Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-1989 PC Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - Dublin Library Wednesday-7:30p.m. 7606 Amador Valley Blvd., Meeting Room July 5, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 5.1 Minutes of Previous Meeting - June 5, 1989 and June 19, 1989 5.2 PA 88-117 Doyle Variance - Approval of Resolution reversing the Zoning Administrator's action on March 14, 1989 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item which is not on the Planning Commission agenda. Comments should not exceed 5 minutes. If any person feels that this is insufficient time to address his or her concern, that person should arrange with the Planning Director to have his or her particular concern placed on the agenda for a future meeting. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 89-037 Valley Nissan/Mitsubishi Conditional Use Permit extension request to maintain the existing use of automobile dealerships at 6015- 6015B Scarlett Court (continued from the June 19, 1989 meeting) 8.2 PA 88-139 Crown Chevrolet Conditional Use Permit/ Site Development Review for exterior car storage and employee/customer parking on approximately 1.97 acres of vacant land located on Golden Gate Drive, south of 7544 Dublin Boulevard (continued from the June 19, 1989 meeting) 8.3 PA 89-047 Goldies Fitness Plus Commercial Recreation Facility Conditional Use Permit request to allow continued operation of a commercial recreation facility (health/fitness center) at 7164 Regioanl Street 8.4 PA 89-058 Southern Pacific Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request to construct a gasoline pump station and power and control center at 6433 Dougherty Road 8.5 PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon (Blaylock, Gleason & Fletcher) General Plan Amendment request to include approximately 197 acres of project site within the City's Primary Planning Area, to designate 19.1 acres for medium-high density residential, 13 acres for single-family residential and 164.9 acres for open space. Subsequent applications pending General Plan Amendment action will include Planned Development Prezoning, Subdivision and Annexation (continued from the June 19, 1989 meeting) 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. PIANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS 12. ADJOURNMENT (Over for Procedures Summary) • DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES SUMMARY WELCOME to the Dublin Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission is made up of five Dublin residents who have volunteered their services to the community. They were appointed by the Dublin City Council. The Planning Commission encourages and appreciates participation by Dublin residents. Regular meetings of the Planning Commission are held on the first and third Mondays of each month in the Dublin Library Meeting Room, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin. TIME: Planning Commission meetings begin at 7:30 p.m. No new public hearing item will begin after 10:30 p.m., and the meetings will be adjourned by 11:00 p.m., except under unusual circumstances where the Commission votes to hear the item or to extend the meeting for 30-minute increments. ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda unless: 1) the Planning Commission determines by majority vote that an emergency situation exists, as defined in the Government Code 2) the Planning Commission determines by a two-thirds vote, or by a unanimous vote if only three members are present, that the need to take action arose after the agenda was posted; or 3) the item was included in a posted agenda for a prior meeting held within five (5) calendar days and was continued to the current meeting. ORDER OF PRESENTATION: After the Chairperson opens the public hearing on an item, the order of presentation will be as follows: 1) Summary Presentation by Planning Staff 2) Questions by Planning Commission 3) Comments by Applicant 4) Comments by Others in Favor 5) Comments by Those in Opposition 6) Rebuttal by Applicant if Necessary 7) Additional Comments by Staff as Appropriate The hearing is then closed and the item turned over to the Commission for discussion and action. The audience is not permitted to make any further comments unless invited by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS UNDER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Any citizen desiring to speak on an item not scheduled on the agenda may do so under Oral Communications at the beginning of the meeting. After receiving recognition from the Chairperson, please state your name and address, then proceed with your comments. When an item not on the agenda is raised by a member of the public, the matter shall be deemed automatically referred to Staff unless the Planning Commission determines to take action as outlined in the section above entitled ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A HEARING ITEM: On a public hearing or other scheduled item, the Chairperson will ask the audience for its comments, first from those in favor, then from those in opposition. After receiving recognition from the Chairperson, please state your name and address, then proceed with your comments. The Planning Commission wants to hear all citizen concerns. Each new speaker is asked to be brief, add new information, and not repeat points which previous speakers have made. The Planning Commission is particularly interested in the specific reasons why the speaker is for or against an item. Applause and other demonstrations are prohibited during public hearings. Such demonstrations tend to intimidate those in the audience who may have valid but opposing viewpoints. The Chairperson maintains the discretion to request the use of Speaker Slips and to limit comments. Anyone who does not want to speak may write comments on the Speaker Slip and turn it into the Planning Commission while the public hearing is still open. SMOKING CONTROL: Please do not smoke during the Planning Commission meeting. ITEM WITHOUT APPLICANT: If the applicant or representative fails to attend the public hearing concerning their item, the Planning Commission may take action to deny, continue, or approve the item. The item may be considered for continuance upon receipt of written notification of the applicant's inability to attend the hearing. r'\ Regular Meeting - June 5, 1989 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on June 5, 1989, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Okun, and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner; Laura Hoffmeister, Associate Planner; Trudi Ryan, Project Planner and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. ABSENT: Commissioner Mack * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of May 15, 1989 were approved. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Zev Kahn had concerns regarding the construction work being done on the weekends near his home. He indicated that the problem has been occurring for several weeks and starting as early as 7:00 a.m. He would like to see something done about the problem and asked what type of penalties could be issued. Mr. Tong indicated that construction work can be approved by the City Engineer for after hours and weekend work. He indicated that the City has a noise ordinance where a misdemeanor could be issued and the Zoning Ordinance could cause a infraction. The Planning Commission asked Staff to looked into the matter and have comments back to them by the June 19th meeting. * * * * ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-73 June 5, 1989 � n WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commission had received 6 action letters. * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-109 Healy Variance - Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a variance request for a storage shed with an exterior sideyard setback of 8' where 15' minimum is required located at 7961 Shady Creek Road Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that in March of 1986, the City Council approved the PD zoning designation for part of the Villages projects requiring 15'0" minimum exterior sideyards. The Applicant, Mr. Healy, is requesting the approval of an exterior sideyard setback of 8' for a storage shed where the 15' minimum is required. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that on January 4, 1989, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the Variance application. The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 2-89 denying the Variance request. On January 17, 1989, Mr. Healy appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that Staff had requested an updated site plan from the Applicant before scheduling the matter with the Planning Commission. On May 10, 1989, the Applicant submitted the attached updated site plan. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that prior to granting a Variance three findings would have to be met: 1. That there are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics. She indicated that this was a single-family key lot containing a two-story home which was similar to other houses in the same zoning district within the City similar to other key lots. 2. That the approval would not constitute a grant of special privileges. She indicated that granting of the Variance would constitute special privileges because other property owners do not have the same privilege. 3. That the Variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. She indicated that the Variance would be detrimental because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxed provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that Staff had presented the Applicant with alternative locations where the shed could be located. The Applicant indicated that the alternatives were not desirable. ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-74 June 5, 1989 n n Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that the Applicant had stated that the 15' sideyard setback was included in his CC&R's, however the fence was located further out therefore he felt other structures could be built out to the fence, so he felt a violation had not occurred. Ms. Hoffmeister explained that similar minimum setbacks requirements are in a typical R-1 district, however a 20' exterior sideyard setback would have been required. However, under the PD zoning a 15' minimum setback and a master fence plan was established. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that there were alternative areas on the lot where the shed could be located or a smaller storage shed could be located in close proximity to the current location. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's request. Cm. Zika asked why the fence was located where it is. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that the Planned Development allows for master fencing plan and was approved by the City. Mr. Robert Healy, 7961 Shady Creek Road, indicated that the shed was 7'6" tall, not 8-10' tall as stated in the Staff Report. Mr. Healy discussed the three mandatory findings. He presented a letter with neighbors signatures supporting his request and photographs showing his shed and other sheds in the area. He stated his sloping lot and unusual fence line was a special circumstance and that his request would only give him the same privileges as others in his neighborhood. Mr. Healy believed that the three mandatory findings could be found and hoped the Planning Commission would approve his application. Mr. Jim Donovan, Lot #103 (neighbor), indicated that he had no objections to the shed being where it was located. The Planning Commission and Staff discussed the requirements for building permits versus zoning requirements. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika indicated that he was in agreement with the Applicant. Cm. Barnes indicated her agreement with the Applicant. Cm. Burnham indicated that the rules were there for everyone. If one person was allowed to vary from the requirements, other residents would follow. On motion from Cm. Zika, indicating that there were special circumstances for approval of the Variance, seconded by Cm. Okun, and with a vote of 3-1-1 (Cm. Mack was absent), the Planning Commission continued the item to the June 19, 1989 meeting and the item would be voted upon as a consent item. ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-75 June 5, 1989 Mr. Tong indicated that the appeal period was for 10 days after action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kahn asked what would happen if the property changed ownerships and what if the new owner wanted to remove the shed. Mr. Tong and the Planning Commission discussed the Variance requirements with Mr. Kahn. SUBJECT: PA 88-135 Shamrock Ford Conditional Use Permit request to continue operation of a new and used vehicle sales and service dealership at 6581 Amador Plaza Road Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that after the public notice of the application, it was revealed that Planning Commission action was unnecessary and the use permit renewal could be adminstratively approved. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff recommended the Commission open and close the public hearing, hear any testimony, and accept the withdrawal of the application. Cm. Barnes asked if there were any comments from the public. Being none, she closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the withdrawal of the application. SUBJECT: PA 89-046 Marg-Ett Arts & Crafts Show Conditional Use Permit request to operate two Arts & Crafts Shows at the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center (between Mervyns and Albertsons) on July 20-23 and Decembe r7- 10, 1989 Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that the Applicant was requesting a Conditional Use Permit approval for two art and craft fairs at the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center on July 20-23 and December 7-10, 1989. The Applicant's request complies with the Zoning Ordinance which allows such fairs by approval of a Conditional Use Permit Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that the fair would consist of 20-25 booths, with operational hours between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. She indicated the Applicant had requested in the two previous years to allow the exhibitors sleep over privileges in the parking lot. No problems are known to have occurred with this arrangement and Staff has included this provisions in the approval. Regular Meeting PCM-8-76 June 5, 1989 r1 n Mr. Hoffmeister indicated that Staff recommended approval of the application. Cm. Burnham asked where the exhibitors would be parked. He would like to see the parking area to be some distance from the shopping center so to not create parking problems. Ms. Marietta Lewis, Applicant, indicated that the exhibitors are not allowed to park close to the shopping center while it was open for business. They are allowed to temporarily park close to the exhibit area before or after hours. Ms. Lewis indicated that she works with the Merchants Association's representative, Steve Heath, to designate an area away from the close parking for the exhibitors' vehicles to be parked during business hours. She has not had any complaints regarding their operation and parking situation. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 4-0 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 89-025 APPROVING PA 89-046 MARG-ETT ART AND CRAFT FAIRS - MARIETTA LEWIS (APPLICANT) DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION (SPONSOR) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO ART AND CRAFT FAIRS AT THE DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER SUBJECT: PA 89-023 Payless Drug Store Garden Center Conditional Use Permit request to continue operation of the outdoor garden center at 7201 Regional Street Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval for a Conditional Use Permit to continue the operation of an outdoor garden center in front of the store, south of the main entrance and behind a 40-inch tall concrete block wall. The garden center would total 1,260 square feet of area. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there have been several zoning violations in the past 18 years relating to the outdoor storage area. These violations have been brought into compliance within the required time frames. She indicated that a field check revealed the garden center was in violation of the previous Conditional Use Permit approval and zoning district. These violations were for storage and display of live plants in a non-designated area and storage and display of non-living plants in the designated garden center. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that if the Applicant wanted to store and display plants in non-designated areas, this should be requested by the Applicant. An expansion would require the Applicant to have a Site Development Review approval. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that a condition of approval is included in the resolution requiring zoning violations to be in compliance within 10 days of the effective date of the resolution. She indicated that the resolution also ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-77 June 5, 1989 included conditions restricting outdoor display to live/growing plant materials and the requirement to maintain an 8 foot wide unobstructed sidewalk in front of the plant display area. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that approval of the Conditional Use Permit was recommended. Cm. Zika asked how many violations had there been. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there had been approximately 6 or 7 violations at separate intervals. Cm. Barnes asked where the plant material was approved to be located. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the wall at the north of the main entrance was approved; to the south was not approved. Andrew Anderson, Applicant, indicated that he has been talking with the personnel at Payless and understands that the violations will be corrected. He indicated that he would continue to follow up with Payless on the problems that have been occurring. Mr. Anderson indicated that he would like to keep his options open to utilize the southern area of the property. He would like to see accessory materials allowed in the garden area. Cm. Burnham asked Staff why accessory materials were not allowed. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the ordinance language was interpreted to be living materials only. Cm. Burnham and Ms. O'Halloran discussed the difference between the Woolworth's and Payless' garden center. Cm. Barnes indicated that customers would have to go back into the store to purchase accessory items for the plants. Mr. Tong indicated that if accessory materials were allowed, then additional materials such as fertilizers, weed killers, gardening tools and equipment could be stored in the garden center. The question was where to draw the line. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika requested that the permit be changed to a one-year approval with 2 two-year approvals by the Planning Director provided no citations had been issued. Ms. O'Halloran and the Commission discussed the language that should be added to the conditions of approval. On motion from Cm. Zika, with Condition #5 being change to a one-year limit of approval with two 2-year extensions approved by the Planning Director provided no citations were issued, seconded by Cm. Okun, and with a vote of 4-0-1 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-78 June 5, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 89-026 APPROVING PA 89-023, PAYLESS DRUG STORE OUTDOOR GARDEN CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7201 REGIONAL STREET Mr. Anderson asked if a warning would be issued first before a citation was issued. Ms. O'Halloran indicated yes, a warning would be given with a certain amount of time to remedy the violation. If the violation was not resolved after time allotted expired, then a citation would be issued. SUBJECT: PA 89-045 Valley Lutheran School Conditional Use Permit request to continue operation of the Lutheran Preschool and Elementary School, Grades K-8 at 8850 Davona Drive Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to continue operating the preschool and elementary school and to expand the maximum number of students to 175 over the next 3 years. The hours of operation would be 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Extended care would be provided Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. as well as after school hours of 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Application was also requesting approval to hang a 43+ square foot banner for a total of six weeks which would advertise school enrollment. She indicated that the Sign Ordinance does not specifically permit promotional signage in residential districts. Promotional signage is permitted in the commercial districts with approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit. The Sign Ordinance does, however, permit bulletin boards with a maximum area of 24 square feet. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Henry Aschbrenner, Applicant, requested that the expiration date of the permit be changed to July 31, 1992 so as to coincide with his fiscal year. He indicated that the banner was well maintained and would be good advertising for the school. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that a bulletin board was allowed with no particulars except for having a maximum area of 24 square feet. Mr. Tong indicated that there was no requirement to permanently install the bulletin board. It could be taken down at any time. Cm. Barnes asked if the bulletin board could be used for other advertising. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the bulletin board does not have restrictions on time limits and could be used to advertise anything related to the school or church. ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-79 June 5, 1989 n Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Okun, changing Condition #8 to have an expiration date of July 31, 1992, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with a vote of 4-0-1 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 89-027 APPROVING PA 89-045, VALLEY LUTHERAN SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO OPERATE AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND PRESCHOOL WITHIN EXISTING FACILITIES SUBJECT: PA 88-139 Crown Chevrolet Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for exterior car storage and employee/customer parking on approximatelyi 1.97 acres of vacant land located on Golden Gate Drive, south of 7544 Dublin Boulevard (continued from the April 17, 1989 meeting) Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Ryan indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to provide additional vehicle storage area adjacent to the existing car dealership site. This item was before the Commission in April and the Applicant had requested that the item be continued in order to evaluate other alternatives to the project. Ms. Ryan indicated that the policies of the Downtown Specific Plan require parking lot developments to have adequate landscaping and any additional development to be able to screen service use and landscaping. Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff had recommended 20% of the entire lot to be landscaped. She indicated that the Applicant has now submitted a revised site plan for storage of 118 vehicles and it deletes the employee/customer parking. This revised plan uses only the northern half of the property. Ms. Ryan discussed the right-of-way conditions for the proposed parallel road. She indicated that 68 feet of the parcel at the northern edge is part of the adopted plan line. Ordinance #44-87 makes it illegal to construct a building or structure within the right-of-way. Ms. Ryan indicated that the definition of building/structure includes "required parking". The additional parking/storage is not required, therefore is not defined as a building or structure and can be located within the plan line. The Applicant would not be required to dedicate or improve additional right-of-way as the marginal additional traffic would not warrant it. Ms. Ryan indicated that Attachment 5 of the staff report showed a landscaping scheme which would meet the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan. She indicated Staff recommended that 20% of the surface area of the parcel be landscaped as a condition of approval for the Site Development Review. Ms. Ryan indicated that the purpose of landscaping is to screen the parking areas from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. Regular Meeting PCM-8-80 June 5, 1989 r^N /'1 Ms. Ryan indicated that the Applicant was requesting a 5-year Conditional Use Permit approval. The Commission's policy has been to approve a new use permit for only one year and allow up to a 2 year's extension by the Planning Director. Ms. Ryan indicated that Staff was recommending approval of the attached resolutions for a Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Cm. Burnham asked if Crown Chevrolet was now planning on using one-half of the vacant area. Ms. Ryan indicated yes. Pat Costello, Crown Chevrolet, discussed his concerns over additional landscaping, fence location, surface material (paving) and curb construction. He indicated that he did not want the added expense of landscaping and curbs because of the plan line that had been established. Mr. Costello discussed his proposed storage area. He indicated the revised plans he submitted incorrectly showed the proposed fence location and the fence should be around the entire parcel. He wanted to use gravel rather than blacktop surface. The north half only would be used for storage. Mr. Costello and the Planning Commission discussed the alignment of the future proposed road. Mr. Costello indicated that the parking was not for the public's use. It would be used for a vehicle storage lot. He asked Staff if the Site Development Review standards that were attached to the Staff Report were standard conditions or directly related to his project. Ms. Ryan indicated that these were standard requirements to provide curb and gutter around all parking areas, which would assist drainage on and off the site. Mr. Costello stated that he did not see a problem with the drainage. He reiterated that the lot would not be used for public parking. He indicated that since this project would be a temporary situation, he would like to gravel rather than blacktop the area. Cm. Zika asked why the Applicant could not build on the back part of the lot instead. Mr. Costello indicated that he was not building any structures. He wanted to have additional parking considered for a interim time period. Mr. Costello indicated that a cyclone fence would be erected. The Police Department indicated that a 10 foot fence would be appropriate, however, if someone wanted to get into the property, they would cut through the fence. The higher fence would not do any good, but would cost more money to fix. He believed a 6 foot fence would be adequate. Ms. Ryan indicated that a vinyl-clad fence was required, however Staff would support up to a ten foot fence. ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-81 June 5, 1989 Mr. Costello indicated that the Police Department's intent was to be able to see through the fence, keep the area visible. Ms. Betty Woolverton indicated that it would not be appropriate to use the back lot and have a vacant lot in between the existing lot and the new area. The Planning Commission and Applicant discussed the future plan line. Mr. Costello indicated that he had no plans to build anything until the road had been constructed, other than the parking lot for their own use. The expense of building curbs did not make sense. Cm. Barnes asked Staff if the timing of the use permit was an issue. Ms. Ryan indicated yes. Applicant was asking for a 5-year use permit where Staff would not typically grant a 5-year use permit Mr. Costello indicated that if the road was not going through he could see abiding by the standard regulations. He indicated that the reason for the fence would be preventing people from dumping materials on to the lot. Ms. Ryan summarized the concerns and issues. The Applicant's concern was not to have unnecessary expense to improve the property, however, if the City bought the property, the improvements would be compensated to the property owner. The Applicant indicated that this was an interim use, however, all Conditional Use Permits, in a sense, were on an interim basis. There was no guarantee that the use would be allowed to continue after the permit expired. Cm. Burnham asked what the cost of landscaping would be. Ms. Ryan indicated that the figures were not available. Attachment 5 of the Staff Report showed aboiut 8700 square feet of landscaping, however, not all of the area was within the right-of-way. Cm. Burnham had concerns on the cost effectiveness of improvements. Ms. Ryan indicated that this was a policy question. The Downtown Specific Plan specifically addresses the requirement of additional landscaping. However, it does not address the issue of the proposed plan line issue. Cm. Barnes asked for clarification on the Police Department's requirement for a cyclone fence. Ms. Ryan indicated that the Applicant was requested the construction of a fence. The Police Department asked the Applicant to consider a 10 foot fence because of break-ins that were occurring in the area. This is not a requirement, only a suggestion. Cm. Barnes asked if the intent of the Police Department was to have the site remain visible to them. Ms. Ryan indicated yes, the Police Department did not want vehicles parking along the outside of the fence because of possible vandalism. ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-82 June 5, 1989 Mr. Tong indicated that this was a similar situation to Shamrock Ford when they expanded their facility. Cm. Burnham indicated that he approved of the 6 foot cyclone fence as well as constructing an asphalt or gravel parking lot. However, he couldn't see the additional expense of landscaping and curbs. Cm. Zika asked if the Commission could request the Applicant to do additional work on the property after the use permit was approved. He would like to see a 1 to 2 year permit. Mr. Tong indicated that existing policy requires 20% landscaping, standard asphalt, and curbing. The Commission could put a time frame on the permit and phase in the landscaping requirements. Cm. Zika indicated that he would like to have the use permit for no more than 3 years. The City would probably have a better handle on what BART would be doing. He indicated that the Applicant should not have to spend a lot of money if the area was going to be re-constructed. Mr. Tong indicated that a lot of factors have been raised. There would be approximately 118 vehicles stored on the lot. This would be approximately a million dollars worth of inventory. He compared other residential and commercial landscaping costs and requirements. The Commission and Staff discussed the Enea's proposed development on Amador Plaza Road. Cm. Burnham indicated that he did not have a problem with the cyclone fence, gravel or tar, and minimum landscaping requirements. Cm. Zika concurred with Cm. Burnham and indicated that a 1 year permit would be adequate. He would like to have the issue come back to the Commission in two years and at that time maybe BART would have more construction time frames available. Mr. Costello indicated that was okay with him. He would like to use the lot now. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Ms. Ryan discussed the landscaping issues. She indicated that the Commission could 1) adopt the Staff's recommendations or 2) eliminate some of the conditions requiring landscaping, curbs, etc. and continue the matter so that Staff could restructure the resolutions. The Planning Commission discussed the continuance of the item. Cm. Zika indicated that he would like to see a one-year permit with a one-year extension, eliminate some of the landscaping around the periphery of the property. He had a concern over the gravelled parking lot because of dust problems. ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-83 June 5, 1989 r-\ n Mr. Costello indicated that slate gravel would be used. Mr. Tong indicated that input from the City Engineer regarding the asphalt or gravel issue would be in order. Cm. Burnham asked about the drainage issues with the gravelled parking lot. Mr. Tong indicated that this also would be discussed with the City Engineer. The Planning Commission continued the meeting to July 5, 1989. SUBJECT: PA 89-054 The Green Store Conditional Use Permit for a minor modification to Planned Development rezoning district to change medical office to professional office at 11873 Dublin Boulevard Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that this application was for a Conditional Use Permit for minor modifications of the current Planned Development District. The Zoning Ordinance permits Planned Developments to be modified through the Conditional Use Permit process. This particular Planned Development allows uses that are listed on page 3 of the Staff Report. The Applicant was requesting medical offices to be modified to professional offices which could include offices for accountant, advertising, architect, dentist, real estate, secretarial, and travel agent businesses. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planned Development requires the historic value of the site to be maintained. When the City Council adopted the Planned Development, they required a Site Development Review for any modifications to the exterior or interior of the building. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the application was consistent with the existing uses and surrounding uses. She indicated that the modification to the Planned Development would broaden the types of businesses that could operate in the facilities. Medical offices were very limited and the professional offices would enable more uses to operate out of the building. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff was recommending approval of the resolution. Cm. Okun asked Staff what the parking requirements were. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the parking would be the same as is currently required. Mr. Bob MacPhee discussed the financial history of the property. He indicated that there were too many use restrictions on the property which made it difficult to lease the property. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Okun, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with a vote of 4-0 (one absent), the Planning Commission adopted ****************,tat*************************t******:t**********at*******k******** Regular Meeting PCM-8-84 June 5, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 89-028 APPROVING PA 89-054, THE GREEN STORE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES AT 11873 DUBLIN BOULEVARD * * * * NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong discussed with the Planning Commission the possibility of the July 3, 1989 meeting being moved to July 5, 1989. The Planning Commission had no objections, and approved the meeting to be held on July 5, 1989. Mr. Tong and the Commission discussed the management audit interviews that would be set up with the Commissioners. The interviews were suggested for June 23, 1989 at the City Manager's office. Cm. Zika indicated he would not be available during the next two weeks. The other Commissioners established appointments. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Okun asked Staff if the City had any control of the maintenance conditions of someone's backyard. Mr. Tong indicated that there some regulations. The property maintenance ordinance, however, covered primarily the front yard area. Unless there was a direct health or safety issue involved, the City had no jurisdiction over the maintenance of property owner's backyards. * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS The Commission and Staff discussed the Airport Citizen's Advisory Committee regarding the Livermore Airport and the East Dublin building restrictions. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. * * * * Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director * * * * ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-85 June 5, 1989 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 5, 1989 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff REPORT PREPARED BY: Laura Hoffmeister, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PA 88-117 Doyle Fence Variance GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: A Variance request to allow rear yard fence up to 8' 6" feet tall where a 6 foot maximum is allowed APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Ronald & Carole Doyle 8121 Via Zapata Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 8121 Via Zapata ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-2752-24 PARCEL SIZE: 7200+ square feet GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential (.9 - 6.0 du/acre) EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: R-1-B-E (Single-Family Residential Combining District) Single-Family Two-Story Residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: R-1-B-E (Single-Family Residential Combining District) Single-Family Residences ZONING HISTORY: July 31, 1979: Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved Tentative Map Tract 4077 for Gregory Group subdividing 25 acres into 47 single- family lots and one 10-acre parcel as permanent open space. November 20, 1980: Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved an Administrative Conditional Use Permit (AC 3910) allowing this lot be used as a sales office and model home complex for Tract 4077, Gregory Group. October 1988: Zoning Clearance issued to allow construction of a patio cover attached to the house and deck less than 30". October 12, 1988: Building Inspector discovered an existing spa was installed without permits. On October 14, 1988, Owner notified by Building Official that spa was improperly installed and installed without permits. COPIES TO: Applicant/ 5 Owner ITEM NO. File PA 88-117 October 25, 1988: Building permit issued to relocate existing spa. October 26, 1988: Building Inspector discovered fence replaced. New fence is taller than 6 feet. Owner subsequently applied for a Variance. March 14, 1989: The City of Dublin Zoning Administrator denied a fence height Variance request (PA 88-117) to allow rear yard fence taller than 6 feet. March 16, 1989: Owner/Applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-60.55(d) (Fence Height Limitations) of the City Zoning Ordinance establishes 6 feet as the maximum permitted height for fences, walls and hedges in a residential district. Section 8.60.56(c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows exceptions to fence height limits established in Section 8.60.55, allowing higher fences around swimming pools or spas provided that the portion of the fence which exceeds the height limitation is constructed of a material capable of admitting not less than 90% of light measured by a reputable light meter. Section 8-93.0 (Variance) indicates that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: a) That there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classifications; b) That the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; and c) That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and effective date for granting or denying a variance, and indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt - Class 5 Minor alterations in land use limitations - variances NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the June 19, 1989, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. BACKGROUND: On March 14, 1989, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider a Variance application from Robert Doyle to allow up to a 8'-6" high fence (now existing) where a maximum height of 6' is permitted. After receiving testimony from Staff, the Applicant and general public, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 06-89 denying PA 88-117, the Doyle Variance request. On March 16, 1989, Mr. Doyle appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. The Variance application is a result of a zoning violation discovered during on-site building inspections. In October, 1988, the Owner was issued a permit to install a patio cover. -2- On October 12, 1988, an inspector discovered an existing spa had been installed without obtaining necessary permits. On October 25, 1988, the owner was issued a building permit and zoning approval clearance for installing a deck, patio cover and relocating the existing spa. During subsequent on-site inspections the rear yard fence was removed and replaced. However, the new fence was constructed taller (up to 8' 6") than that allowed by the Zoning Ordinance (6 feet). The owner was advised by the Building Inspector that the new fence height exceeded that allowed by the City ordinance and to reduce the fence height to the required 6 foot maximum. The owner subsequently applied for a Variance, rather than reducing the fence height. ANALYSIS: At its June 19, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission heard testimony regarding the Applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of the requested Variance. After considering all information, the Commission overturned (4-0-1) the Zoning Administrator's action indicating there were special circumtances regarding this particular lot's terrain, fence placement and pre-existing construction circumstances which made it unique and that strict compliance within the Zoning Ordinance would deny the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties and granting the Variance would only provide parity with other properties in the same area and zoning district. The Commission directed Staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval with the required findings and any appropriate conditions related to the approval for Commission's consideration as a consent item at its July 5, 1989 meeting. As a consent calendar item, this matter would not have any further public input or discussion by the Commission and would be approved as routine business. Should a Commissioner or member of the audience wish to address or discuss this item, the Commission would have to remove this item from the consent calendar and place it under unfinished business (Agenda Item #9). Should this occur, Staff would recommend the Commission then take Agenda Item #9 (unfinished business) out of order, and place it prior to Agenda Item #8 (public hearings). RECOMMENDATION: ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution, reversing the Zoning Administrator's action on March 14, 1989, and approve the requested Variance (PA 88-117) ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution reversing the Zoning Administrator's action of denial and approving PA 88-117, Doyle Fence Height Variance Exhibit B: Site Plan Attachment 1: Location Map -3- RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL ACTION AND APPROVING PA 88-117 DOYLE FENCE VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW UP TO A 8'6" REAR YARD FENCE HEIGHT AT 8112 VIA ZAPATA WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Doyle have filed an application for a Variance from Section 8-60.55 of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow up to a 8'6" foot high fence on the north rear yard property line at 8121 Via Zapata; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said application on March 14, 1989; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be denied; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 1989, after hearing and considering all said reports, recommendations and testimony as herein above set forth, the Zoning Administrator denied PA 88-117 Doyle Fence Height Variance request at 8121 Via Zapata; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 1989, Robert Doyle appealed the Zoning Administrator's March 14, 1989 action; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider said appeal; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission took action at the June 5, 1989 meeting with a vote of 4-0 and directed Staff to come back at the next meeting with findings and resolutions approving the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: a) There are special circumstances including topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification, in that the lot at 8121 Via Zapata has a downward sloping rear yard and adjoining homes are located across a ravine approximately 200 feet away from the fence. b) The granting of the Variance application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that a special circumstances exist which warrant granting the Variance. The site has approximateliy one-quarter of the rear yard area as a downhill slope, limiting the effect a 6' tall rear yard fence would have on providing privacy. The taller fence height could correspond to the site's sideyard fencing and other rear yard fence screening provided to similarly zoned properties in the neighborhood. -1- c) The granting of this Variance application would not be detrimental to the neighborhood because the existing fence construction is of materials and style which blend with construction of nearby fences and are aesthetically attractive. Direct views to the fence are obscured by thick landscaping on the exterior side of the fence which also softens the fences higher height. Approval would not set an unwanted precedence as this site is unique and any Variance request must be reviewed on its own merits. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve PA 88-117 Variance application as generally depicted by Exhibit B, attached and on file with the Dublin Planning Department subject to the following conditions: 1. Location and maximum fence height shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit B. 2. If use of the Variance ceases for a consecutive period of one-year, the Variance approval shall lapse and shall become null and void. 3. The existing fence with redwood lattice top shall not be extended to a taller height at anytime. 4. The existing fence with redwood lattice top shall be maintained in an attractive, sturdy and well constructed fashion at all times. 5. Approval of this Variance shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site which was the subject of this Variance application. 6. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8- 90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director -2- P . . L......„,..,:.: 7;.-...:;.•.,-/ , 1 ro,r 8'6* ; •,r1'.:. • . • rzA •1:1 Tc.•,.z. e=0" S.-- rif,;;:•:, -,.• ise-.4.::v..0:45.:... , --, • 0....fi. 4 •• 7. •"•._i'',47t• rkrizi-1/..-.,c ..., ,,,, _ •.(5.\(\,i K----.c.4•G: :•- x.,---1-•-•-•: .•fl 4••.i.-,,.:.• 7. 74 I;.1••,:-7:•.!,:::-:!-.,•3',:-,4 t -•a . '4-•,-••-4:.." l';'..... •:.• . . ; ,,•/41111../..0! Ti::li-",••:•••••f—..•..- .• ty CI A,--•,- • 0-, •• -.': • •tF1_/••••"---'A.','--•,-.4..'•-•,•-•-•w:2!,/ • . /A...„,, ..... rj"c1.-::•:•-..74.-•••‘'''' . 6, - • /v7-77\ L, N IS "•.. . .• sitlAt:!?.•:.-,:l.i•C•.•1,13.L•••"•;'4 ‘ ./..c1 • '1 .`t.;:::: . . . .ki::•0;.',1,3-'4:•...;••7:7.1: t •\,/ \— • \ \ . -1...q..: ele.',„.4.??:.:••2;04• *-0 • • 7.-G.:.•71.-,-_,:,;'. 7::•i.::','- '2•;-':•,t • • \ •c;:A- .i:• k: •:••••-•:, -- . ..Q. -c.F.,a--_ \ \ • . '‘•:••'' :* .:77.7-r:_-_::----• \ V ' .%V ---, '.1 *. .•-:• ",* • : • : - , , 7\ i' -2 . -• " " "7 - -V" 17:::...-4-..G.:1,---....:- <--.•,. -.1.,.„.0. - • 01 Cp ,__\ -0 -.,.., •,... Nsf‹,.... a. • ./.,. /1.- - ..,,c-(0 —$:• .. -0. ....../•••• 0. ( .\37 .•• •ir r , . 7:-•-- 71:: o.•'. ; r (.9 .1., ' - • : , • • I • • . ..e.,-- -.-.--,•;,_-, 104-1:›1 . A . 7:L.:.... .i..-..-, '1 • t . . • / / i-;-.1• i \ . • Z.N. \ x...•cc-, if a' k:::-Z",e;•-••••••••-•" -0:.---h•.(,--,-; ,.., , I.- .A • •• s'-:.cs• .-. • . — s .- -.- • ' .°o • " . , - ie. - - - • . 1 C---- . . •- 0 7::.,_•'-•5.C. 4.••••••-) -• - -5-7., `• . . --5- >. \ • • !` i • - - ' ......-• .... ., . —, ,:..,i.:::::...• • -.• •t 7.c.ist• .7r,"3- •%•••••- ::.:3 A-cir" icC..e.A .;,4•75 A-54 ••:!..E1417,W.,,,-. ---. r". a, • E.:4..4=70/5;;; . A--st:41*Fey::: - ,..,.. k:-•:. .• N.5.,:..,•:-.,-.! ...... --- -i n•i:T4'";.:• allip,ce,t4TEE,A5 e,uetertg ••etr.t.•;,4+ . iti'4A:3:... • • Lii-i 1 r. :••,....,:....••• , •'{•-•ts'4..4-..:, VWeis,• •'".••• . 10., Ar/:A1-::3 A'---6 •S' A...,.....m...-_, 5 tit. TLAI-1 DA 26.(11 Cethibrt. __EL.__ ..„-:,„...„,. .. ...,..,...,,..4 ,,,,,,..,„:„. ,..;,..:„..„.,. ., . ... .,, -,,,,._ , '•',V4F';'•P',''"` ^ " ""' r• , • - SEE SHEET 2A - Li./. ► , -•--1C D a ...A.,>--,..---,-. ,j , \ \ 1/.6>L11. - . :-„-...._401-1 r„)1.)04.1:171" (119:::'7, I i 112 ,r--....-.!1\E: 4 "‘•:.:\l'Ar \ '7;1' s \';.1..1111r1: .1 :::::: \ . to z 0 II' \ ^;:I j r,li—1 _, I ' �'„..,. /SITE tI7,+ \„ v-e'rn 1 III' • `—` I I s I I i;J. }J' i � �� , 11^t1 I I 1 1 1 \ ! III 1 \\ . 1 ,• 1t \� ,`�=i.. 1 I 1 1 i i / .‘n .."7\1.' ;, 'a A I I I e iIIli tat v_ .1 • , , i _ r—.- i Tr !AY ;�, Woo° , \ '\; 1 ✓•- IS:_I / /" ' 1 t r _.....‘_\53 Li 1 ,--- , , , ' ,..,, "e "‘ i. ,, L H __..,--\,;-- .-.... \ .i...----1-" ‘ .--=:--,' (\ �•�-.�� `\ `, -�\� ,;;� . 1�;� '\, :.� ::�,_ns. ii Y v- ---\----1,---7-7,.\\.., ,-• ..--,:.--.--::----::::;;Y • ,!------ -- ic\N .\N---Li___ --- I- ‘ '-'''C'j , \-'-:,.:;:,—L-7-.'\.r.----.... ‘,.:..,:„...1:1'...\... .\.:,.."-•.,..1(......./....t.' :<:,,,'-':'1,is.f..\-"'--. il;7\ '?.t.':3,f,""to �r `ten` \ \ •s.�• /' j i I .,. __ ,.,,,:. ,..,...-.,. ,(,..,.. i.,.\.. .,..• ,. -,t.----....4; ri_____, „2---....), . • , •,....7..., , . I.: i ; ---.: °; "` �`�"'• THE PART CAI TH;i m lr.' .3 .' CIT\' OF SANTINA ZONING MAP ^ t. o DUBLIN I THOMPSOAa�,.�� na 1I it CT\ 0 `t_` ll- 2 PRINTED i CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 5, 1989 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff REPORT PREPARED BY: C` Rod Barger, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PA 89-037 Valley Nissan/Mitsubishi Conditional Use Permit Extension Request GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit extension request to maintain the existing use of automobile dealerships at 6015-6015B Scarlett Court APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Ken Boswell Valley Nissan/Mitsubishi 6015 Scarlett Court Dublin, CA 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: Dublin Properties c/o G.E. Schaufler 901 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94109 LOCATION: 6015-6015B Scarlett Court ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-550-32-2 & 3 PARCEL SIZE: 4.03 acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial/Industrial - Business Park Industrial: Outdoor Storage EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: M-1 Light Industrial Existing Valley Nissan Mitsubishi Auto Sales & Service Facility SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: M-1, Dublin Security Storage Facility South: Freeway I-580 East : M-1, Eighty Four Lumber West : M-1, Scotsman Manufacturing ZONING HISTORY: November 6, 1978: A parcel map was approved which subdivided 10.6+ acres into four parcels. March 23, 1982: A Site Development Review application was approved for a 9,800+ square foot office. February 6, 1984: A Conditional Use Permit to establish two car dealerships (Datsun/Nissan and Buick dealerships) was approved by the Dublin Planning Commission (PA 84-001). August 7, 1984: A Site Development Review application was approved for a 9,800+ square foot office. COPIES TO: Applicant I Owner ITEM NO. g. File PA 89-037 March 3, 1986: Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review approvals were granted allowing the construction of an 11,000+ square foot showroom and service building for a Volvo auto dealership and a future undisclosed auto dealership in the existing Valley Nissan Auto Complex at 6031 Scarlett Court (PA 86-002). APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: An automobile dealership is not listed as a permitted, or conditionally permitted, use in the M-1 District. However, Section 8-51.3(1) authorizes the Zoning Administrator to approve other uses which meet the intent of the M-1 District. Section 8-51.0 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS: INTENT. Light Industrial Districts, hereinafter designated as M-1 District, are established to provide for and encourage the development of light industrial, manufacturing and processing uses in areas suitable for such use, and to promote a desirable and attractive working environment with a minimum of detriment to surrounding properties. Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or peformance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the June 19, 1989, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. BACKGROUND: On June 19, 1989, the Commission held a public hearing on this request. The Commission determined that it would be inappropriate to take action on the item since the Applicant was not present to respond to their concerns. Consequently, the application was continued to tonight's meeting. Staff contacted Valley Nissan Mitsubishi and found that the individual representing their company had just recently left the organization the week prior to June 19, 1989. Valley Nissan/Mitsubishi's new General Manager indicated that he would be at tonight's meeting to represent this request. -2- ANALYSIS: This application involves a Conditional Use Permit extension request from Valley Nissan/Mitsubishi to allow the continued use of auto dealerships and service centers at 6015-6015B Scarlett Court. On March 3, 1986 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 86-012 approving Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications to allow the construction of an 11,000+ square foot showroom and service building for a Volvo dealership and a future auto dealership, all to be located within the existing Valley Nissan auto dealership complex. The facility was constructed and the complex subsequently housed the Valley Nissan and Volvo dealerships. The Volvo dealership has since been replaced by a Mitsubishi dealership. The Conditional Use Permit for this facility was valid until February 6, 1989. The Applicant has the option of requesting an extension of this Conditional Use Permit for an additional two years from the Planning Commission. The Applicant has formally made the two year extension request, and the issue is now before the Commission for consideration. The extension request has been reviewed by the Building, Public Works, Police and Fire Departments. No problems or complaints were received. The Planning Department supports the request in that all Conditions of Approval have been complied with and the Findings established in Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-12 remain applicable. Because there have not been any complaints, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the extension request for three years (until July 14, 1992) at which time the Applicant may request an Administrative Extension for an additional two (2) years from the Planning Director. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5) Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit extension for PA 89-037, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit extension for PA 89-037. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit extension for PA 89-037 Background Attachments: Attachment 1: Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-012 approving PA 86-002 Volvo Auto Dealership Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review Attachment 2: Applicant's letter requesting Conditional Use Permit extension Attachment 3: Site Plan Attachment 4: Schematic Landscape Plan -3- RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 89-037 VALLEY NISSAN/MITSUBISHI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION REQUEST TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING USE OF AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS AT 6015-6015B SCARLETT COURT WHEREAS, the General Manager of Valley Nissan/Mitsubishi filed a request for a two year extension of the Conditional Use Permit (approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-012, PA 86-002) that allowed the operation of an 11,000+ square foot showroom and service building for automobile dealerships at 6015 and 6015B Scarlett Court; and WHEREAS, the adopted City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, which in part provides for the establishment of uses in M-1, Light Industrial Districts, does not specifically list automobile dealerships as permitted uses or conditionally permitted uses, but does allow the Zoning Administrator to approve other uses which are determined to meet the intent of the M-1, Light Industrial District; and; WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on June 19, 1989 to consider all reports, recommendations and testimony, and continued the item to the July 5, 1989 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on July 5, 1989 to consider all reports, recommendations and testimony; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heared and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the land use, if conditionally approved, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area and will not overburden public services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: a) The existing automotive dealership (an 11,000+ square foot showroom and service building) serve the public need by providing a wider range of commercial products and services to the residents of the City. b) The uses will be properly related to other land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, as the proposed uses will be compatible to said land uses, and transportation and services facilities when compared to the type and nature of operations typically found in Light Industrial District areas and the uses currently in operation in the immediate vicinity. c) The uses will not materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, as all applicable regulations will be met. d) The uses will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district in which they are to be located. �� BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve PA 89-037 subject to the following conditions: 1) This Conditional Use Permit approval shall be valid for a period of three (3) years until July 14, 1992, at which time the Applicant may request an administrative extension for an additional two (2) years from the Planning Director provided such written request is made prior to the permit expiration date and upon determination that the conditions are being complied with and remain adequate to ensure that the stated findings will continue to be met. 2) The Applicant is required to maintain complete compliance with all conditions of approval established in Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-012, approved and adopted on March 3, 1986. 3) This Conditional Use Permit shall be void if any of the terms or conditions of the permit are violated. Any violation of the terms or conditions of the permit shall be subject to Citations. 4) This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director -2- n r J f f P-..•n ��°Iffi (#t. ' Y -., •sf :•pl'�;f�.t�/,}S til�#, :k.,:J,f+C tH'{'.'aw•`� 41f's✓. ..r,.r�F. ° i n N . „A � an {P y..,1 ‘ e 3tI itsitat ,�f r s t 9Wf y • ; a 7 � ) 1� ,or„;.