechanical equipment, including air
conditioning condensers, electrical and gas
meters, is architecturally screened from view, and
that electrical transformers are either underground
or architecturally screened.
f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc.,
are painted to match the color of adjacent surface.
g. That all materials and colors are to be as
approved by the Dublin Community Development
Department. Once constructed or installed, all
improvements are to be maintained in accordance
with the approved plans. Any changes, which
affect the exterior character, shall be resubmitted
to the Dublin Community Development
Department for approval.
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
h. That all exterior architectural elements visible from
view and not detailed on the plans be finished in a
style and in materials in harmony with the exterior
of the building. All materials shall wrap to the
inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular
wall plane.
i. That all other public agencies that require review
of the project are supplied with copies of the final
building and site plans and that compliance is
obtained with at least their minimum Code
requirements.
17.
Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay all
PW
Zone 7 and
Standard
applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit
Parkland In-
issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees,
Lieu Fees Due
Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District
Prior to Filing
fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School
Each Final
District School Impact fees, Public Works Traffic
Map; Other
Impact fees, City of Dublin Fire Services fees, Noise
Fees Required
Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu fees,
with Issuance
Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation
of Building
District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees,
Permits
and any other fees either in effect at the time and /or as
noted in the Development Agreement.
18.
Final landscape plans, irrigation system plans, tree
PL
Issuance of
Standard
preservation techniques, and guarantees, shall be
building permit
reviewed and approved by the Dublin Planning
Division prior to the issuance of the building permit.
All such submittals shall insure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable
of healthy growth within the given range of soil
and climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height
and density so that it provides a positive visual
impact within three years from the time of planting.
c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at
least 75% of the proposed trees on the site are a
minimum of 15 gallons in size, and at least 50% of
the proposed shrubs on the site are minimum of 5
gallons in size.
d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be
provided which assures that all plants get
adequate water. In unusual circumstances, and if
approved by Staff, a manual or quick coupler
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
system may be used.
e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges
of all planters and paving surfaces where
applicable.
f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the master
vesting tentative map and conditions detailed in
the Site Development Review packet.
g. That all cut and fill slopes graded and not
constructed by September 1, of any given year,
are hydroseeded with perennial or native grasses
and flowers, and that stock piles of loose soil
existing on that date are hydroseeded in a similar
manner.
h. That the area under the drip line of all existing
oaks, walnuts, etc., which are to be saved are
fenced during construction and grading operations
and no activity is permitted under them that will
cause soil compaction or damage to the tree, if
applicable.
i. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors
shall be required guaranteeing all shrubs and
ground cover, all trees, and the irrigation system
for one year.
j. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all
landscaping will be required from the owner
insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed
abatement, if applicable.
19.
Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations: The
PL
On going
Standard
Applicant shall meet all requirements of the City of
Dublin's Water- Efficient Landscaping Regulations,
Section 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
20.
Landscape Plans. Civil Improvement Plans, Joint
PL
On going
Standard
Trench Plans, Street Lighting Plans and Landscape
Improvement Plans shall be submitted on the same
size sheet and plotted at the same drawing scale for
consistency, improved legibility and
interdisciplinary coordination.
21.
Utilities. Utilities shall be coordinated with proposed
PL
On going
Standard
tree placements to eliminate conflicts between trees
and utilities. Utilities may have to be relocated in order
to provide the required separation between the trees
and utilities.
22.
1 Chapter 8.72. The applicant shall work with staff
I PL
I On going
I Standard
10
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
during the preparation of construction documents to
refine the landscape design so that it meets the intent
of Chapter 8.72 of the Dublin Municipal Code and so
that trees can be incorporated into the design as
shown on the Preliminary Landscape Plan.
23.
Open Space Areas. The open space area shall be
PL
On going
Standard
planted and irrigated to create landscape that is
attractive, conserves water, and requires minimal
maintenance.
24.
Streetscape Planting. The streetscape plantings
PL
On going
Standard
shall be consistent with the planting design across the
street so that they are visually compatible.
25.
Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the
PL
On going
Standard
following clearances:
a. 6' from the face of house walls or roof eaves.
b. 7' from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers
and /or gas lines.
c. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water,
telephone and /or electrical mains
d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign returns.
e. 15' from either side of street lights.
26.
Cut and Fill Areas. Cut and fill slopes graded and
PL
On going
Standard
not landscaped by September 1, of any given year
shall be hydroseeded with an approved native erosion
control grass seed mix and that stockpiles of loose soil
existing on that date are hydroseeded in the same
manner.
27.
Irrigation System Warranty. The applicant shall
PL
On going
Standard
warranty the irrigation system and planting for a period
of one year from the date of installation. The applicant
shall submit for the Dublin Community Development
Department approval a landscape maintenance plan
for the Common Area landscape including a
reasonable estimate of expenses for the first five
years.
28.
Walls and Fences. Applicant shall work with staff to
PL
On going
Standard
prepare a fencing and wall plan that is consistent with
Dublin Municipal Code and adjacent subdivisions.
29.
Masonry Wall Caps. The design of masonry walls
PL
On going
Standard
shall be consistent with the Jordan Ranch standard
with precast concrete caps.
30.
Sustainable Landscape Practices: The landscape
PL
On going
Standard
design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable
landscape practices as detailed in the Bay- Friendly
Landscape Guidelines by earning a minimum of 60
points or more on the Bay - Friendly scorecard and
11
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
specifying that 75% of the non -turf planting only
requires occasional, little or no shearing or summer
water once established.
31.
Plotting: The approved Site Development Review
PL
Issuance of
Project
would allow any of the three approved floor plans to
building
Specific
be constructed on any of the lots within Capistrello
permits
Court, subject to limitations as follows:
■ Any single floor plan may not exceed 40% of the
subdivision.
• Individual floor plans may be placed next to each
other. However, only two of the same individual
floor plans may be plotted next to each other
without being interrupted by a different floor plan.
• If two of the same individual floor plans are plotted
next to each other, the same individual floor plan
may not be plotted across the street from the two.
• In no case will the same architectural elevation or
color scheme be allowed next to or across the
street from each other, unless they are a different
individual floor plan.
32.
Public Art In -Lieu Contribution. In lieu of acquiring
P &CS
Issuance of
Project
and installing a public art project, the Applicant has
building
Specific
elected to and shall make a public art in -lieu
permits and
Zoning
contribution payment in accordance with Chapter 8.58
recordation of
Ord Chp
of the Dublin Municipal Code and shall comply with
map for
8.58
the Public Art Compliance Report submitted by the
Subareas 2
Applicant, dated May 4, 2010, and on file with the
and 3
Planning Department. The public art in -lieu
contribution payment shall be made prior to the
issuance of the first building permit for the project in
the amount specified in Dublin Municipal Code section
8.58.050.13 (non - residential building more than 50,000
sq. ft.).
33.
Public Art Easement and Access Easement. The
P &CS
Recordation of
Project
Applicant/Developer shall reserve a site and provide a
map for
Specific
public art easement and an access easement to the
Subareas 2
Zoning
City within the development project for a future public
and 3
Ord Chp
art project in accordance with Dublin Municipal Code
8.58
Section 8.58.050 prior to recordation of the map for
Subarea 2 or Subarea 3.
34.
Inclusionary Housing: In conjunction with
PL
With submittal
Project
subsequent entitlements, once the development
of Stage 2 DP
specific
potential of Subarea 1 and 4 are determined, a revised
& SDR for
Development Agreement will be executed to
I
I Subareas 1 &4
12
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
determine the applicant's full compliance with the
inclusionary housing ordinance.
35.
School District: Acquisition of additional school
PL/
recordation of
Project
acreage by School District: If the School District and
DUSD
final map for
specific
the Developer have not entered into a mutually
subarea 2
acceptable agreement for the acquisition of some or
all of Subarea 2 prior to April 1, 2013, the developer
may proceed with the development of the 56 lot plan
in Subarea 2 as approved for Jordan Ranch 2. If a
mutually acceptable agreement is reached between
the School District and the Developer for some or all
of Subarea 2 prior to April 1, 2013, then Developer will
be required to process a revised Tentative Tract Map
and receive any necessary approvals to modify the
development on Subarea 2 of Jordan Ranch 2.
36.
Delivery of useable School site to School District:
PL/
recordation of
Project
Developer shall deliver a 10 net acre "usable" site to
DUSD
final map for
specific
the School District. Should the District elect to
subarea 2
purchase additional acreage as prescribed in
Condition 35 above the additional acreage shall also
be "usable ". Any modifications to the approved
Tentative Tract Map to accomplish delivery of said site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission. The exact definition of "usable" is as
follows; ten net acres measured from back of curb,
rough - graded to plus /minus 2% slope with utilities
stubbed to back of curb or as otherwise agreed to by
the School District. the timing of the school site
delivery to the District shall be determined by the
School District with notice provided in writing to the
developer no less than 6 months prior to expected
delivery.
37.
General Public Works Conditions of Approval:
PW
Ongoing
Standard
Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin General
C of A
Public Works Conditions of Approval contained below
( "Standard C of A ") unless specifically modified by
Project Specific Conditions of Approval.
38.
Development Agreement: If necessary the existing
PW
First Final Map
Standard
Development Agreement will be amended.
C of A
36.
Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District:
PW
First Final Map
Standard
The Developer shall request the area to be annexed
C of A
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
13
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
with processing the annexation.
37.
Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements:
PW
Final Map and
Project
Ownership, dedications on final map, and
Ongoing
Specific
maintenance of street right -of -ways, common area
parcels, and open space areas shall be by the City of
Dublin, the Homeowner's Association, and a Geologic
Hazard Abatement District, as shown on the
Ownership and Maintenance Responsibility Exhibit,
Stage II submittal, Tract Map 8024, prepared by
Ruggeri- Jensen -Azar Associates, dated April 22,
2010.
38.
Landscape Features within Public Right of Way.
PW
First Final Map;
Standard
The Developer shall enter into an "Agreement for Long
Modify with
C of A
Term Encroachments" with the City to allow the HOA
Successive
to maintain the landscape and decorative features
Final Maps
within public Right of 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 utility repairs.
39.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs).
PW
First Final Map;
Standard
A Homeowners Association shall be formed by
Modify with
C of A
recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
Successive
and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of
Final Maps
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
approval.
40.
Public Streets: Developer shall construct street
PW
Each Final Map
Standard
improvements and offer for dedication to the City of
C of A
14
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
Dublin the rights of way for Fallon Road, Central
Parkway, and interior streets as 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 its entire length with the first
final map to be filed for Neighborhoods 1 -4.
41.
Central Parkway/ Street "I" Intersection/ Traffic
PW
First Final Map
Project
Signal: Stop sign control will initially be provided in
for
Specific
conjunction with the first improvements allowed by the
Neighborhoods
filing of the first final map. A traffic signal shall be
2 -6 and prior to
installed at the Central Parkway/ Street "I" intersection
acceptance of
prior to acceptance of improvements for the last final
improvements
map. A street -type driveway shall be provided on the
authorized by
south leg of the intersection to serve the future
last final map
community park.
42.
Central Parkway/ School Road Intersection/ Traffic
PW
First Final Map
Project
Signal: Traffic signal conduit and pull boxes shall be
for
Specific
installed at the Central Parkway/ School Road
Neighborhoods
intersection to allow future signalization of the
2 -6
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 Plan Review, Fehr & Peers Transportation
Consultants, March 23, 2010 (henceforth "the Fehr &
Peers Review ").
43.
Central Parkway/ Street "L" Intersection: Curb
PW
First Final Map
Project
extensions shall be provided as recommended in the
for
Specific
Fehr & Peers Review.
Neighborhoods
2 -6
44.
Central Parkway/ Fallon Road Intersection/ Traffic
PW
First Final Map
Project
Signal: In conjunction with the first final map for
for
Specific
Neighborhoods 2 -6, the Central Parkway/ Fallon Road
Neighborhoods
intersection shall be constructed. Improvements shall
2 -6
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 following:
• Westbound Central Parkway Approach: 8'
Median Island, Two 12' Left Turn Lanes, One 12'
Thru Lane, One 6' Bicycle Lane, and One 12'
Right Turn Lane (One Westbound Thru Lane as
shown on the Tentative Map shall be eliminated)
15
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
• 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 leg of the
intersection.
45.
Offsite Grading Easement: Prior to issuance of
PW
Issuance of
Project
grading permit for Neighborhoods 5 and 6, a grading
Grading
Specific
easement shall be obtained from the owners of the
Permits for
adjoining Chen and Croak properties. This condition
Neighborhoods
does not apply to mass or remedial grading within the
5 and 6
Jordan property.
46.
Street L: The Street L right -of -way shall be extended
PW
Final Map for
Project
to the southerly end of the project to allow future
Subarea 3
Specific
extension onto the Chen property.
47.
Street L: A barrier, guardrail, or fence shall be
PW
Final Map for
Project
provided along the south side of the southerly leg of
Subarea 3
Specific
the Street L loop.
