Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/18/1988 PC Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - Shannon Community Center Monday - 7:00 p.m. 11600 Shannon Avenue, Dublin April 18, 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 - April 4, 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 PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Sign Program Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for directional tract signs and subdivision sale, rent, or lease signs to exceed allowable square footage, height and setback restrictions west of Dougherty Road north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard (continued from meeting of March 7, March 21, and April 4, 1988.) 8.2 PA 87-122 Hucke Sign Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request for special easement sign, C-2-B-40 directory signs, and sign program at 7016-7150 Village Parkway. 8.3 PA 87-180 Babbitt/Nielsen Site Development Review request for two single family parcels on the east side of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive. 8.4 PA 88-021 Valley High School Conditional Use Permit request for relocation of continuation high school to former Cronin School site, 6901 York Drive. 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS 12. ADJOURNMENT (Over for Procedures Summary) CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: April 18, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, Sign Program Variance GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: REVISED - Variance request for a Sign Program containing four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs (three of which exceed allowed copy square footage restrictions and all four of which are located in required yard areas). PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development Ron Nahas 20211 Patio Drive, Suite 215 Castro Valley, CA 94546 LOCATION: The Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-278-2782, -2783, -2784 (Portion of each) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: PD, Planned Development, Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant, City of San Ramon South: Vacant, PD, Planned Development for residential uses East: Camp Parks Military Training Reserve West: Open space, PD Planned Development ZONING HISTORY: The original 135+ acre holding was rezoned from an A, Agricultural District, to the R-1-B-5, Single Family Residential-Combining District, and the C-N, Neighborhood Business District, by Zoning Unit 638, approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1964. The Zoning designation R-1-B-5 was subsequently relettered to an R-1-B-E designation. On April 15, 1985, the Planning Commission granted approval for a four-parcel minor subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map 4575. The parcel split was requested to facilitate a purchase option agreement the Applicant (Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development) had with the original Property Owner. On March 24, 1986, the City Council granted approval for the PD, Planned Development District and Tentative Map applications for the 1,165-unit Villages at Willow Creek project (PA 85-041.1 and .2). There are seven residential Villages under separate applications and in various stages. On April 18, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit/Variance request for a sign program containing three directional tract signs (all of which exceed allowed copy square footage restriction and two of which exceed height restrictions). ITEM NO. g,/ COPIES TO: Applicant n APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 8-87-50 of the Sign Regulation states that Subdivision Sale/Rent/Lease signs are permitted in any zoning district to advertise the orginal sale, rent or lease of buildings or lots in conjunction with a subdivision development. A maximum sign area of thirty-two square feet and a maximum height limit of 12 feet must be observed. In addition, the yard limits of the district the sign is located in must be complied with. Also, the sign must be located on private property within the subdivision. Section 8-93.0 (Variance) and Government Code Section 65906 (State law re: Variance findings) indicate that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: 1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification; 2) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; and 3) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15311, Class 11(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 7, 1988 hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to property owners and posted in public buildings. Because this item was continued to the March 21, April 4, and April 18, 1988 hearings, no further public noticing was required. BACKGROUND This application was originally heard by the Planning Commission on March 7, 1988. Due to conflicts, it was continued. On March 21, 1988 the Planning Commission reviewed the revised the sign program. The Commission determined that three of the signs (all directional tract signs) could be supported. The Commission directed Staff to provide Resolutions in support of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests for the directional tract signs and to make those Resolutions available to the Commission for review at the April 4, 1988 meeting. With respect to the remaining signs (four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs), the Planning Commission determined that the Applicant must provide additional information. This included providing scaled plot plans showing the exact location of the signs in relation to property lines and walls/fences and required yard setbacks, and; scaled elevations showing the exact copy of each sign. The Commission decided to continue this item and refrained from making a decision until this information was provided. This part of the application was also continued to the April 4th meeting. On March 30, 1988, Staff completed a Staff Report for the April 4th meeting recommending conditional approval of the three directional tract signs (as requested by the Planning Commission) and recommending denial without prejudice for the four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs. The recommendation for denial without prejudice was based upon the fact that the Applicant had not given Staff the additional information requested by the Planning Commission. On March 31, 1988 the Applicant called Staff and requested that the public hearing for the four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs be moved from the April 4th to the April 18th Planning Commission meeting. In addition he requested that the public hearing on the three directional tract signs be held -2- at the April 4 Planning Commission meeting. Staff concurred with the Applicants requests. Staff asked the Applicant to make this request in writing. Staff also requested that information to be considered for the April 18th meeting should be submitted to Staff by the end of the following week (April 8, 1988) . Staff received the additional information at 2:30 p.m. on April 12, 1988. Unfortunately, the materials were not received early enough for Staff to review and analyze the information, conduct a site check and complete a Staff report. In addition, a brief review of the plans revealed that there was still other information that the Applicant must provide in order to have a complete package that could be brought to the Planning Commission for review. Consequently, Staff wrote a letter to the Applicant indicating the need for the additional information and that the item would have to be continued to the May 2nd Commission Meeting (see Attachment 2) . On April 13, 1988 Staff called the Applicant to make him aware of the above issues. He responded by stating that he does not want the item to be continued and that he would be at the Planning Commission meeting on April 18th to pursue his approval no matter what direction Staff takes. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 2, 1988 in order to give Staff the opportunity to review and analyze the information submitted by the Applicant, to conduct site checks and to complete a Staff Report. In addition, the Commission should direct the Applicant to provide the information indicated in Attachment 2 no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 22, 1988. ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Applicant to Staff dated received by the Planning Department on 4/12/88. 2. Letter from Staff to the Applicant dated 4/13/88. -3- g E CTIT►L E L1, Rafanelli and Nahas APR ? N 1223 Real Estate Development DuBuNprafforo April 12, 1988 VIA MESSENGER Rod Barger City of Dublin AAR11,2 J a33 P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Willow Creek Inter Sign Program Dear Rod: Enclosed are plans which show the locations for each of the "B" signs. I have enclosed six sets, which have been highlighted so that you will have a copy to forward to each of the Planning Commissioners. Each sign has been located with its distance from face of curb and property line noted, as well as its distance from the projected face of curb of the nearest intersection. The constraints on sign locations which dictate their positioning are as follows: B-i Sign: This sign is located between the existing pathway and the fence and cannot be shifted unless it is placed behind the fence, which would make it much higher and more difficult to read. B-2 Sign: This sign is located midway up the bank between the sidewalk and the future fence line location. To move it further away from the face of curb would simply make the sign higher and visually more objectionable. B-3 Sign: This sign is placed 8 ft. behind face of curb and on the property line directly in front of the existing wall. This ' ,location is important so that people travelling south on Dougherty Road will see the directional sign. It is located well behind the 30 ft. setback on Dougherty Road. B-4 Sign: The B-4 sign is located about midway up the bank between Shady Creek Road and the rear yard fences of the adjacent lot. We could probably shift it further up the bank, but doing so would make it less attractive. At the meeting on Monday night, I will bring slides to illustrate each sign location so that the Planning Commissioners have a better idea of what is proposed. I would urge you to take a look at the sites in advance, as I am hopeful that the staff will support our requests. All ATTACHMENL 20211 PATIO