Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Calmet Appeal Tr 5047 (3) • 41o5Q CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting Date: July 12, 1982 SUBJECT: Appeal of Calmet, Inc. Tentative Map, Tract No. 5047 EXHIBITS ATTAHCED: ►. Memorandum from the City Attorney;z.letter from the Alameda County Planning Director dated July 6, 1982, with record and exhibits;LAppeal letter from Calmet, Inc. ;4Appeal letter from Dave Petty, et al . RECOMMENDATION: Consider FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Cost to City would be $0 to approximately $100,000 depending on who bears the cost of signalization. DESCRIPTION: The Calmet Tentative Map Tract No. 5047 project consists of a . tentative map, site development review, and negative declaration to divide a 13.4 acre site into 145 condominium units. The site is located behind the Iceland facility near the inter- section of San Ramon Road and Dublin Blvd. Both the subdivider and the area residents have appealed the project. The subdivider has appealed the condition of approval which requires them to bear the full cost of signalizing the intersection of Dublin Blvd. and Donlan Way. The area residents who have also appealed the approval of the tract indicate: 1) The site is not physically suitable for the type or density of the development 2) There is conflict with public access easements 3) There is substantial environmental damage. SIGNALIZATION: Local public agencies have generally followed one of several concepts regarding traffic signals and similar sub- division improvements : / Copies To: ITEM NO. 0. • 1. If a project pushes the traffic situation over the threshold for a traffic signal , then the project should pay the entire signal cost, 2. If a project is but one of several major traffic contributors, the project should pay a portion of the signal cost. 3. The City could pay the entire cost of the signal , because there is an area wide benefit According to Alameda County, if the City were to use public bid procedures, the cost would be approximately $100,000. If the subdivider is required to pay 25%, their cost would be approximately $25,000. The balance of approximately $75,000 would be a City expense. TYPE AND DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT: As indicated in State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov't Code Section 65302.5) since the City has not adopted its own Dublin General Plan, the City Council needs to determine if there is a reasonable probability that the land use proposed in the project will be consistent with the future General Plan. The City Council will also need to determine to what extent the land use would be detrimental to or interfere with the future General Plan, if the land use is ultimately inconsistent with the future General Plan. EASEMENTS: The project contains an emergency access easement to the site at the eastern end of Shadow Drive. The area residents want assurance that the easement will only be used for emergency access. ENVIRONMENT: The project contains a landscaped driveway and some parking spaces adjacent to the rear of several single family homes. Area residents say the road will generate objectionable noise and aesthetic concerns. The area residents indicated the desire for additional landscape buffering and increased set- backs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has identified the following alternatives for City Council consideration: 1. Approve the negative declaration, site development review and tentative map, with or without conditions. Findings would be required. 2. Disapprove the negative declaration and request either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact report. -2- 3. Disapprove the negative declaration, and deny approval of the site development review and tentative map. Findings would be required Continuing the public hearing will allow staff to respond to Council direction regarding any necessary findings or additional environmental information. -3- • 0 4 THE CITY OF DUBLIN P.O.Box 2340 Dublin,CA 94566 (415) 829-3543 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ATTORNEY RE: WATERSIDE VILLAGE: 145 CONDOMINIUM UNITS, APPEAL OF TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL On July 12 , 1982, you will be faced with your first hearing on the appeal of a tentative map site plan review and negative declaration approval. Because this is your initial appeal hearing, I will attempt in this agenda memorandum, to outline the various courses of action that you may follow. You will have been furnished with other data concerning the background of the Waterside Village project. For the purposes of this discussion, it is important to know that the developer (hereinafter referred to as "proponent") and residents in the adjacent single family subdivision (hereinafter referred to as "opponents") have each appealed the approval of the tentative map by the County Planning Director. The opponents have raised several issues which are environmental in nature. The proponent has appealed only the condition imposed (for approval) that he bear the entire cost for signalization of the Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way. Lastly, the County Planning Director certified a Negative Declaration for the project rather than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . DEFINITIONS Several definitions may be helpful to your understanding of the appeal process: "Negative Declaration" means a written statement briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report. Public Resources Code Sec. 21064. "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial adverse change in the environment. Public Resources Code Sec. 21068. To Councilmemb 0 July 8, 1982 From: City Attorney Page Two Environmental Impact Report" is an informational document which, when its preparation is required by this division, shall be considered by every public agency prior to its approval or disapproval of a project. The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment, to list ways in which any adverse effects of such a project might be minimized; and to suggest alternatives to such a project. Public Resources Code Sec. 21060. "Tentative map" refers to a map made for the purpose of showing the design and improvement of a proposed subdivision and the existing condition in and around it, and need not be based upon an accurate or detailed final survey of the property. Government } Code Sec. 66424.5. THE HEARING PROCESS The hearing process for a planning and/or zoning appeal typically is as follows: 1. The hearing is opened by the Mayor. 2. The City' s planning staff will present a history of the project with regard to the project to the planning or permit procedures. Thus, in Dublin' s case, the Planning Director would outline the progress of the application, including the environmental review process, since it was initially filed with the City. For example, in the event that conditions for . , approval were imposed by the Planning Commission, the reasons therefor will be explained by the Planning Director. Because this project was processed by Alameda County, a representative of the County staff should handle these duties. 3. After staff has finished, the applicant/developer will have an opportunity to address the subject of his appeal and the items appealed by the proponents. 4. The opponents should then be given an opportunity to present their appeal. Members of the public should also be given an opportunity to speak at this time. To: Councilmembers July 8, 1982 From: City Attorney Page Three 5. The applicant should be given an opportunity to rebut the opposition testimony. 