48.
Subarea 3 Pedestrian Circulation: A detailed
PW
Final Map or
Project
pedestrian circulation plan shall be provided for
Issuance of
Specific
Subarea 3, showing the connections between each
Grading
unit, parking, common space areas or facilities, and
Permits for
the adjoining streets.
Subarea 3
49.
Street VV: The final design of the Street VV traffic
PW
Final Map or
Project
calming measures shall be approved by the Public
Issuance of
Specific
Works Department, the Community Development
Grading
Department, and the Alameda County Fire
Permits for
Department.
Subarea 2
50.
Offsite Right -of -Way: Croak Property: Right -of -way
PW
Final Map
Project
necessary for the improvement of Central Parkway
which creates
Specific
shall be acquired from the Croak property as
76th lot in
necessary. Acquisition of the Croak property shall be
Neighborhoods
completed prior to filing of the first final map for
2 -6
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
16
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
to Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act.
51.
Central Parkway Extension to Croak Road: Croak
PW
Final Map
Project
Road Public Access: Central Parkway shall be
which creates
Specific
extended to Croak Road in conjunction with the first
76th lot in
final map for Neighborhoods 2 -6, as shown on the
Neighborhoods
tentative map or as modified by the City Engineer.
2 -6
52.
Traffic Impact Fees: The developer shall be
PW
Issuance of
Standard
responsible for payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic
Building
C of A
Impact Fee (Sections 1 and 2), the Eastern Dublin I-
Permits
580 Interchange Fee, and the Tri- Valley
Transportation Development Fee. Fees will be
payable at issuance of building permits.
53.
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum
PW
Issuance of
Standard
Payment: The developer shall be responsible for
Building
C of A
payment of a minimum portion of the Eastern Dublin
Permits
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 may
not be offset by fee credits.
54.
Neighborhood Square: The Neighborhood Square
PW
First Final Map
Project
in Subarea 3, Parcel E, shall contain a minimum of
for
Specific
2.00 acres and be shown on the Final Map as future
Neighborhood
parkland to be dedicated to the City of Dublin on the
2 -6
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 City.
55.
School Site: The Developer shall rough grade the
PW
School Site to
Project
school site in Subarea 2 (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 the City
Map for
Engineer. Grading shall be completed within 24
Neighborhoods
months of filing the first map for Neighborhoods 2 -6,
2 -6; Grading to
and will be specified in the improvement agreement
be Completed
for these maps. The Developer shall be responsible
as Required
for ongoing erosion control, weed abatement, and
Under
trash removal until the school site is accepted by the
Improvement
Dublin Unified School District.
Agreement
56.
Neighborhood Park & School Utility Stubs: Utilities
PW
Applicable
Standard
shall be stubbed to the adjacent Neighborhood Park,
Final Map
C of A
17
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
Neighborhood Square, and school site at locations
approved by the City's Parks Department and School
District.
57.
School District Conduit: One empty 3" conduit with
PW
Applicable
Standard
pull wire, to accommodate future School District
Final Map
C of A
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).
58.
Dublin Ranch Eastside Storm Drain Benefit
PW
Prior to First
Standard
District (G -3 Culvert): In accordance with Dublin
Final Map or
C of A
Municipal Code section 7.74.290, Developer shall pay
first building
Project
the applicable benefit charges for the property.
permit,
Specific
whichever is
earlier
59.
Geologic Hazard Abatement District: Prior to filing
PW
Prior to each
Standard
the first final map, the annexation of the entire project
final map;
C of A
into the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement
Update with
District (CHAD) covering the entire project shall be
successive
completed. The board of directors for the GHAD shall
maps as
be the City Council of the City of Dublin. The GHAD
needed
shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of
the open space areas (including benches and brow
ditches, 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 CHAD,
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
18
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney
to ensure compliance with this condition of approval.
Ownership of CHAD- maintained parcels shall be by
the GHAD in fee as shown in the Vesting Tentative
Map.
60.
Remedial Grading Plan: The grading plan shall
PW
First Final Map
Standard
include a remedial grading plan prepared by the
or Issuance of
C of A
project geotechnical consultant, outlining area of slide
Grading
repair, benches, keyways, over - excavation at cut -fill
Permits
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.
61.
Resource Agency Permits: Prior to the filing of the
PW
Prior to First
Standard
first final map, and prior to the start of any grading of
Final Map or
C of A
the site as necessary, permits shall be obtained from
Issuance of
the US Army Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco
Grading Permit
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State
of California Department of Fish and Game, and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service for the grading or
alteration of wetland areas within the site. 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 CHAD). The
City reserves the right to modify or add conditions of
approval as needed in response to the final permit
conditions from the resource agencies.
PUBLIC
WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR REVISED
TRACT MAP
8024
62.
The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map
PW
Ongoing
Standard
Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, and Grading
C of A
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
19
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
City are hereby identified as "public works" under
Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in
constructing such improvements, shall comply with the
Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and
following).
63.
The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold
PW
Ongoing
Standard
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers,
C of A
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 Map
8024) 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.
AGREEMENTS AND BONDS
64.
The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement
PW
First Final Map
Standard
Agreement with the City for all public improvements
and
C of A
including any required offsite storm drainage or
Successive
roadway improvements that are needed to serve the
Maps
Tract that have not been bonded with another Tract
Improvement Agreement.
65.
The Developer shall provide performance (100 %), and
PW
First Final Map
Standard
labor & material (100 %) securities to guarantee the
and
C of A
tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer,
Successive
prior to execution of the Tract Improvement
Maps
Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note:
Upon acceptance of the improvements, the
performance security may be replaced with a
maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the
performance security.)
FEES
66.
Fire Fee Advance. Prior to the filing of the first final
PW
First Final Map
Project
map, the developer shall make an advance payment
Specific
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
20
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
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.
67.
The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in -lieu
PW
Prior to Each
Standard
fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of
Final Map
C of A
Dublin Resolution No. 214 -02, or in any resolution
revising these amounts and as implemented by the
Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-
99.
PERMITS
68.
Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from
PW
Prior to Start of
Standard
the Public Works Department for all construction
Work
C of A
activity within the public right -of -way of any street
where the City has accepted the improvements. The
encroachment permit may require surety for slurry
seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City
Engineer an encroachment for work specifically
included in an Improvement Agreement may not be
required.
69.
Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework Permit
PW
Prior to Start of
Standard
from the Public Works Department for all grading and
Work
C of A
private site improvements that serves more than one
lot or residential condominium unit.
70.
Developer shall obtain all permits required by other
PW
Prior to Start of
Standard
agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County
Work
C of A
Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7,
California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps
of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the
Public Works Department.
21
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
SUBMITTALS
71.
All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply
PW
Prior to
Standard
with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public
Approval of
C of A
Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal
Improvement
Requirements ", and the "City of Dublin Improvement
Plans or Final
Plan Review Check List ".
Map
72.
The Developer will be responsible for submittals and
PW
Prior to
Standard
reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-
Approval of
C of A
City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department
Improvement
and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall
Plans or Final
approve and sign the Improvement Plans.
Map
73.
Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which
PW
Prior to
Standard
includes street pavement sections and grading
Approval of
C of A
recommendations.
Improvement
Plans, Grading
Plans, or Final
Map
74.
Developer shall provide the Public Works Department
PW
Prior to
Standard
a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the
Acceptance of
C of A
project when the Final Map has been approved.
Improvements
Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital
and Release of
vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher
Bonds
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 MAP
75.
The Final Map shall be substantially in accordance
with the Tentative Map approved with this application,
PW
Prior to
Approval of
Standard
C of A
unless otherwise modified by these conditions.
Final Map
Multiple final maps may be filed in phases, provided
that each phase is consistent with the tentative map,
that phasing progresses in an orderly and logical
manner and adequate infrastructure is installed with
each phase to serve that phase as a stand -alone
project that is not dependent upon future phasing for
infrastructure.
76.
All rights -of -way and easement dedications required
PW
Prior to
Standard
by the Tentative Map including the Public Service
Approval of
C of A
Easement shall be shown on the Final Map.
Final Map
77.
Street names shall be assigned to each public /private
PW
Prior to
Standard
street pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The
Approval of
C of A
22
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
approved street names shall be indicated on the Final
Final Map
Map.
78.
The Final Map shall include the street monuments to
PW
Monuments to
Standard
be set in all public streets.
be Shown on
C of A
Final Map and
Installed Prior
to Acceptance
of
Improvements
EASEMENTS
79.
The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all
PW
Prior to
Standard
applicable public agencies of existing easements and
Approval of
C of A
right of ways within the development that will no longer
Improvement
be used.
Plans or
Appropriate
Final Map
80.
The Developer shall acquire easements, and /or obtain
PW
Prior to
Standard
rights -of -entry from the adjacent property owners for
Approval of
C of A
any improvements on their property. The easements
Improvement
and /or rights -of -entry shall be in writing and copies
Plans or
furnished to the City Engineer.
Appropriate
Final Map
GRADING
81.
The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the
PW
Prior to
Standard
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the
Approval of
C of A
approved Tentative Map and /or Site Development
Grading Plans
Review, and the City design standards & ordinances.
or Issuance of
In case of conflict between the soil engineer's
Grading
recommendations and City ordinances, the City
Permits, and
Engineer shall determine which shall apply.
Ongoing
82.
A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with
PW
Prior to
Standard
the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall include
Approval of
C of A
detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of
Grading Plans
all erosion and sedimentation control measures.
or Issuance of
Grading
Permits, and
Ongoing
83.
Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall
PW
Prior to
Standard
not cross property lines, or shall be located a minimum
Approval of
C of A
of 2' below the finished grade of the upper lot.
Grading Plans
or Issuance of
Grading
Permits, and
Ongoing
84.
Bank slopes along public streets shall be no steeper
PW
Prior to
Standard
23
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
than 3:1 unless shown otherwise on the Tentative Map
Approval of
C of A
Grading Plan exhibits. The toe of any slope along
Grading Plans
public streets shall be one foot back of walkway. The
or Issuance of
top of any slope along public streets shall be three feet
Grading
back of walkway. Minor exception may be made in the
Permits, and
above slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design
Ongoing
constraints subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
IMPROVEMENTS
85.
The public improvements shall be constructed
PW
Prior to
Standard
generally as shown on the Tentative Map and /or Site
Approval of
C of A
Development Review. However, the approval of the
Improvement
Tentative Map and /or Site Development Review is not
Plans or Start
an approval of the specific design of the drainage,
of
sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements.
Construction,
and Ongoing
86.
All public improvements shall conform to the City of
PW
Prior to
Standard
Dublin Standard Plans and design requirements and
Approval of
C of A
as approved by the City Engineer.
Improvement
Plans or Start
of
Construction,
and Ongoing
87.
Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with
PW
Prior to
Standard
minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts.
Approval of
C of A
Private streets and alleys shall be at minimum 0.5%
Improvement
slope.
Plans or Start
of
Construction,
and Ongoing
88.
Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be
PW
Prior to
Standard
40 -foot radius, all internal public streets curb returns
Approval of
C of A
shall be 30 -foot radius (36 -foot with bump outs) and
Improvement
private streets /alleys shall be a minimum 20 -foot
Plans or Start
radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb
of
ramp locations and design shall conform to the most
Construction,
current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act
and Ongoing
requirements and as approved by the City Traffic
Engineer.
89.
Any decorative pavers installed within City right -of -way
PW
Prior to
Standard
shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Approval of
C of A
Where decorative paving is installed at signalized
Improvement
intersections, pre- formed traffic signal loops shall be
Plans or Start
put under the decorative pavement. Decorative
of
pavements shall not interfere with the placement of
Construction,
traffic control devices, including pavement markings.
and Ongoing
24
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
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
90.
The Developer shall install all traffic signs and
PW
Prior to
Standard
pavement marking as required by the City Engineer.
Occupancy of
C of A
Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
91.
Street light standards and luminaries shall be
PW
Prior to
Standard
designed and installed per approval of the City
Occupancy of
C of A
Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for streetlights
Units or
is 5 %.
Acceptance of
Improvements
92.
All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with
PW
Prior to
Standard
other new signals within the development and to the
Occupancy of
C of A
existing City traffic signal system by hard wire.
Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
93.
The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters
PW
Prior to
Standard
at the locations designated and approved by the
Occupancy of
C of A
LAVTA and the City Engineer. The Developer shall
Units or
pay the cost of procuring and installing these
Acceptance of
improvements.
Improvements
94.
Developer shall construct all potable and recycled
PW
Prior to
Standard
water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve
Occupancy of
C of A
the project in accordance with DSRSD master plans,
Units or
standards, specifications and requirements.
Acceptance of
Improvements
95.
Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the
PW
Prior to
Standard
Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector
Occupancy of
C of A
blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street
Units or
opposite each hydrant.
Acceptance of
Improvements
96.
