HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 East Dougherty Hills Park Site AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 12 , 1985
SUBJECT: Review of Proposed East Dougherty Hills
Park Site
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A - Draft Report from Singer and Hodges,
Inc.
B - August 5 , 1985 , Parks Commission -
Planning Commission Staff Report
regarding review of East Dougherty
Hills Park Site (Without
Attatchments)
C - July 15 , 1985 Planning Commission
Staff Report regarding appeal of
Planning Staff ' s determinations
regarding completeness of PA 85-
041 . 1 and . 2 Villages at Alamo
Creek , and review of the Proposed
East Dougherty Hills Park Site
(Without Attachments) .
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS : 1 ) Partial Reduced copy PD Rezoning
and Tentative Map
2 ) Reduced Schematic Park Studies A
and B
3 ) Planning Commission Resolution
regarding PA 85-021 Four Parcel
Minor Subdivision
RECOMMENDATION: 1 ) Hear Staff Presentation
2 ) dear Applicant Presentation and
Public Comments
3 ) Question Staff, Applicant and Public
4 ) Deliberate
5 ) Make a determination regarding the
East Dougherty Hills Park Site ' s
location and configuration
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined
DESCRIPTION: On April 15 , 1985 , Ronald Nahas of
Rafanelli and Nahas , Real Estate Development , received Planning
Commission approval for a four-parcel minor subdivision under
Tentative Parcel Map 4575 . The parcel split was requested to
facilitate an option agreement the applicant had with the
property owner . A specific condition of the Tentative Parcel
Map was that the proposed park site be reviewed and approved by
the City prior to formally recording the Parcel Map. Any changes
in the park site resulting 'from the City ' s review needs to be
reflected on the recorded Parcel Map. The condition assures
compliance with the General Plan policy requiring the acquisition
of a minimum 5 acre neighborhood park site as the East Dougherty
Hills is subdivided.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Rafanelli & Nahas
Philip Singer
1
M
On July 15 , 1985 , the Planning Commission, acting on an appeal of
a Staff determination, required that a qualified park designer be
hired to analyze potential land uses of the East Dougherty Hills
park site. _
Mr . Philip Singer , of Singer and Hodges, Inc. , Landscape
Architecture, has prepared a draft report with recommendations
regarding the proposed park site. Mr . Singer ' s overall
recommendation is that to maximize the site ' s potential for high
quality park development , the City consider :
1 ) Excluding the Alamo Creek right-of-way, and that
portion of the proposed park east of the creek .
2 ) Enlarging and acquiring the minimum five acre park site
on the proposed park site west of the creek .
Mr . Singer has indicated that the following criteria should be
used to detail the park site and configuration:
a) Be a minimum of five acres in size.
b) Be reasonably flat , with a majority of the site ( at
least 2/3 ) with slope less than five percent .
c) At least one full side of the park be accessible from a
public street .
d) Park site should have good visibility from at least two
sides for access, surveillance, parking, and similar
purposes .
e ) Site should have suitable soil conditions for
establishing lawn and facilities .
At the August 5 , 1985 , joint meeting of the Park Commission and
the Planning Commission, Staff formally presented Mr . Singer ' s
report and recommendations for consideration.
Staff recommeded that the Commissions jointly make a
recommendation on the park site and configuration, so that the
City Council could take action on the Parcel Map on August 12 ,
1985 . Staff indicated that if the Commissions concur with - the
park designer ' s recommendations , then the applicant would need to
supply the City with a revised Parcel Map reflecting a modified
park site . The revised Parcel Map would. need to be subject to
Staff review and approval prior to action by the City Council .
Mr . Singer was present at the meeting and addressed the two
Commissions providing additional input and underscoring some of
the problems related to the easterly park site parcel ( 1 . 6+ acre
parcel adjoining /Dougherty Road) . Mr . Singer indicated that the
site ' s proximity to Dougherty Road would raise severe noise and
safety concerns . He further indicated that the site ' s
configuration, location and size would present severe
restrictions on the site ' s development for any quality passive
recreational use and would be available for only limited ranges
of active recreational uses .
In making . his presentation to the Parks Commission and the
Planning Commission, Mr . Ron Nahas discussed the backround
leading up to the development of the proposed park layouts
submitted by his firm. He also described the attributes they
felt a split park layout would provide. The major points he
raised regarding these two areas are summarized as follows :
A. The Conceptual design considerations the developer
considered when initially determining the schematic
split pares layouts ;
• _ I
- Providing a centralized location.
- Spliting the park site with a stretch of Alamo Creek
to allow the total area of the park to include a
section of drainage easement and having a gross area
greater then the required five-acre minimum.
—Tying the park site into the Creek area to comply
with a General Plan Implementing Policy which calls
for promotion of access to stream corridors, in part
to provide for passive recreation uses ( 7 . 1, B) .
B. The Design attributes the developer feels are provided
by split park layouts .
- Sites could provide for a wide range of the potential
uses Singer ' s report indicates are typically found in
neighborhood parks .
- Sites could take advantage of the natural creek
fitting as a desirable park backdrop.
- Sites could allow opportunity for City to consider
pursuing a City/Zone 7 joint use license for possible
passive use in parts of the creek drainage easement
area .
- The split park design would potentially serve to
segregate different types of uses on the respective
portions of the split park .
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the action
taken by the Park Commission and the Planning Commission which
directs that the design of the proposed East Dougherty Hills Park
Site be modified to conform to the recommendations of the park
designer ' s report .
r
R
ti ,985
Analysis sis of Proposed Five Acre Park Site
THE . VILLAGES AT ALANIO .CREEK
DUBLIN CA:
Rafanelli and Nahas Developers
' l
.PREPARED BY
SINGER & HODGES, Inc.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
1512 FRANKLIN STREET
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(415) 891.9669
G�ty V. s PROPO D PARK SITE
.p -
" do
o
I�
e�
Freeway 580
LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED PARK SITE
ALAMO CREEK VILLAGE
�. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 . Introduction
2. Neighborhood Park Definition
3. Site Description
4. Flood Control Development Constraints
5. Park Area
6. Park Development Potential
A. Site Configuration
B. Adjacent Development
C. Site Location
D. Alamo Creek Park Development Potential and Constraints
E. Comparative -Park Development Potential on Undivided 5-Acre Site
F. Proposed Schematic Park Designs A & B
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
Diagram 1 . Proposed Park Site
Diagram 2. Zone 7 Flood Control -Required Cross Section
Table 1 . General List of Park Facilities and Area Requirements
l
1 . INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to make recommendations to the
city of Dublin regarding the neighborhood park development potential
of the ±5 acre site proposed by Rafanelli & Nahas Developer. In
order to determine the appropriateness of the proposed site for park
development , the report will address the following items :
* Area of proposed park site
* Shape as related to potential uses
* Existing environmental factors
* Proposed adjacent development
* Location of proposed park within Dublin area
* Anticipated parking and access requirements
* Compatibility with overall Dublin Park system
2. NEIGHBORHOOD PARK DEFINITION
In general a neighborhood park can be defined as a space set
aside by the community to accommodate the recreational needs of the
local neighborhood area. Normally these parks range in size from
2 to 5 acres . The neighborhood park site should be located top wc�}
serve a population within convenient walking distance inimum
hazards of access . There is no strict definition of recreational
activities that are appropriate for a neighborhood park. The park
plan , however, must meet the needs of the community and be suit-
able to *the specific site. Local community groups and Park and
Recreation Commissions are best able to determine the most appro-
priate recreational facilities for a specific neighborhood.
