HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-1-1988 PC Agenda CITY OF DUBLIN
Development Services r Planning,Zoning 829-4916
P.O. Box 2340 3uilding & Safety 829-0822
Dublin, CA 94568 Engineeiing/Pubiic Works 829-4927
DECLARATION OF POSTING
•
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Agenda for the
Dublin Planning Commission meeting of O2 / O
198 , was posted
at the Dublin Library, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, California, on
the c � 7- of , 198"by ` 'QO p.m.
Executed this 9 day of 198 at Dublin,
California.
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Commission Secretary by
,CAL/
nning Secret ry
r1
AGENDA
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - Dublin Library Monday - 7:00 p.m.
7606 Amador Valley Blvd., Meeting Room February 1, 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 - January 18, 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 87-178 Enea Plaza Planned Development Rezoning request for
a redefinition of the Planned Development to provide that the
uses permitted shall be identical to those commercial uses
permitted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 41-87 and
Planned Development Application PA 87-018, with development
complying with the Site Development Review process.
(Southern portion of APN 941-1500-40 west side of Amador
Plaza Road near Dublin Boulevard.)
8.2 PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch Project - General Plan Amendment
Study and Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Map, and
Annexation requests for a proposed mixed residential project
on a 147+ acre property lying in the unincorporated portion
of Alameda County, west of Silvergate Drive and north of
Hansen Drive.
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. OTHER BUSINESS
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
12. ADJOURNMENT
(Over for Procedures Summary)
n
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 1, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff tf
SUBJECT: PA 87-178 Enea Plaza (Southern Portion) -
Planned Development Rezoning request to rezone
the southern portion of Assessor's Parcel Number
941-1500-40, on the west side of Amador Plaza
Road near Dublin Boulevard.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: A Planned Development Rezoning request to rezone
the southern 3.0+ acres of APN 941-1500-040
(located on the west side of Amador Plaza Road
near Dublin Blvd.) from a PD, Planned
Development District (Alameda County Ordinance
No. 81-26 for 1464th Zoning Unit, allowing
administrative office uses with limited
ancillary retail use) to a new PD, Planned
Development District allowing a range of retail,
office, personal service and financial uses.
The rezoning request shall consider land uses
identical to those permitted pursuant to City
Council Resolution No. 41-87 and Planned
Development Application PA 87-018.
APPLICANT/
REPRESENTATIVE: Initiated by Resolution No. 41-87 of the Dublin
City Council.
PROPERTY OWNER: Sal & John Enea
7450 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: Southern 3.0+ acres of Assessor's Parcel Number
941-1500-040 on the west side of Amador Plaza
Road near Dublin Boulevard
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-1500-040
PARCEL SIZE: 3.0+ acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial/Industrial - Retail/Office and
Automotive. The General Plan shows a new street
parallel to, and south of Dublin Boulevard
connecting Regional Street, Golden Gate Drive
and Amador Plaza Road. The 3.0+ acres is
located directly south of the proposed new
street.
�'y, COPIES TO: Applicant
V I Owner
ITEM NO. File PA 87-178
• ^
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: The southern 3.0+ acre site is vacant. It is
part of a PD, Planned Development District from
Alameda County Ordinance No. 81-26 for the
1464th Zoning Unit allowing administrative
office uses with limited ancillary retail use.
The subject property lies with the boundaries of
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: PD, Planned Development District.
Buildings are now under construction. They will
house retail and office tenants.
South: PD, Planned Development District
allowing administrative office uses with limited
ancillary retail use. This area is presently
vacant.
East: PD, Planned Development District.
Construction on the northern most portion is
nearly complete with a new retail office
building. The southern most portion is
currently vacant.
West: C-2, General Commercial District, Crown
Chevrolet auto dealership.
ZONING HISTORY: 7/29/63 - A Conditional Use Permit was issued
for a drive-in theater over the entire
22+ acre Enea Plaza holding.
5/1/67 & Conditional Use Permits were approved
4/1/70 for an indoor theater at the northeast
corner of the property.
5/3/79 A Parcel Map was approved to subdivide
the property into five parcels.
10/22/80 A Site Development Review was approved
by Alameda County for the construction
of six office buildings at the end of
Amador Plaza Road (four were
constructed).
4/2/81 Approval was granted by the Alameda
County Board of Supervisors rezoning
the site from C-2, General Commercial
District to a PD, Planned Development
District (allowing C-0, Administrative
Office District uses and allowing C-0,
Administrative Office District uses
and allowing a racquetball club,
gymnasium, restaurant and other C-1
Retail Business District uses that are
determined to be compatible with C-0
uses (1464th Zoning Unit).
8/23/84 The Applicant submitted a Site
Development Review application to
construct a one-story retail building,
a two-story retail and office
building, and an addition to the
existing theater. This application
was found to be incomplete and no
further action was taken on the
application (PA 84-023).
-2-
2/25/85 The Dublin City Council denied a PD,
Planned Development District Rezoning
request to rezone the northerly 16.3
acres of the Enea Plaza holding to a
PD, Planned Development District
allowing C-1, Retail Business District
type uses (PA 84-040).
9/25/86 The Dublin Planning Director approved
a Site Development Review application
for the construction of a three-
building 42,000+ square foot single
story retail complex (PA 86-071).
10/17/86 The Dublin Planning Director approved
an Administrative Conditional Use
Permit to allow a Christmas tree sales
lot on a portion of the Enea holdings
(PA 86-100).
7/27/87 The Dublin City Council approved a
rezoning request to rezone
approximately 5.0+ acres from a PD,
Planned Development District allowing
C-0, Administrative Office District
uses and a limited range of compatible
C-1, Retail Business District uses to
a new PD, Planned Development District
allowing a range of retail shopper,
office, personal service and financial
uses, including Parcels A, B, and a
portion of C of Parcel Map 2922. (PA
87-018).
3/4/87 The Dublin Planning Director approved
an Administrative Conditional Use
Permit to allow a temporary
construction trailer on a portion of
the Enea holdings (PA 87-029).
10/21/87 The Dublin Planning Director approved
an Administrative Conditional Use
Permit to allow a Christmas tree sales
lot on a portion of the Enea holdings
(PA 87-137).
1/25/88 The Dublin City Council continued the
appeal request to reconsider the
Planning Commissions action denying a
sign location Variance to allow the
construction of a wall-mounted
business sign which is not located on
the primary or secondary building
frontage of the retail space which it
is proposed to identify (PA 87-161).
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan establishes policies and standards to
control land use and development within the downtown area.
Section 8-31.0 (Planned Development District Intent) of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance states, in part, that the intent of the Planned Development
is to create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
Section 8-31.2 (change in Zoning District Required) of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance states in part, that the proposed rezoning will benefit the public
necessity, convenience and general welfare and that a Planned Development is
-3-
subject to review by the Planning Commission if construction has not taken
place within a two year period from the date the Planned Development is
approved.
Section 8-31.18 (Minor Modification of Land Use In Development Plans),
of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance states, in part, that minor changes to the
approved master plan may be approved by the Planning Commission upon the
securing of a Conditional Use Permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Significance which finds the
proposed project will not have a significant
impact on the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 1, 1988, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
ANALYSIS:
On June 22, 1987 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 41-87
(Attachment 1) approving a PD, Planned Development Rezoning through Planning
Application 87-018. The rezoning permitted a change in land use from a
previous Planned Development (1464th Zoning Unit under Alameda County) which
allowed administrative office uses and a limited range of retail uses
compatable with office uses, to a new Planned Development which allows a wider
range of retail shopper, office, personal service and financial uses.
Attachment 2 shows the uses allowed in the 1464th Zoning Unit. Attachment 3
shows the uses that are now allowed as a result of the City Council approving
PA 87-018. Attachment 4 shows the portion of the Enea holdings which this
rezoning was applicable to.
One of the conditions of approval of the new PD rezoning in PA 87-018
required that the applicant dedicate and fully improve a roadway through the
southern portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 941-1500-40 (see Attachment 1,
Condition #5 of Resolution No. 41-87). Attachment 4 shows the general
location of the road.
On November 24, 1987, the Eneas filed a lawsuit challenging the
Condition requiring the dedication and improvement of the proposed street
right of way. As part of a settlement agreement, the Enea's have submitted an
irrevocable offer to dedicate the street right-of-way to the City, which the
City agrees to accept only when the rest of the proposed road between Amador
Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive is ready for construction. The settlement
agreement also requires the City to ititiate the planned development rezoning
process for a redefinition of the Planned Development to provide that the uses
permitted in the southern portion of APN 941-1500-040 shall be identical to
those uses permitted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 41-87 and Planned
Development Application PA 87-018.
In compliance with the above Condition, the rezoning initiated by the
City Council is before you for consideration.
The land uses permitted by City Council Resolution No. 41-87 and Planned
Development Application 87-018 are listed in Attachment 3. The present land
uses allowed on the 3.0+ acres by the 1464th Zoning Unit are listed in
Attachment 2.
The proposed land uses are consistant with goals and policies of both
the General Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The General Plan
calls for retail, office and automotive uses. The Specific Plan calls for a
wide range of uses for this area, including retail, office, hotel, restaurant
and commercial facilities. Compatibility would be maintained if the same land
uses approved in PA 87-018 were applied to the 3.0+ acre site in question. It
is Staff's opinion that it is reasonable and appropriate to apply those uses
to the 3.0+ acre parcel with the clarification that "cocktail lounges" would
be considered as "taverns" under conditional uses.
-4-
It should be noted that the downtown Dublin Specific Plan sets forth
policies that will apply to all future development on this site. These
include but are not limited to:
- encouraging better internal circulation amongst adjacent developments;
- encouraging beter pedestrian connections among downtown developments;
- increasing the amount of retail development downtown and broaden the mix of
retail uses;
- improving the visual quality of the downtown area;
- providing at least 20% landscaping in parking lots and providing substantial
amounts of landscaping within new developments;
- maintaining flexibility to accomodate a BART station within the downtown
area;
- utilizing progressive and attrative architectural styles and themes;
- limiting building heights to 45 feet and floor area ratios to 30%;
- meeting parking space number and design requirements;
- screening parking lots with low walls and landscaping from adjacent streets;
and
- meeting all setback requirements.
It is emphasized that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan be thoroughly reviewed
before submitting development proposals to the city.
If the planned development rezoning request is approved, all future
development on this site shall be reviewed through the City's Site Development
Review procedure. The balance of the site shall continue to be controlled by
the land uses listed in the 1464th Zoning Unit.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Owner and the public.
3) Question Staff, Owner and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5A) Consider and act on two Draft Resolutions:
1) Draft Resolution regarding the Negative Declaration
of Environmental Significance for PA 87-178
2) Draft Resolution regarding the PD, Planned
Development Rezoning request PA 87-178, or
5B) Give Staff and Owner direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Based on the above Staff Report, Staff recommends the Planning
Commission adopt the following two Resolutions:
Exhibit A which recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-178 and
Exhibit B which recommends that the City Council approve PD,
Planned Development Rezoning request PA 87-178.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Draft Resolution recommending the City Council Adopt a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA
87-178
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution recommending the City Council approve PD,
Planned Development Rezoning request for PA 87-178
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS:
1. Final Action Letter dated August 14, 1987 conditionally approving PA
87-018 including the following attachments:
-5-
- City Council Ordinance No. 35-87 amending the Zoning Ordinance to
permit the rezoning of the real property located at the southeast and
southwest corners of the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin
Boulevard;
- City Council Resolution No. 41-87 approving a PD, Planned Development
Rezoning concerning PA 87-018.
2. Alameda County Ordinance No. 81-26, amending Chapter 2, Title 8 of the
Alameda County Ordiance code relating to Zoning, Rezoning for the 1464th
Zoning Unit. It includes land uses permitted in the 1464th Zoning Unit
via the rezoning, and includes a copy of the land uses permited under
the C-0, Administrative Office District.
3. Permitted land uses approved through PD 87-018.
4. Location Map showing where PD 87-018 is applicable, where the general
location of the property is and where PD 87-178 is applicable.
5. Dublin_City Council Resolution No. 106-87 approving a Release and
Settlement Agreement and City of Dublin Public Dedication Agreement.
6. Dublin City Council Resolution No. 105-87 amending Resolution No. 41-87
which approved PA 87-018.
7. Negative Declaration of Environmental Signigicance for PA 87-178.
8. Map of the area, an excerpt from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
-6-
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-178, ENEA PLAZA (SOUTHERN PORTION)
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council filed an application requesting
that the City rezone appoximately 3.0+ acres of APN 941-1500-040 (located on
the west side of Amador Plaza Road near Dublin Blvd. ) from a PD, Planned
Development District (Alameda County Ordinance No. 81-26 for the 1464th Zoning
Unit, allowing administrative office uses with limited ancillary retail use) to
a new PD, Planned Development District to provide that the uses permitted be
identical to those commercial uses permitted pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 41-87 and Planned Development application PA 87-018 (which
allows a range of retail shopper, office, personal service and financial uses) ;
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as
amended together with the State' s Administrative Guidelines for Implenentation
of the California Environmental Regulations, requires that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared;
and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has
been prepared for PA 87-178; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance and considered it at public hearings
on February 1, 1988,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission determined that the project,
PA 87-178, will not have any significant environmental impacts;
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 1st day of February, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A
PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-178, ENEA PLAZA PD, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council filed an application requesting that
the City rezone approximately 3.0+ acres of APN 941-1500-040 (located on the
west side of Amador Plaza Road near Dublin Blvd.) from a PD, Planned
Development District (Alameda County Ordinance No. 81-26 for the 1464th Zoning
Unit, allowing administrative office uses with limited ancillary retail use) to
a new PD, Planned Development District to provide that the uses permitted be
identical to those commercial uses permitted pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 41-87 and Planned Development Application PA 87-018 (which
allows a range of retail shopper, office, personal service and financial uses);
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on February
1, 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 adopted (Planning Commission
Resolution No. 87-029) 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 conditionally approve the project;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning 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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the PD, Planned Development
request subject to the following conditions:
1. The PD, Planned Development District development shall substantially
conform to materials from the Planning Commission Staff Report dated
February 1, 1988 including all attachments and exhibits on file with the
Dublin Planning Department.
