HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 Nielsen Ranch Tent Map AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 13 , 1984
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission
decision on Planning Application
PA 83-073 Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map
Tract 4859 Extension and Zoning Review
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Staff Report with Resolution and
other attachments
RECOMMENDATION: 1 ) Hear Staff presentation
2 ) Open public hearing
3 ) Hear applicant and public
presentations
4 ) Close public hearing
5 ) Adopt Resolution approving or
denying application, or continue
hearing
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: I . BACKGROUND
On July 20 , 1981, Alameda County approved the Nielsen Ranch
Tentative Map Tract 4859 , and, on September 3 , 1981, approved a
related Planned Development, 1478th Zoning Unit .
On January 16 , 1984 , the Planning Commission ( 5-0 ) approved the
time extension for the Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map.
Councilmember Drena appealed that approval, requesting that the
City Council have the opportunity to review the application and
make its own decision .
Subsequent to the appeal, Cm. Drena requested that the applicant
and Staff meet and discuss the conditions of approval . The Staff
and applicant have met to discuss and clarify three conditions
that the Planning Commission acted upon.
II . ISSUES
1 . Traffic Improvements - The Nielsen Ranch project contains 388
dwelling units to be located on 138, mostly hilly acres, off of
Silvergate Drive . Traffic from these homes was assessed in an
Environmental Impact Report and Staff Report. To mitigate
traffic impacts, Alameda County required the developer to prepare
a program which would include contributions to a traffic signal
and intersection improvements at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon
Road.
The City Staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the
developer pay for 50% of the traffic signal and intersection
improvements . The Planning Commission stated that it was
uncomfortable that specific intersection improvements had not
been defined. The Planning Commission revised the condition so
that the developer would pay for 50% of the traffic signal and
none of the intersection improvements . Subsequent to the
Planning Commission meeting, the Staff and applicant have met and
detailed the intersection improvements .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. y . COPIES TO: Applicant
Property Owner
Ala.Co.
Planning
Bart Schenone
The traffic improvements specified in the recommendations below
are consistent with the contributions required by the City for
similar projects such as the Amador Lakes, and H & H Development
(Evergreen Homes ) projects .
2 . Traffic Safety and Visual Impact - Lot #191 is proposed on
the inside curve of a steep hillside road. Because of the
steepness of the road ( 12o grade) and the restricted visibility
on the inside of the curve, access to and from the lot may create
a traffic safety problem. In addition, Lot #191 would intrude
upon the open space area and block visual access to it . Staff
recommended to the Planning Commission that the lot be eliminated
or relocated because of the safety and visual impact reasons .
At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested the
Planning Commission to retain Lot #191, and also Lot #168, which
the county had previously eliminated because of geologic and
visual impacts . The Planning Commission had no problem with the
lots and agreed with the applicant ' s request .
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the Staff and
applicant have met and clarified the concerns with Lot #191 and
Lot #168 .
III . RECOMMENDATION
As a result of the meeting held between the applicant and Staff,
the following revised conditions appear to be acceptable:
a. Condition #30 :
"Grading shall be reduced as much as possible through use of
split lots, custom lots , minor redesign, etc . Lots 80, 81, 82 ,
and 83 shall be custom lots , not graded to flat pads, to reduce
canyon fill and preserve views . Lot #168 shall be eliminated. "
b . Condition #36 :
"Traffic impacts at San Ramon Road shall be mitigated by the
developer providing, or paying for (at the City' s option) ,
intersection improvements at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road
as follows :
1 ) one-half total cost of fully signalizing the
intersection .
2 ) Median island modifications, to include new fifty feet
of 4-foot-wide island on south leg, thirty feet of four-foot-wide
island on the north leg of the island, and shorten the Silvergate
leg island approximately 20 feet.
3 ) Remove and replace an island at the northwest corner of
the intersection.
4 ) Extend the drainage culvert approximately 30 feet, to
allow street widening along the west side of San Ramon Road
approaching from the north.
5 ) Widen the San Ramon roadway, along the west side, and
north of Silvergate Drive to the ultimate width, to include two
through lanes and one right turn lane. This widening to extend
approximately 400 feet, be about 30 feet wide at the maximum
width, and taper to "0" at each end.
6 ) Construct related signing and striping at the
intersection.
7 ) Engineering, plan checking, and inspection costs .
The contribution shall be made on a prorated unit basis at Final
Map approval such that all the contribution be made when one-half
the total units have been subdivided by Final Map. Should the
City proceed with ..the intersection/signal work prior to the
Developer submitting all the required mitigation fees, the City
will set up a reimbursement fund to pay back the City's General
Fund. "
C . Condition #39 :
"Lot #191 shall be eliminated at its present location. An
alternate location may be approved by the City Engineer and
Planning Director . "
The above revisions have been added to the draft resolution
approving the application . The applicant has tentatively
indicated that they will comply with the revised conditions . If
these revised conditions are acceptable to the City Council, the
City Council should adopt the resolution approving the
application .
CITY OF DUBLIN
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date : February 13, 1984
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission action on PA 83-073
Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map Tract 4859 Extension
and Zoning Review
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT: Wilsey & Ham requests a 3-year extension of Tentative
Map Tract 4859 , which covers 138 acres zoned for 261
single family residential lots, and two lots with a
total of 129 multifamily townhouse units .
APPLICANT: Wilsey & Ham
6377 Clark Ave . Ste . 100
Dublin CA 94568
REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Campbell
PROPERTY OWNER: Robert and Harold Nielsen
11637 Alegre Dr.
Dublin CA 94568
LOCATION: North and west of the future extension of Silvergate
Drive
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-100-7-28 thru 32 ; and 941-105-41
PARCEL SIZE: 138 acres net developable / 341 acres gross
EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: PD (Planned Development) for single
family and townhouse development. The site is now used
for cattle grazing .
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Vacant - R-1-B-E - Single family
South - Vacant - County - Agriculture
East - Single family residential - R-1-B-E -
Single family
West - Vacant - Open space - Agriculture
ZONING HISTORY: On January 16, 1984 , the Planning Commission
approved the time extension for the Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map.
The original Alameda County Tentative Map conditions were
modified to reflect the City of Dublin ' s existence and to address
some additional traffic, safety, and visual impacts. The
Planning Commission approved the extension subject to most of the
recommended modified conditions of approval . This approval was
subsequently appealed by Councilmember Drena, so that the City
Council could have the opportunity to review the application.
On September 1 , 1981, the Nielsen Ranch property was rezoned -by
Zoning Unit 1478 to PD (Planned Development) District, to allow
138 acres of the 341-acre ranch to be developed with 261 single
family lots, and two lots to contain a total of 129 townhouse
units .
A review of the zoning was required to take place every 2-1/2
years as set forth by Condition #17 of the 1478th Zoning Unit .
An Environmental Impact Report ( "General Plan Amendment - Nielsen
Ranch" ) was prepared and used for this project, and it was
utilized during the 1981 rezoning process . A copy of the EIR is
on file with the Dublin Planning Department .
On July 20, 1981, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
approved Tentative Tract Map 4859 . This Map expired on January
20, 1984 .
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS :
TITLE 8, Ch . 1, ALAMEDA COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AS ADOPTED
BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN: 8-1 . 2 INTENT: It is the intent of this
Chapter to promote the public health, safety and general welfare ;
to assure in the division of land consistent with the policies of
the Dublin General Plan and with the intent and provisions of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance; to coordinate lot design, street
patterns, rights-of-way, utilities and public facilities with
community and neighborhood plans ; to assure that areas dedicated
for public purposes will be properly improved, initially, so as
not to be future burden upon the community; to preserve natural
resources and prevent environmental damage ; to maintain suitable
standards to insure adequate, safe building sites ; and, to
prevent hazard to life and property.
8-2 . 9 . Effective Period. The approval of a tentative map shall
be effective for two and one half years, or for such shorter
period as may be specified by the advisory agency in approving
the tentative map.
ZONING UNIT 1478 - General Provision #17 : Prior to June 1, 1983 ,
and approximately every 2-1/2 years thereafter until completion
of all construction, the Planning Director will review these
General Provisions and report to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission may, for cause, initiate a public hearing for
the purpose of recommending to the Board of Supervisors that the
Board add Provisions, modify existing Provisions, or eliminate
Provisions at that time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Environmental Impact Report General Plan
Amendment - Nielsen Ranch - Draft, prepared April 4 , 1980, and
acted upon by Alameda County Planning Commission July 20, 1981 .
This EIR will be used for this application. A copy is on file
with the City of Dublin Planning Department.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the hearing was published in the
Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and
posted in public buildings
ANALYSIS :
The initial Staff analysis of the Tentative Map Extension is
included as Background Attachment 1 of this report . It
contains a general discussion of the required action on and
recommendations regarding changes to the Nielsen Ranch
Tentative Map 4859 .
-2-
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approved -the
time extension for 2-1/2 years . Staff also recommended that
the conditions of approval on the Tentative Map, as approved
by Alameda County, be modified to have that portion of the
development that is within the City now be developed
consistent with City standards and subject to City approval .
In addition, several conditions were added to assure that
the development mitigated its traffic, traffic safety, and
visual impacts .
The applicant agreed to all but three of the conditions .
The Planning Commission held the public hearing and approved
the project with the following revisions to the Staff-
recommended conditions :
1 . The Planning Commission recreated Lot #168 . The Lot
was eliminated by Condition #30 of the Original Tentative
Map, which was approved on July 20, 1981, by the Alameda
County Planning Commission ( see Tentative Map Conditions of
Approval ) . The Lot was eliminated because it intruded
unnecessarily on the open space area. The applicant agreed
to the condition at that time . The condition was also part
of the mitigation measures to reduce the significant visual
impacts of the project (see #10, Environmental Impact
Findings ) .
In the current project, Staff recommended retaining the
original condition #30, without change.
The Planning Commission thought that the Lot would be nice
and that its elimination was arbitrary. Therefore, they
approved the adding of Lot #168 back into the development.
2 . The Planning Commission eliminated the recommended
condition for 50% of the intersection improvements at San
Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive . General Provision 4 (e) of
the 1478th Zoning Unit requires a program to mitigate
traffic impacts on San Ramon Road near Silvergate Drive .
The program is to include contribution to a traffic signal
and payment for improvements of the intersection geometrics .
The Staff recommended that the traffic impacts be mitigated
by the developer contributing 50% of the cost of the traffic
signal and intersection improvements . This is consistent
with improvement requirements attached to similar city
projects (see Background Attachment 4 for a comparison of
the type of conditions required of other projects) . The
Planning Commission eliminated the requirement for the
developer to contribute to intersection improvements . The
Planning Commission stated that it was uncomfortable with
the fact that a specific dollar amount was not called out in
the condition.
3 . The Planning Commission retained Lot #191 . The Staff
recommended relocating or eliminating the Lot because it
creates a potential traffic hazard and a visual obstruction
to the open space . The Planning Commission felt that there
was no problem with the Lot. The Planning Commission
approved the project without a condition relocating or
eliminating the Lot .
Subsequent to the Planning Commission action and the City
Council appeal, Councilmember Drena requested that the
applicant and Staff meet and discuss the conditions of
approval . The applicant has met with Staff and has
tentatively agreed to eliminate Lot #191, to not add Lot
#168 back into the development, and to make or pay for the
intersection improvements at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon
Road, as contained in Condition#36--Revised in Exhibit D--
Resolution of Approval .
-3-
RECOMMENDATION
FORMAT: 1 ) Hear Staff presentation
2 ) Open public hearing
3 ) Hear applicant and public presentations
4 ) Close public hearing
5 ) Adopt Resolution approving or denying request, or
continue hearing
ACTION: As a result of the meeting between the applicant and
Staff, the approval of the project subject to the revised
conditions , as indicated in the draft resolution (Exhibit D) ,
appears to be acceptable . This Resolution is consistent with the
Applicant ' s tentative agreement regarding traffic improvements
and lot reductions .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Project Location Map
2 . Lot #168 and #191 Location Map
3 . Exhibit A - Tentative Map for Tract 4859, dated 4/2/81
4 . Exhibit B - Tentative Grading Plan for Tract 4859, dated
4/2/81
5 . Exhibit C - City/County Boundary Map for Tract 4859
6 . Exhibit D - Draft Resolution Extending Tentative Map
Tract 4859
Background Attachments :
Attachment 1 - Staff Analysis for Planning Commission
1/16/84
2 - Planning Commission Resolution 84-04
Approving Tentative Map
3 - Draft minutes of Planning Commission meeting
of 1/16/84
4 - Comparison of Development Conditions
5 - July 20 , 1981, Tract 4859 Report, Resolution
and Conditions, and Environmental Impact
Findings
6 - July 6 , 1981, 1478th Zoning Unit Report,
Resolution and Conditions
7 - Letter from Councilmember Drena, dtd 1/24/84
-4-
f � Am4l
Y1I1��1"r I ,
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date : January 16, 1984
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff dt
SUBJECT: PA 83-073 Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map 4859
Extension and Zoning Review
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT: Wilsey & Ham requests a 3-year extension of Tentative
Map 4859 , which covers 138 acres zoned for 261 single
family residential lots , and two lots with a total of
129 multifamily townhouse units .
APPLICANT : Wilsey & Ham '
6377 Clark Ave . Ste . 100
Dublin CA 94568
REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Campbell
PROPERTY OWNER: Robert and Harold Nielsen
11637 Alegre Dr .
Dublin CA 94568
LOCATION: North and west of the future extension of Silvergate
Drive
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-100-7-28 thru 32 , and 941-105-41
PARCEL SIZE: 138 acres net developable / 341 acres gross
EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: PD (Planned Development) for single
family and townhouse development . The site is now used
for cattle grazing .
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING :
North - Vacant - R-1-B-E - Single family
South - Vacant - County - Agriculture
East - Single family residential - R-1-B-E -
Single family .
West - Vacant - Open space - Agriculture
ZONING HISTORY : The most recent zoning action on the' Nielsen
Ranch property occurred in July, 1981 , when the property wPs
rezoned by Zoning Unit 1478 to PD (Planned Development) District,
to allow 138 acres of the 341-acre ranch to be developed with 261
single family lots , and two lots to contain a total of 129
townhouse units .
A review of the zoning was required to take place every 2-1/2
years as set forth by Condition #17 of the 1478th Zoning Unit .
An Environmental Impact Report ( "General Plan Amendment - Nielsen
Ranch" ) was prepared and used for this project, and it was
utilized during the 1981 rezoning process . A copy of the EIR is
on file with the Dublin Planning Department.
ITEM NO.
p
r�
is
7
On September 3 , 1981 , the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
approved Tentative Tract Map 4859 . This Map expires on January _
20 , 1984 .
