Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 6.1 Murray School District Rezoning (2)
a � v AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 8 , 1985 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING PA 85-005 . 1 and . 2 Dolan School Site Murray School District, Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map 5402 EXHIBITS ATTACHED : A - Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map 5402 submittals B - Draft Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance C - Draft Resolution approving and establishing Findings and General Provisions for Planned Development Rezoning with Development Plans D - Draft Resolution approving and establishing Findings and General Provisions for Tentative Map 5402 E - Draft Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance Background Attachments : 1 - June 17 , 1985 , Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report without attachments 2 - May 20 , 1985, Planning Commission Report without attachments 3 - Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance with Environmental Assessment Form 4 - Planning Commission minutes from meetings of May 20 , 1985 and June 17 , 1985 5 - Location Maps 6 - Applicant' s Justification and Description of Project 7 - Surrounding Subdivisions Base Map 8 - Surrounding Subdivisions Analysis Chart 9 - Area circulation anticipated traffic routes 10 - Murray School District letter RECOMMENDATION : 1 - Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation U 2 - Take testimony from applicant and the public ------------------------------------------------------------------ ITEM NO. � COPIES TO: Wilsey & Ham Sacramento Developers Planning Department 3 - Question Staff, applicant and the public 4 - Close public hearing and deliberate 5 - Adopt Resolution regarding Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (Exhibit C) 6 - Adopt Resolution regarding Planned Development Rezoning PA 85-005.1 (Exhibit D) 7 - Adopt Resolution regarding Tentative Map 5402 PA 85-005 . 2 (Exhibit E) 8 - Waive reading and introduce Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit E) FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: Sacramento Developers, applicant and Wilsey & Ham, project engineers, are requesting the City rezone approximately twenty-seven acres of property owned by the Murray School District. The property is located along the southwest corner of Castilian Road and Padre Way. The applicants request a rezoning from a combination of the A; Agricultural District and R-1-B-E; Single Family Residential Combining District to a PD; Planned Development District. They are concurrently proposing a Tentative Map to subdivide the property into 88 single family lots along with a five-acre parcel for use as a future public park site. Use of the site is governed by the Development Policies for Residential Sites contained within the City ' s General Plan which designates the site for a maximum of 88 single family lots (at 4 units per acre) . The General Plan also includes an implementation policy calling for a five-acre minimum neighborhood park on the site. If the PD Rezoning and Tentative Map are approved, the next step for the developer will be to submit a Site Development Review (SDR) request. The SDR will be handled at the Staff level and will be utilized to make a detailed analysis of the final grading plan and the proposed placement and architectural design of the homes proposed for this site. Specific design criteria have been incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval for the project that provide direction to the applicants regarding site grading and dwelling unit placement. These applications were subject at two Planning Commission hearings (May 20 and June 17 , 1985 ) . During the course of those meetings two primary issues emerged; 1) Grading at the southeast corner and general discussion of slope areas, and 2 ) effective lot sizes . Other issues discussed during the course of the public hearings (unit density, storm drainage, size/value of proposed units, park site location and configuration, use of flat lots, provisions of parking along cul-de-sacs, impact to schools, retaining walls,, area circulation, etc . ) have been addressed in detail in the two Staff Reports prepared for the Planning Commission. 1 . Grading At the Planning Commission hearing of June 17, 1985 , the Commission addressed potential adverse grading and visual impacts associated with the proposed development at the southeast corner of the site . The Planning Commission applied a condition of approval requiring that the project observe specific design modifications to adjust the grading design and the unit design and location for this portion of the site ( see Condition #41 of Exhibit D) . -2- 2 . Effective Lot Size The Commission addressed concerns regarding the proposed effective lot size/specifically the size of usable rear yard living space) . The Planning Commission applied a condition of approval ( see Resolution for PD Rezoning Condition #43 of Exhibit D) requiring the effective lot size to be maximized by using specific design modifications. The condition further establishes a minimum usable rear-yard space of 1, 375 sq. ft. After the June 17 , 1985, Planning Commission meeting, the applicants analyzed the conditions of approval . The applicants have indicated that the requirement within condition #43, which requires that the building pads for Lot 3 , 4 , 24-29 and 31-33 be lowered a minimum of five feet, introduces design problems given those lot' s relationship to the project ' s proposed street network and adjoining lots . It should be noted that these design problems exist are due to the developer' s desire to avoid using a front-to-rear split level model . If a split level model is not used, some of the lots would have only an 18"+ drop in the pad elevation instead of the five feet required by the Planning Commission. The Dublin San Ramon Service District recently contacted Staff to advise that they had concerns regarding the proposed routing of sewer mains for the southern portion of the project. As currently laid out, the routing of the sewer mains will require special access arrangements to manholes located within private property and corresponding adjustments to the grading plan along portions of the south and east perimeter of the property. Alternatively, the DSRSD Staff would prefer the sewer mains at the south east corner of the site to connect to Castilian Road between the fronting residential lots along Castilian Road. To pursue this option, the developer will have to secure easements and rights-of-entry with one or more of the existing landowners along Castilian Road. Staff recommends that the following language be added to Condition #51 of the Resolution for the Tentative Map (Exhibit E) . "The developer shall further demonstrate that access, in a manner determined acceptable to DSRSD, be provided to that section of the sewer main located other than within the public right-of-way. " Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission recommendations regarding these applications and take the following actions; 1 - Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (Exhibit C) 2 - Approve the Findings and General Provisions of the Planned Development Rezoning (Exhibit D) / 3 - Approve the Findings and General Provisions of the Tentative Map (Exhibit E) 4 - Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit F) -3- Q V1 . e� f • 01� I l� _ 0 \\ } .�� Juarez Courf '00 Cv�✓ G-u,Q � p p Parkinq Exhc t l Scale' 1"% 40* Standard Large Car: 18'x6'9" RECEIVED DUBLIN pl-ANNING 5t "+ I of 5 Si\ce+s ��. S 7-7 �c= �7 P of x x tr�f F - + t _ F190 01� ._. . _ of eQ o Court `Parking.. Exhibit"-- �� • - l. _... :`: _.: ..`:. ET.9i //✓f G�/ L .:. : _ ..._... Scale V = 40' St4ndQH Large Car=18'XGW D 41 RECEIVED cr ry,`I DUBLIN PLANNING Sheep 2 of 5 Sheets i } � 9 rY /I-• T Reglo court( "Pgrkinq Exhibit" J�� 'yrFO Soule : 1"- 40' E D �y 1� X96 Standard large Can'ly GT C71 DUBLIN PLANNING Shte� 3 of 5 Shce�s x J �' Cor✓ ,e Tlo�/ Santo Courfi J Parkinq Exhibit" Scales P % 40' 3tond4rd' Larje Cars-18'x 6'8" Q R E C E I V ED JtJIN I 1 DUBLIN P:.'�i''�•.': Sheol- 4 of 5 Shee}s �0 r 31 ior - 1 3 � , o } o . p�3 P Oblspo Court �.::"Parkinq Exhibit- '`... Scale: V- 40' Standard Large Car: 18' x 6'8" AIP RECEIYI= D /^l'� j F� 119 DUBLIN pLaNNING Stiuf- 5 of 5 Shea}� 51 50 47 F42 43 �? o 46 C� 0 N � i T-1 - - 45 41 �� ' 44 n/�M 5HAA EV PRIV�rE DR/VE dND 46CE 55 \, l E,4 5EMENT I GLESIA DRIVE HOME LOCATIONS LOTS 42 B 43 R E C E I Y E D SCALE 1'� = 40� l,,ljy DUBLIN PLANNING / 2N) • 301-�'� _ . .._ _. ___... 6AY. e Ae. _ .... -- .. o o o --' S,g.L. 6f+�• o Q/w -0 'S.SL N platy mix. .... _ . MAX.1Ar1 OT - ►� 85- R E C F I Y E D �9ao - ►� 14-1 AF 2143 - z-i \ Z1l 2 9 21' DUBLIN PLANNING 88 ,S�fD2 p�DPDSTO Ui�iT ©TPr�tIV7 NVILSEY& HAM l:,,i v W,, ,. 6377 Clark Avcnuc/Suitt 100/Du biui, CA 94568 (415) 828-b755 CALCULATION SHEET S ,I � - COMPUTED BY 2 )�/gsoHry �eTa.rti�H, W4. �� . • CHECKED BY ern c�- S�Z Du r ', JOB No. Z'7/e -OZ.a/ c _ - N x 6 x 16 7`a-h s�i� Pr/otie bloI� . tt7 CoMh-7an tiorra� r e (S 2.111-loci - e G� ire every o><her 1/ertica.f o�r� %t7 bo�o tr co u r-s e - :Icl:�r 1=6-0,1ri ct9 e . SftcL �C Co%t-ed O t'Y/2TGi7 c. Public•. . . 1 . public improvcmcnts cnginccring/dcvclopmcnt scrviccs/public policy planning and analysis/cnvironmcntal arrairs/survcying Offices located in: Dublin,Foster City, California - Denver, Colorado Portland,Oregon Bellevue,'"'ashington `i9 " Cz7- o { 1 z-� - LO T 32 - TRACT 5402 _. -- — r r . F 7. _ _. .. ... . EUC-1LyPTUS 6L02414,4 GOMP4CTA - . . - I I . I . r - .-. ------ . r _ — -� POAD .. .... .. _ . 1 _ I __._... 20 - t I � 1 1 t • _--_'Q{---_--Ir 1 I-�•�_-.s.II I.-1 11_.i�-.1_---`t-...`J`�...-r -._—.��=?-�_P�_a'¢'33--3_0-._-•_-.,mo.Io,_l._j r ..�. . ..�5- -_t_-1��}J(:,_:,7: :_A_—so��—:�.-�-�-.....�.-.---.��,�—:!.-�j-_-o•�.�—�-(:_�.o'ff-_-_�----j:j l.-j'•��(}-'p-__--`—f .•f±i 1 I F— oI '_T---_-:-.... .-e\-i_✓__i i-- --_..__-:.'_.:.-L.; .------.--.....-.--_--..—--- ? -- DUM C71 _ ,0 78 AQ _—--C-•r-}`--- .:: .._- _ — - ----- , • l_ r _ _ r 1 . f . r r June 12, 1985 TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 5402 LOT AREAS , Cd{ 4A' =;007 SF 1 E:E:9 SF Z- 8059 SF 3 1.0507 SF 4 9::—:66 6 SF 5 96-47 SF G 86-t=-:9 SF 1 8350 SF $ 7 18 SF c1 7:=:31 SF %o 71:=:2 SF 11 7456 SF 11 9129 SF 13 9027 SF I`/ 7950 SF 15 7004 SF IL 7341 SF 11 7066 SF IS 7259 SF 19 7169 SF 20 7111 SF 111 7123 SF '1'L 7254 SF -0 7534 SF Iq 73.-Z-:5 SF t5 72212 SF 24 6:42'3 SF 1l 11266 SF 14 -7-7 1- -.-L SF 29 7749 SF 30 SF 31 11156, SF 3t 1622_ SF 33 10502 SF 3`I 13'29 SF '35 :=:6.40 SF 34 9::-::0 1 SF 51 9075 SF 38 C-019 SF 3l 76,12 SF 40 7000 SF 11 902'? SF yz 10130 SF Ltl 7514 SF yN E:512 SF yy E:453 SF HC 10643 SF 7712 SF '(9 7000 SF y9 -- 8042 SF 5`fl 9190 SF d1 - 9221 SF '5t 11765 SF S3 7000 SF s•/ 716.0 SF y5 13054 SF 4-6 11555 SF 61 10953 SF i8 11847 SF 51 136:61 SF Gs 776',2 SF 11 1OE:9 SF Ct In:::_;6 SF 63 _ 9514 SF 96:74 SF 0 1226',9 SF LC 1O62-1G: SF 67 1476.3 SF 68 1046:3 SF 69 8 46:3 'SF 70 10027 SF'Ii 9199 SF -i 914:c: SF 73 96,37 SF '7 y 79:--:2 SF '+r 7000 SF % 7143 SF 79 7550 SF 90 11472 SF ti 1''02:=: SF $2 66.45 SF a3 7373) SF 11 =:095 SF l8 _:032 SF 84 70001 SF 87 7='6',1 SF 84 7.317 sF'V _•142'' SF 88 916:3 SF AVERAGE LOT AREA i��f�Lv�cf�z� r1l e ' /Z � TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 5402 --------- --- ----- ---- PAD AREAS LOT LOT , 1 - 5230 45 - 5040 2 - 6240 46 - 5040 3 - 6160 47 - 6080 4 - 8720 48 - 5600 5 - 6480 49 - 5280 6 - 5920 50 - 6480 7 - 6400 51 - 7360 8 - 6560 52 - 5920 9 - 5790 53 - 7200 10 - 5760 54 - 5090 11 - 5440 55 - 5200 12 - 6160 56 - 7520 13 - 7280 57 - 6640 14 - 7600 58 - 6320 15 - 6320 59 - 6400 16 - 5280 60 - 8000 17 - 5500 61 - 6080 18 - 5120 62 - 7920 19 - 6080 63 - 5680 20 - 6880 64 - 5040 21 - 6000 65 - 5280 22 - 5890 66 - 6000 23 - 6160 67 - 5480 24 - 6160 68 - 9920 25 - 5200 :- 69 - 7040 26 - 4880 70 - 5520 27 - 5360 71 - 6560 28 - 6480 72 - 6720 29 - 7680 73 - 5840 30 - 7200 74 - 7360 31 - 9600 75 - 4880 32 - 6160 76 - 5280 33 - 10400 77 - 5360 34 - 8720 78 — 5920 35 7840 79 - 5680 36 - 5920 80 - 6080 l 37 - 7170 81 - 9660 38 - 6400 82 - 10570 39 - 6080 83 - 7200 40 - 6640 84 - 5440 41 - 6480 85 - 4960 42 - 7600 86 - 6480 43 - 9120 87 - 6320 44 - 6160 88 - 7440 *Smallest Pad - 4880 S . F . ( lots 26 & 75 ;'�eridE�4�' S�2 Average Pad = 6490 S . F. Pjf� I�A 45 _ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 85-005 MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended together with the State ' s administrative guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and City Environmental regulations, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and considered it at a public hearing on May 20, 1985 and on June 17 , 1985; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission on June 17 , 1985 , did adopt Resolution No. 85-028 recommending the City Council accept the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project as adequate and complete; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider said Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance at their meeting of July 8, 1985 and determined that the project, PA 85-005 Murray School District, will not have any significant environmental impacts ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental law and guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1985 . AYES: NOES : ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST: Planning Director DP 83-20 AFC- G�Zt7VV, -(-4�7V, T RESOLUTION NO. -85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING WITH DEVELOPMENT PLANS. FOR A TWENTY-SEVEN ACRE SITE CONCERNING PA 85-005.1 MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider the submittal information at their regularly scheduled meetings on May 20, 1985 , and June 17 , 1985 ; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 85-029 recommending approval of PA 85-005 . 1 Murray School District; and WHEREAS, property owners in the vicinity of the subject property were notified of the subject proposal; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning be approved subject to conditions prepared and reflected in the Planning commission Resolution No. 85- and WHEREAS, the City Council considered and reviewed the submittal information at their regularly scheduled meeting on July 8 , 1985 ; and WHEREAS, the the City Council has previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (Resolution No. -85 ) ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning will not have a significant environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area, will be visually attractive, will not overburden public services, and will provide housing of a type and cost that is desired, yet not readily available in the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City' s general plan policies; and J WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the rezoning will be a detriment to, or interfere with, the City' s General Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning request for an 88-unit single family residential project with the future five-acre public park site as generally shown on the Plans labeled Exhibit "A" for PA 85-005 . 