HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.6 Pulte Homes Betlen Drive AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Planning Commission's May 4, 1987,
decision to approve PA 87-051 Pulte Home
Corporation (Owners)/Bissell & Karn, Inc.
(Applicants) Tentative Map request for a 25-lot
single family residential subdivision.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A - Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance fob PA 874051
B - Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map
Request for PA $7-051
C - Tentative;Map Submittals (Plan approved by
Planning Commission.)
D - Revised Alternate "B" Development Plan
(Prepared and Submitted subsequent to
Planning .Commission action on May�4, 1987.)
Background Attachments: i
1) Zoning Map
2) Applicant's Written Statement
3) Environmental Assessment Form
4) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
for PA 87-051
5) Letter calling for Applicant to provide projec't redesign or
binding commitment that addresses and mitigates each potential
identified environmental impact
6) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 4, 1987 (without
attachments)
7) Portion of Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of May 4,
1987, regarding PA 87-018
8) Appeal Letter from Betty E. Moore dated May 18, 1987
9) Notice of Appeal dated May 18, 1987
i
RECOMMENDATION: 1 - Open public hearing and hear Staff
presentation.
2 - Take testimony from Applicant, Appellant and
the public.
3 - Question Staff, Applicant, Appellant and the
public.
4 - Close the public hearing and deliberate.
5 - Adopt Resolution regarding the Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance for PA 87-051 (Exhibit A) .
6 - Adopt Resolution regarding the Tentative Map
request for PA 87-051 (Exhibit B) with
determination to use either the Applicant's
original development plan or the Alternate
"B" Development Plan.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The project will have a negligible fiscal effect
on the City.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Applicants
Owners
Appellant
ITEM NO. a __ File PA 87-051
DESCRIPTION:
The subject application involves a 25-lot subdivision request covering
the 8.4+ acres located at the top of Betlen Drive and below (west of) the
Valley Christian Center complex. The subdivision request was approved on
May 4, 1987, by the Planning Commission, with that approval specifying that
the grading and lotting pattern to be utilized was to be that which had been
originally submitted by the Applicant. An alternate grading and lotting plan
reflecting the recommendations of Staff was not supported by the majority of
the Commission.
The Planning Commission's approval of the subdivision request was
subsequently appealed by Betty Moore, a property owner adjoining the subject
property. The appeal letter (see Attachment 8) indicates Mrs: Moore's
objections to the proposed use of flag lots within the approved lotting and
grading pattern and her concern that the layout of the northerly driveway may
not provide adequate on-street parking. Mrs. Moore's letter cites her support
of the alternate lotting pattern, indicating thatfin herfcopinion the alternate
plan would address her two concerns regarding the project.
The Applicant has performed more detailed analysis of the alternate
lotting and grading plan (see Exhibit D) . While the Applicant would prefer
use of the grading and lotting pattern approved by the Planning Commission
(see Exhibit C) , the Applicant has indicated a willingness to adjust the
approved grading and lotting plan to reflect the layout shown on th� alternate
lotting and 'grading plan. `
In considering the appeal of the Planinng Commissidn's approval of
PA 87-051, the Council will have to det6rmine which grading and lotting plan
is the preferred plan. Draft Resolutions labeled Exhibits A and B reflect the
action taken by the Planning Commission (i.e. , specify that the original
grading and lotting pattern be observed) . Contrary to the Planning Commission
action, Staff continues to recommend the Alternate B Development Plan.
If the alternate grading and lotting plan is determined to be the plan
preferred by the City Council, then the following adjustments to the Draft
Resolution for the Tentative Map request (Exhibit B) must be made.
Condition #1 - Insert as third sentence: "Development of this site
shall be modified to substantially conform to Alternate "B" Development
Plan covering Lots #1 through #11, consisting of one sheet also prepared
by Bissell & Karn, Inc. , and dated received May 27, 1987."
Condition #72 - Modify the Condition regarding planting plans to change
the description of Area 1 to include the slopes between Betlen Drive and
the pad areas of Lots #4 through #7, to change the description of Area 2
to include the rearyard slopes behind Lots #7 through #10 and #13 and
#14, and to eliminate any reference to Area 4.
RESOLUTION NO. - 87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FOR THE SUBDIVISION MAP (TENTATIVE MAP 5777) REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 25 LOTS PROPOSED OVER AN
8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TERMINUS OF
BETLEN DRIVE, REQUESTED UNDER PA 87-051 PULTE HOMES CORPORATION
WHEREAS, Pulte Homes Corporation submitted a !request for Tentative
Map approval to subdivide an 8..4+ acre property into 25 - lots to accommodate
the proposed single family residential development; and
F
WHEREAS, the California Environmental.Quality, Act (CEQA) , as
amended, together with the State's administrativelguidelines for implemen-
tation of the California Environmental Quality Act And City Environmental_
regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental
impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and 1
P
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public'- Resources Code Section 210teen
et. seq. ,
a Mitigated 3egative Declaration of Environmental Significance has
prepared by lithe Dublin Planning Department with the project specific mitiga-
tion measures outlined in Staff's Initial Study of Environmental Significance
dated April �4, 1987, regarding:
1. General Plan Policies and Zoning/Visual Resources
2. Soils, Geology and Seismicity
3. Traffic Circulation
4. Noise
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission on May 4, 1987, adopted
Resolution No. 87-031 finding the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environ-
mental Significance for PA 87-051 adequate and complete; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission on May 4, 1987, adopted
Resolution No. 87-032 conditionally approving Tentative Map request PA 87-051;
and `
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's action of May 4, 1987,
approving Tentative Map request PA 87-051 was subsequently appealed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider said Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance in conjunction with the
appeal hearing for PA 87-051 at its meeting of June 8, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given as
legally required; and
WHEREAS the City Council concurred with the previous determina-
tion tion
by the Planning Commission that the project, PA 87-051 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 potential creation
of any significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study of
Environmental Significance;
ruHlos- IT.
'I
m ;.-- N4 ,pe-c .
En"ror),
��+.a•r..:r.Atcc;±w:c?t:!?�.tr..t,t'.,u„•:^;�!'9-"�4A'Sc?"�^ , •��•- �z °,waa'r`5r",9,` i'�' F.: 3'r, °�'4%"�I`�$ £f'4TCse'-°'���M?4•�r^ti!?:'�5':�a!r° .!"sti mar='r-Fx":�` w'�Rv��`a",��k"4x14�c x�,_, .,:<':.'"%:�I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council finds
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for
PA 87-051 has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and Local
Environmental Law and Guideline Regulations and that it is adequate and
complete.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
• t i
City Clerk
J
f r
i [ I
i
I t
i
i
I
i
A
i
I
I
I
t
RESOLUTION NO. 87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING ON APPEAL TENTATIVE MAP REQUEST PA 87-051 PULTE HOMES CORPORATION -
BETLEN DRIVE FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF 25 LOTS PROPOSED OVER AN 8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG THE
SOUTH SIDE OF THE TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE
WHEREAS, Pulte Homes Corporation requests approval of a Tentative
Map to allow the subdivision of 8.4+ acres of land lying in the southwest
corner of the City into a 25-lot subdivision for proposed development with
single family residential units; and
WHEREAS, the State of California SubdivisioniMap 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, alpd a Final Map is approved
consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin Subdivision
Regulations; and a
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Coipmission on May 4, 1987, adopted
Resolution No. - 87-032, conditionally a�proving Tefitative Map request
PA 87-051; and
HEREAS, the Planning Comm3CSsion's action of :;May 4, 198�
approving T�Xitative Map request PA 87-051 was subtequently appealed,- and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a p�blic hearing on the appeal
on June 8, i987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the June 8, 1987, Staff Report was submitted recommending
that the Tentative Map request be approved subject to Conditions prepared by
Staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports
and recommendations as herein above set forth; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
previously adopted for the subject Tentative Map request (City Council
Resolution No. -87) ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Tentative Map request
will not have a significant environmental impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby
find:
A. Tentative Map 5777 is consistent with the intent of applicable
Subdivision Regulations and City Zoning and related Ordinances.
B. Tentative Map 577.7 is consistent with the City's General Plan as it
applies to the subject property.
C. Tentative Map 5777 will not result in the creation of significant
environmental impacts.
D. Tentative Map 5777 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.
E. 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 it in a good
location regarding public services and facilities.
D�z�t� PQ-.5 o
V, 1pt$ ?
IN IN B I"IP
F. 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.
i
G. 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.
H. General site considerations, including unit layout, open space,
topography, orientation and the location of future buildings, vehicular
i access, circulation and parking, setbacks and similar elements have been
designated to provide a desirable environment for the development.
I. 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 tha type of
development and the operation of the uses to preve�t health problems
after development. }}
� i F
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves Tentative Map
5777 - PA 87-051 subject to the conditions listed below: :
i
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
3
Unless otherwise specified the following conditions shall be complild with
.� prior to the'-recordation of the Final Map. Each item is subject to review and
approval by !the Planning Department unless othewise specified.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This approval is for a single family residential development for 25 lots
over an 8.4+ acre property. Development shall be substantially consistent
with the Tentative Map labeled .Tentative Tract 5777, consisting of one
sheet prepared by Bissell & Karn, Inc. , Civil Engineers, and dated
received April 6, 1987, and the Preliminary Landscape & Development Plan
consisting of one sheet, also prepared by Bissell & Karn, Inc. , Civil
Engineers, and dated received April 29, 1987. Site Development Review for
the proposed residential structures, Final Grading Plan and slope
j landscape and irrigation treatment for this project shall be secured prior
to the recordation of the Final Map for this subdivision.
2. 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.
i�
3. 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.
4. Approval of this Tentative Map is for two and one-half years (until
November 13, 1989) as is specified in Section 8-2.9 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
5. Minimum dimensional criteria for the single family residential units
established in this project shall be as follows:
wa .
a. Front yards - 20-foot minimum
b. Side Yards - 8-foot minimum (with 5-foot flat and useable
i - 12-foot minimum street side sideyard with 7 - foot
' minimum flat and useable
Wherever feasible, flat and useable areas for sideyards
shall be established so as to provide a minimum 8-foot
flat and useable area, to provide adequate width to
accommodate vehicular access to the rear of the
individual lots.
c. Rear Yards - 20-foot minimum with 15-foot minimum to be flat and
useable.
} d. Pad Areas - 50' x 90' minimum, with the 50' width measured at the
front setback line and carried through to the rear of
the lot.
-2-
(,.,w_-.,,y..,-s.«,•e.�.�..,...«,•..,a�.c�»i.u....w,ns..vxva.•.n,.zn•... .:„-.. �:; . • wro,.ieF�:,_ "' P.. �::" .� � * "'' _.._ ._ •z.,,,
r..: t.:e-.-..•_. _..-`. :x__..`!ca,Y;'•h••r�_ -?'•.'w '+'InYF.Scc'��.4�3:�.. " � «9�." :F'i3�'. 'S�_..Fx. '•.`Y�h\tk'6:,!�F" f�%�$!rt"a"?r,'.naY.
e. Minimum Rearyard Flat and Useable Areas - 1,350 square foot minimum
(measured from the rear face(s) of the respective residential
structures to the. adjoining toe or top of slope) .
The Rearyard Flat and Useable Areas for Lots # 6 through #9 shall be
subject to review and approval through the Site Development Review process
cited in Condition #1 above. The Rearyard Flat and Useable Area and the
Sideyard Flat and Useable Areas for Lot #25 shall be subject to review and
approval through the Site Development Review process cited in Condition #1
above.
The building face of the second story of units. built in this project shall
generally observe an additional frontyard setback standard of five feet +
as measured from the building face of the garage. Two-story units shall
generally avoid use of shed-type roof designs, but rather shall generally
utilize roof designs which serve to mitigate possible visual impacts ,
resulting from the height of the units.
I ARCHEOLOGY !!
i J i
6. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered,
construction in the vicinity shall be halted,` an archaeologist consulted,
and the City Planning Department notified. It,. in the opinion of the
archaeologist, the remains are signific4nt, measures, as may be required
by the Planning Director, shall be 'takei� to protect them.
BONDS
7. Prior tof release by the City Council of the performarice and labor and
materials securities:
a. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improvement
Plans and Specifications.
b. All required landscaping along and/or within public streets shall be
installed and established.
C. An as-built landscaping plan for landscaping along and/or within
public streets prepared by a Landscape Architect, together with a
i declaration that the landscape installation is in conformance with the
approved plans.
d. The following shall have been submitted to the City Engineer:
1) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer,
including original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground
surface elevations, lot drainage, and locations of all surface and
subsurface drainage facilities.
`. 2) A complete record, including location and elevation of all field .
density tests, and a summary of all field and laboratory tests.
-i
3) A declaration by the project Geologist or Soils Engineer that all
work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in
the soil and geologic investigation reports and specifications,
and that continuous monitoring was performed by a representative
y of the Soils Engineer.
4) A declaration by the project Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor that
the finished graded building pads are within + 0.1 feet in
j elevation of those shown on the grading plan (or to any approved
modified grades) .
DEBRIS
8. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and
materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The Subdivider
shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City of
;3
Dublin.
-3-
� n...w.mt-.5•hbti.. R'4'ltlMM1. � •: .• . ^'•• �..t. M"1 '"R R}'1':�y t ••�.Z^', �°,j
� ,....,.........,-.......-.o..,... ,...;. ry eau>.. tip,.<v_c:-.•ar�.x -7,r..�uY�.i�'$ '5"�..''.a�3:dC�:eti4,�{;s'�'^�4�P`ae�.?:'�w�+°4-k�S t9�'..1�.., Je�bv4.'P;�.K.t?;`v$'l Ti+'!:!�f'�.:1 .,_,. .
9. The Subdivider 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.
DRAINAGE
�{ 10. Drainage facilities for this subdivision shall be provided as required by
the City Engineer and shall include the following:
a. Concrete drainage ditches shall be installed at the rear of Lots #17
ij through #19 with a storm drain installed to connect these ditches to
the proposed storm drain in the adjacent street. Discharge of this
t; condition may be granted by the City Engineer if an alternate design
solution is determined to be acceptable. -
b. All lot pads shall drain to their own street frontage.
i
11. Roof drains shall be tied into the storm drain system in a manner approved
by the City Engineer.
k
12. A minimum of 12" diameter pipe shall be used for all .public storm drains
to ease maintenance and reduce potential blockage.
13. Where storm overflows would flow through lots rather than follow the
' street, the storm drain system shall be,designed for 'a major storm to
avoid the flooding of lots.
J.
14. Side slope areas and rear slope areas shall be adjusted as detAmined'
ti necessarry by the City Engineer to accommodate the lodation of the proposed
storm drainage facilities and easement.
EASEMENTS f
15. 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
1 furnished to the City Engineer.
16. Existing and. proposed access and utility easements shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the grading and
improvement plan. These easements shall allow for practical vehicular and
utility service access for all lots.
17. Public utility easements shall be established for the electric
distribution system and to provide for lines for the Telephone Company.
ENERGY
18. 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. All buildings shall be designed to comply
with Title 24 Energy Regulations.
FIRE
19. Development shall be subject to the requirements of the DSRSD - Fire
Department as stated in part by the District's letters of March 24, 1986,
and August 26, 1986. The Subdivider is advised that DSRSD has determined
that the subject property is within the District's Third Zone Pressure
Area. As such, the development will have to develop in accordance to the
a Third Zone Pressure Conditions of tying to the Black Reservoir and
construction of a new pumping facility, or in an alternate manner
determined acceptable to the District.
B
20, 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 Subdivider 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. .
-4-
I _
21. All dwelling units within the project shall incorporate smoke detectors
within the structure and spark arrestors on fireplaces. Roofing
materials for the structures developed within this subdivision shall be
Class B or better, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (as pertains to
the fire retardancy of the roofing material) .
r
22. Fire hyrdants 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. Provision of raised blue
f reflectorized pavement markers shall be made in the center of the private
vehicle accessways at each fire hydrant.
a
23. Each building and residence unit shall include a lighted, clearly visible
address.
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS
*,
24. Improvements shall be made; by the Applicant, along ill streets within the
development and as required off-site, to include cur gutter, sidewalk,
paving, drainage, and work on the existing pa�ing, i necessary, from a
{ structural or grade continuity standpoint.
25. Betlen Drive shall be terminated with a' "knuckle" cul-de-sac of, a design,
location and side slope gradient determined acceptable to the City
Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map.: Access to the DSRSD water
' tanks shall be provided for by the design of the new'cul-de-sac:'!. The
Subdivider and/or the City shall initiate the necessary abando4ent
proceedings to provide for the City's consideration of abandoning they
westernmost 35+ to 85+ feet off the righterminus ay at the terminus of Betlen
Drive. 'The area, if abandoned, shall be incorporated into the 'subject
development (in part or in totalit�) to allow the project: grading plan for
the area above the planned cul-de-sac to be developed with rounded slopes
j yielding smoother transitions into natural surrounding grades.
i
GRADING
26. Any proposed off-site grading shall be subject to review and approval by
the City Engineer prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
1. 27. The manner of assuring on-going maintenance of the drainage ditch to be
constructed at the western property boundary shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map.
28. The six foot (minimum height) masonry architectural-soundwall called for
in Condition #43 shall be established at the rear of Lots #15 through #19,
and shall be sited in such a manner so as to aid the screening of the
proposed development as viewed from the adjoining I-580 traffic corridor.
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the Subdivider shall document
? that the necessary design changes have been made to minimize the
visibility of new development as viewed from the adjoining I-580 traffic
corridor. The Developer shall document through the project Site Develop-
ment Review process the project design changes (including the adjustment
to the lotting configuration of lots along the south portion of the
project, the use of project landscaping and/or the use of site grading)
proposed to be utilized to minimize the visual impact of the development
as viewed from the adjoining I-580 traffic corridor. Prior to the
' recordation of the Final Map, the Subdivider shall prepare and submit the
,1 necessary project sections verifying that this Condition will be met.
'^ 29. The Subdivider shall document that a diligent effort has been made to
secure the necessary approvals to perform off-site grading to provide a
smooth transition of slopes at the intersection of the rearyard slope of
Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Tract 4929 and proposed Lots 5 through 8 and 13 through
a 15 of the subject project.
>,a
^� 30. Where individual lots have a pad elevation below the adjoining sidewalk
and are separated from the sidewalk grade by slopes of a height greater
than four feet, the lot's grading plan shall be designed to observe a flat
and level area of a minimum depth of five feet extending away from the
back edge of the sidewalk.
ri
-5-
.� ..,.....,-.--.......wnwmraMaww..r w,.-arrr!rn:x.ec.-wnnT.v>..rt w.rrk.SdrnlXU+rOC:TV!�77R2":•;�1tCS*.58"4�!:+f^_'n.��cSC•c]!.•a�4*JAY`RR..,;:l.MU'F•"!3i!.:.r•.+a:Si.!!Y:fY7�i!'�2[a?Y SNR1:_Mir'..P^�.\Bl'fi3 :.7?°-rLrwq`^;t+?a+,vmt•.:c,".r•-. -.