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS :
TITLE 8, Ch . 1 , ALAMEDA COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AS ADOPTED
BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN : 8-1 . 2 INTENT : It is the intent of this
Chapter to promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
to assure in the division of land consistent with the policies of
the Dublin General Plan and with the intent and provisions of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance ; to coordinate lot design, street
patterns, rights-of-way, utilities and public facilities with
community and neighborhood plans ; to assure that areas dedicated
for public purposes will be properly improved, initially, so as
not to be future burden upon the community; to preserve natural
resources and prevent environmental damage ; to maintain suitable
standards ,to insure adequate, safe building sites ; and, to
prevent hazard to life and property.
8-2 . 9 . Effective Period. The approval of a tentative map shall
be effective for two and one half years , or for such shorter
period as may be specified by the advisory agency in approving
the tentative map . Upon application of the subdivider during the
effective period, an extension of the effective period up to
three years may be granted, or conditionally granted, by the
Planning Commission, which is designated the advisory agency for
this purpose, upon the determination that circumstances under
which the map was approved have not changed to the extent which
would warrant a change in the design or improvement of the
tentative map .
ZONING UNIT 1478 - Condition #17 : Prior to June 1, 1983 , and
approximately every 2-1/2 years thereafter until completion of
all construction, the Planning Director will review these General
Provisions and report to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission may, for cause , initiate a public hearing for the
purpose of recommending to the Board of Supervisors that the
Board add Provisions , modify existing Provisions , or eliminate
Provisions at that time .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Environmental Impact Report General Plan
Amendment - Nielsen Ranch - Draft, prepared April 4 , 1980 , and
acted upon by Alameda County Planning Commission July 20, 1981 .
This EIR will be used for this application. A copy is on file
with the City of Dublin Planning Department.
NOTIFICATION : Public Notice of the hearing was published in the
Tri-Valley Herald,* mailed to adjacent property owners, and
posted in public buildings
ANALYSIS :
This application is a request to extend the time limit on
Tentative Map 4859 so that the applicant and property owners
can continue to acquire needed utilities and sewer permits,
and to have more time to market the property before having
to finalize the engineering improvement and grading plans ,
and meet all of the zoning and Tentative Map conditions of
approval .
The Subdivision Map Act allows an extension of time of up to
three years upon the making of specific determinations . The
original approval expires on January 20, 1984 . The
corollary planning action to the Tentative Map was an
approval of a Planned Development rezoning . One of the
conditions of that approval requires that the Planning
Commission consider the appropriateness of the rezoning
-2-
y
r
after 2-1/2 years . This time has elapsed and thus , a
consideration of the zoning is being brought up at this time
too.
One important aspect of this project is that it lies only
partially in the City of Dublin ( see Exhibit C) . The
remainder of the land lies in Alameda County. Because of
this , both jurisdictions must review and approve the
Tentative Map extension and ultimately must come to an
agreement as to who is going to be responsible for plan and
construction review.
Tentative Map 4859 shows 1 single family lots , two
multifamily lots ( for 129 units ) and approximately 22 acres
of open space, covering a total of 138 acres . An additional
203 acres are retained as dedicated open space . Because of
the slope of the land, the lots are mostly hillside lots
that will require most homes to be built on split levels .
The steepest roads have a 12% slope, which is comparable to
the private road. leading to the Valley Christian Center at
the west end of Dublin Blvd. Several cuts and fills are 20
feet, to 25 feet, in depth, resulting in much of the site
being heavily graded.
In reviewing the lot layout, Staff has taken the position
that the layout should be left as initially approved, unless
a safety problem and/or significant visual impact problem is
found. Three lots can be so classified:
Lot 191 is on a steep hillside road. It has .the only
access off the side of the block on which it is
located. Because of the road' s alignment and
steepness, which cause restricted visibility, access to
and from the lot will create a safety problem.
Additionally, this lot blocks an important view of the
open space . Much of the open space can not be seen
through the project because of the close alignment of
the lots . It is important to preserve one ' s awareness
of the open space and hillside for people, as they
travel through the project. Some views and vistas into
the open space establish such an awareness and provide
a stronger identity to the project. Lot 191 blocks
such a view. Therefore, for both safety and visual
reasons, it is appropriate to remove, and if practical,
relocate this one lot .
There are two lots ( 424 and #25) which have exclusive
access off the north side of Silvergate Drive. The
City Engineer believes that Silvergate would better act
as a collector street if access to it from private lots
was restricted. Therefore, Staff is recommending that
the applicant determine if alternate access can be
provided, or if new locations for these lots can be
found, so that no driveways will occur along the north
side of Silvergate Drive .
Since approval of the original Tentative Map, the Murray
School District has put the Dolon School site up for sale .
Residential development of the site is now expected.
Because of the existing and proposed streets , it is
anticipated that access will have to be provided to the
eastern side of the Nielsen property along Creekside Drive .
Recognition of the history of the approvals for this
project, as well as some changes that have occurred
subsequently, must be kept in mind. The current review can
address changes in "circumstance" ( such as -the likelihood of
the Dolon site being developed) , however, a reconsideration
of the proposed use, or the intensity of the development, is
r
not part of the Tentative Map extension review process .
F where safety and significant design factors warrant changes
to the proposed plans, they can be made . -
The 1478th Zoning Unit does allow for revision to the site
plans, use, etc . ; however, clear and compelling reasons
should be used to cause such change recommendations to take
place . Such reasons do not appear to exist 'in this case .
t It is not known when development of the property will occur .
A significant amount of work must still be done in order to
f' acquire the necessary sewer permits and fund, design, and
!- install public improvements and utility connections . Thus,
it is reasonable to support an extension of the time limit
on the Tentative Map . Because zoning approval is to occur
on 2-1/2-year intervals , that time frame is most reasonable,
thereby, allowing a simultaneous review of the project in
the future .
.:" RECOMMENDATION
FORMAT: 1 ) Hear Staff presentation
2 ) Open public hearing
3 ) Hear applicant and public presentations
4 ) Close public hearing
5 ) Adopt Resolution approving or der._ving request, or
continue hearing
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution which modifies the original conditions on
Tentative Map 4859 so as to replace the Alameda Countv review
with City of Dublin review ( for property now within the City) , to
address the future development of the Dolon School site and to
respond to traffic safety and design concerns . The resolution
also indicates that no revisions to the excising zoning is
warranted at this time .
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Exhibit A - Tentative Map for Tract:: 4859 , dated 4/2/81
Exhibit B - Tentative Grading Plan for Tract 4859, dated
4/2/81
Exhibit C - City/County Boundary Map for Tract 4859
Exhibit D - Draft Resolution Extending Tentative Map Tract
4859
Attachment 1 - July 20 , 1983 , Tract 4859 Report, Resolution
and Conditions , and Environmental Impact
Findings
Attachment 2 - July 6 , 1981, 1478th Zoning Unit Report,
Resolution and Conditions
Attachment 3 - Letter from applicant; dated 10/26/83 .
COPIES TO
Applicant
Property Owner
Alameda County Planning Department
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 84-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING PA 83-073 A TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4859 NIELSEN RANCH
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require
that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels for
the purpose of sale, lease or financing unless a Tentative Parcel
Map is acted upon and a Final Parcel Map is approved consistent
with the Subdivision Map Act, and City of Dublin subdivision
regulations ; and,
WHEREAS, Alameda County initially approved Tentative
Tract Map 4859 on July 20, 1981, and said Map is to expire on
January 20 , 1984 ; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the
proposed extension of Tentative Parcel Map #4859 , and the related
Rezoning ( 1478th Zoning Unit) , at a public hearing on January 16,
1984 ; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental
regulations, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
found in compliance with State and City CEQA guidelines for use
with the Alameda County approved Tentative Parcel Map, and its
related Rezoning (1478th Zoning Unit) , and the Planning
Commission has considered that information in its review; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that:
1 . Tentative Subdivision Map 4859 , as approved and contained in
Exhibits A, B, C, and D, and as herein conditioned is consistent
with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and City
zoning and related ordinances .
2 . The City of Dublin is in the process of preparing and
adopting a General Plan .
3 . There is a reasonable probability that the proposed
Tentative Subdivision Map will be consistent with the future
general plan .
4 . There is little or no probability that the Tentative Map will
be a detriment to, or interfere with, the future General Plan,
should the related Planned Development rezoning ultimately be
inconsistent with the future General Plan.
5 . The significant environmental impacts listed in the
"Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment - Nielsen
Ranch" have been satisfactorily mitigated, as approved by Alameda
County during its approval of Tentative Tract Map 4859 and the
1478th Zoning Unit, and as presented in the Environmental Impact
Findings (1478th Zoning Unit, Tract 4859 ) .
r."
6 . The Tentative Subdivision Map will not have a significant
environmental impact.
7 . The Tentative Subdivision Map will not have substantial
adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or
public improvements .
8 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed development,
in that the site is indicated to be geologically satisfactory for
the type of development proposed in locations as shown, provided
geological consultants ' recommendations are followed; and the
site is in a good location regarding public services and
facilities .
9 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development in that the design and improvements are consistent
with those of similar existing developments which have proven to
be satisfactory.
10 . This project will not cause serious public health problems
in that all necessary utilities are, or will be, required to be
available and Zoning, Building, and Plumbing Ordinances control
the type of development, and the operation of, the uses to
prevent health problems after development .
11 . The time extension will give the property owners adequate
time to acquire the required utilities and install same .
12 . The time extension will allow the property owners adequate
time to complete design of and install required capital
improvements such as roads and street lights .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby conditionally approve the time extension
for Tentative Tract Map 4859 as shown on Exhibits A, B, and C,
subject to the conditions listed below:
++NOTE: In order to reduce the chance of error in
determining which conditions (initial and revised) apply
to this project, the initial conditions of approval (as
first approved by Alameda County Conditions) are also
listed below. Where these conditions have been modified
(e .g. "Alameda Public Works Director" changed to "City
Engineer" ) the condition is preceded by "*" . Where a
new condition is recommended, the new condition is
preceded by
*1 . The design and improvements of Tract 4859 shall be in
conformance with the design and improvements indicated
graphically, or by statement on the face of the map, labelled
Exhibit A, B, and C, Tract 4859 including street locations,
grades, alignments, and widths , the design and storm drainage -
facilities inside and outside the Tract, grading of lots, the
boundaries of the Tract, and County standards for roadways in
typical sections, as revised.
*2 . The street surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The
City Engineer shall specify types of base materials to be used
and shall specify the structural design. The subdivider shall,
at his sole expense, make tests of the soil over which the
surfacing and base is to be constructed and furnish the test
reports to the City Engineer. The developer ' s soils engineer
shall determine a preliminary structural design of the road bed.
After rough grading has been completed, the developer shall have
soil tests performed to determine the final design of the road
bed.
*3 . The minimum uniform gradient shall be 0 . 5 percent . No cut
or fill slopes shall exceed 2 : 1, unless approved by the -City
Engineer.
r,
4 . Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of
base materials, all underground utility mains shall be installed
and service connections stubbed out beyond curb lines . Public
utilities and sanitary sewers shall be installed in a manner
which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, and gutter when
future service connections or extensions are made.
*5 . Prior to filing the Final Map, precise plans and
specifications for street improvements, grading, drainage
(including size, type, and location of drainage facilities both
on- and off-site) , and erosion and sedimentation control, shall
be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
6 . Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading
operations are different from that anticipated in the soil and
geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant
changes to the recommendations contained in original soil
investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be
submitted for approval and shall be accompanied by an engineering
and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards
of land slippage, erosion, settlement and seismic activity.
7 . Any water well, cathodic protection well , or exploratory
boring shown on the map, that is known to exist, is proposed, or
is located during the course of field operations must be properly
destroyed, backfilled, or maintained in accordance with
applicable groundwater protection ordinances . Zone 7 should be
contacted (at 443-9300 ) for additional information.
*8 . The subdivider shall furnish and install street name signs,
bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director, and
traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of the City
of Dublin.
9 . Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, or
other approved dissipating devices .
10 . A minimum of 12" diameter pipe shall be used for all storm
drains to ease maintenance and reduce potential blockage .
11 . The Final Map may be filed in stages, provided that the
first stage includes completion of Silvergate Drive; each stage
contains at least 20 units (except for Lots 1-7 , which may be
filed separately) , and stages are contiguous to previously
approved stages .
*12 . Prior to the filing the Final Map, subdivider shall furnish
the City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services
District stating that the District has agreed to furnish water
and sewer service to each of the dwelling units included on the
Final Map of the subdivision.
*13 . Dust control measures, as appoved by the City Engineer
shall be followed at all times during grading and construction
operations .
*14 . Construction and grading operations shall be limited to
weekdays (Monday through Friday) and the hours from 7 : 30 a.m. to
5 : 30 p.m. , except as approved in writing by the City Engineer.
*15 . Developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and
clean of project dirt, mud, materials and debris during the
construction period, as determined necessary by the City
Engineer .
*16 . Prior to release by the City Council, the performance
guarantee required by the contract under Condition 21 :
a . All landscaping required under the General
Provisions of the PD District, 1478th Zoning Unit,
shall be installed and established. #`
*b . An as-built landscaping plan prepared by the
project Landscape Architect and a declaration by the
Project Landscape Architect that all work was done
under his supervision and in accordance with the
recommendations contained in the landscape and soil
erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
*c . Grading of the tract must conform with the
recommendations of the soils engineer to the .
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
*d. The following shall have been submitted to the
City Engineer :
( 1 ) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer, including original ground surface
elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations,
lot drainage, and locations of all surface and
subsurface drainage facilities .
( 2 ) A complete record, including location and
elevation of all field density tests, and a
summary of all field and laboratory tests .
( 3 ) A declaration by the Project Civil Engineer and
Project Geologist that all work was done in
accordance with the recommendations contained in
the soil and geologic investigation reports and
the approved plans and specifications .
*17 . Prior to any grading of the site, and in any case prior to
filing a Final Map, a detailed construction grading plan
( including phasing) , a drainage, water quality, erosion and
sedimentation control .plan for construction and post-construction
period prepared by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering
Geologist, shall be approved by the City Engineer . Said plan
shall include detailed design, location periods when required,
and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sediment control
measures . The plan shall attempt to insure that no increase in
sediment or pollutants from the site will occur. The plan shall
provide for long-term maintenance of all permanent erosion and
sediment control measures such as slope vegetation. All erosion
and sediment control measures shall be maintained by the
developer until responsiblity is turned over to the project
homeowners ' association at the time the City Council accepts
final improvements and releases the performance guarantee
required under Condition 21 .
