HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Silvera Ranch Ph 2~~~~ Off' nU~~~
/ii ~ 111
L~~ - ~ ~~~
DATE:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
File #420-30/450-20
April 17, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
..
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager ~~..
SUBJECT: Silvera Ranch Phase 4 General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Zoning Amendments with related Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments, and related CEQA findings for a
0.95-acre site north of Fallon Road in the neighborhood known as Bella Monte
(PLPA 2010-00055)
Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The subject of this application is a 0.95-acre area within the project
known as Silvera Ranch. This site is currently designated Rural Residential/Agriculture in the
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with consistent zoning of Planned
Development (PD) Rural Residential/Agriculture. Since adoption of the approved Development
Plan for Silvera Ranch, the City's codes and requirements have changed pertaining to fire
prevention and roadway access. The Applicant/Property Owner has requested land use
amendments to both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, with Planned
Development Zoning Amendments and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
Amendments to change the land use designation and zoning from Rural Residential/Agriculture
to Single-Family Residential.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the City related to this request.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 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) Waive the reading and introduce an
Ordinance adopting Planned Development Zoning Amendments fora 0.95-acre area within
Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte) from Planned Development (PD) Rural
Residential/Agriculture to PD Single-Family Residential and approving related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments.
~ ~~ i
.,~mM.. ~a ~~...
Submitted By
Director of Community Development
~,
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 6.2
DESCRIPTION:
Background:
On October 21, 2003, Ordinance 15-03 was adopted which approved Stage 1 Planned
Development zoning for the project known as Pinn Brothers/Silvera Ranch located east of
Tassajara Road at its intersection with Fallon Road.
The adopted PD zoning and corresponding Development Plan has a maximum of 254 units on
Silvera Ranch. Silvera Ranch was approved for units to be distributed among four different
residential density categories within areas located both north and south of the Fallon Road right-
of-way. The area north of the Fallon Road right-of-way was approved for 44 single-family
detached homes as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: Land Use - PD PA 02-024
Resulting
Phase PD Zoning Acres -net Max. Development Density
Units Plan du/net ac
North of Single-Family
Fallon Residential $.$ 50 44 5.0
Road (0.9 to 6.0 du ac)
Rural
Residential/Agriculture 49.1 0 0 0
(.01 du/ac)
TOTAL 57.9 50 44
Subsequent actions implementing the master development plan for Silvera Ranch included a
Stage 2 Development Plan approved on October 21, 2003, by Ordinance 15-03. Architectural
Standards also were approved for the building types and styles within the related land use
designations shown in Table 2:
TABLE 2: Building Tvpe/Number of Units by Land Use
Building Type No. of Units Related Land Use
1) Single-Family Estates 79 units
(The Estates) (44 Units north of Fallon Road) Single-Family Residential
(35 units south of Fallon Road) Medium Density Residential
2) Single-Family Cluster Homes 73 units Medium Density Residential
(The Manors)
3) Condominiums (The Villas) - in 102 units Medium-High Density
buildings of six or eight units Residential
Total 254 units
A Site Development Review was approved for the area north of the Fallon Road right-of-way,
known as Bella Monte, on February 8, 2011 by Planning Commission Resolution 11-04. The
Bella Monte neighborhood is configured along Cydonia Court which intersects with Fallon Road
along its north side and serves as the primary access to the neighborhood. A secondary access
road provided within the hillside and open space area surrounding Bella Monte connects to
Page 2 of 8
Syrah Drive within Chateau at Fallon Crossing, the single-family detached residential project to
the north. Bella Monte was limited to 44 residential lots based on the circulation and access
standards in place at that time. The 44 single-family detached homes were approved under
standards for "The Estates," the largest of the three housing types approved for Silvera Ranch
in terms of minimum lot size and floor plans.
The vicinity map below shows the overall Phase 4 project site in relation to the surrounding
area.
OJECT
'E
The project site is currently vacant with some non-native grasses and low vegetation. The site
has been rough graded in connection with prior Tract Map Conditions of Approval.
Current Proposal:
Since adoption of the approved Development Plan for Silvera Ranch, the City's codes and
requirements have changed pertaining to fire prevention and access. One specific change is
the requirement for fire suppression sprinklers in all residential dwellings, including single family
detached units. These new requirements resulted in lifting the limitations on the maximum
number of units per access point in effect when the project was initially approved.
With removal of the previous restriction, the property owner now has requested a land use
amendment to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan fora 0.95-acre area
designated as Rural Residential/Agriculture (one residential unit per 100 acres) to Single-Family
Residential (0.9 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre). The land use amendment would allow the
development of an additional 4 lots/units along Cydonia Court between lots 129 and 130 of the
previously approved subdivision.
The request also includes corresponding Planned Development Zoning Amendments and
related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments.
Page 3 of 8
VICINITY MAP
ANALYSIS:
General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
The 0.95-acre project site represents a portion of Lot K of Tract 7540 which is approximately
41.28 acres currently designated under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as
Rural Residential/Agriculture. This land use designation allows for one residential unit per 100
acres and effectively serves as Open Space. The General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan defines Single-Family Residential use as 0.9 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed land use amendment would result in an exchange of acreage. Single-Family
Residential would increase from 8.8 net acres to approximately 9.75 net acres. Conversely,
Rural Residential/Agriculture use would decrease from 57.4 acres to 56.45 acres.
The project proposal includes related amendments to the various figures, texts, and tables in the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the
documents.
Cities are limited by the State to amend a single Element of the General Plan no more than 4
times per calendar year. Currently, the City of Dublin has applications for several General Plan
Amendments which, if approved individually in 2012, would exceed the State requirement. For
that reason, the General Plan Amendment requested for two projects on the City Council
Agenda tonight have been grouped together (Silvera and Brannigan). These GPA requests will
come before the City Council for action as a separate Agenda item. This will allow the City to
adopt one General Plan Amendment. Please refer to this agenda item for the Resolution to
adopt the proposed GPA/EDSPA.
Planned Development Zoning Amendments and Related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan Amendments
The Applicant also requests approval of Planned Development Zoning Amendments and related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments consistent with the requested General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use amendments. The rezoning will amend the
existing PD to allow single-family residential uses on that portion of the project site. The Stage
2 Development Plan for Silvera Ranch (Bella Monte) referenced above established the
residential Development Regulations and Architectural Standards for the three product types.
These regulations are proposed to apply to the project site.
The project would remain within the overall number of units approved previously for Silvera
Ranch. The 4 additional single-family detached residential units would increase the number of
units in Phase 4 from 44 to 48. These 48 units north of Fallon Road added to the 210 units
approved south of Fallon Road results in a unit count of 258 units which is the total number of
units approved with the initial Stage 1 PD. Also, the resulting over all density of 5 units per net
acre for the single-family residential area north of Fallon Road would remain within the allowed
range.
For consistency, the Development Regulations for "The Estates" within the Bella Monte
neighborhood would be applied to the 4 new residential lots, including: lot size, frontage,
setbacks, coverage, distance between buildings, common outdoor areas, usable outdoor areas,
height limits, parking, driveways, and grading standards. These regulations include a minimum
lot size of 4,000 square feet and minimum street frontage of 50 linear feet. The rear yards are
Page 4 of 8
required to have a 10-foot minimum depth with an overall average depth of 15 feet. The rear
yard setback may exceed these dimensions depending on the floor plan type placed on each
individual lot. All lots are required to have a usable (flat) rear yard area at a minimum of 300
square feet with that area having a minimum dimension of 8 feet.
Therefore, the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning Amendments and
related Development Plans are consistent with the requirements of the proposed General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use amendments, and the proposal meets the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32) for Planned Development zoning.
An Ordinance adopting the Planned Development Zoning Amendments and related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments for the Silvera Ranch Phase 4 is included as
Attachment 1.
Site Plan
Planning Commission Action:
At their meeting of March 27, 2012, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development
Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 (Attachment 2) for a residential subdivision of
4single-family detached units on approximately 0.95-acres consistent with the Development
Regulations adopted for the Planned Development Zoning for Single-Family "Estates" and the
approved architectural standards for the surrounding Bella Monte neighborhood. This approval
is subject to the City Council adoption of the proposed GPA/EDSPA and Planned Development
Amendments. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council adopt the
proposed GPA/EDSPA (Resolution 12-14) and PD Zoning Amendment (Resolution 12-15)
(Attachments 3 and 4). Please refer to Attachment 5 for the Planning Commission Draft
Minutes.
Page 5 of 8
CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE
The application includes a request for Planned Development Zoning Amendments along with
related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments consistent with the proposed land
use amendments under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Stage 2
Development Plan for Silvera Ranch established the Development Standards applicable to
building design, plotting, and subdivisions.
The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and
Sustainability Element of the General Plan. The project itself is a portion of the larger Silvera
Ranch project that has implemented pathways, gathering spaces, and open spaces. The
Applicant will be using the same architectural plans previously approved for the Bella Monte
neighborhood which exceeded the City of Dublin Green Building Ordinance. In general, the
Applicant is furthering the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the
General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and opportunities for
future generations.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services
and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of
Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local
Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies are
included in the attached Planning Commission Resolution 12-16 (Attachment 2).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants
within 300 feet of the proposed project. A Public Notice also was published in the Valley Times
and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been
provided to the Applicant.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is in Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan were adopted by the City to encourage orderly growth of the Eastern Dublin area. The
Eastern Dublin EIR was a Program EIR that evaluated the potential environmental effects of
urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period.
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, or EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted
of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated
May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development 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.
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 developed lands. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to a less
Page 6 of 8
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. 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 Silvera Ranch.
The original General Plan and Specific Plan designated Silvera Ranch for residential
development within a larger open space area; these designations were the basis for the Eastern
Dublin EIR analysis. On October 21, 2003, the City Council adopted an Addendum to the
certified EIR through Resolution 207-03. The Addendum examined proposed project-level
development of 254 residential units at Silvera Ranch and determined that the development
raised no new CEQA issues and required no further environmental review. The current project
proposes 4 additional lots in a portion of the original residential development area and would fill
in a gap between existing residential lots along the southerly side of Cydonia Court. The site
has already been rough graded in connection with prior approvals. Any further site disturbance
continues to be subject to the previously adopted Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and
all applicable standard development requirements from the City. The additional 4 lots are within
the original residential area assumed in the EIR and would be a minor increase in units
examined in the site-specific Addendum.
Staff examined the project pursuant to the subsequent/supplemental review provisions of CEQA
§21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162, 15163 and determined that as residential units within
the EIR's assumed residential development area subject to all previously adopted mitigation
measures, and based on the project's small size, there are no new significant effects and no
new mitigation measures required for the current project. The proposed project does not
constitute a substantial change to the previous Silvera Ranch approvals that require major
revisions to the EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
severity of previously identified significant effects. Staff recommends the City determine that the
project is within the scope of the project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Program EIR; that the
EIR, its addenda and the previously adopted mitigation measures adequately analyze and
mitigate the potential impacts of the 4 additional lots; that the project will not result in any new
significant impacts or the need for new mitigation measures; and that no additional
environmental review is required.
