HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 Nielsen Property Residential Project Attch 4-9~
i ~
~
~
7~ ~~~~~.
~
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: April 27, 2010
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - PA 07-057 Nielsen, Gene~al Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezone with a
related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development
Plan, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report. (Legislative Act).
Report pr~epared by Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Nielsen project site is 10.9 acres located at 6407 Tassajara Road within the Eastern Dublin
Spec~c Plan Area. The proposed Project includes a request to amend the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan
amendments would modify the existing land use designations from Rural
ResidentiaVAgricultural to Single Family Residential (EDSP) and allow a reduction in the width
of on-site streets. Approval of a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan would expand the allowable
uses on the site and permit up to 36 residential units. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
would permit the division of the site into 34 lots (for up to 36 units - two lots would allow duplex
units) and associated improvements. Site Development Review for the project will happen at a
later date.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the
Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing
and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Resolution recommending that the
City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Nielsen
Property; b) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the Nielsen Property; c) Resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development
Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan;
and d) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7950.
,- .
; 1~_
Submitted By e' ed By
Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner Planning Manager
COPIES TO: Applicant
File
Page 1 of 10
G:IPA#12007107-057 NielsenlPC Mtq ~.27.101DRAFTSIPCSR Nielsen 04.27.10.doc
ITEM NO.:
~
A~~~~I~EICHNI~iv't~ q-
DESCRIPTION:
Background:
The Nielsen property is 10.9 acres
in size and is located within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
The property consists of the one
residence, one mobile home,
sheds, a livestock/animal area,
wireless communications located
near Tassajara Road (which are
designed to appear as shrubby
trees) and a wireless
communications monopole with
related equipment storage.
The 10 acre property is generally
rectangular in shape, has
approximately 600 feet of frontage
along Tassajara Road and has a
depth of approximately 780 feet.
The property consists of gently
rolling hills and increases in grade
from Tassajara Road (nearly 455
feet above sea level) up to the
rear portion of the property
(approximately 565 feet). The
exhibit to the right shows the
Nielsen Property and the
surrounding properties and land
use designations.
Vicinity Map
.;
,, .
Wallis Ranch ~"` J
~ ,: ,;
' ~,~~ y~ Silvera Ranch
:: .. ..~ .~ .
..
1
NIELSEN ~
1
.~ r~ / wM,
~~~ ~~
~
RRA
~ `~~sc
; NP
-~\,, ;
CamG Parks ~ ~ ~
l
,
The site currently has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan land use designation of Rural
Residential/Agriculture which permits 1 dwelling per 100
acres. The Applicant proposes to change the land use
designation to Low Density Single Family Residential and
to permit up to 36 units on the project site.
Legend
LDR = Low Density Residential
MDR = Medium Density Residential
MHDR = Medium-High Density Residential
NP = Neighborhood Park
OS = Open Space
PL = Public Lands
RP = Regional Park
RRA = Rural Residential/Agricultural
SC = Stream Corridor
SP = Semi-Public
Entitlement History:
On October 1, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance 15-02, pre-zoning the Nielsen and
Silvera Ranch properties to PD (Planned Development) and adopted a related Stage 1
Development Plan. The Nielsen property was included in the Silvera Ranch annexation so that
the Nielsen property did not form a"county island" surrounded by land within the City of Dublin.
No development was proposed on the Nielsen property at that time and the adopted Stage 1
Development Plan allowed the existing uses to continue on the site. Final annexation of the
properties occurred on May 5, 2003.
On December 18, 2007, the City Council authorized Staff to begin a study of the ApplicanYs
request for a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to increase the density
of the site from Rural ResidentiallAgriculture (1 unit per 100 acres) to Single Family Residential
(0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre). The City Council authorized Staff to study up to 43 dwelling
Dublin Ranch
2of10
~17~~~
units on the site. 'fhis authorization did not approve a total of 43 units on the site; rather, it
allowed Staff to begin reviewing the project with respect to site compatibility, circulation,
complianct;.with City regulations and environmental impacts.
In addition to the project proposal as described in this staff report, there is also a pending
application for Site Development Review to modify one of the existing cell phone facilities on the
site. T-Mobile has made an application to the City to expand the equipment enclosure on the
site and to add 10 feet to the height of the existing monopine on the property. The application is
currently under review.
~`~'-.-,~~~ '~,.___.J
;~ WIR ~ry OIIV~ItA RAN[M 1-![li>pt RAKNI
' _' _ -_ '- MqUN D[lOI~V !tlb[Ml~~
,r________ _____~
~ .q.,
; _ ,
_ « ~~ ~
~ . p ~ P 1 0 1- I
~ _- ~ ' ~
~
~ ~, ~
~ • ~•t ~ ~ ~
~ ~ w ~ I •Ir 1~ r I~ _~ 1
I r~ 1~
~
i • ~ __ _ ~_ '- ~--- _ - - ~ ~
~ i ~ ~~
! ~ ~I
~ ~ ~ ~ _ .' - "~
( ~ ~ ~~r '_ ,
~ '~~~ I- = -
i 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ Y~r" =yq-- ' I i ~ I r ~ ~ r ~
~ ~ ` ' ' 1
{ ~~ r
I ! ~. I J
~~ ~ ~ ~ i„ •.. '~ ~
+ ~ • i i « "
.
1 . ~ - ~ ~
~
, ~ •, ~ ~ , , . ~
~ ~ ~ '- ~"~, -_ - - -
~ ' ~
I ' `,~'` _
oWRRY UNC OCNOOL IMeAC1
LKO~.M D[N71TY RLi10[NML/RRA
Project Proposal
The Applicant is ~equesting approval
of a General Plan Amendment,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Planned Development
Rezone with a related Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and
Stage 2 Development Plan, and a
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.
The Applicant is also requesting
certification of the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
for the project.
In order to develop the site as
permitted by the proposed zoning, a
Site Development Review application
will need to be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission at a
future date.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned
Development Rezone wi#h a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2
Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map are discussed below. Staff s analysis is
broken up into several sec#ions which describe each component of the project.
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
The Applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Spec~c
Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from Rura1 Residential/Agriculture (1
unit/100 acres) to Single Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 units/acre) and to reduce the width of on-
site streets.
The request includes amendments to various figures, texts and tables in the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specfic Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. The foliowing is
a list of the proposed amendments.
3of10
Proposed General Plan Amendments:
~ ~~ 7~ ~-
~
Figure 1-1 a: Land Use Map -
Update map to change the Nielsen Property land use designation from Rural
Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential.
Figure 9-2: Dublin General Plan Eastem Extended Planning Area
Update map to change the Nielsen Property land use designation from Rural
ResidentiaVAgriculture to Single Family Residential.
Chapter 2, Table 2.1
Amend Table 2.1 by removing 10.9 gross acres from Rural Residential and add 10.9 gross
acres to Single Family. Remove 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single
Farnily. Adjust totals accordingly.
Section 5.1.1
6. RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Curb to Curb 36' (32' single loaded). 29' single-loaded permitted with Planned
Development zoning.
Right-of-way 4fi'. 45' double-loaded or 34' single-loaded permitted with Planned
Development zoning.
Sidewalk 5'. 4.5' where houses front on street permitted with Planned Development
zoning.
7. CUL-DE-SACS
Curb to curb 36'. 29' single-loaded permitted with Planned Development zoning.
Right-of-way 46'. 45' double-loaded or 34' single-loaded permitted with Planned
Development zoning.
Sidewalk 5'. 4.5' whe~e houses front on street permitted with Planned Development
zoning.
Appendix A
Add this project to list of amendments and approvals:
Nielsen Property, Resolution No., Date Adopted and GP updated.
Proposed Specific Plan Amendments;
Table 4.1
Amend Table 4.1 by removing 10.9 gross acres from Rural Residential and add 10.9 gross
acres to Single Family. Remove 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single
Family and adjust totals accordingly.
Table 4.2
Amend Table 4.2 by removing 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single
Family and adjust population numbers accordingly.
Table 4.3
Amend Table 4.3 by ~emoving 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single
Family and adjust population numbers accordingly.
4 of 10
~119 ~~-.
~
Table 4.10
Amend Table 4.10 by removing 10.9 gross acres from Rural Residential and add 10.9 gross
acres to Single Family. Remove 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single
Family adjust totals accordingly.
Figure 4.1
Update map to change Nielsen Property land use designation from Rural
Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential.
Figure 6.1
Update map to change Nielsen Property land use designation from Rural
Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential.
APPENDIX 3
Amend Appendix 3 by removing 10.9 gross acres from Rural Residential and add 10.9 gross
acres to Single Family. Remove 1 unit from Rural Residential and add 36 units to Single
Family adjust totals accordingiy.
