The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.2 Nielsen Property Residential Project Attch 4-9~ i ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~~~~~. ~ STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 27, 2010 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - PA 07-057 Nielsen, Gene~al Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. (Legislative Act). Report pr~epared by Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Nielsen project site is 10.9 acres located at 6407 Tassajara Road within the Eastern Dublin Spec~c Plan Area. The proposed Project includes a request to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan amendments would modify the existing land use designations from Rural ResidentiaVAgricultural to Single Family Residential (EDSP) and allow a reduction in the width of on-site streets. Approval of a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan would expand the allowable uses on the site and permit up to 36 residential units. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map would permit the division of the site into 34 lots (for up to 36 units - two lots would allow duplex units) and associated improvements. Site Development Review for the project will happen at a later date. 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; and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Nielsen Property; b) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the Nielsen Property; c) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan; and d) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7950. ,- . ; 1~_ Submitted By e' ed By Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner Planning Manager COPIES TO: Applicant File Page 1 of 10 G:IPA#12007107-057 NielsenlPC Mtq ~.27.101DRAFTSIPCSR Nielsen 04.27.10.doc ITEM NO.: ~ A~~~~I~EICHNI~iv't~ q- DESCRIPTION: Background: The Nielsen property is 10.9 acres in size and is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The property consists of the one residence, one mobile home, sheds, a livestock/animal area, wireless communications located near Tassajara Road (which are designed to appear as shrubby trees) and a wireless communications monopole with related equipment storage. The 10 acre property is generally rectangular in shape, has approximately 600 feet of frontage along Tassajara Road and has a depth of approximately 780 feet. The property consists of gently rolling hills and increases in grade from Tassajara Road (nearly 455 feet above sea level) up to the rear portion of the property (approximately 565 feet). The exhibit to the right shows the Nielsen Property and the surrounding properties and land use designations. Vicinity Map .; ,, . Wallis Ranch ~"` J ~ ,: ,; ' ~,~~ y~ Silvera Ranch :: .. ..~ .~ . .. 1 NIELSEN ~ 1 .~ r~ / wM, ~~~ ~~ ~ RRA ~ `~~sc ; NP -~\,, ; CamG Parks ~ ~ ~ l , The site currently has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Rural Residential/Agriculture which permits 1 dwelling per 100 acres. The Applicant proposes to change the land use designation to Low Density Single Family Residential and to permit up to 36 units on the project site. Legend LDR = Low Density Residential MDR = Medium Density Residential MHDR = Medium-High Density Residential NP = Neighborhood Park OS = Open Space PL = Public Lands RP = Regional Park RRA = Rural Residential/Agricultural SC = Stream Corridor SP = Semi-Public Entitlement History: On October 1, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance 15-02, pre-zoning the Nielsen and Silvera Ranch properties to PD (Planned Development) and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Nielsen property was included in the Silvera Ranch annexation so that the Nielsen property did not form a"county island" surrounded by land within the City of Dublin. No development was proposed on the Nielsen property at that time and the adopted Stage 1 Development Plan allowed the existing uses to continue on the site. Final annexation of the properties occurred on May 5, 2003. On December 18, 2007, the City Council authorized Staff to begin a study of the ApplicanYs request for a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to increase the density of the site from Rural ResidentiallAgriculture (1 unit per 100 acres) to Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre). The City Council authorized Staff to study up to 43 dwelling Dublin Ranch 2of10 ~17~~~ units on the site. 'fhis authorization did not approve a total of 43 units on the site; rather, it allowed Staff to begin reviewing the project with respect to site compatibility, circulation, complianct;.with City regulations and environmental impacts. In addition to the project proposal as described in this staff report, there is also a pending application for Site Development Review to modify one of the existing cell phone facilities on the site. T-Mobile has made an application to the City to expand the equipment enclosure on the site and to add 10 feet to the height of the existing monopine on the property. The application is currently under review. ~`~'-.-,~~~ '~,.___.J ;~ WIR ~ry OIIV~ItA RAN[M 1-![li>pt RAKNI ' _' _ -_ '- MqUN D[lOI~V !tlb[Ml~~ ,r________ _____~ ~ .q., ; _ , _ « ~~ ~ ~ . p ~ P 1 0 1- I ~ _- ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ • ~•t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ I •Ir 1~ r I~ _~ 1 I r~ 1~ ~ i • ~ __ _ ~_ '- ~--- _ - - ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ! ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .' - "~ ( ~ ~ ~~r '_ , ~ '~~~ I- = - i 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ Y~r" =yq-- ' I i ~ I r ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ` ' ' 1 { ~~ r I ! ~. I J ~~ ~ ~ ~ i„ •.. '~ ~ + ~ • i i « " . 1 . ~ - ~ ~ ~ , ~ •, ~ ~ , , . ~ ~ ~ ~ '- ~"~, -_ - - - ~ ' ~ I ' `,~'` _ oWRRY UNC OCNOOL IMeAC1 LKO~.M D[N71TY RLi10[NML/RRA Project Proposal The Applicant is ~equesting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. The Applicant is also requesting certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the project. In order to develop the site as permitted by the proposed zoning, a Site Development Review application will need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a future date. ANALYSIS: The proposed General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone wi#h a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map are discussed below. Staff s analysis is broken up into several sec#ions which describe each component of the project. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The Applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Spec~c Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from Rura1 Residential/Agriculture (1 unit/100 acres) to Single Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 units/acre) and to reduce the width of on- site streets. The request includes amendments to various figures, texts and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specfic Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. The foliowing is a list of the proposed amendments. 3of10 Proposed General Plan Amendments: ~ ~~ 7~ ~- ~ Figure 1-1 a: Land Use Map - Update map to change the Nielsen Property land use designation from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential. Figure 9-2: Dublin General Plan Eastem Extended Planning Area Update map to change the Nielsen Property land use designation from Rural ResidentiaVAgriculture to Single Family Residential. Chapter 2, Table 2.1 Amend Table 2.1 by removing 10.9 gross acres from Rural Residential and add 10.9 gross acres to Single Family. Remove 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single Farnily. Adjust totals accordingly. Section 5.1.1 6. RESIDENTIAL STREETS Curb to Curb 36' (32' single loaded). 29' single-loaded permitted with Planned Development zoning. Right-of-way 4fi'. 45' double-loaded or 34' single-loaded permitted with Planned Development zoning. Sidewalk 5'. 4.5' where houses front on street permitted with Planned Development zoning. 7. CUL-DE-SACS Curb to curb 36'. 29' single-loaded permitted with Planned Development zoning. Right-of-way 46'. 45' double-loaded or 34' single-loaded permitted with Planned Development zoning. Sidewalk 5'. 4.5' whe~e houses front on street permitted with Planned Development zoning. Appendix A Add this project to list of amendments and approvals: Nielsen Property, Resolution No., Date Adopted and GP updated. Proposed Specific Plan Amendments; Table 4.1 Amend Table 4.1 by removing 10.9 gross acres from Rural Residential and add 10.9 gross acres to Single Family. Remove 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single Family and adjust totals accordingly. Table 4.2 Amend Table 4.2 by removing 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single Family and adjust population numbers accordingly. Table 4.3 Amend Table 4.3 by ~emoving 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single Family and adjust population numbers accordingly. 4 of 10 ~119 ~~-. ~ Table 4.10 Amend Table 4.10 by removing 10.9 gross acres from Rural Residential and add 10.9 gross acres to Single Family. Remove 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single Family adjust totals accordingly. Figure 4.1 Update map to change Nielsen Property land use designation from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential. Figure 6.1 Update map to change Nielsen Property land use designation from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential. APPENDIX 3 Amend Appendix 3 by removing 10.9 gross acres from Rural Residential and add 10.9 gross acres to Single Family. Remove 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single Family adjust totals accordingiy. APPENDIX 4: Amend Appendix 4 by changing #9 Owners Name to Nielsen. Change Land Use Category from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential, change Acres from 10.0 to 10.9, and change Density from .01 to 3.3 and units ftom 1 to 36. A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment and an Eastern Dublin Spec~c Plan Amendment for the Nielsen Property as described above is included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report. Planned Development Rezone The City Council adopted Ordinance 95-02, pre-zoning the Nielsen and Silvera Ranch properties as Planned Development with a related Stage 1 Development Plan when the Nielsen and Silvera Ranch properties were approved for annexation to the City of Dublin in 2002. At that time, no development was proposed on the Nielsen property and the adopted Stage 1 Development Plan simply allowed the existing uses to continue on the site. The proposed amendment to the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning for the Nielsen Property is to permit up to 36 residential units, including finro duplex units for the provision of affordable housing. Please refer to page 4 of Attachment 2, Exhibit A, which describes the amendment to the Stage 1 Development Plan. A Stage 2 Development Plan is proposed in accordance with Section 8.32.040 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Stage 2 Development Plan would allow for up to 36 units and details the permitted and conditional uses; site development standards, architectural and landscape standards and guidelines; data on site area, proposed densities and maximum number of dwelling units; a phasing plan and street sections. Please refer to pages 4-19 of Attachment 2, Exhibit A, which describes the amendment to the Stage 2 Development Plan. Additional entitlements will be required prior to development commencing on the project site. A Site Development Review application that is in conformance with the Stage 2 Development Plan would need to be submitted. A refined site plan, landscape plans, detailed residential elevations, and other project-specific details would be submitted as required by City Standards. The Site Development Review application would be subject to a public hearing and review and consideratior~ by the Planning Commission. 