31. 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 submitted for review and approval 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
w assure that no increase in sediment or pollutants from the site will
{ occur. The plan shall provide for long-term maintenance of all permanent
5 erosion and sediment control measures._ Toes of fills and tops of banks
shall be locates as required by the City Engineer.
32. All foundation design, grading operations and site construction work shall
be consistent with the recommendations of a site specific soils report
prepared for this project. Said report shall be submitted for review by
the City Engineer. This report shall address the potential presence of
springs on the site.
33. 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, la revised soil or geologic
report shall be submitted for review by the City Engineer. It shall be
I accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion 'as to the safety of
the site from hazards of land slippage, ierosion, settlement and.seismic
activity. r
34. Prior to commencement of construction of any structures, site grading
shall conform with the recommendations of the project Soils Engineer, to
the satilsfaction of the City Engineeer. A declaration by the Soils
s Engineer} that he has supervised grading and that such conformance has
occurred, shall be submitted.
1
35. Prior toifinal preparation of the s.ubgrade 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.
'I
a 36. Any grading on adjacent properties will require recorded written approval
'i of those property owners affected.
HANDICAPPED ACCESS
37. Handicapped ramps shall be provided as required by the State of California
Title 24 and/or as determined necessary by the City Engineer.
"! IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AGREEMENTS AND SECURITIES
38. 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.
39. Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans and specifications;t P p 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
;a
the City Engineer.
40. The Subdivider shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for
all public improvements. Complete improvement plans, specifications and
calculations shall be submitted to, and reviewed 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
i securities, in an amount equal to 100% of the approved estimates of
construction costs of improvements, and a labor and material security,
j equal to 50% of the construction costs, shall be submitted to, and
j approved by, the City and affected agencies having jurisdiction over
public improvements, prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement.
-6-
+y
'i
,v.+1n ^ ^a»•s, t'<' Y 1 ,,,., � �;..?_ �'t. !z"-i.�1.5..w..:<k�.ati..''.1.F.E�t"'T•� ...,.''l':S^ .,. .- \.:F3..:a'":"�'r'�z.�i!;+!.'np':.r t.\'S�"+,1::",*'...
++;,�`j'.T"AsT4't ��.'�w3. .j'fi..U`4>� �.*,.xSia?'•r^.:". �i;..n4T'r iY*'agx'�F.'R.'?.�;"" '..r`Sr 's.S. `.�"'�+9 `�.^y",..4.�,tfi�f> t ;a.r,*� ti+ �_ _..
NOISE
41. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Subdivider shall submit the
appropriate documentation through preparation and submittal of a site-
specific acoustical study to demonstrate that all proposed development
shall meet or exceed applicable State and Local noise attenuation
requirements.
42. Prospective purchasers or residents of the lots proposed on the southern
perimeter of the project shall be supplied with a written document, as
applicable, indicating that exterior sound levels of between 65-75 CNEL
may be present due to traffic noise generated from Interstate 580 and/or
that construction of the units were required to be of a nature to assure
that interior noise levels do not exceed the 45 CNEL with a window-closed
situation.
43. The Subdivider shall construct a 6-foot (minimum heiPub) masonry
architectural-soundwall along the southern perimeter -.of the property (500+
feet) and along the southerly section of the westerneperimeter of the
property (100+ feet) . The precise positionink of this wall shall be
determined following the preparation of a project acoustical study and
shall be located in a manner to maximize the wall's sound attenuation
capabilities.
I r .-
44. Sound-rated windows (Sound Transmission,Class:to be determined by the
acoustical study required in Condition #41) shall bey provided for all
dwelling units where the sound-architectural wall isdetermined`�inadeguate
to provide noise attenuation to assure interior noise levels donot exceed
the 45 C�EL level with a windows-closed situation.
PARK DEDICATION
45. Park land dedication fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits or prior to recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first.
i 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 0.275 acres
(0.011 acres/dwelling unit X 25 lots) . Final calculations shall be made
by the City Engineer at the approval of the Final Map.
STREETS
46. 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 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
Subdivider shall have soil tests performed to determine the final design
of the road bed and parking areas.
47. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City Engineer for any
j work done within the public right-of-way of Betlen Drive where this work
i
is not covered under the improvement plans.
i
l UTILITIES
3
48. 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
j utility easements, sized to meet utility company standards, or in public
s
streets.
49. Prior to filing of the grading and improvement plans, the Subdivider shall
lfurnish the City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services
d District (DSRSD) stating that the District has agreed to furnish water and
sewer service to the development.
9
e
-7-
a
z
Y
J
c`:ye.as �.,r;a:*st:nrr77tt� � +ate?PRr F ?�?,7rr x'3T'T' a. k,. nG2�s rear+l•k"ziv ?'r=,az n—, -m-. t Z S a m- t?4?.'Tr--.—^°!S°4ter
50. Secure DSRSD agreement to maintain the on-site sanitary sewer collection
system excluding individual laterals. The system shall be designed as
acceptable to DSRSD.
51. All utilities to and within the project shall be undergrounded.
52. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base
y 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
II pavement, curb, and gutter when future service connections or extensions
are made.
i
WATER
53. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system, and must be
i installed at the expense of the Subdivider in accordance with Districi
standards and specifications. All material and workr6anship for water
mains, and appurtenances thereto, must conform with ill of the
requirements of the officially adopted Water bode offthe Distict, and will
be subject to field inspection by the District.,
54. Comply with DSRSD, Public Works requiretnents,iparticularly regarding:
a. The elevation of the storm drain relative, ro the ,sewer lineb.
� H
b. The location of the sewer man-holes. They shall ;be in park. ng or,
street areas accessible by District equipment.
jC. Dedication of sewer lines.
d. Location and design of the water system values.
:I
55. The project shall incorporate all reasonable water conservation measures
(including water conservation a pp liances) . The
project Architect or Civil
Engineer shall provide a letter to the Planning Director or Building
Inspector stating that water conservant toilets, shower heads and
automatic dishwashers with low flow cycles will be installed in the units
in this project.
MISCELLANEOUS
56. The Subdivider shall contribute $250.00 per dwelling unit towards future
traffic improvements along Dublin Boulevard, west of San Ramon Road to
mitigate traffic impacts for this project.
a
57. Copies of the project plans, indicating all lots, streets and drainage
`j facilities, shall also be submitted at 1" = 400-ft. scale, and
1" — 200-ft. scale for City mapping purposes.
58. Maintenance of common areas including slope area tree landscaping, graded
slopes, erosion control plantings and drainage, erosion and sediment
control improvements, shall be the responsibility of the Subdivider during
construction stages, and until final improvements are accepted by the City
and the performance guarantee required is released.
59. There shall be compliance with DSRSD Fire Department requirements, Flood
Control District requirements, and Public Works requirements. Written
.y statements from each agency approving the plans over which it has
jurisdiction shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
issuance of building permits on lots of the subdivision or the
>p installation of any improvements related to this project.
60. Unit address information and directories shall be rovided t
p o the
satisfaction of the DSRSD - Fire Department, Postal Services, and-Dublin
Planning Department.
j 61. The Subdivider shall be responsible for the installation of street light
standards and luminaries with the design, spacing and locations subject to
approval by the City Engineer.
-8-
t
x
.�.,-.,.y, ,�..s....�.a x..r-- ... .:.4.. ,,R.:;..�..•c:r••, ...,.�.r F, ::':"tv^a;...,:.:•vY,Jx7.,;?.7aP�l�'."s'. 1�..•.�`.,is4xFa'x?;�%$'eFt".e.SCE`iY:1T',:•a'a'''3•S$'+`J ..aF.' f_" .Y'w A, R7,5Z
62. 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.
63. A minimum of two street trees per lot, of at least a 15-gallon size, shall
be planted along the project's street frontages. Trees shall be planted
in accordance with a planting plan, including tree varieties and
locations, approved by the Planning Director, and shall be planted on the
individual lots in this subdivision prior to the final inspection of
residences on the respective lots in this project. Trees planted adjacent
to sidewalks or curbs shall be provided with root shields.
64. 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, -Af
necessary, copies of deeds for adjoining properties dnd easements thereto,
shall be submitted at the -time of submission of the grading and
improvement plans to the City Engineer.
] i
65. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be accomplished
at no expense to the City.
66. The Subdivider shall confer with local postal authorities to determine the
type of mail receptacles that are to be utilized for this project and
provide a letter stating their satisfaction prior to `the issuance of
building permits. l
i
67. Information detailing the design, location and materials of all fencing,
and of retaining walls over two feet in height,: shall be subject to review
and approval by the Planning Directior prior to the approval of the Final
Map. The proposed design of perimeter fencing ,(with 'the exception of
fencing along the south side of the project which shall be a six-foot
[minimum height] masonry architectural-soundwall) shall be modified from
the proposed "good-neighbor” fence design submitted in conjunction with PA
86-010 to a design which will provide a low maintenance fence with a more
substantial appearance and design. No project fencing shall be developed
at the toe of slope along Betlen Drive unless developed as a low see-
; through fence (such as a four-foot + vinyl-clad cyclone fence) which is
approved as far as height, location, and materials, through the Site
Development Review process. Project fencing developed at the rear of pads
established for Lots #1 through #5 shall be located at the top of slope
located above Betlen Drive, or as otherwise approved through the Site
i Development Review-permit process. The Subdivider shall be responsible
for the installation of the rear and sideyard fences throughout the
subdivision.
68. Slopes for areas adjoining both public and private roadways shall be
designed to maximize the level areas available for landscape treatment and
for general safety consideration and shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Director prior to the approval of the Final Map.
69. Signs established at the entrance to the project for identification
purposes, if proposed, shall be subject to review and approval by way of a
3 separate Site Development Review application to determine sign location,
copy construction materials and design.
70. The project shall be constructed as approved. Minor modifications in the
.t design, but not the use, may be approved by Staff. Changes to the
proposed finished floor elevations and site grading for the proposed
single family residential lots along Betlen Court shall not exceed a
maximum deviation of five feet from the pad elevations indicated on the
Tentative Map.
71. All physical improvements shall be in place prior to occupancy of any unit
in the project. If occupancy within the project is requested to occur in
phases, all physical improvements shall be required to be in place prior
to occupancy except for items specifically excluded in a Construction-
Phased Occupancy Plan approved by the Planning Department. No .individual
unit shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe,
accessible, provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities,
and completely separated from remaining,additional construction activity.
-9-
F
k.r� tK
35
�'C79l Ml"5'rS�2A1[•7Ml'7+�.rnk�:4ATd9.�"'i.t�'ku'f2�A'Fl{a".Qi"!:{F`W�;iQ.��,U1�?R4�t�'.�s �x' .2`R��si .. . .. ... -. a � ,l�x• .i' 4 .a�45�i� 'i.:
s
i
t
Any approved Construction-Phased Occupancy Plan shall have sufficient cash
deposits or other assurances to guarantee that the project and all
associated improvements shall be installed in a timely and satisfactory
manner. At the request of the Planning Director, written acknowledgements
of continuing construction activity shall be secured from the property
owners and any and all occupants for the portions of the project to be
occupied, and shall be filed with the Planning Department. Said
acknowledgements for a subdivision shall be part of the settlement
documents between the Subdivider and buyer.
72. Detailed planting plans shall be developed and submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Director for the four open space slope areas
identified as follows: Area 1 - slopes between Betlen Drive and the pad
areas of Lots #1 through #5; Area 2 - rearyard slopes behind Lots #6
through #8 and #13 and #14; Area 3 - slopes between the I-580 right-of-way
and the pad areas of Lots #15 - #19; Area 4 - slopes at the rear (east)
le side of Lots #9 through #13. Trees utilized in all Four areas shall be
fifteen gallon size (minimum) .
5
73. Physical improvements that must be in place p�ior toftfinal inspection and
'a occupancy of any units shall include, but not; be limited to the following
items: '
I
,.� a. Storm drainage facilities shall have been installed as approved by the
.� City Engineer.
` r P
b. Fire protection devices shall have been installed, be opera le, and
°j conform to the specifications of and inspectionsby the Dublin San
Ramon Services District Fire Department.
,
C. Cable TV hook-up shall be provided to each unit. :
d. Street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the Planning
Director, shall have been installed.
74. Ongoing maintenance of landscaping and irrigation installed in Areas 1 and
3 (as defined above in Condition #72) shall be provided for through the
establishment of a lighting and landscaping special assessment district or
a project homeowner's association. If a homeowner's association is
created for this purpose, the City of Dublin shall be named as an "active
third-party" participant in the project's C. C. & R. documents as pertains
to the mechanics established to assure for the ongoing maintenance of
project landscaping and irrigation in the subdivision. The Subdivider is
advised that the formation of a private homeowner's association to provide
for ongoing maintenance is the approach preferred by the City as the
alternate approach, a lighting and landscape special assessment district,
is not seen as a viable approach due to the small size of the project.
'a
75. If a homeowner's association is formed to cover the ongoing maintenance of
'i Landscape Area #1 (as defined above in Condition #72) , then Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (C. C. & R. 's) shall be established for the
,a development. The C. C. & R. 's shall be approved by the Planning Director
and City Attorney prior to the recordation of the Final Map to assure
that:
a. There is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good repair, of
all commonly owned or maintained property and landscaping, including
` but not limited to common open space, landscape and irrigation
'.1 facilities, fencing, 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
Y} 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 bills and maintenance and repair of storm drain
lines shall be the obligation of the Homeowner's Association unless
paid for through a lighting and landscape special assessment district.
-10-
Y� _.._.,_„.,.,,-,•m .rn_.«'.^�x,�n,w:r,yultil.X •,:!r;?e^"CTy.,.:.-it`-,...�;,�rtgx�" iBM?a`::�?,'�'r�;$ fit??,7.'i�l�•,&a �1 '"�:r �i ""•,•„".°. .,"'s'�`,�r.�i",r,`s S``�t";;:?f e.w.'`'';"J�``�"�'�r�=•,,v..;� ,: .. .
e. Each buyer is to sign an acknowledgement that he has read the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Homeowner's Association and the
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions applying to the development.
f. The Homeowner's Association shall contract with, or be advised (as to
how to handle maintenance operations) by, a professional management
j firm.
76. 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.
77. Unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer through the project Site
Development Review, the narrowed curb-to-curb widths, proposed at the
entrance to the northerly cul-de-sac, shall be 'replaced with a standard
full-width street section, and the proposed use of special entry pavement
at the entrance to the subdivision shall not be utilized. -
; 78. Each driveway shall utilize a driveway with a. maximtg average slope which
is less than or equal to 14% slope. 3
i
5 79. Should occupancy of the units in 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.
a - e
b. A road system of a design determined acceptable to the City Engineer
and 'he Planning Department shall be installed.
80. Construction and grading operations- and delivery of construction materials
shall bey 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.
i PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 1987.
AYES:
:i
:j
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
�3
City Clerk
v
'n
i
S
Tay
r
:9
Fa
a
I:9..1'....:.x!°�,ANS�'€5�,. w"a"'�fF��7TM;.,:n.u.,as±,{�-.��ia,� RAM r,. .t�';w'°i., ��� � fir�v r��r , ,��„� s r,R'""�•, '�.?�.r'" r•., ,r y r� �r:r^ae ���^r 2 � Y1 rc '?,�; .. ,
#' "!'i `� .,_ .. . P 1 ..1., _.t u...P�h.'!l..f `:'�bsft="h x.i.�..4.,.�.hb` ..�1�J.t.# iN.5.�,,. 1.�.. •• L. f_ Sl.t"".M:;,�
TENTATIVE "TRACT:•'..577V «;`,:� .
CITY OF DUBLIN
...7RE.CEIVED..
ALAMEDA. .COUNTY; CALIFORNIA APR
Fit
INCLINED '`?LAC OU9UNp{ANNNO .. E
E BISSELL &:KARN, INC T
C I. V I L E N G I N-E E R S
4637 C H BOT- DRIVE: SUITE 204 r ',
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA i�94566
/� I ✓r __ '. �\ . - r / f I I .,JOB NO'04071 i
'( 151 46J•0660 _
5 \. . - -�� rr AC r r -
.' '
t �`,r,x' PAD Aca
Q Spa ` _rf• ./ ll•.��
/f LOT,4 .
PAOrfoe L T 6 , -1 /Kf'
s PA0•f�r�,rs� OT 7�; --. — �' •- - ,�'
/ , r LOT:..
LOT 8 / L .14
! ; r LOTS `. �''' \AD,f,G f'. �' =f'
PAD•6/D \ ,- �. ,.x_73 ��` ,.
Sv I 20'Join Age nd / _•'II V
-
_.�...- of. 06 LOT 1
a
..ti
/ -
t- ' _ _ — I. LOT 12, �,. /..
m I I 1, / . :w �`` I 1 L�T'10 �OT/>1 PAO eta 5`'� LOT 17`\` 7 ' ! /
�5 `L-dT 1 .` LOT
PAD• f 1 P.1D �ft7' �eS / //, S�
PAD-crL � � -AD 9/1
I ��
CQ6
0j
N
L�T 18
bT 25 1 ' \ 1 LOT 20 '' LOT'.19 '
- , ti L,T 21 ) /
`rte 1 I-z 4 yPf�•Lr/\ I OT' 24 LOT 23 I ',SLOT 22
I _L'.V - - --- , -�1AD•f2L I ° I Fi1D•f?G�1. �� � �'.
--_ I , I / I \ •cam -- � - �.
�'�-1r �_ _� � �_ _ \ -Y` O/TCN/ �_ _ � I _ _!' I I 1 I _.1� 1 J•i 7 .
—.r
r", ' +} ,i d 1 t i.l. , �: } 5 5, 4z 3:Vi•*CE b- =4d vCff-.: .
i. i.6'i�ri•s;c t �/ 'r}u.- } �� _�..� . r?y :rr!'. <++.,-„,F^s•.p;
r� +, a fi .t•....}}. .k 4 C'j.. '>• >:1•. r rr.:.r art'l' �..s- 3�;
z
.J }' �.S f_.✓ f ``,, ,t".+"'T. .ji _ S-_j ^a Y%,5�.v,.-�...� u.-
?.:z .2�• :1�� i �,:1 .,1 'Y a� it¢� .'j,.+ .<.. _-� '{ L'-13�: � 8�- •rj, �••r:.i......
.:°�•;. N rf s•i '• .t.• .ft ..sr.4l' !a /.n'� 's-e.$. s i
-•1's: �' r• .r.� t .�?:, :ti�` tea 7 .,
- _.}. ,..4 aY';;? :tT�:i.:-•Z'.:.L._r _ ..�R'1.. r r7w 3._.(. A'1. •„}. - s.',> _.J-1`rr.s•.