The Eastern Dublin EIR and CEQA Addenda, all Resolutions and Ordinances referenced above
are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during normal
business hours.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance adopting Planned Development Zoning Amendments and
related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments for a
0.95-acre site within Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte)
2. Planning Commission Resolution 12-16 approving a Site
Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
10053 for a residential subdivision of 4single-family detached units
on a 0.95-acre site within Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte)
Page 7 of 8
3. Planning Commission Resolution 12-14 recommending that the City
Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Rural
Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential fora 0.95-acre
site within Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte) and finding the
project within the scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR
4. Planning Commission Resolution 12-15 recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance approving Planned Development Zoning
Amendments and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
Amendments fora 0.95-acre site within Silvera Ranch Phase 4
(Bella Monte)
5. Planning Commission Draft Minutes March 27, 2012 meeting
Page 8 of 8
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*****************************************
ADOPTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR
A 0.95-ACRE AREA WITHIN SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE) FROM
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) RURAL RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURE TO PD SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND APPROVING RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
(Portion of APN 985-0055-003-04)
(PLPA 2010-00055)
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.120.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows.
1. The proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development zoning amendments
for that portion of Silvery Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte) referenced as a 0.95-
acre site along Cydonia Court (the "Property)"will be harmonious and
compatible with existing and potential development in surrounding areas
because: the proposed zoning amendment for the property from Rural
Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential would allow development
of the Property similar to Single-Family Residential development on
surrounding properties located within Silvery Ranch Phase 4.
2. The Property is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the Planned
Development Zoning District proposed because: 1) it is located within and
surrounded by Single-Family development and area zoned for that use; 2)
Development will be integrated with the adjacent Bella Monte neighborhood
and developed under standards consistent with the standards adopted for the
adjacent neighborhoods; and 3) the zoning amendments and Stage 2
Development Plan will allow the construction of 4 units which will remain within
the permitted maximum density of 6.0 units per acre.
3. The proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development zoning amendments
for the Property will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare because: 1) changes to fire prevention and suppression standards
would no longer prohibit the additional units along this roadway, 2)
development resulting from the proposed zoning amendments to the Property
would be subject to development standards previously approved for Single-
Family Residential development adopted with Planned Development PA 02-
024 and PLPA-2010-00055, and 3) development resulting from the proposed
zoning amendments to the Property would be subject to conditions of approval
under the authority to preserve public health, safety, and welfare.
4. The proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development zoning amendments
for the Property are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the Applicant has requested approval of a
General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Rural
Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential use, 2) the Property has
been designated for Single-Family Residential development under the General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan approved by Resolution XX on XX,
2012, and 3) the requested zoning is consistent with this land use.
B. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds
as follows.
1. The proposed Stage 1 and Stage zoning amendments meet the purpose and
intent of Chapter 8.32 Planned Development Zoning District of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the proposed project is consistent with the intent
of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designated for Single-
Family Residential development under the General Plan and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan approved by Resolution XX on XX, 2012; 2) the proposed
project complies with purposes required by Section 8.32.010 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Development under the Planned Development District Development Plan will
be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the
surrounding area because: 1) the proposed zoning amendments to the
Property from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential would
allow development of the Property to similar Low Density/Single Family
Residential development on surrounding properties located within Silvera
Ranch Phase 4; and 2) adequate hillside slope preservation and bio-retention
measures will be incorporated to prevent run-off onto adjacent and surrounding
developments.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) it was found that the
Project was within the scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR, which resolution is incorporated herein
by reference all of the environmental documents referenced herein are incorporated by
reference.
SECTION 2. MAP OF THE PROPERTY
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning
Map is amended to amend the zoning of the Property from Planned Development PD Rural
Residential/Agriculture to PD Single-Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre):
The 0.95-acre Property generally located along the south side of Cydonia Court north
of Fallon Road and east of Tassajara Road (portion of APN 985-0055-003-04).
2
A map of the Property is shown below:
OJECT
'E
SECTION 3. APPROVAL
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are
set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans for the Project area which are
hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans shall be in
accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
Stage 2 Development Plan for Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte)
This Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments have been submitted pursuant to
Chapters 8.32.030 and 8.32.040 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. These amendments meet all
the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans and are adopted as part of the
PD-Planned Development Zoning Amendment for Silvera Ranch (PA 02-024) and specifically
for Phase 4 (PLPA-2010-00055). A separately bound document titled "Silvera Ranch Phase IV
Amendment," dated Rev. 03-16-12, is incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Dublin
Community Development Department. The PD-Planned Development District is hereby
amended to ensure compliance with the goals, policies, and action programs of the General
Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Zoning: The action amends the zoning of a 0.95-acre site within the area known as a
portion of Silvera Ranch Phase 4 from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family
Residential (0.9 to 6.0 units per acre). The proposed Development Plan is for 4
lots/units.
3
2. Permitted Uses: All uses permitted, conditional, accessory, and temporary for PD
Single-Family Residential approved by PA 02-024 and PLPA-2010-00055 are applicable
to this property. Density: 0.9 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre.
3. Dublin Zoning Ordinance -Applicable Requirements: Except as specifically modified
by the provisions of the Planned Development District and Amendment/Development
Plan amendment, all applicable general requirements and procedures of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to the land uses designated in this Planned
Development District zoning amendment.
4. Development Standards: The Development Standards for the Single-Family use
established with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development zoning adopted with PA
02-024 and PLPA-2010-00055 shall apply.
5. Phasing Plan. Silvera Ranch Phase 4 will be developed as one phase.
6. Land Use Plan. Refer to Stage 2 Development Plan, Parcel Map 10053 Land Use
Amendment Exhibit.
7. Landscaping Plan. Refer to Stage 2 Conceptual Landscaping Plan„ Sheet L-4.
8. Development Concept. The Property is proposed to be developed as 4single-family
detached units on lots having a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet consistent with
Silvera Ranch Phase 4. A Site Development Review (SDR) in accordance with Zoning
Code Section 8.104 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 have been submitted with
this Zoning Amendment.
9. Access & Circulation. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the Property will be from
Cydonia Court at its intersection with Fallon Road to the south and Syrah Drive to north.
10. PD Zoning/Land Use Summary. The following table provides the acreage per land use
designation.
PD ZONING/LAND USE SUMMARY TABLE
FOR SILVERA RANCH (PA 02-024 and PLPA-2010-00055)
Existing Proposed
Land Use Designation Net Acres units Net Acres units
Single-Family Residential
(0.9 to 6.0 units per acre) 8.8 50 9.48 48
Rural Residential/Agriculture 57.4 1 56.72 1
Medium Density Residential
(6.1 to 14.0 du/ac) [no change] 14.3 112 14.3 112
Medium-High Density Residential
(14.1 to 25. du/ac) [no change] 7.2 96 7.2 96
Total 87.7 259 87.7 257
11. Public Facilities. Public Facilities shall be provided in accordance with the Development
Plan approved for PA 02-024 and PLPA-2010-00055, and the Site Development Review
for Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte), overall, and any subsequent Site Development
Review specific to this Project Site.
4
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption
contingent on approval of the companion General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at
least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
day of , 2012, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPA#120101PLPA-2010-00055 Silvera Ranch Phase 41PC Mtg 3.27.121CC Ord.doc
5
RESOLUTION NO. 12- 16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 10053 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF
4SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS ON
A 0.95-ACRE SITE WITHIN SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE)
(Portion of APN 985-0055-003-04)
(PLPA-2010-00055)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, KB Home Northern California submitted applications for .95
acres ("Project Site") within the project known as Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte) within
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments to change the land use from its current designation of Rural
Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential, and 2) Planned Development zoning
amendments with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the applications also include: a) Site Development Review (SDR); and b)
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 dated received March 19, 2012 for 4single-family
detached residential units/lots within the .95-acre site; and
WHEREAS, the applications collectively define this "Project" and are available and on
file in the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located along the south side of Cydonia Court and
generally is vacant land; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR and related CEQA addenda, and all Staff Reports
and Resolutions referenced above are incorporated herein by reference and available for
review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2003 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
03-48 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7441 within which the Project Site currently is
located; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended that the City Council approve General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments for the project as stated above from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family
Residential and find the Project within the scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR, and recommend
that the City Council adopt Planned Development (PD) zoning amendments and related Stage
1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments to change the zoning from PD Rural
Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, the 4 lots that comprise the Project Site are identified as Lots 1 through 4 of
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 100053; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
approve the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on
March 27, 2012, for this project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use independent judgment and
considered the certified Eastern Dublin EIR and related addenda, all said reports,
recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed
Site Development Review for 4 lots of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 within Silvera
Ranch Phase 4:
Site Development Review:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning
Ordinance, with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans and design
guidelines because: 1) The project will not undermine the architectural character and
scale of development in which the proposed project is to be located as it will be
incorporated into the surrounding neighborhood approved previously; 2) the project
will provide a unique, varied, and distinct housing opportunity; 3) the project is
consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use
designation of Low Density/Single-Family Residential; and 4) the project complies
with the development standards established in the Planned Development Plan.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because:
1) the project contributes to orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and structural
development compatible with the existing site layout and subdivision mapping and
blends well with the surrounding properties; and 2) the project complies with the
development regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance where applicable and as
adopted for PA 02-024 and PLPA-2010-00055.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties, and the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) the project
augments available housing in the vicinity; 2) the size and mass of the proposed
houses are consistent with the lot sizes in the adjacent neighborhood; and 3) the
project will provide a more complete street scene.
2
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because: the proposed homes to be developed on the property meet all of the
development standards established to regulate development in the Bella Monte
neighborhood and Silvera Ranch area overall.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the
infrastructure is under construction including streets and utilities, 2) the project site
has been rough graded in accordance with the Final Tract Map for Silvera Ranch
Phase 4 (Tract 7540), and 3) retaining walls will be constructed to establish the
required lot size and building envelope.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design,
site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other
developments in the vicinity because: 1) the development will be incorporated into the
adjacent neighborhood approved previously and will be similar to homes already
being constructed in the general vicinity; 2) the proposed houses will utilize the three
(3) architectural style and standards approved previously for Silvera Ranch Phase 4;
3) the materials referenced in the style guidelines will be consistent; and 4) the color
and materials proposed will match the colors and material being utilized on homes
currently being constructed in the vicinity.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for
the public because: 1) all perimeter landscaping, walls, fences, and hardscape are
proposed for construction in accordance with the master plan; and 2) the project front
yard landscaping and sideyard fencing is consistent with other developments
currently under construction in the vicinity and conform to the requirements of the
Stage 2 Development Plan and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist,
pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including streets,
parkways, pathways, sidewalks, and streetlighting are proposed for construction in
accordance with the master plan; and 2) development of this project will conform to
the major improvements already installed allowing residents the safe and efficient
use of these facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
10053:
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053
A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Parcel Map 10053 is consistent with the intent of
applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances for Silvera Ranch Phase 4
(Bella Monte).
B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Parcel Map
10053 are consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as
amended, as they relate to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for
implementation of a portion of Silvera Ranch designated for this type of development.
C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 is consistent with the Planned
Development zoning approved for Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte) and therefore
consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The properties created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 will have
adequate access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of Silvera Ranch
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
E. Project design, architecture, and concept have been integrated with topography of the
project site created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 to minimize
overgrading and extensive use of retaining walls. Therefore, the proposed subdivisions
are physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed.
