HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Winning Action Investments Appeal of �C
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 8, 1983
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision
on PA 83-016 Winning Action Investments
Tentative Parcel Map 4008
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis
RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Hear Staff presentation
2 . Open Public He'rt<ng
3 . Hear developer/appellant ' s
presentation
4 . Close Pubic Hearing
5 . Adopt Resolution Adopting Negative
Declaration
6 . Adopt Resolution Denying Appeal and
Approving Tentative Parcel Map 4008
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: I . BACKGROUND:
On July 5 , 1983 , the Planning Commission reviewed an
application for Tentative Parcel Map 4008, submitted by Mr. Fred
L. Houston of Winning Action Investments , Inc . The developer
proposed to subdivide a 4 . 7 acre parcel into three parcels . The
site is located on the east side of Dougherty Road, approximately
800 feet north of Scarlett Court .
The site currently contains an office building, truck stop,
and truck repair business . The developer has indicated a desire
to add a warehouse and cafe to the proposed parcels .
The Planning Commission approved ( 4-0 ) Tentative Parcel Map
4008, subject to conditions . The developer and his consultant
engineer, Mr . Ron Archer, have appealed some of the conditions of
approval .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. ( COPIES TO: Fred Houston
Ron Archer
II . ISSUES:
1 . ACCESS : The developer wishes to provide access by a
private easement, rather than a public roadway, as required by
Condition 2 . Staff recommends use of a public roadway because it
provides for better street maintenance, better traffic
circulation and access, and a more attractive environment .
2 . DRAINAGE: A. The developer wishes to modify Condition 4 ,
which requires the developer to either: obtain a drainage release
from the railroad; or develop an alternative, approved by the
City Engineer. The developer wishes to simply request a drainage
release from the railroad. Staff recommends maintaining the
condition to require either a drainage release or approved
alternative, to develop an adequate and legal drainage system.
B. The developer wishes to allow drainage from
one lot onto another, rather than drain directly into the east-
west drainage system as required by Condition 5 . Staff
recommends maintaining the condition, which will require that
water from the access road be connected, by an underground
drainage system, to the east-west drainage line shown on the
developer ' s proposal .
C. Rather than comply with Flood Control
recommended conditions , (Condition 8 ) , the developer wishes to
provide drainage by "swale or piping system" . Staff recommends
maintaining the drainage conditions recommended by Flood Control .
D. Condition 10 requires that where the
developer does not have easements to adjacent property, he must
obtain rights of entry from the affected property owners for
drainage improvement. The developer wishes to modify Condition
10 . Staff recommends maintaining the condition.
3 . STREET TREES : The developer wishes to plant street trees
only along Dougherty Road, rather than also along the southerly
street frontages, as required by Condition 21 . Staff recommends
that the condition be maintained as a means of improving both the
appearance and value of the area.
III . RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative
Declaration, deny the appeal, and approve Tentative Parcel Map
4008, subject to the recommended conditions .
PRE-HEARING STAFF ANALYSIS
Meeting Date : August 8, 1983
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Action on
PA 83-016 Winning Action Investments
Tentative Parcel Map 4008
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT: This is an appeal of a Planning Commission
decision on a request for a Tentative Parcel Map to allow
the subdivision of 4 . 7 acres into three parcels . The site
currently contains an office building and a truck repair
business . The applicant proposes to add a warehouse to the
easterly parcel and a cafe to the westerly parcel .
LOCATION: East side of Dougherty Road, approximately 800
feet north of Scarlett Court.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Fred Houston
7045 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin CA 94568
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-550-4
EXISTING ZONING : Planned development for M-1 (Light
Industrial) and C-2 (General Commercial ) uses with a 20, 000
sq. ft . per lot minimum
EXISTING LAND USE: Office building, truck repair, cargo storage,
and vacant .
SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE:
North - Lumber Yard - PD (for M-1 and C-2 )
East - Flood Control Channel and Railroad
South - Brake shop, Building materials, Vacant
West - Bowling alley - C-2
SITE/ZONING HISTORY: October 4 , 1979 : the Alameda County Board
of Supervisors approved a rezoning of the property from M-1
to 'PD, for M-1 and C-2 uses . A 40 , 000 sq. ft . minimum lot
size was also established.
July 5 , 1983 : the Planning Commission approved Tentative
Parcel Map '4008 subject to conditions (4-0 ) .
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS :
TITLE 8, Ch . 1, ALAMEDA COUNTY SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN: 8-1 . 2 INTENT: _
It is the intent of this Chapter to promote the public
health, safety and general welfare; to assure in- the division
of land consistent with the policies of the Dublin General
Plan and with the intent and provisions of thE' Dublin Zoning
Ordinance; to coordinate lot design , street patterns ,
rights-of-way, utilities and public facilities with community
and neighborhood plans ; to assurc-: that areas dedicated for
public purposes will be properly improved, initially, so as
not to be a future burden upon the ccmrrunity; to preserve
natural resources and prevent environmental damage ; to
maintain suitable standards to insure adequate, safe building
sites ; and, to prevent hazard to life and property.
-1-
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared
on this project . A copy of the ND is attached to this
report .
NOTIFICATION: Negative Declaration notices have been published
in the Tri-Valley Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners and
posted in public buildings .
ANALYSIS :
In his appeal, the developer is requesting that seven (7 ) of the
Planning Commissions Conditions of Approval be revised (see
attached Resolution regarding Tentative Parcel Map 4008 for
conditions ) . He is in agreement with all other conditions . This
appeal has been reviewed by the City Engineer and Alameda Councy
Flood Control, . and they respectfully maintain that the conditions
as approved by the Planning Commission are reasonable and
necessary, and should be sustained by the City Council. A brief
explanation of the reasoning follows :
I . Condition 2 : The developer wishes to provide
access to each lot via a private access easement rather than
provide 1/2 .of a public street . Staff recommends the use of
a public street because it provides for better street
maintenance, a more attractive environment, and better
control of access to this and adjacent property. It also
establishes a circulation system to the adjacent property
altogether, rather than permit multiple uncontrolled
easements such as those found along Scarlett Court. Private
access easements typically have poorly maintained and
unattractive areas , with poor traffic , circulation and
access .
Experience has shown that public streets in manufacturing
areas are not subject to the deterioration suggested by the
Applicant . ,
II . Conditions 4 , 5, 8 , and 10 : When the subject
property was rezoned by the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, on October 4 , 1979 , from Light Industrial (M-1)
to Planned Development for M-1 and C-2 uses, one of the two
conditions of approval was that the subject property and
three other properties , construct a storm drain along the
easterly property lines as acceptable to Alameda County
Flood Control , and that the easterly 2/3 of the property, or
a lesser area (as may be approved by Flood Control) , shall
remain undeveloped until the entire downstream storm drain
is completed.
In their letter of June 8, 1983 , Flood Control asked that a
storm drainage plan be approved by that agency, with several
options being available to the developer. The concern was
that the increased run-off that will occur with future
development be carried in a drainage system that will not
damage or flood adjacent or downstream property, and that
legal authority be obtained from the affected property -
owners to permit the desired drainage system to be
installed.
