HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/17/1995 PC Agenda �r \
~ PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting-Dublin Civic Center Tuesday-7:30 p.m.
100 Civic Plaza,Council Chambers January 17,1995
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 MEETINGS-January 3,1995
6. ORAL COMMUNICATION-At this time,members of the audience are permitted to address the
Planning Commission on any item(s)of interest to the public;however,no ACTION or DISCUSSION
shall take place on any item which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may
respond briefly to statements made or questions posed,or may request Staff to report back at a future
meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore,a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to
place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning Director(no
later than 11:00 a.m.,on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting)to have an item of concern placed on
the agenda for the next regular meeting.
6.1 Election of Officers(continued from 1-3-95)
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center Rezone,Development Agreement,Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. A request to rezone 75±acres from Planned
Development-Business Park/Industrial(low coverage)to a standard Planned Development.
This project has a Specific Plan Designation of General Commercial. The proposed Planned
Development would allow for an 800,000±square foot commercial center which may include
retail stores,offices,movie theaters and restaurants among other uses.The project is located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. The
Development Agreement contains provisions that include,but are not limited to,project and
infrastructure phasing,and traffic,noise and public facilities impact fees.(continued from 1-3-95
meeting.)
8.2 PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map and Development Agreement Amendment. A request
for limited amendments to Phase I of the approved Tentative Map and Tentative Map Conditions
(Tract 5766)and the approved Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch proiect. The
limited amendments requested involve a change in pad elevations,minor lot and street
adjustments,reduction in the width of the creek access road from 12 feet to 8 feet,providing an
access road on the north side of the creek,and amendments to various conditions of approval
related to the requested changes.
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. OTHER BUSINESS(Commission/StaffInformational Only Reports)
11. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 17,1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Laurence L.Tong,Planning Director IT
SUBJECT: Election of Officers
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Elect Chairperson
2. Elect Vice-Chairperson
3. Appoint Secretary
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
This item was continued from the December 19,1994,and January 3,1995,Planning
Commission meetings.The Planning Commission Rules of Procedures provide that officers should
be elected at the first meeting of the Planning Commission in December of each year. The new
terms of office would typically run until December,1995,unless a vacancy in an office occurs
before that time. The Planning Commission may appoint a Secretary who may be one of its
members or someone else.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:1)elect a Chairperson;2)elect a Vice-
Chairperson;and 3)appoint the Planning Director as Secretary. Since Commissioner Bumham's
and Chairperson North's terms were due to expire in December,1994,the Planning Commission
may wish to continue this item until the Mayor and City Council have made appointments to fill
the expiring seats.
ITEM NO. 6.1 COPIES TO: Agenda File
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF DUBLIN
•
..� PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 17, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Jeri Ram,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center
Planned Development Rezoning,Development Agreement- Supplemental Report to
December 19, 1994,and January 3, 1995,Planning Commission Agenda Statements
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: A request to rezone 75+acres from Planned Development-Business Park/Industrial(low
coverage)to a General Commercial Planned Development. This project has a General
Plan and Specific Plan Designation of General Commercial. The proposed Planned
Development would allow for an 800,000+square foot commercial center which may
include retail shops,offices,movie theaters and restaurants, among other uses.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
prepared for this project.
This report includes supplemental analysis relating to the Rezone request continued from
• the December 19, 1994,and January 3, 1995, Planning Commission Meetings, Public
Comments and Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
project.
In addition,the Planning Commission will consider a Development Agreement between
the City of Dublin,County of Alameda and Homart Development Company.The
Development Agreement is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Items included
in the Development Agreement are traffic,noise and public facilities impact fees,
phasing of infrastructure construction and future creek improvements, among other
items.
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Homart Community Centers\
Homart Development Company
1099 18th Street,#2680
Denver,CO 80202
Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward,CA 94544
LOCATION: 75 +acres on the southeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. This
development is within the Hacienda Gateway in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
ASSESSOR PARCEL: 946-15-1-4(por)
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
ITEM NO. 8 . 1 PA File
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The project,
as mitigated,will not have a significant effect on the environment. For a complete discussion of the environmental
document,please see the December 19, 1994,Planning Commission Agenda Statement.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The public review period concluded on December 23, 1994. It ran for thirty days, from
November 23, 1994,to December 23, 1994.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the December 19, 1994,public hearing was published in the local newspaper,mailed to
adjacent property owners,and posted in public buildings. The December 19, 1994,public hearing was continued at the
Planning Commission Meeting to the Planning Commission meeting on January 3, 1995.
Public Notice of the January 17, 1995,public hearing was published in the local newspaper,mailed to adjacent property
owners and posted in public buildings.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
3. Approve the application for a General Commercial Planned Development Rezoning; and
4. Approve the Development Agreement between Homart Development Co.,the Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority and the City of Dublin.
BACKGROUND:
This staff report is a supplemental staff report for the Planning Commission on the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring Program and Rezoning to a General Commercial Planned Development for the Santa Rita
Commercial Center Project. Please refer to the December 19, 1994,and January 3, 1995, staff reports for background
information and analysis on those items.
This staff report also contains new analyses pertaining to the City's Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the proposed Development Agreement for the project.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
December 19, 1994:
Agenda Statement:
The analysis relating to the PD Rezone,Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program,while
supplemented in the January 3, 1995 and this Agenda Statement is still relevant. Therefore,the Commission may wish to
review the December 19, 1994,Agenda Statement.
Exhibits and Attachments:
Exhibits and Attachments that continue to be relevant to the project are as follows:
Exhibit A: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring Program
Exhibit C: Resolution recommending City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit D: Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezoning
Attachment 1: Letter to Richard C.Ambrose,City Manager from ERA dated November 3, 1994,regarding fiscal analysis
along with attached Table 1, "Summary of Revenues and Expenses,Fiscal Year 1995-96 to 1998-99".
2
Attachment 2: Rezone Application including applicant's written statement and preliminary site plan which includes the
project location.
Public Hearing:
On December 19, 1994,the Planning Commission heard the staff report,opened the public hearing,and took testimony on
the Mitigated Negative Declaration,Mitigation Monitoring Program and Rezone on the Santa Rita Commercial Center
Project. At the public hearing,the Applicant and their representatives spoke about issues related to the project. The public
hearing was continued to the January 3, 1995,meeting of the Planning Commission.
January 3. 1995:
Agenda Statement:
The analysis related to the Response to Comments contained in the January 3, 1995,Agenda Statement continues to be
applicable to the project. Therefore,the Planning Commission may wish to review that Agenda Statement. This Agenda
Statement(January 17, 1995)contains analysis regarding the Development Agreement and revisions to the Response to
Comments. Additionally,your packet contains draft minutes from the January 3, 1995,meeting that you may wish to
reference.
Attachments and Exhibits:
Exhibits and Attachments from the January 3, 1995,Agenda Statement that continue to be relevant to the project are as
follows:
Exhibit B: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit D: Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement
Attachment 1: Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Homart Development within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Area dated November 3, 1994,and Memorandum Report on the Combined Fiscal Analyses-Homart
Retail Project and Annexation Area prepared by ERA for the City of Dublin.
Please note,that the Response to Comments that was contained in the January 3, 1995,Agenda Statement has been revised.
Since the Development Agreement was not discussed and was not agendized for the January 3, 1995,meeting,the
Development Agreement and all discussion relevant to the Development Agreement are contained in this Agenda Statement.
Public Hearing:
At the January 3, 1995,public hearing,the Planning Commission asked staff for additional information regarding the Fiscal
Analysis(Attachment 1 to the January 3, 1995,Agenda Statement). In particular,concern was expressed with the method
used to determine the taxable sales per square foot in the Study.
Steve Spickard of ERA,the consultant who prepared the fiscal analysis,indicated that the rate of retail sales tax capture was
based on a formula that included discounting based on several factors,including regional competition,transfer of sales from
other Dublin businesses,and vacancy rates. Mr. Spickard indicated that regional competition was the highest discounting
factor that was used. The vacancy rate that was used was similar to ones used in other power centers and ranged from 5 to 10
percent after completion of the project.
During the public hearing the Planning Commission requested written comments from the East Bay Regional Park District
and John DiManto so that staff and the Commission could study their comments and respond. Exhibit C is a copy of a letter
received by facsimile on January 11, 1995,from the East Bay Regional Park District. Staffs summary and analysis of that
letter can be found below under the Section entitled"Public Comments". Written comments have not been received from
Mr.DiManto.
The Santa Rita Commercial Center Project public hearing was continued to January 17, 1995.
3
ANALYSIS:
Development Agreement:
One of the implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for the City to enter into development agreements
with developers in the plan area. The purpose of a development agreement is to provide security to the developer that the
City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time and,on the other hand,
provide a mechanism to the City to obtain commitments from the developer the City might not otherwise be able to obtain.
The development agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Specific Plan goal that new development fund the
cost of infrastructure and service is met.
Development agreements are authorized by statutes(Government Code Section 65864 et seq.). Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin
Municipal Code is the City's enabling ordinance and provides the procedure for adoption of a development agreement.
On October 10, 1994,the City Council approved a Master Development Agreement for use in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan area. The Master Development Agreement is to be used as the basis for beginning negotiations with developers within
the Specific Plan area.
Attached to this Staff Report(Exhibit A)is a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin,the Surplus Property
Authority of the County of Alameda and Homart Development Co. The Development Agreement sets forth the agreements
between the three entities in relation to many items, including,but not limited to, infrastructure construction and phasing,
payment of public facilities,noise and traffic impact fees and future creek improvements.
The Development Agreement becomes effective when it is signed by all the parties for a term of 10 years. The Development
Agreement runs with the land and the rights thereunder can be assigned. The main points of the Development Agreement
can be found in Exhibit B of the Development Agreement and are highlighted below:
Section 2,Roads.
The road improvements that will be made in conjunction with the project are listed in Exhibit B of the Development
Agreement(Exhibit A of this Staff Report)and in the Traffic Study attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the
December 19, 1994,packet. However,the following is a brief summary:
On Dublin Boulevard,one east and one west bound travel lane, left turn lanes at the two main access points to the Center and a right t
lane for the westerly main access point to the Center. On Hacienda Dr.,one north and one south bound travel lane,one right turn lane
one left turn lane into the main access point to the Center. On Tassajara Rd.,dual north bound left turn lanes to Dublin Blvd.
Signals will be provided at Dublin Blvd.and Hacienda Dr.,Dublin Blvd. and Tassajara Rd.,Dublin Blvd. and the two main
access points to the Center, and Hacienda Dr. and the main access to the Center.
Additionally, improvements may be made as follows:
On Dublin Blvd.,two east and one west bound travel lanes,dual left turn lanes at the two main access points to the Center,
dual west bound left turn lanes from Dublin Blvd.to Hacienda Dr. On Hacienda Dr.,two north bound travel lanes and one
south bound travel lane. Dual south bound left turn lanes from Hacienda Dr.to Dublin Blvd.
Section 6,Public Facilities Fee.
This section sets forth that the City has hired a consultant who has prepared a draft Public Facilities Fee Study. The draft
study calculates the amount of the public facilities fee for neighborhood parks,community parks,community facilities,
libraries and buildout of the Civic Center. The study concluded that the amount of the public facilities fee for commercial
development in Eastern Dublin is$290.00 per 1,000 building square feet. However,as noted,the study is still in draft form
and the final fee may be greater than$290.00 per 1,000. The Development Agreement is structured to enable the County to
pay the fee that is approved up to$362.50,and receive a refund if the$362.50 per 1,000 sq. ft. is paid and the fee is
determined to be less than that amount.
Section 6,Noise Mitigation Fee.
This Section implements Mitigation Measure 3.10/7.0 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Eastern Dublin. When the
City adopts a noise mitigation fee,the Developer will pay the fee,up to$3,000. The fee will be collected at final occupancy
of Phase 2 of the Project. If a fee is not established at that time,the Developer will not be obligated to pay such a fee.
4
Section 6,Traffic Impact Fees.
The amount of Traffic Impact Fee(TIF)has been calculated based on the Barton Aschman November, 1994 traffic study
attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Traffic Impact Fee that was approved by the City Council
on January 9, 1995 (Resolution 1-95).
The Developer and/or the County may oversize a portion of infrastructure. Subparagraph 5.3.5,allows for a credit against
the TIF amount for the value of the oversizing,as follows: The total value of the oversized improvements and right of way is
$4,574,140.00 less$808,870.00 which is the value of that part of the oversized improvements previously constructed by the
City of Pleasanton for a net credit of$3,765,270.00.
The Project's TIF is$5,162,719.00. Based on the County's current plans for oversizing certain improvements,the net traffic
impact fee due for this project would be$1,397,449.00
Section 7,Creek Improvements.
The County agrees that when the property adjacent to this project to the east develops,the County will comply with all the
provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report.
Approval of the Development Agreement.
The Development Agreement that is attached to this Agenda Statement may have additional revisions made to it prior to the
Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 1995. The anticipated changes will not be substantive. If revisions are made
to the Development Agreement,a revised copy will be distributed at the Meeting.
Section 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code sets forth the findings that must be made in order to approve a development
agreement. These findings are contained in the Resolution recommending approval of the Agreement to the City Council
(Exhibit D of the January 3, 1995 Agenda Statement).
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS:
The January 3, 1995,Agenda Statement contained a draft Response to Comments(Response). Staff was not able to prepare a
complete document due to the time allocated for preparation of the January 3, 1995,Agenda Statement and the close of the
public review period on December 23, 1994.
Attached to this Agenda Statement as Exhibit B is the completed Response. The Response document contains the same
information that was included in the draft with additional information and responses following on pages 6 through 9.
Additionally,a letter dated January 4, 1995,to the City Attorney's Office from the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority is
attached to the Response to Comments and is referenced in that document.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
At the public hearing on January 3, 1995,Martin Vitz of the East Bay Regional Park District spoke regarding the District's
desire to identify a linkage between the Tassajara Valley Trail,the Iron Horse Trail and the BART station. He wanted to
ensure that approval of the Development Agreement would not preclude such a trail from being designated. The Planning
Commission requested that Mr. Vitz put his comments in writing. Exhibit C is a copy of a letter sent to the City's Planning
Director from Mr.Vitz as well as a copy of a letter,dated January 11, 1995,sent to Mr.Vitz from the County on this issue.
Mr.Vitz indicated in the letter that the District,after discussions with the City and County,believed that the trail connection
could run along the north side of Dublin Boulevard. It should be noted that no development applications have been
submitted for the north side of Dublin Boulevard. The County,in their letter,indicates their wiliness to cooperate with East
Bay Regional Park District in developing an appropriate connection. A specific trail connection on the north side of Dublin
Boulevard is not in the Park District's Master Plan,nor in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan or Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The Santa Rita Commercial Center project is proposed south of Dublin Boulevard and would,therefore,have
no impact on the trail connection.
Additionally,Mr. Vitz discussed the District's wish to work with the City of Dublin and Alameda County in the preparation
of a Greenway Study for Tassajara Creek. The Greenway Study is one method of implementing Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan policies relating to the Tassajara Creek Corridor.
5
Mr.Vitz concluded his letter by requesting that the Planing Commission express its support for 1)the development of a
Tassajara Creek Greenway Study,and 2)a future trail connection property from Tassajara Creek along the north side of
Dublin Boulevard to the BART Station/Iron Horse Trail.
It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to express its support for a Tassajara Creek Greenway Study. It would
also be appropriate for the Planning Commission to express its support for the City to continue to work with the East Bay
Regional Park District on trails consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. It should be noted that this may require amendments to City documents in the future.
In response to comments and questions raised by Mr.DiManto,at the January 3, 1995,Planning Commission meeting,the
City's consultants on the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Project prepared a fiscal analysis which
included estimated absorption amounts for the Eastern Dublin area and the overall effects on the City's revenues and
expenses. Revenues projected for the project took into account any net leakage from existing City revenues.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT: 1) 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 Exhibit C from the December 19.1994,P.C. Staff Report,Resolution recommending that
the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
6) Adopt Exhibit D from the December 19.1994,P.C. Staff Report,Resolution recommending City
Council approval of the Planned Development Rezoning.
7) Adopt Exhibit D from the January 3, 1995,P.C. Staff Report,Resolution recommending City
Council approval of the Development Agreement.
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated
Negative Declaration,Mitigation Monitoring Program,Rezone to a Planned Development and
Development Agreement.
And, if the Planning Commission so desires:
-1. Recommend that the City Council support, in concept,the preparation of a Greenway Study along
Tassajara Creek.
2. Recommend that the City Council support continuing to work with the East Bay Regional Park
District on trails consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Development Agreement between the City of Dublin,Homart Development Co. and Surplus Property
Authority of the County of Alameda for the Tri-Valley Crossings Project.
Exhibit B: Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
�-. Exhibit C: Letter to Mr. Laurence Tong dated January 11, 1995,from Martin Vitz of East Bay Regional Park District.
6
JAN-12-35 THU 13: 18 P, 02/41
Recording Requested by:
City of Dublin
When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
•
Space above this line for Recorder'o use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
AND
HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO.
AND
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTIIORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
FOR THE TRI-VALLEY CROSSINGS PROJECT/SANTA RITA
COMMERCIAL CENTER
EXHIBIT A
PAGE I 0f 4s/.
January 12, 1995
11:\mema\52\dev1pmnt.cm
JAM-12-35 THU 13: 19 P, 03/41
INDEX
RECITALS
I
AGREEMENT • 2
1 . Description of Property. 2
2 . Interest of Developer. 3
3 . Relationship of City, County and Developer. . 3
4 . Effective Date and Term 3
4 . 1 Effective Date _ 3
4 . 2 Term 3
5 . Use of the Property 4
5 ,,1 Right to Develop 4
5 . 2 Permitted Uses 4
5 . 3 Additional Conditions 4
5 . 3 . 1 conditions, terms, restrictions,
and requirements for subsequent
discretionary actions . 4
5 . 3 .2 Additional or modified
conditions agreed upon by the parties in
or.c?er to eliminate or mitigate adverse
environmental impacts of the Project or
otherwise relating to development of the
Project . 4
5 . 3 . 3 Provisions that the Project be
constructed in specified phases, that
construction shall commence within a
specified time, and that the Project Or
any phase thereof be completed within a
specified time. 4
5 . 2 .4 Financial plans which identify
necessary capital improvements such as
streets and utilities and sources of
funding. . , 5
5 . 2 . 5 Terms relating to subsequent
reimbursement over time for financing of
49
P. 04/41
JAN-12-35 THU 13: 19
necessary public facilities .
. . 5
5 . 3 _ 6 Term; relating to payment of fees .
5
5 . 3 . 7 . Miscellaneous terms .
' 5
5 . 4 Subsequent Approvals
5 •
6 . Applicable Rules, Regulations - and Official
Policies-
5
6 . 1 Rules re Permitted fses. 5
5 . 2 Rules re Dcsign and Construction
6 .3 Uniform Codes Applicable • 6
7 _ Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations . 6
7 . 1 New Rules and Regulations
6
7 . 2 Moratorium Not Applicable.
_ 6
8 . Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fces,
Assessments and Taxes. 7
8 . 1 New Fees
7
8 . 2 Construction of Off-Site Traffic
ImprovemI1t s 7
8 . 3 Revised Application Fees 7
8 .4 New Taxes 7
8 . 5 Assessments 7
Q • Amendment or Cancellation 8
' G ,
� . 1 Modification Decausc of Conflict with
State or Federal Laws. 8
9 . 2 Amendment by Mutual Consent.
0
9 . 3 Insubstantial Amendments 8
3 . 4 Amendments of Project Approvals . . . . 6
9 . 5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent
8
10 . Term of Project Approvals_ - 9
11 . Annual Review 9
JAN-12-35 THU 13:20 P, 05/41
11 . 1 Review Date
. . . 9
11 . 2 Initiation of Review
11 . 3 .tdff Reports
11 . 4 Costs
9
12 . Default
10
12 . 1 Other Remedies Available
12 . 2 Notice and Cure
10
13 . E certificate .
top e1 r
p- icate . _ 10
14 . Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure .
14 . 1 Mortgagee Protectior, �1
14 . 2 Mortgagee Not Obligated 11
12- . 3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee 11
15 - Saverability• 11
16 . Attorneys ' Fees and Cast-.s 11
17 . Transfers and Assignments . 1')
17 . 1 Right to Assign. Project as Whole or Either-
Phase 12
17 . 2 Release Upon Transfer. , . . . 12.
7 . 3 Sale of a Portion of Either Phase . . . . 13
18 . Agreement Runs with the Land-
19 . Fankruptcy.
1�
20 . Indemnification . . . , , 13
21 _ Insurance . 14
21 . 1 Public Liability and Property Damage
Insurance . 14
21 . 2 Workers Compensation Insurance 14
21 . 3 Evidence of Insurance . 4
PAGE. .Gi.
JAN-12-35 THU 13:20 P. 06/41
22 . Sewer and Water
• • • 15
23 . Notices .
15
24 . Agreement is Entire Understanding_ 16
25 . Meaning of "DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY"
16
26 . Exhibits
16
27 . Time of the Essence
16
28 . Recordation
. 16
29 . Counterparts 17
EXHIBIT A
21
EXHIE-T B 22
`" ..wOr
JAN-12-35 THU 13:21 P.07/41
/\
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered in
the City of Dublin on this day of January, 1995, by and
between the CITY OP DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation
(hereafter "CITY'), the SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY of the
County of Alameda, a public corporation (hereafter
"COUNTY"), and HOMART DEVELOPMENT CO., a Delaware
Corporation (hereafter "DEVELOPER"), pursuant to the
authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government
Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.12.
RECITALS
A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq.
and Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter
"Chapter 8.12") authorize the CITY to enter into a binding
agreement for the development of real property with any
person having a legal or equitable interest in such property
in order to establish certain developmenL rights in such
property; and
E. The City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan by Resolution No. 53-93 which Plan is
applicable to the Property; and
C. The Pastern Dublin Specific Plan requires
DEVELOPER to enter into a development agreement; and
D. DEVELOPER and COUNTY desire to develop and
Developer holds legal interest in certain real property
consisting of approximately 75 acres of land, located in the
City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California,
which is more particularly described in Exhibit A-1 and A-2
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
and which real property is hereafter called the "Property";
and
E. COUNTY is the owner of property in the City of
Dublin consisting of approximately 620 acres Of land, which
includes the approximately 75 acres which DEVELOPER has
option on rights to acquire;
P. DEVELOPER and COUNTY propose the phased
development of the Property with a 75-acre retail commercial
development (the "Project"); and
G. CITY, COUNTY, and DEVELOPER acknowledge that
development of the Project is a large scale undertaking,
involving major investments by DEVELOPER and COUNTY, with
development occurring in phases over several years.
DEVELOPER and COUNTY are unwilling to incur the required
PAGEI,CL 0132
January 12, 1955
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
1
JAN-12-35 THU 13:22 P,08/41
/'1
investment in development of the Project without assurance
from CITY that all phases of the Project can be developed in
accordance with the approvals granted by CITY. CITY,' in
turn, Cannot be assured of realizing the benefits of
development of the Project without granting assurance of
continuity of CITY'S approvals to DEVELOPER and COUNTY; and
H. DEVELOPER and COUNTY have applied for, and
CITY has approved, various land use approvals in connection
with the development of the Project, including a PD District
rezoning (Ord. No. ) , and intend to process a tentative
parcel map and site development review (collectively,
together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter
issued with respect to the Project, the "Project
Approvals") ; and
I. CITY desires the timely, efficient, orderly
and proper development of said Project in accordance with
this agreement; and
J. The Master Development Agreement approved by
CITY Resolution No. 109-94 was used as the format for
negotiating this Agreement; and
K. The City Council has found that, among other
things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and has
been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 8.12;
and
CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER have reached
agreement and desire Lo express herein a Development
Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project
subject to conditions set forth herein; and
M. On January , 1995, the City Council of the
City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. approving this
Development Agreement. The ordinance took effect on
February _, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing
recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises,
obligations and covenants herein contained, CITY, COUNTY and
DEVELOPER agree as follows:
PAGE_Di. ,
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpm9t.cln
2
JAN-12-35 THU 13:22 P.09/41
AGREEMENT
1. Description of Property.
The Property which is the subject of this
Development Agreement is a portion of Assessor's Parcel
Number 946-15-1-4, Consisting of approximately 75 acres at
the southeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard
in the City of Dublin as depicted on the map attached as
Exhibit A-1 hereto ("Property") . The parties agree that a
legal description of the Property will be attached hereto by
CITY as Exhibit A-2 at the time of approval of the tentative
parcel map and will become a part hereof without further
action.
2. Interest of Developer.
The DEVELOPER has a legal or equitable interest in
the Property in that it has an option to purchase the
Property in fee simple which may be exercised in two phases.
DEVELOPER shall incur no obligations hereunder unless and
until it purchases the Property or any portion of it in fee
simple.
/'\ 3. Relationship of City. County and Developer.
It is understood that this Agreement is a contract
that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by
CITY, COUNTY and DEVELOPER and that neither the COUNTY nor
the DEVELOPER is an agent of CITY. The CITY, COUNTY and
DEVELOPER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint
venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing
contained herein or in any document executed in connection
herewith shall be construed as making the CITY, COUNTY and
DEVELOPER joint venturers or partners.
4. Effective Date and Term.
4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this
Agreement shall be the date when signed by all parties.
4.2 Term. The term of this Development
Agreement shall commence on the effective date and extend
until the earlier of a) ten (10) years thereafter, or b) as
to DEVELOPER or COUNTY, when either has completed its
obligations under this Agreement for Phase 1 or Phase 2 and
has completed development of Phase 1 or Phase 2 as the case
may be unless said term is otherwise terminated or modified
by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual
consent of the parties hereto by amendment of this
Agreement.
January 12, 1595
114\meow\52\devlpmnt.cln
3
JAN-12-35 THU 13:23 P.10/41
5. Use of the Property.
5.1 Right to Develop. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the
Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and
any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time.
be approved pursuant to this Agreement.
5.2 permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the
Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum
height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, provisions for
reservation or dedication of ].and for public purposes and
location and maintenance of on-site and off-site
improvements, location of public utilities and other terms
and conditions of development applicable to the Property,
shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project
Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the
Project Approvals.
5.3 Additional Conditions. Provisions for the
following ("Additional Conditions") are set forth in
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
5.3.E Conditions, terms, restrictions, and
requirements for subsequent discretionary
actions. (These conditions do not affect
Developer's responsibility to obtain all
other land use approvals required by the
ordinances of the City of Dublin.)
Not Applicable.
5.3.2 Additional or modified conditions
agreed upon by the parties in order to
eliminate or mitigate adverse environmental
impacts of the Project or otherwise relating
to development of the Project.
see Exhibit D.
5.3.3 Provisions that the Project be
constructed in specified phases, that
construction shall commence within a
specified time, and that the Project or any
phase thereof be completed within a
specified time_
See Exhibit B.
PACE.,WO
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
4
JAN-12-35 THU 13:24 P,11/41
5.3.4 Financial plans which identify
necessary capital improvements such as
streets and utilities and sources of
funding.
See Exhibit B.
5.3.5 Terms relating to subsequent
reimbursement over time for financing of
necessary public facilities.
See Exhibit B.
5.3.6 Terme relating to payment of fees.
See Exhibit B.
5.3.7. Miscellaneous terms.
See Exhibit B.
5.4 Subsecuent Approvals. Development of the
Property by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is subject to certain
future discretionary approvals including, but not
necessarily limited to, subdivision and site development
review approval. Upon approval and issuance of any such
subsequent discretionary approval (including conditions of
such approval) each such approval shall automatically become
part of the approvals which vest hereunder as each such
approval becomes effective following final action by CITY,
and DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be entitled to develop in
accordance with such approvals as provided in this Agreement
as though such approval existed upon the effective date of
the Agreement and was initially incorporated herein.
6. Applicable Rules. Rem]l.ations and Official
Policies.
6.1 Rules re Permitted Uses. Notwithstanding
any future changes in the neneral Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinances or any future rules,
regulations, or policies adopted by the CITY, including
initiatives applicable to the Property, for the term of this
Agreement, the CITY's ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations and official policies governing the permitted
uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use
of the ,Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of
proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the
effective date of this Agreement.
enN
PACED G(
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\dev1pmnt.cln
5
JAN-12-35 THU 13:24 P. 12/41
/'h
6.2 Rules rc Design and construction. Unless
otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this
Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations
and official policies governing design, improvement and
construction standards and specifications applicable to the
Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of
the applicable discretionary Project approval. Ordinances,
resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies
governing design, improvement and construction standards and
specifications applicable to public improvements to be
constructed by DEVELOPRR and/or COUNTY shall be those in
force and effect at the time of the applicable permit
approval.
6.3 Uniform Codes Applicable. Unless expressly
provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the Project shall
be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the
Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes
and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating
to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of
the appropriate building, grading, or other construction
permits for the Project.
7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations.
7.1 New Rules and Regulations. During the term
of this Agreement, the CITY may apply new or modified
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official
policies of the CITY only if they were not in force and
effect On the effective date of this Agreement, if they are
not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set
forth in this Agreement and if the application of such new
or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or
official policies would not prevent or materially delay
development of the Property as contemplated by this
Agreement and the Project Approvals.
7.2 Moratorium Not Anolicable. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event an
ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether
by action of CITY, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise,
that imposes a building moratorium which affects the Project
on all or any part of the Property, CITY agrees that such
ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to
the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project
Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part
of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency
as defined in Government Code § 8558.
PAGE IL o
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmrit.Cln
6
JAN-12-35 THU 13:25 P.13/41
. 8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Pees, Assessments
and Taxes.
8.1 New Fees. The CITY, DEVELOPER, and COUNTY
agree that the fees payable and exactions required in
connection with the development and buildout of the Project
for the purposes of mitigating environmental and other
impacts of the Project, Providing infrastructure for the
Project, and complying with the Specific Plan shall be those
set forth in PD Ord. No. or in this Agreement. The CITY
shall not impose or require payment of any other fees,
dedication of any land, or construction of any public
improvements or facilities, in connection with any
subsequent discretionary approval for the Property or any
portion of it, except as set forth in this Agreement.
8.2 Construction of Off-Site Traffic
Improvements. The CITY, DEVELOPER, and COUNTY agree that
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY'S obligation to mitigate the traffic
impacts of the project with respect to either constructing
or contributing to the cost of any off-site improvements are
limited to those set forth in this Agreement. No other off-
site improvements, or contributions to off-site
improvements, shall be required of DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
at any phase of development of the Project.
8.3 Revised Application Fees. Any existing
application, processing and inspection fees that are revised
during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project
provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2)
the application of such fees to the Property is prospective;
and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent
deveDopment in accordance with this Agreement.
8.4 New Taxes. Except as set forth below, any
subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the
Project provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to
the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such
taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this
Agreement. No excise tax on the privilege of developing
property shall apply to the Project.
8.5 Assessments. Nothing herein shall be
construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied
against it by CITY pursuant Lo any statutory procedure for
the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or
services which benefit the Property.
•
PAGE(.OF
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
7
i JAN-12-35 THU 13:26 P.14/41
r'1
9. Amendment or Cancellation,
9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with state
or Federal Laws.
In the event that state or federal laws or
regulations enacted after the effective date of this
Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more
provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans,
maps or permits approved by the CITY, the parties shall meet
and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify
this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or
regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the
Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in
accordance with Chapter 8.12.
9.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent.
This Agreement may be amended in writing
from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto
and in accordance with the procedures of State law and
Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91.
9.3 Insubstantial Amendments.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the
preceding paragraph 9.2, any amendments to this Agreement
which do not relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as
provided in paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted uses of the
Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for
reservation or dedication of land as provided in Exhibit B;
(d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for
subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or
intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or
size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY as provided in this Agreement,
including Exhibit B, shall not, except to the extent
otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing
before the parties may execute an amendment hereto.
9.4 Amendments of-Prolect Approvals.
No amendment of Project Approvals shall
require an amendment of this Agreement. Instead, any such
amendment automatically shall be deemed to apply to the
Project and shall be subject to this Agreement.
9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent.
Except as otherwise permitted herein, this
Agreement may be cancelled in whole or in part only by the
PAGE&OF 0
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
8
JAN-12-35 THU 13:27 P. 15/41
n
mutual consent of the parties or their successors in
interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.12
of the Dublin Municipal Code. Any fees paid pursuant to
Paragraph 5.3 and Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the
date of cancellation shall be retained by CITY. Any credit
due to COUNTY under paragraph 5.3.6 shall be carried over to
future projects on COUNTY's remaining property.
Upon completion of Phase 1 or Phase 2, the
parties may agree in writing to cancellation of this
Agreement as to Phase 1 or Phase 2, as the case may be, in
accordance with the provision of Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin
Municipal Code.
10. Term of Project Approvals.
Pursuant to California Government Code
Section 66452.6(a) , the term of the tentative parcel map
described in Recital H above shall automatically be extended
for the term of this Agreement. The term of any other
Project Approval shall be extended only if so provided in
Exhibit H.
11. Annual Review.
11.1 Review Date_ The annual review date for
this Agreement shall be April 1, 1996, and each April 1
thereafter.
11.2 Initiation_ of Review. The CITY's Planning
Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under
Section 8.12.140 of Chapter 8.12 of the Dublin Municipal
Code, by uiving to COUNTY and DEVELOPER thirty (30) days'
written notice that the CITY intends to undertake such
review. DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall provide evidence to
the Planning Director prior to the hearing on the annual
review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the
Planning Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with
the provisions of the Development Agreement. The burden of
proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY. The review shall be for the
purpose set forth in Government Code section 65865.1.
11.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical,
CITY shall deposit in the mail and fax to COUNTY and
DEVELOPER a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits
concerning contract performance at least three (3) days
prior to any annual review.
11.4 Costs_ Costs reasonably incurred by CITY in
connection with the annual review shall be paid by DEVELOPER
PACE.! oF�o
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.clu
9
JAN-12-35 THU 13:27 P.16/41
n
and/or COUNTY in accordance with the City's schedule of fees
in effect at the time of review.
12. Default.
12.1 Other Remedies Available. upon the
occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue
all other remedies at law or in equity which are not
otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's
regulations governing development agreements, expressly
including the remedy of specific performance of this
Agreement.
12.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an
event of default by any party, the nondefaulting party shall
serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting
party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party
within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of
default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any legal
or equitable action to enforce its rights under this
Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be
cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting
party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action
so long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default
within such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues
such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not
constitute a waiver of any default.
13. Estoppel Certificate.
Any party, or prospective party or lender of any
party hereto may, at any time, and from time to time,
request written notice from the other parties hereto
requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the
knowledge of the certifying party, (a) this Agreement is in
full force and effect and a binding obligation of the
parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified
either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying
the amendments, and (c) the requesting party or the party
about which information is requested is not in default in
the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or
if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of
any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder
shall execute and return such certificate within thirty
(30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer
period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City
Manager of CITY shall be authorized to execute any
certificate requested by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY and County
Administrator shall be authorized to execute any certificate
for COUNTY. Failure to execute an estoppel certificate
shall not be deemed a default. ��j
PAGE -Of
•
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlymnt.aln
10
JAN-12-35 THU 13:28 P, 17/41
14. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure.
14.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall
be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property,
or any portion thereof after the date of recording this
Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or
mortgage ("Mortgage") . Notwithstanding the foregoing, no
breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or
impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for
value, but all for the terms and conditions contained in
this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against
any person or entity, including any deed of trust
beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to
the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure,
trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
14.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the
provisions of section 14.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have
any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or
complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee
such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such
construction or completion; provided, however, that a
Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to
any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than
those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the
Project Approvals or by this Agreement.
14.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If CITY
receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any
notice of default given DEVELOPER hereunder and specifying
the address for Service thereof, then CITY shall deliver to
such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to
DEVELOPER, any notice given to DEVELOPER with respect to any
claim by CITY that DEVELOPER has committed an event of
default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the
same period available to DEVELOPER to cure or remedy, or to
commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set
forth in the CITY's notice.
15. Severability.
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of
any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this
Agreement shall not render the other provisions
unenforceable, invalid or illegal.
16. Attorneys' Pees and Costs.
If CITY, COUNTY or DEVELOPER initiates any action
at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and ''
AAGE1 °F.Q,
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
11
JAN-12-35 THU 13:29 P. 18/41
conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover reasonable attorneys ' fees and costs in
addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be
ent;i.Li.ed. It any person or entity not a party to this
,:Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to
challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement o_
the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in
defending such action . DEVELOPER shall bear its own costs
of defense as a real party in interest in any such action,
and shall reimburse CITY for all reasonable court costs and
attorneys ' fees expended by CTTY in defense of any such
action or other proceeding.
. 17 . Transfers and Assignments .
17 . 1
R ah to Assign proiect as Whole nr Either
Phase
In the event that DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
proposes to assign this Agreement in whole or as to the
entirety 1 Phase 1 or 2t ansfee r_ed(exclusive
Pursuant to subparagraph
f any portions
of Phase 1 or Phase CITY ten (10)
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall give
17 . 2)ok noticeof such proposed assignment and
working days written
the right to review and comment on the proposed assignment
document . DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY agree to give all
-reasonable consideration to comments
hereiriQs�atedlwithoutl retain
the right to assign this Agreement as interest to the
CITY' s approval . Each successor in
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY shall be bound by all of the terms
and. provisions hereof after the effective date of the
assignment of this Agreement, and DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
shall be relievedter theyeffectiveodatelofbtheties or assignment .
likee
incurred
17 . 2 Release Upon Trar_sfer.
Upon the sale, transfer, or assignment of
DEVELOPER' S and/or COUNTY' S rights and interests under this
Agreement under subparagraph 17 .1 ,
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
shall be released from their obligation under this an Agreement with respect to the portion of he�Prroperty and/o.
Project so transferred; provided however,tha�
and/or COUNTY is
not then in default beyond all applicable
cure periods pursuant to written notice gi tivenp under
this
Agreement: (ii) DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTYided
written notice of such transfer to CITY and (iii) subject to
the exceptions stated herein below, the transferee executes
and delivers to CITY a written Assumption Agreement in which
(a) the name and address of the transferee is set forth and
cr c>
January 12, 1.995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cm
12
JAN-12-35 THU 13:30 P.19/41
n
(b) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all
of the obligations of the DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY under this
Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property and/or
Project transferred.
17.3 Sale of a Portion of Either Phase
Neither DEVELOPER nor COUNTY shall be
relieved of its respective obligations under this Agreement
upon the sale of a portion of the Property comprising Phase
1 or Phase 2 and no such sale shall require approval from
CITY pursuant to this Agreement.
