HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 AppealDenialPA97-004
""
CITY CLERK
File # [Q][f][ZJ[e]-@]~
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Planning Commission denial ofPA 97-004
Dublin Ranch Phase I Conditional Use Pennit - Elementary School Relocation
(prepared by: Tasha HU5ton, Associate Planner) ~
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Resolution Approving Negative Declaration and Conditional Use
Permit
Planning Commission Staff Report
Planning Commission Minutes
Letter from Dublin Unified School District
Letter from applicant Appealing Planning Commission Decision
Negative Declaration
Vicinity Map
EXIllBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A:
RECOMMENDATION: 1)
~~
4)
. 5)
Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation
Take testimony from the Applicant and public
Question Staff, Applicant and public
Close public hearing and deliberate
Adopt Resolution Approving Negative Declaration and Conditional Use
Permit (Exhibit A)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit would allow a minor modification to the approved Dublin Ranch Planned
Development (PD) Rezone, Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) and Site Plan to include a 10-acre
Elementary School and approximately 2 acres of open space buffer within the Dublin Ranch Phase I development
The changes to the approved PD include a revised boundary to accommodate the school adjacent to the
Neighborhood Park site, and minor shifts in the lot layouts to move the residential lots displaced by the School.
Dublin Ranch, comprising all of the Jennifer Lin Family property holdings, is located within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area and encompasses a total of 1,227 acres. A portion of Dublin Ranch (1,037 acres) has been
annexed to the City. The Planned Development (PD) District Rezone for Phase I covers approximately 210 acres
of the Dublin Ranch annexed area (see vicinity map included as Attachment 6). The Phase I development
involves primarily residential land uses, plus a neighborhood park and some open space. A complete listing of the
approved Phase I land uses is contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 1.
-----------------------------
.
COPIES TO:
In House Distribution
School District
Applicant/Owner
ITEM NO.
6~2
g:97004\ccsr6-3
.
In January of 1996, when the City Council approved the PD Rezone for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project, an
elementary school site to serve this neighborhood was located jU5t outside the Phase I project boundary, near
Fallon Road. In recent meetings with staff and planners representing the Dublin and Livermore School Districts,
school site issues including location and number of schools needed for the early phases of development-in Eastern.
Dublin were resolved. The consensus reached included the recommendation that the school near Fallon Road
should be located further away from the mcgor roadway and more central to the Phase I residential neighborhood.
The project proponents filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit to process this school site relocation.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Conditional Use Permit on May 13,1997 (Staff Report
included as Attachment 1). At the hearing the Planning Commission expressed concerns with various aspects
of the school site and the proposed relocation, mainly regarding traffic, parking, and maintenance of the school
site prior to school construction (planning Commission Meeting Minutes included as Attachment 2). After the
close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to not approve the proposed Conditional Use
Permit for the school site relocation. The applicant filed an appeal of this decision with the City Clerk on May
14, 1997 (letter included as Attachment 4).
ANALYSIS:
The Plarming Commission raised seveml questions regarding the school site relocation, with the main areas of
concern centering on traffic movements near the school (students being dropped off or picked up), and
maintenance of the school site prior to development of the school. These two issues are discussed below.
The anticipated traffic movements related to the school site have been thoroughly reviewed by Staffin light of the
proposed site relocation. Locating the school site next to the neighborhood park within Phase I could result in a .
slight alteration of planned traffic patterns in the residential areas. However, the location further from the major
roadway is expected to improve the safety of school children by decreasing the likelihood of pedestrian &
vehicular conflicts, including unsafe left turn movements. The overriding concern with the previous location was
its adjacency to Fallon Road and the traffic conflicts which could result from a high-traffic genemtor so close to an
arterial street Representatives of both the Dublin and Livermore School Districts have been involved in the
discussions of potential school sites, and have agreed that the site next to the park, further away from Fallon Road,
is the preferred location (see letters from Dublin School District, included as Attachment 3, and Livermore School
District, included with Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 1). Conditions of approval have been
incorporated into the approval of the Conditional Use Permit to ensure the streets adjacent to the school are
designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic.
In addition, a supplemental study was done to assess the potential increase in neighborhood traffic due to the
location of the elementary school (P A 97-004 Dublin Ranch Phase I Conditional Use Permit, Elementary School,
TJKM, March, 1997). The conclusions of this study are that, in the new location, the school can be designed to
address vehicular movements and unloading at the school site. The project proponent will need to coordinate with
the City's Public Works Department in planning for school access and improvements to roadway systems as
required by the FEIR and conditions of the PD Rezone approval.
The concerns raised regarding maintenance of the school site were based upon the possibility that the site could
remain vacant for a number of years prior to the school being constructed. While the potential for this occurring
exists, the School Districts have prepared school facilities maSter plans, to plan for the anticipated school needs .
based upon the number of students expected to live in these neighborhoods. The draft 1995 update to the Dublin
School District Facilities Master Plan evaluates the school needs for the Eastern Dublin area., including Dublin
Ranch, and indicates that the new elementary school on the Dublin Ranch Phase I property will most likely be the
third or fourth elementary school built in the Eastern Dublin area, depending upon the pattern and timing of
residential development.
.
In addition, the School District Facilities Plan has identified three school sites previously shown in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan which will not be necessary to serve the expected population, and can be planned for other
uses. Therefore, the remaining school sites (including the elementary school in the Phase I neighborhood) can be
considered critical to serve the residents of the initial phases of the Eastern Dublin developments.
The design and planning of the school site and traffic circulation will be finther refined as the planning process for
this subdivision proceeds. The Dublin Ranch project proponents will be applying for a tentative subdivision map
and site development review entitlements for the residential development Detailed information and refinements
which will occur at the subdivision and site review stages include the exact street width and lane requirements
needed, access points and driveways for the school, as well as the internal circulation and design of the school site.
In summary, the school site relocation is preferred because it will achieve three additional criteria used by the
School District* in evaluating school sites, which are:
1. The school will be centrally located to miillmize student travel distance;
2. The school will be next to a neighborhood park to enable shared use of facilities; and
3. The school will be in excess of200 feet from Fallon Road, the required distance for clear driver
visibility and safe vehicular and bus movements
* According to "School Site Selection and Approval Guide", California State Department ofEducatioIl,
Sacramento, 1989.
.
The revised location for the elementary school will provide a more centrally located school within the Phase I
neighborhood, and have the benefits of safer and more convenient school accessibility. The revised location is
supported by staff and both the Dublin and Livermore School Districts. Please see the attached letters from the
Dublin Unified School District, included as Attachment 3, and Livermore Unified School District, included with
the Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 1.
The proposed school site relocation is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Dublin General Plan and
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Policy 4.1 of the Dublin General Plan requires that, as a condition of project
approval in the Extended Planning Area, logical and buildable school sites will be offered. In addition, Sections
4.2 and 4.8.3 of the Specific Plan appear to contemplate that the exact location of certain land uses would not be
known until refined plans are prepared. For example, Section 4.2 reads, in part,
"Minor adjustments to road alignments and (land use) boundaries may be necessary when individual
applications for development are submitted (Refer to Chapter 11, Implementation, fur further discussion of
such adjustments)."
And, Section 11.2.7 reads, in part,
.
" 'Planned Development Plans' shall be prepared in greater detail than the Specific Plan, in keeping with
zoning ordinance requirements. The plan shall show the location and arrangements of all proposed uses,
specifY the circulation system, define parcels, refine the design standards,...., and note neighborhood park
location."
The proposed school site relocation actually promotes the following Specific Plan policies: 1) Locating
elementary schools away from major arterials, and wherever possible adjacent to an open space corridor (Section
4.8.3), 2) encourage accessibility to major activity centers (schools included) from residential areas (Section 5.4);
and 3) reserving school sites and promoting a consolidated development pattern (policies 8-1 and 8-2).
-
The relocation of the elementary school site is depicted on the plans a~hed as Exhibit A-I and A-2, consrsting
of 1) a Site Plan for Phase 1 prepared by MacKay & Somps dated revised February 12, 1997; and 2) a District
Planned Development PlanlLand use and Development Plan for Phase I dated revised February 12, 1997. Thes~
two sheets are proposed to replace the Site Plan and District Planned Development Plan approved by the City .
Council for P A 95-030, the Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone, Resolution 12-96, January 23, 1996.
District Planned Development Plan
The Dublin Ranch Phase I Planned Development Rezoning includes a District Planned Development Plan
(DPDP) (see Exhibit A-2). This plan is intended to satisfy the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance for a
Land Use and Development Plan, as well as the Specific Plan's DPDP requirements. The approved PD Rezone
for Dublin Ranch Phase I accommodated the requirements for both plans with the single sheet, labeled District
Planned Development Plan (DPDP). The revised DPDP would accomplish the same processing requirements,
with the revision to include the school site within the Phase I boundary.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An Initial Study was prepared for the project dated Apri!l, 1997, The Initial Study evaluated issues relating to
noise, land use and traffic, among others. The only letter received in response to the circulation of the Initial Study
and Draft Negative Declaration was from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District The letter
commented on two aspects of the school relocation, and a response to these comments was included in the
Planning Commission Staff Report, attached to this report as Attachment 1.
The letter also noted that the proposed school site location, being away from busy multiple lane intersections, will.
have better and safer pick-up and drop-offlocations.
As a result of the Initial Study, it was determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the
environment The attached resolution contains a general condition of approval requiring the project to comply with
all action programs and applicable mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental
Guidelines. A copy of the proposed Negative Declaration is attached to this report as Attachment 5.
CONCLUSION:
This application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and agencies, and their comments have
been included into the Conditions of ApprovaL The relocation of the School Site can be considered a "Minor
Modification" of the Land Use and Development Plan, because it 1) does not materially change the provisions of
the approved Plan, and 2) is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore,
approval of this Conditional Use Permit is an appropriate use of the procedures established by the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance for minor modifications to a Planned Development
Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to
conditions listed in the Resolution (Exhibit A), including adoption of the findings required by Section 8-94.0 of the.
Zoning Ordinance.
.
.
.
"
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVJNG P A 97-004
DUBLIN RANCH PHASE I CONDmONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A MlNOR MODIFICATION TO TIIE APPROVED DUBLIN RANCH PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT TO RELOCATE THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE
WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, on behalf of Jennifer Lin, et. al., requests approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to modify the District Planned Development Plan/Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) and Site
Plan for the approved Planned Development approved by the City Council by Resolution No. 12-96, which
established General Provisions for P A 95-030, Dublin Ranch Plarmed Development Rezoning; in order to allow
the location of a 10-acre site for an elementary school to be included within the boundary of the Phase I
development; and
WHEREAS, Section 8-31.18 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that if, in the opinion of the
Planning Commission, a proposed structure, facility or land use not indicated on a Land Use and Development
Plan approved by the City Council does not materially change the provisions of the approved Land Use and
Development Plan; the structure, facility or land use may be permitted subject to securing a Conditional Use
Permit; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): An Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, and
the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Initial Study resulted in the determination that there are no
negative environmental'impacts expected from this project which have not been addressed in the previous
environmental review conducted with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR., and therefore a Negative
Declaration has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the staff report was submitted recommending the Planning Commission approve the
Negative Declaration and the Conditional Use Permit subject to Conditions of Approval prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth and did review and use their independent judgment to consider the Negative
Declaration and Conditional Use Permit at a public hearing on said application on May 13, 1997; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at the conclusion of a duly noticed public hearing denied said
application; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant., Ted Fairfield, on behalf of Jennifer Lin, et. al., has appealed the decision of
the Planning Commission to the City Council; and
1
EXHIBIT A
\VHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project as it will have
no significant effect on the environment; and .
WHEREAS, the staff report/agenda statement was submitted recommending the City Council approve
the Negative Declaration and the Conditional Use Permit subject to Conditions of Approval prepared by Staff;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony
herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
A. A Conditional Use Pennit allowing a minor rnodification to the approved Planned Development
for Dublin Ranch Phase I to relocate the elementary school site will not have a significant effect on the
environment based on review of the Initial Study and public testimony.
B. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local
environmental laws and guideline regulations.
C. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate. A Notice of Determination will be filed
stating that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment
.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby adopt the Negative Declaration for P A 97-004, Dublin Ranch Phase I Conditional Use Pennit.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
1. The proposed project serves the public need by providing an elementary school for the children
living in the Dublin Ranch Phase I neighborhood and surrounding community.
2. The proposed use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service
facilities in the vicinity. The elementary school will be compatible with adjacent uses, in that the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designates sites for schools within residential areas, and away from
major arterials. The school site in this location will provide benefits of convenience, safety, and
neighborhood identity.
3.
The proposed use will not materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property
or improvements in the neighborhood, as the school site and/or adjacent streets will be designed
to accommodate anticipated traffic circulation, and all applicable regulations will be met
.
4. The proposed use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards
established for the District in which it is to be located in that conditions have been applied to
2
.