.,� i{r 22 .�. _ 3 .x.. °”{.a .S t'rt, a-.t .s•.�.c �•4..r.n ,�.}•. rY`•..d.�.vv?y
-ia. 1 1 r 1 :� +:tin !._ .!.` } ......•T•. �. �N s ir, .4r{ 3Y.. �•1:.. -�y k
'Y'n +� .1•.. s ..T '+x .r d' .-�,.. 7 ter' •'S `,u`.,< 't.{.'a:'-.•44
.s:-. -r r $..t a %r-'•.r. d-. t?. ';v ,s :.9 t�
r. :rt. $ r't:• :R. ..1`' S`S. b7 vt {y - ..f .f•1I -•y �":.
t1 IJ.-:. ?Y C� r1r 4'- t_�•r/�,.M.'i. � •5,,, {,• S>-.its "'/i_..�5 - J "�J \?. +,5 i�"„
.r; ,�' '. .a:::t.•' ;:3 �. ^••-�;" _i`z. a.)=°. '�ii-•'ci't. bf c. sN n� �.��' � .� .r
fy== ;•.+`t^ .: u,a,;...'f' rr ":;c, "� ,.o-n�'k,4+k,.?3�'. J-^'. ;mac•• ..rr t,:.t;. 4->;,u;3.�:;�;/� .,.�•P.��'g���,� 1•,,. 4/ ,.x-�••,; }��...,o i1,.'��..�,11^a
�+b`► .WSEehsi' += -FKA �ras�3ns r ��''.} ''Cd'�51'...t,: is ey -5(26di�A?0lii'i'`i d.L.rS`h. Ce/z1 'Kl�-�car.:`�4F�x`'`+ L,+,�1, .: r +1?'ciS: i.d�5 .w�c; .�•` i��'&�te' s+u :�i �. ba�+ '<'r'-..
YZ
W VII k,
A
_x
j
P
MM
-4N ?.Iry
WT
PR
qu
4F
46 W
n
.96,
1
15 5
m
V,�
aN
Z
0 E_ pu.e-
Zc4
,off CONC
ONC, Slbf�WALK
�LOW 510 )
C/U 1)D GUTT ER
ge,
ASPHALT(T:YF
GONCRET
r
g tall,
"R M
gm
CLVCRETP-
gg
ASPHALT
A66RMATC .15ASE
AG
GRATE DAbe
-`--
L"'STREET a;
MINOR : RESIDENTIAL''
ME
STR E ET;�,
CUL DE
SAC
0:
-r -CA LF
NOT 6
N
xglv
0
R
GENERAL NOTES
OWIIER:= PULTE HOME CORPORATION.
'.� NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION
4655 IRONSIDES DRIVE, SUITE 320
-'SANTA CLARA. CA 95054
SUBDIVIDER; PULTE HOME CORPORATION
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION
4655 IROHSIDES DRIVE, SUITE 320
SANTA CLARA, CA 95054
ENGINEER: BISSELL y KARN INC
4637 C14AI50T DRIVE ,SUITE 200
PLEASANTON, CA. 94566
EXISTING ZONE: 10,000 S.F. MIN. (GENERAL PLAN IDESIG
54 UNITS ALLOWABLE)
PROPOSED NO. OF LOTS: 25
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 10,000
t
MAXIMUM LOT SIZE: 24,000 5F
AVERAGE LOT SIZE: 12,370- SF
I COUNTOUR INTERVAL: EXISTING 5 FEET I
t
I PROPOSED 5 FEET
TOTAL AREA: 8.42 ACRES
EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY: VACANT
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
GAS AND ELECTRIC: PG&E
WATER a FIRE: DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT.
SEWER: DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT '
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 941-115-14
BASIS OF BEARINGS: TRACT 2534, PLEASANTON TOWNSHIP'IN -BOOK4S
MAPS 6-9. THIS BEARING N '82'.30'38', N
BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS
STREET LIGHT5 : PER P.G.c E. STANDARDS AND'CITY bF `
DUDLIN REOUIREMENT5.:
EXISTING CONTOUR LINE 9 ELEVATION
PROPOSED FINISHED CONTOUR & ELEVATION
j
------*—SD PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE, MH a INLET
P.vo•6s� PROPOSED PAD ELEVATION
_T CONCRETE V-DITCH OR DRAINAGE DIRECTION
---— SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY .
•PROPERTY LINE
---S.D.E.---- STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
SS PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE
W PROPOSED WATER LINE
7.
.. :1.._ •.t` a t;awa'+. n n.s:.e. .:y...y I.f /" �.:. •r '� — r "i _
�� O •\ � ,�,. � J �, Yom,«.
4 •`'` \ �'� r - - ( ` ,. .,, ~�. t t t+"I +'''*'� ..fin J ..
\ '.. 1 \ \ �' .. J ";F't m,V. .,1 iyl ! M1•+'\ .t�, „".' 1 f a•j4 �wi+ -.
.\ \ ' 1.1 �.1 + ,. '.:, � r. Ir••' ,� A 7 1r «%'a t Yr Y>•` r �•„IF'^'+ t ,.
!�`.. .e. lt�'`"�N�tt4"'v��+l�.. �, '�\'',Qtt��`is;tJ�.i �NA,,wL.,Fla vn�sr.•+lu,�n{ t+ +'�i4S. }9t••r.�^1^�i�ry. t. y -1.�t�r i � ,•a" � �A'�••, .1y� ! �r�aA h .,t y�';t fit'
y. 4 �,� r-.•^ ti.a, ¢ .p . '�.^ d• °i� >. 4 `F+mot'w`'�" ,r r ! .,, 4
R.n.�;r,,i.r.t.
TO, '22.%R.
COMMON LANDSCAPED OF
Planting Legend
r- —Minimum side yard a'
SHRUB CLUSTER I LOTi I Typical side yard 10•
OCL tfi
(TRENT PLANTING
sue.
—Minimum fist pod 50'x7o'
-REET TREE EVERGREEN TREE CLUSTER
25;
as
LANDSCAPING EASEMENTS SLOPE PLANtMQ
ON EACH LOT
Minimum front yard setback 20'
MAINTENANCE BY HOMEOWNERI
*9-,9 ASSOCIATION).
SAS
W,-, A % 10.000sf minimum lot size• TR-
-17pitial
hu
Aft -r♦ -ATr ;5-
1• ENTRY PLARTIAla
0
is
14 3
17-71 rrawWU taw
'13
311
*AP-
IR
Planting & Irrigation Notes
Y { '— "=�= _ �• 'yam ._ �' \�. :q J
r wu a.nn or rac"to DOM AL%rat• Nomlxe Aft"Am wa"at
10
RN
13'
7
t
PULJLIC* Development Plan Acres
ROAD
oil-
Residential area 7.1
Fenced area (25 lots) 0.1
Common open specs 1.0
3 so a t. Public streets 1.3 is
Total site •.4 100
P.
3.0 units /gross acre
1 3 5 units/net acre (excluding roads
n
tj
ENTRY WALLS, SIGNAGE LANDSCAPE BUFFER &777' .
PRELIMINARY
& STAMPED CONCRETE PAVING -SEB TYPICAL SECTION
w,
fk 14' 0_ , - - rt
Pulls Home Corporation
i
,S c=)i,
,./y��_:f, •n l s_a 1`)1'�-- �_,I :r_:oo;:r•.-;1..t•1.y..�••.�::.i,.fJ,���;{F�;:�✓'-•fr.'-'11•i l.s t•sQ..•.t.J•777.f�f,J•o'a...-t.
-A,�t y t,l,.0 7t„•,t:;f• • . a a�•.1•.I h'r•:`4:••;�'J t�St•�J•t�j:l::� .. _, _ -
.`'�.'fy'µ:':h�f'lr.�,..(.��q�..���...�11 1 ..�.gIott'r�t''./f',r CA,1[.a$ rt—.,
z;r
Bissell & Kern, Inc.
.1.$4566 131 4 -44
4637 Ch.b.1 Do. Ple—M..,cant.,"Ve 4
M51
5-
.. ., �s:::l L.:4i''L f:i1'•v r �rr•t.'M'^.IS+.-r.-. .' ._ _ _ _—".' ��li..-r��.r{s.�+ -►1�.�.wt`•L•-r•+•^•' ;�i f' :4. "•!7.Imo(•
' � r�_a.•s:•'tL t, ls.r..cfr._'..A_-+.- .. ..... ..� '•r:.... ;........•t ' .S�I.fIYVL":IY.M.11•fav:[Li 4•rW.�FTrIIYiJ•liiurWr.• .. .-
•.H vF+C Yuq _ a
y�t•irs _ "Lr rlR •r//� j�� Y%/,.. .:,:. ►.�. r!�% i, tr:!t•r' tiny �x•� - ,'• ¢'A •G G3-i 'yp' .ii •yr �'
b�/• .� L,•/�•' t�// :r•Y :•�t!''�� �. :. j5'� '1 ;c ...�iL�•';�Y"Y" 7�% rN+✓;^wa 3�• '.t:• d y`' L �•''�,,. `i� i
-rr r� •! la ,,`{/.,yy� �� .t:�S•::•}.'•f _ •,v _ .�ri•,L+_ ' iG.. •c�6. vl a. f• F •fF� .,l /'' 7�► t_
c yti. .t� s�•c�;:r31r.�� r �{.w N;•N ••v.t,l•aZ'' "ii++..i'..�i (�.rr ' +r �r "J:'�! A^ ....•r �• -1 ;3'. • r• al s.
..- � 1 - :t.. '11Lt., r}• rL,� � v /�a rt- „t ,J �'1` Vv."Art.. ��./•01- '� 1Y•y. r�r f��.v7�'J 3.7:'' 1 .3�, 1 �,}�yr -+"t1•:•_,�. � ..'� 1 �sa �,'y•;�` -
,S _v _Jt,.r,. '� r"- .--�'.-_�. .�.� � ',rt"'• ,,+c°w•C i.+ �,.,Y i.<w,a 1�• l.nt(.3 ,.. �,� �� .r wr,..'�`+•r..i�..: •('�...: '�.r: �"T•'t'.ra:.S: .n.... i�:t. .she
��^_".. r� t �-R:rr�^'ti•,•tr'j���°.y?' "�z?L^��'t.!'.S`�.�=Yw..1'1��1+��,�.1N►J/r L�L'r>.t�I:+r1K�i1:.�+. .{1I S1/l.l4r'r.,4 JWIrJa7z.•t71N,�•iMK��.t...�WA�,Ly,t L..r,V. YWJ;t TLlri.+A4•`at•�.V+,/J?�w1s���L+���-��•.��`
-•!'"��((.��/I��,�' ! f IV �i�M. i.�.•:�_ � K?+�,��_ • •�• •ti.•..' '�`• r—•4�."•�•vr • �••'+�..• . e• "•L♦ �._ — ,'-. 1L.
��tr:'y +if.�r..yr"�. ±vr,.r-•r:::c'•i(t'.!M - -.'4+-�;s.` �`:+-:°•`"+.:_�4 •1�, �a;'•N� .. )•..� � •. .. .. �•`'' , •'J�
•L. w. •YTr -
Y t
"•!Ja •1 •
rT
r7 1
•1
7 1
_ s
X4 Ji.IF .�,... - -t' rya
.r
.•J.
�'a` :lJ- � :.Y�v���r •Yy:c-�i.i .,. .•�.'.i7.•..,•` ,'�I�,•s/ '� •K�J' ��. • - �. 4
•L.a,.+i-..'c `�.• ^- 's' . . _ I.� L . t
rT
• ,,,; T,., .*t .r. . v..tv
',sl��. t j': N �IF-„ .^'�._ .�• 'is•ti``"-:( � 'ti•::•r-....�:• "�r':.q ..�- 1 ��.
,(j!„/,-r •✓'. �' -+`°i"r �.i'Y'-•�'.•�}•tiJ'G;! �'..� �'' •}:ar''.r`":ft`•�i=•,`,,,�Q, i Y^., I• .• ...-�♦ r .. .. - . . - �t
:•'rr•!-''' ';y';.- _ �-�� -y.i ��s �,j?Sl,•. .•}+''f�'TtrJt 't°'�'ti� yS�'rt-y.- :-�:1!ai�..�J;,.L.a....� ...._ ,.. .r. .. I .. -•v
..t is/rS dat _ L�.�M-?;t�.Yi.�'.)•411•...y �'�+.t:�t�L�� .<•.•L.T�.,�v.wf•'l,•,�.�. ,t r t L�� .. .. - - !;'
7�"\'.�.,. ��? je• `5a+�•':1°.i.r.'l,•. �l• -f,�t=i •.if ���j's`"',,,'7::t:�ti.t�r•,�,'.;`'j� .�r.,- ,•t' '.`�!a?, - '' -a• .. .:-.,..,-°.'
<rr. t '.7;,j=_ �� a L�,.•t't"4LSd y.� tsi •t.:Sirs... �.: G rL�ry...�i7�'L .r ���:.
{ H
x�
u",�f..i `�` �. ������r�fL'�" �+��`''r'tF....�.:,'�+-4��'+ rit•-�l <•,;t�F•.►t.,1*`'rn`^'°"ti4•'••+.r•..�: ... ti• 'f��v .. ;
gg
fu
ZZ
-•:-"i I 1 ? �^Sz.,�!a..�^ .-`.tlaC^!�^':Iz-�Yn..:.. �r�t.,vi,1, .. T.•:..�1K L�: •�ha. ,r •'' �
'!b'Y.: �r�.; .L ,� anti,. �?;�•-�„Vr4.ti„ Frf; trJ.ee,,�:`.•+.S .ti.. ~�•`r- .`1'L.,). .'rt ��I„ - -
L:•f •y/� •�Y. •,- �'�:•• �.(: •K'„+ov,L .r"��� ta(.�jr��..,,-'.:.�?' ..r•�►J'r.• .� r••` , - '��•.` .;�!+.'�� �,:y4. -
t► tf:'t ., .{s •: Vi'v�. t'- t.• u,w.` �t `.' .J•`.rt +.• r L_ `i` .' ti...• 1\.
.s•- 'tq- r':'. ':z' :L..-••`.•�,. r �'a _ ``,fr���:t lt:.,. .'•-`1 �. •�j.��.- .. i
•1:� ,. :•• _ '? .�;�,: ��•: :•,• J;• <?i•�i •t •':1• ',�•-'•atr. .iraL•.;• '1' '' 1 � - v 1, � a ,..ti ==
/Lr
3r .i
•a.
I
�L•' .J
:..'4•L. .. .ter •''�..« .. •�.� .. .
r - tL.�,, L•
rr s
p f':
> wwyy
r�1�� x s � •��` .. t ( � 1 •a... •.�`;:;�'• ,�:l.�t ��+L`'yL•4".^ .. I _ �t' r _ :_
.,J t
• �Y
' 1
:,:;y�*•,�., :, � •t'•..,,.`'-• - -'s,.:: '�:•• �'�•... . � ..,,stir ... . .. _
A.
't'l�'�'.•''.:1'i rf ,� •„ '.'••'r fLi•��t''�'�.`"'�j� °.!n.r..:_:...:':.. p o�• o
J {, •.I:t .. .. __..,,�•,z�-� Pulte Home Corporation .. .
rs�, rJ Y,� IaSa Ironeldes Orly*, Suits 320 3sMs'Clits. CA 15034
t
Clvll Enalnasra,p.hi ta, , FT
Bissell & Karn, Inc.;• Lsndssaps AtoNUets C
O c� / (^���])J{rat--t''} \-\\�\\►/ /�/� °--� `1 IaS7 Ch.bel'Dt. Pl..nnton c.nrernl. a(aaa ills)saS-oaae-L
a• �• ����� LJL
oa►u April Iasi t
ri•.•, 'v I Jobi.5704071
/�• a
// / - •.
_
i
/
I I
I 1 lr•
_ 1
I - S RECEIYEU
wkkm 0777
u LfAr"i i.,7
, 1
j I j
oUM LW
Pulte Home Corporation
isss Iroml6u Drlw,sWl•770 Sonia Qua,CA 05054
CN6 En91n..ro,
La Plann.r0,., 7
Bissell&Karn,Inc. B
Land Ara,. ,
. .677 Cho Dnl Dr. Ple..o nt.n C.111ernl.0.566 1.151,63-0560 ;
Dolo:Msy 1087
Alternate 'B' Development Plan °b.67 �0ZJBD }
r i u
� 3
I
1
i .Div 1
r j�l + . ° , yr'ei a' ;• f 1�_.�.1 r. o- I7..�. � �r3}G�i�1� �,�AY�s1 .
i17.
c 1 y�.,r � s'�..,k ,s. ;f" °.,, t;k,r>'�f tit :.+<..`YC i. ��`-7-'-.„�.�;..., a ,�.•.�.
t;` # .1 7r .�• , 1'a...1 •'r'. �%.. 5.. 1 :� s!.s+ ,�S a t-�.$� � y p.1. .1 �,1�'SF�.! .;a�._..
ao s rl 4 Y r:11 1 :05 � .t,, .. S xc -rst .}.Y r'M3 .�r:•-jv.2 ! 1 1 lie. �>
.sc ', ''<cr .twh`;.
•it .. �: .'!'•. i-� t �.; s r ft•�.; -t. nt• :°r7F 1 .^�•"-t ..+Y;t">i/$ -.
'�� is �.. ? ...�. '�,k-t�•- -�"�. ;�`_t�.." ' x �: ref
-
.i •G. i Y ,.7.. )..7 li.. ° r 'I,.�A - <ne. 1 F..,-aT .;..1
. L,.• .�1^'. viils+J l,tn... v..°4..J.tiN-.•.. '' ._.,•!-^,�"q.. L.I ] O.d::lq- .r,.a.,.'in .:w. .,:1 ..Ir: ,$ 1. ,....MJ �=TA�3:wP.'-,,-a�'}.•Gr,',•,}�i„L.t'.< .�,i;:e+�:i..q;..,.�- r.... .f�''.,'.: �p„•,�-:Y f�.;wi�i.;t»'.C '•'+,''"+j.'.`{I`�f••::t�: ...
® KBISSELL
ARN INC.
4837 Chabot Dr.,Suite 204
Pleasanton,CA 94566
Of (415)463-0660
•: I
1 April 3, 1987
Subdivision 5777
Pulte Home Corp.
i
f WRITTEN STATEM�,NI
The propspd project is a request to subdivide an existing 8.42 ne acre'
vacant parcel -into twenty-five (25) tingle family lots
The project site is located at the ehd of Betlen.Drive
The division of the 8.42 acres into 25 single family lots (averaging
12,370 square feet) is consitent with the present zoning which
requires 10,000 square foot minimum lot size and with the General Plan
allowance of up to 54 lots.