6. The City Council may ask questions of staff and the speakers at any time during the above testimony. 7. The hearing, if not continued, should be closed. The Council should then discuss the matter and make any motions that are appropriate. APPLICABLE LAW A hearing on an appeal of a tentative map approval must be held within 30 days from the date the appeal was filed, and 1 a decision must be rendered within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the hearing. Failure to act within ten days is deemed approval. Government Code, Sec. 66452.5. These time limits may be extended by mutual consent of the City and applicant, and the City may require a routine waiver of these time limits for the purpose of an environmental review of the project. Sec 66451.1 As a practical matter, the 30 day time limit was complied with and the ten day period for a decision does not come into effect until the hearing has been concluded. Thus, for various reasons, the Council may desire to continue the hearing. If it does so, it must do so prior to closing the hearing. A continuance of the hearing does not require the consent of the applicant. Caution dictates, however, that the applicant be asked to consent to a continuance of the hearing. I have elaborated on the time issues because, in this case, the opponents have raised environmental. concerns which were not addressed by the negative declaration. This may prompt the Council to request additional data in the form of any of the following: 1. An environmental assessment. 2. An environmental impact report. If either is requested, a continuance of the hearing would be necessary until such time as the data was received by the City. In the event that the Council feels that the environmental fi issues do not exist, or have been adequately mitigated, or the project does not have a significant impact on the environment, the Council may approve the negative declaration, and not request any further environmental input. To: Councilmembers July 8,1982 From: City Attorney Page Four If the Council determines to approve the tentative map, it must make a finding that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the general plan, Sec. 66473.5. Inasmuch as Dublin has no general plan, the finding should refer to the Alameda County General Plan. An approved tentative map is valid for .3O months, Sec. 8 - 2.8 The Council may impose the same conditions imposed by the Planning Director for approval, or it may delete or add conditions for approval. Sec. 66474 provides that the Council shall deny approval of the tentative map if it makes any of the following findings: a. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b. That the design of improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvement is likely to cause serious public health problems. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate •easements for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. To: Councilmembers July 8, 1982 From: City Attorney Page Five ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve or reject the site plan review. 2. Approve the Negative Declaration. 3. Disapprove the Negative Declaration and request either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact report This will necessitate a continuance of the public hearing, and no action can be taken on the tentative map until the environmental impact is received and discussed. 4. Approve the tentative map, with or without conditions. Findings required. 5. Deny approval of the tentative map findings required. • ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401 July 6, 1982 Dublin City Council 6500 Dublin Boulevard, #218 Dublin, CA 94566 Subject: Appeal of Planning Director Action on Tentative Map, Tract 5047 Dear Council Members: Subject tract, application of Calmet, Inc., was approved by the Alameda County Planning Director May 24, 1982, subject to Tentative Map and Site Development Review conditions. The approval has been appealed by both the subdivider and area residents. Tract 5047 was previously approved as Tract 4347 and Site Development Review, S-736 in August, 1979. Tentative Maps are valid for 2 1/2 years after approval, with a 2 year extension possible upon request of the subdivider. The subdivider in this case was not aware of the time limit and the availability of extension and the map expired, necessitating a refiling. When the map was approved in 1979, houses to the west were as yet unbuilt. The Planning Director approved Tract 5047 and extended Site Development Review approval with some changes in previously approved conditions and some new conditions. The subdivider is appealing one condition (SDR #29) which requires him to signalize the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way at his expense, arguing that other development contributes to the need for a signal at that location and should pay its fair share. Residents of the newly built tract to the west have also appealed, claiming that the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development; that the project conflicts with public access easements; and that the project would cause substantial environmental damange, loss of a grove of oaks. The Planning Department notes that the type and density of the project is in conformity with the General Plan for Dublin and that the project is of a high standard of design; that the project does not conflict with public access easements; and that the loss of the trees (not oaks, but walnuts— remnant of an old orchard) is not substantial environmental damage in light of the site's central location in highly urbanized Dublin and extensive landscaping which is to be made a part of the project. Further information is contained in the accompanying record on the matter. Very truly yours, • 4-! William H. Fra ey Planning Director °L.-Cl"-‘(-- WHF/PD/rm Enclosures cc: Larry Tong, Planning Director, Dublin � Tek Lim, Calmet Inc. 14 Dublin Village Homeowners Association • CALMET, INC . 403 BALRA DRIVE EL CERRITO, CA 94530 (415) 527-4314 June 10, 1982 Dublin City Council 6500 Dublin Boulevard, #218 Dublin, California 94566 Subject: Appeal of Revised Condition No. 29. Ref. : Tentative Map, Tract 5047 Site Development Review, S-736 To The Honorable Dublin City Council: Calmet, Inc. accepts all the revised conditions of the Tentative Map for Tract 5047 with the exception of condition number 29, requiring that the developer signalize the intersection of Dublin Boulevard at Donlon Way at his expense as required by the Director of Public Works. Accordingly, we are appealing that aspect of the approval of the Tenta- tive Map. The basis of our appeal is that the signalizing should not be at the sole expense of the developer, but rather should be a shared expense. Traffic at the subject intersection is already impacted by existing apartment units (not owned by the developer) , by an existing shopping center (also not owned by the developer) and will be further impacted by a possible office building to be constructed by others. Therefore, the expense of signalizing should not be borne solely by the developer. We would suggest that the developer be responsible for twenty-five per cent of the cost of signalizing since four entities contribute to the need for a traffic control. Very truly yours, Tek H. Lim Executive V.P. CAIMET, INC. cc: Takuo Kanno E Associates, 485 Grizzly Peak Blvd. , Berkeley CA 94708 Ar 3