5of10 ~~ 75;~. A Resolution recommendin that the Ci Council a rove a Planned Develo ment Rezone wit~ 9 tY PP P a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Nielsen Property is included as Attachment 2 to this Staff Fteport. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 7950 proposes to subdivide the property in a manner rnihere the 34 lots have been arranged on two cul-de-sacs to work with the natural grade of the site and utilize terraces and stepping the houses up the slope. Each lot is a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Lots have been designed assuming a split ievel residential unit to better fit the topography of the site by stepping up the slope and to reduce the need for exterior retaining walls. However, some units and lots have the option to be offered as flat pads. In addition, the stepping and positioning of the lots will provide optimum views of the valley and hills both to the north, west and south of the project. Primary access to the Project Area will be via Silvera Ranch Drive, an entry street that connects to Tassajara Road at a signalized intersection. Tassajara Road will ultimately be a six-lane divided arterial street. Where there are houses on both sides of the street, parking wiil be provided on both sides. The roads will transition into parking on one side where the houses are only on one side of the street ("single-loaded"). The ends of both cul-de-sacs will not allow parking, but are sized to meet fire standards. Sidewalks will be provided on all lot frontages to accommodate pedestrians, and a meandering walk will be placed on Tassajara Road in keeping with the ultimate design of Tassajara Road. The en#ry road will have separated sidewalks with 6' parkway strips as well as a landscaped median. The proposed street sections are included in the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map plan set, which is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 3 to this Staff Report The Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 for the Nietsen Property is included as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report. The entire Project Plan Set is included as Attachment 4. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLQN 8~ ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed Nielsen Property Residential Project includes a request to amend the Generaf Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Rural Residential/ Ag~iculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets. The project proposal includes related amendments to the various figures, texts and tables in the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the document. Additionally, the project includes a proposal for a Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone to allow the development of up to 36 single-family residential units on the project site. The proposed Planned Development Rezoning, as defineci by Section 8.32.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, establishes the land use pattern for the Nielsen Property. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services and Dublin San Ramon Services District have reviewed the p~oject. Additional land use entitlements, including Site Devetopment Review, will be required prior to future development of the project site. It will be at this time that Conditions of Approval will be placed on the project 6of10 ' ~~i ~5g related to the actual construction of residential units on the site. The various a~~licable departments and agencies will review subsequerxt . planning applications for the Nielsen Property. NOTICING REQUIREMENTSlPUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project in addition to those who provided comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR. A Public Notice was also published in the Valley 'fimes and posted at several locations throughout the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EJR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a 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. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service}, regional air quality, noise, and other impacts. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted by the City to encourage orderly growth of the Eastern Dublin area. Because the Eastern Dublin project proposed urbanization of the almost completely undeveloped Eastern Dublin area, the Eastern Dublin EIR also analyzed conversion of agricultural and open space lands to urban uses. These impacts, together with visual and other impacts from urbanization, were also determined to be significant and unavoidable. Where the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts that could be mitigated, the previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to implementing projects such as the Nielsen Property Residential Project, as appropriate. The Eastern Dublin EIR was a Program EIR and evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. As such, the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the cumulative effects of developing in agricultural and open space areas and the basic policy considerations accompanying the change in character from undeveloped to devefoped lands. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects such as Wallis Ranch (Dublin Ranch West), Fallon Crossing, Vargas, Silvera Ranch, Dublin Ranch, and Fallon Village have been approved, relying on the Program EIR. The City, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study 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 Eastern Dublin EIR. Based on the project description, the Initial Study determined that although many of the anticipated impacts had been adequately addressed, the project could result in additional significant site-specific impacts. Therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared in accordance with CEQA laws and regulations. The project assessed in the SEIR included amendments to the General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan (including revised land uses), a Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. 7of10 , . . 1 ~ ~ -75~ The SEIR r~vas prepared fo~ the project and circulated for public review from ~ebruary 2, 2009 to March 25, 20Q9 (Exhibit A to Attachment 5). During the public review period, the City received seven comment letters, which include the following: • U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, dated March 11, 2009 • California Na#ural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, dated March 25, 2009 • Dublin San Ramon Services District, dated March 9, 2009 • Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Zone 7, dated March 19, 2009 • Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, dated March 13, 2009 • Alameda County Public Works Agency, dated March 10, 2009 • Morgan Miller Blair, dated March 19, 2009 In compliance with CEQA, the City prepared responses to the various comment letters, which are contained in the Finat SEIR (Exhibit B to Attachment 5). The responses were sent to each of the individuals and agencies that provided comments on the Draft SEIR. CONCLUSION: The ApplicanYs submittal package is included as Attachment 4 of the Staff Report. The proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would change the land use designation from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Single Family Residential and reduce the width of on-site streets. Approval of a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan would permit the future development of up to 3fi residential units and related infrastructure on the Nielsen Property. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Nielsen Prope~ty Residential Project, which includes both the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR with the responses to comments. 8 of 10 a~ ~ ~~ ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Counci,l~adopt ~~~ Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan~ to change ~he Nielsen Property from Rural Residential/Agricultural #o Single Family Residential and reduce the width of on-site streets, with the draft Resolution attached as Exhibit A. 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Nielsen Property, with the draft City Councii Ordinance included as Exhibit A. 3) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7950 for the Nielsen Property with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map attached as Exhibit A. 4) Nielsen Property Residential Project Plan Set dated received April 9, 2010. 5) Resolution Recommending City Council certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for The Nielsen Property Residential Project, with the Draft SEIR attached as Exhibit A and the Fina1 SEIR (with response to comments) attached as Exhibit B. 9of10 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/PROPERTY: OWNER LOCATION: ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING USES: Robert Nielsen fi4Q7 Tassajara Road Dublin, CA 94568 6407 Tassajara Road 985-0002-009-02 Rural Residential/Agricultural (existing) Single Family Residential(proposed) EDSP: Rural Residential/Agricultural (existing) EDSP: Single Family Residential (proposed) ~1a~ ~ 7.~~ LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Silvera Ranch South PD Medium Density Residential Quarry Lane School West PD Stream Corridor and Rural property Nei hborhood Park East PD Rural Residential/Agricultural Vacant 10 of 10 DRAFT DRAFT ~~ ~~~~ r ~ 7a~~ ~ ~7.5~' ~ 3r ~~~ ~ ~ ~:3 • • • • ~~ ~,~ ` 'A ~~~ *,~ ~ Plannin Commission Mznutes ~.. ~~~~- g ~~~~~ ~~v,,,~~~=~ Tuesday, April 27, 2010 , CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, in the Regional Meeting Room located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Brown; Commissioners Schaub, Swalwell and Wehrenberg; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Tim Cremin, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Morgan King, Chair - he has recused himself from the item. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg the minutes of the April 13, 2010 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cm. Swalwell stated that his brother, Chase Swalwell, worked for the Nielsen family and lived on the Nielsen property between 2005 and 2009. He stated he does not know Mr. Nielsen personally and did not feel this would influence his decision on the project. He added that his brother no longer works or lives on the Nielsen property. 8.1 PA 07-057 Nielsen, General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked why a Development Agreement was not part of this submittal and how would that fit in when reviewing the final plans for the Stage 2 PD. Ms. Bascom answered that the Applicant has requested a Development Agreement and it will be reviewed when the SDR application is submitted. ;P'~r~ra~~xa~ (.~~nar~iss~c§rt ~~~ir.