2. Land uses permitted and conditionally permitted within this PD, Planned
Development District are as follows:
Permitted Uses
Retail commercial shopper goods establishments such as;
a. General Merchandise Stores
b. Clothing Stores
c. Shoe Stores
d. Home Furnishings Stores
e. Home Appliances/Music Stores
f. Hobby/Special Interest Stores
g. Gifts/Specialty Stores
h. Jewelry and Cosmetic Stores
i. Home Improvement Centers
j. Drug Stores
k. Auto Parts Stores EXHIBIT
and similiar uses that offer comparison goods based on price and quality.
Eating and drinking establishments including the following:
a. Restaurant
b. Donut Shop
c. Ice Cream Parlor
d. Sandwich Shop
e. Specialty Food
f. Delicatessen
g. Bakery
h. Candy or Nuts
i. Health Food
j. Wine and Cheese with on-sale liquor license form State of California
k. Other eating and drinking establishment of similar intensity and
compatability as those listed above and determined to be appropriate by
the Planning Director
Personal Service establishments including the following:
a. Beauty Shop
b. Barber Shop
c. Shoe Repair
d. Cleaner and Dryer
e. Laundry
f. Figure Salon
g. Photographer
h. Formal Wear/Rental
i. Interior Decorator
j. Travel Agent
k. Key Shop
1. Dressmaking or Knitting Shop
m. Tailor Shop
n. Handcraft Shop
o. Other personal service establishments of similar intensity and
compatibility as those listed above and determined to be appropriate by
the Planning Director.
Office uses including the following:
a. Optometrist
b. Medical and Dental
c. Legal
d. Accounting
e. Architect
f. Employment Agency
g. Real Estate
h. Other Administrative and Professional Office establishments of similar
intensity and compatibility as those listed above and determined to be
appropriate by the Planning Director.
Conditional Uses
The uses are permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
a. Community, religious and charitable institution facilities and uses.
b. Public facilities and uses.
c. Veterinary Office
d. Commercial recreation facility, other than a theater, if within a
building.
e. Tavern/Cocktail Lounge
f. Recycling Centers, when operated in conjunction with a Permitted Use on
the same premises.
g. In-patient and out-patient health facilities as licensed by the State
Department of Health Services.
h. Grocery Stores
-2-
Prohibited Uses
All retail commercial uses defined as convenience stores, including:
a. Liquor and Wine Stores
b. Drive-in and Drive-through Restaurants
c. Meat, Fish or Poultry Stores
d. Convenience Food Stores
e. Other stores which sell food and other household goods for consumption
in a short time
f. New and used vehicle sales and/or vehicle repair and service, service
stations
g. Residential uses
h. Industrial uses
3. Prior to any type of development occuring on this 3.0+ acre parcel, the
development shall gain Site Development Review approval(s) and shall comply
with all applicable conditions of approval.
4. Except as specifically modified by these Conditions of Approval,
development and operation of land use activities within this PD, Planned
Development District shall be subject to the provisions of the C-0,
Administrative Office District of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance as
with regards to minimum/maximum development criteria and signs.
5. Developers are advised that the subject site is within the boundaries of
the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and all development resulting on this
3.0+ acre site must comply with the Goals, Objectives and Implementation
policies of that Plan including, but not limited to the following:
A. Utilizing a maximum floor ratio of 30%. The proposed road area will
not be excluded when determining the maximum floor area ratio for APN
941-1500-040, unless the offer of dedication has previously been
accepted by the City.
B. Meeting all setback requirements.
C. Screening parking lots with low walls and landscaping from adjacent
streets.
D. Meeting parking space number and design requirements.
E. Limiting building heights to 45 feet.
F. Utilizing progressive and attractive architectural styles and themes.
G. Providing at least 20% landscaping in parking lots and providing
substantial amounts of landscaping within new developments.
H. Improving the visual quality of the downtown area.
I. Encouraging better internal circulation amongst adjacent developments.
J. Encouraging better pedestrian connections amongst downtown
developments.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of February, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-3-
r=', CITY OF DUBLIN
Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916
P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822
Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
FINAL ACTION LETTER
Date: August 14, 1987
Re. Planning Applicaton #: PA 87-018 Enea Plaza - PD, Planned Development Rezoning
request to rezone approximately 5.0+ acres to allow for
a range of retail shopper, office, personal service and
financial uses within a new three building - 42,000+
square foot single story retail complex (from PD
1464 Z.U. - Alameda County Ordinance No. 81-26) .
Finance Control #: 32132
Project/Site Address: Southeast and southwest corners of the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road
Assessor Parcel Number(s) : 941-1500-38-1 and the northerly 2.78+ acres of
941-1500-40
Applicant: Robert Enea
3470 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 300
Lafayette, CA 94549
Property Owner: Sal & John Enea
7450 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Applicant:
The above referenced project was acted upon on July 27, 1987, by the:
Zoning Administrator
Planning Director
Planning Commission
XX City Council
and was: Approved
XX Approved Subject to Conditions
Denied
Findings and Conditions of Approval are attached. Please note that on July 27, 1987,
the City Council waived the second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 35-87, amending
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and rezoning the property identified as Assessor' s Parcel
Map No. 941-1500-38-1 and the northerly 2.78+ acres of 941-1500-40. The Ordinance
will become effective August 26, 1987.
ATTACHMENT
t ti �+
o-;
PA 87-018 Enea Plaza Plannea Development Rezoning
August 14, 1987 a
Page 2
THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
Approval shall not be interpreted to be approval to violate or omit any provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance or any other applicable codes. The Applicant must apply with
Building Department to obtain any necessary building permits prior to commencing the
project.
Please note, if your project involved a deposit, as soon as all costs have been -
submitted to the Finance Department, you will either be sent a refund check or a
statement of additional costs. -
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Kevin Gailey, the
Project Planner, or me.
Sincerely,
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director -
. LLT/KJC/ao
_ —T
. r
,..f.:..t.r.. L:i.,.tif ':J;.'d•..c..wk.'.. . L.r...;7;6:.Yn:::01'117:8l :%"F":.. ;;;;.wl......J:e.;;;. ii:71)„............ ..
ORDINANCE NO. 35-87
AN ORDINANCE OF THE•CZTY,-.OF.DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT
THE REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST
CORNERS OF THE INTERSECTION OF AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD
"
The City Council of the City of Dublin doesordain as follows:
Section 1
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in the
following manner:
. Approximately 5.0 acres generally located at the southeast and southwest
corners of the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard, more
specifically described as Assessor's Parcel Number 941-1500-038-1 and the
northerly 2.78+ acre portion of the 5.83+ parcel identified as Assessor's Parcel
Number of 941-1500-040, are hereby rezoned from PD (1464th Zoning Unit) to a PD,
Planned Development District; and PA 87-018 Enea Plaza, as shown on Exhibit A
(Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance) and Exhibit B (Approval,
Findings and General Provisions of the PD, Planned Development Rezoning) on file
with the City of Dublin Planning Department, are hereby adopted as regulations for
the future use, improvement, and maintenance of the property within this District.
A map depicting the rezoning area allowing a range of retail shopper,
office, personal service and financial uses is outlined below:
:2:
;? C-2-B/40
. �, IOC /, ------"r
PD
fob ;�
a lPD •trot Z.U.8-_c.
iPtiiZ.U. , OiJ.No. 1 1 :
•� M-1
.4' --__ nit...
\ = �D" Ro.No. _-87N81•ou
M-1` -" - -= \ \ve- Mtifp I4UD1f2.4. .c.po.No.at-2G .
Section 2 •
This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and
after its passage. Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage,
it shall be published once, with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the same, in The Herald, a newspaper published in Alameda County and
available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 27th
day of July, 1987, by the following votes:
AYES: Cm. Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder, and Mayor Jeffery
NOES: None
ABSENT: None ,/
- Pi
-r,/,CJ i.c- ,
ay
AfTTES-
(_6:11-.4_�C- ,{jo -
City Clerk
r '
•
RESOLUTION NO. 41 - 87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-018,
ENEA PLAZA PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION
•
WHEREAS, Robert Enea, representing John & Sal Enea, filed an
application to rezone approximately 5.0 acres from a PD, Planned Development
District allowing C-0, Administrative Office District uses and a limited range
of compatible C-1, Retail Business District uses to a new PD, Planned
Development District allowing a range of retail shopper, office, personal
service and financial uses, involving Parcels A, B, and a portion of C of
Parcel Map of 2922; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a series of public
hearings on said application concluding with a hearing on May 4, 1987, at which
time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 87 - 029, recommending
approval of the PD, Planned Development Rezoning request for PA 87-018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold public hearings on said request
on May 26, 1987, June 8, 1987, and June 22 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending that the
request be approved subject to Conditions prepared by Staff and reflected in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 87 - 029; 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 adopted (City Council
Resolution Resolution No. 40 - 87) for this project, as it will have no
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning 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 rezoning will not have a substantial adverse affect 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 City Council does
hereby approve the PD, Planned Development Rezoning request subject to the
following conditions:
• 1) The PD, Planned Development District's development shall substantially
conform to materials from the City Council Staff Report dated May 8, 1987,
labeled Exhibit D, and Attachments 2 and 3, on file with the Dublin
Planning Department.
-1-
iW✓jJ-.%,i:.�Vi6:40'�v:rY:(4 :4:UPi'.itt'6:K 6 it 47; r;r IS";6. ��jr;,:4 ,•.., •,I• �4''/.°W�..s cn> >/� su•...i� I'+.wsn.rw s..� +Mrnr...»......., . ,.. ,
7'. .,. ,,,/�•d SJ Y nlf,��'lY+7f• .F,.J r�• I 4 'i(1Jfr' i I��;S'/Ji ^/�'•' - {7(a �,... '. r.�/. % 1 ,r•
li!7 ..:a�•w•.i•.•l•!•iL:: •1�Ns. G� i ::J.a.��L, (1�7. .Ir«I�'r7I11w1:ii,.y�7r•.L +C�ai-4i i1� .1i iJfell� /w{.l.;i�l'w7 ArY.��:i.�.:l:.v .lw...v.ir .l..., .,
^' 1
.. f••
% v�
/ I ,
2) The PD, Planned Development District's development shall substantially
conform with the Site Development Review request approval granted under PA
86-071 or a new Site Development Review shall be processed for each phase
of development of the PD, Planned Development District,
3) Any new Site Development Review and/or Conditional Use Permit request
processed for this PD, Planned Development District may modify the pad
locations, circulation system, architectural design, landscaping plan,
floor area, and other related design items if it is found to be in the
best interest of the City to do so.
4) Uses within this PD, Planned Development District shall substantially
comply with the Applicant's listing of retail shopper, office, personal
service, and financial uses from the Planning Commission Staff Report
dated April 6, 1987 labeled Attachment 2 on file with the Dublin Planning
Department.
5) The Developer shall dedicate and fully improve the segment of the proposed
road parallel to Dublin Boulevard which passes through the southern
portion of APN 941-1500-040. This proposed road has been identified as
needed for the buildout of the downtown area in the Draft Dublin Downtown
Specific Plan (including the buildout of this property) . The new roadway
is to run between Amador Plaza Road in this project, westward to Regional
Street, and is to be located south of the retail complex currently under
construction. The exact location and width will be determined by the City
through further detailed studies. '
The timing of this dedication and the improvements shall be as follow;
•
a) At such time as the future development of any portion of the
southerly portion of the parcel through which this road is proposed
to pass is approved by the City, the Developer shall dedicate 'the
right-of-way and construct the road improvements; or, in the
alternative, the Developer shall dedicate the right-of-way and - -
provide to the City security in an amount and form approved by the
City guaranteeing such construction at such time as the remainder
of the proposed street is to be constructed by others.
b) If prior to the future development of any portion of the southerly
portion of the parcel through which this road is proposed to pass,
the remainder of the proposed street is to be constructed by
others, the Developer shall at that time dedicate the right-of-way
and construct the road improvements.
c) Prior to and as a further condition of this rezoning, the Developer
and the City shall enter into an agreement embodying the above
conditions and guaranteeing construction by the Developer of the
improvements mentioned herein.
d) These conditions shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of
Alameda County by the Developer.
6) Except as specifically modified by the above listed Conditions of
Approval, development and operation of land use activities within this PD,
Planned Development District shall be subject to the guidelines of the
C-1, Retail Business District of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance as
regards both land use restrictions and minimum/maximum development
criteria.
-2-
• 1• '.0 ..I':'•Hit.'
: ii, ,, t.:k2:, ;I kt:t;7„,i•t",••,.1,:t%'1,i,4•%,%',"t'-':,, c'•,..- ,•'•./.7": •./.1 .. •'-; ''' , ,, - .,,,, , ,tr, „ ,• .,, ,,,,, ' /7,17 •..,.: ,
• r'1,:if?":7•A`e•" `9 Mt (,•-
. ,,,,,,,•, ..„„,,... ,,t tr•,,• • f •• ' 'i., . , 1.11 , "-• „ '' , •It 871i#,,•46:II (4,r•i "0 ----
,r
' , ,rx e ,;4,,,i- F" I ,' • IL. it, 7/.., 4 tri,e' , ';., ,
,i el ...,•••,. grrii '''' 1,. 'r. 4',.. „," — 4:,,ii. -1„,1411,, --#40.,;...41711.7‘..11:';('14;- J,', 4,7i'l 4:(-11 , '0, ./.,-/„.,-;,,.7• .
. . ;
frciol, ,,,A , i e ;rn ' ".• ( )6; '.,,, A•.,f;.A1 „ ,' . y,,, i ..e;t i,-..i?„',,,,f7,:i.;.,;
‘
. o , A /4 It,i o• . , It.e._,„ .;• i• --;=',.;/.1,,, .frzrilo,r 1 , ..
"!:-05.36 ' 4, 0 ,..,, " " a * 3-irt.tt ' i, : , rir, • ., -,,,oaleip4 /- 11,,X.A, 'T., 44°‘" „ "Z tl,ef•;49,•.;:'.,
, , c.3.' . `-'4.4. , A a wife• • • •- .-4. i 1., -11.,,' , ., -.. i Oi.. zfe,Pr.f/Ot."15, •j 0. ,,,,,,„.„. .,..