A. Condition 4 : States that "An alternate
drainage scheme may be submitted through the Final
Parcel Map process and be subject to the Citv
Engineer ' s approval . This provides sufficient latitude
to allow Flood Control and the City Engineer to work
with the developer to come up with an adequate and
legal system.
B. Condition 5 : (Regarding drainage of lots)
would be met by the developer ' s proposal with the
exception that water from -the access road will need to
-2-
be connE:cted by an underground drainage system to the
east-west drainage line shown on the developer ' s
proposal .
C . Condition 8 : (Regarding Alameda County Flood
Control requirements ) Requirements are generally
covered by the comments made above .
D . Condition 10 : (Concerned with rights-of-entry
on adjacent property) Where a drainage easement is
required across neighboring property, in order to
install a drainage system, permission (a right-of-
entry) must be obtained from the neighboring property
owner before work on the neighbor ' s property can take
place . The City cannot waive such a requirement .
III . Condition 21 : Requires a minimum of two ( 2 ) street
trees per lot. The developer is asking that no street trees
be required along the new access road. Street trees planted
throughout industrial areas, provide some amenity and visual
relief that is recognized, over time, as being quite
desirable . As the subject property and adjacent properties
develop, street trees will be supplemented by on-site
landscaping.
Since the zoning district permits office and other more
intensive development than the present truck related use, it
is likely that the neighboring area will ultimately contain
office uses, as well as light industrial uses . Such
development gains value when the aesthetics of the area
improve . Street trees are one such improvement.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:
The City Council should hold a public hearing on this appeal
of the Planning! Commission' s decision on PA 83-016, Winning
Action Tentative Parcel Map 4008; adopt the Negative Declaration;
make a decision on the appeal (that decision can involve any of
the conditions of approval) ; and make findings to support its
decision .
PRE-HEARING RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council : Adopt the Negative
Declaration, deny the appeal, and approve Tentative Parcel Map
4008 subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval .
Attachments : 1 . Tentative Parcel Map 4008
2 :' Appeal Letter
3 . Draft Negative Declaration Resolution
4 . Draft Tentative Parcel Map Resolution
5 . Flood Control letter dtd June 8, 1983
6 . Ord. 79-82 approving PD zoning
7 . Negative Declaration
8 . Minutes of Planning Ccmmission Meeting of July
5 , 1983
-3-
and,
2 ) Add a condition : "The use of the road by the property owner
to the north of the subject property shall be restricted_ "
The motion was seconded by Cm. Alexander and passed unanimously.
At this time a short break was called, after which all
Commissioners were present.
PUBLIC HEARING
PA 83-022 HERITAGE PARK
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Staff introduced the Application for a Conditional Use Permit to
modify the sign program for Heritage Park Corporate Center,
southwest corner of Dublin Blvd. , and San Ramon Rd.
Mr . Kirk Duthie, representing Triton Financial Corp . , the
developer of the project, presented a short history of the
project along with a pictorial display of the office complex, and
existing and proposed signs .
After a discussion, comparing the proposed signage and that
recommended by Staff, Cm. Vonheeder motioned, with Cm.
Alexander ' s second, to alter Condition #4 to read: "The wall
sign is approved as to its height and placement . " The motion was
passed by unanimous vote of the Commissioners .
On a second motion by Cm. Vonheeder, with Cm. Mack' s second, the
Commaission voted unanimously to Approve the Conditional Use
Permit with the change in the wording of Condition 4 , and subject
to Staff ' s recommended Conditions .
DRAFT SAN RAMON ROAD
SPECIFIC PLAN
Mr. Tong re-introduced the item, which was continued from the
June 20 , 1983 , meeting .
Mr . John Nichandros , Mr . Morgan Howell , and Mr . Fred Howell were
present to discuss the proposed joint project with respect to
their property. As a result of a meeting with Mr. Tong on June
29 , 1983 , a conceptual drawing of a proposed project, to extend
Amador Valley Blvd. as a private street, was developed and was
presented to the Commission .
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Cm. Vonheeder stated that she recently noticed that the Canyon
Creek sign at Silvergate Drive and Castilian Road, which was
required to be removed, was still in place . Mr. Tong assured her
that Staff would check into the matter .
Cm. Tenery questioned the Dougherty Road overpass project status .
Mr. Tong stated that he had not yet heard from the Mayor
regarding his intentions .
NEW BUSINESS
PA 83-016 WINNING ACTION INVESTMENTS
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4008
Mr. Tong introduced the project, which was to divide one parcel
into three parcels , east side of Dougherty Rd. , approximately 800
feet north of Scarlett Court .
Ron Archer, Civil Engineer, represented the developer, Fred
Houston, and commented on each of the conditions of approval
included in the Draft Parcel Man Resolution. In general , he felt
that the conditions were excessive and restrictive .
The issue of planting trees along the proposed street became the
main topic of discussion .
Another concern centered on whether or not the proposed street
should be a City street, or a private street . Staff ' s concern
related to responsibility of maintaining a safe and esthetically
pleasing street, while the developer ' s concern was that he was
the only owner being required to dedicate and create a street
that other owners would be able to use with no contribution to
its development or maintenance .
After the public hearing was closed, Cm. Alexander made the
motion, with Cm. Vonheeder ' s second, to adopt the Resolution to
Adopt the Negative Declaration regarding Tentative Parcel Map
4008 . The motion was passed by unanimous vote of the Commission.
After a lengthy discussion regarding the conditions of approval ,
Cm. Mack made the motion that the Commission adopt the Resolution
Approving Tentative Parcel Map 4008, with two amendments : _-
1 ) Add a condition: "The City will consider a reimbursement
arrangement, whereby future developers will reimburse winning
Action Investments a portion of the cost of creating the street" ;
j
,�1 .i j° '1 I -i a /o'•w uc•c<n t7 11.1 r.n1 Ane UId��IJlJ1iS
1 1 �� _ I � �IV.lit YIIl1iT^1111»1.1, ) lt.\l l'••e'
1 j
111T / .•IUatrn\ `/ ... 1097 66• ~I•~ 1
89'26 00, E '� IJ• _ i T•_11090.01 D(t 1 .. . .., - -._ .. -.
+ _.-_• _ r•.. --•• tiUI•d,.:.V 1,1. rr+In. -..rtii!1�r9h{r_Lint= ^,• .—�... S:c.....(.......=� ': \
ULIJ
-1111,-'_—' -;:°- Ui;.rc. .�. i..-.a1-----, _ Ti•[— , .
