Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 Prezoning Annex K&B AGENDA STATEMENT �36 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 13 , 1986 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING PA 85-017 Kaufman and Broad of Northern California , Inc . (Applicant and Owner) , Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning , Annexation , Tentative Map and Site Development Review applications involving a 13. 9 + acre portion of the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision (Tentative Map 4859) at the extension of Silvergate Drive north of Hansen Drive . EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A - Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance . Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning requests Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding the annexation request Exhibit D - Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map Request Exhibit E - Draft Resolution agreeing to an exchange of property tax revenue concerning PA 85-017 Exhibit F - Draft Ordinance for Planned Development -(PD) Prezoning and Rezoning requests Exhibit G - Planned Development (PD) Prezoning/Rezoning , Tentative Map , Annexation and Site Development Review submittals Exhibit H - Staff Studies - December 12 , 1985 Background Attachments : 1 ) December 16 , 1985 , Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) 2) October 7 , 1985, Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) 3) Project related Minutes from Planning Commission Meetings of October 7th , November 4th and 18th , and December 2nd and 16th ,. 1985 4) Applicant ' s written statement 5) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance 6) Traffic Impact Analysis of the Silvergate Highlands Townhouses , prepared by TJKM Transportaton Consultants., October , 1985 (portion of report) ITEM N0. A Copies to : Kaufman & Broad Wollman & Associates 7) Horticultura. eport - Silvergate HighlE Townhomes , prepared by Nelda Matheny , HartScience , inc . , August 3 , 1985 (portion of report) 8) Base Map of City showing proposed annexation territory 9) General Provisions of the 1478th Zoning Unit 10) Original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Map 4859 11 ) City Council Resolution No . 17-84 for PA 83-073 (Time Extension for Tentative Map 4859) 12) Agency comments cited in Draft Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1 - Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation 2 - Take testimony from applicant and the public 3 - Question Staff , applicant and the public 4 - Close public hearing and deliberate 5 - Adopt Resolution regarding Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (Exhibit A) 6 - Adopt Resolution regarding Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning (Exhibit B) 7 - Adopt Resolution regarding Annexation proposal (Exhibit C) 8 - Adopt Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5410 (Exhibit D) 9 - Adopt Resolution regarding Property Tax Revenue (Exhibit E) 10 - Waive reading and introduce Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit E) FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The annexation will have a negligible fiscal effect on the City . DESCRIPTION : Kaufman and Broad of Northern California , Inc . , is requesting the City prezone approximately 13 .4 + acres and rezone an additional 0. 5 + acres for a proposed 130-unit multiple family residential development . The subject property is located along the east and west sides of Silvergate Drive directly north of Martin Canyon Creek. The applicant is requesting approval of a planned development over the 13 . 9 + acres along with a concurrent request for Tentative Map approval for 130 townhouse units and proposed common open space areas . The land use element of the City ' s General Plan designates the site for medium-high density residential development . It provides for 6 . 1 to 14 .0 dwelling units per acre . This land use designation, along with previous zoning and tenta- tive map approvals covering the site , collectively serve to govern the use of the property. The previous zoning called for no more than 129 dwelling units over the 2 lots created by Tentative Map 4859. -2- ,z . Si the majority of the site i_es outside the cu_ nt City boundaries , the applicant has requested the City to initiate an annexation application. The annexation would involve a 13 . 4+ acre portion of the project site. These applications were subject to a series of Planning Commission public hearings , commencing with a hearing on October 7 , 1985 , and ending with a hearing on December 16, 1985 . Through the course of the public hearings the majority of the issues separating Staff and the applicant were ultimately resolved . The major remaining issues have been reduced to concerns involving the following five areas : 1 ) size and configuration of western recreation area ; 2) the layout of units along Martin Canyon Creek on the eastern half of the project ; 3) the size and configuration of the interior recreation area on the eastern half of the project; 4) the recommendation that the Site Development Review be subject to a separate , subsequent public hearing before the Planning Commission ; and 5) the recommendation to reduce the project density by 2-3 dwelling units in response to the design changes recommended to address issue areas 1 , 2 and 3 listed above . Other major issues discussed during the course of the public hearings (pool facility in the west half of the projection, introduction of additional finished floor elevation splits , treatment and height of perimeter slopes , drainage , traffic impacts , impacts to the Martin Canyon Creek riparian corridors , etc . ) are addressed in detail in the various Resolutions acted on by the Planning Commission on December 16 , 1985 . Elaboration of the four remaining major issues is provided as follows : 1 . Western Recreation Area . Through the course of the review of the project , Staff and the applicant have differed regarding the appropriate size and use of the western recreation area. The initial submittal detailed an area approximately 0. 11 + acres in size with no formal recreational facilities proposed . Staff has consistently recommended the area be increased to a minimum size of one-third of an acre and that a pool and spa facility , or equivalent facility, be provided . The latest submittal by the applicant provides for an area of 0. 27 + acres and a recreation area proposed for split use as a pool facility and an open lawn area. Staff continues to recommend that the western recreation area be increased in size to the minimum size of one-third of an acre . To accomplish this , Staff recommends one unit from the building group adjoining the west side of the recreation area be removed . The modified layout is graphically portrayed in the Staff Study labeled Western Active Recreation Area (Exhibit H) . As detailed in the Staff Study , the displaced unit could potentially be reintroduced into the building group at the east side of the project -3- en, 9 off of Rolling Hills Dri _ (shown on the plan as Unit #74 which has been moved to Building Group #65468) . The Planning Commission ' s action on this project reflects the modifications recommended above . The one-third acre site is recommended to assure adequate room for development of a quality recreation facility while providing room for guest parking . (The Staff Study shows eight spaces for guest parking, with one half the spaces to serve as guest parking for the four adjoining building groups . ) The larger site also provides adequate separation between the active recreation facilities and the nearest adjoining residential unit(s) . Comparisons to other multiple family residential projects bear out the need to provide the larger area for the recreational facility . COMPARISON OF RECREATIONAL AREAS IN MFR PROJECTS Approximate Size of Provision of Minimum Set- Total Size Pool/ Adjoining back - Pool of Recreation Hardscape Guest to Dwelling Spa Area" Deck Area Parking Units Provided Subject Proposal -Applicant's 0.27 acres 800+sf/ Submittal (11,750+sf) 1550+sf No 25' No -Staff Study 0.33 acres of 12/12/85 (14,375+sf) N/A Yes-4 spaces N/A N/A Arbor .Creek PD 0.48 acres 740+sf/ (Barratt/Higgins) (20,900+sf) 4625+sf Yes-5 spaces 40' Yes Amador Lakes 0.53 acres 800+sf/ -Rec. Area 1 (23,150+sf) 3275+sf Yes-9 spaces 40' Yes 0.71 acres 975+sf/ -Rec. Area 2 (31,000+sf) 5050+sf Yes-14 spaces 90' Yes 0.38 acres 800+sf/ -Rec. Area 3 (16,650+sf) 2,200+sf Yes-6 spaces 65' Yes Kildara PD 0.44 acres 800+sf (Morrison Homes) (19,300+sf) 5,000+sf Yes-4 spaces 40' Yes *Area calculations observes minimum ten-foot setback from all adjoining residential units or pedestrian walkway serving units where appropriate. 2 . Layout of Units Adjoining Martin Canyon Creek. Martin Canyon Creek runs along the south side of the eastern portion of the project . The Creek corridor , with its large , mature trees , is the principle natural amenity on the site . The proposed site plan layout blocks both views and physical access to this corridor for all but the future owners of the ten dwelling units in the two building groups proposed along the top of the Creek. Staff is recommending that that Creek corridor be opened up to provide a minimum 40-foot separation between Building Groups #47450, #51- #55 and #56460. To accomplish this minimum separation, one dwelling unit would have to be eliminated . -4- 7-:77"4'7f'xl++ +t..r:•R `* r y„'g'.r—a r - — - .. Th taff Study labeled Easter Recreation Areas/Martin Canyon Creek (Exhibit H) graphically portrays Staff ' s recommended modifications for this area and indicates the elimination of Unit #51 along Martin Canyon Creek . These modifica- tions will serve to provide more substantial view corridors between building groups into the Creek area . They will provide a better physical tie between the Creek area and the two open space areas and the pedestrian loop walkway proposed for this portion of the project . The Planning Commission ' s actions on this project reflect the modifications recommended above. 3 . Eastern Interior Recreation-Common Open Space Area . To provide an area of an appropriate size , location and configuration for use as an interior recreation-common open space area for the eastern half of the project , Staff is recommending that one dwelling unit be eliminated from Building Group #39-#43 . The Staff Study labeled Eastern Recreation Area/Martin Canyon Creek (Exhibit H) graphically portrays Staff ' s recommended modifications for this .area and indicates the proposed elimination of Unit #43 . This change will increase the area to approximately 0.30 + acres and make the area more functionally shaped by squaring off the western edge of the -open space area . The Planning Commission ' s actions on this project reflect the modifications recommended above . A remaining unresolved sub-issue is what the appropriate ultimate recreational use of this interior recreation-common open space area should be . To provide adequate direction to the applicant and Staff , it appears appropriate for the Council to make a determination at this time whether some type of formal recreation facility is desired to be developed in this area . Should it be the Council ' s decision to require a formal recreation facility , such as a multi-sports court , then Staff recommends that Condition 466 of the Draft Resolution for the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning requests be modified by adding a final sentence reading generally as follows : "The resultant one-quarter + acre open space area shall be developed in part with a multi-sports court type facility or equivalent recreation facility determined acceptable through the Site Development Review process . " 4 . Processing of the Site Development Review. With the initial application submittal , the appli- cant requested that the Site Development Review (SDR) request be reviewed and processed con- currently with the review and processing of the zoning , annexation and tentative map requests . Due to the significant site plan layout changes recommended by Staff at the initial Planning Commission hearing (October 7 , 1985) , Staff recommended the SDR request not be acted on at the same time as the other requests . Staff recommended the SDR be handled as a separate , subsequent submittal with its submittals adjusted to reflect the recommended site plan layout changes . Additionally Staff recommended that the SDR be subject to a subsequent Planning Commission public hearing review. The applicant has consistently requested that a second round of public hearings be avoided and that the SDR be acted on at the Administrative level (Planning Staff review) . At the final Planning Commission hearing on this item, the -5- �r •R.c!RwmSgraraq^ y.,... '.�.. 'y;.F: q.,.. � .y y .,.m^- Co.......ission reaffirmed its desi_ ,: to have the SDR application returned back to the Commission as a public hearing item. Retaining this process will serve to assure public forum review of the detailed SDR submittals and allow input from the Planning Commission. 5. Reduction in Project Density. As detailed above in major issue areas 1 , 2 and 3 , the collective result of the Staff ' s recommended design changes would be the reduction in project unit count by two or three dwelling units. The applicant has not indicated any support for the suggested design change involving the relocation of Unit #74 to Building Group #65-#68 on the western half of the project . Condition #54 for the Draft Resolution for the Planned Development (PD) Pre-zoning and Rezoning reserves the option to reintroduce that unit back into the project through the Site Development Review process . The presentations to date from the applicant underscore that their principle objections to the design modifications discussed in issue areas 1 , 2 and 3 , revolve around the resultant loss of two to three units , which would bring the project count down from the proposed yield of 130 units to either 127 or 128 units . Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission recommendations regarding these applications and take the following actions : 1 - Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (Exhibit A) . 2 - Approve the Findings and General Provisions of the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning (Exhibit B) with amendment to Condition #66 (Recreational Facility) as appropriate . 3 - Direct the City Staff to initiate an application with the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) involving the annexation request (Exhibit C) . 4 - Approve the Tentative Map request (Exhibit D) . 5 - Adopt the Agreement regarding Property Tax Revenues (Exhibit E) . 6 - Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit E) . -6- n,*r-�1?rr"'(S lca0!..,"rx9ai a"•�s5",,,."'r" ....,- ....t..:. "u.xt''n.rte^ c• r .w-r-vc. 'c zr •� -."..r, ._ .N'.•rl i._."�..t°,.�.. ... ... .,. - .. . .��.: .< ...._.. ? j., h �., .r.,. .. _, n,c� r` �ic:r:. ++;f ,. -r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING AND ANNEXATION REQUESTS INVOLVING 13.4+ ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE CITY, AND FOR THE CONCURRENT PLANNED DEVELOPMEMT (PD) REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS INVOLVING THE SUBJECT 13.4+ ACRES AND AN ADDITIONAL 0.5+ ACRES LYING WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 85-017 KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California , Inc . , submitted an application requesting that the City prezone to a Planned Development (PD) District 13. 4+ acres lying outside the southwestern boundary of the City of Dublin with a concurrent request that the City initiate an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation of the 13. 4+ acres into the City of Dublin ; and WHEREAS, the applicant filed concurrent Tentative Map and Site Development Review covering the subject 13.4+ acres and an additional 0. 4+ acres lying within the City of Dublin (upon which a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning request was also filed) ; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended together with the State ' s administrative guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and City Environmental regulations , requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared ; and WHEREAS , pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et . seq . , a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department with the project specific mitigation measures outlined in Staff ' s letter of September 26 , 1985 , regarding : A) Traffic B) Vegetation C) Flood Control/Landscaping D) Neighborhood Security/Landscaping E) Soils Investigation and Foundation Design Study WHEREAS , the Dublin Planning Commission on December 16 , 1985 , did adopt Resolution No . 85-055 recommending the City Council accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project as adequate and complete ; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider said Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance at its meeting of January 13, 1986 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the project , PA 85-017 , has been changed by the applicant and/or the applicant has agreed to provide mitigation measures , resulting in a project that will not result in the creation of any significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and Local Environmental Law and Guideline Regulations and that it is adequate and complete . R46-/eESoLv r�oN-/'Irr� T AEirr 77IrALZAR-, j►70rV ©F 6A11119a /.ylENl& ;iCrAIIFC41v� EXHIBIT A -1- 1986 . PASSED, PPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of January , AYES : NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -2- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------ APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING AND REZONING CONCERNING PA 85- 017 KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California , Inc . , is requesting the City prezone approximately 13 . 4+ acres located to the southwest of the City limits in the vicinity of Silvergate Drive extension to a Planned Development (PD) District and is concurrently requesting the City rezone approximately 0. 5+ acres lying within the City , also to a Planned Development (PD) District ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a series of public hearings on the project beginning with a noticed public hearing on October 7 , 1985 , and concluding with a public hearing on December 16 , 1985 , at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No . 85-056 recommending approval of the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning request PA 85-017 ; and WHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects as required by law for the Planning Commission hearings and the January 13 , 1985 , City Council public hearing ; and WHEREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff and reflected in Planning Commission Resolution No . 85-056; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports , recommendations and testimony as herein set forth ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed prezoning and rezoning are consistent with the City General Plan ; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for this project ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the prezoning and rezoning will not have a significant environmental impact ; and WHEREAS, the prezoning and rezoning are appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area , and will not overburden public services ; and WHEREAS, the prezoning and rezoning 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 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed prezoning and rezoning are consistent with the City ' s General Plan policies ; and WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the prezoning and rezoning will be a detriment to , or interfere with , the City ' s General Plan ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council approves the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning requests PA 85-017 subject to the following Conditions of Approval . 0770N,43�1�,Y/V&-n AFFj�_rvi/1/[7- E X 1 6 U"h IT, D -1-� ;'a. � �� 4 ? _,.� cmu r �n r ..r '�S °rt .w,,;�r n-^-r•,r r^ _,s., .� �- T' __ . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------ APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING AND REZONING CONCERNING PA 85- 017 KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc . , is requesting the City prezone approximately 13.4+ acres located to the southwest of the City limits in the vicinity of Silvergate Drive extension to a Plan'n'ed Development (PD) District and is concurrently requesting the City rezone approximately 0. 5+ acres lying within the City , also to a Planned Development (PD) District ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a series of public hearings on the project beginning with a noticed public hearing on October 7 , 1985, and concluding with a public hearing on December 16, 1985 , at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No . 85-056 recommending approval of the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning request PA 85-017 ; and WHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects .as required by law for the Planning Commission hearings and .the January 13 , 1985 , City Council public hearing ; and WHEREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff and reflected in Planning Commission Resolution No . 85-056 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports , recommendations and testimony as herein set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed prezoning and rezoning are consistent with the City General Plan ; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for this project ; and WHEREAS , the City Council finds that the prezoning and rezoning will not have a significant environmental impact ; and WHEREAS, the prezoning and rezoning are appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area, and will not overburden public services ; and WHEREAS, the prezoning and rezoning 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 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed prezoning and rezoning are consistent with the City' s General Plan policies ; and WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the prezoning and rezoning will be a detriment to , or interfere with , the City ' s General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council approves the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning requests PA 85-017 subject to the following Conditions of Approval . r r u xaF"'9KV..•'.�?^4F'."C$tc''S!""'r-�'c'`.�.�>�'$'+q'�i'fF47_"'+I'a'$�r..T'"'"-. Y��r `�� "'�'�".�.�'�'.�y`v...f.sn� �'.""��.+�•'�� .cC"+:'°�-`�"�'�3."'.xr�°,.' C A All. c Conditions of ApI 'al PA 85-017. 1 and . 2 1 This approval is for a multiple family residential project with a maximum of 128 units . Development shall be generally consistent with the following submittals , modified to conform with the conditions of approval outlined elsewhere in these conditions . A. Revised Tentative Map & Development Plan - Silvergate Highlands Townhouses , prepared by Ferguson & Wollman, and dated received by the Planning Department on December 12 , 1985, as further modified by the two Staff Studies prepared by the Dublin Planning Department , dated December 12 , 1985 . B. Preliminary Landscape Plan - Silvergate Highlands Townhomes , prepared by Cardoza , Dilallo & Harrington and dated received by the Planning Department on February 15, 1985 . C. Floor Plans and Elevations labeled Silvergate Highlands - Townhomes Preliminaries , prepared by D.W. S . , Inc . and dated received by the Planning Department on April 3 , 1985 . D. Conceptual Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plans , prepared by Ferguson and Wollman and dated received by the Planning Department on April 3 , 1985 . E. Lattice Work Detail , dated received by the Planning Department on April 3 , 1985 . F. Typical Deck Section and Redwood Retaining Wall Detail , prepared by Ferguson & Wollman and dated received by the Planning Department on April 3 , 1985 . G. Martin Canyon Creek Study - Sections , prepared by Ferguson & Wollman and dated received by the Planning Department on April 3 , 1985 . 2 Site Development Review approval by the Planning Commission (noticed public hearing) shall be acquired prior to the recordation of the Final map or the issuance of building or grading permits . The Site Development Review shall implement these following conditions of approval concerning the physical development of the project . 3 All units shall contain standard and currently available energy saving devices , and shall be insulated in accordance with Title 24 , State of California Administrative Code . Evidence shall ' be provided to the Building Official from P.G.& E. that the units meet P.G. & E. ' s requirements of the "Energy Conservation Home Program" , if it still exists at the time the units are to be constructed . 4 The project architect ,- or civil engineer , shall provide a letter to the Planning Director or Building inspector stating that water conservant toilets , shower heads , faucets , and automatic dishwashers with low flow cycles have been installed in the units . 5 Except as may be specifically provided for within these conditions of approval , the development shall comply with the City of Dublin Residential Condominium Development Guidelines . Except as may be specifically provided for within these conditions of approval , the development shall comply with City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions . 6 After the project has been completed , and subject to observing any minimum and maximum dimensions specified in the approved plan : -2- a . In he common areas , plant aaterials, arbors , fences, paving materials , and similar landscape features may be added or replaced , in kind . 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 ordinances . 7 Except as may be specifically provided for within these conditions of approval , development shall comply with City of Dublin Police Services Standard Residential Building Security Requirements . 8 Light standards (freestanding , pedestrian and/or wall mounted) utilized in this project shall be of a design which shield the light sources from view from off-site . Light standards used shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director as regards design, location, number and illumination intensity . 9 The project shall be constructed as approved . Minor modifications in the design, but not the use , may be approved by Staff . Any other change will require Planning Commission approval through the Conditional Use Permit review process or , depending on the magnitude of the modification , submittal of a new Planned Development Rezoning submittal . Changes to the proposed finished floor elevations and site grading shall not exceed a maximum deviation of two feet from the elevations indicated on the Revised Tentative Map and Development Plan , dated received December 12 , 1985 . 10 Handicapped ramps and access as required by Title 24, State of California , _ shall be provided (parking and walkways serving onsite recreational facilities) . Handicapped parking stalls , appropriately signed , shall be provided evenly throughout the project . 11 Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.& R . ' s) shall be established for this development . The C . C.& R . ' s shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the Final Map . The C. C .& R. ' s shall be reviewed and approved by the City to assure that : a . There is adequate provision for at least the maintenance in good repair of all commonly owned facilities , property and landscaping including but not limited to ; open space , common parking and driveway areas , lighting , recreation facilities , landscape and irrigation facilities , fencing , exterior of all buildings , and drainage and erosion control improvements . b . Payment of dues and assessments shall be both a lien against the assessed land and a personal obligation of each property owner . An estimate of these costs shall be provided to each buyer prior to the time of purchase . C . The Association shall keep the City Planning Department informed of the current name , address , and phone number of the Association ' s official representative . d . Payment of the water and street lighting bills (maintenance and energy) and maintenance and repair of storm drain lines are the obligations of the Homeowners ' Association, unless paid for through a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Assessment District . -3- zt e . Each r is to sign an acknow" ;ement that he has read Constitution and Bylaw;. of the Homeowners ' Association and the Conditions, Covenants , and Restrictions applying to the development . f . The Homeowners ' Association shall contract with , or be advised (as to how to handle maintenance operations) by a professional management firm. g . No exterior parking of recreational vehicles or boats may occur for a period longer then twenty-four (24) hours within this development. h . The C.C.& R. ' s shall prohibit the use of guest parking areas by project residents . i . The C.C.& R. ' s shall include a statement outlining the obligations of the property owner to be responsible for public liability in case of injury in connection with public utility easements , and for maintenance of the private vehicle access ways and utility trenches in public utility easements . They shall further be void of any mention of future dedication of the access way to the City as a public street . j . Restrict the recoloring , refinishing , or alteration of any part of the exterior or any building until the Owner or Declarant first obtains approval. from the related City of Dublin Departments . 12 . The developer and/or his representatives shall notify the Department of Fish and Game , P. 0. Box 47 , Yountville, California 94599 of any construction activity proposed in conjunction with this project that may affect Martin Canyon Creek in accordance with Section 1601 and 1602 of the Fish and Game Code . If determined necessary by the Department of Fish and Game , a Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be secured by the developer . 13 . The use of entrance gates to this project are specifically disallowed : 14 . At least one smoke/fire detector shall be provided in each residential unit . A fire alarm system acceptable to D. S . R. S .D . - Fire Department and the Planning Department - shall be provided for in this project . 15 . A pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted as part of the Site Development Review materials . The plan shall include section details of the pathway system and a detailed lighting plan . 16 . Heating of the pool facility shall be by a solar heating system (which may be supplemented by a gas heater) , the location and design of which shall be reviewed as part of the Site Development Review. The developer shall submit documentation that the number/size/location/design of the solar collector panels will suffice to provide adequate pool heating for a reasonable length of time in each calendar year . 17 . The at-grade patios shall be individually fenced and landscaped . Individual hose-bibs for each ground level unit patio area shall be provided by the developer . The layout of the enclosed patio areas (as regards size and placement of concrete patio pads and the design of the enclosing fencing and retaining walls) shall be subject to review and approval as part of the Site Development Review submittal . 18. The developer shall contribute $30, 000. 00 towards the required fee contribution for the improvement of the Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road intersection to mitigate traffic impacts . -4- _. 19. The necessa, off-site traffic improve is along Silvergate Drive shall be made as called for by the traffic impact analysis report prepared for this project and/or as determined necessary by the City Engineer . This work shall include revisions to medians and/or adjustment of through- lane markings and/or other similar work as determined necessary by the City Engineer . 20. There shall be compliance with the requirements of the DSRSD -Fire Department , the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (see letters of 3-5-85 and 4- 11-85) , and the City Engineer ' s requirements (as outlined in part on the memo dated May 7 , 1985) . Written statements from each agency approving the plans over which it has jurisdiction shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building or grading Permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project . 21 . All utilities to and within the project shall be undergrounded . Common water meters may be used , subject to review by the City Staff and DSRSD. 22 . Utilities for each unit shall be individually metered . All meters shall be screened from view within an enclosure that is compatible in design and materials to that of the building to which it is installed . 23 . Secure DSRSD agreement to maintain the on-site sanitary sewer collection system excluding individual laterals . The system shall be designed as acceptable to DSRSD. 24. Developer shall furnish and install signs stating "Private Street" and "Fire Access - Park in Designated Locations Only" along private streets . Guest parking spaces shall be designated by sign , paint or equal . 25. Fire hydrants at the locations approved by the DSRSD-Fire Department shall be installed and operable , to the satisfaction of the DSRSD-Fire Department , prior to combustible construction. Provide a raised blue reflectorized pavement marker in the center of the private vehicle accessways at each fire hydrant . 26 . Prior to final inspection and occupancy of any units : a. Storm drainage facilities shall have been installed as approved by the City Engineer . b . Fire protection devices shall have been installed , be operable , and conform to the specifications of and inspections by the Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department . C . A 6" high concrete curb (minimum) , or "rolled-curb" of a design acceptable to the City Engineer , to separate all paved parking and passageway areas from landscaped areas shall have been installed . d . Cable TV hook-up shall be provided to each unit . e . As-built drawings showing the locations of all underground utilities (water , storm and sanitary sewer , gas , electric , telephone , and cable TV) shall be provided to the City. f . Street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director , shall have been installed . 27 . Prior to occupancy of any unit , each phase of development (landscaping , irrigation, fencing , and landscape lighting in accordance with approved landscape and erosion control plans) shall have been installed , or a bond or letter of credit for the landscaping , lighting , appurtenant structures , and irrigation system shall be provided to the -5- _. City . A itement from the Project 3ndscape Architect certifying that landscaping has been insLalled under his/her supervision and is in accordance with approved plans shall be submitted to the Building Official and Planning Director . 28. Construction of the private vehicle accessways shall conform to the following : a . Backfill of all utility trenches and pavement design in private vehicle accessway areas shall meet standards for public streets . b . The developer or the project ' s homeowners ' association shall covenant and be responsible for the maintenance of all facilities in the private vehicle access way which are not maintained by a public utility agency . C . The connection between the private vehicle accessways and the public street shall be by a standard driveway type of connection. Driveway throat width (at back of sidewalk) shall be the same as the vehicle accessway . d . Safety lighting is to be provided on private vehicle , accessways and on pedestrian-way facilities connecting thereto . Lights shall utilize "vandal resistant" enclosures , and shall have sufficient power and spacing to provide an adequate maintained foot candle level . 