The improvement of the vacant parcel is compatible with the adjoining residential
area in terms of lot size, price range, dwelling unit design and provision of
attractive entry landscaping. Views of the site and from the proposed lots
are enhanced by the proposed project.
za:
r
Attachment 1
ATIAGHmEN
.N
1i
,j
y'N
�4
.y
I�t�rTCKM SrATCM CAT
� •. , - � + tk ♦i i f C-Sv+�tyvlr., � �•� ,f tti T i•'\�`k+�r ryy,. aF... w
`1.
1
RECEIVED
APR -G '11187
f: CITY OF DUBLIN DUBLIN PLANNING - PA No
E I.'TAL ASSESSM =IVT 1=0;;- ,Vl I3rMFz-IM
is (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section•21000_et sec-)
The State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines
require the City to take an active role in preparing environ-
omprehensive Environmental Assessment
mental documents. This c
Form is designed to assist the City in preparing a complete and
accurate environmental assessment in a timely manner and in
conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The form has three
sections : General Data, Exemption, and Initial Study. The
{ applicant is recuested to complete Section 1, General Data- The
Planning Staff will prepare either Sect=cn 2, Exzmption, or
Section 3 , Initial Study. Please type e='lprint �egi.hly in ink.
SECTION 1. GENERAL DATE; - - to be egrpieted by t5e A?PLICAtIT
1 . Name (ic any) and address of project: 11303 Betlen DrivP_ APN• 941-11 -14
2. Proposed use of property: 25 unit residential -riPVelnnmenti with •1 n 4rp
r
Iand� Pd r'i_ 1•�����m�n+cl - •
• 3_ Ncme, address, grid telephone or Ap?1ic_nt: •pulte Nome CorDOra ion
_4655 Old Ironside Drive #3_20. Santa Clara, rA Qgnna
(408) 748-1640 Attar Richard St�elg
•4. Neme, address,
and telephone o, cac:.c_. perso:z1 in edditien to c;pliccnt er
• 0 instecd or cpplicant: Bissell & Karn_ Inc, 4637 fjlAnt nri, 0
_ Pleasanton, CA 94566 '
Attn: -M'tch;Mon
5_ �,ttached pans are pre imincry or Q Fully d=valcped.:
• 6_ Building area: sq.Fr_ - -
.. 7_ 5iie crea: $ 42 net 1] s9-ft_ crl�ccres- 8. C1rrei , zcninc: R-1-B-E
a 9_ lvla;<imum Building Height • 1_.—Dft_ cr ]stcries-
S
10- Describe amount OF daily trcHic generated by nur er, type and time of dcy:
n;
Assuming 101rips/day n r unit 25 x 10 - 250 trips
1 i . Number of off-street perlcing _pcc_s provide_- 2 covered min. and 2 open per unit.
12_ slumber of leading Facilities provide2: N/A
:i
`I -
n
.:1
a •
t�
t
1
M•., yq. .v, P. -'•4V•,<.•y�-�,�w•a. ••�..+•c,.•g��Y•—�•t•A`.. n{,r.•.. .:.-• 'r=..�.,.. '
•t. `~ t.i..f 1 t .r ..i 1 a:,, ,�:Y� �'C:1Z:�::�e^iw. If•••,�_j1�•w;C•�1
,411,... .,� ���`'s ;"'L"l•�1f5ar c.•'rP .��.Al^1i Mti _ a 1i11y%Ri'VI �t..l wit �Y �11�.� �`Zl���,'i t:'+1�
+ph'�ME� rinl,alf�tuliL'f5•a{C1 ?uk ' ?'x f'ttF•S?n.f1n YJ'ib.n1..L F,,..,•...f cl,:..h:,...4"ec+SS.3.Y ..i::, ,t..'.:i,•....•,'+e.Hc.1ftt',...,s•tn u:ti„i_'4u'WY,r xG!.ptYlrvi7,a�v, .J,a3 .,..0.-......
1
13. Proposed development schedule: •beginning-- Fall 1987 Completion: Summer 1988
`1 g ;number of nevi 3-4/GU
14.a. IF residential: number of new units? —; number of existin units 0 '
bedrooms ; unit sizes ;range oFQscle pric_scr[]ren:;_ type of
Q
" dwelling single Fcmily duplex❑ multiple. • -
14-b- If commercial: scope of project❑ neighborhood, ❑ ci;y,El reeionel
salesnrea sq. or ac:e; estimated et:plcy^ent per shift' ; hours of
operation '
`? 14.c. lF industrial: materials involved ; e w:ed employment per shirt `
hours of operation' -
-i
14-d• IF institutional: major func.ton ; estir,.c;e= e::taloyment per shift
ej
;.hours of operctian
estimated occupcn
}� Aciw►i�i5;r a�iVe its re-wired: Q Site_ Dev4{10 mew c-w;15. Describe City pernCCr'&i-iOha! LL5e- F2rMrr; C! VgrrjGryv.�`�
.-
P fctv�vted �2ve Io�rnern',; �l Cc rw'i'►io0""I use.fit A%!I )� Sign Ch I�;
0 _
[E 0{�n�r lntative Map -
Q unacnowni L loc=: ccencies-
16. Describe other pualic cpprovcls recuired: ,Q regioncl
oaenc ercl ccence ; fies;F] stcte ecencies; Q c eater & 'sewer - Dublin
San Ramon SP1"V1GP Di_st_rict
• 1
CE°Ti-ICATION -
S. r r t •��i t t:.s 1 .
. Lh � the - y knovile_ e
I hereby C°rilry << G. �a 2 Ir►�CrC:GtiOn SL�r:Iii2�Td5 true QirG Cam:..•... �O .,,_ C_S: Or m
and belief.
I understcnd tha- the finc:nc; of this Envira :.•._rr;.I Assess....—.2ilt Gpply Only to t:,a
project as described coove. -
it •
Date: Aori 1 3, 1987
Sisn a-ure:
Na,:.e (print or type): Robert R. Graham, AICP
Bissell & Karn, Inc,
Ord
+h�
P►q-
ti
Y�}A', p`C :•e � ,.. .,r•:�..y., t •� ♦ r`•. PC"�r! 1! �N ..n.,•,j. p,r way a
.r� � a i• .`. •. :• �..L+ �+\a:.•• �s.,uti�'::�ti��.,.:•�i'•^'7: �"�'�`l'�'ti°fCh y, 4r ^,rnf �. ..i�; .... .
V.!',�••'�•�al�l`\ a 1r.�llT�+.�+�S. G .X1:1tiY+T✓..i':3iK `�.tj
..,,_r.. :_........ 'Xa .w..e:Aalui..crte - + .. r._ ..,,., .._..,yy.��_yynr•..,.. . .,._c, ......A .ir..ir"..
_,_.m•.._n n_ .,...a ,• r.,..:nar+,t _... : .�.x . ::: .a....,it .mot. .,,,..,., �' 1'. •:..:.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR:
' PA 87-051 Pulte Homes Corporation - Betlen
P Drive Subdivision Map
(Tentative. Map 5777) for proposed 25 single family residential dwelling
units.
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2100, et seq.)
"i LOCATION: The 8.4+ acre site is located in the southwestern corner of the
°a City of Dublin, consisting of Parcel A of Parcel Map No. 2795 and
fronting 700+ feet along the south side of Betlen Drive
(APN 941-115-14) .
APPLICANT 1
AND REPRESENTATIVE: Bissell & Karn, Inc. }
Attn. : Mitch Moughan
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 2Q4
Pleasanton, CA 945.66
14,;- PROPERTTY OWNERS: Pulte Homes Corporation
Attn. : Richard Steele
4655 Old Ironside Drive, #320
r Santa Clara, CA 95054
PROJECT DESlCRIPTION: Subdivision Map application for a 25 lot single family
residential development (Tentative Map 5777).
FINDINGS: The project, as now proposed, will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment. The mitigation measures outlined in the
Initial Study of Environmental Significance dated April 30, 1987:,.:
document the steps necessary to assure that the subject project will not
have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
INITIAL STUDY: The Initial Study of Environmental Significance dated
April 30, 1987, provides a discussion of the environmental components
listed below. Each identified environmental component has been
mitigated through project redesign or through binding commitment by the
:'. applicant, as outlined in the Mitigation Measures Sections of the
Initial Study of Environmental Significance.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS:
1. General Plan Policies and Zoning
'rs 2. Soils, Geology and Seismicity
3. Traffic Circulation
4. Noise
'i..•
{y.
` SIGNATURE: DATE:
Laurence L. Tong
< � Planning Director
ATTACHMENT
t
A •ten;Y•; •'`•'�• .. ,+* Y •r�,t '}:�"\"1° 171"" ��::, \1�".. ' ,^.R,ti .. ., ': .. - ,
3� �•.�,`�:':.1;,`.��•`, y�^ni"t''�t'I;r:^F*-'- r` -;��":: •,:,ti. :\! �:, .w:,7"`�i .4.� •! '1:';��•+•�13'y!�C+1: +1�..•�S.•nw•i Z,`ry,'r,M 4`. -* ».
•\av(..1 �1 1 y +�'�'PIt�`ty. Sa ,.�` �`�.' !`�^•���'rjt�'a"��`"RY.k' .»���? � ���� , � 9�1' �{i:' ..-.�.!+.��•ry.�j
'+ .Tn4. � ! � ', i,• ts,h �,p^a r � ,Y � h ,y .r „2 tytk` � ���t �t f + ��a�y \a.4 +.-� N. ih d1. Ik - F `2a:Rat,-Gth
.., r.ow$wn.i"`s 6�c•'t4''tr.•.wR..�-.1;:dy_�r .e.,r._. �l r_l•..,.+r1.. L. .._,..a,..,�ida�^_ .,r...(F:5":aQ�_i...v"we.'�Y+E`.Rffiti:"dEn s�?'eK`\4c'v..lz!uavcr_•sar,e.;a.s-.�.a..._v..., .. ._-.:.... ..
April 30, -1987
Mr. 'Dick Steele
Pulte Homes Corporation
4655 Old Ironside Drive, #320
( Santa Clara, CA 95054
RE: PA 87-051 Pulte Homes Corporation - Betlen Drive Subdivision Map
ti
(Tentative Map 5777) �
j Dear Mr. Steele: j
The application materials and environmental' materials submitted for your
application, City File PA 87-051, have been revie'Fed conderning the potential
' environmental impacts of the proposed 25-lot single family residential
project.
This data, and this Department's review of 'it, indicatedrthat your �roject may
have the potential of creating significant environmental:impacts if specific
mitigation easures are not incorporated into the project's design nd �.
ultimate delvelopment.
By this letter be advised that, in light of the information submitted to date,
a% this Off ice`� cannot prepare a Negative Declaration of Environmental `
Significance for this project. However, it is the'position of this Office
a�-" that a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be possible and consistent with the
+
�3 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,
F 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.
y? In order for this Office to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
project plans must first be revised to reflect changes that eliminate the
,y
potential for the significant impact, and/or an enforceable committment from
the Applicant must be made that shows the specific mitigation measure's that
a?
will occur. The following changes to your project have been determined to be
necessary to permit this Office to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance.
There are four (4) areas of your project proposal which have been identified
as having the potential of creating significant environmental impacts, as
defined by CEQA:
1. General Plan Policies & Zoning/Visual Resources
•a . 2. Soils, Geology, Seismicity
3. Traffic Circulation
4. Noise
,1
ATTACHMEm
�• .. 'bt i': .�.. •.F,�`. f .1• t�yr�.r ♦ . i. .ti� r' +,T ,.f ,i,��. y "- .
~��s0'SRa'1�K•dM::13� `1 �., �`u;.�.�Ti.�tw�tA'13.t'L'�.�wF.`�t�'i.1 `��i�^1��,.u.`�,9„,j m '1���° r,i��Ir �7'�i."�"�J�.���A\��;.
r
...."di'.7RS'n` 5"d'.9. ..'Lw'"�•. 'elkk'�S�iQ'!•T�4�:`?�:d�'w'3�J�':'r_^�1.+.: f'. 2'�•,:4. a":r��J. i+S�4u'3�'.'FS�ei'PA�li3.~••1',• ao��':�ie v. �a�.F1�a"++'�i'4°�A`dA'�1�,5�,
Mr. Dick Steele
April 30, 1987
Page 2
i �
a.:
:.;:. If the project plans are received to incorporate the following features,
"• = and/or if Pulte Homes provides binding agreement 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.
f i
1. General Plan Policies and Zoning/Visual Resources
,
a. Further adjustments to the proposed grading plan for the proposed
cut slope at the west property, boundary shall be incorporated into
the project design to create as-natural an appearance as feasible
(see Condition #25 of Draft Resolution for Tentative Map 5777) .
b. 1 Project slopes along the youth perimeter ofthe projec shall be
intensively landscaped to:provide a visual Barrier of the proposed
development as viewed from the adjoining I-580 traffic'corridor.
A six foot minimum height!architectural masonry soundwall shall be
• supplied at the south end; of the project. Additionally, the
finished grading plan, building footprints and/or building heights
for structures placed on Lots #15 through #19 shall be of a design
to minimize the visibility of structures as viewed from the
adjoining I-580 traffic corridor (see Condition #28 of the Draft
Resolution for Tentative Map 5777) .
2. Soils, Geology and Seismicity
A project specific Geological-Soils Investigation and Foundation Study
# shall be prepared which expands upon the recommendations outlined in the
September 17, 1985, study prepared by Harding Lawson Associates entitled
"Geologic Evaluation for Feasibility Analysis Pulte Homes Residential
Development, Dublin, California", and the supplemental report by Peter
Kaldveer and Associates, Inc. , dated April 9, 1986, entitled
' "Preliminary Cut Slope Recommendations - Subdivision 5588" (see
Condition #33 of Draft Resolution for Tentative Map 5588) . The Study
'. shall address in detail site grading (including phasing) , slope
stability, drainage, water quality, and erosion and sedimentation
control for construction and post-construction periods.
3. Traffic Circulation
a. Donlon Way at Dublin Blvd. : A contribution of $250.00 per lot
shall be made towards street improvements along Dublin Boulevard
'a west of San Ramon Road to mitigate traffic impacts along Dublin
' Boulevard which will be cumulatively aggravated by this project
(see Condition #56 of Draft Resolution for Tentative Map 5777) .
yp
j
r
tK
c
;y
t..
S;1
•.,,,,. - r. :lv,.�1\Zr....7,•W< ••.w,:• :J- ...1•;. ;.?•;�•'7'::v'a•f.T'1',•"i� Y '.t.•i. •�• - ..
l !.r:V ?Vf'/lyx •, f l!:a11 Y•�� +\ i -•l ,-`.17G'+�ti� �l} ♦ ti��I l-�'V g�1+ }� t `1 !.'.;/
•„ -a.^`. .• .a •.�.!R,r.s[?I:e�Rt_ tw^�'saf?ic 4�`?c;>»�.." .r.l.��fi..r'i5.. �`?`i'a�u`35"skfiJS.'�.'@.'H"•u,S�.'atY..1"4R§"' ..�r.2':�?����'ntt�bti'�.r'L�.t.�f4i«�7'.lt" S_>?v�w..:. _:.i"r:+,wa4ti:!«.
Mr. Dick Steele
April 30, 1987
1: Page 3
b. Modification of the current terminus of Betlen Drive to establish
'3 a "knuckle" cul-de-•sac shall be the responsibility of the
Developer. Construction shall contain curb, gutter and other
is necessary longitudinal drainage; paviAg, sidewalk, street lights
and street trees. . ,Said construction shill also make provision of
driveway access to the D.S.R.S.D, water:tank site
' #25 of Draft Resolution for Tentative Map 5777) . (see Condition
y` 4. Noise
Due to. existing and anticipated future noise levels:along the djoining
I-580 corridor, the single family residential structures developed in
tion with this un
con
j 'o project that may be affected by noise levels in
excesstof residential noise standards shall 'be constructed to provide
the ne�essary sound attenuation to insure interior noise levels in
compliance with applicable standards as set forth by State and local
regulations. The sound-architectural wall along the south side of the
project shall be.located to maximize its sound attenuation features.
`? These recommendations are made for environmental purDoses 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
a=
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.
Questions concerning this matter may be directed to Kevin Gailey of this
• office at (415) 829-4916 at your convenience.
I,Y ,
ki Yours very truly,
Av�
�F
Kevin J. Gailey
Senior Planner
KJG/ao
cc: PA 87-051
.,r
Lee Thompson - City Engineer
Mitch Moughan - Bissell & Karn, Inc.
L
F
�.�' �} 'S'« *R.'+� ,�� .!' f'�t t���` ! •r , t ?'•�T n�'�r' � ��a„-.GY� ,. �1•M Cl •n -�l\St.�av A� ♦ `w. t ! M+i � t a
� `,1• � `� �iF J',-Y' .\ .� .> �; :� � ,.F ,t1'.n ti a,. L).' '�' ..�� A: '� :'y�^� •Y:vim .�.�'�d.L`Y;u� 7 �. Z '
• 5LL 51 ILL-( 2A
.t.�a.
C. . il.N C w A.
S I— O Z
t'•• i
J
tt Z U = _
C,.C.OrJ.NU.•I-85 c : a 0
•.� , J .
•
za
�o
Wl-
In I
VAUEY
CENTER 0 x
q R-1-B-E N
UU' Ml1V a CD
.. C7
a
co
CITY OF DUBLIN a,
out Iwt
•.%.P KMP••�•t•PO.
.. — ./1•I - •_� N.l�•t VIII •_l�a
I . ..,.ob SHEET Ines sa
r •� � �� � � ••m a 1.._,v gyp- •/- - _�.�-•'R�: Y.��.� ..�.•;�...- '.'•-,-•.•�!IA •.�J•
sx
,1 s. r.on.�iva:.:rr•n r� ':c• e�.f:-n_ri ctar,�t.. .,N� .:i: : c.,•. ':T;�_ir $% :4S
- zerw:.a�Nha>r+rss.arl'�vawn' a��v�.n.•rn %ii �•�:- - '.�•:,=�.:,�:�•.,.;.•...:::,, �.1;x,K - '�.�� - .•r'+ ;;o-�
-. . . .. .. - ..._ _...... ..._. .s. _ ,_ _. .. i,` .�r.._ ._ ....._..-' .•. -_... .. _...z_. ...,,.r��,`,:.a�a�'. ._ .�_ . .. ...,.. rrrcL�7
•' • ."\ /II ')�O: t10. :'::,. .;' ACE
gal � � � / \ ►•►► �` �•• .1! ..:-..
N
.i•_ Y,. a f. ;,
P 600
27 9.95
.,O° r. tx
-' {- ;'p•-s. s t _ 1.12ti .t ��� tf� �;,.i. L P-sea 16
12,6005. • ' ! ,
z e P.626 P-826" P-sza
129b00.� i¢550�}F.