*18 . Grading shall be completed in compliance with the
construction grading plans and recommendations of the Project
Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, and the approved
erosion and sedimentation control plan, and shall be done under
the supervision of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering
Geologist, who shall, upon its completion, submit a declaration
to the City Engineer that all work was done in accordance with
the recommendations contained in the soils and geologic
investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications .
Inspections that will satisfy final subdivision map requirements
shall be arranged with the City Engineer, if grading is
undertaken prior to filing the Final Map.
*19 . If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Map, a
surety or guarantee, as determined suitable by the City Engineer,
shall be filed with the City of Dublin to insure restoration of
the site to a stable and erosion resistant state if the project
is terminated prematurely.
*20 . Maintenance of common areas including ornamental
landscaping, graded slopes , erosion control plantings and
drainage, erosion and sediment control improvements, shall be the
responsibility of the developer during construction stages and
until final improvements are accepted by the City. Council and the
performance guarantee required under Condition 21 is released;
thereafter, maintenance shall be the responsibility of a
homeowners ' association which automatically collects maintenance
assessments from each owner and makes the assessments a personal
obligation of each owner and a lien against the assessed
property .
*21 . The subdivider shall .grade the tract, install landscaping,
soil erosion, sedimentation and drainage control measures, and
improve all streets and easements, as shown or indicated on
Exhibit B and these conditions, and shall contract with the City
of Dublin to accomplish all said improvements .
*22 . Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction
debris , and materials on-site until disposal off-site can be
arranged. Subdivider shall be responsible for corrective
measures at no expense to City of Dublin .
23 . Gas, electric and telephone service shall be provided to
each lot in the subdivision .
*24 . Cable TV service shall be provided to each lot in the
subdivision, in accordance with existing City ordinances and
policies .
*25 . Install fire hydrants at the locations approved by the
Dublin San Ramon Services District in accordance with the
standards in effect at the time of development. A raised blue
reflectorized traffic marker shall be epoxied to the center of
the paved street opposite each hydrant.
*26 . If, during construction, archaeological remains are
encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an
archaeologist consulted, and the City Planning Department
notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains
are significant, measures , as may be required by the Planning
Director, shall be taken to protect them.
*27 . Subdivider shall pay fees in lieu of park dedication to the
City of Dublin based on value of the number of square feet of
land in the tract required by the Subdivision Ordinance .
*28 . Street grades shall be no more than 12% maximum, with. 6%
grades at intersections, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
29 . Subdivider shall be responsible for controlling any rodent,
mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities .
30 . Grading shall be reduced as much as possible _through use of
split lots, custom lots, minor redesign, etc . Lots 80, 81, 82,
and 83 shall be custom lots, not graded to flat pads, to reduce
canyon fill and preserve views .
31 . Street names shall be approved by the. Planning Director . No
approval is given by this resolution to the names shown on the
Tentative Map submitted.
32 . Prior to filing the Final Map, the tract area must be
reclassified to the PD (Planned Development) District,
establishing provisions with which the use and design indicated
herein substantially conform. Any modifications to the project
design approved by this reclassification action shall supercede
design on the tentative map and shall be considered as an
approved modification on the Tentative Map.
*33 . Gates for stubbed streets shall be approved by the City
Engineer, and may be of a type allowing access for agricultural
purposes .
**34 . Copies of the Final Map and improvement plans, indicating
all lots, streets, and drainage facilities within the subdivision
shall be submitted at 1"= 400-ft . scale, and 1"= 200-ft. scale
for City mapping purposes .
**35 . Provision shall be made to connect a street into. the
Murray School property to the east. The exact location to be
worked out with City Staff .
**36 . Traffic impacts at San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive
shall be mitigated by the developer contributing up to 50% of the
cost of a traffic signal at that intersection. The contribution
shall be made on a prorated unit basis at Final Map approval such
that all the contribution be made when one-half the total units
have been subdivided by Final Map . Should the City proceed with
the intersection/signal work prior to the Developer submitting
all the required mitigation fees, the City will set up a
reimbursement fund to pay back the City ' s General Fund.
**37 . Prior to the filing of any Final Map, grading or
improvement plans with Alameda County, the City of Dublin shall
be provided copies of said plans in ample time to review and
prepare comments on them for distribution to the County reviewing
body and staff . All other plans , and the like, that are prepared
to comply with the conditions of approval for Tract 4859 and the
1478th Zoning Unit shall, likewise, be provided to the City of
Dublin for review and comment .
**38 . The time extension for Tentative Tract Map is granted for
two and one-half years (until September 16, 1986 ) .
(New) **39 . The project engineer shall revise the access to lots
24 and 25, to eliminate access on the Silvergate Drive, unless
such a revision can be shown to be impractical .
(New) **40 . Creekside (Alpha) Drive shall be widened from
Silvergate Drive to Lot 33 . The widening shall create 42 ' of
paving within a 58-foot right-of-way.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January,
1984 .
AYES : 5
NOES : 0
ABSENT: 0
Planning Commission Chairman
ATT ST:
Planning Director
R
DRAFT
3
PA 83-073 _NIELSEN RANCH
TENTATIVE MAP 4859 EXTENSION AND ZONING REVIEW
Mr . Tong explained the application, of Wilsey and Ham, to extend
the time limit of Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map for an additional
three years . He noted that the Tentative Map, approved July,
1981, was due to expire on January 20 , 1984 , and the applicant
was requesting additional time to obtain necessary utility and
sewer permits , marketing time , and time to meet zoning and T14
conditions . He also noted that part of this property is located
within the City Limits of Dublin, while the balance of the parcel
is located in Alameda County.
Staff pointed out three lots ( #191, 24 , and 25 ) which appear to
present a safety and/or visual problem, and recommendations for
the elimination and/or redesign of these lots was presented.
Staff recommended approving the time extension for 2-1/2 years,
with conditions . He noted that the applicant had indicated
agreement with all conditions , except : 1 ) #28 (an original
condition of approval by the Alameda County Planning Commission. )
It was felt that the 6% grade at intersections, suggested by the
applicant ' s engineer, would be acceptable to Staff, instead of
the 5% minimum gradient originally called for; 2 ) 36 (regarding
traffic signal improvements and intersection improvements at
Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road) , which Staff felt was a
reasonable and necessary condition of approval ; 3 ) ;:39 (a new
condition recommended by Dublin Planning Staff) calling for the
elimination of lot #191 ; and, 4 ) #40 , which addressed the
revision of the access of lots 1IT24 and #25 in order to utilize
Silvergate Drive as a collector street and reduce possible safety
hazard .
He reminded the Commission that the 1478th Zoning Unit allows for
revision of the Planned Development if .clear and compelling
reasons exist for such a revision. Staff felt that such reasons
do not, exist at this time, and felt that granting of the
extension was reasonable .
Staff recommended adopting the resolution modifying the original
conditions , in terms of traffic safety, and design concerns, and
recommended approval of the 2-1/2 year time extension .
Robert Nielsen , 11637 Alegre Drive , part-owner and applicant , was
present to address the Commission . He introduced Mr . Bart
Schenone, legal council ; Mr . Allen Campbell , civil engineer ; and
Mr . Dave Burton , previous Dublin City Council member and liaison
betv.,eeen the homeowners or the Briarhill and Silvergate and
Alameda County as well as Staff and the Commission, who is
familiar %.!ith the history of this project .
Mr . Allen Campbell , of Wilsey and Ham, Engineers , explained
opposition of the 5% gradient at intersections . Ile stated he
felt that a 6% gradient is more than adequate distance for
safety, judging from the more detailed Final Map .
Mr . Dave Burton , 1.1896 Dillon Way, gave a historical presentation
reminding the Commission that, due to a coincidence of errors,
"burea.ucratic boondogelling" , and misinformation concerned with
Dublin San Ramon Services District and LAFCO regarding
annexation, only a portion of the property lies %•,i-thin the City
Limits . He felt that it was because., no one analyzed the detailed
metes and bounds description presented by LAFCO, upon
determination of the city limit of Dublin, that not all of the
Nielsen Ranch property was included within the city limit.
Another problem was present in the existence of a water tank,
located at the end of Betlen Dr . , which services the upper area,
and which provides inadequate pressure to a number of homes . Mr.
Nielsen agreed to donate and install the tank for the DSRSDk and
to provide another pressure zone to service the Valley Christian
property and Estate Homes . lie felt that this was a monetary
sacrifice for the developer (reminding the ConLmission that there
has been a tremendous amount of "bureaucracy" historically
connected with this project . )
Additionally, the developer has agreed to create the extension of
Silvergate Drive, which is beyond the property, creating an
additional expense which -ould not normally be required by the
developer .
Mr . Burton called attention to Condition. #30 of the draft
resolution, which called for the elimination of lot x168 . He
requested that , although the lot surrounds an established fault
line , its elimination would be unnecessary and would create an
increase �n the cost of the other lots within the development .
He felt that there was a sufficient amount of open space within
the development without the elimination of this lot .
He also explained opposition to Condition? #r36, which was
concerned. with the cost of the signalization and improvements of
the inte,-section at Silvergate Drive and Donlon 6;a,r. He pointed
out that this project would provide two accesses , and would add
,pprozimately 10% of the traffic impact ( in comparison with other
future developments in the area) on San Ramon Road and Silvergate
Drive , yet was being required to contribute an unknown amount, up
to one-half of the cost of signal improvements . e objection
was countered with an offer. from the developer , of a maximum of
250 , or ;25, 000 , toward these costs .
Regarding Condition L;39 , elinhi.nating Lot #x191 , Mr . Burton felt
the safety concerns regarding steepness were unnecessary and did
riot warrant elimination of the entire lot.
Opposition was also voiced regarding Condition #40 , requiring the
elimination of the access of Lots #24 and #25 on Silvergate
Drive .
Air . Bart Schenone, 1331 B Street, Hayward, addressed the
Commissioners , reminding them of the fact that this Tentative Map
has not been changed in all the times that it has been "reviewed
and scrutinized by a number of public agencies" since the EIR was
published in February, 1980 . He stated that he felt it would be
"unfair" to require the elimination of three lots at this late
date .
Ms . Liz Schmitt, noted concern over building on hillsides , as
well as advocating donation of land, rather than fees , for
open/public space .
Mr . Dennis Ransdel, Silvergate Drive resident, noted a more
immediate need for a traffic signal at the corner of Silvergate
Drive and San Ramon Road, than two or more years from now.
The question arose whether_ the open space .would truly be open to
the public , or simply an open area within the development . Mr .
Burton reminded the Planning Commission that 22 acres of land has
been dedicated as "public land" . Mr . Tong stated that it is not
clear, at this time, whether the open space provided would be
public, although it is designated to be maintained by a
homeowners ' association .
Cm. Alexander questioned the existence of CCE,R ' s guaranteeing
that the open space in the development would be maintained,
eliminating the burden of maintenance on' the City of Dublin, in
the future .
Mr . Tong referred to Condition #20 ," which requires maintenance of
the open area by the developer and, later, 'a homeowners '
association, by personal assessments . He also reminded the
Commission- that the open space contained within the approved
KREN1CO/Amador Lakes project would not necessarily be accessible
to the public , but rather a visual space amenity.
Cm. Vonheeder advocated dedication of land for parks, rather than
in-lieu fees , and there was a general discussion regarding
dedicat-ion of land for public use within current developments .
he expressed a real concern regarding the lack of parkland on
that side of town, noting that "the City Council did not really
provide in the general plan for a lot of parks . . . [ and this
developer is ] providing a great deal of homes and . . . a lot of
kids . . . all we have on that side of Dublin is Mapes and
Shannon, and they are totally inadequate . . . . " Cm. Tenery
agreed, but reminded her of "what happened to the parkland
presented -in the general. plan . . . . it has already been taken
out" . Cm. Vonheeder noted that the Planning Commission
"originall}, put parkland on that side of town" .
There being no other comments from the audience, Cm. Vonheeder
made a motion, at °this time, to close the public hearing . Cm.
Alexander seconded the motion, and the public hearing was closed
by unanimous vote .
Cm. Alexander questioned the width of Silvergate Drive, noting
confusion with respect to street width illustrated on the
Tentative Map and that referred to on the Final Map . Mr .
Campbell assured the Commission that all streets now conform to
County standards regarding minimum widths, even though the
Tentative Map does not reflect modifications which have been made
subsequent to its submission, and contained within the Final Map. .
Cm . Alexander questioned whether or not Condition 441 should be
eliminated as unnecessary . Cm. Tenery agreed that it should be
eliminated. Mr . Tong suggested that the condition remain as is,
making sure that there was a minimum of 42 ' of paving on
Creekside (Alpha) Drive, since the original Tentative Map sho�-rs a
reduced width in certain areas . Mr . Campbell agreed that tIis
item does not really make a difference, and Mr . Tong reiterated
that it would be appropriate to leave the condition as is . _
Regarding Condition 430 , addressing the elminiation of Lot 4168 ,
Cm. Vonheeder stated that she felt this lot is a "dream lot" ,
even though it does cut off some view of the open space . She did
not feel that the public would be utilizing the open space in
this project for picnicing, etc . , and felt that the homeowners
within the project would be mainly concerned with the views .
Cm. Mack noted that this condition was in the original County
conditions of approval , but was changed.` She asked if Staff had
discussed this item with the developer .
Mr . Tong stated that this was the first time that the retention
of Lot 4168 had been brought to Staff ' s attention . Staff felt
that the condition was reasonable and felt elimination of the lot
furthered Ghe cause of preservation of visual open space .
Additionally the mitigation measures of the EIR were geared
to;jard this Condition . He "cautioned the Commission that
modification to the condition regarding visual impacts may
require different findings for the EIR" .
Cm. Tenery felt that Lot 168 did, in fact exist, and had not been
eli.rninated . Cm. Vonheeder agreed.
Cm. Pett�,T suggested designating this _lot as a "custom lot" , along
,,- lith lots 1:80 , 481 , 11' 82 , and 3 83 . Mr . Tong noted that Staff
�-,ou.l.d be hesitant redesi.gnating this lot , since it was originally
eliminated, and Staff has not had sufficient time to consider_
re-including this lot within the subdivision . He felt that since
it is within a special setback zone , and does impact visual
access to the common area, there rzay be concerns which should be
further looked at before recommending that lot -168 remain .
Attention was called to other lots within the development located
within special setback zones .
Cm. Vonheeder asked the applicant why this matter had not been
brought up in the past, since this was an original condition of
approval . Mr . Burton took responsibility for this late
opposition of the elimination of lot #168, agreeing with Cm.
Vonheeder that this is a "neat lot" . Mr . Nielsen agreed with Mir .
Burton, reminding the Commission that it is imperative that the
project be "moved along" , and noting that he could "live without
it" also.
Crn. Mack asked if the opposition to this condition had been taken
to the County . Mr . Nielsen stated that he felt that the reason
the lot was dropped in the first place was for aesthetic reasons .