� ^—� f'"-(-J a�t;-;]• .•� ':ef{MISKV�s.,.-� ' % ��"_I.._ <-�-�.,-rit.;''ri�l�r-;��"n'�r7''il—:�------• �-----'r-'= 1„J,u•._.o,,,, ,�\
r I w \ .. »Lf - n 1 I.nn•..�1.+::el t g i
,:v I 1 •- ' PAACKL A` ,..I/1raV/• • ` •- •-
yo:� 11•..)610Iorrl 4� 1(erv..• ✓ - I•j Ll/L"JJ`J1rlJ0 ._\7•f1Ur�J 8 J,`JV>9D'friJ13,J'!9 1rJG
= -i$Z I i 1 , Inner• s..+.,e•1•vIr / �r /I., •.e. a Jel'1�,+-y,U-�)
(,rlrMn. I I
a�1 i 'O •t� IV.I•u1 r.i.•«i•u�r.•• �� •y• n•l ae.wl ►1 ARC■L III
, PARCSL C \
.. I _
oo uAYe• Av.., »..r / 1101,20.0 rorll
z a I I„.I,e..e eorlh
�.• q �1 \ ,!1 0 26 00 'H 2 x.00 \ ,�• � oAnc+ill J t
��(•nl te,l.lu Ylele wn.eu••-�•_.� ^��•;� Aar ''., ^''� �,� 9'/f�•I-'”- � .1� �-�-'_ �• �
F . I •`1 - .r O• _ i •,-- Ianr• �` J.i u,n .�»i 11.1'•,
• , J• .1JL-11`J Gr nr /r / , •1v;nr \ i� n....«wi,... .............,...,-
Sf' •� 2f.a. J0. 'On ..AT
111• Je)•I�ELTU"fJ _ .V .IJJ911 r n•en•un J ,oJ er nl n',t. _ ...
1{ YYY - .J •'--1:n' t n �•� 1072,92
1• n ...
\ 0, 711 1 09'26 00°W ---- LI)IJ 0
n IS '�SI�1 1122,1 .Niel+. L '::I�J`dGU 11`JG I
ii1 :;� ---- 5 09'26A00"E•\ 1090.01 0.(dl 1097.GG. i \•:•�// j� �✓ \\ - "- - --- _
z J�1�<:^� \ �>k ♦, r'���b `l� �"�L Dpi1GI1EF (TTC '^ ,..a(w(..,...1.(.
' ~ :J W I ~ ',A \ :•,I.Rt p. 06 ti7 1.1 n..•n.�,n+,rr•••.on
rl' Q >, �� 1 .j 1
ffs r •.W n.
•I fY ` - i)^ j�o 06� �!' X,�/ nci.,r-._•a '1 .:1..».. rla,.. �n
71' ; PARCQL C \ /�IJ 4y `.�I 'T (s OY� `%/ .a CA L&
inn 1'nu..r
J.
.2
i 1102»0.o so►T.\ ".,\•'' ..•'� 'K....
' Z^ \ w` PHASED DEVELOPMENT:
CRR •e r ,\r�l''. N �/ PIIA98 1-PARCEL(11 PARCEL 0•
•C! '� ? 9 \. �y PIIABL I-PARCBL C( BUILDIM0 PLLXIT,•
A 1•.,t'etr lam.`••. ,y,(/
a'ACr ins l ('�':�.•,.IL, •�\ \�:c \ '1 r`.• '/
f-ANe ��-
---- N 89. 26, 00"W .... i 1072.92 r/" e E TI V H
r. ,J
r, K(r 11 I„(M,I•,o tn,.,r.J 01 e.e,
.1 n•/r,c u, •r :SS 18 1,
1 C.J
Jss•J- J-d 41 -IV.,1 Pte•. � � PARCEL MAP No 4008
11' ” CITY OF DUBLIN
(w.. . i
1 ` ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
•
IEBRVI RY,I9EJ SCALE.1'-10'
G HO• twe,••r
I !
I ,... .
' l.,n,r• r vLr..- -.o I I/• (•�•• •I ^'1 S»n(•: non An[»[n CIVIL [»clnt[n »C.
• �� a.e Ilcril ed Jvnt 22,190:
........... I rnArmC JCAaC
. ,1„••, ,roll 110•(taw 111•%•••••••••• r l•" .1 0-� • I�--1•. .w i 0
.( ..•A,•r. •• no •a.• v,.,
40•
V•OIIY a•eu..:.. .'i'o .
' 00 0 SnCEi 1 Of I 6nCCT
RON ARCHER
CIVIL ENGINEER . INC.
CONSULTING• PLA NN ING-DESIGN •SURVEYING
699 Peters Avenue , Suite A
Pleasanton, CA. 94566
phone (415) 462-9372
Honorable City Council , July 6, 1283
City of Uub l i n ,
P . O . Box 2340 ,
Dublin , CA 94568
Gentlemen :
Please be advised that my client , ter . Fred Houston , has asked me
to outtine and appeal some of the conditions of approval of
PARCEL. MAP 4003 , approved by the Planning Commission at their
July 5, meeting .
The condition=_ referred to are to be found on pages 5 thru 6 en -
t i t led -- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATI'vE PARCEL MAP 4003'*
RECOMMENDED BY TIME CITY ENGINEER- and my client would appreciate
your review and consideration to modify those condl t i ons alit l in--
ed as `oltows• :
CONDITION Request the 30—foot wide pub l i c servi ce ea sem n l'
5; MOW as proposed with a continuous depressed curb and
qu'tter atogh the South side ( typic t gutter section found at-
driveways) .
The .bled property Is pesentl ;i used as a los t truck stop and ..
maintenance repair faci ! t i ty with storage space ava i table for
trucks and trailers. . There are gasoline and diesel fuel pumps
on the site and a small office building .
Mr . Houston wishes to improve this faciltity by paving the area
around the maintenance and office building . He wishes also to
automate the gasoline and fuel dispensing area to include
vehicles, as well as trucks . The fuel pumps will be automated to
accept credit cards which wi It require the faci t t i ty to be fu t ty
illuminated and observed by tv-cameras to protect both customer
and equipment .
Now therefore , a dedicated one--half public street with street
trees, sidwalks and standard driveways will make it difficult
for the large trucks to maneuver and park and they may just go
elsewhere . The trees might well be trampled and the si dews !k _;
broken , which wit cause a maintenance problem for the Cily and _
the owner , not to went i on that the po I 1 ce department wi t I. have
to patrol the pulp 1. i c street .
CONDITIONS 4, 5, P fl 10 The property presently has drainage
-rob lem in than the adjacent properties to the North and South
dra iii onto it , Also the Alameda County Road Ilept . installed ::3
storm drain along the East side of Dougherty toad which Is cll:)
We of handting only the front 20-percent of fh.e property .
The Alameda County f= lood Control District thereafter influenced
the Alameda County Planning Commission to declare the rear of
the property a ponding area even though it is three feet higher
The City of Dublin Planning Commission has gone a step further
to condition the improvement of this property such that ( 1 ) a
drainage release must be obtained from the ra i lroad (2) each
parcel must be separately drained to an East—West piping
system (3) drainage from adjacent properties may not be blocked
nor may on—site drainage be removed from the property without
written permission from adjacent property owners, and (4) Mr .
Houston can install 660—feet of 36-- R . C . P . to the existing end
of a A . C . F . C . & W .C. D . ditch if the adjacent property owners
grant him written permission to install a pipet in? on their
property .
It is respectfulty requested that these conditions 4, 5, 8, & 10
be modified to read ( 1 ) the owner shall request a drainage re—
tease from Southern Pacific Transportation Company (2) an over-
all site grading and drainage plan shad be prepared and shall
be compatible with the existing on—site faci llities (3) the
method of temporary off—s i to drainage shat t be by swa to or pip-
ing system and if the route is across adjacent properties to the
South , a drainage release for any augmented flow which may occur
due to the on—site paving shait be obtained from tha affected
property owners , and (4) Mr . Houston shall insta t l that portion
of the future extension of A . C . F . C . & W . C . D Lone 7, —1 Line
across the subject property .