... 4,;i ,,,,'1,:,,),pc..,.-.„10,i,r, ',.‘„,::,4(e.c1.,:„ric MA•f•g4,1-7,,A tirtp_tli,I,c,ik,y•
,eisYt'r..."'''
• "" eo.% , ,"^r 0 • .0. 21 • 4 I '/ . MA 4,4;044'. ..i:r4410:V5,4144.4'7,„41-,fr'.14'''P'1..-.*•434.-r 4.4'.AC---r7••i..--:•• ' ' '
". '1, riftrtfu Pf4:(54) J''' i."—• F,' i.ti Pl-ky. 4"' ;ire t i-1- ivn' . I '
7;...k,v4,‘ i.i? ‘-E.11.41 I L ,,, 4' 1.!,i.4.,.r•,..,,,,, .• el.f.: - • .••A F 4.4' f•:pi g 4:,./"A/t1 r• ".,'' ••"I'4.,"'" • —•"1 ,' ti i tO ''':
',.7.;:r.'; • r'1,414fFS1'),,.jr;41:W•,%ila,' 'u-A,,,:'?-77`.;4*.0:14144 j'''''''4'''44.f.-. ;.'the tential future application•of A T)0.*11.. wn,.-:,1.
:-/:; -.1h'i f.e„..;:c•r,e1 1'Aga.4 .e A .l ' er,,is °advised of,l,t e :po _,/,..........—,..
—1'-''`iti".'coils
.....-,,..`,.1..)."-..1:•N'4.--t-ip7) -r,,.Thsa.....-Defv!zoPi g.:-.D 1 a tr ic't•-•/-t-csverttle'faub j e...,..r,,,,ct•propar.ty;,refle_c_t_.n.,g e.....,.....
/..:14;41.;..'/17)rtA Overlay, on n . ..,
,V11,e/...h;!ri,e,r,g AA:•di.-
-ti.o-n-":POlic-ies .of the 1.Dublin,DorntoI,m'Specif ic 4;':k.. •
obi actives :an Imp lementau ,,,• ,,f49,4f,,?.;:raq•; N144. -,,,,f-,•,;wrxr,,repx1.,....1.0...,I?:4171., 44,,,,,,,,,,„s..iri,,,..t14...1;.,,,,,,,,,,::... ,
/12.•,,..••.'„,...,..,...a..,......•.-4.,:r•,,I.,„?.: , ,44,..,...,...e,..",-mrt./144..:., .1:frizt4.,''..)1r;11.14;0,14 .17,11/_,:eff.t...lki;,Z1.)0414,...' ' j.:17. 1..i....i./...k .:?4,..4:•'' k),?.1.,;1.P.i.f.,. 4.1%:.•$;,,4...friti!JAY:elqi,SS:?4... ., • •
i',:t;'''''-11.'e4:71 Itti."ei.V,•Plan:-.••?,'.7•0.';.,1",";,-,i,:"7"%/-7/'-k` .4,•/.•;.. .-r-747...4-rp",70-1,.,0;• .- ,,,,r.lp,),4100,447,5-,;)?,:ti.Aff"';'/Y-,,,,*,74.-71,z,-LV,'%4';',740.1'41----- • •
,-,.:"..;-ft'itri:J:..%!;',‘,":...,:ktfliSlit•‘4,,,,,zr-:-Prrr''"fk" ;;;:•."1-1;,..11:4%1,4..c",11,.,1-vaf‘74::1'.'i:k4-101•tr?i1444.°1•434.2:4 „I 'A! 'zli•i.',',,e,1•"ki,sr- -N 1'1'44** 7 45r7;pfei.Pri 1.•"..%-• -:
4
ii;riii :4iiiiiisiD.,App. ADOPTED- , . -.at,11, i..,e8 L22nr,dtydayA.?Leli,Jyuux.xi.re,411.,98 z"......4,4.7..,•.;..iffu,.;;4..,1,.••••eft...,,sie.,,-;.?;:- .
t•....;...,,,...., ..-...• ,,..-,..„,••••:*.,:f.,.. ,-.1.1..,,,,.:•1; ',. . .•.-•_"J.,-,.:.•-.,..,'.'..',.-,'„-'w-,.!..-*;;:*,:4•,•.-..4.,..,,l:,,‘,:-,.::.-.,--'%:,,.,-,'.,7..','-..•,,,:--.,--.7,,'-n,,e..-',1-,"--c 1,T14;h-,,.0;:..'.1,.1.,1.,.4,•.),3:,-r0,,-,:.::e4„•,.:V•..r,,ors.,C,-'A:.7''4:':.'."-.-.,i•,"z;.:..:.„•,,?,;.-•4 1.I'...i'".44,... 1 :*0:4.i.0
-- r 4 AYES . ; o.•to,...d?.u.:.2„..*.n. c.L%,.._,,,i;;-••l.”..;.Mme,•..mbe•AY.,r.,f4as.,4
*-..•.,;',H-,,'4,'z./.e,e.„.'g"ea...,r..1..„..-4"4,;*.y,,e-f•,f.";-Syd•1_,:.-egx--:ri4;,4,,,,Voh e:'1ed e•.,„..`-ra,,F_;•.,rat,..-a4„.t..,-:4j-•i-.f0i:„Pf,4.4,.!•44.7..,'t,4,7.4•,/'4r.4,.;r-S7---.4-"6,;4:4t-t•(-•?,.--.;/--:.,.:--:.'-,.: . .,
-;•,',.••", .--f,..,c4i•PA.v.1„.1.1iii r!Jeffery..,t,;;;-.i:,:•411,-,-1, --1_g..--t-..f,',1-4-1,..if-47:4;;;;-,,,y,(,•::..--.:,,i,;,,,,i,4r, ,pi,,,..%:-.:4•..‘-‘,..--1.:
....-,.-•r.:...•L'':•:',•,4';':',.;.•.;;-'•:;-....'A•rj..2 -/,.-::1.TA.,::.-el'?r,4440:' yo• , ..,„ ., ••••ftli••tr.e.ab..,;it 0.ikji,<I:r7F7f-;•';',1:4'1,4,-:b•r7:0.1), ,,;;Z••1,•Af'kAllte7;•••• •! ' .
. . '--''7....'-'-'-'"! .- er-::::".."'•?:s•t?'''.. '; .'-•-• . •:-:.:.:1•;ir'4N;eA.z.`,'";.•4;4'f'-C.-. .i.7,.",'.1.1.•.it,9•1g7..r-1,iff.;:!!:',.Z21,:2;t:i...5:14,1•Iit'Xict.,:g;.":';',T,i;i7c.:,t-4'.14,:f.V1-=i, i4..,Ctie'r . •:"
'_, ,.--,•!::. !'•-. :''...,..:•,:,.;.;•.,!,.-:...„.._;i •',,!: -, • ','i:- , ,,-,• -,• -, .*--f ,.-.•-• - t `',,,itff,f,11:1---:••;.-f4d'i'zi?d,z,-*;•....,7"/.i.:;'c...'lli-;;;"e-;•,'-i.- -:./.ri-:';'.'.'-".''-
: .4''c.''-' - ...:.• -'':':''''•:;-7.-/..'''• NOES•' ;•4!,. ,?,:Councilmemoer Moffat, .
• . ,„--,-,..••,-- ••..-; , -,,,,-_-i-,•,,,•••,;,...7. • " ',,,!:•,t,,s;.. „. , „,..--2.,;:....-....L7-4,iii•;11'4:;414V4•1- -A4-4:•••:-.L%---zw:11.14*-•••-.4'r;••.$7•;-Zi 7 4;:,-..7_•-"-
, . ., • • .-• ._ • .,,•„•,„•.:;,.• • ::. .:,-- '',. •,,',..' -•-Z.4'f'.4•!';'0.7.'.-:-.'".'t::::it"i''''.i.:.:-.1%-' '',•••4•12:1="ti.4,:ms'1,91.--.;-=-A-„ii-v:4•:-•:.t.'.e.:-;er.'•-•.'",-•-••••'''...'•-..-.':,••• '•.',---i
ABS ENT
1-• ' ' -• -•' •-•-•"---4 h., - -,-.-o#W,,,,,,•:- . .:-.....•e-•,,;,,;,:./: ',...; ---z.-4,--• -
: • - - '- ' ''' '. . •, ; - None---:. -••• -- •--2.7-1.-;-:.':;".•••••4-'-r'-`''" / •t...--•••.,.,,, •
• - .. • - 1 -:.•-. ..'. .. '•::-.'%.-' ' - . -, -.-- •,,_:-'4''4:',`--.5.4 2,d-'ir. ;•-••;4..,.' --X.--.;.!:;;-
''. ---' --------- .
, ..,
- ' . • ' - ,: '•-• ''--. '.., , ..., . '-',.,7''1!7.:1"."." 7 "...•" - : :•'. .:,-;•".._:-..s.:,:.::',1 'f..7-'
•
. .
" - " • '-- '" - '' ' A'-. . . -•- .....• "• , „ ,';"•7."--.:';'-e-;-1. 7•7 , 7"_,-.., ...-':•.1.:,-",•:'.:.'-'--_,"; -'..- : : .--- - ::'.::, - ' -
ATTEST: .. - ' ; :--:•- - • - , '-- -..:,_,1•-•,;: ,;:4,,,i.3-.44::.,-.:.,;;,:.-4,-.-::-...,•::;,.:::._.;;;;`;/,,,_
-.-- -_. -• -'. • :'--, .., : - ....',-;.f.,!'/7-.'-‘•.f:1:,--: !:,'-''' '''„,"• ••••••.'-'_',.:-='7-::•:-''-'•' '• ' ...1:'--':1 .'. '• -
. - •. e••-- ..,. :,_. .-
. I ,,. . - - :. '7.- • - ,-,;.;:s.-:::•..;.7::f.':?,,r.:.1.---,-;•-•,„..-;-„,.----i.-.-, ': :---- .... -: .-:.---i:': ..-:i-..,:- ".
. . .. - . ..
,., • •
''• '• ' - -City Clerk
... - . . . . .
• - -:;.'-':-: ...-7:-:.•?'7; ;:-'•;-4--:..r,,'1,',4,... -.4...c•,...,-.,:•:-..-„. _,.. . ,-,_.:•,.;..-.- _ .
• • , - 7 ••..- '- _ , • - : - _ _- .,,_ -:..,-... -.!,•',..:i.--.1';':4';" -,:`,,Z.3.:•-;;;;•-•,..;,..z...1.-,,-if.,-;.- ii•:. ".., -• -• :,-', ..-----.!.., --4..,'•:, • -
.- :,• --!-"- ' • :- '..,,..:---•-= - ' -- ' - . : != ' - -- .1,-i
:: 7.-ral...11 • : 4 --.
'till •';••••i't..-.'-• -..., :-...,-...-::.-•:••., .- "' .
........':,".;7.'".." - '-,,'.;.,--= 7-1• :• -: ' ,, - ' ,. ,- : ' .- ,- r! •- - -,-:-..i;•••.•:-.••••.•:i.• --;-,;-_-!,,.,:.":-,' ---1.;- ;-..,..7":--:-.----,':.--: - -_ ".".;-------,- ••-.- •-
•• • .. - -.. , ,. , . - _ . - ..- .,- -... . . -..-..--.-_- - .
. :
• -, : .
. • _ .- -
,-• , • •.....
_-
. -..- -. • .
. -. .• . . .
-.
•
•
. . .
•
• -
• . . .
•
' -
•
" .
•
•
. .
• •
•
•
•
•
•
,
. .
- - • •
- .
• • •
•
. •
•
. •
. ,
• -
. . . .
, •
. . . .
.• -.. . . .. ••, . .
. . . ,
. .. . . , • , . . . .
•
, . .
. .
. • • • • • . .
•
• . . .
. . :
. . . -
. •
. . •
. • •
" '• ' ' ' •. ' '
. .
. ... - ,
•
, • • •
•
.. , , ..••. - , S..... ,' .• ,,,•: ,..‘ • . - • v . ; ,, '; ,, , •,,..• ......•-•-4.....V.. •: !.,-,•-: ...:-•:::-..-:.,.'A*1-4 'I.,..: • ‘:•-: ,••'...• ','• • •.. •
.. . :, •.. ', ,,; •,.....,,,.- •••'...., ••,z -,;,..': ,. ..• , . . i - •. ••‘.•.'^,‘.. ,'il.••,"•:.i2.1>1........‘' .‘•,....`‘,•' '. :'' : .4'.,173....'.,. 1.) :. ,.V.' . :.. ;'.: '"'"'
.1....2• • .‘:••••':"‘.. .1‘. f ''‘..1 , ‘41:'•'''•,:•‘,%..; ;."....:t i .:"' ,‘. : %6 '„‘.•,,,.::S,;.‘t l'(..••':!''.\ ..4 P •"','S...''1••"....•Z•;rv.1. 4.\. ' .:i'..,..4.,..1,,A..
•'..4:,.. ,. i .. I,.;.•.1, ':....:i!.......%•., %V.:.OZ,..., I::y;‘,.••:•\..,..%.,:44..0. .t...., I..s..%4 t.(.,‘... :r ti.....,.f.,r,,,,,;.7.,,,,,,\....,,..k.:,,,....;,4,;AtID.riet...14...-.f4.44:1•‘Z:.'.X.I.r..:-'1‘;NI'ZT:. .; • •
,-':.`...•‘: )‘!„ ::,1.:., '.......e.A.v.',F.,,,! s,,S-: 1.,:',.;-. -11\:,;*-4$.;,r- ‘4''ev'','.L.`.' ;',%...`‘.",\•k;,z*,`!•,1,Z",..,‘,:`,..,'., \UZi f,.'-..:4‘±`...n.'!,11,4 ,••A'.";..r,„47),--,:li..`4t-,:. r.7:".).q.'t•-;.'qiii.-rt:•:• 11;•;,,:'•••-:' :
. ':.cit.4;'''''V.ii"-'1•S'll.1;'';1`,•:'''''11.•I'ltil 1."N`17,,Xire:0J.).A.,.'‘',Nf.'"i'.17.`2::Ken,, ..,,r,•;t`N..:Z4,-.1'‘.;.... .•••;.'''.'"0;.,'0,‘.."1-'',,X.11.. .),\,..fs,,,,.414:1•.•-4 ..17-‘---;•:7U...:it-',"'A`a:ilt`ig::-.".4.:1 czo:•4‘;',.,i,?.:'..; - ..