Cm. Alexander asked if elimination of that lot would have any
impact on the EIR, and Mr . Tong responded that it may. He also
called the Commission ' s attention to the County Staff Analysis ,
dated July 20 , 1981, regarding this Tentative Map . Specifically,
under Planning Considerations , Condition €30 was addressed, and
stated that "the applicants have agreed to all conditions" at
that time . He noted that the location of the fault in this lot
has probably riot been pinpointed exactly. Mr . Tong reiterated
concern with the fault , as well as intrusion within the open
area .
Cm. Tenery and Cm. Vonheeder pointed out that several other lots
had fault lines contained within the lot boundaries . Cm. Tenery
observed that Condition #30 "sounded like' an arbitrary statement
from the County" and stated he felt lot 4168 should be left in,
with the requirement on the builder that they satisfy all the EIR
requirements . Mr . 'Tong, recalled the findings of the EIR: Item
#10 , referring specifically to Condition #30 , still opposing re-
inclusion ,of lot #168 .
Cm . Tenery pointed out, at this time, that lot #168 was now
within the City of Dublin . Cm. Alexander noted that lots #80 to
#83 arc now in the County . Cm. Tenery clarified that, 'in
Condition 1�30 , if the words "Lot 168 shall be eliminated"were
struck, a. legal lot would be created. Mr . Tong affirmed 'thi.s
statement, but reminded the Commission that it still may not be
buildable, creating an outright hazard, since the geologist does
not know precisely where the fault is .
Cm . A1e.:an6ler confirmed with Mr . Tong , that the reason that this ,
already approved, Tentative Map was before the Commission is
strictly for an extension of time . It was his understanding
that , at this point., there IS NIO lot #168 , so there is nothing to
elimin�,-,te , bent rather a question of whether or not to reinclude
this lot within the development .
Cm. Tenerry ascertained that the Commission could, if it wished,
make chana,es . Mr ., Tong agreed but restated that changes could
only be made if there is a clear and compelling reasons ( i .e .
safety or significant other concerns ) , otherwise the Map should
be left as originally approved. Therefore , only Conditions r34
through 1441 were a result of clear and compelling reasons, in
Staff ' s opinion .
This matter was held over until the new Conditions referred to by
Mr . Tong were discussed.
It was agreed that Condition ,"r41 would remain .
Cm. Tenery did not agree with Condition #440 , which dealt with the
revision of the access points to lots r24 and #25 . Mr . Tong
clarified that it simply suggests that the applicant ' s engineer.
study the access to these lots and revise them unless a revision
would be impractical . Otherwise leave the access as is . It was
suggested that the wording of the condition be revised. Itwas
decided that the words "or relocate the lots" would be struck .
Cm. Tenery stated that he would like to "scratch" the entire
condition r39 , referring to the elimination of lot -191 . Cm.
Petty suggested relocating the lot . Cm. Alexander "had no
problem with lot ;; 191" . It was agreed that Condition r39 would
be struck in its entirety .
Regarding Condition 438, the amount of time for extension was
clarified and revised to read "granted for 2-1/2 years (until
September, 1986 ) . " This would enable the Tentative Map to be
reviewed at the same time as the Planned Development review to
avoid confusion .
With relation to Condition ##36 , Cm. ' Tenery questioned whether or
not the Si:lvergate/San Ramon Rd. intersection would be improved
if Mr. . Nielsen does not develop this property . Mr . Tong
responded that it would be improved only if there is sufficient
funds to install a signal . The City Engineer has suggested that
a traffic light be installed at that intersection, but it was
understood that surrounding developments would contribute"toward
the improvements .
Mr. . Tong noted that, although the Barratt project contains only
88 units , it %aas contributincT 25% toward signalization of the
intersection, 7hi_l.e this project contains close to 400 units , and
will impact Dublin Blvd. , to which they are not contributing
toward the improvement of . It was ascertained that other
developers would have to contribute , also, as they "come in" .
Mr- . Tong referred the Commission to general provision r4 (e) of
the 14784L.-h Zoning Unit of the Planned Development , adopted by the
Board of Supervisors , and called out in the EIR findings , noting
that this condition had been in existence from the outset .
Cm. Vonheeder did not feel comfortable with requiring the
applicant to contribute 500 of an unknown amount, which could
escalate drastically from "today ' s dollars" , as time goes on .
Mr. Tong again noted that there is no a dollar amount in
"future dollars" could be estimated at this time . He also asked
the Commissioners to remember all the intersections which this
development will impact, without contributing to their
improvement . I-Ie asked that they bear in mind the "per-unit" cost
in comparison with such developments as Barratt . Mr . Tong
suggested that the item be continued to allow the Staff and
applicant to meet and clarify the recommended condition.
Mr . Nielsen interjected that a delay would cost considerably more
than that of a traffic signal, and offered a dollar amount of
$40, 000 to the entire intersection improvements, in order to "get
this show on the road. "
Mr . Burton suggested that the ambiguous term "intersection
improvements" be eliminated from the condition. Mr . Nielsen
agreed. Mr . Tong pointed out that the interpretation of the
original conditions pertained to all improvements within the
intersection, and he quoted the condition of approval related to
this issue . There was general opposition from the Commissioners
to nebulous term "intersection improvements" .
After a lengthy discussion regarding the semantics of the term '
"intersection improvements" , and the need for a specific dollar
amount specified, it was suggested that condition #36 be reworded to read developer contributing up to 50% of the cost of a
traffic signal at that intersection . The contribution shall be
made on a prorated unit basis . . . . " This met with unanimous
approval of the Commissioners . Mr . Nielsen emphatically agreed
with this wording .
Again, dealing with condition ;'30 , having to do with the
existence of lot #168 . Cm. Tenery called for a concensus of
opinion among the Commissioners . It was agreed that, as long as
geological and seismic requirements are met, lot #168 would be
reinstated within the development . Condition #30 was struck from
the conditions of approval on the extension of the Tentative Map.
Cm. Mack made the motion, with the second of Cm. Petty, to close
the public hearing . The motion passed with unanimous vote .
Cm. Vonheeder_ made the motion to approve PA 83-073 Nielsen Ranch
Tenl.a.tive f4ap, with the changes as follows :
1;28 - 5% being changed to 6%
4TT30 - Strike the words "Lot 168 shall be el-imin cited"
.
# 36 - Substitute the words "up to 1/2 of the cost of the
signal" and strike the words "intersection improvements" .
#38 - Change the length of time to 2-1/2 years, and the date to
September, 1986.
#39 - Eliminate
4T40 - Renumber to ff39 , and strike the words "or relocate the
lots" .
"41 - Renumber to #40 , and change "Creekside Drive" to Alpha
Drive .
The motion %:-as seconded by Cm. Petty, and passed by unanimous
vote of the Commissioners .
RESOLUTION NO. 84-04
APPROVING PA 83-073 A TIME EXTENSION FOR
TEN'T'ATIVE PARCEL MAP 4859 NIELSEN RANCH
PA 83-088 H&H DEVELOPMENT CO.
TENTATIVE MAP 5264
Mr . Tong gave a brief background and history of the application
and recommended approval of the Tentative Map,' noting the
number of times this project has been reviewed by City agencies .
Mr . Fred Howell , of H&H Development stated that the project was
completely in conformance with all conditions and wishes of City
and private agencies , ho%•,,ever, he wished for an adjustment to
Condition #8 . He introduced Mr . David Lennon, of Creegan &
D ' Angelo, Civil Engineers , who asked that the condition of
approval be reworded to allow the centerline curves to be simply
large enough in radius to accommodate emergency and service
vehicles .
After a discussion regarding the merits of .rewording Condition
48, the public hearing was closed.
Cm. Vonheeder made the motion, with Cm. Alexander ' s second, to
approve the Resoluti on approving Tentative Map 5264 , changing the
warding of Condition T- as follows : Centerline curves , along the
interior private street system, shall be as designated by the
City Engineer and shall be large enough in radius to accommodate
emergency and service vehicles , and shall not be compound curves .
This does not include centerline radii into and out of individual
parking lot areas .
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENT 4
COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
NIELSEN RANCH
260 Single Family D.U. - 121 ac . - 50% traffic signal at Silvergate Dr ./
129 Multifamily D.U. 17 ac . San Ramon Rd.
- Intersection improvements at Silvergate
389 D.U. 138 ac . Dr./San Ramon Rd.
- Construct Silvergate Dr . extension;
length: 2 , 000+ft .
frontage : 1, 800+ft.
- Construct water tank
H & H DEVELOPMENT
193 Multifamily D.U. - 13 . 4 ac . - 50 to 100% traffic signal at Donlon
Way/Dublin Blvd.
- Construct 26 ft.-wide extension of
Amador Valley Blvd.
- Add left turn lane on San Ramon
Rd./Dublin Blvd.
- 50% cost to modify signal Amador Valley
Blvd./San Ramon Rd.
- Widen San Ramon Rd. to allow 100 ft .
lane- + accel . lane
AMADOR LAKES
555 Multifamily D.U. - 39 ac - Construct Stagecoach Rd. extension;
length: 7 , 000+ft . ;
frontage : 2 , 000+ft . ''
- Landscape, irrigate and maintain
Stagecoach Rd.
- 50% traffic signal at Stagecoach
Rd./Amador Valley Blvd.
- $150/D.U. ( $83 , 250 ) for Amador Valley
Blvd. improvements
- Underground high-voltage power lines
THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 81- 55 - AT MEETING HELD JULY 20 , 1981
Introduced by Commissioner Bernhardt
Seconded by Commissioner 'Warren
WHEREAS ROBERT AND HAROLD NIELSEN have filed with the Alameda County
Planning Commission, Tentative Map, Tract 4859, a permit subdivision of a 138 acre site
into 263 lots, located north and west of Silvergate Drive and Padre Way (a portion of the
Nielsen Ranch), unincorporated Alameda County; and
WHEREAS this Commission did consider the application at a public hearing on
Monday, June 1, 1981, beginning at 6:00 p.m., and July 20, 1981, beginning at 1:30 p.m.,
in the Auditorium of the 'Alameda County Public Works Building, 399 Elmhurst Street,
Hayward, California; and
WHEREAS pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the "General Plan Amendment - Nielsen Ranch" is hereby _
adopted as the EIR for this project and this Commission has reviewed and considered the
information in said EIR; and
WHEREAS said EIR indicates significant environmental impacts would result from
the project, particularly with respect to geologic constraints, increased runoff, damage
to Martin Creek, potential for erosion and sedimentation, energy consumption, traffic
generation, fiscal impact, and visual impacts; and
'WHEREAS CEQA and State and County EIR Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto
require this Commission to make findings where the EIR identifies one or more
significant effects which would or would likely result from approval of the project; and
WHEREAS this Commission does find that under the design and conditions
contained in Exhibits B and C, Tract 4859, and Exhibits B, C, and D, 1478th Zoning Unit,
the above-noted impacts will be substantially mitigated; and
WHEREAS under the design and conditions contained in Exhibits B and C,
Tract 4859, it is determined that:
1. The proposed map and the proposed design and improvements are consistent
with applicable general and specific plans in that the area is designated by
the General Plan for residential uses and there is no specific plan applicable
to the area.
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in that the site is
indicated to be geologically satisfactory for the type of development
proposed in locations as shown, provided geological consultants'
recommendations are followed; and -is in a good location regarding public
services and facilities.
3. The-site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that
the design and improvements are consistent with those of similar existing
residential developments which have proven 'to be satisfactory.
4. Based on the EIR and conditions of approval (Exhibit C, 1478th Zoning Unit
and Exhibit C, Tract 4859), the subdivision will not cause material damage to
the environment or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat.
5. This division will not cause serious public health problems in that all
necessary utilities are or will be required to be available and Zoning, Building
and Plumbing Ordinances control the type of development and the operation
of the uses to prevent health problems after development.
RESOLUTION
TRACT 4859
Page 2
6. The design of the lots will not conflict with easements acquired by the public
at large, for access through or for use of property.within the proposed land
division, in that none are known to exist:
NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Tentative Map, Tract 4859 is conditionally approved subject
to design and conditions shown on the map labelled Exhibit. B, and Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C, Tract 4859 dated July 20, 1981.
ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Commissioners Bernhardt, Douglas, Shockley, Sutherland, Warren and
Tully.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
EXCUSED: None
ABSTAINED: None
WILLIAM H. FRALEY - PLANNING DIRECTOR & SECRETARY
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
EXHIBIT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT 4859
Alameda County Planning Commission
July 20, 1981
1. The design and improvements of Tract 4859 shall be in conformance with the design
and improvements indicated graphically or by statement on the face of the map
labelled Exhibit B, Tract 4859 including street locations, grades, alignments, and
widths, the design and storm drainage facilities inside and outside the Tract,
grading of lots, the boundaries of the Tract, and County standards for roadways
shown in typical sections.
2. The street surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The Director of Public
Works shall specify types of base materials to be used and shall specify the
structural design. The subdivider may, at his sole, expense, make tests of the soil
over.which the surfacing and base is to be constructed and furnish the test reports
to the Director of Public Works for use in determining a preliminary structural
design of the road bed. After rough grading has been completed, the Director of
Public Works shall have tests performed to determine the final design of the road
bed.
3. The minimum uniform gradient shall be 0.5 percent. No cut or fill slopes shall
exceed 2:1, unless approved by the Director of Public Works.
4. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials, all
underground utility mains shall be installed and service connections stubbed out
beyond curb lines. Public utilities and sanitary sewers shall be installed in a
manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, and gutter when future
service connections or extensions are made.
5. Prior to filing the Final Map, precise plans and specifications for street
improvements, grading, drainage (including size, type and location of drainage
facilities both on- and off-site) and erosion and sedimentation control shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works.
6. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different
from that anticipated in the soil and geologic investigation report, or where such
conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil
investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approval and
shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of
the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement and seismic activity.
7. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring that is shown on
the map, is known to exist, is proposed, or is located during the course of field
operations must be properly destroyed, backfilled, or maintained in accordance
with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. Zone 7 should be contacted at
443-9300 for additional information.
8. The subdivider shall furnish and install street name signs, bearing such names as
are approved by the Planning Director, and traffic safety signs in accordance with
the standards of Alameda County_
9. Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, or other approved
dissipating devices.
10. A minimum of 12" pipe shall be used for all storm drains to ease maintenance and
reduce potential blockage.
i
EXHIBIT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT 4859
Page 2
11. The Final Map may be filed in stages, provided that the first stage include
completion of Silvergate Drive; each stage contains at least 20 units (except for
Lots 1-7, which may be filed separately), and stages are contiguous to previously
approved stages.