DRIVE, SUITE 215,CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546 (415)537-0486 CT— Rod Barger April 12, 1988 Pace Two signs will be limited to the 4'x6' dimension which seems to be acceptable to the Planning Commission. Cordially, Ronald C. Nahas Enclosures RCN/ds cc: Patricia Carroll Cathy Clonan • T.Rrry Tong CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services --NPlanning/Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 wilding & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 April 13, 1988 Mr. Ronald C . Nahas Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development 20211 Patio Drive, Suite 215 Castro Valley, CA 94546 RE : PA 87-003 Villages Subdivision Sale/Lease/Rent Sign Program Variance Dear Mr. Nahas : We received the revised sign program information on the four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs on April 12, 1988. Unfortunately, the information was not received early enough to meet Staff Report completion deadlines for the Planning Commission meeting of April 18, 1988. Therefore, your item will have to be continued to the May 2, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. In addition, a review of the plans indicates that there is still other information that you must provide in order to have a complete package that can be brought to the Planning Commission for review. As you may recall , during the meeting of March 31, 1988, the Planning Commission requested that you provide : 1 ) scaled plot plans showing the exact locations of the signs in relation to property lines and walls/fences; 2) scaled plot plans showing the locations of the signs in relation to required yard setbacks; and 3) scaled elevations showing the exact copy of each sign. We still need to get from you the information listed in items 2 and 3 above. In addition, Staff needs clarification on the following: - indicate whether the B-3 sign is single face or double faced and provide an accurate drawing showing its relationship to the wall (is it perpendicular or parallel to the wall?) - provide a site plan drawn accurately to scale, showing the exact locations of the B-3 sign, the property line and the wall and show exactly where that sign will be placed in relation to the wall and property line. In order to give Staff ample time to review and analyze the information, conduct site checks and complete a Staff Report, please provide all requested materials no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 22, 1988. If we have not received the information by this date/time, the item will have to be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting (May 16, 1988) . • Mr. Ronald C . Nahas April 13, 1988 Page 2 If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me at the City offices. Sincerely, Rod D. Barger Senior Planner RDB/cf cc : Laurence Tong File - PA 88-003 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: April 18, 1988 TO: Planning Commission y1��r FROM: Planning Staff /140'k 1 SUBJECT: PA 87-122 Hucke Signs Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review 7016 - 7150 Village Parkway GENERAL INFORMATION: Staff met with the Applicant April 13, 1988 to discuss Staff's concerns with the application. At that time the Applicant requested a continuance of this item in order to have adequate time to consider Staff's recommendation for the proposed sign program and C-2-B-40 Directory Sign. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing. 2) Hear Staff presentation. 3) Hear public presentations. 4) Leave public hearing open and continue the item to the May 2, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. COPIES TO: Applicant Owner ITEM NO. . p2 File PA 87-122 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: April 18, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: PA 87-180 Babbitt/Nielsen Site Development Review Appeal GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Appeal of Planning Director's Action approving with conditions a Site Development Review request for two single family residences APPLICANT: Don Babbitt Plummer/Babbitt Civil Engineers, Inc. 11626 Regio Court Dublin, CA 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: Robert J. Neilsen 11637 Allegre Drive Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: East side of Silvergate Drive, approximately 100 feet north of Hansen Drive ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-110-1-15 PARCEL SIZE: 0.4745+ Acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre) EXISTING ZONING PD, Planned Development District by PA 84-076 AND LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - PD, Residential (PA 84-076) South - R-1-B-E, Residential (7000 sq. ft. MBSA) East - R-1-B-E, Residential (7000 sq. ft. MBSA) West - Agricultural (County) ZONING HISTORY: 1956 - Subject property was zoned Agricultural 1980 - Alameda County amended the General Plan to change the Nielsen Ranch land use designation from agricultural to residential, including both single family and multi-family dwelling units. COPIES TO: Applicant Owner ITEM NO. 3. File PA 87-170 An Environmental Impact Report was adopted with this General Plan amendment. 1981 - Alameda County rezoned the Nielsen Ranch property from an Agricultural District to a Planned Development, 1478th Z.U. 1981 - Alameda County approved Tract Map 4859 to subdivide the Nielsen Ranch Property for the purpose of developing 261 detached single family units and 129 multi-family units. 1984 - The Dublin City Council on appeal approved a 2-1/2 year extension for Tract Map 4859. 1985 - The Dublin City Council approved Revised General Conditions for the 1487th Zoning Unit as Planned Development Prezoning PA 84-076. 1986 - The subject property was annexed to the City of Dublin. 1986 - A tentative parcel map was approved for the subject property to create two parcels (Tract 4783 PA 86-019). APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Condition #9 of City Council Resolution 01-85 establishing revised General Provisions for Planned Development Prezoning (PA 84-076) states: Prior to issuance of building permits every structure on each lot shall be subject to Site Development Review approval. The Site Development Review shall include architecture. Section 8-95.0 states that the intent of the Site Development Review is to 1) promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development; 2) recongnize environmental limitations on development; 3) and promote the general welfare by preventing establishement of uses or erection of structures having qualities which would of meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards of the Zoning Regulations or which are not properly related to their sites, surroundings, traffic circulation, or their environmental setting. Section 8-95.1 states that the Planning Director shall decide applications for Site Development Review and no public hearing is required. Section 8-95.5 states that if the Planning Director finds that compliance with the Zoning Regulations would not be secure they shall disapprove or approve subject to specified conditions, changes or additions as will assure compliance. Section 8-95.6 permits an appeal of the Planning Director's decision if filed within 10 days of the decision. Parking accessibility and maneuvering are addressed in Sections 8-63.2, 8-63.9 and 8-63.10. Section 8-63.2 requires that the required parking area be kept accessible at all times including the driveway and maneuvering space necessary to provide access. Section 8-63.9 requires review and approval of a site plan showing the location of parking and maneuvering spaces prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 8-63.10 requires that parking, access driveways and maneuvering areas be maintained with all-weather dust-free surfacing. -2- ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically exempt. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the April 18, 1988, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: In December, 1987, the Planning Department accepted an application for Site Development Review for two single family residences on two parcels. The two parcels consist of one rectangular parcel and one flag lot. Prior to submitting the application the Applicant presented preliminary layouts for Staff review. Staff concerns centered around the setback requirements of the two units and the vehicle maneuvering area near the garage for the flag lot. On March 21, 1988, the Planning Director approved the Site Development Review subject to conditions which included changes to the site plan. The Applicant has appealed that decision citing objection to five of the specified conditions (see Attachment 1). Lot Line Adjustment The site plan shows a modification of the property lines as approved in Tentative Parcel Map Tract 4783 (PA 86-019). The southern property line of the flag is approximately 23 feet shorter and the north/south property line separating the two parcels is changed from a 90 degree angle to an approximately 120 degree angle (see Attachment 3). The resulting parcel sizes are 8,072 sq. ft. and 12,199 sq. ft. (the approved tentative parcel map shows lot sizes of 8,145 sq. ft. and 12,125 sq. ft.). These proposed parcel sizes are consistent with the R-1 zone east and south of the property. Staff has no objection to a lot line adjustment providing that the parcel sizes do not fall below 7,000 square feet. In this proposal the lot line results in a 17.61 foot rear yard where 20 is required. The substandard rear yard effects an area about 5 feet along the rear of the house. The lot line can be adjusted slightly so that a 20 foot rear yard can be observed (see Attachment 4). Parcel A (Western Parcel) With the exception of the rear yard the site plan for parcel A conforms to the zoning requirements for setbacks and yards, and the minimum 5 feet clear and level area around the structure. Section 8-26.6.1 concerning Rear Yards in R-1 Districts allows a rear yard less than 20 feet in depth if there is compensating open areas within the same or adjacent yard with an area at least equal to the extent of building coverage of the 20 foot rear yard. The compensating area shall be considered a Required yard. Staff believes that while the compensating rear yard can be supplied for this proposed site plan it is unnecessary given that it is the proposed lot line adjustment which is creating the reduced rear yard. To clarify the ambiguity cited by the Applicant, Condition #7 has been reworded to state that the lot line adjustment shall be modified so that a minimum 20-foot rear yard can be provided for Parcel A. Parcel B (Eastern Parcel, Flag lot) The applicant is proposing a 10.32 foot setback from the west propety line and a 20 foot setback from the north property line. The Applicant contends that the area extending from the "pole" of the flag lot should be considered the "front yard". Staff has reviewed several scenarios for flag lots in order to develop a consistent method of identifying yards and setbacks. In general, the side yards of the rear lot would continue along the same property line as the front -3- /1 lot and the front yard of the rear lot would abut the rear yard of the forward lot (see Attachment 5). This methodology would provide a similar separation of flag lot houses (40 feet between rear yard and front yard) as would be provided between more traditional subdivision layouts where rear-yards abut (see Attachment 5). The designation of the front lot line for a flag lot as "the interior lot line most parallel to and nearest the street from which access is obtained" is consistent with the definition used by other communities in the Bay Area. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) Residential Development Handbook discusses lot lines and the need to layout lots in a manner that will result in useable area for outdoor living such as front and rear yard, lawn area, space for a garden and other open space (see Attachment 6). The combined minimum spearation of 40-feet provides a reasonable amount of land for setback, openess and privacy. Attachment 7 illustrates the relationship of a flag lot to other lots surrounding it. It should be made clear that the designations of front yard, side yard, rear yard, etc., from a zoning standpoint, refer to a lot's orientation to the street and/or other lots and not to the orientation of the house on the lot. The flag lot located north of the subject property has been developed with a single family residence. Describing the yards as illustrated in Attachment 5 this residence is observing a 10-foot front yard and a 20-foot side yard. This variation in the standard yard requirements was permitted to allow the structure to take advantage of views to the creek (along its northern property line). Staff may have opted for allowing the house to be sited to take optimum advantage of the creek setting, to the detriment of the typical front to rear yard useability for outdoor living, Useability includes a reasonable amount of setback, open space and privacy. Staff recommends that the typical front to rear yard useability be maintained in the proposed project. Consistent with the above analysis, Condition #8 requires that Parcel B observe a 20 foot setback from its western property line as the front yard. A flag lot creates some concern with the ease of circulation between the dwelling unit and the street. The distance from the street to the garage, for this project, is over 100 feet. From a safety, as well as a convenience standpoint, it is desirable that a flag lot user can approach the street facing forward. In order to accomodate this it is necessary to provide permanent area on the lot for a vehicle to turn around. The project, as proposed, does provide the 25 x 42 foot area required in the Planning Director's Conditions of Approval #9 (see Attachment 8). The condition was included to assure that adequate turn-around area is available once the house location is changed to observe the required setback in conditions. Condition #9 has been reworded to state that, "a minimum 25'x42' clear area shall be provided adjacent to the garage to provide for vehicle maneuvering". General Conditions Condition #16 required the developer to disclose the potential for settling due to the presence of uncompacted soils on the site. The condition required the disclosure to be filed against the property, subject to review of the City Engineer. The applicant/appeallant has requested that the disclosure be included on the final map. This request is acceptable and the condition has been modified to reflect the request. The appeal also requests a modification to Item H. Item H is a finding made by the Planning Director that supports the approval of the project. Condition #5 addresses the need to complete a maintenance agreement for plant material and irrigation. The site plan only indicates four street trees (Crape Myrtles). These trees would be the only landscaping subject to the agreement. It is typical for the homeowner of single-family units to provide and maintain any additional landscaping. -4- n 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 conditionally approving PA 87-180 Babbitt/Nielsen Site Development Review, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision and adopt a Resolution conditionally approving the Babbitt/Neilsen Site Development Review for two single family residences. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Draft Resolution Approving PA 87-180 Babbitt/Nielsen Site Development Review Background Attachments 1) Appeal letter from Donald L. Babbitt (Applicant) 2) Planning Director's Conditions of Approval 3) Proposed Site Plan and Architectural Plans 4) Staff Study - Lot Line Adjustment 5) Staff Study - Setback Analysis 6) Lot lines discussion, from Residental Development Handbook 7) Lot types, from the Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. 8) Staff Study - Maneuvering Area. -5- RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ACTION APPROVING PA 87-180 BABBITT/NIELSEN SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON TWO PARCELS AT SILVERGATE DRIVE NEAR HANSEN DRIVE WHEREAS, Donald L. Babbitt filed a Site Development Review application requesting approval of two single family dwelling units on two parcels located on the east side of Silvergate Drive approximately 100 feet north of Hansen Drive; 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, on March 21, 1988, the Planning Director approved the application subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 1988, Donald L. Babbitt, the Applicant, filed an appeal of the Planning Director's action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said appeal on April 18, 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 that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's action as modified and conditionally approve the Site Development Review application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendatiuons and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. Site Development Review request is substantially consistent with the intent and requirements set forth within the Conditions of Approval covering this property. Specifically, the request is substantially consistent with the requirements set forth by Resolution No. 86-036 of the Dublin Planning Commission (PA 86-019 Tentative Parcel Map 4783). B. The approval of the Site Development Review will be consistent with the Dublin General Plan. C. The proposed Site Development Review request will not have a significant environmental impact. This application is categorically exempt per CEQA. D. The Site Development Review request is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing and planned land uses in the area, will be visually attractive, will not overburden public services, and will provide housing of a type and cost that is desired in the City of Dublin. E. The proposed Site Development Review request will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvement. F. General site considerations, including site layout, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, public safety and similar elements, have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. G. General architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the building materials, colors and similar elements have been incorporated into the n H. General landscape conditions, including the locations, provisions for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements, have been considered to insure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the public. I. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in that the site is indicated to be geologically satisfactory for the type of development proposed in locations as shown, and the site is in a good location regarding public services and facilities. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless otherwise specified, the following Conditions shall be complied with prior to issuance of building permits. Each item is subject to review and approval by the Planning Department unless otherwise specified. 1. Except as specifically modified or elaborated upon by the Conditions listed below, site development of the 0.4745+ acre - 2-lot single family residential project shall conform to the Conditions of Approval established by Resolution No. 86-036 of the Dublin Planning Commission, approved on July 21, 1986, for City File PA 86-019 (Tentative Parcel Map) (see Attachment A). Except as specifically modified by the following Conditions of Approval, the development of this project shall be subject to the guidelines of the R-1, Single Family Residential District as regards land use restrictions. 2. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these Conditions, development shall be generally consistent with the following submittals: a. Revised Preliminary Site and Grading Plan prepared by Plummer and Babbitt Civil Engineering, Inc. consisting of one sheet and entitled "Parcel A & B Parcel Map 4783 Site Grading Plan" and dated received December 15, 1987. b. Architectural Elevations and Floor Plans prepared by Aram Bassenian AIA & Associates, Inc. consisting of Sheets 3.3, 3.6 and 3.7, and dated received December 15, 1987 Collectively, these materials shall serve as Exhibit "A" for this project, and shall be maintained on file with the Planning Department. This approval shall be valid until March 21, 1990. Building permits shall have been secured for the project, and substantial construction on the project commenced, by that time, or this approval shall be null and void. This approval may be extended six additional months by the City Planning Director upon his determination that the Conditions of Approval outlined in this document continue to remain adequate to assure development consistent with the aforestated Findings of Approval. Written request for the extension must be received by the City Planning Director prior to the date specified above. 