29 . Approval of this Planned Development is for two years as is specified in Section 8-31 . 2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance . 30 . As part of the submittal for a grading plan , the developer ' s engineer shall field survey Martin Canyon Creek and perform the necessary hydrologic calculations to establish the capacity of that section of Creek extending from the southeast corner of the Nielsen school property to the southwest corner of the subject property (approx . 2 , 800 feet in length) . Should the Creek not handle the 100-year storm flow, the developer shall be responsible for installation of improvements designed so that this capacity is met , with an effort to maintain the natural appearance of the Creek . 31 . The following Creek setbacks shall be adhered to : For existing banks of 2 : 1 slope (horizontal over vertical) or steeper , the setback is established by drawing a line at 2 : 1 slope from the toe of the existing bank to a point where it intercepts the ground surface and then adding 20 feet . Where the existing bank is 2 : 1 or flatter , the setback shall be 20 feet from the top of the bank. 32 . The following information shall be provided to determine an adequate setback from the creek and for the required hydrologic calculations : a . The precise location , both horizontal and vertical , of the Creek centerline and toes and tops of both sides of the creek . b . Cross sections of the Creek at intervals acceptable to the City . Sections at 100' intervals are typical ; more frequent sections may be required . 33 . The developer ' s engineer shall develop the expected truck length and turning radius criteria to use the private streets (fire equipment , delivery , garbage or moving trucks , etc . ) and design the curb radii accordingly and submit this data and design criteria with the Site Development Review application. 34 . Wheel stops thin the project shall b she curb at the end of the parking stalls . Parking stalls shall be a minimum depth of eighteen feet . 35. On-site circulation shall be constructed to private vehicle accessway standards as acceptable to the City Engineer . 36. 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 . 37 . Prior to filing for building permits , 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 submitted and subject to the approval of the City Engineer . 38. 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 a site- specific/project-specific soils and geotechnical report which shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of erosion, settlement and seismic activity. 39 . Roof drains shall be tied into the storm drain system by a manner approved by the City Enginer . 40. Dust control measures , as approved by the City Engineer , in conjunction with the projects improvement plans , shall be followed at all times during grading and construction operations . 41 . Construction and grading operations and delivery of construction materials 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 . 42 . Developer shall keep adjoining public streets and driveways free and clean of project dirt , mud , materials and debris and clean up shall be made during the construction period , as determined by the City Engineer . 43 . Prior to commencement of construction of any structures site grading shall conform with the recommendations of the project soils engineer , to the satisfaction of the City Engineer . A declaration by the soils engineer that he has supervised grading and that such conformance has occurred shall be submitted . Prior to final inspection of buildings : 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. -7- ...c.-':�-,,-,r_..•..-.,..., _-;.'.' :,'?., a"'• 'Z"r,ST^ .^?7 ,.V...a.S.$:.:: .. 3. �.r, ..�.r ,,2r^,.^.- S"'�. Y � ,k `T e•��_.* r ... 3) A . claration by the Projec. 'ivil 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 . 44. Prior to any grading of the site , a detailed plan covering grading (including phasing) , drainage, water quality , erosion and sedimentation control for construction and the post- construction period shall be prepared by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist , and shall be approved by the City Engineer . Said plans shall include detailed design, location , and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sediment control measures . The plans 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 45. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris , and materials on site until disposal off-site can be arranged . The developer shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City . 46. If during construction , archaeological or historical remains are encountered , construction in the vicinity shall be halted , qualified archaeologist consulted , and the 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. 47 . Unit address information and directories shall be provided to the satisfaction of the. DSRSD - Fire Department , Postal Service, Police Services , and Dublin Planning Department . 48 . Parkland dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits , or prior to recordation of the Final Map , whichever occurs first . The City Engineer shall calculate the in-lieu fee based upon the Subdivision Ordinance . For in-lieu fee calculation purposes , the preliminary park dedication land required is 50, 181 sq . ft . (assuming 128 units at a dedication of 0. 009 acres/du) . Final calculations shall be at the issuance of building permits or at the approval of the Final Map , whichever occurs first . 49 . Should the project be phased : a . The undeveloped area shall be maintained as acceptable to the DSRSD - Fire Department and shall be kept free of trash and debris . b . A road system of a design determined acceptable to the City Engineer and the Planning Department shall be installed . C . Each phase shall be landscaped and developed such that should construction of subsequent phases be delayed , the constructed phase(s) will appear as a completed project. The landscape buffer along the north and east sides of the east half of the project shall be installed as part of the first phase of development on that side of Silvergate Drive . The recreation facilities for the half of the project under development in the initial phase( s) shall also be installed as part of the first phase of development . 50. Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units, the following reports shall be filed with , and approved by , the City Engineer at the time the units are put up for individual sale . -8- a . a report a licensed roofing contri: _,or certifying that the roofs of all the structures are in good condition and not likely to be in need of replacement for at least 10 years. b . a report by a Professional Engineer attesting that the structure of all buildings , pavements , storm drainage facilities ; and the interior and exterior plumbing , electrical systems , and utility and mechanical equipment to be owned in common, or as part of the individual condominiums , are in good and serviceable condition; C . a report by a licensed painting contractor certifying that painting throughout the project is in good condition and that the building exteriors should not require repainting for at least five years . d . a report by a licensed termite and pest control specialist certifying that the structures are free of infestation and structural damage caused by pests . 51 . Special private storage areas of at least 120 cu. ft . , per unit shall be provided within, or adjacent to , each unit (equivalent space within the garage may be , utilized to satisfy this requirement) . Details of the location and design of these areas shall be supplied within the Site Development Review submittals . _ 52 . Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units , all appliances shall either be replaced with new units or be warranted to the values of new appliances at such time as the units are put up for individual sale . 53. Prior to the issuance of building permits , the developer shall submit the appropriate documentation to demonstrate that all proposed development shall meet or exceed applicable state noise attenuation requirements . 54 . Information detailing the design , location and materials of all fencing , and of retaining walls over two feet in height , shall be submitted as part of the Site Development Review and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director . Design and material of fences shall be compatible with existing fencing in the vicinity of the project . 55 . The existing riparian corridor vegetation situated along the property ' s Martin Canyon Creek frontage shall , to the greatest extent , possible be retained in its present form. The trees currently existing on site which are located outside the riparian corridor shall be retained wherever reasonably feasible . The exact location of building groupings , driveways , fences and walls , and the specific unit mix of units in the building groups adjoining the Creek shall be subject to detailed review through the Site Development Review to determine which trees can be reasonably retained . The identified mitigation measures of the • site—specific tree preservation program shall be incorporated into the project ' s grading , drainage and site development plans to the greatest extent feasible . 56 . The developer shall be responsible for the development and recordation of an appropriate agreement , which shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney , which assures provision of the vehicular/ pedestrian/bicycle cross access between the two portions of this project and provides for the joint use of the recreation facilities developed in the respective halves of the project . 57 . Public utility , easements shall be established for the electric distribution system and to provide for lines for the Telephone Company. 58. There may be -ne sign established at e,_.i entrance to the project for project identification purposes (a maximum of four signs) . The location, copy and design of the signs shall be subject to review and approval as part of the Site Development Review submittal . 59 . The developer shall confer with the local postal authorities to determine the type of centralized mail receptacles necessary and provide a letter stating their satisfaction at the time the Site Development Review submittal is made . Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Dublin Planning Department . If centralized mail units are not required , the developer shall provide written documentation from the Postmaster stating the exemption. 60. If the subject project is not subdivided , as proposed under Subdivision 5410, the project shall remain subject to the conditions of approval established for that subdivision , as determined applicable by the City Engineer and the Planning Director . 61 . The number of two-foot finished floor elevation splits on the western portion of the project shall' be increased to 21+ splits (from the 18 splits proposed by the applicant with the additional splits between Units #129 and #130, #74 and #65 , and #96 and #97) and the number of splits on the eastern portion be increased to 20+ splits (from the 18 splits proposed by the applicant with the additional splits between Units #23 and #24 and #29 and #30) . The use of the additional finished floor elevation splits shall be made to make the site ' s grading plan more sensitive to the existing topographic layout of the site to increase the amount of usable areas surrounding the units , allow better coordination of individual unit driveways to internal roadway grades and to allow a decrease in the height and depth of both perimeter and interior slopes . To that extent , the exact number and location of finished floor elevation splits utilized shall be determined through the Site Development Review process . 62 . Additional use of 1 ' to 3 ' high retaining walls shall be made across both portions of the project to accomplish the same design goals outlined in Condition #61 . The location, height , and design of retaining walls shall be determined through the Site Development Review process . The design of retaining walls and/or slope gradients at the front and rear of adjoining units where two-foot finished floor elevation changes are utilized to allow the grade transition between adjoining yards shall also be subject to review and approval through the Site Development Review process . 63. Slopes for areas adjoining both public and private roadways shall be modified to maximize the level areas available for landscape treatment and for general safety consideration . Where these changes occur shall be subject to review through the Site Development Review process . Special care shall be taken to assure grades extending away from the public right-of-way do not immediately change in slope to create hazardous conditions and areas that will be difficult to landscape . 64 . To provide an area of appropriate size , location , configuration , and slope for use as an on-site active recreation area, Unit #74 shall be eliminated from its current location in the project . The mix of units in the resultant Building Group shall be subject to review and approved through the Site Development Review process . The eliminated unit may be added back to the project into Building Grouping #65468 as generally depicted on the Staff Study dated December 12 , 1985 , and labled "Western Active Recreation Area. " These changes , along with the addition of the required finished floor elevation splits , shall be made to yield a relatively rectangular , level area of one-third of an acre in size . -10- The area sl- 1 be developed with a7 fictive recreation facility suc._ as a pool complex . Th` type of facility developed , and its exact layout , shall be subject to review and approval through the Site Development Review process . 65. Modifications to the building groups along the Martin Canyon Creek corridor along the south side of the eastern portion of the project shall be made to this area to open up this area to provide an entry focal point and a visual tie to the adjoining creek corridor . To provide for this change , site plan modifications as generally depicted in the Staff Study dated December 12 , 1985 , and labeled "Eastern Recreation Areas" , including the elimination of unit #51 , shall occur . 66. Modifications to the area adjoining Building Groups #61464 shall be made to provide a relatively rectangular , level area of approximately one-quarter of an acre in size . To provide for this , site plan modifications as generally depicted in the Staff Study dated December 12 , 1985, and labeled "Eastern Recreation Area" , including the elimination of Unit #43 shall occur . The mix of units in the resultant Building Group shall be subject to review and approval through the Site Development Review process . 67 . Project fencing where the adjoining land use is single family residential shall be with six-foot high heavy wooden fencing . Fencing along the Hansen property shall also be with a heavy six-foot solid fence . To provide -additional project cohesiveness and to mitigate potential hazards where sloping areas will be established along the public right- of-ways , the site plan shall be modified to provide a flat area extending from the back edge of the sidewalk into the project with a minimum dimension of seven feet (as measured to the nearest top or toe of slope) along the entire length of the project ' s public street frontage . This area shall be heavily landscaped . 68. The open peninsula along the creek at the southeastern corner of the eastern portion of the project shall be developed as a passive recreation area. Landscape screening and a tie-in to the pedestrian walkway network and the open area adjoining Building Groups #39443 and #61-#64 shall be provided for the recreation uses established at this location . This peninsula area shall be tied into the pedestrian walkway network as a destination point through the use of landscape treatment and benches along the walkway. 69. Prior to the issuance of building permits , the developer shall be responsible for the development and recordation of a document which would allow, to the extent controllable by the developer , the placement of fill in the 325 ' + strip lying below the fencing/trellis structures proposed on the south side of Building Groups #964100 and #101 4104 (extending 10 ' + into the property from the south property line) that may be desirable to be ' placed in this area in conjunction with development of the adjoining section of the Hansen property (APN 941-110-1-5) . Should placement of that fill material take place, costs of modifying fence locations , drainage facilities or landscaping and irrigation improvements for that area receiving fill shall be borne by the developer of the Hansen property. The document shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney . The document shall stipulate that the intent of the envisioned agreement is to provide a smooth, well-planned transition between the two developments ultimately established on the respective properties. 70. If the project is developed in phases , all physical improvements shall be required to be in place prior to occupancy except for items specifically excluded in a Phasing Plan approved by the Planning Department. No occupancy shall be allowed _ until the entire area , or approved phase , is finished , safe, accessible , provided with -11- =- 4� ° PT.,.^2"._7?. c.._ 47 .. . ,Mi 77 71-7.7, ;°',�,.pp "4 j`'e-,5 i; ".r �+ ,.S d- ra.oc+.- tl° w'^t X's,:.,i� �rrR. vr^^'t....aF -r �•" •n .� ^+rm� r—r _.._ _ .- ...-0..rt �. "h.- '�\...a .... .. -..-\.n.n.....1fi5..TS:�(�n ..-.It•!,•• -. .. .s.. -. .7.. ,_ ...-..- all reasonab. expected services an amenities , and completely separated from remaining additional construction activity . Any approved Phasing Plan shall have sufficient cash deposits and other assurances to guarantee that the project and all associated improvements shall be installed in a timely and satisfactory manner . Any approved Phasing Plan shall also include written acknowledgements from the property owners and any and all occupants or tenants to be filed with the Planning Department . Said acknowledgements for a subdivision shall be part of the settlement documents between the developer and the buyer. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 13th day of January, 1986. AYES : NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -12- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- DIRECTING CITY OF DUBLIN STAFF TO INITIATE AN APPLICATION TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) AN ANNEXATION PROPOSAL INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 13.4+ ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN INVOLVED IN THE REQUEST FILED UNDER PA 85-017, BY KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California , Inc. , submitted an application requesting that the City prezone 13 . 4+ acres lying outside the southwestern boundary of the City of Dublin with a concurrent request that the City initiate an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation of the 13 . 4+ acres into the City of Dublin ; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission did hold a series of public hearings on the project beginning with a noticed public hearing on October 7 , 1985 , and concluding with a public hearing on December 16 , 1985 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No . 85-057 recommending that the City Council direct City of Dublin Staff to initiate an application with LAFCO regarding this annexation proposal ; and WHEREAS, public notice of this request was given in all respects as required by law for both the series of Planning Commission public hearings and for the January 13 , 1986 , City Council public hearing ; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance covering the annexation proposal ; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending the request be favorably acted on , as reflected in Planning Commission Resolution No . 85-057 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports and recommendations at a public hearing on January 13 , 1986 ; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find that ; 1 . The subject property is located within the adopted Sphere of Influence for the City of Dublin . 2 . The annexation will be a logical extension of City of Dublin boundaries . 3. The City of Dublin can provide high quality and efficient services to the site . 4 . The annexation will be consistent with the Dublin General Plan . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council directs City of .Dublin Staff to initiate an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission regarding this annexation - proposal . Qr�f}�j',(�E,SoLVTl ✓- QV� 617Y iN rll9-T2r- T 1986 . PASSED, PROVED AND ADOPTED this 1 ' h day of January , AYES : NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -2 _ ... _'^ •:."'!4..:.w-5;.-' treTf' "t.'_^�'•. `mor'wa,. q +P.r-- . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5410 CONCERNING PA 85-017 .4 KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. proposes to subdivide 13 . 9+ acres of land into 130 multifamily residential townhouse lots and common open space parcels; and WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no real property may be divided into 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, the Planning Commission did review the proposed Kaufman and Broad Silvergate Highlands Townhouse - Tentative Map 5410 at a series of public hearings concluding with a public hearing on December 16 , 1985 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 85-058 recommending that the City Council approve PA 85-017 . 4 , Kaufman annd Broad .of Nothern California, Inc . ; and WHEREAS, proper notice of the series of Planning Commision public hearings and the January 13 , 1986 , City Council public hearing were given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a Mitigated Negative .Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared for the Tentative Map; WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Tentative Map be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff and reflected in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 85-058 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports and recommendations as herein above set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered and reviewed the submittal information at its regularly scheduled meeting on January 13 , 1986 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Site Development Review will not have a significant environmental impact ; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council does hereby find; 1 . Tentative Map 541.0 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and City Zoning and related ordinances . 2 . Tentative Map 5410 is consistent with City' s General Plan as they apply to the subject property. 3 . Approval of Tentative Map 5410 will not result in the creation of significant environmental impacts. 4 . Tentative Map 5410 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 . EXHIBIT D oLVTo�t/- l�/T�l✓�/j'Ii�P 5�/D ^ r 7 r' jn: Y " T-- r--+ . , 5 . 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 the geological consultant ' s recommendations are followed; and the site is in a good location regarding public services and facilities . 6 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in that the design and improvements are consistent with those ' of similar existing residential developments which have proven to be satisfactory. 7 . The request is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area, will not overburden public services, and will facilitate the provision of housing of a type and cost that is desired, yet not readily available in the City of Dublin. 8 . General site considerations, including unit layout , open space, topography, orientation and the location of future buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, and similar elements have been designated to provide a desirable environment for the -development.. 9 . 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 Subdivision Ordinances control the type of development and the operation of the uses to prevent health problems after development . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves Tentative Map 5410 PA 85-017 . 4 subject to the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless otherwise specified the following conditions shall be complied with prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Each item is subject to review and approval by the Planning Department unless otherwise specified. GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1 . Approval of Tentative Map 5410 is subject to the sub- divider securing final approval from the Dublin City Council for PA 85-017 . 1 and . 2 the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning requests covering the subject property. Any modifications to the project design approved by the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning action shall supercede the design on the Tentative Map and shall be considered as an approved modification on the Tentative Map. Site Development Review approval for the project shall be secured prior to the recordation of the Final Map. ARCHAEOLOGY: 2 . 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. BONDS : 3 . Prior to release by the City Council of the performance and labor and materials securities : a. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improvement Plans and Specifications . b. All required landscaping shall" .be installed and established. s C. 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 recommen- dations contained in the landscape plans. d. Grading of the subject property must conform with the recommendations of the soils engineer to the satis- faction of the City Engineer. e. 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. 4. Performance, labor, and material securities to guarantee the installation of improvements, including streets, drainage, grading, utilities and landscaping, shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Grading and Improvement Plans. CREEK SETBACK: 5. Buildings shall be no closer that 20 feet from top of bank on Martin Canyon Creek, where the top of bank is either the existing break in topography, or a point at the existing ground line which is the intersection of a line on a two-horizontal-to-one vertical slope begun at the toe of the slope in the creek (whichever is more restrictive) . DRAINAGE• 6. Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, or other approved dissipating devices. 7. A minimum of 12" diameter pipe shall be used for all public storm drains to ease maintenance and reduce potential blockage. DEBRIS: 8. 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. DUST: 9. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be watered, or other dust-pallative measures may be used, to prevent dust, as conditions warrant. EASEMENTS: 10. Where the subdivider does not have easements, he shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for improvements required outside of the property. Original copies of the easements and/or rights-of- entry shall be in written form and shall be furnished to the _ City Engineer. r 7"^•: °'�?"- >.. •.QT'S~'' :C^ °e^+"4' .;c a ..z 'c•r".r'.—�."r`f_':s "' f 11 . Existing and propujed access and utility ease..rents shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. prior to grading and improvement plan. These easements shall allow for practical vehicular and utility service access for all lots . EROSION: 12 . Prior to any grading of the site, a detailed construction grading plan ( including phasing) ; and a drainage, water quality, and 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 . FIRE: 13 . 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 . 14 . All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connections, and appurtenances thereto, necessary to provide water supply for fire protection, must be installed by the developer and conform to all requirements of the applicable provisions of the Standard Specifications of Dublin San Ramon Services District . All such work will be subject to the joint field inspection of the City Engineer and Dublin San Ramon Services District . FLOOD CONTROL 15 . Increase the capacity of Martin Canyon Creek along the property frontage so that it can handle a 100-year storm. Design of improvements shall be as determined by acceptable to the City Engineer , City Planning Department, and Alameda County Flood Control. Work on the creek that involves other property shall be done subject to obtaining the affected property owner ' s approval . FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS : 16 . Improvements shall be made, by the applicant, along all streets within the development and as required off-site, to include curb, gutter , sidewalk , paving, drainage, and work on the existing paving, if necessary, from a structural or grade continuity standpoint . GRADING: 17 . Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials, all underground utilities shall be installed and service connections stubbed out behind the sidewalk . Public utilities, Cable TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines, shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made. 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 _ I -4- 7 3'T'Y 7T_;'rT "`z iT '' y fi,�r 4'i „i"'"7a^`Sw• -r•- awe rY ' -:.. :y+ �{ ,f tir i. -•, tit ri3 ,i- r. � n'�� r;i s.�C} v � ..{.. r .K: r ,� accordance with the recommendations contained in the soils and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications. Inspections that will satisfy grading plan requirements shall be arranged with the City Engineer . 19 . Any grading on adjacent properties will require written approval of those property owners affected. 20 . The subdivider shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as is found necessary by the City Engineer . 21 . 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 by the City Engineer . It 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. HANDICAPPED ACCESS: 22 . Handicapped ramps and parking shall be provided as required by State of California Title 24 . IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AGREEMENTS, AND SECURITIES: 23 . All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb gutter , sidewalks , driveways, paving, and utilities, must be constructed in accordance with approved standards and/or plans . 24 . The Subdivider shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City for City for all public improvements . Complete improvement plans, specifications , and calculations shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the City Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements , prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement . Improvement plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements along adjacent public street( s) and property that relate to the proposed improvements . All required securities , in an amount equal to 100% of the approved estimates of construction costs of improvements, and a labor and material security, equal to 50% of the construction cost , shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the City and affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement . MISCELLANEOUS: 25 . Copies of the improvement plans, indicating all streets, and drainage facilities shall also be submitted at 1"= 400-ft . scale, and 11'= 200-ft , scale for City mapping purposes . 26 . 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 and the performance guarantee required 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. 5 w ' l'i'P'fM"^•�^"QS7.R' T'lynl.iMf• ti'�.�YY'Aae ..^.�i.ry.'�'fP]!'.,er"� 'nom/:.'�..-. ...CM1wo Vie.-.r-...yewrTy�.0 y^ i=�+`t7'te�[�"".r'7' y.-'!4. .r�''�s b t ,ti 'lr3 :+,.:€•u _��"�' ",! .2Y.�?_ ?...._...a-�'�K`r r✓+ r"+::ti;�`u::.a-.. i" T.b�tk_.S`..,++.i a;L• �7c"r..!.'.,�.. .... ... .>_y. ;'` "1�..e1• 27. There shall be compliance with DSRSD Fire Department requirements, Flood Control District requirements, and Public Works requirements. Written statements from each agency approving the plans over which it has jurisdiction shall be submiltted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of Building Permits on lots of the subdivision or the installation of any improvements related to this project. NOISE• 28. 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. PARK DEDICATION: 29. Parkland dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits or prior to recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. The City Engineer shall calculate the in-lieu fee based upon the Subdivision Ordinance. For in-lieu fee calculation purposes, the preliminary park dedication land required is approximately 50, 181 sq. ft. ( 0. 009 acres/dwelling unit X 128 units ) . Final calculations shall be at the issuance of Building Permits or at the approval of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: 30. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be accomplished at no expense to the City. STREETS: 31 . The minimum uniform gradient of streets shall be 0. 5%, and 1% on parking areas, and 2% on soil drainage. The street surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The City Engineer shall review the project ' s Soils Engineer' s structural pavement 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 subdivider' 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 and parking areas. 32. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City Engineer for any work done within the public right-of-way of Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Donlon Way, where this work is not covered under the Improvement Plans. STREET LIGHTS: 33. Install ,street light standards and luminaries of the design, spacing, and locations, approved by the City Engineer. STREET NAMES: 34. The subdivider shall furnish and install street name signs, in accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin, bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director. The subdivider shall furnish and install traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin. Addresses shall be assigned by the City Building Official. -6- _, . STREET TREES: 35 . Street trees, of at least a 15-gallon size, shall be planted along the street frontages. Trees shall be planted in accordance with a planting plan, including tree varieties and locations, approved by the Planning Director . Trees planted within, or adjacent to, sidewalks shall be provided with root shields. TITLE• 36 . A current title report and copies of the recorded deeds of all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed and, if necessary, copies of deeds for adjoining properties and easements, thereto, shall be submitted at the time of submission of, the grading and improvement plans to the City Engineer . UTILITIES• 37 . Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services, shall be provided underground to each lot in accordance with the City policies and existing ordinances . All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements, or public streets sized to meet utility company standards . 38 . Prior to the filing the grading and improvement plans the developer 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 the development . WATER: 39 . Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system, and must be installed at the expense of the developer , in accordance with District standards and specifications . All material and workmanship for water mains, and appurtenances thereto, must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and will be subject to field inspection by the District. 