12. Prior to the filing of the Final Map, subdivider shall furnish the Director of Public
Works with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District stating that the
District has agreed to furnish water and sewer service to each of the dwelling units
included on the Final Map of the subdivision.
13. Dust control measures, as approved by the Director of Public Works, shall be
followed at all times during grading and construction operations.
14. Construction and grading operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through
Friday) and the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except as approved in writing by_
the Director of Public Works.
15. Developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud,
materials and debris during the construction period, as determined necessary by the
Director of Public Works.
16. Prior to release by the Board of Supervisors of the performance guarantee required
by the contract under Condition 21:
(a) All landscaping required under the General Provisions of the PD District,
1478th Zoning Unit,shall be installed and established.
(b) An as-built landscaping plan prepared by the project Landscape Architect and
a declaration by the Project Landscape Architect that all work was done
under his supervision and in accordance with the recommendations contained
in the landscape and soil erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works.
(c) Grading of the tract must conform with the recommendations of the soils
engineer to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
(d) The following shall have been submitted to the Director of Public Works:
1) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer,
including original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface
elevations, lot drainage, and locations of all surface and subsurface
drainage facilities.
2), A complete record, including location and elevation of all field density
tests, and a summary of all field and laboratory tests.
3) A declaration by the Project Civil Engineer and Project Geologist that
all work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in
the soil and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and
specifications.
17. Prior to any grading of the site, and in any case prior to filing a Final Map, a
detailed construction grading plan (including phasing), a drainage, water quality,
erosion and sedimentation control plan for construction and post-construction
period prepared by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, shall
be approved by the Director of Public Works. Said plan shall include detailed
design, location, periods when required, and maintenance criteria of all erosion and
sediment control measures. The plan shall attempt to insure that no increase in
sediment or pollutants from the site will occur. The plan shall provide for long-
term maintenance of all permanent erosion.and sediment control measures such as
EXHIBIT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT 4859
Page 3
slope vegetation. All erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained by
the developer until responsibility is turned over to the project homeowners
association at the time the Board of Supervisors accepts final improvements and
releases the performance guarantee required under Condition 21.
18. Grading shall be completed in compliance with the construction grading plans and
recommendations of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, and
the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan, and shall be done under the
supervision of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, who shall,
upon its completion, submit a declaration to the Director of Public Works that all
work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the soil and
geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications.
Inspections that will satisfy final subdivision map requirements shall be arranged
with the Director of Public Works, if grading is undertaken prior to filing the Final
M ap.
19. If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Map, a surety or guarantee, as
determined suitable by the Director of Public Works, shall be filed with the County
of Alameda to insure restoration of the site to a stable and erosion resistant state
if the project is terminated prematurely.
20. Maintenance of common areas including ornamental landscaping, graded slopes,
erosion control plantings and drainage, erosion and sediment control improvements,
ahall be the responsibility of the developer during construction stages and until
final improvements are accepted by the Board of Supervisors and the performance
guarantee required under Condition 21 is released; thereafter maintenance shall be
the responsibility of a homes association which automatically collects maintenance
assessments from each owner and makes the assessments a personal obligation of
each owner and a lien against the assessed property.
21. The subdivider shall grade the tract, install landscaping, soil erosion, sedimentation
and drainage control measures, and improve all streets and easements, as shown or
indicated on Exhibit B and these conditions, and shall contract with the County of
Alameda to accomplish all said improvements.
22. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and materials on
site until disposal off-site can be arranged. Subdivider shall be responsible for
corrective measures at no expense to Alameda County.
23. Gas, electric and telephone service shall be"provided to each lot in the subdivision.
24. Cable TV service shall be provided to each lot in the subdivision, in accordance
with existing County ordinances and policies.
25. Install fire hydrants at the locations approved by "the Dublin San Ramon Services
District in accordance with present standards.
26. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, construction in the
vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the County Planning
Department notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are
significant, measures, as may be. required by the Planning Director, shall'be taken
to protect them.
27. Subdivider shall pay fees in lieu of park dedication to Dublin San Ramon Services
District based on value of the number of square feet of land in the tract required
by the Subdivision Ordinance.
28. Street grades shall be no more than 12% maximum, with 5% grades at
intersections, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works.
EXHIBIT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT 4859
Page 4
29. Subdivider shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest
problem due to construction activities.
30. Grading shall be reduced as much as possible through use of split lots, custom lots,
minor redesign, etc. Lots 80, 81, 82 and 83 shall be custom lots, not graded to flat
pads, to reduce canyon fill and preserve views. Lot 168 shall be eliminated.
31. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Director. No approval is given by
this resolution to the names shown on the Tentative Map submitted.
32. Prior to filing the Final Map, the tract area must be reclassifed to the
PD (Planned Development) District, establishing provisions with which the use and
design indicated hereon substantially conform. Any modifications to the project
design approved by this relcassification action shall supercede design on the
tentative map and shall be considered as an approved modification on the
tentative map.
33. Gates for stubbed streets shall be approved by the Director of Public Works, and
may be of a type allowing access for agricultural purposes.
r'
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS
1478th Zoning Unit, Tract 4859
AS REQUIRED BY CEQA AND STATE AND COUNTY EIR GUIDELINES
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 20, 1981
This document is part of Alameda County Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-55
which approves Tentative -Map, Tract 4859, and No. 81- 45 , which recommends to t
Board of Supervisors rezoning to PD (Planned Development District a 138 acre portion
of the Nielsen Ranch, Dublin. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and
State and County implementing guidelines, this document presents findings for each
significant environmental effect of the amendment, as identified in the EIR,
accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding.
1. Significant Effect: Geologic constraints, including the presence of three
pote—ntially acts _e fault traces, areas of spring seepage, and presence or possible
presence of the Orinda formation, may limit full development as planned.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect.
Statement of Facts: A full soil and geologic investigation covering the property
as been submitted by professional geotechnical consultants and reviewed by an
independent consultant to the County. The engineering geologists agree that
development substantially as proposed is feasible for the site provided their
recommendations are followed. The resolutions approving both the tract map and
the rezoning require adherence to these recommendations. Additional geologic
study is being required to ensure future safety of structures.
2. Significant Effect: Adequacy of downstream drainage facilities to accept increases
in runoff generated by the project is not known.
Finding: Changes have been incorporated into the project which avoid the
significant environmental impact.
Statement of Facts: Flood Control advises that downstream facilities should be
a equate.
3. Significant Effect: The riparian environment of Martin Creek could be threatened,
and in some cases directly destroyed due to grading near the creek and sediment
potential from construction.
Finding: Changes have been required in and incorporated into the project which
mitigate the significant environmental impact.
Statement of Facts: Grading has been reduced so as not to encroach upon riparian
habitat of Martin reek. Conditions of approval require that a strong erosion and
sediment control plan be approved by Flood Control prior to any grading. Provision
#14 further protects the creeks from encroachment.
4. Significant Effect: Potential for erosion in connection with development of the
site would be hig7 due to the steepness of the site. Sedimentation of Clark and
Martin Creeks could occur and sediment could be transported to downstream
drainage channels.
Findin : Alterations have been required in the project which mitigate the
significant environmental impact.
Statement of Facts: General Provisions 1 and 3, and tract conditions 16, t7, 18, 19,
and 20 require a strong, guaranteed erosion and sediment control plan subject to
the approval fo the Director of Public works to mitigate the potential impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS
1478th Zoning Unit, Tract 4859
July 20, 1981
Page 2
5. Significant Effect: Air quality would deteriorate incrementally with the addition
of ousing units.
Findin : Changes or alterations which mitigate or avoid the effect are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the Planning
Commisson 'or Board of Supervisors. Such changes have been or can and should be
adopted by such other agencies.
Statement of Facts: Mitigation of air quality impacts is most effectively
accomplished t rough regional programs, improving automobile emissions,
encouragement of public transit and carpools as put forth in the Bay Area Air
Quality Management Plan, a regional plan mandated by EPA and prepared by the
Association of Bay Area Governments.
6. Significant Effect: Increased consumption of energy resources.
Finding: Changes have been required in the project which mitigate the significant
enviornmental impact.
Statement of Facts: General Provisions 5, 6, and 8b require that residences be
energy conserving and that solar assisted power be provided or provided for.
7. ,Significant Effect: Traffic generated by the project would somewhat worsen peak
our congestion at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Finding: Changes have been required in the project which mitigate the significant
environmental impact.
Statement of Facts: General Provision 4e requires that developer improve
intersection geometries at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road and contribute to
a traffic signal at that intersection.
8. Si nificant Effect: Adverse financial impact on Dublin San Ramon Services
District.
FFindiin : Changes which mitigate or avoid the effect are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the Planning Commission or Board
of Supervisors. Such agency can and should adopt such changes.
Statement of Facts: Dublin San Ramon Services District.is a special district which
as an elected Board of Directors and has jurisdiction over fees and charges for
their services. If new development causes adverse fiscal impacts, the DSRSD could
adjust or impose fees. It is likely that Dublin will incorporate within the year, in _
which case fiscal impacts will not be as adverse because of its strong tax base. _.
9. - Si nificant Effect Designation of the site for development could divert sewer
permits from more central property in Planning Area already planned for
development, possibly resulting in inefficient development patterns. Resources
might be committed to the project with no assured sewer service.
Finding: Changes have been required in the project which mitigate or avoid the
-significant environmental impact.
Statement of Facts: Tract Condition 12 requires that evidence be provided that
sewer service is available to each lot prior to filing of a Final Map. The significant
effect was noted with respect to amending the General Plan to permit development
on this site. The Board of Supervisors, in approving the amendment, adopted
findings based on the record at that time. Those Findings and Statement of Facts
(Board Resolution No. 189494) are hereby adopted by reference.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS
1478th Zoning Unit, Tract 4859
July 20, 1981
Page 3
10. Significant Effect: Visual impacts would be adverse.
Findin Changes have been required in and incorporated into the project which
mitigate the significant environmental effect.
Statement of Facts: The tract map submitted, requires considerably less grading
than te ease i ity Plan" submitted in connection with last year's General Plan
amendment. Further, Condition 30 and General Provisions 4a, 4b and 9b will
require landscaping and other techniques to reduce visual impacts.
STAFF._.4ALYSIS - JULY 6, 1981
1478TH ZONING UNIT/TRACT 4859
ROBERT AND HAROLD NIELSEN
1478TH ZONING UNIT/TRACT 4859 - ROBERT AND HAROLD NIELSEN - Petition to
reclassify property consisting of 138 acres from the A (Agricultural) to the
PD (Planned Development) District allowing 121 acres of R-1 (Single Family
Residence, 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) development not to exceed 261 units and
17 acres of R-S (Suburban Residence) townhouse development not to exceed 129 units,
and concurrent Tentative Map, Tract 4859, to subdivide into 263 lots, on a portion of
the Nielsen Ranch, located north and west of Silvergate Drive and Padre Way, Dublin,
unincorporated Alameda County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take public testimony. Adopt the attached resolution
recommending to the tractdto allow Supervisors
for furtherreclassification
geologi al invDesDistrict. Continue
tigation.
public hearing on t
PERTINENT FACTS:
Environmental Review: The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
General an Amendment last year permitting petitioned rezoning will serve as
the EIR for this project as well. Provisions of reclassification to PD and tract
conditions are intended to mitigate impacts identified in the EIR, as noted in the
EIR Findings (part of the resolutions). _
Applicant's Ob'ective: To develop the property with 261 detached and
attac e singe amily residential units. At this time applicants are filing to
TN establish a PD District and a tract for the 261 detached lots only; a future
tentative map for the townhouse areas, which
would e e subject to
a maximum of 129 and undergo Site Development Review at that time.
;
Existing Conditions: Subject property is an irregular 138 acres bordered to the
east y existing residential development and a vacant school site, to the south by
existing residential development, and to the north and west by open agricultural
f the site, Martin Canyon the
lands. Clark Canyon forms the northern boundary o
southern limit; both canyons contain seasonal watercourses and are quite deep.
Site elevations range from 400' in the southeast portion rising to 720' in the
northwest area. Topography is gently rolling to rolling with the exception of steep
slopes in the watercourse canyons and one steep slope near the central portion of
the eastern border. Site is currently used for grazing and contains a ranch
homesite near Silvergate Drive.
Zoning History; Subject property was zoned Agriculture by the 96th Zoning Unit
in e 655th Zoning Unit placed an area in the southeast portion in the R-1-
B-E-7000 (Single Family Residence, 7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) District.
General Plan: The Board of Supervisors amended the General Plan in December,
. TW, pursuant to petition by present petitioners,,to designate subject property for
residential uses in a variety of densities. Petitioned zoning classifications are
consistent with current Plan designations.
Services and Utilities: A portion of the site is within Dublin San Ramon Services -
istrict; the remain Ter will be considered for annexation to the District later this
year pending resolution of distribution of increased tax revenues among all
receiving districts. All services would have to be assured before a final
subdivision map could be submitted.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Public testimony submitted both in letters and at the May 4, 1981 hearing,
. focussed upon the concern that townhouse areas would not be attractive or
appropriate in the area proposed and that development would overlook existing
homes, causing loss of privacy. Staff believes that townhouses are appropriate for
the Silvergate Drive area because of good circulation access to the community `
and the need for a greater variety of housing in Dublin. At a density of about 9 to '' • .
the acre, spacious site plans are possible for the units. Staff is concerned about
1
STAFF ANALYSIS - JULY 6, 1981
1478th Zoning Unit/Tract 4859
Page 2
townhouse design and site planning; Site Development Review will be required at
the time the necessary tentative map is filed for the townhouse areas. High
quality development respecting the natural and residential setting will be
sought by Staff and neighbors. Buffer areas could be required which could be
heavily planted to screen existing homes from townhouse views. General
Provision 4a requires that the mandatory landscape plan include a plan to buffer
existing residences from views to maintain privacy. A combination of landscaping
and fencing can be used.
Another concern expressed by residents of the area is drainage. The now-standard
PD and tract conditions ensure that drainage is kept under control through
requirements of Flood Control District. What now flows off the site on the
surface and may be contributing to downhill drainage problems will be conveyed
underground to a storm drain system upon development. Assuming a successful
erosion and sediment control plan covering the construction period, drainage
problems should be alleviated as the property is developed.
One resident was concerned about possible proliferation of rodents in the
neighborhood based on a problem which occurred in Contra Costa County. Tract
condition 29 gives the developer clear responsibility if any such problem should
occur.
Residents and Staff are both concerned about appearance of the project given the
. amount of grading proposed. Grading has been reduced significantly from the
Feasibility Plan submitted last year in connection with the General Plan
amendment. Grading can be further reduced by using more split pads and
designating more lots as custom (non-pad graded). The landscaping plan required
will be examined to determine its success in softening grading effects.
