HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-16-1988 PC Agenda AGENDA
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - Wells Intermediate School Tuesday - 7:00 p.m.
6800 Penn Drive - Multi purpose Room, Meeting Room February 16, 1988
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - February 1 1988
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 Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Action denying PA 87-138
Shell Service Station Price Sign Variance to exceed the
maximum permitted sign area, at 8999 San Ramon Road at
Alcosta Boulevard.
8.2 PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch iroject - General Plan Amendment
Study and Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative
Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation requests for 282
dwelling units on 147+ acres, west of Silvergate Drive and
north of Hansen Drive.
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. OTHER BUSINESS
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
12. ADJOURNMENT
(Over for Procedures Summary)
Regular Meeting - February 16, 1988
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on
February 16, 1988, in the Multi Purpose Room, Wells Intermediate School. The
meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairperson.
* * * *
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempel, and Zika,
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner.
* * * *
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 the meeting of February 1, 1988, were approved as presented.
* * * *
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
* * * *
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received an action letter and a
notice of appeal letter.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-23 February 16, 1988
r'1
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Action
denying PA 87-138 Shell Service Station
Price Sign Variance to exceed the maximum
permitted sign area, at 8999 San Ramon
Road at Alcosta Boulevard.
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran presented background information relating to the Applicant
being notified by certified mail on April 30, 1987, of the illegal signs
located on the property, two of which are price signs. Also located on the
site is a three-sided monument sign which is non-conforming due to sign area
and height, a primary frontage wall-mounted sign which is conforming and a
secondary frontage wall sign which is non-conforming due to excessive sign
area. The Applicant subsequently submitted an application requesting approval
of a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for two price signs at
the Shell Service Station, 8999 San Ramon Road.
The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on January 13, 1988 to consider
the variance application. After receiving testimony from Staff, the Applicant
and the Public, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 001-88 denying
the Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for two price
signs. The Applicant subsequently appealed the Zoning Administrator's action.
Ms. O'Halloran stated the Applicant is requesting approval of the Variance to
allow two existing illegal 6' x 4' double-faced price signs, each with a total
of 48 square feet of sign area. One sign is located on San Ramon Road and the
other sign is located on Alcosta Boulevard. Each sign exceeds the maximum
permited sign area by 16 square feet.
The City's Sign Ordinance permits service station price signs indicating
gasoline prices and available service. Service stations are restricted to one
price sign per street frontage to a maximum of two. The sign area is
restricted to 16 square feet for single-faced signs and 32 square feet for
double-faced signs. The maximum permitted sign height for a price sign is six
feet. These regulations have been in effect in Dublin since at least 1980,
prior to the City's incorporation.
Ms. O'Halloran also stated that the location, size and content of Service
Station price signs are regulated by the California State Business and
Professions Code pertaining to Weights and Measures and Petroleum Products.
The City's Sign Ordinance is consistent with the State Code governing Service
Station Price Signs.
On January 13, 1988, the Zoning Administrator denied the Applicant's Variance
request finding that:
1) Authorizing the Variance constitutes a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity.
2) There are no special conditions or extraordinary circumstances which apply
to the property and do not apply to other properties in the vicinity.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-24 February 16, 1988
3) Authorizing the Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought to be
achieved by the City's sign regulations as the Applicant's signs do not
conform to the Ordinance's purpose to promote uniformity among signs.
Ms. O'Halloran stated that Staff concurs with the Zoning Administrators'
action denying the Applicant's request to vary from the maximum permitted sign
area for service station price signs and with the requirement for the
Applicant to bring the illegal price signs into compliance with the City's
Sign Ordinance within 30 days of the effective date of the denial. She
further stated Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning
Administrator's Action Denying PA 87-138.
Cm. Barnes asked when the signs were installed, before or after the Sign
Ordinance?
Ms. O'Halloran stated the signs were installed prior to the Sign Ordinance,
but that a building permit had not been obtained, therefore they were
considered "illegal signs".
The Applicant, Weldon Theobold, General Manager for Carl Cox, owner of the
Shell Station in question stated that Mr. Cox had been located at the current
site for the past 11 years.
Mr. Theobold stated that Shell Oil Company was unique in that they market 4
products; regular gasoline, leaded gasoline, unleaded gasoline and diesel. He
stated that the Shell station is in direct competition with the Chevron
station located directly to the north, across Alcosta Boulevard. Because the
Chevron station is within the City of San Ramon, it faces a different, more
lenient sign ordinance.
Mr. Theobold stated that there has been an upgrade in the landscaping for this
station for greater eye appeal.
Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant if he knew if the Chevron station in San Ramon
complied with the regulations for that City.
Mr. Theobold stated he had checked with the City of San Ramon and was advised
that they had not done a survey similar to that done in Dublin, but that the
Chevron station did meet the signage criteria for that City.
Cm. Zika asked what the size of the building signs were.
Mr. Theobold stated 4' x 6' on the building and 3' x 6' price signs.
Cm. Zika asked the Applicant what was wrong with a 3' x 6' sign.
Mr. Theobold stated that the size of the numerals were smaller and would
impede sales.
Cm. Burnham questioned if the signs has been installed with building permits.
Mr. Theobold stated he had no knowledge of whether permits were obtained.
Mr. Tong stated that the signs in question have been installed since
incorporation of Dublin, approximately 5 years.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-25 February 16, 1988
•
Cm. Burnham stated he was concerned with the competition between these two
stations for larger signage, that if each station were going to try and outdo
each other with signage there would be no limit to the requests for variances.
Mr. Theobold stated that if at some future date Shell Oil Company were to get
out of the leaded gas business they would only have three products and
therefore would not need the larger signs. He mentioned that 62% of the
diesel fuel sold was for automobile use and not trucks use.
Cm. Tempel questioned how this stations signage compared to the Shell Station
located on Dublin Boulevard at San Ramon Road.
Mr. Theobold stated that that station also has four products.
There being no further comments, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 4-1 (Cm.
Temple - No vote) a Resolution was adopted recommending the Planning
Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action to deny PA 87-138, Shell
Service Station variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for
two service station price signs.
RESOLUTION NO. 007 - 88
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION
DENYING PA 87-138 SHELL SERVICE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA FOR TWO SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGNS
AT THE SHELL SERVICE STATION ON ALCOSTA BOULEVARD AND SAN RAMON ROAD
8999 SAN RAMON ROAD
SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch Project -
General Plan Amendment Study and Planned
Development Prezoning, Tentative
Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation
requests for 282 dwelling units on 147+
acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north
of Hansen Drive.
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing which had been continued from the
Planning Commission meeting of February 1, 1988, and called for the Staff
Report.
Ms. O'Halloran stated that at the February 1, 1988, Planning Commission
meeting the Commission held a Public Hearing to receive public comments on the
Draft EIR and continued the public hearing to February 16, 1988 meeting to
receive additional comments.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-26 February 16, 1988
The purpose of the February 16, 1988, hearing is to discuss significant
impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and major issues
related to the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning
and Tentative Subdivision Map application.
lication.
The submitted proposal requests approval of 248 single-family dwelling units
and 34 townhomes (totaling 282 dwelling units). It was indicated, by the
Applicant, at the February 1, 1988, Planning Commission meeting that the
proposed plan would be revised. On February 9, 1988, the applicant held a
community meeting at which time a revised plan was presented to the public
noting a reduction in dwelling units to 250 units that would not be developed
on the visually prominent knolls.
At the time this Staff report was being prepared, the applicant notified Staff
that the revised plans would be presented to the Planning Commission at the
February 16, 1988, Public Hearing.
Mark Trembley, EIP, spoke regarding the responsibilities involved with
evaluating and accessing impacts on the site with regards to the following:
- landslides, repair and replacement of materials
- concern with grading, run off into Martin Canyon Creek
- need of construction along creek beds to preserve creek banks
- vegetation, 61 acres of oak/bay trees; 22 acres - 36% impacted negatively
- animal life, do roadway cutoff natural migration paths
- land use, 79 acres of open space not available for general public
- fire service, western edge outside 5 minute response time
- annexation, need for 1 additional Police Officer and intrusion protection.
- school impact, 56, K to 8th grade students; 89, 9-12 grade students
- water, Zone 4 for western edge; wastewater would have no significant
impact
- noise, +70 dba along I-580 edge
Cm. Zika asked if the net out cash flow of $26,000 was directed at the need
for an additional police officer; emergency access and how steep grades are.
Mr. Trembley stated that the $26,000 would be for a police officer; the need
for an emergency access road if the road was blocked at the Valley Christian
site; and that according to the Grade Map there was a 15% maximum grade.
Cm. Barnes questioned the information regarding schools noting she understood
Wells School was now at maximum capacity, per data from school district.
Mr. Tong stated that data from school district is based on pre-unification of
school district.
Cm. Zika was concerned with pads with 20-30 feet of fill, drainage, and on
site engineering.
Cm. Mack was concerned with the visual character of the site with regard to
the size of perimeter fencing.
Cm. Burnham had some concerns with the amount of unengineered fill being
dumped on the site from surrounding construction jobs.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-27 February 16, 1988
Gordon Brandt, 7402 Hansen Drive was concerned with the statistics quoted of
145 total school children for this particular development and was concerned
with what the impacts would be on the schools from other future housing
developments. He was also concerned with the impact of traffic on Hansen
Drive, construction of another water tank, eyesore, and with rushing with
unresolved issues.
Bob Walker, East Bay Area Trails Council, 545 Clayton Street, San Francisco,
was concerned with the major cut and fill, and suggested reducing the mass
grading. It may be possible to provide access along Martin Creek, or look to
major dedication for public access, possibly owner dedication like
Blaylock/Gleason/Fletcher property.
Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, 11707 Juarez Lane, Dublin,
was concerned with the following items: wildlife, heritage tree preservation,
inconsistency with General Plan as far as keeping ridgelines in tact, school
district impacts, traffic impacts, reduce size of project so Silvergate
residents will not be impacted against (possibly removing of approximately
90-100 dwellings) fence around property would impede animal migration,
vegetation replacement program (transplant "bunch" grass) save dead trees for
"woodpeckers", preserve deer trails and closer survey regarding archaeology
features.
Bart J. Schenone, 1290 "B" Street, Suite 218, Hayward, (Attorney for Neilsen
access road) spoke regarding the emergency access road in predominately cattle
grazing-agricultural use that is not compatable with urbanization.
Cm. Barnes question who now owns the access road.
Mr. Schenone stated that the Nielsens own the road on their property with
easements for other owners for access.
A. Schuitemaker, 7397 Hansen Drive, mentioned at the community meeting of
February 9, 1988, there was a statement made regarding the fill in of a swale
area, according to EIR it was recommended that filling in of swales be
avoided. Mr. Schuitemaker also asked if density was based on the total acres
or total buildable acres, and he felt there was no need for more multi-family
dwellings in this area.
R. Chinn, 7336 Hansen Drive, stated she felt the hillsides should be left
alone, that more parks were needed for children and was very concerned with
the amount of traffic on Silvergate Drive. She stated there is a problem with
all the construction vehicles not observing school stop signs. She was also
concerned with the number of children being bussed that would normally be
attending Nielsen school.
Teresa Kalashian, 11777 Murietta Court, returned a "Speaker Slip" stating she
was opposed to the project, but did not wish to speak.
Michael Gleason, P.O. Box 62, Port Costa, stated he will be submitting plans
in March for Donlan Canyon Ranch, 197 acre parcel which encompases the two
ridgelines behind the proposed Hansen Ranch project. He is proposing a 20
acre development out of the total 197 acres and stated the need for another
access road to his project.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-28 February 16, 1988
eS
Jim Lopez, 7433 Hansen Drive, stated he felt the school impact information in
EIR is incorrect. Overcrowding of Nielsen school is seen and traffic is a
real concern.
The following residents returned a "speaker slip" that indicated they did not
wish to speak:
James P. Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project.
Sue Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project.
Jonathan & Patricia Smiga, 11517 Silvergate Drive, opposed to the project.
Cm. Barnes stated that information provided for EIR is information given by
the school district and it is hard to project.
Mr. Trembley stated the school district uses a ratio and we assume that the
figures given are correct.
Cm. Burnham stated that information provided in Draft EIR is information that
was given and that it is tough to project with the figures given.
Mr. Trembley stated that the school district uses a certain ratio and we
assume that those figures given at the time are correct. He also stated that
he will re-contact the school district and see if they want to change their
information.
A short recess was called.
Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 8:40 p.m.
Gordon Jacoby presented the revised plans which include a reduction from 282
dwelling units to 250 dwelling units: 34 townhomes; 36 patio homes; 130
single family and 50 custom lots.
He stated that the preliminary difference was to stay off of the knoll areas
to keep from having the mass grading and to relocate soil on site and not off
site. By reducing the number of dwelling units would eliminate the need for a
new water tank site.
Mr. Jacoby stated they are working out access road problems; working with
Gleason regarding access; north access to adjoining parcels; loop road and
possible Valley Christian Center access.
Mr. Jacoby stated there is no note in EIR of new trees to be planted, but will
present at a later meeting.