40 . Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory bor.ing 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. 41 . Comply with DSRSD, Public Works, requirements, particularly regarding: a . The elevation of the storm drain relative to the sewer lines; b. The location of the sewer man-holes. They shall be in parking areas accessible by District equipment ; C. Dedication of sewer lines; d. Location and design of the water system values . TRAFFIC AND FLOOD CONTROL: 43 . Prior to issuance of building permits assurances (e.g. cash, bonds) shall be provided to the City Engineer that guarantees that the installation of improvements along Silvergate Drive occur as per the mitigation measures detailed in the traffic impact analysis prepared for this project. 1 L• ' 'ry � l'p 7 1. x f 1 �R.r!�S.a a ._a`y ",°r . :f�'. ��`.V, _n3b�'".�st�'9..ar�iL. �'.`u^..�d'.'K�'�..::,vi'N.',aia�NK:`��t l�ckxF .�.e"i�,a�e��{'*��+`w3°�b�TA� :i��2t.. .1.�Fr<.C..7:v.r.,.c,a..._.f:,✓ . - PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of January, 1986 . AYES: NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -8- .,"� .�:�-, r Cr-aflJ-^m°✓^."'�4.q'. dEv. r vr�°zT,n'+Lt`�a.Jx:'i',.e 8*",4;„'�'�,t:.^+;-�:"�p.^•.-:; 'rs��c T*^.�s^-?c;rtp!x.. ..'T� zorx*rd- .t .rr g., a-r ',: r �-,�sx li-,--r-_.. .- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- AGREEING TO AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CONCERNING PA 85-017 KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. PREZONING AND ANNEXATION APPLICATION WHEREAS, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California , Inc . , submitted an application requesting that the City prezone to a Planned Development (PD) District 13 .4+ acres lying outside the southwestern boundary of the City of Dublin with a concurrent request that the City initiate an application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation of the 13 . 4+ acres into the City of Dublin. . WHEREAS, Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (AB 8) provides , among other things , that no local agency juris- dictional change can be completed without the agencies affected by ,such change first having agreed upon an exchange of property tax revenue between and among the affected agencies ; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors (Resolution No . 186574) have developed a method for equitably distributing the property taxes ; and WHEREAS, each specific annexation needs a resolution from both the City and County agreeing to the exchange of property tax revenues for the annexation to be completed and filed with the State ; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: A. That for the said annexation by the City of Dublin (which will be first effective for the fiscal year following the filing of the Certificate of Completion with the State Board of Equalization providing the filing occurs prior to December 31 of the preceding year) , the Auditor-Controller of the County of Alameda shall be directed to cause an exchange of property tax revenues pursuant to the following provisions of paragraph numbers 1 and 3 of Exhibit "A" of the property tax revenues redistribution method developed by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors . 1 ) In all annexations involving developed or developing residential territory , as well as mixed residential/ commercial areas and vacant or underdeveloped industrially- zoned areas , the City would automatically be entitled to receive an allocation of the County ' s general fund computed property tax revenue from that area, equal to the City/ County ' s existing allocation percentage ratio within its corporate limits ; 3) In the event that a City assumes full responsibility for a service or services presently provided by a separate County Taxing agency or special district within a territory proposed to be annexed , pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 (b) , the County will endeavor to transfer to the City the entire computed property tax revenue presently allocated to such County agency or district from said area . B. The City certifies that there is no significant commercial and/or industrial development in the proposed annexation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby agree to the property tax revenues redistribution method stated herein. 1177,0 1"- /��4251AIO'_ /"tla Iff 7737 •,. -s.rt ,� "3 -rte--. t -;h- ,^r `x, ,-� - PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1986 . AYES : NOES : : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE PREZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTHWEST OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: SECTION I: Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner: Approximately 13. 4+ acres located generally southwesterly of the existing city limits in the vicinity of planned extension of Silvergate Drive are hereby prezoned and an adjoining 0. 5+ acres are hereby rezoned to the Planned Development (PD) District; and PA 85-017 ( . 11, . 2, . 3 and . 4) Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. , as shown on Exhibit A (Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance) , Exhibit B (Approval, Findings and General Provisions of the Planned Development Prezoning and Rezoning) , Exhibit C (Resolution regarding request for initiation of annexation proceedings) , and Exhibit D (Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5410) on file with the City of Dublin Planning Department, are hereby adopted as regulations for the future use, improvement and maintenance of the property within this district. A map of the area is as follows: sacs N - -- f}IZEPr - �n/S�E�i4T/o�✓ 7 0 SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty ( 30) days from and after the date of its passage. Before the expiration of fifteen ( 15 ) days after its passage, it shall be published once with the name of the Councilmember.s voting for and against the same in the Tri-Valley Hearld, a newspaper published in Alameda County and available in the City of Dublin. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this th day of 1986, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk EX 1B 77 �`f!'?*^! iF;�'�°.! '��•�t;+ rr M rc^ -. .,�c ..- � .. "�+�*rA7�ra°'Y „�fix2 c 73r � '��' '3s+-';sy, 'x.s5,,tte-�.t',rG.'T"'�+�. yarn,,`n. 1"?�'"',�gTr�tr�cZ.:R � � �CI S•{�.�st•�l�Lv4�5��k�� .�t�.�x..{'�F.,.::.!.kfk�'a.�'�._:.+5. AX4t�SC.tcYi2iG� �: �5". Y. w, `�,_ ..:`hfm�+1`C�'t• .dks:.3..x �:'•iti?�.:x tfl...,,c t,. ,y _:.L r_„-. ac.�w. �� e�,:FS d. r...�� .1� u:,aiu t_ .,x`'-x...� :,_,:,_ .. SION i . SU . D iA t. ILV RGATE HIGH ANDS- Hou s ow LNJ 410- ; R �SiaYj� .' 1 13S of Z-4 � rip x f ! _ CITY OF DUBLIN , CALIFORNIA 4 , V-L, F E RG U S O N 4F l/v OLLMLIN IV cv CON5ULTING ENGINEERS, INC. t y ta• �� 1 �.l Zoo G R Y 14 EG OR. 1 Eli" PLEASANT FItLL C6LIFOrzNIG� r ' 200 Joy' 4 ,Y: _ I BUILDING' TYPE #1 ('3 UNIT) ELEVATION PLANS A,.•DR, D s nv, er b .t�evelol_k? Kaufman .6 nroad 2• BUILDING TYPE #2 (4` UNIT) ELEVATION " 6379 -Clark Avenue PLANS A, C, B D c Dublin, CA. 94568 { (415) 829-4500 3• BUILDING TYPE #2 �(4 UNIT) ELEVATION B 4 r PLANS ..DR, ,C, BR, .CR �. f] inters .. Ferguson b Wollman 1 ig gu ' 200 Gregory Lane 4. BUILDING TYPE #3 (5 UNIT) -.":ELEVATION' A ;j Pleasant Ifill, CA. 94523 PLANS :A, DR, CR, D, AR 7 y �i (415) 685-1500 -', , ' BUILDING TYPE #3 (5 UNIT) - .ELEVATION B , 3. Soils Engineer: LNGEO, Inc. PLANS C; DR,' 'C, B; D 0 r 2280 Diamnd Blvd. , Ste. 200 6. BUILDING TYPE. #3 (5 UNIT) - ELEVATION C Concord, CA. 94520 4, PLANS.A, BR, CR, D; 'AR (415) 687-9700 4. Gross Area:' 13.90 AC r PLAN A PLAN B PLAN C PLAN D TOTAL. 5. D.S.R.S.D: : Sewer, water, Fire Protection. i _., 6. Utilitics: PG&E & P.T.&T. BLDG #1 (3 UNIT) 3 - 6 9. 7. Present Use: Vacant ' BLDG #2 8. Proposed Use: 130 Townhouses (4 UNIT) 9 .• ` 13 9 35. ' 9. Aerial Photography: EARTNDATA,. INC. BLDG #3 t k Dated May 2, .1979 533 Airport Blvd. 1� (5 UNIT) 14 , ' Burlingame., CA 94010. 11 27 33 85 � : (415) 347-8041 % MIX 2g 20 40:'.* 48 130 17% l5X 30% 38%':; 100% j 10.. .Contour.. Interval : 2 Feet ' � . _ 11 . Existing Wells. None JA `' . E k 121 TOTA L- 27' 30 N Z 30 F3LOC--.7. 2 A .�• � 1385s.F 15375.F. Io��S.F 1385s.F � ID A c . LOT LINE N ? FACE of cU2P� •-� k- 45P9,4 LT Cowc2ETE , G!/TTE� �SlY�. ,4GG2 EG,�J TE �asE F/N,GL PG I1EMEN7 �s✓3c� ef s✓3o4� F,2oM >-V4tvE oveiivG 6,424,'711'vG ,o,2E�.4ND�o e !�5 lJ.oG,20t�CO 13 TL/E c ".z��°3,�",j•''7l';"��.-`�tn'i r��z,>fh,'�l�h;�4�`k°�'VP��3y�t�.�i�i�l�Tt����P.a Pr'{�.,�" FU'artC�'+'."'�Y4�a �'� '��y..w^..��:�k�`�'�.� .N, r�i� t. �-{�w ..fTao, ::;c*��.�"..m h'9 ,. sir i.�un '7�,.��..�:.:,,-' t JL°� � i i' W f hh,.r 4 •• 1 t c..F 7 n fq e' .i � a?. i,. t _ Q I �� LING 0 - 4 35 P-4Q8¢ d• 62.29' �.3y2�1'-' • 9d':��`:�'` ". - _.. 2 �/.. �� e.f�'~�yl j�(1 .$ul !il'ii��I'1��- /� C` 8 >� rl•F 0¢ / QMP aa73�__ �I i '.� .'�.: <`•.�y��1��� � }� 4G�g _ /?6° a6�}2 '= 6 . ��•,1 i�. � NB5°?G'9!'W -' I oG.7 �j' :•' �. 60 458'/Z/ _. 22,eod�? _ ---- W L<L_� NAI S•.,"::.� _ _ .� _ /•945 �.- 2 456= 79 ;2 77 3gsZ° 45d`3gc5b ;�. I �8� /i �FS s 445• I��I 4477 - e,9 IU� 7 450p p h f�a ��:, 4 =174c t 7 7/ IN i �' � `�T; -1._'•:� - 2 �� az,4 N _ 440o Q...1 ,..�o ,� �_� f ,�,: ;i .: ,, / f �. /lr 43�(d° - 435 433 43�° r 92 93 433 a -.. 8 7 86 y�, t',i. .:i' •f 433.03° `` �. Ste • /a Jo¢ 102 /00 — 3A 33 ' 03 2� /01 a-50 43 "5 433° 433° , L�'r ..�f'�r;.$, .':�T� ��%�.`�\���\ �. � �--- -._ . ..'�— ��''•�- � S���:! ._— - _iY1=-.-..� _ '���_ . . r1�iO�n1�o:�'0�.0 � .n is\"•a`'cc t\ 1��� / 1214'1 ^ �! T�.AGT.G_4Y/_�{--- • .,fap.92 _ -q�__ ��_�A �A -� _. � . 2: Qc- - �a t /✓�%VLF •� -U a zz �a26w, All --- / � _ RAP_ _–• ri! Lf,: ''fi I 'I I1: ,L,r `1 ���./ _ ':,. l E T lr]]�'//'/./_ �W.fLL 11 Q / �.. ��i}I tlf'f f - -_ -� � -� 19 � - �� ..1� ,L, e° ►� �, \ --�-_'`rte � •. ' 435° AIT.19 43d' - ky a ;'� �n I i ... �y• _...•� 1 W .,�� A• � H 6i _= 433s 3 i'" x '� �° � � w� �•;� al` `�' c>e P � � � °� � •(J\j - •4Z1 42tga •S-K ';C. _ ; — p'" �� \ '..,N '' ;I � \ 11 °• 1\� Y 1 i1•r,� '3,, Ire iZ, J o 7-71 2A to pA tt o \�._ •,: \ a -- _._�[7�� � A �0 417 _. � a? •\`.' \\• ( \� / to a ��lr�'" 1 ; 1 . • .� �y�G.npr T•: -+-r1�: �'}:-��: ..'ir+:l,1t`�.j_r._.nr - _ _ • .. .. •i... •'. '- .. •.tip i i�•'7• - f �• .i li/,iii '� `-• • .., e_ ---v. _ ' •• � 1 �{:�'�'? ,fir,"".{ I - 7z' - t. � _ f N •� ;� ? t%�ca�-14?. � 2ru-4 .c. -..• ,�.,� } r � t.� ._ y�yy//� t "/S�/j /^�'`-r/s• �f/' � h G �J /�'�• � ,a• � t `�Yy•�\�r J'�J r°lt !• vYzt',::o°rXk°i. '� (i�f��`�/.,!-O/ 1,•i{.•3•?r� /' t 3'r,1•< t J , , •'"�% "'i�h hY +�,r"4. x:�. +t.,.. �; ;.�{<�, ,,�"- '�_•� -� .r„;` '.� �' .s.f>•d' r v ti �' ++: bTd;�' `r N,pu �.,� �js r � � 't,a: S".'<...- s' t^` 't^i,,:,N,•LS•s S.nr°k � j "� _•kt.,*• �,:�., i_,� r'f �1 '��•'�'• � '! s��''k '.4ie*, h�`�Or�' a b �'cr r a' ic1 7, -^ a i. a 7.:rs1-' �i 9+-,:•!r r�'',•'�.�r�•,s° .£;,�.-�b- j��••/►�_ /�J/�� f� 1,.., i��/ /�///y •. T < "S�G'uC���';SY,�•r� r�}.H,,��•1•a{ � �f�"����(i/.I a f'T`•�����'^`I�V.!�/' //.��������• �, � y. � t(y3,"� �. ••- y� � -t� � a"i c' � a*pi-�t,+ �.:�i'y.;�T1 •M, &t. i >�' ,H S. II �•i:.f`?�;i��tq y i �.; - l�q A i� > - -« _: ? ''},tR_. '°x,.G*"SY4 a> ti- ''`#,�-��e.�.'sT' F"J•.{'. NO t •+��.` �3 _,� �. � tai'-s+>.•� s � \ p oPeH LAWN AN O �� r. OPEN ° ° �� 1 ��'4�c��• !•�. 'LAWN ��{�� � •;`•,t ^'7 e ° O '�Q'u`a � ., .,,�;7' -'r 4' 9; B� � ^ I •7/' � sry�1fi^�t• tf k� L • ,, __ _. KAUFMAN 8 BROAD LW9 L&H[D .�EECEIVEO•.r,S J`� � -,�1 ,�� .--.�-�''�t � � .OEC=t�^a,l!b .•r-,� � �' � � � 1` � � � ���� ,s�}.: t'�'r�t�w,'<5•�• +Y a .,4��[� �� - '.5 � '4. .. S ', ... .' .. 1y. .. � .. i .... . .L' r � ,. .�r)..l`'411K « �! :.. -'w'ht4�M.��•s:�'. � 4 .y3,�; i . Pp.jiaaW- yN11. j, two -� .,F. :,•.A ) •t.r 0 Offi•1� i•: s MW Olt r � •gib „,t �� ��� �' ,� ..� �. % w y�• � j�l�!'� 1� ;�,�� � :,;' , 'AZT✓ tiri//+�"`��y��'�IY+�,�yr� � 4�n• � � ter. yy�-�;. �-'* ���y Ilk RU ps 1 90 Rum SILVERGATE HIGHLANDS :sties'•" "�:." - 4 . (� 5 i SILVERGATE HIGHLANDS `�� I(• CITY OF DUBLIN, CA. fig {- i . TOWNHOUSE PRELIMINARIES "n . ; PLAN A PLAN B PLAN C PLAN D VINI3 - } LV 9 � rt. w Lu n. x rstisions. DONALD W. SI: 20,1S, incorporalsd. 6990 tillage park�a�, suite 206. .v K kUF31AY — BROAD Dublin, CA., 94566. 1; e If NCATHM4�,;,,"�„�„� regislered bldg. dasianer no, 94 msmber� Emsricaa Institute al `Building Design, phana• 415/829.2380. -� • -:,.; -•�:F�:��:. ? F! i N •V�Te�J y �•Li � . r.�• r• '�'�T�4 �L. Iiu1..rte _ .•ry •�•�” r:AX': :�i.�� 1.._ 1• .•T ��f:�af 1 _ L—Jt—JLJ: S 1 r PLAN A. PLAN-C, _ PLAN-D—____—_ a ,ir? 1 I r� I 7-.�..-^�—--�' s•� "ate+.. �• I / �. q f .. :.._ , [ _�� \ ;may:-.._s.r•�.._� .j fz MAIN ?`t '1 \��� I I ' , -i+-+ --- - - A �+ — •+' \-mot , •yi% _ t_r , tirf i AN — — -- L- 4r,. -t,� - - ""• PLAN A i PLAN..Br ! .PL Cr .,.�4AN-C ��•AH� +� _;TYPICAL STR,EETSCAPE. ..._... .__ 3/16'=12' -- ----- -" < = tsgisioas. 0 DONALD W. SMONS, iacetparaled. 6990 Village parkway, toile 206. - KAUFMAIN _ BROAD Dublin, CA., 94566. 01.0RTx1...C.,1„a.a.„C tegislered hld dasiguar no. 94 A .r °�i1�• --/^. .YO..u..r. American lnsliiiie of Building Desi�o. phone. 415/829.2380. member 70 iP € Y Y t -z:t���-v ? ^s ' TYP. END ELEW i TI 7. T c TFI�r r=7_Ir� -- - - F '., ' _ �•�.!� -1 — � ��l�� ����;� �_� ,`� �'�� PLAN Dr PLAN 8:` ? PLAN C. - - — I- PLAN D --- . I -. . c= TYP. STREETSCAPE._ 4t E trisions. DONILD W. SI�UMS, iaoorporstsd. 6990 village parl(Wal, sails 206. KAUFMAJ'� — BROAD C8. 9 566. (— cr Of' RT tagiaisrod bid • dasigaar no. 94 Dublin, 4 oM °' v y Smarican tosii afa of Buildint DaaiRa. phone. 415/829.2380. msmbst } -° (.tiR!• '47.rear i AYk. y �a�ro=cuter-- WIN r _1Z-r 'So o , M O t d14t:�al•c f ii i-T` 1 i y�, 1 LlvtiA 12 9 YxoL-, Lei rw�. '1 G x 1-�o III"( qA4 _ ^ .A..11.1 .Y;�1 . 1/ ' ' - 1— 1 _ M x :7- � - h(1 I_ • . IIJJ .L_7111I5- /Z�Q��s. 10110 '��l i 1 nziaioas. WILD W. SINNONS incorporalad. 6990 village arkway, suite 206. /AL a _• ar I iJFMA,�t BROAD regiafared hld , deaigcer•oo. 94 Dublin, C�., 94566. o © V i _ or�oarx[neuwoeaurc aa W•o.:`�'°..."°~� American Instifafe of 6aildinq Dasi;ia, p6oae• 415/829 2380. marabetJ°�r-� ;f a,.':+.t...'6' :•s,,:yy�.-r:iti.'v'1C' nr ..a•Y Z :z +11!r' Plt. 4 d. z o / Mbn.2 fi (I4=4 .I.) ' O vat _ - fa„I•�• �-ixOC{f1 Frl � -� \ P'n�l --+Inn. - w I � - -=--pl av ���-__ -`1 �s{n. bn's.-/2=Ns�n. b�,+hs-=-- -_--_1385 '.'..♦/+�- rsglsicas• DONALD A. SM20NS, iMUCrsted. 6990 village parkway, suite 206. A K�L M UN BROAD tagtsteted bldg. designer no. 94 Dublin, CA., 94566. e y; N� �. v� II �^•-- ^� Amarisan lustiiute al Buildiuq Design. phone• 415/829.2380. memb JAI U•,»..��.... -. !i'�•-t^?_ ;ter - K I bn.I. N•, - � � o I -caw�.,�_ . -' -.12_°.�rta _ M r / ° r L1UWq ' ; r+fib — or,,.�4 _ /Alp er�c. .j j.. i_LU •f= r . 4.; far '�•� � I _ � � / bo. bn.? S ' Cia•�Ler.;� P-1 A� o_—Qo J. / 2I'Lwdr_ aI1J ,uof ,xrrJ 28:) revisions. I�1LTFlI�V =BROAD ONALD W. SI�ci015, ioMpareted. . 6990 oiliege atYaal, cane 206.pf%OKTNER.%CALIFOLIk I\C giefered hldq. de:igaer ao. 94 Dahlia, CA., 9566. t ,L„ mericea Institute of Baildiaq Design. phone• 415/829.2380. member �A i1 .a . {a _l�PAili s�_r•rtt.'�.;' O �i � - ti • �� , t 7 r 7 � CDr �• `" Liu _,11rPi►vp ��%►,-- _ i 4t YIK:.._ - .A 2,OX To •r-'t'a'r `. .. I\ fit- =1I:T•, '- ' t LL!'1.- ED o razlsioas. DDI9dLD A. S1tS01iS iacarporaled. L163h!91 �90 village arkWay coifs 206. ' KAUF;IIAiY — BROAD t�� —= �? W10AT»ce.aLIFOA—ne regialerad bldg. designer-no. 94 in, C9., 91566. ,M ; fir— Am r ;4 Y�.1.•....—,fu...>:�.o..,�.,..,=r Daildia Desi a. s• 4i5 82 9.2380. meober iidarican lesliiala of 4 4 / t, ,��• . �;,.,... ► * ; r s L I P 71 I Y a� �.r.G?.clu}}us, ;Til,; it ; FZZ— --- -, i a -Code bocksijt tint 0 Loot. i Ian -- 1�i�s — A,C,C; 6, D.-- — .s clurFt�_I1oo�. p .--- u �� - --- 1f8••12' I AU revisions. DONALD W. SIMMONS, incorporated. 6990 village parkway, suite 206. A �. _. �. .�ALT1L��i _ BROAD registered bldg. designer•no. 94 Da61iu, Ca., 94566. �( - i© • LT- 1 f -ry- ; ti] ��• •� American Insiiiuta o! Bnildinq Dsaiqu. phone• 415/829.2380. mamber � _ •;;} '.l J Vim. 1 Maly« ,.y.. 3 - +c .K a PVT ..�-1'.:i\'.:r •:,:---_ -- .,..• ._. - '�;r •4i.J`.'ri,l' l a:f:'lii',7•`�' LLJ 0. A ^ ._1::' +!•.:;5.� �i;it�i r i' • U L 0(�1��(i3 n �] rock ` a;: .1•at° $.{;l•)� ,,... r R_ lilornia, Inc. CA •..r•. !,rJ. ��r�. •`i,. 'r;1.v.'�(C,1_:rh:�•:•.!!r;...7 .. _ Kaufman and Broad of Northern Ca 1 :. .,•;r_ a`"'{ �Q;r' _ i. it '',. .F ,Jf 'i },r 15' }'i�.-•:,r'_.' 6379 Clark Avenue, P O. Box 2755 - Dublin,California 9 `' }• ��...�:_ r• /eD Please 110te just to shore c!ha� she ��• r�;;,,;;•; � ..y This dra':�ind is der the decks 11 look s•,';z: �'.f4 ,��r{a"".. /6• l a-W.%i ce r�ori: u 1 �t ,� , ),.1! ! use dns �- ; , �..' �; These are not she ho {? _ �•.. e used '•mhouses ��•. ,. .,,T ;•!:;;',:�� / cob for the Ve)'( d'i e Highlands. i ( L tl t T :.rt 'X f .y :r, f . f .,• { ,_^•-'"� :!i�Yi'`p`'�e.s- c.F�+, ,:.+e:::eer- �c�,-t7. -.. �r urrr•�'• ....�..•�w i. 1:.t•' is t'•%�t•,''%`!•l• '(�:tip :r •�•••'.` ' �. •,� 1' '.r..•�� . .r. is ��-: J(':�'� ` •'4` 9• t�n 1 -1 '.:;}s; '� ti'': � r,..:::f µ:q. ,ti,..Ll•,: � /� •,. ..J� •'4.'. !I.Iy°��.:f11 1. :1•.�. ,' t .1 � :4.{`� _� ,,lla':li:l)J�,t{J,lll y•.y. •�� 1.' •�' '•.1:. *:}# Sri'. .I,ttJ,i.,}tr` rs..f:L,�.'T1�}}}]t:t �• .-r.'�,,r :mot-;" 7,-j):• 1:,�d-l ',�i{''-+r ,;•aL-,I,i.c s.}+.::sy�...),l,..fjn',�.,,,j>r.t z-�.. ,,�•'Y.!�,yi r,t,�L,',::..•r ,'.:•.;%•.1.. � 'S_-'rr c�;~=%♦ t�S..'"`�, •U J'.�- '4-+!.: •,) I.'<'''-+t"F•'..\,,:':•'Y•,• �'•1Il,.d.1 1,'.'•�1.,,%,•+,.{}'3y..L.r�:„IL-fiJ,.�C.i''!'•1V':', s 67, _ I� t `�Pr .;,n .I d ti� L' ,...., •�` � -•-tom_ r ,:j r'?t ....+Yw-Z',. > •-r "!'�•►•.•.vZ"iw+ ' 'r','-c�""n'?'' .,:'.'!'•-:' ;. ./ �:y',.'^�`•-.� � �Yr • }':';y. .:zir•'' .!'Ll:.� :v.. ...,p_ r 1 `7. �;n,t1 .iq„+ .'' j/�y •LI i �' �'1�o � f {:;•._.r _ .-Ir•-'.' _r. +..f 77 -�� � _ ,L• 1 f �:r:'�:•j rti^;!ri r.��u� _ �;' ,i. I� ., L{,�:� ,dX, i..i{r�,, 5 ,�F.'`�� ' .�...�^r.:..- �+-' ,J.�.�--.�._�_. � , . •I w..r •f' ,t , ;j„fne.•.-...r ,tt� ., r r�`uF �=�.:%J= L � •�i (�'V'}•.t -/��' �'': � \ •• •�/ d. •i ,ii�,,tr,t:•eii•. - .4`���t�.N,.�.T iy I .�,, i r. liyi.'^ .. r. . . - }. a" � r-,p f .:I 'p:!'th r^^ '♦ , ^A'^ 1 I Lot 71.\: - L,t.i4:,: ,. J,•. .. +, s 1 i5 ✓ly`:r .?: '� ,,�,r� ��y{,n��,�.w. '+. r � -�� M� ..�...... \• \\ ...� '► ". r•k �•+�!�.�,!„ -J:u..!':c;• �.",t, ~'� ,:,r_ 4G."� ""1"•w "T' ?�{� 4PIT••�� :� J _ _ .\ � \ ..�. _ (�' ':Y,",^ F. l0 )y 1 .S _.!� •s. � � ,• _i+... ..'••ice.•.,.`,' �., \. `r •� ,f''� 1 >.; __�� n• �'«I.�dY„c�', ' l"II "!.;�G?'. 1�;''"'.;�Gf-.." G - _ •�:._.i\� } `' ' 't` ._ir,. ,�;..r� f it ryr• '..-.�...+.• ♦ \ •� :3 , �r ,(-'� t 1"„•:,�•IS:� `t""l.•.: t:rVrr• ,+..�.y 'l �'ja rj. !?�;+ •{,�•�1�•..i.,�i�4• + :}a:.,v....rt� �/+tt� /'7/ �./ ,: � _t}..r!.,: .nM1r�i .;r�:.�,..F � :1. �rt .1r. .�t! R yr,.••rt h 'ii.: �••.1»1 n�l. ���+ I f► �� •' �r� ��.b?�L,S;��:,r;11�'{ y r• }•. 4.r j,`���•� :•'. �w•ti+-r7,•�:1; i.. ':r. :�::.l'1 '�:1' � '' t - `, t: r.n.i r/`�r, t r.•... , Y }y,'At�,P 'Y•r:.+ y, .t•(1, A �ti. '•i: �Y�• 'fir ,lyj...,...�.:�r'� a _ � yr�.;. > r: �: f' V4 .�a',.J{•:1,:,'`�•►• -- --- Sf� .5 •. .tflr� - ..,n.•: y,.. 3 -r I �" f t __--- t�su.l;;_t,+t>-,:,:a. ''� • t �. a .Y:J , .t� :ya:�'1._.1:1 �•9tjq,+R'l. �1��M .r ti t' 7,•/ _•'' -.t' '.\ "'.' :'%: � 1 _ .µ .w •r,.y., ,f,i•t,"•�i;'9.r, 1rJ '��.:.i:: �a•r.� _ ,�, •r rr•;• '•t. .rR-.• :;t :t •tr.,f, •1!'1 ..a r '�.. i.� .r.f• Si; •<<, :r ';i. :t}'. .t ..• '�••rL'`'.� '.ir ,`L, ..���i!'•• �,r..rl.:� •.�'" �•• :rte „rt , "'•�'•.,' '�. , �.. }. rt°"';'.7 �,.r• - ,•i•' :e. ,r.•IS a 't .y.°:•r' ..: ''•., �"; .-, ,{'rl. •b}''' ++,•L. `r {�_. '1."♦:,< .a;: •lu' .r,....,•• •Y' � '��.• .il...--..: . )•_v' .�" �J:F r;,.'�' .t,.i-r1!,:r4,:�, �• f• ,h_- N:'y ,sr�;!9.^'1.. ,.¢, ;'}t �� .tp•':��., lirr r, a.:b.ti�Z:::+.-w., N",L i 4^.�� - •,:�I. i� .'1 • M ��t;n{..''!�f ��_JJ? - •1 ! _t Lt •�, ' .l ti ,i y' l,. !M.!1%�•e�FN'*' �t .�r•• , •t': ,,,y, .f ,r ,• _ ,••C, - •G�'- �e1 A "c r 1� ..t. .r .. d•. .• d- r c.7G':'}u.l•: :r :S. r:' v ..'99••iti -1,,,•i '+('` '{-,t•�...,... �'i�'7t:it, �- t ��';, _ f. "t7` 7i-.t„ � ��� � '-• :ij '/ .9' rr f tYiY: M'.�c .; r f -%2�. t'.•.',i:.• .'f r r ,r [� •a�'.''1 ,!L _S"' '�+•:, :r' ,/ ••`I -f•:i ��' r.i4 ` '�� 1: 7 +- JY .'�I�•r 'fir /, i .a� -`ti.xJz~: '• :,i .+. •1,{;. rA'.tcu{ ,:'. j e••". ', •:Pc- 1 .1 .� ..r� v_ - ,.q_' , .ti:l •[.4 ;.�`.�• !lf ,r 1: ''S` '•,71 -'t. r .M.' .,e• fF .r::j' �1'L ..i ,�` r•' Y %'3. ,. ►.�-. ",,,,t„ _,f' '1.S,Y� �-.. �., i, x `s. 1, ..# �lf'.• . �l �• j tn.tr, ) ..t�,✓s r.s Fr. i ry. y€ k:':1 r t v. .� t..r.r.. ri f}w .b►`l. : ''� .'; .l':,r:�"J1�' •i/. rl�'+�,�.•.v-1. ,1- '�f.f . � tRY � �f '„1•Nf� • '.,,. � �•�r.74;�•.. '• _ ..� .. -I .:i •r ! iiti'�i{��5 ��{%•k•'� �tY,„~`� k 'i:r. '•�k. ${+ ,1 _ t .!•a•;'�'���i`I y,•e-i,�1'�� /+ ' � ... 11 .f , •? �r"t� �:v: :�+,- .i• ''f i,;. 3 �' ";�'vW'.1J1' ,�,t r �q ^i�,'�t r�'1. 'r 1• :,;'�. +'J t�'I ��+��'.YMT 47�>�54:;1� �•�'r��i:iw•�•(�/ud J��w.'t�%'"'+-.�.I.•.�f. .... -.. - 'I.6 r �C.t �,,�n:.: :t r +,♦'' M1. �t,�•'� Y .. .E ��,' -��►,w�M'�'A.r' 1 ' .;1. `t't'-�';�;_••�Sr•,':� •7• _ � ;i., �i 4i '.Z y y� Vii•{I�•'CI: i•+'� .N�,.t'• '�, -�,,.?•,'.,,C:� ! .r 7: '1:r,:'r Y i 'Y'iFCY�i+ti*',,t r `F�' -•"t ' ' -!. "� t.'f'• .(F'yt :k. '�•yry rf, N .., v, }ff J 3 i>:�•�W y`•'k r , .•�..';: ./:•¢.1 •1• v.i,J• *'�°. '<~•G.. ir' .��. :e." ,1, �+�'�' 1-•i.- �;)'"''y�t>��� i C�''''A�' 1!: . 1•,,.� � /C& '1J," Ci'M1.•1�tt���t�)'.) r:k ; ��t ' !.ii! : ►^.-. rr.! �y. - rk .I.i/ •-) .•,r'.,7„!. t- fr�'�lYVt? tir,i .� >K'' �',7' :,,fi .,(.-•.,1 �t� 1., { 'l •'�{',.� t • ..wa-.L.:+.+..' _ , • - {•Yra.�rC ,� T '3t : rl�.'i.�a.::�tr \i'i. r♦t-7 yfV. v:•:••`, t '1'./�, �Tti,� 3t��•+.-r.•Y-iTi,r,-'It"J^j. �,1•�,}:•f ! .1 N1r�; 1 t..- .-,lw _ _�: ..•.,_ b.,. �,,; '�f} �', ' J'.�d....;l.«+".`'•f':-"'t•.*`. 'bti}"'� [C^ 2�;' �i'» i,•' •�' '+r f t •c:. �.;� ! �•atyie' �Cy/.} Ir+ �,;.•.c:,.• .;�f�.. } ,�..;.. 1 y r/.-�•�/��-'.�/{s'�= .Ll � !.,. _; `t�-' ��,;rr,,,,� ��..• •F1S""p•^, tcl !_ _ r,.. t• ����",,,�i`L_ /1----•- IF.--.^' -.:f;' ,i�.�.�..«l•+ .rl.` .1' �F �.: iY, '6' �' .i..c,.r f < ...'•lam .� {- H`r_� .. r, �} K,• ,y� �. J.r.°�',.,��-t •V,' Z:t+�'i14Ld_ :'F{�i•W.::^#�k1°1F�.l rl:tl?���+1}%+,•�. �'.:,"i�.'j t'Sf:",,. 'W: .�. �"r"'^ y.. �'r _ --� ','+�j -r y�� r/J.'.-. . i-� .J!ri74'1.'i:y, '�-.�,r w.t,Jf'�.:_pj.::S'.• r.r"i r•��f•11`_h k,r� 7 _�,fj. t'ii' .�),� ''i •`.•i!�I''.• �',:� r ':"r' ^ ''ic /}`,y� /,/�� - '.>�;�'r-�:r. - ..Cr':'� �, -n -r" R-1-�•:Y (�#1^in,�Jr.,a ,if'Ysa'"jT��'t.', ',•,r.y.r1. a. ,� a r��, • 1 jfy .� 1'�r-Y.- .r►„��P± •f ..!�C •- 'rt, r. r: q { 7 }r, 5 � .p'':4.f!t'f `;-.,. :�) n^'�:''.� •,1•t"•• ij ,f�/�-- I/'."'�' f' I , �� ('. .j='-� i,l/� �j'f''�y� ,,,i:� '.+i.i.�•�, ,�,. i� `.al, �1':( ► a t f.!,• 7�;�F.i-• 1 •f�i """i'► .r'", ;.t" `r ,,�. .� '' �� 1 :f�i�.t/'Y��'" �,,.��, J�..�t'Y+r�,f,..-+i.���lf"1'1'.`•?;r(_r:r,��'•�y�'�t!'Y,.!r,1•:_.,•.t......L•.�•.+ "'�1'�.{�'�"'�-!1�it!ld;'^C�'I,`,?t'''J...3-r •.. 1 �r. .._ � .v.I��4�t':I:NJ. ,�'t 'it...,��^1r'.�1. f:�i '.:N�'�:N''' .���:?�'�d .. , TLE W TAT l U E MAFD CITY OF bUF�L_trJ, GA. . IL 3 RECEIYED Df7cN ^� n i DUBLIN PLANNING 0 � I � TYPI CAA .. �ECTIo �J AT LOTS ioo 14 1 Of -= CA L E 1 �, = Z o H-o 2, 2G.x . • _ . .. ..+:•r*%.+4,: �^�>ti ..t� .�t''J7,t3�S'• m":'t�:_n".1 ., ? ..,.., ...,.. �"'''�'k. .,, ?.�, ..,.. .. 7— .. :�... n � 314` WAS,gEC) laRA V.EL r I 2x1Zs 4Fa>:vJxrx 6",A P,•PFO,2A TE D PIPE , MIA 4d �* , ;.� • I I I I / ' I I I v �, I (r--1___ Gx REDWOOD Post R y II1-4 l 2'0"0 .oi I i 4'-0' 0,C. j'L EVA7/OA/ qS E C T I Q RiCTAIVIN6 WALL E a V . uj• ' d�srtEv L�n��s rn/vi��rE v )E� eitt4r 2oPo—<,Ep doe til t�yi�al r — — ,, W �4K U4-J O - ��ytltX K S/O 7 , V 447 Co4f QO gg-RIP / 71 b 3 •� '��5f� 3' s. Alt � ,n\\ 1 ,`� 1 r 191 qs� a y rI- licGEof {� h�D LI n1�51 � '' „.; PH�rn Dvcrlo�l �LIC/9yJT5 P,2oPo4FD 00 P Cr l2 �� •85 �(11G/J/N(t vU el IV VNirS �3 ` Q ;?� � ST�fFvTuaiES M �-- }r1•t � . EXHIBIT. H �: i� �J-PPuc�tNrs/',QoPOS� <�Qio�7a �krnrn/9ST�iP� `: UT" IA a' ,die= Bo �2 uN 4 k X13°' / BU��D/N(rTP�Pi r IV i o oar_ 1 bti ti � a sy to a ropy n � a y g55 o o B l 5�����-try �IiGyc1 Ps Y 1 sM c: CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION UPPL S EMENTAL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: December .16, .1985 - TO: Planning Commission FROM: planning Staff �1(� SUBJECT: PA 85-017. 1 ,• . 2, .3, . 4, and . 5 Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning, Annexation Request, Tentative Map 5410, and Site Development Review applications involving a 13. 9+ acre portion of the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision (Lot 262 and 263 of Tentative Map 4859) . GENERAL INFORMATION Throughout the review process for the subject proposals, Staff has expressed to the applicant the following general areas of concern regarding the project' s site plan layout and site grading plan: Building coverage and apparent "overbuilding" of the site when the property' s existing slope, configuration and presence of Martin Canyon Creek are considered. ... Lack of 'on-site active and passive recreation facilities or areas. - Site grading, as it relates to the adjoining single family residential lots, the alignment of Silvergate and Rolling Hills Drives , the alignment of proposed internal roadways, and the relationship of the site to the ultimate land use of the adjoining - Hansen property. Potential project impacts to the Martin Canyon Creek corridor. . Relative lack of flat .usable open space areas surrounding or between proposed building . groupings. - General lack of project identity features/amenities such as: formal project entries, integrated common open space areas, and site plan ties to the Martin Canyon Creek corridor, etc. , that would collectively serve to establish. a cohesive, integrated "up-scale" development. The initial Staff Report prepared for this project responded to these identified ..issue areas by proposing .that a number of specific . modifications be incorporated into the project' s site plan and grading . plan. . The subject proposal was initially scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission at . their meeting of October 7, 1985. At the request of the applicant,.. the heari.ng .was continued to the',meeting of November 4, 1985. . ..The .applicant requested the continuance to secure adequate time ' to review the-Staff.-Report and accompanying .Draft Resolutions �•pertaining ..to .'the project Subsequent to "the .meeting':of October 7, 1985; the;applicant and his r'pro]ect.:engineer met .with Staff .to discuss in det&ilStaff, a :,. ;,;•recommendations for„this`project Discussion at the `meeting revolved :. :. a around =the pro3 ect design �changes,�that;would be required 'to F comply tiwith:`the ..; ;Staff `recommendations ,outlined yin:'they October ;7; 1 985, Staff iReport” : Of . specific ,concern to fthe.��applicant: were the =following four ,generra1-4.areas ,. ,,, a" �{.'l f'r".n�,t�,}•.?3 ii'1fi�-'1"f(ac�'�r�C '�i`�`,hu§1 `YiC it j�^'b���4 �'� 1{'4r.1, ,, j�'.�c �t la lf � .,.D ..•tyf �f.i.'�r t q r1 p . t'. ! t I yi t � l'� (Y�� ?� i+t•45 �f ii•,' y �! dk ,°-.t'^.-r i .j A`t t r:• a J. y, '� - S. �t � 1... ,•17,9X��y If ,,.E •..(,✓Pro�ect:'unit�loss.lrecommendea Yby Staff ive -unso low .�`,�y,4iSyv'� {N...... 7'f^'7" .x't "'r ri 4;:i s �iythe �creation�of two,: recreational areas r �,ar• .G k •;r.• y�4, a 'Y -y�•' -'x'.N.; d qY. t s t � . 4Y.,. � :�.?.dF§:'Y+• = t .'Y r �` :uA7`: , S`�t �' {"`•r � �/ f/ tt.- t z �r w ..c �l of '?• •.�: n f v A! ti'y a }�,.l�1.P•�Bi.Klr�4o'�,�.rC� �•� 5.�..sa�--=.+i `m., _. Tr'�"`,«�.�.T,a.`.�!:',�� ""�S?7,�k-.. ,.���.`ii'r$.N.^d�'��i..�ti..�t��.�.e^"'_', `�h°,.�'�. :'.. ? ..:"c . ..°T'C-•r ._i.. .,.'�`!° ., _ ,-.. - ., _ - — - 2. Introduction of formal recreational facilities into the project (a pool/spa facility and a sports court facility) . 3. Adjustments to the project' s grading plan to introduce two- foot splits between a total of approximately fifty of the proposed units. 4. Loss of a sixth unit in response to concerns raised by Staff regarding grading surrounding a building group on the west half of the project (Building Group #79 - #83) . In addition to discussion on these four general areas, the applicant and Staff discussed specific questions and concerns the applicant had raised about the format or intent of various conditions in the draft resolutions for both the Rezoning/Prezoning and Tentative Map requests. Several minor modifications in both draft resolutions were made by Staff in response to that meeting. The initial public hearing on the item was held on November 4, 1985. At that time, Staff provided the Commission a d4scription of the Staff ' s general areas of concern and an explanation of the detailed site plan modifications proposed in response to those areas of concern. Mr. Ron Grudzinski, representing the applicant, indicated that while he thought Staff and Kaufman and Broad were close to agreement on the bulk of the "boiler-plate" conditions for the project, the conceptual differences remaining between the two parties were significant. Mr. Grudzinski indicated strong opposition to any changes in the site ' s •grading plan, introduction of any formal recreation areas into the project, and any reduction in the project ' s unit count. Based on the testimony received, the Commission provided two levels of direction to Staff and the applicant. The first area provided direction on a condition-by-condition basis as regards the eleven conditions cited in the November 4, 1985, Staff Report, in which the applicant and Staff had remaining unresolved differences. The second area of direction was in response to the basic conceptual differences between Staff ' s site plan/grading plan recommendations on the project as they relate to the applicant 's proposal. The direction provided by the Commission in this area can be summarized as follows: Called for the inclusion of an active recreation use on the west side of the project. Indicated opposition to the inclusion of a sports court, or other type of active recreation facility, on the east side of the project if in proximity to existing single-family residential units. Indicated a desire to have recreational facilities provided on both sides of the project. Indicated support for the inclusion of additional finished floor elevation splits between units built in the project. - Indicated a desire to delete a majority of the on-site pedestrian walkways proposed by Staff to be introduced into the project. - Provided mixed direction on whether Martin Canyon Creek' s presence on the south side of the east half of the project should be played up as a focal feature/natural amenity for that portion of the project. After giving general direction to Staff and the Applicant, the Commission continued the item to the November 18, 1985, Planning Commission hearing. In response to the direction from the Commission at the November 4, 1985, hearing, the .applicant submitted revised site plans on Tuesday, November 12, 1985. Staff advised the applicant that, given the late date of the submittal, inadequate time was available for Staff to make a detailed review of the revised plans prior to the .November 18, 1985, . hearing. t FJTs7h2 �C• r+rr"t""� °,,°°}` 3"^'f' StPF, 'n d. "^'y.•R".PY. t`.'q' `.`r:' >9?� Rs+• �'£RR,+'xrf';A"4F?"49cT�� r• ` 'J ' ., J+ 1 P J Y T 1 ; .. -^e--• i 9 .. ? 1 - M 1. KL `fir ? 'Y ¢ �r,lt ; yl, ] ' !.t ,v t �A'.{ 'KS Y'^ ' ✓i,h'� tom, F ' t'r }7-',Z cC`lX i I F� n a7.`�s...+Y'y? f _ ; ' 29ti x. r�• i I � .1 ��: R While having not been in a position to re(--,amend action on the revised plans, Staff did recommend that the Commission utilize the November 18th meeting to make general comments on the revisions proposed by the applicant. To facilitate discussion and review on the revised plans, Staff prepared a modified draft resolution for the Planned Development Rezoning/Prezoning request. The revised draft resolution incorporated specific directions given by the Commission at the November 4, 1985, hearing. Of particular note was the inclusion of new Conditions #61 through #67 which broke into individual conditions many of the basic conceptual considerations that were yet be settled by the Commission. At the November 18, 1985 meeting the Commission reviewed and discussed the revised materials supplied, and allowed the applicant an opportunity to speak on the item. Following a second round of generalized discussion on the site plan layout, the Commission continued the item to the meeting of December 2, 1985. Based on the input received from both November hearings, the Applicant set out to revise the site plan layout for the project in an attempt to meet the intent of the general directions outlined by the Commission. Revisions to the plan were not available prior to the December 2 , 1985, hearing, so the item was continued to the December 16 , 1985, hearing. The Applicant and Staff met on December 10, 1985, to discuss . the revised .plans submitted by the Applicant. The major aspects of the Applicant' s revised plans can be summarized as follows: Retained the 130-unit count for the project. - Enlarged the western recreation area by redistributing the 66 units on that half of the project. Created a 1 /4 + acre open space area at the south side of the east half of the project by redistributing units in that area. Introduced additional finished floor elevations split ( 18 on each half of the project) . Staff ' s comments on the revised plans can be summarized as follows: General "fine tuning" of site plan layout features ( the bulk of which were incorporated into the subsequent plan revision submitted by the Applicant which was received on December 12, 1985 ) . Recommendation that the western recreation area be measured to a minimum site of 1 /3 of an acre by eliminating one unit from either of the two building groups adjoining the proposed recreation area. (This minimum 1 /3 acre site corresponds to Staff ' s research of a minimum, functional size for a pool/spa facility. ) - Recommendation that the project' s visual tie to Martin Canyon Creek be enhanced by utilizing a 40 ' + minimum separation between the three building groups adjoining the Creek. The last three comments on the revised plan were subsequently rejected by the Applicant, who requests the Commission consider the project based on the plan dated received December 12, 1985. . The three areas Staff recommends be changed are graphically portrayed in the two Staff Studies attached as Exhibits F and G. RECOMMENDATION FORMAT: 1 ) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation - '3 t !7'N FSS a7^ ,nt4vvg7C3^' -r'.`'r''"t9"� tp^1"R ,q'•"'C'S••'i^fY'7c -s'�'?' '7 Yet ^`'. -t f 4, �,yNf+ '�;'+ Yt A9 t t t fl �s..{ Ce sry"r •r- ., r+ -r t r / -�"`#5 ^F'S"'' 'j".r^t•r J 3` - ;* n7^-f -,� , i 2 ) Takes ,testimony from applicant a the public 3 ) Question Staff, applicant and the public 4) Close public hearing and deliberate 5) Consider and act on four draft resolutions: A - A resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance B - A resolution regarding the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning C - A resolution regarding the Annexation Request D - A resolution regarding the Tentative Map Action: Based on both this Staff Report and previous reports, Staff continues to recommend that no action be taken at ths time on the Site Development Review request (PA 85-017. 5) . Sta '�f recommends that the following five actions be taken. 1 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit A) which recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for this project. 2 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit B) which recommends that the subject 13. 9+ acres lying to the southwest of the City be prezoned to the (PD) Planned Development District and the 0.5+ acres lying with the City be also rezoned to the PD;Planned Development (PD) District. 3 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit C) which recommends that the City Council initiate an application to LAFCO to consider annexation of the 13. 