.,•,t;"'- ‘t,_?..4'.1I .4-.1,ti,41',S-A'*.I,:•••• "e'...,;,',,Vt:tifs,,I% #.'; &V%,',ktZ-1‘,4t,'.:',.qi'(n.‘.4ti%il41.1'ki(g,i1),...11*.. .r,'"4.1- k, l_ktta..,:l:t.'4..:Z)4,,‘z'a.t.s`-•_%'?I•k\• -PA-- -
4k7‘.5a'.4....2• 11‘1:1..4Z4214 .k41.. ,4'"..,'..N.%....it-,S,$..tititetftkiAt. 14`io-V!!..r.k-,t-i:.447:.th 'r., ,...8k1.. ,
•
l��" ! OFDI`r aCE NO. 81-26 j `I
UU-.-.. ANJ2
A F 'L': ;CE AME.ND[NG CHAPTf P '1OF T E AL AM COUNTY O ii VE AN .a . 'r.,,
.
)b D /
RELATING TO ZOIIi�C:
1981 APR -8 PM t Zs ,.�
The Board of Supervisors of the County of AIam` A -,-GoUNcio.iforni . do ordain -
DEPARTMENT
at follows:
SECTION ( s.. .
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Alameda County Ordinance Coda is hereby amended in
the following manner: -
one parcel containing approximately 23.49 acres located. at
74.50 Dublin Boulevard, south side, across from Amador Plaza
Road, Bublin, bearing County Assessor's designation: Ma 941, _ -
Block 1500, Parcel 14-10, as shown on the map labelled "Exhibit A,
1464th Zoning Unit" on file with the Alameda County Planning
Commission at--399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California, is ____ "
hereby rezoned
from the C-2 (General Commercial) District to a PD (Planned Development)
District allowing C-0 uses subject to the provisions of that district,
and a racquetball club, gymnasium, restaurant, and other commercial. uses
. allowed by the C-1 (Retail Business) District where such uses are determined
through Zoning Approval to be of similar intensity to and compatible with
• C-0 uses, with all 'uses subject to C-0 District regulations;
•
A reap of th.e Unit is as follows: - •-
•
1 I kik.
_
° flout.,-,..A . - t ri
,.f. + o n ' gi. I 2 \ :1
f I \\
1 A a °�
�� . 7 :1
r — c \r---- `•,
ii :., _ �,Z +,
ti
U
IV
l -I—
cxY.:, , 0 , >
i :',sw 0 t 11
__ ! iuYjEt'1 FWPER Y-, �t 4)
is rwa. am, •'r�aw»uea ag.ass�kc n..a00+n oaen..
1464th ZONING UNIT t---1 �1�
DECE119E8 1980 0' 275' 550'
ATTACHMENT
- tk § .f�r Y..- T��++5rt<•'i f
_ ...�1rwM.wn N4
SECTION II •
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the
date of its passage and-before the exptuation of"fifteen (15) days after its passage it st all
be published once with the names of the members voting for and against the same in
THE INTER-CITY EXPRESS , a newspaper published in the said County of
Alameda.
ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors -of the County of Alameda, State of
California, on April 2 , 19 81 , by the following called vote:
AYES: Supervisors Cooper, Excell, George, Santana and Chairman Bort - 5
NOES: Supervisors - None
EXCUSED: Supervisors - None
JOSEPH P. BORT
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Alameda, State of.
California
ATTEST: WILLIAM b1EHRWEIN, Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Alameda, State of California
By WILLIAM MEHRWEIN . _
•
•
Provided that the Side..Yard on the.Street side of a Corner Lot shall. have
•
•a width not less than. fifteen (15) feet and that any Side Yard which
_ __. abuts a Lot-.in. an R District shall have-a width not less .than,that.._
' r"—,, required in such R District.: -.
\ '§_ 8-45.6 HEIGHT OF BUILDING: H-1 DISTRICTS. : No Building ortStructure 1
in an H-1 District shall have a Heigh in excess of thirty-five13,5.
feet, except as provided by Sections78-60:9 and 8-60.10.
8_45.7 COVERAGE Lfl4ITATIONS: . H-1 DISTRICTS. In H-1 Districts,. the aggregate
ground coverage, calculated as provided. in Section 8-60.50," shall, not
exceed forty (40) per cent of.-the. area. of the- Lot. All open:portions
of the lot shall be graded and drained..to standards approved.by the
Planning Commission and maintained.in. a_dust-free. corei.tion. -Ali
parking areas and driveways shall be paved to standards amproved by
the Planning Commission. . . .. . - -.
•
§ 8-45.8 SIGNS: H-1 DISTRICTS. Signs permitted subject to Section 8-60.68:
Size: Area of all signs not to exceed two (2) sauare_feet for each one
(1) lineal foot of Primary Building Frontage and one- (1) square foot for
each one (1) lineal foot of Secondary Building Frontage, up to a maximum
of two hundred (200) square feet for each business, provided that each
business is guaranteed fifty (50) square feet of sign area.
•
Type: Business Signs. •
Location: Wall Signs.
Freestanding Signs as follows: no more than one (1) Freestanding Sign
shall be permitted for each lot, twenty-five (25) feet maximum height,
one hundred fifty (150) square feet maximum total area. •
Character: No sign shall be flashing or intermittent, contain moving
parts, or be located so as to be directed towards lands in any adjacent
R District.. • •
-- (Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1)
.1 DISTRICTS. n l districts shall
_ 6 8_45,9 •0�-_,R FcEGCTr�TIOiiS: • H-1 DIS'�R-C'i'S. Al].A11 uses H-_ d'st. cts s._a
conform to the performance standards of this chapter for M-P districts ,as
set forth in Section 8-50.1. .
1
(Amended by sec. 6, Ord. 69-83) C-0/DISTRICT'+ ��,..,,.„
g 8-46.o A M-YISTRAT r vE 0 r ICE DISTRICTS: INTENT. Administrative 0 _ice
Districts, hereinafter designated as C-0 Districts, are established
' • to provide for the location of offices for professional services and
for business activities which are characterized by a low voltr e of
desert consumer contact; and to encourage such develotment in a arnr_er
compatible w-ithEne ises in adjacent Districts, with suitable open
spaces, landscaping and parking area. .C-0 Districts are typically
situated in areas having convenient access from, but not directly cn,
main thoroughfares, and generally adjacent to a multiple residentiai
deveio:ment. .
t
8-46.1 =:-• T. .LyD _• . . STRICTS. The following Principal Uses -
Building:• are permitted n a C-0 Distric - ocated within a
a) Office or office building for the conduct of business, administrator
or professional services, where these activities do not include
the manufacture, storage, display except samples; or sale at
retail of any merchandise on the premises; including but not
limited to the following types of office occupancy --
'
L .
_ pc ! t pr»P»itr.,v�' ri t4!' ,S7 '• L
•
i s
•
•
' Accountant, advertising, architect, attorney, broker (stock and -- ,
bond), business consultant, business management, chiropodist,
-- chiropractor , collecting agency, dentist,-employment- agency,. _..- _.,
) ` engineer, finance, industrial management, insurance, landscape
• architect, loan agency, mortgage, optometrist, osteopath,
philanthropic or charitable organization, physician,- public
utilities, real estate, sales representative, .secretarial)
�social .services, :telephone answering, travel agent;
b) Bank;_ Fw_
• c) -Blue.'.printing or other copying service;
d) • Clubhouse, or rooms used by members of an organized-club, lodge,
union.or society; -•
e) Medical laboratory, dental laboratory.
§ 8-46.2 CONDITIONAL USES: C-0 DISTRICTS. In addition:to •the uses listed for . _
Sections 8-60.60.and 8-61.0, the following are Conditional Uses in a C-0 • _
District and shell be permitted only if approved by the Zoning Administrator...
as provided .in Section 8-94.0: .
•
a) Church, library, school, Hospital, Clinic; .
b) Pharmacy, limited to the sale of drugs and medical supplies;
c) Restaurant. or retail store which serves primarily_the occupants of
existing Buildings in the same District, or their. clients or _
patrons;
d) Research or development laboratory, except those engaged in
manufacture of products for commercial sale or distribution and
excluding any which produces or is found likely to produce any
smoke, dust, odors, glare or vibrations observable outside the
building or portion thereof in such Use;
e) Parking lot;
f) utility substation, not inc_Lc,r�c- service yard,
, storage
of materials or vehicles, cr repair facilities.
(Amended by sec. 11, Ord. 69-23; amended by sec. 14, Ord. 70-57)
q 8:4621 Sits Development Review:C-O Districts[Any stricture 1,000 sG.ft or more or-'-1 C.�,77_.q
;any construction aggregating 1,000 sq. ft. or more placed since July 9, 1977,shall be
subject to Site Development Review pursuant to Section 6-95.0;unless zoning approval is I
6/9/77
granted upon the determination that the construction constitutes a minor project and that
the Building Permit plans are in accord with the intent and objectives of the Site Develop- •
( 7/9/77
.meet Review procedure-•_:_...--- -•_. _- ...-.._..-.- _.. ..__�,. >„y
•
(Based on sec-. 4, Ord. 69-83)
6 8-46.3 BUILDING SITE: C-0 DISTRICTS. Every Use in a C-0 District shall
be on a Building. Site having a Median Try tH;td not_less than.se�n_ty
(70) feet, and an area -not less than ten thousand(10,000 square feet.
E 8-46.4 YARDS: C-0 DISTRICTS. The yard requirements in C-0 Districts
shall be as follows, subject to the general provisions of Section 9-520:
Depth of Front Yard - not less than twenty (Z) feet;
Depth of Rear Yard - not less than ten (10) feet;
Width of Side Yards - not less than ten (10) feet.
8-46.5 HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS: C-0 DISTRICTS, Except as otherwise provided in S
Sections 8-60.9 and 8-60.10, no Building or Structure in a C-0 District
shall have a Height in excess of thirty-five (35) feet.
•
•
•`{.' • �r s'u} rx t S '� xs •
Y S
E'-X �.�.8 6✓r±"fi�.+wxs�' ii. i ,fi� v a ;6a � :. ^� .- ' i xM5;'Y•} y{i+ _-. ;td a.,`:YC'. � t °'"K3,+,8�4N•s .�4f Ty'-�is 4�f v.'{;+�t"!
4r • •
. ♦ �- i ��1e,��✓,,�.i t'7
€" a#
r 'w' ^ s �% � • ,�`;ti f ; +•
w '# °: s"' zrs 4 1,-xA ' AxtMt£ k.;-tif t,L9 fi . •
-
.tr 471'4'44 ° bra t • �J s k a r gy Pigr 4tl rr
i.'` ♦ •4 r, > • c''3 r ' a &p s 41R�.:ggp��.. } k `?hY d �,�,ia, ;33 . d r
P %s"4'� d TA3 ` • ,..Ic a . b' cf4" s` a q 3i�
£ r,-t rfr �a^': e � �„ • x�, � '�,"w � . '� e , � ckr` mt-r� g,, �
to j4 rk tr : t Z * x i f 3k s
• " it s t�rk , r"'e >'P� jt' off't .e- "t x c.'*sv��• •��,,'er; t -. '•t•# [L '' �•:= *2 '; e i0.;£ s 6,,.
•
x rxr 2:.. 1 .,J'�f`r .E'4 • 4 .
tit a , ,. ,
•
-� 4, ? ter
. ^
1 's A[, 1,Fr y 4f' {
1 -f=f9
• t, � r 4 . {9 ` t ,4 fiy t 4 Tritt„'t �yc � €
s
§ 8-46.6 COVERAGE LIMITATIONS: C-0 DISTRICTS. In C-0 Districts the '
"3 aggregate ground coverage; 'calculated as provided in Section 8-60.50,
shall not exceed fifty (50) per cent of the area of the lot. •All open `•
portions shall. be graded;;- drained—and—ma 'in t� d continuously,in a -
dust free condition, either- by -landscaping or by paving, _to: standards
approved by the- Zoning'-Administrator.
(Amended by sec. 15, Ord. 70-57) "' "
§ 8-46.7 SIGNS: C-111ISTRICT. -' 'Signs permitted subject 'toSection 8-60.68.
Type: Business Signs. •
Size: Area of all signs not to exceed one .(1). square -foot_-for each
two (2) lineal feet-of-"either-Primary Building Frontage-of-Secondary .
Building Frontage; -up to--a 'maximum of fifty -(50) "square-feet for.each _
business, provided, however, that -each 7re-ss.s guaranteed wwenty
five (25) square feet of -sign area. _
} •- • Location: Wall Signs only.
} - Character: No signs shall be flashing or intermittent,_contain moving .
parts, or be located so as-to-:be directed towards lands in any adjacent
iR District. -.
1
$ (Amended by sec. 3, Ord. 74-1) -
§ 8-46.7.1 OFFICE BUILDING MASTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN: C-0 DISTRICTS.
In addition to signs permitted by Section 8-46.7 but subject to Sec-
4 tion 8-60.68 and as qualified below an office building may be per-
mitted an Office. Building Master Identification Sign, subject to Site '. '
q Development Review pursuant to Section 8-95.0. The Office Building
Master Identification Sign shall be in architectural harmony with the
J design of the buildings intended to be identified, if wall-mounted by
1
its design as an integral part of the wall of the building to which
it is attached and if freestanding-then limited to a low-profile
sign not exceeding eight (8) feet in height with its means of support
concealed and located within a planter of appropriate dimension. The- --
I Office Building Master Identification Sign shall net exceed fifty (50)
4 .
square feet in area, shall be permitted for office building which con- '
j - tains no less than four (4) tenants or any institutional use, and the
1 copy shall include only the name of the office complex or institutional 1
use. ��`%
(Amended by sec. 2, Ord. 74-1) -
. 4 8-46.8 ' OTHER REGULATIONS: C-0 DISTRICTS. All uses in C-0 Districts
shall conform to the performance standards of this Chapter for M-P
districts as set forth in Section 8-50.1.