.
.
ensure conformance with the applicable Specific Plan and environmental impact mitigation
requirements, and because the use is consistent with the character of the surrounding area
5.
The proposed use will not materially change the provisions of the approved Planned
Development Land Use and Development Plan/District Planned Development Plan.
6. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit will be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TIlAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby conditionally approve P A 97-004 Dublin Ranch Phase I Conditional Use Permit to make minor
modifications to the approved PD Rezone adopted for P A 95-030, as generally depicted by "Exhibit A-I and A-
2", plans consisting of I) a Site Plan for Phase 1 consisting of 2 sheets prepared by MacKay & Somps dated
revised February 12, 1997; and 2) a District Planned Development PlanlLand Use and Development Plan for
Phase 1 dated revised February 12, 1997; stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning Department,
subject to the following conditions:
CONDmONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building
permits or establishment of use. and shall be sublect to Planning Department review and approval. The
following codes represent those departments/agencies resPOnsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of
approval. fPLl Planning. [BJ Building.IPOl Police.IPWl Public Works, rADMl Administration/City Attornev,
(FINl Finance. fFl Dou~ertv Regional Fire Authority, IDSRl Dublin San Ramon Services District Alameda
County rCOl Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District rZone 71.
1. This approval is for a Conditional Use Perinit to allow a minor modification to the Dublin Ranch Phase. I
PD as approved by City Council Resolution No. 12-96, approved on January 23, 1996, pertaining to P A
95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I Planned Development Rezoning, to allow a revision to the project
boundary to include the 10 acre elementary school site and a 2-acre open space/creek corridor buffer, and
to relocate the site of the elementary school next to the Neighborhood Park, to be closer to the center of
the Dublin Ranch Phase I neighborhood and further from Fallon Road.
2. City Council Resolution 12-96 approving and establishing findings and general provisions for a Planned
Development Rezoning concerning P A 95-030 is revised as follows:
"General Provisions" , Section C. "General Provisions and Development Standards", subparagraph I.
"Intent", subparagraph a. shall be amended to add the following phrase at the end of the subparagraph:
"...with revisions as approved by Conditional Use Permit for P A 97-004, as generally depicted by plans
consisting of 1) a Site Plan for Phase 1 prepared by MacKay & Somps dated revised February 12, 1997;
and 2) a District Planned Development PlanlLand use and Development Plan for Phase 1 dated revised
February 12, 1997 (Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2"); stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning
Department"
3
3. Except as specifically modified in these conditions, development shall conform to the Conditions of
Approval established by: City Council Resolution No. 12-96, approved on January 23, 1996, pertaining
to P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch Planned Development Rezoning. [PL] .
4. The project developer is reminded of the requirement (as previously specified in approval of the PD
Rezone) to mitigate school facilities impacts (see City Council Resolution No. 12-96, Condition #9).
[pL, ADM]
5. The school site should provide adequate on-site vehicle storage area for vehicles dropping off and
picking up students. If providing adequate on-site vehicle storage area is not possible, the developer shall
mitigate impacts to the public street system by widening the roadway or using other means subject to
approval of the City Engineer. [PL, PW]
6. The locations of driveways for the school site shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. [PW]
7. On an annual basis, this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be subject to Zoning Investigator review
and determination as to compliance with Conditions of Approval. [PL]
8. This pennit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. [PL]
9. The applicant shall cornply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR). respectively, that have not been made specific conditions of approval of this Conditional Use .
Permit [PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPlED this 3rd day of June, 1997.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Manager
(g:paII\l997\97004\caesapl)
.
4
.
z
<
...]
* :".:;~~~~::
:5
;: ~;:::
"
~
-
.....
-z
: <;
~::
.,(
..
~i
0~ E~i~
- ...... ~
_ .--" 1..:.-.
~':~ ~~..~ .
-' ,. . ~ ,'-. .,.".. <.
...,.." ~ ,,'to
C:-=-j+ :;:."
c' =-
.-:'':I:
1.:..'>(
w
- ;~~~~~:;.
=~-=~
~ -- ,.j.......
_ _'1""4
.. - -I':
::;~. 001' ~
"
~ ~
<l
2~
tl i ~~
.[~.~~
t:::<
r~] t
~~H
:: .. -= .
~~~f
,...~= z
;~
~::
,.
<
;~Hj~~~
~~~
. . .
.,..+I'".v"l
""~~
~ 1
;H
~ t ~
.l- ~ !
~ ~ ~ ~
u
z
-<
....-
... ~
:.r:
Z~
_:::-
..J-
-
-
~
"......
-
Of ~ .;:
: ~ i::
Z, ~ ~
:2
~~ 0 Ii
"
?
-
:.r:
:!
~ ;;;~~~:i
....,...cl"""
:!,.. :::~
<
~ ==:::.::j
,
-....-.:
~~:::~
,
;;:::: ~
~ ~ ~
~~ ~
z-
<;2:
;::5
~"
~~
z
o
z.
-;
:.r:
<
.
~
.
,
.
i;
E~
;~~
<+..
~~~
':;E!
ii!
~~=
~i
~~
i.'
. .,
~~j
;;
"
ii
~~
~i
I
"* :',1
\
"
i-
t~
~.
..
~:i'i
ti'
4?>
~ (~/~> I j lJ
\'~, k i ~'0./ ("Ul""\ r~~) L ..,., ~~
~I..:::::~ : ~ -..W../ \.~-r" \_~I
~~~~~ i /~-;.~'1 : I (<Ii;! fU' ~
: , ~~~-' P -..0../
t _
. - U~ ~\
C}:E , gi '\0
_:E~ ~_ \ ~==JD
~ Iii -10
:2:;! ~ ~ 0 ~ ~,
C/) ~ \, I C.H ~n
U.l~ u~~O
n
Ll
Il
n
IJ
)1
I I
I
Tl
gil
~~
'"'z
::-:-<;
z=:
z:.....
<'
-"~
~~
s:;:::
- '-'
=~
~2':
:~ ~ -
,I.'" ..:
..It';:.. <:;
,:1
'<
;;,:: ~~-
-
....
-;:;~i~i~':if.~,~
-.... -
u
z
-<
....,
-
~.~g~:-
~
::..-J'.
.- :I"
::: <
--:- <
;:
<
~: ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~;, ~ ~ f..~
v.:
z~
-~
,.J-
-"'I
-
::>
,....."
-
-.
h_.
~~~~ -
<;:
::~
;;:;;... ~
..-=.=
'"'
:.:
=-7 ~~_:~~f::~=
<::. =':'::L___
<:
:--1
\"
'.@
I ~;
I c:::!
. C:'
....
~ . ..;.;.
. 0
' 'Vl'"9'SST.l I - I E c::
. \:.- ..z:::-1t~~. H(i) aVOllgYll \ \ P:~ !~ IhBI~ Z
~-~R' -'~-- ~~ \ ~ \.5'.,:-I~.S'f'~ g
--- ~.c-) - J -'. -<::: .\ \~ , <:
/" ; (~ . .~ '-..._~.....~ ~
Ii i~~J ..........._...;::::-~' 0
~!..l-- ......___. ,__ \
~
,..z
:-<
~;
~(
! ~~-
, - ~
11
<;:
"";z, '"
~~ ~
:;;: '" '"
~ ~ w.
?:~ ~
:: <: ""2
.... "w' _
~:;; ~
z:=
Z.::
<2
is
€i
r~!(6 f_:\!ii5
\~;R \.-../::8
.---
!\n~11
<1)\ ::>Il
~ ~
~r
~ ?~.~
:...' -s::- .-
;l:~~
~~.:~ ~~
~<;:~ ;::5
...... ....,,...
,'"
<.
I-
c.c
-
:c
><
w
.
..
c.
E ~
i:-= :
~ i ~'E
fI& t:::.~
.::g]"E
::::::..<
=<"":",,,
~~: ~
.~;:]
~~~:
= ...~
:.r.-IJf,f';
~~<E
~= z:
~~
::;:
\.:.J
.
.
.....s
.'
.-
.
--...
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 13, 1997
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Planning Staff
PREPARED BY:
-UN-
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner /<--
SUBJECT:
PA 97-004, Dublin Ranch Conditional Use Permit - Request for
Conditional Use Permit approval allowing modifications to the
Planned Development Rezone for Phase I of Dublin Ranch
Planned Development Rezone.
BACKGROUND:
In January of 1996, the City Council approved a Planned Development {PO} District
Rezone for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. Consistent with the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, a school site was located near Fallon Road, just outside the Phase I
project boundary. In recent meetings with staff and planners representing the
Dublin and Livermore School Districts, school site issues including location and
number of schools needed for the early phases of development in Eastern Dublin
were resolved. The consensus reached included the recommendation that the
school near Fallon Road should be relocated further away from the major roadway
and doser to the residential neighborhood in Phase I. 'Therefore, a Conditional Use
Permit is proposed to process this minor modification to the Phase I PO, for a
school relocation and boundary adjustment, to accommodate an elementary school
in the Phase I development.
ANALYSIS:
Proiect Description
Dublin Ranch. comprising all the Jennifer Lin Family property holdings, is located
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area and encompasses a total of
1,227 acres. A portion of Dublin Ranch {1 ,037 acres} has been annexed to the
City. The Planned Development {PD} District Rezone for Phase I covers the
approximately 210 acres of the Dublin Ranch annexed area {see Attachment 1}.
--------------------------
----------.....------
Item No. <t. 2...
Copies To:
Applicant/
Property Owner
PA File
General File
Senior Planner
7
The approved Dublin Ranch Phase I project consists of the following land uses:
.
PD Single Family (Low Density) Residential - 570 dwelling units
(111.8 acres, including 2 acre private recreational facility);
PD Medium Density Residential - 277 dwelling units
(35.7 acres);
PD Open Space - 57.5 acres;
Neighborhood park - 5.0 acres.
Total maximum dwelling units: 847
Total Acres: 210
.
.
.
.
.
The proposed Conditional Use Permit would allow a minor modification to the
approved Planned Development (PD) Rezone and approved Land Use and
Development Plan (LUDP) and Site Plan to show the inclusion of a 10-acre
Elementary School and approximately 2 acres of open space buffer to be located
within the Phase I development. The changes to the approved PD include a revised
boundary to accommodate the school adjacent to the Neighborhood Park site, and
minor shifts in the lot layouts to move the residential lots displaced by the School.
With the school relocation, the revised project area would be 222 acres.
.'
The relocation of the elementary school site is depicted on the plans attached as
Exhibit A, . consisting of 1) a Site Plan for Phase 1 prepared by MacKay & Somps dated
revised February 12, 1997; and 2) a District Planned Development Plan/Land use and .:.
Development Plan for Phase 1 dated revised February 12, 1 997. These two sheets are
proposed to replace the. Site Plan and District Planned Development Plan approved
by the City Council for PA 95-030, the Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone, Resolution
12-96, January 23, 1996.
The revised location for the elementary school will provide a more centrally located
school within the Phase I neighborhood, and have the benefits of safer and more
convenient school accessibility. The revised location is supported by staff and both
the Dublin and Livermore School Districts.
The proposed school site relocation is consistent with the policies and guidelines of
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Policy 4.1 of the
Dublin General Plan requires that, as a condition of project approval in the Extended
Planning Area, logical and buildable school sites will be offered. In addition,
Sections 4.2 and 4.8.3 of the Specific Plan appear to contemplate that the exact
location of certain public facilities, such as schools, would not be known until
refined plans are prepared. The proposed school site relocation actually promotes
the following Specific Plan policies: 1) Locating elementary schools away from
major arterials, and wherever possible adjacent to an open space corridor (Section
4.8.3), 2) encourage accessibility to major activity centers (schools included) from
residential areas (Section 5.4); and 3) reserving school sites and promoting a
consolidated development pattern (Policies 8-1 and 8-2).
<b
(J (')9
r f. -- .-
'Cr :;o. r.o. 0<
:~....:.:...._.."l;_
2
..
.--.
&--
.
District Planned Development Plan
The Dublin Ranch Phase I Planned Development Rezoning includes a District
Planned Development Plan (DPDP) (see Exhibit A). This plan is intended to satisfy
the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance for a Land Use and Development
Plan, as well as the Specific Plan's DPDP requirements. The approved PD Rezone
for Dublin Ranch Phase I accommodated the requirements for both plans with the
single sheet, labeled District Planned Development Plan (DPDP). The revised DPOP
would accomplish the same processing requirements, with the revision to include
the school site within the Phase I boundary.
Environmental Analvsis
An Initial Study was prepared for the project dated April 1, 1997, and it found that
the project is not expected to generate any environmental impacts not fully
mitigated or not previously addressed in the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact
Report. The only letter received in response to the circulation of the Initial Study
and Draft Negative Declaration was from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School
District. The letter identified two concerns with the proposal, as follows:
1. A concern that students living in areas further away from the school (i.e. on the
opposite side of Fallon Road) will need to cross busy intersections.