~r~ :~~actir<<~ 40 ,~~~~~;, ,~~~~ ATTACHMENT 5 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Schaub asked if Ms. Bascom knew who would enter into the agreement with the City. ~~ ~~ Ms. Bascom answered whoever owns and develops the site. ~ Cm. Schaub asked if the DA is not reviewed at this time what concessions would the City make at a later date such as extending the timeframe for the DA. He was concerned with the City being locked into a project without the necessary DA Jeff Baker, Planning Manager answered a development agreement is a requirement of the EDSP prior to the recordation of the Final Map or Site Development Review. He continued the standard DA determines the financing of infrastructure and improvements. He stated the City does not typically grant exceptions or additional money unless the developer is asking for something in exchange, such as an extended DA or some sort of compensation from the City. He continued Staff would typically not see the DA until the SDR application and it would be the standard 5-year DA. Cm. Schaub asked why there are no similar view drawings of the project from south going north. Ms. Bascom answered Staff did not request that view and did not receive it in the submittal package. She stated she will continue to explain how it will look visually. Cm. Schaub felt that it is important to be able to make the findings regarding the ridgeline now for the City Council's information. Cm. Schaub felt there were a larger number of lots in the previous submittal. Ms. Bascom stated that the when the City Council authorized the General Plan Amendment study they authorized a category of Land Uses and the study analyzed a Single Family Residential designation which would allow up to 6 units/acre which would allow up to 431ots. She continued the current proposal is for 361ots but the site plans shows 34 lots. She stated that the project has been reduced by 2 lots with an open area and the grading for the site has changed as well. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what the open area would be used for. Ms. Bascom answered the open area serves as the driveway access to lot 27 and 28. Cm. Schaub asked which two lots can be split for duplexes. Ms. Bascom answered Lots 15 and 20, which are corner lots and if the developer decides they want to accommodate affordable housing in the project those two lots would include 4 duplex units. Cm. Schaub mentioned that the Applicant could request half of the 4 units for in-lieu fees and not have to build the affordable housing units if the City Council allowed it. ~i~l;~n~tirr~ ('vmm;:sszc+~z ;~~~rrF`'i, 2()Pt7 ~~;~„~,~ ~-~r~trt~~ 41 DRAFT DRAFT ,,~ Ms. Bascom answered that would be a possibility which is why there are 34 lots with up t~o 6 ~ ~~' units allowed. ~~ Cm. Schaub asked if the Planning Commission should be concerned with the number of lots or the number of units. Ms. Bascom responded that the PD Zoning will allow up to 36 units whether there are duplexes or not; therefore the number of lots being created is 34 residential lots on which there can be up to 36 units developed. Cm. Schaub asked if the maximum height of the retaining walls will be 5 feet. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Planning Commission will review the retaining walls. Ms. Bascom answered that the project will require an SDR before anything is built on the site. She continued there is a lot of information and only a portion of it is contained in the PD Zoning, a lot of it is background information which will be used for the SDR when it is submitted. She stated that only the items attached to the PD are being reviewed by the Commission tonight. Cm. Schaub asked about the wall height between the houses. Ms. Bascom answered the height is not shown on the wall plan; it only shows the type of wall. Mr. Baker directed the Commission to the Attachment 3 to Staff Report which is the Vesting Tentative Map, Sheet 4, where it shows the height of the retaining walls. Cm. Schaub asked who will maintain the common retaining walls. Ms. Bascom answered that on private property within private lots the walls will be maintained by the homeowner. Ms. Bascom directed the Commission to the chart that shows the walls and the various ownership and maintenance responsibilities for each. Ms. Bascom stated the Planning Commission reviewed a plan at the March 2008 Study Session which showed the type of wall and the general location. She stated in the current proposal there is a revised grading, fence and wall plan. She stated the former plan had a number of retaining walls closer to the street and different wall configurations throughout the site and the current proposal has retaining walls but the number is reduced and they are capped at 5 feet in height. She referred the Commission to Sheet PD 2.4 the Ownership and Maintenance Plan for more information. ~'~~a~f~r~~ ('~mrrr~s.s~z~~z ,`~r~srs'~Zi, 2t~tC~ ;~'~;~~~r~rr ~~~r~~taia~ 42 DRAFT '~$'~ ~~~ DRAFT Cm. Schaub was concerned that there is no Section 3 view, south looking north, for the grading plan. Ms. Bascom answered that the area backs up against Quarry Lane School's property. Mr. Baker statecl the cross-section visuals run east to west to present an idea of what the grading will look like. Cm. Schaub was concerned that there are no views from the school. He wanted to make sure that view will be considered. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this slide is to address the Visually Sensitive Ridgeland area. Ms. Bascom responded no, this slide is to address the amount of grading on the site. She continued that the slide is looking as though you were standing on the roof of the Quarry Lane School looking down onto the site. There was a discussion regarding the grading plan and the views from the south looking north. Cm. Schaub was concerned there were no views looking north particularly from Quarry Lane School, since he spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the documents from the school's point of view he wanted to ensure it was considered. He felt that Quarry Lane School is right is at the end of the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline Area. He asked what could be placed between the property line of the school and line 2 on the grading slide that the Planning Commission should be concerned with. Ms. Bascom felt Cm. Schaub was speaking regarding the visual aspect of the project. She continued that the slide indicates the amount of grading, cut and fill. The land form is the same. Cm. Schaub felt there would be no fall to any property to the south. Ms. Bascom stated the Quarry Lane property will be at a higher grade. She referred the Commission to Sheet 2 of the Tentative Map which shows the cross section at the property line. Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that what they are looking at goes to the property line of Quarry Lane School. Ms. Bascom stated there is actually less grading on the current proposal then what was brought to the Planning Commission Study Session in March 2008. Cm. Schaub asked about the reduction in the width of on-site streets. Ms. Bascom responded for this particular PD Zoning District the site plan shows street widths that are slightly reduced where there are single loaded streets with units on only one side of street. She continued this will be an amendment to the General Plan only because street widths ~t'~anniny ~"urszrrrr;ss7c?n __ _ ~~tn'f?r, ?t31 f.} ~=~1~#~~~~ :~r~~~z~~ 43 DRAFT ~~~ `~~ ~5~ DRAFT are called out in the General Plan and the amendment would be to allow the reduced street width because of uniqueness of the site. Cm. Schaub asked how much the street width is reduced. Mr. Baker referred the Commission to Page 7 of the GPA Resolution. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned the GPA Resolution states 36 feet for street width and the current proposal is for 29 feet for the single loaded streets. Ms. Bascom answered the standard is actually 32 feet currently for single loaded streets and the Applicant is proposing 29 feet for single loaded street for this project. She continued that the typical right-of-way is 46 feet and this project is proposed at 45 feet. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about parking on the reduced size street and the EVA lanes. She was not sure if the street would be wide enough with parked cars and emergency vehicles. Ms. Bascom referred the Commission to Page PD 2.5 in the Design Guidelines book which shows a parking plan for the project. She continued the project requires a minimum parking for each lot to be 2 enclosed spaces and 1 not enclosed space. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if that requirement would be a reduction in the parking ratio. Ms. Bascom responded it is not a reduction in the parking ratio and the parking plan meets the standards. She stated that the street can be reduced in width because there is no parking on one side of street. She also mentioned the EVA has been reviewed by Fire Dept. Cm. Schaub stated one of the concerns that were mentioned with the City's Green Initiative Committee is not having enough room for recycle bins on garbage day. He stated there are some areas in Dublin where the streets are so narrow that there is little room for garbage bins and there is no room for recycle bins. He felt the City Council will be serious about planning for the environment in the future. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that there is one residence already on the property and this proposal will add 36 units, but she felt there are two occupied residences on the property. Ms. Bascom answered there is what is considered a second unit, and the General Plan Land Use Designation is 1 unit for each 100 acres, so because of the Land Use Designation it is considered one unit which is permitted. Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the Tentative Map with the HOA responsibilities for maintenance. Ms. Bascom answered there is an attachment under the Tentative Map Resolution that explains maintenance responsibilities. ~:Z'lar~tirr~r {'c}rs~tariss~a~r?r~ '~ ri~"'i, ?U1t~ ~~ w ~;~p; zFz<~~ : ~t ~~t ¢~g~~ 44 DRAFT ~~~ U ~~~ DRAFT Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the landscaping for the homes that back up to Quarry Lane School should be required to be complete. She was referring to the Visually Sensitive Areas and would not want trees planted to block the hillside views. She felt these homes are in the Visually Sensitive Ridgeland Area and was concerned with the landscaping for those homes. Ms. Bascom responded in the past the City has not conditioned rear-yard landscaping be complete where a private residence backs up to a major thoroughfare. Cm. Wehrenberg felt this was a unique situation. She liked that all the landscaping will be done along Tassajara Road. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that on the map PD 2.1 there are 3 locations for potential cell towers. Ms. Bascom answered yes - that was put into the PD Rezone Ordinance but the locations are restricted. Mr. Baker responded the PD Ordinance would allow a cell tower to occur but would it have to comply with the City's Cell Tower Ordinance. , Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline Area (VSRA) which should be preserved. Mr. Baker responded that the plans show a location with an existing cell tower, but any new cell towers would require an SDR which would include a review of the VSRA. Ms. Bascom stated that the exhibit does show potential cell tower locations, but the exhibit the Commission is recommending approval of is on Page 5 of Attachment 2, the reference to potential cell tower locations was removed because the Commission is not approving any new cell tower locations. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and asked if the Commission would review any new cell towers locations. Ms. Bascom stated that Attachment 2, Page 5 of the Stage 2 Site Plan does not include any reference to any potential cell tower locations because the City would not approve a potential cell tower location. She continued that there are existing cell towers on the property now and at the time of development the Applicant will need to decide whether the facility will stay and not develop the lot or develop the lot and remove the cell tower. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with making of one of the findings: B) the site is physically suitable for type and intensity for the Zoning District being proposed, she was concerned with narrowing the streets which will impact parking, and felt that there may be too many houses and there could be parking problems in the future, she wanted the Commission to be aware. Vice Chair Brown had no questions. <i~Cc€rr~azn~ (°t~mrrrz.~~sgc~PZ ;~pri~`3T, ~~1€~ ~'~~~rr~€~ ;~tectircy 4$ DRAFT I,~~'~ 7.~~"~ DRAFT Cm. Swalwell had no questions. Cm. Schaub felt this was a very sensitive project and wanted to ensure that the Commission made the correct decision. He referred to one of the attachments which stated "a minimum of 3 foot clear pathz~~ays shall be maintained on one side of the house at all times." He asked for clarification regarding setbacks. Ms. Bascom answered the minimum side-yard setback is 5 feet with a minimum 3 foot clear pathway where often projections into side-yards are allowed such as bay-windows, etc. but they want to ensure that a minimum 3 foot clear pathway is maintained at all times. She was unsure if that also includes placing items in side-yards. Mr. Baker responded that typically a Condition of Approval for Emergency Services would require a minimum of a 3 foot pathway on at least one side where no AC compressors, fireplaces or bay windows would obstruct their ability to access the home. Cm. Schaub referred to Page 54 regarding slopes which stated that "bank slopes on public streets should be not more than 3.1." He stated that there are slopes of 2.1 in his neighborhood which are a nightmare and was unsure how there could be a 3.1 slope. Ms. Bascom stated that the 3.1 slopes are between some of the short retaining walls. Mark McClellan, Engineer, Mackay and Somps stated 2.1 slope is more steep than the 3.1 slope, 2.1 slope is typically only allowed between lots. Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that the street lights will not be glaring and referred to Cm. Wehrenberg's comment regarding the VSRA, and anything that could be done to make them environmentally friendly would be good as well. Cm. Bascom stated that one of the Mitigation Measures in the EIR addresses his concern. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that the project states that Lot #1 is a potential water quality site, and asked if that is addressed in the EIR. Ms. Bascom stated she would check the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Tract Map to see if there is anything there to answer her question. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Robert Nielsen, Applicant spoke in favor of the project. He stated he is not a developer, and thanked Staff for their assistance. He stated he is very passionate about the project and has spent 30 years on Tassajara Road and more then 15 years on the project site. He stated he enjoys living there and does not want to leave but felt that Agriculture does not work well in the middle of town and it was time to move. He stated that one of the best aspects of the property is the view and the lots are designed with full story splits and reduced grading that optimizes the view from each house. He thanked Staff that worked with him. ~~'~~~trz~rr; ~'r~m~rri.ssita~z ;~~~riC,"r, ?U $€~ ~=~,~,gt~~r <t~~~:r~r~~ 46 D~T ~~~~ -~~ DRAFT Cm. Swalwell asked if his family has any connection to Dublin history. Mr. Nielsen answered that he was born here, his father, grandmother and his children were also born here. He stated his mother's grandparents came here in 1870. Cm. Swalwell mentioned that there is nothing in the project information regarding the history of his family. He felt Mr. Nielseri s family has a rich history with the City and it is important for the public to know that he not just an outsider coming into Dublin but has been a part of the progress of Dublin. He recommended that Mr. Nielsen include some of his family history in the project documents. Mr. Nielsen thanked Cm. Swalwell and stated he did not feel that he deserves special treatment because he's lived in Dublin for a long time. Cm. Swalwell felt that the public has to buy into the project and knowing the history of the Nielsen family as a part of Dublin would help with that. Mark McClellan, MacKay & Somps, spoke in favor of the project. He responded to the Commissiori s concern regarding the reduced width street size; he felt their concerns were valid regarding parking and fire access. He stated that the 29 foot street width on a single loaded street breaks down to an 8 foot parking lane, which is a City Standard, and a 10 foot driving lane and an 11 foot driving lane. He continued a regular street City Standard is 36 feet wide. The reduced width still complies with the City Standard and actually clears 21 feet therefore, even with a car parked on the street there is enough room for Emergency vehicles and the Fire Dept has agreed. He stated the EVA is 20 foot paved, with 26 feet clear which is above and beyond what Fire typically wants. Mr. McClellan responded to Cm. Schaub's question regarding the grading sections - he stated that when looking at the relationship of Quarry Lane School to the project almost all of the lots are lower than the school, some are level with the school, but most are below the school. Cm. Schaub was concerned that some of the landscaping will be seen from Tassajara Road and asked which lots are 8 feet below grade traveling north. Mr. McClellan answered all of the first 4 houses are lower so the top story might be seen but most of the landscaping wori t be seen because it will be in the backyard. Cm. Schaub felt the houses would be visible but the school is much bigger. He asked to note on the landscaping plan on Lot #28 to review the visibility when the project is submitted for SDR approval. Mr. McClellan responded regarding the storm water quality on lot #1 is inside the entry, the area just to the north, is the storm water quality basin of Silveria Ranch. He stated that Dublin Public Works was very concerned about trash collecting in the basin and in working with them they developed an arrangement for the Applicant to improve the basin and also install at the ;f'lr~nreir€r~ ~ ~}~rzrrrzs,~~ia?ra ,~~>riC:'s; 't??() ~'i~~~ag~ar ';~~~sa t r~a.z~ 47 -~:~.~ ~, -~~ - DRAFT DRAFT entry a separator unit that would separate trash for both Silveria Ranch and this project. He stated the reason Lot #1 is designated as the water quality basin is because the changing world of the storm water quality regulations. He stated there will be new regulations taking effect this year and if anything changed they wanted to have the ability to do something additional. Cm. Wehrenberg asked how much land is lost with Lot #1. Mr. McClellan answered that if the space is needed they would probably loose the lot, but under current regulations it should be fine. He stated the Public Works Department wanted to have it on the plan in case regulatory conditions changed. John Zukowski, Resident, 3385 Dublin Blvd, Terraces, Dublin Ranch, spoke in favor of the project. He felt it was a high quality project; the lot standards are generous; there are private yards and the most important thing is that it brings the land use in synch with the surrounding uses. He did not feel it will alter views and actually respects the area. He stated that most importantly, depending on the time of development, this project will provide fees, property and sales taxes, etc. He felt there were a lot of benefits, and some concerns about the visual and parking aspects but he was sure that could be addressed in future stages. He asked that the Planning Commission approve the project. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Swalwell had no additional comments. Cm. Schaub stated that he is a volunteer, spends hours reading information and did not feel there is anything more important then the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He stated he is offended that a law firm or someone from the community requires him to spend hours reading a document and then they do not show up to the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project. She agreed that the area needs to blend in with the rest of Tassajara Rd. She is still concerned regarding future parking issues. She felt it is important to point out to the City Council that the parking ratio could be reduced so that there will be less issues regarding trash cans, holiday parking and people using their garage for storage causing the homeowners to park on the street and leaving little or no visitor parking. Vice Chair Brown stated he is in support of the project. Cm. Schaub stated he is in support of the project and can make all findings including the VSRA. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Chair King absent, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION N0.10 -18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN '~'~ar~~rai~z~ ~;~zr~r~is.ric~rz ~7~riP?~', 2t?ffS ~;~t~ktt~,w >~tr~ktr~mq 48 DRAFT ~3~~~~s~ DRAFT RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-05 RESOLUTION NO. 10 -19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING T~IE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY TO CHANGE THE EXISTING RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF ON-SITE STREETS (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 RESOLUTION N0.10-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 7950 FOR THE ~t'Cr~~t~tsr~y ~'~~~tnrisst<~n ;~~s~z'~,"r, 2U1 t? ~}~~}~;~~~ ~-~~~~~~~,~ 49 DRAFT ~~~~~ ~~ ~ DRAFT NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (6407 tASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 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). ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alan Brown Vice Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: Jeff Baker Planning Manager G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2010 ~ PLANNI NG COMMISSION ~ 4.2710.doc ~1'~~nr~trr~ ~'c~~m~:ss~icA~ ~~#~rif:'~, :7U1t~ ~.7t~~'f~1 J;,~Lf1' ~'~Ct $ t~P~ 5 Q ~~~~ ~~~ RESOLUTION NO. 10- 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 WHEREAS, Robert Nielsen submitted applications for the creation of thirty-four (34) residential lots on the property located at 6407 Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin (Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 985-0002-009-02) ("Project Site"). The maximum number of dwelling units that would be located on the Project Site are thirty-six (36). The project includes applications for the following: (1) a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from Rural Residential/ Agriculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets; (2) a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan from PD-RR/A to PD-SFR to allow construction of up to 36 dwellings on the Project Site; and (3) a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Project Site. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project is located in Eastern Dublin and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern 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 environmental findings, mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, significant unavoidable impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that apply to the Project and Project site, therefore, any Project approval must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the proposed Project would require additional environmental review beyond that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study found that many anticipated impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This is consistent with the comprehensive environmental analysis undertaken as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR with a 20-30 year build-out horizon. Although the Initial Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project, it also identified the potential for certain new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of Dublin determined that the potential for new and/or substantially more severe impacts required 1 ATTACHMENT 6 ~~~ ~ ~~~ preparation of a supplemental EIR for certain impact areas pursuant to the requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated May 23, 2008, with the Initial Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the supplemental EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on June 18, 2008; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated January 2009 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (See Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference). The DSEIR confirmed that many aspects of the Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin program and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes; and WHEREAS, the DSEIR was circulated for public review from February 2, 2009 to March 25, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State and local agencies and interested parties during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public comment period. The City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR), dated April 2010, for the proposed Project which included an annotated copy of each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the DSEIR. The FSEIR incorporates the DSEIR. The responses to comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments (Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and determined that the FSEIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the DSEIR, do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DSEIR under the standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and contained information on the Eastern Dublin EIR and FSEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, the Eastern Dublin EIR, the FSEIR, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on April 27, 2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the FSEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and WHEREAS, the FSEIR and related Project and environmental documents, including the Eastern Dublin EIR, and all of the documents relating to the Project are incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PA 07-057, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the FSEIR and other 2 _73 ~ ~~ -7~ ~ documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 07-057; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings and recommendations to the City Council on the FSEIR and the environmental review of the Project under CEQA: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The FSEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in Eastern Dublin EIR and FSEIR, including the written comments received during the DSEIR review period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing, prior to making its recommendation on the proposed Project. D. The FSEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The FSEIR provides information to the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed Project. E. The FSEIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends that, prior to the approval of the Project, the City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, make all required findings regarding environmental impacts of the Project, mitigation measures and alternatives (including, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations) and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: King Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager 3 ~39~~ -~5~. RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY TO CHANGE THE EXISTING RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF ON-SITE STREETS (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 WHEREAS, Robert Nielsen submitted applications to permit the development of up to 36 residential units on approximately 10.0 acres at 6407 Tassajara Road. The project includes applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to modify the land use designation from Rural Residential/ Agriculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets; a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site slopes dramatically from west to east and is currently occupied by rural residential uses; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would change the land use designations of the project site from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Single Family Residential, allowing for the development of up to 6.0 units per gross acre instead of 1 unit per 100 gross acres and allow the reduction in width of on-site streets; and WHEREAS, consistent with 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 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 City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated January 2009 for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR confirmed that many aspects of the Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin program and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes; and WHEREAS, comments received on the DSEIR were reviewed and responded to, and the FSEIR was prepared; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the related Eastern Dublin EIR and the FSEIR, including comments and responses for the Planning Commission; and ATTACHMENT 7 ~y~ ~~ ~~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, on April 27, 2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-XXX recommending that the City Council certify the FSEIR for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the FSEIR and prior related environmental documents, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the resolution attached as Exhibit A approving 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 as so amended will remain internally consistent. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: King Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager G:\PA#fl2007~07-057 Nielsen\PC Mtg 4.27.10\DRAFTS\PC Att 2- Reso GPA SPA.DOC 2 -~ ~r ~ ~~~- RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 WHEREAS, Robert Nielsen submitted applications to permit the development of up to 36 residential units on approximately 10.0 acres at 6407 Tassajara Road. The project includes applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to modify the land use designation from Rural Residential/ Agriculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets; a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site slopes dramatically from west to east and is currently occupied by rural residential uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 15-02 on October 1, 2002, approving a PD-Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan. The approval pre- zoned the Nielsen Property and Silvera Ranch properties to PD (Planned Development) and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Nielsen Property was included in the Silvera Ranch annexation so that the Nielsen Property did not form a"county island", although no development was proposed on the Nielsen Property at that time. The adopted Stage 1 Development Plan allowed the existing rural residential uses to continue on the site; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated January 2009 for the proposed Project fhat reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR confirmed that many aspects of the Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin program and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes; and WHEREAS, comments received on the DSEIR were reviewed and responded to, and the Final SEIR (FSEIR) was prepared; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated April 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the proposed Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and the related FSEIR for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed pubtic hearing on the Project, including the proposed PD zoning, on April 27, 2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and ATTACHMENT 8 ~~z~~~~ WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-~;XX recommending that the City Council certify the FSEIR for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-XXX recommending that the City Council approve the Project General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the FSEIR, prior related environmental documents, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. 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 Planning Commission, for the reasons set forth in the findings in the attached draft ordinance, recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which ordinance adopts a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: King Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager G:IPA#12007107-057 NielsenlPC Mtg 4.27.101DRAFTSIPC Att 3- Reso PD Stage 2.DOC 2 ~ N~~, ~~~. RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 7950 FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02) PA 07-057 WHEREAS, Robert Nielsen submitted applications to permit the development of up to 36 residential units on approximately 10.0 acres at 6407 Tassajara Road. The project includes applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to modify the land use designation from Rural Residential/ Agriculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets; a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the parcel map proposes to subdivide the property into 34 residential lots with associated improvements; and WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no real property may be divided into five or more parcels for purpose of sale, lease or financing, unless a Tentative Subdivision Map is acted upon, and a Final Map is approved consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Applicant/Developer has submitted a complete application for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map dated April 27, 2010, on file in the Community Development Department, Planning Division; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated January 2009 for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR confirmed that many aspects of the Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin program and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes; and WHEREAS, comments received on the DSEIR were reviewed and responded to, and the FSEIR was prepared; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated April 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and the related Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, on April 27, 2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and ATTACHMENT 9 ~y~~, ~s$~ WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 subject to the conditions prepared by Staff; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-~;XX recommending that the City Council certify the FSEIR for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hal~ during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the FSEIR and prior related environmental documents, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution, and that the Planning Commission does hereby find: A. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances. B. The design or improvements of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 is consistent with the City's General Plan policies as they apply to the subject property in that on , 2410 the City Council adopted Resolution No. -10, approving an amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to permit the development of up to 36 units on the Nielsen Property. Once the amendments were approved, the project became consistent with both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan C. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 is consistent with the Planned Development Zoning District in which it is located, as approved via City Council Ordinance xx-xx, and is therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the subdivision being proposed in that the project has been designed in a manner where the 34 lots are arranged on two cul-de-sacs to work with the natural grade of the hilly site and the plan utilizes terraces and stepping the houses up the slope. Lots have been designed to fit the topography of the site by stepping up the slope and to reduce the need for exterior retaining walls. E. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 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 the Project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all mitigation measures in the Project FSEIR and all applicable mitigation measures in the prior EIR. 2 ~ ~~ ~, ~~ F. 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 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves PA 07-057, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950, to subdivide + 10.9 acres of land into 34 residential lots with associated improvements. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950, prepared by MacKay & Somps, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, except as specifically modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the approval of the Final Parcel Map, and shall be subject to City Engineer and the Director of Community Development review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [PCS] Parks and Community Services, [F] City of Dublin Fire, and [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District. NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED GENE RAL CONDITIONS 1. General. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map PW Ongoing Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, Zoning, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of buildin ermit. 2. Effective DateNalidity. This Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map PL Ongoing approval is contingent upon certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and approval of the related General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan. If the above approvals are not granted, this Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map a roval shall become null and void. 3. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the event that PW Ongoing there needs to be clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill needed im rovements or miti ations resultin from im acts of this ro'ect. 4. Electronic File. Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Ongoing Department a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the project when the Final Map has been approved. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in En lish. All submitted drawin s shall use the Global 3 ~~d ~, ~~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. 5. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, PW Ongoing 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 related to this project 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 roceedin s 6. Fees. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the PW Zone 7 and time of building permit issuance including, but not limited to, Public Facilities Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District In-Lieu Fees fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Due Prior to Impact fees, Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda County Filing Each Fire Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In- Final Map; Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District Other Fees (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees Required with as noted in the Development Agreement. Issuance of Building Permits 7. Substantial Conformance. The Final Map shall be substantially in PW Ongoing conformance with Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 unless otherwise modified b the conditions contained herein. 8. Conditions of Approval. A copy of the Conditions of Approval PW Ongoing which has been annotated how each condition is satisfied shall be included with the submittals to the Public Works Department for the review of the Final Map and improvements plans. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will be complied with, and where they are located on the plans. Submittals will not be acce ted without the annotated conditions. 9. Map Expiration. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map shall PW Ongoing have that life determined by the Subdivision Map Act, including but not limited to Section 66452.6. 10. Submittal. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with PW Ongoing the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Im rovement Plan Review Check LisY'. 11. Easements. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required PW Ongoing b the Tentative Ma shall be shown on the Final Ma . PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS 12. General Public Works Conditions of Approval: Developer shall PW Ongoing comply with the City of Dublin General Public Works Conditions of A roval for Tract 7950 contained below unless s ecificall -~~' ~ ~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED modified b these Conditions of A roval. 13. Development Agreement: A Development Agreement between PW Finai Map the Cit of Dublin and the Develo er shall be recorded. 14. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District: The PW Final Map Developer shall request the area to be annexed into the Citywide Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District and shall provide an exhibits re uired for the annexation. 15. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements: Ownership, PW Final Map and dedications on final map, and maintenance of street right-of-ways, Ongoing common area parcels, and open space areas shall be by the City of Dublin, the Homeowner's Association, and the individual homeowners, as shown in Sheet PD2-4 of Exhibit A. 16. Landscape Features within Public Right of Way. The PW Final Map Developer shall enter into an "Agreement for Long Term Encroachments" with the City to allow the HOA to maintain the landscape and decorative features within public Right of Way including frontage & median landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e., walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on the Ownership and Maintenance Plan. 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 re airs. 17. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A PW Final Map Homeowners Association shall be formed by recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of the landscape features within the public right of way contained in the Agreement for Long Term Encroachments and the frontage landscaping along Tassajara Road and interior streets. Said declaration shall set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The CC&Rs shall ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, of the landscaping & irrigation, decorative pavements, median islands, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs and other related improvements. The CC&Rs shall also contain all other items required by these conditions. The Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&R document to the City for review and a roval. 18. Public Streets: Developer shall construct street improvements PW Approval of and offer for dedication to the City of Dublin the rights of way for Improvements Tassajara Road and interior streets as shown on the Tentative Plans or Final Ma , to the satisfaction of the Cit En ineer. Map 19. Acoustic Study: An acoustic study is needed to determine the PW Approval of need for additional sound mitigation measures along Tassajara Improvements Road. Plans or Final Ma 20. Water Quality Pond Modifications: The existing drainage system PW Approval of in Silvera Ranch Drive shall be modified so that a high flow bypass Improvements line is installed between Tassajara Raod and the existing outfall Plans or Final into the Silvera Ranch ond. Low flows 0.2"/hr from both Nielsen Map ~'~~ ~~ 755~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED Ranch and Silvera Ranch shall be directed into the pond, with high flows from both developments directed into the bypass line. A hydrodynamic separator shall be installed on the pond outfall line between the outfall and the high/ low flow diversion structure, so that flows from both developments are directed into the separator prior entering the pond. Improvements shall be completed outside of the existing pond. The Silvera Ranch Homeowner's Association shall be advised of the modifications in advance of final approval of the improvement plans. In the event that the existing pond cannot be utilized for treating the Nielsen Ranch runoff, a pond shall be provided on Lot 1 in lieu of a residence. 21. Tassajara Road Frontage Improvements: Tassajara Road shall PW Approval of be improved to provide frontage improvements (curb and gutter, Improvements sidewalk, 20' of pavement, lighting, and landscaping) on the east Plans or Final side of the road along the Nielsen Ranch frontage. In addition, the Map existing pavement on the road shall be removed and an additional 14' of pavement shall be installed adjacent to the frontage improvements. This pavement shall be striped as a southbound travel lane with a 2' shoulder. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) Section 1 credits will be given for these improvements as outlined in the 2004 EDTIF U date or subse uent u dates. 22. Tassajara Road Retaining Walls: The retaining walls along PW Approval of Tassajara Road shall be redesigned to eliminate or soften the Improvements right-angle bends in the walls near the cellular site. Plans or Final Ma 23. Street "A" Median Island: The final street improvement design PW Approval of shall include a shorter median island in Street "A" in order to Improvements provide an acceptable transition for southbound vehicles prior to Plans or Final the arkin s ace in front of Lot 1. Map 24. Sidewalk/ Driveway Design: The 4.5' wide sidewalks shall be PW Approval of widened by 6" at the driveways to accommodate an ADA-compliant Improvements driveway conforming to City Standard Dwg. No. CD-111. Plans or Final Ma -Final Ma 25. Lot 27-28 Parking: The final design shall include a detailed layout PW Approval of for the parking spaces serving Lots 27 and 28, to ensure that Improvements vehicles can access and leave the parking spaces. Plans or Final Ma 26. Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road Intersection Contribution: PW Final Map The developer shall pay a fair share portion of the funding deficiency between the cost of the Dublin/ Dougherty Intersection Improvements and available funding. The payment shall be due with the filing of the final map. The amount of the deficiency, if any, shall be the amount of the deficiency as determined or estimated by the Director of Public Works at the time the map is filed. The fair share portion has been determined to be 0.1036°/a Section 2 EDTIF credits will be rovided for this a ment. 27. Fallon Road/ I-580 Interchange Improvement Contribution: The PW Final Map developer shall pay a fair share portion of costs advanced by the Lin Family for improvements to the Fallon Road/ I-580 Interchange. The a ment will be a able at the time of filin each final ma , 7~19 ~~ ~.