18. Agreement Runs with the Land.
All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants,
and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding
upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and
assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons
acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any
interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any
manner whatsoever. Al! of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall .
constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to
applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468
of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant
to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property
hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for
the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such
properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is
binding upon each party and each successive owner during its
ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and
shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its
property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an
interest in such properties.
19. Bankruptcy.
The obligations of this Agreement shall not be
dischargeable in bankruptcy.
2o, indemnification,.In addition to the Processing Fee Agreement Form -
signed by DEVELOPER, which is incorporated herein, DEVELOPER
and COUNTY each agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CITY,
and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions,
officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any
and all claims, costs and liability for any personal injury
or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as
a result of any actions or inactions by the DEVELOPER and/or
PAGE, .01 9
•
January 12, 1995.
114\memo\52\devlp:tnt.cln
13
JAN-12-35 THU 13:30 P,20/41
/'\
COUNTY, respectively, or any actions or inactions of
DEVELOPER'S and/or COUNTY's respective contractors,
subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the
construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the
Project. No trustee shareholder, officer, director,
employee, parent or subsidiary company, DEVELOPER affiliate
or partner of DEVELOPER shall in any event at any time be
personally liable for the payment or performance of any
obligation under this Development Agreement. Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to mean that DEVELOPER shall
defend, indemnify or hold CITY or its elected or appointed
representatives, officers, agents and employees harmless
from any claims of personal injury, death or property damage
arising from or alleged to have arisen from, the maintenance
or repair by CITY of improvements that have been offered for
dedication and accepted by CITY for maintenance or arising
out of the negligence of CITY or its elected or appointed
representatives, officers, agents and employees.
21. Insurance.
21.1 Public Liability and Property Damage
Insurance_
During the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER
shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single
limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) and
a deductible of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
per claim. The policy so maintained by DEVELOPER shall name
the CITY and COUNTY as additional insureds and shall include
either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability
endorsement.
21.2 Workers Compensation Insurance.
During the term of this Agreement DEVELOPER
and/or COUNTY shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance
for all persons employed by DEVELOPER for work at the
Project site. DEVELOPER shall require each contractor and
subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation
insurance for its respective employees. DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY, as the case may be, agree to indemnify the City for
any damage resulting from DEVELOPER'S and/or COUNTY's
failure to maintain any such insurance.
21.3 Evidence of Insurance.
Prior to City Council approval of this
Agreement, DEVELOPER shall furnish CITY satisfactory
evidence of the insurance required in sections 21.1 and
Pl GE1 017
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
14
JAN-12-35 THU 13:31 P.21/41
/'1
21.2 in the form of a certificate of insurance and evidence
that the carrier is required to give the CITY at least
fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or
reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall
extend to the CITY, its elective and appointive boards,
commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives
and to DEVELOPER and each contractor and subcontractor
performing work on the Project.
22. Sewer and Water.
DEVELOPER and COUNTY acknowledge that water and
sewer permits must be obtained from the Dublin San Ramon
Services District ("DSRSD") which is another public agency
not within the control of CITY.
23. Notices.
All notices required or provided for under this
Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person (by
overnight mail) or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid.
Notices required to be given to CITY shall be addressed as
follows:
City Manager
City of Dublin
P.O. Rox 2240
Dublin, CA 94568
Notices required to be given to DEVELOPER shall be addressed
as follows:
Homart Development Co.
ATYN: Community Centers Counsel
55 West Monroe, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
with copy to Executive Vice President
Notices required to be given to COUNTY shall be addressed as
follows:
County Administrator
County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street,Room 555
Oakland, CA 94612
with a copy to:
Planning Director
Alameda County
399 Elmhurst St.
F„c�+ OFt.
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpr.Mt.clr
15
JAN-12-35 THU 13:32 P.22/41
em
Hayward, CA 94544
A party may change address by giving notice in writing to
the other parties and thereafter all notices shall be
addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall
be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if
mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being
deposited in the United states Mail.
24. Agreement is Entire Understanding.
This Agreement is executed in three duplicate
originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.
This Agreement and all Exhibits attached hereto
contain the sole and entire agrecment between the parties
concerning the Project. The parties acknowledge and agree
that none of them has made any representations with respect
to the subject matter of this Agreement or any
representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof,
except such representations as are specifically set forth
herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on
its own judgment in entering into this Agreement,
28. Meaning of "DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY"
DEVELOPER and COUNTY will provide CITY with a
memorandum signed by both parties specifying which party
will be obligated to perform the obligations herein_ This
memorandum will be provided prior to issuance of the first
building permit for phase 1 and phase 2, respectively, and
will be incorporated into this Agreement at such time.
26. Exhibits.
The following documents are referred to in this
Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein ac
though set forth in full:
Exhibit A-1 Map of Property
Exhibit A-2 Legal Description of Property
Exhhit B Additional Conditions
27. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the
performance of each and every covenant and obligation to be
performed by the parties hereunder.
28. Recordation. CITY shall record this Agreement
when the legal description (Exhibit A 2) is attached, as t`
FJ GE Oi`4
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
16
JAN-12-35 THU 13:32 P. 23/41
provided in paragraph 1, Which shall occur within ten days
after CITY executes this Agreement .
29 . Counteroarts . This Agreement may be executed in
three separate counterparts, each of which shall constitute
an original .
IN WITNESS WI-? REO , the parties hereto, have caused.
this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first
above written_
P V14 QC)
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
17
JAN-12-35 THU 13:33 P. 24/41
HOM1\RT DEVELOPMENT CO. a Delaware
Corporation
By:
Nam .
Its :
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
•
•
d`i E. OF
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
18
JAN-12-35 THU 13:34 P, 25/41
CITY OF DUBLIN:
By:
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Attest :
City Clark
PAGE OF.Iv
January 12, 1995
114\mmo\52\devlmmnt.cln
19
JAN-12-35 THU 13:34 P,26/41
/'N
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY
OF THE COUNTY OP ALAMEDA
By:
President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
•
F,:. �.�
January 12, 1995
114\memo\s2\devlpmat.cm
20
JAN-12-35 THU 13:35 P, 27/41
EXHIBIT A?
Legui Description of the Property
i,, 1444)
70149
,7anuary 12, 195
i7 4\memo\52\C3evjpmnt.cIn
21
JAN-12-35 THU 13:35 P.28/41
EXHIBIT g
Additional Conditions
The following Additional Conditions are hereby
imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above.
1. Sub aragran 5.3.1:
None.
2. Subparaar�nh 5 3.2:
Suboaraaraph
The Infrastructure Sequencing Program for the
Project is set forth below. As shall mean the receipt from CITY uofda�"Certificate pofey'I
Occupancy for Eastern Dublin Development" which shall be
issued by CITY when the building is ready to be opened to
the public.
Roads:
Phase 1
,o Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase 1, the
project-specific roadway improvements (and offers of
dedication) identified in the Traffic Impact
Analysis/Regional Discount Retail Center report dated
November 1994 prepared for Homart Community Centers by
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (hereafter "Project Specific
Traffic Report") shall be completed by DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY. Certain additional improvements (and offers of
dedication) (hereafter "Oversized Improvements") may be
constructed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY as herein provided
which, together with the Project Specific Improvements, are
collectively referred to below as "Full Improvements".
A. Hari naa Drive between T-580 and D lin
Roulevard: -
Total offer of dedication of a minimum of 94
foot right-of-way of which DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is
responsible for a minimum of 32 feet (adjacent to the
property) and for 62 feet for oversizing the improvements
for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIP) . Additional right-of-way
for turn lanes is required. Full Improvements include
median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24 feet if two left-
turn pockets required), two 12 foot southbound travel lanes
/1 three 12 foot north-bound travel lanes with 8 foot emergency
!✓,,c4.s101 O
January 12, 199E
114\mem0\52\devlpmat.0.11
22
JAN-12-35 THU 13:36 P,29%41
n
parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project
entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane), 12 feet of parkway area
which includes 8 feet of sidewalk, and left-turn pockets as
required by the Dublin Public Works Director. Of the Full
Improvements, the Project-Specific improvements include io
foot of median improvements if two left-turn pockets are
required, one 12 foot northbound travel lane with 8 feet of
emergency parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for
project entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in
place of 8 foot emergency parking/bike lane), and 12 feet of
parkway area which includes 8 feet of sidewalk.
Of t
Improvements, the Oversized Improvements include full
Full
improvement of the median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24
toot if two left-turn pockets are required), two 12 foot
southbound and two 12 foot northbound travel lanes.
or COUNTY is res
PER
adequate transitionObetween/existing improvempentsonsible
proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the Dublin
Public Works Director applying CITY's standards and policies
which are in force and effect at the time of issuance of the
permit for the proposed improvements..
E. bubl' noulevard between Hacienda Dr've and
Eastern-Most Project Entranc_e.
Total offer of dedication of a minimum of 102
foot right-of-way of which DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is
responsible for a minimum of 40 feet (adjacent to the
property) and for 62 feet for oversizing the improvements
for the Traffic impact Fee (TIF) . Additional right-of-way
for turn lanes is required. Full Improvements include
median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24 feet if two left-
turn pockets required), two 12 foot westbound travel lanes,
three 12 foot east-bound trave] lanes with 8 foot emergency
parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project
entrance (12 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane), 20 feet of parkway area
(adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of sidewalk
(20 foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when two left-
turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when right-turn
lanes are required) , and left-turn pockets as required by
Dublin's Public Works Director. Of the Full Improvements,
the Project-Specific Improvements include 10 foot of median
improvement if two-left turn pockets are required, one 12
foot eastbound travel lane with an 8 foot emergency
entranceparking/bike(12 foot lane necessary right-turn
foot with5foot bike lane sinoplacej oft
8
emergency parking/bike lane), and 20 feet of parkway
area/'1 (adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of
PACEA OF LII)
January 12, 1995
'14\memo\52\devlpmnt,cin
23
JAN-12-35 THU 13:37 P.30/41
n
sidewalk (20 foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when
two left-turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when
right-turn lanes are required) . Of the Pull Improvements,
the Oversized Improvements include Full Improvement of the
median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24 foot if two left-
turn pockets are required), two 12 foot southbound and two
12 foot northbound travel lanes.
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for
adequate transition between existing improvements and
proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the Dublin
Public Works Director applying CITY's standards and policies
which ale in force and effect at the time of issuance of the
permit for the proposed improvements.
Phase 2
Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase 2, the
Project Specific Improvements (and offers of dedication) set
forth below shall be completed by DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY_
In addition, the following Oversized Improvements (and
offers of dedication) may be constructed by DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY as herein provided.
A. in Eouievard between East n-Most Project
Entrance and TasSa.ara E id e;
Total offer of dedication of a minimum of 102
foot right-of-way of which DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is
responsible for a minimum of 40 feet (adjacent to the
property) and for 62 feet for oversizing the improvements
for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIP) . Additional right-of-way
for turn lanes is required, Full Improvements include
median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24 feet if two left-
turn pockets required), two 12 foot westbound travel lanes,
three 12 root eastbound travel lanes with 8 foot ,emergency
parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project
entrance (22 foot lane with 5 foot bike lane in place of 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane), 20 feet of parkway area
(adjacent to the property) which includes 8 feet of sidewalk
(20-foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when two left-
turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when right-turn
lanes are required), and left-turn pockets as required by
Dublin's Public Works Director. Of the Full Improvements,
the Project-Specific Improvements include 10 foot of median
improvement if two-left turn pockets are required, one 12
foot eastbound travel lane with an 8 foot emergency
parking/bike lane, necessary right-turn lanes for project
entrance (12 foot lane.rsith 5 foot bike lane in place of 8
foot emergency parking/bike lane), Anrl 20 foot of parkway
area (ad'aee property) which includes 8 feet of
rn,141Ci
January 12, lsgs
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
24
JAN-12-35 THU 13:37 P,31/41
sidewalk (20 foot parkway will be reduced to 15 feet when
two left-turn pockets are required and to 12 feet when
right-turn lanes are required) .
the
the Oversized Improvements includefFull Full
improvements,e
median (minimum 14 foot width, maximum 24 feetifntwoolf the
eft-
turn pockets are required), two 12 foot southbound and two
12 foot northbound travel lanes.
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY is responsible for
adequate transition between existing improvements and
proposed improvements to the satisfaction of the Dublin
Public Works Director a
sts and
which are in force and effectgatjtheTY'stime oflicies
permit for the proposed improvements.
Si�Llization
As provided in the Project Specific Traffic Report
the DEVELOPER and/or the COUNTY shall install signals 1) at
the intersections of Dublin Blvd/Hacienda Drive and Dublin
Blvd/Taosajara Road and 2) at all driveways onto Hacienda
Drive and Dublin Boulevard where access to the driveway
would require median opening. The foregoing signals shall
1 ^ be installed prior to occupancy of Phase 1 provided the
signals at driveways onto Dublin Boulevard may be turned on
at a later date at the discretion of CITY's Public Works
Director.
Maintenance
CITY will maintain the Project-Specific
Improvements and Oversized improvements once they are
completed and prior to formal acceptance thereof, provided
that City's liability shall be limited to its negligent
maintenance thereof until acceptance.
Sewer:
The Dublin-San Ramon Services District has prepared
a report ("Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan Final Report"
dated December, 1993, prepared by C. S. Dodson & Associates
(the "DSRSD Report") which determined the sizes and
approximate location of pipelines to provide potable water
distribution, wastewater collection and recycled water
distribution within the Eastern Dublin area at ultimate
buildout.
Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase i,
trunk line sanitary sewer improvements to serve the
eTh property as well as laterals hooked up to the buildings to
be occupied shall be complete to the satisfaction and
P•1G 0
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt_Sln
25
JAN-12-35 THU 13:38 P,32/41
n
requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District
applying the District's standards and shall be consistent
with the DSRSD Report.
Heater
Prior to combustible construction and/or storage of
combustible materials on site, sufficient water storage and
pressure shall be available at the site to the satisfaction
and requirements of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
applying the Authority's standards.
Prior to occupancy of any portion of Phase I,
trunk line potable water system components to serve the
Property as well as laterals hooked up to the buildings to
he occupied shall be complete and in working order to the
satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin San Ramon
Services District applying the District's standards and
shall he consistent with the DSRSD Report.
Prior
recycled water tones occupancy bofiany
portion of Phase I,
sadjacent roadways to the satisfaction eandnrequirements sit and tofn
the Dublin San Ramon Services District applying the
Districts standards and shall be consistent with the DSRSD
Report.
storm Drainage:
COT.INTY has retained a consultant (Brian Kangas
nae
Foulk)
show prepare a master
intheroutesand asizes of a major estorm 1drainage
facilities for all of COTINTy's approximate 620 acres.
Prior to the occupancy of any portion of Phase I,
the storm drainage systems to the site as well as on site
drainage systems to the areas to be occupied shall be
complete to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin
Public Works Department applying CITY's and Zone 7 (Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone
7) standards and policies which are in force and effect at
the time of issuance of the permit for the proposed
improvement* and shall be consistent with the Drainage Plan.
The site shall also be protected from storm flow from off
site and shall have erosion control measures in place to
protect downstream facilities and properties from erosion
and unclean Storm water consistent with the Drainage Plan.
FACE 31VIP
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlmmnt.cla
26
JAN-12-35 THU 13:39 P,33/41
/1
Other Utilities
e�2s, electricitv)•
Prior to occupancy.
Sub�araa,� r, ash h
Com letion Ma be Deferred.
NoLwithstanding the foregoing,
Director may, in his or her sole discretionyandp poncreWorks
ceipt
of documentation in a form satisfactory Director that assures completion, allow DEVELOPER and/orrks
COUNTY to defer Completion of discrete portions of any of
the above public improvements until after occupancy if the
Public Works Director determines that to do so would not
jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare.
Improvement. resAc Pe�ent
Prior to constructing the Project-Specific
Improvements and the Oversized Improvements, DEVELOPER
and/or COUNTY shall submit plans and specifications t
CITY's Public Works Director for review and approvalo
shall enter into an improvement agreement with CITYan
construction of the public facilities.
Ronde
Prior to issuance of any building permit in Phase 1
or Phase 2, DEVELOPER and/or cOUNTy shall provide a
performance bond and labor and materials bond or other
adequate security to insure that the Project-Specific
Improvements and the Oversized Improvements (if to be
constructed) will he constructed prior to occupancy. The
performance bond or other security shall be in an amount
equal to 100°6 of the engineer's estimate of the cost to
construct the improvements (including design, engineering,
administration, and inspection) and the labor and materials
bond shall be in an amount equal to 50% of the engineer's
estimate.
3. ub araoranh 5.3.3:
DEVELOPER and COUNTY intend to construct the
Project in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of an
approximately 50-acre retail center. Phase 2 will consist
of approximately 25 acres of retail development which, if
constructed, will be constructed to function in harmony with
the Phase 1 retail center.
January 12, 1995
i14\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
27
JAN-12-35 THU 13:39 P,34/41
n
This Agreement contains no requirements that
DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY must initiate or complete
development of either Phase 1 or Phase 2 or any portion of
either phase within any period of time set by CITY. It is
the intention of this provision that DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY
be able to develop the Property in accordance with their own
time schedules.
4. ara ra h s.3,4.
DEVELOPER and COUNTY will provide all
infrastructure necessary and as set forth in this Agreement
for the in such each phase of Project prior to occupancy by any
intend to install aall se ostreet f the Pimprovementss necessary for PER and the
Project at their own cost (subject to credits for any
Oversized Improvements as provided in subparagraph 5.1.5
below) . Other infrastructure necessary to
potable water, and recycled water services toovi theeProject
will be made available by the Dublin San Ramon Services
District, COUNTY has entered into an Agreement" with the Dublin San Ramon ServiceslDistrict�t toes
pay for the cost of extending such services to the Project.
5. Subparagraph 5,3�5:
ImprovemeCOUNTY andTY /or DEVELOPER may construct Oversized
n Boulevard and hacienda Drive fronting
the Project As described above.
COUNTY shall be entitled to a credit against
Traffic Impact Fees for the Project for construction of any
such Oversized Improvements.
I
The total value of the Oversized Improvements and
right-of-way is $4,574,140 less $808,870 (which is the value
of that part of the Oversized Improvements previously
constructed by the city of Pleasanton) for a net credit of
$3,765,270 (hereafter "Net Credit") . The Net Credit shall
be given at the time DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY enter into an
improvement agreement with CITY for construction of the
Oversized Improvement,.
Al
contemplatetconstructingPalla of/
theCOOve currently
Oversized Improvements
as part of Phase 1, it is possible that they may defer
construction of a portion of
Improvements to Phase 2 the permanent Oversized
T n that
t event,Net Credit for Phase 1 shall be reduced linh the e mfollo of wnghe
manner. For those Oversized Improvements not constructed
(or right-of-way not offered to be dedicated,) as part of P CE3'�o,''''nn
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
i 28
JAN-12-35 THU 13:40 P.35/41
tTh
permanent Dublin Boulevard, the Net Credit shall be reduced
by $1,140 per lineal foot not constructed and not offered to
be dedicated. For those Oversized Improvements not
constructed (or right-of-way not offered to be dedicated )
as part of permanent Hacienda Drive, the Net Credit shall
be reduced by $942 per lineal foot not Constructed and not
offered to be dedicated. If the Net Credit is so reduced
and the permanent oversized Improvements arc later
constructed as part of Phase 2, DEVELOPER and\or COUNTY
shall be entitled to the amount of the reduced Credit at
that time.
6• SUb�ara h 5.3.6:
Traffic Impact Fees,
Except as hereinafter provided, DEVELOPER and/or
COUNTY agree that: the Project will be subject to Traffic
Impact Fees in an amount not to exceed $5,162,719, to be
paid by COUNTY. This amount is based on the City's Traffic
Impact Fee for Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 1-95, adopted
by the Council on January 9, 1995) on a maximum building
square footage for the Project of 800,000 square feet as set
'/'1 forth in PD Ord. No.
the Project as determined inn the Projectd tripneration SpecificrTrafffr
ic
Report , as follows:
Section 1 Fee: $3,665,002
Section 2 Fee: $ 969,111
Section 3 Fee! $ 528,606
Total: $5,162,719
shall The total Traffic Impact Fee ("TIP") of $5,162,719
ImprovcmentsdprovidedwineSubparagrapht5.3.5't forfarneteTIFZed
due of $1,397,450 for the Project if the Oversized
Improvements are constructed or guaranteed.
For purposes of applying the Not Credit, the
following shall apply! when a building permit is issued,
CITY will calculate the square footage of the building.
CITY will then calculate the amount of the credit to be used
for such building by multiplying the square footage of the
building by $6.4533987 which equals the total TIF of
$5,162,719 divided by the maximum Project square footage of
800,000 square feet, to arrive at the credit for such
building. The Net Credit will be reduced by the amount of
the credit for such building. A sample calculation follows
for illustrative purposes onl
y:
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cmn
29
JAN-12-35 THU 13:41 P,36/41
Total Net Credit
$3,765,270
Building 1 (10,000 sq.ft.) TIF $ 64,534
Remaining Credit
$3,700,736
Building 2 (15,000 sq.ft.) TIF $ 96,801
Remaining Credit
$3,603,935
When the Net Credit has been exhausted or if the
Oversized Improvements are not constructed or guaranteed,
thereafter COUNTY will nay the applicable TIF in accordance
withoReso Whenlutiona buildingNo_ - 5, as adopted January 9, 1995, as
permit is issuedof , CITY will
calculate the square f
then calculate the amountaof thethe TIFbtolbenu� CITY for
swll
uch
building by multiplying the square footage ofe the building
by 56.453.3987, which equals the total TIF of $5,162,719
divided by the maximum Project square footage of 800,000
square feet to arrive at the TIF for such building.
Payment of the TIF by COUNTY following exhaustion of the
Net Credit will be made in cash or, with the approval of the
City Manager, by use of credits towards the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee accumulated bythe agreements with CITY (Agreement etween�City ohrDubh prior
of Pleasanton, the County of Alameda and the Surplusin, City
Property Authority Regarding Construction of Certain Roadway
Improvements, as amended, and Agreement Between the City of
Dublin, the City of Pleasanton, the County of Alameda and
the Surplus Property Authority Regarding Construction of
Certain Freeway Improvements) .
Notwithstanding the foregoing, COUNTY may, if it
constructs or guarantees the Oversized Improvements elect to
first application of all or a portion of the Net Credit and
pay all or a portion of the applicable TIP as
hereinabove provided. In such event if COUNTY does not use
all of the Net Credit for this Project, COUNTY shall be
entitled to carry over the unused Net Credit to another
project on its remaining property within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. Should the COUNTY elect this option, the TIF
funds shall be used by CITY to repay BART the "short term
loan" owed by CITY to BART and guaranteed by COUNTY_
The TIF for the Project may be increased by the
CITY to reflect increases to the Eastern Dublin TIF
attributable solely to construction cost increases
(including increases in right-of-way acquisition) and/or
interest due on loan repayments to BART and/or Pleasanton.
A_OA
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cio
30
•
JAN-12-35 THU 13:42 P.37/41
Projectsuch
permits issued iafter radoption eases aof an TIF ll oly aincreasebbylthen CITY
and shall not be retroactive.
Possible Traffic m act Fee to Reimburse Pleasanton
for c Freewa In.te_r hap es.
TIP, In addition to the foregoin
as aITY dopted by Resolution No. 1-95,1tofCincludenasfeeeto
repay Pleasanton for Eastern Dublin's proportionate share of
improvements to the Hopyard, Hacienda and Santa Rita
Interchanges constructed by Pleasanton, COUNTY agrees that
it will pay any such additional fee attributable to the
Property even if building permits have already been pulled
prior to the Lime c1TY amends the TIF. COUNTY shall be
released from its obligation, as set forth in the preceding
sentence, if a lawsuit is filed challenging the Project
approvals, this Agreement, the negative declaration prepared
for the project, the TIF as adopted by Resolution No. 1-95
or any other aspect of the development of the Property. This
paragraph is not applicable to DEVELOPER.
R�ional Tra*sn--- o—station M. i ation.
In addition to payment of the above Traffic Impact
Fee, COUNTY shall enter into a binding commitment to convey
15 (plus/minus) acres of land adjacent to the Eastern Dublin
BART station to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District for use
as surface parking and related facilities. COUNTY shall
also dedicate to CITY up to 2 acres of right-of-way deemed
necessary by CITY fur access to the BART station from Dublin
Boulevard.
Public Facil=ties Fees.
CITY has retained a consultant who prepared a draft
report (November 11, 1994 Memorandum to Richard Ambrose from
Recht Rausrath & Associates, hereafter the "Draft Study") to
calculate the amount of a Public Facilities Pee for funding
the cost of new public facilities required for development
in the Eastern Dublin area (the Eastern Dublin
Amendment and Specific Plan Areas) . The Draft Studyal Plan
calculates the amount of a Public Facilities Pee for
neighborhood parks, community parks, community facilities,
libraries and buildout of the Civic Center (hereafter
"public facilities") . It concludes that the amount of the
Public Facilities Fee for retail development is $290 per
1,000 Building Square Feet.
Except as provided in the next paragraph, COUNTY
agrees that, prior to the issuance of each building permit
PACE c- ;
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\dev1t.c1n
31
JAN-12-35 THU 13:42 P,38/41
/'\
as part of the Project, it will pay a Public Facilities Fee
(hereafter "Fee") in the amount of $362.50 per 1,000 Square
Feet of Building. The tee of $262.50 represents $290 per
1,000 Building Square Feet plus a 25% contingency.
City has retained
comprehensive report to determine uthe ncost oe ftheepubliice
facilities and how such cost should be apportioned among
properties within the Eastern Dublin area. When CITY
approves and adopts the comprehensive report, the amount of
the Public Facilities Fee to be paid by COUNTY pursuant to
the preceding paragraph shall thereafter be the amount
included in such report for retail uses for al] such public
facilities, provided that in no event shall the Fee be more
than $352.50 per 1000 Square Feet of Building. If the Fee
paid by COUNTY pursuant to the preceding paragraph is more
than the amount included in such report for retail uses for
all such public facilities, CITY will refund the difference
to COUNTY within 30 days of a request for a refund.
COUNTY may, at its option to be exercised prior to
the timc the Fee is payable, dedicate land to CITY in fee
simple in lieu of payment of the Fec provided that land may
not be dedicated unless it is in excess of the amount of
land which COUNTY will be required to dedicate pursuant to
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 (CITY's "Quimby Act
Ordinance") when COUNTY subdivides the remainder of its
approximately 600 acres for residential uses. If COUNTY
exercises its option to dedicate land in lieu of paying the
Fee, the value of the land to be dedicated shall be
calculated in the same manner as the value of land was
calculated in the Draft Study and in any subsequent study
prepared for CITY to calculate the Fee imposed by CITY.
CITY shall not be obligated to accept any such land until
CITY and COUNTY have agreed on the value of the land to be
dedicated and CITY has determined that the land is
appropriate for park and/or community facility uses. In no
event shall the failure of CITY and COUNTY to agree on
either the value of the land to be dedicated or the
appropriateness of such land for park and/or community
facility use be an impediment to the development of the
Project.
Noise Mitigation Fee.
When CITY adopts a resolution imposing noise
mitigation_ fee pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.10\7.0 of
the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the purpose of
mitigating noise on existing residences along Tassajara
Road, DEVELOPER will pay its proportionate fee into the fund
established by such resolution, provided that in no event
PACE 10r4
January 12, 195s
114\memo\52\devlp,t, .cln
32
JAN-12-35 THU 13:43 P,39/41
/'N
will DEVELOPER be required to pay more than $3,000, For
purposes of calculating DEVELOPER'S proportionate fee, CITY
will use 270 trips per day which is the number of trips on
Tassajara Road which are attributable to the Project, as
determined by the Project-Specific Traffic Report. Any fee
to be paid by DEVELOPER pursuant to this paragraph shall be
pa
id issuance of a certificate of occupancy
( no hen been es
tablished for the last building in Phase 2.
by such time, no fee shall be
payable.
School Impact Fees and Fire Impact Fees.
Any
in accordanceschool impact shalls Codesectiona53080.id by DE DEVELOPER
fire
DEVELOPER Ain accordance awithpapplicablehrequiirementsbof the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
COUNTY agrees it will pay fire capital impact fees
to the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority in advance of
issuance of a building permit or permits if requested to do
so by CITY provided that CITY gives COUNTY twenty working
days' advance written notice. Any fire capital impact fees
paid in advance which are not required for the Project may
be applied by COUNTY to other projects constructed on the
remaining lands within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
7. Subparagraph 5.3.7:
Creek Improvements_
When development occurs on property to the east of
and directly adjacent to the Property, COUNTY will comply
with all provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
all mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report
for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan which relate to improvements of Tassajara Creek. Such
provisions include but are not limited to Specific Plan
Action Programs SC, SA, 613, Mitigation Measures 3.3\16.0,
3.4\29.0 [reference to trail corridor], 3.4\36.0 [reference
to stream corridors] and 3.7\13.0 [reference to dedication
of land and improvements along both sides of stream
corridors] .
contractor Sub-Permits.
bidders requiringDEVELOPER l provisionl include a
itscontractor(s) toobtainna1subnotice to
permit(s) from the State Board of Equalization for the
Pf,c13/ 01742
January 12, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
33
P. 40/41
JAN-12-35 THU 13:44
jobsite if the construction contract(s) is (are) in excess
of S5 , 000 , 000 and shall use its hest efforts to assure that
its contractor (s) obtain burin sub-permit (s) . In no event,
however, shall DEVELOPER be in default of this Agreement or
be liable to CITY for damages as a result of the failure of
a contractor to obtain a sub-permit .
Fire Station Site .
COUNTY will dedicate property for a site for a fire
station when requested by the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority provided that COUNTY does not waive any claim to
compensation for the fair market value of the land so
dedicated and provided that the site is mutually agreeable
to COUNTY and CITY.
,7anua2:y 12, 1995
114\mmo\52\devipKalt.cmn
34
P, 41/41 JAN-12-35 THU 13:44
State of California )
ss.
County of Alameda
On _ before me, a Notary Public,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name (s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies) , and that by his/her/their
signature (s) on the instrument the person (s) , or the entity
upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument .
WITNESS my hand and official seal .
NOTARY PUBLIC
PACE0
January 12, 1995
114\memo\5 ;\devlpmnt.cln
35
SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Prepared by the City of Dublin
December, 1994
EXHIBITW
PAGE 1 OF ID
INTRODUCTION
The City completed the amended Negative Declaration for the
Santa Rita Commercial Center ("the Project") on November 22,
1994, and circulated it for public review from November 23
through December 23, 1994. The purpose of the Negative
Declaration is to document the City's basis for concluding that
the Project will have no significant environmental impacts which
were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan Amendment Final EIR ("Program EIR") and that the Project is
thus within the scope of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment (collectively, "the Eastern Dublin
Program") . The Negative Declaration illustrates how the Project
will have no impacts not already identified and analyzed in the
Program EIR and, further, how all of the Project's impacts will
be mitigated by measures already adopted as part of the Program
EIR and by certain additional site-specific measures. All
measures have been agreed to by the landowner (the County of
Alameda) and the developer (Homart Development Co.)
The Negative Declaration consists primarily of the Initial
Study, which includes a project description, environmental
checklist, and a discussion explaining the conclusions reached in
the environmental checklist. The Initial Study also includes a
28-page Matrix addressing in detail the applicability to the
Project of each mitigation measure of the Program EIR and each
n Action Program of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Finally, the
Initial Study was amended prior to the circulation of the Amended
Negative Declaration to incorporate a site-specific traffic study
and specific mitigation measures identified therein.
During the comment period, three letters of comments were
received, one from the California Department of Transportation
("Caltrans") , one from Reynolds and Brown, and one from a group
of property owners in the North Pleasanton Improvement District
("NPID") . This document summarizes and responds to these
comments.
Comments of Caltrans
Caltrans notes that there are two possible future projects
in the vicinity of the Project which should be taken into
consideration: (1) the extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit
("BART") District to Livermore along the median of I-580 and (2)
reconstruction of the I-580/I-680 Interchange beyond the Measure
B project currently in environmental process. Caltrans also
notes that an encroachment permit will be required for all work
within Caltrans' right-of-way.
The Program EIR already addresses the potential improvements
to the I-580/I-680 interchange, including Caltrans' study of
reconstruction of the interchange beyond the Measure B Project,
1
PAGE?- OF 1 C'
(DEIR, p. 3.3-6) and BART's plans to extends its facilities along
/Th the I-580 median through Hacienda Drive and, ultimately, to
Livermore (FEIR Response to Comment 29-3) . Little has changed
with respect to these possible projects since the Program EIR was
certified. Neither project has progressed beyond the preliminary
study stage. No particular plans have been made, no funding has
been committed, and whether either ultimately will be implemented
is speculative. If implemented, either would improve traffic
circulation conditions in the area.
It is acknowledged that an encroachment permit is legally
required for all work within Caltrans' right-of-way.
Comments of Reynolds and Brown
Reynolds and Brown first express concern regarding the
Project's impact on traffic circulation, opining that the site
plan has only one access point and that it will create
significant traffic congestion at the Hacienda interchange and
the nearby intersection.
As explained in the Traffic Study included in the Negative
Declaration, the site will have three access points, not one.
Two of the access points will be on Dublin Boulevard. The
Traffic Study analyzes fifteen key intersections (including nine
within the City of Pleasanton) . Freeway impacts are analyzed,
including the Hacienda interchange. Based on its analysis, the
Traffic Study concludes that the Project as mitigated will not
have an adverse impact on traffic circulation. The mitigation
measures consist of signalizing Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard
and Tassajara Drive/Dublin Boulevard, a signalized driveway onto
Hacienda Drive, two signalized driveways onto Dublin Boulevard,
turn pockets at the driveways, and a fair share contribution to
the cost of regional off-site road improvements as required in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Reynolds and Brown's remaining comments concern the
calculation of the traffic impact fee for necessary improvements.
The traffic fee, which was adopted by the City Council on January
9, 1995, is based on a regional traffic study that includes all
traffic improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts of
development within Eastern Dublin, as identified in the Program
EIR. These improvements are also listed at pages 26-28 of the
site-specific Traffic Study included in the Negative Declaration.
The fee is set so that all development within Eastern Dublin
(including the Project) will pay the full estimated cost of
improvements within Eastern Dublin and its fair share of the
estimated cost of regional and other identified improvements
outside Eastern Dublin. Periodically, the estimates will be
revisited and the fee revised as more specifics about regional
road improvements are determined. In general, the fee has not
been calculated to provide reimbursement for the construction of
eTh
PAGE 3 OF111'
pre-existing facilities whose installation was necessitated by
other development.
Comments of NPID Property Owners ("NPIDPO")
The NPIDPO opine that the Negative Declaration is legally
inadequate for numerous reasons and generally claim that an EIR
is required. They also comment upon a number of specific topics
in the Negative Declaration and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The NPIDPO's challenges are based on several legally and/or
factually incorrect premises. Specific issues raised are
addressed as follows:
When a new EIR is required
The City need not prepare a new EIR for the Project if it
finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that there
are no significant environmental impacts or feasible mitigation
measures which are both (1) not considered in the Program EIR and
(2) the result of changes in the program or other new information
which could not reasonably have been known when the Program EIR
was certified. (Pub. Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines
§ 15162.) Section 15168, subdivision (c) (2) , expressly applies
section 15162 to subsequent activities in a program for which a
program EIR has been prepared.
The NPIDPO (at pp. 14-16) ignore this standard and argue
that a new EIR must be prepared for the Project because of the
"necessarily general" nature of the Program EIR. They cite no
legal authority for their position and make no attempt to
distinguish the plain language of sections 15162 or 15168.
As the NPIDPO correctly note, the Program EIR recognizes
that it will reduce, but not necessarily eliminate, the need for
future environmental review. Indeed, the Program EIR (DEIR, p.
1-6) summarizes the above-described standard for future
environmental review, specifically citing section 15162. This
Negative Declaration properly constitutes such "future
environmental review" for the Project.
The NPIDPO also quote from the Superior Court's decision in
the case Butler v. City of Dublin involving an unsuccessful legal
challenge to the Eastern Dublin Program stating that "The overall
Dublin Plan requires that as each step project or development
comes before the City, a new EIR will have to be prepared." In
fact, the Court specifically cites section 21166 (on which
section 15162 is based) and portions of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and Program EIR summarizing section 15162 as being
applicable. The Court thus recognized that this section governs
3
PAGE OF 1
the type of future environmental review that is required, and the
above-quoted comment must be interpreted in that context.1
Adequacy of Project Description
The Negative Declaration fully discloses the scope of the
Project, explaining that it provides for an 800,000 square foot
commercial center on approximately 75 acres, which may include
retail shops, offices, movie theatres, and restaurants, among
other uses. It includes a map of the proposed site plan. The
analysis of the environmental impacts of the Project considers
impacts of all physical activities to be taken on the site,
including the potential impacts of the removal of a portion of
the Madigan Building. There thus appears to be no basis for the
NPIDPO's various claims that the Negative Declaration did not
adequately apprise the public of the scope of the Project or that
it "piecemeals" the Project.
The NPIDPO also argue (at p. 21) that there needs to be "a
full accounting of the various land use approvals which are
necessary to implement the Project." Such approvals are, in
fact, identified. The Project description specifically refers to
the Site Development Review and the tentative map, and the
Development Agreement is also specifically referenced throughout
the initial study. No additional analysis is necessary to
determine the Project's impact. The only practical environmental
concern is what is physically being developed on the site. The
various paper permits to be issued to authorize such development
have no independent environmental significance.
Reliance upon future study in a negative declaration.
A mitigation measure that is in some part dependent on
studies and analysis to be carried out in the future is
appropriate so long as the agency possesses meaningful
information that the measure will be effective.
The NPIDPO mischaracterize the law relating to the extent to
which an agency must identify engineering, design, and other
details prior to certifying a negative declaration. The NPIDPO
argue that an agency cannot determine that an environmental
impact will not be significant or will be avoided if future
studies, analysis, and planning will be necessary to determine
the precise extent of the impact.
Of course, some amount of future study will be required for
virtually any project after it is approved. Many details are
11n any event, this broadly worded comment by the Court was
not part of the judgment and is in no way binding upon the City.