2. A reminder that the project is required to fully mitigate school facilities impacts.
The letter also noted that the proposed school site location, being away from busy
multiple lane intersections, .will have better and safer pick-up and drop-off I~cations.
In response to concern #2, the PD Rezone previously approved for the project
addresses school facilities mitigation by requiring the developer to enter into a
written mitigation agreement with the affected school district prior to approval of
the tentative subdivision map. A condition of approval has been incorporated into
the approval of the CUP to remind the developer of the required school facilities
mitigation.
"
In response to concern #1 , the Initial Study acknowledged that inclusion of the
school site within Phase I of the Dublin Ranch project could result in a slight
alteration of planned traffic patterns in the residential areas. However, the location
further from the major roadway is expected to improve the safety of school children
by decreasing the likelihood of pedestrian & vehicular conflicts. A supplemental
study was done to assess the potential increase in neighborhood traffic due to the
location of the elementary school (PA 97-004 Dublin Ranch Phase I CUP,
Elementary School, T JKM, March, 1997). The conclusions of this study are that
the school can be designed to address vehicular movements and unloading at the
school site. The project proponent will need to coordinate with the City's Public
Works Department in planning for school access and improvements to roadway
systems as required by the FEIR and conditions of the PO Rezone app~~~~1. ("'.,..--:->Cj
3 i~/'"'' 3 ,I'" 0)
~....--- ""+---
Finally, the Planning Department is currently reviewing the proposed residential
development for Dublin Ranch "Area A" (on the opposite side of Fallon Road). .
Access to the school site in Phase I for future residents of this neighborhood is
being considered as part of that project.
Conditions of approval have been incorporated into the approval of the CUP to
address concerns with pick-up and drop-off of students. The attached resolution
also contains a general condition of approval requiring the project to comply with all
action programs and applicable mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report.
Conclusion
This application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and
agencies, and their comments have been included into the Conditions of Approval.
In addition, the relocation of the School Site can be considered a "Minor
Modification" of the Land Use and Development Plan, because it 1) does not
materially change the provisions of the approved Plan, and 2) is consistent with the
Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, approval of this
Conditional Use Permit is an appropriate use of the procedures established by the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance for minor modifications to a Planned Development. .,.
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions
listed in the Draft Resolution of Approval (Exhibit B), including adoption of the
findings required by Section 8-94.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT:
1 )
2)
3)
4)
5)
Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
Take testimony from the Applicant and the public.
Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Adopt Draft Resolution (Exhibit B) relating to PA 97-004,
or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the
matter.
ACTION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Draft
Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit (Exhibit B)
relating to PA 97-004.
.
4
'-:';,':-;: ~ r;: J~
t J ......;.;... __ "_-: ........-
It>
.-
....
'. '0'
.
. .
. ~, .
ATTACHMENTS:
..........
Exhibits:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Phase I District Planned Development Plan and Site Plan
Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
(g:pa97004\pcsr)
it
Location Map
Applicant's written statement
City Council Resolution 12-96 for PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch
Phase I Planned Development Rezone
Letter from Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
5 ~9
!"""'. r, .......':"'" r.~
,.;"._ '\'. D\
t..~:...................'_;_
5
GENERAL INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
Ted C. Fairfield
Consulting Civil Engineer
P.O. Box 1148
551 0 Sunol Boulevard
Pleasanton, CA 94566
.'
PROPERTY OWNER: Jennifer Lin
C/O Ted C. Fairfield
Consulting Civil Engineer
P.O. Box 1148
5510 Sunol Boulevard
Pleasanton, CA 94566
LOCATION: East of Tassajara Road and approximately 4,000 feet north of the Interstate
580 Freeway within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area.
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.(S):
946-680-3; 94-680-4; 946-1040-1-2; 946-1040-2; 946-1040-3-2;
99B-3046-2-6; 99B-3046-2-9
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Single Family; Medium Density; Open Space
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family; Medium Density; Open Space
..
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
.0.....-..
PO Single Family; PO Medium Density; PD Open Space/ Cattle
Grazing and Agriculture
SURROUNDING LANG
USE AND ZONING:
North: Cattle Grazing; Agriculture/PD Community Park; Agricultural
District;
South: Cattle Grazing; Agriculture/ PD Medium Density Residential;
PO Single Family Residential; PD Open Space
East: Cattle Grazing; Agriculture/PO Open Space
West: Equestrian FacilitylPD Medium Den~ity
ZONING HISTORY:
October 10, 1994:
Dublin City Council approved the Eastern Dublin Planned Development
District Overlay Zone (Prezone) for a 1.538 acre site (PA 94-030).
November 14, 1994: Alameda County LAFCo approved the Eastern Dublin Reorganization request
for PA 94-030.
January 12, 1995:
Alameda County LAFCo unanimously disapproved the request to reconsider
the Eastern Dublin Reorganization approval.
.
January 23, 1995:
Dublin City Council approved (ordered) Eastern Dublin
Annexation/Detachment No.1 0 (PA 94-030).
~, , _ _ &. ,.~ r{)
i '-:.~"':";" ; l."_ CX,......,
.t-i..:;..._... ...-............:-'-
I~
6
.-.
.~,
.
.... ..
}?J
October 1, 1995: Eastern Dublin Reorganization (Annexation/Detachment No.1 0)
effective for a 1,538 acre site (PA 94.030).
became
January 23, 1996:
Dublin City Council approved Dublin Ranch PD Rezone (PA 95-030).
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8.31.18, Planned Development District Minor Modification of the Land Use and
Development Plan, states if a proposed structure, facility or land use not indicated on a Land Use
and Development Plan approved by the City Council does not materially change the provisions of
the approved Land Use and Development Plan, the structure, facility or land use may be permitted
subject to securing a Conditional Use Permit.
Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or
not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to
other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will
materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether
or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established
for the district in which it is located.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines for PA 97-004. The City finds that
there have not been any identified changes in the Hansen Hills Project or in the circumstances
under which the Hansen Hills Project is to be undertaken. The City also finds that there is no new
information. which requires revisions or to the Negative Declaration adopted for PA 91-096. A
Notice of Determination will be filed stating that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. See Environmental Analysis section of the staff report for explanation of potential
impacts and mitigation measures.
. .
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the May 13, 1997, public hearing and of the environmental
review was published in the local newspaper, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in
p~blic buildings.
7
91
P;\~f. 1 r)::: 0\
.I,a.......__-~.:........_
C(
,!,- .~-
,..
Z 0 ". - "' - -, - '" '" - ~
~ .. - ~ - '" :".1"'- Z ~' ""
< ~ - <: ~t ..
..J W -"
:1 ~ ..,
::.. -r-~ " .
Z - '-
s ;: '" ~. '" ..::.; :;: 0< or Z .:
". ~=-,... .. ~ i ""-
- - '" -: -H .
-< - ~ i:: I
;; ~ I - - I
:.r: '" ""'" ~ ~ ==<
'" - "' ". ;..m - 0<'- "' - ~ 0'
'-' " - .. '" ~ ~:~ - ~ S :;: .."
I <: - - u::. ;.; ~
Z z' Z < i tl!
0 @I ~;J8=8"g ~ ~ I - ~ z '-
~~~ ., - <:
~I ;;iii:;;i:E~~ ~ -'"
1 i - ....
::r. ::a ""'....on"""'."., .. ....... ~ "" or.:"::.r;
< t j - z ... o;! E .<~
~ ~ :J z €~ ;-~ Z
~~"""!...,.. ;; - ,; ! <: :z
A ...; :;::;::: 7i .. ... ,......, <; ~:=
<: , ~ Z '" - '2; ~::
- :;;:
.~...,~
- 'I ,'''-----'-:-
\'\ .
~! "
I I '
i
'<
!
~-
H
.
-~
is
~i
:;~
ii
}, i '
I' ,
I
r..
___J~L//
I~
,<
:=
-;%
~~
Jq
.
.
.
.
1~
>--
N
<::::J:.
;...
-'
-,
,...,.z
~<S
z=:
z;...
~~
::-~
- -
~:=
- .....,
..", ,
;::::::
~>
-~ ~.~
"""' -
'""'
--
-<
-.I'. ~
i- ~
~,:: ~~-
-
,.;..,
\"'''' 2g
0''-
~.; ~
'" >
':;i. ;jj ,..,
f! i
~ 0
..
-=
~~ ~
~ln
"i: oM ~ I..
~::::..<
::<-=~
~:; : ~
"~..,
.':::;::l c:
n~:
:,n-...v::
4:~>
- =>
~.~ z
...::
"
:;;:
x
:.~
~
_z
~<;
--
u
z
-<
;::::.;.1
CI)
Z~
;.....l ;::-
..:l-
-
-
~
,-..,
-
-;:i~~~
-:~i~~~~
- - <::
~z
= ~ ~
~~ ~
s~ u
..,...... ..
~~ ~
::: <: -::
.... "7\ _
;-:;:;; ~
::z.:::
z::.:
<:z
is
;, ~ ~;:-
:.;,;.,.
=< ; ;~~~~~~~~~;~.~
;;
~'g~ :
:;
~--
.....-===.
- -
:::~
<;'
II ~~
::::
:;:
~~~=~~_3~Et~~~f:~
I
\\
1
I
'---\
)
(
\\
(~':/----", I . J
f;\t--- ~ ~~~( (tj) (ii..:.L
\~~~=----I ~ /f~'7-- "1~'(3~/ rU\
: :---:::~- ~ /~;;, ,-""" -.' '-'. '-.<:l.J
i , --;-~( , ~o"v~
/":\~ ~.?
\-'.? \ \::J
.j? \ \
~ .
<t~
a::: !
a:~
'"'-'
......-;
\>-
u
o
~o
t,;li>
V
~1~1\1
11111 ~!
~\ II cDl
~ ~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
.
APPROVING PA 97-004 DUBLIN RANCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED
DUBLIN RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, on behalf of Jennifer Un, et. aI., requests approval of a Conditional
Use Permit to modify the Land Use and Development Plan (lUDP) and Site Plan for the approved
Planned Development approved by the City Council by Resolution No. 12-96, which established
General Provisions for PA 95-030, Dublin Ranch Planned Development Rezoning; in order to allow the
location of a 1 Q-acre site for an elementary school to be included within the boundary of the Phase I
development; and
WHEREAS, Section 8-31.18 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that if, in the opinion
of the Planning Commission, a proposed structure, facility or land use not indicated on a land Use and
Development Plan approved by the City Council does not materially change the provisions of the
approved Land Use and Development Plan; the structure, facility or land use may be permitted subject
to securing a Conditional Use Permit; and
>~__:__., WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on May 13,.
'. .-.-1997; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the
State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The City finds that there are
no negative environmental impacts expected from this project which have not been addressed in the
previous environmental review conducted with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. A Notice of
Determination will be filed stating that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
and
WHEREAS, the staff report was submitted recommending the Planning Commission approve
the Conditional Use Permit subject to Conditions of Approval prepared by Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find
that:
1 .
The proposed project serves the public need by providing an elementary school for t.
children living in the Dublin Ranch neighborhood and surrounding communi~: _ ,I P (;7 ~~
lip
1
P:VHfQ;'T' B
_^ l!:....;;I ~
.
.
. 1.
2.
The proposed use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and
service facilities in the vicinity. The elementary school will be compatible with adjacent
uses, in that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designates sites for schools within
residential areas, and away from major arterials. The school site in this location will . ..
provide benefits of convenience, safety, and neighborhood identity.
3. The proposed use will not materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, as the school site and/or
adjacent streets will be designed to accommodate traffic circulation, and all applicable
regulations will be met.
4. The proposed use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance
standards established for the District in which it is to be located in that conditions have
been applied to ensure conformance with the applicable Specific Plan and environmental
impact mitigation requirements, and because the use is consistent with the character of
the surrounding area.
5. The proposed use will not materially change the provisions of the approved Planned
Development Land Use and Development Plan/District Planned Development Plan.
6. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit will be consistent with the Dublin General
Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission doe~:~::./:;
hereby conditionally approve PA 97-004 Dublin Ranch Conditional Use Permit to make minor revisions
to the approved PD Rezone adopted for PA 95-030, as generally depicted by "Exhibit A", plans.
consisting of 1) a Site Plan for Phase 1 consisting of 2 sheets prepared by MacKay & Somps dated
revised February 12, 1997; and 2) a District Planned Development Plan/Land Use and Development
Plan for Phase 1 dated revised February 12, 1997; stamped approved and on file with the Dublin
Planning Department, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
buildina permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Plannina Department review and
approval. The followina codes represent those departments/aaencies responsible for monitorina
compliance of the conditions of ap~oval. [PLl Planninq, [81 8uildinq, [POl Police, [PW] Public Works,
[ADMl Administration/City Attorne . rFIN] Finance. rFl Douqhertv Reqional Fire Authority, fDSRl Dublin
San Ramon Services District. Alameda County rCOl. Alameda County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District fZone 7].