APPENDIX 4:
Amend Appendix 4 by changing #9 Owners Name to Nielsen. Change Land Use Category
from Rural Residential/Agriculture to Single Family Residential, change Acres from 10.0 to
10.9, and change Density from .01 to 3.3 and units ftom 1 to 36.
A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment and an
Eastern Dublin Spec~c Plan Amendment for the Nielsen Property as described above is
included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report.
Planned Development Rezone
The City Council adopted Ordinance 95-02, pre-zoning the Nielsen and Silvera Ranch
properties as Planned Development with a related Stage 1 Development Plan when the Nielsen
and Silvera Ranch properties were approved for annexation to the City of Dublin in 2002. At
that time, no development was proposed on the Nielsen property and the adopted Stage 1
Development Plan simply allowed the existing uses to continue on the site. The proposed
amendment to the Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning for the Nielsen Property is to permit up
to 36 residential units, including finro duplex units for the provision of affordable housing. Please
refer to page 4 of Attachment 2, Exhibit A, which describes the amendment to the Stage 1
Development Plan.
A Stage 2 Development Plan is proposed in accordance with Section 8.32.040 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance. The Stage 2 Development Plan would allow for up to 36 units and details
the permitted and conditional uses; site development standards, architectural and landscape
standards and guidelines; data on site area, proposed densities and maximum number of
dwelling units; a phasing plan and street sections. Please refer to pages 4-19 of Attachment 2,
Exhibit A, which describes the amendment to the Stage 2 Development Plan.
Additional entitlements will be required prior to development commencing on the project site. A
Site Development Review application that is in conformance with the Stage 2 Development Plan
would need to be submitted. A refined site plan, landscape plans, detailed residential
elevations, and other project-specific details would be submitted as required by City Standards.
The Site Development Review application would be subject to a public hearing and review and
consideratior~ by the Planning Commission.
5of10
~~ 75;~.
A Resolution recommendin that the Ci Council a rove a Planned Develo ment Rezone wit~
9 tY PP P
a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Nielsen
Property is included as Attachment 2 to this Staff Fteport.
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 7950 proposes to subdivide the property in a manner
rnihere the 34 lots have been arranged on two cul-de-sacs to work with the natural grade of the
site and utilize terraces and stepping the houses up the slope. Each lot is a minimum of 5,000
square feet. Lots have been designed assuming a split ievel residential unit to better fit the
topography of the site by stepping up the slope and to reduce the need for exterior retaining
walls. However, some units and lots have the option to be offered as flat pads. In addition, the
stepping and positioning of the lots will provide optimum views of the valley and hills both to the
north, west and south of the project.
Primary access to the Project Area will be via Silvera Ranch Drive, an entry street that connects
to Tassajara Road at a signalized intersection. Tassajara Road will ultimately be a six-lane
divided arterial street.
Where there are houses on both sides of the street, parking wiil be provided on both sides. The
roads will transition into parking on one side where the houses are only on one side of the street
("single-loaded"). The ends of both cul-de-sacs will not allow parking, but are sized to meet fire
standards. Sidewalks will be provided on all lot frontages to accommodate pedestrians, and a
meandering walk will be placed on Tassajara Road in keeping with the ultimate design of
Tassajara Road. The en#ry road will have separated sidewalks with 6' parkway strips as well as
a landscaped median. The proposed street sections are included in the Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map plan set, which is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 3 to this Staff Report
The Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 for the Nietsen Property is
included as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report. The entire Project Plan Set is included as
Attachment 4.
CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLQN 8~ ZONING ORDINANCE
The proposed Nielsen Property Residential Project includes a request to amend the Generaf
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Rural
Residential/ Ag~iculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets.
The project proposal includes related amendments to the various figures, texts and tables in the
City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the
document.
Additionally, the project includes a proposal for a Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment
and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone to allow the development of up to 36 single-family
residential units on the project site. The proposed Planned Development Rezoning, as defineci
by Section 8.32.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, establishes the land use pattern for the
Nielsen Property.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services
and Dublin San Ramon Services District have reviewed the p~oject. Additional land use
entitlements, including Site Devetopment Review, will be required prior to future development of
the project site. It will be at this time that Conditions of Approval will be placed on the project
6of10 '
~~i ~5g
related to the actual construction of residential units on the site. The various a~~licable
departments and agencies will review subsequerxt . planning applications for the Nielsen
Property.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTSlPUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants
within 300 feet of the proposed project in addition to those who provided comments on the Draft
Supplemental EIR. A Public Notice was also published in the Valley 'fimes and posted at
several locations throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted
of a Draft EJR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated
May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development alternative. The City Council adopted
Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan for the reduced
area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second
Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. For identified impacts that
could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities
(natural gas, electric and telephone service}, regional air quality, noise, and other impacts.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted by the City to encourage orderly growth of the
Eastern Dublin area. Because the Eastern Dublin project proposed urbanization of the almost
completely undeveloped Eastern Dublin area, the Eastern Dublin EIR also analyzed conversion
of agricultural and open space lands to urban uses. These impacts, together with visual and
other impacts from urbanization, were also determined to be significant and unavoidable. Where
the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts that could be mitigated, the previously adopted
mitigation measures continue to apply to implementing projects such as the Nielsen Property
Residential Project, as appropriate.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was a Program EIR and evaluated the potential environmental effects
of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. As such, the Eastern Dublin EIR
addressed the cumulative effects of developing in agricultural and open space areas and the
basic policy considerations accompanying the change in character from undeveloped to
devefoped lands. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects such as Wallis
Ranch (Dublin Ranch West), Fallon Crossing, Vargas, Silvera Ranch, Dublin Ranch, and Fallon
Village have been approved, relying on the Program EIR.
The City, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study to determine whether there would be
significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of the current project beyond or different
from those already addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Based on the project description, the
Initial Study determined that although many of the anticipated impacts had been adequately
addressed, the project could result in additional significant site-specific impacts. Therefore, a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared in accordance with CEQA
laws and regulations. The project assessed in the SEIR included amendments to the General
Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan (including revised land uses), a Stage 1 Planned
Development Amendment and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, and Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map.
7of10
, . . 1 ~ ~ -75~
The SEIR r~vas prepared fo~ the project and circulated for public review from ~ebruary 2, 2009 to
March 25, 20Q9 (Exhibit A to Attachment 5). During the public review period, the City received
seven comment letters, which include the following:
• U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, dated March 11, 2009
• California Na#ural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game,
dated March 25, 2009
• Dublin San Ramon Services District, dated March 9, 2009
• Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Zone 7,
dated March 19, 2009
• Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, dated March 13, 2009
• Alameda County Public Works Agency, dated March 10, 2009
• Morgan Miller Blair, dated March 19, 2009
In compliance with CEQA, the City prepared responses to the various comment letters, which
are contained in the Finat SEIR (Exhibit B to Attachment 5). The responses were sent to each
of the individuals and agencies that provided comments on the Draft SEIR.
CONCLUSION:
The ApplicanYs submittal package is included as Attachment 4 of the Staff Report. The
proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would change the land
use designation from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Single Family Residential and reduce the
width of on-site streets. Approval of a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan would permit the future
development of up to 3fi residential units and related infrastructure on the Nielsen Property. A
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Nielsen Prope~ty
Residential Project, which includes both the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR with the responses to
comments.
8 of 10
a~ ~ ~~
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Counci,l~adopt ~~~
Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan~ to change ~he Nielsen Property from
Rural Residential/Agricultural #o Single Family Residential and
reduce the width of on-site streets, with the draft Resolution
attached as Exhibit A.
2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an
Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a
related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2
Development Plan for the Nielsen Property, with the draft City
Councii Ordinance included as Exhibit A.
3) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7950 for
the Nielsen Property with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map
attached as Exhibit A.
4) Nielsen Property Residential Project Plan Set dated received
April 9, 2010.
5) Resolution Recommending City Council certification of a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of
Environmental Findings under CEQA for The Nielsen Property
Residential Project, with the Draft SEIR attached as Exhibit A
and the Fina1 SEIR (with response to comments) attached as
Exhibit B.
9of10
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT/PROPERTY:
OWNER
LOCATION:
ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBERS:
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING USES:
Robert Nielsen
fi4Q7 Tassajara Road
Dublin, CA 94568
6407 Tassajara Road
985-0002-009-02
Rural Residential/Agricultural (existing)
Single Family Residential(proposed)
EDSP: Rural Residential/Agricultural (existing)
EDSP: Single Family Residential (proposed)
~1a~ ~ 7.~~
LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF
PROPERTY
North PD Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
Silvera Ranch
South PD Medium Density Residential Quarry Lane School
West PD Stream Corridor and Rural property
Nei hborhood Park
East PD Rural Residential/Agricultural Vacant
10 of 10
DRAFT DRAFT
~~ ~~~~ r ~ 7a~~ ~ ~7.5~'
~ 3r
~~~ ~ ~ ~:3 • • • •
~~ ~,~ `
'A ~~~ *,~ ~ Plannin Commission Mznutes
~.. ~~~~- g
~~~~~
~~v,,,~~~=~ Tuesday, April 27, 2010 ,
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 27,
2010, in the Regional Meeting Room located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Brown called the
meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Present: Vice Chair Brown; Commissioners Schaub, Swalwell and Wehrenberg; Jeff Baker,
Planning Manager; Tim Cremin, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner; and Debra
LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Morgan King, Chair - he has recused himself from the item.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm.