1 and subject to the following Conditions of Approval; Unless otherwise stipulated in the following conditions of approval, development shall be subject to final review and approval by the Planning Director prior to issue of grading or building permits . Final plans must be submitted at minimum of 30 days prior to the issuance of building and/or grading permits . A. d -1 1 i� "W/G�� Conditions of Approval PA 85-005 .1 1 . This approval is for an 88-unit single family residential project. Development shall be generally consistent with the following submittals; A. Tentative Map Tract 5402 (Revised) , prepared by Wilsey and Ham, and dated received by the Dublin Planning Department June 11, 1985 . B. Tentative Map Tract 5402 - Conceptual Erosion Control Plan, prepared by Wilsey and Ham, and dated received by the Dublin Planning Department April 9, 1985 . C. Lot Sizes/Average Lot Size - Tentative Map 5402 dated received by the Dublin Planning Department June 17, 1985 . D . Project Cross Sections - Tentative Map 5402 , dated received by the Dublin Planning Department April 9 , 1985 . E . Typical Unit Placement on Cul-de-sacs - Tentative Map 5402 , dated received by the Dublin Planning Department June 12 , 1985 . F. Tentative Map 5402 - Proposed Unit Footprint, dated received by the Dublin Planning Department April 9 , 1985 . G. Retaining Wall - Tentative Map 5402 , prepared by Wilsey and Ham, and dated received by the Dublin Planning Department June 12 , 1985 . H. Typical Side-Lot Section - Tentative Map 5402 , prepared by Wilsey and Ham, and dated received by the Dublin Planning Department April 16 , 1985 . I . Pad Sizes/Average Pad Sizes - Tentative Map 5402 , prepared by Wilsey and Ham and dated received by the Dublin Planning Department June 17 , 1985 . Collectively the foregoing submittals shall constitute Exhibit "A" for PA 85-005 . 1. 2 . Site Development Review approval by Staff shall be acquired prior to issuance of building permit or grading permits . The Site Development Review shall implement these conditions of approval concerning the physical development of the project and shall reflect the design modifications called for in the Staff Study prepared for this project. The design criteria for lots developed in this project shall observe the following standards ; Front setback - 20 ' minimum Rear setback - 20 ' minimum (with a 15 ' minimum clear and level area from building to adjoining top or toe of slope with the bulk of the units observing an 18 ' minimum clear and level area) . Sideyard - 5 ' minimum (with 5 ' minimum clear and level area from building to adjoining top or toe of slopes) . Aggregate sideyard - 15 ' minimum (with 10 ' minimum aggregate clear and level area from building to adjoining top or toe of slopes ) . -2- Street-side sideyard setback - 12 ' minimum Except as specifically modified by the above listed design criteria, or as established elsewhere in the conditions of approval for this project, the lots developed on this property shall be subject to the guidelines of the R-1-B-E; Single Family Residential Combining District (with 7 , 000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and 70 ' minimum average width) as regards both land use restrictions and minimum/maximum development criteria. 3 . All units shall contain standard and currently available energy saving devices, and shall be insulated in accordance with Title 24 , State of California Administrative Code. Evidence shall be provided to the Building Official from P .G. & E. that the units meet P .G. & E. ' s requirements of the "Energy Conservation Home Program" , if it still exists at the time the units are to be constructed. 4 . The project architect, or civil engineer, shall provide a letter to the Planning Director or Building - inspector stating that water conservant toilets, shower heads, faucets, and automatic dishwashers with low flow cycles have been installed in the units . 5 . Except as may be specificaly provided for within these conditions of approval, the development shall comply with City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions . 6 . Except as may be specifically provided for within these conditions of approval, development shall comply with City of Dublin Police Services Standard Residential Building Security Requirements . 7 . A new 6-foot high heavy timber fence, shall be installed along that portion of the easterly property line where the subject property abuts the twelve existing residences located along Castillian Road and Castillian Court. The developer shall be responsible for installation of rear and sideyard fences for all lots created by this subdivision. 8 . The project shall be constructed as approved. Minor modifications in the design, but not the use, may be approved by Staff . Any other change will require Planning Commission approval . 9 . Handicapped ramps as required by Title 24 , State of California, shall be provided. 10 . Detailed review of the access arrangement proposed for Lots 42 and 43 and security lighting proposed at the end of the private roadway serving these two lots shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department as part of the Site Development Review process . Draft documents establishing the private accessway serving these lots and providing for its ongoing maintenance and landscaping shall be submitted for review at the time of the Site Development Review application submittal . 11 . There shall be compliance with DSRSD Fire Department requirements, Flood Control District requirements, and Public Works requirements . Written statements from each agency approving the plans over which it has jurisdiction shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of Building Permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project. 12 . All utilities to and within the /project shall be undergrounded. All meters shall be screened from view or enclosed in a manner that is compatible in design and materials to that of the building to which it is attached. 13 . Secure DSRSD agreement to maintain the on-site sanitary sewer collection system excluding individual laterals. The system shall be designed as acceptable to DSRSD. 14 . Fire hydrants shall be installed and operable, to the satisfaction of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department, prior to combustible construction. 15 . Prior to final inspection and occupancy of any units : a. Storm drainage facilities shall have been installed as approved by the City Engineer. b. Fire protection devices shall have been installed, be operable, and conform to the specifications of and inspections by the Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department. C . Cable TV hook-up shall be provided to each unit. d. As-built drawings showing the locations of all underground utilities (water, storm and sanitary sewer, gas, electric, telephone, and cable TV) shall be provided to the City. , e . Street name signs, bearing such names as are determined acceptable by the Planning Director, City Engineer, DSRSD-Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department shall have been installed. 16 . Approval of this Planned Development -is for two years as is specified in Section 8-31 . 2 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance. 17 . 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. 18 . Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans and specifications for street improvements, grading, drainage ( including size, type and location of drainage facilities both on- and off-site) and erosion and sedimentation control shall be submitted and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 19 . 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 erosion, settlement and seismic activity. 20 . Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, other approved dissipating devices, or tied into the storm drain system. 21 . Dust control measures , as approved by the City Engineer, shall be followed at all times during grading and construction operations . 22 . 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. 23 . Developer shall keep adjoining public streets and driveways free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials and debris and clean up shall be made during the construction period, as determined by the City Engineer . -4- 24 . a. Prior to commencement of any structures: Grading must conform with the recommendations of the soils engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A declaration by the soils engineer that he has supervised grading and that such conformance has occurred shall be submitted. b. Prior to final inspection of buildings the following shall have been submitted to the City Engineer: 1 ) An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, including original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage, and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities . 2 ) A complete record, including location and elevation of all field density tests, and 'a summary of all field and laboratory tests. 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. 25 . Prior to any grading of the site, a detailed plan covering grading ( including phasing) , drainage, water quality, erosion and sedimentation control for construction and the post- construction period shall be prepared by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, and shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sediment control measures . The plans shall attempt to insure that no increase in sediment or pollutants from the site will occur. The plan shall provide for long-term maintenance of all permanent erosion and sediment control measures 26 . Prior to final inspection of buildings, the developer shall grade the site, install soil erosion, sedimentation and drainage control measures, and improve all streets and easements, as shown or indicated on Exhibit "A" , and these conditions . 27 . Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and materials on site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The developer shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City. 28 . Install fire hydrants at the locations approved by the Dublin San Ramon Services District in accordance with present standards . Provide a raised blue reflectorized pavement marker in the center of the private vehicle accessways at each fire hydrant. 29 . If during construction, archaeological or historical remains are encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted, qualified archaeologist consulted, and the Planning Department notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect them. 30 . Unit address information shall be provided to the satisfaction of the DSRSD Fire Department, Postal Service, Police Services, and Dublin Planning Department. 31 . Parkland dedication as required by the Subdivision Ordinance shall be made prior to recordation of the Final Map. The City Engineer shall calculate the parkland dedication based upon the Subdivision Ordinance . The p/eliminary park dedication land required for the 88 lot Subdivision is 42 , 166 sq. ft. Final calculations shall be prior to the approval of the Final Map . A future public park site of a minimum size of five acres shall be called out on the Final Map for this project and shall be identified as Parcel "A" . A notation on the Final Map shall indicate that the future land use of Parcel "A" shall be as a public park. 32 . Should the project be phased: b. The undeveloped area shall be maintained as acceptable to the DSRSD Fire Department and it shall be kept free of trash and debris . C . The complete road system shall be installed with the first phase . d. Each phase shall be developed such that should construction of subsequent phases be delayed, the constructed phase( s) will appear as a completed project. 33 . Information detailing the design, location and materials of all fencing, and of retaining walls over two feet in height shall be submitted as part of the Site Development Review and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director. Design and material of fences shall be compatible with existing fencing in the vicinity of the project. 34 . Known water wells without a documented intent of future use are to be destroyed prior to any demolition or grading in accordance with a well destruction permit that shall be obtained from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 35 . Public utility easements shall be required for the electric distribution system. The exact locations of the easements for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Pacific Telephone Company shall be secured from those respective agencies . 36 . There may be one sign established for project identification purposes . The location, copy and design of the sign shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director as part of the Site Development Review submittal . 37 . The developer shall furnish and install for each residence developed, mail receptacles approved by the United State Postal Service. Mail boxes are to be located in groups of at least two at the curb so they can be safely and conveniently served by the carrier from the postal vehicle . Where sidewalks abut the curb, mail boxes are to be installed at the edge of the sidewalk where they can be served by the carrier from the sidewalk. The developer shall submit written documentation to the City that the requirements of the Postal Service have been met. i 38 . Slope areas created in conjunction with this project with resultant slope height in excess of seven feet shall be planted with 15 gallon sized trees within 60 days of the site ' s rough grading. Planting ratio of these slopes shall be one tree @ 1000+ square feet of slope area. In addition to the trees required at rear and/or side-slope areas, one on-site tree shall be provided by the developer along the frontage of the lots established by this subdivision. The trees shall be of a minimum size of 15 gallons and shall be of a species determined acceptable by the Planning Department during the Site Development Review. Trees on individual lots shall be maintained by developer until units are initially occupied. 39 . The developer shall diligently pursue the necessary approvals to perform off-site grading to provide a smooth transition of slopes adjoining existing residential areas (Lot 1 of Tract 2689 as it relates to proposed Lot 11 of Tract 5402 and Lots 11 and 12 of Tract 2689 as they relate to proposed Lots 2-4 and 24-27 of Tract 5402 ) . -6- 40 . The following lot specific adjustments/design specifications shall be reflected on the Site Development Review submittal for this project; Lot 3 - Lower pad elevation by 3 feet Lot 11 - Pursue off-site grading Lot 36 - Access to be off of Obispo Court Lot 42 - Adjust depth of lot to accomodate 20 ' easement, 20 ' setback from easement and 20 ' rear yard setback. Lot 48 - Access to be off of Santo Court Lot 51 - 25 ' minimum setback from north property line to be provided Lot 54 - Access to be off of Iglesia Drive Lot 61 - Access to be off of Soleado Court Lot 73 - Access to be off of Soleado Drive Lot 77 - Access to be off of Iglesia Drive Lot 78 - Access to be off of Juarez Court Lot 81 - 25 ' minimum setback from north property line to be provided Lot 82 - 25 ' minimum setback from south property line to be provided Lot 84 - Lot configuration to be adjusted to provide minimum 100 ' depth from either Juarez Court or Castilian Road, with access to be along the long axis . 41 . The developer shall incorporate some or all of the following specific design modifications (or additional modifications as determined acceptable by the Planning Director) into the project through the Site Development Review process to alleviate grading/visual impact concerns identified in the southeast corner of the project. The building pads for Lots 3 , 4 , 24 - 29 and 31 - 33 shall be lowered a minimum of five feet through the use of the approved design modifications. Adjust slope of Obispo Court to maximize drop from Iglesia Drive while maintaining desired engineering J standards ( i .e. , 6% maximum slope gradient at intersection and across cul-de-sac bulb) . - Slope driveways downward from adjoining public streets Adjust lot configuration to allow use of single story units for the lots in this area (this may be done in conjunction with the elimination of one lot in this .area. A replacement Lot may be introduced in vicinity Juarez Court, if deemed acceptable by the Planning Director as regards design implications for that portion of the project . Use split-level building pad putting garages one half floor ( 4 ' +) higher then the remaining living areas . Provide rear yard fence at the top of the proposed slope . -7- Provide a tree planting program for rear slope areas with a minimum planting ratio of 1 tree @ 1, 000+ square feet ( approximately 3-4 trees per rear yard of Lots in question) . Reduce, to the extent feasible, the depth of proposed building pads to allow gradient of rear slopes to be decreased. Use of terracing and/or retaining walls in the rear yard areas . 