9+ acres lying to the southwest of the City. 4 -Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit D) which recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Map 5410. 5 - Direct the applicant to revise the Site Development Review application submittals to reflect the conditions outline for the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Map and resubmit them for review and action by the Planning Commission at a future, noticed of Public Hearing. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated. Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding the PD; Planned Development Prezoning and Rezoning applications Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding the Annexation request Exhibit D - Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5410 Exhibit E - Revised Tentative Map and Development Plan Exhibit F - Staff Study - Western Active Recreation Area Exhibit G - Eastern Recreation Areas - Martin Canyon Creek Layout 4 Y µw-vr •i -r,y p+-e� r Tnri r,�N t'��'C� '+"*�k r��n1�.,n'OCPa,�� j �.�. 4 ti..�«t � y. - � r .7 j � CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 7, 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: PA 85-017 . 1, . 2 . , .3 . , . 4 and .5 Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning, Annexation Request, Tentative Map 5410 , and Site Development Review applications involving a 13 . 9+ acre portion of the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision (Tentative Map 4859 ) . GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: Planned Development (PD) Prezoning request to prezone 13 . 4+ acres lying outside the southwestern boundary of the City of Dublin with a concurrent Rezoning request to -also rezone 0 . 5+ lying within the City to the Planned Development (PD) District (PA 85- 017 . 1 and . 2, respectively) . Concurrently submitted is a request under PA 85-017 . 3 that the City of Dublin file an application with the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to initiate annexation proceedings involving the 13 . 4+ acre portion of the property. Also submited is a Tentative Map request (PA 85-017 . 4 ) covering the entire 13 . 9+ acre proposal for 130 multiple family residential lots and open space parcels and a Site Development Review application request (PA 85-017 . 5 ) . APPLICANTS & PROPERTY OWNERS: Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. 6379 Clark Avenue Dublin, California 94568 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-0100-7-31 & -34 , 941-0105-041 & -051, 941-0110-01-05 PARCEL SIZE: 13 . 9+ acres EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: The property is presently vacant and is zoned PD; Planned Development District. The property is irregularly shaped with the majority of the site being situated outside the City limits. The City' s General Plan Designation for the site is Medium Density Residential (6 . 1 to 14 .0 units per acre) . SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: PD (R-1) ; Planned Development . District developments and A; Agricultural District, Vacant lands, r�. . 3i�'�1'y�+�?�'�+',M1 tr,�, � " !"�� s`.. ; t�: ..ti �M�,•,x% A �r'dt'N�i,+�`��"�b,�: �� � `'�'' ,,,r''. :rai+ Tr�� etia "w 4.l rT I+C �N3fFa"`'*ix�}a-wxr.0 fi r a�a a , - 3e'.;.,;h C r 't 'wbi'r, w. MM•.r4y*.:'rgr.• +-!°.a � �� ��: �X�'`��',i'i ' �$r�f°'°'J�Y9��tc�erc�.� . . �Ntt3i�G"�e�''i•+du.,�?•snJi.�.� r.i:# .5.,;'. South: R-1-B-E; Single Family Residential Combining District development . East: R-1-B-E; Single Family Residential Combining District developments . West : A; Agricultural District, Vacant unincorporated lands. ZONING HISTORY: The subject property is a portion of the Nielsen Ranch area zoned by Alameda County into an A; Agricultural District in 1956 (96th Zoning Unit) . In 1980 , Alameda County amended its General Plan changing the Nielsen Ranch ' s land use designation from Agricultural to Residential, including both single family and multi-family land use designations . On January 16 , 1984, the Dublin Planning Commission approved a time extension (PA 83-073 ) for the Nielsen Ranch Tentative Map. Dublin City Councilmember Drena appealed that approval, requesting that the City Council have the opportunity to review the application and make its own decision. The final action by the City Council on the extension request is reflected in City Council Resolution No. 17-84 ( see Background Attachment 7 ) . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: A. STATE REGULATIONS Section 65859 of the California Planning and Zoning Laws, states in part that a City may prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the City for the purpose of determining the zoning that will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the City.' Section 35000 et seq. of the California Government Code, Municipal Organization Act, establishes procedures for annexation of unincorporated territory to a City. Section 66413 of the State Subdivision Map Act,. establishes processing procedures for the annexation of territory with tentative map or final map approval . The following sections of the General Plan and the Zoning . Ordinance relate specifically to this application: B . GENERAL PLAN: 2 . 1 . 1 B - RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND 6 . 4 - A SUMMARY OF HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGIES: The General Plan designates sites for medium to medium-high density residential development where site capability and access are suitable and where the higher density would be compatible with existing residential development nearby. 2 . 1 . 3 . B - RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY: An implementation policy of the Plan is to require all site plans to respect the privacy and scale of residential development nearby. 3 . 1 A - OPEN SPACE FOR PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND - SAFETY: A guiding policy of the Plan is to strive to preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value. 7 . 1 D - RIPARIAN VEGETATION: An implementing policy of the Plan is to require retention of open. stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation, improve access and prevent flooding caused by blockage of streams . r y ,qJ t'a ��k�r��'4`,iii'�;�'����t„'a}•",<<r:�/"«r, �"�4k��'"�5��.�I�i.° r�..e 1 +*'t. w',3 `7a �kr r `�h4 :�, t.. 1 {4 f } t: - .. C. ZONING ORDINANCE: 8-31. 0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS: INTENT: Planned Development Districts, hereinafter designated as PD Districts, are established to encourage the arrangement of a compatible variety of uses on suitable lands in such a manner that the resulting development will : a) Be in accord with the Policies of the General Plan of the City of Dublin; b) Provide efficient use of the land that includes preservation of significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape features with minimum alteration of natural land forms; c) Provide an environment that will encourage the use of common open areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities; d) Be compatible with and enhance the development of the general area; e) Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment . 8-32 . 12 CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRED. The. provisions of this Article shall - become applicable to any given development only . upon change in Zoning District to a Planned Development District, in accordance with the provision of Article 8 (Procedures) of this Chapter, with the following exceptions to the provisions of said Article 8 : a) The determination that the proposal will benefit the public necessity, convenience and general welfare be based, in part, on the conformance of the proposal with provisions of this Article. b) Any change in zoning district accomplished in accordance with this Article is subject to review by the Planning Commission at the expiration of two ( 2 ) years from the effective date of said change, if during the two ( 2 ) year period construction, in accordance with the approved plan is not commenced, or if the . approved staging plan has not been followed. At the conclusion of the review by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that: the lands affected by the Planned Development District be rezoned from the Planned Development District. Said hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter . c) A Planned Development District shall be established by the adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council reclassifying the described property to a Planned Development District and adopting by reference, a Land Use and Development Plan, the provisions of which shall constitute the regulations for the use, improvement and maintenance of the property within the boundaries of the plan. 8-31. 1.5 COMMON AREAS - PROVISIONS, OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE. Maintenance of all lands included within the plan not utilized for building sites, State and County Roads, and public uses, shall be assured by recorded land agreements, covenants, proprietary control, or other stated devices which attain this objective. The proposed method .of assuring the maintenance of such lands shall be included as part..of the .Land Use and Development Plan. � ,..-, F• � il.�_a: '�r h ,.a"t ♦ � �-,N,� x�' .•,,,• + ,,4.,t, ,t i r 1 a � . ... 9 ✓ 1 r' - r S 'S -rt �t 4i� ik. r �i�Ncf Ji.' n{\ .�4��- F.^v:' t .,� v - t a t r1 jt 4 1� S � y.h �}v�•rK;^'•:. � is y�V, %rt'{."t .`?K:tr SXr'r). �%�'" .sr 3•w't J4� .yi,:+ -1'� F�y t+ :.�a���.r n'k 1$�..,0.f'�F;ii�/.lt,'�•OM,�.t:x B>,;y..:,,.4r.��r"a C.'?�}f y,g..t-1 tr••r�:�t J�,i,!w.Lr���:F�:i,�.e�.2.�, �:eu±s i:f�r..,,•}§��'t`i(�'aaf:^.r$hq{'t.1 r t�'!I r 4+'j�'c•:1.5;:-.t,•4::r fI C f�a'.t maa y?d.n v,;r L:a=�'� .;�p.,`L{,:�ft i�•+*.�e a',,."��c.r,«.A.. '�r,•�e'rr.r`�+."r-r:�,�•'r.—'•_:�R..4'.c_^,a.+w�r t t..3f.„:.:t'5.Ay'�tr?kr„.--;::':,+.-t,i'`”''.''.�.,!:4�7y r'D Y.•.c:+.``+Y+.�i4Y�,+'�'2�_/vxr',Z✓E+'.!,•"fi,M p'�,�"��'v�7 t'J S p 7�•�.•l tr,h c`°jMo'°t'r±i.ii'.r ti•yt?•+•�.4`�r�w•t l r�i r 7 r c fi 1 ,5r Ln Rr �fi A����^a rY r s 1 t•�w-1•-Nt'e:•=•,'",r ti•v�}�.�G+r i.kra i t . f ry 2 Mal - ' •;• '�'.�'�r..9�z .;.�:,.... 8-95 . 0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. Site Development Review is intended to promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development; recognize environmental limitations on development ; stabilize land values and investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses, or erection of structures, having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards of this Chapter , or which are not properly related to their sites, surroundings, traffic circulation is found to so require, the Planning Director may establish more stringent regulations than those otherwise specified for the District. 8-95 . 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: PROCEDURE. The Planning Director or his designated representative shall receive and decide applications for Site Development Review. No Public hearing is required, except in the case of a concurrent application for a variance, or in the case of a Conditional Use. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance which finds the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment ( see Background Attachment 2 ) . NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the, October 7 , 1985 , hearing was published in the Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and -posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS• Within the following section of this report, Staff focuses on four areas of review; Land Use Considerations; Design Considerations; Environmental Considerations; and proposed project modifications. Under the Land Use Considerations Section, Staff reviews the project as it relates to the General Plan. Under the Design Consideration Section, Staff reviews the project as it relates to the City' s Residential Condominium Guidelines and discusses the aspects of the projects ' site plan layout and site grading, and provisions of recreation areas . Under the Environmental Consideration Section, Staff discusses the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Significance proposed for adoption for this project . Within the final section, Staff proposes specific modifications to the project to address concerns outlined in the first three sections . Land Use Considerations The subject proposal generally reflects the anticipated medium density residential land use called out for this site by the General Plan. Minor adjustments to the site plan and the grading plan appear necessary to .address the privacy and scale of nearby residences and to assure that the open space/natural resource value of Martin Canyon Creek is recognized and incorporated into the project design while concurrently accomodating access to that area. Development of the subject property is proposed at the mid-range of the area ' s allowable residential density (9 .0+ dwelling units per net acre proposed - 6 . 1 to 14 .0 dwelling units per acre allowable) . The two portion of the property were established by the Nielsen Ranch Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Tentative Map application, the west potion of the site was approved as Lot 262 for up to a maximum of 59 multiple family residential units. The east portion of the site was approved as Lot 263 for .up to a maximum of 70 multiple family residential units. . .The •subject proposal .requests 66 units on the west side and . 64 units on the east side. - <� t �,'�N 11 N� + rr � ����t+o.L � .t t ri`t��Pf ;'",i''�.-G"Tie,hl�1 i�'F f t Ji<0.�a•i -4t.J� � `1 r Fri'y t r �t �r- t v -.: L�. ;,.4,�?. +i�• 10 ,•W..¢.. 0. fe ��'�.y 4'��x„'$ir t��� "R7 f;."' � •�+ •�,,•ii�.+�'� r.•.� �"9�'(.in..,�� J13x'- .Y. rc .�5 ��`.'•G 4 } •t�. �F..u,i1i `fYr° 3 jI V "� .. y. �'`+. �,i�'.°, �, F�„'t'r!.s �,rryx,rk- •?�'" �'1 G �•''t,! !r>"' • � 4 0. n �?b'v. S?F- � +i7'�'— C e. ro Toy � � a ka P'•'.esf� < .r!-. yy..�� x��� .' •. ,y '�••yy{{. ;` fit- 4= ,.�. y�j y' ,w,g`r�,2•v F �. „k, , ,_ �r•a o-'}-�rk �,�' �i%. ;ry ° -'I3`-'•n�3vy �: • �` a^, � F 'Z 2'.Rt+�:.ft'i 'c"'� 1�+•'t�',,,.d�'",�fi •'2' � r 1 '•'- Design Considerations : A. Residential Condominium Development Guidelines; The following chart summarizes the project ' s proposed development standards as they relate to the City' s established Residential Condominium Development Guidelines; CITY STANDARD PROJECT SUBMITTAL 1. Parking Requirements A. Unit Parking Min. 2 spaces per unit- 2 spaces per unit- 260 spaces 260 spaces B. Guest Parking Min. 15% of required 10% (26 spaces)* parking spaces (39 spaces) C. Vehicular Coverage Max. 25% of site 19.2% (2.67+ Acres) (driveways & streets) (3.48 acres) D. Parking Dimensions - _covered Min. 9' x 20'@ space Garages are minimum 18' 4" x 20' for two spaces -uncovered Min. 9' x 18' 9' x 17' (2' overhang) (2' overhang) E. Compact Spaces Max. 35% of uncovered None proposed parking spaces 2. Open Space A. Usable Common Min. 50% of Site Total "usable" open space open space has not been calculated total open space 53.8% (7.48 acres) * Provision of 2-car driveways in front of garage units is equivelent to an additional, potential 260 quest parking spaces. City Standard Project Submittal B. Private Usable Min. 200 s.f.@ unit Unit A-630 s.f. patio open space (minimum) Unit B-450 s.f. patio (minimum) Unit C-450 s.f. patio (minimum) Unit D-450 s.f. patio (minimum) 3. Private vehicular Accessways A. Without parking on Min. 20 feet 24 feet either side B. 90 uncovered parking Min. 28 feet 24 feet on one side -5- �IY >4'r,�.r 4 1"..I N�i�.Y,._4rt7�r?�F�a�t=x'�r'!,t:i}.r' i u Zr Y ri.��r b�xf,2!J1..rKg�.'t'Y i'"`'.!:r Y 1'.,��;��`�-.+y.�.��..+/��''i�r^4lG.,w k t..r 4 Fyt1}�r�rr'r✓. i a F""r t�..a rP �T°Cf'._R �" .e$ ^Y X,.. Y pr,y}i�ytr��SS ??i`rf eta�n�� N1r.� .. Ssoc x��.F�'s�,fi ° 1''.. �r :~ }:'..xUY� ' F ..rrkr ",?'s t�..i ,. �•> i .. ` 4. Storage Assigned individual, 20 cubic feet min. No formal storage lockable and water- (with 4' min, dimension) areas have been proof storage detailed - but the 2-car garages and large patios make provision of the required storage readily obtainable. * Provision of 2-car driveways in front of garage units is equivelent to an additional, potential 260 quest parking spaces. B. Site Plan Layout and Site Grading The subject property is divided into two halves, being bisected by the extension of Silvergate Drive. The west portion of the project is 6.5+ acres in size is roughly rectangular in shape. A total of 66 units in seventeen building groupings are proposed by the applicant. This site's elevations range from a high point in the northwest corner at 486'+ to a low point at the southeast corner at 420'+. Under the applicant's submittal, the regrading of the site would lower the northwest corner up' to 22' (14' of the lowering would be to accomodate the .alignment of Rolling Hills Drive) and the raise in the southeast portion up to 13' (5' of the rise would be to accomodate the alignment of Silvergate Drive) . The northeast and southwest corners are proposed to be left essentially at natural grade. Roadwork for the Silvergate Drive extension and for Rolling Hills Drive is currently underway in conjunction with the development of Kaufman & Broad's single family residential project lying north of the subject property.. Martin Canyon Creek runs along a section of the south side of this portion of the project. Site grading proposed . for this half of the project would accommodate the creation of a central loop roadway (with a single connection to Rolling Hills Drive and building pads for a total of Silvergate Drive. ) andbuilding pads for a total of seventeen building groupings. Sixteen of seventeen pads of these building groupings are proposed as flat pads. The final building grouping proposed is planned with five different finished floor elevations for the five .proposed units, with a two foot step between each unit (Building Group 79-88) . All the building grouping pads are proposed with access loaded directly off the central loop roadway. Perimeter slopes along the two public streets are proposed at 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes and are shown up to ten feet in height and thirty feet in depth. Perimeter slopes along the creek and adjoining the Hansen property at the southeast corner of the site are shown at 2:1 slopes up to twelve feet in height and twenty-four feet in depth. 'Internal slopes are also shown at 2:1 slopes being up to fifteen feet iln height and thirty feet in depth. Limited use of three foot hight retaining walls are proposed across the site (260 feet in lenght) . No provision of a formal recreational area or large common open space area is proposed. No direct pedistrian connection to the creek is proposed with the applicant's site plan layout. The east portion of the project is 7.9+ acres in size and very irregular in shape. A total of 64 units in fifteen building groupings are proposed by the applicant. This . site's elevations range from a high point in the northwest corner of the site at 444'+ to a low point at the southeast corner at 4061+ along the top of back of the creep (396' into the creek area). This site abuts to the rear of eighteen existing or future single family residential units, of which eight are situated opposite Martin Canyon Creek .which runs *,600+[ along the south edge of the site. t a r -••t4,� -n< t:.`t,5� PCri .y M ct���P r"r_. 5.t �, w r t zrl,'` t t✓1 t r �. 1 .+ •�„ :••.T ° rh 7�.T.•:-'fit"Y -p #,k.p,.� r' J..y�f Y5.l .`'yC4'.:,.,� rk�"i�;' ' e�j C`.fie.,-tv-'a;i3 ''{,'"c':+ +fi t r�.+M'e t:rw'k fhha?`.d L-'a 4• V,f.S.S-d'ti"5.. ;'�•s'.n s._' ! i'it ,4, St,c�sfra:,yi'?`?Y�`rri•r}:} /""7a llj 7 h} v '>n,.al"t' w �fe•" �vtiI-ry::j;.�%Y •.l.Y u�t, o i "�•t'.r•,a�,.x. x .t r.n .-.::? k+... f? t� . t �,;'• .. +°'t Y,t g✓.{ f y, x'•aa'.s-+:� h t '�lT i r-.�w.r.xl�..-fJ �\ '•..'Sv��� � '1C.E� �7�.. f rf�. tr",oy. -r �.y 4�.�S fi•„ y,. ''a'• ts5.drcj�^n r :-t e" L"r+.. :tit4 i r :k �, i .���ti. �, r'G.-• y v�''$ �`� sk a p '� 4 It � oM � m �.�.•u.. i Y: '.�,.i4 (: 4.x y hf �,'3.,'t, d"y ✓�f h. �y` Tt aU 11A�tt•v s -�' xt'H `�•.��'Ik., 3` t'Sa c�u8 ✓' fi �c •', Iry a,.s'� ., ,fp � , `, r•• •n. s e�, "'� �f s ,r°�+n�,x Mjr ��•a � s j.'r '�,s,ip ` .�{°` 'tti'+` l ;{+t 0. �.b.. n� .t.GS:'. t t�„c ° _ � � Y 1��J� �`', .'��,��"cer�it�2'�::4,•��'y��'�t ^< `�{�,y;»`.�� ,` .t. e. i„v yH,ess'wcsa.asnx .. ..;.•a r. ,"Tr 1.YYr.' $ ; , 's„ {. .t!b•,- A.n y*y {k' Under the applicant's submittal the site's regrading would lower the northwest portion of the site up to ten feet while moving the surplus material into the central and southerly portions of the "site. The area along the creek is proposed to be left essentially at existing natural grade. Site grading proposed for this site would also accommodate a central loop roadway (with two connections to Silvergate Drive) and building pads for a total of fifteen building groupings pads. Eleven of fifteen pads for, the proposed building groupings are proposed as flat pads. The remaining four building groupings are proposed with a total of eleven two-foot steps in the finished floor elevations of the twenty units involved. . Perimeter slopes along Silvergate Drive are proposed at 3:1 slopes and are shown up to ten feet in height and thirty feet in depth. Interior slopes and the other perimeter slopes are generally shown at 2:1 slopes and are less severe in height and frequency than on the western site. During the course of processing the development proposal, Staff's review has prompted the following major changes to the site plan layout and site grading plan; Realignment of eastern roadway network alignment to maximize the number of units loaded along the central loop roadway. Introduction of the eleven two-foot finished floor elevation steps shown in the four building groupings on the north portion of-the eastern half of the project. Introduction of five finished floor elevation steps shown in building grouping 79-83 on the west half of the project. Throughout the review process Staff has expressed the following areas of concern regarding the project's site plan layout and site grading plan; Building coverage and the apparent "overbuilding" of the site when the property's existing slope, configuration and presence of Martin Canyon Creek are considered. Lack of on-site active and passive recreation facilities or areas. Site grading, as it relates to the adjoining single family residential lots, the alignment of Silvergate and Rolling Hills Drives, the alignment of proposed internal roadways, and the relationship of the site to the ultimate land use of the adjoining Hansen property. Potential project impacts to the Martin Canyon Creek corridor. - Relative lack of flat useable open space areas surrounding or between proposed building groupings. General lack of project identity features/amenities such as: formal project entrys, integrated common open space areas, and site plan ties to the into Martin Canyon Creek corridor, etc. that would collectively serve to establish a cohesive, integrated "up-scale" development. In response to these identified issue areas, Staff is proposing that a variety of specific modifications be incorporated into the project's site plan and grading plan. The proposed project modifications and the resultant project benefits are summarized below in this report. r C. Provision of Recreation Areas The plans as submitted provide for no formal active or passive recreation areas. Staff feels that the.project's size, layout and unit count dictate that two active recreation areas and complimentary passive recreational opportunities be provided. ,,L ,• ,•� ri !� C LF X ,,.fr +� r}U k � r.,! -t6 +it"'i� �i t E '.r t4 "q4 K 9' �r a , „r — (�r 'r' �{t' w �r ' t. a ;g C sr :,^`tl 'L x�. i rut;reev�S{ti ran r.. t,4.li} r!/ •CJ i 1.s y y !�.1' .�i- � t t f T dl "F r v{ s c 1 ! d 1 -vr�r r�t'•.^•{Y!r 2n yam.. y •+.b . . tr 'Zr 31 tai,t'3Ir "` r t i �!:lA�i� p4.r 'h i/�<,7(3'("'Tl+i�r�{+,v t1�5)�yC)y`�. i�1N 4Cr a�t���^}!��J ..i7.h.yr t! �}c�'ata� (I'��,!�F.'. A��F���~y � {> l l r?` .t4 Z•�•' A �:.3 �,♦,nV;,�{'F1'��4yy�f!�i..rrt�: �t , t^�•t�1 C.r.s+,-1{I ..,lA4,F k{ "S1 P� G X.Y ty�i. � n13'(i(d.�' 4.ts'�Af+t Y.rl A 1.�. j CW�.,>„{ 'Kr# � K A y'..J'{„Jt''� '!"f .r�� -.(l.ya"•:�)S N"Zi•1✓.a'Y 1"��r6iFY �`[� Yr.I�}{1 'Y 1, , �L�S'v`iii 4l �U 1��X",L',!'t�+.pf�ra�.{{54.1.1. F�.,ihtM i}�_�x'MV4 y1� iw��j�4 n��w i f, r ^i 1 } d rs."" r..2 r .rr• •;• ;.^r°r •:�.ry±Yx is r, r�'-.c"`” .f T ,�'rn�r T'"c��..'�F "'r,�'�'s'r�i..c���3�4� -r..—P#s ;.r��;,�2�' ,1 v � w4, r. _ .yi�:,��t �,i��� ��t�ri�t. .t r.s .� ?, o �9��" .�' •�}r-+t L +� ,tie p_ �.;e d ..t Y) } `. .4�4w M' A�. Y�w:d + '�rh�4� i � .sj^'f i, r ;t+�t3'" S^ ^c�q'E$r !4�' .n'�, `�`. •c. Nrc v �2 F�trr.t•�,+^ i'+ '^{'.^;�'s�, rr-,.".?A' .a -•i{,�iFi�,'.r,:.;`t�4'J`1 . ;�;1 ..�i`���zGFf`' Y�i�a�� .s., e 'r _,;:'MUi'�!�.�t�-F�.'u'�t�.�".�_`%y��:'��is�;���:����,. .w. r :�rr 'zZugtN.�''..�iS S k�,.�.��,v:'.w+$t �'t�?�+k'.�.�'4°�@r`�?Y a. The layout of the project would appear to require a reduction of the unit count and related site plan modifications to accomodate the creation of two recreation areas. Specific project modifications to provide for recreational activities are discussed in the Section of this report entitled Proposed Project , Modifications. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that in lieu park dedication fees be paid at the time of approval of the Final Map based on the site plan approved with the Planned Development Rezoning. The park dedication calculations for this project are as follows: Park Land Req'd: j92 sq. ft./DU ( .009 AC/DU x 130 dwelling units) = 50,965 s/f . In lieu park dedication fees are based on the current market value of net park land required at time of approval of Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Subject to review and approval by the Planning Director and the City Engineer, partial credit for private recreational facilities developed on the site may be considered. C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Staff has prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for this project. This document identifies five areas of potential environmental impacts associated with the project sumittal and outlines measures which are proposed to mitigate each identified impact to the point where it is reasonable to find that the potential impact will no longer be significant. Background Attachment 2 spells out the environmental components in question and the proposed mitigation measures. In order for the Commission to adopt this environmental document for this project, it will be necessary for the applicant to supply binding committment to make the necessary site plan modifications and or to agree to the specific identified mitigation measures to assure all identified impacts will be mitigated. D. PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS The following proposed modifications to the project are offered by Staff to address concerns outlined in the first three sections above; 1. Use of additional splits of finished floor elevations; A staff study prepared for the project (see Exhibit G - Staff Study; Site Grading - Finished Floor Elevations) proposes that the number of two-foot splits on the western portion of the project be increased to 23 splits (from 5) and the number of splits on the eastern portion be increased to 26 splits (fromll). Use of additional splits is seen to be necessary and appropriate to make the site.'s grading plan more sensitive to the existing topographic layout of the site. Additionally, the added splits will increase the level usable areas surrounding the units, allow better coordination of individual unit driveways to internal roadway grades and allow a decrease in the height and depth of both perimeter and interior slopes. 2. Use of addition non-engineered retaining walls (2' to 3' height) and use of modified perimeter slopes; For much of the same reasons involved in Item 1 above, Staff feels substantial additional use of l' to 3' high retaining walls should be made across both portions of the project. Retaining walls will be necessary at the front and rear of adjoining units where a two foot finished floor elevation change is utilized to allow the grade transition between adjoining yards. . Retaining walls will also be necessary to provide adequate level areas for -the introduction of �' ti +. '� L r "�~A�r r t '�e e r 7' y� � L a �• .7 + '4-� tt � � 3 r ` _4 tC:y 1Z + u �.. r` .+ rx. Z .Y �''n.Orr. dia ri{ rS .r� #xtS sY�r.�.�`7r•� e- �� 'i k y7. �+1^ �� � 'e il.. - - �'Y� "; 4 i•(ac, 5.7 '1 t r$ ;0. ✓ .:�? � 1 *^1 at.� 1 �«fS'{ {' A{'r 75 s, 'L r H r1 �,i 1 ��„ «.,Zn r .s x�r xtr - f�..w. }y. "c N-r'i rM d<ti.+x'Sa.rtrr C k.�.,t'y rt A,r '1j''gt. 4a'�.7{� n.�.,1'�r=}•+ ;y �.._�"`, F l'a ..1,' 1 y..,a •y 2:�a:rtF,x(' `,k i,k 45 +� ::':y� r x `� !r a ^. Nr..°, .*�7,cq{`il�;�-v rr}.i'iv?"'?t'f'.:...4'"'"�t`�{,^4s-- dFs �?'�k7' '?,khe e��ha��wj're�r�� •4t.9ia�i1+�t`.'•V 8'�''igAw t" t7�-. ✓^le.Kai��- •y .+'+ s.� n�f x y a x r a^.*ej`7� a>?*t r'iY4X 'i;• P^ :t'?" "'`y'h n 1 -^-rT c.� 1 r >' r,Srj xt �•t',3.��'r•+: nor �. w +a�1;'.�.` �'Yr %L;17�•�'ti!?'mot. �b�x'i t�:c 6-.«�c�.�.n'I 4K -�d3�`, +-rr.,^,•� pedestrian walkways. With the changes called for in Item 1 above and the use of more retaining walls across the site, the height of street-side perimeter slopes can be greatly diminished... With these changes, it becomes desirable to change back from a. 3:1 slope to a 2:1 slope for street-side slopes tomaximize the level areas available .for perimeter landscape treatment. Special care should be taken to assure grades extending away from the public right-of- way do not immediately change in slope to create hazardous conditions and areas that will be -difficult to landscape. 3. Creation of an active recreation area on the western portion of the project To provide an area of appropriate size, location, configuration and slope for use as an on-site active recreation area, Staff recommends units #73 and #77 be eliminated from the project and that the resultant two modified building groupings these units are taken fron be spread out by moving Building Group 69-72 (73) approximately seventeen feet to the east and Building Group 74-78 approximately ten feet to the west. These changes, along with the addition of more finished floor elevation splits, would yield a relatively rectangular, level area of one-third of an acre in size. The area's location, opposite the Rolling Hills Drive entrance and tied into the proposed pedistrian path, is considered a good, central location. The applicant has expresed st6rong reservations regarding the development of an active recreation facility like_a pool/spa complex, but Staff feels the size and density of the project, and the precedent set by recent, comparable projects (Arbor Creek, Kildara, Heritage Commons, etc. ) dictates that a facility of that type be developed. 4. Creation of a common open space linkage to Martin Canyon Creek on the eastern portion of the project; The Martin Canyon Creek corridor along the south side of the eastern portion of the project is the principle site amentity present for the entire project. The current site plan layout effectively screens both views and physical access to this corridor for all but the future owners of-the ten units proposed along the top of the creek. Staff feels the corridor should be opened up to visually provide an entry focal point for this half of the project that would also serve as part of a common open space corridor interconnecting portions of the southern half of the site. To provide for this, Staff feels that site plan modifications including the elimination. of units. #51, #59 and #60 would be required. Additional recommended modifications to the locations of Building Groups 48-50 (51), 52-54, (60) 61-64 and 55-58 (59) are recommended to pull the roadway and the two southerly building groupings away from the creek to allow the development of a pedistrian walkway along this section of the top of the creek. This section of walkway is proposed as part of an overall pedestrian network discussed below. Alternatively, this section of the project could be redesigned to place a section of the loop roadway along the top of bank of Martin Canyon Creek shifting Building Groupings 60-64 and 55-59 to the interior of the site. It is anticipated this option would result in the need to eliminate up to five units at the south half of the project. - 5. Provision of an on-site pedestrian walkway network; The two halves of the project will be served by public sidewalks along both Rolling Hills Drive and Silvergate Drive. The functioning of these future public sidewalks as portions of on-site pedistrian walkway networks are severly hampered by the grade differentials (both up and down) proposed to be _established between ` the public right-of-way and the perimeter areas of the project. 13 1 WRE Y'�w7� t 1'- �t,�•.�.",•: � I rrr�' ' 3,Lt'. �i c'''t'4 �..� ,. �>-`i i � ;�:.Yr'r � � rL "t...,r t r�5 � e v YY r r -- .y�'e Sl,r.� .+y.. •"' t�;v3 Yi¢yr _'1�•y v•Cr i � yr,,']} � t P,�t ! .� .. e! '�.-p1{��w; .•�2n-j51.�+.4}Y. .:K. t r •.� l 7 } ni.7 _ � n.-'yt.t sv::U'..., �Y.? "i,tr��y.'�'. yr,�tik'^.� •t<.K+q C:}`�5 a':fv �jJ.�!�'i.,f�"5'T\•�T;}1--4�' iL�fy`-Q �SY T�Y'r J.t Y'3 y��.,'4 j�'vS•�.�"}, y.. jl�+r L"lam x,xY,y fr.n4,�`^ ....1 �rt- - d'yY n'Sf,'':' .,v;vt'�., �y`3-.y'y� �f,c -:�y,. .r`•�7t�.n��R.f �� �� %k;�5c �s,� n! :'t.?Y`�' ..��,� �,�'^`� 'r�5�. r"�.M�iai3:r+i 's`'' Fk iryar•��'�,�7r� .�y.n 2 .A _).e •c:y,7`�`�"'t^ }+� r.r+ .r�-,it �A'sa+: �r .F'•..Lt Sx w•yx"'Ii�{�e.f yr.. �.�;.a' �t� ,fir-'s �"�, ';��,.a:F � ...n,,y}i f r �r ��' a 4 :��'a,�,�'.��'�Ltu� ����, ..�����a'Y.p t' '1i';�1 F.�''r o y.;���.r ,k�' •(i. rt�ryr?�,,��.,,5�}"�' �"�'` ,.,, i �a;y'v, �'.1 1 "- o r r �4 t, a a}TC" r s �` 'W{+. A�� �' °';f�3+F �9�� 3•.�j`A`�' V` - n.b ;s" y i Staff feels that both an opportunity and an obligation exist to provide functional on-site pedistrian walkway networks. These walkways would provide a means to give some cohesion to the project by interconnecting landscaped common open space areas and recreation sites. Without the introduction of pedestrian walkway networks, future resident's movement across the site would effectively be limited to their personal lots and the internal private roadway network. In conjunction with the on-site pedestrian walkway network, provision of several benches for use of project residents should be supplied. Additionally, a formal interconnection of the two pedestrian walkway systems of the respective halves of the project should be provided across Silvergate Drive. 6. Modification to Building Group 79-83 - western portion of project; Building Group 79-83 represents the only building group on the western portion of the project, where the applicant has proposed to use split finished floor elevations. This reflects the problems related to tying the elevations of' the five units to the adjoining proposed street grades and trying to place the 152' long building group within a 1951+ strip where an elevation change of 18'+ is being attempted to be provided. While the use of split finished floor elevations helps to a degree, Staff feels major problems with the layout still exist. The two principle remaining problems seen by Staff .are: the limited building setback (10.5+ at two corners of the building) and the awkward, snaking fill area proposed to wrap around the southeast side of this building group. Staff recommends that one unit in this building grouping be eliminated and that another unit be moved to Building Grouping 83-87, 7 . Perimeter fencing Project fencing where the adjoining land use is single family residential should be with six-foot high solid wooden fencing. Fencing along the Hansen property should also be with a heavy six- foot solid fence. To provide additional project cohesiveness and to mitigate potential hazards where sloping areas will be established along the public right-of-ways, a low open decorative fence (rod-iron or equivalent) should be supplied along the entire length of the project's public street frontage. 