Wehrenberg the minutes of the April 13, 2010 meeting were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
Cm. Swalwell stated that his brother, Chase Swalwell, worked for the Nielsen family and lived
on the Nielsen property between 2005 and 2009. He stated he does not know Mr. Nielsen
personally and did not feel this would influence his decision on the project. He added that his
brother no longer works or lives on the Nielsen property.
8.1 PA 07-057 Nielsen, General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments,
Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and
Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report.
Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked why a Development Agreement was not part of this submittal and how
would that fit in when reviewing the final plans for the Stage 2 PD.
Ms. Bascom answered that the Applicant has requested a Development Agreement and it will
be reviewed when the SDR application is submitted.
;P'~r~ra~~xa~ (.~~nar~iss~c§rt
~~~ir.~r~ :~~actir<<~
40
,~~~~~;, ,~~~~
ATTACHMENT 5
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Schaub asked if Ms. Bascom knew who would enter into the agreement with the City.
~~ ~~
Ms. Bascom answered whoever owns and develops the site. ~
Cm. Schaub asked if the DA is not reviewed at this time what concessions would the City make
at a later date such as extending the timeframe for the DA. He was concerned with the City
being locked into a project without the necessary DA
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager answered a development agreement is a requirement of the EDSP
prior to the recordation of the Final Map or Site Development Review. He continued the
standard DA determines the financing of infrastructure and improvements. He stated the City
does not typically grant exceptions or additional money unless the developer is asking for
something in exchange, such as an extended DA or some sort of compensation from the City.
He continued Staff would typically not see the DA until the SDR application and it would be the
standard 5-year DA.
Cm. Schaub asked why there are no similar view drawings of the project from south going
north.
Ms. Bascom answered Staff did not request that view and did not receive it in the submittal
package. She stated she will continue to explain how it will look visually.
Cm. Schaub felt that it is important to be able to make the findings regarding the ridgeline now
for the City Council's information.
Cm. Schaub felt there were a larger number of lots in the previous submittal.
Ms. Bascom stated that the when the City Council authorized the General Plan Amendment
study they authorized a category of Land Uses and the study analyzed a Single Family
Residential designation which would allow up to 6 units/acre which would allow up to 431ots.
She continued the current proposal is for 361ots but the site plans shows 34 lots. She stated that
the project has been reduced by 2 lots with an open area and the grading for the site has
changed as well.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked what the open area would be used for.
Ms. Bascom answered the open area serves as the driveway access to lot 27 and 28.
Cm. Schaub asked which two lots can be split for duplexes.
Ms. Bascom answered Lots 15 and 20, which are corner lots and if the developer decides they
want to accommodate affordable housing in the project those two lots would include 4 duplex
units.
Cm. Schaub mentioned that the Applicant could request half of the 4 units for in-lieu fees and
not have to build the affordable housing units if the City Council allowed it.
~i~l;~n~tirr~ ('vmm;:sszc+~z ;~~~rrF`'i, 2()Pt7
~~;~„~,~ ~-~r~trt~~ 41
DRAFT DRAFT ,,~
Ms. Bascom answered that would be a possibility which is why there are 34 lots with up t~o 6
~ ~~'
units allowed. ~~
Cm. Schaub asked if the Planning Commission should be concerned with the number of lots or
the number of units.
Ms. Bascom responded that the PD Zoning will allow up to 36 units whether there are duplexes
or not; therefore the number of lots being created is 34 residential lots on which there can be up
to 36 units developed.
Cm. Schaub asked if the maximum height of the retaining walls will be 5 feet.
Ms. Bascom answered yes.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Planning Commission will review the retaining walls.
Ms. Bascom answered that the project will require an SDR before anything is built on the site.
She continued there is a lot of information and only a portion of it is contained in the PD
Zoning, a lot of it is background information which will be used for the SDR when it is
submitted. She stated that only the items attached to the PD are being reviewed by the
Commission tonight.
Cm. Schaub asked about the wall height between the houses.
Ms. Bascom answered the height is not shown on the wall plan; it only shows the type of wall.
Mr. Baker directed the Commission to the Attachment 3 to Staff Report which is the Vesting
Tentative Map, Sheet 4, where it shows the height of the retaining walls.
Cm. Schaub asked who will maintain the common retaining walls.
Ms. Bascom answered that on private property within private lots the walls will be maintained
by the homeowner.
Ms. Bascom directed the Commission to the chart that shows the walls and the various
ownership and maintenance responsibilities for each.
Ms. Bascom stated the Planning Commission reviewed a plan at the March 2008 Study Session
which showed the type of wall and the general location. She stated in the current proposal
there is a revised grading, fence and wall plan. She stated the former plan had a number of
retaining walls closer to the street and different wall configurations throughout the site and the
current proposal has retaining walls but the number is reduced and they are capped at 5 feet in
height. She referred the Commission to Sheet PD 2.4 the Ownership and Maintenance Plan for
more information.
~'~~a~f~r~~ ('~mrrr~s.s~z~~z ,`~r~srs'~Zi, 2t~tC~
;~'~;~~~r~rr ~~~r~~taia~ 42
DRAFT '~$'~ ~~~ DRAFT
Cm. Schaub was concerned that there is no Section 3 view, south looking north, for the grading
plan.
Ms. Bascom answered that the area backs up against Quarry Lane School's property.
Mr. Baker statecl the cross-section visuals run east to west to present an idea of what the grading
will look like.
Cm. Schaub was concerned that there are no views from the school. He wanted to make sure
that view will be considered.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this slide is to address the Visually Sensitive Ridgeland area.
Ms. Bascom responded no, this slide is to address the amount of grading on the site. She
continued that the slide is looking as though you were standing on the roof of the Quarry Lane
School looking down onto the site.
There was a discussion regarding the grading plan and the views from the south looking north.
Cm. Schaub was concerned there were no views looking north particularly from Quarry Lane
School, since he spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the documents from the
school's point of view he wanted to ensure it was considered. He felt that Quarry Lane School
is right is at the end of the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline Area. He asked what could be placed
between the property line of the school and line 2 on the grading slide that the Planning
Commission should be concerned with.
Ms. Bascom felt Cm. Schaub was speaking regarding the visual aspect of the project. She
continued that the slide indicates the amount of grading, cut and fill. The land form is the same.
Cm. Schaub felt there would be no fall to any property to the south.
Ms. Bascom stated the Quarry Lane property will be at a higher grade. She referred the
Commission to Sheet 2 of the Tentative Map which shows the cross section at the property line.
Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that what they are looking at goes to the property line of Quarry
Lane School.
Ms. Bascom stated there is actually less grading on the current proposal then what was brought
to the Planning Commission Study Session in March 2008.
Cm. Schaub asked about the reduction in the width of on-site streets.
Ms. Bascom responded for this particular PD Zoning District the site plan shows street widths
that are slightly reduced where there are single loaded streets with units on only one side of
street. She continued this will be an amendment to the General Plan only because street widths
~t'~anniny ~"urszrrrr;ss7c?n __ _ ~~tn'f?r, ?t31 f.}
~=~1~#~~~~ :~r~~~z~~ 43
DRAFT ~~~ `~~ ~5~ DRAFT
are called out in the General Plan and the amendment would be to allow the reduced street
width because of uniqueness of the site.
Cm. Schaub asked how much the street width is reduced.
Mr. Baker referred the Commission to Page 7 of the GPA Resolution.
Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned the GPA Resolution states 36 feet for street width and the current
proposal is for 29 feet for the single loaded streets.
Ms. Bascom answered the standard is actually 32 feet currently for single loaded streets and the
Applicant is proposing 29 feet for single loaded street for this project. She continued that the
typical right-of-way is 46 feet and this project is proposed at 45 feet.
Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned about parking on the reduced size street and the EVA lanes.
She was not sure if the street would be wide enough with parked cars and emergency vehicles.
Ms. Bascom referred the Commission to Page PD 2.5 in the Design Guidelines book which
shows a parking plan for the project. She continued the project requires a minimum parking for
each lot to be 2 enclosed spaces and 1 not enclosed space.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if that requirement would be a reduction in the parking ratio.