—; • t, r- 04' ` "fit •" 4. t � Y wt � 0- A#,.. .; at t r t s:.r f' a �},s/ b # t (s jJ ' t RESOLUTION NO. 86-012 % v A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN • w....,. ,.nrtS -sns}:�?',�y"+..r r P+ 'r'�'*r ;.::rr.... �_. _ APPROVING„PA1186=002 AVOLVO,AUTO 4DEALERSHIPZCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE , DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 6031 SCARLETT COURT WHEREAS, Walter Koenig, representing Koenig-Von Stark Investments, filed applications for a Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review requesting amendment of PA 84-001 and PA 84-017 to allow the construction of an 11,000+ square foot showroom and service building for a Volvo Auto Dealership and a future, undisclosed auto dealership, to be located within the existing Valley Nissan Auto Dealership complex at 6031 Scarlett Court; and WHEREAS, the adopted City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, which in part provides for the establishment of uses in M-1, Light Industrial Districts, does not specifically list automobile dealerships as permitted uses or conditionally permitted uses, but does allow the Zoning Administrator to approve other uses which are determined to meet the intent of the M-1, Light Industrial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said applications on March 3, 1986; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review applications be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth; and WHEREAS, the proposed land use, if conditionally approved, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area and will not overburden public services; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission finds: a) Modification and expansion of the existing automotive dealership to provide the addition of two additional dealerships and the development of an 11,000+ square foot showroom and service building serves the public need by providing a wider range of commercial products and services to the residents of the City. b) The uses will be properly related to other land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, as the proposed uses will be compatible to said land uses, and transportation and services facilities • when compared to the type and nature of operations typically found in Light Industrial District areas and the uses currently in operation in the immediate vicinity. c) The uses will not materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, as all applicable regulations will be met. d) The uses will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district in which they are to be located. e) The approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review will be consistent with the Dublin General Plan. NIT Atli/A/Kr 1 1 —1— BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve said Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review applications as shown by materials labeled Exhibit B and Attachment 2, on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the auto dealership/service center shall be as generally shown on the building elevations submitted with the application consisting of one sheet prepared by Katotakis Contractors (dated received January 10, 1986), as generally shown on the site plan and floor plans prepared by Paul E. Iacono, Civil and Structural Engineer and General Contractors, including Sheets 1 and 2 of the materials dated received by the City Building Inspection Department on February 25, 1986, and as described by the applicant's written statement, dated received February 27, 1986. . Development shall be subject to final review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a " building permit and shall be subject to the conditions listed below. 2. The permit for the auto dealership/service center shall be valid until February 6, 1989, to coincide with the previous Conditional Use Permit (PA 84-001), at which time the applicant may request an extension for an additional two (2) years from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may grant the extension upon making a determination that the findings made as part of this Resolution remain applicable. The request for an extension shall be scheduled as a public hearing item on a regularly scheduled Planning Commission hearing. Failure to establish the use within the two years of the effective date of the permit will cause the permit to become null and void. • 3. Development shall comply with the Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions and the City of Dublin Police Services Standard Commercial Building Security Requirements (see Attachments A and B). 4. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be permitted outside the enclosed building. 5. All new signs established at this site shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director as regards size, location, copy, construction materials and design. A sign program for the new auto dealership/service center shall be approved prior to occupancy of the new structure. Non—accessory signs located in the northeast and southwest corners of the site shall be removed within 60 days of the effective date of this permit. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit a letter documenting that the requirements_of the D.S.R.S.D. — Fire Department have been, or will be, satisfied. The applicant is referred to the letter of January 27, 1986, from the Fire Department (see Attachment C). 7. The layout of on—site customer parking (both for the customers of the auto dealerships and for the customers of the service facilities) and employee parking (minimum of three spaces for each four employees for shift with the largest number of employees) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director within 60 days of the effective date of this permit. Upon approval by the City of the parking plan, said plan shall be established in conjunction with the development of the proposed new structure. 8. The applicant shall prepare, in conjunction with the parking plan detailed in Condition #7, a parking control plan detailing areas where painted red curbs and directional signing information shall be utilized to designate no—parking areas (for areas such as drive aisles or alongside buildings). Said plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and City Engineer (input from the Fire Department may be solicited) within 60 days of the effective date of this permit. Upon approval of this parking control plan, said plan shall be incorporated across the site in conjunction with the development of the proposed new structure. 9. The architectural design of the new structure, and the exterior materials utilized, shall match or compliment the exterior materials of the existing structures, and shall generally conform to Conditions #19 and #31 of the Conditions of Approval for PA 84-017 (see Attachment•E). 10. The developer shall be responsible to correct deficiencies along the existing frontage improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (e.g., cracked or offset sidewalks). t , Nlpf 11. The finished floor elevation of the new building shall be a minimum of 330 feet above the mean sea level to provide clearance above the established 100=year water surface'elevation'for" this'site.. '" ' ' ' . 12. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan for the portion of the site to be modified by this project shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the' Planning Director. The Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall generally conform with Conditions #18, #20 and #21 of the Conditions of Approval for PA 84-017 (see Attachment E). 13. The advertising display located in the northwest corner of the site (i.e. , "Used Car" - "This week's special" placed on an elevated car oriented for visibility from the freeway) shall be removed within 30 days of the effective date of this permit, advertising or .promotional activities of this nature shall not occur on site unless a Conditional Use Permit or Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval is granted covering the specific promotional event. 14. Uncovered exterior storage located adjoining the northwest corner of the westernmost existing structure shall be removed from the site within 30 days 'of the effective date of this permit. A plan for handling waste materials generated at this site, which shall include a minimum of two formal trash bin enclosure areas, shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Director within 60 days of the effective date of this permit. Upon the approval by the City of this plan, said trash control measures shall be incorporated across the site in conjunction with the development of the new proposed structure. 15. Development shall comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department, which may require installation of automatic sprinklers for the existing office, showroom, canopy, and the proposed showroom and service building. Any major adjustments to the size, footprint, design or location of the proposed showroom and service building prompted by compliance with the requirements of the Building Inspector shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 16. The new auto dealership/service center use established under this permit shall be subject to review after the one-year anniversary of initial occupancy to determine compliance with the above conditions or what additional requirements may be needed. The Planning Director may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for disposition at that time. 17. Except as may be specifically modified by these conditions, development of the subject property shall continue to be subject to the Conditions of Approval established for PA 84-001 and PA 84-017. Special attention should be given to Conditions #12, #13, #14, #15, #23, #25, #27, 429, #30, 433, #34 and #35 for PA 84-017 (see Attachments D and E). 18. At any time during the effectiveness of this approval, the approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 1986. AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack Petty and Raley NOES: None ABSENT: None (Planning;-omission Chairperson AT EST: ViYec P anning Director • 12:5LB/ 7 NISSAN March 22, 1989 Mr. Rod Barger • Senior Planner Planning & Zoning Department City of Oakland P.O. Box 2340 • Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Renewal of Conditional Use Permit #PA 86-002 Dear Mr. Barger: Enclosed you will find all the necessary documents required by your Planning Department to review and process a renewal on our Conditional Use Permit #PA 86-002 for our Automobile Dealership (Valley Nissan/ Mitsubishi) located here in Dublin. - Application Form - Application Fee $35.00 - Environment Assessment Form - Location Map - Mailing Labels for property owners within 300 feet - 8} x 11 Reductions of Plans - Site Plans - Landscape Plan - Floor Plan of Building Also, I would like to provide your Planning Department and the City of Dublin with some information about our Automobile Dealership, located at 6015-6015B Scarlett Court, here in Dublin, California. As you might already know, through our recent advertising, we are new to the Dublin Business Community. The principal owners of this dealership, and the property, have also owned British Motor Car Distributors, Ltd. , located at 901 Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco for the past thirty years. Our operation here in Dublin consists of two Factory Authorized Automobile Dealerships, one with Nissan Motor Corporation and the other with Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America. The Nissan Dealership, which has been here a few years, is located at 6015 Scarlett Court where we have a New and Used Car Sales Department, Service Department, and Parts Department to serve this .. r a ATTACHMENT 141 AR 2 21989 pUBl1N PLANNING 6015 Scarlett Court • Dublin Ca 94568 • t4 5 S29-0800 ' NISSAN Page 2 market area. The Mitsubishi Dealership, located at 6015B Scarlett Court, is a startup operation, having just been appointed last December by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America. We also have a Mitsubishi Sales Department supported by a small Service and Parts Department that will grow as our market penetration increases. •Currently, we employ nearly sixty people from the Dublin and surrounding Communities. Naturally, our Automobile Dealership here in Dublin will continue to provide substantial tax revenue and help support our economy on a local and state level. I hope you will find all the information provided helpful with your renewal process. If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to call! Since ely, K ne h Boswe 1 Gener 1 Manager KB:wf enclosures cc: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director Juanita Stagner, Zoning Investigator • 6015 Scarlett Courc • Dublin Ca.945BS • (4 5)829-CS00 J 8o 0 O Q . , '-- 2 I., Y 0.W r-D W I - -- aro& SSA ) 7r si /fir } .• , I =--=— , (Ji J I F- Z 1 r I X -- -' I g I ul I y -- I 1 1 --� - I I Z 1. _' tl 4 I > g. � D- ._______ Hi 7--- — CC O• _ , T—________ _ _ r ° • am d Elf nj 0 1/49 -- d PIP 1---I Q �1 ` —1 j -- I L I6 '(` Z1 2 � _ - Zt Z 0; Ta wd ?: (1 LI -° I _ 1 — — ,`,m V d I ■ w b I J L , R 1EI� E 1IV E L) t ., - - ATI 989 - 'NING CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 5, 1989 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff pb }r REPORT PREPARED BY: Trudi Ryan/John Donahoe;\``Projecct Planner SUBJECT: PA 88-139 Crown Chevrolet GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review APPLICANT: Pat Costello, Crown Chevrolet 7544 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: Betty J. Woolverton 1484 Emmons Canyon Drive Danville, CA 94521 LOCATION: East side of Golden Gate Drive South of 7544 Dublin Boulevard ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-1500-32 PARCEL SIZE: 1.97+ acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Regional Transit/Mixed Use EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: C-2/Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: C-2/Auto Dealership South: C-2/Office & Lab Facilities East : M-1/Retail/Vacant West : Planned Development (commercial); vacant ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Negative Declaration NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the April 17, 1989, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. BACKGROUND: At the request of the Applicant, this item was continued from the Planning Commission hearing of April 17, 1989, so that the Applicant could evaluate alternatives for the project. The Applicant submitted a revised site plan for storage of 118 vehicles. This revised plan deleted the proposed 134 spaces for employee/customer parking and revised the storage area from 102 to 118 vehicles. The revised plan used only the northern half of the property. COPIES TO: Applicant Owner ITEM NO. &am File PA 88-139 This project was then continued from the June 5, 1989 Planning Commission meeting so that Staff could prepare revised resolutions consistent with Commission direction. At the June 5, 1989 meeting, the Applicant indicated that, as a future road would be going through the property, he did not feel the expense of landscaping, irrigation and paving of a vehicle storage area was warranted. In addition, the Applicant stated that they wanted to fence the entire parcel to preclude the illegal dumping of materials on the rear portions of the project site. The Planning Commission concurred with this sentiment and directed Staff to prepare revised resolutions and conditions of approval for: 1) a one-year Conditional Use Permit with possible two, one-year extensions available form the Planning Director; 2) 10 foot wide landscaping strips on the east and west sides of the storage area; and 3) gravel surface for the storage area. Staff indicated that the last item would require input from the City Engineer. ANAYLSIS: The City Engineer expressed concern that a gravel surface could be tracked into the public street during the winter (rainy) months. The more driving there is on the surface, the rougher the surface may become resulting in more gravel tracked onto the street. These tendencies can be minimized by 1) require a base rock layer with a chip seal surface (oil and gravel mix) and 2) preclude direct access from the storage area to the public streets and provide a minimum distance of 10+ feet between graveled area and the public street. Staff believes that a paved surface is more desirable in the downtown area; however, a temporary graveled area, with appropriate controls could be acceptable. The Conditional Use Permit procedure requires a finding that the project is not contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards for the district in which it is located. The Site Development Review procedure requires a finding that the project promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development. In addition a project should conform to the General Plan and Specific Plan. The Downtown Specific Plan provides policy direction for the appearance of downtown development. Specifically: Parking C4) The City shall require that parking lots be appropriately landscaped. Urban Design E2) The City shall require adequate screening between sidewalks and parking lots E3) The City shall encourage a high level of building, landscaping and signing quality. "Interim Use Zone A" in which this property is located requires a recognition that the property is highly visible from I-580 and does much to establish the image of Downtown Dublin. The following development standards apply to the entire downtown: a) Parking lots shall be screened by low walls and/or landscaping from adjacent streets b) Parking lots shall contain a minimum of 20% of their surface area in landscaping -2- It is the Staff's interpretation of the Specific Plan that this project should be 20% landscaped. A vehicle storage area is not a "parking lot" in that vehicles are not coming and going throughout the day, but the visual effects and glare associated with vehicle storage is much the same, including the site's visibility from Interstate 580. However, the Planning Commission has indicated a possible different interpretation relative to this project. The Planning Commission will have to make the findings (d., g. and h. for the Conditional Use Permit and a. and d. for the Site Development Review) to approve the project as indicated by the direction from the June 5, 1989 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Re-open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5) Make findings, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the needed findings, then approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review with appropriate conditions. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review Site Plan Exhibit B: Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Exhibit C: Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit Exhibit D: Resolution approving the Site Development Review -3- 1 rr1154.• 008C-191i(9I1) 9991,0'•D'.°1 Id = I it o,.�� —t07•ling'•ny.ny •1...1IIg0 o•E 10o'fg .a a a o,�°.o r.-1UJ.ieeuIli°3 IIAID ZE0-00S1 . _"d'V 13108A340 NMOH3 f gyp~ � u,. ,rA coiy war'i:o 3I99aH�➢aewwnld N. .J 3dVaSO4VI OJV 3118 i" j� if/- tS.'X -) 1\,s /7 ."4.*tlj, t• I. 1 ter' -( •/'rrn• sz • .L.ut M y iL P. ___ .+•.,war...�.o.. a..i.a..� __ n g ' ECEIVED -_ 1989 °�° I ill UBLIN PLANNING. < l fF air-t `i - 1- --a o - e ti y � I .1 . • i • '';'. ' i i < a I o o 1 —— —___I —J1 • 3 l X A f i J I ■_ 4 1 y) •,�.. I i .. . . ♦wwJe Xa yr✓ y P• .min.Ili.f_ �. l' iii w--:^''y 3Altfa 31VJN3410`J I j L y,r 7 • �C r I • i I 1 r 'TT �1(�7 %`r _ : I1J/y ' T� a • i ?A470 SIP 13q � i � �� _1 St` . fin RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COO{ISSIO:N OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR PA 88-139 CROWN CHEVROLET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, GOLDEN GATE DRIVE, SOUTH OF 7544 DUBLIN BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Pat Costello on behalf of Crown Chevrolet, filed applications requesting Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review approvals of a vehicle storage area located on the east side of Golden Gate Drive, more specifically APN 941-1550-32; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , together with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain •projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted finding that the project, as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application; and • WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration was given in all respects as required by State Law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration at a public hearing on June 5, 1989 and July 5, 1989; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: 1. That the project PA 88-139 Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review will not have a significant effect on the • environment; 2. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations; and 3. That the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate. • • • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration for PA 88-139 Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director PR SS- (VI EXHIBITa.. Heg Zec RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 88-139 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE CROWN CHEVROLET ON GOLDEN GATE DRIVE SOUTH OF 7544 DUBLIN BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Pat Costello, on behalf of Crown Chevrolet, filed a Conditional Use Permit request for a proposed exterior car storage area for the Crown Chevrolet Auto Dealership by the creation of a new 108'+ x 400+ area (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the adopted City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance provides in part for the establishment of an automobile, camper, boat and trailer sales, and storage lot as a Conditional Use; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 44-87, an Ordinance of the City of Dublin establishing right-of-way lines, was adopted by the City Council and became effective on October 28, 1987; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 44-87 makes it unlawful to construct any building or structure, as defined therein, within the right-of-way established pursuant to Ordinance 44-87; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing the right- of-way lines for a future road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard, and a portion of such right-of-way line falls within the subject property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 11-88, an ordinance requiring dedication and improvement of right-of-way, requires that no Conditional Use Permit shall be issued in connection with the construction of any building or structure on any lot, the use of such building or structure will result in an increase in traffic on the street or streets upon which such lot abuts or will abut unless the area within the future right-of-way lines of such lot has been granted to the City; and WHEREAS, the off-street vehicular storage proposed for this property is not required for the use of this or any other property and is therefore not included in the definition of building or structure in Ordinance 44-87 and Ordinance 11-88; and WHEREAS, a traffic study was prepared by the City's traffic engineer, the results of which indicate that additional traffic associated with this Conditional Use Permit is not significant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on April 17, 1989, July 5, 1989 and July 5, 1989; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. ) as the project will not have a negative effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Conditional Use Permit application be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the proposed land use, as conditioned, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area and will not overburden public services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: a) Construction of the new vehicle storage lot area serves the public need by providing for the expansion of an existing automobile dealership facility. EXHIBIT C. PRSg-l?,� b) The use will be properly related to other land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, as the proposed uses will be compatible to said land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the immediate vicinity. c) The use will not materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, as all applicable regulations will be met. d) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clause on performance standards established for the district in which it is to be located, due to the Planning Commission determination that the project is of a "temporary" nature and not subject to the same level of review as "permanent projects. e) The approval of the project as conditioned is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. f) General site considerations, as conditioned, including site layout, orientation, vehicular access, circulation and parking, have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. g) General project landscaping provisions for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements as modified by the Planning Commission, have been considered to insure visual relief and to provide an attractive environment to the public. h) The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the policies contained in the City's General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, based on the Planning Commission's determination that the use is of a "temporary" nature and the use does not qualify as a "parking lot". i) The project is not a "building or structure" within the meaning of Ordinance 44-87 or Ordinance 11-88 and the project would not significantly increase traffic to a level which would necessitate the dedication of future right-of-way under Ordinance 11-88. The project can therefore be approved in the proposed location and without dedication of right-of-way. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve Conditional Use Permit application PA 88-139 as shown by materials labeled Exhibit A, on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to issuance of grading permits and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. 1. Development of the vehicular storage and employee/customer parking areas shall generally conform with the plans prepared by Plummer & Babbit Civil Engineering, Inc., consisting of 1 sheet dated received by Dublin Planning May 16, 1989 and literature from Holophane Somerset area luminaires consisting of 5 sheets, and dated received by Dublin Planning Department November 18, 1988. Collectively, these materials shall serve as "Exhibit A" for this project and shall be maintained on file with the Planning Department. Development of the exterior vehicle storage area shall reflect the changes called for in these Conditions of Approval. 2. Approval for the Conditional Use Permit shall be until July 15, 1990. The approval period for the Conditional Use Permit may be extended for up to two one-year extensions (Applicant must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the Conditional Use Permit) by the Planning Director upon his determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that the above stated findings will continue to be met. If construction of the project has not commenced by July 15, 1990, this approval shall be null and void. Development shall be subject to the listed conditions below. 3. Site Development Review approval for this project shall be secured prior to issuance of any construction permits. -2- 4. This Conditional Use Permit shall provide storage/parking for up to a maximum of 118 vehicles. 5. All two-way travel aisles shall be a minimum width of 25 feet and one way aisles shall be a minimum width of 20 feet. Full sized parking spaces shall be a minimum of 18 feet in length and 9 feet in width. Compact spaces shall be a minimum length of 16 feet and width of 8 feet. Up to 35% of the parking may be for compact cars. All spaces for compact cars shall be marked for "small car" or "compact car". 6. No parking is permitted within the public right-of-way. 7. This Conditional Use Permit shall be void if any of the terms or conditions of the permit are violated. Any violation of the terms or conditions of the permit shall be subject to Citation. ARCHAEOLOGY 8. If, during grading activities, archaeological remains are encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the City Planning Department notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect them. DRAINAGE 9. A grading and drainage plan shall be prepared and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Calculations (hydraulic) shall be prepared by the Developer for review by the City Engineer to determine the sizing of the drainage lines. The minimum and maximum gradients of the new parking area should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 10. Concentrated drainage shall not be directed onto adjacent properties, sidewalks and driveways. 11. Where storm water flows against a curb, a curb with gutter shall be used. The flow line of all asphalt paved areas carrying waters shall be slurry sealed at least three feet on either side of the center of the swale. DEBRIS/DUST/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 12. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The Developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud and materials during the construction period. The Developer shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City of Dublin. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be watered, or other dust-palliative measures used, to prevent dust, as conditions warrant. EASEMENTS 13. The developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for improvements or construction activity required outside of the subject properties. Copies of the easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be furnished to the City Engineer. FIRE PROTECTION 14. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the Developer shall supply written confirmation that the requirements of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority have been, or will be, met. GRADING AND PAVING 15. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all on and off-site grading. -3- 16. The parking and driveway surfacing shall be chip seal upon a base rock. City Engineer shall retain review authority of the project's structural pavement design. The Developer shall, at his sole expense, make tests of the soil over which the surfacing and base is to be constructed and furnish the test reports to the City Engineer. 17. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City Engineer for any work done within the public right-of-way. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PLANS 18. A detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan (at 1 inch — 20 feet or larger), along with a cost estimate of the work and materials proposed, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. 19. A 10 foot wide landscaping strip shall be installed along both the west and east property boundaries of the property and shall include 15-gallon sized trees (with a minimum planting ratio of one tree at 25 linear feet) and shall also include clumped plantings of shrubs (with a minimum planting ratio of one shrub at 5-linear feet). LIGHTING 20. Exterior lighting shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties and should provide a minimum of one foot candle of light at ground level for the entire storage/parking area. Photometrics for area lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Dublin Police Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. STORAGE AND EXTERIOR ACTIVITIES 21. With the exception of storage of vehicles and minor vehicle preparation work, no exterior demonstrations, displays, services, or other activities shall occur in the new vehicle storage parking area. 22. Washing vehicles with any type of detergent or cleaning agent other than water is not permitted. MISCELLANEOUS 23. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved landscaping and irrigation plans and the drainage and grading plans prior to use of the proposed vehicle storage area. 24. A Master Striping Plan for the proposed vehicle storage area and adjoining parking and driveway areas shall be prepared and submitted by the Developer for review and approval by the Planning Director. This plan shall detail all striping and driveway aisle locations. 25. A parking plan for the entire car dealership facility shall be prepared and submitted by the Developer detailing the number and location of the following assigned parking areas: car dealership customer parking, employee parking, service customer parking, and vendor/visitor parking. 26. Approval from ACFC & WCD - Zone 7 shall be secured by the Developer for connection into their storm drainage system. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director -4- RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR PA 88-139 CROWN CHEVROLET ON GOLDEN GATE DRIVE, SOUTH OF 7544 DUBLIN BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Crown Chevrolet is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and concurrent Site Development Review for a vehicle storage area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said applications on April 17, 1989, June 5, 1989 and July 5, 1989; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby find that: a. The project will promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development in that lighting and landscaping, as determined by the Planning Commission, have been incorporated into the project in order to insure compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of planned future land uses. b. The project recognizes environmental limitations on development. c. The project will stabilize land values and investments in the area in that it is compatible to existing and planned land uses in the area, as conditioned, will be visually attractive, will not overburden public services, and will provide additional parking and storage for a Dublin business. d. The project will promote the general welfare as it meets the specific intent clauses or performance standards of the City of Dublin zoning regulations, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, based on the Planning Commission's determination that the project is a "temporary use". e. The project is properly related to its site, surroundings, traffic circulation, and its environmental setting. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve Site Development Review application PA 88-139 subject to the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise specified, the following conditions shall be complied with prior to issuance of building permits. Each item is subject to review and approval by the Planning Department unless otherwise specified. 1. This approval is for Site Development Review of up to a maximum of 118 vehicle storage spaces on a 1.97+ acre lot, consistent with the following submittals: a. Site and grading plans and boundary and topographic survey prepared by Plummer & Babbitt Civil Engineering, Inc. consisting of 1 sheet dated received by Dublin Planning May 16, 1989. EXHIBIT D b. Manufacturer's literature titled "Halophane Somerset area luminaires" consisting of 5 sheets and dated received by Dublin Planning November 18, 1988. Collectively, these materials shall serve as "Exhibit A" for this project and shall be maintained on file with the Planning Department. 2. Except as specifically modified or elaborated upon by the conditions listed below, development of the storage areas shall conform to the Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval established by Planning Commission Resolution No. , approved on July 5, 1989. 3. Except as may be specifically provided for within these Conditions of Approval, the development shall comply with City of Dublin's Site Development Review Standard Conditions items #ld, lk, all of item 2 except 2c and all of item 3. 4. The developer shall complete and submit to the City of Dublin Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance Agreement (see Attachment B). 5. The Site Development Review approval shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of approval. The approval period for the permit may be extended two times for one additional year each time (Developer must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the permits) by the Planning Director upon a determination that the Conditions of Approval will continue to be met. Failure to exercise the approval, or to make substantial progress in completing the project, will cause the permit to be null and void. 6. Widen existing driveway on north property to 35 feet. 7. Pyrus calleryana "Aristocrat" shall be planted as street trees along Golden Gate Driveway, 25 feet on center. All street trees shall receive a permanent irrigation system. 8. No parking is permitted in existing right-of-way (e.g. at curve in property line along Golden Gate Drive). 9. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all on and off-site grading. 10. Existing wood wall shall be removed. 11. Aisle ends of parking rows shall be designed to provide adequate turning area. 12. Lighting of the parking lot shall provide a minimum of one foot candle at ground level for the entire parking lot. 13. The proposed storage area shall be fenced, including a fence along the south end of the storage area. The Applicant may fence the entire parcel, if so desired, but the Applicant must install the fence along the southern end of the storage area. In addition, no vehicular gates will be permitted along the fence line along the southern portion of the storage area. Fencing shall not exceed 10 feet in height and shall be of vinyl-clad chain link. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director -2- CITY OF DUBLIN SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARD CONDITIONS All projects approved by the City of Dublin shall meet the following standard conditions unless specifically exempted by the Planning Department. 1. Final building and site de•selotment_plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: a. That standard commercial or residential security requirements as established by the Dublin Police Department-are provided. b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other appropriate physical features for the handicapped, are provided throughout the site for all publicly used facilities. c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking stalls. d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct offsite viewing. e. That all mechanical equipment, including electrical and gas meters, is architecturally screened from view, and that electrical transformers are either undergrounded or architecturally screened. f. That all trash enclosures are of a sturdy material (preferably masonry) and in harmony with the architecture of the building(s). g. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, fleshings, etc., are painted to match the color of adjacent surface. h. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by. the Dublin Planning Department. Once constructed or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any changes which affect the exterior character shall be • resubmitted to the Dublin Planning Department for approval. i. That each parking space designated for compact cars be identified with a pavement marking reading "Small Car Only" or its equivalent, and additional signing be provided if necessary. j. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and not detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in harmony with the exterior of the building. k. That all other public agencies that require review of the project be supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and that compliance be obtained with at least their minimum Code requirements. A ATIAP.,11Mthi c5.43 U 1_ n n 2. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plans, tree preservation techniques, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the Dublin Planning Department prior to the issuance of the building permit. All such submittals shall insure: a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at least 75% of the proposed trees on the site are a minimum of 15 gallons in size, and at least 50% of the proposed shrubs on the site are minimum of 5 gallons in size. d. That a plan for an automatic:irrigation system be provided which assures that all plants get adequate water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by Staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used. e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces. f. That all cut and fill slopes in excess of 5 feet in height are rounded both horizontally and vertically. g. That all cut and fill slopes graded and not constructed on by September 1, of any given year, are hydroseeded with perennial or native grasses and flowers, and that stock piles of loose soil existing on that date are hydroseeded in a similar manner. h. That the area under the drip line of all existing oaks, walnuts, etc., which are to be saved are fenced during construction and grading operations and no activity is permitted under them that will cause soil compaction or damage to the tree. i. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required guaranteeing all schrubs and ground cover, all trees, and the irrigation system for one year. j. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement. 3. Final inspection or occupancy permits will not be granted until all construction and landscaping is complete in accordance with approved plans and the conditions required by the City. .CHE CITY OF DUBLIN • P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600 STANDARD PLANT MATERIAL, IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT I (property owner) do hereby agree that all plants (trees, shrubs and ground cover) will be installed in accordance with the City of Dublin's approved landscape plan for (name of project) located at • (address) . All plants will be replaced in kind as per the approved plan at such time as they are found to be missing, diseased, damaged, or dead, for at least one (1) year from the date of their installation. I further agree that all plants will henceforth be irrigated, fertilized, weeded and tended on a regular basis such that they will maintain a healthy and weedfree appearance. I further agree that the irrigation system will be installed according to the irrigation plans as aooroved by the City of Dublin, and that said system will be kept in good working order for at least one (1) year from the date of the landscaping installation . This agreement is binding against this and all property owners of record. Signed: Date : e)• ems. I 1 PA gg-.1'f •2- ''------ „, AG 1 /R CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 5, 1989 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff /I REPORT PREPARED BY: Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner Mery SUBJECT: PA 89-047 Goldies Fitness Plus Commercial Recreation Facility CUP GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit request to allow continued operation of a commercial recreation facility (health/fitness center) at 7164 Regional Street APPLICANT: Anne Filice-Gilbertson 99 Cleveland Road, #25 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 REPRESENTATIVE: PROPERTY OWNER: David H. Malcolm Inc. 2150 Shattuck Avenue #819 Berkeley, CA 94704 LOCATION: 7164 Regional Street ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-305-23 PARCEL SIZE: 4.5 acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail/Office DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN: Development Zone 5 - San Ramon Road Retail EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: C-1, Retail Business District Retail Shopping Center SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Small Commercial Retail Center, C-1 South: Woolworth's Nursery, C-1 East : Payless Drug Store, C-1 West : Town & Country Commercial Retail, C-1 ZONING HISTORY: August 12, 1977 - Alameda County approved a Site Development Review application to construct the shopping center July 16, 1987 - Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor seating/eating for Bagel King August 17, 1987 - Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor eating/seating for Bagel King, expires August 17, 1990 COPIES TO: Applicant Owner ITEM NO. •3 File PA 89-047 March 22, 1988 - Planning Director approved Site Development Review for a sign for the shopping center September 19, 1988 - Planning Director approved Site Development Review for Payless Shoe store building APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-48.2 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance identifies commercial recreation facility as a use permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or peformance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt, Class 1, Section 15301 Continued operation of an existing use involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the July 5, 1989, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued operation of a commercial recreation facility (health/fitness center) at 7164 Regional Street. The fitness center has been in operation at 7164 Regional Street without benefit of an approved Conditional Use Permit since 1979. The Applicant indicated she was not aware that an approved Conditional Use Permit is required to operate a fitness center. The Applicant submitted a Conditional Use Permit application in response to a future buyer of the business who contacted the City to varify whether the use was a permitted use. During the past 10 years since the fitness center has operated in the shopping center, the Planning Department has not received any zoning complaints concerning the use. Additionally, the Planning Department was unaware that the fitness center was operating without an approved Conditional Use Permit. The fitness center operates Monday through Friday, between 8:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. through 12 noon. The facility occupies a 2240 square foot tenant space consisting of an exercise area for exercise -2- equipment and aerobic classes, showers, sauna, and locker room. The Applicant estimates that 125 people utilize the facility daily on weekdays and approximately 35 people on Saturday. This application has been reviewed by Public Works, Building, Police and Fire Departments and Dublin San Ramon Services District with no significant issues identified. The Applicant's proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. Additionally, the use is compatible with the surrounding commercial retail uses. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5) Adopt resolution relating to Conditional Use Permit application, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution (Exhibit B) approving PA 89-047 Goldies Fitness Plus Conditional Use Permit ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Floor Plan, Site Plan Exhibit B: Resolution of Approval Background Attachments: Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment 2: Applicant's Planning Application -3- • .1 _ fit • - • ,. ,,,,_ - y, . . . . y �1r 1. •F s-'4f g ', , Y J c-� cj /may :_,.n. . . - - rr E-O"-t, , 81-G ��_ -r- Ior-O _ �-O �I, / \`, I _ n )------------- , i u B/1.TH ;;—� - N9 _o , � • �,�,� VAN tTrIre1 R 11 r i �=—, 1.,v4u • -1P— -mil----+ - - ITTT1-.1--t- --II 1 ---- I --- I I Ext-APT - . 1__OCK. i FA,4--.1 1 1 1>6;" - a J vlNY_ - __ .' ._ �> O 5' - 1. . J b To S f\w SHAP' P1-2-S C -R5 To 61 Fie GL-5 WITH I 5. -oNT V1 _ _- P �x-10 IL • - ��a3TING • - -- WINtpW70 @------ ___ „,ii\,O ______—__ _____ _ \ s Cli:t. RECEIVED . © - X 3 7 ArK . '( 198V i (�--11 II� 11 PUBJJtt P �i NI F Date 11 Jv�Y I'�7D NumL�_ L� Job I I�Co 2,5 Mictkael Wddemar ' &Associates,Incorporated Scale %b� I O Architecture&Planning �� �� `j r 1., suiLoiNG t$ 12226 San Paulo Avenue G I Ot�tAL. �-T-R�!+T ��f ioCi Reinod.Calitornia 94805 J�1 N a1=c:DfzN I" A Coo e 'Platt 1'Ft 8 -Ott7 &oI es fr 9 y Fp' 3 .. . .. rt -. e FwI ks4,ys & �e� : �� . af .#.�. ah .6aM9 ,'ice , q t r 1ek:-.7y r k7 -,i d / i AA c,.'.:7,.-1:,,`",,', k ' K Plaza .. a - _ . S ILA 4 L Anne F 1 1 icc,-1..'�i M"CSV-+'^r_p Almond F'1_ �_t F;c_r.7� un_�.1. �k.. i1!'.r. > n '> E a8„ �;. �_ i �._ _�..r 415) 934-7451 For Goldie ' s Fitness Plust 930-6987 Renional st. 1 1 1 1 1 .- 4 lsiani 4 -. 1 1 ,\1-1. 7 1 1 1 11 1 91 16 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 18 1 11 1 1 1 11_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I'_I —. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 241 1 1 1 1 1= 1 i.--1 1 1 1 1 lx 1 .. = 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1--1 Goldie 1 1 f _ 1 rs _ 1 1 74 1 1= 1 1 1 1 _ + 1 1 1 8 =r 1 _ 1 11 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 <- 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 11 1 1 1— 1— <-- 7 --> 7 --. 1 1 1 1 1 pp R 4 7 Ui5 DUBLIR KANNINQ A4514 11 fin $1-O 4-1 Groi4 es 'Ft i s RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 89-047 GOLDIES FITNESS PLUS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF A COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY (HEALTH/FITNESS CENTER) AT 7164 REGIONAL STREET WHEREAS, Anne Filice-Gilbertson, Goldies Fitness Plus filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit to continue operation of a commercial recreation facility (Health/Fitness Center) at 7164 Regional Street; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been found to be categorically exempt, Class 1, Section 15301 - continued operation of an existing use involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on July 5, 1989; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: a. The use is required by the public need in that it provides a health/fitness center use available to serve the community and neighborhood. b. The use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, in that the use is commensurate with the present use of surrounding properties in the neighborhood. c. The use, if permitted under all circumstances and conditions of this particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area, as all applicable regulations will be met. d. The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clause or performance standards established for the district in which it is to be located, in that the use is consistent with the C-1, Retail Business District, Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan land use designation for the site on which the project is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve PA 89-047, Conditional Use Permit as shown on Exhibit A and subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APRPOVAL: Unless otherwise specified, the following conditions shall be complied with prior to establishment of use. Each item is subject to review and approval by the Planning Department unless otherwise specified. 1. This approval is for a commercial recreation use (Health/Fitness Center) within a 2240+ square foot tenant space at 7164 Regional Street. 2. The use shall generally conform to the interior floor plan submitted with the application for PA 89-047 dated received April 27, 1989 (Exhibit A) on file with the Dublin Planning Department and subject to conditions of approval. T Vn►F� 1 QGsd. fBc sf7 fsoldtec Fuss nu,cm 3. All demonstrations, displays, services, and other activities shall be conducted entirely within the structures on the site, unless subsequently approved on a temporary basis through the Administrative Conditional Use Permit process. 4. No loud speakers or amplified music shall be permitted outside the enclosed building. 5. The Applicant shall not allow any nuisance to be maintained or conducted on the premises. 6. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Dublin Building Department. 7. This Conditional Use Permit approval shall be valid for a period of three (3) years until July 15, 1992, at which time the Applicant may request an administrative extension for an additional two (2) years from the Planning Director provided such written request is made prior to the permit expiration date. 8. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8- 90.7 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Non-compliance of any provisions of the above conditions shall be cause for the initation of hearings before the Planning Commission to determine whether cause is present to revoke this permit. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -2- i6i • I e 1 \�\///l//--/ice c.5. ^ e_�= `^ C1 FO" t it .., ' --Via a ( z, _ I tz - \_. ) *PIP - •$44***111110‘, ,;• '6-0.' *.I.j . a 1'\ {{ �., -! pi.'" 0��--�_�` `� 0 IV =�0 :���10 , a '� le i-i,, c;1 0 t..„6,1, 4111) . 41--:' : -4 3 NI. •_‘‘. • 0% %.1."-r- • .7.- • C 11- fir.. H NN _i'i `I �' �.,fJ "Z�i - `j ^Vf V: C 0 I i� C�__ ti� ;;f , -�.�� in, �ry Z •� - ` ..�-.. _t_f,...,... F..:: _ �.l �� Q �r ;.,2_ \ 1.,140„ _, 1.,.,..i., ________,..„.s.: . .„ ... . \ - , - -411 3,,,,:. ....5.2.2._............. , .., \ • , --1, r1..,,.. ._..:::::,.. ._....., ... ... i.____:....., \ n " \ , •\\\r \ 1 1, n 4 \\\.'*,\ _.--------'''\ .-:-'4?----N\ SI., ..._,,,, .774 'c,.. '\' 1 .- :; N \\\ �/\ \ �' N _ ��w _ •�•"u•« A PART OF THE 'A rl ;Ee 1 o CITY of n SANTINA =- ZONING MAP y•.. -� _+i II- I m «'°,,. 1 DUBLIN THOMPSON uc�. THE CITY OF • '':. m i _ DUBLIN Y' SCE SHEET IC ATTACHMENTL' p 1A 89.O41 &oldies Cu P 1 CITY OF DUBLIN /," P.O.Box 2340 Dublin,CA 94568 (415)829-4600 Planning Department (415) 829-4916 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D Eff.: 1/84 Dublin'CA 94568 PLANNING APPLICATION FORM Notes to Applicant: * Please discuss your proposal with Staff prior to capleting the Planning Application form. * All items related to your specific type of application rust be completed. * Since this is a carprehensive application form, sore of the items might not apply to your specific application. * Please print or type legibly. * Attach additional sheets if necessary. 5(4> 41D---2 18c/ 1. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER A. PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding. I agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal period. Name: --4A);A /11-47/e6/r , /e,• Capacity: Property Owner Address:0 , ,Jl'a-/t/L- Abe,.tj/9 Daytime Phone: (051 8(j/-/a04). L/70(/ ( ) Signature:• • Da • 4/1..7 .10 /9f1 B. APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY n s gnirg this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization of the proper-zv owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the rich_ to ohm' the hearings on the application. If this application has not been signed y owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity oplication and agreement to conditions of approval, subject only to the '_ at the hearings or during the appeal period. Capacity: Daytime Phone: ( ) • Date: • the authorization of the property owner to file this application. the information and erchibits submitted are true and correct. • c: - �,��.e!'F1'Q Capacity: , ,c\�,e) pk,„ .Q;v` 4 3 - Daytir e Phone: (y1S) \' 4- r14 1 \l, iI\ n...t - (`kIB "I Date: . L..j rc\ L_ RECEIVED APR 271989 (OVER) DUBLIN PLANNING lA 894347 60kke4 c o p RAL DATA REQUIRED �� Address or Location of Property: 't-I'L..3 Q Q orb S e,� r, .J E. Assessor Parcel Number(s) : C. Site area: D. Present Zoning: E. Existing Use of Property: w N„q_r> j \�P a\* 1--� c -*) ✓ F. Zoning and Existing Use Of Surrounding Property: Zone Existing Uses - North: 3\\ (eka , , - South: - - - East: • V- West: G. Detailed Description of Proposed Use of Property: M.�\,-,(- L-S'Z 2 u-, n Mp :rk( o -�er(:, is) Z/Nd t"�k, ___ 'p',�\,, : G, ( ,t ' a) (Continue cn separate sheet if necessary) Iv. TYPE OF APPLICATION Check type of planning permit(s) being requested: ❑ Ad—inistrati e Conditional Use Permit 0 Rezoning ❑ Boundary Adjustment 0 Sign • "Conditional Use Permit CDm►mF.t_CLcs-t 0 Site Development Review e-re �'"—J 0 Subdivision Map General Plan AmendmentU� US ❑ Planned Devele_ment A.} .S ❑ Variance ❑ Other: v. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. Planned Development: (See Planned Development Rezoning Submittal Requirements) B. Subdivision Map: (Eoo Subdivision Map Submittal Re uire.*nents) C. Any Other Planning Permit: (See General Submittal Requirements) VI. PROCESSING (See_Planning Application Cover Letter) vii. REFERENCE PHONE NUMBERS Most questions related to the Planning Application should be directed to the Dublin Planning Department, however, some concerns might be addressed directly by another appropriate department er agency: 1. City of Dublin: 2. D,in1:., San Ramon Services District: ' Building Inspection: (415) E,29-08-2 Fir:- ----'' ( !i5) 8291=JJ3 Engineering: (415) 829-4916 Water, Sewer, Garbage: (415) 828-0515 Planning: (415) 829-4916 . Police: (415) 829-0566 3. Zone 7 - Alameda County Flood Control: (415) 443-9300 I Vi , d , CITY OF PUBLIN PA No. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, NT R1M (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) . The State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines require the City to take an active role in preparing environ- mental documents. This comprehensive Environmental Assessment Form is designed to assist the City in preparing a complete and accurate environmental assessment in a timely manner and in conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The form has three sections : General Data, Exemption, and Initial Study. The applicant is requested to complete Section 1, General Data. The Planning Staff will prepare either Section 2, Exemption, or Section 3, Initial Study. Please type or print legibly in ink. ISECTION 1. GENERAL DATA - - - to be completed by the APPLICANT ✓i . Name (if any) and address of project: F;�, , ��j �,�L; RQ j--- 6 S- " �'-'6' 2. Proposed use of property: V..,�,, , >\..0 C-- - 3. Name, address, and telephone of Applicant: kc,_,,,_, -F.\\;ct _ cli-`V -*5� C\Q C\a-Xve.\" \ 'i '-& 5 ' \eaSa k \\,\\ „U\ cO:c 3 a13.-(,,c- s.7 ' -4, Name, address, and telephone of contact Mnct person to addition to applicant orn CI instead of applicant: 'fix C--', , ,,,;i.�J lam'., c\ C.\ z..we\c�-,k C 4 3 C \i`'\{` . S a^.-1 N',\\ i L`C� 1 .3 r r n\ -- I 013 G " C14 i 5. Attached plans are❑ preliminary or Ei fully developed. . 6. Building area: Q. a'*C sa.ft. - 7. Site area: ❑sq.ft. orD acres. 8. Current zoning: 9. Maximum Building Height . Oft. cr❑stories. 10. Describe amount of daily traffic generated by number, type and time of dcy: \ T J 1 i . Number of off-street parking spaces provided: Q�� V 12. Number of loading facilities provided: 1 \;( 83`� 30 bus-;.( -r1 W\,CS - - 4"-z;' Co 30 t t - . _"_ N.,', 13. Proposed development schedule: beginning: 3' co letion: 14.0. If residential: number of new units ; number of existing units ;number of new bedrooms ; unit sizes ;range of❑ sale prices or Drents ; type of dwelling Osingle familyD duplex Dmultiple. /14.b. If commercial: scope,, of project[] neighborhood, D city, D regional l er shift • haurs of sales are <(C Q. .ft. or D acre; estimated employment p operation cr- : 3 1 Sa„i c1-\ 14.c. IF industrial: materials involved ; estimated employment per shift hours of operation • 14.d. IF institutional: major Function estimated employment per shiftpercticn estimated occupcncy ;hours of o • e�-`- K.evie.�v; D va;i6vAc`; 15. Describe City permits required: D Site �evelarm C1 Aciwtiinicrarive (.0mi-how c,1se farrni.t; 0 f -,lassr;cattcvN(r zortiq ; D Pla�vted PEAR-1oprnew-; 12/Ccv‘ditioh0,1 USE_1''..'nn1'rt; D S►gv Gi^ 0 ker Foe- S` ila encies;D regionalg local a 16. Describe other public approvals required: D unknown;0 ., agencies;D state agencies; D Federal agencies; for CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the information submitted is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the findincs of this Environmental Assessment apply only to the project as described ebove. Signature:• • • ( } 4. �'� Date: o 61�( 9 L,.,� 1 Name (print or type): \ cP - ELks " oPC,Q6-0 p k9lc1 Pr Z o F C(l<(�►ti1�c. C�-1J - Z ►J� . CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 5, 1989 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff REPORT PREPARED BY: Rod Barger, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PA 89-058 Southern Pacific Pipelines Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review request to construct a gasoline pump station and power and control center for Southern Pacific Pipelines APPLICANT: Southern Pacific Pipeline Partnership, L.P. Attn: Art Thomassen 888 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 PROPERTY OWNER: Southern Pacific Transportation Company c/o W. B. Curtiss, V.P.