•
(Amended by sec. 4, Ord. 69-83) V
.
Ii
_ 1 t
j
,.� d. i:.•� .'mil t) a a. wy. 3 t
,� a"fir�?"�� Y p `��,.�x,�^�`��;`'��0 4 -.'s' '-'9' *� 'an `3�*W Apr.. " - '�"N�a
,- $ (4e is ,y� h 1, h .. 0 1 r e F
s
-'-3'J%aYA�.s'N/it:fl�..-r:,.11:..:..,. ".E1.iW.r+.+i.`::._w.l:4i:9'M,�y ;...,.r4R:l:Sn,.'L8H:3R--=:a8.:ia?T:.Nra..r-:cA43tIG miR.Y+'v.?�'.� R"L::.. _.J,•.r• '•••i�..'.11.t :/i'i
i. .r, i (/ l /.�
`�`�"•.i1Ax 044 r1t
I✓ly(ttt`i
tip
t f
Permitted Uses
Retail commercial shopper goods establishments such as:
s.
a. General Merchandise Stores
h, Clothing Stores
c. Sboe Stores r.
d. FcIrP Furnishings Stores
e. Home Appliances/Music Stores
f. Hobby/Special Interest Stores
g. Gifts/Specialty Stores
h. Jerwelry and Cosmetic Stores
i. Home Improvement Centers
j. Drug Stores
k. Auto Parts Stores
and similar uses that offer comparison goods based on price and gna_lity.
•
Eating and drinking establish nts including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Restaurant
b. Cocktail Lounge
c. Donut Shop
d. Ice Cream Parlor
• e. Sandwich Shop
f. Specialty Food
g. Delicatessen
h. Bakery
i. Candy or Nuts
j . Health Food
k. Wine and Cheese with on-sale liquor license from State of California.
Personal Service establisLi eats including, but not limited to, the following:
•
•
a. Beauty Shop
b. Barber Shop
c. Shoe Repair
d. Cleaner and Dryer
e. Laundry
f. Figure Salon
g. Photographer
h. Formal Wear/Rental
i. Interior Decorator
j. Travel Agent
k. Key Shop
i 1. Dressmaking or Knitting Shop
m. Tailor Shop
•
n. Handcraft Shop
Office including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Optometrist
b. Medical and Dental
c. Legal
d. Accounting
e. Architect
f. Employment Agency
g, Real Estate
h. Other Administrative and Professional Office
f
ttTTACHMENT
JACHMENTa
•.•=i4tA: , •
•,.,74.3.-s.„..„
. •
t111."
4 . •
(-.
_ Conditional - - -
.€445i •
Subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
fir
a. Community, religious and charitable institution facilities and uses.
b. Public facilities and uses.
C. Veterinary Office
d. Ccamercial recreation facility other than a theater if within
- Tavern
f. Recycling Centers, when operated in conjunction with a Permitted Use on
the same premises.
g. In-patient and out-patient health facilities as licensed by the State
Department of Health Services.
Grocery Stores _ _
Prohibited Uses
All retail coamercial uses defined as convenience stores, including:
a. Liquor and Vine Stores
b. Drive-in and Drive-through Restaurants
c. Meat, Fish or Poultry Stores •
d. Convenience Food Stores
and other stores which sell food and other household goods for consunption
in a short time.
New and used vehicle sales and/or vehicle repair and service, service stations.
Residential uses.
Industrial uses.
•
•
• • •
•
•
_ yr
.� At .. ., �� v" C.C.OnI.No. 71 15 14 11 Z.U. 1
C-j \ i . , ,o` . , Y `I r TAUS 072 A.C.Ord.Nn.77 BI
_ft
®410.1
Ar 1. 11 �M-1 ila
..... ‘ 71/A4".1 a
..:. . \,z
________
,......._
. ( �` .:.. w C-2-t-40C-2 C-2 Q
.'"' *filiti `; \\ "IV1
• G•O ,� .. D --c.c. (nl. t IU-BS4 \i 1 \\ ,I \
& ' \ ‘v .4,
!— �d .` �,\\ "1-071 Z.U.A.C. o*.orrcrs ` � .
u dll� \, '\ Ora1.No. B I.7 1 soon s . �' i
Ai./t .J Z.U. s ,\ onouHos „ M-1'.,.'" ,
cn pli" Or l'o. 81 2 �\
C-2 /— C 1'f 7— !I i;l I'f u i
s
i ,
_ , i ,s sue__': .
_ - _--- ,\ `r CITY OF DUB1-21
3•bAcl ; `,, c�aw,n'�rr'DtD To SEAFPW4vED AS A par or PA sT7L-17e. c=
.
s.o Ate A �►A PA AQ �s �.r
,
rr iti
tGNT-of-wqy Ga
R r,iii .. c.cua r� .i_ J
•
RESOLUTION NO 106 -. 87
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
**************************
APPROVING A RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND PUBLIC DEDICATION AGREEMENT
WITH JOHN AND SAL ENEA
WHEREAS, on June 22, 1987, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 41-87, Approving and Establishing Findings and
General Provisions for a Planned Development Rezoning concerning
Planned Development Application PA87-018; and
WHEREAS, John Enea and Sal Enea have, on November 24,
1987, filed Action No. H129689-3 in Alameda County Superior Court,
challenging the validity of a certain condition imposed by the
City of Dublin for approval of Planned Development Application
PA87-018; and
WHEREAS, in order to compromise and settle said _lawsuit,
the City believes it is in its best interest to enter into the
attached Release and Settlement Agreement and Public Dedication
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Dublin does hereby approve the attached Release and
Settlement Agreement and Public Dedication Agreement, and further
authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute said Agreements.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of December,
1987.
AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder,
Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
M or
cu. City C rk
RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into
on December 14 , 1987, by and between JOHN ENEA and SAL ENEA
(hereinafter "Plaintiffs") and the CITY OF DUBLIN, a general law
city (hereinafter "Defendant").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, on June 22, 1987, by Resolution No. 41-87,
the City Council of the City of Dublin approved the Enea Plaza
Planned Development Rezoning Application (PA 87-018) subject to
a condition requiring Plaintiffs to dedicate and fully improve a
roadway through the southern portion of Assessor's Parcel
No. 941-1500-040; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 1987, Plaintiffs filed
Alameda County Superior Court action number H-129689-3 entitled
John Enea and Sal Enea v. City of Dublin (hereinafter "the
action"), in which, inter alia, Plaintiffs contend that the
imposition of the dedication and improvement condition is in
violation of the Federal and California Constitutions; and
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Defendant desire to
resolve their differences in the action;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Defendant shall amend Resolution No. 41-87 to delete
the condition that Plaintiffs must fully improve the roadway to
be dedicated by them across the southerly portion of
APN 941-1500-040. A copy of the proposed Resolution Amending
Resolution 41-87 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
2. Defendant shall permit Plaintiffs to pave, at their
sole cost and expense, the southerly portion of APN 941-1500-040
within the proposed street right-of-way and to use the paved
portion for private parking purposes. The paving plan,
including design and layout, landscaping and lighting, shall be
at the same level of quality as the development approved for the
northern portion of the parcel and shall be subject to City
review and approval. At such time as Defendants accept
Plaintiffs' irrevocable offer to dedicate a public roadway
across the southerly portion of APN 941-1500-040, Plaintiffs
shall cease to use said paved portion for parking purposes and
Plaintiffs shall remove, at their sole cost and expense, all
paving, lighting and landscaping placed on that portion of APN
941-1500-040 to be dedicated. Plaintiffs shall hold the
Defendant, its officials, officers, employees and agents
harmless from and against any and all loss, liability, expense,
claim, costs, suits and damages of every kind, nature and
description directly or indirectly arising from the paving and
improvement of said portion for private parking purposes, the
use of said portion for private parking purposes, and the
removal of said paving and improvements at the time of
dedication.
3. Defendant will not exclude the proposed road area in
determining the maximum floor area ratio for APN 941-1500-040
through a Planned Development rezoning process, unless the offer
of dedication has previously been accepted.
-2-
4. Plaintiffs shall forthwith execute the City of Dublin
Public Dedication Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit "B".
5. Defendant shall by noon on December 4, 1987, perform
any and all inspections necessary to ascertain Plaintiffs'
compliance with the Building Code and all applicable conditions
of approval of the City of Dublin and to enable Plaintiffs to
immediately occupy and use the improvements constructed on the
northerly portion of APN 941-1500-040 provided, however, that -
said inspections reveal compliance with said Building Code and
conditions of approval. Defendant shall, to the extent
consistent with its custom and practice, permit Plaintiffs to
provide a security deposit to secure the completion of those
items which are not safety-related. Nothing contained herein
shall be construed as a waiver by Defendant of compliance by
Plaintiffs with the applicable provisions of said Building Code.
6. Plaintiffs shall dismiss the Complaint filed in said
action insofar as it pertains to the Defendant.
7. Plaintiffs hereby release and discharge said
Defendant, of and from each and every claim, demand, action,
cause of action, damage, cost, expense, attorneys' fees,
obligation, and liability of whatever kind or nature, in law or
equity, arising or to arise in favor of the undersigned, whether
known or unknown, including, but not limited to, claims for
damages to property, loss of income or business, or special
damages of any character, by reason of or growing out of said
Defendant's adoption of Resolution No. 41-87 on June 22, 1987.
-3-
8. As further material consideration for agreeing to this
settlement, it is expressly understood and agreed that:
(a) All claims, past, present or future, against
the Defendant are disputed and this settlement shall
not, and may never be, treated at any time or in any
manner whatsoever, by anyone, as an admission by, or
against the entity released herein, of any liability
or obligation relating to the herein described matters
and events, or the truth of any of the allegation of,
the Complaint in said action.
(b) This settlement is considered by the
undersigned to be fair, equitable and made in good
faith to all parties and/or persons concerned, and is
entered into freely and voluntarily with and upon the
advice of the attorneys retained to represent the .
undersigned.
(c) This release is expressly intended to cover
and include all claims, several or otherwise, past,
present or future, known or unknown, which can or may
ever be asserted by Plaintiffs' heirs, or otherwise,
as the result of Defendant's adoption of Resolution
No. 41-87 on June 22, 1987.
(d) The undersigned understand and agree that
this Release and Settlement Agreement covers and
includes all claims of every kind or nature, past,
present or future, known or unknown, suspected or
unsuspected, and all claims or rights pursuant to
-4-
Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of
California are hereby expressly waived as to
Defendant's adoption of Resolution No. 41-87 on June
22, 1987. The undersigned understand that said
Section 1542 provides:
"A general release does not extend to
claims which the creditor does not know
or suspect to exist in his favor at the
time of executing the release, which if
known by him must have materially
affected his settlement with the
debtor."
(e) This release shall bind and be binding upon
the heirs, personal representatives or executors,
administrators, and assigns of the undersigned, and
shall inure to the benefit of the agents, employees,
servants and successors of the undersigned.
(f) The undersigned Defendant represents and
warrants that Meyers, Nave, Riback and West are the
attorneys employed to represent the undersigned
Defendant with respect to this Agreement and all
matters covered herein, that the undersigned Defendant
has been fully advised by said attorneys with respect
to the undersigneds' rights and with respect to the
execution of this Agreement and to all matters which
are subject to this Agreement.
(g) The terms of this release are contractual
and not a mere recital. It is further understood and
agreed that no promises, representations, inducements,
or warranties have been made or extended by any part
-5-
hereto other than those which are expressly set forth
in this release and this release contains the entire
agreement between the parties relating to the rights
and obligations therein. This Agreement shall be
construed and enforced pursuant to the laws of the
State of California.
10. This Agreement shall not be construed as limiting the
legislative authority of the City of Dublin in a manner contrary
to law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Release and Settlement Agreement on the dates indicated:
CITY OF DUBLIN
Dated: /2-/W-87
i4ND JEFFREY, or
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN BY ACTION
TAKEN ON December 14 , 1987.
APPROVED AS TO FORM.
By LL:�i r,
-771. MICHAEL R. NAVE,
City Attorney
Dated:
JOHN N /�t/
Dated: , 7, /17777
SAL ENEA
-6-
CITY OF DUBLIN PUBLIC DEDICATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on. December 14
1987, by and between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and ENEA PLAZA,
hereinafter referred to as "Owner".
In consideration of the granting of certain
entitlement of use described as follows: Rezoning Assessor's
Parcel Number 941-1500-038-1 and a portion of Assessor's Parcel
Number 941-1500-040 from PD (1464th Zoning Unit) to PD, Planned
Development District, as more particularly described in
Ordinance No. 35-87, and the ultimate acceptance by the City of
the property described in Exhibit A herein.
It is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Time of Dedication and Completion. Owner shall submit
an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of the property
described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference. City agrees to accept such offer of dedication in
accordance with the following schedule: At such time as the
roadway between Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive is to be
improved, but in no event before the remainder of the proposed
roadway is to be improved. As used herein, the word "improved"
means that City is in possession of the right-of-way; the
funding for construction of the roadway to be improved has been
obtained; and the roadway construction project is within one (1)
month of going to bid.
PR
2. A copy of this Agreement shall be recorded by City
with the County Recorder®
3 . The plan line for the new street connecting Amador
Plaza Road with Golden Gate Drive shall be in substantially the
same location as depicted in Exhibit A, Owner understands and
agrees that the right-of-way may be moved not more than ten (10)
feet in any direction without Owner 's approval. In such event
Exhibit A shall be deemed to be amended to reflect the area
within the adopted plan line which is within APN 941-1500-040.
4 . The City shall by resolution initiate the planned
development rezoning process for a redefinition of the planned
development to provide that the uses permitted in the southern
portion of APN 941-1500-040 shall be identical to those uses
permitted pursuant to City Council Resolution Number 41-87 and
planned development application PA 87-018. Owner understands
and agrees that prior to development, Owner shall comply with
City' s Site Development Review procedure.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Agreement on the day and year hereinabove written.
OWNER:
ENEA P ZA
By
By
CITY:
CITY OF DUBLIN, a mu icipal
cor ' on
By C .