4
PAGE 5 OF l d�
usually left for future resolution. For example, tentative
/, subdivision maps usually are approved before the location of all
necessary infrastructure is determined. Similarly, like the City
of Dublin, many cities have a site development review process to
resolve specific design details well after initial project
approval. Future studies with respect to the details of how
mitigation measures will be implemented are often inevitable.
The key in determining their validity is whether the agency has
an adequate evidentiary basis for finding that they will be
effective.
Level of Detail in Analysis in Negative Declaration
The NPIDPO repeatedly criticize the Negative Declaration and
Initial Study for not containing detailed analysis of various
issues. However, as discussed in the topic-specific sections
which follow, the NPIDPO fail to demonstrate any specific short-
coming in the analysis.
' On a related note, the NPIDPO appear to be confused when
they criticize the Initial Study for not including information
and analysis contained in the Matrix and the Traffic Study. (See
pp. 13, 29.) In fact, the Initial Study includes these
documents, both of which were appended to the Initial Study. All
information in the Matrix and the Traffic Study is, by
definition, in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration. It is
fully within the City's discretion to determine the format of its
Initial Study.
Topic-specific issues follow.
Water
Evidence in the record supports the Negative Declaration's
conclusion that all of the Project's environmental impacts on
water resources already have been adequately addressed in the
Program EIR. The Matrix in the Negative Declaration specifically
references the evidentiary basis for determining that water will
be available, citing to the November 3, 1994 letter from DSRSD,
summarizing its contents, and outlining the extent of the need
for distribution and storage facilities. A follow-up letter from
DSRSD dated December 8, 1994 provides even more supporting
evidence. DSRSD has completed a study demonstrating that more
than sufficient water is available from its water main at the
BART parking lot to provide this Project with full water service,
including fire flow capacity. Design details remain to be worked
out for the construction of necessary facilities, but there is no
question that water is available. A map of the proposed water
distribution facilities is included, which demonstrates that such
facilities are consistent with those described in the Program
EIR. Further, as outlined in the EIR, the "will-serve letter"
requirement provides the ultimate certainty that there will be no
5
PAGE_Cr_OF ica
development without adequate water. Thus, there is no evidence
that the Project will have a significant adverse impact or water
resources, or that water cannot be feasibly provided to the
Project.
The NPIDPO cite to the February 1992 Zone 7 Water Supply
Update for the proposition that the State Water Project currently
lacks sufficient water to meet its current demands. However, the
same Update explains that Zone 7 has a number of other current
and potential future sources of water. While the NPIDPO accuse
the Negative Declaration of ignoring this update, the update was,
in fact, included in the Program EIR and fully discussed therein.
There was thus no need for further discussion in the Negative
Declaration. Finally, Zone 7 has recently affirmed that it can
provide DSRSD (which is the water service provider for the
Project) with its requested amount of water, including water to
serve the Project.
As to drainage, the Matrix documents compliance with all
mitigation measures of the Program EIR and requirements of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Pursuant to Program 9T, a draft
Master Drainage Plan for the Project Site has been completed by
the County. This study identifies the necessary transmission
facilities, and documents that there is more than sufficient
"downstream" capacity for drainage flows for the Project. As
discussed in the Program EIR and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, additional drainage improvements will be needed to serve
full buildout of Eastern Dublin. However, these are not
necessary to serve the Project. There is no new information
requiring any revisions in the previously-approved mitigation
measures. There is no evidentiary basis for the NPIDPO's
contention (at p. 26) that the Project site is "the best and most
obvious location for a retention basi[n] ." Rather, from a
planning standpoint, the Project site is an obvious location for
commercial development, given its proximity to I-580. There are
numerous alternative locations for retention basins under
consideration. The Project site is not among them.
As to wastewater, the Project area is already within the
boundaries of DSRSD, which indicates that it has sufficient
capacity to serve the Project. The Matrix documents compliance
with Program EIR mitigation measures and Specific Plan
requirements, specifically citing to the November 3, 1994 letter
from DSRSD stating that it can serve the Project. A memo from
the County of Alameda dated October 13, 1994, further documents
the availability of sewer service for the Project, explaining
that 2,400 DUEs are available, that only 500 DUES are expected
from development outside Santa Rita, and that the Project will
require, at most, 350 DUEs. Also, the map in Figure 3 of the
Negative Declaration demonstrates the consistency of the planned
wastewater improvements for the Project with those considered in
the Program EIR.
6
PAGE 1 OF [0
/1 As to Action Program 9B of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
the requirement for a recycled water distribution system is being
incorporated into the Project pursuant to Mitigation Measure
3.05/27.0 of the Program EIR.
As to Policy 9-4 and Program 9K, DSRSD has already prepared
a master plan (the December 1993 Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan) ,
which does not find necessary a wastewater storage facility in
Eastern Dublin, but which completes the recycled water
distribution system model. As to Program 9M, a detailed
wastewater capacity investigation will be included as a condition
of project approval.
The City is implementing Table 9-2 on page 136 of the
Specific Plan pursuant to program 9R, page 4 of the Matrix.
Noise
The noise fee ordinance was introduced on December 27, 1994,
and adopted on January 9, 1995. The Program EIR adequately
discusses noise issues.
Land Use
The City finds the Project fully consistent with its General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Topic-specific issues
are addressed herein where appropriate. The NPIDPO are incorrect
in stating that the Negative Declaration does not discuss land
use impacts. In fact, such impacts are addressed on pages 14 and
15 of the text and throughout the Matrix.
Risk of Upsets
Service-related issues are addressed below. As to wildfire
management plans, they are being prepared in accordance with the
applicable mitigation measures set forth in the Program EIR.
There is no new information requiring any revisions to these
measures for the purpose of this Project.
Traffic and Circulation
The Negative Declaration discusses the traffic impacts of
the Project in detail. Indeed, the Traffic Impact Study is a
part of the Negative Declaration. As noted in the Traffic Impact
Study, cumulative traffic impacts were adequately addressed in
the Program EIR. All development within Eastern Dublin,
including the Project, will pay its fair share to mitigate such
7
PAGE I OF
impacts through the Traffic Impact Fee. This fee was enacted on
/, January 9, 1995.
The NPIDPO request that the Negative Declaration include a
discussion of the "fair share" of the Project of the costs of
other improvements previously installed by the City of
Pleasanton. This is a policy issue, not an environmental issue.
Furthermore, the financing provisions of the Specific Plan
address only the reimbursement of costs which Specific Plan
developers are required to advance, not costs incurred by other
jurisdictions.
The Project is consistent with traffic-related provisions of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Pursuant to Program 5A,
detailed development plans will be required as part of the site
development review process. Policies 5-10 and 5-11 are being
implemented by the City independently of its review of the
Project, as discussed on page 7 of the Matrix. As to Policy 5-
13, the City has already adopted site development review
guidelines for pedestrian paths between building entrances and
transit service stops. Pursuant to Program 5B, the City is
indeed requiring site development review and approval of the
transit improvements as a condition of Project approval. As to
Policy 5-22 and program 5H, the Traffic Impact Fee includes funds
for the park and ride lots. These lots need not be included in
the Project site, since the lots are to be on the west side of
Hacienda Drive, while the Project site is to the east.
Public Services
The Matrix (at pp.10-17) analyzes in detail how various
public services will be provided to the Project area, in
accordance with the Mitigation Measures of the Program EIR. The
City has completed a fiscal analysis which analyzed the cost of
providing municipal services to the Project and estimated the
revenues to be generated from the Project. As set forth in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, ongoing costs will be funded out of
the general fund. Fiscal analyses demonstrate that the Project
will have positive impact on the City's general fund. Commercial
developments in general have positive impacts on general funds,
while residential development have a negative impact. Approval
of the Project will provide surpluses to the general fund, which
can be used to offset deficits from residential development to be
approved in the future.
In compliance with Action Program 8G of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, the site of a temporary fire station will be
assured prior to site development review. Necessary financing is
in place. Indeed, in the Development Agreement, the County will
agree to front any fire impact fees as are necessary. The
Development Agreement also assures a permanent site for a fire
8
PAGE OF l 2
station. As documented in their recent January 4, 1995 letter,
the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority ( "DRFA" ) can provide
adequate fire service, and there is sufficient funding for such
service .
As to solid waste, the City has already adopted a Source
Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Solid Waste Management
Plan (SWMP) meeting the requirements of Policy 8-7 and Program
8K. An update to the SWMP will be prepared for Eastern Dublin.
However, as the Project does not exceed the thresholds of the
current SRRE, there is no need for the update prior to approval
of the Project . The Project is being required to comply with the
requirements of the SRRE and SWMP.
Utilities
Mitigation measures in the Program EIR adequately address
utility-related impacts . There is no new information requiring
revisions to these measures . The installation of utilities such
as gas and electricity to serve new development is routine . The
"will-serve" letter requirement will ensure that no development
will proceed without adequate utility service .
Human Health
The Negative Declaration adequately addresses potential
impacts relating to the removal of the Madigan Building, noting
that standard demolition practices relating to the removal of
asbestos will be undertaken. No further analysis is required.
As to the underground storage tanks, monitoring has thus far
uncovered no evidence of any related health hazards, nor is such
evidence expected. However, monitoring will continue for the
standard monitoring period.
114\memo\52\resp-com.nd3
9
pP(IONA( ��
�� Fir; DOUGHERTY DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
lig
22
''`'•di 2: 9399 Fircrest Lane • San Ramon, Ca 94583
/Lk,SANP�'��O Q Office: (510) 803-8600 • Fax: (510) 803-8630
SERVING
DUBLIN&SAN RAMON
January 4, 1995
Rick Jarvis, Esq.
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver& Wilson
Gateway Plaza
777 Davis Street, Suite 380
San Leandro, CA 94577
Dear Mr. Jarvis:
Pursuant to our conversation, I am preparing this memorandum to address two issues you have raised
with me regrading fire protection to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area and more specifically to the
Homart Project which proposed for that area of the city.
The question has been raised, can we offer adequate fire protection? The answer to this question is
yes. This will be accomplished by opening a fire station within the general vicinity of specific plan area in
order to provide response time consistent with response times offered within the rest of our service area.
This fire station will be located in an existing fire station at the Santa Rita Jail. The use of this facility, as a
temporary fire station, offers us the opportunity to more carefully plan a future permanent facility. The
agreement for use of the fire station is such that we will have its use for the duration of time necessary to
plan a permanent fire station. Funding for any renovations or modifications to the proposed temporary fire
station will come from fire impact fees which are paid by developers such as Homart. In this particular
instance the fees generated from the Homart Project will not only pay for the cost of the temporary fire
station but will also contribute to future fire capital projects serving the Eastern Dublin area. The opening of
this fire station is consistent with the overall goals of fire protection within our service area.
The second question has to do with adequate funding. Is there adequate funding for this project?
As I stated earlier in this memorandum funding for the required capital projects is available from developers
and will be paid by the developers at a time consistent with our needs. With regard to operating costs,
funding for the Fire Authority is such that each city contributes its share based on an assessed valuation
formula. The overall costs for operating this fire station are adequately funded in this formula. _
All of my concerns regarding this project have been adequately addressed by the City of Dublin,the
developer or the Fire Authority Board of Directors.
Please feel free to contact me if I can provide additional information.
Sincerely,
KARL D. DIEKMAN,
KDD/liw , Fire Chief
cc: Richard Ambrose
Herb Moniz '�
��iP��,oNA�F,gF DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
_ .■\*
O n
.-. i�. sie 9399 Fircrest Lane • San Ramon, Ca 94583
NN SAN RP`\o� Office: (510) 803-8600 • Fax: (510) 803-8630
SERVING
DUBLIN&SAN RAMON
January 4, 1995
Rick Jarvis, Esq. -
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver& Wilson
Gateway Plaza
777 Davis Street, Suite 380
San Leandro, CA 94577
Dear Mr. Jarvis:
Pursuant to our conversation, I am preparing this memorandum to address two issues you have raised
with me regrading fire protection to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area and more specifically to the
Homart Project which proposed for that area of the city.
The question has been raised, can we offer adequate fire protection? The answer to this question is
yes. This will be accomplished by opening a fire station within the general vicinity of specific plan area in
order to provide response time consistent with response times offered within the rest of our service area.
This fire station will be located in an existing fire station at the Santa Rita Jail. The use of this facility, as a
�..�temporary fire station, offers us the opportunity to more carefully plan a future permanent facility. The
agreement for use of the fire station is such that we will have its use for the duration of time necessary to
plan a permanent fire station. Funding for any renovations or modifications to the proposed temporary fire
station will come from fire impact fees which are paid by developers such as Homart. In this particular
instance the fees generated from the Homart Project will not only pay for the cost of the temporary fire
station but will also contribute to future fire capital projects serving the Eastern Dublin area. The opening of
this fire station is consistent with the overall goals of fire protection within our service area.
The second question has to do with adequate funding. Is there adequate funding for this project?
As I stated earlier in this memorandum funding for the required capital projects is available from developers
and will be paid by the developers at a time consistent with our needs. With regard to operating costs,
funding for the Fire Authority is such that each city contributes its share based on an assessed valuation
formula. The overall costs for operating this fire station are adequately funded in this formula.
All of my concerns regarding this project have been adequately addressed by the City of Dublin,the
developer or the Fire Authority Board of Directors.
Please feel free to contact me if I can provide additional information.
Sincerely,
KARL D. DIEKMAN,
KDD/liw Fire Chief
cc: Richard Ambrose
Herb Moniz {' p- �r it)
JAN:212-95 THU 08:07 EBRPD GENERAL MANAGER FAX NO, 5105691417 P.02
0 EAST BAY REC'ik IAL PARK DISTRICT
January 11, 1995
AO,�f:G t+i'f>1I:CCTORS
Mr. Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
or w,e 100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
,,g;z• Subject: Santa Rita Commercial Center/Eastern Dublin
(Iron Horse and Tassajara Creek Trails)
Dear Larry:
As you requested at our December 20th meeting, i am writing to
express the East Bay Regional Park District's interest in
working with the City of Dublin and Alameda County to secure
an east-west trail connection from Eastern Dublin and the
Santa Rita property to the future Eastern Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station and the Iron Horse Trail. The District is also
interested in working with Dublin and the County to initiate
a comprehensive "greenway" study of the Tassajara Creek
Corridor.
The District's concern with the east-west regional trail
connection and the proposed Santa Rita Commercial development
(Homart) was raised to ensure that there would be adequate
consideration of the trail in connection with development in
Eastern Dublin. Since the Planning Commission hearing on
January 3rd, the District has discussed the matter with
Alameda County staff and is confident that a regional trail
connection can be integrated into the County's future
development plans for the north side of Dublin Boulevard (see
attached letter from Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County
Planning Director) . Although this connector trail is not in
the existing District Master Plan, it will be identified in
the District's current Master Plan update.
Dublin, County and District staff have also discussed the
potential for joint preparation of a Tassajara Greenway study.
In the context of the approved Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
the Tassajara Creek Corridor functions to connect
(\ neighborhoods, schools, local parks, community centers and
employment centers. Tassajara Creek is also an important
natural resource of regional importance as well as a
recreational and scenic amenity for Eastern Dublin.
C PAGc..LOF
29.50 I'eralta Oaks Court P.O.Box 5101 Oaklaari,C:\94605 0381 Tel:510 638 011; Far !;:O 1;�.,
JAN-12-95 THU 08:08 EBRPD GENERAL MANAGER FAX NO. 5105691417 P. 03
•
Page Two
Mr. Larry Tong
January 11., 1995
A Greenway Study would implement adopted Specific Plan
policies and would treat planning, design, operation and
maintenance of the Tassajara Creek Corridor in a comprehensive
manner.
The scope of the Greenway Study will require further
discussion by the City of Dublin, Alameda County and District
staffs, however, issues to be addressed could include design
guidelines for creek restoration, trail development and
residential development, setback standards, resource
management, and funding sources.
The District asks that as it acts on the Alameda County/Homart
application, the Planning Commission express its support for
and recommend to the City Council that the Tassajara Creek
"Greenway" study be implemented and that an east-west trail
link between Tassajara Creek and the BAIT station/Iron Horse
Trail be included in the County's proposed development of the
area north of Dublin Boulevard.
The District looks forward to coordinating these important
planning efforts with the City and Alameda County.
Sincerely Yours,
Martin Vitz
/Advanced Planning Manager
cc: Jeri Ram
Dennis Carrington
Carol Cirelli
Lee Thompson
Mehran Sepehri
Adolph Martinelli
Stuart Cooke
attach: Alameda County letter
„:' 2 CrOF 1
JAN-12-95 THU 08:09 EBRPD GENERAL MANAGER FAX N0, 5105691417 P, 04
JY711 10 ib-4G r4Hrtru i,7 litre im p `,�
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Dr'doptrau Picaning • How 4,Cmanunity Dcwippmme •y Armin 40 Rc each
• -aifrtg ad:sstr..�mauon 6 tnfocrnsau
395$Elmhurst Street,Hayward CA.94544 (510)670-5400 FAX(510)785-8793
January 10, 1995
Martin Vitz
Fast Bay Regional Park District
P.O. Box 53g1
Oakland, CA 94605
RE: Connecting Trail Bet een Tassajara Creek and BART
Dear Mr. Vitz:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your concerns expressed at the Dublin
Planning Commission hearing of January 3, 1995 regarding the proposed Homan
retail project and its possible impact on a.futurt east-west trail across the County's
Santa Rita property.
It is my understanding that while the iron Horse Trail, along the Southern Pacific
right-of-way, and a future Tassajara Creek Trail between I-580 and the Contra
Costa County line are indicated on the current EBRPD Master Plan, no east-west
trail connection between these two trails is indicated_ The EBRPD is in the process
of updating the Master Plan, and it is anticipated that such a mail connection will
be inclurierl in the new Master Plan, &wcver, the new Master Plan IS not
anticipated to be adopted for at least a year.
As my staff has informed you, the County is in agreement with EBRPD that a trail
connection between Tasajara Creek and the Eastern Dublin BART stationllron
Horse Trail through the County's Santa Rita property is a good idea. This trail
connection is also referred to in the City of Dublin Parks and Recitation Master
Plan. However,as we have also related to you,the nature of the proposed Homait
x- tail project combined with the uncertainties of a Tassajara Creek trail crossing
under(or over)Dublin Boulevard, make the placement of such a trail on the south
side of Dublin Boulevard unwise. While the Homart project will provide an eight-
foot wide sidewalk within a minimum twelve-foot wide parkway along the entire
south Dublin Boulevard frontage from Hacienda Drive to Tas jara Creek, the
potential conflicts between a larger regional-serving trail, including off-street
bicycle traffic,and the turn rous access drives into the retail project and a crossing
at Tassajara Creak make the south side of Dublin Boulevard an inappropriate
location for a regional trail-
- 3�,,G �- 4
JAN-12-95 THU 08:09 EBRPD GENERAL MANAGER FAX NO, 5105691417 P. 05
Martin Vitz
EBRPD
Page 2
We believe that the north side of Dublin Boulevard is a much more appropriate,
location for a major east-west trail connection due to the planned residential uses,
the elimination of potential conflicts with a Dublin Boulevard crossing at Tassajara
Creek, and a Iarger, less constrained area to work with. Such a trail could be part
of d landscape buffer along the north side of Dublin Boulevard that would also
shield future residential areas from traffic noise. Following the successful
completion of the Houiart project, the County will concentrate on detailed
development planning for the north side of Dublin Boulevard. At that time,. the
details of a major east-west trail to connect Tas jara Creek and the BART
station/Iron Horse Trail can be fleshed out. We air committed to working with the
EBRPD, in coordination with the City of Dublin, to ensure that your concerns are
addressed. We are also extremely interested in exploring potential cost shaz,:ng
with EBRPD for trail construction and/or maintenance.
In summary, we do not believe that the Homart site is a good location for a east-
west regional trail connection, nor will the project preclude such a trail from being
constructed in the future on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. As the owner of
the vast majority of land north of Dublin Boulevard between the BART station and
Tassajara Creek, the County will continue to work with the EBRPD to ensure that
an appropriately located trail connection is planned for and constructed as the
remainder of the Santa Rica property is developed.
We look forward to working with you on this important project. As more detailed
planning for the north side of Dublin Boulevard commences, we will keep you
apprised. We request that you keep us similarly apprised of the EBRPD Master
Plan update, especially as it relates to the County's Santa Rita property.
Very truly yours,
/7"."4",
Ad ph Martinelli
Planning Director
cc: Lawrence Tong, Dublin Planning Director
titlpcmu tee pdkt_393
okl,O+ '<<7(g5
SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER
E)Chl.,6 1-+
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE bY °frk taint.
Additional Conditions:
36 . All items listed in the matrix attached and made a part of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration that have not been made conditions
of approval of this PD Rezone, will be required as conditions of
approval on the discretionary action so indicated on the matrix.
37 . Prior to the occupancy of any portion of Phase 1, the storm
drainage systems to the site as well as on site drainage systems
to the areas to be occupied shall be complete to the satisfaction
and requirements of the Dublin Public Works Department and shall
be in conformity with the Master Drainage Plan.
I
15%05 RI"-•
I
1.. DUBLIN LAND COMPANY-JOHN DI MANTO
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS REGARDING 75 ACRE HOMART REZONE
I. I object to the magnitude of this project! If approved in it's present form,it will have an economically
devastating impact on the existing West Dublin merchants. If the 75 acres are developed within the next
(3)years,it will have a tremendous adverse economic impact on the implementation of the East Dublin
Specific Plan(it will set back"E.D."5-10 years).
2. The phasing of this project and remaining Alameda County lands should provide for development of the
East Dublin Specific Plan within 18-24 months,or as quickly as we are annexed to the City(avoid a
major economic impact).
3. The City Planning Commission and Council should solicit and encourage the Merchant's Association,
and the West Dublin business community to have an active role in the phasing and development of the
Homart site and remaining Alameda County property (insure the survival of existing merchants short
and long term).
4. The existing Dublin merchants may wish to place the Homart project approval on the June ballot if thier
financial impacts are ignored or unmitigated.
5. Architectural guidelines need to be imposed upon this project as well as all remaining Alameda County
property,and should be harmonious with the East Dublin Specific Plan architectural guidelines.
6. This project will establish the tone and quality for East Dublin,and may misinterpret the goals and
objectives established during the 7 years of planning East Dublin.
7. Homart should be required to produce a scale model of the entire project for public review and comment.
NOT JUST A CONCEPT!!(Is this project the"flagship"for East Dublin?)
8. The"conceptual"rendering displayed in the council chambers is dramatically inconsistent with goals
and objectives of the East Dublin architectural guidelines.
9. The plan will adversely impact the East Dublin 580 business corridor profile. This project simply does
not fit the 7 years of planning East Dublin and the$850,000.00 expenditure for the various consultants.
10. Is this project what staff,WRT Planning Consultants and City leaders had in mind for the past 7 years
as a catalyst?
11. What are the staffs preliminary conditions of approval for the Homart project? (architecturally,
aesthetically?)Are the East Dublin land owners benefitting,ie.sewer,water, infrastructure,etc. City
needs to generate a"Wish List"in the development agreement with reimbursement considerations..
12. Alameda County has recently hired a land/project manager for the entire 600 acre County property.
The objective is to aggressively pursue and develop the entire County property. And not be concerned
about what could happen to East Dublin economic timing for development.
RECEIVED '
January 12,1995 J K) John DiManto
171995
"JRLIN PLANNINr
WREN
western real estate news
500 South Airport Blvd.
South San Francisco CA 94080
BULK RATE
.� ,n C; U. S. POSTAGE $-
San .lose Constritcti.on _ PAID I ob
�' tf � .SAN FRANCISC CA
1210 Coleman Ave. 9
95050
PERMIT NO 133
Santa Cl.ara CAa
POSTMI-1STEf�:
DIME DATED MF%iTE1A%IAL
1
(Continued from front cover)
Wherehouse Records' commitment for over
11,500 square feet has made it one of the newest
five anchors for the retail project. The company
is the largest specialty retailer of pre-recorded
music in the western United States, offering home
entertainment merchandise, music, movies,
small electronics and video games. Wherehouse
Records also plans to open another 30 new
stores annually over the next several years.
Casual dining is the food industry's fastest -
growing category and The Olive Garden is building
a 300-seat, 9,200-square foot freestanding
restaurant facility to take advantage of the growing
population of the Las Vegas Valley. In 1995, the
company plans to add at least 40 restaurants in the
United States as corporate sales continue to grow on
the strength of its ongoing rapid new unit expansion.
Swensen's Ice Cream is now teaming with
Heidi's Frozen Yogurt to provide an ice cream
Camelot Park ...
(Continued from front cover)
The new family fun park, to be called Palace
Park of the Foothill Ranch, will feature a variety
of electronic and high-tech games, rides and
attractions for the entire family. Plans include
three 18-hole miniature golf courses, a Grand
Prix -style race track, a junior Grand Prix track, a
bumper boat pond, all -speed batting cages and a
large theme castle. The castle will house a large
game room complete with arcades, video and
virtual reality games and a high-tech laser tag
game as well as a sit-down snack area and party
facilities. The family entertainment center is
and yogurt combination store. This new concept
of combining franchises with several well-known
trademarks under one roof, is fast becoming one
of the latest leading retailing trends. While
Swensen's serves premium ice cream that is all
natural, Heidi's frozen yogurt is made with fresh
fruit, whole fruit puree and real yogurt cultures.
Starbucks Corporation, the largest coffee
retailer in North America is opening a specialty
coffee house at Green Valley Town Center.
Green Valley Town Center's mediterranean-
style buildings, open courtyards and grand plaza
presents a unique shopping, dining and enter-
tainment environment. Scheduled for a Spring
1995 opening, the new tenants join United
Artists Theatre, Mountasia Family Fun Center,
Leaps & Bounds, Crocodile Cafe and the Green
Valley Athletic Club. American Nevada Corpo-
ration is Greenspun, Inc. company.
scheduled to open early summer of 1995.
The company is building a park in the
Pleasanton/Livermore area.
Developed by Foothill Ranch Company
conjunction with Newport Beach -based Pacific
Development Group, Foothill Ranch Towne
Centre is located on 163 acres of the 2,743-acre
master planned community of Foothill Ranch.
Major tenants for the center include Wal-Mart,
Mervyns, Target, PetsMart, HomeBase Ralph's
and Old Navy Clothing Company among others.
SAN jOSE CONST. CO
Homart
(Continued from front cover)
The center's value -oriented tenants may feature
merchandise including sporting goods, linens,
books, ready-to-wear apparel, computers, office
supplies and furniture. Lease discussions also are
under way for a 20- to 24-screen movie complex.
While Homart negotiates with potential
tenants, Alameda County officials are finalizing
infrastructure plans for the 930-acre master -
planned community in the Dublin area, and are
conducting engineering studies for construction
drawings to provide sewer and water service to
the site.
The City of Dublin has approved both a
general and a specific plan for the mixed -use
development of the Santa Rita property,
including the proposed Tri-Valley Crossings
property, county land, and additional land to the
east of the site.
The leasing agent of the project is Sandra
Weck of CB Commercial.
,Hewson ...
(Continued from front cover)
Hewson estimates the building will be
completed in May 1995. "The key to the
marketability of this facility is its flexibility. The
ground floor contains nearly 108,000 square
feet, but a mezzanine level can be added at any
time to increase the overall size to over 212,000
square feet," says Hewson.
The new facility, located at 4750 E. Hilton
Ave., is situated just south of Sky Harbor
International Airport. While Hewson is currently
seeking a single -user for the facility, the firm
will consider leasing the building as a multi -
tenant property.
Will -Hayes Architects of Phoenix designed
the building and construction is being handled
by Suft Construction Corporation.
State...
(Continued from front cover)
State Floor Supply, located in Olympia for the
past 12 years, was purchased last May by Bill Jacob
and partner, Roger Harding. Harding has 18 years
of installation and inspection experience as
operations manager for a local decorating center.
Commerce Place is a 57-acre development
suitable for commercial and office use. It is part
of the 1,153-acre Meridian Campus planned
community that includes seven phases of
development built out over 25 to 30 years. The
community incorporates residential neighbor-
hoods, a championship 18-hole public golf
course scheduled to open in March 1995, parks,
more than 200 acres of open space, and land set
aside for schools.
Offering you the ability to
secure interim, permanent,
participating debt and joint
venture financing for:
Retail • Industrial
Apartments
Office • Hotels
Mobile Home Parks
Senior -Living Facilities
Finwncial
Corp.
part of The MIG Companies, a
$3.2 billion fully integrated
real estate investment manager.
6, F_�At Px&_
San Francisco, California
(415) 395-7700
The MIG Companies
Atlanta • Chicago • Cincinnati • Dallas
Detroit • Houston • Las Vegas • Los Angeles
• Minneapolis • Philadelphia • Phoenix
Portland (OR) • Sacramento • San Francisco
San Mateo • Seattle • West Palm Beach
New Tenants For
Green Valley Town Center
HENDERSON, NV — American Nevada
Corporation has recently leased more than 24,000
square feet at its new 70-acre Green Valley
Town Center project in Henderson, Nevada,
according to Tony Traub, president and CEO
for American Nevada Corp.
Four National corporations have signed up at
the newest retail complex in the thriving city of
Henderson, located just south of Las Vegas.
They include Wherehouse Records, The Olive
Garden, Swensen's Ice Cream with Heidi's
Yogurt and Starbucks Coffee Company.
(Continued on back cover)
Hewson Breaks Ground On
100,000+ Sq. Ft. Spec Industrial
Facility Near Sky Harbor
PHOENIX, AZ — The Hewson Company has
broken ground on a speculative office/industrial
facility, located within the Phoenix Airport
Center at University Drive and the Hohokam
Expressway. The 108,000 square foot building
will be structured to accommodate mezzanine
space, allowing expansion up to a total of
212,000 square feet.
(Continued on back cover)
Camelot Park Family Entertainment
Centers Announce Plans For
6-Acre Family Fun Park
FOOTHILL RANCH, CA — Foothill Ranch
Company and Camelot Park Family Entertain-
ment Centers have announced plans to build a
6-acre family entertainment park within Foothill
Ranch Towne Centre.
The proposed family entertainment park,
located at the corner of Bake Parkway and the
Foothill Transportation Corridor, will be part of
the retail center's major entertainment
component that already includes AMC Theatres
and Blockbuster Music.
This latest transaction, a 34.5-year ground
lease with Foothill Ranch Company, is part of
fifty acres recently added to the Towne Centre's
site plan to accommodate a growing list of
tenants eager to join the project. According to
the National Research Bureau, Foothill Ranch
Towne Centre is now the largest power center in
the United States.
(Continued on back cover)
DUBLIN, CA — Retail developer Homart
Community Centers and Alameda County officials
are proceeding with development plans for Tri-
Valley Crossings, a proposed 800,000-square-foot
community shopping center in Dublin, approx-
imately 20 miles southeast of Oakland. The 75-
acre site is located two miles east of I-680 on the
north side of I-580 at Hacienda Drive in Dublin.
The site is part of Alameda County's 930-acre
Santa Rita property.
Homart plans to begin construction in first
quarter 1995, with retailers opening for business in
late fall 1995.
"Our proposed Tri-Valley Crossings com-
munity center offers value -oriented retailers the
ideal location to reach the underserved Tri-
Valley market," said Glenn Anderson, Homart
development director, Western Region. "It will
be the first opportunity for retailers to locate in a
major power center close to the I-680 and I-580
interchange. Retailers are very interested.
The Tri-Valley Crossings center will be very
visible from I-580 and will be easily accessible
from the highway. In addition, the retail center is
one-half mile east of a new Bay Area Rapid Transit
station currently under construction.
(Continued on back cover)
State Floor Supply Plans Expansion
Commerce Plaza
LACEY, WA — Mike Massoth, project manager
for Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company
announced the first commercial sale of the
Commerce Place at Meridian Campus. The
company is developing the project in partnership
with Vicwood Washington Company.
The sale was negotiated by Vanessa Herzog
of Northwest Corporate Real Estate. Herzog is
the exclusive representative of the Commerce
Place industrial park.
State Floor Supply, an Olympia company
providing materials and equipment to flooring
laminate installers, has purchased 40,000 square
feet of land to build a 10,000-square foot
warehouse/sales. facility in Commerce Place,
the area's newest commercial complex. Ground-
breaking for the new building will begin as soon
as construction financing is finalized, with
completion anticipated in summer of 1995.
(Continued on back cover)
o c;cQ Lib by
kln(gT
• Hayward, CA 94544
A party may change address by giving notice in writing to
the other parties and thereafter all notices shall be
addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall
be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if
mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being
deposited in the United States Mail.
24. Agreement is Entire Understanding.
This Agreement is executed in three duplicate
originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.
This Agreement and all Exhibits attached hereto
contain the sole and entire agreement between the parties
concerning the Project. The parties acknowledge and agree
that none of them has made any representations with respect
to the subject matter of this Agreement or any
representations inducing the execution and delivery hereof,
except such representations as are specifically set forth
herein, and each party acknowledges that it has relied on
its own judgment in entering into this Agreement.
25. Meaning of "DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY".
DEVELOPER and COUNTY will provide CITY with a
memorandum signed by both parties specifying which party
will be obligated to perform the obligations herein. This
memorandum will be provided prior to issuance of the first
building permit for phase 1 and phase 2, respectively, and
will be incorporated into this Agreement at such time.
26. Status
Upon the request of DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY, CITY
agrees that it shall certify to DEVELOPER and/or COUNTY, or
to any prospective purchaser or lender of DEVELOPER's and/or
COUNTY's interest in the Property, as to the status of the
completion of any obligation to be performed by DEVELOPER
and/or COUNTY under this Agreement. CITY shall respond to
such a request within thirty (30) days following the receipt
thereof.
27. Exhibits.
The following documents are referred to in this
Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as
though set forth in full:
Exhibit A-1 Map of Property
January 17, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
16
Exhibit A-2 Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B Additional Conditions
28 . Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the
performance of each and every covenant and obligation to be
performed by the parties hereunder.
29 . Recordation. CITY shall record this Agreement
when the legal description (Exhibit A-2) is attached, as
provided in paragraph 1, which shall occur within ten days
after CITY executes this Agreement .
30 . Counterparts . This Agreement may be executed in
three separate counterparts, each of which shall constitute
an original .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first
above written.
January 17, 1995
114\memo\52\devlpmnt.cln
17
CtMP PARKS
EXHIBIT A-1
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
(N.T.S.)
zc xr. I o 0
.CopYgKD
f�I�
DALAMEDA
UBLIM
COUNTY /
WAREHOUSES
HACIENDA DRIVE 'r
OVERC.ROSSING
iect Pro
DUBLIN BLVD.
�-TASSAJARA
CREEK
BRIDGE
SANTA RITA ROAD
OVERCRCSSING ✓�
�,�r
JN
LL
4jq:
N
IraFaulk
c 0 N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S
.........
iz; ji.i �31
Pd
Z'
Ll
f
I is
j
7 11 ij;j M,
1A
z L
it
tv!
"Al
IM
N� Mq
-0j
2
T------------------
J1
i Fi
Lj�! t
Exhibit A- 1
ra
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 17, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Tasha Huston, Associate Planner jt
SUBJECT: PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map Amendment&Development
Agreement Amendment
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Request for limited amendments to Phase I of the approved Tentative Map
and Tentative Map Conditions (Tract 5766) and the approved
Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The limited
amendments involve a change in pad elevations, minor lot line adjustments,
,.� a request to reduce the width of the creek access road from 12 feet to 8
feet wide and provide a creek access road and additional staging areas on
the north side of the creek, and amendments to various conditions of
approval related to the proposed changes.
APPLICANT: California Pacific Homes, Inc.
One Civic Plaza, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Martha Buxton, Agent
PROPERTY OWNER: California Pacific Homes, Inc., 1 Civic Plaza, Suite 300, Newport Beach,
CA 92660. Phone#:(714)721-2770
LOCATION: West of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive, south of Winding Trail
Lane.
ASSESSOR PARCEL: 941-110-1-9; 941-110-2
PARCEL SIZE: ±147 acres (Phases 1 and 2)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low Density Single-Family Residential;
Open Space, Stream Corridor
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: Planned Development District; Vacant Agricultural land with grazing use.
COPIES TO: Applicant
PACE Or owner
ITEM NO. 11.2 Address File
SURROUNDING LAND
/''N USE AND ZONING: North:Planned Development District with residential use;Alameda
County Agricultural District with grazing use.
South:R-1-B-E District with residential use;Agricultural District with
church use;Planned Development District with grazing use.
East: Planned Development District with residential use.
West: Planned Development District with grazing use,Agricultural
District with grazing use.
ZONING HISTORY:
PA 87-045: On February 27,1989,City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment to allow
Low Density Single Family Residential and Open Space,Stream Corridor land use
designations and policy revisions,for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. Along with
this approval,and on the same date,the City Council certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report on the project,with Findings and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
PA 89-062: On November 27,1989,City Council approved Planned Development Prezoning,
Tentative Map,and Annexation proposal,for 180 single family units and±96 acres
of open space,for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. On May 23,1991,LAFCO
certified Annexation No.7,bringing the approximately 147 acre Hansen Ranch
property into the Dublin City limits.
PA 89-115: On May 14, 1990,City Council denied General Plan Amendment,Planned
Development Prezoning,and Tentative Map to redesignate open space for 10
single family custom lots.
PA 90-018: On March 19,1991 the Applicant applied for Site Development Review for
Residential floorplans for the 180 lot project,then requested that the application be
withdrawn in order to facilitate the redesign of the single-family units. The
Planning Department closed the file,in response to the withdrawal request from
the Applicant.
PA 89-062: On December 2,1991,the Planning Commission approved a time extension of the
Planned Development Prezoning,to May 27,1992,coinciding with the expiration
date of the approved Tentative Map 5766.
PA 91-096 On February 18,1992 the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 92-013 and
92-014 approving PA 91-096 Hansen Ranch Conditional Use Permit(approving a
minor modification to the approved General Provisions for the Hansen Ranch
Planned Development Project),and Hansen Ranch Site Development Review
(SDR)for the First Phase(lots 1-72)of the 180 lot Hansen Ranch Project.