Chris Craiker, Architect, presented slides and drawings showing a variety of
construction types anticipated to be built in the development. This included
up hill, downhill, and side to side including terracing envelopes. Included
was a covered bridge at the entrance into development.
Cm. Mack asked what type of siding would be on the exterior of the dwellings.
Mr. Craiker stated horizonal and vertical wood siding, stucco, stone and brick
would be used on the exteriors.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-29 February 16, 1988
Mr. Burnham asked what size the custom lots would be.
Mr. Jacoby stated the patio home lot size is approximately 3,300 - 7,500
square feet, the remainder 9,000, 10,000 and 11,000 square feet.
Cm. Zika inquired about design guidelines for custom houses.
Mr. Jacoby stated that the CC&R's would addres the custom houses.
Cm. Barnes asked for any additional speaker slips.
Debbie Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, was concerned if there was going to
be a new access road for emergency use and where it would be located. She was
also concerned with the trashing along Martin Canyon Creek.
Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing to a future meeting.
Mike Gleason suggested the Planning Commission schedule an extra hour and see
both properties.
On motion by Cm. Mack Saturday, February 27, 1988, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon is
scheduled for a field trip, open to the public, to view the Hansen and Gleason
properties.
* * * *
NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Cm. Zika asked when Peppertree, between Shannon and Vomac, was scheduled for
paving or slurry seal.
Mr. Tong stated he would follow-up on the request.
* * * *
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Tong advised that the Enea Planned Development Rezone and Goodwill
Conditional Use Permit Appeal will be heard at the City Council Meeting of
February 22, 1988.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
Cm. Tempel was concerned with standing behind zoning application for one Shell
Station as to what will happen with other stations; will zoning enforcement be
followed.
Cm. Burnham advised if permits obtained, it would have been noted they were
illegal at that time or oversized.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-30 February 16, 1988
Cm. Tempel has concerns with Hansen Ranch and if it follows General Plan.
Mr. Tong advised that the next hearing should address the General Plan issues
and that the request is for a General Plan Amendment, that the project is not
consistant with the General Plan and therefore the request for the General
Plan Amendment.
Cm. Burnham felt the problem with the Hansen project was the separate EIR's;
how do these projects interconnect?
Mr. Tong stated that the Hansen/Blaylock developers are looking at an overall
outlet to the west anticipating this will answer some of the questions, but
not all, including the possibility of another on ramp to Dublin off I-580
(Schaefer Ranch/Eden Canyon) .
Cm. Barnes questioned the departure time from the airport for the Planning
Commission Institute.
Mr. Tong stated a memo would be sent stating the time to be 6:30 to 6:45 a.m.
Cm. Barnes reminded the Commission that February 23, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. is the
Goals & Objectives meeting for the City. Saturday, February 27, 1988, 9-12
noon, Hansen Hill Ranch and Blaylock, Fletcher, Gleason property Field Trip.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
* * * *
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
* * * *
Regular Meeting PCM-8-31 February 16, 1988
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 16, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff fQlt4
Ji-
SUBJECT: PA 87-138 Shell Service Station Price Sign
Variance Appear 8999 San Ramon Road.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Action denying
a Variance request to exceed the maximum
permitted sign ales for two price signs at the
Shell Service Station on Alcosta Boulevard and
San Ramon Road.
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE/ Diane M. Lundquist
APPELLANT: Shell Oil Company
P.O. Box 4023
Concord, CA 94524
PROPERTY OWNER: Duckett-Wilson Investment Company
333 South Flower Street, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CP 90071
LOCATION: 8999 San Ramon Rot:d
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-164-1-7
PARCEL SIZE: .51 AC
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Retail/Office
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: C-N Service Station
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: NB-S-2 - Neighborhood Business Sign
Control Combining District, Service
Station (within San Ramon City limits)
South: C-N - Commercial Retail
East: C-N - Cl mercial Retail
West: R-1-B-E Public Right-of-Way,
San Ramon Road
ZONING HISTORY:
April 5, 1969 - Alameda County approved kezoning from A to C-N, 865th
Zoning Unit.
August 27, 1969 - Alameda County approved C-2052 Conditional Use Permit
to construct and operate a Type A service station.
August 8, 1979 - Alameda County approved C-3658 Conditional Use Permit
for cashier booth for existing service station.
July 29, 1981 - Alameda County approved C-4023 Conditional Use Permit to
remove three service bays and construct storage building and auto wash.
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
/ Don Theobald
File PA 87-138
n
October 29, 1981 - Alameda County approved S-822 Site Development Review
for new pump islands and car wash.
January 13, 1988 - Dublin Zoning Administrator denied PA 87-138 Shell
Service Station Price Sign Variance and required the applicant to bring
the price signs into comformance with the City's sign ordinance within
thirty (30) days.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-87.5 (k) of the City's Zoning Ordinance states service station
price signs are permitted "indicating gasoline prices and available services
when accessory to an existing service station. One (1) price sign is
permitted along each street frontage to a maximum of two (2) price signs.
Each price sign may have a maximum single-faced area of sixteen (16) square
feet, or a maximum double-faced area of thirty-two (32) square feet (maximum
height 6 feet). A price sign may be attached co and made part of service
station sign display structure pursuant to Section 8-87.34 b) 3) D).
[Ord. No. 6-87, January 1987]"
Section 8-87.67 establishes the procedure for processing sign Variance
requests and establishes the following mandatory findings of fact:
1) the Variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity;
2) special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property
and do not apply to other properties in the vicinity, so that the strict
application of this Chapter deprives the property of rights enjoyed by
other properties;
3) the Variance authorized meets the intent and purpose sought to be
achieved by the regulations in this Chapter; and
4) the Variance authorized does not adversely affect the orderly develop-
ment of property and the preservation of property values in the
vicinity.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt, Class 5, Section 15305
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 16, 1988, hearing was
published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted
in public buildings.
BACKGROUND
On April 30, 1987, the Zoning Investigator notified the Applicant by
certified mail of the illegal signs located on the property, two of which are
price signs. Other existing signs located on the site include a three-sided
monument sign which is non-conforming due to sign area and height, a primary
frontage wall-mounted sign which is conforming, and a secondary frontage wall
mounted sign which is non-conforming due to excessive sign area. The
Applicant subsequently submitted an application requesting approval of a
Variance to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for two price signs at the
Shell Service Station at 8999 San Ramon Road.
On January 13, 1988 the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to
consider the variance application. After receiving testimony from Staff, the
Applicant and the Public, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No.
001-88 denying the Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area
for two price signs. The Applicant subsequently appealed the Zoning
Administrator's action.
ANALYSIS
The Applicant is requesting approval of the Variance to allow two
existing illegal 6' x 4' double faced price signs each with a total of 48
-2-
square feet of sign area (one sign located on San Ramon Road and the other
sign located on Alcosta Boulevard). Each price sign exceeds the maximum
permitted sign area by 16 square feet.
The City's Sign Ordinance permits service station price signs indicating
gasoline prices and available service. Service stations are restricted to one
price sign per street frontage to a maximum of two. The sign area is
restricted to 16 square feet for single-faced signs and 32 square feet for
doubled-faced signs. The maximum permitted sign height for a price sign is
six feet. These regulations have been in effect in Dublin since at least
1980, prior to the City's incorporation.
The location, size and content of Service Station price signs are also
regulated by the California State Business and Professions Code pertaining to
Weights and Measures and Petroleum Products. The State Code requires Service
Stations selling motor vehicle fuel to the public to advertise "the price of
the three major grades of motor vehicle fuel offered for sale." The City's
Sign Ordinance is consistent with the State Code governing Service Station
Price Signs.
In order for the Applicant to retain the two 48 sqare feet price signs,
a Variance must be granted.
The applicant indicates the increased sign area is necessary to compete
with the Service station on the North side of Alcosta Blvd., located within
the City of San Ramon and to advertise the sale of diesel fuel.
On January 13, 1988 the Zoning Administrator denied the Applicant's
Variance request finding that:
1) Authorizing the Variance constitutes a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity as
all properties within the City must comply with the City's sign
regulations.
2) There are no special conditions or extraordinary circumstances which
apply to the property and do not apply to other properties in the
vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter deprives the
property of the rights enjoyed by other properties, as the service
station is located on a relatively flat rectangular shaped corner lot
fronting two major arterial streets, a situation typical of most service
stations within the City. The fact that the service station is located
across the street from a service station in an adjoining City which may
or may not permit larger price signs does not constitute a special
condition or extraordinary circumstances as signs located within the
City are governed by the City's sign regulations. The City's Sign
Ordinance and regulations are not direct_y influenced by surrounding
communities.
3) Authorizing the Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought to
be achieved by the City's sign regulations as the Applicant's signs do
not conform to the Ordinance's purpose to promote uniformity among
signs. The City's Sign Ordinance recognizes that the community's
attractiveness is an important aspect of the public's general welfare,
and establishes reasonable control of signs to protect the public
welfare, safety and health. In recognition of the need for controls on
signs as a means of promoting uniformity and attractiveness within the
City, and the need for businesses to identify themselves and the
services offered, the City's Sign Ordinance permits service station
price signs with restrictions on the number, size, height and location
of signs.
4) Authorizing the Variance adversely affects the orderly development of
property and the preservation of property values in the vicinity, as the
Applicant's non-compliance with the City's Sign Ordinance does not
promote the intent of the Ordinance as it does not promote uniformity,
an important aspect of orderly development
-3-
The Applicant's response to these findings is included in Attachment 1.
The Applicant also stated that a larger price sign was needed to
advertise diesel fuel in addition to the three types of gasoline. Staff
believes that the sale of diesel fuel or other products does not meet the test
of being a unique characteristic of the site. Other gas stations in the City
(Shell on Dublin Blvd.; Express Gasoline and Union 76 on Amador Valley Blvd.)
sell diesel fuel or other products.
Staff concurs with the Zoning Administrator's action denying the
Applicant's request to vary from the maximum permitted sign area for service
station price signs and with the requirement for the Applicant to bring the
illegal price signs into compliance with the City's Sign Ordinance within 30
days of the effective date of the denial.
Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the proposed signs, Staff
would recommend that the ordinance be amended. The Planning Commission may
initiate an Amendment by Resolution or the Planning Commission may request the
City Council to initiate an Amendment.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning
Administrator's Action denying PA 87-138.
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 PA 87-138, or give Staff and
Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Adopt Resolution upholding Zoning Edministrator's Action denying
PA 87-138 Shell Service Station sign Variance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Resolution of Denial
Background Attachments: 1. Applicant's Response to Findings
2. Location Map
3. Plans
4. Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 001-88
5. Minutes of the January 13, 1988 Z.A. Public
Hearing.
6. Applicant's letter appealing Z.A. Action,
Dated received January 22, 1988.
7. Extracts from Business and Professions Code
of California pertaining to Weights and
Measures an Petroleum Products.
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. - 88
A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION
DENYING PA 87-138 SHELL SERVICE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA FOR TWO SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGNS
AT THE SHELL SERVICE STATION ON ALCOSTA BOULEVARD AND SAN RAMON ROAD,
8999 SAN RAMON ROAD
WHEREAS, Diane Lundquist representing Shell Oil Company filed a
Variance application to allow two existing illegal service station price
signs to exceed the maximum permitted sign area at the Shell Service
Station at 8999 San Ramon Road; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found
to be categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said
application on January 13, 1988; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the
Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for two service
station price signs on the site at 8999 San Ramon Road; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1988 the Zoning Administrator after
hearing and considering all said reports, recommendations and testimony as
hereinabove set forth, denied the Applicant's Variance request PA 87-138;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant subsequently appealed the Zoning
Administrator's Action; and
WHEREAS on February 16, 1988 the Dublin Planning Commission held
a public hearing to consider the Appeal;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all reports
recommendations, and testimony on February 16, 1988, as hereinafter set
forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find that:
1) Authorizing the Variance constitutes a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity
as all properties within the City must comply with the City's sign
regulations.
2) There are no special conditions or extraordinary circumstances which
apply to the property and do not apply to other properties in the
vicinity, so that the strict application ,.f this Chapter deprives the
property of the rights enjoyed by other properties, as the service
station is located on a relatively flat rectangular shaped corner lot
fronting two major arterial streets, a situation typical of most
service stations within the City. The fact that the service station
is located across the street from a service station in an adjoining
City which may or may not permit larger price signs does not
constitute a special condition or extraordinary circumstances as signs
located within the City are governed by the City's sign regulations.
The City's Sign Ordinance and regulations are not directly influenced
by surrounding communities.
y5
-l- �, x.. � Re�soJ�an
TA 81-138 T c rho Aq z/No iag
3) Authorizing the Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought
to be achieved by the City's sign regulations as the Applicant's signs
do not conform to the Ordinance's purpose to promote uniformity among
signs. The City's Sign Ordinance recognizes that the community's
attractiveness is an important aspect of the public's general welfare,
and establishes reasonable control of signs to protect the public
welfare, safety and health. In recognition of the need for controls
on signs as a means of promoting uniformity and attractiveness within
the City, and the need for businesses to identify themselves and the
services offered, the City's Sign Ordinance permits service station
price signs with restrictions on the number, size, height and location
of signs.