Ms. Bascom responded it is not a reduction in the parking ratio and the parking plan meets the
standards. She stated that the street can be reduced in width because there is no parking on
one side of street. She also mentioned the EVA has been reviewed by Fire Dept.
Cm. Schaub stated one of the concerns that were mentioned with the City's Green Initiative
Committee is not having enough room for recycle bins on garbage day. He stated there are
some areas in Dublin where the streets are so narrow that there is little room for garbage bins
and there is no room for recycle bins. He felt the City Council will be serious about planning
for the environment in the future.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that there is one residence already on the property and this proposal
will add 36 units, but she felt there are two occupied residences on the property.
Ms. Bascom answered there is what is considered a second unit, and the General Plan Land Use
Designation is 1 unit for each 100 acres, so because of the Land Use Designation it is considered
one unit which is permitted.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked about the Tentative Map with the HOA responsibilities for
maintenance.
Ms. Bascom answered there is an attachment under the Tentative Map Resolution that explains
maintenance responsibilities.
~:Z'lar~tirr~r {'c}rs~tariss~a~r?r~ '~ ri~"'i, ?U1t~
~~ w
~;~p; zFz<~~ : ~t ~~t ¢~g~~ 44
DRAFT ~~~ U ~~~ DRAFT
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the landscaping for the homes that back up to Quarry Lane School
should be required to be complete. She was referring to the Visually Sensitive Areas and would
not want trees planted to block the hillside views. She felt these homes are in the Visually
Sensitive Ridgeland Area and was concerned with the landscaping for those homes.
Ms. Bascom responded in the past the City has not conditioned rear-yard landscaping be
complete where a private residence backs up to a major thoroughfare.
Cm. Wehrenberg felt this was a unique situation. She liked that all the landscaping will be done
along Tassajara Road.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated that on the map PD 2.1 there are 3 locations for potential cell towers.
Ms. Bascom answered yes - that was put into the PD Rezone Ordinance but the locations are
restricted.
Mr. Baker responded the PD Ordinance would allow a cell tower to occur but would it have to
comply with the City's Cell Tower Ordinance. ,
Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with the Visually Sensitive Ridgeline Area (VSRA) which
should be preserved.
Mr. Baker responded that the plans show a location with an existing cell tower, but any new cell
towers would require an SDR which would include a review of the VSRA.
Ms. Bascom stated that the exhibit does show potential cell tower locations, but the exhibit the
Commission is recommending approval of is on Page 5 of Attachment 2, the reference to
potential cell tower locations was removed because the Commission is not approving any new
cell tower locations.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and asked if the Commission would review any new cell towers
locations.
Ms. Bascom stated that Attachment 2, Page 5 of the Stage 2 Site Plan does not include any
reference to any potential cell tower locations because the City would not approve a potential
cell tower location. She continued that there are existing cell towers on the property now and at
the time of development the Applicant will need to decide whether the facility will stay and not
develop the lot or develop the lot and remove the cell tower.
Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned with making of one of the findings: B) the site is physically
suitable for type and intensity for the Zoning District being proposed, she was concerned with
narrowing the streets which will impact parking, and felt that there may be too many houses
and there could be parking problems in the future, she wanted the Commission to be aware.
Vice Chair Brown had no questions.
<i~Cc€rr~azn~ (°t~mrrrz.~~sgc~PZ ;~pri~`3T, ~~1€~
~'~~~rr~€~ ;~tectircy 4$
DRAFT I,~~'~ 7.~~"~ DRAFT
Cm. Swalwell had no questions.
Cm. Schaub felt this was a very sensitive project and wanted to ensure that the Commission
made the correct decision. He referred to one of the attachments which stated "a minimum of 3
foot clear pathz~~ays shall be maintained on one side of the house at all times." He asked for clarification
regarding setbacks.
Ms. Bascom answered the minimum side-yard setback is 5 feet with a minimum 3 foot clear
pathway where often projections into side-yards are allowed such as bay-windows, etc. but they
want to ensure that a minimum 3 foot clear pathway is maintained at all times. She was unsure
if that also includes placing items in side-yards.
Mr. Baker responded that typically a Condition of Approval for Emergency Services would
require a minimum of a 3 foot pathway on at least one side where no AC compressors,
fireplaces or bay windows would obstruct their ability to access the home.
Cm. Schaub referred to Page 54 regarding slopes which stated that "bank slopes on public
streets should be not more than 3.1." He stated that there are slopes of 2.1 in his neighborhood
which are a nightmare and was unsure how there could be a 3.1 slope.
Ms. Bascom stated that the 3.1 slopes are between some of the short retaining walls.
Mark McClellan, Engineer, Mackay and Somps stated 2.1 slope is more steep than the 3.1 slope,
2.1 slope is typically only allowed between lots.
Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that the street lights will not be glaring and referred to Cm.
Wehrenberg's comment regarding the VSRA, and anything that could be done to make them
environmentally friendly would be good as well.
Cm. Bascom stated that one of the Mitigation Measures in the EIR addresses his concern.
Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that the project states that Lot #1 is a potential water quality site,
and asked if that is addressed in the EIR.
Ms. Bascom stated she would check the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Tract Map to
see if there is anything there to answer her question.
Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing.
Robert Nielsen, Applicant spoke in favor of the project. He stated he is not a developer, and
thanked Staff for their assistance. He stated he is very passionate about the project and has
spent 30 years on Tassajara Road and more then 15 years on the project site. He stated he enjoys
living there and does not want to leave but felt that Agriculture does not work well in the
middle of town and it was time to move. He stated that one of the best aspects of the property
is the view and the lots are designed with full story splits and reduced grading that optimizes
the view from each house. He thanked Staff that worked with him.
~~'~~~trz~rr; ~'r~m~rri.ssita~z ;~~~riC,"r, ?U $€~
~=~,~,gt~~r <t~~~:r~r~~ 46
D~T
~~~~ -~~
DRAFT
Cm. Swalwell asked if his family has any connection to Dublin history.
Mr. Nielsen answered that he was born here, his father, grandmother and his children were also
born here. He stated his mother's grandparents came here in 1870.
Cm. Swalwell mentioned that there is nothing in the project information regarding the history
of his family. He felt Mr. Nielseri s family has a rich history with the City and it is important for
the public to know that he not just an outsider coming into Dublin but has been a part of the
progress of Dublin. He recommended that Mr. Nielsen include some of his family history in the
project documents.
Mr. Nielsen thanked Cm. Swalwell and stated he did not feel that he deserves special treatment
because he's lived in Dublin for a long time.
Cm. Swalwell felt that the public has to buy into the project and knowing the history of the
Nielsen family as a part of Dublin would help with that.
Mark McClellan, MacKay & Somps, spoke in favor of the project. He responded to the
Commissiori s concern regarding the reduced width street size; he felt their concerns were valid
regarding parking and fire access. He stated that the 29 foot street width on a single loaded
street breaks down to an 8 foot parking lane, which is a City Standard, and a 10 foot driving
lane and an 11 foot driving lane. He continued a regular street City Standard is 36 feet wide.
The reduced width still complies with the City Standard and actually clears 21 feet therefore,
even with a car parked on the street there is enough room for Emergency vehicles and the Fire
Dept has agreed. He stated the EVA is 20 foot paved, with 26 feet clear which is above and
beyond what Fire typically wants.
Mr. McClellan responded to Cm. Schaub's question regarding the grading sections - he stated
that when looking at the relationship of Quarry Lane School to the project almost all of the lots
are lower than the school, some are level with the school, but most are below the school.
Cm. Schaub was concerned that some of the landscaping will be seen from Tassajara Road and
asked which lots are 8 feet below grade traveling north.
Mr. McClellan answered all of the first 4 houses are lower so the top story might be seen but
most of the landscaping wori t be seen because it will be in the backyard.
Cm. Schaub felt the houses would be visible but the school is much bigger. He asked to note on
the landscaping plan on Lot #28 to review the visibility when the project is submitted for SDR
approval.
Mr. McClellan responded regarding the storm water quality on lot #1 is inside the entry, the
area just to the north, is the storm water quality basin of Silveria Ranch. He stated that Dublin
Public Works was very concerned about trash collecting in the basin and in working with them
they developed an arrangement for the Applicant to improve the basin and also install at the
;f'lr~nreir€r~ ~ ~}~rzrrrzs,~~ia?ra ,~~>riC:'s; 't??()
~'i~~~ag~ar ';~~~sa t r~a.z~ 47
-~:~.~ ~, -~~ -
DRAFT DRAFT
entry a separator unit that would separate trash for both Silveria Ranch and this project. He
stated the reason Lot #1 is designated as the water quality basin is because the changing world
of the storm water quality regulations. He stated there will be new regulations taking effect this
year and if anything changed they wanted to have the ability to do something additional.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked how much land is lost with Lot #1.
