Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/1988 PC Agenda CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services ...r ,.. Planning;Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 DECLARATION OF POSTING I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Agenda for the Dublin Planning Commission meeting of 4-o7 Y , 19 was posted at the Dublin Library, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, California, on the /'Qt of , 198' by ,c;0-0 p.m. Executed this /274 day of --;Z-Ze./ , 198Kat Dublin, California. Laurence L. Tong Planning Commission Secretary by Planning Secretary .+.ww..�w�r.-.:—.rwr-�:c-r--iv-:-:-:=.vac�v-�:�nx .. ..•.�^v-..�e�--�—_.t....t,.-..:-- - --,-use..e:..+rxr-^.-a AGENDA CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - Dublin Library Monday - 7:00 p. n. 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. , Meeting Room April 4, 1988 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - March 21, 1988 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item which is not on the Planning Commission agenda. Comments should not exceed 5 minutes. If any person feels that this is insufficient time to address his or her concern, that person should arrange with the Planning Director to have his or her particular concern placed on the agenda for a future meeting. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Sign Program Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for directional tract signs and subdivision sale, rent, or lease signs to exceed allowable square footage, height and setback restrictions west of Dougherty Road north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard (continued from meeting of March 7, and March 21, 1988. ) 8.2 PA 88-001 Waseca Kubota Tractors Conditional Use Permit request to allow outside storage and display of equipment and machinery at 6305 Dougherty Road. 8.3 Proposed Plan Line for New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard to consider establishment of plan lines for new road between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road. 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS 12. ADJOURNMENT (Over for Procedures Summary) eN CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: April 4, 1988 TO: Planning Commission f� FROM: Planning Staff�� 1 SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, Sign Program, Conditional Use Permit/Variance GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: REVISED - Conditional Use Permit/Variance request for a Sign Program containing three directional tract signs (all of which exceed allowed copy square footage restrictions and two of which exceed height restrictions) and four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs (three of which exceed allowed copy square footage restrictions and all four of which are located in required yard areas). PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development Ron Nahas 2011 Patio Drive, Suite 215 Castro Valley, CA 94546 LOCATION: The Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-278-2782, -2783, -2784 (Portion of each) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: PD, Planned Development, Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant, City of San Ramon South: Vacant, PD, Planned Development for residential uses East: Camp Parks Military Training Reserve West: Open space, PD Planned Development ZONING HISTORY: The original 135+ acre holding was rezoned from an A, Agricultural District, to the R-1-B-5, Single Family Residential-Combining District, and the C-N, Neighborhood Business District, by Zoning Unit 638, approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1964. The Zoning designation R-1-B-5 was subsequently relettered to an R-1-B-E designation. On April 15, 1985, the Planning Commission granted approval for a four-parcel minor subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map 4575. The parcel split was requested to facilitate a purchase option agreement the Applicant (Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development) had with the original Property Owner. On March 24, 1986, the City Council granted approval for the PD, Planned Development District and Tentative Map applications for the 1,165-unit Villages at Willow Creek project (PA 85-041.1 and .2). There are seven residential Villages under separate applications and in various stages. ITEM NO. g. 1 COPIES TO: Applicant APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 8-87.10(f) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Sign Regulations) defines Directional Tract signs as a temporary signs containing only the name and location of a subdivision and/or a multiple family residential project and direction for reaching the same. They can be located on or off site but must be located on private property. Section 8-87.60 of the Sign Regulations states that Directional Tract Signs may be located in required yards if a Conditional Use Permit is granted. Section 8-87.60(a) of the Sign Regulations states that Directional Tract Signs in any district are limited to thirty-two square feet maximum copy area and a maximum of twelve feet in height. Section 8-87-50 of the Sign Regulation states that Subdivision Sale/Rent/Lease signs are permitted in any zoning district to advertise the orginal sale, rent or lease of buildings or lots in conjunction with a subdivision development. A maximum sign area of thirty-two square feet and a maximum height limit of 12 feet must be observed. In addition, the yard limits of the district the sign is located in must be complied with. Also, the sign must be located on private property within the subdivision. Section 8-94.0 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditinal Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; 3) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. Section 8-93.0 (Variance) and Government Code Section 65906 (State law re: Variance findings) indicate that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: 1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification; 2) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; and 3) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. -2- t 4 r Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15311, Class 11(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 7, 1988 hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to property owners and posted in public buildings. Because this item was continued to the March 21, and April 4, 1988 hearings, no further public noticing was required. BACKGROUND This application was originally continued from the March 7, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission was unable to make a decision due to disagreements between Staff and the Applicant regarding what types of signs were proposed. The main point of contention revolved around whether the signs were directional tract signs as identified by Staff or subdivision/sale/lease/rent signs as identified by the Applicant. The Planning Commission asked Staff and the Applicant to meet in order to resolve this issue as well as attempt to create a sign program that was acceptable to both parties. On March 9, 1988 Staff and the Applicant met. It was clarified that some of the signs could be defined as subdivision sale/lease/rent signs while others could be defined as directional tract signs. The Applicant presented his idea of what would be an acceptable sign program. This included a combination of seven signs, some of which would be subdivision sale/lease/rent signs and some of which would be directional tract signs. Of these, some would exceed maximum height and copy square footage restrictions, while others may not. This was not acceptable to Staff. The meeting ended with both parties understanding each others position, however no agreement was reached. On March 14, 1988 the Applicant submitted a revised sign program to Staff for consideration by the Planning Commission. On March 21, 1988 the Planning Commission reviewed the revised sign program and determined that the three directional tract signs as proposed by the Applicant were acceptable and therefore findings in support of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance regarding these signs could be made. Findings are included in the resolutions (Exhibits A & B) in support of the directional tract signs. These signs are recommended for approval as follows: DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGNS A=1: Freestanding double face sign, 65 square feet per face for a total of 130 square feet. It is 14.75 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Non- conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. A-2: Freestanding double face sign, 65 square feet per face for a total of 130 square feet. It is 14.75 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Willow Creek Road. Non- conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. A-3: Freestanding single face sign with 65 square feet of copy. It is 12 feet tall and would be located in the northeastern corner of Village 5. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. -3- f r /1 Plans for the signs are included as Attachment 2. With respect to the subdivision sale/lease/rent signs, the Commission had a number of problems with them including excessive height, excessive sign copy square footage, questions regarding compliance with yard requirements and questions about the exact locations of the signs. Because these details were not clearly defined, the Commission decided to continue this item so that these specifics could be clarified. The Commission made it clear to the Applicant that it was his responsibility to provide these details in a timely manner so that a decision could be made at the April 4, 1988 public hearing. At the writing of this Staff Report, no new submittals regarding the details for the revised subdivision sale/lease/rent signs had been submitted by the Applicant. ANALYSIS Since the Planning Commission indicated support of the directional tract signs, the analysis will be limited to the subdivision sale/lease/rent signs. Four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs are proposed. These are permitted signs per the sign regulations. Neither Site Development Review or a Conditional Use Permit is necessary. The sign regulations allow subdivision sale/lease/rent signs to have a maximum copy area of 32 square feet with a 12 foot height limitation. They must be located on private property within the subdivision they are identifying and they must conform with the yard limits of the district they are located in. They cannot be located on one subdivision while identifying another subdivision. A Variance is necessary because three of the signs' copy exceeds 32 square feet and all four appear to be located within required yard areas. With respect to all of the proposed signs, the specifics regarding exact sign locations, exact sign copy, relationships of the signs to the wall, to property lines, and required yards has not been provided by the Applicant. This information should be provided and drawn accurately to scale. The Planning Commission requested that this information be included in the revised sign program. Because the Applicant has not provided these details, a more complete review for compliance with zoning restrictions could not be completed. Staff cannot support this request until the above mentioned details have been provided and the signs are in conformance with sign regulations. Therefore, the Variance request should be denied without prejudice or continued until such time that an accurate and complete sign program has been submitted. The descriptions below are based upon the information provided by the Applicant at the March 21, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION SALE/LEASE/RENT SIGNS B-1: Freestanding double face sign, 24 square feet per face for a total of 48 square feet. It is 10 feet tall and would be located on the north side of Amador Valley Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Wildwood Road. Non-Conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign is located within required 20 foot of yard setback of Village 2. B-2: Freestanding double face sign, 32 square feet per face for a total of 64 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on the north side of Willow Creek Road just west of Dougherty Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign appears to be located within the 15 foot yard setback of Village 4. B-3: Freestanding double face sign, 24 square feet per face for a total of 48 square feet. It is 10 feet tall and located on the southwest corner of Dougherty Road and Wildwood Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign is located within either the 15 foot or 20 #foot yard setback (possibly both) of Village 3. B-4: Freestanding single face sign with 24 square feet of copy. It is 10 feet tall and would be located on Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Sign is located within 20 foot yard setback of Village 6. -4- VARIANCE Three of the four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs exceed the 32 square foot copy restriction. All four of the signs appear to be located in the required yard areas established by the Planned Development approving the Villages. In Staff's opinion these nonconformities can be eliminated while still providing adequate advertising for the Villages. Prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made, based on facts presented in the record. These include: 1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would deprive the Property Owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district. This means in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable. Staff's review of the sites finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. The Villages have frontages on Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, both of which together could easily accommodate strategically placed subdivision sale/lease/rent signs in locations that are highly visible and in compliance with zoning provisions. 2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. This means that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other property owners have not been given the right to do. The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because allowing subdivision sale/lease/rent signs that exceed copy square footage restrictions, and locating them in required yard and open space areas would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other property owners in similar situations. 3. That the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This means approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any fashion. If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinace where compliance is attainable. Because of the above facts, Staff must recommend that the Variance for the subdivision sale/lease/rent signs be denied without prejudice. Excessive sign copy square footage in addition to locating subdivision signs in required yards cannot be supported. 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) a) Adopt Resolution conditionally approving the Conditional Use Permit request for the three directional tract signs. b) Adopt Resolution conditionally approving the Variance request for the three directional tract signs. c) Adopt Resolution denying without prejudice the Variance request for the four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs, or: d) Give Staff and the Applicant direction and continue the matter. -5- ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions conditionally approving the Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for the three directional tract signs for PA 88-003, and deny without prejudice the Variance request for the four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs for PA 88-003, Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard sign program. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution conditionally approving the Conditional Use Permit for three directional tract signs at the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, PA 88-003. Exhibit B: Draft Resolution conditionally approving the Variance for three directional tract signs at the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, PA 88-003. Exhibit C: Draft Resolution denying without prejudice the Variance for the four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, PA 88-003. BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS: 1) Revised Site Plan submitted to the Planning Commission on March 21, 1988. 2) Revised elevations and Partial Site Plans for the Directional Tract Signs submitted to the Planning Commission on March 21, 1988. 3) Revised elevation and Partial Site Plans for the subdivision sale/lease/rent signs submitted to the Planning Commission on March 21, 1988. 4) Vicinity Map. 5) Excerpts from Dublin Sign Regulations. 6) Excerpts from City Council Resolution No. 31-86 approving and establishing findings and provisions for The Villages (PD) rezoning, showing yard restrictions. 7) Planning Commission Minutes from the Meeting of March 7, 1988. 8) Planning Commission Minutes from the Meeting of March 21, 1988 (included in April 4, 1988 Agenda Packet). -6- RESOLUTION No. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THAT PORTION OF PA 88-003 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGNS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, Ron Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development filed an a Conditional Use Permit for a Sign Program containing three directional tract signs (all of which exceed the allowed copy square footage restrictions and two of which exceed height restrictions) for the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-0 decided to continue the items to the meeting of March 21, 1988 in an attempt to have issues in question clarified; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 21, 1988; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-0 decided to conditionally approve the Conditional Use Permit relating to the three directional tract signs and continued this item to the meeting of April 4, 1988 so that the appropriate Resolutions could be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on April 4, 1988; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Conditional Use Permit for the three directional tract signs be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: A. The use is required by the public need at the proposed location because the signs provide directional identification for a large and unique subdivision. B. The use is appropriate in that the size, height and copy square footage of the signs is commensurate with the size of the development and its identification needs. A h 1 1 C. The use, if permitted under all circumstantes and conditions of this particular case, would not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the area. D. The use will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in that it provides attractive and effective advertising for the Villages. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Conditional Use Permit request for three directional tract signs in PA 87-003, as shown by the materials labeled Background Attachments 1 and 2 in Staff Report dated April 4, 1988, on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to issuance of building permits and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. 1. This approval is for the following directional tract signs: A=1: Freestanding double face sign, 65 square feet per face for a total of 130 square feet. It is 14.75 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. A-2: Freestanding double face sign, 65 square feet per face for a total of 130 square feet. It is 14.75 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Willow Creek Road. A-3: Freestanding single face sign with 65 square feet of copy. It is 12 feet tall and would be located in the northeastern corner of Village 5. 2. The sign copy for all directional tract signs shall be limited to the name, location and direction of the subdivision and/or multiple family residential projects. 3. The Conditional Use Permit approval for the three directional tract signs expires on October 14, 1989, at which time the signs shall either be removed or a new Conditional Use Permit and Variance shall be filed with the Planning Department for further consideration and use of these signs. 4. Building permits for the three directional tract signs shall be secured by October 14, 1988 or said approval will be void. 5. Any additional wall mounted or freestanding signage proposed for The Villages shall be subject to review by the Planning Department prior to installation. 6. The means of illumination (either internal or external) for the signs shall be subject to separate review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. This Conditional Use Permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. - 2 - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission conditionally approves the directional tract sign Conditional Use Permit request in PA 88-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 1988. AYES: NOES: PRESENT: ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director - 3 - RESOLUTION No. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THAT PORTION OF PA 88-003 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGNS VARIANCE WHEREAS, Ron Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development filed a Variance for a Sign Program containing three directional tract signs (all of which exceed allowed copy square footage restrictions and two of which exceed height restrictions), for the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-0 decided to continue the items to the meeting of March 21, 1988 in an attempt to have issues in question clarified; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 21, 1988; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-0 decided to conditionally approve the Variance relating to the three directional tract signs and continued this item to the meeting of April 4, 1988 so that the appropriate Resolutions could be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on April 4, 1988; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Variance for the three directional tract signs be conditionally approved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, reocmmendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: A. There are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics including project size, project location and wall height and location of all applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict compliance with the Zoning Regulations for directional tract signs were observed. EXHIBIT '�� B. The granting of the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that special circumstances exist which warrant granting the Variance. C. The granting of this Variance application would not be detrimental to persons or propoerty in the neighborhood because if approved it would provide adequate and necessary identification for an unusually large subdivision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Variance request for three directional tract signs in PA 87-003, as shown by the materials labeled Background Attachments 1 and 2 in the Staff Report dated April 4, 1988, on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to issuance of building permits and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. 1. This approval is for the following directional tract signs: A_1: Freestanding double face sign, 65 square feet per face for a total of 130 square feet. It is 14.75 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. A-2: Freestanding double face sign, 65 square feet per face for a total of 130 square feet. It is 14.75 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Willow Creek Road. A-3: Freestanding single face sign with 65 square feet of copy. It is 12 feet tall and would be located in the northeastern corner of Village 5. 2. The sign copy for all directional tract signs shall be limited to the name, location and direction of the subdivision and/or multiple family residential projects within the Villages at Willow Creek project. 3. The Conditional Use Permit for three directional tract signs expires on October 14, 1989, at which time the signs shall either be removed or a new Conditional Use Permit and Variance shall be filed with the Planning Department for further consideration and use of these signs. 4. Building permits for the three directional tract signs shall be secured by October 14, 1988 or said approval will be void. 5. The means of illumination (either internal or external) for the signs shall be subject to separate review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Any additional wall mounted or freestanding signage proposed for the Villages shall be subject to review by the Planning Department prior to installation. 7. This Conditional Use Permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. - 2 - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission conditionally approves the directional tract sign Variance request in PA 88-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 1988. AYES: NOES: PRESENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director - 3 - RESOLUTION No. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT PORTION OF PA 88-003 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD, SUBDIVISION SALE/LEASE/RENT SIGNS VARIANCE WHEREAS, Ron Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development filed a Variance for a Sign Program containing four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs (three of which exceed allowed copy square footage restriction and all four of which are located in required yard areas) for the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-0 decided to continue the items to the meeting of March 21, 1988 in an attempt to have issues in question clarified; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 21, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-0 decided to continue the items to the meeting of April 4, 1988 in an attempt to have issues in question clarified; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on April 4, 1988; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Variance request regarding the subdivision sale/lease/rent signs be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: A. There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the propoerty which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict compliance with the Zoning Regulations for subdivision sale/lease/rent signs were observed. B. The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that no special circumstances exist which warrant granting the Variance. C. The granting of this Variance application would be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood because if approved it could set an unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the standards of the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission denies without prejudice the Variance request for the subdivision sale/lease/rent signs in PA 88-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 1988. AYES: NOES: PRESENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director - 2 - i I 9 i a 1 1 WALL $14TI LT $3 DOVrnE S,oGv Z PANEL. 121 Tb TOP i \ OP SIGN f OvGNE ,_7 • it S-Z' � e 1 nLL..„ S �_"''" r ay s Nc� 1. Ace 1 j ' REC CVEDT 16611 MAR ^, :. 13E3 pUBUN P1AHNITO- i iOArf SGMl p1AMM tr .. IX.' Nlia FZIci-1t> j ,L _ .00.<NO rOwra THE r • 168 r-r • I v.11L..UW C��I-- '` • �� ..a.' MI26 0 W., DtAMO aoa 1610:99 GROU' IPVIMF SrCRRN{MIO w 110 477 Ono 916 111 1990 Concept by Hosulok&Associates.kic. i t t B Immo lot 0" t i a ' . = CEO D,CcrioNs CoP< AA AMI'2 '4 eID° TJ �l�Due;,E-F.�c.D; �~ t Gre 6���.,. QED E!i�j ` + 73 ( &' F9 ') L ✓ T I / ;'WILLOW ���.�C R E E Yam ' LtalliC - L 4 ,� ii I • • � I LA -e) ) Z I '. ' • _ ,..„..../..„, ......, / ...\\ , . • I . -f-.., WALL-!i kr, `) . t .-------------...--..-------.......- . .• r. 16N -ril=2e- -A / 0Fr- t'r , PI . A-1 , 1 DATE Z /�-/-� SCALE. yup�i. DRAWN BY.� �f'_. REV IR NO PROJECT T qpyrii , PAGE R ,� MIEPI7AS ♦ DIAMOND C � � ,�- A-I 4oe�26ro299 IRVINE SACRAMENTO `� GROUP t.IA` ^ SAC1 714'4740270 916'7222990 DUBUN PLANNU' :L Concept by Hosulak & Associates,Inc. e a �N y x ft x 0 zl. Z7 Z) r J il a < `g I b N.- . 1 i C � i I' m 'A6 Z W 3 4 Q c P z f[ YYn r t. O r r \--\\ . win o r. `'o "'N ________..-..------ 1, ...._\ .,..i...--1-..L..... ___,,L.,.., ......„ GUI.. I/,4 R.� ,/�L LAY ZAtt-411`1 ) : (� R. ZDmy -v z r 0 R _-e_.._- .1 • F"'''''''".'”'''''' . t • • • 1 loIou C 15P`f D12EC•T1G,N S la oMr; Copy AREAS 11=11,c Ole o,cED EN?j ( t".{C;••tee Fi 0 s)$ - i. A." �� rLi, ,'WILLOWi \il'CREEKi • . . .1 I I "il • \ • , 4 I /3A5E - I "I i / I � .,�111=€€r�r-t 1 o S� 1 WA1-L i 4% l , ( -y ' T1— / • 1 • 16(� 1'0'e A / oFrrep . I A..2:11 R / 6t}7 . ' AR REV' PR MO. IROJECrY THE l� RFY. PAGE pLANN10 2 403,2620 99 DIAMOND DuBuN9m11E 1AC7AMEM70 W, GROUP 716'4140210 9167222990 • Concept by Hasulak& Associates,Inc, \\\‘' o,Q < St GN TYt�E A • . • • • 't ..... i \ xci`16,-''''' , -61.44 TrPE B-Z • I . .1h, (\,,,..,.......c...,...„._ ., 1 H t REQE ".• ED MAR r, 4,. 12 21 i ' DRAWN/1' DUBLIN. F1AN�Z F 12-1y-Fr/ iCll(N/,A p I .1 5...MpJ[R: •;.-{L{.F� Qt7.21?i w,tt��►^'c�r. ►; DAMOND MO( aoe 161 0199 IRVINF SAMMIMTO • GROUP Ili VI DM 916 111 1990 . Concept by Hasulak&Associates,Inc, ..• , • • . ' 0661•111/9111 OM tiltitll '-. ' • '• :.,:. dnode V • ' 'OININIVIOIS DRAW ' ' , , , • 4, (Nal/NNW] ‘,4, ,WO 29e/1101, SVIldllIN ... •••••, 30dd A3d • . 3H1 --,.......... , 103rOdd ON l'Olid A3to • f 1: AO NAArd0 311I3S VIVO a mg% E •.. . . .. . '9_14114w-1 , . . iEn„.....y . ' tir4 :r3<1./‘)-1.- t'•491 . . , . . . , ... . . ,. 74I )' , - •PI /., • •• . ' . [ . ,........4 •.ftr-7. i / 114.PZ , .-: . 13 . i.9 . •, ..•:.. .•. •...• • ,.. [4 eAr L.. . • . . ..„,. 04 10' tA IPTSV . • - 14) , •• • ,. ri 11010Or11 ;vazhe A..40, `43-1--)V —ai9vg :t. . 1...4or7 (21- -44%-- I .4 ‘ - . A,..........."-------‘•••.---/-.. 4.• • II0 101 -.• • . ..i..'. . . . . . . ... . . • • • - .•. • 4. ' •. . .!', • i .4 r I . • • ' .... , •k ,.... ., ''‘,.. • , qi-iez . , •..• . • .... • • . . . •• . , . 'KIP • , , .- • (TIN. • '• 1,OVIE-P Lit.4111.- v.141,1.- f 1.6 cot-iPt,e-T*6 t . -.. t-51,-44L-e 5lpeo MfAx.. 17.1 TO -ror. !.. . • • . • •- ( • -, v., ft,, DUBUN PlANNIN6 -," OATS 1 eri SCALII Nj/A . .,_ 1. 6" VsJEC - /4^ 7-2I• I L A-X,V4 rrvie. VN 40A:1140N1,9 2DIAMOND • IRIE SCRAMITO tt. GROUP .f74 • . , 114 414 0210 916 On 2990 en/1(1.M tne HrnitInk 4 Acvnciotel Inc - .0■■••,„, ,.....f• • . I . . . , L. 7 Olt i ..- ‹.: a . -1- (Ilc r) •. . 1 1CP V. • 4, 6' . . 1 22. . • " -,), ,<--- 9 • li C 01 03 (119 ---A... < A- ...0 4-.• tN- . • _ :. t .... '‘rR • . k'4 - N - . x_ NI I n..., , , \ ' aN 1 • -,.. ..___ ........, ___ _. • 'N. .'-;Ks- E f., : • ‘ x-7 .) • . . _ . -. . 7. ''.. --------------1\-----..._______ 2.2 r.i 11 . 74 2iff ... .„, . ...2. ,2, ...z.,"_. r/a7 eg r) z 1: •-:-.•::.or:. ref D.', • • . • - ,T e• . -03 -4 CT ',%,, •••• I ft 1 • ••••• 8 . . ., t 7-; •:.< -z.'; -) .:-.7.,•,:', • 6. - Z. . . :''' •••••• ' ;,3 .. . ., 0 .. , •-1) . A TrAcHmENT 3 s.. - • - 1"4\ .•••""•••• • • • • •• • . . • • . . . . . . • . . " % .. a C • Z ;73 • • 4 z; 0-i. 5 0. • • :..1 14 -4571 8 7 -?c \•. • \ - a • \. / • t• Is2c, - e> • • .•r • ,• / _A6.• .••• - •z• •0 ri 2; O• ki‘kIN 11111J ) 0 > m py ?" 0 Ct, 0 - z 1 . • : 1 1 I f 1 i , - co i'''T To CC ri 7 i o Afar-A 17.--E r tt i to 2 7 •r< ) 7‹0 .. . -, ......A.,_ rn..)f-''''' P;44C- P) ' a__ 7, ( I , I '' i I , .......,.....,..,..,......--"----....„____,_.-- I I . .- - :'is ts) 4-li 1 I A, .0- I I\• i • s r 1 1-1-/- A •-"IL------- 1 1/ i,iLi 0 4 , CREEK n - /446.1, / ` 4- e". 4 ' 0 / r •\)4. S'C'( • 5. I I f /..... 1 ' I L . _ ' ... .... ...I I. - . .__ . .., ( . • I • , I . -- • ,. • . , 4 'm I NI m ur-1 0/ TO .cuas. "C t • MAR °1 .!, • i poi)e,i, rf\ P it le-0 DUBLIN MANNINO . . --- 1 DATE 10......„7...Si SCALE.1/1 0 DRAWN BY:FFI REV• • PX".2 Z43 "°414ECTiLLIOVI .T2E-E.‹.• I THE r. REY RAO( E3'-e-2.... . MILPITAS ...,1.• Air 49;C 118627A262M2;27100 i 4 99 DIAMOND GROUP f . 714 IRV7141410220 • •• Concept by Hasulak &Associates Inc. i q . ,.. 91 ., . " • ... . ' , .. . \ \\ ' \ X\ ';.. \\, .• \ ..1.' s ‘ • \r. \ \ ( . .. .- ...-. . . ' ‘1\ < ''\ %.4, is(Q--I -Type.- ,. ........,1 A-2._ ‘• \ '\ -v ----,.....__...(._.....-- 1 I.. %lbtric i• I . -4-..- I -------"-*"-.,, . (7' ---51Q--I 'TYPE 5-2. --____, <9 — \ \v\ „ . • \ 1\5"---.... - \ ..----- . . . . -- - ( . RECEIVECi.. DUBLIN PUNNING. . . .. . . . - 04If I...,-2.....I z...4.. 5:1 SCALE ILJAs, OAP..EY ir..,...F.z 1 va_t_41.....:, . , ; - ‘-1-.Inn ''I7 I..'... REP PAGE 407767t, (4) DIAMONDTHE 11010111 SERAW11111711 GROUP • 110 414 0/70 916 122 1990 r,„_,. L . 0,,,,f,t, ,P Pc,",;.-••••• 1,,f' ,...... ......., . • 1 is. . 7 Z M 7 0 c-- 2 a IL --4 r) • • ' 6 I I. ._._. 1-—I r . . - I.-7 - - •• • K- ; ; • -. - .._ A` s. • • % ,.r. i i ., I ____ ti,... ;.,.• ''.. n= 1 1 --- 0,03 IA V __. • < • - I _ ,,,,,..,..,.. Mk ...1-4 r. \ 11- 1-1 1:31111iiik (-' -( -A ;1 vsl 51i ) z2 lir 1\--k ... .:-.. 4 ', . • '._, :' 3, ; ....... \ri.ki Tr\\ -%.."•-•..................„.„......_ ' . . __I____ '''''•." • —--------t .. s_ * 1 • ct\ .".7.... 1) 1\1- It' -- . .1'2":• 1 70 -• . ege ast - . 1-.1 - a a a• Ni ....:0.4,_. (.1 CT S ., • lai cl: ' - *• a; 0 0••r•-"-4 '' ',':k1 -x ril Po 0 K .• C 0 .'•:.'''.7.: • • - .'2 • ;,,,,..•' • .i . .,.'"..0 ,,,,:•;;;'4,9, Z ...•• .. • . 4111111.11111•1111111111111. • b p V • 2 PA S3 vov8 �Ip�D RECEIY. ED. MAR ; d i D1Jai,IN 3I4.N'E [_P1 DAIS v^ I -^+ SCALE. r`1 DRAWN 9Y.F fj I Er Ef REV Imo/ [(�/(((/� PROJ NO 5 PROJECE: 1__ T- �? >�I aS THE REV; PAREw262-0 Wie DIAMOND 488/262 S IRVINE iff311l 99O GROUP • 114/N4.0210 816/2224998 Z l ; P ril 61n . z,., ------71 \---..________________ . 5/ 4— Y I i O _ r' I.•---•,- .._.. .._____._ ''EkNi").:>:NT.k•• ,....*. ' 1 1 I I I : ' --� lv _ cat -. i $ D n ; (.7 . ) -/ \lit IC Q 61 a M d=yy Om M • . •14) va m Dm - -, :. -3 Ci7 ......m...........*•,...,,..,..,..t.,,,DA taift.i:,......a....a••maw.der,.•- a.....:a.,,,,a a aa,...•••,..,-,,-a.•.--"••,•-• --a a s tar,-k.,,,,a....a...¢,i,a a aa.,,,a ra ta Wu r maari.i.ala el=Via la I ItRaN a e a k.gr....5•••,144;a2a.a5 a Kids.i.,ial akt itibiNK, ZA,T..,41:_r•••,..1',....4.4.'q'' . • 1. ^0. . , ..... . . . . . . - . . . • i 3 . ,...,, 'i. .. . .. . . , . . . . . , . : . . . i . _ ..: . il. ‘. . . . . . . .ti. . P • . . . . . . s . . •. . - ../ . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 1 . 1 ... . i % \ .14,0 t_1•• tc: ... ',.1 --••••,„ • 11 . . . . • . . . L.. _ 01 q20'i r" a (< i i erk az. . al.. ...• .... a \4....7%**:\•••/;.".."*%k'.%'"%6"kqlkk*;.%%%.................k.............t.%%%...b..l• Z.= ,..,.=.• .— 5. Ill, PO 3.• WO Oa•••• 0 D. --.‘( In. u.. 0 0. .2 ga• z..3 lal ''''1C. , • "4 . .V ..... •-,,,&,.. '--***... \.7,„ ,1 •--- T 11111* O. • c) 0 -r—I I - 0 K . — .. , ... . . 0 1 . -,•• --...., r., •••-....... ....• ....... ...........—. 1 t .'may„ i.......s0 \,,,c0.' �;1NS SITE CA�pM�9A,`..r • ,c, ; . \tt - . -N ‘..111 -- - \ ii:i .. \ si.",: 1 CAMP I:- AINPArillill :c • i-2. - \ k PAR K5 . r ir..._,* • ..<3 ''.4‘:-;;. . 1 .../Op 111 - igk G20 ,'- - .'401f c. i 1. —4040,_Arii Ii1i , I 1 IV -A o°.\tl BI,yO r — l.VIOF it - _ . i . . V/C/N/TI MAP , : . . . . , . , , : : , . : . , , . i : , . . , , , . , , . 1 : , , , . • i 1 , 2 . . ATTACIF. ENJ '1 EN T , . CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 8 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ORDINANCE CODE Article 7 - Sign Regulations Sec. 8-87.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 8-87.1 Declaration of Purpose and Statement of Objectives Sec. 8-87.2 Declaration of Policy ' Sec. 8-87.10 DEFINITIONS Definitions - Context a) A-Frame Sign, Portable Sign and Sandwich Board Sign b) Banner Sign c) Business Sign d) Community Identification Sign e) C-2-B-40 Directory Sign f) Directional Tract Sign g) Directory Sign h) Freestanding Sign i) Identification Sign j) Illuminated Sign k) Low Profile Sign 1) Non-Conforming Sign m) Office Building Master Identification Sign n) Off-site Advertising Sign o) Open House Sign p) Primary Building Frontage q) Projecting Sign r) Roof-Line s) Secondary Building Frontage t) Service Station Sign Display Structure u) Service Station Price Sign v) Shopping Center Master Identification Sign w) Special Easement Sign x) Temporary Sign y) Time/Temperature Sign z) Wall Sign Sec. 8-87.20 GENERAL LIMITATIONS BY LAND USE DISTRICTS Sec. 8-87.21 A - Agricultural District - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.22 R-1, R-2 and R-S - Residential Districts - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.23 P-D - Planned Development District - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.24 H-1, C-1, C-2 and M-1 - Retail Business, Commercial and Light Industrial Districts - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.25 C-0 - Administrative Office District - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.26 C-N - Neighborhood Business District - Signs Permitted ATTACHMENT 5 • • e) Enhance the economic value of the community through proper signage and encourage signs which are well designed and pleasing in appearance and to provide incentive and latitude for variety, good design relationship and spacing; f) Provide for vehicular and pedestrian safety by prohibiting or restricting distracting signs. Sec. 8-87.2 DECLARATION OF POLICY. It is recognized that the attractiveness of the community is an important factor of the general welfare of the citizens of the City and that reasonable control of signs is in the public interest. Further recognized is the right and need of each business, firm, or corporation to identify its respective place of business or service and that a need exists to protect public and private investments in buildings and open space. Further, the City intends to exercise its sound judgment and discretion to assure that all approved signs provide effective and attractive identification for persons trying to locate a particular place of business, service or use. Sec. 8-87.10 DEFINITIONS. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the following words and phrases are defined and shall be construed as follows: a) A-Frame Sign, Portable Sign, and Sandwich Board Sign. The terms A-Frame Sign, Portable Sign and Sandwich Board Sign shall mean portable signs capable of standing without support or attachment. b) Banner Sign. The term Banner Sign shall mean a temporary sign composed of light weight, flexible, non-rigid material either enclosed or not enclosed in a rigid frame. c) Business Sign. The term Business Sign shall mean any structure, housing, sign, device, figure, painting, display, message placard, or other contrivance, or any part thereof, which has been designed to advertise, or to provide data or information in the nature of advertising, for any of the following purposes: 1) To designate, identify, or indicate the name or business of the owner or occupant of the premises upon which the Business Sign is located. 2) To advertise the business conducted, services available or rendered, or the goods produced, sold, or available for sale upon the property where the Business Sign has been lawfully erected. d) Community Identification Sign. The term Community Identification Sign shall mean a Business Sign incorporating information referring exclusively to service clubs and/or community slogans. (Community Identification Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.60 b).) -2- e) C-2-B-40 Directory Sign. The term C-2-B-40 Directory Sign shall mean a Business Sign located in a C-2-B-40 District which identifies the street address range of the businesses within the complex and serves to identify a business complex with no more than ten tenants. (C-2-B-40 Directory Signs are regulated by Section 8-87,35.) f) Directional Tract Sign. Directional Tract Sign means a Temporary Sign containing only the name and location of a subdivision and/or a multiple family residential project and directions for reaching same. A Directional Tract Sign is a Principal Use for the purpose of Section 8-93.0. (Directional Tract Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.60 a).) g) Directory Sign. The term Directory Sign shall mean a Business Sign located for the purpose of displaying the names of occupants engaged in professions or businesses on the premises. h) Freestanding Sign. The term Freestanding Sign shall mean a Business Sign supported by one or more uprights, braces, columns, poles, or other similar structural components placed on or into the ground, and not attached to a building, and having no exposed or connecting wires. (Freestanding Signs are regulated by Sections 8-87.34, 8-87.35, and 8-87.38.) i) Identification Sign. The term Identification Sign shall mean a sign, or device, for churches and auditoriums which serve exclusively to designate the name, or the name and use, of a public building, or multi-family residential use, or to inform the public as to the use of a lawful parking area, recreation area, or other open use permitted in the District. (Identification Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.61 a).) [Ord. No. 6-87, January 1987] j) Illuminated Sign. An Illuminated Sign shall mean a Business Sign which uses a source of light in order to make the message readable, and shall include internally and externally lighted signs. k) Low Profile Sign. The term Low Profile Sign shall mean a Business Sign that serves to identify a business complex including the range of the businesses within the complex, and may also serve as a directory sign identifying tenants located in said complex. (Low Profile Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.35.) [Ord. No. 6-87, January 1987] 1) Non-conforming Sign. The term Non-conforming Sign shall mean a sign lawful before the provisions of this Chapter, or of any relevant amendment hereto made effective, but which thereupon violates same. m) Office Building Master Identification Sign. The term Office Building Master Identification Sign shall mean a Business Sign that serves to identify an office building or any institutional use, and whose copy shall include only the name of the office building or institutional use and the street address range of the complex. -3- c) Pennants, banners, balloons, flags and other similar types of devices which consist of any material made in-any shape, which fastened together or placed in a manner as to move by wind pressure, except as approved in conjunction with approved signage for grand opening or temporary promotional events pursuant to Section 8-87.60 c), Section 8-87.61 b) and Section 8-94.0; d) Portable on-site signs including Sandwich Board type and A-Frame signs; e) Any sign affixed to any vehicle or trailer located on a right-of- way or private property, unless the vehicle or trailer is intended to be used in its normal business capacity and not for the sole purpose of attracting people to a place of business; f) Paper, cloth, or other temporary-type signs, except as approved in conjunction with approved signage for grand opening or temporary promotional events pursuant to Section 8-87.60 c), Section 8-87.61 b) and c) and Section 8-94.0; g) Off-Site Advertising Signs. h) Signs using colors that contain reflective properties; i) Searchlights, cold-air balloons and similar advertising devices, except as approved in conjunction with approved signage for grand opening or temporary promotional events pursuant to Section 8-87.60 c), Section 8-87.61 b) and c) Section 8-94.0; j) Any sign designed for emitting sound, odor or visible matter; k) Any sign containing any obscene matter; 1) Any illuminated sign designed or located so as to be confused with or to resemble any warning traffic control device; m) Any signs illuminated in such a manner that the direct, or reflected light, from the primary light source(s) creates a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles; n) Statuary when used for advertising purposes; o) Any sign mounted on a sloping roof with visible support brackets or any sign which extends above the roof ridgeline or parapet. ....10•Sec. 8-87.50 PERMITTED SIGNS. The following signs are permitted in any District and may be located in required yards, other sign or yard regulations notwithstanding, and need not be included in any computation of permitted aggregate sign area: a) Official public signs or notices or any temporary notice posted by a public agency or official, or by a person giving legal notice; -13- b) House numbers, name plate or identification of house members (provided sign is non-illuminated and does not exceed two square feet maximum area), mail box identification, street names, "no-trespass" signs, and other warning signs; c) Memorial tablets or signs identifying a benefactor, a location of historical interest, or a statue or monument; d) Pedestrian signs, such as shingle signs, which are oriented towards pedestrian traffic and serve to identify and indicate pertinent facts concerning a business or professional service lawfully conducted on the same premise; subject to the following provisions; 1) must be suspended from a canopy over a sidewalk which is directly in front of the door of the business thereby identified; 2) must be perpendicular to the business building wall; 3) must not be more than ten square feet in area if double- faced, five square feet in area if single-faced; 4) must provide a minimum of eight foot clearance when located above a sidewalk; and 5) are limited to one per business per building elevation; e) Signs displayed for the direction, warning or safety of the public, including pedestrian and vehicular traffic, with eight square feet maximum per sign, except pavement markings which are not so restricted as to maximum area; f) Temporary political signs, where such sign is placed on private property for the sole purpose of advocating the election of a declared candidate for public office, or relating to an election proposition on the ballot of sixteen square feet maximum area per individual sign and eighty square feet of maximum aggregate area per lot; g) Non-illuminated temporary sale or lease signs which are to be intended o an foparcel, structure, orr use ely as a Ceestablishmentnong fowhichr etheedsse,ignoir s rental of provided that such signs shall not exceed a maximum area of lcafou; twen square feet; and provided further that two signsr parcel be allowed and only one such sign may be placed for each one hundredfeetofstreet frontage; r...400 h) Subdivision sale, rent or lease signs to advertise the original sale, rent or lease of buildings or lots in conjunction with a subdivision development with a maximum area of thirty-two square feet plus one additional sign of like dimension for each thirty-five lots or buildings for sale, rent or lease. Signs shall not exceed a maximum height of twelve feet, shall not be illuminated and shall observe the yard limits of the District the sign is located within; -14- r s) Open-house signs used in connection with the sale of real property subject to the following special provisions; 1) A maximum of four open-house signs are permitted for each property being advertisied for sale. Such signage shall be located outside the public right-of-way (which includes, but is not limited to, the sidewalk) located adjacent to property lines. Proper authorization by the affected private property owner, shall be secured prior to placement of signs. Such signage shall be located in such a manner that it does not disrupt the normal flow of vehicle or pedestrian traffic and does not block views of such traffic. Signing is prohibited in the center divider strip and/or traffic islands of public streets. Such signing is not to be adhered or attached to any public sign post, traffic signal or utility pole; 2) Only one of the signs utilized for each respective open- house properties shall be located along a major City arterial. The size of the sign shall not exceed four square feet per side, and the height shall not exceed four feet above grade; 3) Open-house signs shall be permitted only during the weekend period from 10:00 a.m. Friday through sunset on Sunday evening, and Tuesdays from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Such signing is not to be adhered or attached to any public sign post, traffic signal or utility pole; 4) The City shall be authorized to assess all necessary costs for the time spent by City personnel, or its authorized agents, to remove illegally located open-house signs. In cases of repeated violations of requirements dealing with open-house signs, rights to locate new open-house signs in the City shall be forfeited. �., Sec. 8-87.60 SIGNS REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. The following type of signs may be located in required yards, if a Conditional Use Permit is granted in accordance with Section 8-94.0: a) Directional Tract Sign, in any District, thirty-two square feet maximum area, twelve (12) feet maximum height, shall not be illuminated, and shall not be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of an Interstate Freeway. The size of the sign used need not be included as part of the aggregate sign area permitted on the property. b) Community Identification Sign, one hundred twenty square feet maximum area, twenty (20) feet maximum height, shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of the City's corporation boundary. Sign illumination shall not be intermittent and sign copy shall be limited to: -16- • RESOLUTION NO. 31-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING • CONCERNING PA 85-041.1 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI AND NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development is requesting the City rezone approximately 135 acres lying in the northeast corner of the City, to a Planned Development (PD) District for a planned residential/ commercial development of 1,165 dwelling units (including 1,019 multiple family residential units and 146 lots for future development of single family residential detached units), a five-plus acre neighborhood park site, a 9,000+ square foot commercial site for future development as a convenience store, and common open space parcels; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the project at a ' • series•of public hearings beginning with a noticed public hearing on February 18, 1986, and concluding with a public hearing on March 17, 1986, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 86-014 recommending approval of the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning request, PA 85-041.1; and WHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects .as required by law for the Planning Commission hearings and the March 24, 1986, City Council public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff and reflected in Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-014; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony as herein set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council reversed with the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the proposed residential product type and density of Village VII, determining that retention of the proposed Multiple Family Residential, 12.75+ dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre Development Standard for Village VII, when considered in conjunction with the proposed 146-lot Single Family Residential development proposed in Village VI, was not in conflict with the City's General Plan Policy Guidelines that call for the avoidance of economic segregation by City sector, and specifically call for some of the units approved in the subject property to be single family residential-detached units; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been previously adopted for the Rezoning and Tentative Map requests (City Council Resolution No. 30-86); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning, as modified, is consistent with the City General Plan and Policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning will not have a significant environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the rezoning, as modified, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area, and will not overburden public services; and WHEREAS, the rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public•izelfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements; and • WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the rezoning, as modified, will be a detriment to, or interfere with, the City's General Plan; • ATTACHMENT G . .lir :, , �p e ' l B. A road system of a design determined acceptable to the City Engineer and the Planning Department shall be installed. C. Each phase shall be landscaped and developed such that should .. construction of subsequent phases be'delayed, the constructed.. phase(s) will appear as a completed project. . a s 81. Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units, the following reports shall be filed with, and approved by, the City Engineer at the time the units are put up for individual sale. A. A report by a licensed roofing contractor certifying that the roofs of all the structures are in good condition and not likely to be in need of replacement for at least 10 years:: A reserve deposit may be established to cover the estimated prorated costs =i of roof replacement where replacement will be required prior to 10 years. B. A report by a professional Engineer attesting, to the extent reasonably feasible, that the structure of all buildings, pavements, storm draininage facilities, and the interior and exterior plumbing, electrical systems, and utility and mechanical equipment to be owned in common, or as part of the individual condominiums, are in good and serviceable condition. C. A report by a licensed painting contractor that paint throughout the project is in good condition and that the building exteriors should not require repainting for:at least five years. A reserve deposit may be established to cover the estimated prorated costs for the repainting of the units where repainting will be required prior to a 5-year period. D. A report by a licensed termite and pest control specialist certifying that the structures are free of infestation and structural damage caused by pests. 82. Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units, all . applicances shall either be replaced with new units or the initial buyers provided with a one-year's parts and warranty guarantee on all applicances. : 83. The developer shall provide guarantees that a minimum of 10% of the . `'' multi-family units in the project shall be maintained as rental units 1 for a period of five years. The document providing said agreement shall Abe subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Such 10% shall rt be calculated, utilizing the number of units in Villages I, II, III, IV, =1 V and VII as a base (1019 proposed units for a commitment of 102 units 1 to the rental pool). Commencing with the date of issuance of an occupancy permit on the 102nd multi-family unit within Villages I through V, the developer shall guarantee that a minimum of 102 units shall be available for rent at all times within the above Villages until I the Condition has been satisifed. This Condition may be met i individually within any one Village, or collectively over all the affected Villages. Developer agrees that until the Condition has been satisfied, there shall be no conversion of codominium units for sale within Village V. .......11184. Minimal dimensional criteria for dwelling units established on the single family residential lots in Village VI shall include the following: • IA. Front yards - 20-foot minimum; subject to review and approval by l the Planning Director, maybe varied from 18 to 22 feet to provide variety while generally maintaining the 20-foot average. i jg{1 -19- . /i Fri B. Side Yards - 1. One story units • - 5-foot minimum flat and useable each side ;r 12-foot minimum street side sideyard • 2. ,Two story units • -5-foot minimum-flat and useable each side -15-foot minimum street side sideyard C. Rear Yards - 20-foot minimum, to be generally flat and useable. D. Pad Areas - 45' x 95' minimum,with the 45' width measured from front setback line through to the rear of the lot. In addition to the above, the design of single family residential units developed shall provide for the maximum unit privacy through use of building layouts which maximize useable side and rear yard areas with is offsets of windows and similar inter-building design considerations. The majority of the two-story units shall observe an additional front yard setback requirement whereby the building face of the second story shall observe a setback of an additional five feet±from the building face of the garage. Two-story units shall generally avoid use of shed- type roof designs, but rather shall generally utilize.