The Developer shall furnish and install street name
PW
Prior to
Standard
signs for the project to the satisfaction of the City
Occupancy of
C of A
Engineer.
Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
97.
Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and
PW
Prior to
Standard
communication improvements within the fronting
Occupancy of
C of A
streets and as necessary to serve the project and the
Units or
future adjacent parcels as approved by the City
Acceptance of
Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies.
Improvements
98.
All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities,
PW
Prior to
Standard
25
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
shall be underground in accordance with the City
Occupancy of
C of A
policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located
Units or
and provided within public utility easements and sized
Acceptance of
to meet utility company standards.
Improvements
99.
All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless
PW
Prior to
Standard
specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer,
Occupancy of
C of A
shall be underground and placed in landscape areas
Units or
and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Trench
Acceptance of
Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted
Improvements
to the City showing the location of all utility vaults,
boxes and structures and adjacent landscape features
and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed
by the City Engineer prior to construction of the joint
trench improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
100.
The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented
PW
Ongoing as
Standard
between October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise
Needed
C of A
allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer
will be responsible for maintaining erosion and
sediment control measures for one year following the
City's acceptance of the subdivision improvements.
101.
If archaeological materials are encountered during
PW
Ongoing as
1993
construction, construction within 30 feet of these
Needed
EDEIR
materials shall be halted until a professional
MM
Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of
California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of
Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an
opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and
suggest appropriate mitigation measures.
102.
Construction activities, including the maintenance and
PW
Ongoing as
Standard
warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday
Needed
C of A
through Friday, and non -City holidays, between the
hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or
Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer
on a case -by -case basis.
103.
Developer shall prepare a construction noise
PW
Prior to Start of
Standard
management plan that identifies measures to be taken
Construction
C of A
to minimize construction noise on surrounding
Implementation
developed properties. The plan shall include hours of
Ongoing as
construction operation, use of mufflers on construction
Needed
equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul
routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise
management measures shall be provided prior to
project construction.
104.
Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic
PW
Prior to Start of
Standard
26
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
interface with public traffic on any existing public
Construction;
C of A
street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject
Implementation
to specific requirements by the City Engineer.
Ongoing as
Needed
105.
The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any
PW
Ongoing
Standard
rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to
C of A
construction activities.
106.
The Developer shall be responsible for watering or
PW
Prior to Start of
Standard
other dust - palliative measures to control dust as
Construction;
C of A
conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer.
Implementation
Ongoing as
Needed
107.
The Developer shall provide the Public Works
PW
Prior to
Standard
Department with a letter from a registered civil
Issuance of
C of A
engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads
Building
have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades
Permits or
shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the
Acceptance of
top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the
Improvements
locations shown on the approved Grading Plans.
NPDES
108.
Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall
PW
Prior to Start of
Standard
provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI)
Any
C of A
has been sent to the California State Water Resources
Construction
Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A
Activities
copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works
Department and be kept at the construction site.
109.
The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
PW
SWPPP to be
Standard
shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Prepared Prior
C of A
appropriate to the project construction activities. The
to Approval of
SWPPP shall include the erosion control measures in
Improvement
accordance with the regulations outlined in the most
Plans:
current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment
Implementation
Control Handbook or State Construction Best
Prior to Start of
Management Practices Handbook. The Developer is
Construction
responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement
and Ongoing
all storm water pollution prevention measures in the
as Needed
SWPPP.
110.
The Homeowner's Association shall enter into an
PW
Prior to First
Standard
agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the
Final Map;
C of A
perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water
Modify as
treatment measures installed as part of the project.
needed with
Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision
Successive
C.3.h. of RWQCB Order R2- 2009 -0074 for the
Maps
issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES
municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires
27
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
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 public entity.
111.
Building Codes and Ordinances: All project
B
Through
Standard
construction shall conform to all building codes and
Completion
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
112.
Building Permits: To apply for building permits,
B
Issuance of
Standard
Applicant/Developer shall submit seven (7) sets of
building permit
construction plans to the Building Division for 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 permits.
113.
Construction Drawings: Construction plans shall be
B
Issuance of
Standard
fully dimensioned (including building elevations)
building permit
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed
conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural
calculations shall be prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site
plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent
with each other.
114.
Retaining Walls: All retaining walls over 30 inches in
B
Through
Standard
height and in a walkway area shall be provided with
completion
guardrails. All retaining walls located on private
property, over 24 inches, with a surcharge, or 36
inches without a surcharge, shall obtain permits and
inspections from the Building Division.
115.
Phased Occupancy Plan: If occupancy is requested
B
Occupancy of
Standard
to occur in phases, then all physical improvements
any affected
within each phase shall be required to be completed
building
prior to occupancy of any buildings within that phase
except for items specifically excluded in an approved
Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items,
approved by the Community Development
Department. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be
submitted to the Directors of Community Development
and Public Works for review and approval a minimum
28
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any
building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan.
Any phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular
access to all parcels in each phase, and shall
substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the
subdivision approval. No individual building shall be
occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe,
accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected
services and amenities, and separated from remaining
additional construction activity. Subject to approval of
the Community Development Director, 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.
116.
Air Conditioning Units: Air conditioning units and
B
Occupancy of
Standard
ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view
unit
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
Community Development Director. Air conditioning
units shall be located such that each dwelling unit has
one side yard with an unobstructed width of not less
than 36 inches. Air conditioning units shall be located
in accordance with the PD text.
117.
Temporary Fencing: Temporary Construction
B
Through
Standard
fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all
completion
work under construction.
118.
Addressing:
B
Issuance of
Standard
a. Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin's
building permit
address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale).
and through
Highlight all exterior door openings on plans (front,
completion
rear, garage, 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 permit. (Prior to permitting)
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. Address signage shall be provided as per the
Dublin Residential Security Code. (Occupancy of
29
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
any Unit).
e. Exterior address numbers shall be backlight and
be posted in such a way that they can be seen
from the street.
119.
Engineer Observation: The Engineer of record shall
B
Scheduling the
Standard
be retained to provide observation services for all
final frame
components of the lateral and vertical design of the
inspection
building, including nailing, hold downs, straps, shear,
roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A
written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector
prior to scheduling the final frame inspection.
120.
Foundation: Geotechnical Engineer for the soils
B
Through
Standard
report shall review and approve the foundation design.
completion
A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on
the approval.
121.
Green Building: Green Building measures as
B
Through
Standard
detailed may be adjusted prior to master plan check
completion
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 applicable. In
addition, all changes shall be reflected in the Master
Plans. (Through Completion)
The Green Building checklist shall be included in the
master plans. The checklist shall detail what Green
Points are being obtained and where the information is
found within the master plans. (Prior to first permit)
Prior to each unit final, the project shall submit a
completed checklist with appropriate verification that
all Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin
Municipal Code have been incorporated. (Through
Completion)
Homeowner Manual — if Applicant/Developer 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 City.
(Through Completion)
Landscape plans shall be submitted to the Green
Building Official for review. Prior to approval of the
landscape plans by the City of Dublin.
Applicant/Developer may choose self - certification or
certification by a third party as permitted by the Dublin
Municipal Code. Applicant/Developer shall inform the
30
NO.
Agency
When
Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Required,
Prior to:
Green Building Official of method of certification prior
to release of the first permit in each subdivision /
neighborhood.
122.
Cool Roofs: Flat roof areas shall have their roofing
B
Through
Standard
material coated with light colored gravel or painted
completion
with light colored or reflective material designed for
Cool Roofs.
123.
Electronic File: The Applicant/Developer shall submit
B
Issuance of
Standard
all building drawings and specifications for this project
building permit
in an electronic format to the satisfaction of the
Building Official prior to the 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 occupancy.
124.
Construction trailer: Due to size and nature of the
B
Issuance of
Standard
development, the Applicant/Developer, shall provide a
Building
construction trailer with all hook ups for use by City
Permits
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
Applicant/Developer's expense.
125.
Copies of Approved Plans: Applicant/Developer
B
30 days after
Standard
shall provide the City with 4 reduced (1/2 size) copies
permit and
of the approved plan.
each revision
issuance
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8t" day of May 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Wehrenberg, O'Keefe, Schaub, Brown, Bhuthimethee
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA #120MPLPA- 2010 -00068 Jordan Ranch Phase 2 GPA InitiatioMPC Mtg 05.08.1Zpc reso approving sdr vtm forJordan 2.DOCX
1877953.1
31
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
O`�IFOR��
DATE: May 8, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - PLPA 2010 -00068 Jordan Ranch 2, General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and Planned
Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 8024, and CEQA Addendum
Report prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
amendments accompanied by consistent Planned Development Zoning for: Subarea 1 - a
10.7 -acre Public /Semi - Public school site proposed for an underlay land use designation of
Medium Density Residential (MDR); Subarea 2 — 7.8 acres north of Central Parkway,
including approximately 5.3 acres of Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) and a 2.0-
acre Semi - Public site proposed for MDR, with an underlay land use designation of
Public /Semi - Public; Subarea 3 - 3.9 acres south of Central Parkway of Mixed Use to MHDR;
and Subarea 4 - 4.6 acres of a 52.7 -acre Open Space at the northeast corner of Fallon Road
and Central Parkway to Mixed Use including non - residential use at .35 FAR and /or as many
as 115 units. The Project application also includes a Vesting Tentative subdivision map and
related Site Development Review approvals applicable to Subareas 2 and 3. The proposed
land use amendments and rezoning would result in up to 964 units across all of Jordan
Ranch.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff
presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the
public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate, 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a)
Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern
Dublin Environmental Impact Report, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the
Eastern Dublin Property Owners, and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for
Fallon Village for the Jordan Ranch 2 project specific to four subareas; b) Resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designations for the project known as
Jordan Ranch 2 specific to four subareas; c) Resolution recommending that the City Council
adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments for the project known as Jordan Ranch 2 specific to
four subareas; and d) Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 8024 for the project known as Jordan Ranch 2 specific to Subareas 2
and 3.
Submitted By ReVi d By
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner Planning Manager
COPIES TO: Applicant
File
ITEM NO.:
Page 1 of 18
GAPAM201MPLPA- 2010 -00068 Jordan Ranch Phase 2 GPA InitiationIPC Mtg 05.08.121PCSR 5.8.12 Jordan Ph2.doc
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Jordan Ranch is approximately 189.4 acres of gently rolling hills, and grasslands historically
used for cattle grazing within Fallon Village. Generally, it is located south of Positano
Parkway, east of Fallon Road, west of the Croak properties that extend to the City limits, and
north of the currently- vacant Chen property.
The general vicinity of Jordan Ranch is shown as follows:
LIVERMORE
PLEASANTON
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
On December 13, 2005, the City Council adopted General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, and Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) Zoning (PA 04 -040) for
the Fallon Village area. The Fallon Village project area encompasses 1,134 acres including
Jordan Ranch. The PD rezoning established the maximum number of residential units at
3,108 units for the Fallon Village area over all with a maximum of 1,064 residential units for
Jordan Ranch and up to 83,635 square feet of non - residential (commercial) use. The
amended land use plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) also
addressed the requirements of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Airport Protection
Area (APA) adopted after the 2002 annexation.
In 2010, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved PA 09 -011 for
Jordan Ranch which included:
• A Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan to establish the mix
of unit types, development regulations, and allow a maximum of 781 units.
• Site Development Review for six neighborhoods in Jordan Ranch
• Master Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 to establish the overall subdivision pattern,
and
• Development Agreement which, among other things, allowed the developer to make a
Community Benefit Payment to convert the Semi - Public site to residential uses and to
satisfy the Inclusionary Housing obligation. Payments have been made to date
according to the schedule in the Development Agreement. A portion of those funds
were used to relocate the YMCA to Dublin with the remaining funds left in reserve to
facilitate future Semi - Public endeavors by the City.
2of18
The Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review on December 13, 2011 for
166 Single-Family detached units for Brookfield Homes. These units are located north of the
Open Space corridor and are currently under construction.
The current proposal includes land use changes and reconfiguration to four areas with
consistent Planned Development rezoning described in the following paragraphs. The
application also includes Site Development Reviews, as well as Vesting Tentative Tract Map
8024 for Subareas 2 and 3 as further described below.
Figure 2 — Subarea Map
SUBAREA 1: The existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use
Designation for the Elementary School Site is Public/Semi Public. The Applicant is proposing
to place an underlying Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential (6.1 — 14.0
du/ac) • the proposed 10.7 acre site.
SUBAREA 2: This 8-acre area has current General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use Designations of Semi-Public and Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 — 25
du/acre). The Applicant is proposing to change the overall Land Use to Medium Density
Residential (6.1 o 14.0 du/ac) with an underlay of Public/Semi-Public for potential expansion
• the adjacent elementary school site.
SUBAREA 4: Subarea 4 currently has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land
Use Designation of Open Space. The Applicant is proposing a Mix Use Land Use Designation
for development of 5,000 square feet of retail commercial uses and up to 115 residential
units. With a maximum 1.0 FAR for the Mixed -Use designation (i.e. 196,020 sf for the site),
there is adequate room for development of the potential future commercial and residential
uses.