3 ;:J>
1� 040,9.' + °' . �—� ��.:xr, t. '10,5505.F. � ,r N
`. •`, r.• .r• .ir• '/� / -)513 ..d'• • �.l t,r �• -9- ,•� 624 . . aC�;(Ir' i `;`rc jt�
.2 m P- 32
a.f 14 P 18: •. 10 ` �1 626 '•12, .. t :` 17 ;'°
11700 5 '` • 'J P-s277+ rr
f,. i• '�s ' •,. ,100 J.1: V tn' § 'P-g a(y •t ._� ,1
i J ' y ' 10,0005 s - r
y� , 9 10,1005' titi ^roFS
P-620
0 0005.F
14 �4 P-632 h at .,
�,+
i3 �.. • .•�� �/. :11'/0 ••, 1 1;� 4X P %'4I..- - i ,K�- .'
a .
1. I 104005, /E ,•L'f•iy .' • -- - -
, et,
—or. 0 B •� r,try h -
' $ 15 L A STREET '� >,.. � ,k 4.r TT.• 'STe] }f',
c i J 800 5.F �'
P-836
P-615 Ig000 5F.
10,000 5F. t IOp005.F IO,p00aF.1
P'll
.• 1 L P-83
P-828 P•63
T ,. :�.`'' 'o=N 'ta• —
�:. ,Yt.. 24 23 22-1.+
` •• •:tfi f.. � -R::..!' :ate r/jt•sc'ls_".f`.uflf .i :t �• �1 - -'t
F2�
22-36-31- 720.35'
' •'~ •�:_ �' -t :n:�,!rl-.'.�.i...t t '' ,.,r. -Licsit"'•"`' 4y`7' ,c.±
. .:R:•.Z•.; .:Yi•:':�.i4.° - :'!'i >. .:j',`.:v.:''li :5!-:':_�i•.,.'.'�� '.:i.�'::r••�{���u2'f'"�.'f. .r..::,�n �x�l'a'w�lz'�::7�.�.'�..++"t�.'.,.rc.l• s Ja "� "S�`�. •t7c'irY�
" ( CITY Ur• DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
• AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 4, 1987
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 87-051 Pulte Home Corporation - Betlen
Drive Tentative Map request for a 25 lot
single family residential development
involving an 8.4+ acre property located along
the south side of the terminus of Betlen
Drive in the southwest corner of the City of
Dublin.
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT: Tentative Map, application for a 25 lot single
family residential 6bdiviSion.
APPLICANTS
AND REPRESENTATIVES: Mitch Moughan-
Bissell & Karin, Incl. .
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 204
Pleasanton, CA 94566
` PROPERTY OWNERS
AND REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Steele
j Pulte Home Corporation
+ 4655 Old Ironside Drive, #320
Santa Clara, CA 95054
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-115-14
PARCEL AND SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
The proposed residential project covers Parcel A of Parcel Map No.
2795 located in the southwestern corner of the City of Dublin. The 8.4+
acre site fronts on the south side of Betlen Drive and extends from its
western terminus for 700+ feet. The site is bordered on the west by the
Valley Christian Center complex, to the south by the slope easements and
1 road right-of-ways for Dublin Boulevard and Interstate 580, on the north by
existing single family residential development, and oii the east by the
partially developed eight-lot single family residential subdivision
approved under Tract 4929. The Gross Residential Acreage (GRA) available
for residential development is 9.1+ GRA (includes one half of the fronting
right-of-way for Betlen Drive) .
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION, ZONING AND LAND USE:
The existing elevation range of the site ranges from 555+ feet in the
i . northeast corner of the site to 660+ feet in the northwest corner. Grading
has previously occurred on the site as the southern half of the site has
been previously utilized as a "borrow-pit". The site is currently vacant
and is zoned R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential Combining District (10,000
square foot minimum lot size; 80 foot minimum average lot width) . A
previous 25-lot Tentative Map approval covers the property (Tentative Map
5588 - City Planning Application PA 86-056 - see Attachment #5) ,
ZONING HISTORY:
The subject property was rezoned from A-2, Agricultural District, to
` the R-l-B-E, Single Family Residential-Combining District by Zoning Unit
i 510, approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on November 27,
1986,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. '
�` ..:>'."'''•,,,,,�•.r '�':•.�.. ..y...�'.....,�,.,.c.w,.-.r.�. •ww�+•:j+r.... r \t - o ♦ -a�'rT tie 0. -.}r.♦ t'•-^S�r.'.t 7"Y ..
�... .1� ti:.?a t , .w L �. ay y.:lr y a 1 � r 9.i2wr-b.3i!C �,,, 3\.•r. 1 A 1� 1
•.- .. .,, -",--.• v a[•r� ]r : -C s r v �� �.+ear �
.!1.,,t'A'1'!l{�4;,W'r,'��iT�:?Y'II f+.�'.�r.? .�Y`;t.�.�. ,., � y i;. \`t-t.}ri:V::..7i 4'i.l. _...x.:\n..1�. .K:^.\�_°.2•,.0.-i'L.egipk,�`S".,�n�,�':'T t>•�Wl�.,'S'4�... \"..vM1 15�S K'..:lei'-.S"�. 5_y�`:miC.�'.�1�rT.N:n'S�.`'�rolag�i'iAA'•'d�.�5.>"!,.-f1':,�+1�
^ • 1 0,
t
i
On November 1u, 1978, the California Conference of Methodist Churches
received approval from the Alameda County Planning Commission for a two-
parcel Minor Subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map 2795. The parcel split
was requested in anticipation of the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit
application for the development of a church on the 8.4+ acre subject
property (Parcel A) . The plans for development of a church on this site
i never materialized. Parcel B of ,,the Minor Subdivision was subsequently
split into eight single family residential lots under Tract 4929.
On September 2, 1986, the Dublin Planning Commission granted
Tentative Map approval (Tract 5588) for a 25-lot subdivision.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
A. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Title 8, Chapter I, Alameda County Subdivision Ordinance as adopted and
amended by the City of Dublin, reads in part:
i
8-1-2 INTENT. It is the intent of this chapter to promote the public
3 health, safety and general welfare; to assure in the division of the land
consistent with the policies of the Dublin General Plan a'nd with the intent
and provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; to; coordinate lot design,
street patterns, rights-of-way, utilities and public facilities with
community and neighborhood plans; to insure the area dedicated for public
purposes will be properly improved, initially, soas not to be a future
burden upon the community; to reserve natural resources and prevent
environmental damage; to maintain suitable standards to insure adequate,
safe building sites; and to prevent hazard to life and property.
'+ B. GENERALIPLAN DESIGNATION AND POLICIES i
a
The site is "designated by the City of Dublin General Plan as Residential:
Single-family (0.9 to 6.0 units per Gross Residential Acre) .
General Plan Development Policies for the site are as follows:
Site: South side Betlen Drive, West of Prow Way
a Acres: 9 --
.; Minimum-Maximum
Units: 9-54
General Plan
a Residential
` Designation: Single Family Residential
IJ
a
Applicable General Plan Policies include the following:
2.1.3 Residential Compatibilty
Guiding Policy
' A. Avoid abrupt transitions between single family development and
` higher density development on adjoining sites.
-�i
Implementing Policy
'3
' B. Require all site plans to respect the privacy and scale of
s residential development nearby.
3.3 OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
Guiding Policy
E. Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above
major ridgelines.
-The present undisturbed natural ridgelines as seen from the primary
planning area are an essential component of Dublin's appearance as a
freestanding City ridged by open hills.
i -2- .
•�� �•o,• .n !�:•6. • n� :1'Yy.f.... •:N,`d:` :r r .•,... .. .�.�.,,r,.►.ter..+s•'„
S.�•V.-.;��v.;y i�..-�r nufi2?'I�YS�'tiTt:`i::,•f�-,ie�•^t"�+.'."5;;,tT M;�;��? -.\� �;4, : ,;;,R,'. =�r:x;3 +,.,+�� .�4�.` {a^ !�" �.. 'r�3TR'-'4.
J •\.� l3 I�.t\ . f !� \ Z i f
-
. :..�, ,.- ........ _a �.r:rctr,.,_'��f17.:,l. ,: . •.,.r. .-. :.._, .:,.,.a..,r,.�., ., ^ ,:.:,.. . .... .rf....c.,..,,.¢.:.,,,r...e_!':+t Y�a�»..r::ml biu7�•H4+�4r�+i±w;, •,Gk�!,,.:r'���eU�nc�c:.�;..�M..,..sY.._.s.,.�.........,.i.
Implementing Policy
F. Use subdivision design process and the site design review process
to preserve or enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed
from freeways (I-580, I-680) or major arterial streets (Dublin
Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Village Parkway,.
a Dougherty Road) .
7
5.6 SCENIC HIGHWAYS
I-580, I-680, San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road were designated scenic
routes by Alameda County in 1966. These are the routes from which the
people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City, so it is
important that the quality of views be protected.
'e Guiding Policy ,
A. Incorporate previously designated scenic routes in the General
?31 Plan and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by
A travelers.
Implementing Policy :
B. Exercise design and review of all- projects within 500 feet of a
t: scenic route and visible from it.
9.0 NOISE ELEMENT ,
is Noise exposure contours projected for 2005 based on anticipated traffic
volumes increases indicated noise in the 70 CNEL to 75 CgEL range at the
south side bf the property.
Guiding Policy
A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated below:
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
Land Use Category Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable'
(Noise Insulation
Features Required)
Residential 60 CNEL 60-70 CNEL
PREVIOUS APPLICATION SUBMITTALS:
Previous PD, Planned Development Rezoning and Subdivision Map
applications were submitted covering this site and proposed development of
>'+ a 44-lot single family residential development (City Files PA 86-010.1 and
.2) . The requests were withdrawn prior to any action being taken by the
Planning Commission. The withdrawals were prompted by direction given
�Y during the course of the public hearings from the Commission that the 44-
?;; lot layout was considered inappropriate for the site, and that a project
redesign reflecting the existing zoning requirements (e.i. , 10,000 square
' a foot minimum lot size, 80 foot minimum average lot width) and existing
r_
development constraints (topographic conditions present and access
,q constraints) should be considered. The project was resubmitted in mid-1986
proposing a 26-lot layout conforming to the existing Zoning Standards.
' Under that Tentative Map application, the request to rezone the property to
a PD, Planned Development District was dropped. The design was of the 26-
lot layout subsequently further revised by the Applicant in an attempt to
balance the cut and fill .grading involved with the project. The adjust-
';V ments ultimately lead to an elimination of one lot, reducing the proposal
to 25 lots. That layout was ultimately approved by the Commission on
x: September 2, 1986.
-3-
tit+,,'Y��: �.y:7:..-,v.'" r„iS WFtir.�ry',t.w r�,-rt�t , � 7' � � V.M1 ,\.i-�w 1-�t t"R",�. rN>•1 t�ln{4`wh^V!."""�C Y7I-eltltjl •�;.�e.iar.v 1�aP.7� `• 1 ',''. '
11 .. r � ? i. � � �. � ♦ ,ii y� r t �� l y�`�1 yµy� �� wy.. �1j,,__- � �
��'�►�a '\ .S�r'��.�� vOS! �P.Y�t�R�[a�r��ti�t`�3�►�4�'7�i�c�ll�vZt�u�.l�":^elt'�+
..,�.,",n.:.R:i'L","*.�:..'_.,.,..\'r.1+,2. ..-.:+5'4"x.rh«,?'...4,.';'k. Z,.�Ft�vw 4�r.?.:-.^2�`a?ia�':�*`:cPF}\3.'^l'.'�Sl�u`'t d'e-"+t�::e��i7,�, '.'Fn1.:`��..�:�.1.��'�°..cv..t�.... ,. ..1�.:+�....:.r...•......!_ .guy.. ... ...,_
�. ENVIRONMENTAL REV1. The City proposes to adopt _tigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance which finds the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the environment (see
Exhibit A - Draft'Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance and Background Attachment 2
- Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance) .
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the May 4, 1987, hearing was published in
The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
ANALYSIS:
i
This latest application submittal by Pulte Home Corporation involves
3 a modified 25-lot subdivision covering the 8.4+ acres located at the top of
Betlen Drive below the Valley Christian Center comglex. The principal
a modification from the previous subdivision layout involves the elimination
of off-site grading activity on the adjoining Valley Christian Center
property.
The review process for the previous application sulmittals covering
this site focused on the following issues: i
1) General Plan Policies and Zoning
I` 2 Site Layout and Dimensional Des3 n Criteria
y . g
3) Traffic Circulation t
4) Site Grading
r 5) Architecture and Landscape'Architecture
6) ►Environmental Review
The following sections update previous discussions tconcprningt these
six areas.
E
1. General Plan Policies and Zoning
The project density, at 25 lots, remains within the density range
established by the General Plan for this site by the Residential
Single-Family Land Use Designation. '
The proposed density of the project is consistent with the General
} Plan Implementing Policy that calls for an avoidance of abrupt
L density transitions between adjoining residential developments.
"1
^� The remaining General Plan concerns tied to this project proposal
involve the potential visibility of future residential units at the
southern limit of the project, as seen from the adjoining I-580
corridor, and to a lesser degree as seen from the City's major
' arterials lying east of the site (see General Plan Guiding Policy 3.3
? F cited above) . The Grading Plan ultimately utilized for the
southern portion of the project should include use of intensive slope
landscape treatment, should provide for effective location of the
masonry sound-architectural wall, and should provide for the judicial
selection of residential building heights and locations. These items
should be considered through the Site Development Review process to
provide assurance that these General Plan directives are attained.
�3 A previously identified concern involves the proposal to create
;+ building pads at the southerly limit of the property which may
r potentially lead to the creation of homes which will be visible from
p the adjoining I-580 corridor. The latest lotting plan/grading plan
appears to further mitigate this situation by lowering the finished
h grades of the proposed lots in this area. With lower pads, use of
} 2:1 (horizontal-to-vertical) bermed screen slopes at the rear of the
lots may be possible. The existing slope itself, by way of the
steepness of its face and its location deep in the respective lots, .
will limit the visibility of the homes ultimately placed on these
lots as viewed from �the immediately adjoining section of I-580, The
.Q Applicant acknowledges that views back to the project from points .
aa
4
i a �
- .. .,. �. �, .' X .:,. ,, _ '� .. t �f`i.�:.tio'4• natY'h .ti�x"Y1 f uC r -�',, ,'
N,. ♦ t;•♦ ,r •r ^ \ -t�, ,•,. �w�w� Q �.ti, x yer .ly:� \a1.a SY,�ti.�{ " ' �wi. ? 165 '`�,^�\,^v .w.�•'"-..'•,'
'�'';t:Frv ,.S..�u• L°t,t ��,i.r•`c',; 1 G. uv\;�;'�+�,i�v� i•♦,l�iX.�� C�1i"�. "`•C ; i:,,�'y ►.' `,t° ji .1, '*^, ti'•`,
�:�• ';�` .f �. ..1; ;•�\:.,'.J;, yy�� •�: .ar;�., ;a��.. .,� fie: �•ri�Sy, �. .�Y'
v�� •„T��� �..C�
1 .:••r<ti ♦t� .ti •♦ '�• :T:,. ..;. >,� 1�.,�.J' G+�: .�5. .� �.M.i:v �,� �•.�. t.. ti � a ' •;
i
further east 1 west along I-580.will still y--.d partial views of
t new homes. The Applicant has indicated a willingness to establish
extensive landscaping along this slope area to provide additional
mitigation to potential visual imparts related to this project. The
Applicant has prepared Exhibits to depict the potential view of units
located at the southern portion of the site as viewed from the I-580
corridor.
2. Site Plan Layout and Dimensional Design Criteria
The proposed Gross Residential Density at 2.7 dwelling units/Gross
Residential Acre has a density similar to existing surrounding
residential projects.
The proposal to eliminate one cul-de-sac bulb from the project
(reduction from three bulbs) reintroduces some Staff concern
regarding potential on-street parking problem's. Those problems would
be mitigated by adjusting the layout of the northerly cul-de-sac to
reflect Lotting Plan - Alternate 2 (see Exhibit D) .1 Observance of
the lotting pattern modifications shown on the Alternate Plan would
reduce the number of lots loaded .on the northerly cul-de-sac from 9
to 6 lots, and increase the length of-the cul-de-sac.
A minimum area of 1,350 square feet of useable rearyard area was
required to be supplied to the lots approvedunder ;the previous
subdivision covering this site. This: standard was based on the
application of the same standard`on the nearby 88-lot Dolan SQhool
`a Site subdivision. This figure was derived from assigning a minimum
of 15% of the average lot size in the Dolan School site subdivision
(9,000+ sq. ft.) to be reserved for use as a level :rearyard area.
Within the Conditions of Approval of the previous subdivision:request
covering the subject property, another requirement `.was imposed
calliig for a minimum level rearyard depth of 15 feet (with the bulk
of the lots to provide 18 feet) measured from the rear of the unit to
the nearest change in slope.
While the concept of setting a minimum square footage standard for
rearyard useable area is not derived from a zoning regulation, the
concept warrants consideration to assure that each lot is provided—a
minimum, functional rearyard area. Staff recommends that these pre-
, viously applied standards (1,350 square feet rearyard useable area
and 15-18 foot depth for level rear yards) be applied on this
project.
3. Traffic Circulation
S
s The City Engineer continues to recommend that a cul-de-sac be
constructed at the intersection of Betlen Drive and proposed "A"
sstreet (generally situated at the current terminus of Betlen Drive) .
This would allow for the elimination of the non-functional right-of-
way stub currently present at the terminus of Betlen Drive. The
Conditions of Approval for this project should require the developer .
to initiate the necessary abandonment proceedings to provide for the
City's consideration of abandoning the westernmost 35+ to 85+ feet of
the right-of-way for Betlen Drive. The area, if abandoned, should be
incorporated into the subject development proposal and should be
'. utilized to allow a modified grading plan to be prepared for this
portion of *the project to provide for rounder slopes yielding
smoother transitions into surrounding natural surrounding grades.
The Applicant has indicated that proposed Lot #25, the lot nearest
'd the cul-de-sac bulb, will have to be developed with a custom home or
:1c modified production unit as the pad size and configuration shown for
that lot will not accommodate any of the three models planned to be
built at this site. Development of the cul-de-sac at the end of
Betlen Drive should be required to be done in a manner that provides
for the development of a modified driveway connection to the
adjoining DSRSD'water tank.
r
-5-
:.�-.N•1'ri.•. :�..1i� ��,�Z'ti llt, v,'(Al'jt,•.:�-`l.±•:4C4G��1 �^'}?r .0 t f.Ft 1-'W\�'h. .w.'t.a•vJ.y..�w ..wt•11.,..��1;r�.TYi3,. `.�.R^nrr•.:�a`�:..•r.,«..K:V �.
ryaJ:�Iti' .0.i. :ti ,, .t'•. .a,t a, •.r\.4�., i+,.,+1 ,..` a \.�.� ���W'?.,�u 7 'fir, �r `\ :'ri `+`.� �';? t ♦ y• ,
•^". �t:.A;.y• �7�` .h y., ' t' ��t 1 t } l .ALL �1 e r t
m�x+�elts� �oaudt� a7�tr. t�xa�fi�rna�e1►�x.�i,1 .+ e. sv�arv�srarsvawesm�oe, _ .