CONDITION 01 . We respectfully request that street tree_ on ! ,/
be required along Dougherty Road .
In retrospect , please keep in mind that fir . Houston has probably
the only truck repair and maintenance facillity of this kind
in Dubtin and the enhancement and improvement of this facittity
would be an asset to the community . He does however,need to
sell off a portion of this property to finance these improye-
ments . It seemed that the planning commission was more concerned
with the standardization of conditions for parcel maps to cone
than to find a reasonable solution for improvement of this
unique property and we respectfully request that you carefully
consider modifiying these conditions as requested .
cry tr�u l�y a s
RONALD R . ARCHER
WIN1d' NG ACTI7N' INVEST';._` TS
01djent
�
RESOLUTION NO.
r..
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING
PA 83-016 WINNING ACTION TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act :
(CEQA) , as amended together with the State ' s administrative
guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and City Environmental regulations, requires that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that
environmental documents be prepared; and,
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the
Dublin Planning Department; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Negative
Declaration and considered it at a public hearing on July 5, 1983 ;
WHEREAS, the City Council did review the Negative
Declaration and considered it at a public hearing on August 8 ,
1983 ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council
finds that the Negative Declaration has been prepared and
processed in accordance with State and local environmental law and
guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of
1983
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-4-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
----------------------------------------------------------------- r
DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND
APPROVING PA 83-016 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4008
WINNING ACTION INVESTMENTS
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map
Act and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations
require that no real property may be divided into two or more
parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or financing unless a
Tentative Parcel Map is acted upon and a Final Parcel Map is
approved consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, and City of
Dublin subdivision regulations, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the
proposed Tentative Parcel Map #4008 at a public hearing on July
5, 1983 , and;
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear an appeal of the
Planning Commission decision on Tentative Parcel Map 4008 on
August 8 , 1983 ;
WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental
regulations, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the
proposed Tentative Parcel Map, and the City Council has reviewed
and considered the information in the Negative Declaration;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that:
1 . Tentative Parcel Map 4008 is consistent with the intent
of applicable s:u_bdivision regulations and City zoning and related
ordinances .
2 . The City of Dublin is in the process of preparing and
adopting a General Plan.
3 . There is a reasonable probability that the proposed
Tentative Parcel Map will be consistent with the future general
plan.
4 . There is little or no probability that the Tentative
Map will be a detriment to, or interfere with, the future General
Plan, should the related Planned Development rezoning ultimately
be inconsistent with the future General Plan.
5 . The Tentative Parcel Map will not have a significant
environmental impact.
6 . The Tentative Parcel Map will not have substantial
adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or
public improvements .
7 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed
development, in that the site is indicated to be geologically
satisfactory for the type of development proposed in locations as
shown, provided geological consultants ' recommendations are
followed; and the site is in a good location regarding public
services and facilities .
8 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed
density of development in that the design and improvements are
consistent with those of similar existing developments which have
proven to be satisfactory .
-5-
9 . This project will not cause serious public health
problems in that all necessary utilities are, or will be, �t
required to be available and Zoning, Building, and Plumbing
Ordinances control the type of development, and the operation of,
the usesto prevent health problems after development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
denies the appeal of the Planning Commission decision on Tentative
Parcel Map 4008 and does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map 4008 ,
subject to the conditions listed below:
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 4008 as
recommended by the City Engineer, and approved by the Planning
Commission:
1 . Dedication of land be made to the City of Dublin that conveys
land sufficient enough to permit the Dougherty right-of-way
to be 55 feet from the center line of Dougherty Rd.
Improvements shall be made by the applicant along the
Dougherty Rd. frontage to include curb, gutter, sidewalk,
conform paving, longitudinal drainage, and work on the
existing paving, if necessary, from a structural or grade
continuity standpoint.
2 . The proposed private street along the northerly property line
shall be designated and offered for dedication as a one-half
of a 40-foot curb to curb street, on a 56-foot, minimum,
right-of-way, to include a 4-foot-wide, minimum, sidewalk and
street lights . One-half of a cul-de-sac shall be provided at
the north-westerly edge of the eastern-most parcel .
3 . Either the. existing well and pump be removed, or the lot
lines be adjusted so that it is entirely on one parcel .
Alternatively, an easment over the encroaching portion from
one parcel to another could be established.
4 . The developer shall obtain a right-of-entry and a drainage
release from Southern Pacific Transportation Company prior to
filing the Final Map, and prior to doing any work on the
S .P .T . Co. property, if the project is to drain as indicated.
An alternate drainage scheme may be submitted through Final
Parcel Map process and be subject to City engineer approval .
5 . Each lot shall be so graded as not to drain on any other lot
or adjoining property prior to being picked up on the east-
west drainage system (also subject to the flexibility in
condition 4 ) .
6 . One standard street light shall be installed on Dougherty Rd.
at the intersection of the new half-street with Dougherty
Road.
7 . One fire hydrant shall be installed every 300 feet down the
new street as acceptable to DSRSD Fire Department .
8 . Comply with the Alameda County Flood Control District
requirements as stated in their letter of June 8, 1983
(attached) .
9 . A current title report and copies of the recorded deeds of
all parties having any record title interest in the property
to be divided, and, if necessary, copies of deeds for
adjoining properties and easements, thereto, shall be
submitted at the time of filing of the Final Parcel Map with
the City Engineer.
-6-
�
10 . Where the land divider does not have easements, he shall
obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for
improvements of drainage ways outside of the land division. .r
Original copies of rights-of-entry shall be in written form
and be furnished to the City Engineer.
11 . An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City
Engineer for any work done within the right-of-way of
Dougherty Road. Install P .C.C. curb, gutter, sidewalk,
driveways and tie-in pavement along the frontage of Dougherty
Road.
12 . Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be _
accomplished at no expense to the County.
13 . The minimum uniform gradient shall be 0 . 5% .
14 . Before filing the Final Parcel Map, the subdivider shall
furnish the City Engineer with a letter from the Dublin San
Ramon Services District stating that the District has agreed
to furnish water to all lots included on the Final Parcel Map
of the subdivision. The District ' s system shall be extended
to serve each lot in the subdivision.
Water facilities must be connected to the District system and
must be installed at the expense of the developer, in
accordance with District specifications . All material and
workmanship for water mains , and appurtenances thereto, must
conform with all of the requirements of the officially
adopted Water Code of the District and will be subject to
field inspection by the District .
15 . Prior to final preparation of the subgrade, and placement of
base materials , all underground utility mains shall be
installed and service connections stubbed out beyond curb
lines . Public utilities and sanitary sewers shall be
installed yin a manner which will not disturb the street
pavement, curb and gutter, and sidewalks when future service
connections , or extensions , are made .
16 . The subdivider shall install street name signs and traffic
signs in accordance with the standards of Alameda County. A
street name, shall be approved by the City. The approved
name shall be posted on the Final Parcel Map .
17 . Improvements for postal delivery service shall be provided in
accordance with postal department standards .