PA 91-099 On February 24,1992,the City Council adopted the Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement Ordinance(PA 91-099),approving a Development
Agreement between the City and The Donald L.Bren Company(Hansen Ranch
property owners)for the Hansen Ranch project. The Development Agreement
was entered into by the City on March 25,1992,and is effective for an initial term
of eight years. All previous project approvals are automatically extended for the
term of the Development Agreement. (PA 91-099).
n
FACE 2 OF CI
-2-
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS•
/'N Current City procedures require that an amendment to an approved Tentative Map be processed under
the same procedure used for the original approval,or the most comparable procedure provided in the
Zoning Ordinance. This would require that an amendment be subject to Public Hearings and the review
and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Section 9.4(1)of the approved Development Agreement provides for amendments to the agreement,or
minor amendments to project approvals,to be processed without a public hearing under specific terms
and when the amendments are minor. Upon analysis of the requested amendments,it has been
determined by the Planning Director that the proposed revisions to the project are not minor,and
therefore the minor amendment process of the Development Agreement cannot be used. Due to this
determination,the procedures for modification would be subject to the applicable zoning,subdivision,
and other land use ordinances,according to Section 9.4(2)of the Development Agreement.
Therefore,Section 8.12.120 of the Dublin Municipal Code would be applied to the application,which
requires that an amendment to a Development Agreement be processed through the same procedure as
used for entering into an agreement in the first instance. This process includes being subject to Public
Hearings and the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council,as well as an Initial
Study pursuant to CEQA,.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study has been conducted for the project,and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),State
CEQA Guidelines,and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will not have
a significant effect on the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the January 17,1995 Planning Commission hearing,as well as the
February 13, 1995 City Council Hearing,was published in the local newspaper,mailed to adjacent
property owners,and posted in public buildings and at the project site.
BACKGROUND-
Development applications for the Hansen Hill Ranch project were first approved in February of
1989 with the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report to
allow Low Density Single Family Residential(0.5-3.8 units per acre),Open Space,Stream Corridor
land use designations and General Plan policy revisions relating to Land Use,Circulation,Safety and
Conservation,for the Hansen Ranch project. Additional project approvals occurred in November,1989
with the Prezoning of the site to a Planned Development District,and Tentative Map for 180 single
family lots. Annexation of the property into the City of Dublin was certified in May,1991,and the
Dublin City Council adopted the Hansen Ranch Development Agreement Ordinance in February, 1992.
After the initial tentative map approval was granted,the applicants decided to process the
subdivision in two phases. Phase 1 of the subdivisions involves 72 lots,and Phase 2 involves the
remaining 108 lots. The current request for amendments concerns items in Phase 1 of the tentative map.
These changes are being requested due to issues which were identified after additional studies were
conducted by the applicant following approval of the Tentative Map and Development agreement. It is
anticipated that the applicant will also be requesting amendments to various aspects of Phase 2 of the
Tentative Map in the near future.
ANALYSIS•
Martha Buxton,representing California Pacific Homes,Inc.,has applied for a Tentative Map
Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment to allow modifications to the approved Tentative
/1 Map and Development Agreement for Phase 1(72 lots)of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision. The
requested amendments apply to limited aspects of the Tentative Map and Development Agreement
approvals.
=ACt 3 OF
3
TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT
/'1 The Tentative Map Amendment request is to allow for modification of Tentative Map 5766
involving minor revisions to the lot and street configurations,and changes in the pad elevations,most
notably concerning lots 26-40. Lot lines and street configurations within the Tentative Map have been
slightly adjusted in order to provide less steep road grades for some streets,to make less severe cuts into
the hillsides,and to generally reduce the overall area of grading for Phase 1. The Applicant's request to
modify the lot and road configurations could be considered a minor modification of the approved
Tentative Map.
Pad elevations have changed on several lots,mainly resulting in higher pad elevations for the
units. The most notable area of pad elevation changes occurs on proposed lots 26 through 40,on the
cul-de-sac adjacent to Hansen Drive. Lots on this cul-de-sac as shown on the approved Tentative Map
were previously labeled as lots 24 through 39. The changes were requested in order to make less severe
cuts into the hills for pad grading,and avoid potential problems with slope stability affecting the homes
on Hansen Drive. In this area,pad elevation changes range from 2 to 21 feet. The most noticeable
aspect of the elevation changes would be the visual impacts from higher house pads,especially as they
relate to the homes on Hansen Drive. The elevations of house pads on the proposed plan for the five lots
near Hansen Drive with the greatest increase are:
Lot 30- 21 feet higher,
Lot 31- 21 feet higher,
Lot 32- 19 feet higher,
Lot 33- 14 feet higher,and
Lot 34- 11 feet higher.
A graphic display developed by the applicant which illustrates the differences in the approved pad
elevations versus the proposed elevations will be available for review at the Public Hearing before the
Planning Commission on Tuesday,January 17,1995. Through analysis of photographs and research of
the visual impacts addressed in the EIR for the project,the visual impact which could potentially result
from the modifications to pad elevations has been determined to not be significant. However,the
increases may be noticeable to the adjacent residents. An option available to address concerns with the
impacts of higher elevations is to limit the height of homes on lots 30 through 34 to a single story.
The applicant is also requesting modification of Condition number 76 of the City Council
Resolution#130-89 Approving Tentative Map 5766,Concerning PA 89-062,Tentative Map Conditions
of Approval. This condition,along with a condition of approval in the Development Agreement,requires
that a 12 foot wide creek access road be constructed in the open space area along the creek. As
approved,the road's primary purpose is to provide access to the creek for maintenance and repairs,
emergency fire and police access,as well as to provide a recreational hiking path. The current request is
to change the width of this access road along the south side of the creek bank from 12 feet wide to 8 feet
wide. The applicant has indicated that the grading and retaining walls necessary for a 12 foot wide road
would be excessive,but could be substantially reduced if the road width is reduced.
During initial discussions with staff,the applicant proposed reducing the road to four feet wide.
However,it was noted that a four foot wide road would not allow any standard vehicles to use the
roadway,which could pose problems for maintenance or in emergency situations. Therefore,an 8 foot
wide road was determined to be the minimum allowable for maintenance and emergency purposes. The
subsequent proposal to reduce the width of the road to 8 feet wide was reviewed by the applicable City
Departments and other agencies,and several additional concerns were raised.
The needs of the Public Works Department for maintenance and repair work to the creek includes
access for large equipment such as tractors and backhoes. The minimum road width for such equipment
to maneuver would be 12 feet wide. Staff is recommending that if the eight-foot wide road on the south
side of the creek is accepted,a 12 foot wide access road will be needed along the north side of the creek.
This would include use of an existing road along the creek west of Martin Canyon Road,on the adjacent
property north of thg project site,which would be a private road,used by the City only for maintenance
FACE OF
-4-
of,and emergency access to,the creek area. Also,the proposed 6-foot wide aggregate base access road
along the north side of the creek east of Martin Canyon Road would need to be 12 foot wide,and fenced
off and used only for maintenance and emergency access. An additional requirement recommended to be
added as a condition is to provide an area for access to the creek between the lots off of the Silvergate
cul-de-sac(Lots 6,7,and 8)and the creek bank. This area is illustrated by a"Staff Study"which is
included as a part of Exhibit A. A condition of approval has been added to address this requirement.
The above requirements will provide the City with a creek access trail,culvert access,and a road
along the north side of the creek of adequate width to enable emergency and maintenance vehicles access
and maneuverability. Because the path on the south side of the creek would now mainly be used as a
public hiking trail,it will be referred to in the conditions of approval as the access trail. The 12-foot wide
road on the north side of the creek will be referred to as the access road. The applicant has concurred
with the above recommendations and requirements.
Another staff concern has been raised which is related to providing access to the creek area from
the north. The primary access to the creek for maintenance,repair,and emergency vehicles will be
provided with the access road on the north side of the creek via Martin Canyon Road. In its current
configuration,Martin Canyon Road ends with a blunt dead-end,which creates a nuisance for street
maintenance with trash collecting in the street corners. Staff is recommending that improvements be
made to the stub street where it currently stops near the project's north property line,involving a cul-de-
sac bulb at the end of the street. This will bring the street into compliance with City street standards,
enable more efficient maintenance to avoid trash buildup,and provide an improved turnaround for large
emergency vehicles and maintenance equipment. However,the applicant does not concur with this
condition.
Conditions of approval have been included in the resolution which would address issues with
street grades,curve radii,and other aspects of the requested revisions to the lot and street configurations.
Additional conditions of approval have been incorporated into the resolution to address accessibility
/'' concerns with the request to reduce the road width on the south side of the creek. With these conditions
of approval,staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map Amendment.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
The Development Agreement Amendment request is to allow modification of the approved
Development Agreement conditions involving the creek access road discussed above.The conditions of
approval affected by the requested modifications are contained in Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B to the
Development agreement,and involve the width of the access road,the timing of development of the road,
and the extension of a creek access road off of the site. The applicant is requesting that condition(a.)of
this subparagraph be reworded to allow for an eight-foot wide road,and that the road not be required to
be constructed entirely within Phase 1 of the project. The request is also for deletion of Condition(b.)to
eliminate the requirement that an access road serving the open space area be constructed beyond the
northwest boundary of the site.
Regarding the request to reduce the width of the road on the south side of the creek,concerns
with this issue have been discussed in the Tentative Map section above. If the request is granted,
conditions of approval would be recommended to address concerns with the reduced road width.
Regarding the phased construction of access roads,conditions of approval would also be
recommended to address concerns of maintenance and access. Staff recommends requiring temporary
cul-de-sacs at the end of the access road and access trail as built in Phase 1,to provide turnarounds for
emergency and maintenance vehicles. When the roads are extended in Phase 2,turnarounds would be
needed at the ultimate ends of the roads. Also,the recommended conditions state that when the creek
area is dedicated to the city for maintenance of the public open space,the City would accept,and be
t " responsible for maintaining,only the improved access road and access trail on the project property,and
the open space and creek areas which are accessed from these roads. Additionally,the creek access road
and access trail should be provided in improved form for that phase of the project which they serve,prior
to occupancy of any unit in that phase. This would address concerns with residents using a road or trail
PACE O
-5-
that is under construction,unimproved or inaccessible in open space or creek areas,as well as providing
emergency access to this area.
/'\
Finally,the applicant has requested that the requirement of Condition(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2
of Exhibit B of the Development Agreement be deleted. The condition refers to a requirement for
grading and rocking an area in which a creek access road was previously proposed to extend beyond the
project boundary. With the new proposal,an eight-foot wide access trail is proposed to extend to the
west end of the property south of the creek and within the project boundary. This eight foot wide access
trail would be adequate for access to and maintenance of the open space area,and would eliminate the
need to provide the previously proposed access road off the project site for creek maintenance. Staff
recommends deletion of Condition(b.).
PUBLIC CONCERNS
Public Notice of the Negative Declaration and of Public Hearings to be held on this project was
mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site,and was published and posted in public buildings
and at the project site. Several nearby residents have inquired about the project,and the City received
letters of comment from several residents. The main issues raised in the letters include the following:
1. Additional traffic in the neighborhood,especially on Silvergate Drive
2. Dirt from construction work
3. School impacts
4. Annexation and development of this property
A brief discussion of these issues in response to the letters of comment would be appropriate.
In general,the issues which are being raised relate to issues surrounding the development project as a
whole. It is important to note that the various Hansen Hill Ranch project applications have been
approved by the city in various stages beginning in 1989. The current application before the City is a
request for minor amendments to the Tentative Map and Development agreement,concerning only
limited aspects of the approvals. The question of whether development should occur on this site at all,
and what impacts will result,has been discussed and analyzed in the EIR and during previous approvals.
The current requested amendments do not affect the basic project annexation,land uses,number of units,
or type of residential development.
One of the letters received questions how this project was annexed to the City for development,
considering the voter opinions in the last election. It also questions whether Phase 2 of the project has
been approved,and what notices were mailed to surrounding home owners. The Hansen Hill project
General Plan Amendment and EIR were adopted by the Dublin City Council on February 27,1989. The
Hansen Ranch annexation was approved by the City Council on November 27,1989,along with a
Planned Development Prezoning,and a Tentative Map,as noted earlier in this staff report. Public
notices of the project applications involving public hearings are required to be made by various
procedures,such as publication,posting,and direct mailing,according to state and local laws and
ordinances.
Regarding the issue of additional traffic,the Environmental Impact Report on the Hansen Hill
Ranch Project (the"EIR")was prepared in December of 1987,and certified by the City on February 27,
1989. This EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA,and addressed issues and environmental
impacts identified as potentially significant in the City of Dublin's Initial Study of the proposed project.
Traffic impacts were discussed in the EIR on pages 3-101 through 3-110. Impacts from the
buildout of 282 dwelling units were analyzed at various intersections,and along several roadway
segments,including Silvergate Drive. The analysis of impacts to traffic volumes on roadway segments
included analyzing not only the existing situation plus anticipated traffic from the project itself,but also
/'1 the cumulative impacts considering build-out of other residential projects west of San Ramon Road,and
north and west of Silvergate Drive,as well as the build-out of downtown Dublin.
•
FACE
-6-
The EIR discussion of traffic impacts includes analyzing both the physical capacity of roadways,
as well as the"Environmental Capacity". Environmental capacity is a term used to express the volume of
traffic on a roadway which will cause residents to express concern about issues such as difficulty in
backing out of driveways into the street,safety of children playing in front yards or on sidewalks,noise,
speed of traffic,air pollutants,etc. As stated in the EIR on page 3-105,the"perception of tolerable
traffic levels is very subjective and varies"among neighborhoods and individuals. In the opinion of the
consultant preparing the EIR,based upon experience with responding to residential concerns about traffic
volumes,a reasonable standard for environmental capacity of a roadway would be 40%of the physical
capacity of the roadway.
The projected existing-plus-project traffic volumes were determined to be within not only the
physical capacity of the roadways,but also within the"environmental capacity limits". The projected
cumulative impacts of the project,considering build-out of other residential projects in the area,would
result in traffic volumes within the environmental capacity of Silvergate Drive at all locations except
between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive. On this segment,volumes would exceed the
environmental capacity of 6,000 vehicles per day by 15 percent. As stated in the EIR on page 3-109,
"while no operational or safety problems would result from the future traffic increase on Silvergate Drive,
residents along this section of Silvergate Drive may notice an increase in noise and inconvenience in
backing out of their driveways."
Suggested mitigation measures to address the impact of exceeding the environmental capacity for
that segment of Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive included reducing the
project size,reducing the cumulative effects of other projects,providing sole access to Hansen Ranch
from Dublin Boulevard,or encouraging the use of the Dublin Boulevard access. During the project
review process,the Hansen Ranch development was reduced in size to include 180 units. In the City
Council Resolution No.019-89 Making Findings pursuant to CEQA,Certifying the EIR,and including a
Statement of Overriding Considerations,the traffic volume impact of exceeding the environmental
capacity of the portion of Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive were not
e"'\ considered significant.
Regarding the issue of impacts to residents from dirt or dust from construction work,Air Quality,
including dust and temporary construction related impacts,was discussed in the EIR on pages 3-116
through 3-127. Condition of Approval number 82 for Tentative Map 5766 requires that areas
undergoing grading and all other construction activities shall be watered or other dust-palliative measures
used to prevent dust,as conditions warrant. This requirement is based upon the suggested mitigation
measures of the EIR for this impact,on page 3-125 of the ER.
Regarding the issue of school impacts,this item was discussed in the ER on pages 3-78 through
3-81. The analysis of impacts to school capacities determined that the school capacities had adequate
surplus capacity to accommodate the students projected to be generated from this project. This analysis
assumed that the projected number of students to be generated by the project would be 56,based upon
the Murray School District's average generation rate of 0.2 students per dwelling unit and a total of 282
dwelling units for the project.
The cumulative impacts resulting from development of other residential projects north of the
Hansen Ranch project were also addressed in the ER. The total number of students projected to need
placement in schools from cumulative projects would exceed the capacity at Nielsen School by 68.
However,the school was utilizing portable classrooms and had room on the grounds at the time the EIR
was prepared for more portable classrooms to accommodate the 68 person surplus. As stated in the EIR
on page 3-79,"The District does not anticipate significant adverse impacts from the proposed project
given the existing surplus capacity and space for portable classrooms at the Nielsen School,as well as the
two unused schools", (which had been closed due to decreasing enrollments).
Other issues addressed in the EIR related to School impacts include the cumulative development
impacts of busing and safety programs. The implementation measures recommended that the School
District implement an impact fee to be applied to new housing to mitigate development impacts. The
FAG ?OF
-7-
School District currently charges an impact fee of$1.72 per square foot for each new residential dwelling
unit built in the city. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the unit.
SUMMARY
The application has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies,and their
comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. The applicant has indicated
agreement with all conditions of approval,with the exception of the improvements to the cul-de-sac bulb
at the stub of Martin Canyon Road. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration(Exhibit B)
and the Applicant's request for a Tentative Map Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment,
subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolutions attached(Exhibit C&D),respectively,including
adoption of the findings required by Section 8.12.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATIONS•
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 Draft Resolutions(Exhibits B,C,&D)relating to PA 94-054,or give Staff
and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions:
1. Draft Resolution approving the Negative Declaration(Exhibit B),
2. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map
Amendment(Exhibit C),
3. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development
Agreement Amendment(Exhibit D)
ATTACYMENTS
Exhibit A: Project Plans: Reduced copy of Tentative Map,limits of Grading Exhibit,Creek Access
Road Exhibit,and Staff Study
Exhibit B Draft Resolution Approving Negative Declaration
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Map Amendment
Exhibit D: Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Agreement Amendment
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Location/Zoning Map
Attachment 2: Applicant's Written Statement
Attachment 3: Approved Tentative Map 5766
Attachment 4: City Council Resolution No. 130-89 for PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative Map
Attachment 5: Development Agreement for Hansen Hill Ranch project
TICE c:\planning\tasha\hansen\94054SR3.doc
FAH OF
-8-
N IO'09'05"W
E��r�
C1919"
'DUBLIN PLANN
AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP
SUBDIVISION 5766
OWNER/DEVELOPER :
CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
ENGINEER:
ADAMS STREETER CIVIL ENGINEERS INC.
15 CORPORATE PARK
IRVINE, CA 92714
NOTES:
1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY 1929 SEA LEVEL DATUM
2. CONTOUR INTERVAL : 2 FEET
3. EXISTING USE : VACANT
4. PROPOSED ZONING : PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
5. LOT SIZE : 5,700 S.F. (MIN)
TOTAL LOTS : 72 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
6. WATER SUPPLY : DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
(ANNEXATION TO DISTRICT REQUIRED)
7. SEWER DISPOSAL : DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
(ANNEXATION TO DISTRICT REQUIRED)
8. ALL STREETS SHALL BE DEDICATED TO 'PUBLIC
ACREAGE
SUMMARY
TOTAL AREA
146.84
ACRES
PHASE 1
43.58
ACRES
LOT AREA
13.13
ACRES
STREET AREA
5.91
ACRES
= 11'26'26"
OPEN SPACE
24.54
ACRES
= 800.00'
= 15934'
N74'29'12'E
1.18'
wo A
C�
L0
Z =
O U
Fn Z
5;�
J
mJo
(n = V
I a
Z�
aLJQ
�Z<
Q
IJ =
Q
Z
LiJ
F—
Z
J
m
O
lull
440
4274 - 435 l /• /
AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP
v (X432.1 SUBDIVISION 5766
430
•\ 1 J i . \ -
\-A41
GAGE 6,sC (:
1
427,7 X 42519 X 1
425
1
l 1
f 12
424 1
• �� "�• 17� 1 / 1 ���� �• dos - �zs� 4 S. �41, .�'422
aq.ft�
x O P=423
- - - - --
�� �� �s 4j 3o 4127 7 P=424 .793 s 6.747 (41
X423.5 �• 8. �• 5.793 Oq.ft• 60x41a.5 L [*
y,
5 ft.
r h I 1 `Bo
f 44
2- -485 X- y Q6
190 ss zr 3 r J• P=424 +• �� H
es " . '- -- _ .� 8' WIDE AGGREGATE 2 sqs.fr .
495 BASE ACCESSTRAIL' qq rn �
41e
%+• l'i,7p •
vx 93 ap.5 8
17 O
j% 19f a O S P=49i 16 a µ is J„ P=424 y P-423 u5,792 sq.ft
Ill, 411,.f 9.105 af.a o BQ789 s.f ry _ :400 Oro 6,50 z4 a 6.125 s ft
P=500 _ '."a sto a' P-486 3 �� y. \ qi . w•u 1
I 20 420
=1504 41
x ¢1 L„5y 2 L-62� - - P=982 J. ;7•' K ;i6' - -___- 11
P °.S
9 e � 3
P=475
i �i "' P 510 - •*g �� 7.216 a.f. �,403 s.f.
J e ~ o \
T' T
qq
s.f ,t> \ �.q z• h 11 .- .1� cZo
a �1, k `• _ tl� 6.975. (may J -
-23`aP-440-_-
P=436 -
X z '4 -- 8.797 sJ.- 8,782 s.f.m
\ 7,633 s.f. 53-
a, 5 1 g
i
-
1 -
i
5
I I'
-4z 1 68
a
5 7.458 s.f. 45d. \ _ - �, cn .20•
C \ 0
1
5
C x m .
sz6.7 — — �— -
S30 n
`1` A P 528 '`2.. 7.731 1,4t
P, w?• P=520 \ - 1 c,7 1
- . s 28 9.521 s.f.
5 \ \ _
: --- - _ P=5 ,,��(( P=520
•d35.9 9,118 af. 8 0
P=528 ;q2 n8._. 4,, 430` a:o.e
x4 P=52s 4w.3
r^ 8,766 s.f. P=520 7 / ae31 x x
X i X45S.S 445.5 l92I12.4
p=5 6 V
♦T$Ij
7,517 s.f. !' a 32 ✓ ` I'I
Lw55 O 491.7 `- 4820
h
33 �. .478 s.f
39 P=527 5 8
\ 40 f P=542 °q� o 35 34 N 7,949�.f. •r
9,601 8.f. P=426 p=525s g sIP=525 r P=547 4Vi 8,204 s.f. 6,933 s.Y. 7,500-i.f, .� _ snXz4 -
6,932
3.
569. 86' 00' IS
\ T. 5135
r4' RW. BB' IS
1 �` S RE530
WAIL J y LLJ
540
i 524.7 SCALE
;:.
560— 1' = 40'
1533.9 O_
EZEIVED •:
R
DE 1 94 19 56;2
I 1 I r I
)UBLIN LANNIN .
I
i
U
6REET1
OF_5
ECEI'V'EI
°t� p�
�OI`CQ1919
n►UBLIN PLANNI
KE4-c-
IVV�D
�O 1 9 1994'lU6LlNlldNZNl'NEt(
>s o f o * o_ g 6 9,022 s.f. d�' ,�" _
9 es>s so vs s �o \ , h�P=677 P6,] IIP ----------------
lob \�!
P=6BO 3 m5' 1
>5 a,119 6.f.� 67 66
O sus 5
eo°9S'o> ° s > s Js s °Os 7,593 s.f. �ss7,1157s.�1� �4613 9.`� P 8.663 f• // sz ss s7o r 55
77'_ ]]�. `81'- 64'
X
� I 560
585,
I
X �o
600 \
791.7 %
/ I �
I
790-
785
I
,75 755
,
y _
711.4 '� 1 o75D I 'I
,I(y i.� 693.2 \1 I1
x7n.6 r / 1 =TZ,�",A
ROVEMENTS WITHIN THIS AREA 'i°o 1
1 1 -
THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS �b I
J
-aas -- - - �. �- �� l ,: - J 1 •ul 1� TATIVE TRACT MAP 5766. 6nea
lnl _
- -- X)23. o�aLANP]$ OF VALLEY GHRITI 4 X694.3 I s
F: 730 -�. 724.2 I . ! S X698.3 ( \ I
n5 - - - �' AN PF,NTER I is
� -720 � - - _ Xfi84.6 x 6 7 I I
I X G t 1 - % \
9.5 X
120.J J19.5 X J18.2 X I :•" � ` } .1 �'t 683.4
709
682.0. /If
%
ne.1 )T°'4 II ' x107.8 - ALL GRADING FOR INSPIRATION DR. \ _
x `�'� ]0s.6 ' - PER APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLANS
>zo 720.4 i 1 X710.1 ` f ., SUBDIVISION -5766X /I
Ql-
/5 ]20.J
- 4
', k.
x
1
� X e
X7,
)o
.x7093 705
, I f
120.E X I , `;l _ _ c'i •!I
9.7
1 1�
10,
1 720.3 X]055'` Ili J, '.'11 6fiIJ.4
1-
X '•i I 9
I
7021
] 9.J fi05 A 660 '' 6)5 II I
X
0 X J98 } 70X.1.fi/
\ J20.2 Sc I 1
I \1 \1 610 6
x)06s - T0i_s �0 yI� !.,f
_ 705.8 _ x616.0
�..�55
033
loo
1
;06T x.
,+::.•X70 ,509 X704.) ]03.1 `I X70J2 y..-6/)6'0 5 )'-__675 x�/,.�_ _670
x705.e 4i 704.8__• .. 6 V / / y rFb�` AA}
685` _ \y` - __ ,. J067 X705.5 _..., % _. J :..� - 4 +'/ [ it .fi65-f• A 639.1 X621.0
(0
rl-
In
OU
0 ZQ
><
0
m J
U) J
SHEET 4
oF�
.4Et'EIVED
P-0 �-
DEC 1 9 19
�I �� u
UBLIN NNIN
SEE SHEET 4
rr--qqX7111.5
'(--705 f, ✓ ::jl
0S. \ \` 720.6 n9.7 I I _ u`� 1t1 ` 59 z... W — _ 1 / • �F _ _ - _ ] IVY •• 675.
c! s
719.5 '!� X708.5-�
{\ r y -- _ B 1� I -] \ +II I •r (A. I e 613.4
\\Il 72^4 �! 1. �, 1 x]os5 /1 �, `.� i ; % 1 `, 1 •�1 �'j'�'�11 •. J,-. `,I \ I yyl
cod
1 70z.7
1 E 1
\,\ 719.7 720.R 719.9 �� q / 85 { 1 1\ \ / 1 I - 6 I
°Po V �� v - % 1, 7oJ.6
\ \ _ - sro 1 h"
\ I 702.5 777 - - 11 t
`\' x� l� h i
y X I kfi1d0 SOS k r / X \ - I - 6561
—03.3
seo �. 70
5 - ... ="-.. "� .._;� x \ T y x7o4s� { i -,x 7oJ.z �cP hyh _ -�,/• .'. i 1 I U
\ 6-X7049 1 ` h9 y, 680-�.... -6]5670 S/7{((71 t 1`/l J •��
690'.. .......� 77os z:..:.. p5 - X705.e x70.7 x
7048
_ X705.5 .q. 665
- --
670,
m
0
i
ra
66 •'.......
1
J f X
707.5
x
650
615- -/. .I C 1� -'... -70695
Af/ i
-690
- -- _ •\ \ - \ -- - - _665
_ .635 -___ _. f.� 1 . -680
..-675
X
625 ____ -THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THIS AREA
6M10 / 69x2 ARE THE SAME AS THE PPOPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LI l)
6,e t I -- SHOWN — r 64s / 629.5
A ON TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 5766. y'
1r{
% _/ /
I D �F AI L Y CIfiISTIAN CENTER�.{ ,5
OS i
It i
I/
635f1
ry 1-,l
\ 6]0 In
575 - 1 `, , \ 1 \r ` \\ �• \'\ - , / 0_�3 0
L ,I
F-
N 1.
N
n
F �' -
, 1
m / \ D]
A
645
75
rc
LLI
66a15 _ _ _ L. d - �4 :. \ - -- 610 I / �LZLI
\' \ • '.3 ss300 Z
o y Z --Boo LLI /, --
1 - _ s�3 - /. - - -- - -
• I'
590.
_ Z
ALL GRADING FOR INSPIRATION DRa �SCA-- - �s W
{ i / rY _ „r PER j1PPROVFD IMPROVEMENT. PLA S
SUB iVISIDN -SZ 6 ' _ _ _ 5n°_ �>•
I
.1•�
II\ Q
'K
570
s
565 %s —
4 549.6
/ I
_ _ - _. 560 �_ f— - / 1' 510
,.+--- _ — _ -535--
-- _ _ 0 -
.550 - 5t0
___--545 .. - - - _ _ _
5 1
•G k:i
525 '
DU9VN BLVD.3
�{ wIl,(I II +t
LEGEND
19891MTS Of GRADING
......... IWI I LIMTS OF GRADING
••• TRACT BOUNDARY LINE
/ AREAEEBB �
ADING
ADING (2.
BEYOND
19D4 GR85 ACRES)
AREA 19B4 GRADING
y
ENCROdgES BEVOID1989 GRADING 10.92 ACRES)
� X
�•.t+'; a ni 9 ) -/ J - �) I{ pw
t
�'lI ,rf (. ili �� 11 ♦� �� t,r 1 -
1
orra.Ao1+4
osflg4
r
I
i
ff
roN
`� 1ppq
i�' - \\1 ,�. / '� I (.;�
.1 yy
Z� UNE
RALT a«Ao
G'ENTL>R
PHASE I F w/ HANSEN RANCH
CITY OF DUBLIN , CA.
y F
"��) LIMITS OF GRADING EXHIBIT M�v
ADAMS STREFTER
SCALE : r e 80 CIVIL ENGINEERS INC.
U9,,1°1. mn
/ � Tz-Tz-sa
(D
555�7'
amc
mw
7
HAS
JrU HASE I
p-
v
ACCESS - HIKING TRAIL EXHIBIT
HANSEN RANCH.
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
r = 80'
ADAms STREFTER
CIVIL IWANFIRS INC.
'4Xll
_ - J _ • _,,,,.._-yam l � YY\\ z QU Q
- 1 .... � .. t l say . \... I�.0 U4 � _ �� \/1FO.• ¢__
z •
c
V � arF
_ I ,
� it
5 ,
1 � o r ? 1 s "oa v .� ram- 7',;7r �. / /' j / }�- � �' / � � a ,., a �v' 0.•--- - --
/ ,
dl
OD
tu
3'21 71 •� y;r:: ', . / ' n•-i46 lao� / f ti.-�.
'' .-- E6'06+1 »4iv �� 1 I� i .� M• .L1�StJ1 � V �-------
tf
1,Z<b+1 <® t \ 9• (DD ?
2v I ��
N F� ,' / /' £
9
_ � p r ` \• ��ZZ� k2 1 d�-r,,• -.� , ( i __l __-� t'4.`�I 'I� I � 3 � �' �t' (� .•' �� /, 1 1 --- .
f � � �� �a. �zfi_ t� , (� ® �. � � � 1 •,!�,I � ,� � _ �� �� ,III , iI J
i1
m
' k / A \F
, � � 'fir---�-'•�. -� . - 1 i / I l�l l l � � � � e�
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes, Inc., has filed an application requesting Tentative Map &
Development Agreement Amendments for the Hansen Ranch project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines 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, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration at a
public hearing on January 17, 1995; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
1. The Hansen Ranch Tentative Map & Development Agreement Amendments will not have
a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and
local environmental laws and guideline regulations.
3. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
TKH c:\planning\tasha\hansen\94054ND.doc
oF
EXHIBIT B
/'1 RESOLUTION NO.95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR A
MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP 5766 AND CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP
WHEREAS,California Pacific Homes,Inc.,requests approval of a Tentative Map Amendment
to Phase 1 of Tentative Map 5766,and to modify Condition No.76 of City Council Resolution No.
130-89,which approves Tentative Map 5766 concerning PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch project,
modifications which will permit a reduction in the required width of the creek access road referenced
therein,as well as other various minor changes to the subdivision configuration. A request for approval
of a Development Agreement Amendment to modify Conditions No.(a.)and(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2.
of Exhibit"B"of City of Dublin Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project is also being
requested,a modification which will permit the reduction in width of the Creek Access Road from 12 feet
to 8 feet,and allow for the phased construction of the road;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on January 17,
1995;and
WHEREAS,proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;and
WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to
the State CEQA Guidelines,and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will
not have a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS,the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally
approved;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE TT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
A. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations
and City Zoning and related ordinances.
B. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan as they apply to the
subject property.
C. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment will not result in the creation of significant environmental
impacts.
D. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare,or be injurious to property or public improvements.
/'\ E. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in that the site is indicated to be
geologically satisfactory for the type of development proposed in locations as shown,provided
the geological consultant's recommendations are followed;and the site is'in a goodj} location
regarding public services and facilities.0�_ V
FAGE 1 - 1
F. The request is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land
e' s uses in the area,will not overburden public services,and will facilitate the provision of housing of
a type and cost that is desired,in the City of Dublin.
G. General site considerations,including unit layout,open space,topography,orientation and the
location of future buildings,vehicular access,circulation and parking,setbacks and similar
elements have been designated to provide a desirable environment for the development.
H. This project will not cause serious public health problems in that all necessary utilities are,or will
be,required to be available and Zoning,Building and Subdivision Ordinances control the type of
development and the operation of the uses to prevent health problems after development.
I. The amendments will not materially change the provisions of the approved Tentative Map.
J. The approval of the Tentative Map Amendment will be consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend City Council approval of Resolution approving PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map
Amendment application as generally depicted by materials labeled Exhibit A,stamped approved and on
file with the Dublin Planning Department,subject to the approval of the related Development Agreement
Amendment,and to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise,all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building permits or establishment of use,and shall be subject to Planning Department review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL]Planning,[B]Building,[PO]Police,[WP]Public Works
jADM]Administration/City Attorney,[FIN]Finance,[F]Dougherty Regional Fire Authority,[DSR].
Dublin San Ramon Services District,[CO]Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This approval is for limited amendments to the Tentative Map 5766 concerning changes in pad
elevations,minor revisions to lot and street configurations,and modification to Condition No.76
of City Council Resolution No. 130-89,which establishes Conditions of Approval for PA 89-062
Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative Map. The approved modification to Condition No.76 will permit
the Creek Access Road to be reduced in width from 12 feet wide to 8 feet wide. The
amendments will permit the plans attached as Exhibit A to overlay and replace certain aspects of
the approved Tentative Map 5766,for the first phase(72 units)of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch
Subdivision. The items which are amended on the Tentative Map itself involve minor street and
lot reconfigurations and changes in pad elevations.[PL]
2. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these conditions,development shall conform to the
Conditions of Approval established by: City Council Resolution Nos.20-89 and 21-89,approved
on February 27,1989,pertaining to PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR;and City Council Resolution Nos. 128-89,129-89 and
130-89,approved on November 27,1989,pertaining to PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative
Map,Prezoning,Annexation and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. [PL]
3. Approval of this Tentative Map amendment is subject to the applicant securing approval from the
City Council of the proposed Development Agreement Amendment associated with this
request.[PL,PW]
FAG_?OF CO 2
STREETS
4. Maximum street grades,centerline curve radii and site distances at intersections shall not exceed
those approved on the previous improvement plans,except as specifically approved by the City
Engineer.[PW]
5. The collector road shall be 40 feet curb-to-curb.[PW]
6. A temporary paved turnaround shall be constructed at the end of the stub collector street into
Phase II.[PW,PL]
GRADING&DRAINAGE
7. The cut-and-fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical(with benches),except
as may be reinforced with retaining walls or reinforced earth as designed and approved by the
developer's soils consultant.[PW]
CREEK ACCESS
8. The trail head at the collector street near Silvergate shall be 8 feet wide extending to the street
and designed to allow maintenance vehicles to access the trail from the street.[PW,PL]
9. The proposed 6-foot aggregate base access road along the north side of the creek and east of
Martin Canyon Road shall be 12 feet wide,and shall be dedicated to the City with the creek
improvements.[PW,PL]
/'1 10. The developer shall construct a standard cul-de-sac bulb on the end of Martin Canyon Road and
shall fence around the end of the bulb with 6-foot black clad chain link fence with a lockable gate
to the maintenance roadway to the east. The bulb can be all one-sided(to the west).[PW,PL]
11. There shall be turn around improvements made at the ultimate west ends of the access road and
access trail,which shall be aggregate base for maintenance vehicles and police patrol purposes.
Temporary turnarounds shall be constructed if needed at the ends of these roads in Phase I,
subject to the determination of the Public Works Director.[PW,PL]
12. The developer shall obtain,in the name of the City,an access easement to use the proposed
access road on the north side of the creek prior to recording of final map for Phase 1. The
applicant shall obtain the permission of the property owner on which the road exists to make
improvements to the access road,and shall ensure that the road is 12 feet wide at a minimum and
has an aggregate base satisfactory to the Public Works and Planning Department,prior to
dedication of the creek area to the City.[PW,PL,F,PO]
13. Lockable,removable bollards,or some other acceptable type of vehicle security measures,shall be
installed at each vehicular access to the trail to prevent unauthorized vehicles from using the trail,
while enabling access to the trail the event of an emergency. The Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority may require during the site review process or during construction process access to
gates and behind houses for emergency purposes.[PW,PL,F,PO]
14. The access across the creek shall be over a properly designed pipe or culvert that will pass the
design storm flow and support fire and maintenance vehicle traffic loadings. The access road over
this pipe and creek area shall be paved with 2 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of aggregate base
rock(as a minimum). The inlet and outfall of the pipe shall be protected from erosion.[PW]
15. The developer shall provide a ten-foot wide flat rocked access area between the lots off the
Silvergate cul-de-sac and the top of the creek bank,as shown in"Staff Study"attached to Exhibt
A. This is to provide access to the culvert headwall area upstream of Silvergate Drive.[PW]
PPE OF Co 3
16. Those portions of the access road and access trail adjacent to and associated with Phase 1 shall be
/1 improved and dedicated to the City prior to occupancy of any units in phase 1.[PL,PO]
17. The Phase 1 access road and access trail improvements shall extend to and include the proposed
creek culvert crossing so that a drive-through maintenance loop can be made without having to
back up or turn around.[PW,PL]
18. When the creek area is dedicated to the city for maintenance of the public open space,the City
will accept,and be responsible for maintaining,only the improved access road and access trail on
the project property,and the open space and creek areas on the project property,which are
accessed from these roads. [PW,PL]
FIRE
19. Fire Hydrants shall be spaced every 400 linear feet in residential areas comprised primarily of well
spaced,average single family dwellings.*[F]
20. The maximum grades for fire apparatus roadways shall not exceed:*
a)15%for all weather driving surfaces.
b)15%to 20%for grooved concrete or rough asphalt for short stretches not to exceed 50
feet.[F]
21. The minimum number of fire access roads shall be as follows:*
a)1-25 units One public access road
b)26-74 units One public access road and one emergency access road
c)75+units Two public access roads[F]
22. The maximum length of a single access road shall be no greater than 1000 feet.*[F]
23. Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet
and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.*[F]
24. Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities.*[F]
25. Future site plans of the proposed project should be submitted to the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority for review.[F]
*This is not inclusive of the creek access road and access trail.