M.�rh>`.Pe..'"}.:".*e.i.�c..:,n:bv,.,T..."rr ,..., ,4.,.,rJ,r.,.'-tt?+..S:eer.9,,,7,..+t.,.:Y?nc?�aa•ai�'7+�Ah3ax'3 rn..,<.:..ry a.::...,.:,ek.r, -_,,.rJef a.. ,� s
4. Proposed Si. Trading
F L
Under the revised lotting plan/grading plan, the 8.4+ acre site would
�`- be regraded to create a large interior pad area (proposed individual
pad elevations ranging from 605.0 to 630,0).
The grading plan reflected by this latest submittal "softens"
previous grading plans by eliminating any off-site grading within the
adjoining Valley'Christian Center property, The grading plan would
also serve to partially mitigate previously identified visual impacts
that would have been present to vie,4ers from the Valley floor and
travelers along the I-580 corridor.
Staff recommends the revised grading plan be required to be further
y adjusted to accommodate the following design goals:
p3 - In conjunction with the use of slope landscape treatment and the
respective building heights and footprints utilized for units
3 located at the southern side of the project, adj{ist the project ' :
grading to minimize the visibility of structures;developed at the
x.�
southern edge of the project as viewed from the adjoining I-580
corridor. 1 r
Adjust the grading plan to reflect the revised lotting plan shown
on Lotting Plan - Alternate 2, if that plan is chosen by the
Commission as the preferred plan.
z
5. Architecture and Landscape Architecture
A Pretliminary Landscape Plan has; been prepared for' the 'subje t
propoiNsal detailing the proposed :"treatment of slope areas across the
Y" project.
` Planting of these areas is considered necessary to mitigate the
visual impact of the height and 'visibility of the slopes and to
rs soften their engineered appearance.
The planting plan utilized for these areas should incorporate the use
of a mixture of five and fifteen gallon sized trees to provide a
balance between the desire to maximize the number of trees planted
while also providing planting that will provide some level of
planting mass within a three to four year time frame.
a
,M•i
Maintenance of the tree planting should be made a responsibility of
-.° the developer and should be done in conjunction with the development
of a maintenance agreement requiring that the developer care for
planting for a minimum of a two-year period to assure' the majority of
the landscape planting will establish a foothold and will have a '
higher probability for long-term survival.
A minimum ratio of one tree for each 1,500+ square feet of planted
w4 slope area is recommended for the four slope areas identified in
'v proposed Condition #72 of the Draft Resolution for the Tentative Map
(see Exhibit B) .
6. Environmental Review
As indicated elsewhere in this Report, Staff is recommending that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance be
adopted for this project. An Initial Study prepared for this project
4 •identifies the following four Environmental Components (see
Background Attachment #2) :
; . 1. General Plan Policies and Zoning
1: 2. Soils, Geology and Seismicity
3. Traffic Circulation -
4. Noise
-6-
' '•�,,,, w� w yh�*'T"'�vw1^aP�\�1 \`ii lY�Z� ` '�'7 i�u+a�'. l�e'AVf µ•7-f'wc-. �v. u r.w.,. µ ..
�+ �. t•1)tiw�atV.� iM�3y sz"11 ;.
��V'C•��•ii.1R • '1.�[iL� ,,.1 ? ~y'{1�Ca�. tii_.L 1.1�rS..R:•:.� f .+.+�J�'`,`�..�.�1`��� Y. 1i.�M.! °1 iti• J?'�\i.� R :,��\''l,�K t.H ♦, tt�.i 4 : -,i,t ���.
a>.iSiP �ta !Y! l?t.'utkf£3�t5?�c }�t�VS>eF?u�:t *� _ r?w" yE} tirt °vt' ��2' . �. i; ti'
4,
' The Draft Mi—gated Negative Declaration of E._ -ronmental
Significance has been formatted in a manner that presupposes the
Applicant will agree, through the course of the public hearing .-
i process, to project design changes wand/or to enter into binding
commitments that address and mitigate each potential significant
environmental impact identified in the Initial Study prepared for
this project.
To assure that the architectural treatment of residential units
developed in this project are consistent with the character of the existing
neighborhood, Staff recommends that Site Development Review approval for
the project be required prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The
' Site Development Review permit should also entail final review of the
site's Grading Plan and Slope Landscape and Irrigation Plans.
The Applicant has prepared an alternate lotting plan (see Exhibit D)
to reflect changes shown in a previously prepared Staff Study. The
modified plan would adjust the location of the northerly,cul-de-sac and
^+ allow the elimination of the proposed "flag-lots" shown bn the original
plans. The alternate lotting pattern plan lists the advantages and
disadvantages perceived by the Applicant to be associate with the plan.
As previously cited in this Report, Staff feels tt'he creation of more on-
street parking and the reduction of the total number of lots shown on the
cul-de-sac represent another advantage of the modified plan. In
considering the Tentative Map application, -the Commission will have. to
determine which lotting pattern is the preferred plan, or whether they feel
comfortable to give the Applicant a choice ,of choosing either plan Once he
prepares his Subdivision Improvement Plans, r
t
{ RECOMMENDATTON
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing.
t2) Hear Staff presentation.
.': 3) Hear Applicant and public presentations,
4) Close public hearing.
5) Consider and act on two Draft Resolutions:
A - A Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance;
B - A Draft Resolution regarding the Tentative Map
application (indicating which lotting plan alternate is
to be utilized) .
ACTION: Based on the above Staff Report, Staff recommends the Planning
Commission adopt the following two Draft Resolutions: Exhibit A -
approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance, and Exhibit B approving the Tentatve Map
r
application (PA 87-051).
f•
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Draft Resolution regarding the Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Map
' Exhibit C - Tentative Map Submittals
Exhibit D - Lotting Plan - Alternate 2
t, •
t t
C� +q � -� �� ♦ t .��v. stn.•. +♦•� v. �+ ♦l 7�"'. ti� ^`�"t'� C
lr •^')•. � Sr n,•♦,+,•�•R.�tvn^�1 ��w�„i,�+^}t�r'Rr. •�y N`'t, t "1. ' s ,�:1 � ♦♦n,` } .\��1.y ?.Y7ta a�'�a7�i..Lh�F'1 r�?—T Ay?�e � ...,,
� . � .1 r{\ .. r �• t + .,.. '+ t -fts J..^ ♦ !�.., �+ ♦�k• v, .:.. \.'1<,•.lt�,a�l♦�.w}n�}� t�"♦ ! "? .a�� t :. .•.
r
+- }i.�-♦r.,itsa,yxeu.♦.ti n�:.::r.:,,1tvR�.......lti�w&4S,r„R.N?w4 en:La:M..a�.,:e: ...&:+ v”'A''"is z'1'k;`ta.tl;3H5 f`A u'#`.rF9�a}'"•;7+��1 a;?SC`-+•,'�, e S4£i t;Vrt3Sn,S'J't.a'.` 4"�%3'e�... - k•' �_'ti#- �Way
'i Background A,..achments
1) Applicant's Written Statement and Environmental Assessment Form
z
2) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
3) Letter calling for Applicant to provide project redesign or
.� binding commitment that addresses and mitigates each potential
.3 identified environmental impact
4) Zoning Maps .
:y
5) Previous Tentative Map Approval - Tract 5588/PA 86-056
.�i
7
l
i
i r
• t '
r tt
4 ` '
;i
i
f
.'I
k
.i
;I
1.
:a
'.•.v
�'t�?�1.,c.n$ ?9's•$.L1h:1.`l,"S.4f72:r+a�[ti*'�V�'Pr >,t'4 sl.l i.,Y��S'tt��, � ` � � vl+�"T.`�.v�w_-.�++
�. .s... ,.,..;. � .:.. .•, r:,.3Naf..'`:�:.rn^e.ka c: '�,..a..r.K:..a..:...r....:.n.,,M. 4.a: r3,±.t;.,.:;�4,r+.'a:' r...?MR:r=§!3i,!.:.,;sn.::.rtiaaWm�tt'Ni[ue°:�i�.�rt;.ctiu t.•an4,_atK. ,. w.�..o-`..'�i:
5, .,t{ 7 /:. .,;f J <fl ^}:' rM fir/ f7 7 'f1 /'r i•� n la
�..( w,7�:r)I,f 3tif N�l/�; fir, ��R�,•r i ! ,,/ �t f,.•�i' •i I 7�
r P t.vjf11 riC F��N•� �,�1 1�� r�l�ij,�r�.� tc,�"w,y'�.�.'.n/1.�'f•'t t�y�f�, + �sr .p 1'fr 7; 1 � !G':' •1�' '1F,. r�' ? r / 7CtCKItIrR '1•
X.;':, {Y ti..q;{ ,? N.. / � f t �� L "i71'y ''.x :a �1�nh!A' !�' /�sPfy►, Yq`F,F,ey .�t x .,(r iq� ! t :'i..
f♦ !M ti•rr f5 YK a{jr, .1 .4 rt.7i.4'? `'!rN j I .�i.r✓ � J,., f�_ `�l j1•i/' dj;�T1rt,j•' 1 �.'.
hr ,IS+;:J :r' 71:11`•/ '"b'xik
t! of r ♦ � � 1, 1 'v;
��.. r�'µ:�,.rFl�.,i'+�� !;+'srS/" ;,����..Foal�rf Y:�•+„ 4 rtJ',U',,,_ "'S�•f ('✓t•.':f.fir:. ��l-F,t/' .,�'j �'� F � v lr,+ r.. y
i } ;ar. �:•' .:>~•.,o!,.....�•�i: .;'� ry. lair '!:r.. :.rr•i�Si'/Sd.+rY,'r1��:•r' G c','r Yt 1*, �'•+�r./�I� 1a: �d
r r r„..1 �,. f,r: y,� y,' .r•+.Nyr �;;li• rM,• 9 1.! .r.,i r r"•.r { y�.y,.� �„lf,�� i ,. ;F4•�i�r Y d 7 i y.$,,y �.{Y'� ^ �4 C:�F_.^'A r ,+,
1 r, T ! 'r .: tnr� •� �' •'h.r'Y'� r1 f`f,. r f�i" � ,�.h[•1!'/Yr+',Y�. rr"",rid1 .ii/rn, rC ! li'j�i'4'r'SW7 '%% K�"I �9{,/��,'/ !d
1- -j P! rr�-�'r,lf�!,vt l•'w1,.r17 r Jr,.,r 7 {4 ,:.F���1•w r �r� 9 / r _ !i`�'.��r! :Id' I 'rrir •,r '! � ''rf'l„<ri,.'>• !LMr/p �' �d'<'OI r3 .f
r. :r'. .r f+•r,•.n.- 1 t r ;1..� P/ .iy ( :7.r�'k.ar !`�..w �y i �.r�G+' � � S�,t`�f•�i�nt.�{ fr � �� ,�.:y �/' �!j v'•/���I�`��� �� � 4, r i
.i l r' } r �-S ..it jlr ,w .r < r i f r d .+5 r/,.4}f!'/X' l_ .nL F'.e •y{�.t lilri r✓r />%PP s'Y” q �.;�}' t+ // 'r<
{, r,p: f ! ! e rI � A '/*! /�.,'T t •# _ ;fi a tl,,:4: �{: •,. ,;�+ '�+ AM
Paula� r. f t t .'y.• a �.n / r �`• 'ro r' /• ,'ra s(rf.,.}• ,rb +.•I,i r d r
! l.r, Y !+'r! ,ir'+ Y 'r, ,r. -� i •'a.y:iv,�', .?•G„ �tF.7 r;i ♦ u- �r .r�b•`1; ra .•!�! �i, r ,,} , �, , 1.
l+ ir/y': i�+' 'r l.J,•.�,. -ry pZ+l' /{,.f ` .��.y, X•. �:. Ir+,, ��'�`�.,�41�i. 4. F.�r 7� "Y"fn,:t .C9"YJ�' _ t��
!` •t;n 1 •• rir i Y- :e`' ". rrr;.r.i a*r 1' ?y�fw. /s. 1..I7,vr r!ij/� 11 {t ,r•/Yi :,.i,,; �r.S Mrt.yy,,t�17.1L1 �f,•:~ ��'Yf1
j.;.,•..r.y.,; � P � r 1 .ra?. ir, ."f� i'/ .yc r �r � 'Y 1 < r � r /! ,{,�
r,r��r i rp' :r ,.Tr.r a �,7 '4r r / ti'. i rf; i�fIYM/'.�i;•, t.it:��.r wr',Kt;,L>r+fa rk rT�:/• "1�xf'!^<i 7r•,M.�`r[.t`r�?rf;/�'yS r ty�aJ.'j�v+y�?�.,��rf r, ,
•'serxtiifu5ir.aPw
/
t
Paula Fortier, Applicant/Representative, said she concurred with Staff's
`r recommendations and would work with Staff on the exact location of the signs.
She also indicated that she would comply with the City Engineer's
1•j�
recommendations as 'outlined in his memorandum dated April 28, 1987.
-i� In response* to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Gailey, reviewed the status of the
A various applications received for the Villages at Alamo Creek project.
'; Cm. Raley closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Petty, seconded by Cm. Burnham ,and b '
y a unanimous vote, a
Resolution was adopted approving PA 87-054°Diamond Signs`, Inc./Gregory Group
Conditional Use Permit.
RESOLUTION N0. `87 - 030
APPROVING PA 87-054 DIAMOND SIGNS, INC./GREGORY GROUP -
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGN
SUBJECT: i PA. 87-051 Pulte Home� Corporation (Owner)
Bissell & Karn, Inc. (Applicant) -
Tentative Map application for a 25-lot
single family residential subdivision
Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
:a Mr. Gailey displayed a copy of the Preliminary Landscape & Development Plan,
marked as Exhibit C - Tentative Map Submittals. He reviewed previous
application submittals as outlined in the May 4, 1987, Staff Report. He
advised that Staff felt the proposed layout is superior in terms of the
tc previous proposal.
.y
Mr. Gailey reviewed the issue areas discussed at previous public hearings and
updated in the May 4, 1987, Staff Report. He advised that the Applicant had
prepared an alternate lotting plan (displayed as Exhibit D, Alternate
Development Plan) , which would adjust the location of the northerly cul-de-sac
!" to allow the elmination of the proposed "flag-lots" included on the original
plans. He indicated that Staff felt the creation of more on-street parking
3v
and the reduction of the total number of lots shown on the cul-de-sac
r represent an advantage of the modified plan.
a
t Mr. Gailey stated that the Applicant felt either plan could be utilized, but
the Applicant was requesting the City give Pulte Home Corporation the option
" of using either plan at the time development occurs. Mr. Gailey explained
that Staff felt there were advantages tied to the alternate lotting plan which
would make it more desirable, such as on-street parking and the elimination of
'i the flag lots. He said the Conditions of Approval reflect the
PP alternate
lotting plan (Alternate Development Plan) .
Mr. Gailey advised that Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt a
Resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance and a Resolution approving the Tentative Map application for
+ PA 87-051.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-87 May 4, 1987
t . 1•!w..r.�m�ttrt"S�T*^^�`S",4'�r'Rl+'�"'?+±n^'", ?fia , y
�(r�Sti�'•\�:r 't : w. y c�. ;fit , !`',"}y.Yi '.:�. � +,, "'may.'7'{"`n?: .?!
1. t �.• yrl ;,•�1.`�t.i rtfiq �Y.'I,`,, '?. T .S'ht� F� �`; ° 1. ` .. i^ 5•.,�. ,*\.r�.Fti*.�,�n�w.1 'iTY'•d\ rt• ti•'Y��'ti,�7y�� • _lR� ,T \�•;'7}•t c
JJ�;;' r-x;? y , �1 x ..,�iv'ptY•"•5:.,,�i. .,14fi M�. rr` "lY." •3*))�i';3?. !% �'••.^''T't:F .\t�"°'�'' t ''� t„� �,
�-+ t A t � t Y. v •':4. �... l.v��*'• ti :`cti l�.^0.. '.+, .',+ �
.j .-1. `�1 d ,t+!a.rf,�t \�eT'D.� },,.5.. 1.tc�,• •. !w,.: +.� ,a.t $ ..\�'S±�,.\��iy���t��+�R�y'YyO,�+�'„8.�}„�-�.+i..:�'�`� w �� `"`�•1��!-'• �S� t+ t
'l�h � 4��.- r^ t t + r•r � L+ r4. a, 'Y^. ''�.,Li 7 '�}$�++. '1...:.2-` \..
-•{t� �I � s� �3' �f � t a v ', , + t t � yyy ;�••p TJN.q��,+,� [^'!”AS•�'< �, }s-
i`\ ! t. r „ l'• i't� r ; { +. .�� �, S '.1+ Fry`s':ly :i�\v3.r rt`� •A jt v, �` ti. t�
! Y Fr' t 1 .�' {n" •ta Y � t 1 \ + '1,� t �r� 1� •t t� � 3" in �� C'i. �y �. t t�s a,ni A. F ` r
rt`�`�K�t.���� t.;,q 3'1`t�'1-/i�1,YYYr r r:1.b�...4,._�`.�i rl_.,�wx�_...._-.. .Ll.'s..�..t,:.. n:.s1.��.JctSrL�T'L�.�n'r..�.�+a''1 ..'.._S��� S:• ' r.. .....
I- """'A H.M
Yatt Ph
EN
, "��" '�' 'l r c Qr�ori10 �G l�l!I�lt!T�'SO S' �•87 Ie�'' 8 05�1
S ":.n
"j I
Dick Steele, Applicant Pulte Home Corporation, said he had encountered
difficulties in obtaining an agreement from Valley Christian Center for off-
site grading planned with their previous submittal. In addition, he indicated
that Fulte had changed engineers in order to obtain a fresh perspective
regarding plans for the proposed 'development. Mr. Steele indicated that it
would be possible to comply with Staff's alternate lotting plan, but would
prefer to utilize the alternate lotting plan prop o1sled by Pulte Home
Corporation.
Mr. Steele reviewed the Draft -Conditions as proposed by Staff, and reque st-ed
modifications to the Conditions enumerated below: :
Condition #5: Mr. Steele indicated that Pulte was pot concerned with the
setback requirements or dimensions addresse4 in th.s Condition, but expressed
concern regarding the the specifications stipulated, for "Ilat and useable"
yards, and requested greater flexibili in'this 'Condition. He also requested
�y
ond floor
greater flexibility be given to the setbacktrequire-ments for the se�
of two-story units.
Condition #�.O a. : Mr. Steele indicated; that all of the iots would '.1rain �o
the street, land indicated that he thoug�t this Co�dition '(drainage into the
t.
adjoining Ca!ltrans property) had been addressed at a previous-,heari�g.
Condition #i5: Mr. Steele requested that Pulte Home Corporation not be
required to 'go through the abandonment proceeding's proposed in this Condition,
as Pulte did not desire to incorporate the remainder of the right-of-way into
the project.