Marie Cronin, owner of property to the west, noted that she shares an access
easement which now passes through the site. She expressed concern that an
adequate easement be maintained. Staff is concerned that any such easement
not be a burden on the homes association. A 25' easement is shown on the map at
the southern property line, west of "Omega Road," within lots. Provision #15
would prohibit project homeowners' responsibility for this easement and would
make its final route and design subject to Planning Director approval.
Road Department is concerned about the maintenance of Parcel "C" — the strip
which will consist of a graded slope between Alpha Drive and property to the east.
It is proposed to remain in the Nielsen's ownership. It would be awkward for the
Nielsens to maintain it. Provision 4d requires that some appropriate means of
maintenance and ownership be worked out prior to filing a Final Map.
Geologic review by David W. Carpenter, the County's engineering geological
consultant,..indicates that more study is needed. for one of the five faults which
lace the site before approving residences in the vicinity. The Building Official
and Planning Staff concur in this view. It is recommended, therefore, that
Planning Commission consideration of the Tentative Map be continued to a date
which allows sufficient time for resolution of the fault's implications for
development. It is also recommended that the Commission act today on the
Planned Development, recommending its conditional approval to the Board of
Supervisors, with the added Provision X118 that the further geological
investigation be done prior to approval of a Tentative Map and that subsequent
modifications to the land use and development plan which may be required due to
geologic considerations would be permitted under the PD as an administrative
action by the Planning Department. The potential fault crosses through the
upper reaches of the project. If verified, substantial changes would be required
in circulation and lotting in this area. Changes would be accomplished prior to
action on the tentative map.
THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
HAY W ARD, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 81-4 5 - ATM EETING HELD JULY 6, 1931
Introduced by Commissioner Mary Warren
Seconded by Commissioner Sid Sutherland
WHEREAS the Alameda County Planning Commission did receive the
petition of Robert and Harold Nielsen initiating consideration of an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance of the County of Alameda, California, to reclassify from the
A (Agriculture) District and the R-1-B-E (Single Family Residence, 7,000 sq. ft.
minimum building site area) District to the PD (Planned Development) District to
permit development of 129 clustered, townhouse units,'and 261 detached, single family
units, on property generally described as:
1478th ZONING UNIT - 138 acres located north and west of
Silvergate Drive and Padre Way, Dublin, unincorporated Alameda
County, a portion of the Nielsen Ranch, bearing County
Assessor's Designation: Map 941, Block 100, Parcels 7-29, 7-30,
7-31, and 7-32, as shown on the map labelled "Exhibit A, 1478th
Zoning Unit," dated March 19, 1981, on file with this Commission
at 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California; and
WHEREAS this Commission did hold a public hearing on the amendment
beginning at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, May 4, 1981, which hearing was continued to
Monday, June 1, 1981, and Monday, July 6, 1981, in the Auditorium of the Alameda
County Public Works Building, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California; and
WHEREAS notice of public hearing was given as required by law; and
WHEREAS pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the "General Plan Amendment - Nielsen
Ranch" is hereby adopted as the EIR for this project and this Commission has reviewed
and considered the information in said EIR; and
WHEREAS said EIR indicates significant environmental impacts would
result from the project, particularly with respect to geologic constraints, increased
runoff, damage to Martin Creek, potential for erosion and sedimentation, energy
consumption, traffic generation, fiscal impact, and visual impacts; and
WHEREAS CEQA and State and County EIR Guidelines adopted pursuant
thereto require this Commission to make findings where the EIR identifies one or more
significant effects which would or would likely result from-approval of the project; and
WHEREAS this Commission does find that under the design and conditions
contained in Exhibits B, C, and D, 1478th Zoning Unit and Exhibits B and C,
Tract 4859, the above noted impacts will be substantially mitigated; and
WHEREAS the statements of environmental effects, findings and facts
relied upon by this Commission are set forth in the attached document, "Environmental
Impact Findings, 1478th Zoning Unit, Tract 4859, as required by CEQA and State and
County EIR Guidelines,.Alameda County Planning Commission, June 19 1981, which is
Incorporated by reference in this resolution; and
WHEREAS it is the finding of this Commission that reclassification of the
herein described property to the PD District would be in the public interest;
NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this Commission does hereby recommend to the
Hoard of Supervisors that the herein described property be reclassified to the
PD (Planned Development) District and that the Land Use and Development Plan
RESOLUTION 81-45
1478th ZONING UNIT
page 2
labelled "1478th Zoning Unit, Exhibit B (design drawings), C (general provisions) and
D (soil and geologic investigation reports), July 6, 1981, " on file with this Commission
at 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California, be adopted as the regulation for the use,
improvement and maintenance of the property within this District.
ADOPTED BY-THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Commissioners Bernhardt, Shockley, Sutherland, Tully, Warren and Chairman Douglas.
NOES. None
ABSENT: None
EXCUSED: None
ABSTAINED: None
WILLIAM H. FRALEY - PLANNING DIRECTOR & SECRETARY
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF ALAMEDA COUNTY
ExHMrr C
GENERAL PROVISIONS
473th ZONING UNIT
July 6, 1981
1. The Final Map of Tract 4859 shall be filed with the County Recorder of Alameda
County prior to commencement of any improvement in the project, with the
exception of grading and improvements related thereto.
2. All conditions of approval for Tract 4859 are incorporated by reference as General
Provisions of this reclassification.
3. Prior to any grading, a detailed construction grading plan and soil erosion and
sedimentation control plan prepared by a Civil Engineer. in accordance with maps
and provisions of this reclassification and the project soils and geologic
investigation report shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. Grading
shall be completed in accordance with this plan to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works.
4. Prior to filing the Final Map, the following shall be done:
a. A landscape plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, shall be
approved by the Planning Director. Said plan shall include existing tree
preservation, particularly along the creeks; buffering of existing development
from views of project homes and lots; drought-resistant plant materials; an
irrigation system; long-term maintenance program for the homeowners
association (including advice on maintenance of drainage facilities?;
designation of and improvement of plans for park sites; aesthetic treatment
of slopes; and shall conform
conditions ons for Tract 4859.erosion and sedimentation
control plan required
All landscaping shall be maintained at the developer's expense until
landscaping has been fully installed and established and final improvements
have been accepted by the Board of Supervisors. Transfer of maintenance
responsibility to the homeowners association or individual homeowners shall
not occur until requirements of this provision and the landscaping plan are
met.
b. A detailed horticultural report of existing trees to be preserved shall be
approved by the Planning Director. Said report shall be prepared by a
qualified horticultural consultant and shall include, but not be limited to, an ^_
evaluation of trees potentially causing hazards'to structures in the project,
measures recommended to substantially reduce or eliminate hazards and
other measures necessary to protect trees during construction.
e. A homeowners association encompassing all lots In this project shall be
formed. CC&Rs for each lot shall be approved by the Plannin&&rector.
CC&Rs for said Association shall require that:
1) payment of dues and assessments shall be both a lien against the
assessed land and a personal obligation of each property owner;
2) The Association shall take fee title to Parcel "A" and Parcel "B."
3) The As500at!On maintain all common areas In good repair, Including
drainage and erosion control improvements, fences, and landscaping.s
The Association shall maintain, through an - appropriate ,
drainage facilities to the rear of Lots 809 81, 83, 115, 116, and 117.
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PROVISIONS
1478th Zoning Unit
Page 2
4) the Association shall keep the County Planning yr Department mme nfocriatio of
the current name, address, and p nu
official representative; and
5) the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, upon sufficient notice,
shall be authorized to enter any portions of the units whenever
restoration of any telephone service requires such entry. The Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Company shall have the right to install, move,
remove, or run new lines in or on any portions of the Common Area and
the interior and exterior of units, except where undergrounding is
required by the Subdivision Ordinance, as is necessary to maintain
telephone service within the subdivision. This provision may not be
amended or terminated without consent of the Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company.
d. Ownership and maintenance of Parcel "C" shall be approved by the Planning
Director.
e. A program shall be submitted by developer and approved by the Director of
Public Works to mitigate traffic impacts on San Ramon Road near Silvergate
Drive. Said program will, as a minimum include contribution to a traffic
signal at the intersection and payment for improvement of the intersection
geometries.
5. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the following shall be done:
a. Developer shall submit for Planning Director approval a program for
incorporation of passive solar design features in homes to be built on subject
lots to the maximum practical extent. Such features may inc�ude, but are not
limited to: house-to-lot orientation (minor axis within 22.5 of true southr
maximization of southfacing glass; overhang or awnings on south windows and
exposures; deciduous trees providing summer shade on south, southeast, or
southwest facades (15 gal. minimum); and provision of heat collectors (such as
concrete floors or water-filled container walls).
b. The project shall be designed to
of satisfaction
hot water systems, aOsf follows
facilitate the current or later addition
1) Construction plans shall designate the location on the roof for the
necessary number of collectors to achieve 60% solar dependency In an
area free bf plumbing or heating vents or other obstructions and with a
structural capacity to support the collectors;
2) Construction plans shall designate the location in each building for an _
appropriately sized hot water storage tank or tanks;
3) -Project plans shall include installation of thq following:
a) Mounting brackets attached to the.roof structure to facilitate later
installation of collectors without cutting roof membrane;
b) Properly-sized
collector location and thetlocationhof the backup hot-water nheater�
c) Properly sized electrical conduit and pull wire between the storage
tank location(s), collector locations and the location of the backup
hot-water heater-to facilitate later installation of sensor wires;
d) Properly sized electrical outlet at the storage tank location to
provide power for circulatory Pumps;
e) One model home with a fully operational solar hot water system;
� r
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PROVISIONS
1478th Zoning Unit
Page 3
f) Dedicate solar access easements to assure that each lot shall have
the right to receive sunlight across adjacent parcels in this project.
Said easements are to be designed by the subdivider and approved
by the Planning Director.
6. Solar hoot water systems shall be offered to buyers as an optional improvement.
7. Final design drawings and improvement plans shall be followed during development
and construction, unless changes are authorized pursuant to General Provision !0.
E. Prior to occupancy of each unit or groups of units, the following shall be done:
a. Project grading shall be completed in compliance with recommendations
contained in the soil and geologic report, as approved by the Director of
Public Works, which is made a part of this approval, and shall be done under
the supervision of the Project Soils Engineer who shall, upon its completion,
submit a declaration of such compliance to the Building Official and Director
of Public Works.
b. Provide evidence to the Building Official from the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company that the units meet PG&E's requirements of the "Energy
Conservation Home Program."
e. The Project Architect or Civil Engineer shall provide a letter to the Building
Official stating that water conservant toilets, shower heads, faucets, and
automatic dishwashers with low flow cycles have been installed in the units.
9. Prior to occupancy of the last S units in any phase of the project for which a
separate Final Map is filed, the following shall be done:
a. Project Civil Engineer shall provide a letter or letters to the Building Official
stating that the project, as built, complies with plans and provisions of this
District. Said letter or letters shall.contain a report accompanied by a map
indicating any authorized changes pursuant to General Provision 10.
b. Landscaping shall have been installed in compliance with the plans required in
General Provision 4a.
10. During the construction stage of the project, changes in the provisions of the
approved Land Use and Development Plan and .:beyond those required under
provisions contained in Exhibit B, may be authorized through Zoning Approval to
the following extent:
a. Grade: Grades on the construction grading plan may be changed a maximum
oMeet from those shown on the grading plan in Exhibit B.
b. Plant Materials: One variety of plant materials may be substituted for
another of semi ar size and characteristics.
c. Landscape Features: Arbors, mounds, benches, fences, and other landscape
eatures may —ceded or modified in design, location and materials. _
If the requirements of the approved plan are specified as minimum or maximum,
said minimums or maximums shall not be exceeded. Any other change may be
permitted to the extent and in the manner specified under Section 8-31.18 of the
Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. All structures and roadways must be contained
respectively within lot and right-of-way boundaries.
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PROVISIONS
1478th Zoning Unit
Page 4
11. After the project has been completed, and subject to observing any minimum and
maximum dimensions specified in the approved plan:
a. In the common areas, plant materials, arbors, fences, paving materials, and
similar landscape features may be added, replaced or deleted.
b. Any construction, repair or replacement which would occur in the normal
course of maintenance of the common areas as the project matures may
occur subject to the securing of any permits or paying fees required by other
ordinance.
Any other changes may be permitted to the extent and in the manner specified
under Section 8-31.18 of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance.
12. With the exception of the following site area requirements, lots designated for
single family dwellings shall be subject to any and all restrictions of the Alameda
County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the R-1-B-E (7,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size)
District.
a. Median Lot Width - 70 feet
b. Side Yard - Aggregate width of at least 15 feet for each lot, minimum S.
13. Every dwelling or accessory structure proposed within Lots 262 and 263 (townhouse
areas) shall be subject to Site Development Review. Buffering and other means
shall be employed to limit intrusion upon and preserve privacy of existing adjacent
residents.
14. No dwellings or structures shall be constructed within 20 feet of the existing
natural creeks tops of banks or artificial tops of creek banks created by grading.
No fill shall be placed on existing natural banks of Martin Creek or Clark Canyon .
Creek.
15. The 25' access easement at the southerly boundary of the property shall not be a
maintenance or .other responsibility of homeowners in this property. Location and
design of this easement shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to filing
any Final Map.
16. Reclassification of the area within the Agricultural Preserve is contingent upon
approval by the Board of Supervisors of an exchange of an equal area to be placed
in the Preserve.
17. Prior to June 1, 1983, and approximately" every 2-1/2 years thereafter until
completion of all construction, the Planning Director will review these General
Provisions and report to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may,
for cause, initiate a public hearing for the purpose of recommending to the Board
of Supervisors that the Board add Provisions, modify existing Provisions, or
eliminate Provisions at that time.
18. Prior to Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Map for the project, further
geological investigation shall be conducted to the satisfaction of the Building
Official to determine that no hazards to proposed structures for human occupancy
exist on the site. Subsequent modifications to the land use and development plan
based on said geologic investigation may be approved by the Planning Director and
become a part of "Exhibit B."
_ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT F ND94GS
1478th zoning Unit, Tract 4859
AS REQUIRED BY CEQA AND STATE AND COUNTY EIR GUIDELINES
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 6, 1981
This document is part of Alameda County Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-
which approves Tentative Map, Tract 4859, and No. 81- 45 , which recommends tort c
Board of Supervisors rezoning to PD (Planned Development District a '138 acre portion
of the Nielsen Ranch, Dublin. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and
State and County implementing guidelines, this document presents findings for each
significant environmental effect of the amendment, as identified in the EIR,
accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding.
1. Significant Effect: Geologic constraints, including the presence of three
potentia y active fault traces, areas of spring seepage, and presence or possible
presence of the Orinda formation, may limit full development as planned.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect.