RICHARD C. AMBROSE, ty Manager
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 105-87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 41-87
WHICH APPROVED PA 87-018
WHEREAS, on June 22, 1987, the City Council adopted
Resolution Number 41-87 approving and establishing findings and
general provisions for a planned development rezoning concerning
planned development application PA 87-018; and
WHEREAS, John Enea and Sal Enea have on November 24, 1987,
filed action number H 129689-3 in Alameda County Superior Court,
challenging the validity of a certain condition imposed by the
City of Dublin for approval of planned development application
PA 87-018; and
WHEREAS, in order to compromise and settle said lawsuit,
the City Council agrees to modify that certain condition of
approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council
does hereby modify and amend Resolution No. 41-87 as follows:
1. Condition (5) on page 2 is deleted in its entirety, and
the following language is substituted therefor:
"5) The Developer shall execute an irrevocable offer of
dedication of the segment of the proposed road parallel
to Dublin boulevard which passes through the southern
portion of APN 941-1500-040. This proposed road has
been identified as needed for the buildout of the
downtown area in the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
(including the buildout of this property) . The new
roadway is to run between Amador Plaza Road in this
project, westward to Golden Gate Drive, and is to be
located south of the retail complex currently under
construction. The exact location and width will be
determined by the City through further detailed
studies.
"The timing of the acceptance of this offer of
dedication shall be as follows:
"a) At such time as the roadway is to be improved,
but in no event before the remainder of the
proposed roadway is to be improved.
"b) Prior to and as a further condition of this
rezoning, the Developer and the City shall enter
into an agreement embodying the above conditions.
"c) These conditions shall be recorded in the Office
of the Recorder of Alameda County .by the
City. "
2. The City shall by resolution initiate the planned
development rezoning process for a redefinition of the planned
development to provide that the uses permitted in the southern
portion of APN 941-1500-040 shall be identical to those uses
permitted pursuant to City Council Resolution Number 41-87 and
planned development application PA 87-018. Development in the
southern portion shall comply with City's Site Development
Review proces.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of
December, 1987.
AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder,
Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CeL ,
ATTEST:
City Cle
-2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: PA 87-178, Enea Plaza (southern portion) Planned
Development Rezoning Request
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.)
LOCATION: The southern 3.0+ acres of Assessor's Parcel Number
941-1500-040 on the west side of Amador Plaza Road
near Dublin Blvd.
APPLICANT: Initiated by Resolution No. 41-87 of the Dublin City
Council
DESCRIPTION: A Planned Development Rezoning request to rezone the
southern 3.0+ acres of APN 941-1500-040 (located on the west side of Amador
Plaza Road near Dublin Blvd.) from a PD, Planned Development District allowing
administrative office uses with limited ancillary retail use to a new PD,
Planned Development District allowing a range of retail shopper, office,
personal service and financial uses, identical to those permitted to City
Council Resolution No. 41-87 and Planned Development Application PA 87-018.
FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
INITIAL STUDY: The project initial study is available for review at
the City offices and indicates the proposed project will nto have a
significant impact on the environment.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of
Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916.
SIGNATURE: ; c
DATE: February 22, 1988
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
ATTACHMENT '7
NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL • • \ \,_,) rilMilk -,\ - - -
ih. j ft. 4 ••• /
\
WIDENING OF , '', , I )tr.
DUBLIN BOULE • 'D. ,.., A.„-- \ ,,,,v7<>. ,
....„ .
• ,
, NEW TRAFFIC
1\ ' 0 -n••• •-' v -5;1 ":;.•-•-• :„teg.--;-\\-V "V iL\ '•, 4 SIGNAL
.... .''' SO 0 „re% • \\`• \ 1;'\
o • / T-.110-• ' ,
WO •\.1 liu ()\''riOlk* '4W. \
,--- . 0- • 1 -
- r-v.i_ t-,,..--, c ‘C)- 7•S'`>\ ' .• . •-,•- "
• "="-' - ti,,..-
I [TD:13 5,5% \ VP'--.4 -
2 --,-Att• .. vA
Si ,c1 * -\\,\T\-\--,.\--- ....,:,-,,,..--\ \ ,V. 1—_,, \
i--A
.,,,,..., -, — \%,.. - . ,--
Fi'
:11,1";------ 11.1 :A_ -;' c- 'V. \ \\
as.....a-t _ , . c...,- okisOlig \I I,
-Z.::i ( 47111 -0 -.r"----')Iii,40.---' \.,_____,.. . 1
r •
--IS 2'..crtri 11 t-', -,-' ----- v .....\.,..5.--------;,""A /7 ,/4/
s3=II iii0.\\.\-. 4-00„---
09 ,.'..".--A .k,,- -
,_..._,...4 Ilk% ,..L.,----.:-.1
'' *-'51 ' -\\P'.,--,„-)-"4116.,....1i •
4D. :
.,.,,
'-_ ,/,'
-----------'-- ----
,$
, - 1
As - =.------------ --- ----- -
NEW STREET
SAN RAMON ROAD
WIDENING __.,
_
..
.SAN RAMON ROAD
OFF-RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
. -
Circulation Improvements
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN ,•, ,„ A , q ot,A
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA -
- i
t
''' -4 :'. P-- rl EN T 8
a
18
• n
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 1, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
y
FROM: Planning Staff '�'{
SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment
Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative
Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request
for 282 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of
Silvergate Drive and north Hansen Drive.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: A General Plan Amendment Study, Planned
Development, Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision
Map No. 5766, and Annexation request to allow
282 dwelling units, 248 single family and 34
townhomes, on 147 acres in unincorporated
Alameda County, west of Silvergate Drive and
north of Hansen Drive.
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Gordon D. Jacoby, Vice President
Hansen Hill Development
P.O. Box 847
Mill Valley, CA 94942
PROPERTY OWNERS: George K. Hansen, Alicia Hansen,
Eleanor O'Neill & Ruth Reilly
547 Brookfield Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
LOCATION: West of Silverate Drive, north of Hansen Drive,
and south of Rolling Hills Drive
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-110-1-9 and 941-110-2
PARCEL SIZE: 147 acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Part of the site is within the Primary Planning
Area; part is within the Extended Planning Area.
Two portions of the site are currently
designated single family residential, with
density range to be determined based on site
conditions; one portion of the site is
designated medium density, 8+ dwelling units per
acre. Adjusted unit range is 42 to 109 dwelling
units.
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: A, Agricultural (Alameda County), vacant
property used for limited cattle grazing.
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: Single family and multi-family, zoned
PD; grazing land, zoned A
South: Single family, zoned R-1; church, zoned
A; grazing land, zoned A
East: Multi-family and single family, zoned PD
West: Grazing land, Zoned A
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
C[ Mark Trembley, EIP
ITEM NO. (J File PA 87-045
ZONING HISTORY: February 18, 1956, Alameda County zoned the site
A, Agricultural.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
The Dublin General Plan establishes policies and standards to control
land use and development within this area.
Section 8-31.0 (Planned Development District Intent) states, in part,
that Planned Development Districts are established to encourage the
arrangement of a compatible variety of uses on suitable lands in such a manner
that the resulting development will:
a) Be in accord with the Policies of the General Plan of the City of
Dublin;
b) Provide efficient use of the land that includes preservation of
significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape
features with minimum alteration of natural land forms;
c) Provide an environment that will encourage the use of common open
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other
amenities;
d) Be compatible with and enhance the development of the general
area;
e) Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
Section 8-1.2 of Chapter 1, Title 8 (Subdivision Ordinance Intent)
states, in part, that it is the intent of this Chapter to promote the public
health, safety, and general welfare; to assure in the division of land
consistency with the policies of the General Plan and with the intent and
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; to coordinate lot design, street patterns,
rights-of-way, utilities and public facilities with community and neighborhood
plans; to assure that areas dedicated for public purposes will be properly
improved initially so as not to be a future burden upon the community; to
preserve natural resources and prevent environmental damage; to maintain
suitable standards to insure adequate, safe building sites; and, to prevent
hazard to life and property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) which finds the proposed project may have a significant
impact on the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 1, 1988, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
The Hansen Hill Development Corporation requested a General Plan
Amendment Study to consider residential development on a 148 acre site
adjacent to, but outside of, the City limits. The site is within the City's
General Plan Planning Area.
On August 11, 1986, the City Council authorized the General Plan
Amendment Study. The City hired the consultant firm of EIP to assist in
processing the General Plan Amendment Study and Environmental Impact Report.
On February 2 and February 17, 1987, the Planning Commission held two
study sessions to provide Staff and the Applicant with a list of issues to be
addressed in the study. The Planning Commission held a field trip to the site
on February 28, 1987.
On March 16, 1987, the Applicant filed an amended application to include
a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, and Tentative
Subdivision Map No. 5766. An annexation request was also filed with the
understanding that the annexation could not occur until after the City acted
on the General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Prezoning.
-2-
After the Applicant submitted the complete application materials, the
Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report) was prepared and released (on
December 22, 1987) for public review and comment.
At this time, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission
to do the following:
1) Hear the Applicant's presentation and brief comments on the Draft
EIR.
2) Hear comments from Staff and EIP consultants regarding the Draft
EIR.
3) Hear public comments on the Draft EIR.
4) Consider continuing the item until the Planning Commission meeting
on Tuesday, February 16, 1988, for additional public comments on
the Draft EIR and for discussion on other project-related issues.
5) Consider scheduling a field trip to the site for sometime after
the February 16, 1988, Planning Commission meeting.
After the February 16, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, the Staff and
consultants will prepare the Final EIR for Planning Commission review and
recommendation. Staff anticipates that the Final EIR will be ready for the
March 21, 1988, Planning Commission meeting. Significant revisions to the
plans, however, could require additional time for review and analysis.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Continue public hearing until Tuesday, February 16, 1988,
Planning Commission meeting.
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hear the
presentations and comments, then continue the public hearing until
the next Planning Commission meeting.
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment #1 - Reduced Copy of Tentative Map 5766 (under
separate cover)
Attachment #2 - Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Planning Study
(under separate cover)
Attachment #3 - Hansen Hill Ranch Project Application (under
separate cover)
Attachment #4 - Summary of Comments - Hansen Hill Ranch Initial
Community Meeting (under separate cover)
Attachment #5 - List of Issues - Hansen Hill Planning Commission
Study Sessions (under separate cover)
Attachment #6 - DEIR Hansen Hill Ranch Project (under separate
cover)
Attachment #7 - February 17, 1987, Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment #8 - February 17, 1987, Planning Commission Staff
Report without Attachments
Attachment #9 - February 2, 1987, Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment #10 - February 2, 1987, Planning Commission Staff
Report without Attachments
-3-
•
STUDY SESSION
SUBJECT: PA 86-075 Hansen Ranch General Plan
Amendment ,Study.-
.
Cm. Raley advised that the purpose of the Study Session was to provide Staff
and the Applicant with a list of items of concern which should be addressed by
the Applicant with their submittal for the Hansen Ranch General Plan Amend-
ment. He indicated that it was not the time to critique the project, but to
secure information which would enable the Applicant to determine the
feasibility of following through with the proposed project.
Mr. Gailey indicated that the Applicant had received a consultant-prepared
Environmental Site Assessment covering the site as well as a Traffic
Constraint Analysis. He indicated that the next step for the Applicant would
be to initiate the PD Planned Development Rezoning process, a General Plan
Amendment, annexation proceedings, and possibly a Tentative Map. Mr. Gailey
referred to the List of Issues dated February 2, 1987, and indicated that
Items 1 through 6 had been discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of
February 2, 1987.
Mr. Gailey began his review of the remaining items, and received comments from
the public as indicated below.
7. PUBLIC SERVICES -
7.1 Water
Mrs. Lenig, 7632 Martin Canyon Road, asked for a clarification regarding the
number of acres proposed for development.
A member of the audience, Dublin resident, said he thought discussion at the
previous meeting indicated that no additional water tank would be required.
Mr. Gailey advised that all of the project acreage within Water Pressure Zone
3 will be served either by existing infrastucture or planned improvements to
Water Pressure Zone 3. He indicated that the so-called "Zone 4" had not been
established, and that the only way these areas can ultimately be served would
be by use of pressured water systems or the use of a new water tank. Concerns
were expressed about how a new tank would be hidden from view.
Zev Kahn, Dublin resident, asked for clarification about the water tank and if
the City would have more control on the location and design of a new water
tank. Mr. Gailey said he couldn' t detail the mechanics related to the
installation of new tanks, but that the issue of size and location would be
addressed by the Environmental Impact Report for the subject project and would
also tie into the annexation process.
Mr. Tong advised that there is a mechanism which would provide an opportunity
for public input at the time the project (a new water tank) would go to the
DSRSD for consideration.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-31 February 17, 1987
f.
i
f.7• f i3`-x; '�«�?"L n:P x 'N AY''� b t er' -.s. y. t r# r f > 7
x f,,.'�7`xda � r t..., 1 ( 't'{ fA
�..Y�'�LO}' �.Yi 4 i i :4 •1
no. r ;' T� t�5r �SY} ter ' x�j[ ;
!^+.: •'L 7 F} ( Y+.'.fr ip $ tt!�,�p •r ts,
• {�
•
t • 4
•
Raley_.inquired what the -impact.:would-.be-_on the-.planning. process:if
} were to be absorbed by the City. Mr. Tong advised that if that were to occur,
the City would have the authority to approve or deny the placement of a tank.
Mr. Schuitemaker, Hansen Drive, inquired if it would be possible to invite,,..
`'' ` ` representatives from the different agencies, such as DSRSD, to future Study
Sessions to obtain input from them related to the -issues being discussed.
Mr. Dailey reviewed the process being undertaken. He said a Draft List of
Issues had been prepared, and that sections of the List had been routed to all
jurisdictions for informational purposes, Be indicated that resolution of
those issues was not being sought at the Study Session, but that the purpose
of the Study Session was to include any potential issues which may not have
been considered or indicated in the Draft List of Issues. He advised that
once the List of Issues was completed, an Initial Study of Environmental
Significance would be pursued, followed by the Environmental Impact Report-for
the project. He said once that process has begun, the other agencies would
again be involved.
Cm. Petty stated that he wanted to go on record as requesting that every
effort be made to insure that any future water tank be installed in such a
manner as to be hidden from view.
Cm. Raley stated that he would like to have an investigation made related to
the adequacy of the water supply to meet the proposed needs.