Condition #28: Mr. Steele distributed a copy of a letter from Charles M.
Salter Associates, Inc. , dated May 4, 1987, regarding use of a solid wood
fence versus a masonry wall as a noise barrier for the subject proposal. He
asked that Pulte be permitted to utilize a wood soundwall, rather than
masonry. Mr. Steele noted that his request, if granted, would also affect
Condition #43 and Condition #67.
Mr. Pulte reviewed Subdivision Map 5777, Alternate Development Plan, and
advised that Pulte would like to build several two-story homes throughout .the
development. He indicated that on the proposed Alternate Development Plan the
elevation would be almost equal throughout the project. He discussed the
intense proposed landscaping plans for the project which would mitigate
potential visual impacts.
Condition #30: Mr. Steele advised that in most locations the sidewalk would
be located at the bottom of the slope, eliminating safety concerns addressed
by this Condition. He requested that this Condition be modified to' pertain
only to those locations where the sidewalk is located At the top of the slope.
Condition #55: Mr. Steele requested that separate gas meters not be required
as stated in this Condition.
Condition #63: Mr. Steele asked that this Condition be modified to specify
that the planting of trees as required by this Condition occur prior to final
inspection.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-88 . May 41, 1987
777—.�... . ...............
11_11,m�.�7�1%,:77 r
c�
f
�Is
X-
gg'Im,
�/.'4ri.Y•Aii1r{!'rwt'..{:'r.....:.tl'..��.�..il:n.J.:i./u/:....nurr.l:Cl::i.YLA.Y:.ti.rY V�1.MIJkJu1A1Yf{YJJ✓�.i Yi rN..%Nl J.r4!k1Ti'A ✓'.W..nr'.M4inM 1:':Yl/✓..':rllr�.uY 1'WS+r1.lu�M%r NrAw.irC • M•.LMYa?�awM�l+l.1L,w i.4u'1•r..'...1:\rr
Condition #70: Mr. Steele stated that some fine-tuning would need to occur in
regards to grading, and that he was willing to commit not to adjust the
elevations for lots along Betlen Drive more than the five foot threshold
established by this Condition.
Condition #72: Mr. Steele requested that the trees, in all four specified
areas be established at the 15-gallon size.
Condition #73: Mr. Steele asked that the Commission allow consideration of
the use of special entry pavement at the entrance to the subdivision at the
Site Development Review for the project. }
Condition #80: Mr. Steele indicated that it may be necessary on an occasional
basis to begin earlier than 7:00 a.m. He requested that; if possible, this
Condition be adjusted, but indicated that Pulte Hgme Corporation would comply
with the Condition if a modification was not possible.
Zev Kahn, Dublin resident, expressed his concern regarding homes wh"ch are
proposed for the higher elevations, and stated that he thought they"would,
create a negative visual impact as seen from I-580 and Slvergate Drive.
t
Betty Moore{ 11292 Betlen Drive, indicated that she desires to see the subject
area developed, but that she wants it to be consistent with existing
development.' She stated that she did not think flag lots existed in the areas
surrounding the proposed project, and said they had the appearance of "in-law
units". Mrs. Moore expressed appreciation to the City Staff for their
willingness to both inform and advise her in regards to the proposed
development. She urged the Commission to adopt the alternate lotting plan
supported by Staff.
Joyce Felton, resident on Betlen Drive, asked why the proposed homeowners'
association would not be responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the
greenbelt adjacent to proposed Lot #25.
!t�
Mr. Steele responded that it is Pulte Home's intent to build a custom house on
?, Lot #25, and maintenance of the property would be the responsibility of the
individual homeowner.
Ken Moore, 11292 Betlen Drive, expressed appreciation to the responsiveness of
City Staff in regards to the proposed development. He stated that he would
it prefer adoption of the Staff's proposed alternate lotting plan. He indicated
that he was also concerned about use of flag lots.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Steele circulated floor plans of
the proposed models. He advised the Commission that plans would range from
2 376 square feet to 2,863 square feet. He said each of the�.; { proposed models p
would have three-car garages.
Mr. Gailey discussed the following Draft Conditions of Approval which were
referred to by Mr. Steele:
Condition #5: Mr. Gailey advised that through a Site Development Review
process it may be possible to provide greater flexibility for Lot #25 in
regards to the rearyard and flat and sideyard areas design criteria. He
j
May 4; 1987
Regular PC
lar Meeting M-7-89
{
a
r i
} ^ .t 1 .�,x 1 .y t3i�i Y 2 )tom 5 q •!• t � - r. N+.yatl�t t����p''� r1�)ti�4� 1� �w 1 v ,,. •'
' " .L., -�!1 „',y,! .(- Jr rtt .v �;. � a,..rn ,� .�,;� 2 !, 'J.: r t' i !�\.t. 1 4 °Y � � yr �I. ��t::�.'t,C+tt t d::� � .,?`;.1 t4 5•^.•p.
,t` 1i .1< a 'j. fi'.^ pl i'� r� 1 t l - n,•."� 1� V•.b�.�"v4 t� �1�', r�4;iM•\ Y�t�1 }rr..
i2 �.` tt r 1'�i d'�.:? I�t T t •� L ..,: S•N1, �1'4� ��r.< .tyh�.. at yf � f \.'..•s I'.t)a�a i•`A. ii A`.kt �.; rti 1�i� .l tif,. ,.. V,.'..
,y ,tx .v :.L "rri ;1,4 Yi' C rna t v �• J t tt, A`. 1 . �C� •1�-,yam r,�q,.,, Y 1tt
Tl 1i�\"'Y� R�'.lZ!�ir�"'1•,h.'<y`,4�,�r',i��•,1rt �`21r rr:•ki<',i,7 i1�.J.:l:�tt"6:\+1t�• .� t �� _�il.?`v'1�.�?t yy��7:Y`1�,(.'N�?"�,��-rwfi1`w<,, � ''yy f��,. ,\ i 1`jl1�h�`t ".=4 .',,`{�5..
t �K tt1 {����y��1�4�wF.`�il',1��':,$:i`,'1'..'�t,�'•:�����.,t!�l:C, .1•,"�,�� � ,zy'ul"\.�l�=t �1�.�: �'i•t tr: ���'�` t% i� �,,, ?�.•. ��`�1 ,a yL�`Y,.��;..1 ..
. '`•yy`.� �� nt h r r S s �. ,. WL i�.:1 L Y.• t { � � {±i rxka .,n.. '�ra:1`L '1'1.y '74 �h�'h. � t: '�'.
,t5�" s .t '�,} R' N^ •Y '��'Y� +]. R,�7'+' S)r�afj� .t ..a'�,,, �� ^�,^ ;lttrrSY) `�,y�" 'a :tt�'�t�`C:S.t # r +. 5" �"' �:,..�4 a
A�..r:.A..�l.1.,1�?^?4ni�a.:l+�a.!n�, '��.F.�•.�,��ia•.M1r'..ih.�n- ��_d.3`Yi'.�"�:.w,fu�Wf�.r rf..+.'µ tF..r\S..Lt.y:.i:4"1t,r�s.Eti!�'*'k�..�a�� v)i.v�.CFtr,.. '��,f,'.'..R+P' 3x�..��„ h:f4. N..9F1h�:.^!SbN'�d����fii.'�a:_:°�... .H..ta�.•-
fsiNYLC-^ANta:CC::t:'ra•Y.:1•Lp°.:�M�ftiltii�f'.-.k.ru.'.tlw{.:1F.•e1.'n it:n•:..r.+.uYistfi•..h.Sara,CV::avr r..J:ri.'•T.t,4.':.MnvACrt.n/ti:AA,:,✓.w�_t n�.a�raK.iu�.:.`%1•iiJa(r�JKYLId'e:it+r1W.1Y•vLi%sSc�3:CiJSr` i.4�:'w.frY_`..:i.li.::i:..,.�........:•.<:.r
indicated that Staff thought the same potential concern existed for Lots #6
and #9 as for Lot #25,and that greater flexibility should be provided for
those lots as well.
Condition #73: Mr. Gailey noted that the trees would actually be 15-gallon in
size, rather than a mixture of 5- and 15-gallon trees. He said the Site
Development Review process could be utilized to insure that the desired amount
of landscaping for the proposed project is achieved. ;
Cm. Raley closed the public hearing. The following comments and direction
were given by the Commission in regards to the Copditions of Approval.
Condition #1: There was discussion regarding the; feasibility of developing a
new Condition which would permit the Developer, upon necessary approval by the
City Engineer, to utilize either the Applicant's Development Plan or the
Alternate Development Plan. Mr. Tong advised that he did not think such a
Condition could be adopted. He indicated that if;the direction of ihe
Commission is to adopt the Alternate Development Plan, and if the Applicant
found that plan too inflexible, he would have to return to the Comm
ssionrfor
approval ofianother Tentative Map'. ;
At this tim8 a consenus was taken and Commissioners Burnham, Barnes, and Mack
indicated that they would support the Applicant's*Development'Plan,, while
Commissioner`s Petty and Raley indicated they would support the Alternate
Development Plan.
Mr. Tong reviewed the options available to the Commission, which included the
possibility of continuing this item to provide the Applicant with an
opportunity to obtain his engineer's calculations and response to the
Alternate Development Plan, or to deny the application without prejudice,
permitting the Applicant an opportunity to submit an alternate design.
Cm. Petty indicated that he preferred the Alternate Development Plan because
of the potential for future on-street parking, as well as the elimination of
flag lots.
Cm. Burnham indicated that he preferred the Applicant's Development Plan
because it would provide for a more secluded development. He also stated that
Nhe liked the idea of the green belt.
Cm. Mack stated her concurrence with Cm. Burnham.
Cm. Barnes said that she preferred the Alternate Development Plan but that
P r
she did not want the project to be delayed further.
3 Cm. Raley advised that he preferred the Alternate Development Plan as he did
not like the flag lots. He said he didn't think the existence of houses
1 facing each other across the streets would be a problem. He also stated that
he thought the depiction of a green belt running through the center of the
project was misleading. He indicated that he would prefer to see that land
incorporated into the individual lots,
s
Regular Meeting PCM-7-90
May 4, 1987
d•
�j
1 I f f
� i. � \\� ^` t ,'t Vi 1`a •, oyi rJ� .�a1 �,\ 1 V • 1 F P \ \•• � t I ..., �' }a�}�rJ 1 pia t V ` .: ,
\K��
1 i��tiCC 7�tai� r�
r n...,�°'�." v V U.�R'?aa�f�:n11�� 'gr4n v.0 %�:,°t,`�aC'ICj\ �a a. c,: v. �.�:� �� o s c•` j y .t i ..' 1. �
,t vW 'S,U:�'o`t b _ ,wa a.F, ycr ✓ s d1+y. . ,,;�Si ;a t,.�wi ^\�\:1 ti', �T'r.+t{y¢,c + i,,�7 j.. �+ ',y° Z' 1 i' 1
C: �\}�y2•.>.'r•'" 'JA,•,!�;,�,.,f;,*�, :� 4;�.'� ;�.�\��M`.a.;!;�t.,\\n�'`t1,? t.3, d � '�r`-r.c,yt•.'S,! r+`c. la� w:.w��v �J' .e� ,� ��.� '��xt,,li,:±llc V r
1 '�:u� � R J '}C��:{, d } S :�'\ �Ar �. � 4 vt1^� Zi�.} d4 �F� •r a,. ,t..
CO' } 'Cam^ �,f�. �kti�;f `�,,:as r,.,.�q�4•'h >y .. ,`�.:•�i y�.c.,,c" fiS^+ �.` , }��f ',°"�:r ,, ti,n t ' 'ti, �;t� �> r\
.+! a � t� ly,t ih •a•�,::,, a t J i "�Yr 1 � " i• \. ,,y lv ,^tiv il � •a��;. !��4�:�!h S��a� � r. a ,f _ �.
K � C ..,.. v��''�. � ^I � a FM,y,���C l Ka.}'•�. + f;`•e. `\�.'u{ $ f-i\ i �a� I S � �
`tl, ���o�. � r i�l �. � �'+��:•�a�� 1, ,V����"A���, �`,� ��.7�;1�a y��\y 9pv��•f d u ?ia��'.tLi1�11,°k �\ 1` f'i
.��� )'^'��l�'�•fr" y� ]..�I,a�.�" r� k�, �'*•L�Y.i\... � `t jl `l:� ., r'{r„ 4 a�� .tt``+wi y ti�;,`-,r('\� a• j`-��'Z„p •� y ��t�; �
{,.y; a� h1 �y. Ll D N('�� 1 Y1 T� � �tA+. lS, ,rti� a" '..4 4.� Y N t ♦I T �..Y 7V J \ }. r\ \,�.ti'.. S\ „+ Y
1�� .i hp !• f11l;,Ut"�'4'.•i`n.xi{�_.:.::(.d'!'.it `}.�:8'1_f`.5����'y:. �.wl:}L««r+N'7,P.N.�4?Jt...l...�,Y,�Ma..+J,�v:nu u�u �4f.�.Ay1)P,�1+ ,,.""h.,r SnrA,Y...S'{i.�Y..����'�i,w,l N....
KC+...N.!!aczalti.l,P• .u.W,:}.'.sf�.wv��:...i6.S.?.l+k,$,n...•a :r...2 ,.,....�k.
rtr.irYi.4)ai.4.:riu%4'.6iLdWalw.r:.a.f..a',h:Mraz.:1.liwl:.w�tYt'�4urM71:M.•tV4.✓::YrA�Nliw6rM�4J,:✓4i.ial(t:r+GLiwAV.'cifr�nl�C:d+tiTr(rA;Y4rrrr►q�d/lYat�n'iY•?N - ��d+yra 5::::�'_ _w.u..w:.:+:o.•....:.......
7
The final consensus was three to two in support of the Applicant's Development
Plan (Commissioners Burnham, Mack, and Barnes supporting the Applicant's
Development Plan, Commissioners Petty and Raley opposing it.) Staff was
directed to modify Condition #1 approving the Applicant's Development Plan,
dated received by the Planning Commission April 26, 1987.
Condition #5: Cm. Petty stated that he would prefer to see Lot #25 eliminated
and made a part of the responsibility of the homeowners association.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Raley, Mr. Gailey indicated that all of the
lots would be subject to the Site Development Review process, but that Lot #25
could be required to be processed on a separate Site Development Review
application. ,
Mr. Steele indicated his willingness to submit plans for .-the proposed custom
home to be built on Lot #25 prior to recordation pf the Final Map.
It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission that the plans for Lot #25 be
processed on a separate Site Development Review application.
Regarding vehicular access it was the consensus of the 6ommission that
languagebe ;inserted into the Conditions of Approval requiring that, wherever
feasible, adequate width to accommodate vehicular access 'to the rear of the
individual lots be provided.
Condition #10 a. : At the consensus of the Commission, Mr. Gailey advised that
he would add a provision to Condition #10. a. which would permit the discharge
of this Condition if an alternate design solution is determined to be
acceptable by the City Engineer.
Condition #25: Cm. Raley asked if it would be possible for the City to
initiate abandonment proceedings for the westernmost right-of-way at the
j terminus of Betlen Drive. Mr. Tong advised that Staff would have to
communicate with the City Engineer and City Attorney to determine what steps
would be appropriate -related to the abandonment proceedings.
The Commission directed Staff to revise Condition #25 to provide initiation of
the abandonment proceedings by either the City or the Developer.
' Condition #28: It was the consensus of the Commission that the sound wall be
masonry. The Commission also directed Staff to modify this Condition
-� authorizing Lots #16 through #19 to be two-story in height.
Condition #30: The Commission concurred with Mr. Steele's request that this
Condition be adjusted to refer to lots which have a pad elevation below the
1 adjoining sidewalk and which are separated from the sidewalk grade by slopes
of a height greater than four feet.
Condition #55: The Commission directed Staff to research the requirement for
separate metering of gas for hot water heaters and to adjust this Condition as
appropriate.
Condition #63: The Commission directed Staff to adjust this Condition to
7 require that all trees'be in place prior to final inspection of individual
r
lots.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-91 May 4, 1987
:'a
,•rr'r*•,•'^'..,.-rti^�^,t*r— -- ./•'.+r.rL,w.•.•- 'T .^-ef aw \ �*'-°a•+'w•a--'rt-.', ..
1 LL 4' \ l r \ ,I _•` a \ ! a 4 r r � 1
�. � ! 1 t t 4 1 1' :(y T a � \ ,p � r �C !f\.'n^ C+t,.5a 11 t � rC � � t•� i.. ' t L ..
!� r It �ht. err„'ti. - t ,•.,..1.:.r,• r a r; . .1'yi r }�„ Ty t r >:':���� ):c A. •�` ,�\�\ .t..r:r: \ i.- \:4'
y M1 a:u ? � ,jtY:Ln''1'l',c ��i !' ,�,:r ..d::�.{ ,y ,„J\ 1�J , `y r, ..\\, r '{ , a` .•r_
1�``Aa\,t'.t\• !.-7'Y.l.:.)���:,�: =!'>,,;�... i ; '' ��.�.,VY �,�4p r+�•�„ n. 'l �7. .{�.,Ty r al.. -.1 r� .t r ,, \ c
,� .\�i: • ; �� �- •,1 .� �+..'j; ...; r � T.'r r.1�t rr i J, it l \��. ..�\'t \'11. ir.' 1a \ 'r � :'\-tt .•L
,� �'.3' `;'.,Y �:r;•,',,.T•;;M'” y`„\ t!`r r. \� >`!� ;' !�'�i�': �kr t r'+`j,\.. r:�. \, .�` a t 't ♦a�::: Lr, _1;��t r ; Li7 s'.(
I.t. �. ,L rc.�'.+i1, I L, L:!'•,.� a,iy..,l.�,n?A 1 y 1 i�•t;u`:Kr 6•y�.YiNic�rN:;9t rt'"�\1\`....�ii�.t•.'.�° ,�.�Vzyr, >,..,ra..•�....•�,_.-. r r - .
::fir! •r-47°:,P..,v S:�... Cry h'L Lr'. •\:KI 1 t
9C 1i•�. a!p �, a� / '�•� ': M1 •\ .ti'i ?:'�a`t\:':\,� �w �y1Mr`. V t �t r >K
ry ir}t ahS;w 3a•� ';�,H i;r�.. >r. M• t;� 1 �• Th Y,�t.�'++� •1•i1 iLti �1,, !r�tYa4.r �i�'�4 �L '� �.`, J �l",.�'!� �� 'y ,s,V r`�` � 4
yy�l k ,t � l:• ,rt . rri ,f:'e�4.,,�, y•) q{tr\,T , r�l�, �, � � i t. tS'^'r� 7j>�`!�r•7\ y. n.•i+-!Ly i�L 7•Ai� _ cJ 'L _ '
;r+`.�aa•`'rte. �•�li`!�•i4•'a. .i'. �•rl �'1t:,, i.,-.`-+}r�r�ht,. �h”":u?r rip�i:� �' �i :r'��(V'•,,.,.5... � 6,'IS'� +G ?,'1;�'��:��: :xJ�ty:'7•ifL.1-T'y�:'w`N :F x,•tit�Aa 1�r����-�'.`;vStf..L\! 'yt`
r •A!v \ ti���yta '��,�� :���{� '''i,'S'��o'.� :�. 'j` o. � � �•��y�r�L t�Ai� 'i � r 1 Y,t 3>?1, +. 4 \c,�.iv Y.��;�al�w'YC'�r�r.��-S` � ��v'4�.