ANALYSIS:
General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
On February 1, 2012, the City Council Adopted Resolution 11 -11 approving a General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Initiation Study based on the current proposal.
Table 1: Proposed Land Use Amendments by Subarea
"Change in acreage is a result of roadway alignments and orner minor aajustments.
Subarea 1: The current Land Use Designation for Subarea 1 is Public /Semi - Public to be
developed as an elementary school. The proposal is to create an underlying land use
designation of Medium density residential in the event that the School District determines that
this site is not needed.
Subarea 2: The current Land Use Designation is Semi - Public and Medium -High Density
Residential. The proposal is to redesignate this site for Medium Density Residential Land
Uses with and underlying land use designation of Public /Semi - Public in the event that the
School District does move forward with the acquisition of the School site in Subarea 1(directly
adjacent to this site) and determines additional land area is needed. The Development
4of18
Existing
Land Use Designations
PROPOSED
Land Use Designations
SUBAREA 1
Public /Semi - Public
(Elementary School)
Public /Semi - Public
(Elementary School) w/
underlay- Medium Density Residential
(6.1 - 14 du /ac
Acres
10.1
Acres*
10.7
SUBAREA 2
Medium High Density Residential
(14.1 to 25 du /ac) and
Public /Semi - Public
Medium Density Residential
(6.1 - 14 du /ac)
(underlay Public /Semi - Public — School)
Acres
Acres*
7.8
MHDR
5.3
P /SP
2.7
subtotal
8.0
SUBAREA 3
Mixed Use
Medium High Density Residential
Acres
6.6
Acres
6.6
SUBAREA 4
Open Space
Mixed Use
Acres
4.6
Acres
4.6
Acres
29.7
Totals:
"Change in acreage is a result of roadway alignments and orner minor aajustments.
Subarea 1: The current Land Use Designation for Subarea 1 is Public /Semi - Public to be
developed as an elementary school. The proposal is to create an underlying land use
designation of Medium density residential in the event that the School District determines that
this site is not needed.
Subarea 2: The current Land Use Designation is Semi - Public and Medium -High Density
Residential. The proposal is to redesignate this site for Medium Density Residential Land
Uses with and underlying land use designation of Public /Semi - Public in the event that the
School District does move forward with the acquisition of the School site in Subarea 1(directly
adjacent to this site) and determines additional land area is needed. The Development
4of18
Agreement provides for the conversion of the Semi - Public site and obligates the property
owner to provide a Community Benefit Payment. A portion of the funds were used to relocate
the YMCA to Dublin.
Subarea 3: Currently the land Use designation is Mixed Use. The proposal is to change the
land use designation to Medium Density Residential Land Use. The purpose of this proposal
is to eliminate the ground floor commercial uses, the loft units and the live -work units.
Subarea 4: Subarea 4 is currently shown as Open Space. The applicant is proposing to
change the Land Use to Mixed Use to allow for a combination of retail commercial and
residential units. The site was originally designated as Open Space as a result of the
Resource Management Plan. However, as a result of subsequent discussions with the
resource agencies it was determined that that land had little or no habitat value and should be
developed.
The project proposal includes related amendments to the various figures, texts, and tables in
the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the
documents. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve a General Plan
Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for Jordan Ranch 2 is included as
Attachment 1. A complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan is included in Exhibit A of Attachment 1.
Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
Amendments
Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning Amendment:
The Applicant proposes to amend the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning to be consistent
with the land use amendments shown in Table 1 above.
Subarea 1: An underlying Land Use of Medium Density Residential (6.1 — 14.0 du /ac) will be
added to the existing Public /Semi - Public Land Use in the event the School District does not
utilize the site.
Subarea 2: The existing Semi - Public and Medium -High Density Residential Land Use
Designations in Sub Area 2 would be replaced with a Medium Density Land Use Designation
(6.1 — 14.0 du /ac) with a Public /Semi - Public underlay in the event the School District does
move forward with the site northerly and determines that additional acreage is needed.
Subarea 3: The Mixed -Use Land Use Designation on Subarea 3 would be replaced with a
High- Density Residential Land Use Designation (14.1 — 25 du /ac).
Subarea 4: Subarea 4, currently designated for Open Space Land Use, would be replaced
with a Mixed Use Land Use Designation to accommodate retail and medium to medium -high
density residential land uses.
Stage 2 Amended Development Plan
The Stage 2 Development Plan Amendment encompasses only Subarea 2 and 3. The
property owner will need to obtain approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan prior to
development of Subareas 1 and 4.
Subarea 2: The Applicant has requested Development Regulations to allow for Single - Family
detached units identified as "3,200 square foot lots" for Subarea 2 designated as Medium
Density Residential. These revised land use standards would not apply to other areas in
5 of 18
Jordan Ranch. As currently adopted, Single - Family detached units in the Medium Density
Residential areas of Jordan Ranch are limited to an alley - loaded access configuration. The
Applicant proposed to add a category that allows for front - loaded access to garages from the
public street. While the unit type is defined as "3,200 square foot lots," the actual minimum lot
size required is 3,225 square feet due to the minimum lot dimension of 43 feet x 75 feet. No
lot has been plotted with less than the minimum dimensions or lot area.
The proposed Development Regulations for the Medium Density Residential lots in Subarea 2
(3,200 square foot lots) are shown in Table 2 below:
Table 2: Development Regulations — Sub area 2 Medium Density
Residential - 3,200 square foot lots (new category)
Standards
Medium Density Residential
Single - Family Detached
Subarea 2
3,200 sf Lots
Lot Size
3,225 sf
Minimum Lot Dimensions
43 feet x 75 feet
Minimum Street Frontage
@cul -de- sac /knuckles
25 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
50%
Maximum Building Height
35 feet
Maximum Stories
3
Minimum Front Yard Setbacks
to living area
15 feet
to porch /deck
10 feet
to front of garage
18 feet
Encroachments
2 feet maximum into required setback
Minimum Side Yard Setback
Side yard setback
4 feet minimum
corner lot (setback from side street)
9 feet
porch /deck
4 feet (7 feet @ corner)
Encroachments
2 feet maximum into required setback
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
Living Space
10 feet
One -story Garage
5 feet
Encroachments
2 feet maximum into required setback
Usable Private Rear Yard Space
400 sf [contiguous] flat area
minimum dimension: 18 feet in one direction
Required Parking
Guest Parking
2 covered spaces per unit
1 space
Subarea 3: With the change in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as well as
the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning Amendment from Mixed Use to Medium -High
Density Residential uses, the applicant is proposing to eliminate the loft, live -work and
commercial uses but retain the previously reviewed and approved townhouses. Slight
changes are proposed to the Stage 2 Development Plan to accommodate this amendment.
Architectural Design Standards and Landscape Design Standards would remain from the
previous approval.
6 of 18
tP
Figure 3: Stage 2 Amended Development Plan
TaWN/FtAT GULIST MARKING:
134 SPAM
SITE OPTION 28 b
pill
As Approved
with Subarea I
with Subarea 2
without
per PA 09-011
as School
as School
School
Subarea 3
'Subarea 4
(1) Additional acreage (.4 acres) included from adjacent right-of-way
Site Development Reviews have been requested for Subareas 2 and 3. If the Elementary
School Site (Subarea 1) converts to the underlying MDR land use, the Applicant will need to
apply for an SDR to construct residential units, Similarly, the Applicant will need to obtain
approval of an SDR Permit for Subarea 4 prior to construction of the new development.
MW.W*M
- Individual floor plans may be placed next to each other. However, only two of the
same individual floor plans may be plotted next to each other without being interrupted
• a different floor plan.
- If two of the same individual floor plans are plotted next to each other, the same
individual floor planmay not be plotted across the street from the two.
- In no case will the same architectural elevation or color scheme be allowed next to or
across the street from each other, unless they are a different individual floor plan.
These standards have been included as Condition #32 of Attachment 4. As individual plot
plans are submitted for each phase • development, the Applicant shall provide a master
plotting plan for the previous phases • ensure compliance with these standards
SUBAREA 3 - The layout of Subarea 3 remains the same as approved previously with PA 0• -
011; however, the 105 Multi-Family units with ground floor commercial uses have been
replaced with 109 units of 3-story townhouses and flats in buildings • 4, 5, • 6 units. As
before, the buildings would be located on either side of a 2.7-acre Neighborhood Square
accessed by public streets which also provide access to the perimeter of the neighborhood's
internal access drives. A common area open space spine connects each side to the
Neighborhood Square, and buildings will face onto either a common landscaped area or a
public street (See Figure 4 below).
IEMN •
* " 3
SUBAREA 2 — Three floor plans are offered for the "3,200 square foot lots" in Subarea 2.
plans are two stories, have three bedrooms, and range in size from 1,839 square feet
2,113 square feet. All plans have a covered front porch and a double garage facing the stre
with direct access to the house from inside the garage, The ground floor living area
configured as an open plan arrangement with living/family, dining, and kitchen space at th-
rear of the unit. All plans have a ground floor half bath/powder room with options available f
accommodating wheelchair access. All plans have a fireplace in the living area. The laund
room is located on the ground floor for Plan 3, but is on the second floor for Plans 1 and
Other than a small den for Plan 2, all sleeping quarters are located on the second floor.
Second floor space includes the master bedroom, two bedrooms, and one bathroom 1
addon to the en suite master bathroom. Each master bedroom is provided with a walk-
closet and dual basins in the master bathroom.
All three plans present a strong one-story element to the street and recessed second sto
elements to reduce mass and enhance pedestrian scale.
Table 4 below shows proposed square footage, bedrooms, bathrooms, parking, and available
styles for each of the proposed plans.
111111771PIII-XIIII&M
Floor
Plan(l)
Bedrooms
Bathrooms
Square
Otage
c
Elevations (3)
Fparking
Plan 1
3
Options
•
Plan 1
1,691
IIIQMW�
3 + den
0
2,01 • sf
A & D
87
2.5
3 story end
(tandem)
1 Me 6110
Plan 2
2,113 sf
A & B
B
186-227**
Total:
207-242**
3
56 Units
2 story end
(1) Any one floor plan is limited to no more than 40% of the total,
(2) Living area only.
(3) (A) Farmhouse, (B) Cottage, (C) Shingle, and (D) Folk Victorian
Plan 1 — At 1,839 square feet, Plan 1 is the smallest of the three plans with 3 bedrooms
upstairs. The master bedroom has one large walk-in closet, and Bedroom 3 has a small
walk-in closet. (See Attachment 3, Architecture tab, Sheets A9-05 through A9-1 0)
Plan 3 — Plan 3 is the largest at 2,113 square feet. Access from the garage to the residence
is through a transition area designed as a pantry. Ground floor living space is defined as a
family room. The master bedroom has a large walk-in closet, and the second floor includes
loft space which optionally may be built out as a fourth bedroom.
SUBAREA 3 — The 3-story structures in Subarea 3 include six floor plans in Multi-Family
buildings with an "A" or "G" plan. Both "A" and "G" buildings are configured as 4, 5, or 6-plex
structures. The 6 floor plans generally are described as follows:
Table 5: Subarea 3 — Floor Plans
NeiL,hborhood 6 - 3 Story Towns w/ Flats
Architecture — Architectural standards for Jordan Ranch were adopted with seven
architectural styles: (A) Farmhouse, (B) Cottage, (C) Shingle, (D) Folk Victorian, E) Italianate,
F), Colonial, and G) Rural Contemporary.
• Architecture shall be simple in massing and form and provide visual interest.
Architectural elements and materials shall be mixed and matched among elevation
styles
• provide variety.
Living
Space (sf)
Garage
(sf)
Porch
Deck
Covered
Deck
Uncovered
Bedrooms
Baths
Options
No. of
Units
Plan 1
1,691
589
69-74**
0
88
2
2.5
3 story end
(tandem)
Plan 2
1,711
497
186-227**
0
207-242**
3
3
2 story end
Plan 3
1,830
540
43-46**
0
75
2b + den
2b
"Iffilt"
(tandem)
Plan 4
1,781
474
111
0
164-171**
3
3
3 story
5
1,969
474
1.1.1
0
164-171**
3b + den
4
3 story
IPlan
Plan 6
1,962
478
75
0
75
3
3.5b
3 story end
Subtotal
109
Architecture — Architectural standards for Jordan Ranch were adopted with seven
architectural styles: (A) Farmhouse, (B) Cottage, (C) Shingle, (D) Folk Victorian, E) Italianate,
F), Colonial, and G) Rural Contemporary.
• Architecture shall be simple in massing and form and provide visual interest.
Architectural elements and materials shall be mixed and matched among elevation
styles
• provide variety.