7.2 Sewer
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty, Mr. Gailey advised that DSRSD had
indicated they do not envision a problem with sewer capacity in the proposed
area.
Cm. Raley stated a concern regarding the adequacy of sewer capacity as relates
to cumulative development.
7.3 Fire
Tonya Hoover, DSRSD Fire Department, said a meeting with the Fire District is
upcoming and the subject proposal will be discussed at that time. She
indicated that she had nothing to report until then.
Cm. Burnham said he would not consider approval of the project unless a second
vehicular access way out were provided.
Mr. Gailey displayed a map related to the proposed project. He indicated that
it was anticipated that the project's circulation system would be a major
issue during the review process. He said that when the City Council
authorized the General Plan Study, a study was _also authorized for adjacent
parcels; however, adjacent property owners had not requested that their
properties be included in the study. He indicated that subsequent to EIP's
preparation of the Environmental Assessment Study for the Hansen Hill
property; one adjacent property owner had requested a similar study be made.
Mr. Gailey said that the circulation pattern for the entire Western Extended
Regular Meeting PCM-7-32 February 17, 1987
•
•
Planning_Area would-be studied as part of the General; Plan-Amendment.:3tud - .:_x' --.:
He advised that Staff will have the responsibility of assuring that traffic
circulation for the subject area will be adequately designed.
John DeHorn, Project Engineer, indicated a possible connection for an all-
-weather-emergency atcess road-for the-'Polfce and Fire Departments. He said
the Applicant is not proposing a public street along the creek,- and that the
Applicant was considering a connection point through the Valley Christian
Center Church property. He stated that the Applicant does not desire to
utilize Hansen Drive as a vehicular access to the project.
Debbie Vasquez, Martin Canyon Road resident, said there are only four houses
on her street, but that each resident is opposed to the use of it for
vehicular access to the project. She asked what would stop the developer from
some time in the future upgrading the proposed emergency access road to a full
access road.
Mr. Gailey stated that any plan would require ultimate approval, and would
have to go through a PD, Planned Devlopment process. He advised that once an
application has been submitted, public hearings would be held, and that any
deviations from what was approved by the City would also have to go back
through the public hearing process.
Cm. Raley reminded those present that the map displayed may not reflect the
• ultimate project design.
Robert Patterson, 11552 Rolling Hills Drive, suggested that a road serving the
site be put in along the west side of the subject property.
Mrs. Lenig, said she was opposed to a road going through Martin Canyon Road.
She said fire trucks currently attempt to maneuver the turn at the end of that
road, and have great difficulty doing so. She asked why the City was
considering an access to the site from the east, and expressed concern that
approximately 2/3 of the site would not be accessible within five minutes from
the existing fire stations.
Mrs. Lenig stated her agreement with the four property owners on Martin Canyon
Road, and said there were a number of other residents who also supported the
• suggestion that the principle access to the site be installed from the west
side of the property.
Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff would note Mrs. Lenig's concern regarding
developing an access road adjacent to Martin Canyon Road. He also noted
concerns she expressed regarding impacts to the riparian corridor on the
property.
Kay Wilson, Hansen Hill Development Corporation, advised that an official
application had not been submitted to the Planning Department, but that the
preliminary plan displayed by Mr. Gailey did not show access to Martin Canyon
Road (except as a possible emergency access road) or Hansen Drive.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-33 _ February 17, 1957
•
t L
.�-t a-. >a
^ � x f e w i n • k i -:
t N e .t
.. .. _ . ._ --a ,:.::R Ea+: _s:c?,x, d..•'-as��,.�]a�^.sA ssaY,� ..4 .....i+?s"ni3i t a isa w5.- 3.
•
AA .,
. .
•
nN tpA
Cleo Davis, 3081 Rolling Hills HillsDrive, _said: that.,there_are,a. hundred-residents. _ ,
supporting those who live on Martin Canyon Road. She expressed concern about
development impacts to existing trees, and inquired whether it would be
possible for the City to purchase the land, possibly by having the citizens
pay for it via taxes.
Cm. Raley requested that the questions raised concerning additional water
tanks be addressed under Items 1.3, 2 and 7.3 of the Draft List of Issues.
7.3 Schools
Ms. Vasquez expressed concern regarding potential traffic impact. She asked
if a study had been done on the potential impact to the City if the school
districts consolidate. Mr. Gailey advised that the School District would be
asked to comment on this and other related issues.
Mr. Schuitemaker indicated that he did not think portable buildings should be
considered as an option for additional classroom space in light of the
proposed construction of the City Civic Center.
Cm. Raley stated his disagreemet with the school-age child generation ratio of
0.2 children/du as quoted in Issue 7.3 A: He requested that the EIR include
analysis as to the actual number of children per household in the new
developments. He also requested that the EIR contain specific information as
to the factors used in arriving at the school-age child generation ratio.
Cm. Raley requested that the EIR address the feasiblity of reopening one of
the schools.
Dr. Kahn requested that the private elementary school facilities be taken into
consideration as part of the review of school impacts.
Ms. Vasquez inquired if it would be possible to prevent the entire development
from being pursued. She indicated that she would prefer to invest her tax
dollars in preserving the area rather than having to bear a portion of the
costs for additional schools, increased fire service, and other services which
may arise as a result of the proposed development.
7.4 Parks
•
A man from the audience expressed that he thought there is a need for parks on
the western side of the City. He also asked if it would be possible to delay
the proposed development until proposals for the Blaylock Study have been
received, and pursue both developments simultaneously.
Dr. Kahn asked if the developer would have the discretion to decide whether to
provide the City with park dedication fees or _to donate property to the City
to meet park land requirements. Mr. Tong responded that it is the City's
responsibility to determine in what form compensation will be received in
regards to park lands. He indicated that there is a City Ordinance
stipulating the amount of compensation to be provided to the City. He
clarified that within the City's General Plan a number of areas have been
designated for the purpose of open space, and that the General Plan
specifically designates the Western Extended Planning Area as a combination of
Regular Meeting PCM-7-34 _ February 17, 1987
•
h LlJ) ice\ e"'f;, Ea9 ,{ �� S '!>^a'pe '^'4rs '.' rJ"".w b
a s ;
r •
S sue' ,
•
•
�. �.. _ _open space and residential. He explained.,that__as...development_proposals.are.,_,.... .. .
received, the City will be making specific analyses and determinations as to
what portions of the Western Extended Planning will remain as open space.
Cm. Petty advised that he specifically desired to have the City make provision
for additional neighborhood parks within developments.
Ms. Vasquez referred to a development where she lived in Arkansas which had
open space areas within the development itself. She indicated that there were
continual problems with the maintenance of those open space areas.
Ms. Lenig expressed a desire to have security needs for open space/park areas
addressed.
Cm. Raley advised that two points had been raised which should be included
within the Draft List of Issues: 1) the development of parks having a
"greenbelt" function, and 2) investigation of the possibility of purchasing
open space in the Western Extended Planning Area.
7.5 Recreation
Cm. Petty expressed his desire to have the stream corridor maintained.
Ms. Vasquez expressed concern regarding stream access which may increase
potential erosion problems.
8. FISCAL ANALYSIS
Mr. Gailey discussed the Williamson Act and its implications on development of
property within the Western Extended Planning Area. He indicated that both
the Hansen Hill Ranch and the Blaylock, Gleason property were not under the
Williamson Act contract.
Cm. Petty expressed concern regarding the on-going maintenance of open space
areas.
9. LAND USE
A man from the audience referred to Issue #9 D. (transitions between single-
family and multiple-family projects) , and also expressed concerns regarding
problems which had been compounded as a result of the Kaufman & Broad
development.
Ms. Vasquez asked that attention be given to a slope analysis.
Cm. Raley requested that Issue #9 I. (density transfers) be expanded, and
indicated that he thought in order to consider density transfers, additional
information would be required regarding potential expansion of the Hansen
Ranch property.
10. HOUSING
Ms. Lenig expressed concern that this issue (inclusion of below-marker rate
housing) had even been included. Mr. Gailey explained that the General Plan
directs that this be taken into consideration during the review process.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-35 February 17, 1987
•
• • .
• r_. • ' _, » ,.� s _..±. e .�r '.* i�t s a y: ,
Ms. Vasquez advised _that at the December. l0,.-1986,-.meeting with -the--developer,. -
several residents had indicated that if a very limited amount of high-price
homes were built on the property, the developer would receive very few
objections.
•
Cm. Burnham inquired if the developer had considered developing the subject
area as a private development, utilizing private roads and guard gates.
Ms. Wilson indicated that that type of development had not been mentioned or
considered.
11. TRAFFIC
Mr. Gailey advised that Issues #11 A. , B. and C. were directed in part by some
aspects of the General Plan.
A man from the audience suggested that access to this area may be developed
directly from I-580.
Mr. Tong explained the difference in Levels of Service identified by the -
Traffic Engineers, and indicated that they were controlled primarily by street
intersections. He said the City does not have any intersections designated at
Level of Service F, that an example of Level C would be the intersection of
Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard, that an example of Level of Service D
would be the intersection of San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, and
an example of Level E would be the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San
Ramon Road.
Mr. Gailey advised that construction had commenced on the latest Phase of the
San Ramon Road improvements. He stated that it is projected with the
completion of those improvements additional capacity will be added to the
intersection. He indicated that TJKM Traffic Consultants had projected the
Level of Service after the improvements, and also the Level of Service that
would result if the proposed development was built and all units occupied.
Ms . Vasquez expressed concern regarding the current amount of traffic
congestion at Silvergate and San Ramon Road, and said she did not think
construction for a new development should commence until after the road
improvements had been completed.
Mr. Schuitemaker indicated that he would like to see an access road developed
through the Valley Christian Church or in another area from the west. Mr.
Gailey and Cm. Raley advised Mr. Schuitemaker that this had been addressed
under Land Use, Issue #9 F.
Mr. Lenig stated that he would like to have an investigation made regarding
the feasibility of an overpass from I-580 serving the Western Extended
Planning Area.
A woman from the audience requested information regarding the sales price of
the proposed development.
Ms. Wilson responded that several ranges are being considered, that depending
upon the size of the homes, they may cost between $250,000 and $350,000. She
said these estimates do not include the costs of the townhouses.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-36 February 17, 1987
•
,- •
Ms. Cleo Davis said that. she had previously .spoken with Ci.ty..Staf€; .Bob White
and Larry Tong, who had indicated that property adjacent to her home was
designated as a riparian corridor and would not be developed.
Mr. Tong responded that if he had shown Ms. Davis the General Plan map, he
-roiou d have s -own er- the specific areas that .call for future development.
Mr. Gailey reminded those present that to pursue the proposed development,
changes to the General Plan would have to be secured.
In response to a question from the audience, Mr.. Tong said the City had voted
for incorporation in November 1981, and took over the municipal services in
February 1982. He advised that the process currently being undertaken on
behalf of the subject proposal was controlled in part by State law and that
the same process would have been taken by the County prior to the
incorporation of the City.
Marie Cronin, owner of property adjacent to the proposed development,
requested that access to her property be addressed within the overall
circulation study. She also requested that the developer consider utilizing
"people proof" fencing to minimize trespassers on her property.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Petty regarding the points of vehicular
access, Mr. DeHorn said a map has been provided to Valley Christian Center
• Church staff for their review. Mr. DeHorn indicated that the developer and
Church staff would be meeting on the evening of February 18, 1987. He said
the proposed access road would run in a north/south direction.
Cm. Raley noted that an adjourned special meeting would be held on Saturday,
February 28, 1987, at 9:00 a.m. for a field trip to the Hansen Ranch General
Plan Amendment Study area. He suggested that those interested in attending
the field trip call the Planning Office, 829-4916, on Friday, February 27,
1987, for further details regarding the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
•
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' toNCERNS
Cm. Burnham expressed .ncern regarding the continual problem of vehicles
being parked on vacant properties. He asked if the City had legal recourse in
order to prevent this from occurring, and noted in particular the recently
vacated Shell Static., on Village Parkway- and Amador Valley Boulevard.
Cm. Petty indicated hat he had noticed aimilar problem in the Ward' s
parking lot.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-37 . _. -. February 17, 1987
1.
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 17, 1987
TO: Planning Commission
-
FROM: Planning Staff IV
SUBJECT: PA 86-075 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment
Study - Study Session
GENERAL INFORMATION:
At the February 2, 1987, Planning Commission meeting the Commission opened
the Study Session for the Hansen Ranch GPA Study. The Study Session began
with discussion of actions taken to date concerning the General Plan Amendment
Study, and was followed by an informational presentation by the Applicant and
a discussion of the mechanics for processing the General Plan Amendment and
Planned Development Prezoning requests. The Commission then began discussion
of the Draft List of Issues prepared by Staff for this Study.
At the February 2, 1987, meeting, the Commission was unable to complete
its consideration and discussion of the Draft List of Issues supplied by
• Staff.
It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to continue its review
of the Draft List of Issues, hearing Staff and the Applicant, and any public
comments, and to discuss any additional issues that the Planning Commission
feels should be incorporated into the February 2, 1987, Draft List of Issues.
It would not be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make any decision
on this item at the Study Session.
The attachments for this item were previously sent to the Planning
Commission as part of the February 2, 1987, Planning Commission packet.
ITEM NO. 9 , / ATTACHMENT
• •
eRN
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: PA 86-075 Hansen Ranch General_ Plan -
Amendment - Study Session. '
Cm. Raley opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Gailey made the Staff presentation, addressing the anticipated function of
the Study Session, the chronology of events leading up to the Study Session,
and providing an overview of future processing actions anticipated to occur.
Mr. Gailey concluded by providing a suggested format for the Study Session.
Cm. Raley indicated a desire to have the study session format start with
presentations by the Applicant's development team, followed by the
Commission's point-by-point consideration of the Draft List of Issues supplied
by Staff.