18 . Install street light standards and luminaries of the design,
spacing, and locations approved by the City Engineer.
19 . A soil erosion and siltation control plan for both
construction and post-construction periods, prepared by a
Civil Engineer, shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to the filing of the Final Parcel Map . This
plan shall be followed in improving the tract.
20 . Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction
activities , shall be watered to prevent dust, as conditions
warrant.
21 . Street trees , of at least 15-gallon size, shall be planted at
the minimum ratio of two trees per lot along southerly street
frontages . Trees shall be planted in accordance with a
planting plan, including tree varieties and locations,
approved by the Planning Director.
-7-
22 . Grading of this site must conform with the recommendations of
a Soils and Geologic Report to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer . Upon completion of rough grading work, the
following shall be provided to the City Engineer: ^
a. An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer, including original ground surface elevations,
as-graded ground surface elevations , lot drainage, and
location of all surface and subsurface drainage
facilities ;
b. A complete record, including location and elevation, of
all field density tests, and a summary of all field and
laboratory tests ;
C . A declaration, signed by the Soils Engineer, that all
work was done in accordance with the recommendations
contained in the soil and geologic investigation reports
and the approved plans and specifications .
Where soil and geologic conditions encountered in
grading operations are different from that anticipated
in ..'the soil and geologic investigation report, or where
suc conditions warrant changes to the recommendations
contained in the original soil investigation, a revised
soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approval
and shall be accompanied by an engineering and geologic
opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of
land slippage-, erosion, settlement and seismic activitt:.
23 . Electrical, gas, and telephone services shall be provided
underground to each lot in accordance with the City policies
and existing ordinances . All utilities shall be located ad
provided within public utility easements sized to meet
district standards .
24 . All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants , gated
connections , and appurtenances thereto necessary to provide
water supply for fire protection must be installed by the
developer and conform to all requirements of the applicable
provisions of the Standard Specifications of Dublin San Razor_
Services District . All such work will be subject to the
joint field inspection of the City Engineer and Dublin San
Ramon Services District .
25 . Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory
boring that is shown on the map, is known to exist, is
proposed, or is located during the source of filed operatic-s
must be properly destroyed, backfilled, or maintained in
accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinance
26 . Prior to filing the Final Parcel Map, precise plans and
specifications for street improvements, grading, drainage
( including size, type and location of drainage facilities
both on- and off-site ) , shall be subject to approval of the _
City Engineer.
27 . The subdivider shall furnish and install street name signs,
bearing such names as are approved by the Planning Director,
and traffic safety signs in accordance with the standards of
the City of Dublin.
28 . Developer shall keep adjoining public streets and driveways
free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials and debris,
and clean up shall be made during the construction period, as
determined by the City Engineer .
-8-
29 . If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Parcel Map,
a surety or guarantee, as determined suitable by the City
Engineer shall be filed with the City of Dublin to insure rt
restoration of the site to a stable and erosion resistant
state if the project is terminated prematurely.
30 . The subdivider shall grade the tract, install landscaping,
soil erosion, sedimentation and drainage control measures ,
and improve all streets and easements, as shown or indicated
on "Exhibit A" and as amended by these conditions . Prior to
filing of the Final Parcel Map, performance bonds, or a
letter of credit shall be provided to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, that are of sufficient value to assure
complete installation of said improvements .
31 . Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction
debris, and materials on site until disposal, off-site, can
be arranged. Subdivider shall be responsible for corrective
measures at no expense to the City.
32 . If, during construction, archaeological remains are
encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an
archaeologist consulted, . and the Planning Department
notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the
remains are significant, measures, as may be required by the
Planning Director; shall be taken to protect them.
33 . Prior to filing a Final Parcel Map, the developer shall enter
into a Subdivision Agreement with the City of Dublin.
34 . The City will consider a reimbursement arrangement, whereby
future developers will reimburse Winning Action Investments a
portion of the cost of creating the street.
35 . The use of the road by the property owner to the north of the
subject property shall be restricted.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
1983 .
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor .
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-9-
r�
RE Soo
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
b .
1404 CONCANNON BOULEVARD 1 LIVERIIORE, CALIFORNIA 94550 1 (415) 443-9300
�ANAGEr.�, June 8, 1983
Parcel Map 4008
off, Line G-7
Mr. Richard C. -Ambrose _
City Manager
City'of Dublin - J
P.�-0. -Box 2340 - 1
Dubl i ri,'•.CA 94568 . -
Attn: ::Mr. Larry Tong :
- 'Dear'.Mr.":Ambrose.
Reference is made to your correspondence received May 24, 1983 trans
mitting Tentative Parcel Map No. ' 4008 located at the east side of Dougherty
Road, :200 feet north of Sierra Lane.
The proposed parcel map will have no appreciable effect on the drain-
age of this site; therefore, we have no comments or recorrnendations relevant �
to this -subject.-- Nowever, for any development on these parcels, the following
_-items 'will :need to be .considered:
- . 1. :'. The proposed storm drainage plan concept may be satisfac�ory to r
'this -`Office based on detailed plans and supporting calculations as long as a
'. .' drainage' release is' obtained from the Southern Pacific :Transportation Company
for..any augmented runoff. Otherwise, options include ponding on-site or con-
necting the storm drainage system at its ultimate capacity to 'the channel 660
-feet 'to ,the southeast-:(District's Line G-1 , Zone No. 7 project). s
2. - is an existing 24-inch waterline in the District easement .
along the easterly boundary line. No structures may be placed on this easement
and any fences over the easement must have access gates. : -
3.' Any water 'well , cathodic protection well or exploratory boring '
that is shown on this map, is known to exist, is proposed, or is located during
the course of field operations must be properly destroyed, backfilled or main-
tained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. The �.
oviner or other responsible party should call Zone 7, 443-9300 for additional
information. There is one well of known record on this site and is designG'Ed I
as 3S/lE 6C5.
R E C E I V E D
JUN 13 1983
DUBLIN PLANNING ;
r
Richard C. Ambrose ,
June 8, 1983 . i
Page Two :..
4. No grading shall be permitted on this site until a grading plan .
and an erosion and sedimentation control -plan has been reviewed by the County '
(ACFC&WCD) and a grading permit is issued in accordance with Alameda County
Ordinance No.' 82-17. i
:.5.
paved slopes should be 'at a' minimum of .0.5
n the 'si zes
f the,.on-si'te storm`drains.-was based o ,
_ 6.` :-The rev
iew'.o .
rioted-on. the plans. —This office :recommends *a :mmum 'of :..pipe . orvall storm
nd =reduce ` otential blockage.`'= -
"drains ".to .ease '.maintenance .a p
-.the runoff from !the adjacent properties'':to the north.
7 Do 'not block - _
r _7
:.
'rte
'es
.•;...' - t ro e
rte
trate tFie runo,r-.to the adjacen p p
�•8.�� Do 'not augme`nt�^or--•cohcen _. •
e
south
so -
-
- o -
`t �th
- - i
's'`s
ite 't
hi - -
h 1
`t
_ - - bui7din ermitsori ,� .