3. Except as may be specifically provided for within these conditions of Approval, the development shall comply with City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions (see Attachment B). 4. Except as may be specifically provided for within these Condiitons of Approval, development shall comply with City of Dublin Police Services Standard Residential Building Security Requirements (see Attachment C). The Following construction details shall be provided for each unit in the project: a) a secondary security lock shall be installed on all bottom windows, b) dead bolts with security strike plates shall be mounted on the front door jambs, and c) a pin type lock shall be installed on all sliding glass windows. 5. The Developer shall complete and submit the City of Dublin Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance Agreement (see Attachment D). 6. A final color and materials palette shall be prepared by the Developer for review and approval by the Planning Director, and shall be submitted prior to the foundation inspection of any units in this project. -2- 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits a lot line adjustment shall be approved by the City Engineer. Lot line location shown on Exhibit "A" shall be modified so that a minimum 20-foot rear yard can be provided for Parcel A. 8. House proposed for Parcel B shall observe a 20 foot setback from the west property line (designated as front yard of the property). 9. A minimum 25' x 42' clear area shall be provided adjacent to the garage door to provide for vehicle maneuvering. Area which extends from driveway shall be improved in the same manner as the driveway. Additional maneuvering area shall be improved with concrete, asphalt or grass-crete (or other similar materials approved by Planning Director). 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits fees for water, fire, and sewer are required per DSRSD. Site drawings showing DSRSD utilities shall be approved by DSRSD prior to issuance of building permits. 11. All construction activity at this site shall be limited to the hours between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except as may be approved in advance in writing by the City Engineer. 12. An encroachment permit is required for work in the public right-of-way. 13. All construction shall be between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except as may be approved in advance in writing by the City Engineer. 14. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to any revised grading to the site. 15. Improvement plans including drainage plan shall be submitted to the City for Review. 16. The developer shall disclose the potential for settlement and cracking of concrete due to uncompacted soils on the final map. 17. With the submittal for building permit review, the Applicant shall submit documentation that all dwellings will contain standard and currently available energy saving devices, and shall incorporate all reasonable water conservation measures (including water conservation appliances). 18. Grading performed for this site shall be countour-rounded to the greatest extent feasible. Adjustments to the final grading plan in these areas shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director at the time that rough grading of this site is completed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -3- RECEIVED MAR 33r. DUBLIN PLANNING March 30, 1988 City of Dublin Development Services P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, California 94568 Attention: Laurence Tong REFERENCE: Appeal PA 87-180 Dear Mr. Tong: I hereby request an appeal of the following items per the Appealable Action Letter dated March 21, 1988 for PA 87-180: Item 7 - An average 28 foot rear yard is being provided for Parcel A and therefore exceeds the 20 foot rear yard as conditioned. The wording is ambiguous in this condition regarding 20 foot rear yard. Item 8 - Do not wish to observe a 20 foot setback from the west property line for Parcel B. Change condition to read observe a minimum 10 foot setback from west property line and a minimum 20 foot setback from the north property line. Said setbacks to be indicated on the final map prior to recording. Item 9 - Wording is ambiguous concerning a 25' X 42" clear area to be provided behind the garage. I wish this condition to be modified to read that driveway will be costructed as shown on the Revised Preliminary Site and Grading Plan prepared by Plummer and Babbitt Civil Engineering, Inc_ consisting of one sheet and entitled "Parcel A & B Parcel Map 4783 Site Grading Plan" dated December 15, 1987. The driveway as shown on this plan provides enough area for vehicle maneuvering. Item 16 - Wish this condition to be modified so that disclosure of soils report shall be made on the final map prior to recording addressing the uncompacted soils on the site. 059 00000 545 ATTACy;� PA e7-18O APt Lenraa Item H - Wish this condition to be modified that General Landscape conditions will pertain only to the four street trees as shown on the submitted site plan. Please have this matter placed on the earliest available Plan.'ng Commission agenda. Jbbi . . y, 1- 47 DLB:ks 059-00000-545 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA-87-180 Babbitt/Nielsen SDR Site Development Review FINDINGS OF APPROVAL: A. Site Development Review request is substantially consistent with the intent and requirements set forth within the Conditions of Approval covering this property. Specifically, the request is substantially consistent with the requirements set forth by Resolution No. 86-036 of the Dublin Planning Commission (PA 86-019 Tentative Parcel Map 4783). B. The approval of the Site Development Review will be consistent with the Dublin General Plan. C. The proposed Site Development Review request will not have a significant environmental impact. This application is categorically exempt per CEQA. D. The Site Development Review request is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing and planned land uses in the area, will be visually attractive, will not overburden public services, and will provide housing of a type and cost that is desired in the City of Dublin. E. The proposed Site Development Review request will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvement. F. General site considerations, including site layout, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, public safety and similar elements, have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. G. General architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the architectural relationship with the building materials, colors and similar elements have been incorporated into the project in order to insure compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of planned future land uses. H. General landscape conditions, including the locations, provisions for irrigation, maintenance and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements, have been considered to insure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an attractive environment for the public. I. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in that the site is indicated to be geologically satisfactory for the type of development proposed in locations as shown, and the site is in a good location regarding public services and facilities. ATTACHMENT L PAST-I80 PLANNINt, DIRECCOR'S FINDI Nbs 1 GoND1110N5 (- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless otherwise specified, the following Conditions shall be complied with prior to issuance of building permits. Each item is subject to review and approval by the Planning Department unless otherwise specified. A Except as specifically modified or elaborated upon by the Conditions listed below, site development of the 0.4745+ acre - 2-lot single family residential project shall conform to the Conditions of Approval established by Resolution No. 86-036 of the Dublin Planning Commission, approved on July 21, 1986, for City File PA 86-019 (Tentative Parcel Map) (see Attachment A). Except as specifically modified by the following Conditions of Approval, the development of this project shall be subject to the guidelines of the R-1, Single Family Residential District as regards land use restrictions. 2. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these Conditions, development shall be generally consistent with the following submittals: a. Revised Preliminary Site and Grading Plan prepared by Plummer and Babbitt Civil Engineering, Inc. consisting of one sheet and entitled "Parcel A & B Parcel Map 4783 Site Grading Plan" and dated received December 15, 1987. b. Architectural Elevations and Floor Plans prepared by Aram Bassenian AIA & Associates, Inc. consisting of Sheets 3.3, 3.6 and 3.7, and dated received December 15, 1987 Collectively, these materials shall serve as Exhibit "A" for this project, and shall be maintained on file with the Planning Department. This approval shall be valid until March 21, 1990. Building permits shall have been secured for the project, and substantial construction on the project commenced, by that time, or this approval shall be null and void. This approval may be extended six additional months by the City Planning Director upon his determination that the Conditions of Approval outlined in this document continue to remain adequate to assure development consistent with the aforestated Findings of Approval. Written request for the extension must be received by the City Planning Director prior to the date specified above. 3. Except as may be specifically provided for within these conditions of Approval, the development shall comply with City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions (see Attachment B). 4. Except as may be specifically provided for within these Condiitons of Approval, development shall comply with City of Dublin Police Services Standard Residential Building Security Requirements (see Attachment C). The Following construction details shall be provided for each unit in the project: a) a secondary security lock shall be installed on all bottom windows, b) dead bolts with security strike plates shall be mounted on the front door jambs, and c) a pin type lock shall be installed on all sliding glass windows. -2- 5. The Developer shall complete and submit the City of Dublin Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance Agreement (see Attachment D). 