8. Sports court - or equiva..lent second active recreation area - for eastern section of project The open peninsula along the creek at the southeastern corner of the eastern portion of the project would be an appropriate location for a second-active recreative area, such as a multi-activity sport's court. The provision of the second active recreation area at this site would thereby balance the recreation opportunities s.u S V.'{ rr•cc,4, ',��A -" `' J..F E y F ; 1O vfR%y'Sr., r.Z.•° .`sn.'}k n. e1:• �ci •�'y"' Cy .,.tf'„n+'U .77 ,1 !»��f S+a.`R:��:� "Nj �! ai+. �r4�Rry!$�,y,t,. Ny".ii�^M.� �x rra�r-t S.1' ay. ...'`�:x.n,hx•k} C �,.7. J{` t3 a.: t ,jt` ti » Jt rLS = t $s F.:�.,t !- y d ,.:;4,�Y*',f .y� � �.si%-3�,+r'�i+'. �L','2��'r�t +s'r�.s.,��"�Y tF'i'+'E '�=1•, �r.Z�4,:?i. t'��`i,r`1": �•i!�1. n�i� u �x: _rEa K 53.s2� Rs�A '�ii'"��. ��r,: �. 1i.. �.r 'tdt e .s�+:t,YL2^< r � a�'&•, �_r�'. 1 'iK .s'�• r� r�• , L a�}!...r: } T`�.. ,}r. • •( �. .5_s � �, '-,n:.� rrS 'Y.r fti $.`^7t �S�, }`iffy i" �...' 1 y .. Icy rg,y�" • ,���, pp /}?. _ .r�` f���1�i1.. �!'L',ti"+�e.� '�[ �..wi, � s�• � �YJI:vW'.�Es�.;" ._ .... ,..;`�.���i• .'�aY�.'b�*dR!R '�r si i ut�.'+•n+;. between the two halves of the project. Landscape screening and a tie-in to the pedestrian walkway network should be provided for whatever type of active recreation use is established at this location. Additionally, this pennisula area should be tied into the pedestrian walkway network as a destination point with. use of heavy landscape treatment and benches along the walkway. . RECOMMENDATION FORMAT: 1 ) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation 2 ) Take testimony from applicant and the public 3 ) Question Staff, applicant and the public 4 ) Close public hearing and deliberate 5 ) Consider and act on four draft resolutions: A - A resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance B - A resolution regarding the Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning C. -* A resolution regarding the Annexation Request D - A resolution regarding the Tentative Map Action: Based on the above Staff Report, Staff recommends no action be taken at this time on the Site Development Review request (PA 85-017 . 5 ) . Action on the remaining four requests are dependant on the Commission ' s ability to determine whether the intent of the Planned Development (PD) District is satisfied through the conditions outlined in Exhibits A through D. If the Commission feels adequate direction to the applicant has been provided through those four resolutions to refine the project ' s design through the Site Development Review process, then Staff recommends the following five actions be taken; 1 - Adopt a Resolution ( Exhibit A) which recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for this project . 2 - Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit B) which recommends that the subject 13 . 9+ acres lying to the southwest of the City be prezoned to the (PD) Planned Development District and the 0 . 5+ acres lying with the City be also rezoned to the PD;Planned Development (PD) District. 3 - Adopt a Resolution ( Exhibit C) which recommends that the City Council initiate an application to LAFCO to consider annexation of the 13 . 9+ acres lying to the southwest of the City. 4 -Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit D) which recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Map 5410 . 5 - Direct the applicant to revise the Site Development Review application submittals to reflect the conditions outline for the Planned Development (PD) ,Rezoning and Tentative Map and resubmit them for review and action by the Planning .Commission at a future, noticed of Public Hearing. If the Commission feels-that a determination that the intent•-.of the Planned Development (PD) District . is not`.satisfied by the ,. project ,submittals -received to date e.ti f'1 t •. S � ' t:� ` ik: r f � t - 1 r � ' ' r; . r � r ._ �t d,x'r � ..} i � M"h' d"pr� .r i•'-' 7i�� 4 � �' FAN r 4J�.P r s r;F i a S. .y� r ) �:. � .?r y .r'Y,;� t�,t,•�.�.�ttlt.ai•yY>}+� o.� µ4i> .s?� ..Y 4.Xr.�`�:'t •�°� tif 2 i`� 11 '' ' � t .�.�'�3t*F �. �_ �.� ��,. *" }t t�7•-�.. } .�.- C�`',.n:�a,5e.t y kjgy Y�•Lw,t p ,l•r"{i+i•fi. "':. '.�a�rf�k}.r�'�l``}s�� v '. •v �,,.',^y'a�'^"` � r` ;?•';cvs.w f's,r r .rc-+'w , a -� £+�', ' '- „�? ",r.5 �. ."� .i c4 `,�'-• .:r�,•�.. ,"..•y�,�z ds,",�.{}2�% &tlf'-a t `'��� :f�'"' -t r"'':>tlL xY , •y •e '�� :t� ''�..�l a �� ��� LF H.w r %f �,d"r�f,:.}t• y7iy,: L- `S,T.cy1. `Y,t%i`�.N"'.�",:.. r.rtie ..t"�,,,$E.r'�..i;�rt•�'tiZ h..s._'_7':r4 r,e�$.3wt'a tits $ x j•E%1i t +{M..k +ir 'L u laY: .... :`Sr s��sRa. �r Cej i��`del. 1,y'.�,. erg• ,"' •4CiM 1 ��S,T.+ ..:@�•Yj,�::";;'y'f{r{;5..3�N.v pv''; .l� y£:4*•r sn`.X�. .'r�f ,.,r �i l •c:lrY _ +4�i,,,��rt �'a5+.5 4: �•y.•..S} T ,�� r!y?••r. .✓'<.�j�'4l' ��]'�� "iX -.a'.r.. r, v. _1"+Sat ,:+t �`,�=i�r {{Y�`.�..+�"4iz,: �`y Ar.•; ",: k,�Ci ,,,,c - T�.�. f .��.r�' r f a3(�[' r �iT'«fi�r}1�7��E"n t•,,,'ly ef�x ��.:rj,:""•^c r,t7 r�• ' •�' ,k q•^ `, 5 t 4r ,'c(,"p +.r�rtFkyL T'(tl4 f;�.�� ki�',ti�� Li.u.• ''r:FYi@ !• r� .:i. 2Sar3�iYr�*7n�;titcti.+ .� r !�..• '• .a ,•9V2E� �'° `..�� �.�.re rv'`'�iwY 4^@FJ YfIH�Tr"�•_.... _ . $ .�rr '�'�'s�'h�'.,{• or, that inadequate direction for project redesign through a seperate Site Development Review process is provided, then Staff recommends that the Commission continue the public hearing on the entire submittal and direct the applicant to make specific design modifications outlined by the Staff report and/or by the Commission. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Exhibit B Draft Resolution regarding the PD; Planned Development Prezoning and Rezoning applications Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding the Annexation request Exhibit D - Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5410 Exhibit E - PD; Planned Development Prezoning Annexation Request and Site Development Review submittals Exhibit F - Staff studies Background Attachments : 1 ) Applicant ' s written statement 2 ) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance 3 ) Base Map of City showing proposed annexation territory 4 ) Draft Ordinance for PD; Planned Development Prezoning 5 ) General Provisions of the 1478th Zoning Unit 6 ) Original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Map 4859 7 ) City Council Resolution 17-84 for PA 83-073 (Time Extension for Tentative Map 4859 ) 8 ) Reduced copy of Tentative Map 4859 9 ) Agency comments cited in Draft Resolutions COPIES TO Kaufman & Broad Attn: R. Grudzinski -12 .f k <tiS"Z1 Tiy .� aC,S"jj +3 °,�t,?1'^ybFP� ,� F4 Z?i� ;•'.`�'II , ,;Y gm �'Z,�i S':.n+'y�..irk,a.'.' -rl'T%�a'C'��;%r,..�.,f S C4 �.h rs e � '<�'"�. �h�e�+'�'ie '."r r+2.._f.j <�'. n h.'���i�. a`.+r t •--f F c� :,.v,e-' '•.F - _. .. Regular Meeting - December 16 , 1985 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 16 , 1985 , in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7 :32 p:m. by Cm. Mack, Vice Chairman. PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: 8 .1 PA 85-107 Kaufman and Broad of Nothern California ; Inc (Applicant and Owner ) Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning, Annexation, Tentative Map, and Site Development review applications involving a 13 . 9 .+ acre portion of the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision (Tenta- tive Map 4859 ) at the extension of Silvergate Drive north of Hansen Drive (continued from the October 17 , November 4,-; November 18, and December 2, 1985 , Planning Commission meetings . ) Mr . Gailey outlined the details of the review process which had occurred to date and which were highlighted in the Supplemental Staff Report dated December 16 , 1985 . He summarized that the general concerns of Staff regarding the applications, the actions which have occurred to .date; the directions from the Commission which had been given to the applicant, and the results of meetings held between the applicant and the Planning Staff during the week -of December 9th. Mr . Gailey stated that Staff continued to recommend that no action be taken on the Site Development Review request (PA 85-017 .5 ) , but that the Commission take action on the remaining four requests. Mr . Gailey stated that three conditions had been added to the Conditions of Approval ( #68 , #69 , and #70 ) , and were outlined on pages 9 and 10 of that document. . ' There was discussion regarding the elimination of units #42 and #51, and the 20 ' space requirement between units. Mr . Gailey stated that Condominium Site Development standards call for a minimum separation of 20 ' .between units. -/ /� PCM-5-143 LIT. . ���//�/// //� 4 J. r i } Y 4 ..;. .E»2 't"'FP's' ^} vr a-m.R.,. :mra^r-t �q,-z 7*°7 F' .-.y'.'"Chs'C-i T'°s- ^-�'�'--t^4 .",�:r'fi*"r-°+ �a . .�'Y +'r r• xrW ,.• _ ATTACHME Mr . Ron Grudzinski, a representative from Kaufman & Broad, stated that he believed .the Commission should be in a position to make a decision at the meeting without the necessity of an additional public hearing. His comments on the Supplemental Staff Report and Resolutions were as outlined below. Mr . Grudzinski commented that the Commission had directed that recreational "areas" be provided on both sides of the project, as opposed to the provision of recreational "facilities" . Mr . Grudzinski referred to the recommendation that the western recreation area be modified to a minimum size of 1/3 of an acre. He indicated that the projects which were referred to as "comparable" projects were actually higher density projects, and that Kaufman & Broad thinks 1/4 of an acre. was an adequate size. Regarding Martin Canyon Creek, Mr . Grudzinski stated that Kaufman & Broad believed it had accomplished the goal of providing a visual tie-in of the Creek area to the southern portion of the project. Mr . Grudzinski referred to the requirements that the applicant revise and resubmit the Site Development Review application for a subsequent, additional public hearing. He stated that Kaufman & Broad continues to take issue with this condition, and believe the process should be an administrative one. Mr . Grudzinski stated that Kaufman & Broad had incorporated a larger recreational area on the west side of the project and made provisions for a pool facility to be added. Mr . Grudzinski said parking had not been provided as Kaufman & Broad did not think this recreational area 'should be vehicle-oriented. He showed the Commission a drawing outlining the recreational facility. Mr . Grudzinski said the Planning Staff was placing a high emphasis on the Martin Canyon Creek drainage course, but that Kaufman & Broad did not think it was necessary to expand the open area in proximity to the Creek . Mr . Grudzinski referred to a blow-up plan which detailed their proposed site layout for this area. Mr . Grudzinski stated that Kaufman & Broad had added additional finished floor elevation splits into the project. He asked the Commission to remember that the site is situated on a hillside, and that Kaufman '& Broad still had misgivings on providing additional splits. Mr. Grudzinski said that Kaufman & Broad believed the basic planning for this project had been settled, and that he thought it was time for a decision to be made. He expressed a concern , that if additional Public Hearings were required, Kaufman & . Broad ..may not be able to .go forward with this project until-1987 . . •� < f ..�7 J w.A SYl +tl y° '�T. i • v,: ,q� j r tii ai + 1 = t t h ;i� c i s ✓� t :�� c i ~ti rtt i '�f., •(E'-.r^j; r , S a F PCM=5 14 4 .r T`.�3 rvrx;T 'S:l,t+7. ^'"i •.•c f •5,rt {r_ 5. _ _ yy� 'S`'� � t' r f <� � y,ro r• .�;1� ems'� 5 1 _ . t-P.!!. ..�c..,+r ....Y ' �:..} '�. fT"•'�`�' s.,.....,ax Y -. `t rv. a.?:, �i�r''¢ i- t�}.,�;.., �'-•.yr.,�4�.'tY'c.»,+�a r...n j �b 5.: .,. r '� t - �� �f � •� a i ,� �A+ 11444h Jr .. ....'�.. .. J.1..,.W_ _ rai'a` ..':k _ _ _.r �rdr. ., , ...�'. .., �fy�<.rr''S�"�4"�., �u'S.e*�•�? �:.A' -'.'w�y., E'�;,?a,� r � ._F3^;'s�.y"^>.. n,c: Mr . Grudzinski said he had met, as requested- by the Commission, with Mr . Johnson (an adjoining property owner) at the Johnson property after the last rain storm. He indicated they had walked the boundary of the property and that Mr . Johnson had expressed ' his satisfaction with the new fence. Mr . Grudzinski referred to a complaint about a contractor working on the previous weekend. He said he met on the site with the security guard, a policeman and the contractor and the activity had been promptly stopped. He said the contractor indicated-he had received City approval to do some erosion control work . Mr . Grudzinski continued addressing the specific conditions outlined in the draft resolutions . Prezoning/Rezoning Draft Resolution: He said Kaufman & Broad continues to request approval for 130 units. Condition 2 - He said Kaufman & Broad requests that further Site Development Review be handled administratively. Condition 5 - He requested that certain structures, because their footprints were angled at the .corners, be allowed to have less than 20 ' setback between structures. Condition 13 - Mr . Grudzinski suggested this item be dropped as the project would not have entrance gates. Condition 14 - Mr . Grudzinski questioned the necessity for this condition ( regarding fire alarm systems) if the Kaufman & Broad is in compliance with requirements established by the DSRSD Fire Department. -Condition 16 - Mr . Grudzinski said a spa was not part of the applicant ' s proposal . Condition 18 - He stated that the phrase "to -mitigate traffic impacts which will be aggravated by' this project" was inflammatory and should be deleted. Condition 24 - Mr . Grudzinski requested that the wording be changed from "Not a Publically Maintained Street" to read n �� Private Street" . Condition 48 - He requested that the park dedication calculation be changed to coincide with the 130 units being requested. Condition 51 - Mr . Grudzinski said Kaufman & Broad would like to have a phrase inserted to the effect that space provided in each garage would meet the private storage requirement . Condition 52 - Mr . Grudzinski asked for clarification of why this item dealing with appliance upgrades was necessary, and suggested that a phrase be added indicating that this requirement would ref.er only to a situation wherein the units are used as apartments prior to initial sale. Condition 57 - Mr . Grudzinski questioned the wording in this item discussing public utility easements. Condition 64 - Mr . Grudzinski said this condition, which required enlargement of the western recreation area, appeared to be unnecessary. Condition 65 - Mr . Grudzinski restated his opposition to site changes/unit loss in the south corner of the eastern half of the project. Condition 67 - Mr . Grudzinski requested the word "heavy" (landscaping) be deleted from this condition. Condition 68 - Mr . Grudzinski questioned the applicant ' s ability to comply with the condition in -that the DSRSD easement in the effected area. could not be pre-empted in regards to the possible future placement of .fill. . ' He said . :. Kaufman & Broad thought. the condition has 'questionable ,legality, - is inappropriate and should be -dropped Condition,70 Mr . 5 D 14,,81/:.i, i ri -�T 2t �.y� g'rs X. 'S-,� , . •` 5.1. st t'¢: � T� "3 L t .� - ti a `i t v F ..0 r S.` `! 1 ,M1 h�` S '•�a s .F r ', +'} ..' T ,.rt,n• xkt ( 1, 4,. iy y."w,.•,, t-.r� �x. "':4tif .r".}+t s 4{M i Y h k ,, r ,, -`dZ o'f Y:z^-i 7�A>,'RY S'l M '�.F4s. .1_.�.' h..il%k }• t�r 1 .. L �Y .t`Yr,:'}'C• 3 rp f i.k YJ'. S.'1 .1 JS`: t Y'/.j fk-4::'•s ,.(i C _ .A sY��f'r,•yf,•.A . -i r %s' �'rq',_`'!. V` any� i -r�'..:y.is�`Y..y-a*�ac�+k c. r!-"�.� S��$G�^^��j"f-^t { y i "`+ �t i"• � 'S�,, }� ,31 I h` ._ t' r a �'���.j _ +'��V'��� �`X� � ff - rtpaY_.. f n � .-J _f; �' �,�.. ij` .�°' x . �'f+s 'A"J�u���,.• ° �`xs��, ,p+;��rL," � '[� � L y d is ♦h � yy,, ?' 4 ' • r �S -'s. .. .f i {YsS'(1,f.ICtitl� � s•..Tr Y�r Grudzinski indicated he had never seen a condition such as this ( requiring a per .unit cash deposit to guarantee compliance with project conditions) , and questioned its legality. Tentative Map Draft Resolution: Condition 29 - Mr . Grudzinski requested this item, regarding park dedication requirements, be changed to reflect approval of 130 units. Condition 31 - Mr . Grudzinski questioned the grading restriction referred-.-to in this condition. . Cm. Raley asked for clarification about the splits and expressed concern that the Staff had not had an opportunity to review the drawings of the recreational areas presented by the applicant at the meeting . On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, the public hearing was closed. The meeting recessed for a brief break . The meeting reconvened at 9 : 30 p.m. Staff responded briefly to Mr . Grudzinski ' s concerns and suggested revisions. Mr . Tong said that although Staff had not had an opportunity to review the new displays, he felt they probably accurately reflected the applicant ' s proposals . He said Staff still differed philosophically with what was presented by Mr . Grudzinski . Mr . Tong highlighted the conditions cited by Mr . Grudzinski and restated Staff ' s position on those conditions . Mr . Grudzinski referred to Condition 66 of the Prezoning/Rezoning Draft Resolution. He said at the previous meeting he had understood that the Commission had indicated a consensus agreement that the wrought iron fence along the periphery of the property was inappropriate. Mr . Tong stated that Staff feels strongly that a fence of this nature is necessary for safety purposes and to facilitate project identity. Mr . Tong referred to the subcontractor that had been working on the previous weekend. He said approval had been given to repair a potential flooding problem, but the subcontractor had not been given approval to work on Sunday or in the location where he worked. After additional discussion by the Commission, the following consensus was reached on the items discussed by Kaufman & Broad and Staff within the draft resolution regarding the proposed prezoning/rezoning. Condition 2 - A Public Hearing should be held for the Site Development Review. Condition 5 - No flexibility on the 20-foot minimum building separation should be allowed. Condition -13 - This Condition should be modified to explicitly , disallow the. use :of entry gates. . r I 4 PCM-5-146 ,}rl ri.'"fxxX :t.tr fti ti.•rt�i°S�'`�tr `i' 5 t'17.KF I j� xrs M. -c'; yyt. ,�„ry nr1�.r4i't't,''`rr�r'n"t•T"�es nr+ � swan ! r •prr'` .S K "'y, r+w. ts, "hn, �l, •,'x.1 RS 2. 1S' ' i S �ty�:a ,v L� F r.�� r.- r,y y r„r 't .+ ,.h,"^ �' AIL c%.c41r, .�•;trt yj� tA•{, �y�C� x.a.: t i t «-.AI :7 :�=•S}p,�{,` 9•,� .tii� t .•� r�tu'1. �� i.r 4.n3 fir,, +2� a �,;,e..'s,n-L•L.,, �3t A:r c ),.a�_;r .c c'i rah [ f� �u�r r „"5t�',a ��y yt. n � � :t.ti�;�' � t 'i� t y+`•rti•y� c,;[ �Y �,.r u 'fr�r M1r(`"�, ',,I J.S "1-'�'�'{`�rl r h}7 5r?.c;D dr�6 �f4' �<4f '��,�.ey t9r" n�. +,r {t ::, < :1M ,�'��a}}..�r,�•r.•T+dta'��F,.� {r.�, ;,�'a w t . Y'«� t�.�;"'r'w�'' ) . r Y'j ;,,.i:��,ar 'r... � �'-:� ���� �' �; ,ik `�l��: �'tHS�" �'i� r'�'ti � Y•�' � ,h. `�+°r�kK �M•�,r .c E ., w u �: iii Y 4! qy.•1,gyp t..y'i r •iciA.i} u a x ?r�4•pyaYn. Y ,yk,:,�r ✓ ti+5'' •. •";;+��yr4,�,,,�ytr{€,.�.�,�,"yr4f`Y�,K� =f 'Ir xt • :Pu"��"t;T��`4� •x�•'* ,.�y.�c r�4��'i� �•�.'.g�rf'i� •r , �'L��"� ,=r+�"r.d+k ��, � c-... �u .�J��E• ty •.h.�,.:_ . t� sa1"!�:sS:;,a. � 1 t. +, dG ! fyt7°r�nl4�' �y} A,a ter R,p1n �4�rk tz s E':?r ••1' .Cy t h.,.,q,* ..+.,t , .c"..' Condition 14 - This Condition should be revised to indicate that the Fire Department is to make the final determination of what type of fire alarm system will be installed. Condition 16 - The word "spa" should be deleted. Condition 18 - The phrase "which will be aggravated by this project" should be deleted. Condition 24 - The words "Private Street" should be used instead of "Not a Publicly Maintained Street" . Condition 48 - The number of units should remain at 128 . Condition 51 - The phrase "or equivalent space in the garage" , or similar wording, should be inserted to acknowledge storage space to be created in the garage. Condition 52 - A statement should be added to the Condition reading in effect that " if the units are rented, leased or occupied by someone other than the owners" before the units are initially sold, then the condition outlined in this item will be required to be met. Condition 57 - The wording on this should be corrected to indicate that the easement must be obtained from the appropriate source. Condition 64 - The word "spa", should be dropped. Condition 65 - This should be adjusted to be more specific and should indicate the specific units to be eliminated. Condition 66 - Perimeter wrought-iron fencing should not be required; however, "heavy" or "sufficient landscaping" which will serve as a barrier should be required in its place. Condition 67 - The word "heavy" ( landscaping) should be eliminated from the last sentence of this condition. Condition 68 - A statement should be added after the phrase "the developer shall be responsible for the development and recordation of an agreement . . . " to read similar to: "to the extent controllable by the developer . " Condition 70 - This item, regarding a per unit cash deposit to serve as a performance guarantee, should be dropped. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project as submitted. PCM 5 147 s 'M ,'�• {5.! k•w �!"o". Y�"r�i�i. s t.+,-''^�''T ,... �, ^�. .+rn �-.-rr.—r`t a.R .e. t'---t .{.. .__. {� {.+'1 t (�'.2�Y iE an ,� �� ��n�C� 4�`C�.'�'E � ^c' � � �`rn� `,pL.3si,'^i;4`✓.� ^R� �,�<<� -� ,; �YT a y'sd�y�`•z: k -�t _ i +fi s +..y {•f, 4 uJ r-L�i.� t r1.t-: ����%` {' ?.�.4,Vy'7 {Sk` r�+$"i¢ A• t '? sF,s!""sx 5 -'x t '..t .. f A '. �, { k f t� t•P'.c'`�` r L•ia r], 5+�, e �� �.. W h+ +ate, ,j,{�-{ F. f r � P��.fi"t.. ,+}-,,Yy, ,��, t!i,+. ,� e'ri t. '�� 1"�6 ' { �',��''�F"•ij7['y$���l�e7�'. � �' :�6?`Y �t � '' „'�Y��4�L Ya �� r{r r�{;�tx�} r y.� p�.,.s �t� {pf�""4� �sd. iy�, }�> , 9.f 'r, �� �!f � �Yf �'Y �� �n�`�'�� 4s��1, �»,,,,�'•a0 �" , f++ie1� �'�' "c3••� s a Y 3 .T G 'V� A L p. � $� rP F.i 'i •'cF k'"�. M�,ie✓P_ SaxtL ,}7;4�,'v� pl���'�~r��r. rs" �w,� ��w t-.��y'� a'e'Y.`• y-,=tt�'�: ��as.i�t��f+t�-}t��,�',�ti1., E�.�. � .. , �T' '::.-.. . .. .._ .. ..:.. ,. -' 1�4�:_e... _ . t4 r.-.:x".�:�Tr. .. ...'F e'4�+1!_s?'T u '1'..2.. ...r4.•. RESOLUTION NO. 85-055 . A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE BE ADOPTED FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING AND ANNEXATION REQUESTS INVOLVING 13.4 + ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE CITY, AND FOR THE CONCURRENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS INVOLVING THE SUBJECT 13.4 + ACRES AND AN ADDITIONAL 0.4 + ACRES LYING WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 85-017 KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. On- motion by Cm. Petty, and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission approved the Resolution recommending the establishment of Findings and General Provisions for the project contingent upon the revisions enumerated above. RESOLUTION NO. 85-056 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING AND REZONING CONCERNING PA 85-01.7 KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. On motion by Cm. Barnes, and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission approved the Resolution for the project as presented in Exhibit C, recommending that the City Council direct the Staff to make application to LAFCO for an annexation of the 13 . 4 + acres into the City of Dublin. RESOLUTION 85-057 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT CITY OF DUBLIN STAFF TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 13 .4 + ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN INVOLVED IN THE REQUEST FILED UNDER PA 85-017, BY KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN _ CALIFORNIA, INC. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and by unanimous- voice vote, the Planning Commission approved the Tenta- tive Map 5410 concerning the project as presented in Exhibit D. RESOLUTION 85-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5410 CONCERNING PA 85-017 .4 KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. OLD BUSINESS None. �,r r - r 1". } .r r .7 �R . r ���i�<< r �,d c , .l l trt t .i �`• �F } »"r! .•,rr fr>Y.. .• r; ° ....•` 2 't2 . r_ a�'f'P .4_',', ...fir u2 y. ;;, - ;- (. ..° .. � ? ;',. -. •-x.,e!�ewa.,,.nr�rs,.oxamr �ciwtc+ivr"'ae+'3 Y"aAw'^S.;aei�'sara�R]�F9azwh'RM1^"�r�v.TZ�'re4s3lk7t:@'°'�^axx4+n�M'!?:?R3vi.�+!:Trcr!»...�-ec±,sa ''T�r^Me--n-�--s '7^T� !r i Regular Meeting - December 2, 1985 A..regular meeting of* .the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 2, 1985, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7: 02 p.m. by Cm. Mack;. Vice Chairman. - COMMUNICATION Mr. Gailey advised the Commission that Kaufman and Broad had requested a continuance on PA 85-017, Item 8.3 on the Agenda.' The continuance was requested to allow the applicant additional time to prepare revised plans. PCM-5-132 /V1 rnl✓TD'S _ } t r t t •r ro n ..�.� �Y. � s rw{• a t. s .. i Regul_ fleeting - November 4, 198. A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on November 4, 1985 , in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 39 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Vice Chairman. PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: 7 .1 PA 85-017 Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. (Applicant and Owner) Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning, Annexation, Tentative Map, and Site Development Review applications involving a 14 . 4+ acre portion of the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision (Tentative Map 4859 ) at the extension of Silvergate Drive north of Hansen Drive (continued from the October 7, 1985, Planning Commission meeting) . Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr . Gailey opened the Staff Report by discussing the site's general plan designation ( 6 .1 to 14 . 0 du/acre) , the previous entitlements covering the site (Tract 4859 which designated lots 262 and 263 for up to 129 dwelling units) , the surrounding land uses ( including Martin Canyon Creek to the south and single family homes on the other sides) and unit size and layout (one and two story 1440+ to 1980+ square-foot units) . Mr . Gailey continued with detailed descriptions of the two portions of the project discussing existing topographic conditions, proposed grading and proposed access. Mr . Gailey summarized Staff ' s general site planning concerns outlined in the written Staff Report and advised the Commission that detailed recommended site plan modifications had been prepared by Staff. Mr . Gailey indicated that Staff ' s recommendation on the item included a recommendation that the Site .Development Review request not be acted on at this time and that action on the remaining four . requests would be tied to the Commission' s position on the recommended site modifications . Mr . Ron Grudzinski, representing the applicants, Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc.', gave his opening presentation which included a brief introductory statement about the firm of Kaufman and Broad. Mr . Grudzinski continued by citing the approval by the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision, which, in conjunction with the existing zoning and general plan designations covering the site, make the project . proposal, in the applicant ' s consideration, consistent with the development guidelines covering the property. Mr . Grudzinski gave further detail as to the type, size, cost, plan features, construction materials, and estimated qualifying income requirements to buy into the project . This was followed by a detailed description of the site planning guidelines the applicants considered when establishing the plan for this site. Those guidelines were summarized as follows : 1 ) Provision of open space around site where project abuts single family residential units, 2 ) Provision of a broad landscape .buffer along Silvergate Drive, 3 ) Use of interior loop access roads to minimize off-site vehicular impacts, 4 ) Use of terraced grading, 5 ) Inclusion of areas suitable for passive recreation that are reflective of the type of features future residents are anticipated to want while minimizing the impact to surrounding homeowners, 6 ) Provision of abundant project landscaping, 7 ) Provision of site plan features which collectively provide for the security .and screening -of adjoining single family residential uses; t Z , r K «• . r 5r r taF .�•�xr'.Ea .t<` a S .✓ r '�'r "�r.•w..,,.�;c r r '=-ri 4; t:.fit. r�+ b C,.•!r ^�.t lc�• 41: t. =cl s.Y•".`Yt kT � w ,ak•4 M'+'. �c't..3' i .t`'�� 3 ` ..Ff �5�.,«tis�k". 1L-r, � ,✓r"1 t yti� 7 ..h�,. /.� +xti•r,r;}'J'.i'�zl�i ,1 4�e�::}t 'u Y'°"Jl.t'•y,J..�.,sY.yA*.FC ,k, ; •' -t. i � ��„�"rJ" a¢ •�s�iaF'�•r' �� � �r,' �qa s «;rr + ut• ,�,�[,�C,fv`s� r 3 .rr k t.�;� �,,� � -� F1sT� cl'� S'' w.,.a... ..��tv�� -i+ ��`i t �.rrtE6'7�s .'rd' "�..,�Y.. ��'�T��.��=•'S`< '?v4`'r�ia��„t.,y,.,�,�t�..n jc t ,�, S. 5 .0 ��ar (,J v _ r '.i'1 1 J41. e ` S Y 3`. fa`" 3aaa �rM• 1.'.k� Y"43 8 ) Development of a street scheme along Silvergate Drive that maximizes the setbacks of units proposed. Mr . Grudzinski then spoke in detail regarding the philosophical differences he perceived existed between City Staff and his firm as regards the development of the site. First discussed was the concept that the project was not a typical townhouse project (12-15 du/acre) and not a flat land project, Mr . Grudzinski then stated that Kaufman and Broad were shooting for a specific- market niche. This niche of buyers was described as buyers who don ' t want landscaping responsibility but. want private open space, who want visual but non-active recreational areas, who want privacy (which Mr . Grudzinski stated is contradictory to Staff ' s recommendation that walkways be introduced into the .project) , and who don' t want private active recreation areas with associated costs, policing problems, or vandalism problems. Additionally, he indicated their research shows this type of facility is typically under-utilized (Mr . Grudzinski stated 10% resident. usage was typical) . Mr . Grudzinski ' s comments then turned to the Staff Report, and he stated that the applicant was in concurrence with all but eleven of the Planned Development Conditions, with the respective problems with those conditions being tied to the philosophical differences previously stated. Mr . Grudzinski made a summation statement of the major . issues seen by Kaufman and Broad: 1 ) Grading of the site, 2 ) Inclusion of formal recreation areas, and 3 ) Loss of units. In regards to the issue of. site grading, Mr . Grudzinski provided the Commission copies of photographs of the Heritage Commons project where split level building pads were utilized. ` Staff ' s recommendation that additional floor level splits between units be used was being opposed by the applicant for the following reasons : 1 ) Complicates grading and drainage, 2 ) Creates a potential safety problem ( retaining wall at front of unit) , 3 ) The cost factor (would add approximately $600 . 00 per unit where a two-foot split was used) , Mr . Grudzinski stated opposition to the proposed use of additional retaining walls to provide for pedestrian walkways through the project. In regards to the proposed addition of. .formal recreation areas,. Mr . Grudzinski stated his . understanding that .Staff 's :.position was . one that saw 'that.: if ;a project .was . not a :'single..,.family development, it was ,being denied something '::Statements regarding r v t, � 1»:� , ;� <. .1 .y, ° .r..' is rr�.:t txS�.S }` !. .✓. .. 1h i2-s 3 rsi L M1 T;_ i ,. - � r F �� f�i ' !r ' �' �� a„•S � r ! ir �Yy rS,, 1 'r r 3 t -:+ sr T .''�',, a i .h P ) 4y i. Y''}" s ,E Y1r..Rti i'1"" .i J. .Yf •r}, �i'�+/"v; l:t.:^^1 .� }' ri 1. � -6 .i .t^, „ ) ,. S a' �"d`�$ . 1�"' r:R.. }�Y«t�7"�.5;.•�"."ci�...'!�� .�.,<i;4 f' .''i"SY:�r N;��r�. '.[Y"�S�ti� s"�'n. o `as��r�'...;',',.vcr &. �k Y3 y. h � �� , ,5- n ' e i :+ �'t `'*,„�" `",{. ,, �p 4�t'+ r?Gt,�'�•T�4 �y}�y,t,f{�� M.rYYrx':,auteru;un'�Yit:.&�P1118dc:•`SAC=Yw±.1YiYaPbaYYSiiSrY'➢r.11hW.2::YNmPIAi�bYYiril�ilif.,t'..'l idC�L"di'JS.A8,4i'i]1FL2^.OfYBdi1Y'.W�. ii}JMr`��'vf3rR. .',�74�k$1t4h[4{i'e'+rdd+i]�tlBi,Y'_. '+tiI?4CPMt.vt}ta.!N+r.]:]: i4.2JUW.�...:i:;. .fs.Y.F..:.. -. D.S.R.S.D. ' s position on neighborhood parks and the project ' s responsibility to pay in-lieu parkland fees and taxes were also made by Mr . Grudzinski. Regarding the proposed loss of units, Mr . Grudzinski stated Kaufman and Broad bcught the property with an understanding that a certain number of units had been approved by the County. He continued by stating that to provide the highest quality project possible means unit purchase prices of $125 ,000 -- $150 ,000 . He stated his understanding that if the major design considerations called for by Staff, and as ultimately directed by the Commission, could be incorporated into the project, then loss of units would not necessarily be mandated. - In his closing statement, Mr . Grudzinski stated that while he thought the Staff and Kaufman and Broad were close to agreement (except for conceptual differences he 'd indicated) , the applicants were strongly opposed to any changes in the site ' s grading plan, did not want to have any formal recreation areas incorporated into the project, and would resist any drop in the project ' s unit count. David Burton stated his conceptual agreement with the points raised by Mr . Grudzinski. He stated a concern that Staff, or others, take- a "wouldn ' t it be nice" approach in regards to the addition of site plan amenities . He stated an opinion that the project proponents know better what type of project amenities should be provided in a project .Mr . Burton voiced a concern that loss of units translate to direct additional costs to future project consumers. - Mr . Burton closed by stating his perception that the Planning Commission ' s action should be limited to its police powers authority and not in trying to determine what the project ' s market niche should be . Mr . John Johnson (Estrella Court ) spoke about his concern with the project ' s grading along the north side of the east portion of the project ( to which h'_s unit abuts) . Mr . Gary Bonetti (San Sabana Court ) discussed his concerns with traffic impacts voicing an opinion that the widening of San Ramon Road should be required before new units -are built . Mr . Hans Heighdorn (Via Zapata) stated concerns that loss of units would make the units less affordable. He also stated concern regarding the project ' s impact on schools and his opinion that the project ' s architecture was bland. Mr . Barry Fell (Dublin Green Drive) stated his concerns regarding the project ' s density and questioned how the project ' s developer could justify selling the proposed multiple family residential units for $125+ a square foot when the single family homes they' re currently marketing adjoining this site are being sold at $90+ a square foot. He continued by voicing concerns regarding potential flooding and security problems on Martin Canyon Creek . PCM-5-126 ! d K K ✓2$1 yft t 7+.� CS j 4 d 1 l i- { Al ,n F Ti �T±�i. � :.