•roof designs which serve to mitigate possible visual impacts resulting from the height and proximity of two-story units. During the Site Development Review process, the developer may request and be granted modifications from the above minimum rear yard dimensional criteria in.individual situations where such modifications would add diversity to the project or privacy to individual units which, in the discretion of the Planning Director, improves the overall design. The builder shall maintain a minimum of 1,000 square feet of flat and useable area within 80% of the rear yards and a minimum of 900 square feet of flat and useable area within the remainder of the rear yards through the selection of appropriate houses to fit individual lots. Additionally, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of steepening cut and fill slopes to increase the useable pad area without impacting the stability of the slope design. The purpose of this Condition is to encourage the proper matching of housing types to individual lots and adjusting grades to increase useable area, but is not intended to require a reduction in the number of lots during the Site Development Review process. Except as specifically modified by the above listed design criteria, or as established elsewhere in the Conditions of Approval for this project, the single family residential lots developed within Villages VI and VII shall be subject to the guidelines of the R-1 Single Family Residential District as regards both land use restrictions and minimum/maximum development criteria. 85. To assure that adequate diversity of-building architecture across the project as a whole will be provided, individual Villages, or groupings of contiguous Villages (i.e., Villages II and III as a grouping, and Villages IV and V as a grouping) shall be designed in a manner to allow them to stand.alone with village-specific architectural features (such as alternate types of roofing or siding materials, alternate use of open or enclosed stairwells, etc.). Detailed design review of project architecture shall be made at the time of submittal of the respective Site Development Review applications for each proposed Village. 86. The minimum distances between buildings and building appurtenances in the multi-family Villages shall comply with the following criteria: The term "building wall" shall refer to the exterior side of building walls containing heated space (with the exception of the enclosed entry in the "E" type building). - A. 20 feet between all building walls, with deviation from the • minimum separation subject to review and approval by the Planning Director through the Site Development Review process,•to consider case-by-case reductions to 15 feet when: . • • -20- 1. The liv;. room windows are separated by . nimum distance of 40 feet measured perpendicularly.from the sliding glass :.door. ..•:. ....•... . 2. Living room to bedrooms are separated by 30 feet (measured Iperpendicularly from the sliding glass door). i B. Building/roadway separations, 15 feet minimum, except building setbacks from Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and the o first 100 feet of each leg of the loop roads from the intersection i with Dougherty Road or Amador Valley Boulevard where a 20-foot minimum setback (measured from the rear face of the sound architectural wall or perimeter fence along Dougherty Road or '' Amador Valley Boulevard ) shall be observed. The 20-foot minimum setback along the loop roads shall be from the face of curb or back of sidewalk, whichever is applicable. C. Patio/deck and deck/building wall separations - 15-foot minimum. 1 D. Building walls and parking area separations - 10-foot minimum with j a minimum of five feet of the width landscaped for screening or parking. 4 E. Building appurtenances to building appurtenance separations (including patios) - 10-foot minimum separation. Stairway 4 landings may be closer than 10 feet where privacy is not compromised as approved by the Planning Director through the Site Development Review process. 87. The two easterly cross streets in Village VI shall be terminated in cul-de-sacs. The applicant's engineer shall investigate the feasibility of incorporating two additional cul-de-sacs, with emergency breakthrough vehicular access inter-connection between the two cul-de-sacs, along the most westerly proposed through street in Village VI (and subject to Staff review of the Site Development Review for Village VI). • 88. The minimum width of the creek-side pedestrian walkway strip shall be 14 feet (measured from face-of-curb to the flood control maintenance.fence) for a minimum of 50% of the strip's frontage along Villages II through V. Subject to review and approval by the Planning Director, this width may be reduced to a minimum width of 10 feet for the remainder of the referenced frontage. The pedestrian walkway strip shall include a 6- foot minimum width concrete walkway which, wherever feasible, shall • meander within the creek-side walkway strip. The walkway shall also ( maintain a four-foot landscaped setback from the curb and the flood control fence where the width of the strip so allows. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOETE7) this 24th day of March, 1986. i AYES: Councilmenbers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder • NOES: None • ABSENT: None /" 1:1-Cej. Mayor it, /7A ('1-1-Tal.: ,_,:k.C, /13,..,..r,s----- . . City Cler . -21- ,' 'h i:it-t-n •:1r.w . • Regular Meeting - March 7, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 7, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairperson. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempel, and Zika, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Rod Barger, Senior Planner. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the meeting of February 16, 1988, were approved as presented. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received 3 action letters and information regarding the Planning Institute. ATTACHMENT ? Regular Meeting PCM-8-32 March 7, 1988 • * * * * SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Sign Program Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for nine directional tract signs and to exceed allowable square footage and height restrictions west of Dougherty Road north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger stated the Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of nine (9) directional tract signs to identify the Villages residential developments located at Dougherty Road, Willow Creek and Amador Valley Boulevard. The Applicant is also requesting approval of a Variance to allow seven of the directional tract signs to exceed the maximum permitted sign copy square footage (32 square feet) and to allow three of them to exceed the maximum height of 12 feet. Mr. Barger provided a description of the nine (9) directional tract signs and indicated where each does not comply with the sign regulations. At site A-1 the Freestanding single face sign has 32 square feet of copy. It is 11 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Wildwood Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Non-conformity: The sign is located in an open space area rather than on one of the Village sites. At site A-2 the Freestanding single face sign has 32 square feet of copy. It is 11 feet tall and would be located near the northeastern side of Village 5. Non-conformity: The sign is located off-site and not on any land controlled by the Applicant. At site B-1 the Freestanding double face sign has 24 square feet per face for a total of 48 square feet. It is 10 feet tall and located on the northeast corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Wildwood Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. At site B-2 the Freestanding double face sign has 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on the north side of Willow Creek Road, west of Dougherty Road. Non-Conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. At site B-3 the Freestanding double face sign has 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on Wildwood Road just west of Dougherty Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet, and it is located on the park site rather than on one of the Village sites. At site B-4 the Freestanding double face sign has 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. At site D-1 the Freestanding double face sign has 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Non- Regular Meeting PCM-8-36 March 7, 1988 • conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. Sign copy contains more than the name and location of the subdivision (phone numbers; "Models At Amador Lakes Apartments on Stagecoach Road"). At site D-2 the Freestanding double face sign has 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. At site D-3 the Freestanding double face sign has 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and located in the northeastern corner of Village 5. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. Mr. Barger further stated for new development projects it is typical for the City to allow (through the Conditional Use Permit procedure) two directional tract signs per subdivision. The signs should be located on private property out of the public right-of-way. In addition compliance with the total sign copy square footage limitation of 32 square feet is enforced. When an application is submitted and it is in conformance with the above regulations there is reasonable justification for Staff to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request. In the case of this application, none of the signs fully conform with the regulations for directional tract signs. All nine have some form of non- conformity as listed in the descriptions on the previous page. Because of these non-conformaties Staff cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Request until; 1) all non-conformities are reasonably eliminated; and 2) a sign program with a maximum of five (5) directional tract signs is proposed. These signs should consolidate as much information as possible on the various Village projects. The reason for suggesting a five sign limitation for all seven Villages is because their close proximity precludes the need to have more than five signs if they are placed in more strategic locations. Mr. Barger stated there are a number of non-conformities associated with the proposed sign program. Some must be complied with if approval is to be granted. Others (such as exceeding height limits and copy square footage restrictions) must be addressed through the Variance procedure. Seven of the signs (signs B-1 through B-4 and D-1 through D-3) exceed the 32 square foot copy restrictions established by the sign regulations (ranging from a low 42 square feet, and a high of 160 square feet). Three of the signs (signs D-1 through D-3) exceed the 12 foot height reulations established for directional tract signs (all at 17.5'). These non-conformities in Staff's opinion are excessive and there is no justifiable reason to grant Variance approval. Mr. Barger expressed that prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made, based on facts presented in the record. These include 1) in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable. (Staff's review of the sites finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. The Regular Meeting PCM-8-37 March 7, 1988 1 Villages have frontages on Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, both of which together could easily accommodate up to five strategically placed directional tract signs in locations that are on-site and highly visible). 2) that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do. (The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because allowing directional tract signs that exceed the height and copy square footage restrictions would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners in similar situations). 3) that approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any fashion. (If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable). Mr. Barger stated that because of the above facts, Staff must recommend that the Variance be denied without prejudice. It may be reasonable to consider a minor adjustment to the sign height in cases where the sign can only be placed behind the wall. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests for PA 88-003, Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program. Cm. Burnham asked why information regarding the project could not be placed on the sound wall instead of using signs. Mr. Barger stated that the signage should be considered through the sign regulations. Cm. Tempel asked if the applicant were aware of the provisions of the sign ordinance. Mr. Barger stated he believed so, but the applicant was present and could respond. Ron Nahas, Willow Creek Developer, stated he thought a revised plot plan had been submitted, that he had not been notified regarding the Staff report information and felt he had been very sorely treated. He stated he felt that his particular development was unique in nature and felt that the sign ordinance did not address a master plan type of community such as the Willow Creek project. Cm. Burnham asked if some of the signs could be mounted on the exterior sound wall. Mr. Nahas stated he did not want to use the wall for signage. Shirley Corallo, Valley Boat House, stated she would not object to the signs, as a business person, because they were temporary. Cm. Mack asked how temporary the signs were. Mr. Barger stated that until all the units or models were sold, approximately 1 to 2 years. Regular Meeting PCM-8-38 March 7, 1988 rm n Mr. Tong stated that the materials presented were the lastest submitted. Cm. Zika was concerned with the off-site signs especially those located in the park. Mr. Nahas asked for guidance from the Planning Commission and Staff as to what type of signage they would like to see for the project. Mr. Tong stated that the ordinance relating to directional tract signs were more flexable for on-site signs and that a project of this size needs a nicely designed sign program. He stated that Staff recommendation would be toward consolidation of signs. Cm. Zika felt that the 17' signs were awsome. Mr. Nahas stated that the location of the wall made it necessary to put the signs behind the wall and therefore the 17' height was necessary. Mr. Tong stated that there were visibility problems for motorists when the signs were located on the exterior side of the wall. Mr. Tong also suggested that the Planning Commission continue this item to give Staff a chance to meet with the Developer regarding the signage. Cm. Barnes stated she would not like to see the signs mounted on the wall but would like to see the signs shorter and smaller. Cm. Mack agreed with Cm. Barnes with regard to the sizes of the signs and off-site vs. on-site. Cm. Tempel stated he would like to see the number of signs minimized, but had no direction with regard to height. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 5-0 Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing to the next meeting. A short recess was called. Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 8:25 p.m. SUBJECT: Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line between Dougherty Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad Ri ht-of-Way to consider establishment of lan lines fora ootion of the Dublin Boulevard extension. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong gave a brief introduction with some background information which stated that the existing General Plan identifies the general location of the Dublin Boulevard extension with an implementing policy to develop a plan line for a six-lane divided extension from Dougherty Road to Parks RFTA boundary. Regular Meeting PCM-8-39 March 7, 1988 . ' y ~ ~ Regular Meeting- March 21, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 21, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by Cm. Barnes, Chairperson. * ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempel, and Zika, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Maureen 0'Halloran, Senior Planner and Rod Barger, Senior Planner. ~ ~ ~ * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. ~~~~c MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the meeting of March 7, 1988, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMNNNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received 2 action letters. ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-47 March 21, 1988 • • PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Sign Program Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for nine directional tract signs and to exceed allowable square footage and height restrictions west of Dougherty Road north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard (continued from meetin~ of March 7, 1988. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger stated this application was continued from the March 7, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission was unable to make a decision due to disagreements between Staff and the Applicant regarding what types of signs were proposed. The main point of contention being whether the signs were directional tract signs, as identified by Staff, or subdivision/sale/lease/rent signs as identified by the Applicant. On March 9, 1988, Staff inet with the Applicant. It was clarified that some of the signs could be defined as subdivision sale/lease/rent signs while others could be defined as directional tract signs. Staff then presented a sign program consisting of six directional tract signs, all located on the Villages sites and within the height and copy square footage restrictions as provided by the Zoning Ordinance. This was not acceptable to the Applicant. The Applicant presented his idea of what would be an acceptable sign program. This included a combination of seven signs, some of which would be subdivision sale/lease/rent signs and some directional tract signs. Some of these would exceed height and copy square footage restrictions, this was not acceptable to Staff. The meeting ended with both parties understanding each others position however, no agreement was reached. On March 14, 1988 the Applicant submitted a revised sign program to Staff for Planning Commission consideration. Mr. Barger continued by stating the Applicant is requesting approval of a sign program containing seven signs to identify the Villages residential development. Three of the seven signs are directional tract signs and can be located on or off-site as long as they are located on private property. Directional tract signs must be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process. Three signs exceed the copy square footage while two exceed the height restrictions. Because of this a Variance is being requested. The remaining four signs are subdivision sale/lease/rent signs and must be located on private property, within the subdivision, and must conform with the yard limits of the district they are located in. A Variance is necessary because three of the signs copy exceeds 32 square feet and all four appear to be located within the required yard areas. Regular Meeting PCM-8-48 March 21, 1988 • • Mr. Barger stated the specifics regarding exact sign locations, copy, relationships of signs to the wall, property lines, and required yards has not been provided by the Applicant. Staff requested this information be included in the revised sign program. Because of the lack of these details, a more complete review for compliance with zoning restrictions could not be completed and thus Staff cannot support this request until the signs are in conformance with sign regulations. Mr. Barger stated the Conditional Use Permit and Variance request should be denied without prejudice or continued