F. All Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring program adopted with the Eastern
Dublin EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area would be applicable as appropriate
for development of the Project and Project site.
G. The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 will not result in environmental
damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health
concerns.
H. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at
large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City
Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting
easements of this nature.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the Site Development Review for the proposed project of 4 detached Single-
Family residential units within the project known as Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte), as
shown on plans prepared by SDG Architecture + Engineering (03-16-12 Rev) dated received
March 19, 2012 subject to the conditions included below.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 for 4 single family detached residential
lots within the project known as Silvera Ranch Phase 4 (Bella Monte), prepared by SDG
Architecture + Engineering (03-16-12 Rev) dated received March 19, 2012 subject to the
conditions included below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review
and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for
monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. fPL.I Planning, fBl Building, fP01 Police,
fPWI Public Works fP&CSl Parks & Community Services, fADMI Administration/City Attorney,
fFINI Finance, fFl Alameda County Fire Department, fDSRI Dublin San Ramon Services District,
fC01 Alameda Countv Department of Environmental Health, fZ71 Zone 7.
NO. Agency When Source
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required,
Prior to:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Approval. This Site Development Review approval is for PL Ongoing Planning
the construction of 4single-family detached residential
units on approximately 0.95-acres within Parcel Map
10053. This approval shall be as generally depicted and
indicated on the plans prepared by SDG Architecture +
Engineering (03-16-12 Rev) dated received March 19,
2012 on file in the Community Development Department,
and as specified by the following Conditions of Approval
for this project.
2. Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker PL One year Standard
may, upon the Applicant's written request for an extension following
of approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination approval
that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to date
assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to
be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not
to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests
shall be noticed and a public hearing or public meeting
shall be held as required by the particular Permit.
3. Effective Date. This Site Development Review approval PL Ongoing Standard
becomes effective 10 days after action by the Planning
Commission.
4. Permit Expiration: Construction or use shall commence PL One Year Standard
within one year of approval of this us or the SDR shall from
lapse and become null and void. Commencement of Approval
construction means the actual construction or use date
pursuant to the permit approval, or demonstrating
substantial progress toward commencing such
construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether
the SDR has expired, the City may hold a noticed public
hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination
may be processed concurrently with revocation
proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a permit
expires, a new application must be made and processed
according to the requirements of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
5. Compliance with previous approvals: The Applicant PL Ongoing Standard
shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Vesting
Tentative Tract 7441 as approved by the Planning
Commission, Resolution No. 03-48 on September 23,
2003.
6. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall comply PL, PW Issuance of Standard
with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and obtain all Building
necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda Permits
County Flood Control District Zone 7, California
Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State
Water Quality Control Board) and shall submit copies of
the permits to the Public Works Department.
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Issuance of Standard
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Building
Alameda County Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Permits
Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services,
Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public
and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services
District and the California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance
of building permits or the installation of any improvements
related to this project, the Developer shall supply written
statements from each such agency or department to the
Planning Department, indicating that all applicable
conditions required have been or will be met.
8. Modifications: The Community Development Director PL Ongoing Standard
may consider modifications or changes to this Site
Development Review approval if the modifications or
changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
9. Satellite Dishes: The Developer's Architect shall PL Issuance of Project
prepare a plan for review and approval by the Director of building Specific
Community Development and the Chief Building Official permit
that provides a consistent and unobtrusive location for
the placement of individual satellite dishes. Individual
conduit will be run on the interior of the unit to the
satellite location on the exterior of the home to limit the
amount of exposed cable required to activate any satellite
dish. It is preferred that where chimneys exist, the
mounting of the dish be incorporated into the chimney. In
instances where chimneys do not exist, then the plan
shall show a common and consistent location for satellite
dish placement to eliminate the over proliferation,
haphazard and irregular placement.
10. Indemnification: The Developer shall defend, indemnify, PL, B In
accordance Standard
condition
and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, w/govt code s (SC)
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or Section
proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, 66499.37
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul
an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency,
appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council,
Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator,
or any other department, committee, or agency of the City
to the extent such actions are brought within the time
period required by Government Code Section 66499.37
or other applicable law; provided, however, that The
Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying
The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding
and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such
actions or proceedings.
11. Final building and site development plans shall be PL Issuance of Project
reviewed and approved by the Community Development building Specific
Department staff prior to the issuance of a building permit
permit. All such plans shall insure:
a. That standard residential security requirements as
established by the Dublin Police Department are
provided.
b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and
other appropriate physical features for the
handicapped, are provided throughout the site for all
publicly used facilities.
c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all
parking stalls, if necessary.
d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not
directed onto adjacent properties and the light source
is shielded from direct offsite viewing.
e. That all mechanical equipment, including air
conditioning condensers, electrical and gas meters, is
architecturally screened from view, and that electrical
transformers are either underground or architecturally
screened.
f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc.,
are painted to match the color of adjacent surface.
g. That all materials and colors are to be as approved
by the Dublin Community Development Department.
Once constructed or installed, all improvements are
to be maintained in accordance with the approved
plans. Any changes, which affect the exterior
character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin
Community Development Department for approval.
h. That all exterior architectural elements visible from
view and not detailed on the plans be finished in a
style and in materials in harmony with the exterior of
the building. All materials shall wrap to the inside
corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall plane.
i. That all other public agencies that require review of
the project are supplied with copies of the final
building and site plans and that compliance is
obtained with at least their minimum Code
requirements.
12. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plans, tree PL Issuance of Standard
preservation techniques, and guarantees, shall be building
reviewed and approved by the Dublin Planning permit
Department prior to the issuance of the building permit.
All such submittals shall insure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of
healthy growth within the given range of soil and
climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height
and density so that it provides a positive visual
impact within three years from the time of planting.
c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at least
75% of the proposed trees on the site are a minimum
of 15 gallons in size, and at least 50% of the
proposed shrubs on the site are minimum of 5 gallons
in size.
d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be
provided which assures that all plants get adequate
water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by
Staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used.
e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of
all planters and paving surfaces where applicable.
f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the master
vesting tentative map and conditions detailed in the
Site Development Review packet.
g. That all cut and fill slopes graded and not constructed
by September 1, of any given year, are hydroseeded
with perennial or native grasses and flowers, and that
stock piles of loose soil existing on that date are
hydroseeded in a similar manner.
h. That the area under the drip line of all existing oaks,
walnuts, etc., which are to be saved are fenced
during construction and grading operations and no
activity is permitted under them that will cause soil
compaction or damage to the tree, if applicable.
i. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall
be required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground
cover, all trees, and the irrigation system for one
year.
j. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all
landscaping will be required from the owner insuring
regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if
applicable.
13. Plotting: The approved Site Development Review would PL Issuance of Project
allow any of the three approved floor plans to be building Specific
constructed on any of the lots within Monte Bella at permits
Silvera Ranch, subject to limitations as follows:
^ Any single floor plan may not exceed 40% of the
subdivision.
^ Individual floor plans may be placed next to each
other. However, only two of the same individual floor
plans may be plotted next to each other without being
interrupted by a different floor plan.
^ If two of the same individual floor plans are plotted
next to each other, the same individual floor plan may
not be plotted across the street from the two.
^ In no case will the same architectural elevation or
color scheme be allowed next to or across the street
from each other, unless they are a different individual
floor plan.
14. Revocation of permit. The permit shall be revocable for PL Ongoing Standard
cause in accordance with Chapter 8.96 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or
conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
15. Building Codes and Ordinances: All project B Through Standard
construction shall conform to all building codes and Completion
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
16. Retaining Walls: All retaining walls over 30 inches in B Through Standard
height and in a walkway area shall be provided with completion
guardrails. All retaining walls located on private property,
over 24 inches, with a surcharge, or 36 inches without a
surcharge, shall obtain permits and inspections from the
Building Division.
17. Phased Occupancy Plan: If occupancy is requested to B Occupancy Standard
occur in phases, then all physical improvements within of any
each phase shall be required to be completed prior to affected
occupancy of any buildings within that phase except for building
items specifically excluded in an approved Phased
Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by
the Community Development Department. The Phased
Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of
Community Development and Public Works for review
and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request
for occupancy of any building covered by said Phased
Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall
substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the
subdivision approval. No individual building shall be
occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe,
accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected
services and amenities, and separated from remaining
additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the
Community Development Director, the completion of
landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather
with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred
landscaping and associated improvements.
18. Building Permits: To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Standard
Applicant/Developer shall submit eight (8) sets of building
construction plans to the Building Division for plan check. permit
Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy
of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall
clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or
have been complied with. Construction plans will not be
accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to
each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation
non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building
permits.
19. Construction Drawings: Construction plans shall be B Issuance of Standard
fully dimensioned (including building elevations) building
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed permit
conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural
calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California
licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape
plan and details shall be consistent with each other.
20. Air Conditioning Units: Air conditioning units and B Occupancy Standard
ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with of unit
materials compatible to the main building and shall not be
roof mounted. Units shall be permanently installed on
concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved
by the Building Official and Community Development
to
Director. Air conditioning units shall be located such that
each dwelling unit has one side yard with an
unobstructed width of not less than 36 inches. Air
conditioning units shall be located in accordance with the
PD text.
21. Temporary Fencing: Temporary Construction fencing B Through Standard
shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under completion
construction.
22. Addressing: B Issuance of Standard
a. Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin's address building
grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight permit and
all exterior door openings on plans (front, rear, through
garage, etc.). (Prior to release of addresses) completion
b. Provide plan for display of addresses. The Building
Official and Director of Community Development shall
approve plan prior to issuance of the first building
permit. (Prior to permitting)
c. Addresses will be required on the front of the
dwellings. Addresses are also required near the
garage door opening if the opening is not on the
same side of the dwelling as the front door. (Prior to
permitting)
d. Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin
Residential Security Code. (Occupancy of any Unit).
e. Provide a site plan with the approved addresses in 1
to 400 scale prior to approval or release of the project
addresses. (Prior to permitting)
f. Exterior address numbers shall be backlight and be
posted in such a way that they can be seen from the
street.
23. Engineer Observation: The Engineer of record shall be B Scheduling Standard
retained to provide observation services for all the final
components of the lateral and vertical design of the frame
building, including nailing, hold downs, straps, shear, roof inspection
diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written
report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to
scheduling the final frame inspection.
24. Foundation: Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report B Through Standard
shall review and approve the foundation design. A letter completion
shall be submitted to the Building Division on the
approval.
25. Green Building: Green Building measures as detailed B Through Standard
may be adjusted prior to master plan check application completion
11
submittal with prior approval from the City's Green
Building Official. Provided that the design of the project
complies with the City of Dublin's Green Building
Ordinance and State Law as applicable. In addition, all
changes shall be reflected in the Master Plans. (Through
Completion)
The Green Building checklist shall be included in the
master plans. The checklist shall detail what Green
Points are being obtained and where the information is
found within the master plans. (Prior to first permit)
Prior to each unit final, the project shall submit a
completed checklist with appropriate verification that all
Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin Municipal
Code have been incorporated. (Through Completion)
Homeowner Manual - if Applicant takes advantage of this
point the Manual shall be submitted to the Green Building
Official for review or a third party reviewer with the results
submitted to the City. (Through Completion)
Landscape plans shall be submitted to the Green Building
Official for review. Prior to approval of the landscape
plans by the City of Dublin.
