The URL can be used to link to this page

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