4) Authorizing the Variance adversely affects the orderly development of
property and the preservation of property values in the vicinity, as
the Applicant's non-compliance with the City's Sign Ordinance does not
promote the intent of the Ordinance as it does not promote uniformity,
an important aspect of orderly development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby
uphold the Zoning Administrator's Action denying PA 87-138 Shell Service
Station price sign Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign
area for service station price signs, and directs the Applicant to bring
the two price signs into conformance with the City's Zoning Ordinance
relating to service station price signs within 30 days of the effective
date of this denial.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February, 1988.
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT:
Planning Commission
Chairman
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-2-
t:l�:%t�1a:v:.u'i�::ACC:rr�t.K."L�G:�zzsrtrri�usr�s a.4ds.�ctsu uyzLa razed//i+is:.r.Ai/MAaus <:armfrvA .+..=.1 us tuurr
RECC- IVED
•
S..t' ;,a
DJ3L°:']tiig`ra t.
SHELL OIL COMPANY
8999"SAN RAMON ROAD
DUBLIN, CA
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Shell Oil Company requests a variance to allow the
installation of two illuminated price signs. These signs are
6' X 4' in size, to be located one along each frontage as
indicated on the Plot Plan.
This varies from the sign ordinance in that the maximum
aggregate area for each sign as stated in the ordinance is 32
square feet. Shell is proposing a 48 square foot aggregate
area. The signs would comply with the six-foot maximum
height restriction.
FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR APPROVAL
(1) The variance must not constitute a grant of a special
privilege inconsistent with other properties in the
vicinity.
In the gasoline market, stations compete with each other in a
limited trade area. This Shell Station is in direct
competition with the Chevron located directly to the north,
across Alcosta Blvd. Because the Chevron is within the City
of San Ramon, it faces a different, more lenient sign
ordinance. This is evidenced by the four price signs which
are visible in Exhibit One. Exhibits Two and Three show
other views of the station. Although Shell realizes that the
City of Dublin is not influenced by San Ramon's ordinances,
we ask you to consider that the gasoline customer is not
aware of what the ordinances are, he or she is looking for
the price sign.
(2) Special conditions and extraordinary circumstances
apply to the property and do not apply to other
properties in the vicinity, so that strict application
of this Chapter deprives the property of rights enjoyed
by other properties.
To decrease the size of the sign to 16 square feet per side
(32 square feet aggregate area) would require considerable
downsizing of sign numerals in order to keep the brand
recognition of the Shell logo on the sign. Because this is a
8723104
SM1
APIK-ANT S RelTows G
ATTACHM NT 1
( NA+SSAn I<efr1••y
Because the price sign is an important point to the customer,
smaller, more difficult to read numerals would again put the
Shell Station at a disadvantage to the adjacent Chevron.
( 3) The variance must meet the intent and purpose sought
to be achieved by the regulations in this Chapter.
Shell Oil Company interprets this Chapter of the ordinance to
prevent cheap, gaudy oversignage and to ensure that the City
of Dublin remains pleasing to the eye of both residents and
visitors . Maintaining attractive stations is a high priority
with Shell Oil Company. Landscape imorovements have been
done on both frontages, providing sod and annual color as
shown in Exhibits Four and Five. The two signs Shell wishes
to Put um would not detract from this image.
(4) The variance must not adversely affect the orderly
development of the property and the preservation of
property values in the vicinity.
These two signs will not have a detrimental affect on either
the development of .the property or the property value of
adjacent parcels . The signage is consistent with the image
of the station and the surrounding vicinity.
8723104
SM1
JLL JI ILL I .)i%
•_/' \ '‘ f
< I, Err,.
/A.A . Y--T-_-_) : . . ,
\ i
..
). ,N. :, . ..._, ,-_-_-_.
��.* t
i >S-1 i 0
1 .... .... ,
Y ii
c,
I „t 1 1I 1 I i \\ _ I I TA___gl,...:...i.„,
' ''', ,....._ ___ ,
e+
1 ' — ''
IiA1 '
111
1 ` Z ;.• r '
j !,ti . /%
1 , '•
rrs �- "�,t, �•
-c \ ,,
1 —C 1
1 r '_ c c ice. Z v \
_ Y c \
I
•
We X
'\ ' .>^' \
*'`► ,�,, �iI' 1• •= 0�\
,
0° q € sr21 . o. .
\I1
, AO°.\
. HIli 1 .r.__. ____
/ lA .• -, Ir" ,..
t• •� —�
(:` ' , I.(11.10 1011 M(MI1(D 111
S. A PART OF THE
m f•1 • l' � Qii;'_ E o CITY OF SANTINA s == ZONING MAP
,'- DUBLIN I THOMPSON\N�'�' THE CITY OF
cc ;g - PRINTED DUBLIN
I 0 \«.a.�.....C.....C. ,.,11
S.
DUEL IN (1(`T 9 \OnrCALIFOHNIA
I
1
j
I
I
I ATTAcHmENI
4.
• x,
7+a�a-r• .i ��. +u ' as 'l �a ' .nrpi:r,>•� coy�alr.."'W.�.p,►.SNr.q. SZI. +.r ,..i."in '. 7 .
L '
r
rF • .. iN..Y a.Sa.v ._ ! -*:ft' ;' ='At am 1f'16L iii-. -a K'1.!- t 1.t'
( •C
. LY `
jit D1
r, tiliiti s ...1
=D0 i;7: ;.1 c_ki> ........ ,'1.\,,,. -." , .5
I
J - o
•
: 0
~-Ire � � At
-s
i 5- i o II o II o I • I a
i J t`a ❑ I1
III 0I01, 01 `. I
I I 1 r
1 I I I I I I Y
* 10 11 0 11 0 11 01 s 4 I.
a
1
L 9
c1
L.
a�
.l
/ \1
__
•
, oi rci2 _Ili
m 11 l,l_ :s',a
j>
l SAN RAMON VALLEY BOULEVARD
' � 9y
,
E :
z n
I
i r
1 ; '
r <
1 " z
1Ig ` m :I111
FC /E o tr.'
era lII #
I 1 n .
•
1Pt4 rk g
. ATTACHMENT3
?Am.-% TO-titruVol Ce icS16 2114 (88
•
•
.t;
I ,n I
7 ! '1 II T 1 ',Ili 1 II•rf:�';... �� I('• l�• ' ._.__ -�- i, •.,..tyA {E�FliC�P�!T;',: -_-r __ _,._ ' •ot,v iii;'.0.: iF oI Si
S1' C K"i:l:ur?it(►E ;`� �.; i. ! 'Y '.B 'd_ i) ') i�':l� liis.31�l.�+k
1 ,..•xp a..ff
o
ril r
+ ti
_ ram---� r , 1
' FRONT ELEVATION
SCAM,/•'•1'-Y
•
•
lt .�. _� ' Z 0 4.4..a0 11.1•i +YIEE. /ltSTl�1..4 vil
.,}j •••• AM•Yf4rT•— i �°K (xp MGK..aID.
—,, :elf9e. 116,r ITy:I 1: _I_ U 1243, 0 c-*r
NMI
w .,
J .t_.I. i_ T._ 100•
CI LEFT'SIDE ELEVATION MONUMENT SIGN ELEVATION PRODUCT SIGN ELEVATION
/CAL Ei I/4'•t'-o' ..m... I'•t•-o' (ITr Of L) ICALt. T.E.
•
we .
r'* Z•t .:o.•p C::I{1i`1•"•:2 �ll,}sti..Y,r.,1E, /.p• Inr:—'.' t�{rii7�Ja rtl:1.1>!h� Ia I{I{(T tt • Al', •':4t' ..��t•:� 1�:'91Sit5� EE { Jt :f'el��l � Plle,•&..#1 • I, '1J/ 11 �� 1 coV
•
;I1 T---
I,grpp
tr�
1,4
°� ELEVN nAMOH S .
^' REAR ELEVATION
'�2, wuuvo-ra o000 BAN RAMOH VALLEY BOULEVARD
• •
L',j'� DUBLIN,CA.
i
• 1! 4 .
i" SHELL COMPANY et ..
i+ '.f I l G
ROUT TT H.LE!C AEEOCIATE E,INC.r
. .
., .
...n. , - .
,•••• '
. . . . .
r i 11111 H I.111
11111 i.
...
0111 co 'S,S. .
11:11g II i
'H1Q: i 1" I 1#
1.1jj 'I! -
j1
i
i-111111111
71.1 111H 2
= ' i 0
'.
..
MIMI L:
. ... ... — i!CT)
.1 i 11
11I.i iX '-, Z,--__.\ti I
iiiii16 Fi "la
ql:;!
tWil!
qiili:It
kliglil
!lini.1; . :1-2 ”-;•-:
k • i .
z
o
):-c
I 1 . Li
i-
e -,i-:
1-i:11Z.
lIrti i
' Ilrip
r,ii11:1
411111
1. .0.
o
z_
. r .
o
z
w
• z - •
=LH.=
-- .M11111 .z
. • al . • k.,
. .
11111 w
„ d
.., ..
, 2
—. ..-
s
• .
. .
. ,.. ,
RESOLUTION NO. 001 - 88
A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENYING PA 87-138 SHELL SERVICE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA FOR TWO SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGNS
AT THE SHELL SERVICE STATION ON ALCOSTA BOULEVARD AND SAN RAMON ROAD,
8999 SAN RAMON ROAD
WHEREAS, Diane Lundquist representing Shell Oil Company filed a
Variance application to allow two existing illegal service station price
signs to exceed the maximum permitted sign area at the Shell Service
Station at 8999 San Ramon Road; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found
to be categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said '
application on January 13, 1988; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the
Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for two service
station price signs on the site at 8999 San Ramon Road; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning
Administrator does hereby find that:
1) Authorizing the Variance constitutes a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity
as all properties within the City must comply with the City's sign
regulations.
2) There are no special conditions or extraordinary circumstances which
apply to the property and do not apply to other properties in the
vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter deprives the
property of the rights enjoyed by other properties, as the service
station is located on a relatively flat rectangular shaped corner lot
fronting two major arterial streets, a situation typical of most
service stations within the City. The fact that the service station
is located across the street from a service station in an adjoining
City which may or may not permit larger price signs does not
constitute a special condition or extraordinary circumstances as signs
located within the City are governed by the City's sign regulations.
The City's Sign Ordinance and regulations are not directly influenced
by surrounding communities.
3) Authorizing the Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought
to be achieved by the City's sign regulations as the Applicant's signs
do not conform to the Ordinance's purpose to promote uniformity among
signs. The City's Sign Ordinance recognizes that the community's
attractiveness is an important aspect of the public's general welfare,
and establishes reasonable control of signs to protect the public
welfare, safety and health. In recognition of the need for controls
on signs as a means of promoting uniformity and attractiveness within
the City, and the need for businesses to identify themselves and the
ZR Re o/uOv
-1- TTACHMENT--
2('\a8
/ S .
r
services offered, the City's Sign Ordinance permits service station
price signs with restrictions on the number, size, height and location
of signs.
•
4) Authorizing the Variance adversely affects the orderly development of
property and the preservation of property values in the vicinity, as
the Applicant's non-compliance with the City's Sign Ordinance does not
promote the intent of the Ordinance as it does not promote uniformity,
an important aspect of orderly development.
• BE IT FURTHER-RESOLVED THAT THE Zoning Administrator does hereby -
deny PA 87-138 Shell Service Station price sigh Variance request to exceed
. the maximum permitted sign area for service station price signs, and
directs the Applicant to bring the two price signs into conformance with
the City's Zoning Ordinance relating to service station price signs within
30 days of the effective date of this denial.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of January, 1988.
‘' Zoning Administiato
Associate Planner •
-2-
I
i_
-.:.:.-_.e:..,-.....-.:.t+..._a.......rw`:,11.£5iAir.
Zoning Administrator Meeting - January 13, 1988
A meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on January 13,
1988, in the Conference Room, City of Dublin Office, 6500 Dublin Boulevard. The
meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Laurence Tong, Zoning Administrator.
* * * *
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Laurence Tong, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, and Maureen
O'Halloran, Associate Planner.
* * 'F iti
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: PA 87-138 Shell Service Station Price Sian Variance,
8999 San Ramon Road.
Mr. Tong, Zoning Administrator, explained the Zoning Administrator public hearing
procedures, opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that the Applicant was requesting approval of a Variance
to allow two service station price signs to exceed the maximum permitted sign
area. She explained that the Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum of 32 square
feet per price sign while the Applicant proposes 48 square feet per sign. She
noted one price sign is located on San Ramon Road and the other price sign is
located on Alcosta Boulevard.
Ms . O'Halloran stated that the Applicant was notified by the Zoning Investigator
in April of illegal and non-conforming signs on the site, and has filed a
Variance application in response to that notification.
Ms. O'Halloran stated that in order to grant the Variance request, four findings
of fact must be made relating to the signs. She further explained that Staff
could not make the required findings as identified in the Staff Report as
1) there are no special circumstances related to the physical features of the
property in that the service station is situated on a flat lot on the corner of
two major arterial streets, which is typical of most gas stations in the City.