Developer may choose self-certification or certification by
a third party as permitted by the Dublin Municipal Code.
Applicant shall inform the Green Building Official of
method of certification prior to release of the first permit in
each subdivision /neighborhood.
26. Electronic File: The Applicant/Developer shall submit all B Issuance of Standard
building drawings and specifications for this project in an building
electronic format to the satisfaction of the Building Official permit
prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, all
revisions made to the building plans during the project
shall be incorporated into an "As Built" electronic file and
submitted prior to the issuance of the final occupancy.
27. Clean up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible PL Ongoing Standard
for clean-up and disposal of project related trash and for
maintaining a clean, litter-free site.
28. Controlling Activities. The Applicant /Developer shall PO, PL Ongoing Standard
control all activities on the project site so as not to create
a nuisance to the surrounding residences.
29. Noise/Nuisances. No loudspeakers or amplified music PO, PL Ongoing Standard
shall be permitted to project or be placed outside of the
residential buildings during construction.
30. Accessory Structures. The use of any accessory PL, B, Ongoing Standard
structures, such as storage sheds or trailer/container F
units used for storage or for any other purpose during
12
construction, shall not be allowed on the site at any time
unless a Temporary Use Permit is applied for and
approved.
31. Removal of Obstructions. Applicant/Developer shall PW Issuance of Standard
remove all trees including major root systems and other Occupancy
obstructions from building sites that are necessary for Permits
public improvements or for public safety as directed by
the soils engineer and Public Works Director.
32. Utility Siting Plan. The Applicant/Developer shall PW, PL Issuance of Standard
provide a final Utility Siting Plan showing that Grading
transformers and service boxes are placed outside of Permits
public view where possible and/or screened to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and
Public Works Director. Applicant/Developer shall place all
utility infrastructures underground including electric,
telecommunications, cable TV, and gas in accordance
with standards enforced by the appropriate utility agency.
Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities
shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer/Public Works Director prior to installation.
SECURITY AND POLICE
33. Security During Construction. PO, B, During Standard
a. Fencing -The perimeter of the construction site shall PW construction
be fenced and locked at all times when workers are
not present. All construction activities shall be
confined to within the fenced area. Construction
materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or
stored outside of the fenced area or within the public
right-of-way unless approved in advance by the Public
Works Director.
b. Address Sign - A temporary address sign of sufficient
size and color contrast to be seen during night time
hours with existing street lighting is to be posted on
the perimeter street adjacent to construction activities.
c. Emergency Contact - Prior to any phase of
construction, Applicant/Developer will file with the
Dublin Police Department an Emergency Contact
Business Card that will provide 24-hour phone contact
numbers of persons responsible for the construction
site.
d. Materials & Tools -Good security practices shall be
followed with respect to storage of building materials
and tools at the construction site.
e. Security lighting and patrols shall be employed as
1~
necessary.
34. Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the site PO, PL Ongoing Standard
clear of graffiti on a regular and continuous basis and at
all times. Graffiti resistant materials should be used.
F EES
35. Fees. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in PW Zone 7 and Standard
effect at the time of building permit issuance including, Parkland In-
but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin Lieu Fees
San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Due Prior to
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Public Filing Each
Works Traffic Impact fees, City of Dublin Fire Services Final Map;
fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Other Fees
fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation Required
District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees, with
and any other fees either in effect at the time and/or as Issuance of
noted in the Development Agreement. Building
Permits
PUB LIC WORKS
36. Clarification. In the event that there needs to be PW, PL Ongoing Standard
clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the City
Engineer or Community Development Director has the
authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of
Approval to the Developer without going to a public
hearing. The City Engineer or Community Development
Director also has the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill
needed improvements or mitigations resulting from
impacts of this project.
37. General Public Works Conditions of Approval: PW Ongoing Standard
Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin General C of A
Public Works Conditions of Approval subject to approval
of the CEQA Addendum for Parcel Map 10053 contained
below unless specifically modified by these Conditions of
Approval.
1~
38. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District: The PW Final Map Standard
Developer shall request the area to be annexed into a C of A
subzone of the Citywide Street Lighting Maintenance
Assessment District and shall provide any exhibits
required for the annexation. In addition Developer shall
pay all administrative costs associated with processing
the annexation.
39. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements: PW Final Map Project
Ownership, dedications on final map, and maintenance of and Specific
street right-of-ways, common area parcels, and open Ongoing
space areas shall be by the City of Dublin and the
Homeowner's Association, as shown on the Ownership
and Maintenance Responsibility Exhibit, Tract 7441,
Silvera Ranch, prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar
Associates, dated February 20, 2003, amended to reflect
the addition of the four lots.
40. Parcel Map: The Parcel Map shall include Lots 1-4 and PW Final Map Standard
shall also show Parcel "K" of Tract 7540 as a common C of A
parcel.
41. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). PW Final Map Standard
The four new parcels shall be annexed to the existing C of A
Silvera Ranch Homeowner Association
42. Public Streets: Developer shall construct street PW Final Map Standard
improvements and offer for dedication to the City of C of A
Dublin the right of way for Cydonia Court as shown on
the Tentative Map, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
43. GHAD Maintenance Easement: The parcel map shall PW Final Map Project
include the offer of dedication of a 15' maintenance Specific
easement over the bench and drainage along the
northwesterly boundary of Parcel "K" of Tract 7540. The
offer shall be in favor of the Fallon Crossings Geologic
Hazard Abatement District.
44. Joint Trench: The developer shall complete the PW Final Map Project
installation of the joint trench along the southwesterly Specific
side of Fallon Road, from the existing terminus at
Cydonia Court to a connection with the existing joint
trench at the Dublin Ranch boundary.
45. Fallon Road Median Break: The developer shall PW Final Map
construction a raised median and landscaping at the
existing median break in Fallon Road just north of Signal
Hill Drive so that the median is permanently closed. The
developer will be reimbursed for this work in the amount
of $20,000 previously provided by the Lin Family for this
work. The developer will be eligible for Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact fee credits for costs exceeding this amount.
46. Plot plans shall be submitted for review and approval by PW Building Standard
1~
the Public Works Department and the Community Permits
Development Department prior to approval of building
permits.
47. Roof drainage shall be connected to a closed conduit, PW Tract impmt Standard
discharging to a curb drain or connected to the storm agreement
drain system. Concentrated flows will not be allowed to
drain across public sidewalks
48. Storm Runoff Treatment Measures: Storm runoff PW Final Map
treatment measures shall be as shown on the Stormwater
Management Plan attached to the Tentative Parcel Map,
or as may be modified by the City with the concurrence of
the Developer. The stormwater treatment measures shall
also include a Low Impact Development (LID) component
for new impervious surface areas, in conformance with
Section C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit for
Stormwater. Treatment measures shall also conform with
Section C.10 of the MRP with regards to trash capture.
The Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of
the measures until they are accepted by the City, and
shall turn over the measures to the City in a clean
condition.
49. Fallon Road/ I-580 Interchange Improvement PW Final Map Project
Contribution: The developer shall pay a fair share Specific
portion of costs advanced by the Lin Family for
improvements to the Fallon Road/ I-580 Interchange. The
advance will be payable at the time of filing of the first
final map. The amount shall be calculated against the
then-outstanding balance as of the first final map.
City will provide a credit to developers in the amount of
developer's advance to be used by developer against
payment of Section 2 obligations of the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee ("TIF"). In accordance with the City's
TIF Guidelines (Reso. 20-07), establishment of the credit
shall require the payment of an administrative fee. The
use of credits (including limitations on the use of credits)
and manner of conversion of the credit to a right of
reimbursement will be as set forth in the City's TIF
Guidelines, subject to the following provisions: (a) the
credit shall be granted at the time Developer makes the
advance required by this condition; and (b) the credit may
be used only to satisfy Section 2 TIF obligations.
50. Traffic Impact Fees: The developer shall be responsible PW Issuance of Standard
for payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Building C of A
(Sections 1 and 2), the Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Permits
Fee, and the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee.
Fees will be payable at issuance of building permits.
ib
51. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum Payment: PW Issuance of Standard
The developer shall be responsible for payment of a Building C of A
minimum portion of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Permits
in cash (11 % Category 1 and 25% of Category 2), as
specified in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee. These minimum cash payment shall
be in addition to any other payment noted in these
conditions and may not be offset by fee credits.
PUB LIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 10053
52. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map PW Ongoing Standard
Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, and Grading C of A
Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards
and Policies, the most current requirements of the State
Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with
regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All
public improvements constructed by Developer and to be
dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public
works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly,
Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall
comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code.
Sects. 1720 and following).
53. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold PW Ongoing Standard
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and C of A
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against
the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to
attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of
Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning
Commission, City Council, Community Development
Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City related to this project
(Tract 8024) to the extent such actions are brought within
the time period required by Government Code Section
66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that
The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying
The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding
and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such
actions or proceedings.
1~
54. In the event that there needs to be clarification to these PW Ongoing Standard
Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community C of A
Development and the City Engineer have the authority to
clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the
Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director
of Community Development and the City Engineer also
have the authority to make minor modifications to these
conditions without going to a public hearing in order for
the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or
mitigations resulting from impacts of this project.
AGR EEMENTS AND BONDS
55. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement PW First Final Standard
Agreement with the City for all public improvements Map and C of A
including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway Successive
improvements that are needed to serve the Tract that Maps
have not been bonded with another Tract Improvement
Agreement.
56. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), and PW First Final Standard
labor & material (100%) securities to guarantee the tract Map and C of A
improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to Successive
execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and Maps
approval of the Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the
improvements, the performance security may be replaced
with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the
performance security. )
FEES
57. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at PW Zone 7 and Standard
the time of building permit issuance including, but not Parkland in- C of A
limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San lieu fees
Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, due prior to
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Public filing each
Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services Final Map;
fees; Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Other fees
fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation required
District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; with
and any other fees either in effect at the time and/or as issuance of
noted in the Development Agreement. Building
Permits
iK
58. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu fees PW Each Final Standard
in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Map C of A
Resolution No. 214-02, or in any resolution revising these
amounts.- and as implemented by the Administrative
Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-99.
PER MITS
59. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the PW Start of Standard
Public Works Department for all construction activity Work C of A
within the public right-of-way of any street where the City
has accepted the improvements. The encroachment
permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping.
At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment
for work specifically included in an Improvement
Agreement may not be required.
60. Developer shall obtain aGrading / Sitework Permit from PW Start of Standard
the Public Works Department for all grading and private Work C of A
site improvements that serves more that one lot or
residential condominium unit.
61. Developer shall obtain all permits required by other PW Start of Standard
agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Work C of A
Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7,
California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public
Works Department.
SUB MITTALS
62. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with PW Approval of Standard
the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works improvement C of A
Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", plans or Final
and the "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check Map
List".
63. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and PW Approval of Standard
reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non- improvement C of A
City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and plans or Final
the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve Map
and sign the Improvement Plans.
64. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which PW Approval of Standard
includes street pavement sections and grading improvement C of A
recommendations. plans, grading
plans, or Final
Map
1~
65. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PW cceptance o Standard
digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the project improvements C of A
when the Final Map has been approved. Digital raster nd release o
copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files bonds
shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format.
Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the
Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be
colored by layer and named in English. All submitted
drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA,
California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and
U.S. foot.
FINAL MAP
66. The Final Map shall be substantially in accordance with PW Approval of Standard
the Tentative Map approved with this application, unless Final Map C of A
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 phasing for infrastructure.
67. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by PW Approval of Standard
the Tentative Map including the Public Service Easement Final Map C of A
shall be shown on the Final Map.
68. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private PW Approval of Standard
street pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The Final Map C of A
approved street names shall be indicated on the Final
Map.
69. The Final Map shall include the street monuments to be PW Monuments Standard
set in all public streets. to be shown C of A
on final map
and
installed
prior to
acceptance
of
improvemen
is
EAS EMENTS
70. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all PW Approval of Standard
applicable public agencies of existing easements and improvement C of A
right of ways within the development that will no longer plans or
be used. appropriate
final map
zo
71. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain PW Approval of Standard
rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for any Improvement C of A
improvements on their property. The easements and/or Plans or
rights-of-entry shall be in writing and copies furnished to Appropriate
the City Engineer. Final Map
GRA DING
72. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of Standard
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the grading C of A
approved Tentative Map and/or Site Development plans or
Review, and the City design standards & ordinances. In issuance of
case of conflict between the soil engineer's grading
recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer permits,
shall determine which shall apply. and
ongoing
73. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with the PW Approval of Standard
Grading Plan approval. The plan shall include detailed grading C of A
design, location, and maintenance criteria of all erosion plans or
and sedimentation control measures. issuance of
grading
permits,
and
ongoing
74. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not PW Approval of Standard
cross property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2' grading C of A
below the finished grade of the upper lot. plans or
issuance of
grading
permits,
and
ongoing
75. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no steeper than PW Approval of Standard
3:1 unless shown otherwise on the Tentative Map grading C of A
Grading Plan exhibits. The toe of any slope along public plans or
streets shall be one foot back of walkway. The top of any issuance of
slope along public streets shall be three feet back of grading
walkway. Minor exception may be made in the above permits,
slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design and
constraints subject to the approval of the City Engineer. ongoing
IMPR OVEMENTS
21
76. The public improvements shall be constructed generally PW Approval of Standard
as shown on the Tentative Map and/or Site Development improvement C of A
Review. However, the approval of the Tentative Map plans or start
and/or Site Development Review is not an approval of the of
specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, construction,
and street improvements. and ongoing
77. All public improvements shall conform to the City of PW Approval of Standard
Dublin Standard Plans and design requirements and as improvement C of A
approved by the City Engineer. plans or start
of
construction,
and ongoing
78. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1 % slope with PW Approval of Standard
minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private improvement C of A
streets and alleys shall be at minimum 0.5% slope. plans or start
of
construction,
and ongoing
79. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be 40- PW Approval of Standard
foot radius, all internal public streets curb returns shall be improvement C of A
30-foot radius (36-foot with bump outs) and private plans or start
streets/alleys shall be a minimum 20-foot radius, or as of
approved by the City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and construction,
design shall conform to the most current Title 24 and and ongoing
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as
approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
80. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and pavement PW Occupancy of Standard
marking as required by the City Engineer. units or C of A
acceptance of
improvements
81. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed PW Occupancy of Standard
and installed per approval of the City Engineer. The units or C of A
maximum voltage drop for streetlights is 5%. acceptance of
improvements
82. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with other PW Occupancy of Standard
new signals within the development and to the existing units or C of A
City traffic signal system by hard wire. acceptance of
improvements
83. The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at PW Occupancy of Standard
the locations designated and approved by the LAVTA units or C of A
and the City Engineer. The Developer shall pay the cost acceptance of
of procuring and installing these improvements. improvements
84. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water PW Occupancy of Standard
and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project units or C of A
in accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, acceptance of
specifications and requirements. improvements
z2
85. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda PW Occupancy of Standard
County Fire Department. A raised reflector blue traffic units or C of A
marker shall be installed in the street opposite each acceptance of
hydrant. improvements
86. The Developer shall furnish and install street name signs PW Occupancy of Standard
for the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. units or C of A
acceptance of
improvements
87. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and PW Occupancy of Standard
communication improvements within the fronting streets units or C of A
and as necessary to serve the project and the future acceptance of
adjacent parcels as approved by the City Engineer and improvements
the various Public Utility agencies.
88. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, shall PW Occupancy of Standard
be underground in accordance with the City policies and units or C of A
ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided acceptance of
within public utility easements and sized to meet utility improvements
company standards.
89. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless specifically PW Occupancy of Standard
approved otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be units or C of A
underground and placed in landscape areas and acceptance of
screened from public view. Prior to Joint Trench Plan improvements
approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the
City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and
structures and adjacent landscape features and
plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the
City Engineer prior to construction of the joint trench
improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
90. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented between PW Ongoing as Standard
October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise allowed in needed C of A
writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be
responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control
measures for one year following the City's acceptance of
the subdivision improvements.
91. If archaeological materials are encountered during PW Ongoing as 1993
construction, construction within 30 feet of these needed EDEIR
materials shall be halted until a professional MM
Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California
Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate
the significance of the find and suggest appropriate
mitigation measures.
2~
92. Construction activities, including the maintenance and PW Ongoing as Standard
warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday needed C of A
through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours
of 7:30 a. m. and 5:30 p. m. except as otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work
will be considered by the City Engineer on a case-by-
case basis.
93. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of Standard
management plan that identifies measures to be taken to construction C of A
minimize construction noise on surrounding developed Implementat
properties. The plan shall include hours of construction ion ongoing
operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, as needed
speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and
identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management
measures shall be provided prior to project construction
94. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic PW Start of Standard
interface with public traffic on any existing public street. construction; C of A
Construction traffic and parking may be subject to Implementati
specific requirements by the City Engineer. on ongoing
as needed
95. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any PW Ongoing Standard
rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to C of A
construction activities.
96. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or other PW Start of Standard
dust-palliative measures to control dust as conditions construction; C of A
warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. Implementati
on ongoing
as needed
97. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of Standard
Department with a letter from a registered civil engineer building C of A
or surveyor stating that the building pads have been permits or
graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades shown on the acceptance of
approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of banks improvements
and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the
approved Grading Plans.
NPD ES
98. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall PW Start of any Standard
provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has construction C of A
been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Activities
Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at
the construction site.
2~
99. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) PW SWPPP to Standard
shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) be prepared C of A
appropriate to the project construction activities. The prior to
SWPPP shall include the erosion control measures in approval of
accordance with the regulations outlined in the most improvemen
current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment t plans:
Control Handbook or State Construction Best Implementat
Management Practices Handbook. The Developer is ion prior to
responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all start of
storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. construction
and
ongoing as
needed
100 The Homeowner's Association shall enter into an PW First final Standard
agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the map; modify C of A
perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water as needed
treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said with
agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.h. of successive
RWQCB Order R2-2009-0074 for the issuance of the maps
Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water
permit. Said permit requires the City to provide
verification and assurance that all treatment devices will
be properly operated and maintained. This condition shall
not apply if the water quality treatment measures are
maintained by a GHAD or other public entity.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27t" day of March 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Wehrenberg, Schaub, O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee
NOES:
ABSENT: Brown
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA#120101PLPA-2010-00055 Silvera Ranch Phase 41PC Mtg 3.27.121pc reso approving vtpm and sdrforsilvera_kb home.doc
2~
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 14
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 TO CHANGE
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURE TO
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FORA 0.95-ACRE SITE WITHIN
SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE) AND FINDING THE PROJECT WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
(Portion of APN 985-0055-003-04)
(PLPA 2010-00055)
WHEREAS, KB Home Northern California, submitted applications for 0.95 acres located
along the south side of Cydonia Court ("Project Site") within the project known as Silvera Ranch
Phase 4 (Bella Monte). The applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan amendments to change the land use from its current designation of Rural
Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential; 2) Planned Development Zoning
Amendments with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments; 3) Site
Development Review (SDR) to construct 4Single-Family detached homes; and 4) Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map 10053 to create 4 residential lots. The Project Site and the applications
are collectively known as the "Project," and
WHEREAS, consistent with California Government Code Section 65352.3, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City
on the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments. None of the contacted tribes
requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is
required under section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments would
change the existing land use from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential (0.9
to 6.0 dwelling units per acre); and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report for the Planning Commission, dated March 27, 2012 and
incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the project, including the proposed
amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Staff Report also
included analysis under CEQA and recommended that the Project be found within the scope of
the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR and related CEQA Addenda; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2012 the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the certified Eastern Dublin EIR and
Addenda, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the
project; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR and related CEQA addenda, and all Staff Reports
and Resolutions referenced above are incorporated herein by reference and available for review
at City Hall during normal business hours.
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 adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to
change the land use designation from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential
including all related tables and maps which will be revised to reflect these changes, based on
findings that the amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan as so
amended will remain internally consistent and finding the Project within the scope of the Eastern
Dublin EIR and related addenda.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27t" day of March, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Wehrenberg, Schaub, O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee
NOES:
ABSENT: Brown
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA#120101PLPA-2010-00055 Silvera Ranch Phase 41PC Mtg 3.27.121pc reso forsilvera_kb home gpa_spa.doc
2
RESOLUTION NO. 12-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING AMENDMENTS AND RELATED
STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FORA 0.95-ACRE SITE
WITHIN SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE)
(portion of APN 985-0055-003-04)
(PLPA 2010-00055)
WHEREAS, KB Home Northern California submitted applications for 0.95 acres ("Project
Site") within the project known as Silvera 4 (Bella Monte). The applications include: 1) General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change the land use from its current
designation of Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single-Family Residential; 2) Planned
Development Zoning Amendment with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
Amendments; 3) Site Development Review (SDR) to construct 4single-family detached homes;
and 4) Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10053 to create 4 residential lots. The Project Site and the
applications are collectively known as the "Project," and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located along the south side of Cydonia Court and
currently is vacant land; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR and related CEQA addenda, and all Staff Reports
and Resolutions referenced above are incorporated herein by reference and available for review
at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended that the City Council approve the related General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments for the Project and find the Project within the scope of the Eastern
Dublin EIR, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report for the Planning Commission, dated March 27, 2012 and
incorporated herein by reference, described the Project, including the proposed Planned
Development Zoning Amendments and the related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
Amendments, and recommended approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2012 the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, including the proposed Planned Development Zoning Amendments with
related Development Plan Amendments at which time all interested parties had the opportunity
to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the certified Eastern Dublin EIR and
related addenda, 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 recommends that
the City Council adopt the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference, based on findings that the PD zoning: a) is consistent with the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended by the Project; b) is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Planned Development zoning district; and c) will be harmonious and compatible
with existing and potential development in the surrounding area.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of March 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Wehrenberg, Schaub, O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee
NOES:
ABSENT: Brown
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA#120101PLPA-2010-00055 Silvera Ranch Phase 41PC Mtg 3.27.121pc reso recommending pd ordinance forsilvera_kb home.doc
2
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
°~~ Tuesday, March 27, 2012
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 27,
2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the
meeting to order at 7:00:55 PM
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub and Bhuthimethee;
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner;
and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. Brown
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm.