POLICE
26. Fire access between residences shall be controlled by fences and adequate gates to prevent
unauthorized pedestrian traffic. [F,PO]
27. Applicant shall submit a projected timeline for project completion to the Dublin Police Services
Department,to allow estimation of staffing requirements.[PO]
Cii' 4
OPEN SPACE/COMMON AREAS/LANDSCAPING
/-1 28. Open space area-Provide for weed abatement before,during and after construction with the
following guidelines:
a)Clear all weeds within 100 feet downhill from the property line
b)Clear all weeds within 30 feet uphill from the property line
c)provide an environmental thinning plan for the area between 30 and 100 feet of this
development.[F]
29. Provide a landscape plan for wild land open space areas. Supply vegetation fuel modifications
and/or buffer zones,and possible use of fire resistive or drought tolerant varieties of plant life.[F]
30. The developer shall post a sign at the entrance to the creek access road on the north side of the
creek from Martin Canyon Road,stating that the road is private,and is to be used for private use,
creek maintenance,and emergency access only.[F]
31. Fences for single-family residences shall be placed at the top of slopes with one foot of level area
on either side of the fence.[PL]
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT(DSRSD)
32. Prior to issuance of any building permit,complete improvement plans shall be submitted to
DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the DSRSD Code,the DSRSD"Standard
Procedures,Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater
Facilities",all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.[DSR]
n 33. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in
addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in
conformance with DSRSD utility master planning.[DSR]
34. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system.
Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances
following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific
review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports,design criteria,and final plans and
specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year
maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the Applicant for
any project that requires a pumping station.[DSR]
35. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be
designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with
requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice.[DSR]
36. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in
off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable,then public sewer or water
easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-
street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement.
[DSR]
37. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site development permit,the locations and
widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and
approved by DSRSD. [DSR]
n 38. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered
to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. [DSR]
PAGE 6 c: G 5
39. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation,the Final Map shall be submitted to and approved
by DSRSD for easement locations,widths,and restrictions.[DSR]
40. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit,all utility connection fees,plan checking fees,
inspection fees,permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid
to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. [DSR]
41. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit,all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities
shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a
signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water
facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer,the Applicant shall pay all required
DSRSD fees,and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water
systems,a performance bond,a one-year maintenance bond,and a comprehensive general liability
insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall
allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature
by the District Engineer. [DSR]
42. No sewerline or water line construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction
permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items
in condition 27 have been satisfied. [DSR]
43. The Applicant shall hold DSRSD,its Board of Directors,commissions,employees,and agents of
DSRSD harmless and indemnify the same from any litigation,claims,or fines resulting from
completion of the project. [DSR]
44. A water line connection to Water Zones 2 and 3 is required which will connect to lines at the west
end of Hansen Drive. An easement has already been dedicated across property in Tract 4988 to
n accomrnodate this connection. A 20 foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the District on the
Final Map or by separate instrument satisfactory to the District,to align with the existing
easement,allowing the necessary water line connection to Bay Laurel Street(new street).[DSR]
45. 'A water line and connection to Water Zone 3 is required which will connect the project to Zone 3
Wires in Rolling Hills Drive. A 15 foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the District on the
y;l.Final Map or by separate instrument satisfactory to the District,to align with the existing Zone 3
connection on the north boundary of the project. A portion of this required water line may
alternately follow the existing access road along the north side of Martin Canyon Creek.[DSR]
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 1995.
AYE$:
NOES
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
TKH c:\planning\tasha\hansen\940541'MR.doc
PAGE OF 41 6
RESOLUTION NO.95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE APPROVING
PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
FOR PA 91-099 HANSEN RANCH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS,California Pacific Homes,Inc.,requests approval of a Development Agreement
Amendment to modify Conditions No.(a.)and(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2.of Exhibit"B"of City of
Dublin Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The proposed modification will
permit the reduction in width of the Creek Access Road from 12 feet to 8 feet,and allow for the phased
construction of the road. Amendments to the approved Tentative Map 5766 are also requested for the
first phase(72 lots)of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January
17, 1995;and
WHEREAS,proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;and
WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to
the State CEQA Guidelines,and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will
not have a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS,the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of said Development Agreement;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT IHE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
1. Said Agreement is consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs
specified in the General Plan in that a)the project approvals of said Agreement include a General
Plan Amendment adopted specifically for the Hansen Hill Ranch project,and b)said Agreement
furthers the affordable housing,parks,and open space policies of the General Plan;
2. Said Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in,and the regulations prescribed for the
land use district in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include a
Planned Development Rezoning adopted specifically for the Hansen Hill Ranch Project;
3. Said Agreement is in conformity with public convenience,general welfare and good land use
practice in that said Agreement will provide public access to property that was previously private
and not accessible,will provide funds for affordable housing which will improve general welfare,
and will provide land use and access that are consistent and compatible with adjacent land use;
4. Said Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare in that the
development will proceed in accordance with the project's environmental impact report and
mitigation measures;and
5. Said Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation
of property values in that the development will be consistent with the General Plan.
AAc L OF 3. Elie
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
/'h recommend City Council approval of an Ordinance approving PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Development
Agreement Amendments as shown on Exhibit A,stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning
Department and subject to the approval of the related Tentative Map Amendment and to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. This approval is for limited amendments to the Development Agreement approved by City
Council Ordinance 5-92,concerning a reduction in the width of the Creek Access Road from 12
feet wide to 8 feet wide,and will provide for a creek maintenance,repair,and emergency vehicle
access road along the north side of the creek,and will allow for phased construction of the creek
access road,and also concerning a requirement for grading and rocking an area in which a creek
access road was previously proposed to extend beyond the project boundary. The amendments
will affect Condition(a.)and(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement entered into on March 25,1992.
2. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these conditions,development shall conform to the
Conditions of Approval established by: City Council Resolution Nos.20-89 and 21-89,approved
on February 27, 1989,pertaining to PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for DR;and City Council Resolution Nos. 128-89,129-89 and
130-89,approved on November 27,1989,pertaining to PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative
Map,Prezoning,Annexation and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
3. Approval of this Development Agreement amendment is subject to the applicant securing
approval from the City Council of the proposed Tentative Map Amendment associated with this
request.
4. Condition(a.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch Development
Agreement,entered into on March 25,1992,is hereby modified to read as follows:
"DEVELOPER shall construct an 8-foot wide access trail(the"Access Trail")over the Property
along Martin Canyon Creek as described in Condition No.76 to the CITY's approval of the
Tentative Map for PA 89-062("Condition 76"),and as modified in conditions Nos. 11,16,and
17 of the City's approval of Tentative Map Amendment for PA 94-054. The Access Trail,
together with that portion of the Property lying between the fence to be constructed by Developer
pursuant to Condition 76 and the northern boundary of the Property,shall be dedicated to the
CITY for public access and maintenance purposes.The construction and dedication required by
this subparagraph may occur in phases which are concurrent with the Tentative Map phases of
project development. Upon dedication,DEVELOPER shall be released from all liability for the
maintenance of the property so dedicated."
5. Condition(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch Development
Agreement,entered into on March 25,1992,is hereby replaced by the following condition,to
read as follows:
"The DEVELOPER shall construct a 12-foot wide aggregate base access road(the"Access
Road")along the north side of the creek and east of Martin Canyon Road,as shown on
reto.DEVELOPER shall obtain,in the
fk ement to
`` use the e�12 foot wide access ad on theorth side of the creek,and weste of the f Martin C an access anyon Road,
on the adjacent property.The DEVELOPER shall obtain the permission of the property owner on
which the road exists to make improvements to the access road,and shall ensure that the road is
12 feet wide at a minimum and has an aggregate base satisfactory to the Public Works and
Planning Department,prior to dedication of the creek area to the City,as per conditions of
approval of Tentative Map 5766. When the creek area is dedicated to the City for maintenance
PAGE 2 OF
-2-
of the public open space,the City will accept,and be responsible for maintaining,only the
improved access roads on the project property and the open space and creek areas on the
/, property which are accessed from these roads.
6. Conditions(e.)through(i.) of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement,entered into on March 25,1992,are hereby added to read as follows:
e. The developer shall construct a standard cul-de-sac bulb on the end of Martin Canyon
Road and shall fence around the end of the bulb with 6-foot black clad chain link fence
with a lockable gate to the maintenance roadway to the east. The bulb can be all one-
sided(to the west).
f. The developer shall provide a ten-foot wide flat rocked access area between the lots off
the Silvergate cul-de-sac and the top of the creek bank,as shown on"Staff Study"as part
of Exhibit A. This is to provide access to the culvert headwall area upstream of Silvergate
Drive.
g. The trail head at the collector street near Silvergate shall be 8 feet wide extending to the
street and designed to allow maintenance vehicles to access the trail from the street.
h. Lockable,removable bollards,or some other acceptable type of vehicle security measures,
shall be installed at each vehicular access to the trail to prevent unauthorized vehicles from
using the trail,yet allow access to the trail in the event of an emergency. In addition,
during the site review process or during construction,the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority may require access to gates and behind houses for emergency purposes.
i. Those portions of the Access Road and Access Trail which are adjacent to and associated
with Phase 1 of the Tentative Map shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to
occupancy of any units in Phase 1. Phase 1 access trail,and access road improvements
shall extend to and include the proposed creek crossing,as discussed,and to the design
specifications required,in the conditions of approval of the associated Tentative Map
Amendment.
j. There shall be turnaround improvements made at the ultimate west ends of the Access
Road and Access Trail for maintenance vehicles and police and emergency patrol.
Temoporary turnarounds shall be constructed if needed at the ends of these roads in Phase
1,subject to the determination of the Public Works Director.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January,1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
/1 Planning Director
TKH c:\planning\tasha\hansen\94054DAR.doc
PACE 3OF3
-3-
. • •
.• • ;; , 1 „..„
- ;
.1 : — • ,
. : • . . •
• • • .
• i : : • :
.. :
- i ;..,• .
:, 1 : ••1, :
• . ;
:.i • . . Pg0]-- ----r
n . ,
, • •
. ;
111:11111N1 III414 .
. . .
- . • : ,
• - ;e
! >
: ••• .7.7
I . : • • .-:
. . : . .
. ; : : • .
• _ !„,_/
. s. II.:`.'•.:-:"
. •
. - ; i. t•-'1 1'i i-r :
• ,, - - ..
i . . \ a ' • 7
, e '.'
. 1 . (,),,..--, •...c
1 I t .4-1_2r-7- -:\f•-•\•'
; :f i _ I-----i-T.---,1,41 I • :*-
. ! ;••••f--„.. f•-:,/...\ L'''‘H
;! ; ; )-'7.i--.-'''::::., .. it.4-1'. 1.,.- ••=1,-
.4.---.-.•.
: : • i--;-.1-,. )-: .., •• ‘./ -1—, <4-.
• - -2
Cift)i 4. i ,,S.:7 r.„....::...- --r,-..-5; j•-. —Z./
i ,if--i .1......r. ..--;.,„ r•-•\t ..... =1= ik_-/,..... j-..•
,---,----"v ...,/ v. .• =- -e....CP.--fif••• /,\:,.,-.
u.___t Li...La-7 \ ,T,--:1 ,12-___It :::'. 7-..-,r_P,--•:-._,-i,"g •
ss.Lz.
-1 t•-1 **<-.\:_r' '-ri 1 'r-- 7-.--•ir.-'-'- • \r:.,;,,-7.17
.
...--.4.•••••• . •' // 1.._L_I
, , [0 t_ .,.._.,--------.----,„
----
.. t.e,K/\•—kt-2 ,
1= • ..Z:. -'. %.r...)--,,,.. / -
•-1 V /
. F-- A,„.- \.." , .‘,.k. A-2...• -1-1:4_1-.. ... -,__— .._..,. ..1.:.__, .,.,...,... _. _:.;
. fs, NI, „. .\&.___.:-.:, „...,c, • _, , ...:__
- i ;1‘ -.i..• •-2....: • •-r--.'".**C-C-1' I';I ':-....)--1-1-14-1-7. -
.: 1 ...,.z.,_ •;•••,‘......(\t, , . C& •:11 i'7• \-2; ,%--11 ' , .
•••...---7 • --C.... ! \...... ... ..":—..,•,.. .
-, - :•-•-•,:=,„,-\-y • • •
.;... ! L'-:,7.„, •••-• \ •••••• \_„1, ___.--7-,......„_Lrt,„::. '
'• . I, . \i•--31\---'--
/oft., : , \ . ..•••• \ r...,1
, i ,..• ,
v,...,....:„....
: 2 ‘ a • - \- ,-1:_•-••'-`,7* •f•At; \....,j.:_,____•"-- I
- -:•• u• \
Hi ' . ...
,. .\\\ To..,...--.• „,,,..-.-., .-(,, ....._ _ ,
.. , „ , .., „
Ai i c. • - ' , , ;:.-.1 I
\ = ‘ ..
-. --'\..7..--''.‘.1 • V;::;. ' .....\.... ii-Tri 31; : 1 c 4. F t); - • \ •
f\ -••-'-"
C.41 ....: \ .`• - • ,/ ,,...
n
.- ,-, -I..' •-•;:,-:.-----,--:
—
_, •,,-:— 1..•
1 i-.•,5 ,Frl I F-:•:•'.!- ;:s'.:
1.- \ .7---\-— . r...;12 c?'-f: ;-,;.•P. it:---:.: 1 7.7.---:-/_-_--:-.--,-,--I
':.T, ,.....:::"" Ef_4\'-• i...,`' •-' " i ;F". 1 - 2,--.----
-::"! :-.11'..;'• '• :•.- f i ---,-;::: :
-,..,t.
n „.7..-
1 z;11.1111111 .-;11,11. '7 :4Iv . , •:.
. %!':''.-:•A. 0/00111
k ' ‘, • 1 .1 ,, -,/ ..t., :. .•.-:::::... .---;:----"'y--- F-1 \ 1., .--- - '• ', .
_ ::. •
• • j•••-•-•• \...:
*-:;:••• --"'"--:".7-1. ''...• .1.1 7"...-(•••-•.' \ '' .' . **.•'!".."
! :.----7..- : ••, .. .;•,../ t . in• -, \ ... . s %:,... s+,
1 -:::::::::-. .; 1.. 1.. i::::::„..; 1,---"?? • ..- \ '-:-..., \ \ '''•N.\&%,,:,
I . ''•-•::::: 't :I.. 1.•••• . - ‘ k...--*\,. --- ' n
•:...- ....1‘ ;Fr<' t •• ‘ \.1,
. . • . .•
• • ‘. sc- • !;•;* ‘
:T.- \\ \••••-•
•••• .. ... •V -., 1 c".1 %.;7..... \‘ -9 \,•-•"7\i'.--i.
% •••‘ II 1 \--• -` \
1 '.7.:•",-.• '
'--•::. .
• - ---.• A ' - — - -\ ''itj' - -\:,...- •'- \ E't.-e
........--......1. \ 3„ .
- •
---1-7-- .••.--L--•:•--;::•-• •• '....:.7: . ZZ,..j _.._•1
.. .. ,:ct
__:,.......-__ __-7_77-1=- • —,......./,:-Er.- - \-, • - ,X/\ \ -
.. _.
• .t.. ,z-z-t. ,•`'-‘1:41. 12. "--- - "'""'" --A PART Of THE
_
ein. . - 7." r=-•''"-.--- - PI: f: ta CITY-OF- "••••
`1. Ec- C...•-• li1.--ii•-••,. .,-...-D_UFILI/t-..,...__ "1-........1VSXT-M_IPSO-rr—^=Li Irc__,.....1—Z°1.4 IN G MAP--
. THE-t:Vis Oi-•-.,-
- .- ----,. ,__,__. _ .......———-_
PAGE,
--- --- --- •
OF—1-1 ATTACHMENT 1.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
In 1989 the City Council approved Tentative Map 5766 together with Planned
Development Prezoning and Annexation of 147 acres to allow 180 single family lots on
approximately 51 acres and approximately 96 acres of open space,wet of Silvergate
Drive,north of Hansen Drive and South of Winding Trails. Subsequently,the project was
divided into two phases.Phase 1(Subdivision 5766)consists of 72 lots. Phase 2
(Subdivision 6308)consists of 108 lots. California Pacific Homes(formerly known as the
Bren Co.)desires to amend Phase 1.
The primary difference between the approved Tentative Map and the amended Tentative
Map for 72 lots in Phase 1 is that the grading has been reduced. The revised plan does
not cut into to the existing grade as much as the approved plan resulting in less steep
grades on some streets. It also results in a higher elevation of the lots on the cul d'sac
adjacent to homes on Hansen Drive. The soils engineer has recommended that we do not
cut into the hillside as much as previously shown in order to avoid potential problems with
the stability of the existing yards of the Hansen Drive homes. The elevation change is
approximately 20 feet higher than approved plan as the revised plan only cuts into the
hillside approximately 10 feet as opposed to the 30 feet of the current plan.
Another change from the current project is to reduce the access road from 12 feet to 8
feet in width. This will greatly reduce the grading and related tree loss from the current
plan. In addition,the hiking trail/access road will be more pleasant to walk as the
retaining walls will be somewhat reduced.
The project remains consistent with the general plan and the planned development zoning
of open space,stream corridor and low density single family residential. The number of
lots and the size of the lots are consistent with what has been approved. All of the costs
that were associated with the approved Tentative Map will remain the same. A
Development Agreement was approved which added the requirement that the creek area
be dedicated to the City and that the public have access to the hiking trail. Thus the
project has added benefits since it was the Tentative Map was approved in 1989. All
other impacts of the project would be the same as currently approved.
l
p�q10j
1
(� DF C't3 �
PAGE OF o� Attach en 94
? eN9. NINE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
On March 25th, 1922 a Development Agreement was entered between the City of Dublin
and the Donald L.Bren Company(now known as California Pacific Homes)for the
Hansen Hill Ranch project. California Pacific Homes is requesting an amendment in which
all terms and conditions of the Development Agreement would remain the same except for
conditions 2.a and 2.b.found in Exhibit B which should be amended to reflect requested
changes to the access road.
The requirement to build a 12 foot access road as described in Condition No.76 of the
Tentative Map is an onerous and environmentally insensitive requirement. At the time the
12 foot requirement was imposed,the evening the City Council approved the Tentative
Map,an engineering study of the impact of the road had not been done. Since then,
further studies have shown that the 12 foot width would require substantial tree loss and
the construction of very high retaining walls on both sides of the road in many places. It
should be noted that the primary purpose of the road is for the public to hike through a
beautiful creek area. The needs of the police,fire and public works departments are duly
noted. California Pacific Homes has met with those departments and is willing to build an
8 foot access road. This will cut back on some of the tree loss and somewhat lessen the
retaining walls and still allow police,fire and public works to perform their duties.
^ In addition,the construction and dedication of the access road was always contemplated
to be in two phases because grading for the required stub street in Phase 2 cuts through
the access road. The current grading plan approved ny Public Works for Phase 1 shows
the access road ending in a temporary bulb just east of the required stub street. It was an
oversight to have a condition in the Development Agreement which implies that the entire
access road be constructed with Phase 1. The grading in Phase 2 for the required stub
street would make hiking impossible in that area of the access road and result in a
dangerous situation if hikers came too close to the heavy grading equipment.
Therefore,we request that Subparagraph 5.3.2.a.be amended to require construction of
an 8 foot access road. (Tentative Map Condition No.76 would also need to be amended.)
In addition the construction and dedication of the road should be divided into two phases,
ending in a bulb in Phase 1 as shown on the Tentative Map which is part of this submittal.
All other conditions in the paragraph would remain the same.
Subparagraph 5.3.2.b and Attachment 1 should be deleted. Attachment 1 indicates that
the access road must continue off the Hansen Ranch property and then return. In a
walking field trip with the public works director along the creek this requirement proved
to be untrue. An existing jeep trail continues on the Hansen property. In fact the location
of the proposed extended access road on Attachment 1 would require two unnecessary
creek crossings and due to extreme grade differentials between the two properties is not
feasible,if even possible,to build.
BC!IV D
PAGE a OF cfiC 1 3 j9
,Ba_ t,
U L!N ANNING
-- LEOE110
pwNEnf! Loren: .'1\I \ 1
11321
' •R/N cfurANY
�! __-_-- •'" ,•„' 0101 Ow ENE DA. FIRtE 1E0
�. „„_ ,r.., um•w. ►LLAEANION.CALIFORNIA 0.100
6 n......w'A,.... t
N ` �, ---- ,.•.,• _- .. 1. Irf•1 F.IGINFIII� � y
'. � I. . ••�..•wn • •r•All KA/MS IQ1-K tlAiE p0 1.
LANDS Or NIELSEN \ ?`\\ 1 _ �••u.... �.,.,. n.+t •.•.•• ^'n00)0 C COr[K,ii OfVOA VUOt •J C IIIO 01I-0107\c....,.,.1
In..1.••1 / ^� � Y�' lb J ••.— /�� M••Eto•r.r,.•.,0u.w1• •IVIr 1A FAUN RCA.4.01E IUJ2V411 i
L ANf13 CE `y ��'T7AAiG�-��' ii-_• I p.1 / C' r r r ii NOTES 1
•
1Li
it— • L E1EVATta1S F10w11 ANE SAYD a1,jl�t_!
it ...
t..,..... r4s•41 \ . I 1 i 'MACT 5073 .•rr .. w.-,:.:, tT70tCAC�DRTET•T14/7[A-./T.(1,-O t
T '` f AlCONTOUA INTERVAL 11 FEET
� '•N'.:� RCI nxmLo r�� \ •\ �A•,.v •0 >tt[F10TIN0 USE 1 CRAZING I
��'�� F ;r.'' �'.•� O 0'1' Y x.s. \ ACT •• A:Y'KO►OIID TONING t►LANNED DIM
•I , • +� '\\( \ 1..1...•/ •:LOT 010ssza 1 f,7T0,/r.IMIN.I
I k` I )Cc.< TOTALLorrrELC Crf'..:
r l,w• • \, •NVATER SUPPLY 1 DUILIN,SAN RAMO.
1nr' n. • �c _` � \'`/�) I/ rt{Rncn DltimcT. °
n ��• m • Y"/^j\�//' \� I t1ANNEAATroN TO OttiR•CT R10UIR! .
r,••y 'N���An•'-�_j \-) ',�_-N� Tr 6W[N DISPOSAL DUILIN,MN AA1 K�
I ..�" T /-t' ' rERYlces-DutnIDT, '�•..
+• • Yr, ti17'• •\:``J-`, 1...,/ RIW 4WYdI RD <'' TRACT SLID . VI -- •
`� ice-' LIANNITEATIOMICrDISTRICT'R10U1R1
•
•p 1•^ ) 1 •.ILL.STREETS SNAIL■E DEDICATED
ly •.1 •r? •\ TRACT 5410 'r` `
i rw� :. l,1•.w.••I `.1 O i-usuc:—• I
I
rN^ / N,n1'w •• •�1 i• 111
�• �a 1 0,LANDSLIDE INFORMATION WAS OEM.-_
`� In .'' 1•r. � *;n,ri!• i !i •,�Yr.•M •\ y 1 J A FROM TN[0[bT[CIINICAI INVESTIGATION y[p
t',r • •, ,: 'r•1•.`.. . L•ti, 4�w' JJ ^ • ••. 1 NO.312.02,DATED 11104,1•SY HARLAN,. 0.
�.' ( �y`,.{ ^ "' t 1 MILLER,TAIT ASSOCIATES. IIy1JJ
M•M�,^•• .• 'MI�111M 1'•'•'•111 .1 (/�C` .111 NN w ,,. •�.-'�-... i' � •,
l AN4�Sp Of f �t,�,nr�•�, ur u 1 -�•1' •1 u.I, . . .. r(w • \ enr r rrrL►wIn l0
OLEASON i • '�y:.wry�'r p.' 1r .. `, •:' i• II,
• Ir.e .n,w G• .OW Iww art tom• .
f LETCN£•1 r w �. a u.••• «;, ''`":.... w t.'. ` ....:. _ �� +: • torn r. II.N art IA
.1 w.l«T«1 r'` /• ••• -', r�' \0,�� `i WI 1• l'�^1`,1� .o nu ....<rl
6 ig .
�;� 1 i_1L=•
I F w
\ •,� •
''•. ; \\ TR'ZTwDD
\\ II .0 •
LANDS Or /11
/ —
VALLEY CIIR1571AN .21 • it, 11•�•n.. l `
CL\ . f i..• 1 /// 7'^r lL
„!ri TYPICAL M^JOfl STREET SECTION �,
CH
•
\ w Y•AIIN LL
7 1 I—L ►L , ll
_ ---L L _---- - -- 1 i
"�� „ I r.' y I v. �... VICINITY MAP
i I'Soo w• •1T'i.+r�•'G��or-�j" i it
•
'__ _i--__— CD
TYPICAL MINOR STREET SECTION Q
iil: O-
111►11.
SS111 .
•
SKEET I
DE S •.
..--- _ •
..
: , ',‘ ' .4 =Iv \---;,,,w,une -Affr-. -1.. :,..... .- -......-- - - --,'".•-•,-.1".rC' ---- • '
1 cf—q• !iiil.:—.---_-etiO, 4 . _, .-- __-_;..-7: .-...,,„..- _--.„_____:: - . ,,,„
jy.f. ii, ::__,._.
7, • , k; 4— -ara-..x ".14.-•••••-
?1,41, ir ift,--.4-- tt..._, L / l i
...' VIL_ "":-/.7., /
Irk. vii,‘, .,..:F��`hi. .,- � ' 1.v.• 1 .pill.j_ � . l. ,, :II /'^.11lu mac- r
tt • .A,` \ V' •.\--- ,, '
- •' ::)4 7 / I
• WILY:.! I���j� �^, All° Pt• '� � \ry A\ tit‘..-‘--1.1., \� -
, os,,,401 .,,•,..0 nt . • •..-.,•,.-J Nall,••• ) 111:4 `
> 1(-131611V7 L. ' VII, 4'<'' %; 7' ,4 ti _ : • - - 14‘ . i a, I, ( X
Avg* __., wiw . '.. _ - ---.A Nit t{rsi is# \,,, .
. ArL.,.. *2.x.. , ._...., 1, I ., i i gia z.
,....... gitp.,,e____:___-, 3w, __--_.:,- ?„ ./ r -ll 21 ji PI • 1 ) ' '`.
,(-,c , t.."44 '`' •' ^ Eiji.V'-'\.- _ .--— .. It. i Iilliir- 1 , i. .
0.,,. ••• -.4 \ • / /01,s ..././/ii---' / / A L----- 1 ,
-10...,- _ N '/joefil" ,..!, 0,1 /41.--) 1
', k__ -__:i,-. S.,,,,,,**444,5/..?),* if" ----4#42/6.-
51c..\,„4", z,1441:4117W,__ A":„Iler -:-/S01.-7.--.1 ,-.i'0;11.1*
C:3
•1 , A. fin;. .-�i��.�; \_
J • J I� �aa"7L�VN IIr 'f / .J • '.
• eI R —A + ci
i i z+ • 0
g 0 1,4t 11 to V.) ( . t AV
. + . :.--/ .-. Vik ii , .tfi 1 .1!' -, i 'V ,---- ,,sis
B `DP I.l i• ••{ call
ry/ :F.. r. L___) , itivil L
---, '''' / . 1 0 • viriat -27,/,• ' ) ck.rall 1-_. -....11 - :.' --iv.
I, r ei oil/ . . , .•,.. ,
, . . ,
,..1
' ��I ar �� s
�•. 411 T I 1I. �}i
1 f. _41 -ice ±
+ �
r `y'--•I'-•.•••. TENTATIVE MAP - SUBDIVISION 5766 BRIAN KANSAS FDUI.K
1-A_.•_ HANSEN HILL RANCH CONSULTING ENGINEERS
M CtS1.IN ALAx55II CCVGT CALIFO IA ma s.�n��. ��+e•a u`^� uin m+as
PAGE 2 Of
•
/'\
•
.. /c �".,.>!n� /i 1 •1 fir t1- �.-.` — 4
�� /b 1 , e-. / ,,i- 4�N t.� ` ,max, ^t'i-----'----- -;;1/%;4/i 607)=.7 4, :4,. ,::- -Z...,----:,,-'-*/ .." I'! /374A---41‘11%\IPA\N\‘ ; ''''
•
-4w nr/ - •=•i If // 4-,---------:::-:--..- -. `-42_1:// -. -..* i". 14,(/';,;17,
a� y/ J �// / is /�' „i. - 1m �,�• N.ii J
.P. ' ''-'9;l 'J /,'-/ I( ,/ ' 4) • 1:11' \\y-- — .."- ---. /I%/ ' :7/j
• //'./''',./ iv fr.Ai, ',/ ,,,,•, 7 li. fly r • •••••.. N.,,\\\ --..-------.--_ -,• „-7 , , ,„;....,-/
il
.....4'Af'.7,1, is4,.....,,,,,,..<--. .„.„,-„...- -„.„4,,,...---„1.,:m.4a\k,‘,4,: ../,/,/ 7-7t,--;------7_,
, , ,417,,,j, -- ,'Ntt,s.„--, ..„--.- -.,,ry --L,--4-4_1•.• s'---:-...„-:_•.,! ,Z/ iiii:.:' ,
` \\\„ 1� 'b. - v i , J' i I1 1 L. , r\\ , I' ' I.I \� s)a .
1 �i/ r
q ,,_,.. j.e.,—:;:___,-1_,-0: ,s‘..,:i. .,g t,., \-- T ( -1.-( 441__;,„1.:: .
"/„./". p„...!„.... ..., — \\N \C\.\\\\ V----7
:/7• /—-j -- . .....,.— •,%;- -s'• **-1kt.,IN•7)!1 ' , \ \ --'
it2,,,,V-__;---'----z.....--.:11."----1>e,,,,..\;4P/43 ,I., .1 )
.1: /_______-_-4f;,,,, 147--..‘—:::__72_,,..,, - ‘ , : \„ \ \ ,N ____,
....‘
, . , ... /.,
• _._:_- ,,, :. -tf ,711.,Vs: ‘ \‘\\ \\‘``V ''' \`'
/$-//-%. ,A::rill" 1.1 �,_. -,-r#�.� . ✓ :1 \ \ \ <S.\
�/ t\\ .i420 'Y// rw�id o)l'1`1 f� 1 I�
--- ..---r:--;:it
ii ) 1 t t
V.
ii
_ _, yam- -_ _= -:';T /+/
4//0 ,S.\. ##
/� i�� ; • ° ). �, /// /.a'rll(`/i'''Hif S . \icw.L�.�-- c /'L.//
/�/ JUrn11A E E. \NTATI
e TENTATIVE HAP - SUBDIVISION 5766 BPIAN KANGAS FOULK
Y^V HANVEN HILL RANCH N=AI,TI C E I1.EEPS .
•
•' RILIM ll Z.M
.KOA� IT CSU1T.1. r� ._ u v.'� ^.1.
PAGE.OF l
•
111
7 ii(
,f.)l7•'1i'
?_))-)....\_\
.,.s,.s--,--....--...7m-'--.-_.---.--....---L._-„-7_.—.-.-----.-_—..:.-.-._-..-:7'-j...-.------.-.,-._1...:.-4...-._,-..-_,..-_,/_%,,,'.).4,1,i.(
4r( j,l��1/ % 1l./ ?/".,;)1'1)1' `/i1p/1'11/1;1
,/� ' ;/�/12—, ,-'#- v % /144 - ,'' i.'ra�'.�;iii/ /'i,.I i7ll1I( ��/�/// //// //// -- ,-. //// V �A0.1 xf' "- , i l 1.- 1
./-1,fi
• /' 41// i- ' /"i / / 7%%/>. ---‘— II ) 7 7/' 1.#817//rffr‘ -' ,s.-: • - --!, ; : hj
1 • el /,//1 • /7' // ///// / /',./----11y 1, ,0, ,,,c.:1,1,14t4, di ti,. ... ,. ,:-\ ,,,. _7:_..---.-eli,
', il i'../ f//'.• /, • 9/ / . ) i . lireg,rli 4114 7'..‘• .-" .-11 '-- , ' ;‘(" j
y://: ,,/. / ',/ ,j/t_I \/1.. , I if ///".4-11 it ..1 i./. -_, ).w:, .:--'4P-7-____. ..'. • ..1/4
4
,.,,
. , /7 Av.
�;;%. a ./,i ' / / .! � /� ,• ,.•.• -� ',itrtt , r ., -tea✓
/7, , / ,•• '; '//,:,0''y ,,r"-'A / //, i//4 - '4th 01.119,4111 4 fif-- -- '-'.
cf,,,, t.,.;,/- .#;" ..,/ -/' 1 , 1/, ' 1 ii y 4 •-7, 41t • k•,--.- -- .
. .;/// fr...301 ‘.:9' / ' 11 .4.,/f/ 1 1 ,, il ,:_, 4 t ,-.„.74 t.
- , 4 , iivu • ----4_,..--- ...?
1
, ; //,•:,,,,,..,,,•• A: •,-,-',r -- -- 4/ i ;12il 11*- -i--;-/ / m/
•iy r t 1-Aier . •,-/ 11 /// i / • •- _, ) ji i le 11 i, 1
/4111,5;,11 /./2
i,, „i i i 1 14 .11 I r_____ ,
�• ,,,, .1/,7 ,_ /,/ // ', � ,i; r J•/ ' fir• /% �_
(.. „-
;,:/;7/ .//:' /
', , 11:::i l//..:
f I r i Ili(11 ; II I I . r 7-
1 \ !//////r%:/�// // / yl 1 '-✓-
' 4'N j\\ .,. '.."4---d- . '',. / 1/7' /
'iv./.',-77 // 2" VI A
\ \\,0IL\ \L -----.._1:7-1,_ .____ Aii; ,/„4// A., ,, „ ,f.,,, 1_,A,...,..4.,..,)„. ,.:\ \ \\\ \
. '4// , //, //
\ ,
. '\e,, .ks '.,--- . ,_, %',",/,,,,;77.'",/,/////, ?-;/c---,' 41 /:_w_i;, ./ish,..,1---'. .-1.,, : ;! ;.,. \\7.
\, x .,,..[,, ,-,"_:_—_-_-„_-_____,-----, , ..„/,/,z7.hy vy ' )3„9:-,,,. .„- -.T. _illii, \--_. )).., - i_\::. . \-\
‘ V\\ss s\ - ----- --,F. ,//7,,pi // / , fz- ' si---71-1-7.: ;10./ ,.- ei,,,,,,:l).kit: ,,.. . ,../.„.,...17
1 . \ ' 2\&".s.'', '____I j,.//,'fiii/./1/ /1.11,/// '4.///1.:/.../A" /// ,,,.. ' :-. , ,.:/..._.1a1.5'7".1.16.11L.:_ . '.--``..7 ' V1: 11 ° \g".\ .\' \
' <' --,,-----t--- -2: 9 ,,„, , ,./.. ,
,,._,) , , ,„,
,___,_,_... /./, , 'F. , I j
\‘\ \ ,.\ ..\i..._.. ____12‘271/ / i I //ail,i . /r i, oi/ • - *--C7,- -i.' .00.-_,..<-•--',...4.....- ' ‘.Al \
\st IN ij_[ ../7/ 1 /I /1/;fit/lr'' i:•-• ,..27///. 4.', - `'1-- - - 41 -
\\\\.\\I\ i ,711/ 1( / iv /,17,../„//n. /1 /0 ,,, 7i...,,,,r_.7........w_=,___-,,_L____-- ,-.. _. .--..-----.44_4//, Ai . \
\ \ 1\ H I /1 ii(. / 1 i t /77//ii§ii ,/ / 147,1,-, /,-. --- ----,_._---tr ------- .-----_______-: - 3__i) icti 1
\\
\ 1 I 4 OF's./1.1/1///:„
igi—e -_____-----_______7,___,-__--;_-________-_____----------- /
t WI ,,/ / II t i t1w - _
Ir I ;I F o! //L." W
1 {:a'/o'r I a� 1 /
1 I / ,1 1 I ti/1 I r4 /, / III'I Ilj tf�I'.1, � _ l a
1 ; ^-�- /4fiuj /
a . �__ -
/fifiV)>//11\q/t/iiii.
I „�/ cl _r %r 111 a/I�t�1�1, r , ./ I . (..... ...--..--...--,'"----:: -.I �+
iii
:. / I I ,, „ ji 4/ 11. filitiii $ I, :I/ l.. •• rl i,ili1 I.r,+.�, h l \ \ �� >\ \tip'/. '4 f�// 1 t I/Ji1lI l .l r I;♦ 1 7'J� i.I` •R• \� \� ��\���•,i// //i 1 y,t 'I i�; �f /: to `t .I� � \ �\\ �' �`�\
_ J . ,r l
,1 /1/,/liI 1 1I 1 l:! l �•I /'l�l I�l I/1�y1 1r� �I j i,.31(
I � ��`\�y� ��• ���`.I" ..,........,....
�lR.;/, I1 ILI 1;17•��/l l /�i, p. ,,--------,R
•1 1,�11' 14' x �_�� , `mac . \1� �'
1...1
7::ti ur. 471.4yi/ft:///111/. ..,.. ,, : g.,
. 1
•. .\r„,.\\
\i.M ‘,..•',/-,./ ,.,,,:li.,,t•....zw•••• //pr. 7./ I ..//./ • -4/,,L.,-,/ ///c.,-;,... , s, •-•,.....i. , .. z._ _-___..-_-______ __.,,_,_tr.~:A..:-......,,..., _ ....\ \..i...,,s.:
1 ; \ .•-. EZZ,./eir',P• .,j'.'hi' i ;L•dr-//`' , .=•''!,,471:7L / /2 1
,4. , /,'„.., -----„,,,...,--...---.-4./.,,-.&„....... , itzt.,,-11 --&-A )2
A\� /! ` , ` \ Jj
\ _-ems / 1' / . L / y ^M /f/ � - . \ \ \
��= '=-�'LY / 76// k / , � J`�n' �� tl € T , ' I— �/\3\ \. `,_// •
TENTATIVE HAP - SUBDIVISION 5765 BRIAN KANGAS FOULK
°a _ HANSEN HILL RANCH CC!SLLTING ENGINES
•a MIL IN LU-EO• C?_'TT C.GL IFOf!•[• ,+'>•v '+- ,+L� '•� `^P^� Ca• . 1• v, .,•
• .