-. °•9. �•.Prior•�to::the�_;issuance�•of any g :P _ - _
,office'should be afforded -the opportunity.to.`review -a detailed grading and drain
with :'su'supporting cal cul ati ons.
.age plan PP 9 _
,
: -:Very. truly yours; l
MUN J. MAR
: . GENERAL MA`IAGER
TANGELO -ISQUIE :CHIEF
- G E, .CO T ON
'TER-- - - - _ -
•-• �AI.FLF•:kd
En
C
,-
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. .
b 1404 CCNCANNON BOULEVARD I LIVER.MORE, CALIFORNIA 94550 1 (415) 443-9300 _
NAGEti� June 8, 1983
Parcel Map 4008
off, Line G-1
- Mr. Richard C.-Ambrose
• City Manager
City* of Dublin
: P.-0. -Box 2340 . - _ 1
'Dublin,'.CA :945068 _ -
Attn:: :Mr. 'Larry Tong
Dear:Mr'..:Ambrose: -. _ = . : ' - . ...
May 1
_ _- _ --- . - _ -• .-- .. -. :Q.-::::_:-•:- - • • :: - :• :--': y 2c, 1983 trans- . .-•i
' Reference is made to your correspondence' received
milting Tentative Parcel Map No. - 4008 located at the east side of Dougherty I
Road, -200 feet north of Sierra Lane. _ I
The proposer pa-reel map will have no appreciable effect on the drain-
age of this site; t`erefore, we have no comments or recommendations relevant
to this subject.-= Heiever, for any development on these parcels, the following : .-
__� k. will :need to be -considered: - }
2.915 '- 1. - The proposed storm drainage plan concept may be satisfacLory to
this office based on detailed plans and supporting calculations as long as a _
• "this -- fI release is•-obtained from the Southern Pacific :Transportation Company
drainage for -any augmented runoff. Otherwise, options include ponding on-sire or con-
'necting the storm 'drainage system at its ultimate capacity to the channel 660 3
-feet `to ,the southeast :(District's Line G-1 , Zone No. 7 project) .
2. There is an existing 24-inch waterline in the District easement .
along the.easteriy boundary line. No structures may be placed on this easement
:- and an fences over the easement must have access gates.
3. Any water well , cathodic protection well or exploratory boring
that is shown on this map, is known to exist, is proposed, or is located during '
the course of field operations must be properly destroyed, backfilled or main-
tained in accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. The
o,,mer or other responsible party should call Zone 7, 443-9300 for additional i
information. There is one well of known record on this site and is designsred
as 3S/lE 6C5.
R E C E I V E D
JUN 13 1923
DUBLIN PLANNING
ORDINANCE No.79.82
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 8 OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY ORDI-
NANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING
The Board of Supervisors of the Alameda County Ordinance Code is hereby amended in
the following manner: SECTION I
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Alameda County Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the
following manner:
Nine lots containing a total of 39.75 acres,located from 5971 to 6289 Dougherty Road,both; .
sides of the street, from Sierra Lane north to the Southern Pacific right-of-way. Dublin:;
bearing County Assessor's Designation:Map 941,Block 205,Parcel 25.21&23 and Map 941,1
Block 550, Parcels 7-1,5-1,4,3.2. 1-2;as shown on the map labelledExhibit A, 1411th'
Zoning Unit,dated June 18,1979;"on file with the Alameda County Planning Commission at:
399 Elmhurst Street,Hayward,California are hereby rezoned from the M-1(Light Industrial)
District,and the PD (Planned Development) District regulations prescribed by the Zoning
Ordinance for said district with the following exceptions:
1. That the yard Medium Lot Width and Minimum Building Site Area requirements for each
property shall be as prescribed in the M-1 District;
C2)1 Prior to issuance of a Building Permit or filing a Final or Parcel Map for four parcels.
U located between Dougherty Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad(941-550-1-2,2,4 8'
5 1)there shall be constructed along the easterly boundary of parcels affected a storm
drain of a design approved by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation'
District,Zone 7,and located within 1 10'wide easement dedicated to said District.The
rear(easterly)2h of these parcels,or such lesser area as may be approved by the ACFC&
WC at the time of submittal of detailed grading and drainage plans,shall remain unde-
veloped to serve as a ponding area for augmented flow until the entire downstream storm,
drain is completed and operable.A map of the unit is as follows:
ol
;,00 l` G t a + ( c;ur rnzlcti
A.
t I. _4
v; •,,� C—Z r� ail I II U
1}.
SCtp yr eF'z M-� �L. , it
�i
o
i4lf^ :�5 LTlIY
SECTION II
This Ordinance shall takeeffectand be in force thirty(30)days from and afterthedatecf
its passage and before the expiration of fifteen(15) days after its passage it shall be
published once with the names of the membersvoting for and against the same in The
Inter-City Express,a newspaper published in the said County of Alameda.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda.State of California,on
October 4, 1979,by the following called vote:
AYES:Supervisors Bart,George and Chairman Raymond—3
NOES:Supervisors None
EXCUSED: Supervisors Cooper and Santana—2 VALERIE A.RAYMOND
Chairman of the Board of Superviscrs
County of Alameda.State of California
Z WILLIAM MEHRWEIN
ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Alameda.State of California
91 073 51-1 0-1 2-1 t
r
r�
CITE' OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2:40 (4 15) 829-4600
Dublin. CA 94568
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: PA 83-016 Tentative Parcel Map 4008
Winning Action
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. )
LOCATION AND
PROPONENT : " East side of Dougherty Road and approciaately 800
feet north of Scarlett Court, and just south of a
lumber yard.
Fred Houston, Winning Action Investments,
Applicant and Owner of APN 941-550-4
DESCRIPTION : Request to divide a 4 . 86 acre piece of land into
three ( 3 ) parcels .
FINDINGS : The project will not have a significant ef=ect on the
environment .
INITI? STUDY: The Initial St t
Study is atached wit ! a b=ief
discussion of the following environmental cc ponents :
Flood Control
MITIGATION MEASURES: Street, flood control, and drainage
improvements will be installed prior to new
construction taking place . Site Development Review
will be .required of all new construction.
PREPARATION : This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City
of Dublin Planning Staff, (415 ) 829-4916 .
T- �SIGNATURE : DATE: June 17, 1983
Laurence L. Tong, P n . ng Director
VUGLlt-1 PA •No.
CITY OF I
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.)
Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff
will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
A TA SCON NATDY -
Name of Project or Applicant:
•A... ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Descrip+ion of project site before the project, including
in on: topographj; soil stcbility; plants and animals; historriical, cultural, and
scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of struc,ures ti
I r� I ,:_ �� •__ -i ,l ter: ( e�--�-- -�� •t
Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plents and chit aIs;
historical, cultural, and scenic epee's; tyre and intensity of Iand use; and scale or
development.
Be ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of all c-,rowers except "no" are re- _
quired on attached sheets.
SC,—F. OF 11`T.CT
• C��1-•-�,T I2joa,CTS -
t
0 I
T �Gr��I\O QUALI= YZ
NO F
0 01 1
I I210
• - 1 1 1
1.0 VIATE.R
Will construction of the project olrcr Ike hydra-
- 1.1 }ly�rologic Bolonco t .
logic 601once? I
1.2 Cxound Water Will the project affect the quality or quantity of t r
ground water supplies?