City Council Resolution 12-96 approving and establishing findings and general provisions for a
Planned Development Rezoning concerning PA 95-030 is revised as Tollows:
..' .
......
11
2
~. ..-lL' ,- f) 9
~<;..~~~ _ :~<~ 1"22._
-:--.'
:.::-.<":"-
'':"'-0.
7. .
8.
"General Provisions" , Section C. "General Provisions and Development Standards",
subparagraph 1. "Intent", subparagraph a. shall be amended to add the following phrase at the
end of the subparagraph: .
"...with revisions as approved by Conditional Use Permit for PA 97-004, as generally depicted
by plans consisting of 1) a Site Plan for Phase 1 prepared by MacKay & Somps dated revised
February 12, 1997; and 2) a District Planned Development Plan/Land use and Development Plan
for Phase 1 dated revised February 12, 1997; stamped approved and on file with the Dublin
Planning Department."
2.
Except as specifically modified in these conditions, development shall conform to the Conditions
of Approval established by: City Council Resolution No. 12-96, approved on January 23, 1996,
pertaining to PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Planned Development Rezoning. [PL]
3.
The project developer is reminded of the requirement (as previously specified in approval of the
PO Rezone) to mitigate school facilities impacts (see City Council Resolution No. 12-96,
Condition #9). [PL, ADM]
4.
The school site should provide adequate on-site vehicle storage area for vehicles dropping off
and picking up students. If providing adequate on-site vehicle storage area is not possible, the
developer shall mitigate impacts to the public street system by widening the roadway or using
other means subject to approval of the City Engineer. [PL, PWJ
The locations of driveways for the school site shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. [PWJ .
On an annual basis, this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be subject to Zoning Investigator
review and determination as to compliance with Conditions of Approval. [PL]
5.
This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the tenns or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. [PLl
The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR), respectively, that have not been made specific conditions of approval of
this Conditional Use Permit. [PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 1997.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
--
...
. ,
Planning Commission Chairperson
.
3
G:\97-004\PCRESO.
Community Development Director
~_,.- I~.__ ~O
l i.-::_ ..--__ _ _ ': ~<.,- J
,{
.-
. _. . A: ~
....
- ~- . . . -- . ,
",a._A..
,--'-'-"
.
..,.","
. ..-..":
VICINITY. MAP
N.T.S.
~
~'
,-f/I#
!;2
o
c::
>-
....
t:::
~ DUBLIN~
6>...0 5
\.To Cl
tf.l
;;.
~
'%
;;::.
L.
~
~\
Jt{
\ 1-580
-J~
r~v
r:::l
~
c::.
Cl
o
!2~
>-0
~p::
g
PLEASANTON
~
.0
p::
~
I:L.
o~
p::
3~
_0
~ c::.
r.u...,....13 r'~ ~ Q
l li-':::: __ ~..!;' ~
A! ~ ACHfliENT 1
-
, - ~ ~.
:::;:<'.~::.'
- -". ' ~
:."-'.. .
.::.-~.~. .:~
., DDl lC^T10'. C:L.tn,1jITAI REQL~IDC~,lC:-.TS
I L,;. J.,j".-.l j"\' J. j r" o.-J """'.1 10 J. L..- " J.J. '\..~~\.J"'--";'\ J
FOR
C01'DITI O~AL USE PERMIT
.
\"rit1en Statement
a. The actiyit\' coyered by this CUP is the Minor Modification of the PA 95-030 (Dublin
Ranch Phase i) Land Use and Deyelopment Plan to include an appro\.imately 10 acre
elementary school site and :; acres of stream corridor open space \\.ithin Dublin Ranch
Phase I,
c. The facility will be operated normal hours for an elementary school, i.e. generally
between 7:30 AM and 3:00 PM, Monday through Friday. It is possible that there \,.ill be
a preschool in conjunction \\'ith the elementary school. If so, it would open an hour or so
before the elementary school and remain open until 5:00 PM or 6:00 PM. Infomml use of
the school's playfield \\'ould take place on weekends and after school and the multi-
purpose room \,'ould probably be a\'ailable for use at night during the \reeK..
d. The elementary school \\.ill be one of three such facilities which will serYe the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area. It will provide a site for primary education for the elementary
school age children li\'ing in Dublin Ranch and adjacent properties. The school district
\\'ill establish the exact attendance boundaries for the school. '
e. The school will provide primary education for the elementary school age children who
will live in Dublin Ranch and adjacent properties. The general benefits of a primary
school education are ob\'ious. The benefits of the elementary school being adjacent to the
homes of the students it serves are con\'enience, safety and nei2hborhood identi[\',
~ ~ -
.
f. Morning and afternoon automobile traffic may bother some adjacent residents.
Howe\'er, home builders will disclose to all potential buyers that an elementary school is
planned for the parcel. Also, the site is large enough to accommodate an adequate sized
drop-off and pid\:-up area; one capable of allowing all such acti,.ity to take place off the
street.. Undoubtedly the school district will cooperate with the City in the layout of the
school so that traffic impacts will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable.
Additionally, use of the playfield and play areas could be annoying to some nearby
residents. However, at the most, residences will border the school only on one side (the
north) thereby minimizing the number of homes potentially impacted. Also, the pads of
these lots will be several feet higher than the school site which \".m help to attenuate the
adjacency impact The other three sides are bordered by streets and a park.. Design of the
school and park will probably be integrated thereby enhancing the potential for the school
playfield and play areas to be buffered from adjacent residences. This integrated design
would be ajoint effort between the City and school district thereby giYing the former the
ability to mitigate these external impacts.
g. Operation of the school should have no negative health or safety effects on people
residing or working in the yicinitv of the fadIit".
h" Ori;inallY the S:h001 sile wa,"Jocated farthe~ east near the future extension of Fallon.":: Jg__~
Road. However, the City and school district staffs felt this adjacency to a major street
\\"as improper for an elementary school. Therefore, this CUP is being processed for the
~b
A-rrhct_H"~FNT Z
~.t"'"o .nt.-.
e..-
e
...--~:~.-:: :
e
'- -
'-
~ :.-.
purpose of reloGlting the site 10 the interior of Phase I, P!Jcin~ the school in the miJdle
of:.i rcsiJcntd neighborhood remo"es the danger posed by the relati'ely hi~h speed
arterial but increases the potential for traffic congestion and annoyance to a gre:ller
number of home em'ners than if it had remained in its ori2inal location. HO\\T"er. there is
no cqui\"a!ence bel\\"een safety and annoyance, therefore:the proposed location is the
superior of the t\\'o. Additionally. as described in paragraph "f' abo,.e, site design can
minimize traffic impacts of the school.
i, The school \\'ould not be located on a hazardous \\'aste site.
- '
".. -.'
. - .'
. '..
?-\
~,' ..,_ l r,; ..co "f).
'" ~ ... ~~ \
.. . ..~.- -- .-; -
-.::>.-0
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CIIT COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
.
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE
CONCERNING PA 95-030 DUBLIN RANCH PHASE I
'WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Lin, submitted a Planned
Development (PD) District Rezone request (P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I) for rezoning an
approximate 210 acre site to PD Single Family (Low Density) Residential (l09.8 acres; 570 dwelling
units); PD Medium Density Residential (35.7 acres; 277 dwelling units); and PD Open Space (57.5
acres). The PD Rezone request also includes a 5 acre neighborhood park and a 2 acre private
recreational facility. The project is generally located east of Tassajara Road and approximately 4,000
reet north of the Interstate 580 Freeway, within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area; and
\VHEREAS, on October 10, 1994, the City Council approved a Planned Development District Overlay
Zone (prezone) for a 1,538 acre site located within the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project
area (p A 94-030); and
-. ~.
, .
\VHEREAS, on November 14, 1994, the Alameda County LAPCo approved the Eastern Dublin
Reorganization for PA 94-030; and .
"WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the Alameda County LA.FCo unanimously disapproved the request
to reconsider the Eastern Dublin Reorganization approval (P A 94-03 0); and
\VHEREAS, on January 23, 1995, the City, Council ordered the tenitory designated as
AllllexationlDetachment No. 10 annexed to the City of Dublin, which includes the 1,538 acre site and
annexed to the Dublin San Ramon Services District and detached from the Livermore Area Recreation
and Park District (p A 94-030); and
\VHEREAS, AnnexationlDetaclunent No. 10 became effective on October 1, 1995; and
\VHEREAS, the Dublin Ranch Phase I project site is located within the 1,538 acre site that has been
prezoned and annexed, and the Applicant's request complies 'with the existing Planned Development
District Prezone provisions; and
\VHEREAS, the Applicant's PD Rezone request amends the initial PD Prezone and includes a District
Planned Development Plan as required under Section 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and a
Land Use and Development Plan as required under the City's Zoning Ordinance, Title 8, Chapter 2,
Section 8-31.16; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider this request o~, ~~4;UY rc ~
January 16, 1996; and ! ; .;:.- ...1.\0_. ,', .~_.
')..'1-
.', ~ ~ .... ~ q,". t-:" t"P'
.::.3.. f ~ i-':.l.l n I\'ho...l" E
3
1
.
.
.
~
.;-
. .
.,.," r
'VHEREAS, proper notice of these Planning Commission public hearings was given in all respects as
required by law; and
\VHEREAS, the Planning Conunission recommended City Council approval of the PD Rezone subjec:~_;
to conditions prepared by Staff; and
V~;HEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing to consider this request on January 23, 1996; and
\VHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects as required by law for the City
Council hearing; and
\VHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for the project dated November 17, 1995 and found that the
project is exempt according to section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project is a residential
project undertaken pursuant to and in conformance with the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
none of the events described in section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines have occurred since the
adoption of the Specific Plan or certification of its EJR. No new effects could occur and no new
mitigation measures would be required for the Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone project that were not
addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin project, and the PD Rezone
is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
\VHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending City Council approval of the Planned
Development District Rezone subject to conditions; and
"'HEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, written and oral_.,":,,:.
testimony submitted at the public hearing as herein above set forth. ..... .
NO'"', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find:
1. The proposed PD Rezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general provisions and
purpose ofthe PD District Overly Zone (pD Prezone), the City General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provisions and design guidelines; and
2. The rezoning, as conditioned, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being
compatible with existing land uses in the area, and will not overburden public services;
and
3. The rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves P A 95-030 Dublin Ranch
Phase I subject to the general provisions listed below:
).'!;
.:.-;.
[-'t.'?: II c? -~q
2
-, .~
....
G~!\TERAL PROVISIONS
.!:.~ Purpose
This approval is for a Planned Development (PD) District Rezoning for PA 95-030 Dublin RanCh.t
1. This PD District Rezone that includes a Land Use and Development Plan and District Planned
Development Plan is consistent with the initial Planned Development (PD) District Prezone and amends
the initial Prezone with more detailed land use and development plan provisions. The PD District
Rezone allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals,
policies and action programs of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met. More
particularly, the PD District Rezone is intended to ensure the following policies:
1. Concentrate development on less environmentally and visually sensitive or constrained
portions of the plan area and preserve significant open space areas and natural and topographic
landscape features with minimum alteration of land forms.
2. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning, building design and construction to
create a range of housing types and prices, and to provide housing for all segments of the
community.
3. Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
4. Develop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common o~
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities. .
':-'
5.
Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile.
B. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - ADplicable Requirements
~xcept as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and general
requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to this PD District.
c.
General Provisions and Development Standards
1. Intent: This approval is for the Planned Development (PD) District Rezone P A 95-030
Dublin Ranch Phase 1. This approval rezones 109.8 acres to PD Single Family Residential (570
dwelling units; 5.2 dulac); 35.7 acres to PD Medium Density Residential (277 dwelling units; 7.8
dulac), for a total maximum of 847 dwelling units; and 57.5 acres to PD Open space. The
number of dwelling units and mix of dwelling unit types (i.e. ratio of Single Family Residential to
Medium Density Residential) can vary under each residential land use category while staying
within the approved density ranges. However, the total number of units shall not exceed the
maximum number of dwelling units, which is 847. This approval also rezones 5 acres for PD
neighborhood park and 2 acres for a private recreational facility. Development shall be generally
consistent with the following PD Rezone submittals labeled Exhibit A on file with the Dublin.
Planning Department:
~~
f' r~I JEL C': _0~
...
.
.
.
,..5
~
". '
,...,....
......
a,
District Planned Development Plan, Land Use and Development Plan, comprising the
Phase I Site Plan, lO-Scale Plotting Maps, and Boundary and Phasing Plan, prepared by
MacKay and Somps, \Villiam Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. and J\1UVIS dated received,,~..