She further stated that the fact that the station across the street is located in
the City of San Ramon with different sign regulations than the City of Dublin was
not a special circumstance. 2) The Variance does not meet the intent of the
Ordinance as the intent is to promote orderly and attractive development of signs
in the City, and recognizes the need for businesses to identify themselves and
their services and provides provisions in the Ordinance to promote this intent.
Ms. O'Halloran indicated that since the findings of fact could not be made to
warrant granting the Variance, Staff recommended the Zoning Administrator deny
the Variance request and require the Applicant to remove the signs within 30 days
of the effective date of the denial.
Diane Lundquist, the Applicant, stated she was representing Shell Oil Company and
that Mr. Theobald would like to make a statement.
Regular Meeting Z '1-1 January 13, 1988
z.A minv es '-13-8E
•
A81-l38 7C cir► 5 2-1 b—Sg
"g"`-+ :3,s e .✓ • _ 1+..yla''; 1ar� ,0; l�h; n ,t,4
tf a k : ,.. r • r . `,
xS:,r 'a; Z y S a F' - - �. It f 'C '.♦ 0 14' a• .. } .2'� s wV��r a ..
;. �. 1k • >:x R�J �' ;r
i.w:..,x ,lot .w' �.
?' y y„i , • i + ,£ ._ kF oaf. , y 3 '
s
rt _ ._ V.. .. ...r..—_....�r.. .__ _... .. .. ... . _..tee....• - .•....�1_.
i•
Mr. Theobald, representing C & J Cox Corporation, the station General Manager,
stated the station has been in operation for 11 years and has gone from selling
60,000 gallons a year to 300,000 gallons during that time period. He also
stated the station generates between $30,000 - $40,000 for the City's revenue.
Mr. Theobald stated a larger price sign was needed to advertise the fourth
product available to the public, diesel fuel. He further noted that $3,000 a
year is spent on planting on the site and $9,000 a year on maintenance of the
site. He noted the sign is similar to signs used in other cities in the area.
Mr. Tong closed the public hearing and commended the Applicant for the attractive
appearance of the station in terms of maintenance and landscaping.
Mr. Tong noted that the City's Sign Ordinance is in compliance with State law
with regards to price signs.
Mr. Tong identified that the four findings of fact must: 1) relate to unique
circumstances present with the property: 2) the Variance must grant parity with
other properties in the vicinity, 3) the Variance cannot be harmful to the
public, and 4) it must be consistent with the intent of the Ordinance.
Mr. Tong stated that even with the situation of the property's proximity to the
City of San Ramon and the attractive appearance of the site in general, the facts
do not support the granting of the Variance. Mr. Tong stated that the existing
price signs were attractive, but that the Ordinance did not allow them.
Mr. Tong stated that he was unable to make the findings and denied the Variance
request.
Mr. Tong indicated that an alternative would be to amend the Sign Ordinance to
permit a bigger sign for four products.
Mr. Tong explained the appeal process.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 a.m.
* * * *
Re,pectfully submitted,
Planning Dire.(
ATTEST:
Maureen O'Halloran
Associate Planner
Regular Meeting ZAM-2 January 13, 1988
•
•
; , f t "it ' '3:
fp l Tx + 3f 41 '1R4 " c r •w�". k n' r w.ii3� °Af ,, a j � - -Yj }l .,r v- in 0..
_ Y
�. '' 3 7 sS 1'�,'�, 3F' `�• s x ;ly.,� ryc r a'c 4. .x,M
t '' '' - >: a"y ., i';,"yi..p yes F•�Y`�, aJ-� k .w.y .,r -4 'E t 6s.1,
�, f ,.
•
RECEJYED. n
CI
J,;fi '1' 7 ; Shell Oil Company
EAST BAY
• DUBLIN rLLNi`a;.-.0 MARKETING DISTRICT P.O.Box 4023
Concord, CA 94524
(415)676-1414
January 22 , 1987
City of Dublin
Planning Department
6500 Dublin Blvd. , Suite D
Dublin, CA
SUBJECT: SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATION
SHELL STATION
8999 SAN RAMON ROAD
PA 87-138
Gentlemen:
Shell Oil Company wishes to anneal to the Planning Commission
regarding the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny
PA 87-138 .
Because this location is one of only two service station in
Dublin offering the diesel product , additional area is
necessary to display its price. We wish to bring these
concerns to the Planning Commission.
Information regarding the next step of the anneal should be
sent to me at this address .
Very truly yours ,
/II'Af.614 / ("6.} a
Diane M. Lunde st
Project Engine
cc : Don Theobald, C & J Cox Corp .
8802201
AC2
e.4-4e( A TTeoA,-^S Z A T o w
TT A rill Pa OrmILIT ,
r
•/�,15�n T 7T ts(,jy pt� 7�i '-- 1 j f„r t s n q• •
.,4.1 ,.,�,r)M:14;,• 4,.!•• 4 a .r...'1.,1 , _ ... .. ./ �t� .:'iir'r.f' f,.'3- .i1t�MiI,-• _ I .. ..
_,.
Xnn.r,G•'+" „j."'n c4C-2'•••••"r T`_.- - "s•. i-5 .. .2`S'/h'YAz c! f"'.,. i1 •'ski - _ i. _ ,..f'
y Y .//. .,.. r%r / .r °•4 '/ ° YA /,.. /h- j !,, '�,/ _,tdj J!41. �"r
./ 1r,,{Cji•k,,4,,, r,,;i .�V � •.1-, %.�..1f<?✓.. ro P7' •'(/�4 • _!f�j4 4!1.. , ./ . ' . d 7. i' �.J� i}�yc_Nw
_._.r._—._ .. ,� -r 9 •,
•
•
Y -r i/ s s:
7.1
..„,
• . •• • • .t-.F .Extracts from the -- , - -'';,;"--•
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS, CODE
.• of California
•
• ' PERTAINING TO -
•
• WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
• l %. • % . k
AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
•
•
V.....1. V , .
- � - 1P.� 5 '� - - •- .
t14 �E of CA�.'o_.-
N, W4s-rL� �.
iP
SOD►N ,
-• • _ • -- �. -
•
•
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE -
•
DIVISION OF MEASUREMENT STANDARDS
\-
- - - Sold by
SUPPLY SERVICES -
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
1220NStreet •
Sacramento, California 95814
}\ • -
• , • _ �-
•
•
•
•
•
• V tneS5 / es)t C. .
AT I h 10;11 ,
l _ ? -t $ e .0 Y 2-c l`t"W'6c 8�.. 8\ .. 4Y„::>- �. •.. , , ,`4 r°y'1y1, �&^.._z+..4,-, ,... r ir, ,. ., . ' - ;,t . - a -: , '" '- Neex � � _
`ryc.. ;..i.ti 'r `> t'.` w v . F . ., x s, .„,, _ a . `
•
x;. > {. G� L!�~ rCj•7}xyv +.,,i a.^•�r y-�t-Jf rye - ,. �' _� - -.
T / ..,RSr r yr 4 '"�., P. ,;. ,-- .,.,i- ,,(- . �,M
.. } Y�r n1~t 1 a a } f _ . .r, „,. ' .C40.pC'A + /' 'k-—. .I, airy 4.4nyl"" 'z i.4 ~4/•`. .r..�,J` ..1
tt �l,N;,,t. '�T�y+...r� lef•
- .:in'' 'Cf �,�r-)., y:- a y
M.r. 1. ..f( -.lifi "gr a-r') t,:.4- �i+H , +a rlit.. i,A- j-'4,e'*.-4 IV r ...,-�l.L.+ i a '
S � i' �y �-k ,,i 4't-.V�,y.if i 4r o t, < P ...pike.: .y s" ...,`,7-'x .�',1 � �,rr,mil i"6-1..
}!.40 + 'd^ v7,!ktk,Y'ft. -4 3. '/v O.s i .f �Jsr,2'r .,tom r..r , 3. ..
Eii
s✓. ywd=ii,4.=• . -i< v7i a I . u ,' ., ,ti..i 7 Y,.,..,I i41'1,• "J:�r1 '.t1. %jr:%i4' /L -;;fie ".wser,. ;
i. .t -, e' ' —_.__.....",,....... 1_•_ _ . ��: .,4..f,.r,6 •_.�.c_.✓ r. --r, ;!`of:r_,,,:✓%' .s.Lu•.,: .i- . . . J
. dee
• PETROLEI2I - !
. (c) Unless otherwise prohibited, any person selling motor fuel by the •
.
liter shall be authorized to advertise its price by displaying on the
advertising medium either the price per liter or the price per gallon. .
Added Stc.tI 19i4 cis 691.
- § 13531. DISPLAY REGUIREIIENTS; EXEHPIION OF SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC .
AREAS; VIOLATIONS; E'1GP.CEHENT
(a) Every person offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle fuel to
• the public from any place of business shall display on the premises an
- advertising medium which complies with the requirements of this article
and which advertises the prices of the threesuitor grades of .otnry.h+^&^_
fuel offered for sale. The advertising meciva shall be clearly visible
from the street or hignway adjacent to the premises. When the place of
business is situated at an intersection, the advertising medium shall be
clearly visible from each street of the intersection. For the purposes
of this subdivision, motor vehicle fuel does not include propane.
(b) The governing body of any city, county, or city and county may, by
ordinance, exempt specified geographic areas from the provisions of this f- _ section if, pursuant to Article 5 (cwecxirg with Section 65300) ofC"
- - Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the Government Code, the areas are designated on
C the local general plan as scenic corridors or historic preservation areas.•
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who violates the
provisions of subdivision (a) is guilty of an infraction and, upon
conviction, is punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred
dollars (55C0).
(2) Any person who violates the provisions of subdivision (a) and
who has been previously convicted two or more tines of a violation
- - of subdivision (a) is guilty of a ■isceoear.or and, upon conviction,
is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six
months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars (S1,000), or
by both.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 13590, the district attorney of each county, •
. or pursuant to Section 41803.5 of the Government Coce, the city attorney
of any general law city or chartered city within each county, or the
• county sealer, shall, upon complaint or upon his or her own motion,
enforce the provisions of this section and, in addition, may bring an
action for injunctive relief in accordance with Section 13611.
Added SL.: i 1914 cr- 693.
•
§ 13532. HOTCR F.EL: CONTENTS OF DISPLAY
• (a) It is unlawful for any person to display any advertising medium which
indicates the price of motor fuel unless the advertising medium displays
all of the following:
_ 139 _
•
(
•
,
®.=s`.L LJ?A' '4.'aCsnZ;,.z-.L•
.,,t.=`:.rJ ..\s`...�1t.. t -%:.i..:kc{i .'.a. -? .r-c`i rL'1 : Z�x�Y a1..:1,-„�..t...,-\e..�..\�; ._.a" _ . . ...,,
t
�'�>_ 'y '!�'' r r i°' r ` {r y w ;� �:' ^ s ; .7' 'rr.. friffq: �rL ;.e. ..r fi: �,' �1 ` 11. li Ma i 1 IE�i '1! ✓.A.: lt:I } 1+4j.. . +'?' fJ' `e ,�l
f x Td` / :iris.: 9 31. 'X'� it - .t•wF-,x,�„" ..'�i ' ��• v
'' �, .C'- pat _4.-a �.. Jy !r t ',F,-- / tip" 20.0 y,.,i,r tam .� ../ .
' f
�',�i !a T i ).7„.
trAit n, ,r i �'L S z 4.. ., ' , ' ,�„f I/,a- v -Ir 1
S i A'1 ,7 _'.IYJ 'i',4,J► .0:1.4sp, s5 i r' ,I .1.. 1lc t 4.+Kr��y� • '°t ,
` w r fiA.N
�^Yt",�D r'J'• •`a,�• -� O'�[5.11 ; .Ik 1:%"sf,;„,r, !. ir',.4 11112?17,1eirP.2Salf''{tti i�`:,fitIx✓!,;•I. :,r•.ev1,,i;�i%.Il lr�.'f y°T .fief '�
l' ;Lv 1''� l�T I�v+''I:l�!4/ , .f 1� 1'�T �?1 n '
. . .
. .
.,
.,
_.
r
^ ..
ter , . .
I J. .
. • „ , - - / .r I • - . .
.• .
. .
..
•
. . . �:j r
..
. • . • . ....._ .
„ , . ,
... ..
..
. . . _._
. .
. .
• . . . .
. . . . . _ •
. „ .•
. ..... • ..
, •
. . . .
..__
i l -
. . .
• . .
. .. .•
. . .
• PETP.OLELH 1
•
• § 13540. LOCAL REGl1LATION
-
.. - Nothing-in -this-article'shall= m 6e:fatnied t roh the governing
- bodygof an cif-; roiiity orlcityran_d-coil+ty=froseaacting'ordinances,
including;but-not"'limited;to;'_Iaid:use`and=zoning ordinances, which
• •lipose restrictions on the advertising aedisa-referred 1 U is.article,
so iloiig=aa_art�_provi$iona of.the:ordinanees'dealing yithoaatters_speci-
fically ccvered,inntthisarticle are identical to this article:
• Added Stafa 1914 clt 691.