1.1 0cpth to Wator Tabla Will the rate of-orcrithdrawol chonge the depth
or gradient of the .nrter 10610 I f
1.4 Orainog-and Clanncl Form Will construction impede the naturol drainage pottcrn -
or cause olrcratron of stream channel form? ✓
1.5 Scdim<ntotion W;It eonstruerion in on area result in mcioe sediment '
Inf:vx into adioeenr water 6odies?
rty due
t 1.6 Flnading }Vil there be risk of loss of lire or prope
to
flood—n?
C LCQ\,r`\4T
Z,Ln� IS -GALE OF UIT;IC'r.
NO WALIr'IrE ES . Ui�ii;C4�1
N0
1 1 I El
o1QIh10
I� 1 � 15
I "
1.7 Wotan Quality
Doc,drinking water supply foil to meet state oral s.' 1
federal standords? I
Will ,—sga be fnalel-07 a=eonnicIotcd and ✓ 1
treated?
Will receiving Voters[nil to menu lo_•slr sR-'e and
federal standords?
Will ground water suffer contamination by sr-rfu=e 1 ( 1
seepo�:, intrusion of salt or polluted voter from ✓- ( ( ( :
adjacent water bodies or from another r:nn!xt innted 1 I I
1 I
• oo•rifer?
2.0 AIR 1 1 I
2.1 Air Pollution - Will there be genervtion and dispersion.r)f p-31lutonts
by project related activities or ih nrox.r. to t'..e
project which mill e.recd ::e:c n r:i:na a c ( ( -
qualDy starda.ds? i I
Will structure and terrnin-inpede p:escilire v,ind
2.2 Wine(Altcrotion
flow causing elsonneling along certain.eorrids-s':r \1' I I t
ebliruetion of wind movements? t I I
3.0 EARTH I I t I
3.1 Slope St bility Are there potential dan3-n refetcd to slope L-iixes? I I I I I 1
Will there be risk to liie or proper:!'r_-are of
3.2 Fcundaticn Support v! 1
_ excessive deformohon of rx:ericls? I I 1 t 1
3.3 consolide:ion Will ;here be risk to liic or preacr:/bccaii_u° s` i
cxcessi a conso:;lotion of fcundatinr rvit�•ials? I ( ( I I -
3,; �sidcnca 13 th=:e risk of major groonc:-sidr:n.:r.nahcialcr1
S 1/ r
- with the praleet?
3.5 Sc;,-;c Ae:ivity is there rive of dotage or loss resnitina frr.a
cw:-•c activity? ( 1 I
7.6 Li uefcctirn Y/ill the project c=•JSC o:be 0YICsCj
q of soils in sle=es or undrr Fcsmcc!i�+s?
3.7 Erodtoiliry - 1YiI1 tlserc 1..rJbstantial loss cE»i!d^ to err—
s!ruction proe!ices? I I t
3.8 Permeability Will the permeebility of sails ossociar
_ - project present adver:o eorsditions ieloti•+e to dr-
velopmcnt of wells? j
3.9 Usigsro Features Will any unique geoing;ccl featu.csbrs damo3cd ( ( I
or destroyed by project octivihes7 I
3.10 Mineral Resources _ are there geologic dcposi:s of potential r.-s-rreinl
value close to the pro;ccr? f r r
4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS yi ( I
4.1 Plant one(Animal Species Are there rare or endangered species p:� nt? I t 1
Are there species pre:=nt-.%;Cn ore pa'ticulorly �•/
I
susccpt&olc to-fmnact from human activity. , 1
Is there—getation proms nt,. the !os:of v,!si-} will
deny food or habitat to impartont wild:ire species? 1 I 1
_• - Arc there nuisance :nccies of pleat or nnim=:s frx ✓ i i
whic5 conditions will be improved by tl'e project? 1 ( 1
4.2 Vegetative Co r..unitj Ty,cs '*e there any unusual nepula:ions of plants that oroy r t
be of scientific intcre:t7 ( 1 I
Arc theta vcr,_tct;vo eamnunity ty(•et v,:sich ore
port:eu:orly to:eep:ible to impact far:n s:u non eetivity. ( t
Arc Ih::e rrnjor trees or major vcejr:fnt;QI that wi:l
h.ej•:c:r.ly n(fCi.tr,i by tk-rroj^ct?
•• Arr. :F.c: v:,]::=:i.•r. r.nr.unary iy-i-r• ter. Ir,;s i r t _ 1
of which v.;:l deny fe"d ar he::tc• tr. i••^ =r•: •=i:�li 'i
spcuc:, or too :uS:r.:nrinl nu.'n'7.:- ..
4.3 Diversity Is there tubtro.n:inl divers::y in rh.:n-;---n! -sr_�•ni:/ I 1
o:reflected in the ns.mh,:+and 1Y1),•sf'31•s't
species p•esent or the thre=-rli.n.:n:asnr.l err.r,rr-n' ( I I
of plant ;pcCAcs present? ( t
I ( 1
( t I
I ( I
r r
r
cc)�TCINZNT 73'°=S SC =- OF 7.i`TACr
�:o r
QLML FILD YES U SCC%i 1
NO
IPI io
� I E_
01 0 110 1 0
111 12 1 5.0 FACILITIES ANO SERVICES 1 I 1
• 1 I i
5.1 Educot;000l Foc;lit;es Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex- I 1 I
isl;ng or p:oposed foe;l;r;es in terms of spac;ng for
ail activities, including classrooms, recreational I I
oreos, end stoff;ag need37 I 1
Will lh_project impact the p•.1p;l/teocher ratio so I I I
as to impede the learning process?
Is the school located such that it preients o hardship
for a portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time
distance, or safety hozards? ,
5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be an inadequate supply of end access to
commercial facilities for the project?
5.7 liquid Waste Disposal• Are p rovisions for sewaLo capacity 7 inad cq%sate for s
the needs of the project without exceeding gual;ty
s tandards7
Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors
assoe;oted with wastewater treatment plcnt37 1
5.4 Solid Waite Disposal Is there ;nadeq oto provision for d;sposal of solid % I
wastos generated by the project?
5.5 Water Supply Is there inodequatc gssanr;:y or quality of water
• supply to meet the needs of thr-proic(:?
5.6 Storm Water Drainage 'Hill storm water drainage be inadequate to prevent I I I
downstreom Flooding and to meet Federal State end
local standords? 1 I 1
5.7 Police Will tha project's oddit;onal.populatios, Facilities,
or other features generate an increase in police service_
or create a police i•.a_ord? ( I
I 5.8 Fire `'/ill the project's additional population, facilities, /I -
ior other fcanncs generate on increase in fire services
cr create o fire hazard? I l I
5.9 Recreation Will the•projeet have inodeguote Facilities to meet
the recrcot;oaal needs of the ressdcnts? I
5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unovoiloble to the project
residents? i
6.0 TRANSPORTATION 1 I
6.1 Tromparlation Facilities . Are the traffic demands on adjacent reeds currently
at or above capacity? If not, will the tr^-fFie yen=
crated by the project ccuse the-4ocent roads to I I I
• reach or exceed capacity? t 1
Are the other transportation facilities which serve the I I I
•• project Inadequotc to aeeommodete the project's _ �• - I I I -
travel demands? 1
6.2'Circulation Conflicts \'fill design of tha pruiect or conditions in the surround
;ng area ;nuecic accidents due to circulation conflicts
6.7 Rood Safety and Design - ill project residents and users be exposed to increased
ace;dent risks dun to roadway and street design u lock
ottraff;c controls?