-Real Estate 1 Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 LOCATION: 6433 Dougherty Road ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 946-15-3-2 PARCEL SIZE: 6500+ acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage and Transportation Corridor EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: M-1, Light Industrial District Vacant Site SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Parks Military Training Reserve/ A, Agricultural District South: Trucking Company/PD, Planned Development District East : Parks Military Training Reserve/ A, Agricultural District West : American Building Components Yard/ PD, Planned Development District ZONING HISTORY: This property was originally zoned M-1 by Alameda County. It was used by Southern Pacific Railroad as a part of their railroad right-of-way line. The site is pressently vacant. [� COPIES TO: Applicant ITEM NO. Ir. Fil. Ownerle PA 89-058 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-50.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes performance standards applicable to uses in the M-1 Zoning District of which all uses must comply. Section 8-51.3(b) states in part that outdoor storage yards for equipment and supplies (if conducted within an area enclosed by a solid wall or fence) can be considered in the M-1 District through the Conditional Use Permit procedure. Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or peformance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. Section 8-95.0 establishes the Site Development Review process indicating that Site Development Review is intended to promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development; recognize environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values and investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of structures having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards of this Chapter or which are not properly related to their sites, surroundings, traffic circulations, or their environmental setting. Where the use proposed, the adjacent land uses, environmental significance or limitations, topography, or traffic circulation are found to so require, more stringent regulations may be established than those otherwise specified for the district. Sections 8-95.1 - 8-95.8 outline the Site Development Review process. Under most cases, the Site Development Review is acted upon by the Planning Director. However, in cases where the review is submitted with a Conditional Use Permit request, both items are processed simultaneously for action by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City plans to adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance which finds that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the July 5, 1989, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. -2- ANALYSIS: This application involves a request from Southern Pacific Pipelines for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to allow the installation of an unmanned gasoline pumping station at 6433 Dougherty Road, on the old Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The facility would be located outdoors behind a solid chainlink fence. It would be east of the American Building Components construction yard and west of Parks Military Training Reserve. The site is accessed by a 20' private access road feeding from Dougherty Road. The station would be located approximately 1400+ feet away from Dougherty Road, out of direct public view. The equipment to be stored and utilized on the site includes the following: - one 1250 horsepower and one 1500 horsepower electric motor driven pumps; - a 28'xll'x12' high power and control center building; and - an 8'x8'x8' high transformer. This is not your typical gas station. No gasoline would be stored or dispensed at the site. Instead, this facility serves only as a booster station to assist in the transfer of gasoline through pipes located underground along the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way between San Jose and Concord. The use of this pumping station serves to allow transport of gasoline to San Jose and surrounding communities via underground pipes, rather than using heavy trucks. Southern Pacific Pipelines has identified their company as a public utility. They serve as an underground transporter of gasoline for gas companies. They charge a fee for this service and they are not involved in the sale or purchase of gasoline. The company has an emergency response plan in effect to deal with potential problems such as leaks, spills, ruptures, fires and other hazards. Staff from the company will be available to explain how that plan operates. The Applicant has indicated that although accidents are rare, the Company will continuously monitor the pump station facilities and would be able to have Staff on the site quickly (one-half hour maximum response time) to deal with any potential problems. The proposal has been reviewed by the Building, Public Works, Police and Fire (DRFA) departments. No problems have been identified. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the M-1 zoning district as well as the performance standards established within the Zoning Ordinance. Staff supports the proposal and recommends that the Commission adopt three resolutions, Exhibit A, the Draft Resolution approving Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, Exhibit B, the Draft Resolution conditionally approving the Conditional Use Permit, and Exhibit C, the Draft Resolution approving the Site Development Review. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5) Adopt Resolutions for PA 89-058, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions - Exhibit A, adopting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance; Exhibit B, approving the Conditional Use Permit; and Exhibit C, approving Site Development Review, all for Southern Pacific Pipelines, PA 89-058. -3- ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution adopting Negative Declaration for PA 89-058 Exhibit B: Draft Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit for PA 89-058 Exhibit C: Draft Resolution approving Site Development Review for PA 89-058 Background Attachments: Attachment 1: Applicant's Written Statement Attachment 2: Site Plan Attachment 3: Partial Site Plan Attachment 4: Equipment Sections Attachment 5: Trailer Elevations and Floor Plan -4- RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 89-058 SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPELINES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A GASOLINE PUMP STATION AND POWER CONTROL CENTER AT 6433 DOUGHERTY ROAD WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted finding that the project, as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration at the public hearing on July 5, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: 1. That the project, PA 89-058 Southern Pacific Pipelines Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review, will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations. 3. That the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission hereby adopts the Negative Declaration for PA 89-058 Southern Pacific Pipelines Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 89-058 SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPELINES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A GASOLINE PUMP STATION AND POWER AND CONTROL CENTER BUILDING AT 6433 DOUGHERTY ROAD WHEREAS, Southern Pacific Pipelines filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 89-058) to allow the construction of a gasoline pump station and power and control center in the M-1 District located at 6433 Dougherty Road; and WHEREAS, Section 8-51.3(b) (Conditional Uses: M-1 District) of the City Zoning Ordinance identifies outdoor storage yards for equipment and supplies (if conducted within an area enclosed by a solid wall or fence) as a use which is permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 - for this project as it will not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in the Herald, posted in public buildings, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, a Staff analysis was submitted recommending conditional approval of the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 5, 1989 to consider all reports, recommendations and testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: a. The use is required by the public need in that it provides for the improved transport of gasoline throughout the Bay Area. b. The use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that daytime activities will be commensurate with the present use of properties in the neighborhood. c. The use, under all circumstances and conditions of this particular case, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, as all applicable regulations will be met. d. The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district in which it is to be located in that the use meets all applicable performance standards established for the M-1 District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve PA 89-058 as shown by the materials labeled Background Attachments 1 through 5 in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 5, 1989 on file with the Dublin Planning Department and subject to the following conditions. Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with subject to Planning Department review and approval. 1. This approval is for the construction of a gasoline pump station and power and control center building, stored outside on the Southern Pacific right-of-way located at 6433 Dougherty Road. The equipment to be stored on the site includes: ExJ;JBrrs a. One 1250 horsepower and one 1500 horsepower electric motor drive pumps. b. One 20'xll'x12' tall power and control center building. c. An 8'x8'x8' tall transformer. 2. This Conditional Use Permit shall be valid until July 14, 1991. If building permits have not been issued by July 14, 1990, this approval shall expire. The approval period for the Conditional Use Permit may be extended up to one (1) additional year (Applicant must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the permit) by the Planning Director upon his determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to ensure that items a) through d) listed above as findings will continue to be met. 3. The use shall comply with all applicable Planning, Building and Fire Department Codes/Regulations/Ordinances. 4. All equipment on this site shall be protected from physical damage and tampering to the satisfaction of Dougherty Regional Fire Authority staff. 5. No combustibles shall be stored on the site at anytime. 6. No other equipment (other than that listed in Condition #1 above) shall be stored on the site at anytime. 7. The facility shall be enclosed on all sides by a 6 foot tall vinyl clad chain link fence using redwood clad throughout, as a complete screening device. 8. Noise generated by this use shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to the surrounding community. Compliance with noise standards established in the Dublin General Plan is required. 9. No signing for this use may be placed on the site, fence or building without first receiving Planning Department approval. 10. This Conditional Use Permit shall be void if any of the terms or conditions of the permit are violated. Any violation of the terms or conditions of the permit shall be subject to citation. 11. All conditions of approval listed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- (approving the Site Development Review for PA 89-058) shall be fully complied with in conjunction with the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 12. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8- 90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director -2- RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 89-058 SOUTHERN PACIFIC PIPELINES SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A GASOLINE PUMP STATION AND POWER AND CONTROL CENTER BUILDING AT 6433 DOUGHERTY ROAD WHEREAS, Southern Pacific Pipelines filed a Site Development Review application (PA 89-058) to construct a gasoline pump station and power and control center building at 6433 Dougherty Road; and WHEREAS, said application was submitted in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit request, thus requiring a public hearing; and WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- ) for this project as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, a Staff analysis was submitted recommending conditional approval of the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 5, 1989 to consider all reports, recommendations and testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: a. The use serves the public need in that it will provide for the improved transport of gasoline throughout the Bay Area. b. The use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that activities will be commensurate with present use of properties in the neighborhood. c. The use, under all circumstances and conditions of this particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, in that all applicable regulations will be met. d. The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the District in which it is to be located in that the outdoor storage and use of mechanical equipment is consistent with the character of the surrounding area as well as the light industrial district. e. All provisions of Section 8-95.0 through 8-95.8, Site Development Review of the Zoning Ordinance, are complied with. f. Consistent with Section 8-95.0, this project will promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development, recognize environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values and investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of structures having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and which are not consistent with their environmental setting. g. The approval of the project as conditioned is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. h. General site considerations, including site layout, orientation, and the location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. i. General architectural considerations, as modified by the Conditions of Approval, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the site and other bui 'lding materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project in order to insure compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings and uses. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve PA 89-058 as shown by the materials from the Planning Commission Staff Report (and its exhibits and attachments) dated July 5, 1989 on file with the Dublin Planning Department subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with subject to Planning Department Review and approval. 1. This approval is for the construction of a gasoline pump station and power and control center building stored outside on the Southern Pacific right-of-way located at 6433 Dougherty Road. The equipment to be stored on the site includes: a. One 1250 horsepower and one 1500 horsepower electric motor driven pumps. b. A 28'xll'x12' tall power and control center building . c. An 8'x8'x8' tall transformer. 2. The Site Development Review approval shall be valid until July 14, 1990. If building permits have not been issued by this date, this Site Development Review approval shall be null and void. 3. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the City Planning Department notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect them. 4. Exterior colors and materials for the portable building shall be subject to final review and approval by the Planning Director. 5. A handicap access ramp at the portable building's entrance shall be constructed according to State specifications to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. 6. One portable fire extinguisher (with a minimum rating of 2A 10BC) shall be installed in the portable building prior to occupancy. 7. Building exits shall be maintained and unlocked while building is occupied. 8. A local alarm (approved by the State Fire Marshall) shall be installed in the portable building prior to occupancy. 9. The four proposed 30 foot tall light standards shall be reduced to a maximum height of 15 feet, shall be low sodium vapor type and shall be positioned so as not to cause glare on to surrounding properties. 10. The Applicant is fully responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and approvals from all responsible non-City agencies, prior to constructing this facility. 11. This Site Development Review shall be void if any of the terms and conditions of the permit are violated. Any violation of the terms or conditions of the permit shall be subject to citation. 12. All conditions of approval listed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89 - (approving the Conditional Use Permit for PA 89-058) shall be fully complied with in conjunction with this Site Development Review approval. -2- 0.1 13. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8- 90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director -3- PROJECT DESCRIPTION STATEMENT • Southern Pacific Pipe Lines Partnership, L.P. is planning to install a new pumps station on our Concord to San Jose pipeline in the City of Dublin. The station will be named Dougherty Station and located at 6433 Dougherty Road, as shown on the attached location map. The need for the station has risen because of increased demand for gasoline in the San Jose area. If this station is not built, the result will be substantially increased trucking activity from Bay Area refiners to San Jose and surrounding communities. The station site, which does not have any tree, will be fenced with a six-foot high chain link fence with redwood slats and will consists of the following major components: o One 1250 HP and one 1500 HP electric motor-driven pump. o A 28' x 11' x 12' high Power and Control Center Bldg. o An 8' x 8' x 8' high transformer. The station will be unmanned, except for routine maintenance and will be operated remotely from our Concord Station. Southern Pacific Pipe Lines Partnership, L.P. is a public utility regulated by the State of California Public Utilities Commission. The station will be built in accordance with Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) 49 CFR Part 195 with the California State Fire Marshal having jurisdiction over all safety aspects of the facility. ATTACHMENT 1 RECEIVED MAY 1 8 1989 DUBLIN PJANNJNQ .. . _. f t ,.411 I o S A ":71'...." k.7.1 N ''.':RAM • •OA i ' ;--- 1 1 .- -1 -s•-1-s, ---7 ,---- ,-t-- ,- .: ( ..,,.. • , •-s\-\''' ,, --,:' --: it ......,c'ulnir9,1.-..;____,._.. •_1.' - _p— i\.\\ 111:21r3V\ ,,iG, .. ,,r•-r-, - .7. ,..6-,:.1... s\ lumrsi 111:1111111 t .. • , •,......... . .;,;,,,•4.„,,,,..., /,..: •.. ,..,...0......,Ap.... • . ,•,‘,,,,..c,.... _ _____ \ ', -4,"----...; ,. =:----•— -, IliM 111- Lir i• •t___:,—) 42N (,.." lk ' 'ri—•• \y,,,/I i VICINITY MAP . 4`,\,........____.........,.... 104043.0.0 444 4,4 14 1C441. 00. -....................___________. \. \ r-- _ .1. -------------------------4....„.„. _,,,,c) r, . 0 \ C••• ...a.. .••••• "72) CAMP PARKS , GI sa.,„..... "--.......................... . toy', ••••... ••roa : C3 -___ • .._ -------t---....._____ ,J•,,. •Ro.e•r,L, '. . .. At COS 4040 • , .0*-------4 . r.at%004,_TO 4 • ,-..c.,":„."." ,..c. 77---------- '•.,. . ....... k . —.__._______. .•,•„...,.„ . .. \-.. • • -"") • =II •••.•t.,, :PP igla 1 --° REC.EIV.ED 73 - MAY 1 8 1989 th .. ...,.. .._,.. __. . , Souern Pacific Pipe Lines DUBUN PLANNIN LOS 00,1,l1S.C.:004.• LOCATION MAP i 47.."'""1 • DO ALAD CL IA - OUGHERTY STATION AIFORN .—•—• ,•-• ••-•.— .1 .—.... I E—SK1-013 _. • I 1 V EXISTING 10"CONCORD TO SAN JOSS PIPELINE LT x 1gr 2'HIGH BLOCK WALL 60'x 45' I N ( ACCESS ROAD . •Ln — ;_ NEW UNDERGROUND— T.___, �� a° STATION PIPING 5'Ill ��—� I - . POWER&CONTROL CENTER——- I c •_x_ to I 6' I ❑ NEW PUMPS TRANSFORMER p 8 90' 15' . Irt I x l x x x x I x to \FENCE LINE —rn 30'HIGH LIGHT STANDARD ` 6'HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE (4 TOTAL•SODIUM VAPOR) / PROPERTY LINE- \ 210' o 10 PO 40 m REVISIONS? L.S.IS,ENT.10 FEET .L. 1'-20'-0' SITE PLAN ,.,. 4-5.89 SCALE:1 INCH TO 20 FEET b RECEIVED^C'V E D ,,,,,,L, Al PROPOSED DOUGHERTY STATION R R V Y ii p,,., KCT CITY OF DUBLIN,CALIF. MAY 1 8 1989 `"�o.L, SouthernP Pipe LinesE4-SK3-01S Pacific i e LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA . CIDUBUN Gi CQ /•"c- li r) .k. . (.1 -1— 1,i-:i :t zz z F: i -J w I 5 2,- , 4-. i 12.1 ww - 1 o°2 ; a Q. 1---- - r ) A , . 0__i _ -...„..,:.•:,: ----. ---Ir4 • i_i_ ....1. a)7 (!) [--------;:c, ____ _ 0 II : .:., ,..,.... (., ,), • 1 _ • Wk. Z• .0 tfil C 7 . 1---- ,..(- = ._ iu i 9,".. 1 - . ., 1 I.....-• . I ' ..i I'. 1 I. IT CII Z CU CO Z)03 Cr) i 1 1 4.7,1 1 1 1 a . r - 1 ,-r a ›.... CU ex 1 i .... ,/ .A .. i•,::!,11 Anis II li I_..1_ ' 1 _ :17 . iii— ,. I ir;;--, . .. . I 4 i- 7 1 I I is ' ZM. . I S ' I, ..1;1-......... -,,! (• 0 i* ..---,--........— IP ;I;-7 --=.1 Z• ' ...." ;•s I < 7 : Ea_ ,- •s •.:1 :,!i j .......s. -I.. It.''•.- 1 * IC213 1 II i••• • — U) II ,.., i.' ,.. v 0 . 0 i 14---7,-d 1 [1—.11 ' imilii \1.,s Is uszk 0 ..s F-4 - 0 i— _..... ,. ,. ----i'l 1-.1---t- ...dr 1 - t.t..1._ _ 1 , . . ATI ACHMEf4:IT i r• I 1 . 1 +3 r & n' 2xr 5c r �� � °3.i E4 f t.1 /6t a J 79/ - a , a F7! f } SDG' RaYs£lefl,,?1 ''' t 5lDE A f^aJ 1 ] 4X I 4 1 3r- Aa• •• FENS' 1 - I .I.i E �•. 1.5 noPq P6l m183]!fl4l-1_ ... .. _ \ qY Y I9,Zt3i=i/ E i l JLC�I A • 4 r- � :l. n 'S� n f'.'b '� a�YV�/E1 EAT CD a.;. $� 'a r K F.R er�xT >>se':ii.r G .r i�� le= ^ b '/axdssimnl 7"� . v,� 3 \ ^ 1 •„ IS •SSS.,1.4 \j. "D 1.0.TIML I .ASLABAY:/T/3J140 WA.L�4� - /^ L/IT77N6 ASSGMd rri..7,.K /97B33:9,. .(J.(1,J _ A'ram FYNY�awswRAWJ:"2,.�A972R��M iP .. a. arp Jc.nc".RrJI,r r``I rr Y S'sa�rf' iF- YXGDY !'hTrLd 4. JftT>D(j4W. Zlia° 'I 1 I fir, .-_- = I 1 - -+.--,! uJ 1 J`� /S b I or.cayr.irot we Af JNT lw /lTZK ��!>A 1 J � //�� /4 2 O YT OF E iTY l'.NiR foeV71Rl G6✓7F.t 1/ Leis r'1-I 44 I; 29 B ¢ 7- AL:..r V7..cbvrEK Z itECEIVEQ • : i.' Vie W S/DE A JNSUCNTLD CENTER DOLL“-;_12T" r4T17AI 14AY1ti1989 • T 3Fevp,. .9c PSSIWEl I ?) - + m' T'�e.F p [ a s.vc .177 (A D1J Ut4 P.Ia tilN,Q . ' .8[..,c/Y7a -- tiae.74z s [y ll LT[I l iszca=. r 0 O[[[ V L/NG CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 5, 1989 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff REPORT PREPARED BY: Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner'•. V SUBJECT: PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon (Blaylock, Gleason and Fletcher) General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: General Plan Amendment request to include 197+ acre project site within the City's Primary Planning Area, to designate 19.1 acres for medium-high density residential, 13 acres for single-family residential and 164.9 acres for open space. Subsequent applications pending General Plan Amendment action will include Planned Development Prezoning, Subdivision and Annexation. APPLICANT: George E. Thomas Paragon Group Pacific Mutual Building 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90014 PROPERTY OWNER: Mike Gleason P. 0. Box 107 Port Costa, CA 94569 LOCATION: North of Dublin Boulevard, West of Silvergate Drive in an unincorporated portion of Alameda County ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-018-03 and 941-018-04 PARCEL SIZE: 197+ acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is located within the City's Extended Planning Area, designated residential/open space EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: A, Agricultural/Grazing (Alameda County). Current land use grazing and construction yard SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Agricultural/Grazing Land, Alameda County, Zoned A South: CalTrans Right-of-Way East : Valley Christian Center West : Agricultural/Grazing Land, Alameda County Zoned A COPIES TO: Applicant Owner Mark Trembley, EIP s Chris Kinzel, TJKM ITEM NO. UU File PA 87-012 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The Dublin General Plan establishes policies and standards to control land use and development within this area. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which finds the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the June 19, 1989, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: This item was continued from the June 19, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting. At that meeting the Commission discussed the Draft & Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed General Plan Amendment's consistency with existing General Plan policies and the appropriateness of the proposed land use designation and density. In addition, the Commission directed Staff to: 1. Begin preparation of the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program to be presented to the Commission in conjunction with the Draft Resolutions at a future Public Hearing. 2. Provide additional information and clarification on the fiscal analysis section of the DEIR in particular the issue of cost/revenue balance. 3. Obtain comments from the Public Works Director and Building Official concerning the appropriate timing for requiring specific geotechnical reports and the adequacy of the mitigation measures concerning soils and geology included in the Draft and Final EIR. FISCAL ANALYSIS In response to the Planning Commission concerns with the Fiscal Analysis Section, EIP, the City's environmental consultant for the Donlan Canyon project, spoke with the City Manager and the Finance Director in re-evaluating the fiscal impacts of the project on the City's existing financial base. Due to the significant number of changes which were identified in the Final EIR presented at the June 19, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, and changes resulting from the reevaluation of this Section, EIP has rewritten the Fiscal Analysis Section incorporating the changes (see Attachment 12). The reevaluation has resulted in: 1) a decrease in the estimated recreation cost from $18,325 to $11,388. This decrease is due to the use of the actual net recreation cost for 1987- 1988, rather than gross cost. 2) An increase in the sales tax from $89,245 to $99,521. This increase is due to the use of the actual sale tax receipt for 1987-1988 as presented in the June 30, 1988 financial report. 3) A decrease in the general government cost from $40,376 to $37,352. This decrease is due to the use of the actual general government cost for 1987-1988 rather than using the difference between the cost of general government in 1987-1988 and 1988-1989. 4) A decrease in the cost/revenue balance from a negative $14,902 to a positive $3,267. The revised Fiscal Analysis Section also notes that the estimated unit prices are based upon information provided by the developer in fiscal year 1987-1988. Given the rise in housing prices, it is likely that the price of the proposed single family units will increase significantly at the time the units are actually constructed and ready to sell. An increase in the unit price would increase the estimated property tax. -2- The City Manager has reviewed and concurs with the figures presented in the revised fiscal analysis section. The figures presented are based upon the current actual numbers available. The Public Service Section of the Draft EIR has been revised (see Attachment 12) to include a discussion of: 1. Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) as a joint powers authority between Dublin and San Ramon. 2. The 1.5 mile response limit for DRFA. 3. The $600 per unit fire impact fee required to be paid by the developer, as a mitigation measure. 4. The potential need for an additional future fire station to service the project. 5. A mitigation requiring Class B or better roofs and Class A or non- combustible roofs for the 17 single-family units. The revised section discusses the incremental need for an additional fire station contributed to by the development of the Donlan Canyon project. However, the section does not include mitigation requiring the developer to contribute toward the cost of constructing an additional fire station. If a mitigation measure is necessary to address this issue, the appropriate mitigation will be included in the EIR monitoring program. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the revised Fiscal Analysis and Public Services Sections of the FEIR are complete and adequate. GEOLOGY AND SOILS In response to the Planning Commission's direction concerning the Geology and Soils Section of the DEIR, the City's Public Works Director and the Building Official have reviewed the DEIR, the comment from the Department of Conservation, and EIP's response to the comments. Additionally, the Geologist for EIP reviewed and commented on the issue. The consensus of the Public Works Director and Building Official and the EIR Consultant's Geologist is that the requirement for detailed Geotechnical Soils reports is premature at the General Plan level of the planning process. Detailed geotechnical reports are required at the Tentative Map and Planned Development prezoning stage when more precise development plans are submitted and available for review. The Public Works Director indicates that soil investigation at the preliminary review stage (General Plan Amendment) typically involves review of available mapped soils documents and aerial photographs and on-site inspection by the soils engineer. Detailed soil drilling and sampling are done for site specific development plans (Tentative Map, Planned Development Prezoning). At the Tentative Map, Planned Development, Prezoning level of detail, the soils engineer will make recommendations concerning soils and geologic conditions which may include curing the slides by removal or without removal while saving the trees within the slide area. Additional studies and recommendations are specific requirements for review of the proposed development plans at the Tentative Map stage. The Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report submitted for the Donlan Canyon General Plan Amendment includes aerial photograph interpretation, geologic mapping, drilling of test bores, and laboratory analysis. The City's existing General Plan Implementation policies 8.1.2 A & B require detailed geotechnical studies at the Tentative Map and Planned Development Prezoning stage of the planning process (see Attachment 13, page 33 of the General Plan). Policy 8.1.2 A A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all subdivisions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study. Each -3- of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineering geologist. Policy 8.1.2 B Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative subdivision map stage for all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map, and for other proposed projects if the preliminary investigation indicates a potential geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be included at this stage. The detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary must consider: - cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide; - effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered drainage patterns; - impact of a maximum credible earthquake; - where applicable, passage of the Claveras Fault through or under landslide deposits; - debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of Dublin). Care must be taken not to locate structures in the path of potential debris flows; and - where published maps identify or show "ancient" or Quaternary slides on sites of proposed development, their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the proposed development on the area's stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer. The level of geotechnical information provided at the General Plan Amendment stage of the planning process for the Donlan Canyon project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan. Land use designation does not equate to approval of development plans for the site. The Tentative Map and Planned Development Prezoning stage will determine more precisely where within the land use designation, development will actually occur. The detailed geotechnical reports required at the Tentative Map and Planned Development Prezoning stage will provide the necessary information for making the determination for appropriate number of units, size and location of lots. The City's General Plan Policies requiring geotechnical reports for Tentative Map and Planned Development Prezoning are comparable with other City General Plan Policies and are consistent with information and examples of policies contained in the publication prepared by the State of California Office of Emergency Services (see Attachment 14 and 15). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the Geology and Soils section of the DEIR and FEIR are complete and adequate. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5) Give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Direct Staff to: 1) Prepare Resolution relating to Planning Commission recommendation on the completeness and adequacy of the EIR. 2) Prepare Resolution relating to Planning Commission recommendation on EIR Monitoring Program. 3) Prepare Resolution relating to Planning Commission recommendation on the General Plan Amendment. a) Inclusion of project site within primary planning area. b) Consistency with existing general policies. c) Land use designation: 1. Low Density single-family: 0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC — 13 acres 2. Medium-High Density: 14.1 to 25 DU/AC — 19.1 acres 3. Open Space: 164.9 acres -4- ATTACHMENTS: DRAFT EIR - Refer to May 1, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report FINAL EIR - Refer to June 19, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report Attachments 1 through 11 - Refer to June 19, 1989 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 12 - Revised Sections of the FINAL EIR Attachment 13 - General Plan Policies 8.1.2 A to F Attachment 14 - City of San Ramon and City of Pleasanton General Plan Policies relating to geotechnical reports Attachment 15 - Examples from Office of Emergency Services relating to geotechnical reports -5- LETTER 14 Mr. Tong indicated that a chain link fence was a possibility. Cm. Burnham questioned the fence height requirement. He indicated that when you look around the neighborhood, there were other fences similarly constructed. He asked if the original fence was illegal. Ms. Hoffmeister indicated that Staff had no fence plan available. Cm. Zika and Cm. Burnham discussed the fence dimensions and slope configurations. Cm. Burnham asked where the measurement of the fence would be taken. Staff indicated that the measurement would be taken at grade level. Hypothetically, if measurements were taken from an elevated structure, then the fence could become very high, therefore the grade line is used for all height measurements. Mr. Berry Beck, 11696 Harlan Road (neighbor), indicated that he s confused about the regulations. The surrounding neighbors did not under t ,what the issue was. He indicated that Mr. Doyle had put a lot of money 'i project and all rules had exceptions. He requested the Commission to ipt the Variance request. Elliott Healy, 11362 Betlen Drive, indicated that the Commission should consider the basic intent and approve the Variance. Marilyn Beck, 11696 Harlan Road, indicated that the alternative chain link or plastic would not look very nice. The fence extension was well constructed as it is now. She felt the lattice top was done nicely and would improve the look more than the other materials suggested by Staff. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Okun, seconded by Cm. Mack, the Commission requested Staff to draft new resolutions that would approve the Variance and reverse the Zoning Administrator's action. The Commission indicated that they could support findings necessary to approve the Variance. The Commission continued the matter to the July 5, 1989 meeting to be approved on a consent calendar basis. SUBJECT: PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon (Blaylock, Gleason & Fletcher) General Plan Amendment request to include approximateliy 197 acres of project site within the City's Primary Planning Area. to designate 19.1 acres for medium-high density residential. 13 acres for single-family residential and 164.9 acres for open space. Subsequent applications pending General Plan Amendment action will include Planned Dev - - ^-----`-- �_'---.'-'-- --' Ann. _ *l 198 ENT Regular Meeting PCM-: L- `t el--0 12 Tonic',Coos, n I Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that at the May 15th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued the item to the June 19th meeting. This project was noticed again in the newspaper. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment which would include a 197+ acre site within the City's Primary Planning Area. There were three designated land uses being requested for approval: Low density single-family (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre), medium-high density (14.1 to 25 DU/Acre), and the open space are which consisted of 164.9 acres. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Commission's role was to conduct public hearings on the application and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the General Plan Amendment and certification of the Final EIR. The Commission should discuss one issue at a time; the Final EIR and then the General Plan Amendment. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR Response to Comments which includes copies of all written comments received during the public review period, the minutes from the May 1 and May 15th Planning Commission meetings, and responses t comments received. s, Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the EIR document identifiesrpated impacts of the proposed project as well as mitigated measures to minimize any significant effects of those impacts. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the EIR document identifies six alternatives to the proposed project. These are: 1) no project alternative, 2) mitigated alternative, 3) neighborhood context alternative, 4) single-family low-density alternative, 5) medium-low density multi-family alternative, and 6) medium density, multi-family alternative. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Assembly Bill #3180 required the adoption of a monitoring program when certifying an EIR. The purpose of this program is to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures imposed on the project. The monitoring program will be prepared by Staff and reviewed by the City Attorney's office. M O'Halloran indicated that Jennifer Toth from EIP was in the audience if Commission would like to ask her any questions. Michelle DeRobertis from KM (traffic consultants) was also in the audience. Jennifer Toth, EIP Associates, discussed the Draft and Final EIR documents. ` She identified and discussed the comments received that were incorporated into the Final EIR. Some mitigation measures were expanded in regards to Letter #1, #3, #4, and #5. These changes are shown in bold type. Additional information was added regarding comments from Letter #5 and #14. Cm. Okun asked what could be done about the added cost the City would be carrying with this proposed development. Ms. Toth suggested that additional development fees could be one way of eliminating the additional cost burden to the City. *r,t***a*,r*****,tit:r**:r**tit************************:t:t************t***********:t*** Regular Meeting PCM-8-91 June 19, 1989 Ms. O'Halloran stated that cost issue would be discussed in the General Plan policy section. She indicated that large developments usually pay for themselves. The Planning Commission and City Council could considered addit al fees. ORCaku asked for more clarification on way to collect fees. Ms. O'Halloran indicated a detailed fiscal assessment study could be done. She indicated that the cost to the City could range from $4,000-15,000. Cm. Okun indicated that the City does not have that kind of money. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would determine the outcome of this concern. They could request additional mitigation measures. The additional development fee could be added at the approval of the Tentative Map and Planned Development stage. Ms. Toth indicated that a more detailed fiscal analysis could be done. Ms. Toth discussed the cultural and archealogical issues of the project. Cm. Okun had concerns regarding earthquakes and landslides in the area. He asked if a potential increased danger could occur when the dirt was being moved. Ms. Toth indicated that it would be best to talk with a geologist on these subjects; however, site specific studies will be prepared in conjunction with specific development proposals such as the Tentative Map and Prezoning. Cm. Zika asked if Letter #1 was accurate and adequate. Ms. Toth indicated that adequate consultant work had been done. Cm. Zika indicated that the East Bay Regional Park Distr' . .emed ._,.• •ave some concerns. He asked how stable was the ground. Was rth i x : �le if problems occurred. Ms. Toth indicated that these concerns were discussed in the Final EIR on page 3-6. The Commission and Staff discussed who would be responsible for site maintenance, inspection responsibility, and property management. Mr. Tong suggested that geotechnical concerns be discussed at the Tentative Map and Prezoning stage. He indicated that he would discussed the matter with the Public Works Director. He discussed the General Plan land uses and stages of improvements. The Commission asked what risks were involved in having the geotechnical studies done in the early stages of approvals. Mr. Tong indicated that a preliminary getechnical study was appropriately done for the proposed General Plan Amendment. The additional cost of a more detailed geologic study was generally not warranted until the Planned ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-92 June 19, 1989 n 4 • Development rezoning or tentative subdivision map stage. The detailed gelogic study would need to consider the exact location of the proposed structures, which usually is not known until after the General Plan is amended. Mr. Tong indicated that in areas where the preliminary geotechnical study identifies potential hazards, no dwelling units would be allowed until a detailed geologic study was prepared and adequate mitigation measures were applied. The developer takes the risk that the hazard might not be able to be physically and economically be mitigated. Cm. Mack had concerns regarding grading requirements shown in Letter #7, page 3-44. Would landslides occur or would the ravine be altered. Ms. O'Halloran suggested that the Commission look at page 4.613 regarding abrupt visual transition which would address this concern. Cm. Burnham had concerns regarding Comment #1 in Letter #7 which addressed the annexation issue. Who has control over the land in question. Mr. Tong indicated that Alameda County is now in control of the proposed - project area and has jurisdication on the road way. The process would be as follows: after the General Plan Amendment is completed, the next stage would be the PD/Prezoning approvals and then the Annexation process. The project is not within he City limits and an annexation process would have to occur which would t4F ode the road. Basically, Staff concurs with Letter #7. C,M.%, kun had questions regarding road access at Valley Christian Center. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the City Council with the Hansen Hill project approved a General Plan Amendment which included an arterial street to Hansen Hill Ranch through the Valley Christian Center. The Hansen Hill General Plan Amendment elimiantes the future extension of Hansen Drive to the west. The Tentative Map for the Hansen Hill project was in the planning pro nd would include details for the location of the Valley Christian Cel� 'k r.5. 2 The Commission requested information regarding the traffic issues. Michelle DeRobertis, TJKM, indicated that the traffic mitigations were the same as the Hansen Hill Ranch project. When mitigations occur, the level of service for the project would be "D". Cm. Okun asked about the traffic on the eastbound lanes of Dublin Boulevard. Ms. DeRobertis indicated that mitigation measures identify that additional lanes should be added at Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Okun indicated that there was a lot of traffic backup at Regional Street and Dublin Boulevard. Ms. DeRobertis indicated that the plan line of Dublin Boulevard addressed this issue. Cm. Zika indicated that he had'concerns regardinz the negative cost impact to the City, geological and traffic problems.. Regular Meeting PCM-8-93 June 19, 1989 Cm. Burnham had concerns regarding financing and asked Staff for additional information on the City's impact when developments are built. Mr. Tong indicated that generally single-family low-density units have a negative fiscal impact. The higher density units and retail development usuallave a positive fiscal impact. A cost/revenue analysis of the p project would have to be done. rt Mr. Tong indicated that the Hansen Hill development would not require expanded City services and the City would basically break even. Retail and commercial projects are the developments that balance the books. Cm. Zika asked if all hillside development would cost the City money. Mr. Tong indicated not necessarily. These type of projects tend to be upscale and higher quality projects, with higher costs and higher amounts of property taxes. The Planning Commission and Staff discussed cost revenue to the City in regards to the Hansen Hill and Donlan Canyon projects. Cm. Okun had concerns about the open space dedication and when this would occur. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that dedication of open space would occur at the Tentative Map and Planned Development Prezoning stages. Michael Gleason, Applicant, discussed the cost of the homes and indicated that the fiscal impacts were overestimated. He indicated that the police officer allocated for this project could be shared with other developments as well as the fire department costs. Cm. Zika asked Staff what the criteria was for so many additional po e y T officer or fireman per square miles, population, etc. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Police Department required one additional officer for this development. Mr. Gleason indicated that additional geotechnical and archaeology studies would be done at the Tentative Map stage. What studies have been done so far are appropriate for this stage of the planning process. He felt that he should proceed with the project and take any risks involved and that extensive studies at this stage would be inappropriate. Cm. Zika indicated he felt more responses and discussions regarding the geotechnical studies with the Public Works Director and other agencies was appropriate. Mr. Gleason asked the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the Final EIR was complete and adequate. Marie Cronin had concerns regarding the high density of the apartment complexes and felt that approximately 800 people living in 17-19 acres was to dense. Regular Meeting PCM-8-94 June 19, 1989 n c ' Ms. Cronin had concerns with the water shed pattern and the oip43n �si. dedication. She indicated that the land was in the acquisition stage hoped the park would be dedicated so that the land could not be sold. Ms. Cronin had concerns regarding the environmental issues and habitats of the area. Marjorie LaBar, PARC, indicated that she was in agreement with the clustered apartment units which would preserve the open space area. She had concerns over the visibility impacts of the project and referenced Policy 3.3.F which was shown on page 6 of the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would make findings consistent with the General Plan policies. Ms. LaBar reminded the Commission that San Ramon was working on the West Side plan and that both Cities should worked together on preserving the open space. O'Halloran clarified Ms. Cronin's concerns. She indicated that the creek ,as ddressed in the EIR with mitigation measures on page 4-12. The design sue of the apartments would be discussed at the Tentative Map and Planned Development stage. The actual number of apartments would be decided at that time, however the actual density range would be decided at the General Plan Amendment stage. Also, the dedication of open space would be considered at the Tentative Map stage as well. Mr. Gleason indicated that the certification of the EIR included a monitoring program that would be adopted. Ms. O'Halloran continued the Staff Report regarding the General Plan Amendment issues and policies. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Policy 2.1.3A discusses the avoidance of abrupt transitions between single-family and higher density development on adjoining sites. She indicated that Staff recommends the Commission find the proposed General Plan Amendment request consistent with Policy 2.1.3A. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Policy 2.1.4A stipulates that residential development should be built on moderate slopes, with multi-family densities considered on flatter land and next to business parks. She indicated that Staff recommends the Commission find that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with Policy 2.1.4A. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Policy 2.1.4C stipulates that 1) services should not be financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses; 2) fiscal impact of new developments support themselves and not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the City; 3) proposed site grading and access ways should not disfigure the ridgelands; and 4) the timing of development would not prematurely terminate viable agriculatural operations surroup4mg the project area. URA p4 Ms. O'Halloran indicated that some of these issues had been discussed at th EIR stage of the Staff Report. She indicated that Staff recommended that the Commission find that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with Policy 2.1.4C. *********************:tit******:tit*-t:r****,t:r*********************tit*******t**** ** Regular Meeting PCM-S-95 June 19, 1989 Ms. O'Halloran discussed Policy 3.1.A regarding preserve oak woodlands; Policy 7.1.A regarding riparian vegetation protection; Policy 7.1.D regarding open stream corridors and Policy 7.1.E regarding revegetation of creek banks. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that approximately 230 trees were estimated to be removed from the area which represented about 3% of the total trees on the site. The Applicant proposed to replace the trees on a 3:1 ratio and to create a new riparian habit corridor along the east and west sides of the multi-family development. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the EIR contained mitigation requiring a detailed tree survey and grading study at the Tenative Map and Prezoning stages. Ms. O'Halloran indicated on the wall map which portions of Lots 11, 12 and 13 encroached within the oak woodlands. The Applicant was requesting an exception to the existing policies. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that if the City Council finds that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the policies, site specific grading and tree survey and preservation study should be required at the Tentative Map and Prezoning stage. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff recommended the Planning Commission find that the proposed General Plan Amendment with mitigation is consistent:wxth'uj''1 the intent of Policies 3.1.A, 7.1.A, 7.1.D, and 7.1.E. Ms. O'Halloran discussed the land use designation and density issues. She indicated that there were three proposed densities: 1) low-density single- family residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre); 2) medium-high density residential (14.1 to 25 DU/Acre); and 3) open space for the remainder of the site. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the low-density single-family density was a new category recently adopted when the Council adoptaed the Hansen Hill General Plan Amendment. She indicated that the precise number of units would be determined at the Tentative Map process. The Planning Commission needs to determine if the proposed density of land is appropriate for the site. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the visual impacts from I-580 have been ,.-, addressed in the EIR; however visual impacts from I-680 have not. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the saddle on which the single-family development was proposed was an extension of the minor ridge which crossed both the Hansen Hill and Donlan Canyon site. She referred the Commission to Attachment #8, 9 and 10 of the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran discussed Policy 3.3.F regarding restriction of structures on the hillside that appear to project above major ridgelines and Policy 3.3.F regarding preservation and enhancement of ridgelines. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission needs to consider and determine what is considered minor and/or major ridgelines. The General Plan does not identify specific ridgeslines as being major or minor. She indicated ***,t*****,tit********,t*************************:t:r,t**********,***********tit***** Regular Meeting PCM-8-96 June 19, 1989 n n that if the issue is not addressed at the General Plan Amendment level, the Planning Commission would need to address the ridgeline/skyline issue at the Tentative Map stage. Ms. O'Halloran showed a video movie noting the visual impacts of the proposed project. She discussed the ridgeline area, knolls, and visibility impacts from I-580, I-680 and Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard. Ms. O'Halloran discussed the medium-high density land use designation. She indicated that there were four sites within the City that currently used the medium-high density designation. The proposed project would yield 269 to 477 dwelling units which would result in 15.7 dwelling units per acre. Three projects, Village I, Amador Lakes and Kildara have a similar density and range from 2 and 3 story rental units to two story townhouse units. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies relating to'•transition of single-family neighborhoods and development on flatter'portions of the site. Ms. O'Halloran discussed the open space corridor. She indicated that the Applicant was proposing to designate 164.9 acres to open space. This is consistent with the General Plan policies relating to preservation of oak woottlands and 30% slopes. Ms- 'O'Halloran indicated that ownership and maintenance of the proposed open space area should be addressed at the Tentative Map and Prezoning phase. At that time, it would be determined whether the City, East Bay Regional Parks, a Homeowners Association or a combination thereof would own and/or maintain the open space area. The Planning Commission may want to consider at that time whether they want to require the developer to improve the open space-area-.in compliance with the General Plan policies. r: ~ Mr. Gleason discussed the General Plan Amendment regarding the creek area and replacement of trees and requested the Planning Commission adopt these outlines. Cm. Zika and Staff discussed the density of the medium-high and medium range. Cm. Okun had concerns regarding the ownership and maintenance combinations. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the issue would be addressed at the Tentative Map stage and the issues addressed were only possibilities. Mr. Tong indicated that because of the possible configuration of the open space, more than one entity could own and/or maintain it. Mr. Gleason discussed the visual impacts from I-680. Ms. Toth, EIP, indicated that Letter #5 of the EIR and 5-2 on page 3-27 discussed the I-6S0 visibility issue. A photo montage was done showing the single-family homes; however the Hansen Hill project would screen Donlan Canyon. *********************************************************************,tit******* Regular Meeting PCM-8-97 June 19, 1989 Mr. Gleason indicated that the preservation of the ridgelines was his ultimate goal. Ms. O'Halloran requested direction from the Planning Commission. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika requested more information on the geotechnical studies and financial burden to the City. Cm. Mack requested more information on geotechnical studies. Cm. Okun requested information on the geology, financial, earthquake and traffic issues. • Cm. Burnham concurred with the rest of the Planning Commission. 1 7 The Commission indicated that they had no concerns with the single-family or medium-high density land use designations. The Commission continued the item to the July 5, 1989 meeting requesting additional information on the geology studies and fiscal analysis. They directed Staff to prepare the appropriate mitigation program and resolutions for the July 17, 1989 meeting. SUBJECT: PA 89-068 Civic Center General Plan Amendment Study to consider designating the Civic Center site a public/semi-public facility or similar land use designation Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong indicated that this item was to consider designating the Civic Center siste as a public/semi-public facility. The General Plan currently designates the Civic Center as a "retail/office" and "parks/recreation" site. The General Plan identifies "public/semi-public facilities" as "uses other than parks owned by a public agency that are of sufficient size to warrant drentiation from adjoining uses". d"Mr. Tong indicated that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to ?,% 1) adopt a Negative Declaration prior to amending the General Plan; 2) amend the Dublin General Plan - Primary Planning Area map; and 3) amend Section 1.8.1 Land Use Classification adding "Civic Center" as an example under the description of public/semi-public facilities. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, and with a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning Commission adopted **a,t*****************,t*************,tit**********************:****************err Regular Meeting PCM-8-98 June 19, 1989 n n RESOLUTION NO. 89-030 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CIVIC CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 89-031 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE CIVIC CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT * * * * NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Subject: Review of 1989-90 Update to the 1988-1993 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Mr. Ambrose indicated that the Planning Commission is required by law to review the Capital Improvement Program. Last year the Commission reviewed the CIP as part of the 5-year program, this year the Commission is to review any new and updated projects that were incorporated into the CIP. Mr. Ambrose discussed new projects which included the Dublin Boulevard sidewalk program and library access improvements. He discussed community and recreation improvements which included Dublin High School renovations. Cm. Mack asked if the connection of Mape Park to Nielsen School is one of the improvements. Cm. Zika and Mr. Ambrose discussed the joint use agreement that would determine what the costs would be. Cm. Burnham had concerns over the school facility renovations. Will the City be able to recoup some of the costs in these renovations. Why pay the school district to take care of their tot lot. Mr. Ambrose indicated that there was an intangible element for having these facilities available for the community. The recreation department would like to have these facilities available for their use. There are not a lot of play areas for small children in that area. Cm. Burnham asked if the City was liable for the tot lot. Mr. Ambrose indicated that both sides were liable. The City Council requested that these improvements be a higher priority. It is a matter of community pride and identity. Mr. Ambrose recommended that the Planning Commission take an action on the item and move that the CIP was in conformance with the City's General Plan. He indicated that there were budget hearings scheduled for June 27 and 29, 1989. Cm. Okun requested more information regarding the CIP. He wasn't sure what the correct procedures were in adopting the program. Regular Meeting PCM-8-99 June 19, 1989 /'N Mr. Ambrose indicated that the State Government Code requires the Planning Commission to approve that the CIP was in conformance with the General Plan policies. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Zika, with a vote of 3-1-1 (Cm. Okun was not familiar enough with the project to vote in favor of the conformity to the General Plan), the Planning Commission voted that the Capital Improvement Program was in conformance with the City of Dublin's General Plan. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the next Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, July 5, 1989 would consist of 5 public hearing items which included the continuation of Crown Chevrolet, Valley Nissan, Doyle and Donlan Canyon. Cm. Mack indicated that she would be unable to attend the July 5, 1989 meeting. * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Burnham had concerns regarding the excess of lumber at ABC Company on Dougherty Road. Mr. Tong indicated the Building Official was investigating the issue and was preparing documentation for the City Attorney's review. Mr. Ambrose indicated other governmental agencies were also taking enforcement actions. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. * * * * Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director * * * * ****************************************************************************** Regular Meeting PCM-8-100 June 19, 1989 4.7 Public Services 4 4.7 PUBLIC SERVICES1 FIRE PROTECTION Setting Fire protection is provided by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) a joint powers authority between Dublin and San Ramon. The Department has 45 on-line personnel and five supervisory personnel(Chief,Assistant Chief,2 Battalion Chiefs,and a Deputy Fire Marshal). The Department has two fire stations. The closest station to the project is located at 7494 Donahue Drive, near the corner of Amador Valley Boulevard. The station is located beyond 1.5 driving miles from_the site. The Building Code defines 1.5 miles(measured in a straight line) from the station as the upper boundary of adequate response time (5 minutes) from the fire station on Donahue Drive. Any area beyond the five minute or 1.5 mile response area must have buildings equipped with supervised automatic fire suppression system. The DRFA relies on fire suppression systems beyond the 1.5 mile response limit. The Donlan Canyon site is located beyond the 1.5 mile response limit. Prior to the formation of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, the Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD) provided fire protection to the site area. DRFA currently collects a fire impact fee of $600 per dwelling unit and $600 per 2,000 square feet of building space other than dwelling units. The fire impact fee was previously collected by the DSRSD. Impacts The DRFA would not require additional resources to provide service to the site, as growth continues to the west from existing City limits, cumulative population increases will eventually require an increase in Fire Department staffing, equipment and fire stations. The impact of this development would contribute incrementally to a need for the addition of a future fire station. The Donlan Canyon site lies outside the 1.5 mile response limit of the DRFA. A number of design mitigations would be required to reduce fire hazards to an acceptable level. The site possesses a higher risk of fire than a subdivision located within more developed surroundings due to the fact that it borders on undeveloped highly vegetated land. Q ,C 86184 4-65 \u- r 4.7 Public Services The road serving the single-family area of this project exceeds the maximum length of a single access road (600 feet) as specified in the Uniform Fire Code adopted by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. The Fire Code also specifies that any area serving over 75 dwelling units must have two public accesses. Mitigation Measures 4.7.1 The developer will pay the $600 per dwelling unit Fire Impact Fee and $600 per 2,000 square feet of building space other than dwelling units. 4.7.2 Design mitigations include the following:2 o All roof coverings in this project must be Class B or better and the 17 single-family homes must be Class A or non-combustible. o All of the project is outside the 1.5 mile limit set forth in the Building Code and must be equipped with a supervised automatic fire suppression system. o Grades must be limited to 15%by Fire Code regulations. o The road serving the single-family area exceeds the 600 foot maximum for a single access road specified in the Fire Code and must either be shortened or two accesses be installed. o Two public accesses to the area with 300 dwelling units must be installed from Dublin Road, due to Fire Code requirements requiring two access roads for any area serving more than 75 dwelling units. o Installation and maintenance of a fire trail around both the open space and the homeowners areas would meet the requirement for a permanent fire break of 15 feet in width, planted with fire retardant vegetation and maintained by a homeowners association and access to undeveloped,open areas must be provided every 300 feet. o A minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute must be provided for fire suppression, in addition to the water required for the operation of the automatic fire suppression systems. o Dead end roads exceeding 150 feet must have a turnaround of a type approved by the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. o Access roads for fire equipment must be provided within 150 feet of all portions of all buildings. 86184 4-66 4.7 Public Services POLICE3 Setting The City of Dublin contracts police service from the Alameda County Sheriff's Depart- ment. This unit has as its sole responsibility the City of Dublin. This would include the project area. Currently there are 23 sworn officers in the unit and eight patrol cars. There are three to four patrol cars on the street at any one time. The project would be included in a regular patrol beat. Response time to the project would vary depending-0n a number of factors,time of day or night, distance from site, amount of traffic etc. Under the best conditions the response time would be under one minute, while under worst condition, the farthest part of Dublin under heavy traffic conditions, the response time would be approximately seven minutes. The average response time would be about three minutes. Impact The Donlan Canyon site along with other developments (Bordeaux Estates, Pulte Homes, Silvergate Highlands, Kildard, Vista Green and Estate Homes), in progress or completed, in the western area could require an additional patrol unit. With the growth in this area the need for additions to the police unit is increasing. On the basis of one officer per 1,000 residents, an additional officer may be needed. This would take more study by the Police Chief. The present site plans raise some public safety and security concerns with the police unit. These concerns revolve around access to the site, particularly the 17 single-family units, emergency situations which may arise from flooding in the area, and security of the homes. The traffic flow in the condominium area would be provided with a fire road outlet if the main drive becomes blocked. If access is easily gained by patrol vehicles to the fire road, then the parking area can be adequately patrolled. The access to the 17 single-family unit area occurs only through the Hansen property(refer to Fire Section). 86184 4-67 4.7 Public Services The police unit does have some concern about the possibility of severe flooding of the lower area of the project site. This would be a police concern if it was necessary to conduct rescue operations in a disaster. Personal security for the homes on the project site is another concern the police unit has seen. There would be reasonably easy access to the condominium site by burglars. There is no fence securing the project site. Mitigation Measures 4.7.3 The cost impacts of the additional officer are discussed in Section 4.8, Fiscal Analysis. The project sponsor and the Police Department would work out a satisfactory plan of access to the site,particularly the 17 single-family homes. 4.7.4 The police unit requests the following items be included in the security for the project: 1. Entry doors should be secured with deadbolt locks with a minimum one inch travel. 2. The doorjamb should contain a high security strike plate secured with a minimum three-inch screws. An all metal jamb may be substituted. 3. The sliding glass doors should be fitted with an auxiliary pin lock with a minimum 1/2 inch bolt. 4. All sliding type windows should be fitted with a positive locking device. 5. Exterior storage areas should be secured with pad locks with hardened hasps or deadbolt locks as above. 6. All street numbers should be illuminated during hours of darkness. 4.7.5 The project sponsor would develop an emergency evacuation plan with the Police Department to be used in case of flooding in the project area. This plan would be made known to all residents of the project. SCHOOLS4 Setting The proposed project site would be served by the Dublin Joint Unified School District (DJUSD), which provides elementary school through junior high school and high school 86134 4-68 4.7 Public Services education. The Dublin Joint Unified School District operates three elementary schools (K-5) and one middle level school (6-8). In addition, the Dublin Joint Unified School District operates both Dublin High School and Valley Continuation School. The Neilsen Elementary School located on Amarillo Street is the closest to the site. The District has closed three other elementary schools due to a decrease in enrollment. The District has no plans to open any of the closed schools in the foreseeable future. Children from the Neilsen School progress to Wells Intermediate School and then to Dublin High School. Table 4.7-1 summarizes the District's current enrollments and capacities. Neilsen School has a capacity of 707 students (647 in permanent facilities and 60 additional students in portable classrooms). The portable classrooms are currently being used for remedial reading and computer classes. The current enrollment, as of November 8, 1988, is 585 students or 122 short of capacity. Space is available at Neilsen School for additional portable classrooms. The Dublin Joint Unified School District has experienced a falling enrollment during the past five years and a gradual decline in the school age population. The DJUSD has recently seen this decline stop and begin to reverse itself. There are, however, no indications that the school population will increase dramatically over the next five years. The District does not have a development fee. The District does not operate a bus system and all parents are responsible for their children getting to and from school. The DJUSD does coordinate with Wheels, the local transportation system, to arrange transportation schedules to coincide with school schedules so children can get to school on time. Impacts The Dublin Joint Unified School District has a student generation rate of 0.2 students per dwelling unit. The District could accommodate elementary school children from an additional 2,855 dwelling units, and the Neilsen School could accommodate students from an additional 610 dwelling units (122 additional students). The project would produce an additional 63 students at build-out. Absorption of the 63 new students would leave Neilsen School with a surplus capacity of 59 places. 86184 4-69 • 4.7 Public Services TABLE 4.7-15 ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY FOR DUBLIN JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Enrollments Surplus School Capacity 1987 1988 Dif Capacity Fredrickson 693 535 558 +23 +135 Murray 647 404 333 -71 +314 Nielsen 7071 599 585 -14 +122 Subtotal 2,047 1,538 1,476 -68 +571 Wells Middle 9302 793 779 -14 +151 Dublin High 2,000 843 872 +29 +1,128 1Nielsen School has 647 permanent places and 60 in 2 portable classrooms. 2Wells Middle has 750 permanent places and 180 in 4 portable classrooms. East of the proposed Donlan Canyon project is the Hansen property(the General Plan land use designation would allow for a maximum 222 dwelling units on the developable portion of the site) and north of the Hansen project are other developments (Bordeaux Estates, Pulte Homes, Silvergate Highlands, Kildard, Vista Green and Estate Homes) which will have 600 dwelling units. The total number of students that would need school placements from those 822 homes would be 165 (106 more than the Neilsen School's capacity after absorption of the 63 new students from the Donlan Canyon Property). The Nielsen School is currently utilizing portable classrooms and has room on the site for additional portable classrooms. The District does not anticipate significant adverse impacts from the proposed project given the existing surplus capacity and space for portable classrooms at the Neilsen School, as well as the two unused schools available in the District. The projects would not all come on line at the same time nor would they all be built out at the same time. Hence, there would be a phasing in of persons to the elementary school and normal progression through the school alleviating some of the potential crowding of the Nielsen school. 86184 4-70 4.7 Public Services Mitigation Measures 4.7.6 The Dublin Joint Unified School District could require additional facilities. The District could implement an impact fee and this would be the extent of mitigation required by law. PARKS6 Setting The City of Dublin currently has a total of about 148 acres of parkland and open space. The City maintains all the parks within the City limits. The City of Dublin has about 90 acres of undeveloped open space, (Dougherty Hills Open Space), leaving about 58 acres of park and recreation facilities. Dougherty Hills is currently enclosed by fence and unavailable to the general population. Table 4.7-2 shows all the parks and open spaces and their acreage. The nearest park to the proposed project is Mape Park on Plata Way adjacent to the Neilsen School. The General Plan does not contain provisions for additional parks in this part of town and does not state any service standards. The City has a parkland dedication/in-lieu fee payment requirement as part of its subdivision ordinance that applies to residential developments. The parkland dedication is 0.011 acres per unit on units with a lot size 5,000 square feet or larger and 0.009 acres per unit on units with lots smaller than 5,000 square feet. The in-lieu is calculated as the market value of the required acreage at the time of final map filing. Impacts The City's Subdivision Ordinance would require approximately two acres of parkland dedication or equivalent in-lieu fee payment from the proposed project. Funds from the in-lieu fee payment can be used for acquisition or development purposes. Mitigation Measures 4.7.7 The project sponsor would need to comply with the park dedication requirement of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Increased property tax revenues could be used to partially offset the annual costs. 86184 4-71 4.7 Public Services TABLE 4.7-2 CITY OF DUBLIN PARKS AND ACREAGE Stagecoach Park .47 acres Dolan Park 5.00 acres Mape Park 3.00 acres Alamo Creek 6.00 acres Dublin Swin Center 3.10 acres Shannon Park 9.50 acres Kolb Park 4.70 acres Dublin Sports 23.00 acres Dougherty Hills Open Space 90 acres SOLID WASTE7 Setting Solid waste collection in Dublin is provided under exclusive contract by the Livermore- Dublin Disposal Service. They collected approximately 17,600 tons in 1988 within the City of Dublin. Collected waste is delivered to the Altamont Landfill, located east of Livermore, for disposal. The landfill received about 1,620,000 tons of solid waste in calender year 1988. This landfill is estimated to have a remaining capacity of about 37 years for both permitted and not fully permitted areas of the landfill. Impact The proposed project would generate approximately 473 tons of solid waste per year. This would be a 3% increase in solid waste collected within Dublin and a 0.03% increase in the solid waste stream to the Altamont Landfill. The Oakland Scavenger Company has indicated that it has the capacity to provide service to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures 4.7.8 No mitigation measures are required. 86184 4-72 4.7 Public Services WATER8 Setting Water service in the vicinity of the proposed project is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD). The Donlan Canyon parcel would have to be annexed into the DSRSD to obtain water services, as well as sewer services. The District is in the process of completing a Water Master Plan which should be completed by the end of the year 1989. The Water Master Plan includes the project site and the whole western area. Due to variation in elevation within the District there are currently three water zones. These zones are pressure zones, each established so that 30 to 35 psi would be available in each zone. Down the hill from the Valley Christian Center toward I-680, there is a permanent Zone III reservoir, pumping station and pipeline network to provide a proper level of water service to the Zone III strata. The Water Master Plan will recommend two new zones be created, each required to have storage space, pumping station and pipeline network. In addition, increasing the psi from 30-35 to 45 -50 will require storage containers to be on higher ground. The new Zone IV would begin at 750 feet and extend to 1,000 feet, with water storage at 1,100 feet. The new Zone V,beginning at 1,000 feet and extending to 1,250 feet would be required to have water storage tanks no lower than 1,350 feet.9 Impact The Donlan Canyon project would generate a demand for 56,980 gallons per day of water.10 The District does not anticipate problems meeting the daily water demands of the project. The development in this area(Silvergate, Bordeaux Estates, Estate Homes, Hansen Ranch and Donlan Canyon) will strain the storage capacity of the District in Zone III. New storage facilities would have to be found for Zone III users in the project area, as well as new storage facilities, pumping stations, and pipeline network for any new zone. The proposed project has 300 condominiums that are in Zone III and 17 single-family dwelling units that would be in the new Zone IV. To service the project, new storage and infrastructure facilities would have to be developed. 86184 4-73 4.7 Public Services The project sponsor would be required to connect water facilities to the DSRSD system and to install these facilities at his expense in accordance with District specifications. In addition, the project sponsor would be responsible for some portion of the District'system improvement to Zone III and Zone IV if these are not included in the system hookup fee. The storage facilities for Zone IV must be at or above 1,100 feet. Mitigation Measures 4.7.9 Mitigation would involve paying assessments outlined in the previous paragraph. 4.7.10 In addition, the project sponsor must provide adequate storage for both zones. The project sponsor would be responsible for paying a fair share of any system improvements on-and off-site. WASTEWATER11 Setting The Dublin San Ramon Service District maintains a sewer system which, as of November 10, 1988, had 4,000 single-family equivalent (DUE) sewer permits available. The Donlan Canyon project would have to be annexed to the DSRSD to receive services. Sewer allotment in the District is on a first-come, first-served basis determined by the order in which project file final maps. The DSRSD is part of the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) which has a capacity of 11.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and is currently using 9.5 mgd leaving an excess of 2 mgd. Impacts The Donlan Canyon project will generate approximately 51,740 gallons of wastewater. This would be a negligible increase of the existing treatment capacity and would utilize approximately 0.025%of the increased capacity. The closest hook-up is on Silvergate near Dublin Boulevard. Associated with service provision are hook-up costs to the DSRSD. These costs would need to be determined for both Zone IV and Zone V. The hook-up fee for Zone III is based on 220 gallons per day 86184 4-74 4.7 Public Services usage and is $3,000. If the usage is 180 gallons per day the$3,000 base fee is multiplied by.82 and becomes$2,500. This accounts for the difference in usage due to difference in dwelling type.13 Mitigation Measures 4.7.11 The cost of sanitary sewers necessary to provide service would accrue to the project sponsor. All material and workmanship for the sewers and appurtenances must conform to all requirements of the officially adopted sewerage code of the District and would be subject to field inspection by the District. Any necessary relocation of existing public utilities would be accomplished at no expense to Dublin San Ramon Service District. 4.7.12 Mitigation would also involve payment of District hook-up fees and financial responsibility for on- and off-site improvements above and beyond planned District improvement. GAS,ELECTRICITY,COMMUNICATIONS14 Setting Pacific Gas and Electric Company(PG&E)currently services the Dublin area with gas and electricity, and Pacific Bell Telephone Company is a large provider of service in the area. Cable television is available through Viacom Cablevision. Impacts PG&E would provide gas and electricity to the project through the extension of existing facilities. These would be made under the rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and any relocation of these facilities would be done at the developer's expense. Pacific Bell Telephone Company expects to be in a position to provide telephone service to applicants in the Donlan Canyon project. These services would be provided in accordance with requirements of and at rates and charges specified in tariffs on file with the CPUC. This project would be served with underground distribution facilities. As part of this service the customer on his/her property will be responsible for: 1) furnishing, 86184 4-75 4.7 Public Services installing and maintaining conduit for the service connection wire or cable if Pacific Bell requires it, and 2) providing or paying the cost of the underground supporting structure (usually it is a trench) if Pacific Bell determines buried wire or cable is to be used for the service connection. Viacom Cablevision has stated that they can adequately furnish television cable service to the residents of the Donlan Canyon project. Mitigation Measures 4.7.13 The project sponsor would pay for any expenses incurred through relocation of PG&E facilities for the proposed project. 4.7.14 The homeowner would pay for underground conduit and any other facilities deemed necessary by Pacific Telephone for providing service to the dwelling units. 1Tom Hathcox, Fire Marshall, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, telephone communi- cation, November 3, 1988. 2Letter dated October 6, 1988 from Tom Hathcox to Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner, City of Dublin. 3Sargeant D. DiFranco, Crime Prevention Officer, Alameda County Sheriff's Department, telephone communication, November 3, 1988. 4Stanley L. Maleski, Business Manager, Dublin Joint Unified School District, telephone communication, November 7, 1988. 5Jean Jones, Administrative Secretary to Assistant Superintendent, Dublin Joint Unified School District, telephone communication, November 9, 1988. 6Diane Lowart, Dublin Recreation Director, telephone communication, November 3, 1988, and Steve Loweree, Public Works Superintendent, City of Dublin, telephone communi- cation, November 7, 1988. 7Dick Edminster, Alameda County Planning Department, telephone communication, November 9, 1988. Henry Radcliff, Livermore-Dublin Disposal Service, telephone conversation, March 21, 1989. 86184 4-76 • 4.7 Public Services 8Emil Kattan, Assistant Civil Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone communication November 8, 1988, and Barbara Darlington, Office Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone communication, November 3, 1988. 9Max Bergit, Bergit Engineers, Walnut Creek, telephone communication, November 9, 1988, concerning the Water Master Plan and elements thereof. 10Water consumption was based on 17 s.f. x 44 gpd plus 300 m.f. x 350 gpd for the total of 112,480 gpd. 11Emil Kattan, Assistant Civil Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone communication, November 9, 1988. 12Wastewater use was figured on the basis of 17 s.f. x 220 gpd plus 300 m.f. x 160 gpd for a total of 51,740 gpd. Figures from Dublin San Ramon Service District. 13Op. cit., Emil Kattan. 14Roger Myers, Senior Business Representative, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, telephone communication, November 15, 1988, Dario Lorenzana, Engineer, Pacific Bell, telephone communication, November 15, 1988, and Bud Hartwig, Engineering Supervisor, Viacom Cablevision, telephone communication, November 15, 1988. 15Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Grace Rensch, Historic Spots in California, Third Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1966, page 13. 86184 4-77 4.8 Fiscal Analysis 4.8 FISCAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This section analyzes the proposed project's net fiscal impact to the City of Dublin and Dublin Joint Unified School District (DJUSD). Capital and operating revenues and costs are estimated and a cost/revenue balance is calculated. Marginal Costs, the incremental costs of additional resources, are used when available; otherwise average costs are used. All projections of project revenue and costs are based upon full occupancy at buildout. Currently, the project site is located in Alameda County. It is anticipated the site would be annexed by the City of Dublin. SETTING The proposed project consists of two taxable parcel units, assessor parcel 941-18-3 currently assessed at $897 and assessor parcel 941-18-4 currently assessed at $128,475. The two parcels have a total assessed value of $129,372. The 1% property tax generated by the project site in fiscal year 1987-1988 is$1,294. The distribution of the 1%property tax depends upon the Tax Rate Area in which the parcels are located. The parcels are located in Tax Rate Area 26001.1 The current distribution of the property tax revenue is shown in Table 4.8-1. Alameda County General Fund receives 31.04% of the property tax which amounts to $402 while the City of Dublin receives S89 and educational agencies (including the DJUSD)receive$375.2 IMPACTS The primary services provided to the site by the City of Dublin are police protection, fire protection, recreation programs, street maintenance, and park maintenance. The Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD) provides water and sewer services, while the Doughterty Regional Fire Authority provides fire protection as a joint powers authority for cities of San Ramon and Dublin. Revenues One Time Revenues. The proposed project would generate revenues from building, plan check, utility hookup, and other fees paid by the developer prior to obtaining the required building permits. These fees are structured to offset the costs of providing the respective 86184 4-78 4.8 Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4.8-1 DISTRIBUTION OF DONLAN CANYON SITE'S CURRENT PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (1987-1988) Share Agency % Revenue Alameda County General Fund 31.04 $ 402 Dublin San Ramon Service District 21.23 275 City of Dublin 6.95 89 Educational Agenciesl 28.98 375 • County Library 5.00 65 Flood Control 2.52 33 BAAQMD .23 3 County Mosquito Abatement .15 2 BART .67 8 East Bay Regional Park 3.20 41 Alameda County Resource Center .03 1 Total 100.00 $1,294 1The Alameda County Auditor's Office did not have current figures for the new Dublin Joint Unified School District, so the figures here include all educational agencies. 86184 4-79 4.8 Fiscal Analysis services. The Dublin San Ramon Service District charges a one-time annexation fee of $1,000 and a hook-up cost of $3,100 per single-family dwelling unit (this fee is pro-rated in multiple-family dwelling units). Other one time fees charged by DSRSD are a water fee (meter) of $256 per dwelling unit (du), an $830 per du, and a $200 per du for the District. This one time fee totals $5,386 per du or approximately $1,707,362 for the proposed project would be paid to the DSRSD. These fees are based on Zone I and Zone II costs and still need to be determined for Zone III and IV. Zones are determined on water level/pumping heights. The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority charges fees of $600 per dwelling unit and $600 per 2,000 square feet of buildings other than dwelling units. A total of$190,200 would be paid by the project sponsor to the DRFA. The Dublin Unified School District does not charge an impact fee at this time. Property Tax.3 Development of the proposed project will increase the property tax base on the site. The total worth of the project at buildout would be about $31,350,000 and the 1% property tax on that amount would be$313,500. See Table 4.8-2 for buildout value by type of house. The distribution of the projected project property tax is shown in Table 4.8-3. The City of Dublin would receive $88,344. Educational agencies would receive a total of$90,852. Sales Tax. The City of Dublin receives sales tax at the rate of 1% of taxable sales. Assuming that 100% of all City income was spent within the City, 44% of the sales in Dublin occurred from City residents. The estimates of sales tax from the proposed project are based upon an average sales tax revenue factor of $98.05 per resident. At buildout, the proposed project would generate approximately $99,521 in sales tax revenue. 