The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-08-1983 83-016 Appeal Winning Action Inv PRE-HEARING STAFF ANALYSIS Meeting Date: August 8, 1983 FROM: City Council \1 Planning Department TO: SUBJECT: Appeal of PA 83-016 Tentative Planning Commission Action on Winning Action Investments Parcel Map 4008 GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: This is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision on a request for a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the subdivision of 4.7 acres into three parcels. The site currently contains an office building and a truck repair business. The applicant proposes to add a warehouse to the easterly parcel and a cafe to the westerly parcel. LOCATION: East side of Dougherty Road, approximately 800 feet north of Scarlett Court. OKNER/APPLICANT: Fred Houston 7045 Dublin Blvd. Dt:blin CA 94568 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-550-4 EXISTING ZONING: Industrial) sq. ft. per Planned developffient for M-l (Light and C-2 (General Commercial) uses with a 20,000 lot minimum EXISTING LAND USE: Office building, truck repair, cargo storage, and vacant SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: North - Lumber Yard - PD (for M-l and C-2) East - Flood Control Channel and Railroad South - Brake shop, Building materials, Vacant West - Bowling alley - C-2 SITE/ZONING HISTORY: October 4, 1979: the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning of the property from M-l to PD, for M-l and C-2 uses. A bO,OOO sq. ft. minimum lot size was also established. July 5, 1983: the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 4008 subject to conditions (4-0). APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: TITLE 8, Ch. 1, ALAMEDA COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN: 8-1.2 INTENT: It is the intent of this Chapter to promote the public health, safety and general welfare; to assure in the division of land consistent with the policies of the Dublin General Plan and with the intent and provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; to coordinate lot design, street patterns, rights-of-way, utilities and public facilities with community and neighborhood plans; to assur8 that areas dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved, initially, so as not to be a future burden upon the ccmrrunity; to preserve natural resources and prevent environmental damage; to maintain suitable standards to insure adequate, safe building sites; and, to prevent hazard to life and property. -1- ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: on this project. report. A Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared A copy of the ND is attached to this NOTIFICATION: Negative Declaration notices have been published in the Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: In his appeal, the developer is requesting that seven (7) of the Planning Commissions Conditions of Approval be revised (see attached Resolution regarding Tentative Parcel Map 4008 for conditions). He is in agreement with all other conditions. This appeal has been reviewed by the City Engineer and Alameda Councy Flood Control, and they respectfully maintain that the conditions as approved by the Planning Commission are reasonable and necessary, and should be sustained by the City Council. A brief explanation of the reasoning follows: I. Condition 2: The developer wishes to provide access to each lot via a private access easement rather than provide l/2 of a public street. Staff recommends the use of a public street because it provides for better street maintenance, a more attractive environment, and better control of access to this and adjacent property. It also establishes a circulation system to the adjacent property altogether, rather than permit multiple uncontrolled easements such as those found along Scarlett Court. Private access easements typically have poorly maintained and unattractive areas, with poor traffic, circulation and access. Experience has shown that public streets in manufacturing areas are not subject to the deterioration suggested by the Applicant. II. Conditions 4, 5, 8, and 10: When the subject property was rezoned by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, on October 4, 1979, from Light Industrial (M-I) to Planned Development for M-I and C-2 uses, one of the two conditions of approval was that the subject property and three other properties, construct a storm drain along the easterly property lines as acceptable to Alameda County Flood Control, and that the easterly 2/3 of the property, or a lesser area (as may be approved by Flood Control), shall remain undeveloped until the entire downstream storm drain is completed. In their letter of June 8, 1983, Flood Control asked that a storm drainage plan be approved by that agency, with several options being available to the developer. The concern was that the increased run-off that will occur with future development be carried in a drainage system that will not damage or flood adjacent or downstream property, and that legal authority be obtained from the affected property owners to permit the desired drainage system to be installed. A. Condition 4: States that "An alternate drainage scheme may be submitted through the Final Parcel Map process and be subject to the City Engineer's approval. This provides sufficient latitude to allow Flood Control and the City Engineer to work with the developer to come up with an adequate and legal system. B. Condition 5: (Regarding drainage of lots) would be met by the developer's proposal with the exception that water from the access road will need to -2- be connEcted by an underground drainage system to the east-west drainage line shown on the developer's proposal. C. Control covered Condition 8: .(Regarding Alameda County requirements) Requirements are generally by the comments made above. Flood D. Condition 10: (Concerned with rights-of-entry on adjacent property) Where a drainage easement is . required across neighboring property, in order to install a drainage system, permission (a right-of- entry) must be obtained from the neighboring property owner before work on the neighbor's property can take place. The City cannot waive such a requirement. III. Condition 21: Requires a minimum of two (2) street trees per lot. The developer is asking that no street trees be required along the new access road. Street trees planted throughout industrial areas, provide some amenity and visual relief that is recognized, over time, as being quite desirable. As the subject property and adjacent properties develop, street trees will be supplemented by on-site landscaping. Since the zoning district permits office and other more intensive development than the present truck related use, it is likely that the neighboring area will ultimately contain office uses, as well as light industrial uses. Such development gains value when the aesthetics of the area improve. Street trees are one such improvement. CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: The City Council should hold a public hearing on this appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on PA 83-016, Winning Action Tentative Parcel Map 4008; adopt the Negative Declaration; make a decision on the appeal (that decision can involve any of the conditions of approval); and make findings to support its decision. PRE-HEARING RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: Adopt the Negative Declaration, deny the appeal, and approve Tentative Parcel Map 4008 subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Tentative Parcel Map 4008 2. Appeal Letter 3. Draft Negative Declaration Resolution 4. Draft Tentative Parcel Map Resolution 5. Flood Control letter dtd June 8, 1983 6. Ord. 79-82 approving PD zoning 7. Negative Declaration 8. Minutes of Planning Ccmmission Meeting of July 5, 1983 -3-