11 V.,�, zt �a �`� 'ir. W ,Y. \.���3r,rC• �T�jt' ,,�t �, ws �., ;Y, � i'�� 'S.+r,3 2'„ t \ ` i t y -.r"w ,C•: '"' "'i.'
Sr. ��+1 nf' �.D � r: 4 � � li ,,,$ ati �4 Lfa 1 ,y� E t t � �c4• �`'� i.
� `t,'� i�.t YIhh• � .r+' � �Ky��y�l�, t2�, ,�!'� .' +; t ,' t� ¢ :.�YEL•��, �-'\'ei7!n�! at. `�,r(�Y ir;�«R",���`��.k , ��?��r+,�..e�! .�[,
'sr,�`?� �d�.9Y� .•:K�l t�;Y�+�.�'• w��. � ,., '�';�'`� aa.14 r °th. ��t-s?„`+ti�'t�.'�..� +� •�+�111������•�R''�'�!"�'4„
!- y. r�� ,y,+r 'r."a'• •� -...s• \ Lr ,.n:.- `t:•a: %d'�• ,"l!:,, .��.+ "°_;yr�.' ty: p a.,. mq'rr`l: .k r+ .r,,r^' �, 1. r. M�.. w�.r •.h�iC.ra:r�
:^.u4�r tis'.`.;�6i4,F.11$`�.��'haL�6cr�a��wwariz�� i.+�,ne�3w.��zivcG�r'fZ'�+s�a•c.i�fi 1!�NPa.•,,?Y,.,,3�i >.�s,�d�`.�ri':',�ra o-rei<v�"RL:4_,a~sY'�x,`��.Sa_�?.Yi!kxl:<:�, �5+. 4W��..t �$'�os"sS�i :�`�§ �'�•/ak &���.7;: :.t:'?�u'
YEI J'l'w7 � t �yhA / (•/ } r, yt> j 'R-M"
a I"rN,2.
I� .[ , L{+; J'•, 'Ly 't, ,�t , ) j,'�• �16i,' a w� /•r,J v'',
iti YI YS � �'�f )1' lr��ff lr ,i ,1,• ! i-I
'E��frx. .IJ,.+;ir✓;,,�v � /:.,V�,lI4dK7'i
7�,{!'
rd df �
�.,:;#;tly+ ;�, �,+• �.,2+.,t ry��i'�. ,, r, '� � �• wry..f,. + r ,l.��:r�S r �; ��';+,� �• r .�/.''Iv .J ;�de ,r , �' f it � !w f ' 1Frrr r•
) :a� L J d'..M ��r.ra 9r''N,pr. � i r•�..i/ ,a..� 1 •ln M .Yr J�. 9) . r►'� !�Q•�/�.•
/i,r.'�'"C,
n 'i.i;YC/l1 tY a ry(/y a M w�W v 4M Yp,tt•r'N.r1d' (�•.y.J,;P{'�rer♦♦fs �!)''i+:?"�Y �ller dry, l�a�r JS e��"i,,f�}r }'(j.►y /��Y 1'1��.�^:l' A y�f, �!!l7,�y A•J ,P' R r�'�.iti�.t..r iC
,,':�Ir�.I��.r J .y1 r • H f1,:,r !✓ ��'; r � :� 'e /t .�:', M•��iV,I. ..t$; ...�h. i ;yw I.f'`�.D''r„1.� 'd / �� ?7• iA!`71 i �}.('�`;i rfl
r ;, ..•. ! �:• I , ,p r f ..,si•ri� •Y.,s .r ,^ ,�7rr.s•,yl,✓' x-r,.�r7!'1I, k�� �,. 1 /
+ r1/• w i % J r!/ tr�' f i ! l t..r,tt r Sj y�ir V' ! „71'11f9 �r § /r•4' ai r•r+w r� +r�� 1tyt�+()` t� y / / fin a t q�e. r.
frt 'r!,' t rfil. �/ 4 ,...y. �r�F/ 'r 4, l r a::r•,N•ll'I {•`I'�y t,4 C l �I-.4 rtr J'f..+"'r I.. t+S`}�k�;'}��Y•�1r�� 1 /I •Jr��Yr. I �� � �'<�'r,1.5 r
'./•• S'i i• A /Yt u r.~I.fi,',•';J ,�'; . ��Yj,Y..'{,..Vf'4p. 2? Y'Y+ ,i.r /. .�. �t ^ IP , '�lnJi'+.rJ"� _ 1,ri�+Z hd,�,.„ '
y� 44 rI tl: ' 7 i^ /` ..tuS <Ms slt'•� / 1r(T 1•'l.,f+�.` r / �' ;:i�A 1••:r4 G c�'` fw,`••;?u � ( �� ;...f r� r' t,Y
i•ti 'i � } ?c 'ilr x' n.;l,./,,..1yy� H•'J�ry�t,'f, �,y.7�!,rl r�7.I,y .., R �r.f "�.-�1a '.i.I✓'+�XitiY,l- �f'y'•�.�;4'.;� �'°i� 4�i1 brr '�`r� +'K
!.M f 'I i '.�. Air. yt• ,•,) 1 4. i�r,�'jY „�:r !/,'. X�tA' -
, rlYr/•+/ I I ,�d//: I.I ,r.�,, /t •Ywr�•.{ r� t !y,f, ,� r i �:S 1.,,� ,.$/, .f.'��' .,•YL/�!L.`.;� d A I I,r�•nr�'�,lnl.,a J,,1' y!' 'i','iP
�:5:s-�iAfao�iCilS]J
I —
Condition #70: Mr. Gailey indicated that he concurred with Mr. Steele that
j this Condition could be modified to require that just the lot along Betlen
Court be restricted from exceeding a maximum deviation of five feet from the
pad elevations indicated on the Tentative Map. The Commission indicated their
consensus for this approach.
Condition #72: It was the consensus of the Commission that 100% of the
project trees be '15-gallon in size.
Condition #77: The Commission*directed Staff to modify this Condition to
provide the Developer with the flexibility to try) to obtain City Engineer:
authorization for the- use of special entry pavement at the entrance to the
subdivision. .
On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. :Petty, and,by a unanimous vote, a
Resolution was approved adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for PA 87-051 Pulte Homes Corporation Tentative Map
5777.
' RESOLUTION `NO. 87 - 031
' ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FOR THE SUBDIVISION MAP (TENTATI�E MAP 5777) .REQUEST FOIL A PROPOSED
' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 25 :LOTS PROPOSED OVER AN
8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TERMINUS OF
BETLEN DRIVE, REQUESTED UNDER PA 87-051 PULTE HOME CORPORATION
On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a four to one vote
(Cm. Raley opposed) , a Resolution was adopted approving Tentative Map 5777
concerning PA 87-051 Pulte Home Corporation.
RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 032
4 APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5777 CONCERNING PA 87-051 PULTE HOME CORPORATION -
i BETLEN DRIVE FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OF 25 LOTS PROPOSED OVER AN 8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG THE
SOUTH SIDE OF THE TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE
SUBJECT: SPA 87-019.1, .2, .3 and .4 Amador Valley
Lane's - Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map
and Wariance requests.
a Cm. 'Raley opened the public• hearin"g and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey advised that subject proposal consisted of Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review requests for the proposed remodeling of the
existing Amador Lanes Bowling;`'Alley and the development of two new single
story commercial structuresHe indicated that theproposed uses include auto
and motorcycle sales and repair, uses. He stated that a Tentative Parcel Map
request for the subdivision of the property into threeparcels had
concurrently been submitted, along with Variance requesf'' ,;1rom the M-1
District requirements. .
Regular Meeting PCM-7-92 1 ' May 4, 1987
� t K •'y '.; .G�,r�t�'V�'1^.S�•,�,4�?: \'.r't \ .\ .� y�y' '�S1'Irr _ _; ._ .. . spy ,iw,., C+.`.',,,, c ! !,,
�!` �+«.raT•'4 ` .� .,>;i "r°� W.\ �4 rti.>i w)5r_ Ar _"T �; 1 • •. �.4 Y^ rY yL`,' a. •r;. •1)� i. •lw \ _�f,'p�1 �C ii�,F\r i� r ry:
1 , i r'a7 + •:t � ,+,v 5a s � k � Vx, a.1'yl` AAjj,, ,� n.t�• �?;
.• !, P�� Z� ,:� +•• ;: .:. 4 <'\:ir � i��Gi� S: �i,�� �,.l F�.,�t ha+� ii'{�Y�..�'l "�,• {v�•t he .C��a ��' 7� '�1'` , !.. a
ilt1,) N,C"ai.•�i+�, w� •+t 11."'p��, }•.:ti rrtT i�.. Vin. i a, t� r.{.� 't .i:)'� i5. � .f w1''+ Li ,i�'•'4'c�"y,,x '1
�., .G�y,. :?S.T• '(f1t ftr?.. •�+ i C�j.•..�1',',.{ +.f. iv ♦_..,,R\rrt: n �•��Sf"��\+,�i���,:y��`fQ7: :T y�-� ,�.�}� '�t..` �,� l..• � � t 1� t" 7,�••9 fit,
♦;•Y,:, J•.t'�•, V�dyyf,..apS ,�C M;:� >,1t y ;y��'+;. � `,a � \4� ,.� '' Ufa•; r`t l•. �:`�;�,;f.. +'-1'••� \..,�. 'S�.'�,4fti'Y:������� u'�rx ,
.Kirl"�y�r`��f1;'A� l�Y +i�t+ .+���;e.hf:,:,i'ti.�715.p�`•.r. ,t ItRA 1.r�'-,RY ^9..�•�.�lv�t•. .1;� , ;� � � � �Q '� .•`t,�, !. :�to.k'` � •�y• .
7 �� •" t•`ft1 \ �\1i•'�,. �,�Y h� 1;!L�rkk� �Dtia�l,•�+,.�v. , f'�..;., �+(���:.�i -� y�'':[• �'�t1}1 tti�1`�b r..!
+ 'e:irwt',�ern�{ +:mot, . 0���� { Lill . IY �E (1yJ2t+r •r,r
W v ,`i 4 1 4, t••'�\ + Y C v" r�,•
i ''�,\•o e��r.S }�l �r�.,.r �r.•�Y�`!�`� ?''S`'y w p' �'��•"4'`1'�'r
a-
��SP,.�e`,4`��"!!w�P3Q fl��t�,�1ti't' '� .�7�,�•� ,^� ,� t��:�F, t � Y W >,• `,a,+��� �.•�' art;,.
�t •_ f'Zr:y�? f"' r� ..•a .1. _ i• 3� rt`}'�-,"iE��y'
i:,{ ��,w1��i�W\L t(��Tet1 "�M'Q^. i�,�,•t Si7�'y f f w \• � ,�+;t��; �:�)'�w.rGis.
t I•
k P
51 tliC'a�' ��ti+�t�t•;�. �:1�.�)-+tr�.i9�'u.��s'�.4t'<t''�'?3' .�`i��c��Y°�';"44:+�.�5�����.�i'7c'�;St�2Y+,�.' ,��� � ' pp�ip ._
Thank you for forwarding this appeal to the Dublin City Council, and
also for your assistance throughout this process. We feel that we'
have good access to our City Offices and that you are there to assist
us when we have concerns such as this project.
Sincerely,
Betty E. Woore
11292 Betlen Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
May 18 , 1987
Mr. Laurence L. Ton4
Planning Director
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd. i
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Resolution No. 87 - 032
A Resolution of the Planning Commission
of the City of Dublin
t
Dear Mr. Tong:
I would life to appeal Resolution`No. 87 -, 032, passed by'The Planning
Commission ,of the City of Dublin on May 4,.' 1987. ,,
As a resident across the street from the proposed single family
residential development fronting along the south side of the terminus
of Betlen Drive, I am keenly interested in the final product to be
built. This project was first brought to the Planning Commission in
April , 1986 , and was heard at several meetings between April and
August. I attended these meetings with other homeowners in the area,
and we voiced concerns about the original proposed development. This
project was finally approved in September, 1986, but was never built.
When the project returned in a new form for approval of Tentative Map
5777 on May 4 , 1987, I and other homeowners were in attendance. The
City Planners had offered an alternate plan to that presented by Pulte
Homes Corporation. A primary difference in the two plans, as I
understand it, was the configuration and placement of the cul-de-sac,
with flag lot homes proposed by the builder, and these being
eliminated in the alternate plan suggested by the City Planning
Office. In addition, the City' s alternate plan offered what appears
to be a superior plan in terms of street parking.
The homeowners met and discussed both options and felt that the
alternate plan was preferable because of the above mentioned points..
We spoke to this issue at the meeting of the Planning Commission. We
felt that the City Planning Office had Dublin' s best interests in mind
when they drew the alternate plan. We, as homeowners, do not feel
that a flag lot is consistent with the type of lots in the surrounding
housing developments. The cul-de-sac as shown on the builder' s map,
offers little street parking, and this is of concern to us.
One other concern we have is that one Commissioner openly stated that
she preferred the City' s alternate plan, but that she did not want to
create a further waiting time for the builder to have another plan
drawn by their engineers. We do not feel that this is a valid reason
for voting to approve this Tentative Map.
AT 1 '
1
1 -
� +��y 1!� n9 !p rC
1"i"w' 'iLli
AtW4Z- &71
May 18 , 1987
Mr. Laurence L. Ton
Planning Director
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd. j
k
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Resolution No. 87 - 032
j A Resolution of the Planning Commission
of the City of Dublin
1
Tong:
Dear Mr. y
I s
I would like to appeal Resolution No. 87 - 032, passed by The Planning
i Commission of the City of Dublin: on May 4, 1987?
� I
1 As a resident across the street from the proposed single family
residential development fronting along the south side of the terminus
of Betlen Drive, I am keenly interested in the final product to be
built. This project was first brought to the Planning Commission in
April , 1986 , and was heard at several meetings between April and
! August. I attended these meetings with other homeowners in the area,
and we voiced concerns about the original proposed development. This
project was finally approved in September, 1986, but was never built.
When the project returned in a new form for approval of Tentative Map
5777 on May 4 , 1987, I and other homeowners were in attendance. The
City Planners had offered an alternate plan to that presented by Pulte
' Homes Corporation. A primary difference in the two plans, as I
understand it, was the configuration and placement of the cul-de-sac,
with flag lot homes proposed by the builder, and these being
eliminated in the alternate plan suggested by the City Planning
1 Office. In addition, the City' s alternate plan offered what appears
to be a superior plan in terms of street parking.
The homeowners met and discussed both options and felt that the
alternate plan was preferable because of the above mentioned points.
We spoke to this issue at the meeting of the Planning Commission. We
felt that the City Planning Office had Dublin' s best interests in mind
when they drew the alternate plan. We, as homeowners, do not feel
that a flag lot is consistent with the type of lots in the surrounding
j housing developments. The cul-de-sac as shown on the builder' s map,
offers little street parking, and this is of concern to us.
:) One other concern we have is that one Commissioner openly stated that
she preferred the City' s alternate plan, but that she did not want to
create a further waiting time for the builder to have another plan
drawn by their engineers. We do not feel that this is a valid reason
for voting to approve this Tentative Map.
r
�w.
� f�, ' ..� , P � I'��Wyr�✓� ys r��i Y 7f�A.^����j1^'!/°yJ7�T��1 �i'flr;'�� f'''����' �. 1 ■ `�� jh«��ylrA. -a.
af•� !l• , Ir!��r.:l�C .: �rA}j `5tkG3/r,�•Y���'�r/�k��r�r"�I'�,��*�{F,�r,>1jtr,- �!F��3�c1,�.4`��u�"Ix j�h'�-t� P,; i � ,r �2 ,�; �
�. ,! 1 h �(l:.r�'WI:4e' �fw�k.XL4�.:�:°i a`..r•'�?1�.'a s g7 fa(riy��Wa'.. A/Ft'7.����'j. � � ��.,;Z�js�f'.�4 f r� •
�/�r•!�y'y!}y, {'I� ,�/Jr�`� {„� • r,v �, zx��yl/.n�r Jr�,r-r . 2..I ,.•. � • � `, .w•» r.n y
�[ld/(•i{,�1:-„�'rJ•�r• 1 {.?, C;� Y � 1'� � �__ A ^ts'- Y'.r �:✓�i. 11f. r� t.��,�^• A•��I�.•,�•, `N' • —
,.1, 1.+' r ;>1+...yl 1! ��rY(.. '�,. •� >, ter',, >!br a �:i:�f�.Yl�. ,✓. 'J�. � _+«���1..-.,�'''•t ' +'n:.;%:y. .��r•.Y('r,!��tT�.�..:
:rev: 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
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Date: May 18, 1987
Re. Planning Application #: PA 87-051 Pulte Home Corporation/Bissell & Karn, Inc'.
Tentative Map 5588 (Supersedes previous Tentative Map
submittals filed under PA 86-058)
Finance Control #: 32145
s .
Project/Site Address: 11303 Betlen Drive
f ,
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 941-115-14 t
Applicant: Bissell & Karn, Inc.
t. Attn.: MitchellMoughan `
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 204 < <
t Pleasanton, CA 94566
■ 4
fProperty Owner: ! Pulte Home Corporation
Attn.: Dick Steele
5976 West Las Positas Boulevard, #100
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Dear Applicant:
The decision of the Planning Commission on May 4 1987 r o o
arding the above referenced
Planning Application has been appealed.
The appeal of your project will be taken up by the City Council. You will be notified in
advance of the date and location of the hearing.
SIf you have any questions, please feel free to contact this Office at 829-4916.
S'ncerely,
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
LLT/KJG/ao
T T A ENT..
CH
,
999999 .• .' '
l
:!.i.��• �, ,"��i�2��ry i � �+ty{ ' , ,S,�x i �9 ?'� + t .a. q t, +•t+ t �. r t „t� �a•i-�f � Y f+h��p
y'.{t��'f �!1',¢�SL
n� iYi t t11�.•n�M 4.. , t 1 ,• , .. - 1. ,J ii._. 4 + t �ivy,', i� �. .'•a.
+ .,,•5+*?`yd r;crw_ 0,; V.,R."K".1 a;• .d95;a.4+A!".GSF!H't'C:�]."^�.;d1A,^29r17.Ix...aR' ;:+...,5_xNM'j, af; xT.,n .,r >Y