The residential setting and smaller size (2 to k6'acres) of the
majority of neighborhood parks preclude most intensely used very
active recreational activities such as adult or competitive league
sports programs (i .e. baseball , softball , soccer, flag football ,
swim centers , group picnic, etc.) . The small scale neighborhood
park more appropriately includes facilities and activities of a
less active nature . Typical neighborhood park facilities would
include :
1
C
1 . Childrens play areas and tot lots
2. Individual picnic tables and barbecue units
3. An open space turf meadow designed to accommodate unstructured
Sports and games, picnicking, strolling , sun bathing, etc.
4. Restroom and park maintenance structure
5. Tree plantings for shade , screening and enhancement.
6 Park furniture , i .e. , benches , game tables, drinking fountain
7. Shade structures= • shelters are especially important in
warmer less tree protected areas , such as Dublin; to .encourage
seniors use of the park
8. Off street parking depending on accessibility and street parking
availability
9. Security lighting
See Table 1 for recreation facility size requirements.
"Iwo
The developer has submitted to alternate preliminary park designs
indicating possible park development. These designs are discussed
in Item 6.F of this report.
3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed park site is located in the Northeast section of
Dublin and is approximately 2 ,000 feet South of the Contra Costa
County line. The site will be bounded to the East by the realigned
and widenened Dougherty Road , and to the North and South by roads
leading into the proposed 1165 unit mixed density residential develop-
ment (the villages at Alamo Creek) . The lands to the West of the
site are also projected as residential development by Rafanelli &
Nahas .
The site is relatively flat grassland bisected by a vegetated
creek. The creek divides the parcel into two unequal portions.
The West parcel measured from the creek center line is approximate)-y-
5.4 acres and the parcel on the East side of the creek center line
is approximately 2.6 acres. See Diagram 1 . The native creek
vegetation is sparce with the exception of the existing oaks, willows,
and buckeye tree ranging from 20 to 40 feet in height. Because of the
lack of existing large scale native trees in the Dublin region, these .
trees should be considered a valuable environmental and visual asset.
The creek channel is approximately 8 to 15 feet below the apparent
J top of bank. The creek banks are relatively steep and are
generally not assessible without great difficulty. The/'creek was
observed to be flowing at about 2 to 3 feet depth. Based on a 100
year storm calculation, Alameda Flood Control Zone 7 indicates that
rainy season creek flows to be 12 feet deep at a current of approx-
imately 6.85 feet per second. Normal winter creek depth would be
in a neighborhood of 3 to 4 feet.
2
4. FLOOD CONTROL DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
Based on discussion with Vince Wong, Supervising Water Resource
Engineer with Alameda Flood Control Zone 7 , Flood Control requires
a fence at the top of the creek channel and an additional 20 foot
access way at the top of bank on one side only for maintenance
access. The fence must be a minimum of 6 feet in height (Alameda
Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology and
Hydraulic Criteria Summary. January, 1984 edition) See Diagram 2.
Because the maintenance access road required by Flood Control
must be within the 6 foot fenced area, this 20 foot right-of-way --
should be subtracted from the total park acreage. Normally, the z-
entire Alamo Creek would be under jurisdiction and control of
Alameda Flood Control Zone 7,, however, Flood Control will grant -
cities license to use the creek for park and recreation purposes. _;
As an example, the following paragraphs from an agreement for
creek use between Flood Control Zone 7 and the city of Livermore
summarize the cities use and development rights and obligations.
"WHEREAS , Licensee (City) has indicated its
desire that these channels be considerably
wider and have flatter side slopes than
Licensor would normally construct , so that
a park-like atmosphere can be created within
and about the channel ; and"
"WHEREAS , Licensor (Flood Control Zone 7) is
agreeable to such use so long as said Licensee
(City) improves , maintains and operates such
park areas in a manner that will not interfere
with the basic flood control purpose of the
channel and shall hold Licensor (Flood Control
Zone 7)_ free from all liability and claims for
claims for damages as described in Section X,
"LIABILITIES" ."
"Licensor (Flood Control Zone 7) shall be
responsible for maintaining and operating the
property covered by this agreement as necessary
for the purposes of flood control and water
conservation ; Licensee (City) shall be respon-
sible for maintaining and operating the property
covered by the agreement as necessary for park
and recreation purposes including , but not
limited to, facilities and landscaping installed
by Licensee (City) .
3
If a city acquires a license for use of a -creek for park and
recreational purposes, the 6 feet chain link fence is not re-
quired by Flood Control Zone 7. The city assumes all '(=ability
in the event the creek is unfenced.
Refer to Diagram 2 Zone 7 Flood Control Required Cross Section
5. PARK AREA
Refer to Diagram 1 Proposed Park Site
Creek Area (Measured to top of bank) 2 acres
Twenty foot flood control access roadway o44 acres
Area A section between top of creek bank and 1 .6 acres
Eastern park boundary
Area 8 section between edge of flood control 4 acres
access roadway and Western park boundary
Proposed site (Total ) 8 acres
Using the top of the creek bank as a boundary of useable open
space , there are approximately 4.4 acres of developable (functional )
park space to the West of the creek, including the 20' access road,
and approximately 1 .6 acres of open space to the East of the creek.
If the creek remains under Zone 7 Flood Control jurisdiction the
required 20 feet of fenced access way would be unavailable for
park use. In this case the proposed developable park space would
be reduced from 6 acres to 5.6 acres .
NOTE: Size calculations are based on alternate park plans and
tentative map submitted by Rafanelli & Nahas Developers.
. - Although the areas shown on the proposed alternate and
park plans are generally accurate it should be noted that
as of the date of this report , the precise creek right-
of-way area has not been reviewed or approved by Zone 7
Alameda Flood Control . Prior to acceptance of any park
land, the city should review the final creek and park
parcel property lines.
4
6. PARK DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
A. Site Configuration
The site is essentially divided into two parcels by Alamo
Creek. The smaller of the two parcels , Area A, lies to the East
of the creek and the larger parcel , Area B , to' the West.
(Refer to Diagram 1 Proposed Park Site)
(1 ) Area A 1 .6 Acre Site
This parcel will be bounded to the East by a realigned
Dougherty Road and to the North and South by future
access roads into the proposed subdivision. The parcel
is narrow and triangular shaped approximately 60 feet
between the top of bank and roadway at the narrowest
portion and about 220 feet to top of bank from the
proposed roadway in the wider section of the triangle.
Because of the exposure of this portion of the site to
the two heavily trafficked streets passive park activites
(i .e. , strolling , picnicking, etc.) requiring separation
from noise and traffic, would be inappropriate. Due to
the anticipated extent and speed of traffic along
Dougherty Road, some form of fencing would be required to
help insure child/park user safety.
The Roadway Traffic and Parks , RFTA noise analysis study
for Alamo Creek Villages prepared by Edward L. Pack
Associates , Inc. recommends a 6' high sound barrier along
Dougherty Road. This wall would probably be unacceptable
in the proposed park area due to police surveillance
requirements.
This section of park would be better developed as an active
area (i .e. , tennis court , volleyball , handball , etc. ) where
traffic noise and activity would be less of.a. distraction.