Mr. McClellan answered that if the space is needed they would probably loose the lot, but
under current regulations it should be fine. He stated the Public Works Department wanted to
have it on the plan in case regulatory conditions changed.
John Zukowski, Resident, 3385 Dublin Blvd, Terraces, Dublin Ranch, spoke in favor of the
project. He felt it was a high quality project; the lot standards are generous; there are private
yards and the most important thing is that it brings the land use in synch with the surrounding
uses. He did not feel it will alter views and actually respects the area. He stated that most
importantly, depending on the time of development, this project will provide fees, property and
sales taxes, etc. He felt there were a lot of benefits, and some concerns about the visual and
parking aspects but he was sure that could be addressed in future stages. He asked that the
Planning Commission approve the project.
Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
Cm. Swalwell had no additional comments.
Cm. Schaub stated that he is a volunteer, spends hours reading information and did not feel
there is anything more important then the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He stated he is
offended that a law firm or someone from the community requires him to spend hours reading
a document and then they do not show up to the public hearing.
Cm. Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project. She agreed that the area needs to blend
in with the rest of Tassajara Rd. She is still concerned regarding future parking issues. She felt
it is important to point out to the City Council that the parking ratio could be reduced so that
there will be less issues regarding trash cans, holiday parking and people using their garage for
storage causing the homeowners to park on the street and leaving little or no visitor parking.
Vice Chair Brown stated he is in support of the project.
Cm. Schaub stated he is in support of the project and can make all findings including the VSRA.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Chair
King absent, the Planning Commission approved:
RESOLUTION N0.10 -18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
'~'~ar~~rai~z~ ~;~zr~r~is.ric~rz ~7~riP?~', 2t?ffS
~;~t~ktt~,w >~tr~ktr~mq 48
DRAFT
~3~~~~s~
DRAFT
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02)
PA 07-05
RESOLUTION NO. 10 -19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING
T~IE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE
NIELSEN PROPERTY TO CHANGE THE EXISTING RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
DESIGNATION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND
TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF ON-SITE STREETS
(6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02)
PA 07-057
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02)
PA 07-057
RESOLUTION N0.10-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 7950 FOR THE
~t'Cr~~t~tsr~y ~'~~~tnrisst<~n ;~~s~z'~,"r, 2U1 t?
~}~~}~;~~~ ~-~~~~~~~,~ 49
DRAFT ~~~~~ ~~ ~ DRAFT
NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(6407 tASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02)
PA 07-057
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Brown
Vice Chair Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Planning Manager
G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2010 ~ PLANNI NG COMMISSION ~ 4.2710.doc
~1'~~nr~trr~ ~'c~~m~:ss~icA~ ~~#~rif:'~, :7U1t~
~.7t~~'f~1 J;,~Lf1' ~'~Ct $ t~P~ 5 Q
~~~~ ~~~
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
UNDER CEQA FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02)
PA 07-057
WHEREAS, Robert Nielsen submitted applications for the creation of thirty-four (34)
residential lots on the property located at 6407 Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin (Alameda
County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 985-0002-009-02) ("Project Site"). The maximum
number of dwelling units that would be located on the Project Site are thirty-six (36). The project
includes applications for the following: (1) a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation from Rural Residential/ Agriculture
to Single Family Residential and to reduce the width of on-site streets; (2) a Planned
Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2
Development Plan from PD-RR/A to PD-SFR to allow construction of up to 36 dwellings on the
Project Site; and (3) a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Project Site. The applications
are collectively known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in Eastern Dublin and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution
51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated herein
by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the
Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council
adopted environmental findings, mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program, and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference) in
accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, significant unavoidable impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
that apply to the Project and Project site, therefore, any Project approval must be supported by
a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Initial
Study to determine if the proposed Project would require additional environmental review
beyond that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study found that many anticipated
impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
This is consistent with the comprehensive environmental analysis undertaken as part of the
Eastern Dublin EIR with a 20-30 year build-out horizon. Although the Initial Study concluded that
the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Project, it also identified the potential for certain new significant impacts or
substantially more severe impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of
Dublin determined that the potential for new and/or substantially more severe impacts required
1 ATTACHMENT 6
~~~ ~ ~~~
preparation of a supplemental EIR for certain impact areas pursuant to the requirements of
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated May 23, 2008, with the
Initial Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the
supplemental EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on June 18, 2008; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the
City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated January 2009
for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
(See Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference). The DSEIR confirmed that many aspects of
the Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin program and that the certified Eastern
Dublin EIR adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, the DSEIR was circulated for public review from February 2, 2009 to March
25, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State and local agencies and
interested parties during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of
CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public
comment period. The City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR), dated April 2010, for
the proposed Project which included an annotated copy of each comment letter identifying
specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and clarifications and minor
corrections to information presented in the DSEIR. The FSEIR incorporates the DSEIR. The
responses to comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental
issues raised by the comments (Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the FSEIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the DSEIR, do
not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the DSEIR under the
standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and contained information on
the Eastern Dublin EIR and FSEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, the Eastern Dublin EIR,
the FSEIR, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on April 27, 2010 at
which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the FSEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the FSEIR and related Project and environmental documents, including the
Eastern Dublin EIR, and all of the documents relating to the Project are incorporated herein by
reference, and are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file
PA 07-057, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the FSEIR and other
2
_73 ~ ~~ -7~ ~
documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 07-057; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings and recommendations to the City Council on the FSEIR and the
environmental review of the Project under CEQA:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The FSEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the
City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information
contained in Eastern Dublin EIR and FSEIR, including the written comments received
during the DSEIR review period and the oral and written comments received at the public
hearing, prior to making its recommendation on the proposed Project.
D. The FSEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The FSEIR provides information to the
decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed
Project.
E. The FSEIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant environmental
impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed
Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends
that, prior to the approval of the Project, the City Council certify the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, make all required findings
regarding environmental impacts of the Project, mitigation measures and alternatives (including,
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations) and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub, Swalwell
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: King
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
3
~39~~ -~5~.
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE
NIELSEN PROPERTY TO CHANGE THE EXISTING RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
DESIGNATION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND
TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF ON-SITE STREETS
(6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02)
PA 07-057
WHEREAS, Robert Nielsen submitted applications to permit the development of up to 36
residential units on approximately 10.0 acres at 6407 Tassajara Road. The project includes
applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to modify the land
use designation from Rural Residential/ Agriculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce
the width of on-site streets; a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and a Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project site slopes dramatically from west to east and is currently
occupied by rural residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would
change the land use designations of the project site from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Single
Family Residential, allowing for the development of up to 6.0 units per gross acre instead of 1
unit per 100 gross acres and allow the reduction in width of on-site streets; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Government Code section 65352.3, the City obtained a
contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and
notified the tribes of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan and
Specific Plan amendments. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-
day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(DSEIR) dated January 2009 for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent
judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR confirmed that many aspects of the Project
were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin program and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR
adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the DSEIR were reviewed and responded to, and the
FSEIR was prepared; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the proposed amendments to the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the related Eastern Dublin EIR and the FSEIR, including
comments and responses for the Planning Commission; and
ATTACHMENT 7
~y~ ~~ ~~
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, on
April 27, 2010 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-XXX
recommending that the City Council certify the FSEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the FSEIR and prior related
environmental documents, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony
to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the resolution attached as Exhibit A approving amendments to the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the amendments are in the public
interest and that the General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub, Swalwell
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: King
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:\PA#fl2007~07-057 Nielsen\PC Mtg 4.27.10\DRAFTS\PC Att 2- Reso GPA SPA.DOC
2
-~ ~r ~ ~~~-
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02)
PA 07-057
WHEREAS, Robert Nielsen submitted applications to permit the development of up to 36
residential units on approximately 10.0 acres at 6407 Tassajara Road. The project includes
applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to modify the land
use designation from Rural Residential/ Agriculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce
the width of on-site streets; a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and a Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project site slopes dramatically from west to east and is currently
occupied by rural residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 15-02 on October 1, 2002, approving a
PD-Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan. The approval pre-
zoned the Nielsen Property and Silvera Ranch properties to PD (Planned Development) and
adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Nielsen Property was included in the Silvera
Ranch annexation so that the Nielsen Property did not form a"county island", although no
development was proposed on the Nielsen Property at that time. The adopted Stage 1
Development Plan allowed the existing rural residential uses to continue on the site; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(DSEIR) dated January 2009 for the proposed Project fhat reflected the City's independent
judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR confirmed that many aspects of the Project
were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin program and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR
adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the DSEIR were reviewed and responded to, and the
Final SEIR (FSEIR) was prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated April 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the proposed Planned Development Rezone with
a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and the
related FSEIR for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed pubtic hearing on the
Project, including the proposed PD zoning, on April 27, 2010 at which time all interested parties
had the opportunity to be heard; and
ATTACHMENT 8
~~z~~~~
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-~;XX
recommending that the City Council certify the FSEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-XXX
recommending that the City Council approve the Project General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the FSEIR, prior related
environmental documents, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony
to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission, for the reasons set
forth in the findings in the attached draft ordinance, recommends that the City Council approve
the ordinance attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which ordinance
adopts a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment
and Stage 2 Development Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub, Swalwell
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: King
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA#12007107-057 NielsenlPC Mtg 4.27.101DRAFTSIPC Att 3- Reso PD Stage 2.DOC
2
~ N~~, ~~~.