August 10,1995 and November 15,1995. ',::"
b. Dublin Ranch Phase I Architecture and Landscape and Open Space Design Guidelines
prepared by MacKay and Somps, William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. and NUVIS
dated received August 10, 1995 and November 15, 1995.
2. Single Family Residential: Development standards within the Single Family land use
designation shall conform to the City of Dublin R-I District provisions and the PD District
Overlay Zone for P A 94-030 Eastern Dublin (City Council Resolution No, 104-94). As the R-I
District base zone, all the R-I District provisions shall apply, except those superseded by the
following provisions. Only detached single family units are allowed in this District.
Lot Size:
4,000 sq. ft. minimum
Median Lot Width:
50 feet
Minimum Lot Frontage:
35 feet
Minimum Lot Depth:
80 feet
Front yard Depth (setback from back of sidewalk):
'. "
.-: + 0',
':-'."
Minimum 12 feet to porch or living area.
Minimum 17 feet to garage, except for side opening garages
(minimum 15 feet to side opening garages).
Driveways less than 20 feet in length require automatic garage
door openers and uroll up" doors
Side Yard (setback):
Minimum 5 feet to living area - Minimum 10 feet at corner
conditions
Garages located at the rear half of a lot have no minimum side
yard. Building restrictions for zero lot line structures shall be
applied as conditions of Site DevelopIpent Review approval.
Rear Yard (setback):
5 feet minimum._~~pea useable yard equal to.J.Q!O of the lot
size with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in' any direction.
Garages located in the rear half of a lot have a 3 foot minimum
rear setback.
Minimum Building
Separation:
- . ..
:.:.". .
10 feet (exC'!1Jding allowable encroachments).
4
.- ,.__ \q r_:Jq
: )~:,,--:"::...- :~::- ~..
, ,
, , .
"-
- - ----, -:)
, ,
Maximum Building
Height: 30 feet or 2 stories at anyone point.
3, Medium Density Residential: Development standards for attached and detached units.
the Medium Density land use designation shall conform to the City of Dublin R-S District
provisions and the PD District Overlay Zone for P A 94-030 Eastern Dublin (City Council
Resolution NO.1 04-94). As the R-S District base zone, all the R-S District provisions shall
apply, except those superseded by the following:
Attached Standards:
Front Yard Depth:
Minimum] 0 feet to porch or living area.
Minimum 5 feet to garage,
Side Yard (setback):
Minimum 5 feet including encroachments (UBC standards).
Rear Yard (setback):
:Minimum 10 feet to living area.
Yard Space:
Provide a useable yard of 150 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 10 feet in any direction.
Upper floor units shall have a deck of at least 50 square feet 'with
a minimum dimension of5 feet. .
Minimum Building
Separation:
10 feet including encroachments (UBe building standards).
Maximum Building
Height:
30 feet, or 2.5 stories at anyone point.
Detached Standards:
Minimum Lot Size:
2,000 square feet
Median Lot Width:
30 feet at building setback; 35 feet at corner conditions
Average Lot Depth:
Not Applicable
Front Yard Depth (setback from back of sidewalk):
Minimum 10 feet to porch or living area,
Minimum 5 feet to garage without driveway, or greater than 17..
feet to garage with driveway, except for side opening garages,
#-.'
Driveways _~ss than 20 feet in length require automatic garage
door openers and <'roll up" doors.
5
.",;,.~.=~Q xG~
.
.
.
,:~
. ..' - j
Side Yard (setback):
3 feet minimum- 6 feet at comer conditions.
Garages have 0 foot side yards,
Rear Yard (setback):
5 feet minimum. Provide a minimum useable yard of 150 sq. ft.
with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction. Garages
may have 0 feet rear yards.
Minimum Building
Separation:
6 feet
Garages may be attached.
Reciprocal easements may be used to satisfy yard requirements.
Maximum Building
Height:
30 feet, or 2.5 stories at anyone point.
Additional Standards:
Garages:
Parking requirements may be met v.~th tandem garages.
Adjacent Uses:
Interior side yard setbacks adjacent to common open space, parks,
greenbelts and stream corridors shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
Encroachment:
The following encroachments shall be allowed to project up to 2 feet into
yard setbacks: eaves, architectural projections, fireplaces, (including log -,
storage and entertainment niche), balconies, bay windows, window seats, :,:;'::,~:
ex.1erior stairs, second floor overhangs, decks, porches and air conditioning ..
equipment. All non-fire rated encroachments must be at least 3 feet from
property lines.
Front Yard
Landscaping:
The applicant/developer shall install front yard landscaping within all the
medium density neighborhoods,
4. Curvilinear Streets: Site design ofthe individual neighborhoods may vary from that shown in
Dublin REnch Phase I Rezone (PA 95-030) if the number of units in a neighborhood is adjusted
or attached units are substituted for detached (in medium density neighborhoods only).
However, the concept of curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs cannot be altered.
5. Architectural Design: Eight distinct architectural styles are described in the Dublin Ranch
Phase I Architecture and Landscape and Open Space Design Guidelines and architectural
elevations. Any or all of these styles can be utilized in an individual neighborhood. Additional
styles can be permitted at Site Development Review if it is determined they would not change
the overall character of the Dublin Ranch Phase I plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TH.A..T THE Dublin City Council approves ofPA 95-030 Dublin
Ranch Phase I PD Rezone subject to the following conditions:
*".. ~.
\.>-
~'.',~= C6_L (,:- .1S
~1
6
,'.-, -
. : . ~--- -
., +.
. : ._~;.'
,(3)
.it
--.,,- ',:'\
,-,'I
CO:!\'TIITIONS OF .A..PPROV J\L:
.
Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancv of
any buildin and shall be sub'ect to Plannin De artment review and a roval. The followimr cod
reoresent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of
aporoval: rPL] Planning. fBl Building, [1>1 Parks and Community Services. [PO) Police. fPWl Public
\Vorks. [ADMl Administration/Citv Attornev. rFINl Finance. rFl Doughertv Regional Fire Authoritv.
rnSRl Dublin San Ramon Services District rCOl Alameda County Flood Control and \Vater
Conservation District rZone 71
GENERAL
1. The Land Use and Development Plan, District Planned Development Plan and i\rchitecture and
Landscape and Open space Design Guidelines for Dublin Ranch Phase I (P A 95-030) are
conceptual in nature. No formal amendment ofthis PD Rezone will be required as long as the
materials submitted for the Tentative Map and Site Development Review are in substantial
conformance with this PD Rezone and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planning Director
shall determine conformance or non-conformance and appropriate processing procedures for
modifying this PD Rezone (i, e. staff approval, Planning Commission approval of Conditional
Use Permit, or City Council approval of new PD Rezone). Major modifications, or revisions not
found to be in substantial conformance with this PD Rezone shall require a new PD Rezone. A
subsequent PD rezone may address all or a portion of the area covered by this PD Rezone. [PL]
2.
Prior to obtaining building permits, the applicant must receive Site Development Review (SD.
approval as established in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, unless the Planning Director
approved a SDR waiver and a zoning approval is granted upon the determination that the
construction constitutes a minor project and building permit plans are in accord with the intent
and objectives of the SDR procedures. [PL]
'"
-'.
Except as may be specifically provided for within these General Pro\~sions for P A 95-030,
development shall comply with the City of Dublin Site Development Re\~ew Standard
Conditions (see Attachment A-I). [PLJ
4.
Except as may be specifically provided for within this PD, development shall comply with the
City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements (Attachment A-2). [PO]
5.
The design, location and material of all fencing and retaining walls shall be subject Site
Development Review approval unless the Planning Director waives the SDR requirement. [PL]
The applicant shall comply with all applicable grading guidelines as indicated on page] 03 of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. (PW, PL]
7.
The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of one or more Dublin .
Ranch Phase I homeowners associations shall be submitted with the Tentative Map and/or Sit
Development Review application, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning
Director and City Attorney prior to record~!.ion of the Final Subdivision Map, or prior to Site
Development Review approvaL [PL, ADM]
7
!" " -:-;t:) "-,:- a1
. ; ....;,.. ~_k.L~ '~. ____
.
.
.
,',
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
8,
The Dublin Ranch Phase I project proponent and the City of Dublin shall enter into a
development agreement prior to Tentative Map approval, which shall contain, but not be limite .... .
to, provisions for financing and timing of on and off-site infrastructure, payment of traffic, noise .
and public facilities impact fees, affordable housing, and other provisions deemed necessary by
the City to find the project consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. At some future
date, the applicant shall be responsible for paying all fees required by the Development
Agreement. [PL]
SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION
9. No tentative subdivision map for all or any part of the area covered by this Land Use and
Development Plan shall be approved by the City Council until the applicant has entered into a
written mitigation agreement "'~th the affected school district(s) and the City. The mitigation
agreement shall establish the method and manner of financing and/or constructing school
facilities necessary to serve the student population generated by the development. The
mitigation agreement shall address the level of mitigation necessary, the amount of any school
impact fees, the time of payment of any such fees and similar matters. The City shall be a party
to any such agreement only for the purpose of assuring unifonnity with respect to different
property owners and appropriate land use planning. [PL, ADM]
NOISE
10. A noise study shall be required for the Tentative Map application submittal to show how interior:',':;,:~';:
noise levels will be controlled to acceptable limits. [PL, B] ",
SCEWCCORromORPOUCffiS
11. The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Eastern Dublin Scenic Conidor Policies and
Development Standards. If the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Development
Standards have not been adopted prior to approving the Tentative Map for the project, the
applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan's scenic corridor,
development standards and grading policies and action programs through a detailed visual
analysis submitted with the Tentative Map application, [PL]
L.A...'NDSCAPElOPEN SP ACE/TRAILS
12. As part ofthe Tentative Map approval, the applicant shall be conditioned to offer to dedicate the
intermittent stream/open space and trail corridors. If the City accepts this dedication of
improvements, no credit for these areas and improvements shall be given towards parkland
dedication requirements. [P, PL, PW]
13,
iJI graded cut and fill slope areas shall be revegetated as described in Policy 6-22 of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, subject to Site Development R~view approval. [PL, PW]
, -
. .~ .
14.
All landscape within the open space and C_~TDI11on areas, including the neighborhood park and
the intermittent stream and open space C;rridOr shall be subject to Site ~::~~3"~~tL~crew
~q
"~
,,',:',\
'.. ".
15,
approval. The proposed landscape plans to be submitted with the Site Development Re\ljew
application shall take into consideration Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone comments prepared
by Singer, Hodges, Evans, dated received October 10, 1995. [PL]
Appropriate all weather surface (e.g. crushed gravel or rock) vehicular access to open spac.
various trail systems and some residential areas, as shown on Exhibit A, shall be provided and
maintained on a continuous basis, to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, Public Works Director
and Planning Director. [F, PW, P]
16.
A minimum 25 foot setback from the intermittent stream/open space corridors shall be
encouraged wherever possible. Setbacks for this purpose shall be measured from the edge of
drainage corridors as shown on Figures 4.1, 6,2 and 7.33 ofthe Specific Plan. [PL]
BulLDING
17. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time
of building permit. [B]
18. The following information shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application: 1) Dublin
Ranch Phase I Geotechnical Report dated June 19, 1995; 2) solar panel guidelines; 3)
clarification of new Zone 2 or Zone 3 water reservoir location and need; 4) City of Pleasant on's
water reservoir details (i.e., fences, retaining walls, roadway for access). [B]
. w..
" ,
>~.:.".~ ::.
.....
P:\RKS AND RECREATION
.
19. The applicant shall comply with the City's Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 9.28 Dedication of
Land for Park and Recreation Purposes and the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan park
dedication and design requirements by either dedicating 12 acres of park land, or paying park
dedication in-lieu fees, or providing a combination of both park land dedication and in-lieu fees
based on the maximum number of units proposed, prior to Final Subdivision Map approval. The
City may consider the applicant's request to improve the public neighborhood park and receive
credit for those improvements to the public park. The City shall be responsible for designing
and inspecting the public park. [P, PW, PL]
19.A... At the time of Tentative Map approval, the City may consider the applicant's request for credit
for the two (2) acre private recreation facility in accordance with the Dublin Municipal Code,
Chapter 9.28 Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes. Should the City deny the
applicant's request, the applicant may delete the private recreation facility from the Land Use
and Development Plan (LOOP), and through the Planning Director's review and approval of the
modified LOOP and Tentative Map, develop the site in conformance with the Single Family
Residential land use designation and zoning, The maximum number of units that could be
allowed for this 2- acre site is 12 dwelling units. In this case, a maximum of 859 dwelling units
could be allowed for the Dublin Rlmch Phase I Rezone project. [P, PW, PL]
.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
.....-.
20.
The applicant shall comply with the City' & ?roposed Stream Corridor Restoration Program and
the Grazing Management Plan. The project's intermittent stream enhancement and r..~toration
, .....,-:-Cll \ r- f (]
9 ; , ,.:_lX..:l. '-'.' ~I
'7Jp
.