Because of this section's narrow shape and exposure tn
traffic, and noise it may be in fact more useful as' buffer
landscaping for the residential development than as use-
able park space.
(2) Area B .4 to 4.4 Acre Site l
i
This area is relatively flat and has good potential for the
development of wide range of park activities. It is large
enough for informal active sports such as youth soccer, "T"
ball , and informal sports activity that may occur along,
with group picnicking or family and individual outings ,,
(i .e. informal or pick-pup softball touch football , 6 aside
soccer, lawn volleyball , etc.) . The site is not large
enough to accommodate adult league soccer, softball , base-
ball , or other highly organized sports activities .
Traditional active sports development require extensive
parking facilities and wide buffer zones where sports
fields are adjacent to homes or streets. Development of
active sports facilities would essentially preclude
other desirable activities such as children's play areas ,
group picnic areas , and park open space. It appears that
the most practical design for the larger park portion
would be unstructured open space which would accommodate
informal sports activities , picnicking , children's play area,
walking and bicycling.
Recommended neighborhood facilities in Area B include:
* Open space turf for unstructured play and sports
* Tot and children's play areas
* Small restroom and park maintenance storage area
* Individual picnic tables and barbecue areas
* Shade structure and game table area (especially important
for seniors)
* Park circulation walks and exercise course
* Extensive tree plantings for shade and visual enhancement
* Security lighting
* Day camp for youth groups
Refer to Table 1 General List of Park Facilities and Area Requirements
B . Proposed Adjacent Development
The park site located within the proposed villages at Alamo
Creek will serve a population of 6,300 and is the.only neighbor-
hood park within ,a one mile radius. It is fair to assume, given
the location of a park, that a majority of users will drive to
the park site. Depending on the anticipated parking require-
ment off street parking could take a sizeable area of the
available park land. Refer to Table 1 Facility Area Requirements.
6
The roadway to the East of the site and the access road into
the subdivision along the North side of the site will be
heavily trafficked. The anticipated traffic will create a
noisy and distracting condition and a possible safety problem
especially along the parks East edge.
C. Site Location
The subject parcel will be the only niehgborhood park
facility in the Northeastern area of Dublin. Other park and/or
recreational facilities on the East side of 680 include the
Dublin Swim Center, Frederickson Elementary School , Wells
Intermediate School , and the Fallon School Park area. The
proposed residential development by Rafanelli & Nahas includes
5 swimming pool/recreation areas , one tot lot, extensive
greenbelt development including flat lawn areas and a bicycle/
walking trail that follows Alamo Creek.
Due to the intense nature of the proposed villages at the
Alamo Creek development, the park must be carefully planned to
accommodate both appropriate recreational activities and open
space.
D. Alamo Creek Park Development Potential and Constraints
If the creek remains under the jurisdiction of Alameda Flood
Control Zone 7, the required creek section , fencing and 20 foot
wide maintenance access road, will prevent physical access to
the creek and will visually disrupt the continuous park open
space. The section of modified creek bank, built to Flood
Control specifications , (approximately 1/2 length of the park)
would be an unattractive back-drop to a public open space park
facility. *The creek may infact still present some liability to
the city even though the channel itself remains within flood
control jurisdiction. Liability could be present if park users"
try to gain access to the creek by cutting through the fence.
Garbage generated in the park ending up in the creek may be-
come a problem between the flood control district and the city.
Because the creek is so far below the adjacent surface of
the park, approximately 8 to 15 feet, surveillance is extremely
difficult. Liability for accidents that may occur becuase of
the seasonal'*rapidly flowing creek -and policing problems within
the creek area may not be worth the rather marginal benefits of
this particular section of creek and constructed flood channel .
In the event that the city of Dublin wishes to acquire a license
for the purposes of park development and creek access , the city
would by agreement accept liability (See Section 4 Flood Control ) .
7
-. Any regrading of the creek to create, easier access to the creek
channel or for the development of use areas such as picnic,
hiking and creek nature study would involve extensive regrading.
The regrading would be an additional park development expense and
would cut into the flat open space necessary for more active park
activities , i .e. , sports field, play areas , group picnic, etc.
The remaining existing trees (7 out of 14 to be retained as
indicated on creek improvement plans) will provide an excellent
background, shade and park like atmosphere to the site. It is
recommended that even more of these trees be saved if a park is
to be developed on this site.
Depending on the type of facilities planned, the idea of l. .
the site being divided by the creek is not necessarily detrimental • ; ,.;:-
to the idea of a developed park. It may in fact be desirable in
some instances to have separation between activities of a con-
flicting nature.
E. Comparative Park Development Potential On Undivided 5-Acre Site
An undivided parcel of 5-acres would accommodate a wide
range of recreational activates . The major difference between
the parcel of land suggested by the developer and an un-
divided site would be the ability to include more active sports
facilities i .e. , little league , adult softball and adult soccer
in -conjunction with play' areas , picnic areas and more passive
activities . Neighborhood parks classically have not contained
active sport facilities (i .e. adult league softball , soccer,
baseball ) because of the parking requirements , noise, and high
level of lighting required. (See Item 2 Neighborhood Park)
The proposed site appears adequate for most neighborhood park
functions . (See Item 6.A (2) Facilities List)
F.•- -Proposed Schematic Park Designs Presented by the Developer for
Review and Comment
Schematic park study A proposes two tennis courts , open-
space landscaping and scattered picnic tables on the smaller
Eastern portion of the site. Facilities indicated on the
Western larger section of .the park' parcel 'wi:ll include soccer,
softball , a sma11 tot-lot, park shelter and scattered picnic
tables plus a 12 car parking lot.
Schematic park study B indicates open passive recreational
areas along the smaller Eastern section of the park. The
larger park portion to the West and North of the creek proposes
larger soccer and softball fields, a park shelter maintenance
building , and tennis courts and parking.
As indicated, the smaller triangular shaped Eastern portion
of the park is not particularly desirable as passive park open
space because of its close proximity to traffic, and its
location adjacent to the reconstructed flood channel rather than
the natural creek. The sports area indicated to the West of the
creek is sufficient for soccer, however,--not quite large enough
for adult softball (265 foot outfield radius). : The location
for the backstop should be moved further into the park,-further z
decreasing the actual radius of play. =
Of the two schemes presented, schematic part study A would
be the most desirable. The tennis courts will work well in the
smaller triangular section of park. The- informal open space
turf area for unstructured sports , the tot-lot, picnicking and
trail access seems appropriate for a neighborhood park of this
size. The locations for the various facilities are schematic
and should be restudied prior to final acceptance.
7. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Recommendation
Area A the 1 .6 acre section of park adjacent to Dougherty Road
is only marginally suited for park development. The combination
of traffic noise , potential traffic safety problems , unattractive
views to the adjacent roadway and the. section of constructed
fenced creek make this area unsuitable for most passive neigh-
_ borhood park functions.
Area B, 4 acres (excluding the 20' creek access roadway) of
relatively flat grassland, *isan excellent site for a neighborhood
park development. Its location away from Dougherty Road makes
it a quieter and safer place than area "A". The creek in this
case will act as a strong buffer between the park and the
proposed residential development to the South of the site.
In order to maximize the site's potential for high quality
park development, it is .recommended that the city consider
excluding section A, and the Alamo Creek right-of-way from
the park parcel . An additional 1 acre of land should be added
to Area B to achieve the required 5 acre park site. The re-
sultant undivided space will accommodate a more flexible and
functional park plan.
q
B. Summation of Park/Site Analysis
Positive
1 . Area "B" West side of creek (-4, acres) flat and easy to
develop for recreational purposes. '.