�+�i�r 1 �lp+}d�!9�tf_4�1XnKr✓°:a YET roe.., >7[ � r K. r c "x z [ a <t 1 a ni ^r ki. Arc f .,r. +r-✓e t ! t t.f Y yn -h�.t^trf[.tt. n .vt'U.7 r.. fr3r } 8JA', ri' �✓ ✓'r r* s a f: ON�;� �� q �7" , r���� ny i ��+. rr,fir,. t££_Z+s '�t ti f, ,tax 1Ak5 ki ...r� s a ti Mr . John Wolf (Silvergate Drive) discussed concerns regarding grading ( including complaints about the grading occurring for the single family residential project and general concerns regarding slope stability) . On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by..Cm. Petty, and on a 3-0 consensus, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. Mr . Gailey responded to some specific points raised by Mr . Grudzinski ( differences between this project and the Heritage Commons site, discussion regarding school impacts, flood control improvements, etc. ) and reminded the Commission that Mr . Grudzinski had requested the right of rebuttal of points raised in the Public Hearing. In his rebuttal statement, Mr . Grudzinski stated that construction activity was a necessary evil which neighbors have to live with for a while to let a particular project get built in a timely manner . As regards improvements at San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive, he indicated the applicant -would push the City to get the signal work and intersection improvements done quickly. Mr . Grudzinski addressed earlier discussion regarding the unit pricing and the potential for flooding along Martin Canyon Creek . In regards to unit density, he stressed that the applicants looked at the zoning approval as what dictates the allowable unit count, not the general plan designation which establishes a broad density range. Cm. Petty commented that the principal questions seem to be whether the applicant and Staff can reach common ground to save units while addressing Staff ' s concerns . He continued by stating support for much of the applicant ' s rebuttal to the points/concerns raised by Staff and by stating his opposition to the use of additional finished floor elevation steps . Cm. Petty called for Martin Canyon Creek ' s integration into the project through the Site Development Review process. As regards recreational uses, Cm. Petty stated support of a recreational area on each side of the project. Cm. Raley provided comments directed to the three identified issue areas . In regards to provision of recreational. facilities, he stated opposition to a sports court type facility on the east half of the project because of its proximity to existing single family homes, but stated an active recreation use on the west side and passive recreation use on the east side are appropriate. Discussing site grading, he stated he wanted the usable space maximized and that he supports the use of additional split pads. As regards the project ' s unit count, he acknowledged that the inclusion of a recreational facility will probably mean project unit loss, . but that he wouldn' t mandate the reduction if the concerns could be handled in some other manner . Cm. Raley did . not support the inclusion of Martin Canyon Creek into 'the layout . as a project focal point.Addressing the conditions addressed. by the applicant; Cm. Raley had the following comments: r ,5 4J ;r PCM 5 127 � t 4 ^ J x* � FY y b1.r.Y S•� �4 r .. J :.. 7 .•�,t t i .i� y r1+ a'ti rr t-r„ t it b ^.> r � i e t r 3 `1'u. 1 e > .(7 l .(: it f 5 i.!S^ ai ¢(} -i f�? j..ay..t .�,h { "� .t' ,. r} i,'S ♦ i s ' .,r_ ...IT. r •• 1 3. � >f,.: �'ri.� �,�.t'.. r�,s,. ti ... n,.r x.. •r�r Z t.. }., �+�� ' qe.. � "�.:�l,.s rx: d .,a e t '< ,^-� F �•�rt>'trA7F'k"rr?� u'°"rr�?4�G�3'� r •;C 9�'r t .V's,� �T'SS`''• �r�-,�n C�`,.vC3i�?F��yrl ,fir 'm'�.�, �`" 's; �i".��`�n�'Ts a.�'� y J �` ?�'i w]: ,�"'Yy4 td�d�d'�3r^^^{ t�;t•.• i 5{' i r ���r' .i... !y E r�,*Y" r "��.�i.�&. ''F' �'' �' �^���'1?t a��a'�r } trp'.te: . •��.f r $�1���b`.. r s• •r .t� f^'.Cf�-ri = �� it 7x. k". ��- e r�'��r,?t' '"_'°a ��.r r���'�S Condition #2 : Indicated that he wants the Site Development Review to be subject to the Public Hearing process. - Condition #10 : Stated provision of handicapped parking and access should be as required by the Code. Condition #11 : Called for clarification of language and intent of the Condition. Condition #15 : Stated preference to drop the majority of on- site pedestrian walkways recommended by Staff. Condition #16 : Stated desire to have a pool/spa facility or c-omparable, adequate recreation facility. Condition #18 : Called for dollar amount of contribution to be double-checked. - Condition #34 : Stated preference for use of raised curbs as opposed to wheel stops . Condition #48 : Called for correction of in-lieu parkland dedication fee cited in draft resolution. Condition #51 : Stated support for crediting space in garage towards required covered, private storage space. Condition #60 : Stated support of Staff ' s recommendation to adjust the format of conditions to individually address the eight sub-areas referenced in initial Staff Report . Cm. Mack indicated her concurrence with the imposition of a requirement for a passive recreational area on the east half of the project and an active recreational area on the west half . Cm. Mack continued by stating that while a unit reduction was not mandated, it would probably be necessary to address Staff concerns . Cm. Mack also concurred with the introduction of additional steps in the finished floor elevations, the dropping of the walkways suggested by Staff, rewording of Condition #11 , use of raised concrete curbs for wheelstops, and the correction of the indicated Park Dedication Fee. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and by 3-0 Unanimous voice vote, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the November 18 , 1985, hearing. .. s. � v - t is + C a,�r �,ra �'� tty r�,15 �.pr �}'s whr >•�i x i' � S't �'+' 'l.. .. r z.4..� (;T., �,r•. ..,.Slo,h,.. r..Y.!+ . .....,, : xttt >,'!er#4':.1R ,.5'�.-.S�S?�,1!k1 ,n,.,..,.! 4 4rfC+. :iw.G'`,�h ,f�..e'or� L :»�=r?��Y -.Y"+:�t:t,x,ra?,_. i..t"r' ,.r.,`�.. ;�..�..."'7r„. .r;,,..+:1 .. ... Regular Meeting - November 18, 1985 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin tPlanning Commission was held on November 18, 1985, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7 :35 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Vice Chairman. SUBJECT: 7 . 4 PA 85-017 Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. (Applicant and Owner) Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning, Annexation, Tentative Map, and Site Development Review applications involving a 14 .4+ acre portion of the Nielsen Ranch - Subdivision (Tentative Map 4859 ) at the extension of Silvergate Drive north of Hansen Drive (continued from the October 7 and November 4 , 1985, Planning Commission meeting) . Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr. Gailey presented the Staff report summarizing the status of Staff ' s review of site Plan Alternates A & B which had been submitted by the applicant. Mr. Gailey indicated that modifications to the draft Planned Developmemt Rezoning ordinance had been made to facilitate discussion by the Commission. Mr. Ron Grudzinski, representing Kaufman & Broad of Northern California, Inc . , gave a lengthy presentation restating the majority of points raised within his presentation to the Commission at the November 12, 1985, meeting. Mr. Grudzinski detailed his objections to new Conditions 61, 62, 64 , 65, & 66 which had been placed into a revised draft of the Planned Development Rezoning Resolution. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Petty, Mr. Grudzinski indicated this would be the first multiple family residential project of this type that Kaufman and Broad would develop. John Johnson stated concerns about both the single family and multiple family projects relating to project fencing, drainage and grading. Don Babbitt, representing the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, indicated the Chamber ' s support of this type of housing stock. Zeff Kahn questioned the appropriatness of the site ' s assigned general plan density range and stated his opposition of development of townhomes in the foothills area. Mr . Kahn challenged the applicant ' s statement regarding income levels necessry to qualify for loans on the proposed units and also stated his concerns about the lack of provision of a . formal recreation area. Jim Abrew (Amarillo Court) stated concerns about drainage and potential flooding along Martin Canyon Creek. On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous voice vote, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing. Cm. Raley directed Mr. Tong to have the City Engineer go out to the Estrella Court area to assure that Kaufman and Broad rectify any erosion problem they had created. Cm. Raley stated his opinion that the project development plans represent an attempt to over build the site, indicating a loss of 5-6 units seemed appropriate. Cm. Raley continued by calling for the provision of a passive recreation use on the eastern side of the project. For the western side of the project, Mr. Raley �Wz/ ACM-5-128 or t t .,.. —:t^ .� -..^".•r.T f:.' 3'.�• I:�a?..'`'.�< t,R,• .: _ r again called for provision of an active use (tennis courts, pools or equivelent) and indicated he did not support the sports court layout presented by the applicant for that side of the project. In regards to Martin Canyon Creek, Cm. Raley reiterated his position that the project should be designed so as to have the creek serve as a project accent but not to be designed to provide access to the creek. Cm. Raley indicated a desire to see the unit density in the south portion of the eastern half of the project decrease . Cm. Raley stated support of the use of a Public Hearing for the Site Development Review application and his opposition to a requirement to have a perimeter rod-iron project fence installed. - Cm. Petty stated support for the latest configuration of the passive recreation area detailed for the east half of the project. Cm. Petty continued by stating that as regards the west half of the project, his inclination was still towards the use of • pool-type facility; but he did not want to specifically dictate • specific type of an active recreation use . Cm. Mack indicated support for the intent of Condition #65 (dealing with the active recreation use on the west half of the project) . She indicated that the size of the recreation area would be dictated by the type of activities it would ultimately carry. Cm. Mack opposed the sport court concept presented by the applicant for this area . Cm. Barnes stated support for use of a passive recreation area, not an active recreation, for the west half of the project and stated she didn' t agree with the recommended loss of units . Mr. Grudzinski made a statement regarding the amount of time taken to process the application and asked that a December 2, 1985, continuence date be observed. On consensus direction by the Commission, the item was continued to the December 2, 1985 hearing. F i a.,. .. r.'?'„"�M, ..r'�+^+r'?•�r" M�,��i,t .'�e"S•..,.,t h.�.7p ''4.,_,r_,TM'�'" .-�, ,.... �.� .K... e ...:T�:r P_ ._< .,. n.�»�.., w,;.t' .. .Tr'.:,r.k;"r..�s m -,�?'`_ ... w.i`.:Cj�'t'+ '�'�'?.'�4 1•�rflywy�A.A•t w-r •• a.w..' . x T � ..r .r. _ ..5.t�: - � .. _ Regular Meeting - October 7 , 1985 A regular meeting of the City of. Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 7, 1985 , in the Shannon .Center - West Room. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 40 p.m. by Cm. Alexander , Chairman. SUBJECT: 7 . 2 PA 85-017 Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. (Applicant and Owner ) Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Rezoning, Annexation, Tentative Map and Site Development Review applications involving a 14 . 4+ acre portion of the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision (Tentative Map 4859 ) at the extension- of Silvergate Drive north of Hansen Drive. Cm. Alexander indicated that a letter from the applicant had been received requesting the item be continued to the Commission Meeting of October 21 , 1985 . Cm. Alexander asked the audience if anyone had any problems with . the request for continuance. Jim Abreu (Amarillo Ct. ) commented on the project ' s coverage and resultant drainage. Cm. Raley indicated he ' d like to see the matter put over to the meeting of November 4, 1985. Ron Grudzinski , Kaufman and Broad, indicated a preference for the October 21 , 1985 , meeting. On motion by .Cm. Mack , and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the meeting of November 4, 1985 .. o - t Y 'Y it � i S 4<•'},�J'F`+�¢el�e.t�' �. �; % �,��^ 5 J,�. ! r n z s t Y( -� r "w" -"` r i �.n,V t�,•k a x u l t ,� '!**87+.'-'C i'^t' , ,r•�"`y�M , !• y •.ram"7 i4fi •cn+•'rrrsy+S .d-yr}�••.', "yr "" -'*ry. c-rw• .x r- s. r f 2t's xla!•ti<�.n r: aai� }ea »a..Fw {• '. E",k: �i+ Mi'.,.r s . tL�f+ ,yr S,-iy, Y''o-ni.c•w ` ..a3ry 7'as it X' Y ,s�.�t-''a 6 a• .. � NUMBER 6 - WRITTEN STATEMENT The Townhouse site consists of two parcels of land, approximately 13.9 total acres. About half of the site is on the west side of Silvergate Drive and half is on the east side. The plan reflects 27% of the site covered by buildings, 12% with streets, and 61% in open space. This site has an approved Tentative map for 129 units by Alameda County, and the Dublin City Council has approved an extension of this tentative map last year. Based on the above, we feel the plan affords the community a town- house plan they can be proud of. It allows for over 60% of the site in open space, while providing a landscape plan which blends the site well into its surroundings and keeping the grading to a minimum. Specific features of the site plan worth mentioning are as follows: 1 . Buffering mitigation by way of the land- scape plan has been utilized. 2. All visible slopes along Silvergate Drive and Rolling Hills Drive have been kept to 3:1 . 3. All landscaping throughout the project will be irrigated. 4. The passive recreation area at the east end of Martin Creek is exactly that, "passive". We have provided a vista point for sitting and walking at the location. Because this is a private development maintained by the homeowners' association, no public access is planned or desired. We also have not allowed or encouraged any walking along the top of the bank of the creek. The reasons are to prevent erosion or accidents as well as providing security and privacy for the back of the townhouse units along the creek. ' 5. There is another vista point allowed for at the center of the western half of the site. - 6. A great deal of architectural design has been included into this plan. Each unit has a private entryway as well as a distinctive individual look from the street. The front setback is staggered from 18 - 24 feet. to add additional relief from the street. The Buyer Profile for these townhouses will be indicative of the anticipated sales prices which will be $1202*000 to $135,000. >,44 '1'.L\� }T Y / 'L 4 `r .i t r.V.' !1 � �L14\1 .. - ..• } f�i + 5 ° r '}• '1r+t4, I, t st- ,.S r...Gr,� It rL� ,` _ w'}•� .N A tr t 1._ w+r t„ F ... -? ,'�kr,JS' �n 1 � `f• �.-,.J�f'7r'���b'�Qv'-�o��ti f rYe'�•`������,t 'r6�";i �1 w"i t b',+; K^�` ;,r 1 a�iEGK?yl' •y �y .,� � r ti (� CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safe.ty 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 September 26 , 1985 R.J. Grudzinski Kaufman and Broad of Northern California Inc. P .O. Box 2755 Dublin, California 94568 RE: PA 85-017 Silvergate Highlands Townhomes Dear Mr . Grudzinski : The application materials and the recently submitted environmental materials ( the traffic impact analysis and the horticultural report) for your application, City File PA 85-017 , have been reviewed concerning the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 130-unit multiple family residential project . This data, and this department ' s review of it, indicated that your project may have the potential of creating significant environmental impacts if specific mitigation measures are not incorporated into the project ' s design and ultimate development. By this letter be advised that, in light of the information submitted to date, this office cannot prepare a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for this project . However , it is the position of this office that a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be possible and consistent with the State of California Environmental Quality Guidelines . Section 15080 ( d) 2 of the guidelines allows a Mitigated Negative Declaration to be prepared instead of an Environmental Impact Report where the significant effects of a project, as identified in an Initial Study, are clearly mitigated to the point where it is reasonable to find that the significance is no longer in effect . In order for this office to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project plans must first be revised to reflect changes that eliminate the potential for the significant impact, and/or an enforceable commitment from the applicant must be made that shows the specific mitigation measures that will occur . Based on our review, the following changes to your project will permit this office to prepare a revised Initial Study and, subsequently, a Mitigated Negative . Declaration of Environmental Significance. eW,o0 �Alf&ll7k GHME .r '-•^it �R C .s�if. f � c 4,, 7�7nc,4-r^r'+� .�,„�P;..p "� ..-rrv-M �* r A 2'9 t m^i zr!°'•�"tr'•'" r Y..`c•'_'�'s.'°K`""5 s .. ; —"'s•s°^- .1^'..,.- ... ... .•..,,., 1 ,.y.. .!n. 1 .,r,r.ww.r4.,...:etiras,..'+ t:.5.„`..".';,.T.y+l9:.3^.. _.v_s,.!.,i rG S "ca: ._.-.#..e_, .:3;.__..h?»:4�a1'ir..b:t.t�'K.�:.` .:,..... �:`r-,4 ..,. -r ,..... ..... There are still five . (5 ) ' aspects of your project which have the potential of creating significant environmental impacts, as defined by CEQA: A. Traffic B. Vegetation C. Flood Control/Hydrology D. Neighborhood Security/Landscaping E. Investigation and Foundation Study If the .project plans are revised to incorporate the following features, and/or Kaufman and Broad agrees to provide the design components as indicated below (or that achieve the same effect of the items listed below) , this• office will proceed with the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. A. Traffic 1 ) Commit to the payment of the remainder of the required fee contribution for the improvement of Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road Intersection at the rate of $232 . 59 per residential unit (based on a 129- unit project) . 2 ) Commit to additional contributions, or preform the off-site work required, to provide compliance with the recommended restriping along Sivergate Drive at both Hansen Drive and Betlen Drive. B . Vegetation Incorporation into the project ' s grading, drainage and site development plans of the identified mitigation measures and the • site-specific tree preservation program established by the detailed horticultural report prepared for this project (Horticultural Report, Silvergate Highlands Townhouses, prepared by Hortscience, Inc, and dated August 3 , 1985 ) . • C. Flood Control/Hydrology 1) Field survey Martin Canyon Creek and preform the necessary hydraulic calculations to establish the capacity of that section of Martin Canyon Creek extending from the southwest corner of the subject property to the southeast corner of the Nielsen School property (a section of Martin Canyon Creek approximately 2,800 feet in length) . 2 ) Should the results of the field survey/hydraulic calculations reveal the creek cannot handle the 100- year storm flow through this section of creek , then �r� ,. t C ' f'�' :4 t•, - ,r ? � i �.. to y�>+ tiY ',.. r ' s ' Yr ti i. J x} ti ?r7h f 1�Ar`7455 rfY�r4 iF;wR� t Slo; r fCfi t t f r s r f t i x Y.i�ytr•.P'' a Jr s t a rr 9..�M r�.a-;. t>��y{��.•n•nY�'ti•+g.,, r 'Yti• S;�r,7 bi-o- _,j>��-?�� I. Y :i't .t`�'S. y t 7 .r,M1r.' .wi.��.'Y x. r� _1 + } ' F} ' ? ya ..� .�{�, r. ..�nrt�lA,,�„f��},,��kr' .`y.(• t i✓n fi. ,7.� Cdr t ny�:'`d t ft^ . �• 't 'c. .nl r ? C' t s'� .c f''',•�. '.1l�t.�'..9xi?' �y}�ldrf'L t:M U�'����•tSH .p "F'l '.,5' '�a�"n,l'�Y{rk l�ls � r'yy.,�:L.rn9�+•S �SrC"M1r:.d.� !ft �^� 'r�.:�4:'.w �...�. fu:y.ray.t.�..}'.'?y.a Sty,.. hr t:7� w r-...:1([ ',y 1. .1r' ? -` _ , tY.,rJ.xq}rr. ��: ;;I}pp;-yC''xi�•.�Y� y'$� (<; :S' '.y.4C"• ✓..?' `''=k� ":w� rf?'"•'i�'� ,.ar ,n: �-: i s.<t• ��iy� ��;��.V...v,2:,X -k-' .Y e r r r-. � 1Yt P"_{H"';U:1r .J•{�+i r}.L,i y).� ? 4'.. 'j"e,.}J .�. tl. w{� 4 Y•,S,i.,.�'�p,rg,;�l �s �..f� S Y"<i 7.`n iv}'t� ,Lf... '�'. "�. Cu �'+. :tl4t.a _ q' `,4 `. •x �l •�".�� '4aY 2 r ri, .t �.��..ry�d' �'i7..{cL r� c y>r °��°1i fi?`6�. 'lr4 JA `J�x• !'��'� � r S;� � .lt+n "'�+. .+•'i � af`�_ ta'9s.,..,Iai .•r a 15} r:r w.; L., .F+"F:" � ra', j .. � tS;i x C+, aw , k�!'��{rte G `i'.`r Cx Cr.C te�%n1 +' ;1 kr' s•t y � ��. � �•. ,�`'v:<A�� t•'r(�,. (V^ � '�'. �T�� �t .F�r.��,. a+.i S C1: n �11 �S�¢�••.,�.� ��a{L' y„ G" �'�`t o Y4 f i ?. ,;t"}SZ�'iP•� /�• ern a �. h, - �37�•yh.r try et4 ar,Y�l' Gc'7 .r .r 5i 5� '� r,-o--r t� x�. au4 rl"'"`«'+t ,s.7 t ' �l n. i � ���•� �'YYY .F,��'`Y 4, h, �;�,��.��.Fa,T�� r ,����.ir�t'`�- �v,:1..�`�` 'r�i..,A;y.?C'���l t ' 4 .�.er.'wCs!��d:i!"s'�t:J�"�+•'.Y.r..u7S�:tFa'1Nr t•,., . 'iYl��t�' StCI.`iizT,'. .:7.J."4�dS., •.r �a'dL'' +k .. r"�'d'P�r.�:.6Y'e•fig.&.+.«�ti.'r:4`.4`nsyf?�f:�.�t+.4a._ a*r. a5^_ .tu�S•"'�=.a�+.a'4+.u,`+su".-�'�'�di3'�}aC•f�k. ar z....�":.°-, , f L n. design and install improvements so that this capacity can be met, with an effort to maintain the natural appearance of the creek . A rebate of costs incurred to satisfy this requirement (based on a pro-rata acreage basis) shall be provided from the adjoining Hansen property, that portion located. northeast of the center line of the creek, at such time as that property developes under City of Dublin jurisdictional authority. D. Neighborhood Security/Landscaping Commit to the installation of a continuous six- foot solid perimeter fence ( except along the creek which may be fenced with an open mesh type of fencing) , appropriate area lighting, landscaping and other necessary site improvements deemed necessary through the project review process to provide an appropriate buffer between the adjoining existing and planned single family 'residential units and the subject property to reduce the potential for future security problems and to mitigate potential adverse impacts associated with. this project ' s noise and/or visual impacts . E. Soils Investigation and Foundation Study Prior to issuance of building or grading permits , have a project-specific soils investigation and foundation study prepared covering the subject property which expands upon the recommendations outlined in the Soils Exploration Report prepared by Engco, Inc. , and dated April 10 , 1981. These recommendations are made for environmental purposes only. The design, engineering, and land use aspects of the project will receive additional review. Recommendations regarding their merits will be prepared and incorporated into a staff report to be presented to the Planning Commission along with the environmental determination. Please provide us with plans and information that gives us the assurance that the potentially significant environmental aspects of the project have been mitigated. t 4 N,iJ r.r t•J ?7.'It$ k.r:Y� rL,'V'i f�� G n+ t t +.:ay s•t 1 ti. ? i r �'�.n�e�d7 n•HST.trig'.'rPr'�'iw{lf��-'x'�Y`��'rt'9��M1x4 th> b;1h�'r'�Sr J }r �ir�i�i^.y�; Y ,ZSw.a �,,; ,�,r-�-� .'t,•-,r.:� �rr"�''q' t ..: r T s r a.� j' + _ `4r Y,yyH�-43 h.' ,,;.. r"TnKt s37 .�j, .• r '+�Ye; i°n •s .�7l.t , r.• , ,Zl�°j�:3:? 1'K'P•� 3'ri'. k j�,: !./* y,.} t L.. ,F�. rT ,Ci���. >�!�•i'Nyti`�1-'fir.^;.j�3..��..y + � � y.�W •t -�'.iik;7'tYg1A• �..�t`w °Ar�-' � y ,S•'.F�C �.T-�T Y.,*.t t } � y ;.�y�C 4. i r '1 �'_a3 tl`!Y "'C� "4r✓, r '� xi +:� � 'Y^ �� t c,I L �;�tP?u{t-y.jt�,�..}rgr1a. +,�.�,. r+� � .1i1 s;� f.�'ty, ^�.'n'd: ;�a1--� ,.� 1 N �g� �� .�i:.r4': I, T` ; ' •,;4N� dxf � K � ,t , _ w. 1h�, _I'n. y�•`.�t. l.�r+�j4,er.�+�' . '( '�:la. z!'i" ..'.� `f�.•{ylt4.( .�Y:�r ./�.. '3� 1 n ) u i� t7 r „t •{.7?r�j .i '+ ,i.a �S�vi•;. G I�.-,( v •r. µp` �.'�fi JAV S'�j11' .*`t'-i'J. ;��.�,r•, S y4; �-.y ft�'FJ•:�Y��f-.. �.l rv''',iZ' r.t }^ ': fi .7"''' �,td,''°l1 L�r•.__�.��' �;e , ` �+vi „ �!:.Ly:.- C`.r. r M- a dc>� +�$'a�yr Y�i. + f � .f• .�r � t ,fA'�,,�„�;y�„� �.�`� .'y.��+ .� ��a r � � �+.���~ .,(�� t• ':t�{ }p+�y. Y�,}N i�,�!:d''1 ... J y `YSVLwif.11iAYd.Srat � '• Y r...,Si:BS,s..E s:.+if,u..«....3.s3tfc:":tq.w$r yy�4t'T iti_lj,h` i __:r. .b_1:4:'t4•.$^i.:ta.".k:..C:1�'x^..u61f�:•M:e?Ln S.._V:r`!L!+iti4', •.,rf$eY.Yk"W.'All4' x.t.W}11RU+b:�.liLd.^..H:tvd.�vk">:Y`3L.n...:r .._IA�/-.9':314:GY3'f$Y.•G':Y.nt: l.':_R -.._ .n.••.. Questions concerning this matter may be directed to Kevin Gailey of this office at ( 415 ) 829-4916 at your convenience. S' ncerely, 6 -T- Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director LLT/KG/sb cc: PA 85-017 Lee Thompson, City Engineer 9.7 Zt y6.a VbP1 M N i r�i.3r. .. 'C�.t(^{r:i�¢.t.4r,tj,?,�ardF�f`3W-'^iM y�'i •1�,:, �;' t9�. y,�..<.u><?,��'�y�T.,.,r `lr*(rr' � z } � � ,, tt yr _ .y.ru a r-„� r rag t��F.a��f.'M�..ct t� °° r � ` °.�. rr �,+ n��-.ti•�!r '�a (a r�4 :..c � _., d, JP d �MJ ,y � Zi r�'�h r.p.,..Y�t'P A4�S' F,���sY' �k*•a. �'}v� '�?�9r,;1 /- cX..•Ti� � � (_ .`y L �t � i*- �i,4{ (,:tc.�'ay.•��li; � .� ,F.,r � »l,ti M:j(t�,. 4ri' 4�,.r So 1� �Y' C 6'f .� X, - r ..i 1 ` it � . ,,'y[I� .1 !f• E � k w�,',y, i� c.r •r. W � ?a ln'1: .r�a?'..N`"�(' meads w7y?4•t dr'Or '!''/3 F ✓. y� r'� Mr �,k,-; �9 .!, .t .ri('ew•.''��"h;: ;l•il,b,�)�+Ff`'t��F,1fr��,yirid, � ;t Vd�'i.'au�r�dF�" N(�•�����br.r'- l'•,ia�tx lr1� �` *' fir, ur�c�� � yrc ! �tip!•^a�,is�'S�G,''�i 3 1 r .1 �' �4u9 �� C r;�F"+'S�r�A',4 �a���c�>)^N13�$ y'f�. ! 7 ��� ., .> y,.,�,� i a :L CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: PA 85-017 .1, .2 and .3 Silvergate Highlands Townhouses/Kaufman & Broad of Northern California Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Prezoning, Tentative Map and Site Development Review for a proposed 130-Unit Multiple Family Residential Development (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 , et seq. ) LOCATION: The 14 . 4+acre site fronts along the east and west sides of the planned extension of Silvergate Drive lying south of the planned intersection of Rolling Hills Drive and Silvergate Drive, with the majority of the site being , situated outside the Dublin City limits . (APN 941-0100-031 and 034 ; 941-0105-041 and 051 ; and 941-0110-001-05 ) . APPLICANTS & OWNERS : Kaufman & Broad of Northern California 6379 Clark Avenue Dublin, California 94568 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Prezoning, Tentative Map and Site Development Review applications request development of a 14. 4+ acres site into a 130-unit multiple family residential project with private interior streets and common open space areas . FINDINGS: The project, as now proposed, will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment . The EIR prepared for the earlier projects covering this site (Tract 4859 and Zoning Unit 1478 ) and the Environmental Impact Findings made for those projects are incorporated by reference as part of this Initial Study and serve to further document that the subject project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The Initial Study is attached with a brief discussion of the environmental components listed below. Each identified environmental component has been mitigated through project design or through binding committment by the applicant, as outlined in the section below entitled Mitigation Measures, DP 83-11 . J f 1 A _ 1+�!+ r!! 1{+f.ar. ) {i '4. 1 E,,+,. M1 /,ad'S ! t •^i' ! \!. tit u y r w x; ..i 1 '• $.Y",Ye a.f�e*`'":YAM": vk �t� ScY,y�i+�4'''.t'{ "�,•. a,n::. "".X' ae d4:wi; ,.1�`l � ..:.,e. r ` - * s i' 9 . ��-•e.} . �sr L t^Se.9�t, x,•11 '�,(�-' r � f'C Y r b. ; t a? 1 �.'�'�• •LX� 181,�';SiN)�'nLy. �. /�^^!XvZ► ?t� t �,1. ' 1.° r .•f" Ka 1..� r 4 �x t �: fl .Yw": i {!�'y`4 iyy':3...-!,tt t . { ,' 'a���'�kif'�: �1�i�i5Ak?7E,}��".F ~�rS"b ° � M ������`?j/ ��.' at�1.�.h� e a s rG z�r rtn+..+^.t.c$ sG'+•.+fe�'iY`,e�'�'� . i. / '{+'+??!! � ..iJ f�l".,'4;6/+ 7��� 4 9M1�S�r�4•Y x"S�e Yr'1 _tp`c•'`7,lr+rr.r.•• i}'.ri S, t,%C iA' ✓ [Y_ 1 ! � f Y - r t y a � !r C r��f�.1'fb '��rtY.� }.1 �!•/�{(� 1 51414. aTl J'tu'1 li�1Jj�W, ��p.SY inlij i •-! ) y•F S q t'. x 1 +Fj ..{. �1 I 'J^ th^ ., w y.r t ,^''�4 ....., ..- ° .,,t,,... t; •�k.°e' .Rt;s.:..s'At:'».,t .,r_�:+; .5.:..:?,. t .. .. y. xS�.PY: '.f':.:1. :!lF..tc..� .t..at.r a-.:,r .. !'.-,�..•4., k. E 'ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS A. Traffic B. Vegetation C. Flood Control/Hydrology D. Neighborhood Security/Landscaping E. Soils Investigation and Foundation Study MITIGATION MEASURES: A. Traffic - The project shall be responsible for the remainder of the required fee contribution for the improvement of the Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road intersection at the rate of $232 . 59 per residential unit (based on a 129-unit project ) . An additional contribution,or preformance of the required off-site work , shall be made towards additional off-site improvements along Silvergate Drive as recommended by the traffic impact analysis report study prepared for this project. B. Vegetation - The existing riparian corridor along the property' s Martin. Canyon Creek frontage shall be retained. A detailed horticultural report of the existing major trees located within this section of the creek has been prepared and establishes mitigation measures and a site-specific tree preservation program. The applicant has agreed to incorporate the identified mitigation measures and the site-specific tree preservation program into the project ' s grading, drainage and site development plans . C. Flood Control/Hydrology - The developers have agreed to have the project engineer field survey Martin Canyon Creek and perform the necessary hydrologic calculations to establish the capacity of that section of Martin Canyon Creek extending from the . southwest corner of the subject property to the southeast corner of the Nielsen School property (a section of Martin Canyon Creek approximately 2,800 ' feet in length) . The developer has further agreed that should the creek not be capable of handling the 100-year storm flow in this section of the creek , improvements shall be designed and implemented so that this capacity is met, with an effort to maintain the natural appearance of the creek . The developer shall be entitled to a rebate of costs incurred to .satisfy this requirement based on a pro-rata acreage basis from that portion of the adjoining Hansen property located northeast of the center line of the creek at such time as that property develops . D. Neighborhood Security/Landscaping - The developers have committed to the installation of a continuous six-foot solid perimeter fence, appropriate area lighting, landscaping and other necessary site improvements deemed necessary through the project review process to provide an appropriate buffer between the adjoining existing and planned single family residential units . . and the subject property. These steps are to be taken to reduce tb?t��9�N�p..t ; - ! r F�. �t• rY-"!i7 .-� t .+ 1. _ .d'-. ?. Lf . �d�x�:^,r�N'7 j��J e-�'ki?:,,'a a n w��.•�+'- fr r �Yj � r� n ?I jvM�� � G v F t r �'z'r�, r.r ti r ; : r ti '' ` •. I..SG�YC:,.a C„l�rF�:.;a'p'.�' ,��tiQq 3i�.t6, •jexi,�,�.�t;�kZ.t J'N.,: :i, ���'5�3 4 g f{a rte. e.' s �9�� . �'� ,. F '� ..i 7 ♦ ;, '�' r, .rn JJ ^U 1r b.. '?'9-r?^ •Lu.�,t;;J9 )n. _+�..J” r17'L� SJ rzr' .•r I,� E w- N 'C d r''' ,.M y �x !"" 4,7' f�lY JG!�'•t ,�.G •.?�'C",�,p t'i� � ..r3,le�; �., f..v r s, ypV�. �dS�i.r. r'�'� Y dl E of„i 'r I`;. >•k!^ ry„ i+5' re. -i �f�.':TCCi*f�1. •r 1`� - 'GS a�'+..j � b .S:. t•' J�. '". �` r�!:.S'�?;t it r r,1� rl f Jf- ,c 't �42 ..r t ti -. .f �,.- r�F„.'e.3. 'ti4'�,r �'+1{if'�,�f'�5�•yy� 7`:� i r .,"Y S. Q)f i }rf„g4 r'.r ?'"' �,. ••.`_� ^�G �'�+ 'Y: i..efF ,,�_''... f r z Wit.t.rf.:v E1 Q./ ri y .>i _ -r,ry y. 4 ;v:rY.:f• i1�'�ap i•Yiy.�?'.'f r c} �Yy�r.S;tr y Yr:�,�Jd � .t3y Yl:. -'>?r`,6��'� .��a l v r,�`2`}1 �'i'•y, }c M• �..'c,(�• •� h� i.yy,�'.,i..>Y _ '"a2� Y .. '���,��t .1.+ �"\tP r j ^).}.n� � �� .'`t�lF ��S 7.�fr•�^•% C�'"J•Y�'i� t`'+'l��T.�f":' .5 �G r I hT� ��r� t f l _ � r'��ya: ,�t>Z ii.- ��,. �� ,,Y�, 'CI > :'r�� 4.i"b ��'rr•'i � �:i'4X'�,,ayl j,�,t.l,,i'i �r�3 �-yl�itt'�f��5r��`>`G�����s�rc.,r 'TD• 3'J 73 '6r1,���tt•,�'^�a47'..'' oc ;�{ytirJ���� d Gp� "i s4� � �.sC���'7Y Vii+ at+�"+'��t�7� i t � ! L .G �y, J aY�`�{�� � ~��'(�'i J �V.r�''-1?%y '�G--H• f]t�. _ 2'r^7� ��r _ 447 �r�� h.. p•,:[��,!'S, t'tr * .i / ZC �"`•-�"'"' �+ �G•13 f, y• t � � Q���yid » . r 6SYC%`1tY.aY`ii6142Yr.5.... J�. its•�5+?� .'k�^�.N_�a\ n5f��:''.�i`xf� ' x[>': ..,�.a�nSl£�Nt�[{� ... -.... _ r.:i...? the potential for future security problems and to mitigate potential adverse impacts associated with this project ' s noise and/or visual impacts . E. Soils Investigation and Foundation Study - The applicant has agreed to have a project-specific soils investigation and Foundation study prepared which expands upon the recommendations outlined in the Soils Exploration Report prepared by Engeo, Inc. , and dated April 10 , 1981 . SIGNATURE: DATE: SS L urence L. Tong, Planning Director DP 83-11 t Fwne i£ vw,}!,L L.��H z yr; �a st l.j-f ? tx lhJ Syr ff,��£v�l lvfrziM,} r yea'x� �" L-'Y _'CC r,.d5.. 5s� y ^!t „„v f`it`t ,l *��..n ! ryj y.. •� �, i� ✓.S ¢ti' 1 if Cl3 'C: lJ�,rl Xh "•'1"t��1Jd�l.'J✓ '� rd�fY J' 'Tip eY�..�PYL:1.�i.FL��"+SM1(t'.L� 4A4-` � y� Y:t✓,k{ �Tl�?,�T'C', { J`.3�".�;�Y~G,wi`�.jLr lS'�"S•'n 7 � ,f {,. �.ir. 4Y� ,f tY 1 i,xti ` C Fet 4y� +.. ..'A. k'�� ,t^>�v..�.r�. -w t'S11�_45��il+�� YF cC♦��d4,;+..t K;�t. 4�.5�C'� a �,t�F t.��r-- �L r�:-j"7Jr.-+ c L r• .^i'v.,� v t�:.r!n � ! r. y ,r r �r t,� k) ,� �'t=r r®°�1'�� ,;.F,.�aI�,.=.t•t4.�r j`'� `��b Ln X.'t.4.K�t� y�i'(`4^',�.�.� { �w5 !f�•�1r�..`Y. ) 1€- •,, ,�"� �t b 4 S.L }-t's .a ,w�l r:�! k. �i � F•:r 1 --t� .. +t"u ^'pY�'' t'..r. - r Yk ._ � Y r., ' � H'c a .`2' +To �r � h 3 t A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE SILYERGATE HIGHLANDS TOWNHOUSES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN TJKM Transportation By 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214 Pleasanton, California 94566 OCTOBER 1985 15727/JS r; �'tv+ t*�t1 tR Fr�t e}ff4 r v�ry�m :i'... •p•'�i*�'s Y.�r ' `" - '- 'X. 5 �o��n S'nr-•r-• ��'�'_ !'ja�rt�tier 4irfS. �f� ../,�, 'ti'"' �R�„��'"R�'xYt"nch��-iS'�d�Ja.��ftF�„;r*7�' -. yyr.• v 1 ;;'.'�., y "".�y,, tt .k f�t•,I,r� � ��} eh"v7.-c^ � },r.t s v r yr K. �^Y:,�'t`:•C!��:�T„ti -����, fib•� + iii �H� :v_.i .'�-•.Ft.R°.-�4er5��.�.•G. a r�'..r° K�,•-Yr�i.��lr,a,� ,> '9./^•!• q'.,�t*_- 1�''r t'.:. i.. u,:2g•',s�?:�^! i `���. IS •t.i-��,x�.,,.'1 "J. •.i:,4 i*�' ;.�,+7.; .,� �•.,tr.9 t�" r,'r" t. t+. "$ ���.«."•=?.�x�.. !'.6�'3`5'p+°�pr'.� - ' a?�''•'`mYv?�..�'r Lc "ti "is.r r{�s,Y1�t!�� ���� �rt'.,f.� y7"��?. *�F��+�"r.tit 0. �"^ fis.,r�zs L� ��" .•7th r•*L�•�s•--")'�.rt•�d2.{�:'tvTS a.�.'# �1., •.,?.f �� t.. i} . ,. �_ 77 . §L.., ...��d,..-.'. ._ "":. -.•f.. _..'+:.. ;....P: >�,,.ft �. .D.S'T. rs�'..t....'�db}°..i .....'�S.^�e ... _ .. ,r..r.1-:'J... .. . +{:.....v.w.• .d.^k ei_- r"''.i. "'-. .:_,.':• .,£ 3a _. . - - __ -- M+i,.f-...y --C1��.:.iia C1�.a:',��,r�l':r �'Y L'1A.-..7y�,.•!� }F i�!(� �N�t�r^�k:'C Y.:..