6. A final color and materials palette shall be prepared by the Developer for review and approval by the Planning Director, and shall be submitted prior to the foundation inspection of any units in this project. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits a lot line adjustment shall be approved by the City Engineer. Lot line location shown on Exhibit "A" shall be modified so that a 20-foot rear yard can be provided for Parcel A. 8. House proposed for Parcel B shall observe a 20 foot setback from the west property line (designated as front yard of the property). 9. A minimum 25' x 42' clear area shall be provided behind garage to provide for vehicle maneuvering. Area which extends from driveway shall be improved in the same manner as the driveway. Additional maneuvering area shall be improved with concrete, asphalt or grass-crete (or other similar materials approved by Planning Diection). 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits fees for water, fire, and sewer are required per DSRSD. Site drawings showing DSRSD utilities shall be approved by DSRSD prior to issuance of building permits. 11. All construction activity at this site shall be limited to the hours between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except as may be approved in advance in writing by the City Engineer. 12. An encroachment permit is required for work in the public right-of-way. 13. All construction shall be between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except as may be approved in advance in writing by the City Engineer. 14. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to any revised grading to the site. 15. Improvement plans including drainage plan shall be submitted to the City for Review. 16. The developer shall disclose to the buyers the potential for settlement and cracking of concrete due to uncompacted soils. Disclosue must be recorded against the property and is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer prior to occupancy of the buildings. 17. With the submittal for building permit review, the Applicant shall submit documentation that all dwellings will contain standard and currently available energy saving devices, and shall incorporate all reasonable water conservation measures (including water conservation appliances). -3- 4 - J 18. Grading performed for this site shall be countour-rounded to the greatest extent feasible. Adjustments to the final grading plan in these areas shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Diector at the time that rough grading of this site is completed. -4- . 1 ..: 00rMi.w11.) MINI.0' IJ iim ri-m ._ 412.7 soarmw' V I•JlI•oa � : ^,-LA 7NIQdad71 2LIS oe n b •ovayua+aau}fua IND M .. b dW el �d laD'dd u�+J .1 < 1 ..•.,+a„A.a w U I.,ro »l99rH. Jamwnid t.rn4.•. 9}V 13D21dd i'a a \ / te. 11. . ^ 0010;-..4' •:.,as jam '-�\ _ .- ''' .--- 1 \\ f r 1 ` /\ \ \\ '� �\ ! i ad 8!N 1 \ r \ \1 1 s1 \ , //a t,,k\‘‘,, : c p. 39 \1 �" / \\_ , \ \ L \ -4 vi--..-447\:4 .c, Att\ p---- , ,I \\ 3 1`, 1 , ss - - \r - It- v"44 IIW 1 _., * isr,,,A#; 1, ii \ \ \ \\\Ctt i " \ 1 I lb 4 ` ) a1 is :.a� _ ,;.:�:�. r4 1 111 II F li t°a Ili( e4e. v II' r1 §t il; a-; SI ei'a .„4140.S 4!!' — / I � eke i - . l AT TACHMENT I _ j r ill PA.Zi•l$O FYoroled Sac Plan 4 I Archa+Mural Bans . . I- ty . - i , • —--- &uu „I ammiiiiiii rc_is.&if 1 ......—. # .0S ADN3HVdSNVI:11. ,figetuana, 0 li.4 it :,- ..1.0........,...i."" 1.11.0.•ammo. '4":PrAtIO=44174 a IA.°, vi— . . -,-...,,„„....,... • „p-,,v • - Len,- •-I. •,,z,p ,,oinc" .40, " ''''. 7+ " p-toi.ni ,n-,Ci- ' ll' "'"'ct a .FR-4 _ - •a ,‘I 1 ..... 1 ° F i, —i -'-''' e" ' ' • o- rg • ., . • Cek E] >< ., 1 I °' n • L7 A" 1 i, ® .R 1 .hi/ N u E1 g le ' I t _ - 4 -.7 ;I.!' a, .. a, i , . it % #1 ' ,,,.., I ----I- 4 -.eit m -il _A@ ® - - • B . . 0 oo„ ..- Qs —• -41p 0 4'4,2111 • -;',,,_ -. reg • . k&o w -..- - 1 tuniws. • -4 0.-.11,n-,£ •,-,e Al ' '''.4 Li"liji'' * i" .... c.4 Er 59, • 1..-; LL - • ,, ' :L 1, II Ei 1 fit,,,-- xd, .45 1,q, a I ' 4 j -,h'1 "_i bola - ."' .., • izt • I t4, .14.. al" - ,. _.1 11:; CC \ I . pj ------ -0 .4. 2 in a E.. E3 . i , 0 I 1 NSikrb,b, kIll -b_ ii 1 s r . t ,.... .b. e4a_ _ . - ® 1 -1;,. e i ) CC \\ ' ft 4 -:‘; i 1, • M . * -. / ...-,-Cr 0 .4,41 ) ic.•,fo• I . / • .0.5-,...0_, ' enb',P../ ,,01,21 ,c4-• i ,z-,e' A-*I 4.4 4 'Fri of i•voi 0...4 • _ • 0 e r . t . y . 4) , • • . Ic• I a -.. 0 g • 1 .ti r 0 / g I,V-3 \ficio . 4, CI . R I 0 MIN. 0 : 1 11%. zwts - ,..—...,. . ®_____ ) - ,r • g 741 P1 7--::, t,,,,,,.....,.I,...0, ".44 •2\,1'4.01,4 '12-s tie h. ' S • La q -a 1:3 1 0 al z5rt 1 -it el .., _ :tL,1 El,. * il "4 . 3 0 0--.—_.- --1-1", . • -. -= --,... 0 Y 1 31 -NS 1\1 - '-•t'-t r - . , Z e .'t I )re) , ... 13. .."1.— . 0r,0D %., . , 8 •i 2i (.I _, i0 I I t @ 11 — •.--% U) • I ! \ / ,-/.0-g I • Gil El , - o-t ...-.Ay ,r-t. e•Yr Air, ,o,-.*53'otie ...III "a • i III I 0.,0 j I i ill4 i I iii 1 1 32* 1 I 1 . I ILULI I 1 I 1 i Al I i ill --' s I 1; I NI liiiii i II iii tit iiiiii I 1 Ifni 1 !! I 1 ! il I Hi lil IIIIii ° 1 001", I 0" § l 11 a k i !I : ' I 41 )"--- I 1 A II' afil Oil Hi Hill Iiii I, hit 1 1 i 1 fa $ 1 1 I 1 . . • I. ;:°:gym I ``_`1 I1 li ,. \. 4. —\ - e 1, —3--•-\ —`ce u9 * --:� LZ e'=-4=__ mac. �`-" muO0= 4 n "`e0" LEFT p FRONT ELEVATION .•.., �" � ®* t _:„________ a - - r-- , NOTES_ IJVING ENTRY 11/p1 ..... ...., „...................... , ............ __ GARAGE 11111 MrE , 21- .��.�• .,41 r1ç,u rzlii 47, ' ,... -=1' -- - i VI 7-- Irr 1 " 1""fYS° RIGHT >.,` ''' .�. y .:r m = L "_ FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA ....:+..... a I EV f, 'I BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2 IE II lJ 10 III®I ,1— ` t I ®�`_� ll"al • M !I: VP'.hIJLII'4Ji nw=:�"'� I � ,--- •Y, r -� BID SET O G. oY REAR ROOF PLAN w... SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA 'tee® al �e yyYJ Svaraaav 1 .. . . J = ssr.�.s N, as jI.T1- u !g J .. Nai1V�3,3 ` ill If IS a ki':fti L .L-- 1 i 1I1 ice'"fir iT — vlool Jams � -g 41].( 1. ii • l ° 11 4- 1 II I ❑ it / rc '1,11A.,..1 \ 1 5 ItAllic__ i:4N,For 0 ri—1 HIii t Z !iuI4 ; OJI ;P ` o 3 III i i+9 F e,' n id, ` IF 1 it 4 i 1I ; t . .■ , . ag 11 fi l - 3s! w l II I s fi r"". .�-" ! iz !i6E,P 'B A 4 .a9; sda WE 41 g 1. - — I —a I 1 `� II1= `" - - I 3 . !11 i i1nif• rt L ri RP �t _„� //Willi!! �Il� i 111iiiim II _hi III Mi ll cc fltill ' _,, \ J ire, rill �t i!i r►, ITC*floppruiI! I i op IIII Ci I I iii© iiiiii w 4011,g Ell �I Ai I� �I$i tt k � , , ;!;1'ii'i b 81im i �. IAII 'Rlilli! I: i'IEll��i;�� ��Iiiil! 3 I'I�I �It�i tII womuilii a: /IA 11 ' 4 •'' " 4— o} 0066.6.OM 665. .3........,d vrv,w11,7 .n-iM - • ev w;"a aul'pu!aeouOug I!n!3 ,,f w 7lvirnm7 i 3us i illggag'Paemwn!d 1t. 9L4 db'N"13fy;JVd •++^�bI b \ 1 �Z a s \ 3 % �\\ , .\ -- ,.kc V ,=--el. \ , , N . _,,.„ „,, , _______ _... , , ,., _.......,...„ ........, 0 .1 ' - --- ,o, \ .,\' , z fd Y s e li _-.0`is -,\;.\ \;\., 14, " . :,..,-3_\*164 '' I. , h 1., 4, 4 , 4 . , ,.. ," fOry i11ill � ,ez, *I \ . 1 + ,l ,s 1 i'- 3 11 r '1 It * I• ram►\ • ; ' 1\-0---c Ilk og ;,.,, , l'it 1 t•om\ IA is \ , k x �1i\ s 11 `,...... 1��. } !LjI: 3Y _ - 1I r `-1-►' S. -' t'1 °9�xgyl�I 4 NZ 3° i sl`VE __�/ Iet 1I 219 1 ,p �i ATTACHMENT ....±L 5 I ,, i ,,,,, i I - I pp, 89-. 1.6T 1.INs. IkDJusrwIw r i I i j � �- } . f - ' ---- . .1..-A(..1 L-Cir ' . - , 1 1 T I lo'sY __ _ ,__ , _ _ - _ .- I i Y FY RY • - - _ 1 I �- Cam+ Nr--0 MIN►MOw _ . . : !.. ' . '_ ----1.--\./12[0,6„..L.„ 1.......ar_ . 1pp, sy , I ..- • 1 - - - — - 1 L - _s_ - - - — -- — - Y - 1RY RY 1 __ - �_ _ 14 ` ( - _ . .-- -_- Y1 _ I • S1GK 1�� . r0? Reside+c 6cte Z ,c'�ct c/ ©. /99S. In residential developments beyond the reach of the rear. A reasonable grade for garage and municipal water and sewage disposal facilities where driveway approaches from the street is also im- a driven well and a septic tank must be incorporated portant. on each lot,minimum lot area must be increased to at • Minimum on-lot grading,and the retention of least 20.000 square feet to avoid possibility of con- specimen trees beyond the house site. tamination,nuisance,and health hazard,even under • Minimum number of common adjoining lots— the most favorable circumstances.A septic tank sew- age disposal system will set minimum lot size. ideally only three. Minimum requirements for septic tanks,which are Streets that intersect at acute angles make poorly prescribed by the local or state health authority,vary shaped lots,and intersections such as these should widely throughout the country depending on the be avoided.Corner lots should be from 10 to 20 per- composition of the subsoil and underlying rock.A cent wider than interior lots in order to permit ade- developer should be sure to check the governing reg- quate yard space on the side street.Corner lots ap- ulations.This is another example where minimum lot proximately square in shape allow for diagonal size zoning is less valid than another factor—the placement of the house.They also provide a transi- provision of adequate lot size to assure a good build- tion with the side street and an interesting grouping ing site,as well as an adequate septic field and well around the street intersection with an adequate sight site. distance for automobiles entering the intersection.If Lot Lines end-block fencing is a custom or is provided by the developer,angled placement of the unit may be less The laying out of lots should not be approached casu- desirable since it tends to reduce the useable rear ally.Careful study of lot lines with due regard for to- - yard. pography,cluster grouping for open space,and secu- When a development unavoidably faces a heavily rity can result in increased livability and value be- traveled street,there are several ways to protect resi- cause of the creation of more usable sites for houses.If dents from traffic noise and distraction.For reasons of lots are longer,there is more flexibility in house loca- safety and traffic flow,it is best to keep both the tion;therefore the lot can be more irregular.Good lot- number of individual driveways and the number of ting becomes very important in small lot develop- street intersections with main thoroughfares to a ment.Goals to reach in lot layout,as determined by minimum.Ideally,a collector street through a sub- ; lot line location,should include: division should only offer access to interior minor • A favorable site for placing the house that does streets,not act as a service access to frontage lots. not require excessive grading,footings,or foun- Many of these suggestions may increase improve- dation walls.The question a developer should ment costs,but they also create a better environment always ask:Does the lot contain a good house which is more desirable and hence marketable. nasialiaa, To preserve livability on awell-traveled street,the developer can lay out deep lots with houses backing area for outdoor living,such as a fronton the street but screened from it by a fence or wall r yard,lawn area,space for a garden,and and vegetation. These lots are called back-on or back-up lots.In order for them to be successfully mar- • Adequate surface drainage away from the house keted,the developer must erect a permanent wall or site,with slopes generally toward the street or long-lasting fence and install planting.This will in- / --, -7-T ri 7-r i k.1 . ( I !