2. Divided park not necessarily negative. Various activities
i .e. , tennis , volleyball , handball , horseshoes :can be
separated by creek with successful results .
3. Existing trees provide visual ammenity not common elsewhere in
community.
4. Creek access potential , if city wishes to assume respon-
sibility and liability.
5. Central location of park within subdivision. Good connection
to residential recreation complexes and trail system.
Negative
1 . Fenced creek, constructed bank areas , and Dougherty Road
are visually disruptive.
2. Fenced creek potential major liability to the city (safety and
maintenance) .
3. Potential problems with Alameda Flood Control Zone 7 regarding
compatability of park adjacent to major creek. Alameda
Flood Control will need to have continual access to top of
bank. This may create coordination problems with city planned
activities .
4. Area "A" , small section of park to the East of creek, is not
large enough to create a useable passive park areal Noise and
traffic safety are potential problems .
5. At least one-half of Area "A" is so narrow it becomes landscaped
buffer only.
�o
Village 6
Village
......Alal,70 Cr
I
- i
AREA 'B'
ACCESS
Village 3 ROAM
" . R.W.
XA
Village 4
�•:.:•:::�•::::::...:. ;:y�::.: : :y�•:'
:; :CREEK : . ..
1 . •�
I .AREA .A';
Dougherty Road
PROPOSED PARK SITE
d 7� 5d 300'
Diagram 1
�t
r' Zone"� idth as required b Flood Control Dist ict' Zo 7 `:20 :Access
. 1.. . I W -- -.- ._ .
Right of .Way
6' High 6'.High
Chain Link Top of Bank Chain Link
Fence Top of Bank Paved Access < Fence
100 Year Storm Level Roadway
ii
Creek Bottom
MINIMUM CREEK..RIGHT OF._WAY ?
FLOOD . CONTROL" ZONE ::7_-''
• 1
Diagram 2
TABLE 1
GENERAL LIST OF PARK FACILITIES AND AREA REQUIREMENTS
Tot Lot Play Area 3,000 sq. ft. to 6 ,000 sq. ft.
Group Picnic Area 10 Tables 2,500 sq. ft.
Small 10 Car Parking Area 3,500 sq. ft.
Medium 20 Car Parking Area 7,500 sq. ft.
Large 50 Car Parking Area 15,000 sq. ft ( .3 acres)
Small Restroom (2 Toilets Each Side) 600 sq. ft.
Larger Restroom (4 Toilets Each Side) 1 ,000 sq. ft.
1 Tennis Court With Buffer 7,200 sq. ft.
4 Tennis Courts With Buffer 24,000 sq'. ft. ( .7 acres)
Game Table Area 8 Tables 2,000 sq. ft.
Softball Field, Bleachers , and 80,000 sq. ft. (1 .8 acres)
Buffer (Adult League)
Youth Soccer and Buffer 55 ,000 sq. ft. (1 .3 acres)
Adult Soccer and Buffer 80,000 sq. ft. (1 .8 acres)
Flag Football and Buffer 70,000 sq. ft.. (1 .6 acres)
Multi-Use Field (Youth Softball , Soccer, 60,000 sq. ft. (1 .4 acres)
Ball
Little League and Buffer 50,000 sq. ft. (1 .1 acres)
Swim Center (Building , Diving , 50 Meter 75,000 sq. ft. (1 .7 acres)
& Training Pool )
Basketball Court (Jr. High Size) 5,500 sq. ft.
and Buffer
Volleyball and Buffer 3,600 sq. ft.
1 Handball Court 1 ,350 sq. ft.
Baseball 120,000 sq. ft. (2.75 acres)
Horseshoes 600 sq. ft.
L3
�}+N ,• y, , r S� ` ...c.a�.[ i �ft e.5r&3,f t� N. .,�. r tf J,... ,`:g' X4 -sk�l.a°' ,3r; ;Y. `� t P,fro• .*•. "Fi�ki 'h�i s„1-'y, "k.. `(s, 1Ilk I 1. .f..,t«. �Y ir,'.wlY t''J'r r:h .t+,,,��� S'PFJpy t..{,,u...', ' ,. r+J Ye..z ,,5 `f +ix'IF.+a�' v..�.'+K',:a.x:. - t�,•w=4u=.d .r+.,. %`Ir .a?+t „k=;P Y,:.J,-r• •2n,P'
R, '.t,. Y'�5. '�h.Ct :: ti� s rk? -fc r,!,y 7.Iw.- tt' ';�, rl- ^r� •''i ;r,,, r :.ti• `va:�t fir,.M;''ts tsf` -• •� r 'r `rr 4 S� wu•� l ft'” . r
Srli)•f• r ,,d,. ` -,t�2 S.,'!Jv','- .a't v l.�rs i,C"r.5.-+ n�.�. .i`'`ce f t }.k f}7 r 5-..`--sl!'• `t,'l" 'c..a; ',L;vf`a.�S U4k,5( !•S�: c .4s,, nx P+.tT�a c �.., ..
� ,} :/- re!xi�5 T t ! 3 ti hd1 .� •w; r ,T 's, r .f'.!n. �'°+ai,'f� ,. P a,
i c t ,�• , `�'. ,t i &- :'?}s r ;�ti „£-..r 1 � +�,�"5,n' � i +'S i ry x - - v.' ,l-,- a4
t t Y{F.f ,F r- �,f- d"; �.. m N 1.: "fC,.s x:- , 1r<,lyl :ryJ. 1 f•' ..
r > <
ii, k
u:.y k ii s Z ,_ , `k�'E, tk,. ",.-'F'A a a l'' ••-la: -
V !y, z r*r ,l-x tit f1yTMrr+`^ ,r,.. 1 '-
1 ' r�F CITY OI' DUBLIN _ 3 r 4t t
` � :� ...1 .�,J f Zk t t t F.SL i - .Y� f�l id f/'';1L xW,�atr t r t j'.,
! i 5 +ti L r,}ycY r' -t,--,.'J'N '1 .. �' ' -..,r +: �t,:.r-r 7a,•:d. g:., &,,, �5.,� f} '-'°t �l„ p - '.f:'-,1- a q�^^i'^cc.
y �fY 4,-F'r7}� 5 .lr 2 { t r t, 4:^s a ' Y Y r� h r} s v k y nz'Cr; r Kr.r, a
l T' + 4 ; t d' � r -z' •�. v Est.,, -�,Af.Y `r+J . 'v.*3'a Y 'f,. `` {i-� -- :
f C �° , tj3y>x � 7 AGENDA ,STATEMENTS r
pq� .tz £ 'srf` K+" L -G""fE2. g.`3�yt't. �. -� rc 3f a.(.t'
L '" ,Y-�t[.,, 1 ,f' T 6 _' '.<„d , ,.t�s�: r3-f. "'_ if:fa°«` t n,`1-+ e x ..N ! '1'. `�je;}:. :�
.7 v 1 t n7� .tt.'�'.a 'I.nr'i, ,,,1 -°fit-•#5 y .'r "..f ,,:� 1•L•.r 1r ° }.'.'�„N*�1' s'- 41 "-I.1 1- -i.I `� r'�.3 -�•' .x S 1
'� 15<'1 r•„r:: - 1 i16 I„ a >!" E w r»'�r, is�.rc:. �r,,,, :srrr J r..,.