PAGE _OF. ? .
n
.------- -___---------_--- — ----- — 4- \•-•k \
• '/ ..fie li1-'�<1.7.� - 3c'� ,� )11 ,,1�� �\�\ �,'
--s-'\
51 `yam \\1,►,\ '►. w " ' 14,14 *rVilil li\1;ilk _4 -••
$t•�.11,111 3 , LIioi /,/\ \ n � ``\\ \ --�z_
cit
L.1211 . k -'''''',. ,•110Y -'_---...- kle•s•FAV ft,,,...=-- ---,. ----N,.,,
Ilj
P'� \ \ -lam ' .�� �//V-7 I I r it 41)) f ll,/ ../A;:trl`wr„ ilVs---t..--,)- �i4H,41),....
/7\ \ '‘ ' ---_--- -• -, ',:,..-4it.e"ft7z ///- • —V / / //i
\ • '1/4 \,----...,\.q. ..t, ; '...f. /.../ ''' araLvil.* . ..j'
\\ \ '41.\ ;:WI 1 ". ,.n"Viir W
‘,. \ 1 iN, \,,,4„,,,,„ \\,:„. L____. ,._,„,i,r_a..._gat)
\ / .x..4•1
\ ' \ ..,..,--_-_:,______-___.--_-_- --4%-.e, -,.. . / .40.0. -, .44//g.
'\ \I e \ -. ---%%•,Vil\t -_-----J4,41. 'c' 41 I lig)(#7# ''r Y-.`
st
I \\ \
,0 \ !_ //
`\fill ._ / %, / . ,,,iy, 1 .
-, ••• L\ \\
)1 1 I I 1' 6// V-,s•-,. --- /qli •i. /-//I/ 1:11)1 \,I-/ I I
e""1 :_l_.....-2.--' —----- /11/16/4fr4; 74,9TrSg. ';'*'''," ive—IFILP1(7, --;;/' T ///2
-- - r'i., ��/� j � J' " �' it l'r•-v '�/.a % i /
�\\s,,y `qk, 0 - ._te r • • / `
— -,- •',•N ,N '`. ',YI,.,plit -imtral_r_A----147:40-'"7/,`P)90 g; s ,././.,:i./
. , 4,,,_,-- ,-----,,,,.,.,it... 'ci,, r4YLAV..,oftilt./....?"1 //,
z,' , 4.,�, \\\\\ ,,,."' :. t'+.*��U r`' \n�S_i rI I FFF T:N flat/'�
�`\ \\��\`�;\'\`` : ,. _ , a y ', 1 �lrIP1I ( ,��f'Il11131114
I ric / ;
�, ,��\`\ \\ _ '�.:. ,; , '/A�r 1 / / 4\,,;• :I' 111 \ C.
's .� . ,. u� :� E(' 'i71,i /. r/,ritIli b1/// //, l,,r \1
TENTATIVE MAP — SUBDIVISION 5766 BMIhN KANGAS FOULK
HANSEN HILL RANCH CCNSILIING ENGtDFEnS
v' I ......,....... ......>......... m„........
PAGE._ OF._L__-
/ "ii ilt,14.'lly
. .. \\,,,k ,, ,...\.% , \ . 47.0.2-4,-...- 7,pyl1/44,#.041)s 1 k /,/ 1 t / , I
.. — s , 1,,,,\ 4m. 4.3.*ALN,44410101 , ' # 1;, /// I) N i 1
0,; .., gi i
'w.r!.,v 'ttR ,S�'�►o�t '(!l 11l/`" -1 ' I 111 f 1 I
- A, t 'rt.
.4. ,.14,,,, I/1 1 bi tts lel tlikt‘
ii
-i--- ',4 I, c ,-Reelo,?, :;,,./fiottiobw Ll i)E:ip„:
. ,420 3f,/ !I ,:ii oreasoy -1140'.,,,dol A - ; -,
< "-- '4"'I 1''''- IV Prod; irol iip
op
-----_-_,*„.... trivs.1.1,,,,,„,.. I I 114 ii..- //,
- -----=----7..._:0,;,,tfOVVW,A11311 -itc . +
,oz _sn-...123voi*,...4„th.• 7...„, D lye elk-• . IN'- 4-
rfroglet_A4 1 //pi, /. / fir -
4
._ . 4:$4, ( off /'� ��/ , ,.....3„--- .
fi-0,7r,(0,----a ::-------_ __.--,- ,..____-/, 'tip' ir " ,
I /1 If j
,e.`,/,‘,0" • a
® f
\ .1, 4 0 - i- /1
erh., , S
,.../i \\/ i +
:10... .Ji 1,4i. , ,
7._ ,.,,,,.. /y_�fasE ..o. Ty •
i9
\tt . _ ./0,,kt.,, \ • :
T.
ti 00"" i • 7/ ' . \ •
II)i L' 1 , 0/..,/ .4 "- ''c I +
i. 2 l AY//. /,':(?"./ ))) / 7
A =� I'I /..
/ .( .r. ,_...... , . . ,
.11 ...c ;,...:-...._......{ ,. .
i ._..,, , TENTATIVE HAP - SUBDIVISION 5766( ,,. / ;,77/fiv.:_- , ,
BRIAN KANGAS FOULK
4�E HANSEN HILL RANCH pd,_n�,+sllt�M..E.G t!NEE,.,n n,<n
' - _. pap Al.(OA"WIT CKIIIArI� "^ "
PAGE 4 OF 1
.. -
,'1
.•;.'.imI
- . 5(« riril iiiNS /%4/7°'
± . ,.,. .„ lis /0// / .ftz4z - ,-, (iIrr/e/Li7 7;p
r/tl itill/P/Iqll
/if
711V/1"
V/ )1/#11/P1
' 1,1/0/4 7/1/11 /
/;,/,', /,/ /I/ -,/ 1 /7, 4 .,, Zi
6//.// /: , . 1. /4 %
± , 'ITO ' 1 //f/ ', //// ;',A :
7//if 'I4\ _// �/ �/
,i( ,
.itio ,, \, ,\ • ____/ , ______:_ii,, ,
i � \ ,_ \ A-�� ,i� �
1,►I,, rri�ll��ll � �� \ �� �
-_=_-_,_
/;/,/ / /p;:lteNi * //// - //p ---''''''
,,,(p/f,/,/ovxk,, ,, , ) ) ilis7/#0' 74hAfieri,
(//0, ,,, ,/, , . ,
''{'' 'A'''\\t 11 1)111///f/efiN/t
\:.‘k\ V‘• \ i Ill/';'/ )It // /7
IY -\*\\ \) .11,1v ifr/14f) '
\ �l\il \ k;$1/'/t.{;/4k
\il/1/1/0111)10
( q.\' \
��`
1 \») )\•1 `()) 1)\i \ ill' cylci jig, ii, ) t---
.47,1\,,v,„ ,_ ,,, ,,,,,i0*. /1 ko,p, \k::,
/71,' iipittil_ iLi_r., ),4\-,lazdi,/,/4T ,/s/a:.:.0',:,///))
i'L/71-6-17' "'11-111" ffilla / /;,/".1/;, -,:->z --- r
Q^. 1 `"— TENTATIVE HAP — SUBDIVISION 5766
CCHSBRIAN KANSAS MAY
HILL RANCH 6LTING ENG:HEea5
cutron.n. w... WTI w.-0..
PAGE I OF 1
•
•
,/ . . ill,l,l,:•:/ :l.i.:I'I:':1;:•\''S.\\I'..�:. ._ //V
r „, / r I i- 1 - 1r 1 , j i I; 1 \ !`lt _ : / /.
ill `• i�� ,, l , i jfl�)- _ _- //1.k
. •,.:v.ilk ,Illr;l ..i../'' �,, •C�u' t' _ ,��'�.I' Atl ; ! - i I '', II`\\'-_�_...v../
- / /yM}r'l'.
.././ .7. ''''.4
111
Il1�rl,�,;l.fti. l;�i a<. I L il
t.kri l 1 "\,' . �� - Ij-'t \;\j, ty '�/i'/ -9
'j 1 i tIll. _ y , .\' : i '. P. `,.1\1 I I \ \ --- ` " /. // j'/' -
--.,.;Ian,, �' :�i��`:=�' � =� !€ \r\-,`-ties-',� ��/� <�/'� �/r-
---.I; ,- _ _.;:-_--= . C\ ==.ice y. . 7/
17
. •U.2!s_1":1 , 1• ____________-.-V.,,,..<..L;'). \ 1:?..,_ \‘'...:\::i,,,_:___,H. ...:::::„...:-______,7l. ! ' --._,,..- j.r.,___'' '1\/-,:-/'.: e04\1_,_,:-.7.1.ii'l_________==e 2 i
Ir L! �I /. !,,t% 1 ~Q\� 1'`Q.it /`/-./'r�' f I'i %;
\ ' 1 rl y i-5,,- ,'/
/'' �, s 1' \ `-.i v / //_ \\ , J A
`m , _- �/" j/ �/f �i �/!'-1,/.-
�i�` . \ J���/ /- i,r�� { '%/ _may/i �r :
ter- i' z, �-i. /A `, ti�
''\ \ • \ --- ' 7 ' 'f i. V ' -
. \ • \ , _L\ -c_.,:/7i.. - _-.- , '." .r.Z__'-,'.11 fliWW)6,k'o ,17-'1-1-----1a. /
---�—�=�— _ - `_. �� ��i�'�;�,/ ark„:,•:':\, \.
—71 � � -
rt. } .,
_ ly _...ill, 4-, I I!I Y/ /,i`u-`}tl- '-/• _
'v
r.5. II
a _ _ -'— 'HANS-cN HILL RANCH Brian �
- YALLE7 CHRISiIx}I ENTRANCE ROAD Faulk '��
avNn au.ce.CCU.,
C
PAGE,_.!_OF__(__
•
i
• �l I,..{.iai�iiyli� ; :�.:. �s �) /� // •��///,,', ;•'4?•�•7/( �(.-. .;: ��; ;%
_Y I i �'ll'1•,I1 i ��\ — •--1 I.. /i/i��l it l l I`(/ 1 r/ .„..I�:. 1_-.•... �':
,,
\ ri , .. ..... .., 1 ,.. ,
all' IIt / - � � (r`,,,. •r;,',K,,, !II 111,,,?,-, --.-,„-"•,
..„ 407--; t. -.}.ee:. .,,,- -..;.,,:i.. . - \\:,,,,,.- I;•„•:,7,,';:i i!;;1•;/ill I IF ! •1
i 1
�I i ],\;Y' .... IWila .: �y-_' I�rir ll'Ii I!I'1.
trar
r - ` I:.•.... '1 (/I r�--- ..
i • .:.1! -1' •-: 'II 'firr''Vr... Ig\ ‘(\s\••••IV•r•\7,-•••s, f---..-- • i.•,.i.., ,I .
' 1 ' I p�\'i(.!'I 4'� \ \1\�\�\. • '`..:_..�\r:r ',\ - � ) I 1
:.:...:•;.;x-,.., •'V,..;-.-\‘‘..,13.j, c. -2;_i, i I-7
. -ifitr' i III 'PI', I r\I ks1 1‘st AP'\'v '•- ' \' ', ‘ \\\``\\%1•Ys- Ki \ i ‘ , 7
I I I'i, I III Q: ,� \ (� .. \ 'VW'.
•'. I/C
(f i 1 y� 1tlh�11\'��\,\„ ✓�� '; \4 a\�\\\\�\� 1•• t\' _ � � `
}1!.ilY '• 'i !•li,`\\�`\\l;i\\`\\•?i4'`\`.\\����i, i9�•;, ''. \' \ •' ', '\ \\ ,....•\.\, •i Y,-I:
1II, isi \° \ Ta'ss ��' '"\\ • i
=III°N \•„ ��!� ;`, ,�a \� ! _ ,\ �� _c A ^➢I
*I..:
' L \
III
I
` I{ r gill
� +!I� �f � ' ; ; •-
I'' jlfl�I j ` '�i � ` ( 4\0� •' I I ' 1 i� ►4 1 _1 \, 1 , r! � . i :::.1'
Il \ 1M �I , i 44‘4,1),,t,'''....,'' s\ 1II`II1JI II' ',, u . d.I jI �\ \\ _ 1l l i\ \ `�
Akpg r• .._._
.\ \ ,
` •; •r i 11'i I milt; 'Ill,, \ '^`—
I I i rl�,I '1j� it 1) ))( ( Z�^, _
• ,I�' 1 'cam=
1 • l 'i• ! I II�111T1.• +..I?_'=- i�_ �.'�.
I .I.
^��-_.- HANSEN'HILL RANCH I BHIAN KANGAS FCULK
YALLET CAAISTIAII ENTRANCE ROAD carsL�n�c E.+GINEE0.5
...r Dual+ iu.m,a ENT eau...r�
....-•-..-.. .""^"""'. n,.e....,
_„--
PAGE F t
r=
e-•� RESOLUTION NO. 130 - 89
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5766
CONCERNING PA 89-062 HANSEN HILL RANCH/BREN CO.
WHEREAS, the Bren Co. has requested approval of a Tentative
Map, Planned Development Prezoning, and Annexation of 147 acres
to allow 180 single-family.lots on approximately 51 acres and
approximately 96 acres of open space, in unincorporated Alameda
County, west of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive and South
of Winding Trails; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the
adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no
real property may be divided into two or more parcels for purpose
of sale, lease or financing unless a tentative map is acted upon,
and a final map is approved consistent with the Subdivision Map
Act and City of Dublin subdivision regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings to
consider the request on November 6, 1989 and November 20, 1989;
and
WHEREAS, proper public notice of this request was given in
all respects as required by law for the Planning Commission
hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the Tentative Map
subject to conditions prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS,-the Planning Commission heard and considered all
said reports, recommendations and written and oral testimony
submitted at the public hearing and recommended City Council
approval of the Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing to
consider the request on November 27, 1989; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State law (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance has.been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending City
Council approval of the Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 127-89
approving Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA 89-062; and
WHEREAS, approval of any pads on the Valley Christian Center
site is not construed to authorize any building on the proposed
pads; and
PAGE/OF C• Atal
- 1 -
r1
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said
report, recommendations, written and oral testimony submitted at
the public hearing as hereinabove setforth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does
hereby find:
1. Tentative Map 5766, as modified, is consistent with the
intent of applicable subdivision regulations and City
Zoning and related ordinances.
2. Tentative Map 5766, as modified, is consistent with the
City's General Plan as they apply to the subject
property.
3. Tentative Map 5766 will not result in the creation of
significant environmental impacts.
4. Tentative Map 5766 will not have substantial adverse
effects on health or safety or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to
property or public improvements.
5. The site is physically suitable for the proposed
development in that the site is indicated to be
geologically satisfactory for the type of development
proposed in locations as shown, provided the geological
consultant's recommendations are followed; and the site
is in a good location regarding public services and
facilities.
6. The request is appropriate for the subject property in
terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the
area, will not overburden public services, and will
facilitate the provision of housing of a type and cost
that is desired,.in the City of Dublin.
7. General site considerations, including unit layout,
open space, topography, orientation and the location of
future buildings, vehicular access, circulation and
parking, setbacks and similar elements have been
designated to provide a desirable environment for the
development.
8. This project will not cause serious public health
problems in that all necessary utilities are, or will
be, required to be available and Zoning, Building and
n Subdivision Ordinances control the type of development
and the operation of the uses to prevent health
problems after development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves
Tentative Map 5766 - PA 89-062 - subject to the conditions listed
below: PAGE Z. 0r Zy
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified, the following conditions shall be
complied with prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Each
item is subject to review and approval by the Plannina Department
unless otherwise specified.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Approval of Tentative Map is subject to the
subdivider/developer securing final approval from the
Dublin City Council for the Planned Development (PD)
Prezoning request covering the subject property. Any
modifications to the project design approved by the
Planned Development (PD) Prezoning action shall
supersede the design on the Tentative Map and shall be
considered as an approved modification on the Tentative
Map. Site Development Review approval for the project
shall be secured prior to the recordation of the Final
Map. Site Development Review and Final Map recordation
may occur in phases.
2. Comply with the "Typical Public Works Conditions of
Approval for Subdivisions" (see Attachment 1).
3. The Developer shall comply with applicable Fire
Department, Flood Control District, and Public Works
requirements. Written statements from each such agency
or department approving the plans over which it has
• jurisdiction shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to issuance of building permits on
lots of the subdivision or the installation of any
improvements related to this project.
4. Should the developer wish to file a master Tract Map
separating or phasing the project, all off-site work
shall be guaranteed and constructed as part of the
agreement for this tract. In addition, all streets
necessary to keep from landlocking any parcel shall be
offered for dedication and the construction guaranteed
by the Subdivision Agreement.
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
5. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall
be established for this development. The CC&R's shall
be approved by the Planning Director prior to the
/4N recordation of the Final Map.
6. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City
to assure that:
PAGE 3 OF A. There is adequate provision for at least the
maintenance, in good repair, of all commonly owned
•
facilities, property and landscaping, including
but not limited to open space areas, lighting,
recreation facilities, landscape and irrigation
facilities, fencing, and drainage and erosion
control improvements.
B. Payment of dues and assessments shall be both a
lien against the assessed land and a personal
obligation of each property owner. An estimate of
these costs shall be provided to each buyer prior
to the time of purchase.
C. The Association shall keep the City Planning
Department informed of the current name, address
and phone number of the Association's official
representative.
• D. Payment of the water and street lighting bills
(maintenance and energy) and maintenance and
repair of storm drain lines, are the obligations
of the Homeowner's Association, unless paid for
through a Lighting and Landscape Maintenance
Assessment District.
E. Each buyer is to sign an acknowledgement that he
has read the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Homeowner's Association and the Conditions,
Covenants and Restrictions applying to the
• development.
F. The Homeowner's Association shall contract with,
or be advised (as in handling maintenance
operations) by, a professional management firm.
G. The CC&R's shall include a statement outlining the
obligations_of the property owner to be
responsible for public liability in case of injury
in connection with public utility easements, and
for maintenance of private vehicle access ways and
utility trenches in public utility easements.
H. The Homeowner's Association shall maintain a list
of plant materials acceptable for landscaping
subject to review and approval of the Planning
Director and Fire Department.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
/'t
7. Landslides and erosive areas as outlined in the
Geotechnical Investigation Report for Hansen Hill Ranch
project by Harlan Miller Tait shall be shown on the
PAGE (' OF Grading and Improvement Plans. Proposed repairs shall
be outlined on these same plans.
•
•
8. Long term maintenance of these landslide repairs and
unrepaired landslides in the open space shall be the
responsibility of the Homeowner's Association and
incorporated in the CC&R's.
9. Prior to approval of grading plans, Applicant shall
conform to the recommendations outlined in the
Geotechnical Investigation Report for Hansen Hill Ranch
project by Harlan Miller Tait as a minimum. Stricter
controls, particularly on landslide repairs, retaining
structures, subdrains, and surface drainage, may be
imposed by the Public Works Director.
10. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City shall
contract for a third party soil's engineer to review
and recommendation of the Applicant's submitted
Geotechnical Investigation Report as related to
landslide repair. The Applicant/Developer shall pay
the City the cost of the third party review.
11. A minimum of 6" subdrains shall be installed in all
swales that are to be filled.
12. All concentrated storm drain flow shall be discharged
into the established drainage channels, not onto the
slopes.
13. All inlets and outlets of storm drain flow from or into
natural drainage channels shall be constructed with
rock slope protection to eliminate erosion and
undercutting.
14. A registered civil engineer shall design all retaining
walls over three feet in height (or over two feet in
height with a surcharge) and a building permit shall be
required for their construction. A maintenance/
inspection program shall be implemented by the
developer/homeowners' association for the periodic
inspection and maintenance of all retaining walls that
could possibly affect the public right-of-way.
15. The Applicant/Developer shall submit for Public Works
Director review and approval, a detailed
hydrology/hydraulic report for this project. In
particular, the report shall include the effects on the
creek and the downstream drainage facilities of the
ultimate development of the entire watershed that this
project is a part of. The hydraulic capacity of the
creek and existing culvert under Silvergate to carry
the 100 year design flow at ultimate upstream
• i development 'should be demonstrated. The report shall
PAGES 0F. S address the possible need for creek improvements
including, but not limited to, realignment, widening,
bank repair/reinforcement, and drop structures.
Moreover, the report shall look at the possible need
and location for detention basins. These improvements
shall be made as part of this subdivision, subject to
review and approval of the Public Works Director.
16. A profile of the creek and cross sections at 200-foot
(maximum) intervals and at changes in creek cross
sections should be determined by field survey as part
of the hydraulic investigation and for verification of
the required setbacks. These x-sections shall show the
10 and 100 year water service levels.
17. Creek velocities should not exceed 6-7 fps to avoid
erosion problems.
18. A soils report and/or investigation should address the
stability of the existing creek banks. Any recommended
repairs should be implemented.
19. Each lot that drains to the street shall be provided
with two 3" drains through the curbs and the roof
leaders shall be tied into them.
20. No drainage shall be directed over a slope.
21. Drainage in all concrete ditches shall be picked up and
directed to the bottom of an approved drainage channel.
The slope on these ditches shall not be less than .5€.
22. All cut and fill slopes shall be contoured to appear
natural and blend with the existing natural contours.
23. The soils report for the project shall include
recommendations 1) for foundations, decks, and other
miscellaneous structures, 2) for design of swimming
pools, and 3) for setbacks for structures from top or
toes of slopes. Additionally, the soils report shall
include a professional opinion as to safety of the site
from the hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement
and seismic activity.
24. A declaration by the soils engineer that he has
supervised grading and that such conformance has
occurred shall be submitted to the Public Works
Director.
25. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and
r41 placement of base materials, all underground utilities
shall be installed and service connections stubbed out
behind the sidewalk. Public utilities, Cable TV,
FAGS` Zf� sanitary sewers, and water lines will be installed in a
0� manner which"will not disturb the street pavement,
curb, gutter and sidewalk when future service
connections or extensions are made.
26. Grading shall be completed in compliance with the
construction grading plans and recommendations of the
project's soils engineer and/or engineering geologist,
and the approved erosion and sedimentation control
plan, and shall be done under the supervision of the
project's soils engineer and/or engineering geologist,
who shall, upon its completion, submit a declaration to
the Public Works Director that all work was done in
accordance with the recommendations contained in the
soils and geologic investigation reports and the
approved plans and specifications. Inspections that
will satisfy grading plan requirements shall be
arranged with the Public Works Director.
27. Any grading on adjacent properties will require written
approval of those property owners affected.
28. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in
grading operations are different from that anticipated
in the soil and geologic investigation report, or where
such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations
contained in the original soil investigation, a revised
soil or geologic report shall be submitted for review
by the Public Works Director. It shall be accompanied
by an engineering and geological opinion as to the
safety of the site from hazards of land slippage,
erosion, settlement and seismic activity.
29. The developer and/or his representatives shall submit
to the State Department of Fish and Game, for review
and approval, final designs of flood and erosion
control structures, road crossings, bridges and
culverts or any construction activity proposed in
conjunction with this project that may affect Martin
Canyon Creek in accordance with Sections 1601-03 of the
Fish and Game Code. A Streambed Alteration Agreement
shall be secured by the developer from the Department
of Fish and Game.
30. Prior to commencement of construction activity
affecting Martin Canyon Creek, the Applicant/Developer
shall submit to the Planning Director proof of
compliance with Condition #29.
31. Grading within the designated open space area in the
northwestern portion of the site and in the
southeastern portion of the site shall be limited to
that grading which is necessary for construction of the
roadways traversing the open space, subject to review
and approval,of the Planning Director and Public Works
Director.
NM 7 0; 25
—12. The cut and fill slope area in the vicinity of the two
existing knolls in the southwestern portion of the site
shall substantially conform to 3:1 slopes and shall be
contoured to appear natural and blend with the existing
natural slope as viewed on and off site, subject to
review and approval of the Public Works Director.
33. All cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated with
native shrubs, trees and grasses subject to review and
approval of the Planning Director and Public Works
Director.
STREETS
34. Sidewalks shall be located on both sides of the public
streets, except for the west side of "A" Street between
• "B" Streets and Lot 119 Streets and the west side of
the Valley Christian Center access road between "D"
Street and Dublin Boulevard and the south side of "E"
Street between "E" Court and Silvergate Drive.
35. The reverse curves on "A" Street in the vicinity of its
intersection with "B" Street shall be straightened out
to increase sight distance at this intersection.
36. Minimum sight distance for public streets shall be as
described in the CalTrans Highway Design Manual.
37. All public streets shall drain into storm drain systems
before being discharged into established drainage
channels.
38. The landscaped median area shown at the Silvergate
Drive entrance shall be owned by the City of Dublin,
but maintained by the homeowners within this
development. This median shall be installed to not
less than City of Dublin standards, including moisture
barriers and subdrains.
39. The minimum uniform gradient of streets shall be 1.0%
and 2% on soil drainage. The street surfacing shall be
asphalt concrete paving. The Public Works Director
shall review the project's soils engineer's structure
design. The subdivider shall, at his sole expense,
make tests of the soil over which the surfacing and
base is to be constructed and furnish the test reports
to the Public Works Director. The subdivider's soils
engineer shall determine a preliminary structural
r%1 design of the road bed. After rough grading has been
completed, the developer shall have soil tests
performed to determine the final design of the road
pp bed.
PAGE 0 01 40. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the Public
Works Director for any work done within the public
right-of-way where this work is not covered under the
improvement plans.
41. Street width standards shall be not less than the
Alameda County standards. "A", "B", "D" and "E"
streets shall be considered 2-lane collectors. "C"
Street shall be considered a 2-lane minor street, for
these purposes.
42. Street names shall be submitted and processed through
the Planning Department and shall be indicated on the
Final Map.
43. The Developer shall furnish and install street name
signs, in accordance with the standards of the City of
Dublin, bearing such names as are approved by the
Planning Director. The subdivider shall furnish and
install traffic safety signs in accordance with the
standards of the City of Dublin.
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
44. Prior to release of occupancy, the developer shall be
responsible for the construction of an additional
right-turn lane and related signal modifications on the
west leg of eastbound Dublin Boulevard at the San Ramon
Road intersection. This cost shall be split between
this development and the development of the Blaylock,
Gleason, Fletcher property immediately to the west, on
a pro rata basis based on the amount of traffic
generated by each development.
45. Prior to approval of the improvement plans and Final
Map, the Applicant/Developer shall submit documents
satisfactory to the City of Dublin evidencing
irrevocable public access on the proposed road across
the Valley Christian Center property. Said documents
shall be subject to City Attorney review and approval.
46. Prior to release of occupancy of any units, the
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the
project's proportionate share (23.7%) of the cost for
the widening of the existing Dublin Boulevard roadway,
approximately 15 feet, all on the south side, between
Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive to accommodate four
12-foot traffic lanes, two five-foot bike lanes, and a
five-foot sidewalk, as generally shown on the proposed
e%1 widening plans prepared by TJKM and dated received
August of 1988 and described in the study prepared by
TJKM in memo dated September 27, 1989. The costs shall
_ be determined prior to release of occupancy.
F0'J Or Zy47 Prior to release of occupancy of any units, the
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the
r''I
project's proportionate share (23.7%) of the cost of
the redesign of the existing Dublin Boulevard/
Silvergate Drive intersection to form a "T"
intersection with Dublin Boulevard becoming the through
road and Silvergate Drive becoming controlled by a
"Stop" sign as generally shown on the plans prepared by
TJRM dated received August 1988 and described in the
study prepared by TJRM in memo dated September 27,
1989. The cost shall be determined prior to release of
occupancy.
48. Developer shall prepare legal descriptions for the
application to annex Dublin Boulevard into the City of
Dublin between Silvergate Drive and the west end of
Dublin Boulevard, and for the State of California to
relinquish Dublin Boulevard to the City.
UTILITIES
49. Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services,
shall be provided underground to each lot or building
in accordance with the City policies and existing
e*-‘, ordinances. All utilities shall be located and
provided within public utility easements, sized to meet
utility company standards, or in public streets.
50. Prior to filing of the grading and improvement plans,
the developer shall furnish the Public Works Director
with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) stating that DSRSD has agreed to furnish water
and sewer service to the development.
51. Secure DSRSD agreement to maintain the on-site sanitary
sewer collection system excluding individual laterals.
The system shall be designed as acceptable to DSRSD.
52. All utilities to and within the project shall be
undergrounded.
WATER
53. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system,
and must be installed at the expense of the developer,
in accordance with District standards and
specifications. All material and workmanship for water
mains, and appurtenances thereto, must conform with all
of the requirements of the officially adopted Water
Code of the District, and will be subject to field
inspection by the District.
54. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or
PAGE (V 01 Z5 exploratory boring shown on the map, that is known to
exist, is proposed or is located during the course of
field operations, must be properly destroyed,
/71,
backfilled, or maintained in accordance with applicable
groundwater protection ordinances. Zone 7 should be
contacted for additional information.
55. The Developer/Applicant shall comply with all
applicable DSRSD and City of Dublin Public Works
requirements, particularly regarding:
A. The elevation of the storm drain relative.to the
sewer lines.
B. The location of the sewer man-holes. They shall
be in parking or street areas accessible by
DSRSD's equipment.
C. Dedication of sewer lines.
D. Location and design of the water system valves.
56. The Applicant/Developer shall submit plans for all
DSRSD facilities within the project to DSRSD for review
and approval.
57. The Applicant/Developer shall submit a water system
analysis showing pressures and elevations throughout
the development, including a water main linking the
Black Reservoir to the development subject to DSRSD
review and approval.
•
58. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/
Developer shall submit to the City of Dublin Planning
Director proof that Conditions #55, 56 and 57 have been
met.
EASEMENTS
59. Where the Applicant/Developer does not have easements,
he shall acquire easements, and/or obtain
rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for
improvements required outside of the property.
Original copies of the easements and/or rights-of-entry
shall be in written form and shall be furnished to the
Public Works Director.
60. Existing and proposed access and utility easements
shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Public Works Director prior to the grading and
improvement plan. These easements shall allow for
practical vehicular and utility service access for all
lots.
62. A 10-foot public utility easement shall be shown on the
PAGE OF 25 Final Map along all street frontages, in addition to
•
all other easements required by the utility companies
or governmental agencies.
62. Where the sidewalk deviates from the curb at the
Silvergate Drive entrance, a pedestrian easement shall
be dedicated over that sidewalk, subject to review and
approval of the Public Works Director.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AGREEMENTS AND SECURITY
63. All improvements within the public right-of-way,
including curb gutter, sidewalks, driveways, paving and
utilities, must be constructed in accordance with
approved standards and/or plans subject to approval of
the Public Works Director.
64. Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans and
specifications for street improvements, grading,
drainage (including size, type and location of drainage
facilities both on and off-site) and erosion and
sedimentation control shall be submitted and subject to
the review and approval of the Public Works Director.
65. The subdivider shall enter into an Improvement
Agreement with the City for all public improvements.
Complete improvement plans, specifications and
calculations shall be submitted to, and approved by,
the Public Works Director and other affected agencies
having jurisdiction over public improvements prior to
execution of the Improvement Agreement. Improvement
plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements
along adjacent public street(s) and property that
relate to the proposed improvements. All required
securities, in an amount equal to 100% of the approved
estimates of construction costs of improvements, and a
labor and material security, equal to 50% of the
construction costs, shall be submitted to, and approved
by, the City and affected agencies having jurisdiction
over public improvements, prior to execution of the
Improvement Agreement.
66. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers,
and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or
employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency,
appeal board, or legislative body concerning a
subdivision, which action is brought within the time
period provided for in Section 66499.37 of the
Government Code of the State of California. The City
r.
of Dublin shall promptly notify the subdivider of any
FP�,,c11. 0, — claim, action, or proceedings and shall cooperate fully
in the defense.
•
•
67. Prior to release by the City Council of the performance
and labor and materials securities:
A. All improvements shall be installed as per the
approved Improvement Plans and Specifications.
• B. All required landscaping along public streets
shall be installed and established.
C. An as-built landscaping plan for landscaping along
public streets prepared by a Landscape Architect,
together with a declaration that the landscape
installation is in conformance with the approved
plans shall be submitted to the Public Works
Director.
D. The following shall have been submitted to the
Public Works Director:
i. An as-built grading plan prepared by a
registered civil engineer, including original
ground surface elevations, as-graded ground
/'\ surface elevations, lot drainage, and
locations of all surface and subsurface
drainage facilities.
ii. A complete record, including location and
elevation of all field density tests, and a
summary of all field and laboratory tests.
iii. A declaration by the project geologist or
soils engineer that all work was done in
accordance with the recommendations contained
in the soil and geologic investigation
reports and specifications, and that
continuous monitoring was performed by a
• representative of the soils engineer.
iv. A declaration by the project civil engineer
or land surveyor that the finished graded
building pads are within + 0.1 feet in
elevation of those shown on the grading plan
(or to any approved modified grades).
DEDICATIONS
68. Park land shall be dedicated or in-lieu fees shall be
paid, or a combination of both shall be provided prior
to issuance of building permits or prior to recordation
of the Final.Map, whichever occurs first, in accordance
with the Subdivision Ordinance. The park land
FAGfa. dedication required is approximately 1.98 acres ( .011
Or° acres/dwelling units x number of dwelling units).
n
69. The offer of dedication of "B" Street shall be separate
from the other offers of dedication.
70. The offer of dedication of "C" Street shall be separate
from the other offers of dedication.
71. All street dedications shall include working easements
for slopes.
OPEN SPACE/COMMON AREAS/LANDSCAPING
72. Prior to release of building permits, the Applicant/
Developer shall prune out all deadwood in the trees to
be saved and clean up ground of all deadwood and debris
to keep this material from getting into the
watercourse. This pruning and removal shall be done in
the area lying between the creek (property line to the
north) and 50 feet uphill (to the south) of the new
chain link barrier. The CC&R's for the project shall
establish a program to provide this service at least
once a year, occurring prior to October 15th of that
year.
73. All building pad elevations shall be above the 100-year
water surface level for Martin Canyon Creek.
74. All permanent structures shall be set back a minimum of
20 feet from (a) the top of the bank of Martin Canyon
Creek or (b) a 2 (horizontal) to a 1 (vertical)
projection from the toe of the creek bank to the top of
ground (whichever is greater) as required by the
Watercourse Protection Ordinance. Maintenance easement
shall be recorded over any portion of lots that
encroach within this setback area and potential
purchasers of the lots shall be made aware that the
City has the right to remove, and not replace, any
improvements that are constructed within the easement
area.
75. All common area landscaping, landscaped medians, and
open space shall be maintained by the Homeowner's
Association.
\ 76. The Applicant/Developer shall construct an access road
along the existing creek bank. The road shall be
approximately located as shown on the Tentative Map.
The exact location shall be laid out in the field by
/, the developer and approved by the Public Works
Director. The road shall extend from "E" street in the
vicinity of Silvergate Drive to the western property
line (lands of Blaylock, Gleason & Fletcher). If the
FAG: 14 1 ds road and creek are dedicated to the City, then this
road shall be 12 feet wide compacted aggregate base
• with drainage improvements as necessary at retaining
n
walls and swales. No less than one foot uphill from
the road, the developer shall construct a 4 to 6 foot
high barrier fence subject to review and approyal of
the Public Works Director. This maintenance road shall
have a longitudinal slope of not greater than 20% and
shall have a centerline radius of not less than 100
feet. Minimum 12-inch CMP cross-culverts shall be
installed under this access road where necessary. The
strip of land that lies between the chain link.barrier
and the northern property line shall be offered to the
City of Dublin for public access and maintenance
purposes. If the road and creek are to be private,
then the road shall be graded a minimum of 8 feet wide
with 6 foot wide aggregate base subject to Public Works
Director approval.
77. Maintenance of common areas including ornamental
landscaping, graded slopes, erosion control plantings
and drainage, erosion and sediment control
improvements, retaining walls, and landslide repair
improvements shall be the responsibility of the
developer during construction stages, and until final
improvements are accepted by the City, and the
performance guarantee required is released; thereafter,
maintenance shall be the responsibility of a
Homeowner's Association, which automatically collects
maintenance assessments from each owner and makes the
assessments a personal obligation of each owner and a
lien against the assessed property.
78. Street trees, of at least a 15-gallon size, shall be
planted along the street frontages. Trees shall be
planted in accordance with a planting plan, including
tree varieties and locations, approved by the Planning
Director. Trees planted within, or adjacent to,
sidewalks or curbs shall be provided with root shields.
79. Prior to issuance of grading permit visually important
•
trees shall be tagged in the field for protection and
preservation and appropriately fenced subject to
approval of the Public Works Director.
DEBRIS/DUST
80. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash,
construction debris, and materials on-site until
disposal off-site can be arranged. The developer shall
be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to
the City of Dublin.
81. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets and
driveways free and clean of project dirt, mud,
PAGE,L,_oF materials and debris, and clean-up shall be made during
n
the construction period, as determined by the Public
Works Director.
82. Areas undergoing grading and all other construction
activities shall be watered or other dust-palliative
measures used to prevent dust, as conditions warrant.
ARCHAEOLOGY
83. If, during construction, archaeological remains are
encountered, construction in the vicinity shall be
halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the City
Planning Department notified. If, in the opinion of
the archaeologist, the remains are significant,
measures, as may be required by the Planning Director,
shall be taken to protect them.
FIRE
84. All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated
connections, and appurtenances thereto, necessary to
provide water supply for fire protection, must be
installed by the developer and conform to all
requirements of the applicable provisions specified by
the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA). All such
work will be subject to the joint field inspection of
the Public Works Director and DRFA.
85. The developer shall comply with all applicable
requirements of DRFA including, but not limited to,
those related to the following:
A. Fire Trail Access
B. Fire Buffer Zone
C. Weed Abatement
D. Fire Sprinklers in Structures outside the 1-1/2
mile distance from the nearest fire station.
E. Street Grades
F. Fire Impact Fee
G. Fire Hydrants and Roads
MISCELLANEOUS
86. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities
shall be accomplished at no expense to the City.
87. Copies of the project plans, indicating all lots,
streets and drainage facilities, shall also be
submitted at 1" = 400' scale, and 1" = 200' scale for
City mapping purposes.
[.,p,r-I' Or 2488. This property shall be annexed to the Street Lighting
Maintenance Assessment District No. 83-1.
/'•
89. All construction traffic may be subject to specific
routing as determined by the Public Works Director.
90. The Developer shall provide unit address information to
the satisfaction of DRFA, U.S. Postal Services, and
City of Dublin Planning Department.