O'Keefe, the minutes of the March 13, 2012 meeting, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Brown being
absent, were unanimously approved as revised.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PLPA-2011-00039 Brannigan Street, General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development
Plan Amendment and new Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 8093 for 19 Single-Family homes in a 19-lot subdivision, Development
Agreement, and CEQA Addendum to prior CEQA documents fora 3-acre parcel located along
the west side of Brannigan Street north of Gleason Drive within Area F of Dublin Ranch.
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked if the Medium Density Residential units per acre are considered net or gross
acres.
Mr. Porto answered the units per acre are considered gross acres.
Cm. Schaub asked about the net acreage for Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Porto answered net is when the roads are taken out of the equation. He mentioned that this
property has already been subdivided; all the dedications have been made for the width of the
road, etc. so therefore the parcel is a net site of 3-acres.
12
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Wehrenberg asked about the small square parcel shown at the bottom of the Springfield
Montessori School site.
Mr. Porto answered the property was originally subdivided and the small square parcel is where
the Hope Hospice was going to be located. However, the parcel was eventually sold to
Springfield Montessori School. Lennar is purchasing the property from the Muslim Community
Center. He continued that the Springfield Montessori School includes parcels 2 and 3 of the
original parcel map.
Cm. Schaub asked how the DiManto property fits into the project.
Mr. Porto answered that, with the 1994 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), this area was
designated as a 50 acre high school site. He continued that the site was subsequently changed
to a 50 acre middle school site, then to a 25 acre middle school site, and then aPublic/Semi-
Public and residential site which includes the existing Lennar Sonata subdivision. The DiManto
property is also designated Public/Semi-Public.
Cm. Schaub asked if the land use designation on the DiManto property will change.
Mr. Porto answered it is not proposed to change with the current actions.
Cm. Schaub felt it was important to note that the property/parcel line runs through to Gleason
Drive.
Mr. Porto pointed out on the slide where the Public/Semi-Public line is located.
Cm. Schaub asked how many parcels designated Public/Semi-Public are left in the City,
including the Braddock and Logan project that was discussed at a recent Planning Commission
meeting.
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, stated the Braddock and Logan project is different because it is
designated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as Semi-Public, as opposed to
the Public/Semi-Public designation of the subject property.
Mr. Porto answered there are approximately 6 parcels designated Public/Semi-Public or Semi-
public (Wallis, Croak, Chen, Jordan, Promenade, and one on the west side of town).
Cm. Schaub asked why there would be a street connecting the DiManto property to this project.
Mr. Porto answered the proximity of the intersection of Gleason and Brannigan will make it
difficult to have access to the DiManto property off of Brannigan Street.
Cm. Schaub felt the DiManto parcel is not big enough for a project and half of it is on a slope.
He was concerned with the parcel was not wide enough to develop because of the topography
of the parcel and frontage improvements.
Mr. Porto answered the street would be 120 feet to 150 feet wide depending on how much right-
of-way is taken for Gleason Drive. He stated Staff has seen various proposed uses for the
parcel including day care centers and 120 condos which would have to utilize the slope in the
design of the project. He continued the site will set the slope for the area and felt there was not
13
DRAFT DRAFT
much else that could be done because the alignment of Brannigan and Gleason are already
there and the rate of grades are already set. The parcel will be locked in due to where
Brannigan and Gleason are today.
Chair Wehrenberg asked who owns the property.
Mr. Porto answered the property is owned by the Dublin Land Company, but usually referred to
as the DiManto property.
Cm. Schaub asked how tall the houses would be.
Mr. Porto answered approximately 30 feet tall.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Muslim Community Center has identified another location.
Mr. Porto answered Staff did not know.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if there were any community meetings held with the residents.
Mr. Porto stated there were 2 meetings. He stated the Applicant sent out notices to greater than
the usual 300 foot radius and only 3 people attended. He stated there was another meeting in
March 2012 and 3 different people attended, for a total of 6 people.
Cm. Schaub asked if the property was owned by the Lins who sold it to the Muslim Community
Center who is now selling the property to Lennar.
Mr. Porto answered yes.
Cm. Schaub asked if this kind of transaction has ever happened before.
Mr. Porto answered not that he was aware of.
Cm. O'Keefe stated the Commission had a request recently to change the land use from Semi-
public to Residential and felt the local residents for that project were sold their homes with the
idea of the lot remaining Semi-Public. He asked if the residents attending these meetings felt
the same.
Mr. Porto answered he attended only one meeting and residents were mostly concerned with
when Brannigan would be finished, but nothing about what was promised when they bought
their homes.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are plans for improvement to Gleason Drive in regards to this
project.
Mr. Porto answered the developer will provide, as a community benefit for the City, the
Brannigan frontage improvements, the completion of the corner, relocation of the traffic signal
and the sidewalk to Gleason.
Chair Wehrenberg asked the reason for the lower density homes in this project since the
adjacent areas are designated Medium Density.
14
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Porto answered the project is for single-family homes placed on the property at the low end
of the Medium Density range. He continued the Sonata project has the same density and same
type of housing, same setbacks and same criteria. The property to the west, The Courtyards,
are in the mid-range of Medium Density with approximately 10 units per acre; this project is
approximately 6 units per acre.
Chair Wehrenberg asked about an easement that seems to run between the subject site and the
Springfield Montessori School properties, and asked if they can build on lot 1 with the easement.
Mr. Porto explained the Developer is working on having the easement removed.
Cm. O'Keefe mentioned that, in June 2011, the City Council approved a study on the site and
asked if the study came back with any findings as to whether or not the City would like to see
this site rezoned.
Mr. Porto responded what the City Council authorized Staff to study the Applicant's request for
the viability of the project on this site. He continued Staff did that and that project is what is
being presented to the Commission. He stated, at the time, the City Council was aware of the
situation on the property and expressed that this project might be an appropriate use at the time.
Cm. Schaub was concerned that the houses would not fit on the lots with the backyard
requirement and felt the project is too dense for what is being proposed.
Mr. Porto stated this project is identical to Sonata which is east of the project.
Cm. Schaub felt the Sonata project was done without the backyard requirement.
Mr. Porto stated the Sonata homes are also three stories high.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Adam Tennant, representing Lennar Homes, spoke in favor of the project. He stated he brought
with him a group of people who worked on the project to answer questions. He agreed to the
Conditions of Approval, signed the DA and stated they did not want to add or amend any of the
Conditions of Approval. He stated there was a proposal previously for aPublic/Semi-Public
project that was not well received by the community. For that reason they held community
meetings and noticed approximately 500 feet surrounding the property; only 3 people attended
the first meeting. In answer to Cm. O'Keefe's question, there was no discussion from the
residents regarding the use. He stated they held another neighbor meeting in March 2012 and
3 different people attended mostly out of curiosity. He felt the use was compatible with the
surrounding communities and in line with the density. He stated there is a representative of the
Muslim Community Center in attendance to answer questions. He stated the easement is very
close to being "quit claimed" and he understands that issue must be completed prior to the final
map. In response to Cm. O'Keefe's question regarding the City Council initiation request; the
Applicant wanted to get as much feedback as possible, so they showed the City Council a 19-
home site plan so that they understood the density being submitted when the Council initiated
the General Plan Amendment Study.
Chair Wehrenberg asked how the community was noticed.
15
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Tennant responded the notice was sent out as a letter for the first meeting and the radius
was 500 feet. For the 2nd meeting, they were more concerned with making sure they noticed
certain areas, so they contacted everyone at the Courtyards, all of Sonata and 2 or 3 buildings
at Sorrento.
Zameer Siddiqui, founder and board member of the Muslim Community Center East Bay
(current owners of the property), 5502 Serenity Terrace, spoke in favor of the project. He
stated, when the Muslim Community Center purchased the property in 2007, the goal was to
build a church to accommodate approximately 250 or more members. But after purchasing the
property and working with architects, they realized the site would not be suitable. He stated
their main concerns were parking, traffic and the fact that the neighborhood was mainly
residential. He stated they held informal meetings with the neighbors in the Dublin Ranch area
and noted that some church members also live in the area, and the feedback was that it was not
a suitable site for their church. He stated they decided to sell the property and have acquired a
5 acre site with a 40,000 square foot building in Pleasanton that will fit their needs.
Kulwant Singh, 3716 Edgecomb Ct. in the Sonata development, spoke in opposition to the
project. He stated that when he bought his home he was told about all of the Public/Semi-Public
uses that could be applied to the site. He was concerned with view obstruction and felt there
were not enough play areas for the children in the surrounding area. He asked if the Planning
Commission considers play areas for the children when approving a project. He stated that
some of his neighbors agreed regarding more play areas.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, asked the Planning Commission to disclose if they had any Ex
Parte communications regarding this project.
Cm. Schaub stated he had not spoken with the Applicant/Developer.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated there was an invitation proposed but she never met with anyone.
Chair Wehrenberg stated there was an invitation proposed but she never met with anyone.
Cm. O'Keefe stated there was an invitation proposed but he never met with anyone.
Chair Wehrenberg commented regarding Mr. Singh's concerns. She stated that the Planning
Commission addresses parks and try to make them central to the projects. She asked Staff to
address those issues with the speaker.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked where the closest park is.
Mr. Porto answered Ted Fairfield Park is at the intersection of Grafton and Anton, Emerald Glen
Park at Tassajara and Gleason, the neighborhood square Piazza Sorrento which is 1 block
south and two blocks in, the 5 acre Pasatiempo Park being built which will connect to Piazza
Sorrento by a bridge. He continued there are a number of parks centrally located in the area.
Mr. Baker mentioned there is also an elementary school just to the north of the project site.
16
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Porto added the sports fields at the end of Fallon Road are open.
Cm. Schaub was concerned with making a recommendation to the City Council regarding
changing the zoning from Public/Semi-Public to residential. He felt it was inappropriate because
the Commission has taken a lot of time in the last 10-15 years to carve out a few areas for
Public/Semi-Public facilities. He was concerned about losing the Public/Semi-Public parcels in
the City and stated he would not recommend to the City Council any change of land use from a
designated Public/Semi-Public parcel. He wanted to suggest that the City develop financial
alternatives or incentives to help the property owners use the parcels as intended. He felt the
City Council had been adamant about preserving the Public/Semi-Public sites and he does not
want to lose any of them. He stated he has a lot of concerns regarding this project.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Schaub. She asked Mr. Baker if the Planning Commission
had to approve the project as a whole or if it could be approved in part.
Mr. Baker explained that the Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and the
zoning amendment. The SDR and Vesting Tentative Tract Map would be contingent upon
approval of those documents by the City Council.
Cm. Schaub asked what would happen if the Commission chooses not to approve the SDR.