-- Cumulative Impacts To assess the impacts of cumulative development on the six study intersections analyzed in this report, TJKM analyzed build-out conditions of all identified residential projects -in the west portion of the City of Dublin. In addition, all office, commercial and other projects that are currently proposed lying westerly of San Ramon Road were also included in this analysis. These projects are depicted in Figure 1, which shows the location, the size and use of each of the proposed developments. There are a total of 23 developments included in this analysis. Table II describes the daily and the a.m. and p.m. peak hours traffic generation from these cumulative projects. For ease in distributing traffic on the street system, the developments are combined into sectors, which are also indicated in Table II. Although this is a very comprehensive list of projects, it does not include projects lying east of San Ramon Road within the City of Dublin or projects lying outside the City. However, it is not likely that any developments other than those analyzed in this study will contribute significantly to traffic on Silvergate Drive. However, there will be additional impacts on the intersections of San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard which were not included in this analysis. Table III lists the results of the cumulative project analysis. Although the cumulative projects will obviously add a noticeable amount of traffic to the street system, all of the Silvergate Drive intersections are anticipated to remain at Level of Service A with cumulative traffic added. The San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive intersection will increase from a 0.46 to a 0.51 volume-to-capacity ratio in the morning and from a 0.44 to a 0.52 volume-to-capacity ratio in the evening. All other intersections along Silvergate Drive will have only approximately 25 percent or less of their capacity utilized with the build-out traffic conditions. Following improvement of the Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road intersection, and with the inclusion of the residential build-out traffic from West Dublin,- the volume-to-capacity ratios will increase about two percent in both the morning and evening periods. The levels of service remain at D and E in the morning and' evening periods, respectively.' . i c •.,.�..[L°�a�,s't p)','.'�,r c. � A- 9�. n ✓r��^'k��w(:�E'�"' c-Y ... ..�r r'x'ai^ `Cy>*r.- ti c `Sa'tiA��X"� ?a � s �' . - G Site Plan Analysis The project essentially straddles Silvergate Drive, being located both east and west of the main facility. The portion of the project lying to the west of Silvergate Drive is proposed 'to be accessed from two locations: Rolling Hills Drive (a street from previously approved Tract 4859) and a point off of Silvergate Drive. The interior streets are proposed at 24 feet in width with a sidewalk on one side. No on-street parking is . proposed or can be accommodated by this pattern. The portion of the project lying on the east side of Silvergate Drive, is proposed to be served by a loop street off of Silvergate Drive with three dead-end stub interior streets. All proposed streets on the east side are also to be 24 feet in width. One advantage of this plan is that none of the units have frontages on Silvergate Drive. Consequently, the only access required from Silvergate Drive is to the intersections serving the development. One intersection exists from the previously approved Rolling Hills Drive which will be modified from a three-way to a four-way .intersection as result of the .proposed development. Two additional "T" intersections will be created south of Rolling Hills Drive. All intersections are sufficiently removed from others so that adequate spacing between intersections exists. It would be desirable to stripe Silvergate Drive in this area to accommodate left-turn lanes at the proposed intersections. As long as adequate off-street parking is provided, no on-site traffic problems are anticipated from this project. Y i tv -- xkv."..'.. � - 4.:. i ?,-...c. .. i_.. . ,; .ti?,..�. .x_t;. ... r .. .n.2 ... 1«_.... ..,.. }! _. .._..";knY,... .. n� .. r _ �•'1 .. MITIGATION As described earlier, essentially all mitigation measures required. for this project have been previously completed, .are currently under construction, or are contemplated for construction in the near future. These include: the .extension of Silvergate Drive to complete the Silvergate Drive semi- ci.rcle; the improvement of the intersection of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road; and the improvement. of the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. In addition, .when Silvergate Drive is constructed some minor restriping will be desirable at both Hansen Drive and Betlen Drive. The project traffic circulation design appears adequate and no significant traffic problems are foreseen. It will be necessary to provide adequate off-street parking. so that the 24 foot wide streets are nbt blocked by guest, resident or service vehicles. } F J - e -9- r HOR T C/ENCE I ACM Analysts & Consultants HORTICULTURAL REPORT Silvergte Highlands Townhouses Subdivision 5410 Dublin, CA Prepared For: Kaufman and Broad , Inc. 6379 Clark Ave. Dublin, CA 94568 Prepared by: Nelda Matheny Horticultural Consultant HortScience, Inc. August 3 , 1985 ��rlortl p/r: -- RMENT 7, P.O. Box. 754,32('7 Christina Ct., Pleasanton, CA 94566 ■azar�e��� .• .. ,. T ; , y .. J �+4E"!SL'ffi�SR71�7�! !�!!®nl����Wi4`'{ i�" '.,r r �f^ ._. ..�:'�. „_S^'�n ,n.:. eq� 'S . ....: ..... :. .:.. t?,. b,., k.. .x-''?, . ...... : •"±' ,h.r,.. . .... .� _ ro ^G d•..Y`.4.k,4 .. a .. _ _ .. .. 1 � +H' t r r 9 TREE IMPACTS DUE TO DEVELOPMENT Potential tree impacts were estimated from the Tentative Map and Development Plan prepared - by Ferguson & Woolman, Inc. Impacts can only be estimated because actual tree locations and specific alterations in grade adjacent to- the trees were not available. Martin Canyon Creek Corridor Impacts to the vegetation in the Martin Canyon Creek corridor adjoining the site have been minimized by restricting grading to outside the driplines of the trees. At the time of this study the creek had already been impacted by construction of Silvergate Rd. across the- creek bed and installation of a box culvert. IMPACT: Changes in creek flow seasonally and annually from discharging water from storm drains into the creek will affect tree growth. MITIGATION: Water is directed into the creek at two points near the east end of the creek. To avoid possible damage to the oak trees near the western most outlet, move the outlet downstream from the oaks . Increases in soil moisture during the summer months may make the oaks more prone to root rot infections . However , the trunks arise from the sides and top of the bank, so excessive moisture around the trunks is not anticipated. Overall tree growth is expected to increase with increases in water supply . IMPACT: Culvert placed over the stream at the Silvergate Road crossing may modify stream dynamics . During peak flows as water is channeled into culvert it will loose energy and drop sediment, causing increase in siltation upstream from culvert. MITIGATION: The tree trunks arise from the sides and tops of the banks. The channel is 10-15 " below most of the tree trunks . Sediment is not expected to cover the root crowns of the trees, so effects on vegetation should be minimal . IMPACT: Lateral runoff from the development site may increase bank erosion. MITIGATION: Most of the site-generated water will . be channeled into ,sto.rm drains . Runoff into ... the creek to the 'south of lots 97-116 will be ' .'' intercepted by a 32° concrete ditch at ;the property. , line. Construct, an.. earthen '.berm near :the vegetation line Ito the -southeast. of :.lots ,.,55-64 to 'prevent .; lateral .'runoff,;�==into the creex •„t` tt � u. rT +��.+.i r �ar`t:� r3 ♦.�.t �n "Jt5•� r .E "t•t i t x + n.. � +.. � .,. x _ t ar f. L Y +. KS a { t- � .� 4 r 1 f 4;-J r ,'Fs'+'°C' hk( yinst.iT i�,,yn it xY 3'< S 7 yx''� - 4q{•r tj A i..'.,I�Y{7;f"��:4�r���'•3:t.,14,i''tt G:rnv' >,h.,t,(',.',ot a!tY. �'�5'�1�: .'A 'J'.rrr+t¢�Y,' �S�..r:f.+` rte:-.� t .3 \::� c Cf�f.r ,a s ri�r (=` } ' i�,,aii,r. �� �s.y!:. >i v; .N :'Y k. f FJ *J C�" 4 S � i�.. ry •, �� •�. ,r - •t. �^ rr^r•`.)�'- .;3+1' rla: '?ti+ � kH 6' i:. '7 '}?°'E' :• Atiy ' 's�5p.msn��t,,?rt1� . ..f�5•`' F. ,`+'. 5; 1� .L `++�gJ. c >9 4 �c �• r qa's` at. + uyf;' , t �. `�" i. ivy. .r"S,_r y �Y�r�.i% v a:�.* K 5::x' risz• P 1 � ;1.,��- � :! `�'' t :+c^",.: Y�i T ;3'• v :M ; :*rt: •t+' .? sb` +,�'yr g3 r '.1<�.s`�i '" � q. w �' �• rr , ' 'i.�.', qtr .€" �.cc'.�,�.,'"rq"��e�e+�a��;'4yv�?'.3h'?-� a c,,f'a�';,,"�`��=, t � c• trq - J���`} _ -y � a7:i+ .i.l 'i+'ti'' •c`ail'�+s2:. �vt F'SG f�•`�.a ����t ..,, d�'lxt-,,s f - � .to s K`f ' �' �i',a�`���i�.'ly'� br`���•'}� x v a > n ?' r dx' � � F � rr z• .a} '� �iC�, 4x��L r+^ "`� r ' r . �„ v---,�,P t g6q'+ x.,y.r'�':'^ y '^iy,z'�,'�'-rz.'w; �y -r�-9y•"�Ty"�ty..�-^"yrs. 'Y --k'nth 1 41. t ,,--_.•y,. v i':_ :T..; - ,,v,.. --1 .y y.i.:.�.F:�..r i�vr;'.V+.. > °a•+-°.:r 4r.'vr,1: '6'"*^+- a..i,.t w'4r ty..S'!7.:.J:•ti.-• ik'.:r' .k +: 71. . - LC IMPACT: Planting of exotic landscape species will introduce new and possi m bly damaging pests .and diseases to the site . Irrigation and fertilization of these plants may also affect native plant growth . MITIGATION: Exotic plant species were introducted to the site many years ago when the former home site was landscaped. Non-native plantings have also been cultivated for many years to the south of the creek in existing tracts 5003 and 2559 . Therefore potential for introduction of new pests and diseases is not expected to be significant.l increased by landscaping of the subject site . Methods to control irrigation runoff are- described above. Use of drought tolerant landscape plants adjacent to the creek are recommended to minimize frequency of irrigation . Fertilizer applied to these areas can be expected to increase native tree growth.' IMPACT: Mass grading has occurred , altering the soil environment. MITIGATION: , Grading has not encroached within the driplines of the creek vegetation, except at the Silvergate Road crossing, so root damage is expected to be minimal . The valley oak tree overhanging Silvergate Rd. should be monitored to determine if stress from construction damage results so that appropriate treatments can be given. IMPACT: Human use of the creek area will result in increased injury to trees from vandalism and soil compaction. MITIGATION: Discourage use of the creek by residents . Access can be restricted by constructing fences, maintaining low foliage at the edge of the woodland, and planting buffer plants that are difficult to traverse. Trees within Project Boundaries Mass grading was in progress at the time of the writing of this report. Therefore most mitigation measures must be efforts must be aimed at repairing damage rather .than avoiding it. Specific impacts are described as accurately as possible with the limited grade and construction infor- mation available and with approximate tree locations . . IMPACT: ..: The ability- of- the .-trees to absorb .water and nutrients has -been reduced by .root injury from ' grading and .changes ;in :the 'soi 1 , environment. 'from compactionand grade changes Additional root _ t tir damage ' canYbe expected in the construction phase as - _ f r r enching `forte}utilities,^excavationfor� ing 'and `othersolworkoccurs` ,�t�,t,' <� F7 �} L � ; � °- t 1 sY z v'i', A Yr. r.. ';TMii � � �i•..#•F'.. } t WAD r f J ♦�i t .a k>``t .0 1 i i �� kt ui'..is �:°t�� r�••,n' in i� '�; a6�W; f, K tip' '"•f �^y�•tF'-•. awl t�.;� .°+. � r�° .��• .�,t 'h-5�1.��•r° h 1. r 1 't'S' st. � n�•�• 1,�r��..r .y � � �ei'' ` zf��+�"1��t r'*S�.ti+tie?.aaJ� � 1. 1��tk Fs�J"��-k,,�4,� �-37�'°.�., ;- '�'• 'r 'a j r t •a'rk Y i a• •'"" 'r"*r h �;� y4 Kj _ Yh"� .'j+rJ„ ks�`t�� rr' f�a �•�.� ''l ft�+" t( E'.!" sr•��w+43r� ,t i-i '.t 7 t 4 •/ �`�+'' c yam, .vf�rt,���'.' z�' hNyt^ � 3tu�t�;.X,t�y�,,�t,�iryr ;. �; �` x c.„3 �,'3'�1'•+�::3my,L ��'•f'�?'YteR�FaS;M1 r41�f ,rt ��rD Sy'C,•�ti �!1 -dr _ E. *� tJr .c, .r. : 'rt c�+��.•.+'�_}+3”�tn'�'i✓1�%7•Fj���eUi.�Y�t"?w�?o-''"5as s� �' '...`' 7Ty+� ' :. .. r. .. ,. k dS'!t•'sue ' 7ad�,`' ��'—..,,..�..,, -kT"k 1Z MITIGATION: Cut any damaged roots cleanly with a saw. Backfill trenches as soon as possible and protect soil cuts that expose roots Erom desiccation. Provide irrigation and fertilization as described in the Tree Preservation Program. IMPACT: Re-directing runoff and covering the soil with impervious materials will reduce the amount of water available to the trees . MITIGATION: Provide supplemental irrigation as described in the Tree Preservation Program. . IMPACT: Grading has resulted in removal of the duff and surface soil layer which contains organic ma-tter and provides the trees with nutrients . MITIGATION: Fertilize the trees as described in the Tree Preservation Program. Apply and maintain an organic mulch under the trees . IMPACT: Water and nutrient stresses created by construction will increase the trees " susceptibility to insects and diseases . MITIGATION: Provide the horticultural care outlined in the Tree Preservation Program to minimize stresses . Monitor pest populations and incidence of disease and apply control treatments when necessary. IMPACT: Wounds created by cor,stIuction equipment and pruning to provide vertical clearance will increase the possbility of development of decay. MITIGATION: Construct temporary fences around the trees to be preserved to exclude all equipment at least 15 " from the trunks of trees . Repair all wounds promptly. All repair and pruning must be performed by a qualified arborist. Recommendations on a tree-by-tree basis are presented in Table 3 . Removal of three trees ( #5 , 7 and Z ) is recommended because of poor condition. Trees #1 , 10 , 11 , 12 , and 13 can be preserved . From the Tentative Map it appears that the remaining trees will be removed for development. Major trees should be located by field survey to verify that preservation is possible. r t 5 t � t R rir t r l y "."+. ?(:rrr^r s ...- .e' ..s.--c+..�fE.s .7or � - �ra;� � �,i:r,( •G..�.J'-,M1u•l i'.' �' r. .,. "t; ,T ,.r r•;,..:f - _ - �� _.;Ari..l 4..,- r`..p•-�1 �P ... ..t�!. r t 3.( j t,. .a.1 �l.r.L .f r E � ..k�-+t. � Y.��f..�4 a .. 'r TABLE 3 : Anticipated Tree Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation Impacts were estimated from approximate tree locations and the Tentative Map. Exact tree locations and a grading plan are required to determine specific impacts . Mass gradiny was in progress at the time of the field survey . Refer the the Tree Preservation Program for methods cf tree preservation . Tree # Descr.ix:•tion Recommendations i Large blue elderberry shrub ; construction Prune to remove dead outside of dri.pline. wood 2-4 Three small blue oak trees . Located near Remove or transplant units 63 and 64 . t 5 Apricot in poor health; generally poor Remove tree li surviaal from construction impacts ; in { , driveway for unit 6' 6 Blue oak; appears to be in driveway for Remove or transplant. unit 63 . 7 Walnut in poor health; within pad for unit Remove tree 8 Walnut in poor health; within driveway for Remove tree unit 61 . 9 Small live oak. Preserve if possible 10 Black locust in good health ; construction Preserve tree outside of dripline. 11-13 Group of 3 black locusts in good to poor Preserve trees ; supply health . Construction outside of driplines irrigation and ferti- lization to improve N health of #14 and 15. 14 Black locust in good health; in driveway Accurately locate tree for unit #59 . Preserve if possible iI L; , r F TABLE 3 , continued Tree # Discussion Recommendations xt 15 Small bay tree in good health ; appears to Accurately locate tree Sw.. be within driveway of unit #59 . Preserve if possible -' 16 Hawthorn tree appears to be within drive- Remove tree way of unit #58 ;.,�.1:_ n,.,.; ..•.;: . . i7 Small live oak; appears to be within drive- Accurately locate tree -. . ,. .. ;:: way of unit #58 . Preserve if possible - " east. 18 , 19 Trees near top of creek bank; construction Preserve trees 21 , 22 outside of driplines . 20 Lilac in poor condition; appears to be Remove tree in back yard of unit #60 . i mil�At �•,ti :� .. .� Jt t u i£ (a � t-t r r 14 I TREE PRESERVATION PROGRAM I The following guidelines have been prepared to minimize the impacts of development on trees to be preserved. _ Survival of the trees is dependent on appropriate design and adequate care during and following construction. Since trees in the development areas have already been subjected to construction impacts , special care during the building and maintenance phases should be provided. DESIGN GUIDELINES � 1 . Locate by field survey trees to be preserved within i the development area. -- 2 . Relocate the storm drain outlets at least 20 " south of the eastertl most oak tree in the Martin Canyon Creek. 3 . Design an earthen rtonear northern creek bank adjoining lots 55-64 prevent water runoff into the creek . 4 . Restrict any grading, excavation, construction or trenching from within 10 " of any tree trunk , and on no more than one side of the tree. 5 . maintain at least 603 of the area within the dripline of each tree free from excavation, paving , trenching , filling , or other soil disturbances . 6 . Maintain natural grade within a minimum of 10 " from the tree trunks . 7 . Provide surface drainage away from the trunks of trees . •8 . Design irrigation systems so that the trunks are not wetted during operation of the systems . 9 . Do not damage trees by attaching lights , signs or other materials to the trunks or major branches . CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES 1 . Prior to construction install temporary fencing around the trees to be preserved, preferably at the dripline, or as far from the tree as possible. 2 . During grading or other soil excavation around the trees, if roots greater than 2" in diameter are encountered, cut them cleanly with a saw. Roots should .'not 'be ..ripped or severed with grading equipment.-because .this.:results ;in shattering oi ,.the. . root for st,great distances �♦ } >.f,J.� s 4 (ri4' ',t Y i A✓.-c ' C IV, 17 15 3 . Do not store or dump excess soil , chemicals , debris, equipment or other materials within the driplines of the trees, or dump into the creek. 4 . Backfill all trenches as soon as possible and cover soil cuts near trees to minimize water loss from the soil . 5 . Do not apply soil sterilents or non-selective, long- residual herbicides within 30 " of the trees . b . Any tree Pruning necessary to provide clearance should be done by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel . No heading or stubbing cuts should be allowed. -- 7 . Should damage to tree trunks , roots or limbs occur the injuries should be treated by a qualified arborist. MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES Trees in Development Areas: 1 . Following construction fertilize each tree in the development area with 1 . 5 pounds actual nitrogen. Repeat applications yearly in late winter-early spring. 2 . Provide deep irrigations for the trees in the development area . 3 . Do not plant flowers or other plants that require frequent irrigation within 5 " of the trunks of the trees . 4 . Examine the trees routinely for presence of debilitating insects or diseases . 5 . Prune the trees in the development area to remove dead and damaged limbs . 6 . Apply and maintain a thick organic mulch within the driplir_es of the trees . Trees in Martin Canyon Creek Corridor: Preservation of Martin Canyon Creek vegetation in its natural state is recommended. Since impacts due to development appear to be minimal , little horticultural - care is expected to be required. No treatments are recommended . at this time; rather, practices to avoid are provided. F. .w i. 7 t{. \-Ir�� G L ..v 1r r f l 4 a•� t-. s. i ��Y St � d l�. N f\ 55\ 'JV.Ay -.L.'I�L�' Y•i. Ir-7< � Y. i`t� j� `r S _ ,j _ t� - �oTi - 't` t 7i -:� .tiap` b* _w>vria:.Y,t. ..«:" -r _h i:.%,ri+:..:�'eiij��j: ;.'c::va�.tirb';-:,.•:' ;?�`+»;. N,vdr•C4rt�!?�:;.C�.�l r. .i'';y Ct '.+x:: .>r.'N:'S. r:v;"} _.,t'!� •,,.a,:r.C•'esr.,y:.to;,... °'�'-it y r rK J.� 1 t�7. [� =,�:�';.,; T i J r It S 1 T t 0r �• -T Z� `-. v 16 1 . Avoid removing understory shrubs (brush) along the edge of vegetation . The brush provides a natural barrier to human encroachment. 2 . Avoid pruning the trees . Trees should be left to- self-prune. Dead branches and cavities provide a - habitat for birds and animals . They can be hazardous to property and people, however, so use the creek should be discouraged. 3 . Chemical control for insects and disease should be avoided because disruption of natural balances usually results . Most pest that are encountered on native plants inflict temporary damage and do not threaten the life of the tree. Insect and disease problems should be identified by a pest control advisor to that appropriate control measures can be formulated that will have minimum effect on the ecosystem. 4 . Do not allow dumping of debris , excess soil , wastes , chemicals , etc. into the creek. S . Allow the natural leaf litter and duff from annual grasses and herbs to accumulate. This mulch helps moderate soil temperatures, conserve surface moisture, and supply plant nutrients . 6 . Monitor siltation in the creek upstream from the box culvert to ensure that sediment does not accumulate around tree trunks . 7 . Examine the trees once a year to determine if any modifications in maintenance are required . CONCLUSION This report presented the results of the field survey of trees within the Silvergate Highlands Townhouses development areas and the Martin Canyon Creek corridor adjoining the project. Vegetation habitats and the impacts expected due to development were described. Recommendations for tree care during and following construction were provided in a Tree Preservation Program. HO TSCIENCE, - INC. r Ne V\M"a�t nffiiy, Pres dent ,t . a Horticultural Cons tint t >i�y",y ..c:1� F 'L Y 4 � 4,r 'ire,: +4 ��;r..,a tai 5•`' �'!a .,].;. -_ ha,\'o ^' •t��� �FP av 'hC _x.-o 't 'a"' <r;•. s ,.c r. ` `y } r r } _ d +•4f i.: .A4i f`it rT,.."'t !`a�"vh." ++�. �•�' >i,..n.bt yk<,.r'�.ar,,vt- ,.�Scrr�i.�c � ✓yt¢� r f, t,rt -.,1 e)t.. ( 5 _ , J��,,tt a�sc.l,...t¢1�x %''t�h� e•,4�,".�'"5)yr`� �e•k �L`r�,� �`v+.!'t 7� ��.\y:-x'•.n,� •s-4 }+, T,�_� ess c ''" �. ,t rt•. h, ♦- y. -.�ar Y• .,) Crr �. � ��•,'.�,�] il-i'C�fil`•,�;�( Kye' !�'4: rli 7 j, ,�,yv,. ..t�^. r3Y.. � ?P:, 5�,��t ��J Jf �'"i;��q' ".x.N;�' Jf.,�.,� "h't .\ �- �e..t�?<''• �"}'.jt- r 'a , }'Jt� ��kl��jt'Tf�:f����•rI♦. Y.i:'i�fi. �t; l�.�"� 'ht=�t �- _'•�� �" '•o••�J:-,�P'��ir{t tap7+}rte�.•�;^�$'`4F'•,,y( Af'•�t�.°S'�-y\'s{,y iku� if�,j��� LL nt,�� nrf !�}(� k:•�`{�`{"�.�•�. „4"-+pfd � � r?,y�'v�`'T�}` :ate '+h `t"a N ��� r���"r rt ,�x`�:-1�,�i•y��i'�.r�i:f-•F'�,•�5s•r��.��n„.,� xn t 1 'G * ir' r• x nr#+ •+.I� `� �:e t�� a +3"`j:T �v�� ,;�2_•0.�.K-+er•s`"it @ �M7. ''�' .:7+. -�+rr''-'r- ,rtJ:r •���.r,1; `"��d:r,4 r� r h rc`'r � '' sew t, ,;t ,(.�.., r• tw -- �r�t u xwrf�u.]g..w.c�'i',�i_xay.:a�::a. y,4�e2 r :pt-r -' ''�y Fes.,, .f"�_z,.#W st y<. .. ,. •a. a r=.+rr r s:: ::f-:.. �r1C1i%:x"�t Tk.cd17L��a'�� `.�lF'L'M f&n��aazliS4�i*'D�'.�3- '��' .c!tlr��L'•3RS�"� t.�.%� .LA4rfti �2Yai6f^3'$�4'�'J:y,�,,�,r��,.f� , i�x ,�x� ;�y t � � . t W i �6T` rm.Rn'r'SE�nex!!J4!ffi a 't. F� `dfa�4A.'rA"'rµ^?!9'!1e�9�ta ?+.rt '��d.� .Pt.:.RRf43?A�'t�yNi`1�!'t.'aYF}4YSk.+'1-FC°.�,r$;!�h...rr�•r1Y!",'$`%i • 'v '� 'L\ .}. . .J'. r a? � � ,/.•�' /i %' �::` `x.,6,.7. Ix .*12. A. 14 / r.•. _ 0 17 10 "� 0 • s 16 \ \�/••g �� l 22 e \ • 18 r •r1 r •.;yr � .. _,._ _._ a .. . .... ....... ... ,,,- r IL •L �\.. E• -y ;1 �. -•, 1. ,. .�....:. .t ��:`..:�:.. ...,� _ ...•.� -•�'• �. .. ...:'r-.::_ .tie-'.: ... — -I*,- �r,_1•.c.!..,-_� �' _♦..... — ':7. •— ..r ..,1..�:,...� ...^_. ,y,. _. ..:,_ -.ai,;� '•^^ ..fp, - r-. �`� r gH:?-y'r, ..,y._1' -r.•:r•,2{;!J,-j[.�°�_ _�.. ?. fit .:y lV. 'K• - a.T" �:•.c-Y(L•� '!!•:�."r!"-l_�.i(:1'r,,:Jh�r �.\_. .w��.— ..J. _ �Y.,- !:Y'1 •'� — ` L - _ J. fir• rC. w• - >q<...�.^"'. -'4.�._.,r:;\.. ;e. ,. ,_ .'s .:u�'._) . i..,.f: f .. 'V.t•,.-\'i:.S^.,...�;?Q.n.^.k l..i•LL..7,1'...e�... ...'vSr,,. h...,-z.-"ir ...K"'s- t) ....:.+., {,S°t,,,,a:;�-, v-.']*-)'.ca' ,'}.-;ra..'- ....- ... .-.. �r r3 S"Z, Q �v w � �li '`f sic: ,i'+'ti.Y.•:1, `t +la. ..t:�1 r.•.,r + r r..a•C ,� ln��t ;+31�Y �,° u pA• ,A 1G• ;` [. �1tt� •:. �" •a.y,�q'r'L'';� L :'4y>�a�r „r J .�!' + e+ 3 ?-i- . ..t•. ,•i. !1.13•. MAW(��•:?Y J.l- !A• t • •; _ .:t .k,:y+a. � tip. 1' ac,00a on MV PfkM to- MTMI C\\. cl � F ... .:.. .. . .. . . ": j• ••o i t, .ice' : `_ •.i,-• .u[. L____•=•:: .``fi�rr t' �\':'J�.r .. '-..----- - - ---s - ------------------------ -"--- ---- .Y. '\:� "•tom r' �:T1 'J. - 3,' fir'�f 4 �.ta 9 t`' .`'Yt' a?! 1�t5}''"*,.�y - 1:.: .�)y s t.r�. •c+-y..tfc•y4!f{rryr f, i ... • e:err..�`• '� •S a!d; .t,5;a•1.r .fi f R + '+•,J.C .eft ;ki.� � �.v and;: Al +rY g+4'`hn �yJ. �Y ?° +� ai.:.j' ^1,, � r�. w., ry �i;;� r.rr y.�t.1.,.:a-'; r,':I ; •s`.t }a;;,,.r,,. +Z;t`i�'Cr'�4..`�ai ::+�,{ ��.. rJ•,. a.i"r .k Y ;r�' .a:'� 3y ZPr •.�.a'.a� �", v..t S�. �, �..�'�' cK�',".c,+'., n6Y�� ,SyF.r Yr r3 � ..T,rr,�N f�. ••;V" • "t'''(�•n CJl �i.w ,�, ar' , •'.(• *,rye '' - si •Y�, Ji5. �1,+r.,..,T .� �x�rrSry,�^P•a.y'X;;�"'T?✓ '{r..37v;icY''.•:sr.,�. •.•:3�^ Wr�h!ias�.'rr�`iyi:grl , . ,+^•;�,:• �Jtf•�C�-., 6sX'�.' n�i• :a5r'.�'i•x. x �fi'•1�irr � .* s ♦w �•§:. 1asf� ?:a••• J;r• t .'t`^ `�S�yE,`Sr.G6� �`>.N GC:•3°4,+2+E�rz�A7�?f'Um'�'£�J'v/.J• ^4(»Y{r+'�.x°'„+•`z5'u's.4'=:'' Jb,�'t'� �3 r'sr 3y♦:ir,Ai at''�"`Y�I�r\1:3 '.sr�Z�`y. + +- . .. t7!✓Af� C.'„3F6SfiFv'T'�Ai.'�rS7R'a'"','{7}"S'0!'p81�a�•!.`7RfTrF rRSJt [. +..+•': +t=i.a?y,',i` a_'X .,.; < ti �`n v�� ! f`�L.:`}!�r;. e.Ve i � �} 'r!d'�'�.J€ w i��' �a x�?,,4[r'.,eu SH r. �1 y. @++� �:'� •vy, v 7 .�.3 r '� ,'�39,.� 32 ,�. 2 41 J.t.'' :,y. ,. .. .� �t•t -., ._. 4, .'3B t P 3 R.:. ..., 4. s.w...,,, ..ZS'FYsk ., �. - i.r. �;r. .,✓ ...1 YJi"... M.:"±'�, .M1,. b. .�:,.1 .. .t .. _ EX�gBrr C G&,jER),L PROY1510?6 . 1 71 th ZONING UNIT - July 6, 1951 Alameda T c Find Map of Tract 4159 shall be filcd�lrov mcatuinytl cc project,{ with the 1. 1 - County prior to commencement of any exception of grading and improvcmcnu related thcrctp- "ticns of approval fcr Tract 4159 arc incoraoratcd by rcfcrcnc= as GcxrYl • 2_ , All ccndi Provisions of Thds reclassification- ; a *zlIcd corst,,- ion grating plan and Soil cres:cn and . �'rior to any g*ac.ng, sedimentation con::oI pI2-'t pCe?ared by a Civil Engines- in accordance �+ith macs ti c'_: S:i?s and gMIcg;c Provisions of this rc{Iassificaticn and L,c proj and . p � t ap roved by the Director of °'-blip VorkS_ Grath.^., inves::g-lien repo• • shall br p lan to the -- -*action of t+'',c Dirc':or Shall b�e cmoleted in acrrdance with this p• of PubliC Works- 2t the follov:ing shill be dc-'C: 4. Frier tc fEing the Fin IaP� -r -��s:er=d Ia_ncscax archi:ec:, s-..? be A Ia�dsc� pian, pre;Zr'd by a � id ra.. s 2r1 1•lc:udc c:is:in; tee' a. - Dirc_:or. a p _ acJrcved by the __Ica• bu_`_`e'�•lg c_` ��is::: ; d�vc.cpr..c.._ .:CC r:ic-lz;ly 2�Cng trlC C o. Ia L�IZIS- a:'. e.'Ya' drou '-i CSIS:-1: p ,'1t r,12: , F Y:--•;r5 0. pr.I hC1:leS and IC:S; ,:1. �ar+l:. fcr the Iii r+lC s s._ , main:mane= I+ i .,on f =M; ICn°-ter^ r•. CL of dr-!ray_ agS:C:c::Cn (inc!ud;-1,, _ a Yle= OF plarSnfor garx 51::5; se5:het:C designa::cn Of and imcrOYc^cnt O • d s;lz.i eprforl;l to prcvis;Cns of the Cr CS:en 2nd 5-: e a::c: 1 ,a« o: slcccs; a *:crs for Tr2c. "la" cunt:oI plan requir=d t='tdc condi. All .landscaping shall rnzintained a- the cave:off:'s e:x^-c is nfurl ir:staIled and es;2bi:s�,ed and foil imerovc:ncn::: Izndscaoing has bz=- y have be_n arc°pled by the card of SUC2rY150CS. Transfer of rwr.cr ^zncr responsibility to tl•,e homeowners t`usoprovision,and lt+':dulandsc 1 pi orl pian a: not occur until requirements of met- b_ A detailed horticultural report of existing trees to bt prese''rea shall b= approved by the Planning Director- Said report ^z� be pre�red by a qualified horticultural consullan �dg h l r�dsLto�sL cruresein thccprojc=-.1 l evaluation of trees potential y to substantially cedar= a climina:c }•azard.s arl.. reasures recommended otcCt trc"s during c=m rL'c':on- other measures necessary to pc - C_ A homea•aner. z:scCi2iion encompassing all lot: i s this projrc: sh;�Il br for:..ed_ CCd:=s for each Io: (hall ub<`t roved by t•`.t Pl�.rirg Guec:er_ CC;;cRs icr said f,sscciaticn s;.a-_ req •- . and asscssmcnts sh21'• br bath a lien a?,aint t!-+C 1) payment of duCS �, one:t• o•arcr- a:;cs,cd land and a p+'csonsl obligation of csc•r{ r 1 21 Tne As,etia:ion shall take Tee tiCle to Parcel "A" and Fare=l• 3) The .A„o%-iatjon maintain all epmmcn ar ea: in 8=ed znd l , Including tiro r.3g� and erosion eontrel i1nF{ovc:n�'tts, 1e;�ee�,'and land:eaping- -�c .A; ocia tion snail maintain, .through E 115, 1!6a and c117. c^•� Lr of Lots 30, 31, 3, drainage fseilitic_ to the rc' h r FL r � h �. b4.y- f1 , F}]Jr^rf f,y f� iS. kC � ,y12•rX !C' ! � '�.9Lt! • C.�i+' � Y .p.Wig . 1C.S�{ � - f r d- �SC+ G -`r �ayi.l.t F� 4 J r�.r: ;x�. -f.c: ,c�ic�[ 3">t�",�: !L .r � � ls- �,� 1!= -` ' ,;.: ..t. .„.• �. �„+,s�r u� 1� �n v�> >rY 4��'���,s R`� s'k•1'` �F 71,t.fY ��' �+tf r t z �r•:': �+.H��1 .}t�'4}°L,.S�e'.3i'S'�,'"i���s?4�P � .�, f?�»�. s"5�.��'��/�.�`a.+ rr:f'1y'�'�ftj?�j3�iYT}'�4 Y� !V' �i� ,� - � i x;:rid ,���, .' .�¢���3�,r•' ��i�'• � x'• � �,�'4v�'�;-;w '��C,��-:.?5�`" ;�i��f+'�e �'`f:?�b�' ���,. �`��: � � �� y�� t •,� �, , HIM • - as� �"`�R`�"��'� .: ',: ... r._ ,,. tiII.i.E!+.�Y',�'.x '+�::`+`*i` -� • ti / \ 1 � r EXHIBIT C - GENERAL pp oYISIONS 1478th Zoning Unit Page Z 4) the Association shall kc=p the County Planning Department informed of the current name, address, and phone number of the Association's official representative; and 5) the pacific Telephone and Tcicgraph Company,of Iv sufficient hnO iY�f shall be authorized to enter any Po The restoration of any _telephone anyishall have the right to•installPmovc, Telephone and Telegraph p portions of the Common Arca and remove, or run row lines in or on any the interior and exterior of units, except where undergrounding is required by. tie Subdivision Ordinance, as is necessary to rnaintain telephone service within the subdivision. This provision may not be amended or terminated without consent of -the pacific Telephone and ! . Tcicgraph company- maintenance of Parecl "C" shall be approved by the Planning d- Ownership and - Director. . e• A program shall be submitted by developer and approved by the Director of near Silycrzac public Forks to mitigate tra�5i aln mumnisc use contribution to a traffic Drive- Said program will, signal at the intersection and payncnt for imorovczient of the intersrt:icn geometries. 5. Frier to isst:anc- of Building Fe-nits, the fallowing shall �r Flannin� Director a?proval a progra,:, fc: a• Dcvelo r s;all subr.._' f� ° `e built on Subjc�: incorporation of passive solar design #eatures in hones to lots to the maximum practical externt- Such fea ures may includ but are not o: hous -to-lot orientation (minor az:s wit in 22.5 of try Iimited scerth maximi:atien of southfacin9 glass; overhang or awnings on south windows and de_iduous trees providing summc: shade on south, southeast, cr exposures; - so. h�:est facades (15 gal• rninimum); and provision of heat collectors suehi as, concrete floors or water-filled container walls). b. The projet-, shall be Slate- addition of satisfaction ate:systems, assff flows ned to the facilitate the current or ` for t,`x 1) Construction plans of colllectorsnto achieve location on th solar dependency in an necessary num area free of plumbin or heating cvents r other obstn.�ctioru and with a structural cal^achy 10 Z) Construction plans 5 h__u designate the location in each building for ?-n appropriately sized hot water storage tank or tanks; 3) profi t plar-s shall ihclude installation of t::; folio-aing: o) Mounting brackets attached to the sroo'�„mbmrcbtatc later installation of collectors without g erI sized piping betwe_n the storage tank Iocation(s), b) Frop y- collector Iocation and the Iocation of the backup hot-water l,.eate-; C) properly sized electrical conduit and pull wire I>et•xeen the stprage tank location(s), collector locations and the location of the backup hot-water heater to facilitate later installation of !,P- r wiry; d) properly sizcd; outlet at the storage tank location to provide power for circulatory limp-:, �) Gne mods-I home with a fully operational solar hot •�ate� system; {{ ��a t ! � T • _: Y}� �Yt#��,SSj.ii r J {. ,t- { ' 4 .t4 i ',` ; t" 2 31 C f £Y yY✓�� '•. l �f 'Ond[ ...{f NJr•- Y [..1�'~ y. • •YR bi4. i tl7 M1 4�e'J. k;^r-�,,� ,-{f F' 't �t x t�, Z. t °i. T �_ , . �ee' :.,,yp ct•�t',{r ��t. :.3...'.!•„• �.tt- 3ry �3 ,�k'J+ '�wr 4t y •."t,"� a3 ?4', S �i � �,t � 4 A a t x1^' t "i ,x +��: x ytkp,,!�J .'$y R A ��?"°N � ate. �+[ra .t,•tx"r xf ,, -.� 's �� , � ti .;q .ri1�;+. �Ci•.y��,,. r � �'.�`�”]w�. r i {J. .,�Ja',.r'.�..' �;. �:.: t !�•� k t F.>"�r}f _•6” T�, _ «Pr�c y �FS. w}at�.Yi'1°,ytni^:'!��:w� � �7£''7^'+,,`�=Y"t t � {�•�t�3"� . ��u�i,tN'y st>��''� `efr.+�i1i.+�,�; '' ,� r�,,tr f �y'�,� .r r r'}�i,;}��m, � �7,tr�c�ar a;`�ts�tl�;���';�'6i����+� '�xi"F�rr'u�•�,�' zr t�'y'?�,r� }W�Ki7f"�•75vY.slw %v -s �.�'. . _ ... ':rto[.,. .�.' •.��'"LGi'. �i -T�.+ ' k,°:o.''L4`S�a,,Ord:F'�z-��[...f::'':.'!��i3�t^fit:, ��1. w�:�vSt;'Y.s`�.Y.��..?,7'�`�5"'�`P Y} r t, aa 7,.'•' h r"r"" Fsh' y,F,9,ynn7 , �`` ^5. '�r , Srte' s ,- ., 3,, �. EXHIBIT C,- GENERAL PROVISIONS 1473th Zoning Unit page 3 f) Dedicate solar access casements to assure that cacti lot shall hive the right to receive sunlight across adjacent parcels in this projcet- _said casements are to b'- designed by the su'_�]ividcr and approved by the Planning Dirt--10r- 6. Solar hat water systems shall be offered to buyers as an optional improvement_ 7- Final design drawings and improvement arc authorized pursuant lto G ncraI Provision l0.nt and construction, unless changes S. Prior to occupancy of each twit or groups of units, the following s,' I be done: 3: proje-ct grading shall lx completed in compliance with re-ommcnda:iens contained in the soil and geologic report, as appr ovcd by the Director of be cb Public Forks, which is made a Fist of this approval, and shall n-- the supervision of the Project Soils Engineer who shall, uoen its completion, submit a declaration of such Compliance to the Building Official and Direcr of Public Forks_ b- Provide evident- to the Building Official from tae Pat-tic Gas and cleric Company that `,,"c units me=t PG&E's rc-11-1-rc^•cats of the "`-nc'gY Cons_,-va:icn 1-iomc Program_" Cr Civil En;inc r shall provide a lc::c- „ - C_ ii�e Project nrchl:eC' COnSe.'YanL tv!IeTS, Si 0�'�.' rte'—d5, faucc s, Z:.Gr Official satin- that wat - 21:tOma i!C C!ShwaSh c:s wir, 1 lc`w f!c`:' CYGes l'..'-vc b?°_`l uru:5 e prior to ecCUpaney of tar_ last S uni•s in any phase of t�c prcjer: for vhic`: a separate Final Map is filed, following shall be dpK= a- Frojec: Civil Engineer shall provide a letter or ]c"acts to :`Ie Building Official s:a ting that the project, as built, Complies with Qlars and Q{ovisions a t map Dis:rice_ Said letter or letters shall contain a rc�rt accompanied by a ma? indicating any authorized C:nanges pursuant to General Frovision 10. installed in compliance with t;4 plans required in b. Landscaping shall have General Provision 4a_ changes n the provisions of 10. During the construction stage of the project uired, t`rc l approved Land Use and Development Flan and beyond those req under provisions contained in Exhibit B, may be authorized throc:gh Zoning Approval to the following extent: a. Grade: Grades on the construction grading plan Exhibi' ganged a maximum of �t from those shovtrl on th o Of Ian" materials mzy be subs"itu{,-d for b- plant lrta:eria!s: Gne variety p another of Similar size and Gharacteris"iC- C- Landscape Features: Arbors, mounds, benches, fens=s, and other landscar.-c e3turc:s may arced or modified in design, location and materials. If the requirements of the approved plan are specified a; minimum cr m ax'mu ;aid minimums or maximums shall not be exceeded- Any other change may be permitted to the extent and in the Allnstructures and oadways,must be•conincd the Alameda County Zoning ordinance respectively within lot and right-o[-way boundaricr. � ./.''.•••� J IJO }'^qI.{fM•• 9'1•.�7'v`°,}� M^d'+IN4m� i 'G'R1 hYJT�'R(""' Y'e^ { i t .• -hilt,�0.,�\A V 4S�5.Vnt.�rY�4'.�yl{�f4 r}'+� �xy j,67f?�iE�;�'....�"�4 •P7 1 ifj..N. t ��,4 y.ym�"I h � art L 1 IJ l ... .. .r..Y.,i.. .. ...,al. r;t{k�:hl5",.i;t. .�a. ..rf�t�:.`Z.,k,..�°.'v+}5"�;.,�J`:;�..n�+(-�"t,.�,:r!t,?• ..,%�;.i"' r3..;_.'.;a ,,.1....��,- FK., 1. . t.e . .. 