- ARTICLE 13
Inducements for the Sale of Gasoline or ) tor fuel
[Added by Stats 1974 ch 519 § 1.]
- • Renunbered Stats 1980 ch 636. -
' . -
•
\ § 13550• PARTICIPATION IN GIVEAWAY PROGRAMS BY RETAIL L)Fa1E°S
• NOT TO BE MACE CCHPULSORY
No petroleuo corporation or distributor shall compel or tnculy or unrea-
sonably influence any retail gasoline dealer to participate in the give-
away or offer to give away free of charge any item of value, including
trading stasps or any kind of merchandise or goods, whether or not such
- giveaway is conditional upon the purchase of gasoline, motor fuel or
•
petroleta products. The decision to participate in such giveaways shall
be solely that of the retail gasoline dealer. Nothing in this section
• shall prohibit a retail gasoline dealer from entering into an agreement
to participate in any such giveway program.
Acded S.i 1974 ch 519 ( 1. Re..Pcr--cued S_.ts 1910 eh 63o.
•
- 143 _
•
(
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a .; .
^ xly lrnr�^ [ W're rg�
� g dljr}/,3, � ry*n7'�y��{ � pry ±; w, ! ,,,,,."yl
4' " i3"J.�,�yi ��f s '7 r��r3! '�
rr^ycss . , rx � r,trMr
i a r:� rrx hlos✓5r,�a7il.r/'�MY 3�i? .f
„2;: .J...e fS.....:s ...., ..-• _.-.......... .....,._..✓.:..t.i..is.'�.".i114.a��'.' "' w11...L�� ...
BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTOR FUEL PRICE SIGNS
Business and Professions Code Section 13532(a)
BRAND BRAND: Minimum height — one—
third the size of the price numerals.
9 The word "Gasoline" or the name of
1. 2.6 _ . other motor fuel is required on the
1 O sign. The letters must be not less
than one—third the size of price
41,!iilk#:N412) numerals, but need not be larger
V than four inches in height.
1._3 0
190 Grade not less than one—sixth size
®1'���'�1�)�� of price numerals — need not be more
1• � 9 than four inches in height.
1 0 PRICE FIGURES: To be all of the
same size and color and at least six
GASOLINE
inches in height. Fractions may be
used if equal in size to one numeral.
BRAND
LITER "LITER" — Not less than one—third
11*�� ;� size of the price numerals.
#212G91O Section 13531(a) Business and Professions
CITIZ A.) }10 Code requires the three major grades
3
of motor fuel to be advertised.
1� Section 13536 requires all letters,
�. �O figures and numerals to be of a heavy
®Il�ii11{1' stroke, a color that contrasts against
the background, to be clearly visible,
CI
and the height may not exceed twice
4, in the width, except the letter "1" and
s a i U the numeral one (1).
GASOLINE
— 4 —
I-
•
•, "F6 •Yi�slfit��:G(v,J 1k; -vn,s- 'rt ;ill•i?b:44 a:1: !':.`' is a .�'_,3 I1..Wi,,r`3r- ,:,:. '+'°A 43 ti%4 i 6.,.".Ns
y• ° r• .
-t - ' ry '1
• Extracts from the - -
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
.. of California
PERTAINING TO
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
•
, ,v,DAND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
,K.3,) ,,V...„ I%\-'. . ,
;ar' t-
,,�y C tE Of CA(IFC"`
11•ti�`Nr Itr �Q sit�. :t: -
'�•E13 ' f�v
Flo IS '
•
C
•
- CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
•
DIVISION OF MEASUREMENT STANDARDS
. \-
•
•
Sold by
SUPPLY SERVICES
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
• 1220 N Street
Sacramento, California 95814
( )\
•
} � : *'
•
..•.i. r"-•
:�
.z,• ! sti"{-2.
AT1ACHME31T_° '7
SC
. ,
_ ATTA
,tee
•
?A-set-r38 `I .C ^ 2- t $8
•
•
PETROLEUM
(c) Unless otherwise prohibited, any person selling motor fuel by the
liter shall be authorized to advertise its price by displaying on the
advertising medium either the price per liter or the price per gallon.
Added Slat! 1984 oh 698.
§ 13531. DISPLAY REQUIREMENTS; EXEMPTION OF SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS; VIOLATIONS; ENFORCEMENT
(a) Every person offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle fuel to
the public from any place of business shall display on the premises an
advertising medium which complies with the requirements of this article
and which advertises the prices of the three maior_rades of motor vPhirle
fuel offered for sale. The advertising medium shall be clearly visible
from the street or hignway adjacent to the premises. When the place of
business is situated at an intersection, the advertising medium shall be
clearly visible from each street of the intersection. For the purposes
of this subdivision, motor vehicle fuel does not include propane.
(b) The governing body of any city, county, or city and county may, by
ordinance, exempt specified geographic areas from the provisions of this - —
section if, pursuant to Article 5 (coemencing with Section 65300) of '/
Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the Government Code, the areas are designated on
the local general plan as scenic corridors or historic preservation areas.
•
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who violates the
provisions of subdivision (a) is guilty of an infraction and, upon
conviction, is punishable by a fine net to exceed five hundred
dollars ($500).
(2) Any person who violates the provisions of subdivision (a) and
who has been previously convicted two or more times of a violation
of suodivisicn (a) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction,
is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six
months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars (51,000), or
by both.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 13590, the district attorney of each county,
or pursuant to Section 41803.5 of the Government Coce, the city attorney r
of any general law city or chartered city within each county, or the
county sealer, shall, upon complaint or upon his or her own motion,
enforce the provisions of this section and, in addition, may bring an
action for injunctive relief in accordance with Section 13611.
Added Ct,,=5 19i4 cit 69s.
§ 13532. MOTOR FUEL: CONTENTS OF DISPLAY
(a) It is unlawful for any person to display any advertising medium which
indicates the price of motor fuel unless the advertising median displays
all of the following:
139 _ 1
•
,y ,.0 r.J. 1r'•r e6 f-r ! i- ..s, . .,.;+' -L,.w/'s '!
..
•
•vi,
PETROLEUM
•
§ 1354D. LOCAL REGULATION
- _ = Tv
• im '
Nothing-in_this article -shall be_construed'to_prohibit the governing
body;of,any'==.city; `county;---or city"and-county'from,enacting ordinances,
Including;'but=.note limited:to,-1a-id -use.and_ioning"^ordinances, which
• impose restrictions on the advertising medium referred to_in this,article,
so zlong-es-anyprovisiona of the ordinances'dealing with'matters,speci-
• fically covered.in this article are identical to this article..= ,d."
Added crrtrd 1984 eh 698.
ARTICLE 13
Inducements for the Sale of Gasoline or Motor Fuel
( [Added by Stats 1974 ch 519 § 1.]
Renumbered Stats 1980 ch 636. -
•
\ § 13550. PARTICIPATION IN GIVEAWAY PROGRAMS BY RETAIL DEALERS
NOT TO BE MACE COMPULSORY
• No petroleum corporation or distributor shall compel or unduly or unrea-
sonably influence any retail gasoline dealer to participate in the give-
.
away or offer to give away free of charge any item of value, including
trading stamps or any kind of merchandise or goods, whether or not such
giveaway is conditional upon the purchase of gasoline, motor fuel or
•
petroleum products. The decision to participate in such giveaways shall
be solely that of the retail gasoline dealer. Nothing in this section
• shall prohibit a retail gasoline dealer from entering into an agreement
to participate in any such giveway program.
Added cr,z e 1974 ch 519 f 1. Re.,uuceted SCata 19d0 ch 636.
•
- 143 -
r
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r:�1 �a;t�
+..r'' -x i ;,, <•-f 4s e.i . ;f4 " e+� ±�c.. k,,, r j,� , c�, _11, `A ,�„ .`..f. x
4 y� • !'.. N , 1 -..4, .ft <=.6 , .;:' �r , •.1,fir -�� ,, f ''.�,
tAW y .s '4 0 k(.. �' #. s ,y . jYy wed- -i x,tick cxd 7-, Y
v,� 4 z-,, ,;(- 0 - f-;:t .4,, .�f h :•Tr Sf ..'R ' ; yam, tY r• �r '
i,, �,:. _ ���t� a '. t #V!a 3 ,P ✓ S .. rt Y d ry
•tP' e si', zv dt. f 4-ifi f c.ec t Xt ',. r' i "Suit,w•
4
L, r 0� 4 -t
r
9+ r<ry pry_-/•/,+iyyy+� 1',!^L...��f��s ,.jam„ '-
F/ v
BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTOR FUEL PRICE SIGNS
Business and Professions Code Section 13532(a)
BRAND BRAND: Minimum height — one—
third the size of the price numerals.
9 The word "Gasoline" or the name of
1 . 2 6
iO sign. The letters must be not less
. other motor fuel is required on the
than one—third the size of price
411.11,1k#.11')46111 numerals, but need not be larger
9 than four inches in height.
:31
1::'
;1-6-
o Grade not less than one—sixth size
1'���'��1►'•� of price numerals — need not be more
9 than four inches in height.
• 1 D PRICE FIGURES: To be all of the
Gw c O L�A' C same size and color and at least six
ASOLINE it G inches in height. Fractions may be
used if equal in size to one numeral.
BRAND
LITER "LITER" — Not less than one—third
i i; size of the price numerals.
10
2 .• 9
� � 0•° Section 13531(a) Business and Professions
eillil"1'7A13) Code requires the three major grades
s;` _ of motor fuel to be advertised.
'r , S
1 0 Section 13536 requires all letters,
ti,.;t �>,.;� figures and numerals to be of a heavy -
431jaliai11J',9t stroke, a color that contrasts against
the background, to be clearly visible,
a and the height may not exceed twice�' In the width, except the letter "1" and
ll i al the numeral one (1) .
GASOLINE
- 4 —
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 16, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen F.anch General Plan Amendment
Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative
Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request
for 282 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of
Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: A General Plan Amendment Study, Planned
Development, Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision
Map No. 5766, and Annexation request to allow
282 dwelling units, 248 single family and 34
townhomes, on 147 acres in unincorporated
Alameda County, west of Silvergate Drive and
north of Hansen Drive.
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Gordon D. Jacob-'i, Vice President
Hansen Hill Devecpment
P.O. Box 847
Mill Valley, CA 94942
PROPERTY OWNERS: George K. Hansen Alicia Hansen,
Eleanor O'Neill E. Ruth Reilly
547 Brookfield Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
LOCATION: West of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive,
and south of Rolling Hills Drive
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-110-1-9 and 941-110-2
PARCEL SIZE: 147 acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Part of the site is within the Primary Planning
Area; part is w_l;hin the Extended Planning Area.
Two portions of Cie site are currently
designated single family residential, with
density range to be determined based on site
conditions; one portion of the site is
designated medium density, 8+ dwelling units per
acre. Adjusted unit range is 42 to 109 dwelling
units.
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: A, Agricultural (Alameda County) , vacant
property used for limited cattle grazing.
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: Single family and multi-family, zoned
PD; grazing land, zoned A
South: Single family, zoned R-l; church, zoned
A; grazing land, zoned A
East: Multi-f«i:ily and single family, zoned PD
West: Grazing :Land, Zoned A
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
Mark Trembley, EIP
ITEM NO. 2N, File PA 87-045
ZONING HISTORY: February 18, 1956, Alameda County zoned the site
A, Agricultural.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
The Dublin General Plan establishes policies and standards to control
land use and development within this area.
Section 8-31.0 (Planned Development District Intent) states, in part,
that Planned Development Districts are established to encourage the
arrangement of a compatible variety of uses on suitable lands in such a manner
that the resulting development will:
a) Be in accord with the Policies of the General Plan of the City of
Dublin;
b) Provide efficient use of the land that includes preservation of
significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape
features with minimum alteration of natural land forms;
c) Provide an environment that will encourage the use of common open
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other
amenities;
d) Be compatible with and enhance the development of the general
area;
e) Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
Section 8-1.2 of Chapter 1, Title 8 (Subdivision Ordinance Intent)
states, in part, that it is the intent of this Chapter to promote the public
health, safety, and general welfare; to assure in the division of land
consistency with the policies of the General Plan and with the intent and
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; to coordinate lot design, street patterns,
rights-of-way, utilities and public facilities with community and neighborhood
plans; to assure that areas dedicated for public purposes will be properly
improved initially so as not to be a future burden upon the community; to
preserve natural resources and prevent environmental damage; to maintain
suitable standards to insure adequate, safe building sites; and, to prevent
hazard to life and property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) which finds the proposed project may have a significant
impact on the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 16, 1988, hearing was
published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted
in public buildings.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
At the February 1, 1988, Planning Commission meeting the Commission held
a Public Hearing to receive public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report and continued the public hearing to the February 16, 1988, meeting to
receive additional comments.
In addition to receiving comments on the Draft EIR, the purpose of the
February 16, 1988, hearing is to discuss the significant impacts and
mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and to discuss the major
issues related to the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Development
Prezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map application. Responses to the
comments received concerning the Draft EIR will be incorporated into the Final
EIR for the Commissions review and recommendation to the City Council.
The environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified in the
Draft EIR, and the following issues outlined are based upon the applicants
submittal for a General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map
and Annexation of 147 acres west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen
Drive. The submitted proposal requests approval of 248 single-family dwelling
units and 34 townhomes (totaling 282 dwelling units). The applicant indicated
at the February 1, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, that the proposed plan
would be revised. On February 9, 1988, the applicant held a community meeting
-2-
at which a revised plan was presented to the public noting a reduction in
dwelling units to 250 units and indicating that units would not be developed
on the visually prominent knolls.
At the time this Staff report was being prepared the applicant notified
Staff that the revised plans would be presented to the Planning Commission at
the February 16, 1988, Public Hearing. Due to the late date on which the
revised plans were received a Staff review and analysis of the plans has not
been prepared.
The following is a brief outline of anticipated issues pending a more
detailed Staff review and analysis of the applicants revised plans.
1. Land Use - The General Plan policies require avoiding abrupt
transitions between single-family and high density residential
development.
2. Grading - As identified in the Draft EIR the project as initially
proposed and reviewed would result in mass grading.
3. Oak/bay forest - Construction of the project as proposed may result
on the removal of 36% of the total area of the oak/bay forest
vegetation on the site. Existing General Plan policies require
protection of oak woodlands.
4. Riparian Habitat - Construction of tle project would disturb
riparian vegetaion in four areas on site due to roadway and lot
grading. The City's General Plan recognizes the value and
importance of riparian vegetation as a habitat and aesthetic
resource and establishes policies mandating protection of these
areas.
5. Water - Development in portions of the site would require new
infrastructure (Zone IV) consisting of reservoirs, pumping
stations and delivery systems.
6. Traffic - Cumulative impacts of the proposed project in combination
with other projects may decrease the level of service at Dublin
Boulevard and San Ramon Road from Level D to F.
Other issues of concern include emergency access, road grades and schools.
At this time, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission
to do the following:
A. Draft EIR
1) Hear comments from Staff and EIP consultants regarding the Draft
EIR and other issues.
2) Hear additional public comments on the Draft EIR.
B. Applicants Proposed Revisions
1) Hear applicants presentation on proposed project revisions.
2) Continue item to a future meeting to allow adequate time for
review and analysis of proposed revisions.
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) Continue public hearing to a future Planning Commission
meeting.
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hear the
presentations and comments, then continue the public hearing to a
future Planning Commission meeting.
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS:
1. Applicants revised plans dated received February 11, 1988.
2. General Plan Policies.
3. Draft Environmental Impact Report Summary (1-1 to 1-11)
4. Project Description (2-1 to 2-10)
-3-
Existing General Plan Policies regarding Hansen Ranch General
Plan Amendment Study
The following list contains the existing policies that could have
a significiant effect on the residential development proposal and
overall amendment study.
Residential Compatibility
- Avoid abrupt transitions between single-family
development and higher density development on
adjoining sites.
- Require all site plans to respect the privacy and
scale of residential development nearby.
- Require a planned development zoning process for all
development proposals over 6.0 units per gross
residential acre. [pg. 11]
Open Space: Natural Resources, Public Health and Safety
- Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and
natural creeks as open space for their natural
resource value.
- Maintain slopes predominately over 30 percent
(disregarding minor surface humps or hollows) as
permanent open space for public health and safety.
- Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and
ridges as open space as a condition of subdivision
map approval. [pg. 15]
Open Space: Agricultural
- Maintain lands currently in the Williamson Act
agricultural preserve as rangeland, provided that
specific proposals for conversion to urban use
consistent with the General Plan may be considered
not sooner than two years prior to contract
expiration.
- Approval of development of agricultural land not
under contract shall require findings that the land
is suitable for the intended use and will have
adequate urban services and that conversion to urban
use will not have significant adverse effects on
adjoining lands remaining under contract.
Open Space: Outdoor Recreation, Appearance
- Expand park area to serve new development.
- Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to
project above major ridgelines.
- Use subdivision design and site design review
process to preserve or enhance the ridgelines that
form the skyline as viewed from freeways (I-580 or
I-680) or major arterial streets (Dublin Blvd.,
Amador Valley Blvd., San Ramon Road, Village
Parkway, Dougherty Road). [pg. 16]
Trafficways
- Reserve right of way and construct improvements
necessary to allow arterial and collector streets to
accomodate projected traffic with the least
friction. ( e4kerc ,('Ktr "Ielicit5
ATTACHMENT=
- Rabbi o45 kAa.,�.g�� 4,t\
- Reserve right of way for Hansen Drive extension to
the western hills. [pg. 19]
Scenic Highways
- Incorporate previously designated scenic routes in
the General Plan and work to enhance a positive
image of Dublin as seen-by through travelers.
[pg. 23)
Riparian Vegetation
- Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer
for stream quality and for its value as a habitat
and aesthetic resource.
- Promote access to stream corridors for passive
recreational use and to allow stream maintenance and
improvements as necessary, while respecting the
privacy of owners of property abutting stream
corridors.
- Require open stream corridors of adequate width to
protect all riparian vegetation, improve access, and
prevent flooding caused by blockage of streams.
- Require revegetation of creek banks with species
characteristic of local riparian vegetation, where
construction requires creekbank alteration.
[pg. 28-29]
Erosion/Siltation Control
- Maintain natural hydrologic system.
- Regulate grading and development on steep slopes.
- Review development proposals to insure site design
that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity
of surface runoff.
- Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent.
[pg. 29)
Oak Woodlands
- Protect oak woodlands.
- Require preservation of oak woodlands. Where
woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be
graded and developed, permit allowable density to be
transferred to another part of the site. Removal of
an individual oak tree may be considered through the
project review process. [pg. 29)
Geotechnical Analyses
- 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. [pg. 33)
Fire Protection
- Require special precautions against fire as a
condition of development approval in the western
hills outside the primary planning area.
2.
- Enact a high hazard ordinance specifying:
- Fire retardant roof materials, spark arrestors ,
water storage, and vegetation clearance around
structures .
- Sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond
five minutes response time from a station.
[pg. 34 ]
Flooding
- Regulate development in hill areas to minimize
runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian
vegetation. Retain creek channels with ample right
of way for maintenance and for maximum anticipated
flow.
- Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a
condition of surdi.vision approval.
- Protect riparia'rf veget'atio�x and prohibit removal of
woodlands . Removal of 4n'indvidual bak tree may be
considered through the project review process .
- Require drainage studies of entire small watersheds
and assurance that appropriate mitigation measures
will be completed as needed prior to approval of
development in the extended planning area. [pg. 35]
(The study should focus on any water sheds on the
property or that let water through the property)
3
11,1
1 SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This report is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in compliance with the
•
j California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The report addresses those issues
identified as potentially significant in the City of Dublin's Initial Study of the proposed
ri
project (Appendix-A).
r:
' . 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE HANSEN RANCH PROJECT
The project site, a 147.3 acre parcel contiguous with the City of Dublin's western
boundary, is proposed to be developed as a residential project consisting of 282 residential
units. Single-family detached homes would amount to 248 dwelling units, and 34 units
would be duplex townhomes. Approximately 54% of the site would remain open space,
while 67.7 acres would be developed. The arrangement of the dwelling units is configured
into 11 residential neighborhoods. In addition to the proposed project, this document
examines the impacts of four alternatives as described in Section 4.
•
•
a l R '5u m rhos t we c.T 5
86123 1 1ATTAcHmEN
i WW1-0q5 ilcumsev. 'l( aviAch.
is _ 1 Summary
1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
q
111 Resource Impact Mitigation
Geology Reactivation of occurrence Repair slides in areas of
of new landslides. - construction. Establish a
slope maintenance schedule
and assign responsibility for
maintenance and future
repairs.
Mass-grading resulting in Reduce grading or establish
imbalanced cut and fill. agreement for export with
adjacent land owners.
•
Soils Soils with high shrink-swell Treat, cover or remove
potential. those soils.
Hydrology Increased flows and flow Construct detention basins
velocities in Martin Canyon and drop structures to
Creek resulting in potential reduce contribution to peak
localized erosion and flows.
flooding.
Rip-rap stress points in
channel
Establish a drainage
structure and channel
maintenance schedule and
assign responsibility for
maintenance and repairs.
Erosion during site Restrict construction to the
construction. dry season and stabilize
unprotected areas in
accordance with erosion and
sediment control plan.
Erosion from roof drainage Direct roof drainage toward
and lot drainage. specific structures. Design
lot grades to prevent runoff
across lot lines where lots
are split.
86123 1-2
r-
1; •� 1. Sum mary
• i
•
Resource Impact Mitigation
Vegetation Project construction could Any construction activity in
remove 36% (22 acres) of close proximity to mature
the total area (61 acres) of trees should be done in a
oak/bay forest vegetation manner that will minimize
on the site. trauma to the root system
(see details in Chapter 3.4
Vegetation).
Disturbed areas should be
• revegetated with natural
tree and bush species.
Specific details of the
revegetation plan should be
worked out in consultation
with the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, the
City and the Alameda
County Flood Control
District.
• Areas of extensive grading
and fill in Neighborhoods 5
and 9 should be eliminated
and the oak/bay woodland in
these areas preseved.
Project construction would The California Department
disturb approximately two of Fish and Game should be
acres of riparian habitat in consulted as required under
the area of the Hansen Hill Section 1601-03 of the Fish
- • Road/Creekside Road and Game Code.
intersection. Minimize fill and cut slopes
within the riparian corridor,
especially in the area of the
Hansen Hill Road and
Creekside Road inter-
section. Redesign the
intersection of Hansen Hill
Road and Creekside Road to
reduce the amount of fill
placed in the riparian
corridor.
Revegetation of riparian
• habitats with native species
in disturbed areas as well as
elsewhere on the site to
compensate for habitats lost
in graded areas.
86123 1-3
1.Summary
•
r Resource Impact - Mitigation '
,'
Vegetation Remove lots 102-110 and
(continued) 95-107 which back up to the
riparian corridor along
Martin Canyon Creek.
Relocate Creekside Road to
the west in the area
between lots 103 and 104 in
Neighborhood 9.
Wildlife The placement of a large Place a box culvert under
amount of fill under Hansen the roadway rather than a
Hill Road at the confluence 30-inch pipe.
of two canyons would
isolate the tributary canyon
from large mammals.
If fish are found there, Final design of flood control
improperly designed drop structures and measures
structures within the creeks within the creeks must be
would prevent native fish approved by DFG.
from migrating upstream.
Loss of oak/bay woodland Redesign the project to
and riparian habitats at two avoid these areas as much
critical areas-- as possible. If unavoidable
Neighborhoods 5 and 9. then compensation
elsewhere on or offsite. All
compensation efforts must
be approved by DFG.
Land Use Placement of project The project site plan should
clusters implies the 79.6 be modified to provide clear
acres retained for open public access to the
space would serve only designated open space on
private project users. the site.
Provide a pedestrian
corridor along the
streambank and extending
through the site.
City's Subdivision Ordinance In-lieu park fees and/or land
provides for land dedications should be
requirement of.011 acres required as part of the
per unit for single-family subdivision review process.
units and.009 per multi-
family unit.
86123 1-4
1. Summary
a .
r , Resource Imoact Mitigation
1 Land Use Access to site from Installation and
(continued) neighboring parcels, both maintenance of a project-
cattle and trespassers size perimeter fence should
be required.
Project Home Owners'
Association should maintain
a list of plant materials
i,) acceptable for landscaping.
.:i
Visual Quality Grading would remove Site ridgelands overlooking
prominent knolls and would I-580 should be preserved
alter existing ridgeline. and not altered by grading.
A significant number of Visually important trees and
trees would or might be tree clusters should be
•
affected by grading and identified and tagged in the
development. field for protection and
preservation. Lots within
tree preservation areas
should not be developed.
• Visual character of the site Develop design guidelines
would change from rural to which establish building
suburban. colors, materials and
finishes which are
compatible with the
surrounding area. Decrease
road widths and gutters.
Perimeter site fencing
should be compatible with
the rural character of
surrounding lands.
Night lighting and glare Reflective finishes should
might increase. not be used on site
structures; excessive
exterior lighting should be
avoided.
Views from designated Homes should be sited well
scenic roadways would be below ridgelines and away
further impacted. from slopes overlooking I-
580.
:
, •
86123 1-5
1. Summary
r,
Resource Impact Mitigation
Siting of homes along ridge- Development should not
lines and slopes which are occur on ridges or slopes
, . visible from I-580 would overlooking I-580. Density
conflict with City of Dublin could be increased on sites
policies. lower down and with less
constrained slopes.
Topography Extensive grading, excessive Develop site grading plan
cutting and filling. Approx- which avoids cut slopes of
imately 496,000 cubic yards greater than 2:1. Place cuts
of excess excavated ma- for building pads behind
terial would require off-site structures. Landscape with
disposal. native materials. Cut and
• fill volumes should be bal-
anced when possible or used
on adjacent site if fill is
needed.