until such time that an accurate and complete sign program has been submitted. Mr. Barger stated with respect to the three directional tract signs Staff cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit because each sign exceeds the 32 square foot copy restriction and two exceed the 12 foot height restriction. Staff would recommend approval if the height of the signs did not exceed 14 feet and the copy did not exceed 32 square feet. With respect to the Variance six of the seven signs exceed 32 square foot, two exceed the 12 foot height restriction. All four of the subdivision sale/lease/rent signs appear to be located in the required yard area established by the Planned Development. In Staff's opinion these nonconformities can be eliminated while still providing adequate advertising. Mr. Barger stated that prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made: 1) there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable; 2) the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do; and 3) approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood. If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood as it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable. Staff recommends that the Variance be denied without prejudice. It may be reasonable to consider a minor adjustment to sign heights in cases where the signs can only be placed behind a wall. However, excessive sign copy and height in addition to locating signs in required yards cannot be suppported. Cm. Zika questioned the square footage for a B-2 sign on page 4 of the Staff report. Mr. Barger stated it should have been 64 square feet instead of 84 square feet. Mr. Nahas, Willow Creek Developer, passed out a package of signage for the Villages. The signs were labeled as A& B, with reduced sizes and height. The B signs had been tailored in size. Mr. Nahas presented slides showing the existing 4'x8' sign that is located on the west side of Dougherty Road. He made special mention regarding the size of the project in relation to the size of the sign, the difficulty in reading the sign copy and that he felt this was a special type of pro~ect that may need special allowances regarding signage. Regular Meeting PCM-8-49 March 21, 1988 . . • Mr. Nahas further stated with regard to granting a Variance, he felt there were special circumstances regarding this project and granting did not constitute a grant of special privileges and that he was trying to implement more than was necessary for a sign program. Cm. Zika asked if all of the signs will be located within the required setbacks. Mr. Nahas stated on Dougherty Road frontage all requirements are met, however on-site not all the signs are in compliance and that the B signs meet the 8' setback. Mr. Barger stated that Staff had not had an opportunity to digest the new information presented by Mr. Nahas this evening and felt there were some questions with regard to scale of the submittal. Mr. Nahas stated that the plans were very schematic, but that the details could be worked out. Cm. Barnes closed the Public Hearing. Cm. Barnes asked if it was correct in assuming there could possibly be 35 signs located within the pro~ject. Mr. Barger stated that yes there could possibly be somewhere in that area of number. Mr. Tong clarified by stating the sale/rent/lease signs are determined by the number of buildings, not the number of dwelling units. Cm. Tempel felt that was still a lot of signage. Cm. Barnes asked if the fence is 8' tall. Mr. Barger stated yes except where the caps are located it is approximately 10' in height. Cm. Zika was concerned with huge amount of signage asked for over and above what the sign ordinance allowed. Cm. Mack was concerned with the amount of square footage on the signs. Mr. Tong stated there are several samples of signage in the field showing allowed signage for projects. Cm. Tempel asked if it was possible on double-faced signs to put them about 15' apart. Mr. Barger stated that yes that could be done. Cm. Barnes was concerned with what the back side of the sign would look like and could it be painted out. Regular Meeting PCM-8-50 March 21, 1988 ~ ~ Cm. Burnham stated he didn't see any problem with the A signs that there had been a good compromise in consolidation, that the problem seemed to be with the B signs. Cm. Zika asked if a use permit could be issued for one year and then reviewed. Mr. Barger stated that Conditional Use Permits have certain time frames and that yes you can give an expiration date of one year. Mr. Nahas explained it would be rather expensive to have to resubmit the signage program, that what they had planned to do is replace project names on the signs as they were sold out or offered as new projects for sale. Cm. Tempel stated he had no problem with height on A signs and no problem with setbacks. Mr. Nahas stated the exact location of signs should be reviewed in the file and invited Mr. Barger to come out to the field and take a look at the various sites. Cm. Burnham stated he had no problem since this was a special project as long as setback requirements were met. Mr. Barger stated there were no plot plans to identify where signs will be placed. Mr. Tong stated that typically applications are received with a plot plan and that the Applicant needs to submit a clear picture of where signs will be located. Cm. Barnes asked if Staff had seen the submittal before tonight. Mr. Barger stated he had seen parts of the submittal, but other parts are new information. Cm. Barnes directed Staff and the Applicant to make sure that all of the project informaion is in the Planning Commission packet when the packets are delivered on Thursday evenings. Mr. Barger asked the Planning Commission if they had any problems with the A signs. Cm. Mack stated she had concerns with the square footage. Cm. Zika stated he had concerns with the square footage. Cm. Tempel stated he had no problem with the A signs. Cm. Burnham stated he had no problem with the A signs. Cm. Barnes stated she had no problem with the A signs. Cm. Zika stated he would like to see the B signs reduced to 48 sq. ft. and to comply with the setback requirements. Regular Meeting PCM-8-51 March 21, 1988 . • i Cm. Tempel stated he could not understand why setback requirments could not be met. Cm. Burnhaan stated the size was ok, but setback requirements need to be met. Cm. Mack stated she would like to see square footage and location in compliance. Cm. Barnes stated she would like to see signs smaller and setback compliance. Mr. Nahas stated the B signs will be reduced to 48 square feet. Cm. Zika requested that sign locations also be provided. Mr. Tong stated that with information submitted, Staff had recommended denial, therefore no resolution of approval had been provided. On motion by Cm. Burnham seconded by Cm. Mack and by a vote 5-0 Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing to the April 4, 1988 meeting. SUBJECT: PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance - Appeal of Zoning Administrator action denying Variance request to allow an attached accessory structure with a zero sideyard setback where a six feet setback is typically required at 8686 Davona Drive. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger stated the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on the south side of the house (a minimum 6' sideyard is required by the Zoning Ordinance). The structure is approximately 8' tall. It spans from the sidewall of the residence to the adjacent property line fence and is open on all sides except on the top there is a transluscent corrugated plastic cover that acts as a sun shade and weather protectant. Mr. Barger stated that according to Mr. Ramirez, the structure was constructed prior to his purchasing the home in 1973, however, City records indicate that no building permits had been issued for the structure. Mr. Barger continued by stating prior to granting a Variance the following findings must be made: 1) there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable; this is a relatively flat, rectangular, single family lot that contains a two-story home; 2) the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do; allowing the accessory structure to be located in the sideyard setback would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners; and 3) approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or Regular Meeting PCM-8-52 March 21, 1988 ` ~ ~ harm to the neighborhood; as this structure does not meet Building Code requirements in that it is located on a property line where it must have at least a one-hour fire wall. Mr. Barger stated because of the previously mentioned facts, Staff must recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance request. Cm. Burnham asked how the City was informed of the violation. Mr. Barger stated the Zoning Investigator was called out to the site regarding another type of zoning question. At that time this situation was discovered. Mr. Ramirez, owner, 8686 Davona Drive, stated he appreciated the non- threatening manner of Staff, mentioned his property is higher by 1 1/2 feet than his neighbor and sees a drainage impact on his neighbors property if the structure is removed. He stated the reason he purchased the property was that this structure was in existence and that he feels the structure meets the criteria for this type of structure. Cm. Zika questioned what the structure was used for. Mr. Ramirez stated that as the wind goes in from the west the structure provides shade and protection to the area. Cm. Zika asked how the structure helps drainage. Mr. Ramirez stated that a gutter with drain pipe keeps runoff away from neighbors property. Cm. Barnes inquired if there were any pictures available of the site. Mr. Barger stated no there were not. Cm. Mack inquired as to the cost involved to remove the structure. Mr. Ramirez stated there would not be a cost problem. Cm. Burnham related the fact that there are code requirements for structures and compliance is necessary, also that half of the fence is owned by his neighbor. If others were allowed to do the same thing, it would create a major problem in the neighborhood. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham asked if this situation would have been a code violation in 1962. Mr. Tong stated that yes he thought it would. Cm. Barnes asked if this situation would have been found at time of re-sale. Mr. Tong stated that at this time the City of Dublin does not have a code compliance program upon resale of property. However, the disclosure law that went into effect January 1, 1988, makes it mandatory that a prospective buyer be informed of any work done without a permit. Regular Meeting PCM-8-53 March 21, 1988 ! ~ Mr. Ramirez mentioned for the tranquility of the neighborhood, that everyone should come into compliance. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cra. Mack and a 5-0 vote a Resolution was adopted recommending upholding the Zoning Administrators action denying the Variance request to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 014 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS ACTION DENYING PA 87-176 RAUL P. RAMIRE2 VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN ERISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK, RESULTING IN NO SIDEYARD SETBACK ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOME (WHERE A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE). A short recess was called by Cm. Barnes. The meeting was called back to order at 8:50 by Cm. Barnes. SUBJECT: PA 88-017 Howard Johnson Hotel Lord Dublin Restaurant Conditional Use Permit and Variance request to allow a second freestanding si~n and to exceed sign area, height and setback restrictions at 6680 Re~ional Street. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran stated the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to permit a 26-foot, second Freestanding double-faced Sign, totaling 156 square feet, set back 9 feet from the rear property line within the required 10-foot setback. In September 1986, the Planning Commission approved a similar sign for the site which was never completely constructed. On April 29, 1987, a building permit was issued for the 20' sign pole; however, the sign face was never erected. The Applicant submitted a revised sign face plan which was approved on May 19, 1987. Again, the sign was not erected and the Applicant subsequently revised the proposed sign and a new building permit was issued on September 1, 1987. The original Conditional Use Permit approval was for a 28' tall double-faced, free-standing sign totaling 144 square feet of sign area. A new Conditional Use Permit is required as the Applicant's current proposal exceeds the sign area previously approved by a total of 12 square feet. A Variance is required in that the current sign proposal does not comply with the City's Ordinance relating to maximum sign height, sign area and setback requirements. The proposed sign area is 95$ larger than that which is permitted by the Sign Ordinance based on the proposed location and 73$ taller than the height permitted. When the Planning Commission approved the sign height, area, and location the property had one street frontage (Regional Street) for the purpose of determining the location of the Freestanding Sign. Regular Meeting PCM-8-54 March 21, 1988 . ~ ~ Ms. 0'Halloran continued by saying in January, 1987 as a result of the applicants appeal of the Zoning Administrator's and Planning Commission's actions denying a Variance request to allow two Freestanding Signs on the parcel, the City Council amended the City's Sign Ordinance to permit two Freestanding Signs on parcel four acres or greater situated adjacent to I-580 or I-680, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A 26-foot setback is required for a 23' tall double-face, Freestanding sign with 156 square feet of sign area. In order to construct the sign with the proposed 26-foot height, 156 square foot sign area and 9' foot setback a Variance is required. Ms. 0'Halloran stated that prior to granting a Variance, four findings of fact must be made; 1) authorization of this Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; the applicants sign is 95~ larger in sign area and 73$ taller than that permitted at the proposed location; 2) no special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity; the property is large, flat parcel, situated adjacent to I-580, which allows the Applicant to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for two Freestanding Signs on one parcel; 3) the Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the City's sign regulations as the Applicant's sign does not conform to the Ordinance's purpose to promote uniformity among signs; and 4) suthorizing the variance will adversely affect the development and preservation of property values in the vicinity; approving this variance request with a large deviation from the Ordinance would not promote orderly development or uniformity among signs. Ms. 0'Halloran further stated Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Variance request, however several options are available: 1) revise the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to request a 23' tall, double-faced Freestanding Sign with 160 square foot maximum sign setback 26' from the rear property line, a Variance would not be required; 2) withdraw the application and construct a Freestanding Sign with a maximum height of 15', 80 square feet sign area, minimum 10' setback from rear property line, a Variance would not be required; 3) withdraw the application and construct the sign per PA 86-081; and 4) if the Commission wishes to allow the 26', 156 square foot, double-face Freestanding Sign setback 10' from the rear property line, a Zoning Ordinance aanendment to the section regulating second Freestanding Signs should be adopted. Ms. 0'Halloran presented slides showing the current pole location of 12' from the rear property line. Cm. Zika questioned if the original sign was approved at 144 square feet could a sign be approved for the location proposed. Mr. Tong summarized that with the Conditional Use Permit in 1986 which specified sign area and location, a sign could be constructed but would become a non-conforming sign. Regular Meeting PCM-8-55 March 21, 1988 . Y ~ ~ Cm. Burnham asked how does the location of the two poles make it illegal. Ms. 0'Halloran stated the Sign Ordinance was amended to allow a second freestanding sign on another frontage. She stated that in the original application the number of poles was not an issue. The proposed sign is different from the approved sign, and the proposed sign is subject to the amended Sign Ordinance regulations. Mr. Tong stated the original building permit was for a 6'x 12` sign that had 144 sq. ft. of area. The proposed sign is 6 1/2' x 12' with 156 sq. ft. of area. Johnson Clark, Howard Johnson Hotel partner, stated it was difficult to understand why if the sign was approved a year ago it was not ok now. Mr. Clark also passed out plans of the requested sign. He mentioned that the sign is from corporate headquarters in Chicago and when it arrived there was a size discrepancy of 6" which consists of a 4 1/2" cap on the top and bottom of the sign. Not counting the cap and base, the sign is 5'9" x 12'. With the cap and base, the sign is 6'6" in height. Cm. Zika questioned the possibility of relocating the sign to a 26' setback to eliminate the need for a Variance. Mr. Clark stated if the sign were placed further from the property line it would not be seen because of the warehouse building location. Mr. Clark's nephew stated the warehouse is a very large structure and it is critical to see the sign before the exit ramp is passed. He also stated that the hotel business is very competitive and therefore signage is very important. Mr. Tong showed on a slide, several locations within existing landscape planters in the parking lot where the sign could be set back 26 feet and eliminate the need for a Variance. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham questioned Staff if the sign complied with the 6'x12' size could it be constructed at the proposed location. Ms. 0'Halloran stated yes it could. Cm. Barnes stated she ob~ected to outside companies dictating to the City that a sign must be a certain size. Cm. Burnham stated that if the sign is 6" oversized, the applicant should seriously look at removing the 6" from the sign. If we approve 12 extra square feet for this project, other projects will also be asking for extra sign area. Cm. Mack stated consideration should be given to cutting the cap off. Regular Meeting PCM-8-56 March 21, 1988 ~ • ~ Cm. Burnham asked who pointed out the excessive size. Ms. 0'Halloran stated Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark stated that this sign is the closest in size they make for Howard Johnson sites. On motion by Cm. Zika and seconded by Cm. Mack and a vote of 3-2 (Noes: Cm. Burnham and Cm. Tempel) a Resolution was adopted recommending denying Howard Johnson Variance request to allow a 26' tall freestanding sign which exceeds the maximum sign area, height and setback restrictions; and the Conditianal Use Permit request for a 26' tall second freestanding sign located approximately 9' from the rear property line at 6680 Regional Street RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 015 DENYING PA 88-017 HOWARD JOHNSON VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 26-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN WHICH EXCEEDS THE MARIMUM SIGN AREA, HEIGHT, AND SETBACK RESTRICTIONS ESTABLISHED FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS, 6680 REGIONAL STREET RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 016 DENYING PA 88-017 HOWARD JOHNSON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 26-FOOT TALL SECOND FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 9 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 6680 REGIONAL STREET ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Resolution initiating amendment to Zoning Qrdinance to provide conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of condemnation of property. Mr. Tong stated on March 7, 1988, the Planning Commission considered the Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line studies. On Staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of City condemnation of property. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution initiating the amendment. On motion by Cm. Mack and seconded by Cm. Tempel and a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted initiating an amendment to the zoning ordinance to provide conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of condemnation of property. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 017 INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE CONFORMING STATUS TO PROPERTIES RENDERED NON-CONFORMING SOLELY BECAUSE OF CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY Regular Meeting PCM-8-57 March 21, 19$8 . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised that the second reading of the Enea Planned Development Rezone would be heard at the upcoming City Council meeting. He further stated the item had not been heard at the previous meeting as all the necessary signed agreements had not been completed. ~ * ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Mack questioned if anyone had attended the Goals & Objectives meeting. Cm. Tempel was concerned with two items, 1) the fact that Apple Computers were moving from Cupertino; they may be interested relocating here in Dublin, and 2) the fact that large national companies are having difficulty in complying with the current sign ordinance. Mr. Tong suggested that perhaps a general survey of surrounding cities could be made to see what some of their requirements might be. Cm. Burnham stated that usually large companies only make certain size signs and that those signs don't always fit the sign ardinance criteria. Cm. Barnes stated she felt that the Planning Commission has made every allowance possible to allow signage. Cm. Mack questioned if an Applicant were to come in with a sign submittal they would be told if the sign did comply or not. Mr. Tong stated they would be informed of compliance when the plan check was done. Cm. Mack mentioned that the Planning Institute was fantastic. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~*~c~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-58 March 21, 1988 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: April 4, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff' SUBJECT: PA 88-001 Waseca Kubota Tractors Conditional Use Permit GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit request to allow the retail sale and repair of industrial equipment and machinery and to allow the outside storage and display of industrial equipment and machinery. APPLICANT: Michael C. Waseca 6305 Dougherty Road Dublin, CA 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: Edwin Wright 2134 Rheem Drive Pleasanton, CA 94566 LOCATION: 6305 Dougherty Road ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-550-7-1 PARCEL SIZE: 1.23 Acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park Industrial/Outdoor Storage EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: M-1, Light Industrial District, General Commercial uses including auto and tractor/trailor repair, tractor/trailor sales SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Southern Pacific Right-of-Way South - PD, Planned Development District, Construction Equipment Storage Yard East - Southern Pacific Right-of-Way West - PD, Planned Development District, General Commercial land uses ZONING HISTORY: C-449: On January 13, 1953, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors denied a Conditional Use Permit request to store a house trailer on this site. In 1972 Alameda County approved the construction of an 18,000 + square foot industrial building on this site. Building permits were issued on March 22, 1972. C-2559: On January 3, 1973, the Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use Permit to operate an auto repair business in the M-1 Zoning District. COPIES TO: Applicant Owner ITEM NO. 4;. -431_ File PA C-3048: On December 17, 1975, the Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use Permit for an auto body shop in the M-1 Zoning District. V-6896: On January 7, 1976, the Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved a Variance to allow signs of 68 square feet where a maximum 40 square feet per sign is allowed and allowed a 116 square foot sign where 100 square feet is permitted. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-51.2 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that all permitted uses in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district should be conducted within an enclosed building. Section 8-51.3(b) states that outdoor storage of equipment and supplies, if conducted within an area enclosed by a solid wall or fence can be considered in the M-1 Zoning District, through the Conditional Use Permit process. Section 8-51.3(g) states that the retail sale of industrial equipment and machinery can be considered through the Conditional Use Permit permit process. Section 8-51.6 requires 20 foot front and rear yard setback and 10 foot sideyard setbacks, of which they must be kept clear at all times. Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or peformance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. Section 8-87.10 (c) of the Dublin Sign Regulations states in part that a business sign is designed to identify the occupants of the premises of which the business sign is located. Section 8-87.33 of the Dublin Sign Regulations indicates that the maximum dimensions for primary frontage wall-mounted signs are: maximum sign height - 1 foot 9 inches for individual letters, 2 feet where a can is utilized; maximum sign width is 60% of business frontage up to a maximum of 24 feet; maximum sign area shall not exceed 7.5 percent of the surface of the building front available for signage up to a maximum of 42 square feet. For secondary frontages, maximum sign height for indivudual letters is 1 foot 9 inches and 2 feet where a can is utilized; maximum sign width is 10 feet; maximum sign area shall not exceed 5% of the surface of the building frontage available for signage up to a maximum of 17.7 square feet. -2- ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be Categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the April 4, 1988, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. BACKGROUND: This application involves Waseca Kubota Tractors Conditional Use Permit request. They propose to operate their tractor trailor sales and repair business from the building located at 6305 Dougherty Road in the M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District. In addition they propose to store their equipment on the site, as well as, display four small tractors outside of the building in front of their occupancy. They also propose to advertise their business by using two wall-mounted signs, one on the southern elevation and on on the west elevation. The business presently occupies approximately 5,500+ square feet in this 18,250+ industrial building. The applicant has indicated that he would like to expand his business sometime in the spring so that it occupies an additional 2,200+ square feet of floor area within the building. Staff recommends that this expansion be allowed as part of this Conditional Use Permit. Waseca Kubota Tractors has been in business at the subject site since 1986 without Planning Commission approval. The City's Zoning Investigator has been pursuing the owner of this business in order to get him to apply for a Conditional Use Permit in an attempt to legalize his business at this location and to deal with the issue of having signs that had not received Planning Department approval. Prior to moving to the Dougherty Road location the business had been operated behind the old Burns European Motors car dealership on Dublin Boulevard and at the end of Golden Gate Drive. The City's Zoning Investigator has indicated that at each site there have been a number of problems with this business concerning storing tractors and equipment illegally in required parking areas, in required yard areas and without the required Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage and display. ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit The M-1 zoning district allows consideration of the following through the Conditional Use Permit procedure: 1) outdoor storage and display of equipment and supplies if conducted within an area enclosed by a solid wall or fence; and 2) retail sale of industrial equipment and machinery. Staff has visited the site on numerous occasions. Although the majority of Waseca Kubota's wares are stored within an enclosed fenced area on the property, tractors were illegally being stored throughout the site including in the parking lot, access isles, in required yard setbacks and on the Southern Pacific right-of-way. If this application, is to be approved, these activities must cease permanently. All outside storage shall be limited to the 3,500+ square foot service yard enclosed by a 6 foot tall chainlink fence located southeast of Waseca Kubota's present tenant space. (See Attachment 1). From a land use standpoint, the business is appropriately located. This building contains similar types of tenants. The building was originally approved for industrial uses, but over time, the uses have moved toward heavy commercial (auto body/auto repair, tractor/trailer repair, etc.) Waseca Kubota would fit in well here if strict compliance with all zoning standards are observed. However, this business does have a history of not complying with zoning regulations and the operation will have to be observed by Staff to make certain all conditions of approval are complied with. -3- The General Plan designation for the site is Business Park Industrial/Outdoor Storage. The proposed use would be in conformance with the policies of the General Plan. The business would also like to display four small tractors in the landscape planters on the west side of the building. Staff does not have a problem with this a long as display only occurs during business hours and is limited to a maximum of four miniature tractors. Signs The business has two wall-mounted signs that are illegal and consequently cannot be recommended to be approved. The sign located on the southern elevation is illegal because it is not located on a business frontage occupied by the tenant. The Applicant states that he intents to occupy that space in the future and thus the sign should be allowed to stay. Staff contends that when the business moves into that space, signing can be considered on that frontage through Site Development Review. But until then, the sign must be removed. The sign on the west elevation is illegal because they have not applied for and received Site Development Review approval. Staff recommends that the Commission direct the Applicant to apply for Site Development Review for this sign no later than April 29, 1988. If the application has not been received by this date, the sign will have to be removed immediately. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5) Adopt Resolution approving PA 88-001, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution: Exhibit "A" approving the Conditional Use Permit for Waseca Kubota Tractors, PA 88-001 and direct the Applicant to remove the illegal sign on the south elevation and apply for Site Development Review for the sign on the west elevation no later than April 29, 1988. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT "A": Draft Resolution conditionally approving the Conditional Use Permit for PA 88-001 Background Attachments: 1. Site Plan 2. Elevations 3. Floor Plan 4. Location Map 5. Letter from Applicant to Staff 6. Application form 7. Photographs -4- RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 88-001 WASECA KUBOTA TRACTORS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 6305 DOUGHERTY ROAD WHEREAS, Mike Waseca Owner of Waseca Kubota Tractors filed a Conditional Use permit to allow the retail sale and repair of industrial equipment and machinery and to allow the outside storage and display of industrial equipment and machinery; and WHEREAS, this Application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and has been found to be Categorically Exempt; and WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published in The Herald, posted in a public building, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending conditional approval of the Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 4, 1988, to consider all reports, recommendations and testimony; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: a) The use is required by the public need to provide tractor sales and service; b) The use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity as daytime activities will be commensurate with present use of properties in the Light Industrial Zoning District; c) The use, if permitted, under all the circumstances and conditions of this particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area as all applicable regulations will be met; d) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the District in which it is to be located, as tractor sales, service, storage and display with limited impacts, is consistent with the character of the Light Industrial District; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve PA 88-001 as shown by materials labeled Exhibit A in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 4, 1988 on file with the Dublin Planning Department and subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is for Waseca Kubota Tractors to occupy approximately 5,500+ square feet now and 2,200+ additional square feet (in the future) in the building located at 6305 Dougherty Road. The activities performed in conjunction with this business are limited to the following: A) The retail sale and repair of tractors, trailers and similar industrial equipment/machinery. B) The outside storage of tractors, trailers and similar industrial equipment/machinery. This outside storage shall be limited to the 3,500+ service yard area located just southeast of Waseca Kabota's tenant space and within the existing cyclone fence area as depicted on background Attachment 1 of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 4, 1988. C) The outdoor display of no more than four miniature tractor trailers in the landscape area located just west of Waseca Kabota tenant space, out of the pedestrian walkway. This outdoor display shall occur only during the hours in which the business is open. 2. No outdoor storage of equipment and machinery owned by this business will be allowed in any other location on or around this site except within the chain link fence enclosure area identified in item 1 B) above. All tractors and equipment located on the site shall be immediately moved into this area. 3. The south elevation sign identifying Waseca Kabota Tractors shall be removed immediately. The Applicant shall submit an application for Site Development Review for the sign located on the west elevation, no later than April 29, 1988. If this application has not been received by 5:00 p.m. on this date, the west elevation sign shall be removed immediately. No other signs shall be used on this site by this business without prior approval by the Planning Department. 4. All debris associated with this business (including but not limited to pallots, tables, dumpsters, engine parts, oil drums, etc.) shall be permanently relocated to within the cyclone fence storage area identified in Item 1 B) above. This shall occur immediately. 5. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall be until April 14, 1989. The approval period may be extended one additional year (Applicant must submit a written request for the extension prior to the expiration date of the Conditional Use Permit) by the Planning Director upon his determination that the Conditions of Approval have been complied with and remain adequate to assure the above stated Findings will continue to be met. 6. This Conditional Use Permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director III -2 ptvord 7 X 7•y••!.,•�• 7 •'•t••„'•' '••Mr/v.A♦JnH.•wa+.lY k N t • 'p�MN _ 4,' •• :.7...,.,.INS•1 •nlrn••MV JnOJ r) • • • tffi,f4.-'.•.0.11..,,.,:2.i•i,,1,;,4,•4i,:...-"..t.."....•.r-4,..,....-..A‘4f.l'*' • • — � .1..411r7' ' t .ram 1 -- _ --- o r o al .c c H 9 n n o , riNiSty :0NI1,7175N07•'• eLP'o,'Y'N, ~ ........... -, wN.0117` ,0'/t-••1,IOlFNN 1 MCI rw....•rrJ rw•,w..•.•w rw►r' 1 g ,, .Ti•' t•a1C1 !k ;; i 1 . 7... . to ,a - �1 rra:;7., - -..._.. .. I. •X1 •••••,1" '':i.!4 • ' '. •' ., .:',1 , ; • q i .' , eg 4 I • • r 4111 , ^r• "Wlk IY{Y 1.4V,O> • .�: 1 t r tr .•. ,....�,.r.. .... '' }' J '"R___ • ' _."- -J i -_ • • • �) �.. ♦',r I', t�• ni, 'v • I./ +{ 'S. Y� wi ✓•ti•,•rM lico...,/gY,�1'�y . • 4+1 j • r r . • N t t. Y1t+, ���fiw/1 rr �•ly �..rr • rL• I I . - - .. '' �' ,g� . •`9 i 1 c7 y,,/ l•/-� _'"I' ,vS. ...6 •ii`w / 4" • • RR n.1� / ' 1..1d. r � /•yfi y11• ,, • ''1 e . 'E u'1 •er+r•.r N n.r.rr••ws •� • , �.�,' I WAY»,.» '•• •C '7'!' ,• �. ra ry 1y� • .fit .•w y,..n•.w..•••..«.. •r••.••• � s ••B 'ff1 T , � ,,•r1 /� .• ,t J1Ip / 7 F\ •114 ��v rir It- 11 't i•V rrrr�ror�w / on �'! 4'�. •''. •�, /�� . r 1:1• • we..,•w•••..r.••• w•w••wrV r*11 7 ••, 1. • t' /:w )r 1,• • ••ii5 f., 'd-TJv y .AM: U '. 7..,,'N�t• r 41'\ .. r i p �/ V 1 'I ,, ,`Y%• +•.r+r•••• .....,. .....a•..••....... w.n+.r 1 1..• / 4 Nr•/ 7►sflJllll'1.1 v ,y 1� 4 •'''i!O( . r 0 ' ')0 Af tr rr..r "r•re • ,1 ♦ T' oef,,,4(".I_ nip ; . 1 ' .•111 r 1''• .ri' s rr�r,. .S •• •n b r.v„, w .r I ' INO/Jr.•I fltiYera'IJYI. ►'•Y .+r .u•. • N r7i IO'• VdNnr•r 1•Y to 11, 4 i ••. •Ihi 14 wr rn�r rr •••'y' �,,P •rid d "3'• r Y.+ � 0 ••/• Fr :,a Ir ; • / •I. . . . 'i' �� i J\d !, • P• 41 f 9 >i 7 VM _'>'\C.7 '1.715.•,,..,, -(7) 1 I ,I 1 I •/ A , \ .�Or / `/ I \., 43' N .ta7 i t L I �i t ,r r ilY lam/ ,� i +1, i 1 • 1.1. " NV.,'+ �r (� ti •...�rti fir► I .4 IS liti fit. . / 11.1. 'y I um Zolli , ..„... . ,,.1..�, I4P ay' // 'cc vas C� l��s lrrtcTd 9b� 1•\b� v 1 , 41 I .�,` lk�1 `, • •••w•awry,•••I IPP.11101,= L. •.n•..r n -��___ ... 1I .1 ,1 k ,+Y' ' � 4' •• . , ',I 1I c.... ‘1) —.r-----rb r ,) ., .„............ -----k c . . 14— ..... . . ._ . ... ...._ ..... ._....._.____.._..__ \.0 . . .._.... 8 . _. . _ :4° 1 t ,; r , z1 \-1 t)13 117) us _5 ocz• _ . 't•l• . ..__... . . . .__ • () , . 1 . . . . . C3 , ...... . , _. ! ! ! c--- ...cr b ..) __________.................____ 4.... )--. . .. . ._ k,... ti. • 0 0., _._1.-- ! _.... i.._ . 1 0 u.1 - 1.... VI CO Ul a _t _.1 LH di ,I)10 'U. 7...., ti., • csNI kl ci) . --ZV -f• CC • Nj ) lail . ........,,,,..% I 0. 1 —I. . • " : . ..: , __ .• • s--10 . *„.4.. . • Cs,* ---...,.- 4 ........ c, 1.1.4J •. Tt ._._ . .__. il ,1• i- • VII 0 , ......, • WI • , • . . • .1 ' • I __. i . _ . • . . .. . • .. . _. .. _. 1 . . . e4 1 ......• _ _ . .. ......., ,.., -..... . . ._ . . .. . • - • •. ..- . . - ....•. •• I I . . --- cl _ , • 1 - -4- ---- 01Z iii6 7 Z° .- . .-- Z t.. . .... ......0. • 11..1 JO .. . . — [....... . -- -.....1 I ..a) _. .__ 0 -J • LU 1 . • mr-10. • . . =.,. a . . . . . r . • . . # . . • . . . . - - I . _._ : . _ . . . .i . . . (---------4 tQi. - 1 _ --... E) i ._..— cy, y..,4 lu QL '- — . 1— ‘ i / z o .,...... _. , • . . 0 _ 2 —1:17.11_1 ,• t.j •:. • ----• ,' — L 1-'k \. . -.. .1 4 • -_ L... — • „ I 1_ , , -x 4....r t t ., 'L. • 7 V iA r ..S) v4 p3 , . Ti a , y , .4 ,: Z14, - ,t r k `ce '+ "'o ` e Sr r , .-'a "` a t Q+i �, r �..,. wr .i • -._�—._.._I'_._ — ... _---- .__.._.-- .., .. , ,;� ` .�„ M 2. ,f. • LI4 5 al I r- - 4 -1 — .. _ _i_ -.. ,, • I . C •--_- - 014 —, 8 c u-wl N cp U N (O Q 1 I - t * fij n 13 0 W > Z J 41 0 W tl.g J II' ( " Illj O 1! k. - -4 t T. W 3 Q ��JJ 91 11, sQ AA of e4 Nl gl —t — tf 4 —. • eL r Wkr i 11) lull E id l Ii `�rx i y I F po ,r,= t u ag 0 cv � . g y ( kh J i . L1.---. 4-- sl N 6- a y j, ° sZeSlzt 31 do Y SEE SHUT 2B _ 1$77.."777....".. ` , 1 '�� �I '�f I III I-" I I„ `�.°, : NI i 4 - _- 7vcr a►I/I /, —r_ • • \, • ,,, ...., .43May, , MO il $. `.,, ;�,, .J. l Y r' ��' I III . , \ ,. . CrsCC • `, / x,/ � � :\ ,''v .,",'. y \‘ / «tom -m . ^ \ 1 .1.4,51 .N... y./‘.-N"' s•Y!•:) .-1‘..,.. - .4.11rA , MIL A - '� ~` �S . . it -\ 1'` 4* \� \\� , • I \ �^ t ,� ' �. �� ;,���; !`y, ;1$- , . ♦ ,,... �\ . . . - ......., • -, ‘ -__:..—.. . \ , \vdt# , . ,., rn 6.. • • -., • 1 - `- - / °` ,^'.9*. •ii.` \'` ...... ,.:. „ ...._.... ,......... ...., ... ,_ .1-..c''' \ \ -Z `�� / C ° �• 1 'V y , ,' ---- --- "nP •e•r... el \I ) 1.' ;. li'l- 73---)'. lt______I:: 15JJ_Lt It !1h111 �- (� c:; Fr ,. • ._, ... ;.... .. , .. ,,,, N - , PREPARED FOR RRER.RED 01 _ J-•�, A PART OF THE m .�^�= E a AA CITY OF SANTINA ,,,� , ZONING MAP r WV. DUBLIN J.. THOMPSON INc ~`Kn� N M- . © PRI^I'"." THE CITY OF CIS er Z OCT 2 1986 ..w.-R c._....c.,,�..,. R.,�• DUB L I N - --- ^a. I,r1Rl IN GIIFARNIA ,a.° RECEIyEl JAr, .1 . to/9-/o 1-0C- A-71.7 0 A-) ATTACHMENT 4 / N Waseca Kubota Tractor Sales OKUBOTA 6305 Dougherty Road Dublin, CA 94568 R E C E I V E D DUBL(N PLANNING December 23, 1987 City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin,Ca . 94568 To whom it may concern: Please be advised that I am in the business of selling small tractors from 7 to 75 horse power . We also do assembly and service work to the equipment that we sell . I park three small tractors out in front on the concrete area . The tractor dimensions are from 38" to 60" in width and from 4 ' to 5 ' tall . We plan no structural changes in the existing building. Please see the attached sight plans and diagrams . Thank you . Since Le(7-14_ M' chael C. Waseca ATTACHMENT S /- 5 -oo/ CITY OF DUBLIN P.O.Box 2340 Dublin,CA 94568 RECEIVED (415)829-4600 Planning Department (415) 829-4916 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D JA N Eff.: 1/84 Dublin CA 94568 DUBLIN PLANNING PLANNING APPLICATION FORM Notes to Applicant: * Please discuss your proposal with Staff prior to completing the Planning Application form. * All items related to your specific type of application must be completed. * Since this is a comprehensive application form, score of the items might not apply to your specific application. * Please print or type legibly. * Attach additional sheets if necessary. Z Sd 5 4/37P-f--- I..UTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER A PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,authorize the filing of this application. I understand . tat conditions of approval are binding. I agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal period. Name: Edwin Wright Capacity: Property Owner Address: 2134 Rheem Dr. Daytime Phone: (41J 462-3909 /Pleasanton,Ca. 94566 ( ) Signature: 1\ I I( Date: December 23.1987 APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OW11ER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization of the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file this application and agreement to conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal period. Name: Michael C. Waseca Capacity: Owner Address6305 Dou heety Rd. Daytime Phone: (419 829-0260 Dubl' • ( ) Signature: Date: December 23,1987 II. CERTIFICATION I certify that I have the authorization of the property owner to file this application. I further certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Capacity: . Address: Daytime Phone: ( ) ( ) Signature: Date: (OVER) ATTACHMENT T GENERAL DATA REQUIRE A. Address or Location of Property: (305- B. Assessor Parcel Nuitber(s): qy/ .. - 161- C. Site area: D. Present Zoning: /Y/^ E. Existing Use of Property: , Tractor Sales F. Zoning and Existing Use Of Surrounding Property: Zone Existing Uses - North: • - South: • - East: • - West: G. Detailed Description of Proposed Use of Property: Tractor Sales (Continue on separate sheet if necessary) iv. TYPE OF APPLICATION Check type of planning permit(s) being requested: ❑ Administrative Conditional Use Permit 0 Rezoning ❑ Boundary Adjustment ❑ Sign Conditional Use Permit 0 Site Development Review ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Subdivision Map ❑ Planned Development 0 Variance ❑ Other: v. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. Planned Development: (See Planned Development Rezoning Submittal Requirements) B. Suhrhvision Map: (See Subdivision Map Submittal Requirements) C. Any Other Planning Permit: (See General Submittal Requirements) vi. PROCESSING (See Planning Application Cover Letter) vii. REFERENCE PHONE NUMBERS Most questions related to the Planning Application should be directed to the Dublin Planning Department, however, some concerns might be addressed directly by another appropriate department or agency: 1. City of Dublin: 2. Dublin San Ramon Services District: Building Inspection:(415) 829-0822 Fire: (415) 829-2333 Engineering: (415) 829-4916 Water, Sewer, Garbage: (415) 828-0515 Planning: (415) 829-4916 Police: (415) 829-0566 3. Zone 7 - Alameda County Flood Control: (415) 443-9300 Pktta(Alm v�k 1 !t- AitA CAM eitAA- —1 i Aii-Achm PM+_.( �kV0V/hM�v�k1 CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Proposed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibits A) Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of Negative Declaration B) Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of Plan Line Attachments 1) Proposed Plan Line 2) Cross Section in Downtown Specific Plan 3) Proposed Cross Section 4) Description of Proposed Plan Line 5) Environmental Assessment Initial Study 6) Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open Public Hearing 2) Receive Staff presentation and public testimony 3) Question Staff and the public 4) Close Public Hearing and deliberate 5) Take the following actions a) Adopt Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of Negative Declaration b) Adopt Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of Plan Line FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No direct financial impacts would occur from the recommended action. Costs to the City as a result of development of the road would depend on the financing mechanism selected for this project. A separate action would be required by the City Council to authorize financing the project. DESCRIPTION: The circulation plan for the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan includes recommended changes to improve downtown circulation. One such improvement is a new street parallel to and south of Dublin Boulevard connecting Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road. The Downtown Plan shows the approximate location of this road midway between Dublin Boulevard and I-580. The precise alignment for this new street must be established through the adoption of a plan line. City Staff, including TJKM, the City's traffic engineer, has examined the area and prepared recommendations for the plan line (see Attachment 1). Need A parallel road south of Dublin Boulevard will offer the following benefits to downtown circulation and traffic flow. 1) Traffic conditions at major intersections along Dublin Boulevard will be equalized. This cross-connection would allow alternative routes out onto Dublin Boulevard and relieve congestion at the Regional Street/Dublin Boulevard intersection. 2) Three long cul-de-sacs will be eliminated, facilitating movement, especially for emergency vehicles. 3) Access from one cul-de-sac to another can be provided without requiring travel on Dublin Boulevard. ITEM NO. 8.3 COPIES TO: Property Owners File 4) Internal circulation will be provided in the area south of Dublin Boulevard, which will encourage development of property consistent with the land uses designated in the Downtown Specific Plan and provide additional pedestrian links in the area. 5) Access will be provided to the future BART parking lot from three access points rather than concentrating traffic at Golden Gate Drive. In general, the road will have area-wide (downtown) circulation benefits by providing an alternate route. Size and Capacity Diagram 6 of the Downtown Specific Plan shows a street right-of-way section of 65 feet (see Attachment 2), which would provide two traffic lanes and a center two-way left turn lane (44 feet) plus parkways on either side (15 feet and 6 feet). TJKM, the City's traffic engineer, has evaluated the projected traffic for this road and has revised the optimal section to be 68 feet (see Attachment 3), to include two eight-foot sidewalks and two traffic lanes (20 feet each) and a center two-way left turn lane (12 feet). Final design of the road, given a 68-foot right-of-way, could still take advantage of a wider parkway on one side (e.g., 12 feet on one side and 4 feet on the other). Due to limitations of space between existing buildings, the right-of-way section will need to narrow to 64 feet for approximately 600 feet. This narrower area between the rear of the existing Ross/Orchard Supply building (APN 941-1500-44) and the Unisource building (APN 941-1500-47-2) will provide a minimum 110 feet maneuvering area for trucks at the Unisource warehouse. The 64 - 68-foot right-of-way will be able to accommodate about 17,500 average daily trips (ADT). A description of the proposed plan line is contained in Attachment 4. Impacts The roadway will necessitate the removal of 174 parking spaces (52 behind Ross/Orchard Supply and 122 from the front of Unisource). Mitigation measures are included in the project to provide additional parking for Unisource (see Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration - Attachments 5 and 6). The reduced parking on the other parcel is not considered significant due to the low parking occupancy rate in Downtown Dublin. Depending on the final design of the roadway, the street may be able to accommodate on-street parking which would further reduce impacts from the loss of on-site parking. The project will also reduce the back-up area for truck loading at Unisource from 121 feet to 110 feet. The 110 feet is considered adequate for 55-foot-long trucks. The right-of-way between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road is across undeveloped property, and therefore, there will not be any significant impacts to existing development. The resulting parcel size for the property behind Crown Chevrolet will be approximately 155 x 400 feet (1.4+ acres). This size is sufficient to accommodate a commercial or office use as designated in the Downtown Specific Plan. Timing No precise schedule has been established for constructing the road. The need for the road may become critical when BART develops their property and may be tied into that schedule. Other, more intensive land development in the area could also trigger the need for the road. Costs Preliminary estimated costs for acquisition, design, improvement, and environmental mitigation of the road are about $3 million. The actual financing of the project may include off-site improvements required for development in the area. -2- (:1,, ( RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING A PLAN LINE FOR A NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN REGIONAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended together with the State's administrative guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and City environmental regulations, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. , a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department with the project specific mitigation measures outlined in Staff's Initial Study of Environmental Significance dated March 28, 1988, regarding: 1) Land Use WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and considered it at a public hearing on April 4, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given as legally required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the project, Parallel Road South of Dublin Boulevard (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) Plan Line has been changed by the Applicant and/or the Applicant has agreed to provide mitigation measures resulting in a project that will not result in the potential creation of any significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study of Environmental Signficance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and Local Environmental Law and Guideline Regulations, and that it is adequate and complete. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director n A_ RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH A PLAN LINE FOR PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD FROM REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD WHEREAS, the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin by Resolution No. 55-87 on July 21, 1987; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan contains an objective in the vehicular circulation plan to develop a plan line for a new street south of Dublin Boulevard connecting Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on April 4, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been recommended for adoption (Planning Commission Resolution No. 88- ) for this project, as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the plan line is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing and proposed land uses and conforming to the underlying land use designation and it will not overburden public services; and WHEREAS, the plan line will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the plan line as described on the attached Exhibits A and B dated March 28, 1988. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director r • \ \env°� `\\.\\\ z 111 °J0'\M \\ \\\ \\ 010 °tea° \ \ \ \\ 0 0 't'.\ ...,:.: A SEA :...• .f„`... ...IL', I\ \\ \ \ 1/1/ \\ \ \ M:fia **' ii :::rah i d / X :; _____- '' fI1EEV ® '' ''"''/ III PROPOSED PLAN LINE 3/23/88 PARALLEL ROAD 0 200 400 800 (REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD) 100 300 • . . . . 15RT f) PARKWAY E' f 2 TRAFFIC LANES & TURN LANE 44' f PARKWAY 15' I PROPOSED R.O.W. 65' STREET SOUTH OF DUBLIN BLVD. Proposed Street Sections DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA Diagram 6 n ("4' PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD) R/w a/w 2 WAY LEFT TURN LCob ' J 8' 20' I2' 20' 8, 7 OPTIMUM SECTION 3 ii. i 6 " k TALJtthij t Proposed Street Right-of-Way SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND REGIONAL STREET All that certain real property situated in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of Amador Plaza Road on the south line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to Enea Plaza recorded December 19, 1980, as Instrument No. 80-224805, Records of Alameda County; thence northerly along said west line of Amador Plaza Road 427 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said west line of Amador Plaza Road along the arc of a non-tangent 30.00 foot radius curve, concave to the northwest, to a point on the prolongation of the north line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to Robert T..& Betty J. Wolverton recorded December 20, 1978, as Instrument No. 78-248211, Records of Alameda County; thence on a course tangent tothe previous curve westerly along said prolongation of said north line (7 8-24 8211) a distance of 285 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of said Wolverton Parcel (78-248211); thence westerly along said north line (78-248211) and its prolongation 430 feet, more or less, to a point on the centerline of Golden Gate Drive, hereon referred to as Point "A"; thence in a southwesterly direction 380 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 966 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 105 feet, more or less, to a point on the east line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to Peter B. Bedford recorded November 21, 1982, as Instrument No. 82-193550, Records of Alameda County, said point hereon referred to as Point "B", lying South 4 feet, measured at right angles to, the prolongation of the south line of an existing warehouse lying on said Bedford parcel (82-193550);thence westerly on a course parallel with said south line of the existing warehouse 330 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 332 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 125 feet, more or less; thence on a course tangent to the previous curve southwesterly 130 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 266 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 120 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line of said Bedford parcel (82-193550); thence on a course tangent to the previous curve along said south line (82-193550) a distance of 165 feet, more or less, to the east line of Regional Street; thence leaving said south line (82-193550) southerly along said east line of Regional Street to a point 68 feet south, measured at right angles to said south line (82- 193550); thence in an easterly direction parallel with said south line (82-193550) a distance of 165 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius 334 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 90 feet, more or less; thence on a course tangent to the previous curve, ATTACHMENT4 ......::•.,_,J.r.F:...`C.5ys z.¢ r_,!F..._-:..x.�'L.:i.,,:.+..:.>...mac s.,.r:y......,..w,..,.....<. ..rv:rrn.r.�..r,...w:...n.cz.