• Color palettes shall be bold and appropriate to the style
The single family homes in Subarea 2 are designed with themed architectural elements
integrated into the front facades and enhanced corner elevations that wrap the sides of the
structures. The exterior elevations are designed with a combination of elements along the
sides of the homes to reduce massing, enhance the scale and provide additional light and air
between adjacent properties. The use of these styles is intended to enhance the diversity of
the street scene with varied roof forms, pitches, and overhangs; window shapes and mullion
variations; shutter configurations; trim profiles; gable end treatments; exterior materials; and
style- specific details.
The primary roof material for all styles is composition shingle with standing metal seam
accents on certain styles. Porches are a prominent architectural element within Jordan
Ranch. The forms and materials focus on the variations of railings, columns, and low
pilasters supporting the columns or posts in wood, brick or stone veneers. The garage
facades have been de- emphasized with architecture forward plans, multi -plane front elevation
setbacks, and recessed doors. In keeping with the farm and ranch house theme, front loaded
garages of all styles display a variety of carriage house style doors with upper window panes.
The exteriors also rely on color to differentiate among exterior planes to provide wide diversity
in exterior elevations and architectural styles. Color schemes have been provided as a
general palette for the area, rather than by neighborhood, floor plan, or architectural style so
that an overall theme in color coordination can be achieved for the communities.. In addition
to the color palettes provided for brick, stone, and roof materials, a color array is included for
body siding, body stucco, trim, and accents. These palettes are shown in Attached 3, pages
Al -02 through Al -04 of the Site Development Review book.
SUBAREA 2 — This area will feature four architectural styles: (A) Farmhouse, (B) Cottage, (C)
Shingle, and (D) Folk Victorian. Two styles will be available for each of the three floor plans.
The two styles for each plan are listed as follows:
Plan 1 — (B) Cottage, (C) Shingle
Plan 2 — (A) Farmhouse, (D) Folk Victorian
Plan 3 — (A) Farmhouse, (B) Cottage
SUBAREA 3 - The Rural Contemporary and Farmhouse styles are used for the Multi - Family
attached units. Because of the density in this neighborhood of attached units, buildings will be
sited to maximize open space. Individual buildings themselves would provide the articulation
in the form of multiple setbacks; mixtures of one, two, and three story elements; and a variety
of porches, decks, and other features that provide massing relief. Elevations that face streets
or open space will also be articulated.
The ground floor colors and materials are different from the upper levels to break the vertical
line of vision. The upper levels are articulated with variations in the fagade planes. All roof
material for all plans and styles is a composition with standing metal seam accents over
awnings, bay windows, and featured roof forms.
The following provides an abbreviated description of each architectural style reflecting the
proposed exteriors in the two neighborhoods. The full detail of the elements of the
architectural styles was previously approved and is incorporated in these new and revised
products:
11 of 18
(A) Farmhouse - This style is proposed for both subareas, but is distinctly different in its
use between the Single - Family detached units and the Multi - Family attached units.
Roof forms are steep pitched gables with shed roof lifts with wood and metal accents,
including standing metal seam roof over architectural elements. The Farmhouse style
includes many of the wood theme architectural elements for Jordan Ranch such as
board and bat siding, narrow lap siding with 4 -inch exposure, and vertical bead board
that extends above the second floor base line. On the Multi - Family structures, the
ground floor exterior is stucco or brick veneer with vertical wood elements on the
second and third floors. (Used on Plans 2 & 3 in Subareas 2 & 3)
(B) Cottage - The Cottage style incorporates square or rectangular forms using gable roof
or modified hip covering a gable end. The primary exterior material is stucco with
ground floor levels accented by brick veneer. Gable ends may be embellished with
metal vents. (Used on Plans 1 & 3 in Subarea 2)
(C) Shingle - As its name implies, the featured exterior material of this style is a wooden
shingle. This style uses a gable roof form with shed accents. Alternative exterior
material includes 8 -inch lap siding as a variation. Diamond shingles may be used to
embellish the gable ends.- (Used on Plan 1 in Subarea 2)
(D) Folk Victorian - The Folk Victorian uses a hip roof form with gable or shed accents.
Exterior material primarily is stucco. Exterior accents include heavy framed windows
and doors. (Used on Plan 2 in Subarea 2)
(G)Rural Contemporary - This style is used for Multi- Family structures and would be
used in Subarea 3. The roof pitch of the gables appears lower and a standing metal
seam is also used for roof accents. Exterior material is stucco and board and bat wood
siding, in addition to stucco on upper levels. Cultured stone as a wainscot, false
chimney, or balcony support give mass to the 3 story structure. In addition to siding
accents, different color schemes are applied to various face planes. (Used in Subarea
3)
Parking - In accordance with the development standards in the Stage 2 Development Plan
and the City's Zoning Ordinance, each single family detached unit is required to be provided
with two covered spaces. In addition, one guest space is required for all Single - Family
detached units.
Subarea 2: All of the Single - Family detached units are provided with a 2 -car garage for a
total 112 covered spaces. The site plan identifies the 73 spaces located curbside for guest
parking in Subarea 2.
Subarea 3: The City of Dublin Zoning Code and the previously adopted Stage 2
Development Plan requires 2 covered and one -half (0.5) guest parking stalls (2 bedrooms or
greater) for each townhouses or condominiums. The townhouse units within Subarea 3 are
designed with private ground level tuck -under parking meeting the requirement of 2 covered
spaces per unit. Two hundred eighteen (218) covered spaces are required for the 109 units;
40 units (80 spaces) would be provided within tandem garages. (See Attachment 3, Tract
8024, Sheet 4) The previously approved project provided 32 units with tandem stalls and a
guest parking ratio of 1.33 stalls per unit. The proposed project would provide 189 guest
parking spaces creating a ratio of 1.73 guest spaces per residential unit. This far exceeds the
City requirement of 0.5 guest stalls per unit and exceeds the number of guest parking stalls
provided with the previous approval. As noted above, the architecture and units design is
12 of 18
identical to the previous approval. The only changes to the plan are the elimination of the
commercial space, the live -work units and the loft units and the addition of 3 additional town
house units. Previously 123 guest/commercial parking spaces were provided. The new layout
and configuration of the site plan has allowed for the location of an additional 66 guest
parking spaces.
Landscaping /Fence Plan — The Landscaping Plan in the current submittal is consistent with
the plans approved with the previous Site Development Review for neighborhoods within
Jordan Ranch (See Attachment 3, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheets L -1.OA through L-
7.4A). Because of the densities, the landscape and streetscape improvements take into
consideration common open space areas and pedestrian linkages. The Landscape plans
submitted as part of the Site Development Review include: a) an overall illustrated concept
plan for Subareas 2 & 3; b) typical plans for planting and hardscape materials for residential
lots and common areas; c) street sections for Central Parkway with right -of -way hardscape
and landscape materials; d) design, location, and hierarchy of fences and entry monuments;
e) specialized hardscape and paving; and f) street furniture.
As with the SDRs approved previously, the landscaping is proposed to be generous, with
trees lining the neighborhood streets, parkways, landscaped strips, and medians. All
landscaping along the private rights -of -way and sidewalks paralleling the streets will be
shaded and enhanced by trees and plantings. The landscape plans in the current submittal
have been prepared to reflect the building footprint of each floor plan for the Single - Family
homes in Subarea 2 and for the building perimeters in Subarea 3. The landscaping for the
parkways and the individual lots will be required to conform to the City Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance.
Relative to the topography of the Project Site, the fence plan for Subarea 2 incorporates a
hierarchy of styles applicable to function, such as slope management, privacy, property
demarcation, and views. A "community - themed wall" specific to Jordan Ranch would be
erected along Central Parkway adjacent to Subarea 2. Street lighting would match the
existing fixture in the approved Jordan community.
A Resolution approving the Site Development Review for Subarea 2 and 3 and revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 for Jordan Ranch 2 with required findings is included as
Attachment 4.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 would be revised to reflect the land use, zoning, and Site
Development Review applicable to the Subareas presented for approval with this application.
All 56 units in Subarea 2 would be sold as Single - Family detached homes with a public street
system. All 109 Medium -High Density Residential units in Subarea 3 are intended to be sold
as condominiums. Also, the boundary of the 4.6 -acre site along Fallon Road (Subarea 4)
remains unchanged and was previously subdivided and reserved for future development by
the owner. A Resolution approving Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024, along with the
Site Development Review for the Subareas 2 and 3 is included as Attachment 4 with required
findings and Conditions of Approval.
13 of 18
Affordable Housing /Inclusionary Zoning
The subject of Affordable Housing was addressed in the previously approved Development
Agreement. The approved Jordan Ranch project encompassed 781 units which provided a
community benefit payment in -lieu of providing inclusionary housing. Subarea 2 has been
reduced in units ( -36) from the original approval and the number of units in Subarea 3 have
also been increased by 4 units, an overage of 32 units has been created. In conjunction with
subsequent entitlements, once the development potential of Subarea 1 and 4 are determined,
a revised Development Agreement will be executed to determine the Applicant's full
compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. (See Attachment 4, Condition #34) The
32 excess units could be applied to a portion of the affordable obligation for Subareas 1 and
4.
Public Art Compliance
The proposed project is subject to "Chapter 8.58 Public Art Program" of the City of Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance allows public art installations subject to an established
value or payment of an in -lieu fee. The Applicant submitted a Public Art Compliance report
with the approval of PA 09 -011 which was included as a Condition of Approval to the Site
Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map 8024 when approved at that time which
indicated that they would pay an in -lieu fee. Subarea 2 is the only new product at this time so
the Public Art condition has been modified for payment of the in -lieu fee in conjunction with
development of these units. For the already approved project, the existing conditions of
approval apply. A Condition of Approval in the Planning Commission resolution has been
prepared. (See Attachment 4, Condition #32)
CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE
The application includes a request for Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan Amendment that is consistent with the proposed land use
amendments under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Stage 2 Planned
Development zoning and Development Regulations would be applicable to the revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 and Site Development Reviews for Subarea 2 and 3. The
current SDR request is consistent with Planned Development zoning standards adopted
along with this application.
The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and
Sustainability Element of the General Plan. The project itself is a portion of the larger Fallon
Village community plan that has implemented pathways, gathering spaces, and open spaces.
The Project will adhere to the City of Dublin Green Building Ordinance (See Attachment 5).
The proposed project Applicant will further the goals of the Community Design and
Sustainability Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving
resources and opportunities for future generations.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police
Services and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided
Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in
compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these
departments and agencies have been included in the attached Resolution for the Site
Development Review and the Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment 4).
14 of 18
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the Jordan Ranch property. A Public Notice was also published
in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff
Report has been provided to the Applicant.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project is part of the larger project known as Fallon Village (formerly known as
the Eastern Dublin Property Owners, or EDPO). In 2002, a number of owners in Eastern
Dublin filed applications for annexation of portions of the current project site to the City and to
the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD.) At that time, the City prepared and
certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH # 2001052114,
Resolution 40 -02) for that project. The SEIR was a supplement to the 1993 Eastern Dublin
EIR certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993 (SCH # 91103064, Resolution 51 -930).
Both the 1993 EIR and 2002 SEIR are incorporated herein by reference.
The Fallon Village project proposed in 2005 (for PA 04 -040) included the same properties as
the EDPO, as well as, a specific proposal for the Braddock and Logan properties (PA 05-
038), now referenced as Positano. Based on the results of an Initial Study, the City prepared
a Draft SEIR to the 1993 and 2002 EIRs which was circulated for public review from August
23, 2005 through October 6, 2005 (SCH #2005062010). A Final SEIR for Fallon Village dated
October 2005 was reviewed and certified by the City Council on December 6, 2005 by
Resolution No. 222 -05. Significant unavoidable impacts were identified in these EIR's that
required the City Council to adopt Statements of Overriding Considerations with the approval
of each related project.
Subsequently, an Addendum addressing PA 09 -011 was adopted on June 1, 2010 by City
Council Resolution 80 -10.
Consistent with CEQA, Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, an
Initial Study was prepared by the City, as the Lead Agency, to determine whether there would
be significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of the current project beyond or
different from those already addressed in the previous CEQA documents. Consistent with
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164, a determination was made to prepare an Addendum to the
environmental documents certified previously.
Attachment 6 is the Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending that the City
Council Approve the CEQA Addendum. The CEQA Addendum is an exhibit to Attachment 6.
The Initial Study and an Addendum to previous CEQA documents concluded that the
proposed project did not identify any new or more severe significant impacts that were not
analyzed previously referenced above, and that no further environmental review under CEQA
is required. Pursuant to the 2002 Citizens for a Better Environment case, approval of the
Addendum will include a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant unavoidable
impacts identified in the prior EIRs that are applicable to the project or project site.
The CEQA Addendum and all of the EIRs, Resolutions, and Ordinances referenced above
are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during normal
business hours.
15 of 18
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution
amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to
change the land use designations for the project known as Jordan
Ranch 2 specific to four subareas with the draft City Council
Resolution attached as Exhibit A.