Fire DSRSD Fire Department - Automatic fire exting-
would serve project. Proj- uishing system on all units
ect poses some potential built beyond 5 minute
fire service impacts. response time.
- Non-combustible roofs for
• all units.
- Redesign of plan to in-
clude fire breaks between
homes and undeveloped
land and fire trails, based
on criteria to be set by
the Dublin, San Ramon
Service District (DSRSD).
- Ensure adequate water
supply and pressure.
Some roads exceed a 12% - Redesign road so grades
grade. do not exceed 12%, unless
approved by Dublin Police
DSRSD Fire
Departments.
Possible blockage of fire - Redesign entrance to
protection access to homes property at Valley Christ-
at project's west end. ian Center to eliminate
possible blockage, or
provide alternate emerg-
ency access per Fire Mar-
•
shall.
86123 1-6
1. Summary
Resource Impact Mitigation
" Bridge at main entrance of - Redesign bridge to unob-
project is too low. structed height of 13 feet
6 inches for emergency
lY; vehicle access.
r^ Police Upon annexation, Dublin Access to townhouses should
Police Department would be protected by a fence
require one additional off- along all sides.
icer.
r.;
Residences at east end of Trails to riparian and picnic
project can be easily areas should be eight feet
accessed by burglers along wide (excluding the should-
creek bottom. er) to allow access by emer-
gency vehicles.
There is no acceptable ern-
:
. ergency access to riparian
J and picnic areas on the site.
Schools Proposed project would Project sponsor would corn-
__ generate approximately 56 ply with Amador Valley
k-8 grade students and 89 9- District's imcact fee.
. 12 grade students. Students
could be served within facil-
ity capacity of the Murray
School District (k-8) and the
Amador Valley Joint Union
High School District.
Cumulative Impact of new Add required capacity. (See
students with other area Fiscal Section).
projects would be an excess
area capacity in the Nielson
(K-8) School of 68.
Transportation (busing) and Institute such programs.
• student safety (crossing (See Fiscal Section).
guards) could also arise.
Solid Waste Proposed project would None would be required or
generate 562 tons per year, recommended.
for Oakland Scavenger
Company's collection within
the San Ramon Area and an
increase of 0.04% in waste
to the Altamont Landfill.
•
86123 1
I'{ 1.Summary
ta'
Resource Impact Mitigation
1 Water The proposed project would Payment of hookup charges
demand about 131,500 gpd, and fees by project sponsor.
and the DSRSD does not Payment of user charges by
anticipate any supply prob- the homeowners.
lems.
Infrastructure for comple- Project sponsor would pay
tion of Zone III and con- direct capital costs.
struction of Zone IV would
be required.
Wastewater Proposed project would Project sponsor would pay
generate approximately hookup fees and the cost of
112,000 gpd, 1.13%of on-site improvements and
DSRSD's existing treatment any required extension to
capacity and 7%of the existing sewer lines.
increased capacity.
Gas, Electricity, PG&E,Pacific Bell and Via- Project sponsor would pay
Communication corn have indicated the any relocation and/or exten-
capacity to serve the pro- sions of PG&E facilities.
posed project.
Homeowners would pay for
underground conduit and any
other facilities required by
Pacific Telephone.
-- Parks Proposed project would Project sponsor would pay
generate the need for an the in-lieu fee. Some of the
additional 2.73 acres of increased property tax rev-
parkland: acquisition,de- enues could be used to of f-
velopment, maintenance. set the increased mainten-
ance costs.
Compliance with City's
parkland dedication/in-lieu
fee ordinance.
City of Dublin A positive net annual fiscal None required.
impact of about$26,600.
Dublin San Ramon Net capital fiscal impact of Payment of water and sewer
Services District zero;net annual fiscal im- hookup fees and capital
pact of a positive$166,000. expenses not covered by the
hookup fees.
86123 1•8
1. Summary
Resource Impact Mitigation
�. Schools Net capital fiscal impact to Compliance with Amador
the Amador Valley Joint Valley District's impact fee.
r' Union High School District
of a positive $953,000 upon `
compliance with District's
,-, impact fee.
No net capital fiscal im- Institute a Development
pacts to Murray (element- Impact Fee as authorized
` ary) School District from under recent legislation
proposed project. Net capi- (AB 2926).
tal fiscal impacts from
cumulative development
would be negative.
Traffic Potential for decrease in Widen eastbound approach
the Level of Service at of the intersection to have
Dublin Boulevard/San Ra- two right-turn lanes, one
mon Road from Level of left-turn only lane, one
Service (LOS) D to LOS F shared through and left, and
when combining project one through only lane.
. effects with the cumulative
impacts of other projects. Widen westbound approach
to have three left-turn
lanes.
Cumulative increase in daily 1. Reduce project size or
traffic on Sivergate Drive 2. Encourage the use of
between Peppertree Road Dublin Boulevard by
and Creekside Drive beyond a. Choosing Alterna-
the environmental capacity. tive 1 as second
access road
b. designing access
road as major col-
lector with few
intersecting drive-
ways
c. make access road
as direct as possi-
ble to Dublin
Boulevard.
86123 1 -9
'l 1.Summary
Resource Impact - Mitigation
Noise High noise levels would be Limit construction to day-
experienced during project light hours, muffle equip-
'"' construction. ment where possible.
Proposed homes would be Install insulation adequate
,-- located in an area exposed to shield residents from
to noise from 1-580. noise and/or eliminate or
' relocate homes in direct
line of sight of 1-580.
•
•
Air Quality Particulate matter would be Sprinkle exposed earth with
generated during project water continuously during
construction. grading,then as needed
during other operations,
cover stockpiles and haul
trucks,pave and landscape
as soon as possible.
Construction equipment None required.
exhaust contains air pollut-
ants.
Hydrocarbons generated by None required.
project vehicles would im-
pact regional ozone levels.
Project related vehicles Implement measures sug-
would increase local con- gested for traffic impacts.
centrat ions of CO.
High CO episodes could City of Dublin should
become common as develop- institute a CO"hotspot"
ment continues in the Tri- monitoring program under
Valley area. the guidance of the
BAAQMD and paid for by
developers.
Historic No known historic resources None required.
Resources within the project site.
Archaeological The project area contains Should any archaeological
Resources environmental features materials be encountered
which are considered to be during project construction,
archaeologically sensitive. all activity within a 50
meter radius of the find
should be stopped and a
qualified archaeologist re-
tained to examine the find
and recommend appropriate
mitigation.
86123 1-10
[.:-;
i _ s
1. Summary
a . . .
Resource Impact Mitigation
- a
Historic Resources No known historic resources Should any archaeological
within the project site. materials be encountered
during project construction,
all activity within a 50
meter radius of the find
should be stopped and a
zqualified archaeologist
I retained to examine the find
and recommend appropriate
71 mitigation.
I :'}
Archaeology Resources No known historic resources
11 within the project site. The
t? project area contains
environmental features
r which are considered to be
Li archaeologicallysensitive.
rs,
1,1
tom'
{' •
t
ri
a
r.
86123 1-11
c
rp
i
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
r
The project site covers 147.3 acres in the unincorporated portion of Alameda County. The
site is contiguous with the western boundary of the City of Dublin and lies entirely within
the adopted sphere of influence for the City of Dublin. Current access to the property is
•
from Silvergate Drive and Martin Canyon Drive immediately off of Rolling Hills Drive.
The site is currently vacant and is used for cattle grazing. It is characterized by a
ii
parallel series of swales and knolls comprising part of the western foothills of the City of
Dublin. About one-half of the western portion of the property lies within the City of
Dublin's Primary Planning area, while the eastern half is within the City of Dublin's
Extended Planning Area.
Martin Creek is the primary drainage feature of the site, flanked by riparian and oak
woodland vegetation. The project site is located within the Martin Canyon Creek
watershed. The Martin Canyon Creek watershed drains about 890 acres of land and the
147+acre project site is located at the lower reaches of the watershed.
The terrain of Hansen Hills Ranch includes five distinct knolls situated in two rows which
are nearly equally spaced from east to west. Northernmost knolls are separated by deep
ravines; knolls overlooking Interstate 580 are separated by a saddle of land. Each knoll is
covered on top by grassland, while the lowest slopes of the three northern knolls are
surrounded by oak woodland vegetation. The two knolls overlooking I-580 are integral to
the ridge which is visually dominant and forms the northern skyline,as viewed from I-580.
This same ridgeline is visually distinct as one layer of the Dublin Hills when viewed from
the east and north. From Interstate 680 (near Amador Valley Boulevard)the rolling form
of the ridgeline is evident, appearing below and in front of Donlan Point and its
700leer pe.scrifir
ATTAcHMEP1rm
86123 L:
I �.
.7A-21'0'45 kkAnSCvl lit (�Aa^C(.
l _ 2.Project Description
Li accompanying dominant ridgeline. Elevations range from 470 feet at the property's
t northeast boundary (near Silvergate Drive) to over 860 feet along the western border.
�' Nearly one-half of the site lies on slope with a gradient of more than 30%.
Maps shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2 indicate the regional and local setting of the project
site, about one mile northwest of the intersection of Interstates 580 and 680. The Hansen
Hills Ranch site is located west of Silvergate Drive in Dublin. Silvergate Drive runs along
the east side of the site and is a two-lane plus a dual left-turn lane road. San Ramon
Road which runs parallel to Silvergate Drive to the east provides the primary access for
west Dublin residents to Interstate 580 to the south and to the City of San Ramon to the
north. San Ramon Road also provides access to Interstate 680. Dublin Boulevard runs
{ south of the project site parallel to I-580 and provides access to downtown Dublin and
major shopping centers near San Ramon Road to the east. Dublin Road ends near the
Blaylock, Fletcher&Gleason property directly south of the Hansen Ranch site.
Adjacent land uses to the north of the site include the existing Kaufman and Broad-
' ' Silvergate Highlands and Hatfield-Investec-Bordeau single-family projects, the Kaufman
and Broad California Vistas townhouse project, and the undeveloped remainder of the
Nielsen Ranch property,currently under Agricultural Preserve. To the south is the single-
family residential Briar Hill area and the Valley Christian Center Church and School
complex. East of the site are additional single-family lots and the southern portion of the
California Vistas Townhouse Project. To the west lies the Blaylock,Fletcher and Gleason
property, which is currently zoned for agricultural use and is currently used for cattle
grazing. The latter property is currently being reviewed under a general plan amendment
study to consider proposed medium-density and single-family residential development.
2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The project applicants,Hansen Hill Development Corporation,propose development of the
Hansen property as a residential community. The proposed project would include the
following elements prior to development:
o General Plan Amendment including: incorporation of the entire site into the primary
planning area of the General Plan; deletion of the implementing policy in the Land
Use and Circulation Section of the General Plan that calls for reservation of right of
way for Hansen Drive extension to the Western Hills; addition to the General Plan
Map of the new alternative roadway serving the Hansen Hill Ranch Property; and
•
86123 ?•2
REGIONAL LOCP"ION MAP FIGURE 2-1
crl
r;. §+i. r 4d t
j
SAN RAFAELi r CONCORD
"' : • OAKLAND
,.. PROJECT SITE
�`� ' SAN FRANCISCO •
DUBLIN/ l�
-. .�..
:iHAYWARD+ ALAMEDA
COUNTY
;SAN MATEO
\N.\\\N
SITE VICINITY MAP 1 : f __ • SAN JOSE
SOURCE.EIP ASSOC:AT S
t \\ ewO.
�+ItES
SAN RAMON c 10 zo ao
‘.4.Q
Q,0H 1I
y'\� I
No.
\
\--,--:-\,l DUBLIN
i
\ 7 ey O.
L O
%z z ?
\ PROJECT SITE ,1.
hw SILVERGATE
0 Qa
�,AT,iy OR. 9
o
AMARILLO
:',./ t,....,,,. RO. ^at vo.
FOti• V1
I SRVERGATE `.Sg°
L__—A^ OR
•
I O
Z
f'e PAGE Oh.
PLEASANTON S,o'
SOURCE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
N
/1?16
FEET co
woo 2000 4000
2-3
• ' ---: 7. ) :,::::73 '&..:s7:I ET,.II f7:173 L'7.7.;:n i.777: *Z7.,1:
SITE VICINITY MAP 2 FIGURE 2-2
SOURCE.DAVID GATES I ASSOCIATES
FEET "Cl-
illp if.,:........01,- ,,..„..... t:.:?....7,7:7...._-:-,,':,....,,-..."•--1.2..,>'•:•.*-.'-`k f...s.,..-`--' C -r)),i --d 1/4? 1,...\.1)L <, • Imont---611
0 600 1200 wec0
fA' --\'1":. .\,‘-'...•----5-7. ----,.---_ ,s.'-^i2.,,I''.V..-.-1;'‘.7,---1....-.:*/,‘T,'5\''''''11)1‘ \\‘'. (le) N '
/
46,,,,f;or / ef__---7,-; ,..A9-$•••iqit2 '.-- ,:....-\ .,•;.,-,..,...--,. -,..-2-",),,In\\,•;;;:-.-...-..3,..;‘\\\ r...._,..., \\iiiirop
,,,r,t ' v•-..--r_---SNL-,,(1:1, eAlk.....-1, ,),,),),...,:::-\---,,,),:`,, ,,;;f0::;:i•--:.:1-.1=-7::://f.-__.).r‘s1 - \I„71: ••=-1.'e )
..d. .,i:,.i.,,..--w.....n\\, , -„,-,-._,.4 \1.1:z.,,...,__,,:_).,,,,it---5, --,_.1 --.`;''' • '
r
Agricultural Preserve Lands
%,/ •A r b ,1 A Q . / . ''A' " \•'Z''.-- ((cs.j----'11: ''k''1p .` ' '\\\\\ t 4.. -
rO
- Property Line
7 7
K. r•1''si— \IV,........ I, .
6 /...;‘ .1.: A
F , ARBARA/- 2:07:17:2 <. .,.:... "*.T. 0 (
/SCH EFE11 \\\'- -s-4:).i 1,14 '"Ci,ti),t-t§ 1t.,,'' --•,ft,1•_ /-/
/
\\\\,‘..v t--:::,......, \,..,-,,,_;:-_-1,?, , -DUBLIN •5•.!