42 . A minimum of five parking spaces shall be provided for each lot located along or in proximity to cul-de-sacs ( i .e . , two garage spaces, two driveway spaces and one on-street space or one additional on-site space) . For "flag-lots" where an additional on-site parking space is to be provided, adequate backout maneuvering room shall be provided. The means the required parking is to be provided shall be subject to review through the Site Development Review process . 43 . The developer shall incorporate some or all of the following specific design modifications (or additional) modifications as determined acceptable by the Planning Director into the project through the Site Development Review process to maximize the effective "rear yard living area" ( i .e. , level and clear rear yard area measured from the rear elevation of home to the adjoining top or toe of slope or rear property line where no slope is present) . In no instances shall the "rear yard living area" be less then a minimum area of 1, 375 square feet; - Use front to rear split level building pads with a one-half floor ( 4+) split. - Use front to rear split rear yards with split being between 2 ' and 4 ' in height. - Use terraced retaining walls ( 2 ' maximum height, with 8 ' minimum horizontal separation and with 2 ' level work area to the immediate rear of the respective walls. - Use of 2 : 1 slopes in place of proposed 3 : 1 slopes ( subject to recommendations of an updated Soil Investigation .Report) . - Use additional 2 ' high retaining walls as needed. 44 . In conjunction with the above stated conditions, development of the subject property shall also be subject to the conditions established for Subdivision 5402 , City File # PA 85-005 .2 . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th day of July, 1985 . AYES : NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -8- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------ APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5402 CONCERNING PA 85-005 .2 MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Murray School District proposes to subdivide 27+ acres of land into 88 lots with a designated future five-acre neighborhood park site; and WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing unless a tentative map is acted upon and a final map is approved consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin subdivision regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the proposed Murray School District Tentative Map 5402 at public hearings on May 20, 1985 and June 17 , 1985 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 85-030 recommending approval of PA 85-005 . 2 Murray School District; and WHEREAS, property owners in the vicinity of the subject property were notified of the subject proposal; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that Tentative Map 5402 be approved subject. to conditions prepared and reflected in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 85-030 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered and reviewed the submittal information at their regularly scheduled meeting on July 8 , 1985 ; and WHEREAS, The City Council has previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Tentative Map will not have a significant environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports and recommendations as herein above set forth; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds : 1 . Tentative Map 5402 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and City Zoning and related ordinance . 2 . Tentative Map 5402 is consistent with the City ' s General Plan as it applies to the subject property. 3 . Approval of Tentative Map 5402 will not result in the creation of any significant environmental impacts. 4 . Development of Tentative Map 5402 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 . 5 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in that the site is indicated to be geologically satisfactory for the type of development proposed in locations as shown, provided recommendations are found in the various geotechnical and soil investigation reports covering the site . DP 83-20 6 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in that the design and improvements are consistent with those of similar existing residential developments which have proven to be satisfactory and the site is in a good location regarding public services and facilities . 7 . The request is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area, will not overburden public services, and will facilitate the provision of housing of a type that is desired, yet not readily available in the City of Dublin. 8 . General site considerations, including lot layout and configuration, site grading, orientation and the location of future buildings , vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. 9 . This project will not cause serious public health problems in that all necessary utilities are, or will be, required to be available and Zoning, Building, and Subdivision Ordinances control the type of development and the operation of the uses to prevent health problems after development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Map 5402 PA 85-005 . 2 subject to the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL : Unless otherwise specified the following conditions shall be complied with prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Each item is subject to review and approval by the Planning Department unless otherwise specified. GENERAL PROVISIONS : 1 Approval of Tentative Map 5402 is subject to the subdivider securing final approval from the Dublin City Council for PA 85-005.1 the Planned Development Rezoning application covering the subject property. Any modifications to the project design approved by the Planned Development Rezoning action shall supercede the design on the Tentative Map and shall be considered as an approved modification on the Tentative Map. ARCHAEOLOGY: 2. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the City Planning Department notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect them. BONDS: 3. Prior to release by the City Council of the performance and labor and materials securities: a. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improvement Plans and Specifications. b. Grading of the subject property must conform with the recommendations of the soils engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. C. The following shall have been submitted to the City Engineer: 1. An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, including original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage, and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. 2. A complete record, including location and elevation of all field density tests, and a summary of all field and laboratory tests. 3. A declaration by the Project Civil Engineer and Project Geologist that all work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the soil and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and specifications. 4. Performance, labor, and material securities to guarantee the installation of subdivision improvements, including streets, drainage, grading, utilities and landscaping, shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. DEBRIS: 5. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and materials on- site until disposal off-site can be arranged. Subdivider shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to City of Dublin. DUST: 6. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be watered, or other dust-pallative measures used, to prevent dust, as conditions warrant. 7. Dust control measures, -as approved by the City Engineer shall be followed at all times during grading and construction operations. EASEMENTS: 8. The land divider shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for improvements required outside of the land division. Copies of the easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in written form and be furnished to the City Engineer. 9. Existing and proposed access and utility easements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. These easements shall allow for practical vehicular and utility service access for all lots. EROSION: 10. Prior to any grading of the site, and in any case prior to filing a Final Map, a detailed construction grading plan (including phasing) ; and a drainage, water quality, and erosion and sedimentation control plan, for construction and post-construction period, prepared by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist; shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said plan shall include detailed, design, location, periods when required, and maintenance criteria, of all erosion and sediment control measures. The plan shall attempt to insure that no increase in sediment or pollutants from the site will occur. The plan shall provide for long-term maintenance of all permanent erosion and sediment control measures such as slope vegetation. All erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained by the Subdivider for a minimum period of one year from the time the final improvements are installed. FIRE: 11. Install and/or relocate fire hydrants at the locations required 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. 12. All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connections, and appurtenances thereto, necessary to provide water supply for fire protection, must be installed by the developer and conform to all requirements of the applicable provisions of the Standard Specifications of Dublin San Ramon Services District. All such work will be subject to the joint field inspection of the City Engineer and Dublin San Ramon Services District. DP 83-20 FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT'S: 13. Dedication of land shall be made to the City of Dublin such that it conveys land sufficient for the approved streets' right-of-way. Improvements shall be made, by the applicant, along all streets within the development and as required off-site, to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, drainage, and work on the existing paving, if necessary, from a structural or grade continuity standpoint. 14. Developer contribute the same dollar amount per unit as the Nielsen Development ($233/unit) to be used on the improvement and signalization of the Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road intersection. 15. The Developer shall repair and overlay Castilian Road fronting this tract (lots 11, 12, 77, 78, 84, 85, and 86) after the utility service cuts have been made. GRADING: 16. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials, all underground utilities shall be installed and service connections stubbed out behind the sidewalk. Public utilities, Cable TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines, shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made. 17. 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. 18. Any grading on adjacent properties will require written approval of those property owners affected. 19. The subdivider shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as is found necessary by the City Engineer. 20. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different from that anticipated in the soil and geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity. HANDICAPPED ACCESS: 21. Handicapped ramps shall be provided as required by State of California Title 24. IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AGREEMENTS, AND SECURITIES: 22. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb gutter, sidewalks, driveways, paving, and utilities, must be constructed in accordance with approved standards and/or plans. 23. The subdivider shall enter into an improvement agreement with the City for all improvements. 24. Complete improvement plans, specifications, and calculations shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the City Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Improvement plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements along adjacent public street(s) and property that relate to the proposed improvements. 25. All required securities, in an amount equal to 100% of the approved estimates of construction costs of improvements, and a labor and material security, equal to 500 of the construction cost, shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the City and affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution of the Subidvision Improvement Agreement. DP 83-20 MISCELLANEOUS: 26. 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. 27. There shall be compliance with DSRSD Fire Department requirements, Flood Control District requirements, and Public Works requirements. Written statements from each agency approving the plans over which it has jurisdiction shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of Building Permits or Grading Permits on lots of the subdivision or the installation of any improvements related to this project. NOISE: 28. Construction and grading operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and the hours from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., except as approved in writing by the City Engineer. PARKLAND DEDICATION: 29. Parkland dedication shall be made in conjunction with the recordation of the Final Map. The City Engineer shall calculate the parkland dedication based upon the Subdivision Ordinance. The preliminary park dedication land required for the 88 lot subdivision is 42,166 sq. ft. Final calculations shall be prior to the approval of the Final Map. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, developer shall enter into a binding agreement with the City, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, for the City to accept/acquire the proposed park site. A future public park site of a minimum size of five acres shall be called out on the Final Map for this project and shall be identified as Parcel "A". A notation on the Final Map shall indicate that the future land use of Parcel "A" shall be as a public park. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a deed transferring title of Parcel "A" to the City of Dublin, through a combination of park dedication and sale, shall be prepared by the developer and property owner. The deed shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Final Map. Wording and documents associated with this condition shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: 30. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be accomplished at the developer's, including the relocation of any Pacific Gas and Electric and/or Pacific Bell Company poles or facilities located in the intersection of proposed streets with existing streets, or any poles within the subdivision or otherwise so located that the subdivider desires their location changed. Relocation of one pole will be necessary at Juarez Court and Castilian Road. STREETS: 31. The minimum uniform gradient on streets shall be 0.5%, and 1% on parking areas, and 2% on soil drainage. , The street surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The City Engineer shall review the project's Soils Engineer's structural pavement design. The subdivider shall, at his sole expense, make tests of the soil over which the surfacing . and base is to be constructed and furnish the test reports to the City Engineer. The subdivider's soils engineer shall determine a preliminary structural design of the road bed. After rough grading has been completed, the developer shall have soil tests performed to determine the final design of the road bed./ 32. Street grades through intersections shall be a maximum of 6% slope except with specific approval by the City Engineer. 33. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City Engineer for any work done within the public right-of-way of Padre Way, Castilian Road, Castilian Court and Creekside Drive, where this work is not covered under the Subdivision Improvement plans. STORM DRAINAGE: 34. This area is within Special Drainage Area 7-1 and is subject to the conditions of District Ordinance No. 53 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Any applicable conditions of said ordinance will be imposed at the time of issuance of building permits. f Dp 83-20 35. All paved slopes shall be a minimum of 0.5%. 36. All storm drains shall be no less than 12" in diameter to minimize maintenance problems. 37. Overbank flow shall be avoided on the new cut and fill slopes. A berm and/or "V" ditch shall be established at the tops of these slopes. 38. The two pick-up points along the westerly boundary line for the small creek and a swale shall be designed in a manner determined acceptable to the City Engineer and the Alameda County Flood. The hydraulics shall include inlet control at the pick-up point, runoff flow and eventual pick-up point for a 100-year storm overflow. This shall be done in such a manner as not to flood any existing or proposed buildings. 39. The swale on the lower side of the park shall break and drain either way from the common line between lots 81 and 82. A new catch basin then added over the existing 36" diameter storm drain line between lots 74 and 81. 40. Abandoned storm drains shall be plugged with concrete or washed full of sand. 41. The bench along the downhill slopes of lots 68 and 71 shall drain to the existing 36" diameter storm drain between these lots and a new catch basin shall be installed over the existing pipe. 42. The rear yard drainage across other lots shall be in a private drainage easement. Lots 20 through 24 shall be picked up in a private storm drain pipe system and discharged into the concrete ditch at the bottom of lot 24. Lots 25 through 32, excluding 30, shall have their drainage picked up individually and undergrounded to the ditch at the toe of the slope. 43. The bench along the westerly property line shall contain a concrete ditch and be in a private storm drainage easement. 44. Site specific drainage requirements shall be reviewed by way of a project specific soil and Foundation Report which is to be prepared for this project in conjunction with preparation of Improvement Plans. 45. All extraneous drainage easements to be abandoned through the City's abandonment proceedings. STREET LIGHTS: 46. Install street light standards and luminaries of the design, spacing, and locations, approved by the City Engineer. STREET NAMES: 47. The subdivider shall furnish and install street name signs, bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director, City Engineer, DSRSD-Fire Department and the Dublin Police Department. The subdivider shall also install traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of the City of Dublin. Addresses shall be as approved by the City Building Official. i STREET TREES: 48. Street trees, of at least a 15-gallon size, shall be planted at the minimum ratio of two trees per lot along the street frontages. Trees shall be planted in accordance with a planting plan, including tree varieties and locations, approved by the Planning Director. Trees planted within, or adjacent to, sidewalks shall be provided with root shields. TITLE: 49. A current title report and copies of the recorded deeds of all parties having any record title interest in the property to be divided and, if necessary, copies of deeds for adjoining properties and easements, thereto, shall be submitted at the time of submission of the Final Subdivision Map for the City Engineer. DP 83-20 UTILITIES: 50. Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services, shall be provided underground to each lot in accordance with the City policies and existing ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements, sized to meet utility company standards. 51. Prior to the filing the Final Map, the 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 and/or lot included on the Final Map of the subdivision. WATER: 52. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system, and must be installed at the expense of the developer, in accordance with District standards and specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains, and appurtenances thereto, must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and will be subject to field inspection by the District. 53. 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. Comply with DSRSD, Public Works, requirements, particularly regarding: a. The elevation of the storm drain relative to the sewer lines; b. The location of the sewer man-holes. They shall be in areas accessible by District equipment; C. Dedication of sewer lines; d. Location and design of the water system values. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th day of July, 1985. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DP 83-20 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN ---------------=------------------------------------------------ The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows: SECTION 1 : Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the following manner: Twenty-seven ( 27 . 0 )+ acres located at the southwest intersection of Castilian Road and Padre Way, designated assessor Parcel Numbers 941-99-5-1 and 941-100-7-26, are hereby zoned to the Planned Development (PD) District; and PA 85-005 ( .1 and . 2 ) Murray School District, as shown on Exhibit A (PD Rezoning and (Tentative Map Plans) , Exhibit B (Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance) , Exhibit C and (Approval, Findings and General Provisions PD Rezoning) , and Exhibit D (Approval, Findings and General Provisions Tentative Map) , on file with the City of Dublin Planning Department, are hereby adopted as regulations for the use, improvement and maintenance of the property within this District. A map of the area is as follows; cl COL -tt•p wr.c � r o.E - ° ¢�� N ` � ,�• y DUB IN _L •�� SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty ( 30 ) days from after the date of its passage. Before the expiration of fifteen ( 15 ) days after its passage, it shall be published once with the names of the Council members voting for and against the same in the Tri-Valley Herald, a newspaper published in Alameda County and available in the City of Dublin. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 8th day of July, 1985, by the folowing votes: AYES : / NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT Meeting Date : June 17 , 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: PA 85-005 . 1 and . 2 Murray School District Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map 5402 GENERAL INFORMATION PREVIOUS ACTION : The initial public hearing for this project was held on May 20 , 1985 . Following public testimony and discussion, the item was continued to the meeting of June 17 , 1985 , ( see Attachment 1 - Excerpt of Minutes of Commission Meeting of May 20, 1985) . Direction was given to Staff and the applicant from the Planning Commission as regarded the supplemental information and/or review requested by the Commission for the meeting of June 17 , 1985 . The purpose of this Supplemental Staff Report is to provide analysis of supplemental/revised information received from the applicant subsequent to the May 20th hearing and to provide information and/or review of the various items discussed at that hearing . REVISED SITE PLAN: A revised Site Plan was received on June 11 , 1985 , ( See Exhibit A) that proposed design solutions to a majority of the problems identified by Staff in its report of May 20 , 1985 . The major design modifications shown in this Tentative Map submittal are linked to the proposed elimination of one of the three cul-de-sacs previously shown to extend westerly off of Iglesia Drive . Elimination of the middle cul-de-sac is proposed to be done in conjunction with a lengthening of Regio Court ( increasing the number of new lots proposed off of this cul-de-sac from six to ten lots) , a realignment of Iglesia Drive (which pulls it more westerly into the site while providing a smoother alignment) and a shortening of Soleado Court (decreasing the number of lots) . Based on Staff ' s analysis of this plan, Staff feels the modified layout represents a substantial improvement over the plan submitted for the previous hearing. Problems relating to so-called "Sub-Area C" (the eight-lot middle cul-de-sac previously proposed off Iglesia) have been eliminated and substantial layout improvements to the park site have been provided ( improving the Park ' s configuration, increasing the length of park frontage along Iglesia Drive and decreasing the height and depth of slopes at the west side of the park) . REQUESTED INFORMATION/REVIEW FROM MAY 20 , 1985 , COMMISSION MEETING : The various items of discussion of the May 20 , 1985 have been grouped into the following categories to facilitate analysis and consideration : 1 . ANALYSIS OF ADJOINING SUBDIVISIONS-EXISTING AND PROPOSED . The applicant has provided a base map which graphically depicts existing and proposed development in the vicinity of the subject property . ( See Attachment 2 ) On this base map Staff has identified the seven discrete groupings of lots in the area and has charted ( See Attachment 3 ) the following information for each lot grouping ; Zoning designation, number of lots in area, / ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. • 1 10�72nK7_ alj? �T llf j minimum lot size, average lot size, and house size range (excludes garages ) . A review of the surrounding subdivision activity leads Staff to a conclusion that the subject proposal is compatible to existing and surrounding development as regards lot sizes and proposed home sizes. A revised read-outs of the proposed project lot areas and average lot size have also been submitted by the applicant and have been incorporated into Exhibit A. In response to the discussion at the previous Commission hearing, Staff requested that the applicant prepare an analysis of the amount of lot area devoted to slope areas ( i .e . , % of net acreage proposed to be in slopes of three- horizontal to one vertical or steeper slope) . In lieu of performing that calculation, the applicant choose instead to make a detailed analysis of the project ' s proposed rear yard living space ( i .e. , clear and level area between rear of proposed units and any adjoining change in slope) . The applicant has indicated an ability to incorporate into the project a minimum design criteria requirement that a 15 foot rear yard living space be provided (clear and level rear yard area) with a bulk of units able to observe a standard of 18 feet. This change has been incorporated into proposed Condition #2 of Exhibit C . 2 . GRADING AT SOUTHEAST CORNER AND GENERAL DISCUSSION OF SLOPE AREA. Specific concerns about the proposed grading plan were voiced in . regards to the introduction of fill in the southeast corner of the project (creating building pads situated 20 to 35 feet above existing adjoining residential units ) , as regards the proposed use of retaining walls in the project and as regards the provision of usable-level living areas around the proposed dwelling units . The applicant has submitted for review a project section taken in the southeast corner of the project running from proposed Lot 32 and extending easterly offsite to one of the adjoining existing residential units (See Exhibit A - Project Section Southeast Corner) . A detailed review of the proposed pad elevations in this portion of the project has lead Staff to a determination that additional design modifications should be required to enable the building pads for Lots 3 , 4 , 24 - 29 and 31 - 33 to be lowered to the greatest extent possible and that additional design steps ( i .e . , use of landscaping, use of fencing, use of one-story dwelling units) be taken to mitigate resultant potential adverse visual impacts related to the development of these lots. Staff recommends that the developer be directed to incorporate specific design modifications into the project through the Site Development Review process to alleviate grading/visual impact concerns in this area. The specific design modifications for this area are outlined in proposed Condition #41 of Exhibit C and are summarized as follows; - Adjust slope of Obispo Court to maximize drop from Iglesia Drive while maintaining desired engineering standards ( i .e . , 6o maximum slope gradient at intersection and across cul-de-sac bulb) . Slope driveways downward from adjoining public streets Adjust lot configuration to allow use of single story units for the lots in this area ( this may be done in conjunction with the elimination of one lot in this area . A replacement Lot may be introduced in vicinity -2- Juarez Court, if deemed acceptable by the Planning Director as regards design implications for that portion of the project. Use split-level building pad putting garages one half floor ( 4 ' +) higher then the remaining living areas . Provide rear yard fences at the top of the proposed till . - Provide a tree planting program for rear slope areas with a minimum planting ratio of 1 tree @ 1, 000+ square feet . (Approximately 3-4 trees per rear yard of Lots in question) . Reduction, as feasible, of the depth of proposed building pads to allow gradient of rear slopes to be decreased. Use of terracing and/or retaining walls in the rear yard areas . Changes in the details of the proposed usable-level areas surrounding the proposed dwelling units have been discussed in Item #1 above and area laid out in detail within proposed '.Condition #2 of Exhibit C . The design of retaining walls has been modified to show use of a two foot (maximum) slumpstone masonary block wall ( see "Revised Retaining Wall Detail" within Exhibit A) . This will provide walls of a "workable" height and will provide for an improved life and stability of the walls that are developed. Staff has discussed with the applicant a need to provide a tree landscaping program for areas of high slope . Proposed Condition #38 of Exhibit C outlines a requirement that a one tree @ 1 , 000 square feet planting ratio be observed for slope areas created in conjunction with the project which create a resultant slope height in excess of seven feet. 3 . UNIT/PARKING LAYOUT FOR CUL-DE-SAC AND FLAG LOTS . A previously expressed concern of Staff has been that the number of lots proposed along the project ' s cul-de-sacs might create an on-street parking shortage due to provision an inadequate amount of street frontage. The applicant has prepared studies of the five proposed cul-de-sacs and the lots served by the private driveway ( see "Revised Cul-de- Sac studies" in Exhibit A) showing proposed unit footprints, driveway locations and means that the recommended standand of five parking spaces per lot would be achieved ( i .e. , two garage spaces, two driveway spaces and one on-street space or extra on-site space) . The, studies have been reviewed by Staff and determined to display an acceptable means to assure that the desired amount of parking is provided. Proposed Condition #42 of Exhibit C formalizes Staff ' s recommendation concerning street parking and provides for Staff review during the Site Development Review process . The studies prepared by the applicant are considered by Staff to also satisfactorily demonstrate lot development schemes for the project ' s seven "flag"-lots (Lots 4 , 42 , 43 , 51 , 68 , 81 and 82 ) with the exception of Lot 43 which will require an alternate unit selection to achieve the required 20 ' rear yard setback . 