Mr. Baker answered the Commission could approve, deny or refer the approval of the
SDR/VTMap to the City Council. He continued that, if the Planning Commission denied the
SDR, the Applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council. He suggested polling the
Commission regarding a recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they agree or disagree regarding the zoning
change.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it would be useful to preserve the Public/Semi-Public parcels, but felt this
project is different from the last one because the land was owned by the developer and the
community had an opportunity to voice their concerns regarding the current project but didn't,
which showed there was not a lot of opposition.
Cm. Schaub disagreed and felt that 10 years from now it might be different. He felt that the
issue was not about this particular project but preserving all the Public/Semi-Public parcels and
finding financial means to encourage property owners to develop the property as intended. He
does not feel the Planning Commission has done their due diligence in preserving these
properties by allowing developers to build houses on these sites. He felt this parcel is a perfect
place for something for the community to be built there.
Cm. O'Keefe felt this project was totally different than the previous project. He stated he was
pleased they had done community outreach but felt it was premature to rezone the property. He
thought the previous project would be the last one which was the basis for his support of the
project, not the community dissatisfaction. He stated he could support the rezone if Dublin was
at full build-out and the property was still vacant but could not support it at this point.
Chair Wehrenberg felt there has been difficulty determining what to build on this site as well as
with the Public/Semi-Public parcel nearby and thought the grading problems would make it
17
DRAFT DRAFT
difficult to build such uses on the parcel. She was unsure what type of project could be built on
the parcel that would meet the parking requirements.
Cm. Schaub stated he could not know all the different needs of the community but did not
imagine not having the parcel available when it is needed.
Chair Wehrenberg understood but did not want the property to sit empty for years. She felt this
project presents an opportunity to develop the property versus letting it remain empty and was
unsure what would happen if they can't sell the property.
Cm. Schaub stated the City did not buy the property and the Planning Commission did not
suggest the property owner buy the property and flip it.
There was a discussion regarding the sale of the property and if there were attempts to sell the
property to other Public/Semi-Public uses. The Commission was concerned with setting a
precedence which would invite developers to change other Public/Semi-Public sites to
residential and there would be none left in the City.
Cm. Schaub stated he could not make the findings that the project is compatible with the
surrounding areas. He felt the houses would be too high above the other houses in the
community and look out of place. He felt the property should be graded so that they are on the
same level as the other homes in the area. He liked the architecture but could not support the
project.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if Cm. Schaub was on the right path regarding the grading of the
project.
Mr. Porto stated the City has been unable to get the DiManto property graded. He stated that,
in order to grade the property as Cm. Schaub proposed, they would have to build a wall to hold
up the DiManto hill until they grade their property. He stated that is why Brannigan is not fully
developed because they could not receive permission to grade on their property. He continued
that one of the promises made to the Standard Pacific residents was that they would not bring
the elevation of the property down to their level and they would continue the landscape buffer
between the project and their property. Because of that Staff asked the developer to hold the
houses back as far as possible so that the residents aren't looking up to the back of a house.
He continued that if they took the site down and created the transition slope between the
Montessori School and this site the whole northern tier of the project would be below Brannigan.
He stated the developer will bring the lots down but not as much as Cm. Schaub suggested. He
continued Brannigan and Gleason are built to the bump that is on DiManto property and
because that cannot be resolved the developer is obligated to hold grade and the DiManto's
property will have to match their grade with this site.
Cm. Schaub felt this is the wrong project at this time and he could not make the findings.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she likes the architecture, felt the DiManto property made the grading
difficult and thought it was graded similar to Montessori.
Mr. Porto responded it is straight graded
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it was graded level with Brannigan Street.
18
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Schaub stated that the grading is level with Brannigan at the top but inconsistent at the
bottom.
There was a discussion regarding the grading of the property and the height of the houses and
Cm. Schaub presented some photos he had taken of the parcel.
Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make the findings that the development is consistent with the
surrounding community and felt they are doing the best they can with the piece of land, but
disagrees that the City should give up the Public/Semi-Public land, but if the City Council
approves the rezone then he would be in support of the project.
Cm. Schaub felt that making the best out of a bad situation is not the way to plan a community.
He felt the project is inconsistent with the surrounding community and did not feel the grading
issue with the DiManto property is an excuse for a bad project.
Cm. O'Keefe disagreed and felt the houses are consistent with the houses in the area.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. O'Keefe.
Cm. Schaub disagreed and felt the houses are not consistent with the other houses in the area.
He felt this project is not graded correctly and is the wrong place to have houses.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she is not ready to give up the Public/Semi-Public parcel either.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is an expiration date for selling this property to another
Public/Semi-Public use. She felt that with the last project the developer was actively trying to
sell the property to a Public/Semi-Public use.
Mr. Baker mentioned that the City does not control the property. It is owned by the Muslim
Community Center and they have chosen a buyer, and it's up to the property owner as to how
they market the property.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the property has been advertised for sale.
Mr. Baker suggested she ask the property owner how they have marketed the property, but it
has been available for sale.
Chair Wehrenberg felt it didn't make a difference as to what the property could be used for and
was not sure the City would pursue purchasing the property for some kind of community center.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt even though the market does not support the Public/Semi-Public use
now, it could change in the future.
Mr. Baker stated this is a policy decision for the City Council to make on whether to move
forward with the project that is submitted or continue to wait for aPublic/Semi-Public use.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed the property is unusual.
19
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Baker asked if Cm. Schaub is concerned about the height of the homes from the vantage
point of the Gleason/Brannigan intersection.
Cm. Schaub answered yes. He felt all the other developments are on the correct grade level.
Mr. Baker stated that this issue has been addressed and asked Mr. Porto to further illustrate the
grading for the Commission.
Mr. Porto directed the Planning Commission to Page C-3 of the project plans which shows a
slope along the westerly edge that will remain. There will be a 23 foot grade differential with the
street, a front yard setback and atwo-story house. He stated that, along Brannigan, the project
is at the same grade as the existing houses in Sonata which is across the street and will only be
about 5 feet above Brannigan at the southern edge of the project.
There was a continued discussion regarding the height of the project and the grade differential.
Mr. Baker referred the Commission to the Findings to assist with making a decision.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the Planning Commission has been very thorough and each one has a
different view point and all concentrate on something because it is about findings for the land
use. She agrees with Cm. Schaub regarding changing the zoning but in this instance she felt
the housing is consistent with the surrounding areas. She was not sure what to do about the
DiManto property stating that the Commission could hold out and never make a decision. She
felt that the City Council would like to see something done with the property. Therefore, as a
Planning Commissioner, she will probably approve all the items. She felt the architecture is fine,
and would support changing the zoning as well.
Chair Wehrenberg suggested going through each item and voting on each one individually.
Mr. Baker responded the Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council
on the CEQA Addendum, GPA/EDSPA, Stage 1 & 2 PD Amendment and the Development
Agreement. The Planning Commission is the approving body for the SDR/VTMap. A
recommendation of approval to the City Council requires 3 affirmative votes, since without that
the default is denial. The vote for the SDR/VTMap would need a majority vote of 3 to approve.
Chair Wehrenberg suggested taking a straw vote on each item.
Straw vote:
CEQA Addendum -Unanimous -Aye -Recommendation to adopt
GPA/EDSPA - Cm. Schaub - no, Cm. Bhuthimethee - no, Cm. O'Keefe - no, Chair
Wehrenberg -Aye =Recommendation to not adopt
Stage 1 & 2 - Cm. Schaub - no, Cm. Bhuthimethee -yes, Cm. O'Keefe -yes, Chair
Wehrenberg -yes =Recommendation to adopt
SDR/VTmap - Cm. Schaub - no, Cm. Bhuthimethee -yes, Cm. O'Keefe -yes, Chair
Wehrenberg -yes =Approved
20
DRAFT DRAFT
DA -Unanimous -Aye =Recommendation to Adopt
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Brown
being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to send the City Council the
Planning Commission's recommendations on items A, B, C, and E and approve item D as listed
in the straw vote above.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Brown
being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE
PROJECT PROPOSED FORA 3-ACRE SITE ON BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF
GLEASON DRIVE WITHIN DUBLIN RANCH
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 1-3, with Cm. Brown
being absent, the Planning Commission denied:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 10
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 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR A
3-ACRE SITE ON BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 3-1, with Cm. Brown
being absent, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
AND NEW STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORA 3-ACRE SITE
ON BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE
21
DRAFT DRAFT
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 3-1, with Cm. Brown
being absent, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12- 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 8093 FOR 19 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS FOR
A 3-ACRE SITE LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF
BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Brown
being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
A 3-ACRE SITE ON BRANNIGAN STREET NORTH OF GLEASON DRIVE
8.2 PLPA 2010-00055 Silvera Ranch Phase 4 General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Zoning Amendments with related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan Amendments, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map 10053, and related CEQA findings fora 0.95-acre site north of Fallon Road in the
neighborhood known as Bella Monte.
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked how much of the lots are flat and felt if the other lots were extended up the
hill they would also be 12,000 square foot lots.
Mr. Porto stated, when the original development was built, they had to create the fire road
behind it but they are no longer necessary for this project.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the parcel behind the project is planned for future development.
Mr. Porto answered that the parcel is zoned rural residential/agriculture and there is no proposal
to develop the property.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if there were any trails in the community.
22
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Porto answered the fire roads act as trails and there is another connection point to a fire
road that leads to Fallon Road. He also pointed out another connection road to Fallon and a
connection to Chateau at Fallon Crossing development.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Ray Panek, Applicant, KB Home, 6700 Koll Center Pkwy, Pleasanton, spoke in favor of the
project. He stated the change in the building code freed up the parcels. He stated the reason
the lots are shaped this way is because of the topography, grading and also sales people were
asking for homes with larger backyards.
Chair Wehrenberg asked for the status of the other homes in the development.
Mr. Panek stated they are approximately half way through construction but must abide by the
eagle nesting time frame.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. O'Keefe stated he supports the project, and could make the findings.
Cm. Schaub stated he could make all the findings.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she could make all the findings.
Chair Wehrenberg stated she could make all the findings.
On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm.
Brown absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 14
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 TO CHANGE
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURE TO
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FORA 0.95-ACRE SITE WITHIN
SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE) AND FINDING THE PROJECT WITHIN the
SCOPE OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
RESOLUTION NO. 12-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
23
DRAFT DRAFT
APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING AMENDMENTS AND RELATED
STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FORA 0.95-ACRE SITE
WITHIN SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE)
RESOLUTION NO. 12- 16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 10053 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF
4SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS ON
A 0.95-ACRE SITE WITHIN SILVERA RANCH PHASE 4 (BELLA MONTE)
8.3 PLPA-2010-00030 Combat Sports Academy Conditional Use Permit Amendment to
expand an existing Indoor Recreational Facility (Martial Arts Studio), a Parking Reduction for an
Individual Use and a Parking Reduction for Shared Parking.
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked how the children would get to the facility.
Ms. Delgado answered, if the parents stay at the facility, they would be counted but if they drop
off, they would not be counted.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the other businesses in the center were noticed and if there had
been any complaints about the current operation.
Ms. Delgado answered the public notice was sent to all the businesses/properties within 300
feet of the project and all the tenants in Parkway Center. There have been some complaints
regarding activities outdoors but none regarding parking. She continued that generally the
complaints about Parkway Center have been regarding abandoned vehicles being left for
extended periods but nothing specific to Combat Sports.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if there have been any day classes since June when the Zoning
Administrator hearing was postponed.