2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an
Ordinance approving a Planned Development rezone with related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments for the
project known as Jordan Ranch 2 specific to four subareas with
the draft City Council Ordinance included as Exhibit A.
3) Project plans for Jordan Ranch 2.
4) Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8024 for the project known as Jordan
Ranch 2 specific to Subareas 2 and 3.
5) Green Building Checklist.
6) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA
Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report,
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern
Dublin Property Owners, and the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for Fallon Village for the Jordan Ranch 2 project
specific to four subareas with the draft City Council Resolution
attached as Exhibit A.
16 of 18
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Mission Valley Properties
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Attn: Kevin Fryer
PROPERTY OWNER: BJP ROF Jordan Ranch LLC
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Attn: Kevin Fryer
LOCATION: East of Fallon Road and along both north and south
sides of Central Parkway west of Croak Road
(Tract 8024)
ASSESSOR PARCEL
NUMBER: APN 985 - 0027 - 007 -02 and 985 - 0027 - 006 -04
EXISTING LAND USE
DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential, Medium -High Density
Residential, Mixed Use, Elementary School, Open
Space, and Public /Semi - Public overlay
EXISTING ZONING: PD PA 09 -011 City Council Ordinance 13 -10
PD PA 04 -040 City Council Ordinance 32 -05
PROPOSED LAND USE
DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential, Public /Semi-
Public underlay, and Mixed Use
PROPOSED ZONING: PD- Medium Density Residential, PD- Medium High
Density Residential, PD- Public /Semi - Public
underlay, and PD -Mixed Use
SURROUNDING USES:
LOCATION
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
CURRENT USE OF
PROPERTY
• Low Density Residential
• Neighborhood 1 - under
(adjacent to proposed Mixed
construction
Use — Subarea 4), and
North
PD
• Medium Density Residential
• Neighborhood 2 - vacant
(adjacent to Elementary School
site - Subarea 1)
South
PD
Open Space and Community Park
vacant
17 of 18
LOCATION
ZONING
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
CURRENT USE OF
PROPERTY
East
PD
Open Space and
vacant
Low Density Residential
• Community Park
Vacant (adjacent to Subarea
(adjacent to Subarea 3 and
3) and Fallon Sports Park
(across Fallon Road from
across Fallon Road from
proposed Mixed Use —
proposed Mixed Use — Subarea
Subarea 4)
4)
West
PD
. Medium Density Residential
. Vacant
(adjacent to Elementary School
(Neighborhoods 2 and 3)
site — Subarea 1 and Subarea 2)
• Medium High Density
. Vacant
Residential
(Neighborhood 3 and 4)
(adjacent to Subarea 2)
Reference: General Plan
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Planned Development PA 09 -011 Jordan
Planned Development PA 04 -040 Eastern
18 of 18
Ranch
Dublin Property Owners Specific Plan
DRAFT DRAFT
119( 8 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 8,
2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the
meeting to order at 7:02:00 PM.
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and
Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra
LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm.
O'Keefe, the minutes of the April 24, 2012 meeting were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR.— NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA 2010 -00068 - Jordan Ranch 2 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments and Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans, Site Development Review, Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 8024 and a
CEQA Addendum.
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
There was a brief discussion regarding the Fallon Village map and the location of a storm drain
basin.
Cm. Schaub asked if the hills will still stay open space.
Mr. Porto answered the hills will remain open space and are located on the Chen property.
Cm. Schaub asked about the objective for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment study initiation requested by the Applicant in February 2012.
Mr. Porto responded that the Applicant made a request to review changing the land use on
several sites within the area and made the proposal to the City Council who approved initiating
the study.
41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n Ahy 8, 2012
(kgjuka . Aleet iwaif 34
DRAFT DRAFT
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, stated that any request for a General Plan or Specific Plan
Amendment requires direction from the City Council on whether or not to proceed.
Cm. Schaub asked for clarification regarding the proposed residential density of Subarea 1 if the
school district decides not to build a school. He further asked if the development to the north of
Subarea 1 is less dense.
Mr. Porto answered that the area to the north is zoned medium density. He continued that, if
the school district decides not to take the property, the Applicant can bring a Stage 2
Development Plan to the Commission for development standards.
Cm. Schaub asked if changing the zoning from a school site to residential for Subarea 1 would
impact the intensity of the area mentioned in the EIR.
Mr. Porto answered it would not. He continued that Staff analyzed the change through the
CEQA Addendum.
Chair Wehrenberg mentioned Page L1.OA regarding Neighborhoods 5 & 6 and noted that
Neighborhoods 2, 3 & 4 are not included in the items they are reviewing tonight.
Mr. Porto answered that is correct.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the land use designation of Neighborhoods 5 & 6 will change.
Mr. Porto stated they are not changing the current zoning, and are only adding an underlying
land use designation.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission was being asked to approve the change of land use
designation without the project coming back to the Commission.
Mr. Porto answered that is correct.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission needed to review the project as a whole and the type of
houses being proposed.
Mr. Baker clarified that the land use designation change is for the GPA/EDSPA. The Applicant
will need to come back to amend the Stage 2 PD to address development standards /product
types. The Stage 2 PD will have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission along with an
SDR showing what the houses would look like.
Mr. Porto stated the GPA/EDSPA is only establishing the land use, not a product or design.
Cm. Schaub disagreed and was concerned about planning the project piecemeal.
Mr. Baker stated this is the same as when the master plan for the Fallon Village properties
(Croak, Chen, Jordan, etc.) was approved; the land use designations were adopted in 2005
without having product types or specific design. As an example, the Croak property currently
has General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations and a Stage 1 PD.
Cm. Schaub stated that part of this application is for Stage 2 zoning on part of the project.
Wt aaaa inn Commission Ahy 8, 2 0/2
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Baker agreed and stated that within the Fallon Village area Positano has Stage 2 zoning but
the rest of Fallon Village does not. He continued that this project is similar to master planning
which sets the framework for the area. The Applicant would need to come back to the Planning
Commission with more specific development proposals in the future.
Cm. Brown asked if there is a time limit for the school district to commit to building the school.
Mr. Porto suggested that the Applicant answer that question.
Cm. O'Keefe felt it was April 2013.
Mr. Porto responded that their timeframe would be for the decision to take additional acreage
and stated the school district is close to making a decision which could be an indication that they
are going ahead with the school site. He stated the Conditions of Approval have been reviewed
by the school district and the developer and they both understand the timing.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Applicant would be required to pay another community benefit
because the property would be more profitable with residential if the school district decides they
don't need the school site. He asked if the Commission should discuss that or would it be
determined by the City Council.
Mr. Porto felt that would be possible.
Chair Wehrenberg stated that Condition of Approval #34 regarding Inclusionary Housing states
that "In conjunction with subsequent entitlements, once the development potential of Subarea 1
and 4 are determined, a revised Development Agreement will be executed to determine the
applicant's full compliance with the inclusionary housing ordinance."
Cm. Schaub understood and wanted to ensure that the City Council knew the Planning
Commission had thoroughly discussed these complex land use issues.
Cm. Schaub asked about the semi - public section of Subarea 2 which could be taken by the
school district.
Mr. Porto stated the primary objective is a medium density land use designation from medium -
high to allow 92 townhouse /flat units. But should the school district decide it needs more land,
the Applicant will already be in a position to accommodate the school district without doing a
GPA/EDSPA.
Chair Wehrenberg asked about the development of the neighborhood square within Subarea 3.
Mr. Porto answered that, in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, there is a specific
determination regarding what goes into a neighborhood square. He continued that the square
does not contain play fields but is usually an open space area with possibly a picnic area and
play equipment but it is a passive situation. He stated the P &CS Department will determine
what the neighborhood square will contain.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the developer will complete the work on the neighborhood square.
(Pt aaaa inn Commission Ahy 8, 2012
(kgjukaa Aleela "aaif 36
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Porto answered that the developer will grade the site and provide the improvements around
it but it will be basically a dirt field and left for the P &CS Department to develop at another time.
Mr. Baker stated it will be a City park to be programmed and constructed by the Parks and
Community Services Department.
Cm. Schaub asked if the units in Subarea 3 have tandem parking and asked if they have
driveways.
Mr. Porto answered that there are no driveways.
Cm. Schaub stated there are driveways in Subarea 2 but not Subarea 3 and eventually the
Commission will discuss what is left of Subarea 2 which he felt will be equally as dense as
Subarea 3.
Mr. Porto answered no; the Planning Commission approved the project to the west in 2010,
which are medium -high density townhouses.
Cm. Schaub felt that approving that project with tandem parking was a mistake and stated he
has watched the City Council spend a lot of time dealing with parking challenges in certain
areas. He felt that one of the biggest contributors to that problem is tandem parking. He asked
what the City Council can do if they don't want to have tandem parking without a driveway.
Mr. Porto stated there is no tandem parking in the property to the west that the Planning
Commission already approved. He stated the only area with tandem parking is Subarea 3. He
continued this project eliminated 38 units on Subarea 2 that had tandem parking and were
replaced with 56 single - family detached houses with driveways and on- street parking.
Cm. Schaub felt tandem parking is unrealistic and, if there are no driveways, the residents will
park at the neighborhood square which, according to his calculations, would leave 9 spaces
around the Neighborhood Square for guests plus the ones within the development. He felt it will
be a problem and there will not be enough parking.
Mr. Porto responded this project has roughly doubled the parking requirement according to the
code and exceeds the parking that was required when the Planning Commission approved it in
2010.
Cm. Schaub agreed and stated he also knows there has been difficulty with parking, and felt
that no matter the parking standards today or in the future, there will be parking problems.
Chair Wehrenberg asked to go through each resolution separately to make it clearer.
CEQA Addendum: The Commission had no questions.
GPA/EDSPA: Land use designation for all for subareas:
Chair Wehrenberg felt it was clear that the Planning Commission has no control over the
elementary school but felt it was important for them to agree to change the density.
41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n Ahy 8, 2012
(kgjuka . Aleela "aaif 37
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Brown felt the zoning for Subarea 1 was a good land use whether it will be an elementary
school or medium density single family housing.
Cm. O'Keefe asked about the purpose of the $1 million Community Benefit payment. Mr. Porto
answered the benefit was for Subarea 2 which afforded them the opportunity to apply for the
GPA/EDSPA and Stage 1 Development Plan to utilize the semi - public site for another use. He
mentioned the Applicant has already made one payment and $400,000 was used to relocate
YMCA to Dublin, and the remaining funds will support other semi - public facilities. Cm. O'Keefe
asked for other examples of semi - public uses that have occurred in the last 10 years. Mr. Porto
answered that, during the Brannigan Street project, the property was sold to Lennar by a church
group which allowed them to fund a semi - public use in another location; School of Imagination
in Schaefer Ranch which was part of a negotiated settlement through the DA that also provided
funds to support the Heritage Park.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that the Community Benefit payment does play a role in their decision tonight
but he felt Cm. Schaub disagreed. Cm. Schaub responded it was his understanding that the
community benefit is not part of the land use change. He asked, if the school site is changed to
residential, will there be further community benefit payment.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the neighbors were notified of this project.
Mr. Porto answered notices were sent to all of the areas around Jordan Ranch which includes
portions of Cantara, KB, Piper Glen Terrace, Glen Eagle, and property owners (Mr. Croak, the
Chens and Lins). He stated Staff had received no feedback except for one resident who came
to the City offices to look at Neighborhood 1 which is currently being developed.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there are semi - public areas nearby to serve neighboring residential
developments.
Mr. Porto answered there is a semi - public area on Capistrello and additional semi - public areas
to the east on the Croak property and to the south on the Chen property.
Cm. Schaub felt that Subarea 4 was not appropriate for commercial and wanted it to be left as
open space. He felt Subarea 4 does not need to be commercial.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if Cm. Schaub felt Subarea 3 should be kept as mixed use.
Cm. Schaub understands the logic but felt Subarea 4 would not be a commercial area but
Dublin Blvd would. He mentioned the village concept that the Planning Commission was hoping
for but felt they don't work. He was in support of Subarea 3, with the exception of a parking
issue, and would rather leave Subarea 4 as open space.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are hiking trails in the open space area.
Mr. Porto answered that there are trails along the open space and pointed out a trail that
crosses the open space to the community park.
Chair Wehrenberg asked about Subarea 4 and the resource agency concerns about habitat
preservation.
41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n Ahy 8, 2012
(kgjukaa Aleela "aaif 38
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Porto explained that Subarea 4 is where the Jordan Ranch farm house was located and the
area was totally disturbed with no particular habitat value whatsoever.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if Subarea 4 is the only piece of open space to be converted to
residential, and if the rest will stay open space, including the area to the south.
Cm. Brown asked about Sheet L7.4A which shows Central Pkwy; he liked the wide pedestrian
area on both sides, and asked if it will be the same all the way up Fallon Road where Subarea 2
begins.
Mr. Porto answered yes and stated there is a trail on each side of Central Pkwy.