4 . SITE DRAINAGE . The revised tentative map has been reviewed by the City Engineer as regards proposed drainage improvements . Based on that review, modifications to previously recommended conditions of approval ( Exhibit E of May 20 , 1985 ) have been made . -3- r i Concerns regarding possible drainage problems at the north end of the site have been previously reviewed by the appropriate responsible agencies . The collective recommendations of these agencies have been incorporated into proposed Condition #44 of Exhibit D which requires that access to the adjoining offsite headwall structure behind Lot 1 of Tract 4077 be obtained by a public agency to provide for its regular maintenance ( this will be possible through the future park site) and that provisions be made in the grading and landscaping of the future park site to "capture and direct the overflow runoff through the park in a safe manner and to the storm draing system in Padre Way. " 5 . AREA CIRCULATION To facilitate an overview of probable future area circulation patterns, Staff utilized the area base map prepared by the applicant to analyze the probable alternate traffic routes future traffic from the adjoining Nielsen Ranch subdivisions might utilize . This information is detailed graphically on Attachment 4 . It is anticipated that traffic from 100+ units of the Nielsen Subdivision would utilize the future intersection of Rolling Hills Drive and Creekside Drive to reach San Ramon Road. The two routes are comparable in length in reaching San Ramon Road, though the Silvergate Route is anticipated to be the favored route. This would be due to the need to make fewer turning movements ( 2 versus 5 ) , the fact that the route would be more direct/smoother as a travel route and due to the fact that all travel from the original point of origin would be along streets designed to collector street standards . It is strongly anticipated that the bulk of traffic desiring to head north on San Ramon Road would still use the Silvergate route , even with the additional travel length ( 6 , 500+ feet versus 4 , 700+ feet) . This is due to the anticipated resultant travel time and travel ease advantages the Silvergate route is anticipated to privde despite its extra length. The provisions of a controlled intersection ( i .e . , a future traffic signal ) at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road is anticipated to provide further inducement for traffic to choose that route . Additional study looking at site specific drainage considerations should be required as part of a site specific Soil and Foundation Report. Preparation of a new report will be required as part of the subdivision process . 6 . MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Concerns about the project' s impacts to local school populations was voiced at the May 20 , 1985 meeting . The applicant subsequently contacted the Murray School District who responded by way of their May 30, 1985, letter. Within the letter the district states that no attendance problems are foreseen in conjunction with this project ( see Attachment 5 ) . Questions were also raised concerning what number of lots can be established at this site and maintain consistancy with this site ' s General Plan designation. Factoring in the requirement that a five-acre park site is to be provided and that the existing land use designation and development policies call for 0 . 9 to 4 . 0 dwelling units per acre at this site, the possible range is 20 to 88 dwelling units . Based on an analysis of the supplemental materials submitted by the applicant and of the additional project review prompted by the testimony received at the Planning Commission meeting of May 20 , 1985 , Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions which collectively serve to recommend the City Council conditionally approve the subject proposal for an 88-unit Planned Development residential project . -4- RECOMMENDATION FORMAT: 1 ) Re=open public hearing and hear staff presentation 2 ) Take testimony from applicant and the public 3 ) Question staff, applicant and the public 4 ) Close public hearing and deliberate 5 ) Adopt Resolutions ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions (Exhibits B, C and D) which respectively serve as follows ; Exhibit B - Resolution recommending approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance ; Exhibit C - Resolution Recommending Approval of Planned Development Rezoning Application PA 85-005 . 1 ; Exhibit D - Resolution recommending approval of Tentative Map 5402 PA 85-005 . 2 . ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A- Revised Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map submittals Exhibit B - Resolution recommending approval of Negative Declaration Exhibit C - Resolution recommending approval of Planned Development Rezoning Exhibit D - Resolution recommending approving Tentative Map 5402 Background Attachments 1 - Excerpt of Minutes of Commission Meeting of May 20 , 1985 2 - Surrounding Subdivisions - Base Map 3 - Surrounding Subdivisions - Analysis Chart 4 - Area Circulation - Anticipated Traffic Routes 5 - Murray School District Letter COPIES TO i Murray School District Attn: Stanley L. Maleski Wilsey & Ham Attn : John DeHorn William I . Morgan F -5- CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date : May 20, 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff �v 4 SUBJECT: PA 85-005 . 1 and . 2 Murray School District Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map 5402 GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: Murray School District/Wilsey & Ham and William I . Morgan ' s Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map applications to develop 27+ acres into an 88-lot single family residential development with a desiganted future five-acre park site. APPLICANT: William I . Morgan 6910 Luther Drive, Unit F Sacramento, California 95823 John R. DeHorn Wilsey & Ham 6377 Clark Avenue, Suite 100 Dublin, California 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: Murray School District 7416 Brighton Drive Dublin, California 94568 LOCATION: The subject site is an irregularly shaped hillside parcel of approximately 26+ acres . The property is bounded on the east by Castilian Drive and an existing subdivision, on the north by Padre Way and on the south and west by undeveloped grasslands . The site is semi-developed having been previously graded for a proposed educational facility. There are several level areas with adjacent down slopes . There are no permanent structures except for a partially buried retaining wall located near the southwest corner of the property. The majority of the site is covered with a heavy weed growth. The majority of the original storm drain system is in place and there are several catch basins a'nd concrete "V" ditches throughout the site . ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-99-5-1 and 941-100-7-26 EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Vacant R-1-B-E (Single Family Residential Combining District) and A (Agricultural District ) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING : North : R-1-B-E; Developed single family residential and the upper reaches of Clark Canyon East : R-1-B-E; Developed single family residential South : PD; Vacant lands under development for /- single family residential use -------------------- `7 ITEM NO. West : PD; Vacant lands under development for single family residential use APPLICABLE REGULATIONS : A. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Title 8, Chapter I , Alameda County Subdivision Ordinance as adopted and amended by the City of Dublin, reads in part: 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 the 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 insure the area dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved, initially, so as not to be future burden upon the community; to reserve natural resources and prevent environmental damage ; to maintain suitable standards to insure adequate , safe building sites ; and, to prevent hazard to life and property. B. GENERAL PLAN The following excerpts from the City' s General Plan apply to the subject proposal : 1 . 8 . 1 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS : The subject property ' s land use classification is Single Family Residential ' ( 0 . 9 to 6 . 0 units per gross residential acre) . This designation provides for detached and zero lot line (no sideyard) units . Assumed household size is 3 . 2 persons per unit. Examples are recent subdivisions in Dublin ' s Western Foothills at about 2 . 0 units per acre and Ponderosa Village at 5 . 8 units per acre. 2 . 1 . 1 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES FOR RESIDENTIAL SITES Site Site's Mac Acres Maximum Units General Plan Residential Designation Dolan Site, Murray 11 27 88 Single Family at 4 units School District units/acre maximum 2 . 1 . 3 B RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY: An implementation policy of the Plan is to require all site plans to respect the privacy and scale of residential development hearby. 3 . 3 OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION: An implementation policy of the Plan is that a five-acre neighborhood park be acquired out of the Dolan School site when the site is sold by Murray School District. This future park site is one of three sites whose acquisition is called for by the Plan. 5 . 1 I . TRAFFIC WAYS : An implementation policy of the Plan is prevent misuse of neighborhood collector streets by through traffic . C . ZONING ORDINANCE: 8-31 . 0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS : INTENT: Planned Development Districts , hereinafter designated as PD Districts , are established to encourage the arrangement of a compatible variety of uses on suitable lands in such a manner that the resulting development will : a) Be in accord with the Policies of the General Plan of the City of Dublin ; -2- b) Provide efficient use of the land that includes preservation of significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape features with minimum alteration of natural land forms ; c) Provide an environment that will encourage the use of- common open areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities ; d) Be compatible with and enhance the development of the general area; e) Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment . 8-31 . 12 CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRED. The provisions of this Article shall become applicable to any given development only upon change in Zoning District to a Planned Development District, in accordance with the provision of Article 8 (Procedures ) of this Chapter, with the following exceptions to the provisions of said Article 8: a) The determination that the proposal will benefit the public necessity, convenience and general welfare be based, in part, on the conformance of the proposal with provisions of this Article. b) Any change in zoning district accomplished in accordance with this Article is subject to review by the Planning Commission at the expiration of two (2) years from the effective date of said change, if during the two (2 ) year period construction, in accordance with the approved plan is not commenced, or if the approved staging plan has not been followed. At the conclusion of the review by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that: the lands affected by the Planned Development District be rezoned from the Planned Development District . Said hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter . c) A Planned Development District shall be established by the adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council reclassifying the described property to a Planned Development District and adopting by reference, a Land Use and Development Plan, the provisions of which shall constitute the regulations for the use, improvement and mantinenance of the property within the boundaries of the plan. 8-31. 1 . 5 COMMON AREAS - PROVISIONS, OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE. Maintenance of all lands included within the plan not utilized for building sites, state and county road, and • public uses , shall be assured by recorded land agreements, covenants, proprietary control, or other stated devices which attain this objective . The proposed method of assuring the maintenance of such lands shall be included as part of the Land Use and Development Plan. 8-95 . 0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. Site Development Review is intended to promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development ; recognize environmental limitations on development; stablize land values and investments ; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses , or erection of structures , having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards of this Chapter, or which are not properly related to their sites , surroundings , traffic circulation, or their environmental setting . Where the use proposed, and the adjacent land uses , environmental signififance or limitations , topography, or traffic circculation is pound to -3- so require, the Planning Director may establish more stringent regulations than those otherise specified for tho District . 8-95 . 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. PROCEDURE. The Planning Director or his designated -representative shall receive and decide applications for Site Development Review. No public hearing is required, except in the case of a concurrent application for a Variance, or in the case of a Conditional Use . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared for this project, a copy of which is attached to this report ( see Exhibit C) . NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the May 20, 1985 public hearing was published in the Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings ANALYSIS• A. SUBMITTAL HISTORY The initial public review of a project covering the subject property was the property owners meeting hosted by the applicants on October 9 , 1984 , to describe the project in general terms and to get a reading of potential issue areas as expressed by the property owners . A summary of the those concerns were complied by the applicant and are included are as a background attachment for this report (see Attachment 5 ) . A preliminary plan was submitted for City comment and review the month following that property owners meeting. City Planning Staff summarized their comments and presented them to the applicant on December 3 , 1984 . The issue areas detailed within the Staff preliminary comments revolved around the following general categories; 1) Need for development of minimum dimensional lot criteria (minimum lot width, minimum lot area, etc . ) ; 2 ) Manner of lot-loading along cul-de-sac bulbs ;. 