-< • ♦ . 1--•� ■l•i•l • • i•i I - ■l l "7---- ATTACHMENT 6 183 FA *'LS0 I.aLr UNE6 Dl WS510N,_ Ul.l I clw�swY I3«1 w 1-1 tQ."- OOBC•i0F(9{6) 08968'•9'�•{a.•••Id FM Toa •7ing-6 AV grr•7IIVO a •ouIfpupoQuipug I!A!a a3F44nE[ V.xa--nld J� 41r IQy?19 '� 3LI5 p. •or bl � I B LQC K GORNE2. i INTERaOQ„ LoT I LoT Y , I __ �_.. —..-I • / I INTER.{o.�� ` I LoT' FLAG YTHRouGH CoRNEfL � LoT I Lo'[" I LoT LoT / • LET I LW4r=S LoT / INTEFX10fZ. WICTH <' 7` LoT I I . _.. _.. L oT InrE.S bLOCV- 50UNDARY Figure 18 ATTACHMto""k ! I — PA M - 100 VoT TYPE5 u� �a g d0. � Alp is •c �pN J� I Im t 1 � • 1 i •` ,fib • 11 � t 1 1 11 1, 1 1 rl� i r •.� yam' �3 csY,� d �` 1\T .A -t1 Ei 0 FEESE ddd �..' 9 �I " r I c RE d 8 is�p° $ VERGAT6 �•j d , _. d l� ' ii PA rlW MWC-V VeANG A CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: April 18, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff 7E SUBJECT: PA 88-021 Conditional Use Permit for relocation of Valley High School to Cronin School. GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Valley Continuation High School Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Dublin Joint Unified School District 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, CA 94568 REPRESENTATIVE: Stanley L. Maleski 7416 Brighton Drive Dublin, CA 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: Murray School District 7416 Brighton Drive Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 6901 York Drive, Cronin School ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-201-25 PARCEL SIZE: 18.05+ acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public Facility (Cronin School K-6) EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Pod C is currently occupied by a church with a Conditional Use Permit which will vacate to accomodate this proposal. Pods A & B are occupied by Montessori School (K-6) and Hobby Horse Pre-school. R-1-B-E zoning. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North, west, south - single-family zoned R-1-B-E (6500 sq.ft. MBSA) East - Wells Intermediate School zoned R-1-B-E. ZONING HISTORY: July 1986 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit request by Fountainhead Montessori School to occupy Pod A of the J.R. Cronin School. November 1986 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit request by Hobby Horse Pre-school to occupy Pod B of the Cronin School COPIES TO: Applicant Owner ITEM NO. File PA 88-021 November 1986 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit request by Family Bible Church to occupy Pod A. January 1987 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Variance for numerical parking for the Family Bible School. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-26.3 Conditional Uses: R-1 Districts establishes community facilities as a Conditional Use requiring approval by the Planning Commission as provided in Section 8-94.0. The definition of Community Facility in Section 8-20.10 includes schools "attendance at which satisfies the requirements of the Compulsory Education Law of State". Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or peformance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Negative Declaration NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the April 18, 1988, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and Dublin residents who have sent letters or petitions concerning the project, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: The Dublin Joint Unified School District proposes to locate Valley High School at the existing Cronin School site. Valley High School is a continuation high school. Continuation high schools are provided for students who are not performing well in the standard high school setting and require a higher staff to student ratio and an individualized instruction program. Cronin school consists of three circular buildings. Two classroom buildings, known as "A" and "B" pods are about 8,000 sq. ft. each and were built as classrooms. The center building, Pod "C" was originally a school library and school office area. "C" pod is the subject of this application. The district proposes to use "C" pod plus two portable classrooms moved from 7416 Brighton Drive for Valley High School. Valley High School serves students in grades 9-12. The projected enrollment is between 50 and 60 students with a staff of 3-4. School is in session from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. during the regular school year. -2- In addition to the staff, the district projects that there will be about 20 students that will drive to school (11th and 12th graders). It is proposed that student cars be parked near "A" pod on what was the school play yard. The area is currently paved and the nearest car will be about 84 feet from the nearest home. The existing driveway is proposed to be widened from 15 to 20 feet (see Attachment 1). Staff recommends a minimum 30 foot width with the driveway centered on Maple Drive. The application shows a parking layout for 24 vehicles. Staff recommends that this layout be reconfigured (see Attachment 3) to improve circulation. The revised layout can accommodate two additional vehicles. The site plan shows five Bradford fruitless pear trees between the proposed parking area and the adjacent residences. These trees have been placed 30 feet apart and will provide shade for the north edge of the parking lot. Additional landscaping would be needed to screen the view of the parking area. The draft conditions include a requirement for additional landscaping, such as shrubs, for screening. There are trees on Cronin School property next to the property line that will serve as additional buffer between the parking area and nearby residences. In addition the proposal includes installation of a 6 foot high chain link fence which would separate the Wells Middle School play yard from the Valley High School. (Attachment 2). Fountainhead Montessori and the Hobby Horse Learning Center have enclosed their areas with 6 foot chain link fence. The fence location as proposed would preserve the 100-yard ball fields at Wells School and provide enough room on the proposed Valley High School site for a baseball field. The baseball backstop has been sited so that balls would be hit away from adjacent residences. The two other buildings on the site, "A" and "B" pods are leased from the School District to private preschool/primary schools. The District believes that priority use of School District owned property is for public education in accordance with state policy that penalizes School Districts that do not utilize schools for public education. The existing Cronin school sign is proposed to be changed to read Valley High School. The smaller Montessori school and Hobby Horse signs would remain. School District Actions/Legal Requirements At their January 11, 1988 Board Meeting, the trustees of the Dublin Joint Unified School District made a decision to move Valley High School from the campus of Dublin High School to the center building of Cronin School (Pod "C"). California State Law gives school districts the authority to decide the use of school district owned property (used for classrooms) regardless of the requirements of the local jurisdiction. The school board must take a separate action to override a local jurisdiction's requirements. The Dublin Joint Unified School District has not taken such an action. They have applied for this Conditional Use Permit consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning requirements. The school district has the option to override a decision of the City (either in part or in total) through the above described authority. 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) a. Adopt Resolution certifying a Negative Declaration of Environment significance. b. Adopt Resolution conditionally approving PA 88-021 Valley High School Conditional Use Permit. -3- n ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution conditionally approving the Conditional Use Permit request from Valley High School to use Pod C plus two portable classrooms at the Cronin School. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Draft Resolution Adopting a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 88-021 Valley High School Conditional Use Permit Exhibit B - Draft Resolution Approving PA 88-021 Valley High School Conditional Use Permit. Background Attachments 1) Site Plan 2) Fence Plan 3) Staff Parking Layout Analysis 4) Negative Declaration & Initial Study -4- RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR PA 88-021 VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6901 YORK DRIVE WHEREAS, Stanley Maleski on behalf of Dublin Joint Unified School District, filed a Conditional Use Permit application requesting approval to operate a Continuation High School at the vacant Pod "C" and two portable classrooms at the Cronin School located at 6901 York Drive, more specifically APN 941-201-25; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, an initial study was conducted finding that the project, as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration was given in all respects as required by State Law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration at a Public Hearing on April 18, 1988; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. That the project PA 88-021 Valley High School Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant effect on the environment; 2. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations; and 3. That the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning commission hereby adopts the Negative Declaration for PA 88-021 Valley High School Conditional Use Permit application. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director - -.z._A PA 68.021 RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 88-021, VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO OPERATE CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOL (GRADES 9-12) AT THE CRONIN SCHOOL WHEREAS, Stanley Maleski on behalf of Dublin Joint Unified School District, filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate Continuation High School classes at Cronin School; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commisison held a public hearing on said application on April 18, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 88 - _) for this project as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted recommending the application to be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: a) The use is required by the public need to provide continuation high school classes; b) The use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity as daytime activities will be commensurate with present use of properties in the neighborhood; c) The use, if permitted, under all the circumstances and conditions of this particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, as all applicable regulations will be met; d) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the District in which it is to be located, as a school with limited impacts, is consistent with the character of the residential district; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve PA 88-021 Valley High School as shown by materials labeled Exhibit "A" on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to the following conditions: Unless otherwise stated, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the stated use of the property and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. 1) Development on the site shall generally conform to: a) Area/site plans prepared by Aitken & Coleen Architects, dated received by the Planning Department March 13, 1988; and b) Fence Plan dated received by the Planning Department March 3, 1988; collectively labeled Exhibit "A" on file in the Dublin Planning Department as modified by the following Conditions of Approval and those requirements of affected agencies. 11"11S F4Rrl��� 2) The maximum number of students at the school shall not exceed 60. 3) Standard school hours shall be restricted to the following days and hours of operation: Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m, to 1:30 p.m. 4) Only one freestanding sign may be constructed on the site in conformance with Exhibit "A". Said sign shall include the name of all uses on the site and all signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Dublin Planning Department. 5) Portable classrooms shall be painted and maintained in good repair. Proposed colors for painting shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Director prior to moving the classrooms on site. Painting shall be completed prior to occupancy of the classrooms. 6) Parking area shown on Exhibit "A" shall be redesigned for better circulation as shown in Staff parking layout dated April 11, 1988 and labeled Exhibit "B". 7) Reconstruct existing driveway cut opposite Maple Drive to provide 30-foot drive centered with Maple Drive. 8) Provide wheel stops for parking space abutting lawn, landscaping or fenced areas. 9) Proposed fencing shall conform with Section 8-60.55 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance relating to fence heights and location. 10) School noise shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to the adjoining residential neighborhood. 11) Prior to operating the school, the Applicant shall submit a letter documenting that the requirements of the DSRSD Fire Department have been satisfied (See Attachment A). 12) Evergreen shrubs shall be installed along the north edge of the parking area to provide screening. In order to effectively screen the parking area landscaping shall reach a mature size of approximately four feet in height and shall be placed between the pear trees. 13) This approval is valid until April 18, 1991 and shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director 2 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT General Offices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard • Dublin,California 94568•(415)828-0515 12th April 1988 RECEIVID APR I i �&dd PLA NN 1NC_ CITY OF DUBLIN P. O. Box 2340 Dublin 94568 Attention: Trudi Ryan - Project Planner Dear Ms. Ryan: This department has the following requirements for PA88-02I (Valley High School Conditional Use Permit): I. An approved fire alarm shall be provided for all Group E occupancies with an occupant load of more than 50 persons. 2. All drapes, hangings, curtains, drops and all other decorative materials shall be made from a non-flammable material or shall be treated and maintained in a flame-retardant condition. 3. A fire drill is required not less than twice a year and is reportable to this department. 4. An emergency pre-fire plan is required. This includes: a. Posting the telephone number of the fire department in the office and/or at the main switch board. b. Assigning a responsible person to contact the fire department upon notification of an emergency. c. Posting in a conspicuous place in each classroom, a plan showing paths of travel to evacuate the room. d. Posting in each classroom, instructions to be followed by the teacher for evacuation and removal of the roll book. 5. A portable fire extinguisher (2A-l0BC rated) shall be installed in Pod "C" for every 3,000 square feet not to exceed a travel distance of 75 feet. Also, each portable will be required to contain a 2A-l0BC fire extinguisher. 6. The right-of-way into the school must be maintained at 20 feet in width. 7. Any fence limiting accessibility into the building must be equipped with a "Knox-Lock" for fire department access. ATTACHMENT A continued . . . A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA•PROVIDES MUNICIPAL TYPE SERVICES TO CITIZENS OF AMADOR-LIVERMORE AND SAN RAMON VALLEYS ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES. City of Dublin Trudi Ryan - Project Planner 12th April 1988 Page Two . . . 8. An on-site fire hydrant will be required. The hydrant will be located by this department. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, NYC HOOVER, Fire Inspector, Fire Prevention Bureau TLH/liw ' .^ d!d •i••i:ia.• ..10 oA�S,N y]y.7•:. it ;i. .. .a...r N 111 O•J • N 7 1111 Y • 1 �- ) 1�.; \\\ r Y 1J1 >si ro,- d f i-• i • rX ~' i• { ( $; >?: < • 4 I. -� y S , • fl j J 1 • ,il r • in i . G 1- I .� a ACAMENT 1 { 0-0 /�J iT 1. I1. -1,/Vr 4tT Pi ptxr- sys-o ny1sc,Y r ---n _ \ -- 1700721 \\ \.\\\ 11 'Z t J 7 O a O a o � _ a o ID - N\N\ \\\ \N\\\\ ivies' V f+i3Tiv6 c \ ; -- �W.k .\ -----Z.7- �- o `1j .� --oil- / • a° _— �l - ,'\)/C"L7 .---_IF / / \>04'>' -->. 012-V 4i `0/ NT� ATTACNME J ›+do,( PA ea 02.1 F C' I660 :2 00 /1/ %Sco/ / . v N ti / A, N N ti N Y M -`36' / / /I o \� N x. 2o' oa• N ` Maws I Ex1STIn� o W T SCftovL \\\ ii I ib b '-.)(is-CIqC rcPrE N yn STING EJGG I x Cf.ihUEME,tit `..... Q cRiveua,ky k--T ATTACHMENT- 3 =- \ l 1, .1- Sta febrki n9 Am1jsis EYIST,NG Fw�o�lrrren DR,LiEwnH CpArrEe UNE r VAI,L�Y H.5. PA E0-021 E ,... NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: Valley High School (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ) LOCATION: 6901 York Drive Dublin, CA PROPONENT: Dublin Joint Unified School District 7471 Larkdale Avenue Dublin, CA DESCRIPTION: Use of one existing school building and two portable classrooms for Continuation High School for 50-60 students FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: Attached. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916. SIGNATURE: Z" --ex`_a4..-� DATE: t� V Laurence L. Tong, Plan in Director ATTACHMENT PA• -Ca l CITY OF PUBLlt4 PA No. 93 eOZ4 ENVIRC INMENTAL ASSESSIV ENT FORM, (N'IE2tM (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF . Name of Project or Applicant:Ya,el Ikr' d oo[ A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING- Description of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals;historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; existing structures;and use of structures ��( cP.co( ei iG bear&- IA tel i Auth ii Q.heic_ Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; ty a ar,d intensity of land use;and scale or development. N, Lot 5: � B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS-Factual explanations of all answers except"no"are re-. quired on attached sheets. - • CCMPONENT IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOWN NO I I to a1, I�1E. I� Its 1.0 WATER 1.1 Hydrologic Balance Will construction of the project alter the hydro- X logic balance? 1.2 Ground Water Will the project affect the quality or quontiy of ground water supplies? 1.3 Depth to Water Table Will the rare of water withdrawal change the depth or gradient of the waxer Coble? 1.4 Drainage and Channel Form Will construction impede the natural drainage pattern alteration of stream channel form? M1 1.5 Sedimentation will construction in an oreo result in major sediment y Influx into adjacent water bodies? /fir 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of loss of life or property due X to flooding? A-5 COMPONENTP CIS SCA ` .1OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNt NCWN NO i r , I to INI H a IN1a11 • ir, 1.7 Water Quo.lity Doe,drinking water supply fail to meet state and k I I federal standards? Will sewage be inadequately accommodated and treated? is. Will receiving waters WI to meat loco!.stare and • federal standards? X , Will ground water suffer contamination by s,fuce seepo}a,intrusion of colt or polluted water from • adjacent water bodies or from another,:nn•n,.inated k • aquifer? • 2.0 AIR 2.1 Air Pollution, Will there be generation and dispersion of pollutants by project colored activities or in proeie it-,to the project which will exceed stare n:notion, a y quality standards? /� 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and tertninimpedo pre.cilire.wins flow cousing channeling along certain horrid s-s or X obstruction of wind movements? ' 3.0 EARTH • 3.1 Slope Stability Are there potential dangers related to slope fau vre,? x _ 3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or property Sc-ov:e of excessive deformation of materials? F • 3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or property because of excessive consolidation of foundation ranrn-ials? 3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground subsidence asr,c iotcd X • with the project? 