.
.
.:--;-...
'..-
, "
improvements shall comply v.ith the Plan requirements and shall be submitted with the Tentative
Map application for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. If a Stream Conidor Restoration
Program and the Grazing Management Plan have not been adopted prior to approving the
Tentative Map for the project, the applicant shall provide project specific stream corridor . , "
restoration and grazing management requirements and shall submit this plan during the Tentative
Map project review. [PL, Zone 7, P\\TJ
21.
The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for
mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts (e,g. Applicant shall submit a
preconstfUction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to verify the
presence of sensitive species. A biologist shall prepare the survey and shall be subject to the
Planning Department review and approval). Any updated surveys and/or studies that may be
completed by a biologist prior to Tentative Map application submittal shall be submitted with the
Tentative Map application. [PLJ
PAI.RKING
22. The availability of adequate on-street parking within the Medium Density Residential area shall
be re-assessed prior to Tentative Map approval to determine its adequacy. [PL, P\\7]
TRAFFIC/PUBLIC WORKS
23.
The Applicant shall meet all City of Dublin minimum roadway standards for public streets prior
to Tentative Map approval. All minor modifications to the City's roadway standards shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. [P\\7]
,.".'-'
24. Applicant shall pay a traffic impact fee or construct required improvements based on the
adopted Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (per Resolution No. 1-95) and the proposed 1-580
Interchange Traffic Impact Fee (fee that will be agreed upon by the City of Dublin and City of
Pleasanton for interchange improvements), as such fees may hereafter be modified or amended..
These fees shall be paid prior to :final inspection of each unit, unless and until, the City Council
amends Resolution 1-95 to make the fee payable prior to issuance of building permits, [pW, BJ
25. The applicant shall submit an update of the traffic study prepared by TJICM dated December,
1995 with the Tentative Map application and the study shall be subject to review and approval
by the Public Works Director. Appropriate traffic mitigation measures will be identified and
included as conditions of Tentative Map approval. Such traffic mitigation may include, but not
be limited to: [PW]
a. Traffic signalization
b. Roadway shoulder construction
c. Frontage improvements
d. pavement widening
e. Overlays of existing pavement
f. Dedications of right-of-way
g, Restriping .,
,f
_._-f)5~- ~9
. :'::~~C ..._ _ _~ L1:" ill.
10
31.
...?
-'-.
.::'~~
25, V\-There decorative paving is installed in public streets, pre-fonned traffic signal loops shall be
llsed u:1oer the decorative paving, \Vhere possible, irrigation laterals shall not be placed under
the decorative paving. Maintenance costs oflhe decorative paving shall be included in a
landscape and lighting maintenance assessment district or other funding mechanism accept.
to the City Manager. Decorative paving plans shall be submitted with the Tentative Map
application submittal and shall be subject 10 the review and approval of the Public 'Works
Director. [pW, ADM]
27, Street lights on arterial streets shall be the City Standard cobra head luminaries with galvanized
poles. Where decorative lights are to be used on residential streets, these lights shall be
designed so as to not shine into adjacent windows, shall be easily accessible for purchase over a
long period of time (e.g. 30 or more years), and shall be designed so that the efficiency of the
lights do not require close spacing to meet illumination requirements. A street lighting plan
demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the Tentative Map
application and shall be subject to the Public Works Director's review and approval. [P\\1
28. Street name signs shall display the name of the street together with a City Standard shamrock
logo. Posts shall be galvanized steel pipe. A street sign plan shall be submitted with the
Tentative Map application and shall be subject to the Public 'VtTorks Director's review and
approval. [PW]
29. The applicant shall construct a minimum 10 foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path between the
looped residential collector street and Fallon Road, as shown on Exhibit A [P\\T, PL]
.
FIRE
30.
Applicant shall comply with all DRF A fire standards, including minimum standards for
emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees, including a Fire Capital Impact Fee. [F]
A fire buffer zone between the development area and open space area shall be provided and
maintained by a home owners association on a continuous basis to the satisfaction of the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. [F]
The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed 'Wildfire Management Plan. The Plan
requirements shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. If a
Wildfire Management Plan has not been adopted prior to approving the CC&Rs for the project,
the applicant shall provide a project specific wildfire management plan and shall submit this plan
during the Tentative Map project review. [F, PL, P'W]
UTILITY SERVICESIPOSTAL SERViCES
33. The location and siting of project specific wastewater, storm drainage and potable water system
infrastructure shall be consistent with the resource management policies ofthe Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, [PL, P\\T, DSR] .
34:
,~
All on- and off-site potable and recycled water and wastewater facilities shall be constructed in
conformance with DSRSD Major Infrastr~!:;ture Policy (Res. 29-94). The applicant shall submit
plans for the potable and recycled water and sewer system to service this development
>-..' ."',"" C) ( 1'\ t,.,. B1iSJ ...
11 1<:._Q\~ '.';' 1/\ ,
.
.
.
~
..-.....
. .,
- . : ~ .
acceptable to DSRSD, pay fees required by DSRSD and receive DSRSD's approval prior to
issuance of any building permit. Developer-dedicated facilities shall be in conformance with the
DSRSD Standard Specifications and Drawings,[B, PW, DSR]
-......
35, The applicant shall provide a "will" serve letter from DSRSD prior to issuance .ofthe grading
pennit for the grading that creates individual building sites, which states that the Dublin Ranch
Phase I project can be served by DSRSD for water and sewer prior to occupancy. [B, PW]
36, A recycled water distribution system for the landscaping within Dublin Ranch Phase I area shall
be provided per the City of Dublin, Zone 7, and DSRSD requirements. The landscaping areas
must meet City of Dublin \Vater Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements. [pW, Zone 7,
DSR]
37. Applicant shall provide Public Utility Easements per requirements of the City of Dublin and/or
public utility companies as necessary to serve this area with utility services. [PW]
38. The applicant shall confer with local postal authorities to determine the required type of mail
units and provide a letter from the Postal Service stating their satisfaction at the time the
Tentative Map and Site Development Review submittal is made. Specific locations for such
units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Dublin Planning Department. [PL]
39.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide "will serve" letters from
appropriate agencies documenting that adequate electric, gas, telephone and landfill capacity is
available prior to occupancy. [PL]
40. The applicant shall work with DSRSD to help fund a recycled water distribution system
computer model that reflects the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment. [D SR]
41. The applicant shall comply with all PJarneda County Flood Control and V\Tater Conservation
District - Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees. [Zone 7, PW]
MlSCELLANEOUS EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GEJ'\"ERAL PLAN AMENDMEJ\1T
FINJ\L EIR :MITIGATION MEASURES
42. Applicant shall work with LA VTA to establish the need, bus route(s), bus turnouts, bus stop
sign locations, bus shelter locations, and other transit amenities for this project prior to Site
Development Review approval. [P'W]
43.
Applicant shall design bus turnouts, transit shelters and pedestrian paths (sidewalks) consistent
with the proposed LA vr A routes and stops and the City of Dublin 's requirements and
standards prior to issuance of building permits for the residential units. Conceptual design plans
shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application submittal and subject to the Public Works
Director review and approval. Construction shall be undenal:en as part of the street
improvement work. [PV\1
..
44.
The applicant shall comply with the City's =:rosion and sedimentation control ordinance. [pV\7]
......-,R} .'.- ~q
! ."-' .... ~J
~I - ~;:..... -- - -
~'?
':,:'0
~5. The applicant shall comply v/ith all \,isual resource mitigation measures of the FErn. relative 10
grading, scenic corridors, scenic vista preservation, and similar visual resources, [PL, FW] .
45, The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requireme
[ADM] ,
47. All new reservoir construction shall comply with DSRSD's requirements, [DSR, PW]
48, The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR..), respectively, that have not been made specific conditions of approval of
this PD Rezone. [PL]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day ofJanuaI)', 1996,
AYES:
Cound/members Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and A1ayor Houston
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN: None
CL / Jl /"11 I
/\,'l ()' ..xJ ,,/f0'%1:::
. Mayor
.
, -'
. ,
~ .-.
A~
.~
ity tl~
K=;G/1-23- 96/reso-lin.doc
.
. ,'_'r
-.."
';~
,- ~_':: rK r;:- ~9
' .. ele) , ~...~
. ~ . ~.- ...-....------ -. .........'-....
...,
nflY- c-l;H r J'i:l tl; j.c.
L VJU.:>lJ J"nv. JJl.llJ I.
J JU' II......' 'lJ.l.VV\,.lv...,""....."'"
.:-
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
wv.w.tv;usd.k12,CGl.us
685 East Jack London Boulevard. Livermore, CA 94550
Tel 510.606.3200 Fax 510.606.3328
April 30, 1997
Tasha Huslon
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
100 Ci vie Plaza
Dublin, CA. 94568
Re: FA 97..004 Dublin Ranch Phase I - Conditional Use Permit
Dear Ms. Huston:
.:..
. -. -: :
,.-
Thank you for allowing the Livelmore Valley JL Unified School District Lhe OPP011unity to
commenl on the proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a minor modificntiol1l.O
the approved Pmnned Development (PD) Re7.one and Land Use & Development Plan for
the Dublin Ranch Phase I PD located on the east side of Tassajara Rd., 4,000 feet north of
I..580 on approximately 847 acres.
The proposed modification will revise the project boundary to include a 10 acre elementary
school site and 2 acre open ~1'ace buffer. The proposed elementary school sire will be
located adjacent to residential housing units on the north, east. and south and a
neighborhood park on the west. The school sitD will have aCt,..'ess to two neighborhood
streets, away from busy multiple lane intersections, making it possible for better and safer
pick-up and drop-off locations. The ~roximity to the neighborhood park will also create
more opportunities for joint use a...-tivl1ies with the city.
Additionally, the district is concemcd about safe student Lravel10 and from school from
areas further away from the school site that will have to eross busy intersections. The
di.strict prefers routes lhat distance pedestrian and bike travel from vehicular Lravello the
greateSt extent possible.
This project is required to fully mitigate school facilities impacL We look forward to
working with the developer and city to dic:;cuss meeting facility needs.
Sincerely.
7?rpd &It!1 /or
Kim McNeely
Facilities Planner
.
KMlma
'"':.,..~,.~ ~
. . . I. ~ \
I "-.:...,~.._ __ .-: ._~-
.;-:
'7~
ATTACHMENT
,~. :-egular meeting ofIhe City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May] 3, ] 997. in
ihe Dublin Ci"ic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by
Chairperson Jennings.
**** * **.**
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Jennings, Johnson, Fasulkey, Hughes, and Oravetz; Dennis Carrington, Senior
Planner: Tasha Huston. Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary,
**** * **.**
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
**** * *****
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The minutes of the April 22, 1997, meeting were approved as submitted with one minor correction.
**** * *****
.. '
. ." .
ORAL COMM1JNICA TIONS
:None
**** * *****
\VRITTEN COMMUNIC.A TIONS
Mr. Carrington handed out changes to be discussed under items 8.2 for P A 97-004, Dublin Ranch
Conditional Use Permit,
**** * ****
PUBLJC HEARING
8,1 P A 97-0 1 3 Amendment to Planned Development District Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance
to allow the adoption of Stage 1 and Stage 2. Development Plans. Stage 1 Development Plans are
generalized plans adopted for the entire development area and Stage 2 Development Plans are
detailed plans adopted for ponions of the development area,
em, Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report,
"0"."
Dennis Carrington gave a brief description ofthe project, He stated tonight was the first phase of the
Zoning Ordinance amendment. This was the draft Planned Development Ordinance, He also said there
'!>~
R~gular M~eting
[5~13 pemi]
May 13, 1997
50
.
.
.
.
were two other changes to the Planned Development section of the Zoning Ordinance which would
include: I) the requirement that the minimum area of a Planned Development be 4 acres; and 2) that the
Community Development Director may approve minor amendments to a Development Plan.
em, Fasulkey asked who makes the decision ofthe four acres. He stated that there was the ability to
make an exception, but who made that the decision,
Mr. Carrington stated he would seek guidance. It would probably be delegated to the Community
Development Director. He asked how the Commission felt on the issue.
Cm. Hughes stated it made sense to have the decision done in house. He suggested that the information
be included in the Ordinance.
Mr. Carrington agreed and stated he would place the wording in the Ordinance that the Community
Development Director could make that determination.
Cm. Fasulkey asked about page 3 of the staff report; "the structures within the 300 feet ofthe district
boundary." Was that 300 feet inside, outside or 300 feet on either side of the boundaries.
Mr, Carrington stated it was 300 feet from the outside. He noted that was an inconsistency in the
language and changed the language of the Ordinance to state "beyond the district boundary".
.
Cm. Hughes asked what if there was a disagreement with the applicant and the decision made by the
Planning Department, what was the nonnal appeal process.
.. ~. ..'