3 ) Traffic considerations, including project ' s connection to Castillian Road and future connection to development (s ) to the west) ; 4 ) Possibility of pursuing lot line adjustments to facilitate improved grading layout where project adjoins existing residential lots; 5) General Site grading considerations ; 6) Comments on problems seen on specific individual lots; 7 ) Comments on proposed park site addressing park ' s configuration, street frontage, gradient of slopes across park area, etc. A formal application was submitted for processing on January 22 , 1985 . The applicant was advised the application was incomplete in the form submitted on February 21, 1985 . Staff worked with the applicant during the period of February to April to address what was viewed as the two primary design considerations impacting development of a residential project on the subject property. Those two areas involved traffic considerations ( internal street design and impacts to area circulation) and park desicn (configuration, slope and access to the proposed park site) . Supplemental application materials were received during March and April and lead to preparation of a revised site plan which addressed the major staff concerns of the t-,..+o above stated issue areas . -4- B. REZONING CONSIDERATIONS From the outset of Staff ' s involvement with this proposal, STaff has indicated a desire to have the project processed as a Planned Development Rezoning proposal . This desire is in response to the site ' s unique characteristics including; the General Plan requirement to provide for a five acre park site, the 100+ foot elevation change present across the site (elevations range from 400+ feet in southeast corner of site to 500+ feet in northwest corner) , the relationship of the site to existing and proposed adjoining residential development, special traffic circulation concerns and the desire to assure development of a quality product. In general terms, utilizing the PD; Planned Development Rezoning process is envisioned by Staff as a means to assure a quality development while providing flexibility to lot layout and design. The applicant has expressed concern that imposition of the PD Zoning classification might trigger a requirement to prepare and submit a White-Paper Report for the State Department of Real Estate (D.R.E. ) . ' That process is considered by the applicant to be unnecessary, expensive and undesirable . An inquiry made to the Department of Real Estate to determine whether this type of project, a project involving no private streets or areas subject to common ownership or maintenance responsibility, would be required to be covered by a White-Paper Report . The project was described in detail to Mr . Bill Koeing of the Subdivision Section of the D.R.E. Mr . Koeing indicated that based on that description ( 88-lots, no common areas , development of public streets , etc . ) , that no White-Paper Report would be required for this project. Utilizing the PD; Planned Development Rezoning process will enable the City to require that residential units developed on lots established by this Subdivision be subject to the Site Development Review process . C . DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT TYPE ' AND DEVELOPMENT OF DIMENSIONAL LOT DESIGN CRITERIA The product type envisioned by the applicant to be used in this project involves 88 single family detached residential units situated on lots ranging in size from 7 , 000 to 16, 500 square feet (with an average lot size of 8, 875+ square feet) . Four unit types are currently envisioned to be used with a mixture of 33 single story and 55 two-story units and with a unit size ranging from 1, 940 to 2, 457 square feet. J The applicant has proposed the following setback criteria for units in this project; Front setback - 20 ' minimum Rear setback - 10 ' minimum Sideyard - 7 ' minimum Aggregate Sideyard - 15 ' minimum Staff recommends that the listing of setback criteria be refined and expanded as follows : -5- Front setback - 20 ' minimum Rear setback - 20 ' minimum (with a 12 ' minimum clear area from building to top or toe of slope where present) Sideyard - 5 ' minimum and level Aggregate Sideyard - 15 ' minimum (with 10 ' minimum aggregate clear area from building to adjoining top or toe of slopes where present) Street-side Sideyard setback - 12 ' minimum D. DESIGN ANALYSIS OF SUBDIVISION SUB-AREAS To facilitate Staff ' s review and discussion of the lot-b g- lot design analysis, Staff has separated the project into four sub-areas . These areas are defined as follows; Sub-area A; Lots 1-33 and Lots 74-88 Sub-area B; Lots 34-47 Sub-area C ; Lots 48-55 Sub-area D; Lots 56-73 To graphically depict specific concerns and recommendations involving each sub-area, Staff has prepared a Staff Study for this project . The specific concerns and recommendations for each sub-area are listed in the following sections . Sub-Area A (See Exhibit B Sheet 1) The majority of identified design in this sub-area involve the size and/or configuration of proposed building pads . The identified concern areas by and large can be handled by slight modifications to lot configurations, use of 2 ' - 3 ' high retaining walls and/or introduction of side-to-side split level building pads . The specific areas of concern and proposed adjustments are summarized as follows; Lots 2 , 3 and 15 - 17 ; Swing rear property lines of Lots 2 and 3 into the rear area of Lots 15 - 17 to allow an increase in the size of the pads for Lots 2 and 3 . Lots 5 and 6 ; Shift a portion of Lot 5 into Lot 6 to increase lot 6 ' s pad width. - Lots 22 - 25 ; Swing rear property line of Lots 22 and 23 inward to allow an increase in the pad widths of Lots 24 and 25 . Lots 28 - 30 ; Adjust the lot lines between these three lots to increase the pad depth of Lot 28 . Lots 80 - 83 ; Revise the configuration of Lots 80 - 83 into more traditionally shaped cul-de-sac "pie-shaped" lots . The other area of concern in this sub-area involves the relationship of perimeter project grading proposed . at the rear of Lots 17 - 19 and at the side of Lot 7 as they respectively relate to existing graded slope areas located on adjoining, existing residential lots . For both these areas , Staff recommends that the developer be required jto diligently pursue the necessary approvals to perform bff-site grading to provide smoother transition of -6- slopes between existing residential areas and the subject project. In absence of securing said approvals, Staff recommends the developer be required to make all feasible modifications to proposed on-site grading to minimize the "angular-engineered" appearance of grading in the two areas . Sub-Area B (See Exhibit B Sheet 2 ) Problems identified by Staff in this sub-area are related to the configuration and horizontal alignment of Santo Court . Specifically, Staff feels the down slope areas below Lot 41 are excessive in depth and height and that the proposed design of Lot 40 is undesirable as relates to its orientation to surrounding streets proposed on three sides of that lot . Staff recommends that this proposed eight lot cul-de-sac be modified to a six lot cul-de-sac and that the length of the cul-de-sac be shortened from approximately 250+ feet to 150+ feet. Two lots previously accessed from the cul-de-sac (Lots 41 and 42 ) are recommended to be accessed from the opposite side with access running from Iglesia Drive between Lots 34 and 35 . This access is recommended to be by way: of a 20 foot wide easement over the side lot areas of Lots 34 and 35 . The 20 foot width can be picked up by minor adjustments to Lots 34 - 39 involving narrowing of the lots, use of 2 ' - 3 ' high sideyard retaining walls and/or introduction of side-to-side split level pads for some or all of those lots . Dependent on the layout of the resultant modified grading plan, Staff suggests a front-to-rear split level pad be considered for Lots 38 and 39 to further diminish the height of the slope area in the rear of those two lots . Sub-Area C (See Exhibit B Sheet 3 ) Sub-area C is the smallest of the four sub-areas and involves the seven lots ( 48 - 54 ) around Pescador Court and Lot 55 off of Iglesia Drive . Design problems identified by Staff in this sub-area involve the narrowness of the lots and the proposed building pad for Lot 48 (which would effectively preclude use of any of the four proposed footprints submitted by the applicant) . Design problems identified for Lot 52 make that lot, in Staff ' s opinion, the most undesirable lot in the entire subdivision. The problems seen with that lot involve the pad size ( 3 , 760+ square feet) the excessive grading proposed around the lot (slopes with a height of 11 feet, 9 feet and 7 feet surround three sides of the lot) and the shape of the proposed pad (which would result in creation of disproportionately small yard areas) . The final problem lot seen in this sub-area involves Lot 54 , whose small , square pad area would also create problems in providing what is considered to be adequate, level yard areas . In more general terms , the eight lots in this sub- area have a dispooportionately large amount of area devoted to slope when compared to their overall lot sizes . Although this is one of the more constrained areas as regards slope , the average lot size of the eight lots ( 8, 890+ sq. ft . ) is only marginally larger then the average lots size across the entire project ( 8, 875+ sq. ft . ) . Of that total , 280, or an average of over 2 , 500 sq. ft . , are proposed to be occupied by 2 : 1 to 3 : 1 slope areas . In response to the above points, Staff recommends that one lot be required to be eliminated from this sub-area creating a seven-lot cul-de-sac with more conventional]lot loading along the length of the cul-de-sac . / -7- Sub-Area D (See Exhibit B Sheet 4 ) Design problems seen by Staff in this sub-area are summarized as follows ; High slopes proposed for Lots 56 and 73 at the intersection of Soleado Court and Iglesia Drive raising these two pads 10+ feet and 12+ feet above the adjoining road grade for Iglesia Drive; The triangular configuration of Lot 71 which would make unit placement difficult ( if not impossible) for the footprints proposed; The extensive slopes falling off two sides of Lot 68 which would result in an encroachment into the proposed park site of a 56 foot wide - 26+ foot high slope area; The remaining section of slope area running along the rear of Lots 65 - 67 which range in width from 35 to 55 feet and from a height of 17 to 26 feet; The curving alignment of Soleado Court and its intersection with Iglesia Drive. In response to the identified design problems, Staff recommends that one of the eighteen lots in this sub-area be removed and that the following design changes be made; Requirement that front-to-rear split level pads be used for Lots 59 - 64 to allow grade of Soleado Court to be lowered 4 - 5 feet; Realignment of Soleado Court at Iglesia Drive to provide for a perpendicular street intersection; Adjustment to Lots 56 , 72 and 73 to have those lots front on Iglesia Drive and have the graded slopes between these lots and the lots they back up into moved to the rear of the three lots ; Lowering the pad elevations of lots 65 - 70 to the greatest extent feasible to minimize the height and width of slopes behind the lots. Shifting the point where the rear slopes of Lots 65 - 70 begin to fall off so that a portion of the slope change occurs within the rear of those lots to help further diminish the height and width of the slope encroachment into the proposed park site. The applicant) has been briefed as regards these proposed adjustments and has advised Staff of his desire to attempt to find an engineering solution to the points raised that will still facilitate the creation of 88 lots rather than conceding to Staff ' s recommendation of elimination of two lots . At the drafting of this report, no alternative solutions have been presented to Staff , but preparation and submittal of alternative studies are anticipated prior to the end of the week . Staff used the revised site plan dated received April 9, 1985 , as the basis for its review, and recommends approval of the plan as modified by the above report. f -8- RECOMMENDATION FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear staff presentation 2 ) Take testimony from applicant and the public 3 ) Question staff, applicant and the public 4 ) Close public hearing and deliberate 5) Adopt Resolutions ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions (Exhibits D, E and F) which respectively serve as follows ; Exhibit D - Resolution recommending approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance; Exhibit E - Resolution Recommending Approval of Planned Development Rezoning Application PA 85-005 . 1; Exhibit F - Resolution recommending approval of Tentative Map 5402 PA 85-005 . 2 . ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Planned Development Rezoning submittals and Tentative Map 5402 submittals Exhibit B - Staff Study PA 85-005 Exhibit C - Negative Declaration with Environmental Assessment Form Exhibit D - Resolution recommending approval of Negative Declaration Exhibit E - Resolution recommending approval o.f Planned Development Rezoning Exhibit F - Resolution recommending approving Tentative Map 5402 Background Attachments 1 - Location Maps 2 - Applicant ' s Justification and Description of Project 3 - Environmental Assessment Form, Interim; Section 1 General Data 4 - Dolan School Site Property Owners Meeting - Summary of Concerns l COPIES TO Murray School District Attn : Stanley L. Maleski Wilsey & Ham Attn : John DeHorn William I . Morgan i -9- CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services Planning/Zoning 829.4916 P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829.0822 Dublin, CA 94565 Engineering/Public Works 829-4916 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: PA 85-005 . 1 & . 2 Murray School District and William I . Morgan, Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map for a Proposed 88-unit Single Family Residential Project. (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ) LOCATION: The 27+ acre site is identified as the Dolan School Site. the site fronts along the southwest corner of the intersection of Padre Way and Castillian Road, (APN 941-99-5-1 and 94-100-7-26) APPLICANTS: John R. DeHorn William I . Morgan Wilsey & Ham 6910 Luther Drive 6377 Clark Avenue Unit F Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 94568 Dublin, CA 94568 OWNERS: Murray School District 7416 Brighton Drive Dublin, California 94568 DESCRIPTION: Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map applications for a proposed 88-unit single family residential development with a five-acre future park site . FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The attached Initial Study has been prepared for PA 85-005. 1 and . 2 Murray School District/William I . Morgan/Wilsey & Ham MITIGATION MEASURES : Identified potential impacts associated with the proposed five acre park site (noise and nuisance) can be mitigated through the site planning review process and by controlling points of park access and the manner adjoining lots are graded as they back up to the park site . .. DP 83-11 PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Department Staff, ( 415) 829-4916 SIGNATURE: DATE: ( C) 6� Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director CITY OF VU51-1 0 PA No. 9:5r—005—, j • (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 -General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or on Environmental Impact Report is required. SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY ' - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF Name of Project or Applicant: A. . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Description of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural and scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures �it�/.