Statement of Facts: A full soil and geologic investigation covering the property
s been submitted by professional geotechnical consultants and reviewed by an
independent consultant to the County. The engineering geologists agree that
development substantially as proposed is feasible for the site provided their
recommendations are followed. The resolutions approving both the tract map and
the rezoning require adherence to these recommendations. Additional geologic
study is being required to ensure future safety of structures.
2. Significant Effect: Adequacy of downstream drainage facilities to accept increases
in runoff generated by the project is not known.
Finding: Changes have been incorporated into the project which avoid the
sigT n—giant environmental impact.
Statement of Facts: Flood Control advises that downstream facilities should be
adequate.
3. Significant Effect: The riparian environment of Martin Creek could be threatened,
and in some cases directly destroyed due to grading near the creek and sediment
potential from construction.
Finding: Changes have been required in and incorporated into the project which
mitigate the significant environmental impact.
Statement of Facts: Grading has been reduced so as not to encroach upon riparian
Fabitat-of Martin Creek. Conditions of approval require that a strong erosion and
sediment 'control plan be approved by Flood Control prior to any grading. Provision
114 further protects the creeks from encroachment.
4. Significant Effect: Potential for erosion in connection with development of the
site W high due to the steepness of the site. Sedimentation of Clark and
Martin Creeks could occur and sediment could be transported to downstream
drainage channels. _
Fi��nd�iingg: Alterations have been required in the project which mitigate the
significant environmental impact
Statement of Facts: General Provisions 1 and 3, and tract conditions 16, 17, 18, 19,
an-2'0 require a strong, guaranteed erosion and sediment control plan subject to
the approval fo the Director of Public Works to mitigate the potential impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS
1478th Zoning Unit, Tract 4859
Page 2
S. Significant Effect: Air quality would deteriorate incrementally with the addition
of sousing units.
Finding: Changes or alterations which mitigate or avoid the effect -are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, and note the Planning
Commimn or Board of Supervisors. Such changes have been or can and should be
adopted by such other agencies.
Statement of Facts: Mitigation of air quality impacts is most effectively
accomplished t rough regional programs, improving automobile emissions,
encouragement of public transit and carpools as put forth in the Bay Area Air
Quality Management Plan, a regional plan mandated by EPA and prepared by the
Association of Bay Area Governments.
6. Significant Effect: Increased consumption of energy resources.
Finding: Changes have been required in the project which mitigate the significant
enviornmental impact.
Statement of Facts: General Provisions 5, 6, and 8b require that residences be
energy conserving and that solar assisted power be provided or provided for.
7. Significant Effect: Traffic generated by the project would somewhat worsen peak
our congestion at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection.
Finding: Changes have been required in the project which mitigate the significant
environmental impact.
Statement of Facts: General Provision 4e requires that developer improve
intersection geometries at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road and contribute to
a traffic signal at that intersection.
8. Significant Effect: Adverse financial impact on Dublin San Ramon Services
istrict.
Finding: Changes which mitigate or avoid the effect are within the responsibility
andjurisdiction of another public agency and not the Planning Commission or Board
of Supervisors. Such agency can and should adopt such changes.
Statement of Facts: Dublin San Ramon Services District is a special district which
an elected and of Directors and has jurisdiction over fees and charges for
their services. If new development causes adverse fiscal impacts, the DSRSD could _
adjust or impose fees. It is likely that Dublin will incorporate within the year, In
which case fiscal impacts will not be as adverse because of its strong tax base.
9. Significant Effect Designation of the site for development could divert sewer
permits from more central property in Planning Area already planned for
development, possibly resulting in Inefficient development patterns. Resources
might be committed to the project with no assured sewer service. p
Finding: Changes have been required in the project which mitigate or avoid the
signs scant environmental impact.
Statement of Facts: Tract Condition 12 requires that evidence be provided that
sewer service is available to each lot prior to filing of a Final Map. The significant
effect 'was noted with respect to amending the General Plan to permit development
on this site. The Board of Supervisors, In approving the amendment, adopted
findings based on the record at that time. Those Findings and Statement of Facts
(Hoard Resolution No. 189494) are hereby adopted by reference.'
r
r
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS
1478th Zoning Unit, Tract 4959
Page 3
10. Significant Effect: Visual impacts would be adverse.
Fib: Changes have been required in and incorporated into the project which
mitigate the significant environmental effect.
Statement of Facts: The tract map submitted requires considerably less grading
than the "Feasibility Plan" submitted in connection with last year's General Plan
amendment. Further, Condition 30 and General Provisions 4a, 4b and 9b will
require landscaping and other techniques to reduce visual impacts.
^
P.O.toe
CITY oFDUBLIN
Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600
January 24 , 1984
TO; City Clerk/City Manager
FROM ; Couunilmember Dreua '
SUBJECT; P& 83-073 Nielsen Bauob Time Extension for
Tentative Parcel Map 4859
on January 10 , 1984 , the Planning Commission reviewed Planning
Application P& 83-073 Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map Time
Extension. The Planning Commission aDDroved 'tbe application
subject to conditions .
I appeal the Planning Commission ' s action on the application so
that the City Council will bane an opportunity to review the
application and make a determination.
\J /C°«e�
Fred Dceoa
CoUuoilmember
' .
CC . Planning Director �
-
'
- �
` .
_
'
�.
'
. R E C E I V E D
`
|�&J 9r 'O��
"n/, u � |���
DUBLIN PLANNING
EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING PA 83-073 A TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 4859 NIELSEN RANCH
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require
that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels for
the purpose of sale, lease or financing unless a Tentative Map is
acted upon and a Final Map is approved consistent with the
Subdivision Map Act, and City of Dublin subdivision regulations ;
and,
WHEREAS, Alameda County initially approved Tentative
Tract Map 4859 on, July 20, 1981, and said Map is to expire on
January 20 , 1984 ; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the
proposed extension of Tentative Map Tract 4859 , and the related
Rezoning ( 1478th Zoning Unit) , at a public hearing on January 16,
1984 ; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental
regulations, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
found in compliance with State and City CEQA guidelines for use
with the Alameda County approved Tentative Map, and its related
Rezoning ( 1478th Zoning Unit) , and the Planning Commission has
considered that information in its review; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved PA 83-073
upon making the findings and subject to the conditions contained
in Resolution 84-04 , on January 16, 1984 ; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, on appeal, did review the
proposed extension of Tentative Map Tract 4859, and the related
Rezoning ( 1478th Zoning Unit) at a public hearing on February 13 ,
1984 ; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to State anc City environmental
regulations, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
found in compliance with State and City CEQA guidelines for use
with the Alameda County-approved Tentative Map, and its related
Rezoning (1478th Zoning Unit) , and the City Council has
considered that information in its review; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that :
1. Tentative Subdivision Map 4859 , as approved and contained in
Exhibits A, B, C, and D, and as herein conditioned is consistent
with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and City
zoning and- related ordinances .
2 . The City of Dublin is in the process of preparing and,
adopting a General Plan.
3 . _ There is a reasonable probability that the proposed
Tentative Subdivision Map will be consistent with the future
general plan.
4 . There is little or no probability that the Tentative Map will
be a detriment to, or interfere with, the future General Plan,
should the related Planned Development rezoning ultimately be
inconsistent with the future General Plan.
5 . The significant environmental impacts listed in the
"Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendment - Nielsen
Ranch" have been satisfactorily mitigated, as approved by Alameda
DP 83-20
County during its approval of Tentative Map Tract 4859 and the
1478th Zoning Unit, and as presented in the Environmental Impact
Findings ( 1478th Zoning Unit, Tract 4859 ) .
6 . The Tentative Subdivision Map will not have a significant
environmental impact .
7 . The Tentative Subdivision Map will not have substantial
adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or
public improvements .
8 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed development,
in that the site is indicated to be geologically satisfactory for
the type of development proposed in locations as shown, provided
geological consultants ' recommendations are followed; and the
site is in a good location regarding public services and
facilities .
9 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development in that the design and improvements are consistent
with those of similar existing developments which have proven to
be satisfactory.
10 . This project will not cause serious public health problems
in that all necessary utilities are, or will be, required to be
available and Zoning, Building, and Plumbing Ordinances control
the type of development, and the operation of, the uses to
prevent health problems after development.
11 . The time extension will give the property owners adequate
time to acquire the required utilities and install same .
12 . The time extension will allow the property owners adequate
time to complete design of and install required capital
improvements such as roads and street lights .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council does hereby conditionally approve the time extension for
Tentative Map Tract 4859 as shown on Exhibits A, B, and C,
subject to the conditions listed below:
++NOTE: In order to reduce the chance of error in
determining which conditions (initial and revised) apply
to this project, the initial conditions of approval (as
first approved by Alameda County Conditions ) are also
listed below. Where these conditions have been modified
(e.g. "Alameda Public Works Director" changed to "City
Engineer" ) the condition is preceded by "*" . Where a
new condition is recommended, the new condition is
preceded by
*1 . The design and improvements of Tract 4859 shall be in _
conformance with the design and improvements indicated
graphically, or by statement on the face of the map, labelled
Exhibit A, B, and C, Tract 4859 including street locations,
grades , alignments, and widths, the design and storm drainage
facilities inside and outside the Tract," grading of lots, the
boundaries of the Tract, and County standards for roadways in
typical sections, as revised.
*2 .. The street surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The
City Engineer shall specify types of base materials to be used
and shall specify the structural design. The subdivider shall,
at his sole expense, make tests of the soil over which the
surfacing and base is to be constructed and furnish the test
reports to the City Engineer. The developer ' s soils engineer
shall determine a preliminary structural design of the road bed.
After rough grading has been completed, the developer shall have
soil tests performed to determine the final design of the road
bed.
DP 83-20
*3 . The minimum uniform gradient shall be 0 . 5 percent . No cut
or fill slopes shall exceed 2 : 1, unless approved by the City
Engineer .
4 . Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of
base materials, all underground utility mains shall be installed
and service connections stubbed out beyond curb lines . Public
utilities and sanitary sewers shall be installed in a manner
which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, and gutter when
future service connections or extensions are made.
*5 . Prior to filing the Final Map, precise plans and
specifications for street improvements, grading, drainage
( including size, type, and location of drainage facilities both
on- and off-site) , and erosion and sedimentation control, shall
be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
6 . Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading
operations are different from that anticipated in the soil and
geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant
changes to the recommendations contained in original soil
investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be
submitted for approval and shall be accompanied by an engineering
and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards
of land slippage, erosion, settlement and seismic activity.
7 . Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory
boring shown on the map, that is known to exist, is proposed, or
is located during the course of field operations must be properly
destroyed, backfilled, or maintained in accordance with
applicable groundwater protection ordinances . Zone 7 should be
contacted (at 443-9300 ) for additional information.
*8 . The subdivider shall furnish and install street name signs,
bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director, and
traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards .of the City
of Dublin.
9 . Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, or
other approved dissipating devices .
10 . A minimum of 12" diameter pipe shall be used for all storm
drains to ease maintenance and reduce potential blockage .
11 . The Final Map may be filed in stages, provided that the
first stage includes completion of Silvergate Drive; each stage
contains at least 20 units (except for Lots 1-7 , which may be
filed separately) , and stages are contiguous to previously
approved stages .
*12 . Prior to the filing the Final Map, subdivider shall furnish
the City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services -
District stating that the District "has agreed to furnish water
and sewer service to each of the dwelling units included on the
Final Map of the subdivision.
*13 . Dust control measures, as appoved ,by the City Engineer
shall be followed at all times during grading and construction
operations .
*14 . Construction and grading operations shall be limited to
weekdays (Monday through Friday) and the hours from 7 : 30 a.m. to
5 : 30 p.m. , except as approved in writing by the City Engineer.
*15 . Developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and
clean of project dirt, mud, materials and debris during the
construction period, as determined necessary by the City
Engineer.
*16 . Prior to release by the City Council , the performance
guarantee required by the contract under Condition 21 :
DP 83-20
a. All landscaping required under the General
Provisions of the PD District, 1478th Zoning Unit,
shall be installed and established.
*b . An as-built landscaping plan prepared by the
project Landscape Architect and a declaration by the
Project Landscape Architect that all work was done
under his supervision and in accordance with the
recommendations contained in the landscape and soil
erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
*c . Grading of the tract must conform with the
recommendations of the soils engineer to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
*d. The following shall have been submitted to the
City Engineer:
( 1 ) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered
Civil Engineer, including original ground surface
elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations,
lot drainage, and locations of all surface and
subsurface drainage facilities .
( 2 ) A complete record, including location and
elevation of all field density tests, and a
summary of all field and laboratory tests .
(3 ) A declaration by the Project Civil Engineer and
Project Geologist that all work was done in
accordance with the recommendations contained in
the soil and geologic investigation reports and
the approved plans and specifications .
*17 . Prior to any grading of the site, and in any case prior to
filing a Final Map, a detailed construction grading plan
(including phasing) , a drainage, water quality, erosion and
sedimentation control plan for construction and post-construction
period prepared by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering
Geologist, shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plan
shall include detailed design, location periods when required,
and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sediment control
measures . The plan shall attempt to insure that no increase in
sediment or pollutants from the site will occur : The plan shall
provide for long-term maintenance of all permanent erosion and
sediment control measures such as slope vegetation. All erosion
and sediment control measures shall be maintained by the
developer until responsiblity is turned over to the project
homeowners ' association at the time the ,City Council accepts
final improvements and releases the performance guarantee
required under Condition 21 .
*18 . Grading shall be completed in compliance with the
construction grading plans and recommendations of the Project
Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, and the approved
erosion and sedimentation control plan, and shall be done under
the supervision of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering
Geologist, who shall, upon its completion, submit a declaration
to the City Engineer that all work was done in accordance with
the recommendations contained in the soils and geologic
investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications .
Inspections that will satisfy final subdivision map requirements
shall be arranged with the City Engineer, if grading is
undertaken prior to filing the Final Map.
*19 . If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Map, a
surety or guarantee, as determined suitable by the City Engineer,
shall be filed with the City of Dublin to insure restoration of
the site to a stable and erosion resistant state if the project
is terminated prematurely.
DP 83-20
*20 . Maintenance of common areas including ornamental
landscaping, graded slopes, erosion control plantings and
drainage, erosion and sediment control improvements, shall be the
responsibility of the developer during construction stages and
until final improvements are accepted by the City Council and the
performance guarantee required under Condition 21 is released;
thereafter, maintenance shall be the responsibility of a
homeowners ' association which automatically collects maintenance
assessments from each owner and makes the assessments a personal
obligation of each owner and a lien against the assessed
property.