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 7950 FOR THE
NIELSEN PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(6407 TASSAJARA ROAD - APN 985-0002-009-02)
PA 07-057
WHEREAS, Robert Nielsen submitted applications to permit the development of up to 36
residential units on approximately 10.0 acres at 6407 Tassajara Road. The project includes
applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to modify the land
use designation from Rural Residential/ Agriculture to Single Family Residential and to reduce
the width of on-site streets; a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1
Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map 7950. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the parcel map proposes to subdivide the property into 34 residential lots
with associated improvements; 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 five or more parcels
for purpose of sale, lease or financing, unless a Tentative Subdivision 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 Applicant/Developer has submitted a complete application for a Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map dated April 27, 2010, on file in the Community Development
Department, Planning Division; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(DSEIR) dated January 2009 for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent
judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR confirmed that many aspects of the Project
were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin program and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR
adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the DSEIR were reviewed and responded to, and the
FSEIR was prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated April 27, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and the
related Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, on April 27, 2010 at which
time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
ATTACHMENT 9
~y~~, ~s$~
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 subject to the conditions prepared by Staff;
and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 10-~;XX
recommending that the City Council certify the FSEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hal~ during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the FSEIR and prior related
environmental documents, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony
to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution, and that the Planning Commission does hereby find:
A. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 is consistent with the intent of applicable
subdivision regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design or improvements of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 is consistent
with the City's General Plan policies as they apply to the subject property in that on
, 2410 the City Council adopted Resolution No. -10, approving
an amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to permit
the development of up to 36 units on the Nielsen Property. Once the amendments
were approved, the project became consistent with both the General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
C. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 is consistent with the Planned Development
Zoning District in which it is located, as approved via City Council Ordinance xx-xx,
and is therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the subdivision
being proposed in that the project has been designed in a manner where the 34 lots
are arranged on two cul-de-sacs to work with the natural grade of the hilly site and the
plan utilizes terraces and stepping the houses up the slope. Lots have been
designed to fit the topography of the site by stepping up the slope and to reduce the
need for exterior retaining walls.
E. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 will not adversely affect the health or safety
of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare because the Project will comply with all applicable development
regulations and standards and will implement all mitigation measures in the Project
FSEIR and all applicable mitigation measures in the prior EIR.
2
~ ~~ ~, ~~
F. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public
at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The
City Engineer has reviewed the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and title report
and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
hereby conditionally approves PA 07-057, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950, to
subdivide + 10.9 acres of land into 34 residential lots with associated improvements. Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map 7950, prepared by MacKay & Somps, attached as Exhibit A to this
Resolution, except as specifically modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the approval
of the Final Parcel Map, and shall be subject to City Engineer and the Director of Community
Development review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies
responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning, [B] Building,
[PO] Police, [PW] Public Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [PCS] Parks and
Community Services, [F] City of Dublin Fire, and [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District.
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
GENE RAL CONDITIONS
1. General. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map PW Ongoing
Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, Zoning, and Grading
Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and
Policies, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at
the time of buildin ermit.
2. Effective DateNalidity. This Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map PL Ongoing
approval is contingent upon certification of the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and approval of the related General
Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, and
Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development
Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan. If the above
approvals are not granted, this Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
a roval shall become null and void.
3. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the event that PW Ongoing
there needs to be clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the
Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have
the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to
the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of
Community Development and the City Engineer also have the
authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without
going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill needed
im rovements or miti ations resultin from im acts of this ro'ect.
4. Electronic File. Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Ongoing
Department a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the
project when the Final Map has been approved. The digital
vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format.
Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map.
All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and
named in En lish. All submitted drawin s shall use the Global
3
~~d ~, ~~~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State
Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot.
5. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, PW Ongoing
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to
attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or
its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City
Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator,
or any other department, committee, or agency of the City related
to this project to the extent such actions are brought within the time
period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other
applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or
proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such
actions or roceedin s
6. Fees. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the PW Zone 7 and
time of building permit issuance including, but not limited to, Public Facilities
Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District In-Lieu Fees
fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Due Prior to
Impact fees, Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda County Filing Each
Fire Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In- Final Map;
Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District Other Fees
(Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees Required with
as noted in the Development Agreement. Issuance of
Building
Permits
7. Substantial Conformance. The Final Map shall be substantially in PW Ongoing
conformance with Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 7950 unless
otherwise modified b the conditions contained herein.
8. Conditions of Approval. A copy of the Conditions of Approval PW Ongoing
which has been annotated how each condition is satisfied shall be
included with the submittals to the Public Works Department for
the review of the Final Map and improvements plans. The
notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will
be complied with, and where they are located on the plans.
Submittals will not be acce ted without the annotated conditions.
9. Map Expiration. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map shall PW Ongoing
have that life determined by the Subdivision Map Act, including but
not limited to Section 66452.6.
10. Submittal. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with PW Ongoing
the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department
Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of
Dublin Im rovement Plan Review Check LisY'.
11. Easements. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required PW Ongoing
b the Tentative Ma shall be shown on the Final Ma .
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS
12. General Public Works Conditions of Approval: Developer shall PW Ongoing
comply with the City of Dublin General Public Works Conditions of
A roval for Tract 7950 contained below unless s ecificall
-~~' ~ ~~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
modified b these Conditions of A roval.
13. Development Agreement: A Development Agreement between PW Finai Map
the Cit of Dublin and the Develo er shall be recorded.
14. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District: The PW Final Map
Developer shall request the area to be annexed into the Citywide
Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District and shall provide
an exhibits re uired for the annexation.
15. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements: Ownership, PW Final Map and
dedications on final map, and maintenance of street right-of-ways, Ongoing
common area parcels, and open space areas shall be by the City
of Dublin, the Homeowner's Association, and the individual
homeowners, as shown in Sheet PD2-4 of Exhibit A.
16. Landscape Features within Public Right of Way. The PW Final Map
Developer shall enter into an "Agreement for Long Term
Encroachments" with the City to allow the HOA to maintain the
landscape and decorative features within public Right of Way
including frontage & median landscaping, decorative pavements
and special features (i.e., walls, portals, benches, etc.) as
generally shown on the Ownership and Maintenance Plan. The
Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and
maintenance responsibilities. The Homeowner's Association will
be responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative
pavements including restoration required as the result of utility
re airs.
17. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A PW Final Map
Homeowners Association shall be formed by recordation of a
declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to govern
use and maintenance of the landscape features within the public
right of way contained in the Agreement for Long Term
Encroachments and the frontage landscaping along Tassajara
Road and interior streets. Said declaration shall set forth the
Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The CC&Rs shall
ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in
good repair and on a regular basis, of the landscaping & irrigation,
decorative pavements, median islands, fences, walls, drainage,
lighting, signs and other related improvements. The CC&Rs shall
also contain all other items required by these conditions. The
Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&R document to the City
for review and a roval.
18. Public Streets: Developer shall construct street improvements PW Approval of
and offer for dedication to the City of Dublin the rights of way for Improvements
Tassajara Road and interior streets as shown on the Tentative Plans or Final
Ma , to the satisfaction of the Cit En ineer. Map
19. Acoustic Study: An acoustic study is needed to determine the PW Approval of
need for additional sound mitigation measures along Tassajara Improvements
Road. Plans or Final
Ma
20. Water Quality Pond Modifications: The existing drainage system PW Approval of
in Silvera Ranch Drive shall be modified so that a high flow bypass Improvements
line is installed between Tassajara Raod and the existing outfall Plans or Final
into the Silvera Ranch ond. Low flows 0.2"/hr from both Nielsen Map
~'~~ ~~ 755~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
Ranch and Silvera Ranch shall be directed into the pond, with high
flows from both developments directed into the bypass line. A
hydrodynamic separator shall be installed on the pond outfall line
between the outfall and the high/ low flow diversion structure, so
that flows from both developments are directed into the separator
prior entering the pond. Improvements shall be completed outside
of the existing pond. The Silvera Ranch Homeowner's Association
shall be advised of the modifications in advance of final approval of
the improvement plans. In the event that the existing pond cannot
be utilized for treating the Nielsen Ranch runoff, a pond shall be
provided on Lot 1 in lieu of a residence.