�?, (�-vG�i2 ' .Sh'A�r' f>itL.ti4�' �f}�Cf�L 0"C' / /P, vtavlG y � o� �.rc� �=�Jr/r�Nl�n/. �« '• i�" ' '°-, . ��- z '� �seES G�Tt1�T� l Gbul�tl.Il�,�S Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and onir,.cIs; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and stele or development. ����� ls �dn/DG"� l D 47t/ /.T iY Sr/�3D�f/�J!ovV O�ln� 121041711 At 1"V-19 Oyd 64 7 Z Y (lWa-11r0� B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations or all answers except "no" are re- . quired on coached shezts. CCM t -=\TT IMPACTS SCa= OF IMACT NO QMLI= YES L 7CWL NO IwI . to IEi I I E olol010 1.0'HATER I � 1 I I 1 1.1 Hydrologic Balance Will construction of the project altar the hydra- 1 ( 1 107ic 16a to-cc? 1.2 Gound Woter Will the project affect the quality or quanriry of ( 1 1 ground water supplies? t 1.37 Depth to'Noter Table Will the rote of woter v;thdrawal change the depth ✓ 1 1 or gradient of the y t1cr table? 1.4 Drainage and Q annal Form Will construction ;mpede the natural drainage pattern I 1 I or cause alteration of stream channel form? 1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in an area result in major sediment ✓ I 1 1 lnflu• into adjacent .ester bodies? — .. s 1.6 Flrsoding Will there be risk of loss of We or property due to flnrxl L. 1 I 1 A-S r CCi%I aN= DLDACTS .LE OF IMPACT NO QUALL�IID YES UST ;O4v�1 ISO ol � olo 1.7 Water Quality Does drinking water supply fail to meet state and ' t federal standards? Will sewage be inalal•iorely accommc?ated and I ' treated? Will receiving waters fnil to men? loc-sl, 3f-'c and t ' federal standards? Will ground water suffer contamination by ordure seeps}s, intrusion of soft or polluted water from ' ' I adjacent water bodies or from onother rnntirinr3 • o �tifer? •• 2,0 AIR •.___ ( � ' _ . 2,1 Air Pollution Will there be g.nerotion and dispersior.of F.)Ilutants s by project related activities or in prox:r.it-, m.t.-.e project which will crrecd state n:r=ti-na a;- quality standards? 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and terroin•impedc prescilirg vrin.•l flow causing channeling along certain.eorri:s•s or obstruction of wind movements? 3.0 EARTH 3.1 Slope Stability Are there potential dang.n related In:lDgt foilvres? " f 3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or property';c-ouse of s excessive deformotion of materials? ' 3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or properr�,!sccal m cf excessive conso:idotion of foundati-sr rvstn•ials? r t 3,4 Subsidence is there risk of major ground subsido:n.-n nssnciatcrd ( j with the project? s 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of dosage or loss resrrltina I'mm_orth- quo.'cc activity? t ! t 3.6 Liquefaction Will the project caul or be fxnoscd to Iiqu-.`action j of soils in slepes or undrr foundoti-ns? 3.7 Erodioiliry Will there b.s--63tantial loss of so;! c!•.- b c-1- struction practices? 3.8 Permeability Will the permeability of soils osscc•-at-!svi:4 rh. project present adverts conditions relative tc de- velopment of wells? 3.9 Ldnique Features Will any unique geological features bn doma3ed or destroyed by project nctivities? s 3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of potentinl r.or..ercinl / ' ( ' ;c value close to the prnject? Y 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 4.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there rare or endangered species p.'r_rst? I Are there species pre=nt which are p7•ticulorly susceptible to impact from human activity? Is there vegetation pe.scntr the!as;of whin+. will deny food or h76itot to important wild:i.re species? Are there nuisance -rccics of plar.r or an;mz!s fnr ' which conditions will be improved by&e project? 4,2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populations of pinnrs jhnt may be of scientific interest? V Are there vegerative community tyres..hirh are / particularly susceptible to impact frr.m tsuman ectivity? ✓ Are th:rc major frees or major vcgr.tntirsn that wi11 ho cd•:c:»ly nf! r.tr,(h/the rroj^ct? _ Arr: the::v^-3-:o:ivn rnmmunity tyn-s iEr. Irss of which vrill deny !r's-1 nr habila• In i-7--or., species, or to a :utisrcntinl numsr•a.r 4.3 Diversity Is there substan:inl diversity in th•:n^:••r'. ^ .-,n:!y l as reflected in the n.•mbrr and typt,n! species present or the thre^-dim�:nsi.snr.l nrr-nn Inn:^n: of plant species present? A-6 COI�IFO�IEyT DIP,= SCALE OF DLDACT NO QUALIFIED YES tJ\�QvOt�1 NO I 1 . I tzo • ol� lolo . 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.1 Educational Focilities Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex- ( ( ! Isting or pr oposed foeilities in terms of spacing for all activities, Including classrooms, recreational I areas, end staffing needs? Will the project impact the p•.)pii/ieocher ratio so I as to impede the learning process? I I I Is the school located such that it presents a hardship for a portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, I I distance, or safety hazards? I 5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be an inadequate supply of and access to I I I commercial facilities for the project? I I I 5.0 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for sewo-3e capacity inadequate for I I I the needs of the project without exceeding quality standards? Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors I associated with wastewater treatment plants? 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there Inadequate provision for disposal of solid wastes generated by the project? 5.5 Water Supply Is there inodequotc quantity or quality of water ( I supply to meet the needs of tl:e,project? l 5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water droinoge be inadequate to prevent ( ( { downstream flooding and to meet Federal State end ( I local standards? 5.7 Police Will the project's odditionol population, Facilities, or other fcowres generate an increase in police service i or create a police hazard? { { i 5.8 Fire Will the project's additional population, facilities, { { or other feonrres generate an increase in fire services I I I or create o fire hazard? I I 5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate facilities to meet the recreational needs of the residents? I I I f 5,10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project residents? I I 6.0 TRANSPORTATION j 6.1 Transportation Facilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent roads currently I at or above capacity? IF not, will the traffic gen- ( I erated by the project cause the odjocent roads to I I I reach or exceed capacity? Are the other transportation facilities which serve the I I I project inadequate to accommodate the project's I I I travel demonds7 6.2'Circulation Conflicts Will design of tha pruiect or conditions in the surround- 6.3 area increase accidents due to circulation conflicts. I { 6.� Rood Safety and Design Will project residents and users be exposed to increased accident risks dun to roadway and street design or lack I of traffic:controls? 7.0 HEALTH 7,1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense odors? 7.2 Crowding and Density Will the residents and users be exposed to crowding or I ( I high density in their physical living environment? 7.3 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generate factors that X may be considered as nuisances? V I I ( ` 7.4 Structural Safety Will design and proposed comtruction lechniques Fail to meet state and local building codes? I I I 8,0 NOISE I I I 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be exposed to rr generate adverse I I noise levels? 8.2 Vibrations Will the pr.•sjcct be expoed to vinrotinns nnnoying to humans? / 4i CDMPaI IMPACTS SCALE OF DTACr No QUALIFIED YES UNKNa4',I NO l l to I' E- 0 ollolo ISM �� 15 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER 9.1 Community Organization Will the project disrupt on existing s.t of organizations or groups within rile community? 9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character of the I community in terms of disiribution or concentration of income, ethnic, housing, or age group? 9.3 Community StoSility and Will the project be exposed to or generate on 1 Physical Conditions area of poor stability on,1 pSyrsicol conditions? 1 1 I :. 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY I ( 1 10.1 Views Will residents of the surrounding area be adversely ✓ affected by view;of or from the project? ' Will the project residents be adversely affected by ( I I views of or from the sutrounding area? ' 10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive I I shadows? V/11 11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTLPAL I 1 RESOLYZCES ( I 1 11.1 Historic and Cultural Will if"project involve the destruction or otter- -' Resources ation of a historic resource? Will the project result in isolation of a historic I I I resource from its surrounding environment? 1 Will the project intro-!vice Physical, visual, audible I I I or almo-pherie elements thnt are not in clsarocter with I j i a historic resource or its setting? 11.2 Archoeo!ogicol Sites Will the project involve the destruction or alteration I I and Structures of an archaeolo-Jicol rczrurce? Will the project result in 4-)Iotion of an archaeologicol resource? Wili the project in!roducc physical, visvol, audible I I I or almospheric elements that arc not in character with I I I an archaeological resource or its setting? 1 I 1 1 12.0 ENERGY { I I 12.1 Energy Requirements Arc th-.re potential problems with the supply of energy required for the project? Will the energy requirements excred the capacity ( ( I of the s^rvice utility company? Will there be a net increase in energy used for the V/ project comp-ired to the no prof^ct oltcrnotive? 12.2 Conservation Measures Does the project planning onrl d-mic,-i fail to include avoiImbic energy con;cress;ion measure;? ✓ I ( 1 13.0 LAND USE ( ( 1 J17.1 Site Hazards On conditions of the site, preposcd tile dcvelopm:ntr ( ( I or surrounding ores create potentially hazardous situ- 1 often$? 17.2 Physicol Threat. Wilt the project or the surrounding urea create a feeling of insecurity and physical threat among the residents and users? I 13.3 Sanitary Landfill Wil! the project b.. �xposrd to stru�furnl dmmaga, noise, air, or surface nr.d ground wctcr pollution I I I or other nuisance;ossnciotcI with a sanitary landfill 13.4 Wotervoys Will ilia project offect an existin7 wc1crway through 11 ( ( I filling, dredging, draining, culverring, --tc dis- charges, loss of visual quality or offs..r lend u;a I 1 _--- precfices? • A-8 COhIPChvE1v"T IMPACTS ,GAIT; OF DIPAC r NO QUALIFIED YES UI :G6v�1 NO 2 1 1 to • � II� IH Other Environmental Componentr. ' • I I I C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QUALIFIED NO 14 YES UNFNC7�1!�1 i (T) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wild]ire species, cause a - fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods :or California history cr prehistory? (2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of.Iong-term, environmental kl goals? (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, b'ut where the effect o` the total of those impacts on the environment is significant,) (4) Does the project. have environmental effects which will cause substantial adversa effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? A-9 D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitigo'e "ie si niF, ant eff cts i id ,ntiFied, if any: �J��.�2i� /� � A .jOU�� �� 0 19, A-k& sV t de.r! A. rtL Gf e; s E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: dThe City of .Dublih ;finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par- ' titular characteristics of this project and the. mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the project prc-Ad,: `hn `actual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE - DECLARATION IS ?=QUI.R ED.'' The City of �t�bl in finds that the proposed project MAY have a significcnt effect . on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED" - Signature and date: Name and title: "NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so "h,,` pO•`':S`i%! e-,ers_ effects are mitigated to a point where no signiFic::nt environmental effects would ecci,r, a revised Initial Stud/ will be prepared and a Ncgctive Declaration will be re-�u*,red iis'ead of APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PA 85-005.1 and .2 1. 7 Water Quality: DSRSD has been contacted by the applicant and is in the process of working out the details of water and sewer facilities . Availability of sewer hookup permits is not known. 3 . 1 Slope Stability: A large landslide at the southwest side of the property, extending into an adjoining property, has been previously repaired. Areas of identified soil creep have also be repaired. 5 . 3 Liquid Waste Disposal : See notation for 1. 7 7 . 3 Nuisances : Ultimate development of park site, the presence of the creek area extending offsite to the north, and the presence of an undeveloped strip along the west property line along the future alignment of Rolling Hills Drive all constitute potential future nuisance areas . 8. 1 Noise Levels : Ultimate development of the park site may expose several adjoining future homes to noise levels higher then generally associated with residential development . 13 . 2 Physical Threat: Ultimate development of the park site may expose rear yards to adjoining future homes to a "feeling of insecurity and/or physical threat. " i PUBLIC HEARING f SUBJECT : 7 . 1 PA 85-005 . 1 and . 2 Dolan School Site Murray School District Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map 5402 for the proposed development of 27+ acre property into an 88 lot Planned Development Single Family Residential project with a designated five-acre future park site at Castilian Road and Padre Way (continued from May 20 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting . ) Mr . Gailey presented the Staff Report advising the Commission that the initial public hearing for this project was held on May 20 , 1985 . Following public testimony the Commission continued the item to the June 17 , 1985 meeting. Mr. Gailey indicated that the purpose for the Supplemental Staff Report was to provide the Commission information received from the applicant subsequent to the May 20th meeting, analysis of that material and review of various items discussed at the May 20th hearing. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff ' s analysis of the revised plan revealed that the modified layout represents a substantial improvement over the plan submitted previously. Mr. Gailey addressed on the major items discussed at the Mav 20th hearing and indicated what ramifications the revised plan and supplemental information had on those items special attention was given to the proposed grading layout in the southeast portion of the site . Mr. Gailey them advised that at the previous hearing the Commission had requested Staff to prepare an analysis of the amount of lot devoted to slope areas . In lieu of performing the calculations , the commission was advised that the applicant choose to make a detailed analysis of the project ' s proposed rear yard living space . Mr. Gailey advised that the applicant had indicated an ability to incorporate into the project a minimum design criteria requirement that a 15 foot deep rear yard living space be provided for each lot, with a bulk of proposed units able to observe a standard of 18 feet. Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff was recommending that the developer be directed to incorporate specific design modifications into the project through the SDR process to alleviate grading/visual impact concerns in the southeast portion of the site. The specific design modifications for this area were outlined in proposed Condition #41 . Cm. Raley asked if Staff had determined what impact the requirement that 1 , 375 sq. ft. of rear yard living space would have on the project . Mr. Gailey indicated that a majority of the lots would apparently be able to meet the standard without major modifications to the plan . Cm. Alexander opened the public hearing. Mr . DeHorn, representing the applicant, stated that lowering the pads by 5 ' may not be possible with the plan presented. Mr. DeHorn went on to advise that a meeting was held at Howard Johnson ' s with the nearby neighbors to discuss the various problems and concerns they had about the plan. Mr . Morgan, applicant, briefly described the project to the Commission and audience . He voiced concerns about Condition 1141 regarding the southeast portion of the project. Mr . Dennis Anderson, expressed concerns regarding the children that will be attending the schools in the area and regarding the traffic problems that may be related to the project as regards to Castilian Court . Mr . Gretchen Kirnigen and Mr . B regarding the minimum regarding i imu lot sizes . J4 IS Vr Mr. Mel Luna, asked if the conditions imposed on the project could be changed after the Planning Commission and the City Council approved them. He also asked if the park would be graded. Mr . Don Wilson, expressed support of Staff ' s proposed requirements for grading in the southeast portion of the project and indicated use of single story homes would be beneficial . He raised questions regarding how drainage would be handled. Mrs . Karen Heydorn and Mrs . Susan Elm expressed concerns regarding the availability of parking spaces for homes located along cul-de-sacs . Dr. Zebcon stated a desire to see larger homes established in the project, such as the Canyon Creek homes . He also stated he felt 88 lots were too. many for this site . Mr. Jim Hensen reiterated the concern that larger lots would appear to be warranted. Mr. Steve Sacks voiced concerns regarding drainage along Castilian, area traffic impacts and impacts on views . Mr . Dave Smith stated opposition to the pad sizes shown and indicated he felt too many homes were being proposed. Mrs . Gloria McDonald inquired about the meaning of a particular finding ( availability of housing stock) within the resolution for the Tentative Map . Mr. Heaton inquired about the proposed size of the single story units ( 1, 900 to 2 , 000 sq. ft . ) the projected prices range of the homes ( $180 , 000 to $200 , 000 starting prices) and the amount of two story units (mix to be determined with the SDR application) . Mr. Morgan, answering inquiries from the audience, advised the Commission of other projects they had developed. Mr. Dennis Anderson inquired about the need for the proposed five acre public park . Cm. Raley moved, seconded by Cm. Mack, that the public hearing be closed. Voice vote was unanimous ( 5-0 ) to close the public hearing. Cm. Petty inquired how drainage facilities at the base of the slopes would be maintained. Mr . Gailey indicated several items within the PD resolution that needed classification prior to any action by the Commission. Cm_ Raley initiated an indepth discussion about the intent and adequacy of the 1 , 375 sq. ft . minimum rear yard living area requirement and advised of his concerns about the access and location of Lots 42 and 43 . Cm. Alexander echoed that concerns about supplying adequate rearyard living area. A consensus was reached that the pertinent condition be modified to call for the rear yard areas to be maximized, but in no instance to be less than 1, 375 sq. ft . Cm. Alexander indicated a street light at the end of the private drive serving Lots 42 and 43 should be supplied. A consensus was reached that Lots 42 and 43 be retained with provision of a security light . Cm. Petty moved, seconded by Cm. Mack, to adopt the resolution recommending the City Council approve a Negative Declaration for the project. A voice vote found unanimous ( 5-0) support for the motion. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ----------------------------------------------------------------- RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 85-005 MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT Cm. Petty moved, seconded by Cm. Barnes to adopt the resolution recommending the City Council approve the PD Planned Development Rezoning request with amendments to Conditions 1(c) , 1 ( i ) , 2 and 10 and introduction of a new Condition 43 and renumbering of previous Condition #43 as new Condition #44 . A voice vote found approval of the motion on a 4-1 vote (Cm. Raley opposed) . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ---------------------------------------------------------------- RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING PA 85-005 .1 MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT Cm. Mack moved, seconded by Cm. Barnes to adopt the resolution recommending the City Council approve the Tentative Map request. A voice vote found approval of the motion on a 4-1 vote. (Cm. Raley opposed) . RESOLUTION NO. i A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN --------------------------------------------------------------- RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP 5402 CONCERNING PA 85-005 .2 MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT/WILSEY & HAM AND WILLIAM I . MORGAN f G�,�'«i��i�,Fvr� �L�i�/r✓�l� Gi�,�'Iissio�/�I 6172- SUBJECT:SUBJECT: 7 . 4 PA 85-005 . 1 & . 2 Dolan School Site Murray School District Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map 5402 for the proposed development of 27+ acre property into an 88-lot Planned Development Single Family Residential project with a designated five-acre future park site at Castilian Road and Padre Way. Cm. Alexander opened the public hearing . Mr . Gailey presented the Staff Report . Staff reviewed the site location, General Plan designation, processing, original submittal and Staff review. Staff stated that revisions were submitted the Friday prior to the meeting . Staff presented a verbal review of the revisions on an area by area basis , noting concerns and suggesting conditions of approval . Cm. Raley raised several questions regarding flag lots , narrow stems , and tight parking on cul-de-sacs . John DeHorn and Bill Morgan, applicants, presented comments regarding density, storm drainage and grading conditions of approval . Karen Heydorn, Zapata Ct . , said the surrounding homes were much larger on quarter acre lots . Barbara Luna, Zapata way, said she was concerned with the long driveways . She also asked about future park useage . Cm. Alexander said that the Park and Recreation Commission would determine future uses of the park site . Mel Luna asked that the Planning Commission study the application longer. He asked that the retaining walls be examined. Dennis Anderson, Castilian Ct . , asked about drainage, traffic, grading, schools , and house sizes . Don Wilson, Castilian Rd. , said he was concerned about the proposed pad heights behind his house, and slope stability. Bill Behrman, Castilian Rd. , said he was concerned about storm drainage and traffic . John De Horn said that the proposed houses would be between 1900 and 2450 square feet in size and costs are estimated at between $180 , 000 and $200 , 000+. He also reviewed some of the proposed conditions of approval . Cm. Raley indicated he had some serious problems : effective lot sizes, too many lots , parking in cul-de-sacs , private driveways, and other concerns . Cm. Petty said the Planning Commission needed more time to study the application and to visit the site . He suggested that the item be continued for two meetings . Cm. Alexander wanted to have more durable retaining walls . Cm. Raley preferred fewer or no retaining walls . On motion of Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a 1-3 vote, Cm. Raley, Mack and Alexander opposed, the motion to close the public hearing failed. Cm. Raley asked for additional information regarding lot sizes and home sizes in the immediate area . Cm. Mack asked for information regarding school district impacts and long term plans . In answer to a question, Dennis Anderson said most houses on Castilian Rd. were between 1500 and 2000 square feet . Cm. Alexander continued the item until the June 17, 1985 Planning Commission meeting and set a site visit for 11. a .m. on Monday, May 27, 1985 . ATiON I ;- � t R t /> ^ ) I cr � a u �L 4 • a � w, a `� ac 0 c \ T> , ♦ '.w J c ;s J� V S• L l h h ,t O r r) ••'��RV••,• '���O CES.•'. O oL 0 4� t S•, s g� 4 .f. ) •u c \�\ 'c'• �'.•1;'i r. \ aaN mod` ..C_.,' ,�• •�r ::� p:.:.::.::::.::.:::::::::::::.�.,:.:.:.:,;:..::�::'�•:::;::;:::::`:�''•:;�':'::•'.�? \\ •�• y 4 ..� A �: .?'r''f` ..;.� TRAINING'::,.;.,:•,..ARC. P ' \\ `:�J�.• \o ..'�d-N,.'�C;:`r/a/r-oust_�':.}!..:.;,. ��,'•�-,..• .. '"�: o♦`rr p�♦j - kr ;..9. CLUB::, p ' :CD N ';I::•{+::;::::':;ii:: ♦• J :�e t f. k w 1 C P :s• g ) ^ 4 h N r Y a ice+ S •«a `� \ do,�� b Q n r: -..�...r.. t..;:.:::;::':::;�:•:':: •?:::':;'::.: fEDEAAL• Y •OC`Qe 8 °G : n .`J� • •cK,a• I`^��J n ::;::;;:•::::::::::::::::::::{:::;.:::::'.::c.;.... Cpl�j1. rAP wean l� .yFy = � G• •�a�4 -0�� h- °' ! .«cnp.r{'a{ G� d:'PARKS•AESfRVE�:�ii'i a::-:CORA.CK)NA +•.q C _ • 1NSTlfUTf i � = rj w:�r .•�. w a Ce + a`' O i':;Y:� i�i:i::::.:^'rS?�;:,:i:ci:�•:-'r{:: •i G .r. r+ L 4 .y`•S• h vL 1j n _Fn _ � 'ter/_• a `tea .n C I R t 1 =a••• l t DUBLIN ,,,• 9a• ` b t --- •d`� < d w•`c S ct Dk 3 ILA • f dam,, � � � , . © 5 e J �,� 4� a a »�• y D�." nvw.ou �f S • \ eft -1 n ^ i..,c. in � �•f° •'`.� `. p C ITY OF DUBLIN N PROJECT LOCATION MAP project Title / !r • P',LN/► fN L f/V z 11 a.:+...;. Oy4C i / L / C� C � J P J QO ? A' P (JS Z g4tiCM17,O3 CT / SHANNON +f PARK ... SN4ryNCAI ,. / .. JU"PEZ c+ I O Z 'UP1E TTY CT I 1 W ' pEG10 x J I 1 � 1 1 ` 6 �� 1 MUPROY ` I I j �• �� Lit ! li ` SCHOOL -�. I I I DISTRICT CT. H: a LAND YQA CT t r C o J I 1 SOLANA DR. / 1 1 ` -- SINE RCArE op -0 CASA t / i 04 C r �a. _� CT CT A. VIII ^ l' L . a . 1 1-16-85 STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY REZONING APPLICATION FOR A PORTION OF THE DOLAN SCHOOL SITE, CITY OF DUBLIN The Murray School District has determined that the Dolan School site is no longer required by the District and has offered it for sale. The City of Dublin ' s proposed General Plan indicates the appropriate use for this property to be single family residential (88 units) with a 5 acre park site. The applicant and prospective purchaser of the site from the school District has prepared an,d is concurrently submitting to the City a Tentative Map proposing development in accordance with the City' s proposed General Plan . The site is currently zoned R-1-B-E and Agricultural . The purpose of this application is to rezone the entire site to the planned Development District to allow development to proceed. It is proposed to establish in the rezoning a minimum site area of 7 , 000 sq. ft . , a minimum side yard of 5 ft . with an aggregate of 15 ft . The rezoning action will bring the City' s zoning into conformance with the proposed General Plan . The rezoning action by itself will entail no cost to the City. The development of the site will benefit the City by removing a large vacant lot with its potential problems , by increasing the City' s housing stock, by providing a 5-acre park site and by providing better traffic circulation to the adjacent areas , par- ticularly with relation to police patrol and emergency vehicle response. Future costs to the City will be typical of those associated with other residential areas including an extension of police patrol , street and storm drain maintenance and annual street lighting costs . These are minimal with respect to the percentage addition to the City' s costs for the same services to existing developed areas and should be offset by increased re- venues . In addition, the City will ultimately incur capital and annual maintenance costs in connection with the purchase and development of the park. ATi i e I O O rn I JI N \ n r - o rn S,)ReovND INCY �VgDr✓15rayuS �l �_ L �,, .� _ A- Qo✓GOi✓SGHooL JiTE � T.�r9cT SS'o Z -: • ". -'4� 1 � ' ... ,� _ _ ___ '• B 7�E� �ELSo/✓ • .P�GT So7Z .s lJi! D T�ELG — ELS TfiGT So 75� e_ �.; �. lam'.;_ to F K Fi�9�/ .Pa90 — /✓E�s�n/ �/fiT" S`9f�3 ;;. ` ._--= - _ -- .�.�; r �� b ��� �° � � - G, 6 iVyW/ 7 7 H C9�TU�✓ ar✓, - p4T7orY-rT.�}GTS SvRKoUnIDI�Cr SvP,D(✓i5/L�US - Z�B9 �lZ& SI 2970 SURROUNDING SUBDIVISIONS ANALYSIS CHART # LOTS MIN. SIZE AVE. SIZE UNIT SIZE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Donlon - Tract 5402 PD Planned Development District 88 7,000 SF 9,168 SF 1,895-2,457 SF B. Hatfield - Tract 5072 PD; Planned Development District 26 8,911 SF 13,800 SF 1,800-3,200 SF C. Hatfield - Tract 5073 PD; Planned Development District 80 7,056 SF 13,333 SF 1,900-3,200 SF D. Hatfield - Tract 5074 . 175 9,520 SF 14,322 SF 1,900-3,200 SF E. Kaufman & Broad Tract 4991 PD; Planned Development District 48 8,080 SF 12,225 SF 1,439-2,251 SF F. Kaufman & Broad - Tract 4943 PD; Planned Development District 28 7,590 SF 10,818 SF 1,439-2,251 SF G. Canyon Creek - Tract 4077 R-1-B-E; Resid. Combining District 40 7,350 SF 11,090 SF 1,898-3,053 SF H. Castilian Frontage - Portions Tract 2689, 2690 and 2910 R-1-B-E; Resid. Combining District 44 7,500 SF 9,020 SF 1,400-2,000 SF 0,, ,.. KN I ru �s Dp ,y/L i✓ ✓n •1 � r 4- /N m o i E ZOO CD o ' .'� _ .� .r l __ '� zF-� \��[��� rv.�"' �ri r �l I L r I I:% I I / �'/r/•. 1 1� , � r I - - :r r Imo'"'._ _.J_��l -i •l/ i. _ , J�J '`-� � -- - - � - SILVERGATE DRIVE ROUTE SHANNON AVENUE ROUTE '_ -�J l yy� f- �� D��'ry-7n� i�7�'�._ �3 I�•. (FA to CC)) (A to F) -- -1 /I `- '��%�,�.','1}. ; 1/��'w/"/.I+1 ..M'"'_l Jam..✓'.:.-'�-:-�� - - ; ?.A - 1,000+ feet A - 1,000+ feet BB - 1,000+ feet B - 1,800+ feet - - ILI,� \ �� r� ...�"-- €� , �•� _ CC - 2,750+ feet C - 275+ feet �� l = Y r 'c==e• _ �. - n D - 525+ feet E - 200+ feet Total Travel F - 875= feet - "�' -nce 4,750r feet ^-'. ` •�Y, -. Total Travel. �' r ' �. ✓ - pp Q��••ff��11 Distance 4 feet :� ~' / ,675+ f ATTA r _ Rolling Hills Drive/Creekside Drive Rolling Hills Drive/Creekside Intersection to San Ramon Road/ Drive Tntersection to Shannon Avenue/ - Silverce i Drive Intersection travel San Ramon Road Intersection travel di seance is 4,750+ fee[, with two turning distance is 4,675+ feet, with five - movements, both being left hand movements. turning movements, three being left hand - fAddinq leg DD to reach Shannon Avenue/San movements. " '' -i 'j7/,�d,Tb/� � �)�•jr- Rar_on Road Intersection makes total travel \\', /!L� ���(�LJ distance 6,525+ feet). - �. \ I I SUPERINTENDENT RICHARD F.COCHRAN • \ i/' ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT HEINZ OEWINO BUSINESS MANAGER URRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT STANLEY L MALESKI 7416 BRIGHTON DRIVE • DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA 945M DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL SERVICES JACK S.TAYLOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICES(41 S)828.2551 DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM VINCE ANACLERIO May 30, 1985 ,- s Mr. Larry Ton �,hr'f,`�L::� --�� Planning Di rector City of Dublin r P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Application of W. I. Morgan Dear Larry: Heinz 'Gewing has asked that I write to you to confirm in writing the informa- tion that he provided you over the telephone. All of the developments that are planned for the area around Nielsen School , including the development by Kauffman and Broad and the proposal by William I. Morgan (dba Sacramento Developers, Inc. ) , are included in the School District's Master Plan. For the foreseeable future any increase in attendance that will result from those developments can be accommodated at Nielsen School . Additionally, if at some future time we find. that the capacity of Nielsen School is reached, Dublin School can be reopened as a Murray School District school . Sicnerely, Stanley L. M4.leski BUsiness Manager SLM:lb cc: Heinz Gewing