91. All construction/grading activity at the site shall be
restricted 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 Public Works Director.
92. In submitting subsequent plans for review and approval,
each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy
of these conditions of approval. The notations shall
clearly indicate how all conditions of approval will be
complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted
without the annotated conditions attached to each set
of plans. The Applicant will be responsible for
obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City
agencies prior to the issuance of building permits.
93. The Applicant/Developer shall work with the
Applicant/Developer of the adjacent property Donlan
Canyon project site Tentative Map 5962 to provide
adequate access and utility connections, to the
satisfaction of Public Works Director.
94. The cut and fill pads on the Valley Christian Center
site shall be rounded to create a more natural
appearance blending with the natural contours of the
site subject to approval of the Public Works Director.
95. The approval or creation of any pads on the Valley
Christian Center site shall not be construed to
authorize any building on the proposed pads.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of November,
1989.
AYES: Councilmembers Aegarty, Snyder, Vonheeder and
Mayor Moffatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Jeffery
Mayor
ATT
PAGED_OFi;- 74
City Clerk
r
•
•
•
•
•
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza (4151 833-6630
Dublin CA 94568
In order to assist Applicants in the preparation of Subdivision Plans (Tentative
Maps and Parcel Maps), the City of Dublin has prepared the following list of
Subdivision Conditions of Approval that have typically been applied to
subdivisions. This list should not be considered all-inclusive.
• This list should be used as a guide only.
Each application is analyzed separately and only Conditions that apply to a
specific application will be recommended as Conditions of Approval for that
application. Additional Conditions may be imposed as deemed necessary by the City.
Prior to the actual preparation of Subdivision plans, it is highly recommended that
Applicants meet with City Planning and Engineering Staff members to discuss Zoning
and Engineering design requirements, submittal requirements and processing
procedures.
TYPICAL PUBLIC PORES CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISIONS
ARCHAEOLOGY:
1. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, construction
in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the City Planning
Department notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are
significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken
to protect them.
BONDS:
2. Prior to release by the City Council of the performance and labor and
materials securities:
a. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved Improvement Plans
and Specifications. .
b. All required landscaping shall be installed and established.
3. An as-built landscaping plan prepared by the project Landscape Architect and a
declaration by the Project landscape Architect that all work was done under his
supervision and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the landscape
and soil erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be submitted to the Public
Works Director/City Engineer .
4. Grading of the subject property must conform with the approved Grading Plan
and the recommendations of the soils engineer to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director/City Engineer.
•
5. The following shal,:have been submitted to the Public Works Director/City
Engineer :
'Rev: 5/17/89
PAGE JLpFZ5J_
e
•
•
•
a. An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, including
• original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations,
•• lot drainage, and locations of- all surface and subsurface drainage
facilities.
b. A complete record, including location and elevation of all field density
tests, and a summary of all field and laboratory tests.
c. A declaration by the Project Civil Engineer and Project Geologist that all
work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the scil
and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and
specifications.
6. Performance, labor, and material securities to guarantee the installation of
subdivision improvements, including streets, drainage, grading, utilities and
landscaping, shall be provided and approved by the Public Works Director/City
Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map.
CREEK:
7. Buildings shall be no closer than 20 feet from top of the bank along the
Creek, where the top of bank is either the existing break in topography, or a pc'_n-
at the existing ground line which is the intersection of a line on a two-
horizontal-to-one-vertical slope begun at the toe of the slope in the Creek
(whichever is more restrictive.)
DRAINAGE:
•
8. Each lot shall be so graded as not to drain on any other lot or adjoining
property prior to being picked up by an approved drainage system:
9. Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, or other approved
dissipating devices.
10. A minimum of 12" diameter pipe shall be used for all public storm drains
to
ease maintenance and reduce potential blockage.
11. Under-sidewalk drains shall be provided to allow on-sit. drainage to ba tied
in, should the need arise.
DEBRIS:
12. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and
materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. Subdivider shall be
responsible for corrective measures at no expense to City of Dublin.
DUST:
13. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be
watered, or other dust-pallative measures may be-used, to prevent dust, as
conditions warrant or as directed by the Public Works Official.
14. Dust control measures, as approved by the Public Works Director/City I veer
shall be followed at all times during grading and construction operations.
- 2
�.` Rev: 5/17/89
•
I a5 •
•
EASEMENTS:
15.' The land divider shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from
the adjacent property owners for improvements required outside of the land
division. Copies of the easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in written form
and be furnished to the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
16. Existing and proposed access and utility easements shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to Final Ma;
approval. These easements shall allow for practical vehicular and utility service
• access for all lots.
•
EROSION:
17. Prior to any grading of the site, and in any case prior to filing a Final Ma_,
a detailed construction grading/erosion control plan (including phasing); and a
drainage, water quality, and erosion and sedimentation control plan, for the ?es:-
construction period, both prepared by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Engineering
Geologist; shall be approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Said
plans shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria, of all
erosion and sediment control measures. The plans shall attempt
t to insure that no
increase in sediment or pollutants from the site will occur. The post-coast—,--'ot
plan shall provide for long-term maintenance of all permanent erosion and sediment
control measures such as slope vegetation. The construction grading/erosion
control plan shall be implemented in place by October 15th and shall be maintained
^ J in place until April 15th unless otherwise allowed in•—'""=by the City cn_itoer.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to maintain the erosion and sediment
control measures for the year following acceptance of the subdivision improvements
by the City Council.
FINAL MAP:
18. Prior to filing the Final Hap, precise plans and specifications for street
improvements, grading, drainage (including size, type, and location of drainage
• facilities both on- and off-site), and erosion and sedimentation control, shall be
• approved bythe Public Works Director/City Engineer.
FIRE:
19. Install fire hydrants at the•locations approved by the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of development.
raised blue reflectorized traffic marker shall be epoxied t- the center or the
paved street opposite each hydrant.
20. All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connections, and
appurtenances thereto, necessary to provide water supply for fire protection, must
be installed by the developer and conform to all requirements cf the applicable
provisions of the Standard Specifications of Dublin San Ramon Services District and
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. All such work will be subject to the join:
field inspection of the Public Works Director/City Engineer and Dublin San Ramon
Services District. -
21. The improvement plans must be approved by the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority, as indicated by their signature on the title sheet.
. 3
Rev: 5/17/89
•
Fnrt OG25
•
•
FLOOD CONTROL:
•
22.: Comply with Alameda County Flood Control District requirements.
23. In the 100-year Flood Hazard Zone, all residential units shall have their
finished floor elevation be above the 100-year flood level. Commercial buildings
shall either provide flood-proofing, or have their finished floor elevation above
the 100-year flood level.
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS:
24. Dedication of land shall be made to the City of Dublin such that it conveys
land sufficient for the approved streets' right-of-way. Improvements shall be
made, by the applicant, along all streets within the development and as red•'—
off-site, to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, drainage, and work on try
existing paving, if necessary, from a structural or grade continuity standpoint.
FUTURE CONFORMANCE:
25. The design and improvements of the Tract shall be in conformance with the
design and improvements indicated graphically, or as codified by the Conditions of
•
Approval. The improvements and design shall include street locations, grades`
alignments, and widths, the design and storm drainage facilities inside and c._ i%_
the Tract, grading of lots, the boundaries of the Tract, and shall show compliance_
with City standards for roadways.
GRADING:
26. The minimum uniform street gradient shall be 1.0 pair. Parking lots shall
have a minimum gradient of 1.0 percent, and a maximum gradient of 5.0 per cent. No
cut or fill slopes shall exceed 2:1, unless approved by the project's Soils
Engineer and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
Slopes shall be graded so that there is both horizontal and vertical slope
variation, where visible from public areas, in order to create or maintain a
natural appearance.
27. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials,
all underground utilities shall be installed and service connections stubbed cut
behind the sidewalk. Public utilities, Cable TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines.
shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb,
gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made.
28. Grading shall be completed in compliance with the construction grading plans
• and recommendations of the Project Soils Engineer and/cr Engineering Geologist, and
the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan, and shall be done under the
supervision of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, who shall,
upon its completion, submit a declaration to the Public Works Director/City
Engineer that all work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in
the soils and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and
specifications. Inspections that will satisfy final subdivision map requirements
shall be arranged with the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
4 -
Rev: 5/17/89
PAGE Z1 OF •
•
•
29. If grading is commenced prior to filing the Final Hap, a surety or guarantee,
as determined suitable by the Public Works Director/City Engineer, shall be filed
with the City of Dublin to insure restoration of the site to a stable and erosion
resistant state if the project is terminated prematurely.
•
30. Any grading on adjacent properties will require written approval of those
property owners affected.
31. Street grades shall be no more than 121 maximum, with 6% grades at
intersections, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director/City
Engineer.
32. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project
dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as is found
necessary by the Public Works Official.
33. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the soil and geologic investigation report, or
where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the
original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted
for approval by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by
an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of
land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity.
HANDICAPPED ACCESS:
34. Handicapped ramps and parking shall be provided as r.^.-'wed by State cf
California Title 24.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS. AGREEMENTS, AND SECURITIES:
35. Obtain copies of and comply with conditions as noted on "City of Dublin
General Notes on. Improvement Plans" and "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review
Check List."
36. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb gutter,
sidewalks, driveways, paving, and utilities, must be constructed in accordance with
approved standards and/or plans.
37. The Applicant/Developer shall enter into an improvement agreement with the
City for all improvements.
38. Complete improvement plans, specifications, and calculations shall be
submitted to, and be approved by, the Public Works Director/City Engineer and other
affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to execution
of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Improvement plans shall show the
existing and proposed improvements along adjacent public street(s) and property
that relate to the proposed improvements.
39. All required securities, in an amount equal to 100% of the approved eso'_^a_es
of construction costs of improvements, and a labor and material security, ec,:alto
501 of the construction cost, shall be submitted to, and be approved by, toe C:oy
and affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to
execution of the Subidvision Improvement Agreement.
Rev: 5/17/89
•
PAGE LZ OF 0
•
r'1
MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREA:
40.:Maintenance of common areas, including ornamental landscaping, graded slopes,
erosion control plantings and drainage, erosion and sediment control improvements,
shall be the responsibility of the developer during construction stages and until
final improvements are accepted by the City Council and the securities are released
(one year after improvements are accepted). Thereafter, maintenance shall be the
responsibility of a homeowners' association or individual property owners,
depending upon how maintenance is to be handled.
MISCELLANEOUS:
41. Copies of the Final Map and improvement plans, indicating all lots, streets,
and drainage facilities within the subdivision shall be submitted at 1"- 400-ft.
scale, and 1"- 200-it. scale for City mapping purposes.
42. The subdivider/developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent,
mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities.
NOISE: •
43. Construction and grading operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday
•
through Friday) and the hours from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., except as approved in
writing by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
PARKLAND DEDICATION:
44. The subdivider shall dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of park dedication to
the City of Dublin as is required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:
45. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be accomplished a:
no expense to the City.
STREETS:
4E. The street surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The Public Works
Director/City Engineer shall review the project's Soils En-gineer's structural
pavement design. The subdivider shall, at his sole a:cpe-se, take tests of the soil
over which the surfacing and base is to be constructed and furnish the test reports
to the Public Works Director/City Engineer. The Developer's soils engineer shall
determine a preliminary structural design of the road bed. After roueh grading has
been completed, the developer shall have soil tests performed to determine the
final design of the road bed. In lieu of these soil tests,:the road may be
designed and constructed based on an R-value of 5.
47. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the Public Works Director/City
Engineer for any work done within the public right-of-way, where this work is not
covered under the Subdivision Improvement plans.
•
5 _
• Rev: 5/17/89
•
•
PAGE Z3 Nit
•
STREET LIGHTS:
48. Install street light standards and luminaries of the design, spacing, and
locations, approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
STREET SIGNS:
49. The subdivider shall furnish and install street name signs, bearing such names
as are approved by the Planning Director, and traffic safety signs in accordance
with the standards of the City of Dublin. Addresses shall be assigned by the City
Building Official.
STREET TREES:
50. Street trees, of at least a 15-gallon size, shall be planted at the minimum
ratio of two trees per lot along the street frontages. Trees shall be planted in
accordance with a planting plan, including tree varieties and locations,
by the Planning Director. Trees planted within, or adjacent to, sidewalks shall be
provided with root shields.
TITLE:
51. A current title report and copies of the recorded deeds of all parties ha•in_
any record title interest in the property to be divided and, if necessary, c^
of deeds for adjoining properties and easements, thereto, shall be subm+t-ea the
time of submission of the Final Subdivision Hap for the Public Works Director/City
•
Engineer.
UTILITIES: •
52. Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services, shall be provided
III underground to each lot in accordance with the City policies and existing
ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public u-4,'-v
easements, sized to meet utility company standards.
53. Prior to the filing the Final hap, the subdivider shall furnish the Public
Works Director/City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) stating that the District has agreed to furnish water and sewer service to
each of the dwelling units and/or lot included on the Final Hap of the subdivision.
• 54. The Dublin San Ramon Services District shall review and approve the
• improvement plans as evidenced by their representative's signature on the T ^-
Sheet.
WATER:
• 55. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system, and must be ins-=,'=^
at the expense of the developer, in accordance with District standards and
specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains, and appurtenances
thereto, must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water
Code of the District end will be subject to field inspection by the District.
- 7 -
Rev: 5/17/89
•
•
•
M.E.2.4 or it
•
•
•
56. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring shown on the
map, that is known to exist, is proposed, or is located during the course of
operations, must be properly destroyed, backfilled, or maintained in accordance
with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. Zone 7 should be contacted (at
443-9300) for additional information.
ZONING: •
57. Comply with all zoning provisions, including Zoning Ordinance and rezoning
Conditions of Approval.
•
•
•
•
•
- 8 -
^\ Rev: 5/17/89 .
RECEIVED
2 o
APR 17 1992 J ' '
r"!T" e"r: ni IBLIN
RECORDING REQUESTED BY,
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Dublin, City Clerk
100 Civic Plaza Drive D. H. '92 1'JBi 26 P11 3 PI
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 ) (
Space above this line for Recorder's Use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CITY OF DUBLIN
FOR THE HANSEN HILL RANCH PROJECT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered in
the City of Dublin on this 25th day of March, 1992 , by and
between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "City") , and DONALD L. BREN
COMPANY, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to
as "Developer") , pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et
seq. of the California Government Code and City of Dublin
Ordinance No. 8-91.
RECITALS
A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq.
and Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91 authorize the CITY to enter
into an Agreement for the development of real property with
any person having a legal or equitable interest in such
property in order to establish certain development rights in
such property; and
B. DEVELOPER desires to develop and holds legal
interest in certain real property consisting of
approximately 147 acres of land, located in the City of
Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is
more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, and which real
property is hereinafter called the "Property" ; and
C. DEVELOPER proposes the development of the
Property with 180 single-family homes (the "Project") ; and
HANSEN AGREEMENT 1
February
ruary 28, 1992
WE _� ii'
P �[T
92091850
D. DEVELOPER has applied for, and CITY has
approved, various land use approvals in connection with the
development of the Project, including a general plan
amendment (Res. No. 021-89) , a planned development prezoning
(Res. No. 129-89) , a tentative map (Res. No. 130-89), site
development review, and a conditional use permit (Planning
Commission Resolution No. 92-013) (collectively, together
with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with
respect to the Project, the "Project Approvals") ; and
E. On August 27, 1990, the CITY duly ordered the
annexation of the Project, formerly located in an
unincorporated area, to the CITY's jurisdiction, which
annexation was effective on May 23, 1991.
F. CITY desires the timely, efficient, orderly
and proper development of said Project; and
G. The City Council has found that, among other
things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its
General Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in
accordance with Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91; and
H. CITY and DEVELOPER have reached agreement and
desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will
facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions
set forth herein.
I. On February 24, 1992, the City Council of the
City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. 5-92 approving this
Development Agreement. The ordinance took effect on March
25, 1992;
J. An Environmental Impact Report and Addendum
were prepared for a general plan amendment ("General Plan
EIR") , which documents were certified by the City Council of
CITY as being complete for the general plan amendment
entitled the "Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment" by
Resolution No. 19-89 on February 27, 1989. A mitigation
monitoring program covering the general plan amendment was
approved by the City Council on February 27, 1989 by
Resolution No. 20-89. On November 27, 1989, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 127-89, approving a mitigated
negative declaration for the Project, consisting of 180
residential lots on a 147-acre site. On February 10, 1992,
1992, the City Council adopted a negative declaration for
this Development Agreement, by Resolution No. 10-92.
HANSEN AGREEMENT 2
February 28, 1992
92091850
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing
recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises,
obligations and covenants herein contained, CITY and
DEVELOPER agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Description of Property.
The Property which is the subject of this
Development Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached
hereto ("Property") .
2. Interest of Developer.
The DEVELOPER has a legal or equitable interest in
the Property in that it owns the Property in fee title.
3. Relationship of City and Developer.
3.1 It is understood that this Agreement is a
contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered
into by CITY and DEVELOPER and that the DEVELOPER is not an
agent of CITY.
3.2 The CITY and DEVELOPER hereby renounce the
existence of any form of joint venture or partnership
between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in
any document executed in connection herewith shall be
construed as making the CITY and DEVELOPER joint venturers
or partners.
4. Effective Date and Term.
4.1 The effective date of this Agreement shall be
the date upon which this Agreement is recorded in the Office
of the Alameda County Recorder.
4.2 The initial term of this Development Agreement
shall commence on the effective date and extend eight
(8) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise
terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth
in this Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate upon
completion of construction of all 180 units and the
performance of the conditions set forth in Exhibit B. Upon
request of DEVELOPER, CITY will record a document evidencing
termination of this Agreement.
4.3 If Developer has exercised reasonable
diligence to obtain, but has been unable to obtain, water
hook-ups and sewer connections providing adequate water and
HANSEN AGREEMENT 3
February 28, 1992
..._ 23
n
92091850
n
sewer service to the Project by the date that is one hundred
eighty (180) days prior to the date of expiration of this
Agreement, then, so long as Developer continues to exercise
such reasonable diligence during such 180-day period, at the
conclusion of the term of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall automatically be extended one day for each additional
day that Developer is unable to obtain such adequate water
hook-ups and sewer connections, provided that in no event
shall this Agreement be extended for more than two (2)
years.
5. Use of the Property.
5.1 Developer shall have the vested right to
develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project
Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of
them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to
this Agreement.
5.2 The permitted uses of the Property, the
density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and
size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or
dedication of land for public purposes and location and
maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location
of public utilities and other terms and conditions of
development applicable to the Property, shall be those set
forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any
amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals.
5.3 Provisions for the following ("Additional
Conditions") are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
5.3.1 Conditions, terms, restrictions, and
requirements for subsequent discretionary actions. These
conditions do not affect Developer's responsibility to
obtain all other land use approvals required by the
ordinances of the City of Dublin.
5.3.2 Additional or modified conditions agreed
upon by the parties in order to eliminate or mitigate
adverse environmental impacts of the Project or otherwise
relating to development of the Project.
5.3.3 Provisions that the Project be
constructed in specified phases, that construction shall
commence within a specified time, and that the Project or
any phase thereof be completed within a specified time.
HANSEN AGREEMENT 4
February 28, 1992
PAGE.0'r 3
92091850
i'N
5.3.4 Terms relating to subsequent
reimbursement over time for financing of necessary public
facilities.
5.3.5 Terms relating to payment of fees.
6. Applicable Rules, Regulations and Official
Policies.
6.1 For the term of this Agreement, the City's
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official
policies governing the permitted uses of the Property,
governing density and intensity of use of the Property and
the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings
shall be those in force and effect on the effective date of
this Agreement.
6.2 Unless expressly provided in Paragraphs 5
and/or 6.1 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions,
rules, regulations and official policies governing design,
improvement and construction standards and specifications
applicable to the Project, including but not limited to, all
public improvements, shall be those in force and effect at
the time of the applicable permit approval.
6.3 Unless expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of
this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in
accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building,
Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes and Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building
Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the
appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits
for the Project.
7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations.
7.1 The CITY may, hereafter, during the term of
this Agreement, apply such newer enacted or modified
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official
policies of the City which are not in conflict with those
applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement
and application of which would not prevent or materially
delay development of the Property as contemplated by this
Agreement and the Project Approvals.
7.2 Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the
CITY from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent
land use permit or authorization for the Project on the
basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions,
rules, regulations and policies except that such subsequent
HANSEN AGREEMENT 5
February 28, 1992
rAGE 5_Gi
92091850
T
actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms,
restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein.
7.3 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or
other measure is enacted, whether by action of CITY, by
initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a
building moratorium which affects the Project on all or any
part of the Property, CITY agrees that such ordinance,
resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project,
the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless
the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration
of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in
Government Code S 8558.
8. Subseauently Enacted or Revised Fees and Taxes.
No fees imposed on new development, such as traffic
impact fees, fees for the provision of affordable housing,
inclusionary housing in-lieu fees, child care fees or other
similar development fees, adopted by the CITY subsequent to
the effective date of this Agreement, shall be applicable to
the Project. However, any existing application, processing
and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this
Agreement and any subsequently enacted city-wide fees or
taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (1) such
fees or taxes have general applicability to all residential
property in the City; (2) the application of such fees or
taxes to the subject property is prospective; and (3) their
application would not prevent development in accordance with
this Agreement.
9. Amendment or Cancellation.
9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or
Federal Laws.
In the event that state or federal laws or
regulations enacted after the effective date of this
Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more
provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans,
maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet
and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify
this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or
regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the
Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in
accordance with Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91.
HANSEN AGREEMENT 6
February 28, 1992
92091850
n
9.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent.
This Agreement may be amended in writing from
time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in
accordance with the provisions of Dublin Ordinance No. 8-
91. Any amendment to this Agreement which does not relate
to (1) the term, permitted uses, density or intensity of
land use, (2) conditions, terms, restrictions and
requirements relating to subsequent discretionary actions,
or (3) any conditions or covenants relating to the use of
the Property, shall not require a public hearing before the
parties may execute an amendment.
9.3 Amendment Exemptions.
Any amendment of any of the Project Approvals,
any resubdivision of the Property except a resubdivision
that increases the number of lots over 180 lots, or any
filing of an amended subdivision map that creates new legal
lots or that reflects a merger of lots shall not require an
amendment to this Agreement. Instead, any such amendment,
resubdivision (except a resubdivision that increases the
number of lots over 180 lots), or filing shall be deemed to
be incorporated into and vested under this Agreement at the
time that such amendment, resubdivision, or filing is
approved as provided in this Agreement.
9.4 Amendment of Project Approvals.
Any Project Approval may, from time to time, be
amended or modified in the following manner:
(1) Upon the written request of
Developer for an amendment or modification of a Project
Approval including, but not limited to, (a) the location of
buildings, streets and roadways and other physical
facilities, or (b) the configuration of the parcels, lots or
development areas, the Planning Director of the CITY shall
determine whether the requested amendment or modification is
minor and whether the requested amendment or modification is
consistent with this Agreement, the General Plan and
applicable provisions of the CITY's zoning and subdivision
ordinance in effect as of the effective date of this
Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, the
determination whether such amendment or modification is
minor shall refer to whether the amendment or modification
is minor in the context of the overall Project. If the
Planning Director finds that the proposed amendment is both
minor and consistent with this Agreement, the General Plan,
and the applicable provisions of the CITY's zoning and
HANSEN AGREEMENT 7
February 28, 1992
PAGE 1_OF2
92091850
subdivision ordinance, the Planning Director may approve the
proposed amendment without notice and public hearing.
(2) Except as provided in
subparagraph (1) above, any amendment or modification of any
Project Approval shall be subject to the applicable
substantive and procedural provisions of CITY's applicable
zoning, subdivision, and other land use ordinances.
9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent.
Except as otherwise permitted herein, this
Agreement may be cancelled in whole or in part only by the
mutual consent of the parties or their successors in
interest, in accordance with the provisions of Dublin
Ordinance No. 8-91. Any fees paid pursuant to Subparagraph
5.3.5 of Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the date of
cancellation shall be retained by CITY.
10. Term of Project Approvals.
Pursuant to California Government Code
Section 66452.6(a) , the term of the tentative map described
in Recital D above (the "Tentative Map") , or any
resubdivision or amendment to the Tentative Map (including
any lot line adjustment or merger of lots within the
Tentative Map) , or any other tentative map filed and
approved prior to the termination of this Agreement, shall
automatically be extended for the term of this Agreement.
The term of any other Project Approval shall automatically
be extended for the term of this Agreement.
11. Annual Review Date.
11.1 The annual review date for this Agreement shall
be March 1.
11.2 The CITY's Planning Director shall initiate the
annual review, as required under Section 8.12.140 of Dublin
Ordinance No. 8-91, by giving to DEVELOPER thirty (30) days'
written notice that the CITY intends to undertake such
review. DEVELOPER shall provide evidence to the Planning
Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and
when reasonably determined necessary by the Planning
Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the
provisions of the Development Agreement. The burden of
proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the
DEVELOPER.
11.3 To the extent practical, CITY shall deposit in
the mail and fax to DEVELOPER a copy of all staff reports,
HANSEN AGREEMENT 8
February 28, 1992
92091850
and related exhibits concerning contract performance at
least five (5) days prior to any annual review.
11.4 Costs reasonably incurred by CITY in connection
with the annual review shall be paid by DEVELOPER in
accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the
time of review.
12. Default.
12.1 Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the
parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity
which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in
City's regulations governing development agreements,
expressly including the remedy of specific performance of
this Agreement.
12.2 Upon the occurrence of an event of default by
either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written
notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the
default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty
(30) days after service of such notice of default, the
nondefaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable
action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided,
however, that if the default cannot be cured within such
thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall
refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as
the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such
thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to
completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a
waiver of any default.
13. Estoppel Certificate.
Either party may, at any time, and from time to
time, request written notice from the other party requesting
such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of
the certifying party, (a) this Agreement is in full force
and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (b) this
Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or
in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments,
and (c) the requesting party is not in default in the
performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if
in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any
such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall
execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days
following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may
reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City Manager of
City shall be authorized to execute any certificate
requested by DEVELOPER. Failure to execute an estoppel
certificate shall not be deemed a default.
HANSEN AGREEMENT 9
Ct February 28, 1992
n
92091850
n
14. Severability.
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of
any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this
Agreement shall not render the other provisions
unenforceable, invalid or illegal.
15. Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
If CITY or DEVELOPER initiates any action at law or
in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions
of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to
any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled.
If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement
initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the
validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project
Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such
action. DEVELOPER shall bear its own costs of defense as a
real party in interest in any such action, and shall
reimburse CITY for all reasonable court costs and attorneys'
fees expended by CITY in defense of any such action or other
proceeding.
16. Transfers and Assignments.
16.1 Right to Assign.
DEVELOPER'S rights hereunder may be
transferred, sold or assigned in conjunction with the
transfer, sale, or assignment of all or a portion of the
Property subject hereto at any time during the term of this
Agreement, provided that no transfer, sale or assignment of
DEVELOPER's rights hereunder shall occur without the prior
written notice to CITY and approval by the City Council,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed. The City Council shall consider the matter within
60 days after DEVELOPER's notice.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, DEVELOPER shall
have the right to transfer, sell or assign its rights
hereunder to any "affiliate" without the prior approval of
CITY. As used herein, "affiliate" shall mean any person or
entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control
with DEVELOPER. "Control" and related forms of the word
shall mean the ability to direct the management and
operations of another entity such as a partnership or
corporation.
n
HANSEN AGREEMENT 10
February 28, 1992
PAGEID_O
' ^ n
92091850
16.2 Release Upon Transfer.
Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of
DEVELOPER's rights and interests hereunder pursuant to
paragraph 16.1 of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be
released from the obligations under this Agreement, with
respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned,
arising subsequent to the date of City Council approval of
such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that
if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the
City Council expressly assumes the obligations of DEVELOPER
under this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be released with
respect to all such assumed obligations. In any event, the
transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all
the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary
documents, certifications and other necessary information
prior to City Council approval.
17. Agreement Runs with the Land.
All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants,
and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding
upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and
assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons
acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any
interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any
manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall
constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to
applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468
of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant
to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property
hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for
the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such
properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is
binding upon each party and each successive owner during its
ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and
shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its
property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an
interest in such properties. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
this Agreement shall cease to be binding upon any parcel in
the Project (i.e., any of Lots 1 through 180) when such
parcel is acquired by a person or persons with the intent to
reside in the home constructed or to be constructed upon
such parcel or by a person or persons for the benefit of a
family member intending to reside in such home (provided,
however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall continue
to accrue to any such parcel until the City has issued a
certificate of occupancy for such parcel) .
eTh
HANSEN AGREEMENT 11
February 28, 1992
PAGE-CI` .
,
92091850
18. Bankruptcy.
The obligations of this Agreement shall not be
dischargeable in bankruptcy.
19. Indemnification.
DEVELOPER agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
CITY, and its elected and appointed councils, boards,
commissions, officers, agents, employees, and
representatives from any and all claims, costs and liability
for any personal injury or property damage which may arise
directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or
inactions by the DEVELOPER, or any actions or inactions of
DEVELOPER's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or
employees in connection with the construction, improvement,
operation, or maintenance of the Project.
20. Insurance.
20.1 Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance.
During the term of this Agreement , DEVELOPER
shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single
limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) and
a deductible of not more than two-hundred and fifty
thousand dollars ($250,000) per claim. The policy so
maintained by DEVELOPER shall name the CITY as an additional
insured and shall include either a severability of interest
clause or cross-liability endorsement. In the event that
DEVELOPER exercises its right to assign pursuant to
paragraph 16.1, CITY shall have the right to determine the
amount of the deductible, provided that the deductible shall
not be less than $1,000 per claim.
20.2 Workers Compensation Insurance.
During the term of this Agreement and any
extension thereof DEVELOPER shall maintain Worker's
Compensation insurance for all persons employed by DEVELOPER
for work at the Project site. DEVELOPER shall require each
contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's
Compensation insurance for its respective employees.
DEVELOPER agrees to indemnify the City for any damage
resulting from DEVELOPER's failure to maintain any such
insurance.
HANSEN AGREEMENT 12
February 28, 1992
92091850
20.3 Evidence of Insurance.
Prior to City Council approval of this
Agreement, DEVELOPER shall furnish CITY satisfactory
evidence of the insurance required in Sections 20.1 and
20.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the
CITY at least fifteen days prior written notice of the
cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. The
insurance shall extend to the CITY, its elective and
appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees
and representatives and to DEVELOPER and each contractor and
subcontractor performing work on the Project.
21. Notices.
All notices required or provided for under this
Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or
sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required
to be given to CITY shall be addressed as follows:
City Manager
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Notices required to be given to DEVELOPER shall be addressed
as follows:
Donald L. Bren Company
6601 Owens Drive, Suite 250
Pleasanton, California 94566-9736
Att'n: Michael Toohey
A party may change address by giving notice in writing to
the other party and thereafter all notices shall be
addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall
be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if
mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being
deposited in the United States Mail.
22. Agreement is Entire Understanding.
This Agreement is executed in three duplicate
originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This
Agreement consists of fourteen (14) pages and two (2)
exhibits (of nine pages) totalling twenty-three (23) pages
which constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of
the parties.
/'\
HANSEN AGREEMENT 13
February 28, 1992
:13 C,rZ'l
92001850
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first
above written.
CITY OF DUBL N: DONALD L. BREN COMPANY:
B . By: OttiptC.L._
Name: Peter Snyder Name: Jeffrey A. Slavin
Its: Mayor Its: President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
HANSEN AGREEMENT 14
February 28, 1992
/ N 92091850
EXHIBIT A
Description of the Property
HANSEN HILL RANCH
ALL THAT LAND SITUATE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF
TRACT 4859, FILED IN MAP BOOK 147, PAGE 56, ALAMEDA COUNTY
RECORDS, SAID MONUMENT BEARING NORTH 3° 22' 00" EAST, 215.36
FEET FROM THAT CERTAIN CONCRETE MONUMENT BEING THE
INTERSECTION OF THE MONUMENTED LINES OF SILVERGATE DRIVE AND
HANSEN DRIVE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT 2405, FILED AUGUST
9, 1863 IN MAP BOOK 46, PAGE 73 TO 76, INCLUSIVE, ALAMEDA
COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF SILVERGATE
DRIVE AS SHOWN ON THE AFOREMENTIONED MAP OF TRACT 4859 NORTH
12° 44' 36" WEST, 554.50 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID MONUMENT
LINE SOUTH 77° 15' 24" WEST, 34.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING ON WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
SILVERGATE DRIVE AND ALSO BEING THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY
CORNER OF PARCEL 'B' AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT 5410 IN
MAP BOOK 163 AT PAGES 32 THROUGH 42, INCLUSIVE, ALAMEDA
COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID
PARCEL 'B' OF TRACT 5410 SOUTH 81° 34' 52" WEST, 307.14
FEET; THENCE NORTH 64° 39' 05" WEST 474.40 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 'B', SAID POINT ALSO
BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT 4943, FILED IN MAP
BOOK 148, PAGE 1 TO 4, INCLUSIVE, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG THE GENERALLY SOUTHWESTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID
TRACT 4943 NORTH 64° 39' 05" WEST, 493.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH
46° 18' 50" WEST, 251.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 57° 33' 04"
WEST, 228.71 FEET; THENCE NORTH 28° 35' 14" WEST, 73.99 FEET
TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT 4943; THENCE LEAVING
SAID TRACT 4943 NORTH 81° 43' 41" WEST, 214.01 FEET; THENCE
HANSEN AGREEMENT 15
February 28, 1992
AGE�OF 2 .
92091850
NORTH 57° 27' 05" WEST, 421.08; THENCE NORTH 76° 39' 05",
WEST, 224.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 50' 55" WEST, 53.46
FEET; THENCE NORTH 70° 09' 05" WEST, 245.52 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 64° 50' 55" WEST, 151.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 57° 09'
05" WEST, 778.14 FEET; THENCE NORTH 58° 24' 05" WEST, 264.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 37° 54' 05" WEST, 426.36 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 01° 55' 55" WEST, 1174.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01° 05'
55" WEST, 1356.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 55° 49' 05" EAST,
1075.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88° 39' 05" EAST, 407.88 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 01° 20' 55" EAST, 537.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°
54' 05" EAST, 1328.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01° 05' 55" EAST,
131.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 'A' AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 1168, AS
FILED IN MAP BOOK 80, PAGE 21, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 'A' SOUTH
81° 08' 00" EAST, 164.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF
TRACT 4988, FILED IN MAP BOOK 139, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY
RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT
4988 SOUTH 81° 08' 00" EAST, 181.07; THENCE NORTH 88° 23'
00" EAST, 58.75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 77°57' 00" EAST, 68.63
FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT 2534, AS FILED IN
BOOK 49, PAGES 6 TO 9, INCLUSIVE, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF TRACT 2534, THENCE
ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 2534 NORTH 67° 27' 00"
EAST, 68.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62° 12' 00" EAST, 427.06
FEET; THENCE NORTH 71° 08' 30" EAST, 87.40 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 77° 29' 30" EAST, 87.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83° 29' 40"
EAST, 158.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80° 58' 00" EAST, 260.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 74° 29'12" EAST, 1.18 FEET TO THE
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT 2534 SAID CORNER BEING ON
THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SILVERGATE DRIVE; THENCE
ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SILVERGATE DRIVE
159.74 FEET ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY
HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11° 26' 26" A RADIUS OF 800.00
HANSEN AGREEMENT 16
February 28, 1992
Ito . . .23
92091850
FEET, THE RADIUS POINT FOR WHICH BEARS NORTH 88° 41 ' 50"
EAST; THENCE NORTH 12° 44 ' 36" WEST, 454 . 48 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 146. 840 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
HANSEN AGREEMENT 17
February 28, 1992
92091850
n
EXHIBIT B
Additional Conditions
The following Additional Conditions are hereby
imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above.
1. Subparagraph 5.3.1: DEVELOPER must obtain
all necessary building, grading and other construction
permits as set forth in Paragraph 6.3 of this Agreement.
2. Subparagraph 5.3.2:
a. DEVELOPER shall construct a 12-foot
access road (the "Access Road") over the Property along
Martin Canyon Creek as described in Condition No. 76 to the
CITY's approval of the Tentative Map ("Condition 76") . The
Access Road, together with that portion of the Property
lying between the fence to be constructed by Developer
pursuant to Condition 76 and the northern boundary of the
Property, shall be dedicated to the CITY for public access
and maintenance purposes. The construction and dedication
required by this subparagraph shall occur as part of Phase
I of the Project. Upon dedication, DEVELOPER shall be
released from all liability for the maintenance of the
property so dedicated.
b. DEVELOPER shall grade and rock the area
shown on Attachment 1 hereto to allow CITY to extend the
Access Road over such area, which extension shall be
constructed to the standards set forth in Condition 76 and
as a part of Phase I. CITY shall obtain or provide all
permits, easements and licenses necessary to permit
DEVELOPER to so grade and rock such area.
c. DEVELOPER's obligation to pay its 23.7%
proportionate share of the cost of the improvements prior to
the release of occupancy, as described in Condition No. 47
to the CITY's approval of the Tentative Map ("Condition
47"), shall be based on CITY's cost of performing the
improvements to the "T" intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
Silvergate Drive, adjusted for inflation, at the time of
payment.
d. The improvements to be constructed or
performed by DEVELOPER pursuant to Subparagraphs (a) and
(b) shall be included within the scope of the subdivision
improvement agreement to be entered into by and between
DEVELOPER and CITY as described in Condition No. 65 to the
n
HANSEN AGREEMENT 18
February 28, 1992
-It 0723
92091850
CITY's approval of the Tentative Map (the "Tract Developer
Agreement").
3. Subparagraph 5.3.3: Except as imposed
pursuant to any building, grading or other construction
permits required pursuant to Paragraph 6.3 of the Agreement,
the Project shall not be subject to requirements relating to
timing or commencement or completion of construction. The
Project shall, however, be constructed in two phases. Phase
I shall consist of the recordation of a final map for Lots
1 - 72 and shall include construction of the Access Road and
dedication of the area specified in subparagraph 2(a) ,
performance of the work described in subparagraph 2(b), and
completion of the road across the Valley Christian Center
property, as shown on the tentative map. Phase II shall
consist of the recordation of a final map for Lots 73 -
180.