. '..;-
"oW._ ;
Mr. Carrington stated with an Ordinance, they could appeal within 30 days to the City Council with a
decision by the Department of Community Development. They could appeal to the Planning
Commission and appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. He stated that normally
with a Resolution approving a discretionary permit, it would be a ] O-day appeal period.
Cm. Hughes stated that on page 6 of the staffreport it states that the Director of Community
Development may approve minor amendments; would it make sense to attach the same language to the
last section under "amendments." He was asking if Sec. 8-31.6 "Minimum Area" and Sec. 8-3].8
".tunendments," could be combined.
Mr. Carrington stated the amendment section should be separate. The current Ordinance states the
Planning Commission should make decisions. The proposed change was that the Community
Development Director could approve minor amendments. He stated that the language could read "the
Community Development Director in addition to the Planning Commission."
Cm, Fasulkey stated that the language change should be inserted throughout the document to applicable
sections.
.
Cm. Hughes recommended to insert the words "in addition to the Planning Commission" to section 8-
31.8.
Cm. Fasulkey recommended the words "in addition to the Planning Commission" be added to section 8-
31.4 also.
..-.,
May 13. 1997
Regular Meeting
[5.13 pcmi]
51
Bob Harris, representative of Jennifer Lin property, stated he reviewed the draft Ordinance and had some .
concerns with the first draft; however, Dennis had addressed those issues and no longer had any
concerns. He stated this revision would not impact the remainder of Dublin Ranch project; however, it
would effect future properties that Jennifer Lin owns.
Mr, Carrington read a statement for the record, that this Ordinance does not apply to areas ABC & D of
Dublin Ranch.
Cm, Johnson asked if there were any other projects this Ordinance would not apply to.
Mr. Carrington stated Dublin Ranch was the only one,
Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm, Hughes, seconded by Cm, Fasulkey and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted, as amended,
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -10
RECO.MMEl\'DING ADOPTION OF PA 97-013 ZOl\'ING ORDlNANCE
AMEl\TDMENT REL.<\.TING TO THE PD (pLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRlCT
.
8.1
PA 97-004 Dublin Ranch Conditional Use Permit request for Conditional Use Permit approval
allowing modifications to the Planned Development Rezone for Phase I of Dublin Ranch
Planned Development Rezone.
em. Jennings opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Tasha Huston gave a description of the project. She stated that this was a request for a Minor
Modification to the approved Land Use and Development Plan for Phase I of the Dublin Ranch
Development. She stated that Dublin Ranch was located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, East
ofTassajara Road, on the land which was annexed to the City in 1985. Phase I of the Dublin Ranch
project was approved for development of approximately 850 homes, 58 acres of open space, and a 5 acre
neighborhood park. She stated that for this current project, they were concerned with the location of the
school site. After the previous adoption of the Planned Development for Phase I, more refined land
development plans have been created, and staff from the Dublin and Livermore School Districts have
met to discuss the location and number of schools needed for the early phases of development in Eastern
Dublin. Both School Districts recommended that the school near Fallon Road should be relocated,
further away from the major roadway and closer to the residential neighborhood in Phase 1. Approving
the relocation can be done with a Conditional Use Permit, considered a "Minor Modification" to the
approved Planned Development. Staff support<; this Minor Modification to the approved Planned
Development subject to the conditions specified.
em, Hughes asked the expectation of traffic on Fallon Road in the future,
.
~
R:gular Meeting
[5~] 3 pcmi]
~')
=>-
May 13, 1997
.
.
.
,'1
Ms, Huston stated that it was less than previously estimated for this portion of Fallon Road, and less than
Tassajara Road. She stated that both school districts and the City were in favor of moving the school to
a location surrounded by less busy streets,
Cm. Hughes asked if there were homes anticipated on the east side of Fallon Road.
Ms. Huston stated yes. She stated that the traffic on the future Fallon extension would partially be
generated by the homes in Phase 1. She showed an exhibit of where the school sites would be located.
Cm. Hughes asked what type of schools would be located out in Eastern Dublin.
Ms. Huston responded that there would be two elementary schools and one high school.
Cm. Hughes stated that a lot of the kids living on the east side of Fallon Road would need to cross Fallon
to f!et to the school. He asked ifboth school districts were in agreement on movinf! the school off Fallon.
~ ~ ~
Ms, Huston responded yes.
Cm. Hughes asked if a traffic study had been done.
Ms, Huston responded yes.
Cm, Hughes stated that the proposed site looks smaller than the original site.
- ~.:.".
Ms, Huston responded that they were both 10 acres in size.
Cm. Hughes asked what the Fire Department and Police Department thought about relocating the school
site.
Ms. Huston stated the police had some concerns of loc<.tting a school ne)...1 to a neighborhood park, but
recognized that schools next to parks were standard practice. Their concerns were looked at, and overall
concerns will be taken into consideration when they design the park site,
Cm. Hughes stated the streets would take the brunt of traffic, however the development on the east side
would not have that burden.
Ms. Huston stated the major concerns of the school district were vehicle stacking; dropping off and
picking up children causes substantial impact on the neighborhoods and this location allowed for bener
circulation.
Cm. Oravetz. asked if Fall on Road would become as busy as San Ramon Road or Dublin Blvd,
Ms, Huston stated it was planned for long range to become a major arterial in Dublin.
Cm, Hughes asked questions about whether residents from future phases of development east of Fallon
Road will need to cross this road to reach the school, and if the school was constructed in the original
location, whether people would be parking on the east side due to the creek buffer,
"'-",-.
Regular Meeting
[5-13 pcmi]
May 13,1997
53
1\15, Huston stared correct. She stated that for neighborhood access, they have proposed an under-
crossing primarily for golf carts for the conceptual golf course proposal in the area, but it can be used for .
school children to cross beneath Fallon Road and walk down the corridor to the school.
em, Johnson asked if the open space on both sides of Fallon Road was tentatively proposed as a golf
course site.
Ms. Huston stated yes.
Cm. Johnson asked ifthe children living to the east in the undeveloped area would walk down Fallon
Road or the foot path to get to school.
Ms. Huston stated they would walk down the foot path and the creek corridor on the west side of Fallon
Road.
Cm, Johnson asked if the City was anticipating further expansion in five to ten years.
Ms, Huston responded yes,
Cm. Fasulkey asked if the track of homes on the north end directly across from the school, had
driveways facing the school.
Ms, Huston responded yes.
.
.-' .~.
w"_."_
~.. -'
+ ~-.
Cm. Fasulkey asked if they could have the back ofthe houses face the school to limit traffic.
Ms. Huston stated that could be considered at the time when the project was designed. She stated that if
revisions and the lot layout did not have to significantly change, it could be considered as a minor
change.
Cm. Johnson asked what the concern was of having the driveways face the school.
Cm. Fasulkey stated it could create a traffic situation with people trying to back out of their driveway
while people were dropping off children at school.
Cm Hughes stated the problem could be resolved by leaving the school where it was originally, He
asked ifthe "M" on the site plan referred to multi-family.
Ms. Huston responded that the "M" was for medium density.
Cm, Hughes asked if duplexes, townhomes, and condos were categorized with "M".
Ms. Huston responded yes, even small lot single family.
Cm, Hughes stated that the high density and the medium density will probably have more children per
acre using that school.
.
~o
Regular Meeting
[5-13 pcmi]
Ma)' 13, 1997
54
.
.
.
Ms, Huston stated that in actuality single family low density homes have a greater number of children
per unit.
Cm. Hughes responded that most developments that have medium or high density were usually less
expensive, which usually has more child rearing age of people who live there. In reviewing the
diagrams, it appears that there will be more children near the original school site, He was concerned
with moving the school just to build a few more homes in the first phase. This may create a problem five
to ten years from now.
Ms. Huston stated that this proposal does not include any changes in the number of lots. Also, she noted
that the school districts had studied the number of school sites needed based upon the various types of
residential units allowed under this density and have estimated where the first three or four school sites
will need to be located for the early stages of development.
Cm, Hughes stated that compared to Dublin High School on a busy street, which causes traffic problems
or Wells Elementary School in a residential neighborhood, which causes problems also. He felt that
when the Dublin Ranch project was planned out, there was probably a very good reason why the schoo]
was put in that original location. The original location of the school seems to be centrally located,
without putting to much of a burden on one particular neighborhood. He felt the new proposal made the
school more isolated.
Ms. Huston stated that a representative of the Livermore School District stated that their primary concern
was the safety of the school children being dropped off. She stated that the trend was, unfortunately, that
some of the parents dropping the children off, were not exactly driving in favor of the children's safety,
We also want to avoid traffic stacking on Fallon Road.
Cm. Johnson stated that there was a barrier on Fallon Road; he asked if the children being dropped off,
(from Fallon Road) would have to cross the creek bed, and would they walk through the stream water.
Ms. Huston stated yes, if students were dropped off on Fallon Road; and pointed out that it was more like
a swale than a creek with running water.
em. Johnson asked the distance of the swale from the schoo] at the original location.
Ms. Huston stated the total buffer was about 100 feet.
Cm. Johnson felt that a parent would not logically drop their child off in the middle of Fallon Road to
cross 100 feet ofvegetation to get to school. He asked ifboth schoo] districts recommended the school
to be moved.
Ms, Huston responded yes.
em. Johnson asked if there was a road off Gleason going up to the original school location.
Ms._Huston stated no. She stated it was a property boundary, not a road, although it could become a road
in the future if the property owners propose to develop the land in that way,
L/I
Regular Meeting
[5-13 pcmi]
May 13. 1997
55
Cm, Johnson stated that if the school district wanted the school moved, and the developer was in
agreement, why should the City argue it.
.
Ms. Huston stated that to clarify an earlier statement, there were no additional units for this phase; it was
just a swap of land.
Cm. Fasulkey asked about the high school property. He understood that there was going to be a High
School in the Livermore plan, and the Dublin plan did not have a high school. He asked what the high
school property would revert back to.
Ms, Huston stated the site was a fifty acre site and was shown in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as a
high school. If the property were within the Livermore School District, the high school site would
remain for a high school. If it were within the Dublin School District, the site would first be developed
as a K-8 school (and students would attend Dublin High School).
Cm, Oravetz asked when the decision be made on the high school and what district it would be in.
Ms, Huston stated the details were being worked out on the boundaries and jurisdictional revisions. The
issue was close to being resolved, which would mean the property would be in the Dublin School
District.
Cm. Oravetz asked who would develop the athletic field for the school.
...- .-.~
.... +
Ms. Huston stated the site was not designed yet.
.
Cm. Oravetz asked if there was a sports ground planned.
Ms. Huston stated that there was a neighborhood park, which may include some play fields.
Cm. Oravetz asked who was responsible for developing the park.
Ms. Huston stated that the City collects fees for the development of parks,
Cm. Oravetz asked why the City did not have the developer develop the park.
Ms, Huston responded that the developer was obligated to dedicate the site, but not to completely
develop it, and there would be an issue of repaying them. She made one last comment that the action
tonight was a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under the City's current Planned Development Ordinance,
The CUP was the vehicle used to make a minor amendment to an approved land use plan. The new
ordinance would not apply to the future phases of Dublin Ranch (Areas A and Areas B-E) that were
currently being processed. She stated that Staff feels this was an appropriate use of the CUP process,
Cm, Fasulkey asked how wide the street was in front of the proposed elementary school.
, , '
-, ,
Ms. Huston stated it would typically be designed as a major residential collector; which was n\'o lanes of
traffic plus parking, She stated that because of possible traffic circulation issues, Staff added a condition .
that if the school site can not accommodate the stacking that was needed for drop off, the street may need
to be widened.
~~
Regular Meeting
[5-13 pcmi)
May 13. 1997
56
.
em, Oravetz asked how many children would attend the school.
Ms. Huston stated she was not certain, and the representatives of the developers were here that may have
the answer.
Dave Chadbourne, MacKay & Somps, stated the school district has been using the 630 standard for their
elementary schools. The residential collector street that went from Fallon Road over to the loop street in
Phase) was planned originally for 72 foot travel lanes, and along the parkway street there was a double
row of trees. He stated they were in favor of the moving the school site, He made a few points of
clarification, and the Dublin Ranch Applicant was proposing this on behalf of the school districts. He
stated that Fallon Road was planned to be a four lane road with a median. He stated that the traffic
numbers were typically 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day. He explained the phasing of the schools and
that there was an initial elementary school to be constructed on the County property. The second school
would be a K-8 combination school and the third elementary school would be located on Pao Lin
property.
Bob Harris, stated there was a possibility that the school in discussion, will not be built in that location or
it may be built on the east side property.
.
Mr. Chadbourne had a concern about loading up the residential collector street with additional traffic, A
uaffic analysis was perfornled by TJKM in the initial study. TJKM looked at the stacking of cars issue
and to his understanding, TJKM documented that there was adequate room on site for drop off and pick
up. His concern was that they would develop a nice collector street, and in the future, the school district
would rip out the trees and the sidewalk to develop the school site.