*21 . The subdivider shall grade the tract, install landscaping,
soil erosion, sedimentation and drainage control measures, and
improve all streets and easements, as shown or indicated on
Exhibit B and these conditions, and shall contract with the City
of Dublin to accomplish all said improvements .
*22 . Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction
debris, and materials on-site until disposal off-site can be
arranged. Subdivider shall be .responsible for corrective
measures at no expense to City of Dublin.
23 . Gas, electric and telephone service shall be provided to
each lot in the subdivision.
*24 . Cable TV service shall be provided to each lot in the
subdivision, in accordance with existing City ordinances and
policies .
*25 . Install fire hydrants at the locations approved by the
Dublin San Ramon Services District in accordance with the
standards in effect at the time of development. A raised blue
reflectorized traffic marker shall be epoxied to the center of
the paved street opposite each hydrant .
*26 . If, during construction, archaeological remains are
encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an
archaeologist consulted, and the City Planning Department
notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains
are significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning
Director, shall be taken to protect them.
*27 . Subdivider shall pay fees in lieu of park dedication to the
City of Dublin based on value of the number of square feet of
land in the tract required by the Subdivision Ordinance .
*28 . Street grades shall be no more than 12% maximum, with 6%
grades at intersections, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
29 . Subdivider shall be responsible for controlling any rodent,
mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities . _
30 . Grading shall be reduced as much as possible through use of
split lots, custom lots, minor redesign, etc . Lots 80 , 81, 82 ,
and 83 sha11 be custom lots, not graded to flat pads, to reduce
canyon fill and preserve views . Lot #168 shall be eliminated.
31 . Street names shall be approved by the Planning Director. No
approval is given by this resolution to the names shown on the
Tentative Map submitted.
32 . Prior to filing the Final Map, the tract area must be
reclassified to the PD (Planned Development) District,
establishing provisions with which the use and design indicated
herein. substantially conform. Any modifications to the project
design approved by this reclassification action shall supercede
design on the tentative map and shall be considered as an
approved modification on the Tentative Map.
DP 83-20
*33 . Gates for stubbed streets shall be approved by the City
Engineer, and may be of a type allowing access for agricultural
purposes .
**34 . Copies of the Final Map and improvement plans, indicating
all lots, streets, and drainage facilities within the subdivision
shall be submitted at 1"= 400-ft . scale, and 1"= 200-ft. scale
for City mapping purposes .
**35 . Provision shall be made to connect a street into the
Murray School property to the east . The exact location to be
worked out with City Staff .
**36 . -Revised: Traffic impacts at San Ramon Road shall be
mitigated by the developer providing, or paying for (at the
City ' s option) , intersection improvements at Silvergate Drive and
San Ramon Road as follows :
(1) one-half total cost of fully signalizing the
intersection.
( 2 ) Median island modifications , to include new fifty feet
of 4-foot-wide island •on south leg, thirty feet of four-foot-wide
island on the north leg of the island, and shorten the Silvergate
leg island approximately 20 feet .
( 3 ) Remove and replace an island at the northwest corner of
the intersection.
(4 ) Extend the drainage culvert approximately 30 feet, to
allow street widening along the west side of San Ramon Road
approaching from the north.
( 5 ) Widen the San Ramon roadway, along the west side, and
north of Silvergate Drive to the ultimate width, to include two
through lanes and one right turn lane . This widening to extend
approximately 400 feet, be about 30 feet wide at the maximum
width, and taper to "0" at each end.
( 6) Construct related signing and striping at the
intersection .
( 7 ) Engineering, plan checking, and inspection costs .
The contribution shall be made on a prorated unit basis at Final
Map approval such that all the contribution be made when one-half
the total units have been subdivided by Final Map. Should the
City proceed with the intersection/signal work prior to the
Developer submitting all the required mitigation fees, the City
will set up a reimbursement fund to pay back the City ' s General
Fund.
**37 . Prior to the filing of any Final Map, grading or
improvement plans with Alameda County, the City of Dublin shall
be . provided copies of said plans in ample time to review and
prepare comments on them for distribution to the County reviewing
body and staff . All other plans , and the like, that are prepared
to comply with the conditions of approval for Tract 4859 and the
1478th Zoning Unit shall , likewise, be provided to the City of
Dublin for review and comment .
**38 . The time extension for Tentative Tract Map is granted for
two and one-half years (until September 16, 1986 ) .
**39 . Lot #191 shall be eliminated at its present location. An
alternate location may be approved by the City Engineer and
Planning Director .
**40 . The project engineer shall revise the access to lots
24 and 25 , or relocate the lots, to eliminate access on the
Silvergate Drive, unless such a revision can be shown to be
impractical .
DP 83-20
**41 . Creekside (Alpha) Drive shall be widened from
Silvergate Drive to Lot 33 . The widening shall create 42 ' of
paving within a 58-foot right-of-way.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of
1984 .
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DP 83-20
t
c
r
s
e
e
R
t
a
•c j
1
1 �i
e
w
`f
........ .: ....... ..........
.c•
cr r`
wr•
V•
I
�^ c
•°`� R 0
9 , •��•,, c• �,' �_ I- `°•• A ••A .c•,` � � � .:�PAR!(5.......RESfRyE�.. FORCES :.
r•� ..M R.fM 2
0
r
al
e`
1
c�° 7
C.:
r 9
2`
7 Y
,A„� r/'• ,v;r <` j.. h:. •�, O`6...', '..TRAINING-. •AREI
\ .•+ .,c + A ,_ �•is�':'::::::::�:':::.'.:
k •�:.:i 'i l::
r
c �4
n
m
`ad tea+” �+'� ..'`1 tiue�:.tt :•ifr:i°.iiii:�::'0''��:.;;::'r
•.r v4:4 ''"° ��- -oust':{'>,?...'.`;a�, .�,+.
�N�. i� .�i„m`' �,l^ tl,• '•f.OIF .��• •..... .....
c
ttr _<<•
a t
W.
n
t
� J
s o`
r `
hC 3 FIrN. ,.ter\'fi
o
'•�, 3 lay C
\ s •`S\�. E 94 . e\OF
1•P �1 �1� art lit•° � s..,u..n ':ii�::-:::?i::•?'r::�;r.'i?�-.::r::•.�ii'i: :'FEDERAL-
\ q°4 fTt-'4 n c ,.q v ' - f':::��:�::::�::::::�::`.::::::':::::::::;:�: •�:�,'::
'•or.q,b 8 i . c.na c'•e.. • :.::::;'.: :::::::':-::.::;::•'•'t1:•::::60RRECTIONA
i,�1i n r 9 7 G t, - J, d` p ° I" mne.Io i PARKSAESERVE:i'z'i{F::Y._:.;:•:.: :_:.,:::.
1 C OL�1a MWyrF.Q erc u•oq - C •'t-.r - �) ',� "•7 ]] INSTRUft.
C :D ? � T n„✓ •ice tt
' _ .%• ...rh.•c 4
of 1
r
t
G
E D
sc/ '
4
A �cv+•
n `(
Z
I
4
I� 44
o•
In •c.�'
C
'i
J
S y,
L
I"� '..TRAINNGA EA'.'
a >/
n
\\�.; DUBLIN 4
.o a. `�A,\c` � / ,W ••�'S 'per.!
I%`• o
o � a
c,�' �� t 4 Da.� s.o•.e.00e
Lt DR I stDMEP�E' A•]��;r -
„qt O
todEl^' d ,dV '1 q.y o ! ,,•'� '••q c e.� Y
CITY OF DUBLIN N
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
pro feet Title le 0.0 01 0.2 0.3 04 0$ 0.6 07 0.8 09 1.0 mile
Address 2316 inches=1 mile
%..//j�,;./.��..^,r,,....� _ _ - -- — _ x".J«..rro�,n,�„•.rw,ra,,,,,,wr„ w4 ---- .------- -
TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 4859
i 9 /�� Kfq.LiY7pV KW/P kAWM 4bWY Lt(�rG»viq
iii• `,ti 1 �a rl
� t ra '• ,«��:.• �” � ,r t is .�1�� Ij
� GU •��� _
., �.. �, _ .w e -...•�,�r 'x,n �,��« i` y 2/`�fi .,rn w •f ��/may._ ¢' SRS:
r
-
raa,r.:'
., //" , 't�s J��r N, +'" -� �« o,t,,v s•i ,��.w e. �a _; w \ o f?Z.,y-.• � l+r P_l `l � �� . ran
LOTf6Pl=j1
LOT
`i 4 - 1\ in vow Q i ,s r+r = "r :x't rn r.1 rl F f,CR 'r m„s.e w ♦\ •.+, / ft.-..4�
I/ulullu
/ ' n
IM fAG/A'ffRr.:�: fAGiMffR
1�
...., �I '�"�r�`'i� -- - - u.. n"r- r w�. r - ^�. r f mrr avna,n•M rrrw
:�l "/' ,n r •• ..s�;r: �-e �•�! . ' _ ry �:rn rive°rrwr`.re'i:wvo
1
I '� � - _-_—___ - u •~f Y" p�f ,f�p�� .i 'ruwp n"i: c,4f•�•
k `*_
«C rn><� n� -..._-. _� ri.�' n IR &�KN Mg4M• � �'.�rr r.�.r wnmrwv
� � `rf '-• - �• rr r�e! 1 y ti r«ra,e r,v.—Z� � I
r.ry«.n � I r � � w«.w .. •' .wrx rrn r r I-
Y .., wrrr g l•:
III 7 q
r
n �i 1j1;'.��• :.t',,c:; \'' "Rt> rl w,rrmxrmr w
RT 41,rf•. VE
VpRATE` YE
MORI
t MM wSIR[T
j 7t�i1 �
Nstti �
I
TENTATIVE`MAP>:TRACT 4859
•I � .'"¢ r .. 1 �/i .,r6 KfAS¢N7 /P A' �QYIY/Y[l(�FOBYL4 - -
; \\,
\
i
''�,u na �',_` � 1 y .r � `,F�� � \� •�~ � � `Cf-+�! I 'm /rrr '
y nrneuaa b''•.\xv !a`"d',r Y p y,9 w i .i. � i
.' � t rY♦\JYY'" N ; �i� z _� ��sr. .,�� ! +„��n. � r, � u �a,� L��• �' �,i�a a ( ) Ir, r ! ux°nl ..
�: 1f: t• " 1 i rls, 'm :/F sF� � p\i T '•.r-. -� I\ ../ �J �...
s .n 1r r« .•KI- a�. { rn ii�:�.v,nak r",i Nr ^� rrY '• v � v\,+r\�. y.� 'u +�
��' .�/' �-•' a.� � «` i""�raa N. � L'rx 1.r r } t}zx a R'ra r" 1 .- �'`'°w° \\ ,N.IC,
�' "'� � ...' � _ � �•„�--�-T �("��Y, � } 1 e ( � saLJCw.rufER Enc%uffR -
. i / .I•♦ Y� r �-..� a� -' —:�rx I} t° .--7°•h'°1. L i_ ��♦ - - �� / � ( 4 � -:r r� .r:� � a ,'• �,
eu
__
'1 moaru.r•...a,rmxa }; :r / /, _--_ — —_.nmt N;,z_:.--�'� -
r/ ,� •�} « / �� .i-. r jf `.0 I \ - !� _•\ / t�/J. _�•` ..w K ~w..w rz.s s s
r �, �( 1,�'+:.� � x�gY�r,ri ,� �� 't<:R ra,ett�xs�ar .� f f`'f�,P /d�/L�\ r $ n u}.� a •i�.
. I$ '��T_- «. _, „ " :�`., tt�.�r i' �„ � � — / . ' .�� � ra.a..♦.,�H,�';,t;t a..r...�.;i - ' 1 Y..
.�at�env�arW
'y _ �!o"ni•s wn euern J/IYfA'(,,/!f�^�_•-. /�t�r� (, C( -l\
'I ,rnr•���� .cr---� /` /t'\ u ,x��.\ �.,\. / ' - '.\:fir BrKN MMM -�f>xn�n+emrw•i �j I y
z
/"'� �',� a , .". a� _`L '�'•�,3Y`�>•":>„ ,Sa�j:�f N�' ,j/ � 't t` '- r "'7�F,r,ra.[- _a._ ii
I ,r�- iq• r
` ♦'_1a r .. �' r� •+°,mss y,: ��I� r .�..... .-.i f. I i
' a
�♦-
I m Svrnrnie nave •�6ir{ c ��°'
r �, c
.r
/ n -
jam lx q,4N _
TENl'AME MAP TRACT 4859
Ll
IVu
a
11 14 a -� R @�- � .;� � _ n aQe^ ® � ____��.� ., •°r�l. is ..+.nrr
/ � , .•• — '� d — d d�r� ® ® ® ® �� � `/., / ' m.a+�" a r-e.,m uu.-..m
. �. 1 -�' � ��-a�yw°'�r..�--'HL'tl` �__ � � / r� � � � } .�� .. �`}1 .e.r s..m.•..0 r.�nr<
\? ` � � � O O ,.�\ t D' '�: f".i* y '' rr®✓fir IJ vJ i� - ' lur'asw�wrn �4�
`, ;. _ •� —
r
canes uvct
,•zits=jT—.,�... —• ''� s�:. -� I�
\t .lJ ♦\, e%Y/ .se
�_ � �.'C� S `L l' ¢��.nvwr Il� �.YI VFprA7 ryny( �.a•�""i.�
RECEIVED
1 I _
FEB 2 1984
DUBLIN PL611ING
TENTATIVE MAP TRACT
4859
'`
�,��+` �,,, '� l�._�ra � ���_� 't L ..\ / __y�. _ ;u�i�./ i.,y u _ f M i1�'Cir.f, '� /•
-r
+tai �Lw�.• ! .nTt\C„��. ,�;,� �������ts�����lluieu»iii L� �1 -----------
� !• a�� 1 \ 'ti� �T--- - .ww omt-�i .r -_ n� � � / �f �m .a��rr�
roesy y� I,' .YN /_ / - \ rnYri nw/v��_- __-�r � /• � ,,
-_ ,( •� any YY •, � i � per'; y�,_�—_�.. - -��... �Y %�` � � l -- �,..r.,..
uPWIZ a7\� {\e
- "_.i r �• ^� -/• :,� n f�'-q... --+ ��� ',.� '� - I�... _ •.\ � 3%ICN M.WR% �` w.c-ter..mv,+•re
.� � � yam,�,� / • ,!� �f/ wa{�
.v:�rrr:T •� � � `"q� �( a •� ,r
_ ��• '�••'" _ .p '�\\'\ r$�.!? '�/; --tip/ � � .� .�....- L.
RECEIrVED
FEB 2:1984 �.-� •�.v — _�•.— ..
CA M:W
DUBLIN PLANNING