21. Tassajara Road Frontage Improvements: Tassajara Road shall PW Approval of
be improved to provide frontage improvements (curb and gutter, Improvements
sidewalk, 20' of pavement, lighting, and landscaping) on the east Plans or Final
side of the road along the Nielsen Ranch frontage. In addition, the Map
existing pavement on the road shall be removed and an additional
14' of pavement shall be installed adjacent to the frontage
improvements. This pavement shall be striped as a southbound
travel lane with a 2' shoulder. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
(EDTIF) Section 1 credits will be given for these improvements as
outlined in the 2004 EDTIF U date or subse uent u dates.
22. Tassajara Road Retaining Walls: The retaining walls along PW Approval of
Tassajara Road shall be redesigned to eliminate or soften the Improvements
right-angle bends in the walls near the cellular site. Plans or Final
Ma
23. Street "A" Median Island: The final street improvement design PW Approval of
shall include a shorter median island in Street "A" in order to Improvements
provide an acceptable transition for southbound vehicles prior to Plans or Final
the arkin s ace in front of Lot 1. Map
24. Sidewalk/ Driveway Design: The 4.5' wide sidewalks shall be PW Approval of
widened by 6" at the driveways to accommodate an ADA-compliant Improvements
driveway conforming to City Standard Dwg. No. CD-111. Plans or Final
Ma -Final Ma
25. Lot 27-28 Parking: The final design shall include a detailed layout PW Approval of
for the parking spaces serving Lots 27 and 28, to ensure that Improvements
vehicles can access and leave the parking spaces. Plans or Final
Ma
26. Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road Intersection Contribution: PW Final Map
The developer shall pay a fair share portion of the funding
deficiency between the cost of the Dublin/ Dougherty Intersection
Improvements and available funding. The payment shall be due
with the filing of the final map. The amount of the deficiency, if any,
shall be the amount of the deficiency as determined or estimated
by the Director of Public Works at the time the map is filed. The
fair share portion has been determined to be 0.1036°/a Section 2
EDTIF credits will be rovided for this a ment.
27. Fallon Road/ I-580 Interchange Improvement Contribution: The PW Final Map
developer shall pay a fair share portion of costs advanced by the
Lin Family for improvements to the Fallon Road/ I-580 Interchange.
The a ment will be a able at the time of filin each final ma ,
7~19 ~~ ~.~,.
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
and shall be prorated based on the percentage of total residential
units included in each map. The developer's fair share has been
determined to be 0.1469% of the total funds advanced by the Lin
Famil . Section 2 EDTIF credits will be rovided for this a ment.
28. Santa Rita Road/ I-580 Interchange 5t Eastbound Offramp PW Final Map
Lane: The developer shall be responsible for payment of a fair
share portion of the costs associated with adding a 5t'' eastbound
offramp lane at the Santa Rita Road/ I-580 Interchange, as
required in the Fallon Village Traffic Study/ DEIR. The payment will
be payable at the time of filing each final map, and shall be
prorated based on the percentage of total units included in each
map. The fair share has been determined to be 0.1036%. In the
event that the EDTIF has been updated to include this
improvement at time of filing a final map, the payment will not be
required if the developer agrees in writing prior to the filing of the
final ma to a the u dated EDTIF.
29. Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive, Second Westbound Left PW Issuance of
Turn Lane: The developer shall be responsible for payment of a Building
fair share portion of the costs associated with adding a 2"d Permits
westbound left turn lane on Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive.
This improvement is included in the current EDTIF, and this
obligation may be satisfied through the payment of EDTIF fees,
provided the EDTIF has not been amended to eliminate this
im rovement at the time of a ment.
30. Traffic Impact Fees: The developer shall be responsible for PW Issuance of
payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Sections 1 and Building
2), the Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee, and the Tri-Valley Permits
Transportation Development Fee. Fees will be payable at issuance
of buildin ermits.
31. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum Payment: The PW Issuance of
developer shall be responsible for payment of a minimum portion Building
of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in cash. The cash Permits
payment shall be 11 % for Section 1 and 25% for Section 2, or as
may have been modified by City Council action at the time of
building permit issuance. These minimum cash payment shall be in
addition to any other payment noted in these conditions and may
not be offset b fee credits.
32. Remedial Grading Plan: The grading plan shall include a PW Final Map
remedial grading plan prepared by the project geotechnical
consultant, outlining area of slide repair, benches, keyways,
overexcavation at cut-fill transitions, subdrains, and other
recommendations of the consultant. The remedial grading plan will
be subject to review and approval by the City's own geotechnical
consultant.
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
TRACT 7950
33. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City PW Ongoing
of Dublin Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin
Public Works Standards and Policies, and all building and fire
, codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All
ublic im rovements constructed b Develo er and to be
7 ~~~~ ~~Y
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public works" under
Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing
such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law
Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and followin .
34. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City PW Ongoing
of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development
Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department,
committee, or agency of the City related to this project (Tract 7586)
to the extent such actions are brought within the time period
required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other
applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's
promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or
proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such
actions or roceedin s.
AGREEMENTS AND BONDS
35. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement Agreement PW Final Map
with the City for all public improvements including any required
offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed
to serve the Tract that have not been bonded with another Tract
Im rovement A reement.
36. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), and labor & PW Final Map
material (100%) securities to guarantee the tract improvements,
approved by the City Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract
Improvement Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note:
Upon acceptance of the improvements, the performance security
may be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value
of the erformance securit .
FEES
37. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu fees in the PW Final Map
amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No.
60-99, or in any resolution revising these amounts, and as
implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by
Resolution 195-99.
PERMITS
38. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public PW Prior to Start of
Works Department for all construction activity within the public Work
right-of-way of any street where the City has accepted the
improvements. The encroachment permit may require surety for
slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City Engineer an
encroachment for work specifically included in an Improvement
A reement ma not be re uired.
39. Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework Permit from the Public PW Prior to Start of
Works Department for all grading and private site improvements Work
that serves more that one lot or residential condominium unit.
40. Developer shall obtain all permits required by other agencies PW Prior to Start of
includin , but not limited to Alameda Count Flood Control and Work
7 51 ~ -r~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish
and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the
Public Works De artment.
SUBMITTALS
41. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with the PW Prior to
requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Approval of
Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Improvement
Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List". Plans or Final
Ma
42. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to PW Prior to
obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Approval of
Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Improvement
Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. Plans or Final
Ma
43. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes PW Prior to
street pavement sections and grading recommendations. Approval of
Improvement
Plans, Grading
Plans, or Final
Ma
44. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital PW Prior to
vectorized file of the "master" files for the project when the Final Acceptance of
Map has been approved. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. Improvements
The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher and Release of
drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision Bonds
of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored
by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use
the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83
California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot.
FINAL MAP
45. The Final Map shall be substantially in accordance with the PW Final Map
Tentative Map approved with this application, unless otherwise
modified by these conditions. Multiple final maps may be filed in
phases, provided that each phase is consistent with the tentative
map, that phasing progresses in an orderly and logical manner,
and adequate infrastructure is installed with each phase to serve
that phase as a stand-alone project that is not dependent upon
future hasin for infrastructure.
46. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by the PW Final Map
Tentative Map including the Public Service Easement shall be
shown on the Final Ma .
47. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private street PW Final Map
pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The approved street
names shall be indicated on the Final Ma .