.,. � ,aY 'Y n.. Y"tz.' �.. -J &P'Mv a•�f.'.t` ,u- �F r f: n-, .f a.,.i3'._ :" `x ;. •*� �,•� t 't?t,�"1 ,µ. J.-,,� sA- ,''i x .�-tp: 'i
r, 2r '3 Cp n' :'!''",r ..�.:.. 13,,.,x.S'+., -i5 .i;« ,ry-,,;L''"'�c. -i ' t",s''.,r•' 4 .. '�`i '«..�1--,f d.�*. pS' f r✓' +
f s•'r.}t f 1'r{i x Y� t LI+ by 11�1 .^.•'v '�`Cf+t• •, R' ,{, 'tr {r ..,k Yi -'l1^i a k.�; a'lSN;� a, f L K a:i r . ��.-..
k, ,,,!. : , , �.�L 1), ,MEETING DATE August �5,� ] 985 � (g�rli�,.,.y ;,5 � J,; � ,.� � <-
1... r r1._�'v y..M1•� 'c 5 :, �f. •; `i«'�F.�14¢'.s n;>t.44"I, „si,? ,, (v" s 1b..' I.kvµ ,�'"",3^�'�" .i +."c�i-"`-.i ?:#i€t.k'"g.T":4 4*..S!?7Ya+,�,� ". " -,t- .;7 F• 4. „�^ P
4� 3.J�'•...!� T.a. \t t•.`7.. '' ,-:'x+.t.-it;r rtt hay.X;d�-Y� :fr s,i• v-` IJ. d +_, -t f" , iy -'; €' rk',`v.9'' .'€'•R,� `# �' _
i t• a L, i r •r1 ( f t r-y V�u �,, t,j rrr? '�� �r 5., ,a "t.�+ t W'Y' h.1�,,� �:a �y t"',tt'F).- y .r�
t �y :t 'L..J ,�< k '�4 . 1,1 M1 c .� r f.j. �:. l C.} +�,.+;k id 'St r r"�" *`/'s•:�". ,L,4 ii. +' 4 r `-`!'..$5. 'tY^y: z t :7. at
J x ,1 1�S i4'1 .r ,, t J t1`t* h. �Ji'a��at' x r 4i t f !*rnr"�'?e a} -�,�k {� ^nF ..
C "�' t3 1 K ,r*1 , $-u« 4 9.j Yi.7'x ,V'�" "i f+' s" 3' +'.,'{ 2T"F'k Y , t'J^,• "�`t hr 4 }
�' }" - Review :of Pro osed East Dou hert i' r- '
4 SUBJECT .a�.` s P . Y-� � �a > ',' a
r , ,'' k t i.#,, '::," ( 2fi rx"3+ i«y.KV tr f„Ctj, }Ir •-v y & t.,4'F ^, -ry ,.f i,±.
r ,; k ry> � Hills Park 'Site � , r� �
1..' t r, - zeJ�;`rt .tf. .: c !' X11-S.f. G " ,'y 4 > 5t r'^• 1.�aY,s J..x-:u ""u fk ik kry„rt x't f kv v„ n h tis.. xs+:f:: 'i-41-111
+ ;a ..J..-''!N+! d rPC �ri:.*.n.`4, Y r . .t 3 t,,` Y, r.f,,- �5f .a•r` 4+ty.<.- i t:fl ry '11.1,11 ,..r
EXHIBITS ATTACHED ; - Draft Report from Singer andfHodges,"
,t
"r i .� ? Inc. v, t n v _r �p ,_.S s r ( }
' f July `15, "1985 ,`Plan`ning ,Commission
r Y { ` 3 r` J =Staff Report >Regarding Review of East , _,11 I�-. , .
t ,�. -�r�'tr,, �k bou hert Hills Park Site without r -� I
-3
7+ ,: , i jt y x,J4 ,:'.:n tt E 7 pl.. yt n".r •t t.. „v+ -•ae "f"C'S,{�T j 4'-.r .�!�` t� 7 } 1
r.y� r. = t r ".�,� t_ J#,��, 5 f, 'Attachments�a+Y7r ,� a � 2 '1" -u `• s. +�, s :9
x: 1 ref, ,Yt iG" lydl J J".tti','r�J,•,� =°Tss fit' ,w E ��tir 1. _ 5 '.;-''.c '' .c '�� =;
C .-..--'-' t •'?'r a l a it+ 1 :v t« "{ '.1 '� -:" y ..:l k S'y�.? j'7s�,3 E::.,,L s { �frt r•x - -te r -....!r, y ._11,,i '�". :'r i' ,..a t _,r. F'k i „tr f �y- a-- 'i ' .'. a �s �f'h x g +-sa ¢;•sF '"�, �. r it< "` -t_�
`-
' t'RECOMMENDATION �r ,,r 1) 'Hear ,Staff Presentation 7 L ��� i�c�' '�; x . �' r, Y,,
r f x �,
11` t ' A ,�I t� r ' , . ;` ,� F{ + Hear:`Appllcant �Presentatlon sand "�` x . Sg M ,4 ;
r s r,x Public ,Comments 1 .� � 5 ,, +r
j�-
n ►—} a, t r, r,' y hL y .
I",G t. \ 4.t 2' A 'X, 1 - .s. d.ot i � 1 L W Y? f 'I' '{ £.11. + ..,,. �z 3 ) Question;aStaff, App1 " ant�and Public ,i {A-����
` J ,.f'1 r..L ,fd {:�;•{w t r a_-. . t- a,�5!' t ,r Il,ff 4 h J �..., tiJ )c tom .;} 5 - � .,.�r 1�l°t 1�'rp r"�;^+k`•Fs` !'y e , - 1 •.t. a�+,t''r. z -`' cats°aT",s.,#
�r, 4 ) Deliberate t .1! fti �,'� 4 F - r
'#r�_&'fF v+ ,l•. `S' k� -✓mot, 'ea t. >� Y tt+r;'J i Mi.
�. 5) Make -Joint Recommendation zon Park , ', t s'
i r a tt (' rl• 11 _ t� 5 '.- 5 +r i 5.'' '4'v. rf F' 3 1{tJ ° , ,,-y�3"-, ��a ..
1. x• Site and Configuration t s
!_ , , r rt�r i f,�. !'� r jT a-`la'. ,2 C t r rr tsr Y� rf>ti`q'{'Pi-raga •i}J 3-,-.t s4 s ` '�•�+t ,- _ .% f 1i a 41 .! 9 s '
t ., r- j, ., , 4r:: • ,..' ' •7T-. .1 1 ``, ,L4 t$+�7,,,, A""'!5 .1 J ,X'� {� f t: 1 r rs{7 aka l '� �
FINANCIAL STATEMENT Undetermined n , r,� � s � . � , , t
r r 9 r t t s 3�tl
.rK xJ; r-', L' S5 -' a x a .x✓�i �.` f .`Jy t '�. „r,� �'.L.. �` '. '�7�•i 't ''`yt
X
DESCRIPTION ;,' �' On April 15, N 1985; Ronald ; Nahas Hof r t a
i ;#� .T^ a w ^.
. ;Rafanelli ' and Nahas, -Real : Estate Development;}{received ;Planning �k � � �'}1.