Ms. Delgado answered what initiated the amendment was the need to hold classes during the
day, and the activity occurring during the day was one-on-one personal training.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if, according to the Conditions of Approval, one-on-one training was
permitted.
Ms. Delgado responded that it was not allowed.
Mr. Baker added this has been a code enforcement issue. He continued that soon after they
received their original approvals, it was found that they were operating during the day. As a
24
DRAFT DRAFT
result of code enforcement, Staff met with the Applicant to modify their CUP to allow limited
operation during the day and then be in compliance.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the City has been allowing the daytime activity up until this point because
they have been in communication with the City.
Mr. Baker answered that limited activities have been occurring.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if there have been any issues with them operating during the day time.
Mr. Baker stated that the City has received complaints about activities occurring in the parking
lot and conflicts with vehicles; however, this CUP will enable the Applicant to satisfy the parking
requirement and require all activities to occur indoors.
Chair Wehrenberg asked for a current operating schedule.
Ms. Delgado responded the reason there is no current class schedule is because, in 2009, all
indoor recreational facilities were subject to a CUP and the parking standards for a martial arts
studio have been changed since then. They were originally parked at a much higher ratio based
on their class schedule. The CUP will allow them to operate more fluidly and meet the parking
requirement.
Chair Wehrenberg stated she uses the schedule as a way of verifying the parking is being
planned correctly.
Mr. Baker referred the Commissioners to Attachment 6 which is a memo from the City's
Transportation Engineer which evaluates the parking determination based on surveys and hours
of operation, etc.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Kerry Fitzgibbons, Co-owner of Combat Sports Academy, spoke in favor of the project. He
stated they have operated at the current facility for over 2 years and the business has grown.
He stated they enjoy being in Dublin and love their facility but they need to expand in order to
grow their business. He stated there have been no complaints about parking and felt there is
more than enough parking at the center. He stated that the hours of operation are classes at
gam, 12 noon and a kid's class at 4:30. He stated that the rest of the time the facility is not
being used. He stated that personal training has happened during the day, they have
communicated with Staff and they are aware and the reason for the application for expansion.
Cm. Schaub was concerned about the safety of the children going to the facility.
Mr. Fitzgibbons answered the proposed location for the kids classes is the current building with
street access. They do not anticipate the children crossing the parking lot. The other building
will house the Cross Fit program which is an adult's only program.
Cm. O'Keefe congratulated the Applicant on growing his business. He stated he is familiar with
the Cross Fit program. He was concerned about the safety of the members on long runs where
they run along the major streets.
25
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Fitzgibbons responded they are not expanding the Cross Fit schedule. He stated in the 2
years he's been in business there have been no issues, no incidents, no injuries, or emergency
vehicles sent to the location. He continued the members run from the building on the same
streets and trails that anyone would be using.
Mr. Baker referred the Applicant to Condition of Approval #15 which states that "all activity
should be conducted entirely within the building" and goes on to say "no outdoor running
activities shall begin or end at Combat Sports Academy."
Mr. Fitzgibbons responded the solution to that condition is that his members walk through the
parking lot to the street and then run. He stated they have agreed to all the conditions.
Cm. Schaub suggested either eliminating the condition or modifying it to allow the members to
start their run from the door of the facility.
Mr. Baker informed the Commission that one of the issues that was the reason for the condition
were complaints from surrounding businesses in regards to activities in the parking lot; including
conflicts between vehicles and people running in the parking lot and people throwing up in the
parking lot after a run.
Mr. Fitzgibbons wanted to clarify that on one occasion, one member working out in the parking
lot decided to go in front of the muffler shop and throw up. He stated that it only happened once
in 2 years and has not happened since. He continued that they will not use the parking lot as a
track, but they would like to have people start their run from the facility and then run back. He
felt that was a safe use of the property.
Cm. O'Keefe was more concerned about his members crossing major streets but had no other
problems.
Mr. Fitzgibbons agreed.
Cm. Schaub suggested eliminating the sentence that reads "Furthermore, no outdoor running
activities shall begin or end at Combat Sports Academy' of Condition of Approval #15.
Mr. Baker stated the throwing up issue would be covered under Condition of Approval #14
regarding Noise/Nuisance. He suggested changing Condition #15 to modify the sentence to say
"Furthermore, no outdoor running activities shall begin or end in the parking lot" because the
issue was conflicts with vehicles that do not anticipate people running in the parking lot. He
asked Mr. Fitzgibbons if the runs could start at the sidewalk instead of the parking lot.
Mr. Fitzgibbons answered they have started their runs at the sidewalk as awork-around of
Condition #15 and would like to have the runs begin at the door of the facility. He stated the
only issue that has come up was when his members were running laps in the parking lot. He
stated there has never been a safety issue there. He agreed with the change but stated he
would also agree to continue having his members start running at the sidewalk. He stated he
would abide by whatever the City wants but he would prefer to have his members start their
runs at the door.
Cm. Schaub was concerned about running starting at the building and running through the
parking lot.
26
DRAFT
Mr. Fitzgibbons agreed to the conditions as stated.
DRAFT
Mr. Baker stated that once the public hearing has concluded the Planning Commission can
discuss the issue further.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. O'Keefe stated he had no problem with Condition #15 but would also support eliminating
the sentence that would allow the runners to begin and end their run at the facility. He was in
support of the parking reduction and shared parking CUP.
Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with eliminating a portion of Condition #15. She asked if all the
businesses on the list were still in operation.
Ms. Delgado answered that they updated the business list and noted any changes in hours of
operation as part of the parking study.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she is in support of the parking reduction and shared parking CUP.
Cm. Schaub stated he is in support of the parking reduction and shared parking CUP.
Chair Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the parking reduction and shared parking CUP
and the modification of Condition of Approval #15 to eliminate one sentence
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm.
Brown being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted, with a modification to
Condition of Approval #15 to delete the sentence that reads "Furthermore, no outdoor running
activities shall begin or end at Combat Sports Academy":
RESOLUTION NO. 12-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING
INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY, A PARKING REDUCTION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL USE
AND A PARKING REDUCTION FOR SHARED PARKING AT
7100 AND 7106 VILLAGE PARKWAY
8.4 PLPA-2011-00026 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.84 (Sign Regulations).
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub stated he is in support of the amendment but was concerned with the lack of
enforcement regarding the number of temporary signs that some businesses post.
Mr. Baker responded that Staff is actively enforcing the current Ordinance. He continued the
current code does not restrict the number of signs. However, the proposed amendment will
27
DRAFT DRAFT
restrict the number of signs and the placement of the signs, plus require a longer waiting period
to display signs and address Cm. Schaub's concern.
Cm. Schaub asked if there would be some guidance on the quality of signs.
Ms. Delgado answered yes.
Mr. Baker stated that the City Council asked for a report on how to regulate the quality of signs.
If the City Council directs Staff to amend the code to address quality, that amendment will come
to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and, with no speakers, closed public hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Brown
absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 8.84 (SIGN
REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT
TEMPORARY PROMOTIONAL SIGNS ARE ALLOWED TO BE DISPLAYED
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).
10.2 Cm. Schaub requested the City Council and Staff address the problem of parking at the
Safeway gas station downtown. He is concerned about the safety of the drivers/cars.
Mr. Baker stated he made Public Works aware of the Commission's concerns from a
previous meeting. He stated he has had follow-up conversations with Public Works. He
stated the City is limited on their ability to regulate this issue because it is on private
property. There have been discussions with Safeway to address the issue. He
mentioned the auxiliary lane on Dublin Blvd which helps alleviate some of the back-up
into the travel lanes on Dublin Blvd.
10.3 Cm. O'Keefe asked if there was any feedback from Staff regarding reaching out to
CalTrans regarding the I-680 off-ramp downtown. Mr. Baker stated he relayed their
concerns to Public Works. He stated CalTrans controls the area and their options are
limited. He stated the City will update the Bikeways Master Plan which will be expanded
to include a pedestrian component and will include the intersection as part of that master
plan. Cm. O'Keefe asked if any of the Staff has a relationship with someone at CalTrans
28
DRAFT DRAFT
that they can have a dialogue with to address this issue. He felt there has not been
enough done to make that a safer off-ramp. He was very concerned that CalTrans
respond to this issue. He did not want a fatality before action is taken. Mr. Baker stated
that the City Council directs the use of Staff resources and Cm. O'Keefe's comments will
be noted in the minutes which the City Council reads.
10.4 Cm. O'Keefe asked to submit a speaker slip to Mr. Baker regarding the I-680 off-ramp
issue for the next City Council budget study session follow-up. He was unable to attend
all of the last Study Session in order to raise this issue and is not able to attend the next
Study Session. Mr. Baker stated that this is not the typical practice but agreed to give the
slip to the City Clerk and advise him of any issue with this approach.
10.5 Cm. O'Keefe asked if there have been any development talks regarding downtown. Mr.
Baker answered there has been some preliminary discussion but no applications. Chair
Wehrenberg asked about the other half of Sports Authority building. Mr. Baker answered
there has been no applications. He stated that Las Positas is moving into the third floor
of the building on Golden Gate. The former Crown Chevrolet site has had lots of activity
but no applications yet. Cm. O'Keefe asked about a grant for streetscape improvements
on Golden Gate. Mr. Baker answer there is no construction schedule as yet. Cm.
O'Keefe asked if the Commission would be able to review the designs. Mr. Baker
answered the project would not come to the Commission since it is a Capital
Improvement Project.
10.6 Cm. O'Keefe asked if there were drawings available for the Golden Gate project. Mr.
Baker suggested that, as a private resident, he contact Frank Navarro in Public Works
who can share the plans with him.
10.7 There was a discussion regarding the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the community
benefit program.
10.8 Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned she learned at the Planners Institute there is grant money
available specifically for TOD areas. Mr. Baker stated there are various grants available
and Staff monitors them. He further stated that the DDSP EIR and Dublin Blvd
streetscape improvements were paid for with grant money.
10.9 Cm. Bhuthimethee reiterated her desire to have design guidelines for downtown with a
specific theme. Mr. Baker stated the DDSP was developed with design guidelines that
provide for a look and feel and quality of design but there was a conscious decision to not
have a specific theme. She mentioned the feedback from developers is the more specific
the development plans are; the better the developers like it. Mr. Baker stated that the
City Council recently adopted the DDSP. He further stated that the City Council allocates
staff resources for projects such as this and have not directed Staff to change the design
guidelines. Mr. Baker offered to set a meeting with her to discuss ideas she previously
shared with he and Jeri Ram regarding design guidelines in the DDSP.
10.10 Mr. Baker stated at the last meeting there was a question regarding the green waste bins
in multi-family projects; he confirmed that the green waste bins are available for multi-
family projects. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the City can mandate that gas stations must have
recycle bins next to trash containers at the pumps. Mr. Baker agreed to check with the
Environmental Services and advise them of the answer.
29
DRAFT DRAFT
ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:41:03 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Doreen Wehrenberg
Chair Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Planning Manager
GIM/NUTES120121PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON103.27.12 DRAFT PC MINUTES (CF).docx
"R', 2~~.12
30