~,. NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED and shall be prorated based on the percentage of total residential units included in each map. The developer's fair share has been determined to be 0.1469% of the total funds advanced by the Lin Famil . Section 2 EDTIF credits will be rovided for this a ment. 28. Santa Rita Road/ I-580 Interchange 5t Eastbound Offramp PW Final Map Lane: The developer shall be responsible for payment of a fair share portion of the costs associated with adding a 5t'' eastbound offramp lane at the Santa Rita Road/ I-580 Interchange, as required in the Fallon Village Traffic Study/ DEIR. The payment will be payable at the time of filing each final map, and shall be prorated based on the percentage of total units included in each map. The fair share has been determined to be 0.1036%. In the event that the EDTIF has been updated to include this improvement at time of filing a final map, the payment will not be required if the developer agrees in writing prior to the filing of the final ma to a the u dated EDTIF. 29. Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive, Second Westbound Left PW Issuance of Turn Lane: The developer shall be responsible for payment of a Building fair share portion of the costs associated with adding a 2"d Permits westbound left turn lane on Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive. This improvement is included in the current EDTIF, and this obligation may be satisfied through the payment of EDTIF fees, provided the EDTIF has not been amended to eliminate this im rovement at the time of a ment. 30. Traffic Impact Fees: The developer shall be responsible for PW Issuance of payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Sections 1 and Building 2), the Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee, and the Tri-Valley Permits Transportation Development Fee. Fees will be payable at issuance of buildin ermits. 31. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum Payment: The PW Issuance of developer shall be responsible for payment of a minimum portion Building of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in cash. The cash Permits payment shall be 11 % for Section 1 and 25% for Section 2, or as may have been modified by City Council action at the time of building permit issuance. These minimum cash payment shall be in addition to any other payment noted in these conditions and may not be offset b fee credits. 32. Remedial Grading Plan: The grading plan shall include a PW Final Map remedial grading plan prepared by the project geotechnical consultant, outlining area of slide repair, benches, keyways, overexcavation at cut-fill transitions, subdrains, and other recommendations of the consultant. The remedial grading plan will be subject to review and approval by the City's own geotechnical consultant. PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRACT 7950 33. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City PW Ongoing of Dublin Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, and all building and fire , codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All ublic im rovements constructed b Develo er and to be 7 ~~~~ ~~Y NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and followin . 34. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City PW Ongoing 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 related to this project (Tract 7586) 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 roceedin s. AGREEMENTS AND BONDS 35. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement Agreement PW Final Map with the City for all public improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Tract that have not been bonded with another Tract Im rovement A reement. 36. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), and labor & PW Final Map material (100%) securities to guarantee the tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the improvements, the performance security may be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the erformance securit . FEES 37. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu fees in the PW Final Map amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution revising these amounts, and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-99. PERMITS 38. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public PW Prior to Start of Works Department for all construction activity within the public Work 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 A reement ma not be re uired. 39. Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework Permit from the Public PW Prior to Start of Works Department for all grading and private site improvements Work that serves more that one lot or residential condominium unit. 40. Developer shall obtain all permits required by other agencies PW Prior to Start of includin , but not limited to Alameda Count Flood Control and Work 7 51 ~ -r~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED 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 De artment. SUBMITTALS 41. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with the PW Prior to requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Approval of Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Improvement Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List". Plans or Final Ma 42. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to PW Prior to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Approval of Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Improvement Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. Plans or Final Ma 43. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes PW Prior to street pavement sections and grading recommendations. Approval of Improvement Plans, Grading Plans, or Final Ma 44. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital PW Prior to vectorized file of the "master" files for the project when the Final Acceptance of Map has been approved. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. Improvements The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher and Release of drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision Bonds 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 45. The Final Map shall be substantially in accordance with the PW Final Map Tentative Map approved with this application, unless otherwise modified by these conditions. Multiple final maps may be filed in phases, provided that each phase is consistent with the tentative map, that phasing progresses in an orderly and logical manner, and adequate infrastructure is installed with each phase to serve that phase as a stand-alone project that is not dependent upon future hasin for infrastructure. 46. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by the PW Final Map Tentative Map including the Public Service Easement shall be shown on the Final Ma . 47. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private street PW Final Map pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The approved street names shall be indicated on the Final Ma . 48. The Final Map shall include the street monuments to be set in all PW Monuments to public streets. be Shown on Final Map and Installed Prior I to Acceptance of ~~a ~b -~s,~- NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED Im rovements EASEMENTS 49. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public PW Prior to agencies of existing easements and right of ways within the Approval of development that will no longer be used. Improvement Plans or Appropriate Final Ma 50. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of- PW Prior to entry from the adjacent property owners for any improvements on Approval of their property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in Improvement writing and copies furnished to the City Engineer. Plans or Appropriate Final Ma GRADING 51. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Prior to recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Approval of Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review, and the City Grading Plans design standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil or Issuance of engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, the City Grading Engineer shall determine which shall apply. Permits, and On oin 52. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with the Grading PW Prior to Plan approval. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and Approval of maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control Grading Plans measures. or Issuance of Grading Permits, and On oin 53. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not cross PW Prior to property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2' below the Approval of finished grade of the upper lot. Grading Plans or Issuance of Grading Permits, and On oin 54. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no steeper than 3:1 PW Prior to I unless shown otherwise on the Tentative Map Grading Plan Approval of exhibits. The toe of any slope along public streets shall be one Grading Plans foot back of walkway. The top of any slope along public streets or Issuance of shall be three feet back of walkway. Minor exception may be made Grading in the above slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design Permits, and constraints sub'ect to the a roval of the Cit En ineer. On oin IMPROVEMENTS 55. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown PW Prior to on the Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review. However, Approval of the approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review Improvement is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, sanitary Plans or Start sewer, water, and street improvements. of Construction, and On oin 10 7 s"3 ~ ~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED 56. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin PW Prior to Standard Plans and design requirements and as approved by the Approval of City Engineer. Improvement Plans or Start of Construction, and On oin 57. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter PW Prior to flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be Approval of at minimum 0.5% slope. Improvement Plans or Start of Construction, and On oin 58. Curb Returns on the internal public streets curb returns shall be PW Prior to 30-foot radius. Approval of Improvement Plans or Start of Construction, and On oin 59. Any decorative pavers installed within City right-of-way shall be PW Prior to done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Where decorative Approval of paving is installed at signalized intersections, pre-formed traffic Improvement signal loops shall put under the decorative pavement. All turn lane Plans or Start stripes, stop bars and crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete of bands or color pavers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer Construction, Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the and Ongoing res onsibilit of the Homeowners Association 60. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and pavement marking PW Prior to as required by the City Engineer. Occupancy of Units or Acceptance of Im rovements 61. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and PW Prior to installed per approval of the City Engineer. The maximum voltage Occupancy of drop for streetlights is 5%. Units or Acceptance of Im rovements 62. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with other new PW Prior to signals within the development and to the existing City traffic signal Occupancy of system by hard wire. Units or Acceptance of Im rovements 63. The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at the PW Prior to locations designated and approved by the LAVTA and the City Occupancy of Engineer, if these occur along the frontage of the property. The Units or Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and installing these Acceptance of im rovements. Im rovements 64. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and PW Prior to ' sanita sewer facilities re uired to serve the ro'ect in accordance Occu anc of 11 7s~~~~~~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED with DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and Units or requirements. Acceptance of Im rovements 65. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County PW Prior to Fire Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be Occupancy of installed in the street opposite each hydrant. Units or Acceptance of Im rovements 66. The Developer shall furnish and install street name signs for the PW Prior to project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Occupancy of Units or Acceptance of Im rovements 67. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and PW Prior to communication improvements within the fronting streets and as Occupancy of necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as Units or approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility Acceptance of a encies. Im rovements 68. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, shall be PW Prior to underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. Occupancy of All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility Units or easements and sized to meet utility company standards. Acceptance of Im rovements 69. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless specifically approved PW Prior to otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in Occupancy of landscape areas and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Units or Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to Acceptance of the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and Improvements structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of the 'oint trench im rovements. CONSTRUCTION 70. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented between October PW Ongoing as 15th and April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Needed ' Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the Cit 's acce tance of the subdivision im rovements. 71. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, PW Ongoing as construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until Needed a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 72. Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of PW Ongoing as equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City Needed holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case- b -case basis. 73. Developer shall prepare a Construction Traffic and Construction PW Prior to Start of 12 755~ ~,~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED Noise Management Plan that identifies measures to be taken to Construction; minimize the impacts of construction traffic and construction noise Implementation on surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours Ongoing as of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction Needed equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes, and identify a noise monitor. These specific traffic and noise management measures shall be included in the project plans and s ecifications. 74. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with PW Prior to Start of public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and Construction; parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Implementation Engineer. Ongoing as Needed 75. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, PW Ongoing mos uito, or other est roblem due to construction activities. 76. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust- PW Prior to Start of palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as Construction; directed by the City Engineer. Implementation Ongoing as Needed 77. The Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a PW Prior to letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the Issuance of building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades Building shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of Permits or banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the Acceptance of a roved Gradin Plans. Im rovements NPDES 78. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall provide the PW Prior to Start of ' City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the Any California State Water Resources Control Board per the Construction ' requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Activities Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works De artment and be ke t at the construction site. 79. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify PW SWPPP to be the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project Prepared Prior construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion to Approval of control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Improvement most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Plans: Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Implementation Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all Prior to Start of contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention Construction measures in the SWPPP. and Ongoing as Needed 80. The Homeowner's Association shall enter into an agreement with PW Prior to First the City of Dublin that guarantees the perpetual maintenance Final Map; obligation for the vegetated swales on Lot 34 and Parcel Modify as D(maintenance of the hydrodynamic separator shall be by the needed with City). Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.e.ii of Successive RWQCB Order R2-2003-0021 for the issuance of the Alameda Maps Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit re uires the Cit to rovide verification and assurance that all 13 ~ ~~ ~ ~ NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED treatment devices will be ro erl o erated and maintained. FIRE PREVENTION 81. The project will need to comply with the applicable Building and Fire Prior to permit Fire Codes. Site and Building plans shall be provided for review issuance and a roval b the Fire De artment. 82. Fire Access. Access roads, turnarounds, pullouts, and fire Fire Ongoing operation areas are Fire Lanes and shall be maintained clear and free of obstructions, includin the arkin of vehicles. 83. Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be blocked, including Fire Ongoing after hours, other than by approved gates/barriers that provide for emer enc access. 84. Site Utilities. Site utilities that would require the access road to be Fire Ongoing dug up or made impassible shall be installed prior to combustible construction commencin . 85. Fire access is required to be approved all-weather access. Fire Ongoin 86. Hydrants & Fire Flows. Show the location of any on-site fire Fire Prior to permit hydrants and any fire hydrants that are along the property frontage issuance as well as the closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along the access roads that serves this property. Provide a letter from DSRSD indicating what the available fire flow is to this ro ert . ' Dublin San Ramon Services District 87. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSR Prior to accommodate future flow demands in addition to each approval of development projecYs demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall Improvement be in conformance with DSRSD utilit master lannin . Plans 88. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's DSR Prior to existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is approval of discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme Improvement circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Plans Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for an ro'ect that re uires a um in station. 89. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or DSR Prior to Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or approval of interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with Improvement requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound Plans en ineerin ractice. 90. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located DSR Prior to in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest approval of extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water Improvement easements must be established over the alignment of each public Plans sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to rovide access for future maintenance and/or re lacement. 91. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site DSR Prior to development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed approval of easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted Improvement to and a roved b DSRSD. Plans 14 ~5 ~ ~ ~~s NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN AGENCY REQUIRED 92. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate DSR Prior to instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication approval of on the Final Map. Improvement Plans 93. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall DSR Recordation of be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, Final Map widths, and restrictions. 94. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSR Prior to Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever Issuance of comes first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone Building 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees Permits associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. 95. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSR Prior to Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever Issuance of comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be Building signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement Permits plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review b DSRSD before si nature b the District En ineer. 96. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless DSR Prior to the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. approval of A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Improvement Condition No. 9 have been satisfied. Plans 97. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, DSR Prior to commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and Issuance of indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines Building resultin from the construction and com letion of the ro'ect. Permits 98. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as DSR Prior to required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall approval of connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of Improvement the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the Plans re uirements therein. 99. A utility plan showing routing of improvements and demolition of DSR Prior to existing utilities. Zone 7 Turnout and DSRSD Fluoride Storage approval of Facility shall be shown on final plans Improvement Plans 100. Due to a change in the planned use, a Public Facilities Planning DSR Prior to Agreement shall be entered into between the property owner and approval of DSRSD, which may include the completion of a service analysis to Improvement determine how potable water service, recycled water service, and Plans sanitary sewer service will be provided to the proposed develo ment in addition to an effects the chan e in land use will 15 ~~~ g ~ 7~.. NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. AGENCY WHEN REQUIRED have on existin and future facilities. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: King Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager G:~PA#~2007\07-057 Nielsen~PC Mtg 4.27.10\DRAFTS~PC Att 4- Reso TMAP.DOC 16