Cm. Brown was concerned about safety for children in the area of Subarea 4 if it is converted to
residential and felt the trail on Central Pkwy would mitigate those safety issues. He also asked
if there is anything designed for walking /pedestrians on Fallon Road in Subarea 4.
Mr. Porto answered in Subarea 4 the bike trail is on the street with a standard sidewalk along
that side; the trail system for Fallon Road is north of Gleason and goes along the community
park. He stated one of the reasons the bridge is being built is to allow pedestrians to cross
Fallon Rd. to get to the community park. He pointed out the trail system.
Cm. Brown asked if there were any tree barriers along Fallon Road and would they be the
responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Mr. Porto answered no; the developer must build the improvements.
The Commission had no questions for Staff regarding the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
plan or the SDR /VTMap.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Properties, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Mike Porto for
his help and mentioned the colleagues that were in attendance to answer questions. He stated
they were presented with an opportunity to help the YMCA who was looking for a new location
within Dublin. They felt the YMCA was a semi - public use on a broader scale than just Jordan
Ranch area. The agreement was that they would subsidize the YMCA to relocate to Dublin in
an effort to satisfy the semi - public requirement at Jordan Ranch; the DA was written to address
that and if they were not successful in changing the zoning the funds would be applied to their
affordable housing in -lieu payment. He felt that Subarea 3 and 4 were related, and explained
they wanted to move the mixed use from Central Pkwy to Fallon Rd where there is more traffic.
He suggested the Commission should not think of the mixed use as a Tralee type of project and
felt there are a lot of ways to achieve mixed use. He stated Subarea 4 was processed with the
resource agencies, assuming future development at that location; they avoided the biological
features which have been enhanced significantly. He stated that Subarea 4 was previously
developed with gravel roads, barns and an underground fuel tank that leaked which was
cleaned up, and the homestead which created an opportunity to develop an area with no
significant biological function. The areas of biological significance in the open space will remain
and will be maintained by a conservation easement in perpetuity. He stated the idea for
Subarea 4 is for Stage 1 to set the land use with more detail to be submitted in the future. He
felt the area is an opportunity to serve the community with an adjacent park, and a pedestrian
41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n Ahy 8, 2012
(kgjukaa Aleela "aaif 39
DRAFT DRAFT
flyover that will utilize the area on Fallon Rd. He stated they tried to address the issues raised
by the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding reducing tandem parking; the
neighborhood square does not have a parking requirement but there is parking around it and the
community park with having parking as well.
Cm. Brown asked for an example of possible mixed uses in Subarea 4.
Mr. Fryer suggested a small apartment complex with stand -alone retail or a small neighborhood
serving retail element. Mixed use would allow a non - retail use also; i.e. a sandwich shop or
convenience store and then there are a variety of residential uses that could also work.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the reason Cm. Schaub has suggested leaving Subarea 4 open space is
because, at the last few meetings, there were applications to change the land use designations
from semi - public because they were unable to build on the site or the owner could not find a
buyer for a semi - public use.
Mr. Fryer felt the question was what is really feasible for the semi - public site. There were
opportunities but they were conditional opportunities and they didn't know how long it would
take; the YMCA was a unique opportunity. He suggested holding off on deciding what is viable
for the mixed use and what can brought forward.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Commission could approve an underlying land use of open
space on Subarea 4 similar to Subarea 1 (school site) land use which would keep the site as
open space if nothing was built on the site.
Mr. Porto answered that, the way it has been written, the site does not have to include the
commercial aspect but can include up to 5,000 sf of retail, but could also include up to 115 units
of residential in the medium -high density based on the mixed use definition.
Mr. Porto continued that the Commission asked what the site could support environmentally.
He stated there have been many people looking at the site with different proposals and, by
weighing the proposals against the environmental document, they felt the mixed use (either /or
5,000 sf of retail and /or 115 units of residential) would be the most appropriate.
Chair Wehrenberg mentioned the site is only 4.6 acres and asked how feasible would it be to
meet the parking requirements for retail and sustain a business based on the location.
Mr. Porto answered the ULI considers neighborhood commercial sites to be between 3.5 acres
and 5 acres, and therefore 4.6 acres would fit within that definition.
Mr. Fryer stated it is currently open space and, if nothing is found to be feasible, it will remain as
open space even if it is not zoned open space. He felt that mixed use is the most flexible if
nothing proves to be feasible on the site.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if there would be any scenario in which residential would not be successful
in the area.
Mr. Fryer answered he could not think of any that residential would not be successful.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what different proposals had been brought forward for Subarea 4.
41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n Ahy 8, 20/2
(kgjuka . Aleet iwaif 40
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Fryer answered they were only ideas /discussions that never went further; i.e. a senior care
facility, self- storage facility, general commercial, and other ideas that the developer discussed
but nothing has been brought forward as a definite proposal.
Chair Wehrenberg felt that, as Planning Commissioners, it was up to them to determine what
was appropriate for that area.
Cm. Schaub felt that if there were 115 units on the small space it would look like an island.
Mr. Fryer asked Cm. Schaub to explain what he meant by "island."
Cm. Schaub felt 115 units would look odd in the area and that it would be more appropriate to
do something less visible than an apartment complex.
Mr. Fryer responded that Subarea 4 fronts onto Fallon Road which serves thousands of
residents and did not feel it is an island. He stated it will be located at a well - traveled
intersection.
Mr. Porto pointed out the site on the General Plan map and discussed what was in the adjacent
areas.
Mr. Baker pointed out the other medium density developments in proximity to the project and
stated there will be two residential sites across the street from the project; therefore it would not
be by itself or an "island."
Chair Wehrenberg felt it helped to see the entire picture of the area. She asked if there are any
improvements on Subarea 4 currently.
Mr. Fryer answered it is being used as a staging area with construction trailers, but there are no
plans if they were denied the zoning change.
Cm. Schaub asked why they are proposing to start construction at Subareas 2 and 3 and not
closer to Fallon Road.
Mr. Fryer answered they are not planning to start there; they are just the areas that are
approved and they feel do not need modification. He stated they would phase construction
moving from west to east with Subarea 3 being the area least ready for today's market.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a construction schedule at this time.
Mr. Fryer answered their intention is to start work on the bridge and culvert later this year, and
then start Central Pkwy and the mass grading in spring of 2013.
Mr. Pat Croak, resident/property owner, congratulated the Applicant for their work on the project.
He spoke in favor of the project and felt it would be an asset to his property. His concern is how
the village center has changed from its original vision with pedestrian oriented retail, etc. He
was also concerned about parking and a grade differential between the building pad and his
property. He stated an easement is not in place and asked the Commission to take that into
41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n Ahy 8, 2012
(kgjukaa Aleela "aaif 41
DRAFT DRAFT
consideration. He asked if Braddock and Logan will be making the interim improvements on
Croak Rd.
Mr. Porto directed Mr. Croak to contact Public Works to further discuss this issue.
Mr. Croak was concerned about the roadway and how it will handle the traffic.
Mr. Porto answered that his concerns are handled with Conditions of Approval that were placed
on Braddock and Logan regarding the improvements of Croak Road and the extension of Croak
Road further south. He stated there is no need to make those improvements at this time
because there is nothing occurring in that area. He continued that when Central Pkwy is
connected to Croak Road the Public Works Director may require improvements to be built at
that time.
Chair Wehrenberg encouraged Mr. Croak to talk with Public Works regarding those issues.
Cm. Schaub felt there is no reason that where Croak Road is today couldn't be filled in and the
grade could be built up in the future.
Mr. Porto agreed and showed the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan site plan and
pointed out Mr. Croak's property line. He continued that Mr. Croak's property is zoned medium
density residential and the zoning is the same directly adjacent to it. He felt that if Mr. Croak
were developing his property today, Mission Valley would be pointing out the same grade
differential. He stated that part of the reason for master planning is to connect properties
together to make it work. He discussed the other property owners and their projects and how
they connect to each other.
Mr. Baker stated the City encourages the property owners to work together.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why there is medium -high density on the Anderson property.
Mr. Baker answered Braddock and Logan controlled the property at one time and it was going to
be part of their affordable housing program and in order to achieve the program they needed the
additional density.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Schaub stated he could make all the findings. He is in support of the project but wanted to
ensure the issues were on the record and thanked the Applicant for eliminating some of the
tandem parking. He suggested continuing to think about Subarea 4 and make it an appropriate
project.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if any of the Commissioners had been approached by the developer or
met with anyone regarding the project. The Commissioners all answered no.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she could make all the findings. She felt that Subarea 4 was an
appropriate place for mixed use and felt if it was retail it could activate the area. She asked
about the color choices for the houses on Sheets A3 -01.
Mr. Porto responded all the architecture has already been approved.
41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n Ahy 8, 2012
(kgjuka . Aleet iwaif 42
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make all the findings. He stated this is the third application to
change semi - public to residential and was against it in previous cases due to the fact that it was
premature. In this case, there was a contribution to the YMCA to relocate them to Dublin and
more funds to do something similar in the future. He stated the community benefit was for
Subarea 2 and felt that if the school district does not build the school on Subarea 1 and the
developer is allowed to build houses then the residents will not have the benefit of the school.
He felt there should be an additional Community Benefit payment for the school site. He felt it
was beyond the Planning Commission's purview but wanted it to be noted that this is the third
time the Commission is reviewing a semi - public land use change. He was not happy about
Subarea 4 and adding to the sea of houses and felt mixed use was a better fit. He would like to
see tandem parking completely phased out. He felt there is a lot of problems with parking and
felt this project could potentially be another.
Cm. Brown stated he could make all the findings. He agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding the
land use changes for semi - public and additional Community Benefit payments. He felt that
tandem parking in medium -high density residential is not the best situation because residents do
not put 2 cars in the garage which creates the problem. He agreed with Mr. Croak regarding
mixed use for Subarea 4 and felt it was not good for commercial at this time. He felt that the
townhouses, with 3 stories, were structured for younger people and seniors were not taken into
consideration in the design.
Chair Wehrenberg mentioned Conditions of Approval #66 and #67 regarding fees and asked if
Fire Station 17 and 18 are built.
Mr. Porto answered yes.
Chair Wehrenberg hoped the school board will evaluate the property and how the schools are
impacted with still only one high school and a lot of young families moving here. She is in
support of the land use changes. She agrees with changing the mixed use in Subarea 3, and
after reviewing the entire master plan and seeing that there is residential adjacent to Subarea 4
she was also in support of that land use change.
On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE
EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTY OWNERS,
AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR FALLON VILLAGE
FOR THE JORDAN RANCH 2 PROJECT SPECIFIC TO FOUR SUBAREAS
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 21
41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n Ahy 8, 2012
(kgjuka . Aleet iwaif 43
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DRAFT
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
JORDAN RANCH 2 SPECIFIC TO FOUR SUBAREAS
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -22
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 RELATED STAGE 1 AND
STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
JORDAN RANCH 2 SPECIFIC TO FOUR SUBAREAS
RESOLUTION NO. 12- 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND
REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8024 FOR THE PROJECT
KNOWN AS JORDAN RANCH 2 SPECIFIC TO SUBAREAS 2 AND 3
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).
ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:48:56 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Doreen Werhenberg
Planning Commission Chair
41 tanning inn Coaaaaaaissio n Ahy 8, 2012
(kgjuka . Aleet iwaif 44
DRAFT
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Planning Manager
G:IMINUTESI201ZPLANNING COMMISSION05.08.12 DRAFT PC MINUTES. docx
DRAFT
41tanning Commission �A/hy 8, 20.12
(kqp,da,r �Alleetillw 45
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
JORDAN RANCH 2 SPECIFIC TO FOUR SUBAREAS AND ADOPTING
A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(APNs 985 - 0027 - 007 -02 and 985 - 0027 - 006 -04)
PLPA- 2010 -00068
WHEREAS, Mission Valley Properties representing BJP ROF Jordan Ranch LLC
( "Applicant ") submitted applications for Jordan Ranch 2, specific to four (4) subareas ( "Project
Site "). The applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments to change land use designations, 2) Planned Development Rezoning with related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan amendments, 3) Site Development Review (SDR) for
Subareas 2 and 3, and 4) Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 8024. The Project Site and the
applications are collectively known as the "Project," and
WHEREAS, Jordan Ranch is part of a larger project known as Fallon Village and
generally is located north of the extension of Central Parkway, south of Positano Parkway, east
of Fallon Road, and west of Croak Road; and
WHEREAS, the four subareas that comprise the Project Site and actions specific to each
subarea are described as:
Subarea 1) 10.7 -acre Elementary School site proposed for an underlay land use
designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) (6.1 to 14.0 dwelling
units per acre) with conceptual development proposed at 10 units per acre,
or 100 units; and
Subarea 2) 7.8 acres north of Central Parkway, including approximately 5.3 acres of
Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25 dwelling units per
acre) and a 2.0 -acre Semi - Public overlay site, combined as Subarea 2 and
proposed for MDR, or 56 units, with an underlay land use designation of
Public /Semi - Public; and
Subarea 3) 6.6 acres south of Central Parkway of Mixed Use to Medium -High Density
Residential or 109 units; and
Subarea 4) 4.6 acres of a 52.7 -acre Open Space corridor facing Fallon Road (north of
central Parkway) to Mixed Use including 115 multifamily units at 25 units
per acre and 5,000 square feet of non - residential use at .35 FAR; and
WHEREAS, the proposed land use amendments and rezoning would result in a total of
964 units for Jordan Ranch which is 184 units greater than the 781 units approved by PA 09-
011, but less than the 1,064 units initially approved by PA 04 -040 and analyzed in the 2005
Fallon Village SEIR;
WHEREAS, the Project site currently is vacant land; 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 (resolution incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern 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 (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein
by reference); and
WHEREAS, prior CEQA documents pertaining to the Project have been adopted as
follows: 1) Supplemental EIR SCH #2001052114 certified by City Council Resolution 40 -02
(2002) for the project known as the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), and 2)
Supplemental EIR SCH #2005062010 certified by City Council Resolution 222 -05 (2005) for the
larger project known as Fallon Village; and 3) an Addendum addressing PA 09 -011 adopted
June 1, 2010 by City Council Resolution 80 -10 for Jordan Ranch. The above referenced
resolutions are incorporated herein by; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR and Supplemental EIRs 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, for the Jordan Ranch 2 Project, the City prepared an Initial Study to
determine if additional review of the proposed modifications and development was required
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study the City prepared an
Addendum dated May 8, 2012 describing the modifications, development, and findings that the
impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior CEQA
documents referenced above. The Addendum is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated
herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12 -XX
recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum for the Jordan Ranch 2
Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report for the City Council, dated , 2012 and
incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Addendum and the project, and
recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on , 2012 the City Council held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior CEQA
documents and all above - referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking
any action; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes 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 CEQA Addendum,
the prior CEQA documents, the City Council staff report, and all other information contained in
the record before the 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
CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, 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 previous
projects affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require
major revisions to the prior documents 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 Eastern Dublin and Jordan Ranch project which were previously addressed. The
proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those
identified in the prior CEQA documents. All previously adopted mitigation measures continue
to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable.
2. The Initial Study and Addendum did not identify any new significant impacts of the
proposed Project that were not analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.
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
15162/3.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the
following:
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 Sections 21166 or 15162/3 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 considered the information in the Addendum and prior CEQA
documents before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the
CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Jordan Ranch 2 project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2012 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPA #120101PLPA- 2010 -00068 Jordan Ranch Phase 2 GPA InitiatioMCC Meeting 6.5.1ZCC Reso CEQA Addendum.doc
EXHIBIT A
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE JORDAN RANCH PHASE 2 PROJECT PA 2010-
00068
May 8, 2012
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51 -93, certifying an Environmental
Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ( "Eastern Dublin EIR,
SCH 491103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound
volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced
development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53 -93 approving a General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22,
1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern
Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern
Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been
proposed, relying to various degrees on the certified EIR.
A Supplement was prepared to the Eastern Dublin EIR in 2002 (State Clearinghouse No.2001052114) for
an annexation and prezoning request. The 2002 Supplemental EIR 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.
In 2005, a second Supplemental EIR was prepared and certified by the City of Dublin for the Fallon
Village project (SCH 42005062010), 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, 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.
An Addendum to all previously certified CEQA documents that included the Jordan Ranch property
was certified by the Dublin City Council in 2010 (see City Council Resolution No.80 -10). An
associated Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan, Site Development Review
(SDR), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement on the Jordan Ranch property
was also approved by the Dublin City Council. These actions allowed a minor redistribution of uses on
the site as well as a minor change to the land use program. Under the 2010 approvals, a mix of 781
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 were approved.
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Project, as
described below.
Project Description
The current application includes a request for amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to change land use designations for four portions (identified as "subareas" in this Initial
Study) of the overall 189.4 -acre Jordan Ranch site. The proposed changes are described by the
following subareas.
• Subarea 1 contains the existing 10.1 -acre school site located on the eastern portion of the site,
north of Central Parkway. The proposed General Plan/Specific land use designation allow Medium
Density Residential with future attached and /or detached dwelling units on the existing school site should
the school not be required by the Dublin Unified School District. Up to 100 dwellings would be allowed
at the mid -range of the 6.1 -14.0 dwellings per acre.
:outhSubarea 2 consists of the existing Semi -Public and Medium -High Density Residential area just
of the planned School site. This subarea contains approximately 8 acres of land. The applicant is
requesting that these two existing land use designations be replaced with a Medium Density Residential
designation. The Semi -Public designation would be deleted in compliance with the approved Development
Agreement. Under the proposed land use designation, a total of up to 56 small lot detached dwellings
would be allowed.
• Subarea 3 is located south of the Semi -Public land use designation and the extension of Central
Parkway in the southern portion of the Jordan Ranch site. This subarea is currently planned and zoned for
a combination of Mixed Use development (approximately 6.6 acres) and Neighborhood Square
(approximately 2.0 acres of land). The applicant's request includes elimination of the Mixed -Use and
Semi -Public land use designations and replacing these with Medium -High Density Residential
development.
The currently approved land use designations and zoning would allow development of up to 91 three -
story townhouse units and 14 lofts over approximately 12,000 square feet of retail. The proposed land use
designations and requested zoning would permit up to 109 attached townhouses. The Neighborhood
Square designation would remain but would be reconfigured.
• Subarea 4 includes a 4.6 -acre parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and
future Central Parkway, currently designated for Open Space. The applicant proposes to convert this area
to a Mixed -Use land use designation. Up to 5,000 square feet of retail, and /or similar uses could be built
on this site as well as up to 115 residences.
The proposed change would allow development of up to 253 Low Density Residential dwellings,
361 Medium Density Residential dwellings (assuming an Elementary School would not be built),
235 Medium -High Density Residential dwellings and 115 attached dwellings as part of the proposed
Mixed Use complex. The total number of dwellings on the overall Jordan ranch would be 964. If the
Elementary School is constructed in Subarea 4, the maximum number of dwellings would be 864. The
project also includes 5,000 square feet of commercial uses as part of the Mixed -Use complex, an 11.1 -
acre Community Park, a 5.8 -acre Neighborhood Park, a 2.7 -acre Neighborhood Square and 48.1 -acres of
open space.
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study, the Jordan Ranch
property has been planned for urbanization since the Eastern Dublin approvals in 1993, 2002, 2005 and
2010, and has been the subject of three previously certified EIRs and an Addendum. The Eastern Dublin
EIR identified numerous environmental impacts, and numerous mitigations were adopted upon approval
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not
be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Similarly, the 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR identified supplemental impacts and mitigation measures, as
well as additional significant unavoidable impacts for which statements of overriding considerations were
adopted. No additional mitigation measures were included in the 2010 Addendum. All previously
adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the
2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the
currently proposed Project as further discussed in the attached Initial Study.
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this
Project.
Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA
review for the Project, which proposed a minor amendment to the approved General Plan, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and Planned Development zoning. If approved, the proposed project would change
land uses on four subareas of the Jordan Ranch property as identified above.
The applicant is also seeking approval City approval of a Stage 1 and 2 PD zoning amendment, Site
Development Review approval, a vesting subdivision map and an amendment to an existing
Development Agreement.
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated May 8, 2012, incorporated herein by reference, to
assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project Through this Initial Study,
the City has determined that no subsequent EIR, or Negative Declaration is required for the plan and
zoning amendments or the refined development details.
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section
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 substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant impacts?
There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as supplemented by
the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR and the 2010 Addendum. The Project is similar to land uses for the
project site analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the proposed land uses for
the four subareas is not a substantial change to either the 2005 SEIR analysis or the 2010 Addendum
and will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures
are required.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions 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, the 2005 SEIR or the 2010 Addendum. This is documented in the
attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated May 8, 2012.
c) Is there new information of substantial 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; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible
mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation
measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce
significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the attached Initial
Study, there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect 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 previously certified EIRs adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated
with the proposed development on portions of the Jordan Ranch property.
d) If no subsequent EIR -level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be
prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because
there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond those identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and previous CEQA documents for the site, as documented in the attached Initial Study.
Conclusion: This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the
attached Initial Study dated May 8, 2012. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, the Planned Development rezoning
amendment, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Development
Agreement amendment as discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial
Study, the City determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR
or negative declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163.
The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR adequately
address the potential environmental impacts of the land use designation change for the Jordan Ranch
site as documented in the attached Initial Study.
As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for public
review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on
this project.
The Initial 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 during normal business hours in the
Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
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. The City Council is currently considering the Jordan Ranch 2 project, PLPA 2010-
00068. The Project includes the following planning actions and entitlements specific to four
subareas: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change land use
designations, 2) Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan amendments, 3) Site Development Review (SDR) for Subareas 2 and 3 (Neighborhoods 5
and 6, respectively), and 4) Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 8024.
The four subareas that comprise the Project Site and actions specific to each subarea are
described as:
Subarea 1 - a 10.7 -acre Elementary School site proposed for an underlay land use
designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) (6.1 to 14.0 dwelling units per acre) with
conceptual development proposed at 10 units per acre, or 100 units;
Subarea 2 - 7.8 acres north of Central Parkway, including approximately 5.3 acres of
Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25 dwelling units per acre) and a 2.0 -acre
Semi - Public overlay site, proposed for MDR, or 56 units, with an underlay land use designation
of Public /Semi - Public (for Elementary School, if needed). Adoption of Development
Regulations allowing single family detached residential development in the Planned
Development MDR zone of PA 04 -040 which would have a minimum lot size of 3,225 square
feet (references as "3,200 square foot lots ") which would be plotted with front- loaded /street-
facing garages; and
Subarea 3 - 6.6 acres south of Central Parkway of Mixed Use to MHDR, or 109 units,
within Neighborhood 6;
Subarea 4 - 4.6 acres of a 52.7 -acre Open Space corridor facing Fallon Road (north of
central Parkway) to Mixed Use including 115 multifamily units at 25 units per acre and 5,000
square feet of non - residential use at .35 FAR.
The proposed land use amendments and rezoning would result in a total of 964 units for Jordan
Ranch which is 184 units greater than the 781 units approved by PA 09 -011, but less than the
1,064 units initially approved by PA 04 -040.
These actions are collectively referred to herein as the Project.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the 1993 land use
approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, including the Jordan Ranch property. Statements
of Overriding Considerations were also adopted for the EDPO and Fallon Village land use
approvals, which likewise included the Project site. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City
Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable
impacts that apply to the current Project.' The City Council believes that many of the
unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental
EIRs will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the previous approvals
and by the environmental protection measures included in the Project design or adopted
through the Project approvals, to 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 effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the
Supplemental EIRs. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified
adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable
levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, or other considerations
that support approval of the Project.
2. Unavoidable Significant 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 Project.
Land Use Impact 3.1F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual
Impacts 3.8/13; and, Alteration of Rural /Open Space Character
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.318, 3.31E. 1 -580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.311, 3.31M. Santa Rita Road /1 -580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin
Boulevard Impacts.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. 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.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.618. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects.
Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, 8, C, and E. Future development of the Project will contribute to
cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source
emissions.
3. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the EDPO Supplemental EIR. The
following unavoidable supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the EDPO
Supplemental EIR and could apply to the Project.
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.
' "public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project
despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v.
California Resources Agency 103 Cal. App. 4 `h 98. (2002)
Supplemental Impact Traffic 8: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Fallon
Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Supplemental Impact Traffic 11: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, freeway
segments on 1 -580 and 1 -680 in the EDPO project area.
4. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR.
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts were identified in the Fallon
Village Supplemental EIR and could apply to the Project.
Supplemental Impact TRA -1: Project contribution to impact the Dublin /Dougherty intersection
(DSEIR p. 64).
Supplemental Impact TRA -4: Cumulative impacts to local freeways (DSEIR p. 69).
Supplemental Impact TRA -5: Consistency with Alameda County Congestion Management Plan
(DSEIR p. 73).
Supplemental Impact CUL -2: Demolition of the Fallon Ranch House (DSEIR p. 218.)
Supplemental Impacts AQ -2, AQ -3: Increase in regional emissions (DSEIR pp. 239 - 240.).
5. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the
Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIRs. 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 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 Project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the
comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The Project
will create residential development that is compatible with the residential development in the
vicinity of the Project. The Project will provide local roadway improvements contributing to an
efficient public roadway system. The Project will help the City toward its RHNA goal for new
housing units and will help implement policies contained in the Housing Element of the General
Plan. The Project will provide streetscape improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and
landscaping that will be an amenity to the larger community and provide safer pedestrian and
bicycle access between existing neighborhoods. The Project will create new 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. Development of the project site will provide construction employment opportunities
for Dublin residents.