Commission'°approval ::for Tentative •Parcel 7.Map ,4575 i'f�3r A yspecific_a ,- �, ,'k
. condition 'of -.the Tentative Parcel Map .was•,that :the `proposed '-park #y '""'�?
site be reviewed , and approved by the - City '; prior,1:to • formally -,':: ;.;-: ., .
recording the ,Parcel .Map. Any changes in..the park -site resulting "-, .. s_.•: :a
from the City' s review needs to be reflected;on _the ';:Parcel Map -:
The condition :assures compliance with�,_the :'.General .`Plan .policy " .- `=
requiring the ..acquisition of a minimum .5 ,acre park `
site .as ...:the . East ;,Dougherty Hills is -. subdivi.ded .Time . is of - ;� r _'.. -
. essence for him to `exercise an .option to purchase ..the ''property: -< .1
.
:'On 'July 15, .1985, ,the .Planning Commission, ,acting on _an :appeal .:of ,
a Staff determination, 'required that a,<,qual.I d :park' designer :.be ;'a u� :f w /
hired ;to ,analyze potential .land uses ,of ahe East Dougherty Hills" , "� ;
* park site � 4" ; ; P,, !- ,t 4, i
.
. ,. I
Mr . Philip Singer ,-. of Singer and Hodges, -Inc Landscape . J
1 .=. Architecture, 'Ihas ,`prepared a draft :.report.-,.with -'recommendations "�
-Mr. :'Singer' s . overall : recommendation is that .to maximize,. -the . !'±
site 's :potential : for high quality park development, the =City _
— ,
consider F,
, � �� rk
7k 1
1) `Excluding the Alamo Creek .right=of-way; '. that 4 i
, . _
:portion 'of -_the proposed park easti of the creek. "t
,. < a
2 ) ..' Enlarging and acquiring the minimum..5 acre .park :=site ' . n- :~ j i
on the proposed park site west of the :creek. 4 1.. . ^ . ,1 .
Mr. Singer has indicated that the following criteria -should be
I to detail the park site and configuration: .
a) Be a ctiimimum of 5 acres in size .
b ) Be reasonably flat, with a majority of the site (at - .
least 2/3 ) under 5°s slope .
ITEM NO COPIES TO: Ron {Nahas . I
- - - --.--/ ---- _.___.-1-----------__ -- -.+--.---.
°' � Z5 . I
_. :, i
. 1
h ri S1'•v'-- p li" ,,g r Y ri T fe J s 'S.k ''c- fra t. ', h''^F°w." :a,,t§ C i
i ., r,*a w. c t AG'x r ar't d < .sr i!...h M� J.. t wYt 1 , �Z c 'r � 1
`"'t.';'. F�. r v :, 4tr'<s'., r., rrF. f c,.•^�. y d �"e'a { .� `-ric'S V�m ..:: , t+. *'r�vy, A,.` 1>:• R' 'r`iF 4..:,,, .z ;x..
i
t ?1k::.' ti '�''yi^•m s ..y N �S."'.r4a !„� t 4 ,.i"`' r,y '�. r s.I, r:yx. z^t. . ..�! . h t s"t4^r+ '� t 11-.,t;�J': n'tf .,^f: �, );5,i'' ';,tL"c ,r,r _ -, .:r�fr sy,c {kk�u r.. :; t 1'k x;tn J „z+iN r�',rt}' `�”-�T +>: y',.#°k .'.t,y' t f^�s ,�:?, T..s n.--+e'< •v .. 3
r : 1. SGJ-•yyy�r i Y! rO mat srY��.R-W+ . i,r S -,A.,-,,,' '�• k!1$" '' a1-}S ,, ' :. i k d"J, x?
5.. C�, x,�.F7 '' t +'� i.h y py:,• '.�, r a�S'" rr r}� r n-FL •- ..t.3.:m�Bs*. t.., d?"*c+^x,-,x.�5---, ,s+. ,,., ,...
a r- t n ,`I �. ,`'4•"y'7,-!^1ty^ > ,r 5 ! r fi'z f". y,:rr'`t�"'� 'Yy`• °'yar•ti+�,rx'�'z a" P rc'"'a r^y .K.. 'rr s" r• r .e,
.t '�3 , r 1:. ZrY A :,t y4,ivy '4 Yi r?3r r :-V A^- t 4 4! t
' £°
;+ S s. .?'= ? 1;1r Fes,,,7`-�' ^�,s is.i.. ^s.. �'.` §`�
Mfg: y Fa. _ L a 6 g' -'k;?' :t¢f Jti ?:.tfF' � : t.-`, r .! e
4tn ..� ^.i 1 _� - .-.L wit k .1,.' � ti 'fY Y - '_f 11- .....�� _ ..' I•� # ._rte i r tl«e .t, i •'�I r :�', ,s ,
AGENDA STATEMENT „- REVIEW ,OF PROPOSED EAST DOUGHERTY fi'h; V""', ,�'�� ,t r„� f nom,
,; r T n ,r s HILLS -PARK SITE =4 ^��' r +� ' sa rtr°, _•GYM X z a�,�r 11
-`.^k_.,,a r� I .'I f c,•.:•�'' r5 .. - .r.r i'.. '.,... � ..._•� y �4 ^, �Y.i -r':."'t�x }%,•,i"f.t 7'M-t"`'4fr3..'�c-r7- r _.tE� a ,,°'�' "� L w.*jzN 1r-•v 1 a �..a• w,t r bs r a , ^�.i1. y.yr:3en-ST• «'ky»,,y,4 yru 1`^*t� � ? P. xi;, s 1'i�i�•<,t ,.r:
'-'Pa e'�Two �r.; R+:r.<y a 'rrr��#�,,�'r_ !t. a t'''. ,, 'i }ra +�, :, E��:.`-'�k. �"r "{f e3 7. '-'t't s�?`k'`- >+F.... '�j i"+.'Fj�:}_
.r 'v.,,- t...-,;N.. r 91 � `1 �' c sr �t cT .. .i..,`;1T �• .fit r�i �Z�... ,. J.. �x t. .� w, r,�r t 3 ,'t yt .{}• •�r'E e�c�t }.$-_w€:_ '�S',3yz}`k_>.11 t...:5� t,T. Y.r '�} �' y 5..,[.Kt:,1L 'C7:i 'S tr rtr,�tr _ r ,y r.,5•azx�,r*,. „ „,,fir ,spy ,g_r�'6+'' Y.,.'�tst ts� 'r �ob,�- v�r x�' n r °�- r k P.
1.
wt .. a t*�jYy F yr.5 S r ._1t �.t y t a .e 1' ^t fl. rt -•1' ,� t :- •( ra..--1 -..� :`N. 'k`^��i'{t 5,. t. v �.L fi "&t•,.r. k.,,
tr JV '.. u i P:J r, •+'..:r i sy1.:" � •Yi fr r .. Y.?"k�t' s k "4P,'A 1�v c. ik q'ia s;' wtt K' s7"PG` .a'''J"f.'.r,.s•a '1f 3 ,
< .';T. ,,{.. ,, . l.,• }.r}.r t F�k..�f 4s�Ya rF F t rtr, '� .. r:, ,- ,r � ��!,�`,•..y^-- F:q�1'1^-i'+.-fv--� ti,F, u;=f.•-rte t"x�X"'4;:.r.• 3 4^: L"}. �5
> �5rt"•L. '� v r s is 'i R s .! '"`
�- cr) At rleast ,one ?full ,Sside of the park be ,acces5ibletfrom amt -s,.
s a � - � ,
z f t � .