48. The Final Map shall include the street monuments to be set in all PW Monuments to
public streets. be Shown on
Final Map and
Installed Prior
I to Acceptance
of
~~a ~b -~s,~-
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
Im rovements
EASEMENTS
49. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public PW Prior to
agencies of existing easements and right of ways within the Approval of
development that will no longer be used. Improvement
Plans or
Appropriate
Final Ma
50. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of- PW Prior to
entry from the adjacent property owners for any improvements on Approval of
their property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in Improvement
writing and copies furnished to the City Engineer. Plans or
Appropriate
Final Ma
GRADING
51. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Prior to
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Approval of
Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review, and the City Grading Plans
design standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil or Issuance of
engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, the City Grading
Engineer shall determine which shall apply. Permits, and
On oin
52. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with the Grading PW Prior to
Plan approval. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and Approval of
maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control Grading Plans
measures. or Issuance of
Grading
Permits, and
On oin
53. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not cross PW Prior to
property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2' below the Approval of
finished grade of the upper lot. Grading Plans
or Issuance of
Grading
Permits, and
On oin
54. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no steeper than 3:1 PW Prior to I
unless shown otherwise on the Tentative Map Grading Plan Approval of
exhibits. The toe of any slope along public streets shall be one Grading Plans
foot back of walkway. The top of any slope along public streets or Issuance of
shall be three feet back of walkway. Minor exception may be made Grading
in the above slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design Permits, and
constraints sub'ect to the a roval of the Cit En ineer. On oin
IMPROVEMENTS
55. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown PW Prior to
on the Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review. However, Approval of
the approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review Improvement
is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, sanitary Plans or Start
sewer, water, and street improvements. of
Construction,
and On oin
10
7 s"3 ~ ~~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
56. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin PW Prior to
Standard Plans and design requirements and as approved by the Approval of
City Engineer. Improvement
Plans or Start
of
Construction,
and On oin
57. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter PW Prior to
flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be Approval of
at minimum 0.5% slope. Improvement
Plans or Start
of
Construction,
and On oin
58. Curb Returns on the internal public streets curb returns shall be PW Prior to
30-foot radius. Approval of
Improvement
Plans or Start
of
Construction,
and On oin
59. Any decorative pavers installed within City right-of-way shall be PW Prior to
done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Where decorative Approval of
paving is installed at signalized intersections, pre-formed traffic Improvement
signal loops shall put under the decorative pavement. All turn lane Plans or Start
stripes, stop bars and crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete of
bands or color pavers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer Construction,
Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the and Ongoing
res onsibilit of the Homeowners Association
60. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and pavement marking PW Prior to
as required by the City Engineer. Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance of
Im rovements
61. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and PW Prior to
installed per approval of the City Engineer. The maximum voltage Occupancy of
drop for streetlights is 5%. Units or
Acceptance of
Im rovements
62. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with other new PW Prior to
signals within the development and to the existing City traffic signal Occupancy of
system by hard wire. Units or
Acceptance of
Im rovements
63. The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at the PW Prior to
locations designated and approved by the LAVTA and the City Occupancy of
Engineer, if these occur along the frontage of the property. The Units or
Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and installing these Acceptance of
im rovements. Im rovements
64. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and PW Prior to '
sanita sewer facilities re uired to serve the ro'ect in accordance Occu anc of
11
7s~~~~~~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
with DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and Units or
requirements. Acceptance of
Im rovements
65. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County PW Prior to
Fire Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be Occupancy of
installed in the street opposite each hydrant. Units or
Acceptance of
Im rovements
66. The Developer shall furnish and install street name signs for the PW Prior to
project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Occupancy of
Units or
Acceptance of
Im rovements
67. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and PW Prior to
communication improvements within the fronting streets and as Occupancy of
necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as Units or
approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility Acceptance of
a encies. Im rovements
68. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, shall be PW Prior to
underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. Occupancy of
All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility Units or
easements and sized to meet utility company standards. Acceptance of
Im rovements
69. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless specifically approved PW Prior to
otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in Occupancy of
landscape areas and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Units or
Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to Acceptance of
the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and Improvements
structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The
Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to
construction of the 'oint trench im rovements.
CONSTRUCTION
70. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented between October PW Ongoing as
15th and April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Needed '
Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining
erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the
Cit 's acce tance of the subdivision im rovements.
71. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, PW Ongoing as
construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until Needed
a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of
California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation
measures.
72. Construction activities, including the maintenance and warming of PW Ongoing as
equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City Needed
holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or
Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case-
b -case basis.
73. Developer shall prepare a Construction Traffic and Construction PW Prior to Start of
12
755~ ~,~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
Noise Management Plan that identifies measures to be taken to Construction;
minimize the impacts of construction traffic and construction noise Implementation
on surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours Ongoing as
of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction Needed
equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes, and
identify a noise monitor. These specific traffic and noise
management measures shall be included in the project plans and
s ecifications.
74. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with PW Prior to Start of
public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and Construction;
parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Implementation
Engineer. Ongoing as
Needed
75. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, PW Ongoing
mos uito, or other est roblem due to construction activities.
76. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust- PW Prior to Start of
palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as Construction;
directed by the City Engineer. Implementation
Ongoing as
Needed
77. The Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a PW Prior to
letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the Issuance of
building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades Building
shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of Permits or
banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the Acceptance of
a roved Gradin Plans. Im rovements
NPDES
78. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall provide the PW Prior to Start of '
City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the Any
California State Water Resources Control Board per the Construction '
requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Activities
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works
De artment and be ke t at the construction site.
79. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify PW SWPPP to be
the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project Prepared Prior
construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion to Approval of
control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Improvement
most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Plans:
Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Implementation
Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all Prior to Start of
contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention Construction
measures in the SWPPP. and Ongoing
as Needed
80. The Homeowner's Association shall enter into an agreement with PW Prior to First
the City of Dublin that guarantees the perpetual maintenance Final Map;
obligation for the vegetated swales on Lot 34 and Parcel Modify as
D(maintenance of the hydrodynamic separator shall be by the needed with
City). Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.e.ii of Successive
RWQCB Order R2-2003-0021 for the issuance of the Alameda Maps
Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit
re uires the Cit to rovide verification and assurance that all
13
~ ~~ ~ ~
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
treatment devices will be ro erl o erated and maintained.
FIRE PREVENTION
81. The project will need to comply with the applicable Building and Fire Prior to permit
Fire Codes. Site and Building plans shall be provided for review issuance
and a roval b the Fire De artment.
82. Fire Access. Access roads, turnarounds, pullouts, and fire Fire Ongoing
operation areas are Fire Lanes and shall be maintained clear and
free of obstructions, includin the arkin of vehicles.
83. Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be blocked, including Fire Ongoing
after hours, other than by approved gates/barriers that provide for
emer enc access.
84. Site Utilities. Site utilities that would require the access road to be Fire Ongoing
dug up or made impassible shall be installed prior to combustible
construction commencin .
85. Fire access is required to be approved all-weather access. Fire Ongoin
86. Hydrants & Fire Flows. Show the location of any on-site fire Fire Prior to permit
hydrants and any fire hydrants that are along the property frontage issuance
as well as the closest hydrants to each side of the property that are
located along the access roads that serves this property. Provide
a letter from DSRSD indicating what the available fire flow is to this
ro ert . '
Dublin San Ramon Services District
87. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSR Prior to
accommodate future flow demands in addition to each approval of
development projecYs demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall Improvement
be in conformance with DSRSD utilit master lannin . Plans
88. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's DSR Prior to
existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is approval of
discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme Improvement
circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Plans
Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by
DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final
plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require
payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as
other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for
an ro'ect that re uires a um in station.
89. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or DSR Prior to
Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or approval of
interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with Improvement
requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound Plans
en ineerin ractice.
90. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located DSR Prior to
in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest approval of
extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water Improvement
easements must be established over the alignment of each public Plans
sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to
rovide access for future maintenance and/or re lacement.
91. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site DSR Prior to
development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed approval of
easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted Improvement
to and a roved b DSRSD. Plans
14
~5 ~ ~ ~~s
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN
AGENCY REQUIRED
92. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate DSR Prior to
instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication approval of
on the Final Map. Improvement
Plans
93. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall DSR Recordation of
be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, Final Map
widths, and restrictions.
94. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSR Prior to
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever Issuance of
comes first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone Building
7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees Permits
associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to
DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in
the DSRSD Code.
95. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSR Prior to
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever Issuance of
comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be Building
signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement Permits
plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer
indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown.
Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all
required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of
construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a
performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a
comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts
and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall
allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing
review b DSRSD before si nature b the District En ineer.
96. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless DSR Prior to
the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. approval of
A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Improvement
Condition No. 9 have been satisfied. Plans
97. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, DSR Prior to
commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and Issuance of
indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines Building
resultin from the construction and com letion of the ro'ect. Permits
98. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as DSR Prior to
required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall approval of
connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of Improvement
the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the Plans
re uirements therein.
99. A utility plan showing routing of improvements and demolition of DSR Prior to
existing utilities. Zone 7 Turnout and DSRSD Fluoride Storage approval of
Facility shall be shown on final plans Improvement
Plans
100. Due to a change in the planned use, a Public Facilities Planning DSR Prior to
Agreement shall be entered into between the property owner and approval of
DSRSD, which may include the completion of a service analysis to Improvement
determine how potable water service, recycled water service, and Plans
sanitary sewer service will be provided to the proposed
develo ment in addition to an effects the chan e in land use will
15
~~~ g ~ 7~..
NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP.
AGENCY WHEN
REQUIRED
have on existin and future facilities.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Wehrenberg, Schaub, Swalwell
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: King
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:~PA#~2007\07-057 Nielsen~PC Mtg 4.27.10\DRAFTS~PC Att 4- Reso TMAP.DOC
16