A ,.\I'\\\I%I-•,..;",:F.4.3:,- - , • • ' iv. ,"". ...",\-2- _ !
0
d'o )
\0, ,,, •,.......,_. -,-..,,,..„1-2:‘,!..,-,,3)1,,-- '--..---lei.; 0
'A''k YIBE14i- 'I ,....•<,41, ,1 ) 1 ,)):11-.9%, ,,...cy ,3010,, -, NIP- ,
ziC(1.it'llfiAlhi,a1),N,C.C..'-es,.,7.,-51.11.2:4135'.1-,,'.7,-,-,,,---,74,77K-5.171g2,s,P7R 0\ J
,--,-,,.f.44:_-_- ,,,,p.,...,\ ,..,„,(,; ,:,A,,,,- -!--7,7:am:;y,:z--1-.; --,:.--,\-.-: .-- ,!-,-- ,z\ ,\, ,,,,„ 1
, ...4._,..----., ,,. —,..)?,,--;=-.‘:::=::, ni--t,i",s.,:ts y ; .
..,
2.Project Description
definition and deletion of the land use designations for the areas approved for
medium density residential and single-family residential uses. '
�.j o Planned development prezoning application would have to be approved by the City of
Dublin.
o The City of Dublin would also have to approve a tentative map application.
o Annexation of the project property to the City would require an application and
approval of both the City of Dublin and the Local Agency Formation Commission
j; (LAFCO).
o Application for annexation to the Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD) would
follow the property's annexation to the City of Dublin.
In sum, 248 single-family detached homes and 34 duplex-type townhomes are being
proposed. Of the 147 acres on the Hansen Ranch property, the proposed homes are
clustered on 67.7 acres of the site, with 79.6 acres, or 54%remaining as open space.
l'
The proposed residential dwellings are arranged in a clustered configuration comprising
r _ eleven neighborhood units. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show the number and type of home by
neighborhood.
For the total site, the gross overall density is proposed as 1.9 dwelling units per acre. Net
density is 4.1 dwelling units per acre. Figure 2-3 displays the location of the proposed
neighborhood units,lot layout and the internal road system.
The proposed homes would reflect a variety of architectural styles including Victorian,
French, Normandy, Craftsman's and traditional suburban California ranch themes. The
developer has indicated an intent to provide housing that would be consistent and
compatible with existing residential areas on both the northern and southern sides of the
site.
Roadway access connections between the site and the existing road network are proposed
at the following locations. One project entrance/egress would be from Silvergate Drive,
which adjoins the eastern boundary of the site. A covered bridge is proposed along the
•
access at the point at which it would cross Martin Canyon Creek (just north of the
proposed townhouses).
ii
I •
86123 2-5
1
r �'
2. Project Description
TABLE 2-1
PROPOSED HOME TYPES FOR THE HANSEN RANCH PROJECT
. _ AND RELATED CHARACTERISTICS
!' Square Feet Estimated
Home Type Number Per Unit Bedrooms Price Range
Townhouses 34 1,250-1,450 2-3 $ 145-165 K
(duplex)
y Patio Homes 36 1,450-1,950 2-3 $ 185-225 K
(detached)
Single-Family 183 2,000-2,800 3-4 S 250-350 K
(detached)
Custom Homes 29 2,500-3,500 3-5 $ 300-450 K
i ' Total 282
Source: Hansen Hill Development Corporation, March, 1987.
•
.12
r•
•
86123 2-6
1,.)
I1 2.Project Description
I 1 TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOODS
f
i7
Neighborhood Approx. Lot Sizes in No. of Estimated Square
r" Area Acreage Square Feet Homes Home Type Feet of Homes
I
1 -- -- 34 Townhome 1,250-1,450
2 9.1 8,960-17,900 28 Single-Family 2,000-2,800
(Av.-14,100)
(; 3 5.0 3,330-7,500 36 Patio Home 1,350-1,750
(Av.-6,050) •
4 5.8 7,840-18,560 23 Single-Family 2,000-2,800
1 - (Av.- 11,050)
i;
5 7.4 7,680-10,720 40 Single-Family 2,000-2,800
! ' (Av.-8,050)
6 9.7 8,000-17,120 41 Single-Family 2,000-2,800
(Av.- 10,270)
7 6.2 9,760-53,440 13 Single-Family 2,000-2,800
(Av.-20,750)
8 8.2 8,820-32,300 20 Single-Family 2,000-2,800
(Av.-17,950)
- 9 8.3 13,000-31,040 19 Custom Home 2,500-3,500
(Av.-19,000)
10 2.5 8,820-13,440 10 Single-Family 2,000-2,800
(Av.-10,960)
11 4.7 6,850-16,340 18 Single-Family 2,000-3,500
(Av.-11,360) and Custom Home
Total 66.9 282
Source: Hansen Hill Development Corporation, March 1987.
86123 2-7
,
ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD UNITS FIGURE 2-3
CRONIN SOURCE.DAVID L.GAT ES&ASSOCIATES -Q-
\ FEET..rlil�
• S 100 :'W
, ter-\ ` ..
"i y` �q'ft••. r' _•_ 4 Neighborhood Units
•ig9°„i:e 4;tr f NIELSEN PROPERTY
fi4Q! al ® \
// / •u• kF � s`+�L: )' IJ 'Xj• _ 4i'ug �
.- __._ .p•... ^
•
_ 7 ' i. - . l t . ,�
rZ.' I ..•;,'.• :1. • ' ,.-t. • . , . 1 0 • .., ...,..5,<•-,....„--(7,X"'(:) (.--,,,,,,..,„„,
op .0/,..('9..' • r'.'..V'',:::f):--- 5.-,'- ,,Co..7.06 ,' .',4,1"..:s••>,.Cii, -,• -•C-, .......) .
a....
r
O " - �I I •• ', t .� , Q! f1\arO..•D 46fq• !. 1Y
1 Q oaf�.• �� \:j\"i l f' G � nl' s j.• j�; � "1-!'. �., "�!` 1^.`1fy t•+ ..�.._
• n V •'v'�, C:1•o....0,'! (4. ,„° , -.../.,,,"i i l ' o Ivtt��,�, l� �M..-J•�:� _^ :��y1•vI
`•1 'En Z7�'J°^�� o f F•„o• ' ' r CO q �.•`` _. 11 "L^%aGT c;�p
gyp,. .d q�Ca'. ,1 f.\Nyy,� J ' '.11.40•,;''•CJ,•. Y nG d(ye!• ,.-.g^ '.a 44e �
.+" �`� , VO P� 1•/ .7d'd' )m'c .i`tr • •t1= ) "([ 4 Ccr *(1° v:.�
fob��L 1, • }'e.^ \3• f,(� SQS'.tr•) °�") `9 .._.�• u-)\ ss � I S1'�A-- 1 qS�S �'C ^'• 1 �•e•
s_ js J- `�• cji i.•:;7 ( t. "'A rei '' •=�.`r • ✓d ��tz it As �.fa.• �.P'm �o 'a ! F-.12i�j50,
" n 4, j:11;�� R .j\�, 1'.� • .t,.,.n�9�er: iif ,pl' 'It'I. ,• �t a‘ t w•��`•\ `t', .. c
R,,,c1.%Q` Y" I /;I.IC: s.t i)• .. `1t 1 r ::" s is e• L� ter+ 1 •tv, ,a ik. m
�+ t�, ss _ �D✓ " r� ,.,, (""" •�' 1ry't) w ••m s I I.� } o l•'�F1 �a+i+.,
` y'a�' ��f.:' /:/'w '"!. �h�� rII;IC' :.:. ',r,i • �tlFj,-. •vR �w
n.A C. ' - 1• 1 ' '--Al
'-/% :'•I°"."1-ww a -5• 1.'e a . , I'\,`•Pao.a.nnJ $ S6Cv `-
�. t��1�•,j�/ •• 't •o . a.•aw<a"a,..a..aa a ... S� r� ��".�F� R• ) ``� �
e•• t,. wrq,i�R.►11=0°. a1// 1 �. `,.7., -F. /..!ti71t i,iil ,.,.,, ;Si:, ,,ifnartn ),�_ji `^M^ a-. �s",,...9 „,`... .. yr—IT -,,,,,,,1 ,
..,. ,.......
A.lati •. 4 VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER \.,
BLAYLOCK, •.R%` "//:;, ,.•.•,S
GLEASON,&FLETCHER '...es \`• r ;1.1
aas a g
R.4f3.. _.._..
2. Project Description
A second entrance/egress is proposed through the valley Christian Center property,
providing the site indirect access to Dublin Boulevard. This access connection would be
along the alignment of the current driveway with modifications proposed to meet public
road standards for a collector street.
Two additional options were considered for the Dublin Boulevard access connection. One
option involved access extending from the Valley Christian Center driveway at Dublin
i.2 Boulevard along the shared boundary between the Valley Christian Center and the
adjoining Blaylock, Fletcher & Gleason property to the southwest corner of the subject
property. The second option considered was an access from the Western terminus of
Dublin Boulevard up the west side of Donlon Canyon to the west side of the subject
I: property. Preliminary grading plans have been developed only for the first option. The
alignment ultimately chosen for site access from Dublin Boulevard should reflect the best
fit between roadway development environmental impacts and mitigations to project
traffic.
The third proposed connection to the existing roadway network would be for an emergency
vehicle access. This access would be extended from the southern terminus of Martin
Canyon Road and is proposed as an all-weather road along the north side of Martin Canyon
Creek (along an existing farm road) to the northwest corner of the site where a bridge
crossing over Martin Canyon Creek is proposed. The connection between the internal
roadway system and this emergency access road (i.e., the Martin Canyon Creek Road
Crossing)could serve as a possible connection to future developments north and northwest
of the site.
For internal circulation, neighborhood collector roads would be 42 feet wide curb-to-curb
in a 58-foot right of way. Cul-de-sacs would be 34 feet wide in a 46 foot right-of-way.
Where minor roads are not providing lot access, they would be reduced to 24 feet, curb-
to-curb, in order to reduce site grading. Maximum road grades do not currently exceed
15% gradient. All roadways, except townhouse access driveways, would be public roads
maintained by the City of Dublin. Besides roadways, other improvements to the site
1
would consist of the following: (a)permanent fencing along all project boundaries;
(b)pedestrian trail system; (c)extension of public utilities including sewer, storm
drainage, water, gas, electricity, telephone and cable television; and (d)flood control
' improvements.
�.t
86123 2-9
•
{ 2.Project Description
r:a
2.3 REGULATORY AND PERMIT PROCESS
The project site is within the unincorporated area of Alameda County. As such,the site is
currently subject to the provisions of the Alameda County Planning and Zoning Ordinance
and the Alameda County General Plan. The site is entirely located within the adopted
sphere of influence (reflecting the ultimate anticipated urban sphere boundary) for the
City of Dublin.
Development of the site for residential purposes will require Alameda County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval for annexation into the City of Dublin
and subsequent annexation into the Dublin San Ramon Service District (providers of fire,
water,and sewer service).
•
Prior to initiating the application process for the site's annexation into the City, the City
must process and act on the subject General Plan amendments study(to address the site's
existing and proposed land use designation and to consider amendments and/or elaboration
to existing development guidelines within the text of the current general plan), and
process and act on the concurrently requested prezoning application (to make the site's
zoning designations consistent with the site's underlying general plan land use
designations).
Concurrent with the city's action on the General Plan amendment study and prezoning
application, the tentative map application would be considered. The subject EIR covers
the full of the project applications. The EIR process will require EIR
certification pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR will be publically
circulated for a period of 45 days. Following this public review period, all written
comments and all comments made at the public hearing on the project will be responded
to in writing in an addendum to the Draft EIR known as the Comments and Responses
Document. Together, the Draft EIR and the Comments and Responses Documents
comprise the Final EIR. The Dublin Planning Commission, if it deems the Final EIR to be
adequate and complete,will certify the Final EIR.
A streambed alteration agreement (Section 1601-1603)with the California Department of
Fish and Game would be required for work involving construction around Martin's Creek.
86123 2-10