�„ '„t public -street. r`t i y" , �.,� '` ��, i_. , r�ti`
r
r t'. + '. f y � a 3 2 5r.` al. 5�4, t rt''Sr-t.w�� ��II 4 r 9$i r � t '-- r x.'' 'i
t Y is F f T '. t
` d) , Have : good visibility x from gat least `atwo ; sides for ,' ?$
rf t 3.i, r, ,.c,. r .k°Yr�a��r,.
access,.'.surveillance; parking,' and similar purposes r . V -�, a; {: S'I
. .t _ It 5 ~ fj.A S.' rt - ! C
y _ :r I "
' e ) '
Have 'suitable soil conditions for e-stablishin lawn ands �� r j
' rr 'park -facilities. t
V J 5 7•. .L '3
.f - 1
.".iF S ��4
'Mr Singer will be available •to answer Commission questions at� ax� , y i; ,
1985 .meeting r z b ` N� r.
r i ' r t.yrr'^ "y 4t x t ''..t ,r r c -t^.+-�`'?g i,-
the Au ust_j.5, r '�!
_ - y Y e- = h 4`�-L•":- cF S� `_C,> ,wa de>t'e"(� J-s•Te' .'-r.3 Y,x�4 6
- C g i X S- fk T-p �1. ..�.�:.'�' a'�64. +c+:. 9. TF .0
"F Ji: {{ J
,� ;'4 c. 1, ,a,. ;T { .• _ '_ ... 1 ��.�a_`ff t{,--� p �y, 73 {`t 3 `�'-, t� � " � "
zj Staff '•` recommends that 'the Commission s,� ��ointly rmake7ya�, a .°gin '
recommendation``on ,:the park :°'site .,and configu ration;�-'so` that the3� ������� ) {�-�
City ,Couric_il can take;.: action on' the Parcel��Mapion ¢August 12, f1� ,� :
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE : July 15 , 1985
SUBJECT : - Appeal of Planning Staff's determinations
regarding 1 )Completeness of PA 85-041 . 1 and
. 2 Villages at Alamo Creek and 2 ) Review of
the proposed East Dougherty Hills park site.
EXHIBIT ATTACHED: Exhibit A - Resolution requiring basic
Development Plans for PA 85-
041 . 1 and .2 and requiring
park designer to analyze
proposed park site
Background Attachments:
I - Reduced PD Rezoning and Tentative Map
Data and General Layout
2 - Reduced Schematic Park Study A
3 - Planning Commission Resolution regarding
PA 85-021 Rafanelli and Nahas/Ponderosa
Homes Tentative Parcel Map 4575
4 - Letter from Rafanelli and Nahas dated
7/1/85
5 - April 15 , 1985 Planning Commission Staff
Report regarding Parcel Map 4575
6 - Letter to Rafanelli and Nahas dated
6/25/85
7 - City Council Resolution No. 14-85
requiring Development Plans with
PA 84-040 Enea Plaza Planned Development
Rezoning
RECOMMENDATION : 1 ) Hear Staff presentation
2 ) Hear applicant presentation and
public comments
3 ) Question Staff, applicant and
public
4 ) Deliberate
l5 ) Adopt resolution regarding appeal
of Staff determinations
FINANCIAL STATEMENT : None
DESCRIPTION : Ronald C . Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas , Real
Estate Development , has appealed two Staff determinations :
1 ) That the developers need to submit basic Development Plans
as part of a complete Planned Development Rezoning
application for the entire 130+ acre East Dougherty Hills
Site north of Amador Valley Boulevard and the 4+ acre site
at the southwest corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and
Dougherty Road, and
/ ------
ITEi1
NO �..
2 ) ' That the City needs a qualified park designer to review the
potential land uses of the proposed East Dougherty Hills
park site .
The developers claim, in a letter received July 5 , 1985 ,
(Attachment 4 ) that Staff ' s . determinations are "counter-
productive" and " inflexible" . They request the Planning.
Commission to determine ;
a) Whether or not basic Development Plans for the entire site,
particularly the Village #7 area and the convenience store area,
need to be submitted as part of the complete application; and
b) Whether or not the City needs to hire a qualified park
designer to analyze the potential land uses of the proposed East
Dougherty Hills park site .
BACKGROUND
On April 15 , 1985 , the Planning Commission reviewed PA 85-021
Rafanelli and Nahas/Ponderosa Homes Tentative Parcel Map 4575 .
At that time , Staff expressed several significant concerns (see
April 15 , 1985, Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 5) , -
including the following :
That a complete and workable PD Rezoning for the entire 130+
acre site north of Amador Valley Boulevard was needed to assure.
compliance with General Plan policies , particularly with those
regarding neighborhood diversity and residential compatibility.
That if needed, the developer should pay for a land use
study of the proposed East Dougherty Hills park site, prepared by
a qualified park designer .
The Planning Commission approved the Parcel Map application,
including the following specific conditions :
"Condition n 22 : Prior to recording the Final Parcel Map a
complete Planned Development Rezoning application for the entire
130= acre site north of Amador Valley Boulevard, parcels 2 , 3 and
4 shall be submitted to the City. If the Planned Development
rezoning application is ultimately denied then individual Planned
Development Rezoning applications may be submitted for Parcels 2
and Parcel 3 . The Planned Development Rezoning application or ,
applications shall be consistent with the Ilublin General Plan, in
particular with Section 2 . 1 . 2 Neighborhood Diversity and 2 .1 . 3
Residential Compatibility. "
"Condition #18 : Prior to recordation of the Parcel, the size,
configuration, access and location of the proposed park shall
have been reviewed and approved by the City. To facilitate this
review the developer shall prepare and submit preliminary grading
and drainage plans and shall fund, if found necessary by the
/ City, a sand Use Study prepared on behalf of the City, . prepared
by a qualified designer , which will address the potential land
uses of the proposed park site . Any changes in the size,
configuration, access or location of the park site resulting from
the City ' s review shall be reflected on the Parcel Map. "
On May 10 , 1985 , the developers submitted two schematic park
studies and on May 23 , 1985 , submitted a PD Rezoning and
Tentative Map application entitled Villages at Alamo Creek . The
site included the 130+ acre area north of Amador Valley Boulevard
and the 4� acre area at the south west corner of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Dougherty Road .
The Staff reviewed the submitted materials . On June 21, 1985 , -_
Staff discussed with the developer the materials needed to
complete their application . Staff confirmed the discussion by
letter dated .June 25 , 1985 (Attachment 6 ) .
ring the/ Staff ' reiliew of the schemati/6ark studies , Staff
identifie3 potential planning , recreation and police issues
related to the proposed park configuration which Staff was not
-2-
qualified to analyze . Staff determined that a qualified park
designer was needed to prepare a land use study of the proposed
park site . Staff has proceeded in hiring the park designer . .
ISSUES
The two issues before the Planning Commission involve; 1 ) the
completeness of the Planned Development Rezoning application and
2 ) the proposed park site .
1 . Completeness of the Planned Development Rezoning
Application :
Existing City policy has been to require basic Development Plans
for an entire site in order to have a complete Planned
Development Rezoning application . the City has consistently
applied this policy to previous PD Rezoning proposals :
Town & County Shopping Center
Barratt/Higgins
Enea Plaza
Bedford Industrial Park
Morrison Homes
Huening
Dolan School Site
On February 25 , 1985 , the City reaffirmed (by Resolution 14-85 .