7-^w } %il <L , .. , . . ,. EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PROVISIONS 1473th Zoning Unit page 4 - After the project has been completed, and subject to observing any minimum and 11. P l roved plan: maximum dimensions specified in the app P a. In the common areas, plant materials, arbors, fences, paving materials, and similar landscapc 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 r areas or as ine fe-=s re, uiccd by so,h may occur subject to the securing of any Pe PAY g q ordinance. Any other -changes tray br Pe rmittcd to the extent and in the manner s-1ficd under Section 3-31.13 Of the Alameda County Zoning Orlin:ncc. 12• With.t;r_ exception of the following site area rcquircmcnts, lots dcsignatcd fer single family d•ae!lings shall � subject to any and all restrictions of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinane= pertaining to the R-1-B-F (7,000 se. ft. minimum lot si.c) Distric a. t iedian Lot Width - 70 fcr: b. 51de Ya:d - Aggrc,atc width of at !e?s: 15 fc_t for each lot, nininur„ S. 13. v_, f dwelling or acc_ssory s'r:4=;u�c proPoscd within Lcts 252 and 253 (to^:nho=c Ger• r ff�ri 7 areas) shall b= sub jec t T o Site Deve!ocment ncv:e v. Eu,l ..ng and other Mcans shall em 010yed to !init intrusion uron and pr eserve F::vzcy o: ex:st:n; adiaccnt residents. No dae!!ings or structures shall ba-�conTOr ScOf c etk bankslc,-eatcdtby gradi g natural creeks loos of banks or art if _--! P No fill shall be placed on existing natural banks of Martin C:eel or C!ar'.{ Canyon . Cr c=,<- 15. The 25' access casement at the southerly boundary of the properly sLoc�not and maintenance or other responsibility °r homeowners b the PlznninsgpDi ector prior to filing design of this casement shall be approved Y any Finn! Map. 16. Reclassification of the area within the Agricultural Preserve is conting=nt upon approval by the Board of Supervisors of an exchange of an equal area to be placed a in the Preserve_ 17, Prior to June I, 1933, and approximately every 2-1/2 years thereafter until completion of all construction, the planning he Planning Commission may, Provisions and rcjort to the Planning Com for cause, initiate a public h a�dnaddrFrovs i o,emodifyoe•�stingnProvi icc�,zor of Supervisors that the .� c!imiracc Provisions at that time. r3. prior to Planning Commission bercondocte�' tot thecsatisfactiohn ofothe��Bu lding - geological investigation shall Official to determine that no hazard-' to r�tosthcsland�usesand dc�c op onto plan exist on the site- Subscqu � approved by the planning Director and based on said geologic investigation may PP become a part of "Exhibit B." _ L � 1 1 ♦ d '" „ ('t t`y' •'a „„ t r M,, •c_� rr ry i r.-+ n.. r*.. �- Y.-xi ?.• F' tF.W or 0.tcxs i• �m, ry4k _s �y?T�o ' �y x4li' "r''" i -�,.:...>,,n.,,.c•.,.,,�. _,._.•, .., .,, n. „u,Z•. ,.,._c._.>.� t.,,f�%___i. .. ,�.�.c.-rS,E.v....fi........ .. ........u,.fit.- aK...,...b...,w....:�«.iu+�a.•a.,_,._._, _.5.....a.,,n• . . ., .... .. EXHIBIT C CONDITIONS OF APPROYAL TENTATIYE MAP, TRACT 4559 Alameda County Planning Commission _July 20, 1951 1. The design and improvements of Tract 4359 shall he in confor-;,once with the design and improvements indicated graphically or by statement on the face of the mao labelled Exhibit B, Tract 4559 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 cOncz-a*-e paving. -he Direc:cr of Fubl'-c 0r'Or:S Shall specify .types of base materials 20 be 11Se- ai,d Si,'ll 50°_city the structural design. The subdivider may, at his sole ex�e^se, make tests of :he Soil over which the surfacing and base is to be constructed and furnish the test re=`Cr:s to the Director of Public Forks for use in determining a pre!�minary s::uc:ural the road bed `ter rough grading has been completed. U-e Dir ec:cr 0; design of - ^- _ •_ - Fublic 11 have tests per crme- to ce-:--r-m-ir•e the final desig. 0- the read �i OrriS sha be^. • be 0.5 pert°rl:. No c�- c: i- l i-e m:.^.imL' �1 llnliOCil graC:�.^•t Si-c!! -- e 2:1, unless approved by the Direc=cr of oubisc Wccks. 4. P.-icr to final preparation 02 the subgrace and place.;-ent c: base r--a_-2 ria!s; all underground utility mains shall be installe.{ and Ser'iicz c--nnec:icr-s s-z'=c-c cut beyond c--,rb lines_ Public utilities and sanitary sewle s 5r-all be ins z!lec in a manner which will not disturb the scree: pavement, '',d gu���r service connections or extensions are r,._=de_ 5. Prior to fling the Final Mac, precise plans and s;,e for s::e_: improverne its, grading, drainage (including size, type and location of dra:ra;e facilities both on- and off-site) and erosion and sedi„len:aticn ccntroI s.-a!1 be subiect to the acoroval of the Director of Public Works- 6. �J ,ere soil or geologic conditions encounteed in gracing cc-rations are dii=e:e^t Works- - from that anticipated in the soil and geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soli investigation, a revised soil or geologic reran, shall be submitted for approval and shall be accompanied by an engine°ring and geological opinion as to the s fe*_y of the site-*from hazards of Iand slippage, erosion, 5e::!e::lent and seism c activity. 7. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or ezelcratory boring that is shown on the map is known to exist, is procaSed, or is located during the course 0•` :.eta ocera:ions must be properly destroyed, b:c.:filled, or r..alrta ;.ed In zccor. nee with acalicable groundwater protection ordinances. Zone 7 should b_ contzc:ed at 4�3-9 00 for additional information. a_ The subdivider shall furnish and install s:.-etc name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director, and traffic safety signs in accordant_ wim 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 .-hall be used for_a!I star m. drains_to_case_maintenancc_and .__. _ reduc: pocential,•blockagc Q�/�//I��i � O/T/�/✓� (T� CIS!/ ' � �'. L 131. d • ' i",L.>. tvt `` F ° rf fr S. .• 4 b, o tt' � - k,'. , 'l,,tr,{��r e ! r -i i �,1 S�Z• ate„ n�'le�K a`L ,,. f LTr�+� J �-YS-��' ,!�¢ � �' -t-�'� .-..e • i .T.s+.r • did �...:•i-s•`'1�;. -l.F. 'Fh�Y""�'y����7fi�y: �3i �a�,w � ,- -x ,y, s ,�y.a. X�;-�i•4..- - .. r =° I sq✓n ti: yir$���.�.. !'rFar• 'F -.�S'.•en'l�t �.,-7:hr 'S'a,aCski(�a'�v.S•-`� i�fi� Yn�� � �v"� rr!, a.Y"�e.�i'"�S.T"JTv� ..=t'-�5+-�e^--'�C a �'1:`+ t � EIfwJ�� J4 % ' ,U'+d !. .i�fi,L`'a .! H } M1 l A I1• k �'' ~ r .............. v:•? .:zfi�-,-. EXHIBIT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT 4859 Page 2 I1. 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 Mao, subdivider shall furnish the Director of Public Works with a letter from Dublin 5an 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 ,vlap 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.x, Construction and grading operations shall be limited to wee!cdays (Monday through Friday) and the hours from 3:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m_, except as approved in writing by, the Director of Public Works. 15. Developer" s;�all keep adjoining public scree*.s free and clean of project dirt, mud, b the mate-ials and debris during the construction period, as dote- pined ne;°ssary y Director of Public Works- 16. EOard Of Suceryiscrs of the per crmznce guarantee rtcu:rec 16. Frio; to use by the by the con:ract unce: ConCitien 2!. o' °� l nQ°' ti,e Ge.^.ere l O:^ViS:CnS Oi (a) All landsCaPing reculr� - ! 1473-h _cning Unit, Shall -e in stalled and eStcJl!Sne=. (b) An �-built lancSCZping plan pr°perec by the prcle� Landscape Archl:ec: anal °,( r the Pro e=t Landscape Architect That all `%•'Ork wcs done. a c___a.ztion by 1 • under, his sucervisiorl and in accordance with the recommenca:lens cznta nec in the landscape and soil erosion and seelmeztatlon control plans sinall by submitted to the Director of Public Works. (C) Grading of the traC, must conform wild the recammendat'_Cns of the so Us engine°r to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. (d) The following shall have been submitted to the Dire::or of Public Works: 1) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, including original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface l elevations, lot drainage, and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. 2) A complete record, including location and e!evation of all field density tests, and a summary of all field and laboratory test. 3) A declaration by t;-;e Froject Civil Engineer and Project Geologist that all wort{ 'was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the soil and geologic investigation retorts and the approved plans and specifications. 17. prior to any grading of the site, and in any case prior to filing a Final ,%lap, a detailed construction grading plan (including phasing), a drainage, water quality, erosion and sedimentation concrol 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 a erc:ion and sediment control measures. The plan shall attemot to insure that�no increase in sediment or pollutants ll permanent occur. The plan sha controll p of a measures�such1� term maintenance ^ Sti Y:s;. :fr:- ::•:C Q J� at"l7?t. ��M.,�t �r,w1;7T'+^7 .'hv.s} °'F'y" ^T �.,r=7� :i; ::i r;- -..t•�' ^� •..."�'`'} "'"`Y 4,.c"4.a( r. .•,ti.�. "P" �..� i �''�.4a,tl� �r a a i. , i ''-�� a tr n i t�( t"•',fi. F R �. f �' �T. h, .4tSd'}:f .' � } j+•-A+4n ° :.Y,,.+'.-• .y 7p #lit .d-.-:5.. , � ` -•y-;•-r •ti-iY' -`',1} -Tr':a.•r+•1Y-� *�...-.... >_.-•c ..... . ;.._. •.S y, ;?�,.. ..•.� E-'.,.� �}Iyt . .h. .y .. : .^t.. .r_ ... .,:}.tS,jv : ,, t.'._ �r.,..�)�i...::{.r .. ♦ . .. 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. 1S. 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 Map. ' 19, If grading is commenced prior to f fling the Final tiiao, z surety or g��arantee, as determined suitable by the Director of Public Works, shall be filed with the County o*" Alameda to insure restoration of the site to a stable and erosion resistant sate if the project is terminated prematurely. 20. Nlainte:lance of Common areas lnc!uc:ng ornamental lanCsca>ln�, grade sloCe5, erosion control plantings and drainage, erosion and seaimen; control irnerove^xents, �ha!! be the responsibility cf the developer during cor4,._c:; staZ) 2--id untl! final 1fnDCove'ne' are aCCe'ote� by the Eoard oI Supe'•+:SOCS cr:d tie r°_.':OC�ariC� guarantee recurred under Condition 21 is Cele'SeO; there'_::e' mc-'nle.^•�nc- S�.cll be the re5pOC1S1cilltV Of c IlOriieS aSSOC_atlon whip:. automctic 11v cclleC:S illalntenanC°_ nzl oblioa. assessments from each owner and ma•{es the assessments a C--:-Sc 'on c: e=ach owner and alien against the assessea property. 21. The subdivider shall grade the tract, install landscaping, soil erosion, se-dlmentation and drainage control measures, and improve all scree*.s and easements, as shown or indicated on Exhibit B and these conditions, and shall ccntrac: with the County of Alameda to accomplish z-11 said improvements. 22_ Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction d-ebris, and materials en 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 e=ach 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 Sec•+ices District in accordance with present standards. 25. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, corstruction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the Ccunty Planning Department no; filed. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the rev gins art significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning Directer, shall be taken . to protect there. vices 27.. . Subdivider shall pay fees in lieu of Pa I dedication t o`'land in the tract required District-bas ed on value of the number q by the Subdivision Ordinance 23. Street : grade shall ;bc no more.. than 12`J6 maximum, . with S`G -grades a; . inte'sec lions', unless otherwise approved by the Direc►or of Public 1Works t f�] i �� t �_M1 � •7 1 ,a��7� ♦ � ; 1�a a1 ,> t ) 7 7 ! � T`a-..+ �{ +1 x 3 '' - r� -• - is.{ c r 7 y, .o"rf .y �r''x �.r 7f. i f^1 L7 rrt ..... � 4 .rCi.- ;f �'KS < t' ♦ V 7� A x 6i y, t N rls-"rt x 1} ri, e s 2 :G ]. �'..;''.'�Y"t •,%•'t�S lY' rr j�"^f+• -"s".? ;:�':','y '1 r wv �y: r E .1 t.. dp' '•r �:t"it�• r �;�' tr 5,�.f+ K'� vr:az.,K.F.'^r;h _ 'In..}]h�S�i+Yr? �'v ?.<-.N�j'ti C.IU,rq.$1.�7•�.�y y. Y _,��, t'..��t.'wx��*'{" i,•.!•i r'+t`,r*. .§" 7�,:5- .�'':���'s-f. ...rte"..t 4,K�.y^9 �iG C`'--]ry�.��Yflst ".fr' tC.w_ r . d...,,,, 0.3'1 + 1 S! xfr.r. b•.wt ,qtr A$i ,,,t .�•.',, rn :M.+; fCSc'4s 'x v'�U x eY �.vK ,`.34:st' M 1:•.. r i��4'[�t-'`c"�.-'2:r ,�, •h � r.��7 r�.�.��.'r'�1Gr �.,'C,�K�?`��. r t K�i: , v? �-�f+kr".....ar-i1'.:'�` '4.'�:4> - t. +•'.',�'a� u--5` �., ,.x,'31 ni.. rr�Ll�L:�'.'�� �t:'Aa ah`�.t�+"� ,;tti.>�2.,� w.,�..».,.,,.. .��"{ rXx� f:.,� ;j;i?f �:��7.'.� Y`•�.r s���j'��an ;�''N:•��j.c,,��,`i s,' ,.ice f TIC< +ZFy�Ir••�w2 1'rf�c'.y�L; 1�„ifi,%,�? a.)r� ....�. .. n �.3�r, � �.,r c ..�s�� r+xs. `Ss�•i r s�f='±� '-!.,.x, 4A�;: ����,r+- �,r� �ir�, cn� z, ,x ++t �� 3t� 3� � 'p{C�77.� �. •' 1:�tQ� > P� x� „ 1. F °^x�,K+' 'nS4,g '•i ��� rG��x�' yy.,c,��y. 1.,.¢, 7 s a ,�-a"d Rk },R i .;;: �l ff•'E^h J�w.tpK ry.KJ..jF1 ���'+� �.�.��.srw`+7."v�4'..�h:�:�£p'n��'X Y,'�%a:b'�•Y���-,m al.��..,Y,' �.. Y�3 f!� 1.�'CMC�'�Y�"rfi-:•'ti�as�..'.�����Y���fw�5r"hlxs',x''iI�>lriii 113T s A 4 -q ,rr:.,,. ,My.Kj;. .. ... ... . �, v?: •:r.' r,r. y.. <�r+r}'�+r-� <,. 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- 3o. Grading shall be reduced asQmuch a possible shall be custom lolls, not sg ceded to flat minor redesign, etc. Los , pads, to reduce canyon fill and preserve views. Lot 163 shal! be e!iminated. 31. Street names shall be approved by to the TentatD irector flap submitted.No approval is given by this resolution to the names shown o 32. Prior to filing the Final i4iap, the tract jnare ovisi�ons with which the use and PD (Planned Deve!ooment) District, establish g p design indicated hereon substantially conform. Any modifications to Tf e project design .a* mao d by this l r be aconsidered as�lan aporovede modification on the tentative mzo and shall tentative map. 33. Gates for stubbed streets shall be approved by the Director of Pubiic WOr'.cs, and or a-ric may be of a type allowing access f �!ltural purposes. .-- r v .*� .T'tyfsrs-r '+^-r .►-•,.�• w• r r t -s .,�r��y,��to_.ywru ��t f�M 1�"r. a �-�+.�.�y4�•�'�k��i�"�,�c�+y"'��'� ���^3�ti._ '�l T C.i Ps3�.y ''���Y't. '�t<cat... f t (' � r -' }� .> , o-'W v -fi -;" y -°;.�r�"=•"-.F4 a 5" �r� _ z*.r'4'C^'yy^ry �^k ,^ .. �y .. . ... ... .° ,• n � ,.. tali-' 9" ,;�y iYr..T By.rfi i ��: �.�..n i�ft� T7�F.e�„ �.f�qf:c�,t,St h�7 ti. ,,..... � +,._-'' 1 t RESOLUTION NO. 17 - 84 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 t1ap 4859 on July 20 , 1981, and said Map is to expire on January 20 , 1984 ; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the p.;oposed extension of Tentative Map Tract 4859, and the related Rezoning • ( 1478th Zoning Unit) , at a public hearing on January lo, 1984 ; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to State and Citv environmental regulations , an Environmental Impact Re_eort was prepared and found in compliance with State and Citv C---QA guidelines for use with the Alameda Countv approved Tentative Map, and its related Rezoning (1478th Zoning Unit) , and the Planning Commission has considered that infor-oration in its review; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission aperoved PA 83-073 u=en making the findings and subject to the conditions contained in Rescluti cn 81-04 , on January 15, 193-' ; and, WHEREAS, t e City Ccuncil, on a_cceal, did the proposed extens ien of Tentative Mac_ Tract 4359, and the related Rezoning (11.78t: Zoning Unit) at a public hearing on Februa-y 13 , 198-'_ ; 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 Mao, 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: l 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 . TI.-Le Cit,i of Dublin is in the process of preparing and adootinc 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 Genera! Plan, should the related Planned Development rezoning ultimately be inconsistent with the future General Plan. /5 . The . signi_°ic--nt environmental impacts listed in the / "En•.iro _nmenza I.pact - Report General^ Plan_ Amendment - _NieIself _ 71 • 'r, - .1. .i; 't _ wr t.'.t' Y 4 7 . .c •�4i 1 ! '/'-, 1'` •L � t yy 114{+G14i4'.V 44 M P C ' ( Ci. e1 k•.L...4r3{..,}ti'rs� Y tt.'a1��a 54�i�ti^;, N}yW ,,m`i t t•77 Yn1;wT.. .`_3 1.i?.�Y.a; '4`�..1.,.°.f'r,l':,i'.L.n', ..;..Id <. ..41' i11F"AY Tt+^.er 4`w:�fi`in'+t"t a,.1..:;. ilw'rR?334' 1tr'C�,''t; l�i'i..�' S ?• {,X � Y!,4,S�1yei:`� (Y 's� �'�r�, .j '45:-: a "'t,�i;q. r r;.y'�^'�7i.'ht'.'.1 +tp,'f"•�k`�'n`�_+CN V'�"3,'�^y+�y,.�l�v�ic��r�u�+r»s ar. s,, 11:1"�S,�dx`�k' ���SX�.�a7 rte' -r; r �'^�r �� �... pt(.;��� .F, -�zi,��'�� 'l.�`�.;,",+,•kr ,air: .�` t ��cti�f4liF ,��sT„t.y'.nt. G'' r+,-k 'i;, �����. � � �h_�1i:r1��n3.;."�c-.sk+s s'�r1. An,�"i��i'�<..ai. "±1� !h"%'�+dSC����� $�F3Y _ KAYaS.i`��,si41�'t �nli;��1.. YtS.•: ._ f 1 f' 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 complete7d, ' the developer shall have soil. tests performed . to .determine tn.. final design of the .road . bed _ ��)` ar t 1 .11 ' �+ 1 1 ?4I4 4� � elm i s' `i�r��'*Syr f}M:1 Y <i y J�v 5��i. i :;}{K a �y F, z c n l �+ rt r7 :S..t q. i n. , f;dw3�r,`fz t a? .��� ,t t r v� n F v , r+ !e Za r '�!�G�f.:�„r"�` �•${�.'�-..,+,f•tr 1"^. �,-'.�•5 �'fc�v7„y'�..i f 4 at'.;1`:�.'�f,.K.-... v-w{;r. ryi �7t. �� :.�...r '�rf c'r.`p��i ye.y,r.t?�j,r e t t. .�Yy. dam..6x+r'�N?lSY�y YR'1.-�. rE'.. ,., 1 Nl,yst u-�:?!tqF.,` .,�.�p"n! `r' ! G• .rt-.h Y. ,;.:� '"i' I t.... r ° r K nn it s ye, ty fy1 1 c. K r r �. .c?•.i t,} . ICr"+1 R. .'f�'+ ..,. ::: JT.3 7W.dP 3S rR Y r 4 *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 aporoved by the Planning Director, and traffic safety signs -in accordance with the Sunda_*ds oL the City_ of Dublin. 9 . Roof drains shall empty onto paved are=as , 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 : r D. A� ?(l !� �rj��3�.��..X'�r}'.h Iel�,�'°"•l.`71."•Y+�`�'�'�'tvYrv""��`.,y,E'r,Zr�x�y4s.�'�h�t }A,r� r c-'r°.,,,r-°s}:...tom �F4�w..t � ,.»k'�Y2yY•4-r ti3 r ' r ..�zL �� .-.'f'- Si��.F .�j,4gr- :!�r ��'�''�� np :.�� � �~. �,. �ry..,� �, uf•h� -r': d .ra--r ,-^t--} _..� r���� t.,.- f �r . t ..r. .`;•t t _ K},�i�.'e._.i Y .�..4 7,7'i lti.._. , r�{, r t �.` ' 'l.-: i. ..v._. '..°.1. .,...,� 't 6�_ _ :.. ,.��. ..,.. .. C. 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 fo . 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 rencrts and the approved plans and specifications . *17 . Prior to ary grading of the site, and in any case prior t.c filing a Final Map, a detailed construction grading plan ( including phasing) , a drainage, water cuality, 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. l *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 auoroved 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 pr(y}ect is .t' rminated prematurely : / - •k; r^ R s s ., t„ � � s � r r ?.K •x !f\ J� Ya 4� s�yfa t 4 �' t.iY � �; �wr�:'��t,�,+xQf.+ J f ' `"•t' 'w, -� ,(?�+1C rr:tl �P'>�lN.!seFA'�*�:tc?Y}, �:a �h��'7n "ft'�^ .f45-`•'n �'a��^"�Y'�lRK 3�:, ���3ay,r�:���t�.•��.:- r �,{,k �� 5,.,y��'o�'t.�� :,i�pt 4 ;:r �f'�`.'S+��;:,`;y^r i��'a'��1�� ''�"�'�1�„#�it��`S -� P r'.`�T;�.: �.TJ+ t�4? i3•�i. �44^�+1: R�°''t ,t; z l�'�� .,... .._ _. .. ��'!{ ......• `�� �if �T.f's�� �p��i���*�� `L\ m. ,_ .�k�.�pr��.r� ..����4�FC�_t��n't'' . i Y.� 1. _ *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 hvdrants at the locations approved by the Dublin San Ramon Services District in accordance with the standards in eTiect 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 . Lot #168 shall be eliminated. 31 . ' Street names shall be approved by the Planning Director. Z,c approval is given by this resolution to the names shown on the Tentative Map submitted. 3.2 . 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 ald shall be .considered as an approved modification=. or, thd. Tentative Map.: . � e 1 °K l` v< rcK•.a,t m Z'^a"�"i 1 S e S s P ° :� n';�' ,.S rt�t }„y'+a�aFj '�- n ��kli' `•�'} �� •!.`a,,. ..,��. .xn s � ,f� °a .� � a- �*� ; � 1F.ti�t YL ��c"i l` .+t�.�y' ^7�aM;,h��f try?��¢y.t� r i,�+?�,de F1 rhv '^t?' ..c,�.a .f rt..^ LS��r�*^..;t'�'"�" .� � a -4 } ✓,.1=a�L1. 7 ti ,�, Z .'17 1` +�-N\4y � ��'A7v �:��l, �f1„y,-•1. n< !�!� ^".5r..}d•�t°:r! d' .� s tl i�-.s st•'ti t:S arYSk y� � P d'"S !fit�"•/iY �+-�'. .f ��.T IA 't •^e ,,:yYr.a�i'F .t7+Y a �r r �L 'a. S -3 `�{�tii�� ub�r.$�T +fit j„�f. .�y'��t`y�.,A_'i���•�"+i+� �, ij�4�'.�,;flt'„�kk'Jj.d'fq`^a }'��,y �v`Fi�h �,t ;:uSr4."rID'r.;�'�9v1.^�`.�..1�'i�CSv:.#c KcfiA'S.d�1':n�#r.�� �Lf��.Y 1111 F r u +• '.; o J ..t-t -t � r ,. .y y ..:l7.'._r4'�...T� k. r,°�1,�,G .,, ,,:'n, .�'.' 2 h i ,kR��fi_.tr,° � ',4. 'r} ., �C t . J X *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 111= 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 Satz Ramon roadway, along the west S4-de, and north of Silvergate Drive to the ultimate width, to include t•.vc through lanes and one right turn lade . This widening t0 extend aaoroximately 400 feet, be about 30 feet wide at the max-J.mum 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 Mao . Should the City proceed with the intersection/signal worst 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 reyier.-ring bodv and staff . All other plans , and the like, that are prepare' to comply with the conditions of approval for Tract 4359 and t^e 1473th .Zoning Unit shall, likewise, be provided to the City o: Dublin for review and comment . **33 . The time extension for Tentative Tract Map is granted for two and one-half years (until September 16 , 1936) . . **39 . Lot #191 shall be eliminated at its present location . . An alternate locaticn may be approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director . * .r40 . The proJact engineer shall revise the access to /'_o:S 24 and 25 , the lots , to eliminate access cn the. _ Silvergate - unless such a revision can be shown to be . impractical . t } 5 1 r t } V c. � r ,{ 'ST r•�F gyY ,�.y��lFy1�"�'y, � � < ,�.'4��j�+j rsl'i"W��,,�x`iLKP•+ry r),vr•�YC T.a' }r c E iY+°rPl•'f•,y.,PY�°r �'") r T��,... •v it...4i .r:"�".4'y....�.: .,r. ...:, "�r•!vx+Y.,,'TRD...�r^ �rif ti`w: r :•.�?,�'; •v.,_ 4i.rirl..'ti�+ ,. k+�'�;_:.Y;A.x}-., rr`r f�.•Y #c���'f Y.K ryii x- +r, •�^ .. **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 13th th day of February 1984 . AYES : Councilmembers Drena, Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder NOES : None ABSENT: None Mayor E T: City Cler L a-w...�yY kt �� r.�`OSy,P{3�WFRl'Ni'I�plt�,. �uy5 j]'�.��.�'C.t�,�.y��L"t,�RRii+r�-7�n'7 �RFr tw T'jWSy}ar�•x rR1T"4�'�.� 't�� �Y",}.'•1 t`,S^nor Ir � 'III -^� _ } w+e�'� .�ltl��!f�7i�','�''G,...�`�ti'lxt,,,,"3ra?z f�'�•.'�e���'A a(�Y��/i� +�+�;g� s ?f y4+�-..r,a 5 �..�n .���;r 1. � .P. Y'�� z�r.ii� 1 ....' ,.," "S r.,. .�.,.•.�"�.,,....t.,.. tab v. r _ � _ DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS STATION 7051 Dublin Boulevard Telephone: 9399 Fircrest Lane Dublin, California 94568 829-2333 San Ramon, California ?larch 6, 1985 RECEIVED MAR 11 1985 DUBLIN PLANNING Kevin J. ;ailey, Senior Planner City of Dublin Planning Department P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 RE: File No. PA 85-017.3 Dear Sir: The following conditions must be met for the planned development on Silvergate Drive: 1) Addresses shall be posted on the street sides of each unit in a conspicuous location and shall be on a contrasting background. 2) Fire hydrant locations will be set at a later date by the Fire Department. Very truly yours, . Cecily Axtell Fire Inspector i CA:cb 0 110 S 7 r r y r� �l ! 1 y ' f C f" P tYoSa. r +1ty.A Y ! 3j1 S i• Ay "= s,.. `l�f,,y «� ! °+,er H r' �,,'��;��Y�J� {�'� � z'"'`n}; ���.x, �rs� ;i','�:r ��'`��'',,,o'•, �sr v{;rs�.,g� c°�r:,,-'',� ,` � �` ' :,�{!r.ti}x'tir'�.�a, .z��..M.•'rC.�s.,�.�,��.c.�'�4f.��F Yr��. �+ 5iY', 'w;:��'�s <'S.f3.� �.J:�'.q,er'F�>ihr �atK� •� aat> <"r:,�i x.3* jt .Y r � i1,�.,;?�•:�. x`f P�..£.�.7ta ..a.rtu,,..tr,fir:a 7r i'r++��xl `4 y4v.%.�?P.7.:�;a is'fay ,fJ Nn��. "�Y"'•�-!�ta: �t '.8 f,e' +<}:%i � ~t p, j. - ���r.�.2r Xr���,,� �,.:hyt�r;�..ee,.��.`%1,)r�'`NSi d r}��i��i:Y,�y`ggtit.i'r.•a�i 1�.qq. �A�.rN,} J ��r •�,, 5 Fs x.� Y �Y"� Ca i� ,l ,,L a..r y'"a,- ttr�nx.:�.N?^�.�`�i'��.••.+!'�I�I.N:�L� x�?,-�-rhM:+i<Y71�°r•�'�*i' M.S` v ..:•t't^^'Yk �..�'„R�:'!...t�.'•'.�+.7•''f5'SltlY�:c.....�xa�{rn�h�.�}�Y�.'�„y^��,it4.r �:..tf,..n. �i �'c�:'?,�+ �t-r�z*---r--'iti�iC� �:A� ._ t r min' vt `Clt K .. R RESpv ALA1�lEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTPOL AND %jV/— COIJ /hTlOf`'� DISTrtIC i 140.3 CONCANNCN 6CULEVA%R0 9 LIVEP..�:ICr,c. CALIFORNIA 9A550 1 ( 1-5) gN�GEr��� I March 5, 1985 Tract 5410 PA 85-017.2 Zone 7, Line J-3 Mr: R1 chard C. Ambrose y City Manager City 'of Dublin � 1.�g�5 P. 0. Box 2340 1 Dublin, CA 94568 r`G Attention: Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner Dear Mr. Ambrose: Reference is made to your correspondence dated February 25, 1985 transmitting the tentative map of Tract 5410 located at both sides of Silvergate Drive, southerly of Rolling Hills Drive. . It is not possible to adequately review the on-site drainage with the information available at this time. A review will be made if requested by the City and upon receipt of detailed plans and supporting calculations. It is suggested that the following items concerning storm drainage be considered: 1. This area is within Special- Drainage Area 7-1. and is subject to the conditions of District Ordinance No.. 53. Any applicable conditions of said ordi- nance will be imposed at the time of issuance of building permits. 2. Known water wells without a documented intent of future use are to be destroyed prior to any demolition or grading in accordance with a well destruc- tion permit obtained- from Zone 7. For additional information the owner or other responsible party should call Zone 7, 443-9300. 3. Flow of runoff in the creek or major swales should not be blocked or restricted in any way. 4. The treatment of the creek should conform to the City's Watercourse Ordinance. 5. It should be shown with current field data and hydraulic calculations that the creek can pass the 100 year storm event. Should the creek be inadequate, - improvements will need to be required. T .(r � ,} A 07 f" + a. f y� � rtt - t � :` ar»' y w}� 'k•.a- a 34y,` SL-srv`Z., •`M'c1 r ,,qq f* 1 Tk ki !k r.,, •v 1�.. rr . - s7; 4 ,f�,..as-,? Y1!? � ,;e., yr nib .,•.e.:•Ry' �,,�'c_Yri'�r.,- '�' ``�:. -1`^ t * •wi r'�' �X,"�h�{.ry .n Ai!r,,.yt ec �.Yx:. � tir ` fa } s.y.{n.:l Ri}� ::+�9°,y{+`', /,li .:>. htA�}r„yf;A.;,i�Lti't`�,+�°�,y-1tb,1 f A(I+*..,.i�"`•.,'".µ�. 4� i*1�i` Y-t,I." !?^y:�Lt'i.'� ,�°xtin•,'t'Ly' 1 a`".r' ir�pl{Y ^7`.s'� 1 x-}:. �! a. .tS;.�A�T.tY. t.�.+M'•G t� 'kh;; ..,�.�]S �_.•C.r'�av k,'Y.S..y .K ..,4;t ! .,� �:...11l.,{ C,t.,1;T/�- •:F.trr' ask]e'12.r,� S R•a r'4„ �t:t�+its'"k�r. !?�,,.:z'S p.;} l:y t4 � �".d4 t.y . !.a;�.?i;"�'tr�d•'�,"y�`3���9st,.i�z� > >�-.err. c+��3�Y ?P. •� 'F'�f4�Y+.�3 rf.!!• �:.h�+y: ��Ya;�r�dr:•r. ti -i, 7 f .�'';�.g.:. t cn�rSi 'y`F J; t M 4 �" v,7 .r t.R;s +t.;•.r ut sr•'W'� 9cr�h !SV•y. 1,r'�jjSc t•:,rs k•:1;3Y':, 3.A .s..,,� y� ,tr ..�,y"s.+j,.�.'}'�?-a a'k+*,tc lK,cc ;tai...� °�^,#u x: r ': t S ,t + ��•s,.r. v. ti.�!. Yu�•pr�d��` ++,......�Sf J,J 1 • `*r �r'••'7f:•ta :'ff' ?'$' Y,xjf'i sln a..�.! r '`2' ..�.,'k +:, tcc• ..at"d!4.C S d 4•r�''. �3f ,,p �.r� t� t �t� n`r"T v�r' +''+.rS'S lR.t;.+�j Vs. � d'��.ri't•�t+';f .�}.F x,-:�;��"' ?a i y'�` a9. a.'Fxi�:: '.�rva<' a.a`{.�.. �'+Fj,:FY 11"f..a:. :�, a L�,�'�, ��'�"-a'+�-S'7�5,s ",� .. ri � ,,7 ,,FSr 1,. . fS.'t 1 t'KCS•^.rca' �.. �'.t {yam }A.� a. fat`y 1., . � -r A tat�a�t!;��t'�`f!ce"?'.'4J-�':i?.T K°.Y�,.r�'T�iYF.��i�ra. x:9.ui ^'.tai.'z7_r. ,����r Y:tL:" n,� �k•!' r`�,•?,.n�T:? t� r� `rH.t.`?r1�.:A^,�5,�,t`�i•[ ky\-.`tNtA„�Y.,sa<: Mr. Richard C. Ambrose March 5, 1985 Page Two 6. An adequate setback from the creek should be provided. If the existing banks are 2:1 slope or steeper, the setback is established by drawing a line at 2:1 slope from the toe of the existing bank to a point where it intercepts the ground surface and then adding 20 feet. Where the top of bank is poorly defined or the bank slope is steeper than 2:1, the setback should be 20 feet. on both sides from the intersection of a 2:1 slope drawn from the toe of bank and the elevation of surrounding ground. 7. The following information should be provided to determine an adequate setback from the creek and for the required hydraulic calculations: . a. The precise location, both horizontal and vertical , of the creek centerline. b. Cross sections of the creek at intervals acceptable to the District. Sections at 100' intervals are typical ; more frequent sections may be required. 8. No surface runoff will be allowed to flow over the existing bank. An on-site drainage system will be necessary to discharge runoff to the creek. 9. A fence should be installed along the creek at the setback line from the creek for safety, liability and home privacy purposes. The District recommends a six foot high black vinyl clad chain link fence. 10. Do not augment or concentrate the runoff to the adjacent properties to the east, south and north. 11. All paved slopes should be at a minimum of 0.5%. 12. This office recommends that all storm drains be no .less than 12" in diameter to minimize maintenance problem 13. Roof drains will need to discharge onto the paved areas or into the closed storm drainage system. 14. Adequate provisions for silt and erosion control in both construc- tion and post construction phases of development should be provided. 15. There appears to be a minor runoff diversion of approximately 2.7 acres to Martin Canyon Creek from the northeast corner of the site. Very truly yours, MUN J. MAR GENERAL MANAGER . G . By RALPH HNSON C7 SUPERVISING CIVIL ENGINEER FLF:lk ., ..cc: Kaufman & Broad of Northern California Y '-.- I�arr� ��J ry+"'!.. r S.a.-1,, ,.0 .,.,a't✓-' S'.b,y.y. t?;7.a^_a 1Z�<r. i`{ ��'L.i" .��'t i�'',,`-•c.<-%fi,,,rr ,Va.r!' n.�7`�,.�.e° _.-+, -}2.��':, s y,.Y i rz n r - ta�tp - _ .... 'r� �F , t r,..c. ,..1. ::f+r'.;7 L;•7.-,t-rrxra�4�.+c.. .s..�`.. y.�9":'}:. '��.:s I fhsro�.4... ,. "f .. t r .. .. ... .,r'� b..�. `:j .'� r i2""iz,', a.. ... 7 .. RESO(J, 3 Fs ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT a a 1404 CONCANNON BOULEVARD d LIVERMORE. CALIFORNIA 94550 a (415).443-9300 NAGEM�� April 11, 1985 Zone 7, Line J-3 R E .•3a,� Mr. Kevin Gailey, Senior Planner i t City,.of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 VgL1N plA Dublin, CA 94568 D Subject: PA 85-017, Kaufman & Broad Application for Silvergate Highlands Townhouses (Subdivision 5410) Dear Mr. Gailey: Reference is made to your April 5 application referral of subject project. The following are our comments for your consideration: 1. Martin Canyon Creek passes through the southern portion of the project site. This, reach is not a part of the Zone's authorized project; therefore, channel maintenance will be the responsibility of the City or a private homeowner's association. For channel maintenance considerations we recommend that a gravel-topped access road be installed at the top of the bank within the 20-foot setback which is required per the Watercourse Ordinance. For . liability purposes, a six-foot chain link fence should be installed around the creek area. 2. Known water wells without a documented intent of future use, filed with Zone 7, are to be destroyed prior to any demolition or construction activity in accordance with a well destruction permit obtained from Zone 7. Other wells encountered prior to or during construction are to be treated similarly. Very truly. yours, Mun J. Mar / General Manager By Vincent Wong Supervising Water Resources Engineer VW:bkm cc: Ralph Johnson _ r x ..1 .. u _r •i .-.A.'+ � .A Idi r. S 1 i � `�y.{•r',r�} ud K TT ^'s la a i. ♦ ' Y.4 iy«� v ,, c[T ;tSf t.r r;�. c7•"f..^ �;t'>f Jyti .�t �X ' "'� Sk-t74 r aKr^a 'Yf`P y? J3f r i`�' t k •� ^r r i il`?tf' t, ,s { -. , ,p'Y.` t 4. ,f fs„a,. ��ss 4 �+ 1,� V H ttcl r;. �.; {'� 3v .`d"i+rh.��;�ai��.•�T F' `= wa,�•Ji 1G 11 t'y�:v,�;a;}tt ,G .t !.r, w n.,r;ir r.Y W� 1 �i?S�! �:• � iA .�cc �c't T xr'�Imo.-.. S`a7 f � - �, r,z ,y`�''W�:cdJr�i z ��i p:ik'.,�?� �f.a,��a�;�.o,.�� _ A�,�,,;•.•'p+-�;�;��'�y�`^ Y-.� J r({!'l�i'c`,4�''��•,�� }yr��.,- y�c..h"��?�••:� 'ex, ,.t. ;;;i:� F�.;'^ Y'.a�;l��, �• 4.• .f• K Yf. lv. W 't V �(. •t 1` 3 +}.r t ,"�+S 2a J''1i- ;'� �'iiy d ? ,y'_� CSr•" fl.r S 'F. 7 ,,.w t� A l dl CF r s" '$• i r. f ! •k 'a'�%'...rbl`:f.!'�nti��?�`�:.`�r`:�Lr`.�F'. z�'".�.c?.eii,'!c},S�Lm`4ti;:�=.Ls' :..t,u'�iri.�+�,e'�'�ud�.'��'�`S`�,��` ����� �.< ,'°4.'i'a.,'',�,r�k;'tg11'��.M1 .�SE� y o r � f v f, x•t .t'.�G.i. �r�_s."4.1. � L-tt arnr a S 4,y wl� �y1t,1 rE TO: KEVIN GAILEY FROM: LEE THOMPSON RE: TRACT 5410 - KAUFMAN & BROAD PA 85-017 .1, .2, . 3 DATE: MAY 7 , 1985 Comments : 1 . -- Standard list grading, bonding, erosion, etc .. 2 . The private storm drains shall be connected to the public system at structures rather than draining through the curb wherever possible . 3 . Concrete ditches shall be provided at the toes of fill slopes to prevent surface drainage from flowing to adjacent properties . 4-. An application for annexation to Dublin shall be submitted. 5 . Approval shall be obtained from DSRSD for the proposed filling over their sanitary sewers . 6 . All connections to 'public storm drain lines shall be at structures . Only standard City manholes or inlets shall be constructed on the public storm drain system. 7 . Existing trees shall be identified by trunk location and by species . 8 . Erosion protection shall be provided at both ends of the proposed box culvert in Martin Creek. 9 . Roll-up garage doors shall be provided for all driveways less than 20 feet from door to back of sidewalk. Minimum length of driveway (door to S/W) shall be 18 ' . 10 . Drainage from the driveway to Rolling Hills Drive shall not sheet across the sidewalk. . 11. An additional drainage inlet shall be provided at the -street ends in front of units 10 and 68 if crown is carried to end of street. 12 . A revision shall be made to improve the storm drain alignment in front of unit 48, to keep the water from turning more than 90 degrees . 13 . Recommend automatic garage door openers to reduce parking in driveways . 14 . This project be responsible for the remainder of the required fee contribution for the improvemet of the Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road intersection ($68, 420 . 00)• J with rebate being received at the rate of $232.59- per unit 1 for 'the remaining three single family Nielsen .Tracts . 15 . The streets shall be indicated on the Final Map as utility and access easements . 16-. Guest parking appears lacking in numbers and remote to . some of the units . 17 .- Driveway aprons shall be flaired at the curb (or sidewalk) to make turning into the driveways easier as -the travelled way is next to the curb. 18 . Rain leaders shall be collected and put through the curb in a pipe . 19 . Work in channel may need a Fish and Game Permit. {4 t t3 try : .sr :1 y ti jri c 1�.� � .�'�✓- r v r,)+ � r ,. 4Kr c ..� < r jy 4 ., r1't--�c, t��l r '` S 4 'v<G"11"')�'x 'f r t � .. � , ' x r� r r t c i t •�, i 1 r ' }P, <1 its` 5 `� rf���. ,p .1cLry� t ey rr�'�� t `• ��.1',"."�`•)�.� 't 4•;r s,z- �,,t l t .%d` t`x� � Y`"T°? i� � r r t xv si n � r c' �' ` f a �tl^ r n J" '�•'� 7' a F.�.J : � �w r vY^a# 4 -, � E t `) � � vf;Li�'•L',L'+,�y'1�Q.-�'t",';r.�a j sG,r �S'C' �n,;t)4 Gw�`�'rN+i ,.�-r� Tr"3i�� y '1�+� '?..!`< c'1- h: nS.' � �- t``r"-d +x5 5:1� l'_:£`,.< i t _-� t f 7� �•'i. Ji.t?'7` I WN a•f,�'{'���F� .tt t - .. a n.5i 20 . The private driveways entering the public street system shall. have same detail for the westerly portion of the site as does the east area . 21. Drainage shall be collected along the toe of slope behind units 97-105 . J • .2_ - I�'J�'r r � ia. Jr�M-t L i� � �:., G � :.c,r�y � A. r� a � k r.y `• g. .:5 �.�t r sG''S. rSP t -.�` y Y..�,iwS....FCy'?•�K�'.,ttie/r_�t�a�,r.:.9.n:'".r_�'+�'aktS�c,..�f.ro�S.�. :,r''n�. l� �a7�:. `Lw,�s�.. rt-,, r4.�Y�#w .� e�':t>.�'(�'�.°..+z -3.q, r. l'v5'�✓� +��;.a �.1�_y,^�-�,'_ 3.J9?4._.. a ..�,y:n�-.:.Y.neir '•,.r` '.. ., _ �+ .t. .-. :.J. L., „_._•.�. '�. __.. �..__.._�� ..__t.. t. r._ •.....e't T.: .. _ ... ..