4 State Subventions. The City would also receive subventions from the State based on the increase in population on the site. Revenue estimates for the Donlan Canyon project would be $36,148 for the motor vehicle in-lieu fee and $4,192 for the cigarette tax for a total of $40,340 collectively.5 The other major revenue source applicable to Donlan 86184 4-80 4.8 Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4.8-2 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT VALUE Dwelling Unit Type Number DU Median Price Total Value Single-Family Detached 17 $ 300,000 $ 5,100,000 Condominiums Small 150 85,000 12,750,000 Condominiums Large 150 90,000 13,500,000 TOTAL $ 31,350,000 TABLE 4.8-3 DISTRIBUTION OF INCREASED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Share Agency % Revenues Alameda County 31.04 $ 97,310 City of Dublin 28.18 88,344 Educational Agencies 28.98 90,852 County Library 5.00 15,675 Flood Control 2.52 7,900 BAAQMD 0.23 721 County Mosquito Abatement 0.15 470 BART 0.67 2,100 East Bay Regional Park District 3.20 10,031 Alameda County Resource Center 0.03 94 TOTAL 100.00 $ 313,500 86184 4-81 4.8 Fiscal Analysis Canyon properties is the utility franchise tax charged to electric, gas, garbage and cable television franchisers. This tax is charged to households and would be approximately $13,770 for the Donlan Canyon proposed project.° Costs City of Dublin. Costs would be incurred for providing police, fire protection, parkland development and maintenance, recreation, street maintenance, and general government services. The Police Department generally identifies its staffing standards as requiring one officer per 1,000 residents within the City. The addition of 1,015 new residents would incur costs at the rate of 1.01 times the cost of one police officer. The mean cost per officer is $77,473 yielding total police costs associated with the project of$78,248.7 The cost for fire protection for the project would be $90,254, based on a per capita cost of $88.92 and a population of 1,015. The City's Parks and Recreation Department would incur capital costs for the acquisition and development of the two acres of parkland already identified in the public services section. Operation and maintenance costs would be incurred on an annual basis when the two acres were developed. This is the first year that the City of Dublin has taken the responsibility for maintenance of all its parks. Previously, much of the park acreage was maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Service District. The average cost per acre for parks in Dublin is about $7,800. The park proposed with the project would cost about $15,600 per year.8 The average costs of providing recreation programs is $11.22 per resident based upon 1987-88 net recreation cost, and this factor yields annual recreation costs to the City of $11,388 from the proposed Donlan Canyon project.° The project would also generate street maintenance costs for the City of Dublin. The proposed project would build approximately 1 mile of road and would cost approximately $5,806.1° The proposed project would require 17.6 new street lights(one mile with one light every 300 feet). The City could also incur an increase in general government costs. These costs include those of financial and personnel administration, the executive and legislative bodies and their staffs, electronic data processing, city or county clerk and attorney, courts, and maintenance of public buildings. Frequently, all costs for pensions and insurance will be allocated to the general government budget as well. 86184 4-82 4.8 c,scal Analysis General government costs are not typically sensitive to small changes in population. The proposed project would add approximately 1,015 residents to the City's population, an increase of 4.69%.11 Providing general government services to these additional residents would not be expected to require additional resources. Thus, it would be expected that the marginal general government costs, that is, the increase in general government costs associated with the proposed project, would be zero. However, an estimate of the costs can be made based upon the actual general government expenditures for FY 1987-1988. The actual general government cost for FY 1987-1988 amounted to $795,979. The average cost of general government per resident is $36.80. This factor would yield an annual general government cost to the City of$37,352 from the proposed Donlan Canyon project. Dublin San Ramon Service District. Water and sewer service would require new facilities. Thus, capital expenditures as well as annual operation and maintenance costs would be incurred. Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. The fire authority expects to provide services to the proposed project without requiring additional equipment(see Section 4.7, Public Services). Schools. The Dublin Unified School District would not incur capital costs to service the proposed project. Increased enrollments would increase annual costs. Cumulative impacts would require increased capital expenditures for facilities in the Dublin Unified School District. Cost/Revenue Balance City of Dublin. The City would incur capital costs for police services, fire services, street maintenance and general government. The capital costs of increased parkland would be offset by the project sponsor's dedication or in lieu fee payment. However, park maintenance costs could be incurred. Table 4.8-4 summarized the net fiscal impact to the City of Dublin anticipated from the proposed project. The cost/revenue balance expected from the proposed project would be approximately$3,128 of revenues exceeding costs. 86184 4-83 4.8 Fiscal Analysis TABLE 4.8-4 ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACTS TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FROM THE DONLAN CANYON PROJECT REVENUE Property taxes $ 88,344 Sales Taxes 99,521 Subventions 40,340 Franchise Tax 13,770 Total $ 241,975 COSTS Police $ 78,248 Fire 90,314 Parks 15,600 Recreation 11,388 Street M aintenancel 5,806 General Government 37,352 Total $ 238,708 COST/REVENUE BALANCE $ +3,267 lThese costs are adequate for flatland areas of Dublin. Hillside development may require higher costs for maintenance because of increased chance of flood and slide damage to public facilities. Source: EIP Associates 86184 4-84 4.8 Fiscal Analysis Dublin San Ramon Service District. The direct capital costs for water and sewer service would be paid by the project sponsor. Indirect capital costs would be recovered through hookup charges to other new development. Annual water and sewer costs would be covered through annual user charges. The net fiscal impact to the DSRSD would be an increase of approximately$66,556. Schools. The net capital fiscal impact to the Dublin Unified School District would be zero. The increase in property tax revenues allocated to the District would first go to the State to be redistributed for annual costs based on average daily attendance records. MITIGATION MEASURES 4.8.1 The project sponsor would be required to comply with the City of Dublin's Park Dedication Ordinance. 1Thomas Lum, Auditor's Office, Alameda County, telephone communication, November 17, 1988. 2Ibid.,There are no figures yet for the 1988-89 fiscal year and the Dublin Unified School District is a new district, therefore it was not possible to get the percentage of the 1% property tax that went to the DUSD. The only figure available was one which included all educational agencies. 3The figures in this section and in Table 4.8-2 are based on estimates made in fiscal year 1987-1988 by the developer. Given the continual rise in housing prices in the Bay Area, these prices are likely conservative and and do not reflect any increases during the 1988- 1989 fiscal year. 4Sales tax was figured on the following basis. Assuming that 100%of all City income was spent within the City would mean that 44% of the sales in Dublin occurred from City residents. The actual sales tax figures as indicated in the June 30,1988 Financial Report were$4,819,541 and DOF figure of 21,628 population were used. This equals $98.05 per resident. (Total expected increase in sales tax revenue can be determined by using the population figures for the Donlan Canyon project (1015) times sales tax revenue per person($98.05). 5Based on a memo from Philip Molina,Finance Officer,City of Dublin(May 16, 1989),per capita factors of$35.88 for the motor vehicle in-lieu fee and $4.13 for the cigarette tax were established. 86184 4-85 4.8 Fiscal Analysis 6Franchise tax revenue is figured on the following: 1988-89 estimated taxes for gas of $30,234; electric of $128,569; garbage of $69,138; and, CATV of $69,135. The total taxes equalled $297,076, divided by resident population of 21,628, generating a tax of $13.73 per person. This capita tax ($43.95) times 317 dwelling units yields $13,932. 7The figure of cost per officer of $77,473 is taken from a telephone communication with Mr. Phillip S. Molina, Finance Officer, City of Dublin, June 23, 1989. 8The City of Dublin has budgeted $308,100 for contracted work this year for park maintenance. An additional $50,000 is estimated for utilities for parks. Telephone communication with Steve Loweree, Public Works Supervisor, City of Dublin, November 7, 1988. 9Total recreation cost for the City of Dublin was taken from the actual 1987-1988 net recreation cost and was $242,605. A recreation per capita factor was figured by dividing the total by the population (21,628) and multiplying by the Donlan Canyon population (1,015). 10The cost per mile in the previous year for the Hansen project was figured at $4,696 per mile. Using this figure and last year's budget expenditure and this year's estimated expenditures the figure of $5,806 was calculated. 11Total population of Dublin is 21,628. Projected project population is 1,015. These figures come from a discussion with Mr. Phillip Molina, Finance Officer, City of Dublin, June 23, 1989. 86184 4-86 .. .:. .. .::.:-::_;::a:.;;iiS.iirmw.b)i4:w.rt.v �..�:. ecY•y....<vaYy"�i�..c-�t1°i.*+.,.::.$54f�•:aY6Y®G:'X2''�$,.vXw...,.�. ..; /\ • �_ . 8.1.2 Required Geotechnical Analyses A. A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all subdivisions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineering geologist. B. Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative subdivision map stage for all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map, and for other proposed projects if the preliminary investigation indicates a potential geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be included at this stage. The detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary must consider: - cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide; - effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered drainage patterns; - impact of a maximum credible earthquake; - where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault through or under landslide deposits; - debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of Dublin). Care must be taken not to locate structures in the path of potential debris flows. - Where published maps identify or show "ancient" or Quaternary slides on sites of proposed development, their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the proposed development on the area's stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer. C. If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an engineering analysis and design, if necessary, to mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall be • required for all structures planned for human occupancy. D. Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with all soils reports and design recommendations formulated where the potential is present. These analyses and recommendations shall include public streets and utilities, in order to reduce future public repair costs. E. A fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of California for Special Studies Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all development within the Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map. The fault rupture evaluation should be conducted after building sites are specifically defined. Sites situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones (Slossen, 1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multi-family dwellings or for public or recreational facilities. F. Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would significantly alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated. 8.1.3 Existing Structures A. Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated. ATTACHMENT 13.s 'PA$1-0121 law,Chwyon 6-7A/G7It ;�. {{.--y e?.;. , ,,r i, s -e' 1,11. $ppss,,,,,7"° 1-:,,4yy� ,icy '`... "- -r*., -g„} ":k ti 4"` .t Y"A;+g� �,i• # ,t 4�"Fa43' }rt�> 'J. 3 u--i.V1 �C# d.. '".a l'; ��T a$ j, _ 470,., v , ,A, , elt„ .`r. ., ,-*" .- 1 , : ,':.." e'-''iC-7: 4•-;- 7-''.i'','i."-eiti-"''..A.,:',,-*:: ' ---, " • . . . _.. - - '. y �' T - -r •. + d / yp,Lr } tamyY.,. ,, iRR. i 1 � J n � � a..+eu*.wvaY!%G.Wi1WSR/Ilky11Lyl44 i i A •. I Guiding Policies Appoint iewa reports submittedregisteredengineering applicants.ge los A. Investigate and mitigate geologic and seismic Applicants' geologists, however competent and hazards or locate development away from such ethical, may tend to take the viewpoint of hazards in order to preserve life and protect their clients or may lack budget for suf fic- property. iently detailed studies. The City's interest should be represented by a fully qualified reviewer. B. Require financial protection for public agen- cies and individuals as a condition of devel- opment approval where geologic conditions F. Within Special Studies Zone: Require detailed indicate a potential for high maintenance studies to accurately map fault traces and costs. evaluate ground conditions. Base final judg- ments on knowledge of the degree of risk and • the consequences of failure. Implementing Policies. Development proposals, including public works and utilities, must give special consideration • to the potential for surface faulting and seis- C. Analyze proposed development sites at the mically triggered ground failure in this high- earliest stage of the detailed planning process hazard area. to determine geologic suitability. If a project is allowed to proceed partway G. Do not locate structures intended for human through the approval process before conditions occupancy over an active fault trace. To the are fully known, adequate mitigation may be extent practical, do not locate such structures more difficult to achieve. Information avail- over the trace of an inactive fault. Roads are able for preparation of the General Plan map to be built over active faults only where is not sufficiently detailed to allow a pre- alternatives are impractical. sumption of geologic suitability in areas designated for urban development. — H. Establish setbacks from active and potentially active fault traces for structures intended for D. Require geotechnical studies prior to approval human occupancy. all of rezoning, specific plans, or subdivision maps in areas designated B through E on the Setback areas (ordinarily 50 feet) should be Geologic Hazards map (Figure 7). Require occupied by uses that could experience dis- 'comprehensive geologic and engineering studies placement without endangering large numbers of critic structures regardless of location. of people. Examples are landscaped areas, parking lots, and noncritical storage. Critical structures are those most needed following a disaster. They include utility centers and substations, hospitals, fire stations, police and emergency communi- cations facilities, and bridges and overpasses. Flood-hazard potential makes any dam a critical structure. (r%' ry of Simi RAMO,/ 6-614A22,44. f)G14Ai *-PcjiueS Ili • IgCa�3 } t #z.bh rT tby it` ' 4 +s"'" Y Y'4 N ` ; k .,......,`x....„ r -.. ^ p :''• � 4,.. ' k 4' •,x, .." om^[ i tA ,• �f . 1 t ' � 0 s 4 Y z 3' ")" ''y s(_ � r6 ' i• '"un �4 d 5 w � . � x� z , y ; ,' f 1/4 t. t " • Y :ma f' .PRww6 A 4631 .-3. ,..... .5..'ea..3;'..........,..::--_—w.... Jk` ... _ •••'•��� P.m-° J 1� ..`._...... -,--_ ---�, •• •.IS.••.�,,•� , • ° oppC • I. Require preparation of a soils report prior to 9.2 FLOOD, FIRE, AND la issuing a building permit, except where the HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Building Inspector determines that a report is not needed. Several Safety Element topics can be dealt with `milm. only at a regional level, or fall primarily within The Planning Area is underlain by moderately the responsibility of public agencies other than to highly expansive soils that must be taken the City of San Ramon. Public safety from the use into account during design if cracking and and transportation of hazardous substances depends settling of buildings, streets, driveways and on actions by the state and federal governments. sidewalks are to be minimized. The report The City of San Ramon, with participation by the would not be necessary for minor additions Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services is to buildings or where soils' characteristics preparing a Multiple Hazard Functional Planning are well known. Guide. J. Cut Slopes: Limit to 3:1 (33 percent slope) Flooding and Storm Drainage except where an engineering geologist can establish that a steeper slope would perform Maps showing areas subject to a 100-year flood satisfactorily over the long term. Encourage (representing a 1 percent chance each year) and use of retaining walls or rock-filled crib prepared by the federal government indicate hazards walls as alternatives to high cut slopes. along the length of Bollinger Creek, part of San Catanio Creek, South San Ramon Creek from Pine Examples of failure of 2:1 slopes exist in the Valley Road south, and along the length of Alamo Planning Area. Flatter slopes are more adapt- Creek and West Branch Creek. Development exists or able to revegetation and to avoidance of an is proposed by the Plan in areas where creeks could engineered look. overflow. Street drainage systems carry flows to the creeks. K. Contour rounding and revegetation: Blend cut- For the San Ramon Valley north of Norris Canyon and-fill slopes with existing contours, provide Road, Contra Costa County has designed creek storm- horizontal variation, and avoid the artificial drainage improvements that are expected to accommo- appearance of engineered slopes. Revegetate to date flows at full development. To the south, control erosion. (See Policy 3.1.H.) however, capacity for increased flow has not been designed. In the Dougherty Valley, creeks will Plant materials should not be limited to hydro- have to be modified to accommodate flow from urban seeding and mulching with annual grasses. development. Trees add structure to the soil and take up moisture while adding color and diversity. Wildland and Urban Fires . Form geological hazard abatement districtsIL The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District prior to development approval, where appro- (SRVFPD) and the Dublin San Ramon Services District priate, to ensure that geotechnical mitigation (DSRSD) serve urbanized portions of the Planning measures are maintained over the long term, and Area. Safety Element issues are mainly related to that financial risks are equitably shared among fire hazards created by General Plan proposals that owners and not borne by the City of San Ramon. increase the number of homes adjoining open space. Without such risk sharing, an individual home- On the average, San Ramon has up to 9.5 days per owner could suffer disastrous loss, and a year of Critical Fire Weather. Fuel loading is landslide could cause damage to a street ex- light (grass) and wildfire hazard is moderate, ceeding the City's annual street maintenance except in the Westside subarea where steep woodland budget. slopes create high to extreme hazards. C1fy OFSAN RAmoN . 601e R PK.`PLP J of i cues - ,•.-„,„ , ,,,.,,„„,,,,„,-,..„--7-7 ; , , ATTACHMENTM3 ) .,_ -'•:"-r.:::_,:-: • , . -, c .:L a. 8?—o l2 �'n�+°""•- '"`too" Gip/Pt Program 4.2: Develop guidelines and procedures for rehabilitating structures located in potentially hazardous areas. Program 4.3: Retrofit existing critical utility lines that cross active faults with automatic shutoff devices or other means to accommodate surface rupture. Goal 2: To minimize the risks to lives and property due to landslides and other non-seismically induced geologic hazards within the Planning Area. Policy 5: Prohibit the construction of any structure intended for human occupancy in any landslide prone area (shown as moderate through high on Figure V-3 and Table V-5) unless geologic investigation or project mitigations demonstrate low level of acceptable risk at the site (Table V-5) . Program 5.1: Require geologic and geotechnical engineering studies for all new mo+ development prior to issuance of building permits on slopes greater than 20% and within areas of high, moderate to high or moderate potential for landsliding or areas deemed necessary by the Chief Building Inspector. Program 5.2: Require developers to include drainage, erosion and landslide mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce landslide potential. Program 5.3: Minimize earth moving activity in areas of moderate to high landslide � — potential. ea- Policy 6: Discourage the withdrawal of groundwater which may create subsidence, landslides, and cracking of the ground surfaces. Program 6.1: Work with Zone 7 to insure that the groundwater level remains stable. Goal 3: To minimize the risks to lives and property due to fire hazards within the Planning Area. Policy 7: Provide an adequate level of fire equipment and personnel to protect the community. C T7 of 1P1 easovj 6ENerft PIRA/ l?'ob e y V-24 r ATTACHMENT /V (3oF 3) 81-012 TT+laM CP"yw, G'H4/rm • GROUND FAILURE • Earthquake ground shaking is and/or engineering geology in undeveloped areas. Avoiding or capable of generating many kinds of investigations. The investigation restricting development in areas ground failures including landslides, report should evaluate the site prone to ground failure is often debris flows,rock slides and hazards in relation to the proposed easier than trying to design settlement. Some ground failures development and recommend site structures to withstand potential during earthquakes are caused by preparation and construction failure. Such areas can be zoned as liquefaction. Damage to buildings measures to mitigate the hazards. open space or for low-intensity uses from ground failure is often total and You must have a person trained in to avoid the potential risks. In some it is particularly difficult and geology to review the investigation cases,it is possible for a jurisdiction expensive to design and build reports for your jurisdiction.This to acquire potentially hazardous land structures to withstand ground person may be a staff geologist,a for public parks or arrange for failure.Development in areas of consultant or a geologist shared with acquisition by an open space district. potential ground failure should be other jurisdictions. avoided or carefully engineered for PLAN CHECK/DESIGN REVIEW the site conditions. SUBDIVISIONREGULATIONS Where zoning permits construction If there is any indication of hazards, in areas prone to ground failure, Getting Started you should require detailed geologic hazard mitigation measures need to investigations of sites proposed for be carefully reviewed. IDENTIFY AREAS SUBJECT TO IDEN ID FAILURE subdivisions. Such investigations are Recommendations in geotechnical GROessential to confirm that all lots and engineering geology reports The background report for your created are,or can be engineered to need to be fully implemented. The safety element should provide be,safe building sites and that all building permit and inspection accurate and up-to-date information public improvements will be located process provides the means to ensure dentifying areas of potential ground and engineered to avoid damage that construction plans adequately 'ailure hazards. You may get from geologic hazards. By reflect the geotechnical dditional information from local identifying hazards at this point in recommendations and site conditions olleges and universities and development,building sites may be and that site development and eologic consultants. Your options clustered to avoid hazardous areas, construction occurs as approved. >r responding to the hazards road rights-of-way located to prevent 2pend on the accuracy with which failures or maintenance problems, ey are identified. and open spaces planned to coincide with hazardous areas. Once land is `rategies subdivided,it is very difficult to ui0 TECHNICAL RE VIEW redesign a development pattern to Development of a site with identified reduce losses from ground failure. ground failure hazards should not be approved unless supported by the HAZARD/OPEN SPACE ZONING results of detailed geotechnical Zoning can be used effectively to mitigate hazards from ground failure • A-Tx t'ccl G E OF eitlig feA) y/ a e 28 P9 �VlGE S ATTACHMENT 15 14,5) g'i•ot2 'pop Lao Canyon dp7A/gm . c I Examples MEND. `� Belmont Geologic LAND USE CRITERIA Hazards Ordinance map geological land use "The City shall require investigations by symbol conditions houses roads schools both registered soils engineers and 01 engineering geologists prior to issuing No Sbr Bedrock Y Y Y building permits for any new Sun Unconsolidated sediment Y Y construction unless waived due to Sex Expansive soil * Y * current existing information and Sff Fil on at oround a Pfs Fill on a slope * * location." Ps Potential shallow landslide ' * Pd Potential Deep landslide * * imam Ms Moving shalllow landslide * * * ...... he San Juan Hills area of Belmont t is Pdf Potential debris flow N * N a partially developed area with an Md Moving deep landslide N N N old and unworkable subdivision and steep hillsides situated about one mile from the San Andreas Fault. Y Yes(permitted) Recognizing potential development • Acceptability of use depends on results of detailed geologic investiggon problems,the city retained an N No(not permitted) engineering geologist to prepare a As modified from the Belmont Geologic Ordinance geologic map and ground movement by William Spangle and Associates,Inc. potential map for the area at a scale of 1"=20(Y. The maps were based on aerial photographs,field Permitted land uses in Belmont Ordinance investigations,and other geologic studies. Both maps were recently adopted as official maps of the city as • Establishes procedures for report requirements established in part of an ordinance to regulate modifying the map and for the ordinance apply in considering development in the area based on granting exceptions to the land applications for building and slope stability. The ordinance: use criteria. grading permits,rezoning,formation • Clarifies the role of a city of assessment districts and divisions • Establishes categories of land use geologist in reviewing of land. permitted within each mapped applications for geologic reports. geologic unit For More Information Contact: { • Specifies requirements for p q Planning and Community geologic reports Land use restrictions and Development Department,City of geotechnical/engineering geology Belmont t '�i3mr oFctGE oflt 1PIER&€ .CY SC�JtC-€) Page 29 ATTACHMENT_A_#.3) 141.81-01-2.1).4....,CflnyonOillem ell) . < n • 2. San Bernardino County For More Information Contact: For More Information Contact: Land Management Department,San Land Use and Development tDiscourage the locating of critical Bernardino County Department,Santa Clara County cilities and structures for human or cupancy on potentially active faults or 3. Santa Clara County n certain potential landslides and the r"oath of their earth flow." "Procedures should be established for investigation,design,construction and Anticipated landslide activity in the er inspection of developments in those areas event of heavy rainfall and/or am of the Baylands which have a higher soils earthquakes in San Bernardino and geologic risk to life and property County has led to the adoption of a than other areas in Santa Clara County." Landslide Ordinance. The ordinance �__ ' establishes regulations for structures .i he Santa Clara County Baylands and development on,or adjacent to Plan(1972),aimed at reducing risk to I landslides or within areas that have a life and property,covers an area 6 history of landslide activity. A subject to settlement,lateral geotechnical report must be spreading and liquefaction. A study submitted with an application for a of the planning area's hazards was project in such a location. The report done by geologic and structural must evaluate the stability of engineering consultants. The hillsides during anticipated seismic planning area was divided into risk accelerations. A map of identified zones based on potential for ground landslide areas is part of the zoning settlement and ground failure. ordinance. The California Division Appropriate land and building uses of Mines and Geology is currently were identified for each of the risk mapping landslides in the county in zones. The Baylands Plan adopts the greater detail than the current maps. uses and recommends that the The county also plans to sponsor county require a soils report showing publication of a volume of topical that any proposed development site papers on landslides by the Inland is not in a higher risk zone than Geological Society. These papers shown. Based on this plan,the provide the county with a substantial county adopted an ordinance base of information for landslide requiring geologic reports and site identification amd classification. investigations for any subdivision on or adjacent to a potentially hazardous area which is depicted on the official county hazard maps. OFFICE c page 30 larg&f,NC1/4{ 'SE .VCC 5 t ITTACHMENT 1, ec3) �3 Pil 81-brz-van tom,,. co..4,..y o n &IPAle«