Kay Wilson, Vice President of Hansen Hill Development Corporation, advised the
Commission that her firm was under contract to purchase the 148 acre property
from the Hansen family. Ms. Wilson elaborated on the actions to date, 1) the
Draft Environmental Planning Study prepared by the Applicant's "Development
Team" covering the subject property, 2) EIP's Environmental Assessment Study,
3) TJKM's Traffic Constraint Analysis, 4) meetings conducted with neighboring
residential property owners and surrounding agricultural land owners. She
indicated that the concerns of the agricultural landowners centered on:
1) access, and 2) sewer and water planning. She concluded by indicating the
Planned Development Rezoning and General Plan Amendment application submittals
were anticipated to be filed in late February. Ms. Wilson then introduced the
Project and Landscape Architect, David Gates.
Mr. Gates presented a short slide presentation, which included slides of
graphics contained within the Draft Environmental Planning Study. From the
materials presented, Mr. Gates relayed a preliminary unit count proposal of
290+ units.
John DeHorn continued the Applicant's presentation by discussing civil
engineering information- related to the site. With his review of water
service, Mr. DeHorn indicated the need to establish a new water zone to serve
the upper elevations of the property. With this discussion, Mr. DeHorn also
described the water service infrastructure currently in place and that which
will be installed to complete the Zone III water pressure zone. Mr. DeHorn
briefly discussed options to establishing a new Zone IV water pressure zone
(hydropnematic pumps) . In answer to a question from the audience, Mr. DeHorn
discussed the mechanics for selection of a water storage tank site, which
would be needed if a new water pressure zone was established. Mr. DeHorn also
addressed questions concerning water pressure requirements for fire service,
the location of the existing 12' water line stub and how the 12' water line
would cross Martin Canyon Creek.
Within his discussion of sewer service, Mr. DeHorn indicated that a portion of
the site (sloping towards I-580) would present some special sewage problems.
In discussing the storm drainage system, Mr. DeHorn discussed the Martin
Canyon Creek watershed, the role of the creek for storm drainage, current
velocities in the creek, and the hydraulic studies which will be performed in
Regular Meeting PCM-7-22 February 2, 1987
.,
a �
R5
E t T
L . . • „ '-- .� �ti iat f1144,01 tl�rt
x
•
conjunction with -this project. In answer_to...a_ questiQn.,fxom--toe_audience,- .._.
Mr. DeHorn indicated that maintenance responsibilities of.,the creek_following- . .
project development had not yet been determined.
In his discussion regarding traffic, Mr. . DeHorn listed potential access
connections (Silvergate Drive, Martin Canyon Road, Dublin Boulevard - via the
Valley Christian Center Church site, Hansen Drive, and routes through Donlan
Canyon) . Mr. DeHorn stressed the need for emergency vehicle access, which
might result in the need for a bridge crossing over Martin Canyon Creek.
Mr. DeHorn also discussed the potential needs for a paved access paralleling
Martin Canyon Creek.
The studies performed by TJKM were discussed, including the recommendations
for mitigation measures for the Dublin Boulevard - San Ramon Road inter-
section.
Following the conclusion of Mr. DeHorn's presentation, the Commission then
began its point-by-point consideration of the Draft List of Issues.
Under Item 1.1 Site Geology, questions were raised regarding the City policy
concerning development on slopes, and the issue of non-point source run-off
pollution.
•
In response to general questions from the audience, Mr. Gailey discussed the
role the List of Issues would serve in the project's environmental review
process . The overall environmental review process was discussed, including
discussion of the mechanics of the review and comment process that will be
made available to other public agencies.
Under Item 1.2 Soils , Mr. Harvey Scudder, Dublin resident, advised the
Commission of the presence of a major soil dump, consisting of earth spoils
from the Briarhill project, created approximately 20 years previously.
Under item 1.3 Hydrology, questions from the audience were raised regarding
the potential presence of springs and problems associated with increasing the
erosion to Martin Canyon Creek (siltation) . Dr. Zev Kahn, Dublin resident,
suggested a mechanism be used to establish a fund to address potential creek
problems resulting from the project' s development (e.g. , flooding, run-off,
maintenance, slides, etc. ) .
Following a 10-minute break, Cm. Raley advised the audience of the Planning
Commission' s policy not to start any new agenda items after 10:30 p.m.
Cm. Raley indicated his assumption that consideration of the Draft List of
Issues would not be completed that evening and would be continued to the
Commission meeting of February 17, 1987.
Debra Vasquez, Dublin resident, questioned who would foot the bill for the
costs for hydraulic studies. Mr. Scudder elaborated on his previous discus-
sion regarding non-point source run-off pollution and the cumulative impacts
of same.
The Planning Commission comments on Section 1 of the Draft List of Issues
included Cm. Burnham' s direction that the cumulative impacts be considered,
especially impacts related to the ultimate upstream development.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-23 February 2, 1987
4144'x, nic.44:-'4-41r4
.r __ .y?s. :.%• y
•
..i 3-'Ys+ {a w # "t s7 i,.l tp 3' "T 3 �tt �y U 1 -fe* �,*..' ;;r .i ^KY '.'�'I' `.r
P .:i � !t' ,ryS uw _.d". 7^ 1.�f1f' J ? Y....,f•I. A eYx"df. s? � '`-�' t.3 S rid-�'�� I/ ,/. --
�r:
• r.s
�, :'. - ._..:.... ..ir+..a+3.Fes.•...J:...:t._x..w:4.w:���es.,iwKJL4!4 Ji.-..Je.....Y —.:..,i •Y!r,k ...3..... 3.n n,Y.a.R.QuI ♦_J:»Y.r,.L,.r,v:....wY,_....t t..aA. .i.._+.-fi, .. .. .., '. ,...
regards,..to ction--2... Vegetation and Wildlife,., Bob__Eatterson,:_Dublin
resident, commented that.-the site contained.some of the most significant
existing vegetation in the City. Dr. Kahn referred to the Bordeaux Estate
project as a visual blight (as regards grading that occurred for the project's
development) and called for application of mitigation measures to have trees
planted on the subject property following its development. Dr. Kahn also
questioned the potential impact to existing mammals after vegetative cover was
removed. . ....__
Mr. Wendling, Dublin resident, inquired as to the future development plans of
properties to the west of the Hansen Ranch. Cleo Davidson, Dublin resident,
inquired regarding the manner in which "significant" trees and tree clusters
would be identified. Mr. Patterson stated a road along Martin Canyon Creek
would violate policies included in the City's General Plan.
The Planning Commission's comments on Section 2 included direction from
Cm. Petty that a detailed tree inventory be prepared and an inquiry from
Cm. Raley as to the adequacy of a 30 foot minimum creek setback. Cm. Raley
also inquired on the status of establishing a City Heritage Tree Ordinance.
In regards to Section 3 - Visual Quality, Ms. Vasquez questioned the manner
visual quality from the highways will be assessed.
Dr. Kahn again discussed problems he saw with the Bordeaux Estates development
scheme, and called for the planting of major trees in backyards of new
hillside lots.
Mr. Wendling inquired as to the development proposals in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area.
A member of the audience called for consideration of the visual impacts
development on this site would have on the nearby Kaufman & Broad Silvergate
Highlands single-family project.
Questions were raised regarding LAFCO's role in City annexations and the
meaning of Spheres of Influence. .
Cm. Raley provided the only Commissioner's direction of Section 3 by calling
for adequate on- and off-site visual analysis of the project proposal.
Discussion on Section 4 - Slope Analysis included clarification from Staff
regarding Items 4. C. and 4. H. , which discussed General Plan policies related
to development of slopes greater than 30%.
Cm. Petty commented that the Draft List of Issues stated that 44% of the site
has slopes in excess of 30%.
The Planning Commission provided no additional ,comments regarding Section 4.
In regards to Section 5 - Noise, Russ Tilly, Dublin resident, stated that the
issues of changes to ambient noise levels (which he felt would be potentially
magnified due to the topographic layout of the Canyon) and impacts of
construction noise should be analyzed.
Regular Meeting PCM-7-24 . h February 2, 1957 -
— roe,
•
r.•
•
The..Rlanning Commission provided no additional -C.omments -regarding.Section---5-.-;:..-...„....._..•..
Cm. Raley advised the members of the audience that the matter was to be
continued to the Commission meeting of February 17, 1987. Cm. Barnes
requested that additional copies of the Draft List of Issues be made available
to those who wished copies.
Ms. Vasquez implored the Commission to make a site visit to the property.
* * *
SUBJECT: PA 86-046 Item . .1) Fire Safe Roofin•
Ordinance: Pro' .sed Ordinance Amendment.
•
Cm. Raley advised the ►embers of the audience of ' taff's recommendation that
Item 10.1 be continued. By consensus direction, Item 10.1 - Fire Safe Roofing
Ordinance was continued to the Planning Commis . on meeting of March 2, 1987.
* * * *
NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
By consenus direction, upon a request by m. Mack, the Commission directed
Mr. Tong to advise the Dublin City Coun' 1 of the Commission's desire that the
Council consider observing Martin Luth, King's birthday as a City holiday.
Cm. Mack requested Staff to return t, he February 17, 1987, Planning
Commission meeting with potential d tes for a Commission field trip to the
Hansen Ranch site.
* * .N\\\\\,
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
* * * *
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CONCERNS
None.
* a * *
•
Regular Meeting PCM-7-25 ��� , , February 2, 1987
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 2, 1987
TO: Planning Commission,/
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 86-075 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment
Study - Study Session
GENERAL INFORMATION:
I. Purpose of Study Session
The function of this Study Session is envisioned to center on the
following three topics: 1) discussion of actions taken to date concerning
the General Plan Amendment Study, 2) informational presentation by the
Applicant, 3) discussion of the mechanics for processing the General Plan
Amendment and Planned Development Prezoning requests, and 3) discussion of
Draft List of Issues.
At the Study Session, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission
to hear Staff, Applicant and public comments, and discuss any additional
issues that the Planning Commission can identify at this time. It would
not be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make any decision on
this item at the Study Session.
II. Actions Taken to Date Concerning General Plan Amendment Study
On August 4, 1986, the Hansen Hill Development Corporation, an affiliate
development company of Venture Corporation, filed a formal request that
the Dublin City Council consider authorizing a General Plan Amendment
Study.
The proposal involved the Hansen Ranch property, approximately 147 acres
in unincorporated Alameda County along the western boundary of the City.
The site is west of Silvergate Drive, south of Rolling Hills Drive, and
north of Hansen Drive, generally between the Valley Christian Center
Church and the Hatfield and Kaufman & Broad subdivisions. The Applicant
would like to gain City approval for residential development on the site.
On August 11, 1986, the City Council authorized the requested General Plan
Amendment Study. The authorization sanctioned the preparation of a Study
over the Hansen Ranch property and provided for expansion of the Study to
include additional properties in the Western Extended Planning Area. The
Council' s action included direction that the Study include a review of the
Circulation System for the entire Western Extended Planning Area.
On October 23, 1986, the Applicant submitted draft copies of a report
prepared by David Gates & Associates and Wilsey & Ham entitled "Draft
Environmental Planning Study for Hansen Hill Ranch" . The Report had been
prepared to facilitate the Applicant's conceptual site planning for the
Hansen Ranch property (see Attachment #1) .
As a follow-up to the Council's actions on August 11, 1986, the Planning
Director reported back to the Council on October 13, 1986, regarding the
potential expansion of the Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study. The
Planning Director indicated that Staff had sent letters to all 16 groups
of private property owners; no firm commitments by individuals had been
received. The Council authorized an expanded.'Tstudy area that could form a
contiguous area with the City, subject to the property owners paying for
the cost of including their property in the Study. •
ITEM NO. TAil 46 a
I 0
Also on October 23, 1986, the City formally issued authorization to the
terms of TJKM Transporation Consultants and EIP Associates to respectively
commence preparation of the Project Holding Capacity/Area Wide Analysis
Traffic Studies and the Environmental Assessment Study.
As a follow-up to securing authorization for the General Plan Amendment
Study, on November 13, 1986, the Applicant filed a request that DSRSD
initiate an Annexation Study (for fire, water, sewer and recreation
services) for the Hansen Ranch property.
On December 10, 1986, the Applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting at the
Shannon Community Center to obtain neighborhood input and comments early
in the planning process for the site. A list of Items of Concern was
generated at the meeting (see Attachment #2).
The Environmental Assessment Study prepared by EIP Associates was
submitted to the City during the week of December 1, 1986. The Report
from TJKM Transporation Consultants was received in two parts with the
Phase 1-A Project Holding Capacity submitted on December 17, 1986, and
Phase 17,8 Area Wide Analysis submitted on January 9, 1987.
On January 16, 1987, the Applicant submitted conceptual plans for the
property, including: 1) Illustrative Plan, 2) Neighborhood Structure, and
3) Experiential Intent (see Attachment #3).
Staff and the Applicant met on January 26, 1987, to consider and discuss a
Draft List of Issues involving the Hansen Ranch property (see Attachment
#4). The List summarized development constraints identified in the TJKM
and EIP Reports and existing General Plan Policies which pertain to the
site.
III. Summary of Actions Taken to Date Concerning General Plan Amendment Study
Actions which will follow the February 2, 1987, Planning Commission Study
Session on the Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study include the
following:
- Additional neighborhood meetings (including a meeting tentatively slated
for February 18, 1987, at which time the Applicant will present and
discuss conceptual development plans).
- City Council Study Session (if determined necessary).
- Applicant's formal submittal of a General Plan Amendment request and a
Planned Development Prezoning request (may also include submittal of the
Tentative Map application).
- Staff preparation (wih major support work by EIP Associates) of Initial
Study and Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
- EIR preparation by EIP Associates and TJKM Transporation Consultants.
- Commencement of the public hearing process by the Planning Commission,
then City Council to consider and certify the EIR, and to consider the
General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Prezoning requests.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Hear Staff presentation.
2) Hear informational presentation by Applicant.
3) Discuss Draft List of Issues with Staff, Applicant and
public.
4) Supplement or elaborate on Draft List of Issues as
appropriate.
ACTION: Based on the above Staff Report', Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission review and discuss the Draft List of
Issues and supplement and/or elaborate the list as
determined appropriate.
-2-
ATTACHMENTS :
1. "Draft Environmental Planning Study for Hansen Hill
Ranch" , prepared by David Gates & Associates and
Wilsey & Ham, Civil Engineering
2. Listing of Concerns Generated at Neighborhood Meeting
of December 10, 1986
3. Applicant's_Conceptu-al. Development Plans ._
4. Draft Listing of Issues
-3-