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss roedtiug from earth- K quake activity? 3.6 liquefaction Will the project cause or be exposed to liquefaction of soils in slopes or under founder inns? 3.7 Erodbility ' Will there be substantial loss of soil d•n to c.n- y struction practices? /� 3.8 Permeability Will the permeability of soils assoc atnn!with the project present adverse conditions,eletive rc de- e. . velopment of wells? /C 3.9 Unigwn Features Will any unique geological features bo damaged or destroyed by project octiviHes? 3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of pntenrinl om.erciel value erase to the project? ,( 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS P— 4.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there rare or endangered species prnscnr? Are there species pre'ent which are p,rlculnrly susceptible to impact from human activity? Is there vegetation present.the!os,of which will deny food or habitat to important wildfire species? Arc there nuisance species of plant or en souls For which conditions will be improved by the project? 4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populations of plants that may be of scientific interest? Are there vegetative community types which ar porticulosly susceptible to impact frr:m human eoivity? X. Are there major trees or major vegntntic•,that wit! V ha od:•orsely nffcsaed by the prof-et? _ Are thorn vegetative rornreunity typos r--..--t.rho loss of which vall deny fond or habim,rn i ens csildl fie•. — specks,or to o substantial n ,- ,_. -nl; 4.3 Diversity Is there substaosinl diversity in the n^t.,o!-na-.ssn'ty as reflected in the number and typo of ntorst or eriT,l species present or the three-dimcnsinncl c.rrena-m-nt of plant species present? L A-6 • • COMPONENT RaDAcrs SCALE OF IMPACP NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOWN . NO t • I 1 I� OI IOIH f I0 • 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.1 Educotionai Facilities Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex- isting or proposed facilities in terms of spacing for all activities,Including classrooms,recreational areas,end staffing needs? Will the project impact the pupil/teacher ratio so as to impede the learning process? A Is the school located such shot it presents a hardship for a portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, distance,or safety hazards? X I • 5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there been inadequate supply of and access to commercial facilities for the project? 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for sewage capacity inadequate For the needs of the project without exceeding quality standards? Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors associated with wastewater treatment plants? 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadequate provision for disposal of solid U wastes generated by the project? /� 5,5 Water Supply Is there inadequate quantity or quality of water supply to meet the needs of the project? K 5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water drainage be inadequate to prevent downstream Flooding and to meet Federal Stole and local standards? 5.7 Police Will the project',additional population,focilities, or other features generate an increase in police services or create a police hazord? 5.8 Fire Will the project's additional papolotion,facilities, or other features generate an increase in Fire services createor a fire hozard? M1 5.9 Recreation Will the project hove inadequate facilities to meet the recreational needs of the residents? 5.10 Culturol Facilities Wreill cultural facilities be unoailoble to the project X nts? 1 6.0 TRANSPORTATION 6.1 Tronsportation focilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent roads currently et or above copocity? If not,will the traffic gen- erated by the project cause the adjacent roads to reach or exceed capacity? Are the other transportation facilities which serve the project inadequate to accommodate the project's travel demands? - 1 6.2'Circulation Conflicts Will design of thy project or conditions in the surround- ing area increase occident,due to circulation conflicts? 6.3 Rood Safety and Design Will project residents and users be exposed to increased occident risks dun to roadway and street design or lock of traffic controls? 114. 7.0 HEALTH 7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense odors? 1 1 7.2 Crowding and Density Will the residents and users 6e exposed to crowding or I 1 high density in their physical living environment? x 7.3 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generate foctors thot may be considered as nuisances? I I 7.4 Structural Sofery Will design and proposed construction techniques fail to meet state and local building codes? 8.0 NOISE 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be exposed to Cr generate adverse noise levels? l� 8.2 Vibrations Will the project be exposed to vibrations nnnoying to humans? • A-7, • COMPONENT IMPACTS :ALE of i mAcr NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOWN NO I r I IN , to allalF of loll I8I15 • 1 L I 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER 9.1 Community Organization Will the project disrupt on existing set of orgonizntioro or groups within the community? 9.2 Homogeneity and Diversiy Will the project change the choracter of the 1 community in tenns of distribution or concentration y of income,ethnic,housing,or age group? /� 9.3 Community Stability and Will the project be exposed to or generate on Physicol Conditions area of poor stability and pbysicol conditions? 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY 10.1 Views Will resident of the surrounding area be odversely affected by views of or from the project? /� Will the project residents be odvorsely effected by X views of or from the surrounding arca?' 10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive X 1 - shadows? 11.0 HISTORIC ANDCULTLr1AL RE SOLE CES 11.1 Historic end Cultural Will the project involve the destruction or alter- Resources cation of a historic resource? Will the project result in isolotion of a historic i 1 resorce from its surrounding environment? 1 1 Will the project introduce physical,visual,audible or atmospheric elements'tot are not in charocrer with A 1 1 o historic resource or its setting? 1 I 11.2 Archoeo!ogloe?Sites Will the project involve the destruction or alteration X end Structures of on archaeological resource? Will the project result in isolation of en archaeological X reso Will the project introduce physical,visual,audible or atmospheric elements rhos ore not in character with on archaeological resource or its setting? 12.0 ENERGY 12.1 Energy Requirements Are there potential problems with the supply of energy required for tine project? • Will the energy requirements exceed the capacity of the service utility company? X Will there be a net increase in energy used for the project compared to the no project alternative? xr j 12.2 Conservorion Moosures Does the project pfonning and ds!gn tot:to include available energy con.crvntioo measures? 13.0 LAND USE 13.1 Site hfzords Do conditions of the site,proposed site development,sor urrounding area area create potentially hazardous situ- aliens? 13.2 Physical Threot. W1I!the project or the surrounding area creole a feeling; of insecurity and physical threat among the resident and users? 13.3 Senirory Landfill Will the project he exposed to structure!dnmege, -_ noise,air,or a,face and g-ound enter pollution or other nuisnncos ossociore1 with o sanitary landfill? Xs 13.4 Waterways Will tire project affect on x ing w- r,..of through filling,dredging,draining,averring,caste dis- . chorg s,loss of visual quality or arbor land use practices? A-8 COMPChNENT IMPACTS LE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES QIIIQ GcN NO I I to aI I IF 01101� I•4 1 I If Ocher Ee+�r gal Componenn: C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QUALIFIED NO NO YES UNKNG,N (1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important exa nples of the major periods or California history cr prehistory? (2) Does the project hove the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X (4) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? A-9 D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussioq of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any: no Ile reture.4 E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( The City of DUblih finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par- ticular characteristics of this project and the mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the project proiid.?. the ractual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION !S REQUIRED. n The City of Pubtin finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED** Signature and date: 4/4. 8 j Name and title: LN L` I r•JC5- • Fie_ • 2. **NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so shot po`,�-)tial adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur, a revised Initial Study will be prepared and a Negative Declaration will be required i Ns'ead of an EIR. A-1n e4N er PA 88-021 Valley High School Conditional Use Permit Environmental Assessment April 12, 1988 B. Factual explanation of answers. 6.1 Transportation Facilities This school would have an enrollment of 60 students with 4 staff/faculty members. It is estimated that approximately 20 students will drive themselves to school. Because the school is for students from all over the district it is likely that many of the remaining students will be driven to and from school. Traffic trips to and from the school are estimated to be 210 average daily (ADT) trips. These trips reflect that students who are driven to school account for 4 trips each (two a.m. trips and two p.m. trips). The 210 ADT result in about a 10% increase in traffic on York Drive/Penn Drive. This increase will be concentrated in two short periods just before and just after school hours. The increased traffic is not considered an impact as the peak hour is different from either the existing peak period for other existing Cronin School uses and the peak period for the neighborhood. The 10% increase from 200 ADT to 2400 ADT is still well below the "environmental capacity" of the road. Environmental capacity, or the point at which people become concerned with the traffic volume is approximately 3,000-4,000 ADT for this size road.