�.._� • CITY OF VUBLIt l PA No. • E7\VIRC3\1MENTAL' ASSESSMENT FORM 1 E AM (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec_) Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF • Name of Project or Applicant: DUBLIN BOULEVARD PARALLEL ROAD ' A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING-Description of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals;historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL'AREAS: 1/2 OF PROJECT SITE IS DEVELOPED AS PARKING & DRIVEWAYS. THE OTHER 1/2 • IS UNIMPROVED LAND. • Description of surrounding properties, including information an: plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or development. DEVELOPED AREAS WITH COMMERCIAL RETAIL & OFFICE AS WELL AS WAREHOUSE. NO SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES SUCH' AS PLANTS ANIMALS TOPO • - GRAPHY, ETC., EXIST IN PROJECT AREA. B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -Factual explanations of all answers except"no" are re-. quired on cttached sheets. • Ca I, • DaDACIS SALE OF INl.AC1 NO CUAL=ED YES UNI}CNCNI7 • NO laI Io IE I IF oIlol,t•l• 1 115 I I l 1.0 WATER 1.1 Hydrologic Bulonce Will construction of the project alter the hydro- X I I logic balance? 1 I 1.2 Ground Water Will the project effect the quality or quantity of X I ground water supplies? 1.3 Depth to Water Table Will the rate of water withdrawal change the depth X er gradient of the water table? 1_ • 1.1 Drainage and Cannel Form Will construction impede the natural drainage potters r cause alteration of,t,ors channel room? X 1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in on arca result in major sediment X Influx into adjacent water bodies? 1 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of loss of life or property due X In flooding? - - • A-5 ATTACHMENT IE NT _ ?ACTS SG_ OF 714PACr • NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOWN NO , , , ► ► to aI0 1H of ►oil IQ115 . �'1'-t 1.7 Werer Ooolity Does drinking water supply fail to meet store and x I I federal standards? Will sewage be imdegoaroly occommadoted and k I ' booted? _ r Will receiving wolon foil to ment locel,stn•e end federal ste dords? \ , • Will ground water suffer conaminotion by nnfuee • • seepa3s,intrusion of sole or polluted water from adjacent wore,bodies or from another mentnminnrcd • 23nifer? _-- • 2.0 AIR • 2.1 Air Pollution, Will there be generation and dispersion or p011utanl, • by project relayed activities or in pro:r.ie.rr ebe - project which swill norond store et meli-o et X quality standards? 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and rerrainbmpedo prevciling wind flow rauning channeling along certain.porn.3,of X • obstruction of wind movements? 1 3.0 EARTH • ' 3.1 Slope Stability Are there potential dangers related to elope failures? X _ 1-3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or propery'n-ore of _ • excessive deformation of materials? x _ • • 3.3 Consolidation V/ill there be risk to life or property honer cf consolidation of foeodatinr nnnt..•inl,? _k 3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground subsidr:nce nssnc iate l k with the project? 3.5 Seismic Aativiy Is there risk of damage or loss readtii p from earth- . gonko activity? k 3.6 liquefaction V/ill the project Catlin or be exposed to liquefaction . - of soils in slopes or under Foundations? < 3.7 Erodibiliy ' Will there be substantial loss of soil d--no co--X struct ion prnc!ices? I- 3.8 Permeebiliy Will the permeability of soils ossocarx!with the project present adverse conditions,elative tc de- velopmenr of wells? X . 3.9 Unique features Will any unique geological features be domazed • 1 or destroyed by project netivitios? k 3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of pntenrinl c-l-ercinl value dose to the project? ;( `• 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS • • 4.1 Plant and Animal Species Are there tare or endangered species present? k Arc there species preent which are pa-tieulosly susceptible to impact from human activity? s( t Y • Is there vegetation present,.the ion.of which will deny food or habitat to important wildlife species?• 'IC Arc there nuisance species of plant or neimals Fnr • which conditions will be improved by the project? \sr 4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populotions of plants that ewy be of scientific interest? k Are there vegetative community types which ore particularly su:cepiible to impact from human ectiviy? \' Are there major trees or major vcgotnriao That witl he edoersvly effected by the project? ‘( Arc rhea vegetative community types r----rs.rse less of which will deny frn:1 or habit•rn i-r.,•tar.,orilil re or to a:uhstent inl numb.--n! - ..- mi:': X 4.3 Diversity Is there wbsroniinl diversity in th.;n- -nn ity as reflected in the number and type of lo._n nn rrl species present or the three-dimensineelernn,-men` of plant species present? • • • A-6 • • - COMPONENT 33-TAL Ls SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOWN NOI • I o I I o a I I• oI ioI - 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.1 Edacotionol Facilities Will projected enrollments adversely affect the cc- bring or p-oposed facilities in terms of spacing for all or ivitic,,Including classrooms,recreational ernes,end doffing needs? x Will the project impact the p,pil/teacher ratio so as to impede the leorning process? X Is the school located such that it presents a hardship For portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, di,tonce,or safety hazards? X • 5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be an inadequate supply of and access to 1/ y m dal facllities for the project? ^ 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for sewage capacity inodcgoore roc ' j - the needs of the project without exceeding quality \/ • standard,? • • Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors ossocioted with wastewater treatment plants? X t 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadequate provision for disposal of solid wastes generated by the project? X 5.5 Water Supply Is there ioadegvoto quantity or quality of water supply to racer the needs of the project? k 5.6 Storm Water Droino Will storm water drains be inadequate ge drainage equate to prevent downstream flooding and to racer Federal State and local standards? X 5.7 Police Will the project's additional population,facilities, or other features generate on increase in police service createor o pal ice hazard? x 5.8 Fire Will the project',additional population,facilities, or other Feature,gecerote an increase in fire services or create o fifirehazard? /� 5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate facilities to meet the recreational needs of the residents? , 5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural Facilities be onovoiioble to the project - I residents? NA• • 6.0 TRANSPORTATION 6-1 Tronsportation Facilities Are the traffic demands on odjocent mad,derently • at or oboa<capacity? If oat,will the traffic gene emoted by the project muse the adjacent roods to reach or exceed capacity? Are the other transportation facilities which serve the project inadequate to accommodate the project's trove!demond,? X L 6.2'Circulation Conflicts Will de,ig-r of rho project or condition in the surround- • oreo n cident,due to circalohon conflicts? 6.3 Rood Sofety and Design 'doll project residents end users be exposed to increased occident risks dun to roadway and sneer design or lack J of traffic controls? 7.0 HEALTH • 7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense odors 7.2 Crowding and Density Williha residents and users be exposed to crowding Of high denary in their physical living environment? 7.3 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generore factors that - may be considered a,nuisances? 7.4 Structural Safety Will design and proposed construction technique,Foil to meet state and local building codes? • 8.0 NOISE 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be exposed to or generate adverse X noise burls? 8.2 Vibrations Will the prsjrct bo exposed to vihratinn,annoying to humor,? v • C L A • • SIT IMPACTS • :' .SCALE OF IMPACT • • NO QUALIFIED I YES UNKNa9N NO f t I I I to aIR. 1a o 1E~-r f IoI0 1 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER I,• 9.1 Community Organization Will the project disrupt on existing set of • 1 organizations or groups within the community? A - 9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Y/ill the project change the character of rho • community in terms of distribution orconcentration 1 al income,ethnic,housing,or age group? 1 9.3 Community Stability and Will the project be exposed to or generate an • Physicol Conditions area o/poor stability and phy real conditions? V • 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY - /� 10.1 Views - Y/ill residents of the surrounding area be adversely affected by views of or horn the project? - X Will the project residents be adversely affected by x — I views of or from the surrounding oroa -10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive shadows? X• . 11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTLRAL - "• RESOURCES 11.1 Historic and Cultural Will the project involve the destruction on alter- " Resources anon of a historic resource? - Will the project result in isolatio of a historic ' n • • ee from its surrounding environment? X 1 1 Will that project introduce physical,visual,audible or atmospheric elements tint are not in character with X a historic resource or in setting? 1 I�.. 11.2 Archaeological Sites Will the project involve tin destruction or alteration I v _ and Structures - of an archocolog;col resource? /v Will the project result in isnlotion of cn archaeological resource? X Will the project introduce physical,ni,00l,audible or atmospheric elements that are not in character with . on archoeological resource or its setting? X 12.0 ENERGY 12.1 Energy Requirements Are there potential problems w:th the supply of •energy required for the project? X ' Will the energy requirements exceed the capacity o• f the service utility company? X Will there be a Oct incrcose in energy used for the project compared to the no project alternative? X -- 12.2 Conservation Measures Does the project planning orvf design fail to include avoilob!c energy coo.crvntion erea,ure.. X 13.0 LAND USE • • 13.1 Site Hocords Do conditions of the site,proposed site development, " or ounding area create potentially hazardous situ- v aria s7 i` 13.2 Physical Threat. Wil!the project or the surrounding ores create a feeling of insecurity and physical threat among the sesidents • and users? X 13.3 Sanitoty Landfill Will the project be exposed to so-ucwral d-mngo, noise,air,or vnfoce end g-ound enter pollution orX other nuisances assaciotel with o sanitary landfill? 13.4 Waterways Wilt the project affect an existing ar_ter.ny through filling,dredging,draining,culverting,waste dis- • charges,loss of visual quality or other land use \' -- - practices? J( t L A-8 • • • ngS7T 'IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOWN NO 1• r ' IpI I - • zI IaIF iig . . 19.1?l5 • I LAND USE Will the project affect the 1 XI use of property which would . result in impacts to general plans or local I I 1 ordinances? 1 • •Other En.' .ntal Components. - . • . - 1 I I • • 1 1• 1 I I C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0141,MED NO NO -YES U?SK GSvN (1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the . quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a X fish or wildlife population to drop below self- - - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal . or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history cr prehistory? • (2) Does the project hove the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X goals? . • (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually •limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project - may impact on two or more separate resources where X • the impact on each resource is relatively small, but • where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) (4) Does the project have environmental effects which • will cause substantial adverse effects on human - . beings, either directly or indirectly? • D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitiga'e the significant effects identified, if any: jo O44Jtipyap - ' per' ( • E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: The City of PUblih finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par- ticular characteristics of this project and the mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the project provide, the ':actual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE - DECLARATION !S REQUIRED. • f--1 The City of PLIbl in finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED** Signature and date: _, ti' 3 23( 86 Name and title: L . �- 1,j' .h-t- D(CL_ �1 ��%rJC� —CD • • **NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so that po`;?.:1 ial adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no_ significant environmental effects would occur, a • revised Initial Study will be prepared and a Negative Declaration will be required iNs'ead of an EIR. March 23, 1988 PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD) INITIAL STUDY B. Environmental Impacts - Factual Explanations 2.1 Air Pollution Temporary construction-related air quality impacts will occur by increasing dust, especially if existing paved areas need to be removed. Construction techniques should include watering exposed areas to reduce dust, especially during windy periods. Project will improve traffic circulation in the vicinity which will result in fewer idling vehicles, having a positive benefit to local air quality. 5.2 Commercial Facilities Project will improve access to commercial properties. 6.1 Transportation Facilities Traffic demands on vicinity roads and intersections are projected to approach the design capacity, offering Levels of Service D or E. This project will help alleviate some of that congestion. 11.2 Archaeological Sites and Structures Much of the project site has been disturbed with no evidence of archaeological resources. Occasionally, resources are discovered in previously disturbed areas. Project will include condition that construction will be halted in the event that archaeological resources are discovered in order that a qualified archaeologist can examine the find. 13.5 Land Use The project involves the acquisition of property currently used for parking and driveways. In one case (APN 941-1500-47-2 Unisource), parking will be reduced below the amount that is required per the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for Unisource (PA 85-024) and zoning requirements for a warehouse. Zoning normally would require 300 spaces; however, the Variance/Conditional Use Permit specifies 187 spaces, with annual review to determine if additional spaces should be provided up to 236 spaces. The project would remove 122 existing spaces, leaving 65 spaces. Areas allocated for the additional 49 future parking spaces are not affected by this project. - 1 - The project will also result in reduced back-up space for the truck loading and parking area for this same parcel. Currently, 121 feet is available. The resulting 110 feet is the minimum back-up required for 55- foot tractor-trailers. The largest trucks currently using the site do not exceed 55 feet in length. The zoning and Site Development Review (PA 83-069) for APN 941-1500-44 (Orchard Supply Hardware and others) requires 619 spaces. This plan line would remove 69 spaces for this property. The Downtown Specific Plan indicates that this area had a peak parking demand for 26% of the spaces provided. Even if all of the 242 parked cars identified in the survey were on this property, the peak demand would be only about 45%. The parking that will be removed is used primarily for employees. Upon construction of the road, they will be displaced to parking at the front of the building. This reduction in available parking is not considered significant. The new road will provide a landscaped walkway, thus meeting one of the goals of the Downtown Plan to provide more landscaped areas among paved surfaces. - 2 - Development Services v CITY OF DUBLIN 'Planning/Zoning 829-4916 P.O.Box 2340 Building&Safety 829-0822 Dublin,CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) LOCATION: New road located approximately midway between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road PROPONENT: City of Dublin DESCRIPTION: Plan line for a new road with a 68—foot cross section at the above location. FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The initial study is available with a brief discussion of the following environmental components: Air pollution, transportation facilities, archaeology, and land use. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attachment. PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916. SIGNATURE: Q— DATE: Laurence L. Tong, Planningctor ATTACHMENT_ PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) Mitigation measures included in project to-eliminate impacts or reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Land Use Additional parking shall be provided on-site for APN 941-1500-47-2. Annual review of the number of employees and parking demand will determine how many spaces are needed, to a maximum indicated below. The additional parking can be accomplished as described below (see also Figure 1) . 1. Restripe driveway along west side of building to provide 900 parking and a drive aisle (net gain of 12 spaces) . 2. Build new parking area west of building (47 spaces) . 3. Restripe front area to preserve 17 standard size spaces and 5 handicapped sized spaces. 4. Provide the parking spaces shown on the variance permit at the rear of the property as expansion parking (49 spaces) . 5. Encourage a 7,200+ square foot property exchange between this property and the BART property to the east. The exchange will furnish an area of sufficient dimensions to provide 42 spaces, plus will provide the BART property with direct street frontage on the new road. The total 122 spaces which will be removed as a result of this project can be replaced with 108 spaces, with an additional 42 available if the property exchange is executed (total of 150) . The City is currently preparing an ordinance that would provide a conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming due to a City action such as condemnation. If this ordinance is enacted, it should be applied to this project. If a new business wants to locate at the Unisource site, the parking will have to be re-evaluated, considering that the parking may be less than the standard requirement due to the loss of available parking area. 1JI s ' WI to N 3AIHa 3111D N3aloD Q i 2 <`' Q W = I Q J J N 4 tn l. le . JN Nn Q N 1 ` Qa i . co C\ 5 I a Q a DO 1 ic 0 . 0 1-4 w _, . , . .,. >. <, . . ,.. 0 a.a =1 p ... c c 0 '—ilil = 2 O co I 2 1—' 1 J J I 2 r! * . I 133H1S 1VNO10311 ,---- ,-- g t:1 31- - --1 111 1 i-- l'izt 3MEICI 311/0 N3a100 , ..,..) CI Z ct q3- ---I :17 :...;.:,..........:„....,„: cc .)-- 11 1 a :?.....:',..... Vey. * d zlz t•—• 21., .,>4 •I 3. _J < 0:>. t• 1 i&it...;...... • .. 0 ccir z III" x Q. . c te. 2 111 cr _, ........ I 1..... co —1 1.111111 1 -,i.m.mi 1\yigg 1 I — e p. 1 z 0 Ii. 4 1• ", 1 n • ›. 0 a. 1 I ca z m . 0 0 g w 1 I x i I < O i < cc I I I !:,,g,..:•;:-7•53'-%)-: ---- >- ,-'•••-•- •.-., I w i 1.-- -:::-. 1 _ i . . 1331:11S 1VNOID31:1 t•-: —