I 1 I
7.0 HEALTH /
7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate ony intense
odors? I I I
7.2 Crowding and Density '.'�;I1 1Se residents and users be exposed :a crowding or I -
high den-.;r/ in their physical I;vin? environment? 1 1 I
7.7 Nuianccs Will the project be exposed to or generate rectors that
racy be cons;dcrcd as;,once,?
Safety des;fi ons
n and proposed erruet;on rechn;ques fail
7.4 Structural Sofc
to meet +tot.and local building codes?
8.0 NOISE
8.1 Noise Lc—I+ Will the project be expov.i to rr ocncrate adverse 1 I I
noise 1 "1+7
1 I I 1
i
18.2 �/;brotian+ Will the prajce!be expa:ed to v�nsatirvst nnnoying to
humans? ✓ I I
I 1
I 1
jr
oa-iPallogT M-SPIICTS SC�Lr OF Dm?1cr
;O WALIFIED YES V�Q:GCr�V
NO
I I I H
i - OIC1
- � IQI� 15
9.0 CO WUNITY CHARACTEZ I I I
I I l
9,1 Community Orrgantzat;on Will the project d;srupt on existing -
organizo6ort,or groups-;thin Ili, co.• ur,;ty?
s;ty Y/ill The project change the character of the
9.2 }lomogenelty and Diver j
community in tenns of d;+traSut;on or concentration ,
• of;nr_or:+e, etltn;e, housing, or age group?
9.] Community StoSility and \Y:;1 the project ba exposed tss or generate on
Physical Conditions area of poor stob;Ii1y an l pSYticol con�ilions7
10.0 VISUAL QUALITY I I 1
10.1 Views VAII rrs;dents of the surrounding area be cdver+ely
• o[Eceled by vies of or from the project?
Yi i;l the project residents be adver=ly affected by
r;ews d a frt_vn the wrrounding nrce, .
10.2 Shodorrs Yfill the project be er.poseci to or generate exccas;ve 'J I I
11.0 HISTORICAND CULTURAL
I I I -
RESOt.-KCES
11.1 Historic and Cultural Will t}r proj=et involve the destruction or alter- I I {
• Resources criers of a h;sror;e resource? I I
W;II the project result in isolzt;on of o historic
• t=s=ar== is c^+its surraundina cnv;ro-nmcnt7
t t t
;fail 1.w projec! ;ntrolucc�hys;col, visual, cud' I { { I
n c!,=ier;e elements thn.ore not in cl:aroc.cr wits ( { {
a historic jesot--ee ar ia•seiting? t -
Y:i;l he cjcc! V/
involve the dc:
r tructoian or alteration
11.2 Atchoeological Siles I { { I I l
I 1
"arid Struc!ures of e.•+erc.�cco;a7rcol rcx.�urcc7 I I I I I
Y[;1l the project result in isslution of cn crcl-cologicol
resource? I I I
W;I'r he r-njc=. in!rod•scc phys;cai, visual, audible I ( I I
or elnos-rheric elements that ore not ;n character
en c,c.,aCol�acol resource or its setting• t t t
" 12_0 ENERGY I ( I
12_1 Energy t?equ;rements A e ter_;•oter•.!;ol problems with the sysply of
enemy req;r=d for t;te project? I I I
Will :he rnt'5y requarcments excccd the capacity r`
of tSe s-rv;cc utility ccmpcny?
\Y;;1 there be o net increase in energy used for the (�
•• projec!a cr p—.rcd to the no projcet oltcrnat;ve? I I I I
12.2 Conservation Measures Cees the Isrejcer planning onri dcs;r,-t fni: to include I I I
• avail=Sle energy conservation m,:.urn:"
13.0 LAND USE I I I
13.1 Site Yazcrds Do ecvsd;t;ens of the site, proposed s;te csevclopment, 'If { I I
Cr surrc.n nom area eraate paten:iolly heccrdout situ- ! I I I
=ti=ns?
1].2 Ph;sieol Threat, v.;11 the projcet or the surround;ng arts erentc a feel;nj ` I• I {
of insecurity pad phy+:eol three[ amnng the resirlenh ./ I I I
• rind u=rs?
12.7 Son;fcry landfall Wit! -ic project S- :xposn-4 to Stru!turn!dmmngc, I I I
oars=, err, or r:rrzce.,.,4�:aun.l`'Icr pollution I { I
ry ntSev ntr;Y+nG.:;osspcictcf vit;+a snn;tory lond(;ll? '
1].A \'loterwayt r:i:t r:sa projer. ! off=er on ex;st;ng 'cr-ay thrau�h / I
f;l:ing, dredg;n�, dratnu,g, culv,r;ng, -.sslc
charges, Ica of v;wa1 quality or oth.:r land.-.0 { I I
, 1
I { I
I { 1 I
. I I I
ZI L°tlC'TS C(-U ; OF DLOACT
CaTGMaTr
No QUALIFIED YES Uri:Ctr l
NO
I I 0
0 1W 10 1
ptSer Environmental Cemponentr. •: •• I 1 1 -
1 I
C. -MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICNNCE
lcL� ''
I �O NQ v� U'N:t' CSv?I
(�) Does the project have the potential to ceerade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant v
or animal community, reduce the num' er or restrict-
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important ex,3:-nples of the major periods
or California history or prehistory? -
(2) Does the project h-ive the potential to cchieve shot- -
term, to the disadvantage of long-terra, environmentcl t
goals? -
(3) Does the project have impacts which ore individually _
limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate re�urces where
the impact on each resource is relative'_y sr,.all, b-ut
where the efFect o` the total of those i-moccts on the
environment is significant.)
r '
(4) Does the project have environmental eFFects which
will cause substantial adversa effects ez human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
1 D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussi'n of the ways to mitigo'e `:ie significant effects
I identified iF any:
j.1L-• tom.^-�_ :',-.. rl:..r. ••F j '!••'�-�_ _I r�r-;-•.'i•.•! r �- �-�T)�( %'�`�'•�, .
E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation:
' . [ 7he City oE_Dublih finds that there will not be any•significant effect. The par- -
- titular characteristics of this project and the. mitigation measures incorporated into
: . '.the design of the project proud.; `h� `actual basis for the finding. 'A NEGATIVE
: DECLARATION IS ? QUIRED.
The City of_V blirl_Jfinds that the proposed project MAY have significcnt effect :
on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED**
ure and d �� '
Slgn a dote:t - -7;
Name .:. -�}( _ _ CS" f
and title: Cr V� � � :
. .
1 *`NO►E: Where a project is revised in resccnse to an Initi..l Study so thc: po`::1'iol adverse
Pff��t: are mitiaated to a point where no sianificont envirennental effects would occur, c I I-