4. Subparagraph 5.3.4: Not applicable.
5. Subparagraph 5.3.5:
a. DEVELOPER shall pay to CITY the total sum
of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) for use by
CITY to provide affordable housing, to be paid as follows:
the sum of $60,000 shall be paid to CITY at the time the
final map for Phase I, consisting of 72 units, is approved
and recorded and the sum of $90,000 shall be paid to CITY at
the time the final map for Phase II, consisting of 108
units, is approved and recorded, provided that if the final
map for Phase II is not approved and recorded within one
year from the date the Phase I final map is recorded, then
the sum of $90,000 shall be increased by the percentage
increase in the Consumers Price Index for the San Francisco
Bay Area (Wage Earners Index) for each year or fraction
thereof, until the final map for Phase II is approved and
recorded.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if CITY should subsequent
to the effective date of this Agreement adopt an
inclusionary housing ordinance generally applicable to new
residential development within the CITY that provides for
the option of paying a fee in lieu of providing affordable
housing ("City's In-Lieu Housing Fee") which is lower on a
per-unit basis than the fee to be paid by DEVELOPER pursuant
to this subparagraph ("Developer's Housing Fee"), then the
per-unit amount of Developer's Housing Fee shall be reduced
to an amount equal to the per-unit amount of City's In-Lieu
Housing Fee. In no event shall DEVELOPER be entitled to a
reduction in Developer's Housing Fee to the extent that
such fee has already been paid with respect to Phase I or
HANSEN AGREEMENT 19
February 28, 1992
'.1 n
7.11orl3
92091850
Phase II of the Project at the time of the effective date of
the inclusionary housing ordinance.
b. Park In-Lieu fees shall be paid as
follows:
180 D.U. x 0. 016 AC/D.0 = 2. 88 AC.
2 .88 AC. x $165, 548/AC. = $476,778 or $2 , 649/D.U.
Park In-Lieu fees for Phase I, in the amount
of One Hundred Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Eight
Dollars ($190, 728) , shall be paid by DEVELOPER to CITY when
the final map for Phase I is approved and recorded or by
April 1, 1992, whichever is earlier.
Park In-Lieu fees for Phase II shall be paid
by DEVELOPER to CITY when the final map for Phase II is
approved and recorded and shall be calculated in accordance
with the provisions of CITY 's ordinance then in effect and
current market values of the land as of the date of payment.
HANSEN AGREEMENT 20
February 28, 1992
7a
..•
I .•#...• ......•
• . •
92091850
1
• ••••••• 4...W....-. ••••• •••••••••••••... ..••••,••••••,-••-••'no,
4.
•...M..... /
' # • \,.•'\ :,. . ..?b,4.''1.'' ' ''...... , : '\..•'. ". \, •,-
/' / i, • . , •.; ,
. r,!..1.1,-0 -...„. 4.• ,,,,-,a - ,. aa r..,,, ...,7--...,...... . .1., ..;„. ''z 1
, /• " y/(;1 ..)) 'le k ' ‘f i",-,; "' 4 VI.r.:1- ' ' V;. •`..1 -• ..• v• /
• „/ • I -. • 7C70$? . o• t;' N ,•,\ t• al':•PA ' 7
,,, e ,d... .,I ',./c i - - c:c-4e4 4 wn - •'' 1
/ /'/. ' eV 4''',Ar-.7'.:;=' -1 •. ‘•' la . .,'•..i$ • :01 's ,
. ..
. ,...-
. .. ...-4104 .71' '..e .1.?•-;:e,': :!..', 1
, .. 4" 4.7 toi.;,.;.. • I •:/t i/ te 45 1\'. -I . • •t. • / i
q . ie....A..", 1 ./....,.i..-..-, - ri .4.,1.1%•'It".-. ', „I• ••• :,-,,// 1
. •fi4iP ...z. 'JD! A )-_,.......... • .• . . `i.`-t-, 4.1j,1
.,....`N ,) • 17- 1.:;-_ •,.... ,•,, ..• i
7 , I .:1 17-2
1 ;.,,J' 1•.t..' -,. ._t.• ',• •;\\,•, '1',0. • 6 1 L'., . ",
, ,.4;)• '• . • ,:., ,...-rv., i•N.:.::e-t..i, :.: !Di ..,/,'••/•ii /
.... . ., . t • .. :, pc. ,,•..ijr-. ,,... ,z,,i: .cv.i,\....1..,1 ,.,4,, , ..;.,.\ .. .. ...11::1! , 7./
/
, • .; . • I • , eLlit — .• - ,.,,-c=-Y *
,..). 4.H 1 . ..,,,4' .,,,......,. ie ' • I
I
1
, ., . .. „,,,..
i , , ,...,....s,..... ...4: . ,/ i . , . _ix, s,. „„.4,..,441 ,
. • . .: • t . •". 1511 1 •)/' •"At's* .
• . - , . .. • . • ',II; : . It . ...0 ".. /.( • .4" ."..-•01;,..;.. At
. -
: CI •i,L. -'d I i ' 4. •••" . 11 ' -
•
ri '
-.6 (g17-i74 ,:„ . . '(.I • • .i ,;'-'•• /,-
, . 0 • ,. grf, -1,) _*•••••.,.. ':.,...11.; : .',. L !t ir...6, -,- '..'• 1.;•.I.
. . 1
• . •
• ' , ,I.-7,•,r 4.-3,;pc,) ,ci...:•::::.•,,..' • i • -••1 ?.....,-.iv % / . i
• : A.._ 'if?..i›,, •ilk4r.'.a .., .,: :, , ,.,. - • 'c',-/-?-:../ 1ill
i • 4.J'AN-N .1 [ •• • ), ,. .-.... .) ,,,,q4, ,... , . c , ;::. , , .
< ,.. •: . t. . 1 t...,,,,, mo.;.„ ,1 , .:„, 1„...67,...p i 1.-,...,.1 ,
0 • •• • 11.. ;rf,'.:,..../ 1 ..., --f. sc .•-1 ....\*. -:, , .',. c),.,,, -,
n . - .A-I,. . . ,.„,___• 4.4i ... -.... •:) ;;iii . ''. ,), s, •
• ,N cE;i,i,,,, . ., .. fr.-_.,_,...._.-. ..,,,....., •, .: ,,,./ •.,.../ . .,, • .
•.. .,, I.;,, A, 41, PI • iv i N(
.
•••7 te.1 , 4 .,••,.. • • 1,-, -i . /
‘,1 63 A••:: ' ' li • ' , .•;•::.--;••117,N• • /,.' i /
.,,,.•>'S t'9t1.. `‘ ' ' i 1 % \,e..• ',1 . '-'*t7)1., 'i /111 . f
(2.,. kt..1... * 111,... ../..:\ '.:::....i ',7,,`',..,0. ' i.,fi. . ...,1?• :‘,/i ell •/
.. .
0 N 1 ,.":6:7•A•I‘,41'..s..i . 't . ‘:..... 7,-,::::-),.1.:iS1 '..0 (23 . I 1 i
`%. ...• 4.1i-1.:,.:•, fA• 1..! . , • c---.7.,.7..t., .• • . J
t- , „g...44,;744,/sof,), . ‘.. , ,\,.17,,,i,7).,:\......t..7•.. .i 7.-.
' (;'..9;.°-4,\-...,,ce 4,1k iti,;•). _. •.: ,Y i.„,..,.. ;.) _ /
. • 4Pg.. . .sy-et•ti7 _p! i , 4,)./ V $
r--, . i
( 9%' C'•* `i‘V.. ,, 1 1 . '
. . o. .
? i
1 ' $ 0 r•' ':-.7) -..._., t/. ",:,-;) ''' /
• -
ti. % . • .... .., .....'.,.;.:,:_v :f....,. , , / 11
;•:,, , '. .--• , .. „„ ,!...."-, , • t° V .
•., . • ‘• k • •
' f6
oe,,,-Nko2n t
NiCvm') 31 1 ' • ^ );
\ A tA),,) t.., ,e.ii..,,,Iii, ;/
3-ci(N. • '' i:)•$ (kz•-'3\ ra -1-77.I ,
\ ,teta 0-4,. ;',7,"' * .', „. /
\'' ; '
-. 'L.,— .A9.„„„) t.....:• • 1/4-.., •
1 .12:dee--21 ...71-, .,... ./.\ . • .
NO SC--e4-E
' PAGE 12°1 t-C: /,
21 - If.. 7:4•!..mi.e:b i S.',..; co7)\ .
.•.,;F..)‘'., / k..,...i.: Iwt-D.3 , • :
-, —
.• 3X41/1121v1 .
2 1
92091850
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
On March 19, 1992 before me, Helen R. Kelly
personally appeared Jettrey A. Slavin ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me
that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the
entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS by hand and official seal.
HELEN R. KELLY
COUNTY
HANSEN AGREEMENT 22
February 28 , 1992
92091850
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA )
On this ,Z�ji -/Z day of 4)1a/t-C-41 , 1992 , before me,
kA ti� I��CK
the undersigned Notary Public, personally
appeared Peter W. Snyder, personally known to me (or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he executed same in his authorized capacity as Mayor of
the City of Dublin, and that by his signature on the instrument
the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted,
executed the instrument.
OFFIk,1CIALY KfCK SEAI, WITNESS by hand and official seal.
� •=' TYR`w NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFOR'..A
NW, ALAMEDA CouN \ ,
tT�:;-c My Comm.Expires Aug.28,1992 r
Notary's Signatures ? ('
I k_
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
11), ` 101 23
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -013 Qd" fQ ' l:1. \I(i(4c
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
----------------- ------------------------------------------
APPROVING PA 91-096 HANSEN RANCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A
MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR THE HANSEN
RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, Toohey Homes Ltd., on behalf of The Donald L. Bren
Company, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to modify
Condition No. 1.B. of City Council Resolution No. 129-89, which
establishes General Provisions for PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Planned
Development Prezoning. The proposed modification will permit the
down-sizing of single-family units within the project and permit the
plans depicting single-family units prepared by Bassenian Lagoni
Architects to replace the approved plans depicting single-family units
prepared by Shleppey Hesmalhalch Associates. Site Development Review
approval is also requested for the first phase (72 lots: 68
production homes and 4 custom lots) of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, Section 8-31.18 of the adopted City of Dublin Zoning
Ordinance states if a proposed structure, facility or land use not
indicated on a Land Use and Development Plan approved by the City
Council does not materially change the provisions of the approved Land
Use and Development Plan, the structure, facility or land use may be
permitted subject to securing a Conditional Use Permit; and
eTh WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said
application on February 18, 1992; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application be conditionally approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find that:
A. The proposed project serves the public need by providing a
variety of housing types and sizes available to the community.
B. The proposed use will be properly related to other land uses and
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, as the
proposed use will be compatible when compared to the type and
.^.E3 r
, • ' •1.
'r
e")
0•Th
nature of operations typically found in single family residential
areas .
C . The proposed use will not materially adversely affect the health
or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood, as all applicable
regulations will be met.
D. The proposed use will not be contrary to the specific intent
clauses or performance standards established for the District in
which it is to be located in that conditions have been applied to
ensure conformance with the applicable zoning regulations, and
the use is consistent with the character of the surrounding area .
E . The proposed use will not materially change the provisions of the
approved Planned Development Land Use and Development Plan.
F. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit will be consistent
with the Dublin General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby conditionally approve PA 91-096 Hansen Ranch Conditional Use
Permit application as generally depicted by materials labeled Exhibit
A, stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning Department,
subject to the approval of the related Site Development Review and to
the following conditions :
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied
with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of
use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval .
The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible
for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval . fPL1
Planning, [B] Building, [PO1 Police, [PW] Public Works , [ADM1
Administration/City Attorney, 'FIN] Finance, [Fj Dougherty Regional
Fire Authority, fDSR1 Dublin San Ramon Services District, (CO] Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health.
1 . This approval is for a minor modification to Condition No . 1 .B.
of City Council Resolution No. 129-89, which establishes General
Provisions for PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Planned Development
Prezoning. The approved modification will permit the down-sizing
of single-family units within the project and permit the plans
depicting single-family units prepared by Bassenian Lagoni
Architects (Exhibit A) to replace the approved plans depicting
single-family units prepared by Shleppey Hesmalhalch Associates ,
for the first phase ( 72 units : 68 production homes and 4 custom
lots ) of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision.
2 . Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these conditions,
development shall conform to the Conditions of Approval
established by: City Council Resolution Nos . 20-89 and 21-89 ,
/11 approved on February 27 , 1989 , pertaining to PA 87-045 Hansen
- 2 -
Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for EIR; and City Council Resolution Nos. 128-89, 129-89
and 130-89, approved on November 27, 1989, pertaining to
PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative Map, Prezoning, Annexation
and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Negative Declaration.
[PL]
3. The Applicant/Property Owner shall be responsible for clean-up
and disposal of project related trash to maintain a clean,
litter-free site. [PL]
4. All signs shall be subject to the requirements of the Sign
regulations within the Zoning Ordinance. [PL]
5. On an annual basis, this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be
subject to Zoning Investigator review and determination as to the
compliance with the Conditions of Approval. [PL]
6. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with
Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of
the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to
citation. [PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of February, 1992.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
' PlanningrCommiss±tn Chairperson
ATTEST: !'
Planning Direc o
- 3 -
r
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 91-096 HANSEN RANCH SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR
THE FIRST PHASE (LOTS 1 - 72) OF THE 180 LOT HANSEN RANCH PROJECT
WHEREAS, Toohey Homes Ltd. , on behalf of The Donald L. Bren
Company, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to modify
Condition No. 1 .B. of City Council Resolution No. 129-89 , which
establishes General Provisions for PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Planned
Development Prezoning. The proposed modification will permit the
down-sizing of single-family units within the project and permit the
plans depicting single-family units prepared by Bassenian Lagoni
Architects to replace the approved plans depicting single-family units
prepared by Shleppey Hesmalhalch Associates. Site Development Review
approval is also requested for the first phase ( 72 lots : 68
production homes and 4 custom lots) of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
said application on February 18, 1992; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the State CEQA
Guidelines , and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines . The
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application be conditionally approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports , recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find that:
A. All provisions of Section 8-95 . 0 through 8-95 . 8 , Site Development
Review, of the Zoning Ordinance are complied..with.
B. Consistent with Section 8-95 . 0, this application, as modified by
the Conditions of Approval, will promote orderly, attractive and
harmonious development, recognize environmental limitations on
development; stabilize land values and investments; and promote
the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or
erection of structures having qualities which would not meet the
specific intent clauses or performance standards set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance and which are not consistent with their
environmental setting.
•
C . The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or
performance standards established for the district in which it is
rIN to be located.
D. General site considerations, including site layout, orientation,
and the location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and
parking, setbacks , heicht, public safety and similar elements
have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the
development .
E . General architectural considerations, as modified by the
Conditions of Approval , including the character, scale and
duality of the design, the architectural relationship with the
site and other buildings , building materials and colors ,
screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting, and
similar elements have teen incorporated into the project in order
to insure compatibility of this development with its design
concept and the character of adjacent buildings and uses .
F . General project landscaping considerations including the
locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant
materials and 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 to the
public .
n G. 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 .
H. The project is consistent with the polices set forth in the
Dublin General Plan .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby conditionally approve PA 91-096 Hansen Ranch Site Development
Review application as shown on Exhibit A, stamped approved and on file
with the Dublin Planning Department and subject to the approval of the
related Conditional Use Permit and to the following conditions :
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied
with prior to the issuance ci building permits or establishment of
use , and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval .
The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible
for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval . (PL1
Planning, [B] Building, [ P01 Police, [PW] Public Works, (_ADM1
Administration/City Attorney, [FINj Finance, [F1 Dougherty Regional
Fire Authority, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [C01 Alameda
County Department of Environmental Health, [Z71 Alameda County Flood
Control District Zone 7 .
- 2 -
•
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This approval is for PA 91-096 Hansen Ranch Site Development
Review for phase 1 (lots 1-72) of the 180 lot Hansen Ranch
project. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these
Conditions, development shall generally be consistent with the
following submittals:
a. Lot design and layout for lots 1 through 72 shall generally
-conform to plans prepared by Brian Kangas Foulk dated
received January 23, 1992, consisting of two sheets.
b. Landscaping shall generally conform to the Preliminary
Landscape Master Plan prepared by David L. Gates &
Associates dated received November 27, 1991, consisting of
sheets L-1 through L-3, L-6 and L-8 through L-16.
c. Dwelling units shall generally conform to the plans prepared
by Bassenian Lagoni Architects dated received November 27,
1991, consisting of:
Plan 1, 2097 square feet, exterior elevations A, B & C;
Plan 2, 2233 square feet, exterior elevations A, B & C;
Plan 3, 2667 square feet, exterior elevations A, B & C; and
Plan 4, 2856 square feet, exterior elevations A, B & C.
d Open space maintenance shall generally conform to the Open
Space/Landscape Management Specifications for Hansen Ranch
prepared by David L. Gates and Associates dated received
June 29, 1990.
Collectively, these materials shall serve as Exhibit A, stamped
approved and on file with the Dublin Planning Department. Any
modifications to these approved plans shall be reviewed and
' approved by the Planning Director. [PL]
2. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these conditions,
development shall conform to the Conditions of Approval
established by: City Council Resolution Nos. 20-89 and 21-89,
approved on February 27, 1989, pertaining to PA 87-045 Hansen
Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for EIR; and City Council Resolution Nos. 128-89, 129-89
and 130-89, approved on November 27, 1989, pertaining to
PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative Map, Prezoning, Annexation
and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Negative Declaration.
[PL]
3. This Site Development Review approval shall be valid until
February 28, 1993. The approval may be extended one additional
year (Developer must submit a written request for the extension
prior to the expiration date) by the Planning Director upon the
determination that the conditions of approval remain adequate to
assure that the above stated Findings of Approval will continue
to be met. Failure to exercise the approval or to make
substantial construction progress in accord with an approved
- 3 -
building permit for the project will cause the permit to become
null and void. [PL]
4 . The specific lot design and layouts, as proposed, are consistent
with the General Provisions established for this Planned
Development (PA 89-062 ) by City Council Resolution No. 129-89 ,
specifically in the following areas : [PL, B]
a. Compensating Rear Yard - Condition No. 3 .B( 1)
(CC Reso . No . 129-89) is applied to the following lots :
Lots 4 , 5, 43 and 44 .
b. Required Rear Yard Decks - Condition No. 3 .D.5 .
(CC Reso . No . 129-89) , a detail of which shall be indicated
on the individual site plans, subject to review and approval
by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building
permits , for each of the following lots :
Lots 23, 53 , 56 , 59 and 60 .
5 . Development of the custom lots shall generally conform to the
approved "Custom Lot Design Guidelines" (PA 89-062) , and are
subject to a separate Site Development Review approval, which may
be processed one or more at a time. Custom lots include :
[PL, B]
Lots 39 , 52 , 57 and 58
6 . Draft C .C. & R. ' s for the project shall be supplied to the City
for review and approval by the City Attorney and the Planning•
Director, prior to the issuance of a building permit for units in
the project . Documents establishing the project Homeowner ' s
Association shall be filed in final form to the City for review
and approval by the City Attorney and the Planning Director a
minimum of 30 days prior to the request for- occupancy of any
units in this project . [ADM, PL]
7 . Except as may be specifically provided for within the General
Provisions for PA 89-062, development shall comply with the City
of Dublin Residential Security requirements and with the City of
Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions (Attached) .
[P0, PL, B]
8 . The Developer shall comply with the "Typical. Public Works
Conditions of Approval for Subdivisions (Attached) . [p ]
9 . The Developer shall comply with applicable Dougherty Regional
Fire Authority, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Service,
Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7 and Dublin San Ramon
Services District requirements . Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements related to this
project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each
such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating
- 4 -
r"."
"."•\
that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met .
[F, PW, P0, Z7 , DSR, PL]
PHASED OCCUPANCY PLAN
10 . If occupancy is requested to occur in phases, then all physical
improvements within each .phase shall be required to be completed
prior to occupancy except for items specifically excluded in an
approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor hand work items,
approved by the Planning Department. The Phased Occupancy plan
shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval a
minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any unit
covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan. No individual unit shall
be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe,
accessible, provided with all reasonable expected services and
amenities, and completely separated from remaining additional
construction activity. [PL, B]
11 . If a Phased Occupancy Plan is proposed for this project, it shall
include provisions for, and indicate timing of, the phased
development of the Fire Buffer Zone, Open Space Access Drives,
Emergency Access Road, and the installation of the street trees
along Inspiration Drive, subject to review and approval of the
Planning Director, Public Works Director and the Dougherty
Regional Fire Authority. [.PL, PW, F]
12 . Prior to the sale of any unit within a phase, the Applicant/
Developer shall obtain a written acknowledgment (secured from the
individual property owner) acknowledging the continuance of
construction activity within the unoccupied phases of the
project . The written acknowledgment shall include a statement
that the property owner has reviewed and understands the phasing
plan and the associated conditions of approval . Said
- acknowledgment is subject to City Attorney review and approval .
The Applicant/Developer shall keep a copy of said written
acknowledgment on file and shall submit the original signed and
notarized acknowledcment to the Planning Department within three
( 3 ) days upon request of the Planning Director. If the
Applicant/Developer fails to comply, the Planning Director may
require the submittal of the written acknowledgment prior to
release of occupancy of any future units and/or future thases .
[PL, ADM, B]
13 . At the time of occupancy, access roads must comply_ with the
following: [F]
a . 1-25 units occupied - one public access road
b. 26-74 units occupied - one public access road and one
emergency access road
- 5 -
,.,\
""N
""s,
^ f
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
14 . Each lot that drains to the street shall be provided with two 3"
drains through the curbs and the roof leaders that tie into them.
[PW]
15 . No drainage shall be directed over a slope, except at the end of
cul-de-sacs where "Overland Storm Drain Easements" have been
provided for emergency release of storm waters . [PW]
16 . Driveways shall not be installed over drainage inlets . [PW]
17 . Drainage inlets shall not be installed on curb returns . [PW]
18 . All building pad elevations shall be a minimum of one foot above
the 100-year water surface level for ?Martin Canyon Creek.
[B, PL, PW]
19 . No blasting shall occur in conjunction with the grading performed
for this project without prior authorization being secured from
the Public Works Director. [PW]
20 . All cut and fill slopes shall be contoured to appear natural and
blend with the existing natural contours to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director and Planning Director. [PW, PL]
21 . Any grading on adjacent properties will require written approval
of those property owners affected. Said written approval shall
be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to commencing
grading. [PW]
22 . Grading within the designated open space area in the northwestern
portion of the site and in the southeastern portion of the site
shall be limited to that grading which is necessary for
construction of the roadways traversing the: open space, subject
to review and approval of the Planning Director and Public Works
Director. [PW, PL]
23 . Grading shall generally conform to the project grading plans . On
lots where graded pads extend to a property line, the orading
shall extend a minimum of one foot beyond the property line, to
allow for the maintenance of fencing placed at the top of
banks/slopes . [PW, PL]
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
24 . The design, location and materials utilized for project retaining
walls shall be included as part of the Project Improvement Plans ,
subject to review and approval by the Building Official and the
Planning Director. [B, PL]
•-. 25 . All utilities within the project site shall be underground. [PW]
- 6 -
}
26 . All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb,
gutter, sidewalks , driveways, paving and' utilities must be
constructed in accordance with approved standards and/or plans
subject to approval of the Public Works Director. [PW]
27 . Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be
accomplished at no expense to the City. [PW]
FENCING
28 . Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Applicant shall
submit a Fencing Plan indicating the design, location, height and
materials utilized for fencing throughout the project, subject to
review and approval by the Planning Director. Construction/
installation of common/shared fences, with a standard height of
six ( 6 ) feet ( except in those locations where the Section 8-60 .55
of the Zoning Ordinance requires fence heights to be less than
six ( 6 ) feet) for all side and rear yards shall be the
responsibility of the developer. Fencing installed by the
developer at the bottom or top of slopes higher than ten feet,
and/or fences of rear yards with high visibility from adjoining
down slope areas, may be designed with an open mesh material, or
other appropriate view fencing, subject to review and approval by
the Planning Director. [PW, PL]
29 . Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for installing temporary
fencing around areas undergoing construction, subject to review
and approval of the Public Works Director and Planning Director.
[PW, PL]
30 . Fencing placed at the top of banks/slopes shall be provided with
a minimum one foot level area on both sides, in order to
facilitate maintenance by the property owners . [PW, PL]
OPEN SPP,CE./LANDSCAPING
•
31 . "The applicant shall submit for Planning Director and Dougherty
Regional 'Fire Authority review and approval a Final Landscape and
Irrigation Plan, with general conformance to the Preliminary
Landscape Master Plan (Exhibit• A)4. prepared by David L. Gates and
Associates , dated received November 27, 1991, consisting of
sheets L-1 through L-3 , -L-6 and L-8 through L-16 . Plans shall
indicate the general plant pallet proposed including the number
of plants , a description of the type of plants, their rate of
growth, size in 3-5 years, mature size, container size at time of
planting, both common and botanical names, and indicate planting
and staking details ( all trees shall be double staked) . Plans
shall also include, but not be limited to, the following items :
a. The Fire Buffer Zone and Open Space Access Drives shall be
clearly identified around the perimeter of the residential
development situated adjacent to undeveloped Open Space
land . Said zone and access drives shall be installed prior
to occupancy of, any adjacent residential units ( if a Phased
7 -
n
Occupancy Plan is approved, installation shall occur prior
to release of occupancy within the phase) , and shall be
maintained by the Homeowner' s Association of this project,
to the satisfaction of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
(DRFA) . [F, PL]
b. The Emergency Access Road shall be clearly identified. If
said access is not dedicated and accepted by the City of
Dublin, then maintenance shall be provided by the
Homeowner ' s Association, to the satisfaction of the Fire
Chief, Public Works Director and Planning Director.
[F, PW, PL]
c . Street tree varieties of a minimum 15-gallon size shall be
planted along all street frontages, including Inspiration
Drive ( formerly the Valley Christian Center access road) .
Trees planted along Inspiration Drive shall average a
minimum of one tree per each forty-five linear feet. Exact
tree locations and varieties shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Director. Trees planted within, or adjacent
to, sidewalks or curbs shall be provided with root shields .
A maintenance agreement, between the Homeowner' s Association
and the Valley Christian Center, for the street trees along
Inspiration Drive shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval by the Planning Director
and the Public Works Director. [PL, PW]
d. Landscaping at street intersections shall be such that sight
distance is not obstructed. Except for trees, landscaping
shall not be higher than 30 inches above the curb in these
areas . [PW, PL]
e. Land designated as Open Space on the Preliminary Landscape
Master Plan shall be clearly identified. This Open Space
area shall be permanently restricted to Open Space use by
recorded deed restriction, subject to review and approval of
the City Attorney and the Planning Director. [ADM, PL]
f . In riparian corridor areas impacted by residential
development, three new trees of at least 15 gallon size
shall be provided to mitigate the loss of each existing tree
over 10 inches in diameter. If coast live oaks and big leaf
maple plantings are -utilized, then the minimum size may be
reduced to five gallon. Said trees may be distributed along
the roadway, as Generally depicted on sheet L-2 of the
Preliminary Landscape Master Plan. Only those trees over 10
inches in diameter removed during construction of the
Emergency Access Road along Martin Canyon Creek may be
replaced with seedling revegetation. All plans for
additional tree planting in the riparian corridor areas
shall be subject to review and approval by Alameda County
Flood Control District Zone 7 . [PL, Z7]
g. Identified slope areas with a gradient steeper than three-
foot-horizontal-.to-one-foot-vertical created in conjunction
- 8 -
..,-'\
".\
"^N
with this project with the resultant slope height in excess
of seven feet ( see Staff Study #1, dated February 7, 1992)
shall be planted with 15-gallon sized Open Space Trees .
Planting ratio to be observed shall be a minimum of one tree
per one thousand square feet of slope area.
Said Open Space Trees shall be planted in clusters, as
generally depicted on sheets L-2 and L-3 of the Preliminary
Landscape Master Plan (Exhibit A) and shall be planted prior
to release of occupancy of any units within that phase . The
Applicant/Developer shall work with the adjacent property
owners (behind lots 30 - 35) to ensure that existing views
are maintained to the fullest extent possible. The final
location of the Open Space Trees shall be subject to review
and approval of the Public Works Director and the Planning
Director.
Open Space Trees planted on slope areas within the common
open areas shall be irrigated and maintained by the
developer until the ownership/maintenance of the common open
areas is assumed by the Homeowner's Association. Irrigation
of trees within individual lots shall be by separate
irrigation systems, the maintenance of which shall be the
responsibility of the future individual property owners .
[PL, PW]
32 . Prior to release of occupancy, a Screening Plan shall be
developed to provide separation between the rear-yard patio and
window areas of Lots 1-4 and the adjacent deck areas to the north
(existing Kaufman & Broad homes) and shall be subject to Planning
Director review and approval . [PL]
33 . Open Space and Landscape Management and Maintenance programs for
- Open Space areas established through the subdivision and Planned
Development District shall generally conform to the "Open
Space/Landscape Management Specifications for Hansen Hill"
prepared by David L. Gates and Associates, dated received June
29 , 1990 (Exhibit A) . [PW, PL]
34 . Prior to the issuance of a building and/or grading permit,
significant, visually important trees and tree clusters shall be
tagged in the field for protection, subject to Public Works
Director and Planning Director approval. A cyclone, or other
appropriate fence shall be erected around the dripline of these
marked trees to ensure their protection throughout the grading
and construction activity, subject to review and approval of the
Public Works Director and the Planning Director. [PW, PL]
35 . Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
Applicant/Developer shall submit a certified arborist report for
the pruning of any trees . A certified arborist shall perform the
pruning of trees and shall clean up the ground of all deadwood
and debris, to keep this material from getting into the
watercourse, subject to the approval of the Public Works
Director. [PW, PL]
- 9
t •
36 . Transformers, irrigation control boxes, backflow devices , valves ,
and the like shall be enclosed in vaults, fencing and/or painted
out and landscaped, as determined acceptable to the Planning
Director. Location of these items shall be indicated on the
Final Landscape Plans . [PL]
37 . The developer/owner shall sign and submit a copy of the City of
Dublin Standard Plant, Material, Irrigation System and
Maintenance Agreement prior to occupancy of any units . [PL]
FIRE DISTRICT
38 . Any locks which are placed on the gates or removable posts into
the Fire Buffer Zone, Open Space Access Drives and the Emergency
Access Road must incorporate a "Knox lock" , keyed to the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority's code, which allow the removal
of any one lock to allow access . [F]
LIGHT AND GLARE
39 . Exterior lighting shall be provided on stairwells, dwelling
entrances and by address numbers, and shall be of a design and
placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties .
Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide
security needs . (Photometrics and lighting plans for the site
shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Dublin Police
Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits) . [PL, P0, B]
40 . The use of reflective finishes on building exteriors is
prohibited. In order to control the effects of glare within this
subdivision, reflective glass shall not be used on all east
facing windows . [PL]
41 . A final color and materials palette prepared by the developer for
review and approval by the Planning Director shall be submitted
prior to foundation inspections of any of the units in this
project . [PL]
TRASH/DEBRIS/DUST
42 . Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction
debris , and materials on-site until disposal off-site can be
arranged. The developer shall be responsible for corrective
measures at no expense to the City of Dublin. [PW, B]
43 . The Developer shall keep adjoining public streets and driveways
free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials and debris , and
clean-up shall be made during the construction period, as
determined by the Public Works Director. [PW]
44 . Areas undergoing grading and all other construction activities
shall be watered or other dust palliative measures used to
prevent dust, as conditions warrant. [PW]
- 10 -
-M\
..
ARCHAEOLOGY
45. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered,
construction in the vicinity shall be halted an archaeologist
consulted, and the City Planning Department notified. If, in the
opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant,
measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be
taken to protect them. [PL]
MISCELLANEOUS
46. Prior to final inspection of any unit, the developer shall submit
a letter from the postal service to the Planning Department
stating their satisfaction with the type and location of the mail
receptacles to be provided. [PL]
47. Signs established for project identification (as regards to
number, size, location, copy and design) shall be subject to
review and approval of Site Development Review. [PL]
1 48. All construction traffic may be subject to specific routing as
determined by the Public Works Director. [PW]
49. All construction activity at the site shall be restricted 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 Public
Works Director. [PW]
n 50. This approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance with
Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of
the terms or conditions of this approval shall be subject to
citation. [PL]
51. To apply for building permits, the Developer shall submit six (6)
sets of construction plans and two (2) sets of Site Plans for
each individual lot within the subdivision to the Building
Department for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached
an annotated copy of the Final Action Letter. The notations
shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will be
complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without
the annotated Final Action Letter attached to each set of plans.
The Developer will be responsible for obtaining approvals of all
participating non-city agencies prior to the issuance of building
permits. [B, PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of February, 1992.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None /
ATTEST: 'Plannin/Com¢iissigtf Chairperson
Planning irector
- 11 -
Pam;& fryTc4.K6a1-
S7o - 7/
/9 96
/e6 �J
'C2Q, .9/(A• gLil-))
/vz
- ,
7 0• (41I11.1 4?ID, 4()ri ,•.•lpi
-
-14'4-
_A--,-zZt—
g4 .47 ez-4-t-e--41-teD
r a -1 4
... -•-e,,,) ja-e,,i-2,,,,2 _A-6-e__ _,,,,,,j, -/--o-x-,tiz__) (e-n-a-,y"
-It-I:41,22e -AA-,r,14,-...ii .ieLd----A-la443 afzle 4-44,114.441LA-)
L'Ll'iele" jt-L)T-) Al- ,114 ; 14,Ld-2Ve-, -4-ti/LelL 71L-E )
6-,-) ---41J1-4--/ i•/4--) -• ?'"' -1-e. --i-4.arm-eAsi fLV ri,t-eiti-eL a-e-te.4.1---,
_A-e-e-t6)...1,24_I ,Ly-_„4_,.....d
i
-43-4..4A41-6 elaitAz 1Z --_46_L-fL_, , --tuz)-1 ) am", etLLC (
1L41t--Pru-&-- • '-e-- rkt.umtz4,64‘.4-- .2 ) )14.z,,,,71-, ij -
iLik4 ; AJ7-
_Li „teouz_._.tc,4yezi
,/, __,L-0-Z6(414-144-W,,Itu-iI4,1 e-(
, ...6..":_) /, _1,4,61.i Ae.4-4ei' -thh _. .:44--)/e.A4-66 -444.-
`•--j-4;,--) ,i . a-?tmy-c2i )-2`0.-:'ju-Of .1-Lt__/_.c-L,Ade-d-Ztz--
_,LU-Lertia-/d4-e-,--e o5.1-6-71- iczji*-±"1-4L-) -c4-•-•' 4-. tv-66,,,,_.-/
Al- X)'14-1L-' L'—' /2-11- 4i4.11—--:*Z47e--/,t444,ekl-e 4 j V et- .e*
-74-64i2-#1.-i, --e-n-4- ,--- rfra- --- /rzii ,
eig-vdeta_4,141Z--,
Martha W. Buxton
Real Estate Development Services
120 Village Square #130 (510)254-6968
Orinda,Ca 94563 FAX(510)254-7954
.'�
January 13,1995 C .
Larry Tong y�y F�& /.
Director,Planning
�9
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
Dear Larry,
I am in receipt today of the staff report and conditions of approval prepared by Tasha
Houston for the January 17 Planning Commission meeting. I appreciate the hard work
and cooperation you and your staff have demonstrated over the past weeks in order to
process the Amended Tentative Map for Hansen Ranch,Phase I.
The following comments concerning the amended Tentative Map and the Development
Agreement represent California Pacific Homes'position regarding the conditions of
approval. I have identified the number of the condition in question.
TENTATIVE MAP
#9. In order to increase the 6 foot road to 12 foot in this area there will need to be some
filling in the creek. Both Fish and Game and the Army Corp of Engineers have
jurisdiction in the creek and will need to approve work in the creek. Language should
be added to the condition stating that the road"shall be 12 feet wide subject to Fish
and Game and Army Corp of Engineer approval....".
#10. Staff attempted to have this condition inserted in the 1989 Tentative Map
approval. City Council turned it down then because there is no"nexus"between the
construction of a cul-de-sac bulb at Martin Canyon Road and the Hansen subdivision.
That is still the case. No traffic generated by the subdivision uses Martin Canyon Road.
The maintenance and emergency vehicle improvements requested by the City can be
adequately accessed without a full cul-de-sac bulb. Public Works stated they would like
to have the street sweeper be able to turn around on Martin Canyon,but that is not a
financial burden that should be borne by the Hansen subdivision. In addition,much of
the land needed to construct the cul-de-sac is on the Nielsen property,not Hansen
Ranch. Finally,our engineers,Adams-Streeter,have determined that it is not physically
possible to build a cul-de-sac of standard dimensions in that location,even if it is one-
sided.
^
Page Two
January 13, 1995
#12 and 18. The easement that California Pacific Homes has for the access road on the
Nielsen property is a non-exclusive, private road easement and may not include the
right to place improvements on the Nielsen land. If the City does not intend to maintain
the aggregate base rock that they have requested we place on land that we do not .
own, it is not certain that the land owner, the Nielsens,will allow us to rock the road. M
#31. This condition should be deleted as fencing is not a Tentative Map condition in the
current approvals. Fencing is a Site Development Review issue that is contained in the
currently approved Site Development Review conditions 28, 29 and 30. As written here,
the condition implies that all fences shall be placed at the top of slopes, which is not the
case. The Site Development Review conditions more precisely address the fencing issue
and are more than adequate.
#42. DSRSD's reference to condition 27 is an error. Condition 27 requires a construction
timeline to the police for staffing purposes and is not related to condition 42.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
#6, e through i. These conditions should be deleted from the Development Agreement.
All of them are contained in the Tentative Map amended conditions and need not, and
should not, be repeated in the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement
is a precise legal document that is very narrow in the issues that it addresses. If any of
these conditions required further amendment or clarification it should be sufficient to do
so in the Tentative Map conditions and should not involve the Development Agreement.
I realize you are receiving these comments on the day of the Planning Commission
hearing. However, I only received the conditions and staff report on Friday afternoon
and between the week-end and the Monday holiday,this is the earliest opportunity I
have to get these comments to you. I would appreciate it if you would share my written
comments with the Planning Commissioners.
Thank you for your attention to these items. I look forward to our meeting January 17
with the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Martha W. Buxton
Consultant for California Pacific Homes
cc: Tasha Houston ✓
Lee Thompson
Jeff Slavin '1