~ .' ..
-..-
......
Ms. Huston stated as part of the review of the project, the various departments looked at the traffic
analysis, the stacking of cars, and were concerned that at the original site we would have people entering
the collector street from Fallon Road trying to make an immediate left: turn to the site which created
more concerns than anything.
Mr. Chadbourne stated he thought there was a condition that the street would need to be widened to
handle the stacking concern.
Cm. Fasulkey talked about the development to the south and turning it around so it was an enclosed
neighborhood and the back of the houses face the school
Mr. Chadbourne said that goes against what was approved. He stated that the traffic analysis showed
more than enough property to handle the traffic situation.
Cm. Fasulkey still felt that there was a better way to design the houses so that the driveways do not go
directly into the school site, like at Frederiksen Elementary school.
.
Mr. Chadbourne stated there were always houses fronting on this street and it has been approved that
way, and moving the school may complicate things, but it was not an overriding complication,
May 13. 1997
~:;
Regular Meeting
[5-13 pcmi]
57
\1s, Huston offered an alternative design to have the street adjacent to the school designed as the main
collector, but with perpendicular streets coming off this street to the south, so houses were oriented with
their side yards to the school and not have a neighborhood turn its back to the school.
.
Cm, Johnson stated that this site may never be a school was a major issue. It may be dedicated school
property today, but ten years from now the if school decides they don't want it, 100 homes may be built
on it. He stated to make the school designed to handle the cars.
Cm, Fasulkey asked why the redesigned lot has the driveways on the south side of the house, then we
have some houses with the driveway running straight into the elementary school. He felt it was an
inconsistency.
Mr. Chadbourne stated that in their Phase] approval, the residential collectors were not to be overloaded
with traffic. The circulation system was designed so that they would be under 3,000 vehicles per day.
Ms, Huston stated that looking at an alternative design could improve traffic flow; rather than having all
the lots facing one way or the other, we can have streets come off of the main collector to provide the
sides of homes across the street from the school for additional parking, She stated that Condition number
4 could be changed to possibly widen the road way to mitigate impact to the street system.
Cm Johnson stated that changing the entire design for something that may never happen does not make
sense. He stated that it was up to the school to design the drop off and pick up of kids, so it does not
conflict with the houses across the street.
.
.~ - .
. .:;:.:~:~~
Cm. Hughes felt if the school was not built on, the school district may not always keep the vacant lot up
and other types of homes may not be consistent with other homes in the area. He would rather have the
existing school site left vacant than the new spot left vacant in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
Ms, Huston stated the major concern was the left hand turn into the school site at the previous location
from cars entering the collector street off Fallon,
em. Hughes felt the parking situation would not make that much difference from the present site to the
new site. He felt it was unreasonable to place the burden of all the traffic on the neighborhood, and he
was concerned the school district would leave that land vacant for ten years like they did across from
Kolb Park.
Ms. Huston stated this location was better because it was buffered so that it did not back up directly
adjacent to any homes located next to a neighborhood park to the west, and to the north there was a steep
slope up to adjacent homes. She stated that on the east side there were houses on the opposite side of the
residential street,
Cm. Johnson asked if the land was donated from the builder to the school district.
Ms. Huston responded it will be reserved for use by the school district.
..w .
"
..
Mr. Harris stated there was an agreement entered with the Dublin Unified School District, and they pay a .
certain fee per unit.
May ]3, ]997
~~
Regular Mee;ing
[5~J3 pcmi]
58
.
.
.
~s
em, Johnson stated that if the land was donated. the CiTY could put a clause stating that if it was not used
in a certain amount of years, it would be donated to the Parks and Recreation Department. If it was in
lieu offees, the City would have to buy it from the school district.
Cm. Oravetz asked Mr. Chadbourne if it mattered where the school was.
Mr. Chadbourne stated that they resisted moving the school at first because they did not want to go
through this process, however, they have gone through the process and would like to see it resolved one
way or another tonight,
Cm, Hughes asked if the school district normally fences off the school property from a park.
Ms, Huston stated not in her neighborhood, and she has not seen it as a problem.
Cm. Hughes stated his experience with vacant lots was that they had to be kept up. If there were 10 acres
of grass and weeds, it was a perfect place for an incident to happen to a child.
Cm. Johnson asked how long the property south of the site would be developed.
Ms. Huston stated a year or two beyond this stage, Stage one could take five to ten years and it would be
after that.
Cm. Johnson asked if you were going to have vacant land for 10 or more years, would it be better to have
the old site vacant than the new site.
. ..
..-.....
......
Cm. Hughes stated he felt that if the school was not built and it was decided that home would go in the
site, he would rather see different types of homes on the old site than the new site.
Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing.
Cm, Fasulkey felt that the developer should turn the track south of the elementary school around, and
redesign it to be safer; we should not tolerate an unsafe situation.
Cm. Johnson asked if the school was left in the original area, would there not be a problem.
On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 4-1 the Planning Commission
recommended to not adopt the resolution approving,
P A 97-004 DUBLIN RANCH CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED
DUBLIN RI\NCH PLANNED DEVELOPMEl\1}' PROJECT
1\EW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9,1
Upcoming Planning Schedule
Regular Meeting
[5-13 pcmi]
May ]3, ]997
59
em, Oravetz asked our current requirements on fence heights,
Mr. Carrington stated the current requirement was 6 feet with one foot of lattice on the top.
Mr. Carrington requested that the public hearing be reopened on PA 97-013.
Cm. Jennings reopened the public hearing.
.
Mr. Carrington stated we did not address how the Planning Commission would make a minor amendment to a
Planned Development. He state that currently it was done by a CUP, and he wanted to know how it would be
done with the new wording. He felt it should read "and/or the Planning Commission by means ofa CUP," On
page 4. he mentioned the densities would be the maximum densities, he proposed to add maximum in two places
and read it for the record.,
Cm. Jennings stated the changes were noted and asked if anyone wished to speak.
Bob Harris asked the wording to be repeated.
Mr. Carrington repeated the changes.
Mr. Harris recommended to delete the word "exact" and replace it with the word "maximum,"
Mr. Carrington stated that would be fine.
Mr. Harris agreed.
Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing.
Cm. Hughes moved to accept the changes of section 8-31.4 , and on page 6 of the staff report, section 8-31.7,
seconded by Cm. Oravetz with a 5-0 unanimous vote.
Mr. Carrington stated Mr. Peabody requested to go over the results of the joint study session. He stated the
Zoning Ordinance may go to the Planning Commission some time in July,
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
ArrEST:
Community Development Director
~(p
Regular Meeting
[5-13 pcmi]
May 13, 1997
60
.
.
DUBLIN SCHOOLS
. DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FAX TO:
T asha Houston
City of Dublin, Planning Department
833-6628
FROM:
Jeanne Howland
Asst. Supt./Business
DATE:
May 19,1997
RE:
Dublin Ranch School Site Location
.
The Dublin Unified School District is in suppbrt of the relocation of the school site
("site") in the Dublin Ranch property from along Fallon Road to the adjacent
neighborhood park. As the City of Dublin is aware, on October 2, 1996 following a
series of meetings with District and City staff, the Board of Trustees of the Dublin
Unified School District appr,?ved the school site locations in East Dublin. This
information 'NaS confirmed (along with the intent to relocate the site) by Senior Planner,
Carol R. Cirelli, in her memo to me of November 8, 1996.
Representatives of the District \ViII be at the City Council meeting on June 3, 1997
when this matter is discussed. Please feel free to contact me if further information is
needed.
cc:
Ted Fairfield (FAX.: 462-1701)
Board of Trustees
.
ATTACHMENT 3
'-l1
WE ARe COMMITTED TO THE SUCCESS OF ALL OUR STUDENTS.
=-fF .
l~TED C. FAIRFIELD
Consulting Civil Engineer
May 14, 1997
H'-'ECC;\ 'ir",
L! tJ ~ r J
.l. ___
'I,f; i, \! 1 ~ ',oa-/'
.j~', ...Jt.J
GllY Ur UUbLiN .
4: 0 ~ jJ /('IV
Kay Keck
City Clerk
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
DubIin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Keck:
This letter constitutes an app"'..a.l of the action taken by the Planning Commission on
May 13, 1997, denying case PA 97-004, the application of Jennifer Lin for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to relocate an elementary school site to within the
boundary of Phase I of Dublin Ranch (a Minor Modification to the Phase I Land Use
and Development Plan).
I am making this appeal, as the agent for applicant Jennifer Lin, with the belief that it
is supported by the City staff and the staff of the Dublin Unified School District. Both
staffs have stated that they feel the relocation is necessary to enhance the safety of the
students who will attend the school once it is in operation. I am in agreement with this .
position and as the applicant for the CUP, I am hereby appealing the Planning
Commission decision to the City Council.
I ask that this appeal be considered by the City Council at its meeting of May 20, 1997.
If you have any questions, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
TCF:drd
cc:
Guy Houston
Rich Ambrose
Eddie Peabody
John Sugiyama
Tasha Houston
Jeaane Howland
. All ACHMENPI
t{f
P.O. Box 1148. 5510 Sunol Blvd. . Pleasanton, California 94566. (510) 462-1455. Fax (510) 462-1701
--~"
,0f DT'/;.
~"" L<..J/
,~'\.. <'-0,
.....< ~ y,
;'t~~0 ~1
.-~~'
~C~\"Y
~
CITY OF DCBLIN
?O, Box 2340, Du~lin, Caiibrnia 94553
City Offices, 100 Ci\;c Plaza, Dublin, Caliiornia 94553
Negative Declaration
(prepared pursuant to City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines, Section 1. 7 (c), 5.5)
Description of Project: Proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a minor modification to the approved
~ PlaliIled Developmem (PD) Rezone and La...,d Use & Development Plan for t..~e Dublin Ranch Phase I PD. The
CUP would allow a minor modification to the approved plans for the approximately 210 acre site. The change
to the approved PD, would involve revising the project boundary to include a 10 acre elementary school site and
approximately 2 acres of open space buffer, and making minor shifts in the lot layouts to accommodate the
elementary school adjacent to the Neighborhood Park site. The elementary school is approved in a location
which is currently just outside the Phase I project boundary. The approved PD includes the follo'wing land uses:
PD Low Density Residential (109.8 acres); PD Medium Density Residential (35.7 acres); PD Open Space (59.5
acres); and Neighborhood Park (5.0 acres). The revised project area would be 222 acres.
Project Location: The project is located on the east side of Tassajara Road, 4,000 feet north ofl-580 freeway, on
approximately 847 acres, surrounded by undeveloped ranch land on the north, east, and south; Assessor Parcel Numbers
985-2-4,985-2-3, 985-7-2-6, 985-3-1-2, 985-3-3-2, 985-7-2-9, 985-6-7, 985-6-8, 985-3-2
.
Name of Proponent: Jennifer Lin; Ted C. Fairfield, Agent, 5510 Sunol Blvd., Suite B, Pleasanton, CA 94566
Determination: I hereby find that although the above project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because the rnitigationmeasures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, there will not be a
significa.T1t effect in this case.
~:< Xna.ched is a copy of the Initial Study and :Mitigated Negative Declaration docurnentingthe reasons to support the
above finding. Mitigation measures are included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects on the
environment and are included as part of the Initial Study.
(Ccw' of Initial stat. arrl Mi:tigptim M:nit.arir:g
M:ltrix av::'Ii 1 M 1 P: up:n req.est at City of D..tili.n,
100 Civic P.l.a.za, D..tili.n, CA, or by ~
tie n.tilin P1ami.rg~. at (510)83}--661O)
C:zPJ( ~
Signature
Tasha Huston
Printed Name
Associate Planner
Titl e
411/97
Date
Ana::mnents
.
Da1= published:
Dare Posted:
Dale Noti;e Mailed:
Considered by:
On:
A~on on NegativeI)::::laration: _ Approved
Noti:: ofI)::lerminationfiled:
ResolutionNo,
Di5a!l!lTOved
ATTACHMENTS
4,
510) 833-5505 . Finan::e (5W) 833-6640 . Builciin;;Jlnspection (510) 83:3.55?0
.
VICINITY - MAP
N.T,S.
~
.,c" f/I
~
-- ..",..
-oIIIl-
\}'\).e
Co'lll\-\.~
cos'l:a -.". \}t\e
c.o1l-\S'O. Co'llt\\'3
l'l'O. 'CPeo.f>. CITY LlWl'l' LINE
""",<fII1i\
#~
..",.. ~
o
c::
>-
E-
c::
~ DUBLIN ~
~..o 5
V'o 0
.
I::i
1-580 ~
L. e::
0
~ ~1~
;.<:. I~
~\ (:)
:z~
>-0 v,--fi UC::::
o..c:: ....:l
g I::i
PLEAS ANTON
$e>
.
ATTACHMENT'