Attachment 7 ) the requirement that Development Plans be submitted
and processed concurrently with PD Rezoning applications . Within
the resolution, the City Council found that Development Plans
including an overall site plan, preliminary landscaping plans ,
preliminary architectural plans , and other standard planned
development submittal had typically been processed with Planned
Development Rezonings approved by the City of Dublin.
The City Council adopted and maintained the requirement that
Development Plans be processed concurrently with PD Rezoning
applications .
The Dublin General Plan contains policies that requires 1 ) a
substantial mixture of single family and multiple family units to
provide neighborhood diversity and to avoid economic segregation
by City sector . The General Plan also contains policies to assure
residential compatibility and avoid abrupt transitions between
single family development and high density developments by 1 )
requiring all Site Plans to respect the privacy and scale of
nearby residential development and 2 ) to require Planned
Development Rezonings for all development proposals over 6 .0
units per gross residential acre .
In this particular case, the Planning Commission has . also
specified conditions as part of the Parcel Map approval. The
conditions require a complete Planned Development Rezoning
application for the entire 130+ acre site, north of Amador Valley
Boulevard . This condition meets the need to provide a workable
design and set of Development Plans to insure consistency with
the General Plan policies and to avoid a piece meal planning
approach .
If there was an area that could reasonably be left off of the
development plans and not affect the rest of the project , Staff
would consider it . In this instance , the Village 77 area and the
convenient store area are vital to the design and workability of .
the proposed project .
2 . Proposed Park Site : Had the proposed park site been one, _
contiguous , undivided piece of property, the existing Staff could
have adequately prepared an analysis for the Planning Commission
and City Council . Instead of one whole undivided piece property,
the developers have proposed a park site divided into two
distinc ' L_ces by Alamo Creek .
-3-
The Staff needs a park designer to analyze the potential uses of
the proposed park site vs , those of an undivided site . Some
potential land uses may be enhanced while other may be precluded
by this design . The potential benefits and liabilities of the
creek also need to be analyzed. _
If the Planning Commission concurs with the need to have the park
designer prepare the land use study, .Staff will have the park
designer proceed . The Planning Commission and Park and
Recreation Commission can then hold a joint meeting on August 5 ,
1985 to discuss the proposed park site and make recommendations
to the city Council . The City Council will ultimately decide if
the proposed park site is acceptable .
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission concur with the Staff ' s determination and adopt the
Resolution .
Should the Planning Commission not concur with the Staff ' s
determination., Staff would advise the Planning Commission to give
Staff direction and continue the item so that Staff can prepare
the appropriate resolution for the Planning Commission .to
consider at its next meeting .
i
-4-
.-Dougherty Road
- _:,• \)G} �. ,� = Village 3 _
_ n _
PAR-
Village 4
,...:.7 ,1, ,11` ♦ \ ~ \ � �J•� \�\ _ � -� .' `Y�� .1. '� = � X-_ :�(_I JG l:> I
�_6.-.i�..31 �` .`:1\ � C .�4•.-. 7' �1�1��, '• -�-''1 YI S ��(�_� �° �` 1 k,�1' '„ ri,7 Jl_ �l:
\r♦' ) J �'�jam\ f ♦ �f R\ ,i� " ( A
Park
Village 6
ar
_ Village Village V11
OY
7e
�.cu loi x •n i——--=.... .� � � •tr er i/y erb_ p` � �f'�i:' ---
/
T ' E ' F 0 R M A' - T . 1 0
A-UNIT B-UNIT C-UNIT D-UNIT [-UNIT
VILLAGE NO. 1 BD-1 BATH 2 BD-1 BATH 2 BD-2 BATH 2 BD-2 BATH 3 BD-2 BATH TOTAL
1 60 6o D.u .
II 96� 40 72 40 248 D.u.
Ill 72 40 64 40 216 D .U .
IV• 72 40 24 16 152 D.U .
V 72 16 56 48 192 D.U.
V I;`.._,; D .U .
VII .4 64 84 . . 148 D.U. _.
TOTALS 312 ` '' 136 280 144 144 1 ,162 D.U .
TOTAL ACREAGE: 144. 887 ACRES.
AVERAGE DENSITY: 8.02 D.U./ACRE.
PARKING MEETS OR EXCEEDS CITY MINIMUM. PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
,
1T1 '� 1`� ` (� I !� .\ •. o+ Ny .\ \ F�FKhIC.-.�!c 1L�
F.� AGTwIT.7
PIGHIC C,-
hiiINTa-IW-✓,3�t1111N:a I I t ' cal%'' - •'t P:�MO GF-s.K SlHcti'i.*Yise�
M+INI chi-NSA v'cG�fi�D ,. _ =,- •� :� . . �y� �. .� r,� i_'__
`ice P Tti
nlrOGv 2J A ,
°17B •�',a'i+
� '� •�� �� I t ,� ' Jlt. � � •, �' ��.:. 'J :% (13'Pfs�Vi Crt.�NN�L�
P 1iNiG TPb:'s5 - ' � .� .',.. • ..� �"� t 4 i °177
�� �• .� a / G�. 1 r'AyIb4 GF,N 5%�:=5 GV�-wF-rU
cx�+;,!•��'=�ti S3 - - -�. „� _ Jam' - -/--_'_- �i /� �''N'10 G^=°-'��;-(p)
tzl
YfOT;..'1i�iYPiC?i�. � \ -1; �,tfN'" •
6vaho all TfzE- SGft_EH W
pPp.FINb (�fz
\`\.`��`., \`. �,. ;r �f P�fZ FL�'TFiEI,�t.YiGNIG � �..`�..'."� •
r _
two
I N
}
T TNT gwz�fT7 l iii? 1 l. fq% ��li i' MhINj9t+�tpE evl G Fb
�iT;-7 , ``` 1• rte. •' �� �-�� -- /_ %c==#< 3'•�`iK F:.i.S�,:U To
Fw l��'i"A 1 ,` �' �� ... "A''k. �./�1- �/%/� `� // I�:,ur•a,.N SP:t'i�j
.-+•:�.+`•t7 c;r�Sao jp.1' •. '.\ '�- �' � .' �•.' { Ic �� `�' � sl'3'79
7. c;•is ir�O'< / �\ �'�•>`',. -. �! � to I '1
ED N F / c.• 1 e �' �. .( f
I i NW Utl1
Q ¢ ]F QQ � pP?N icPP7V1 }i, 1 `�
Z o �Q QW HO � I oYhBW I C
J a am ZN t7 oS dr_e� i
W0 � OQNaoz Fa,
W m2 F ¢
O 00
LL W e� ZZ QQ
;...,:.+.1.'I,.fr..;5,:'.'re'•J-:ric .� ,�. ..�.,.,....e.:m�.....�Ai:a�•n -•.�'•::xK'.4�4'J�Sr''.7W.,. ``�s4. ."c y.. -.... SM1?o.. .. ., r '?.!4 .. ...a .. :V' - 1«r"'X.fx .,a# _.._..zr.F i-5+`i4M% 7_l7F�F�•. -.
-' •'.3��. _rkY"i-Y�"'" 4•A���"Y'�`+ 'rf� ��- �*.n��+, ".�. os.
r
RESOLUTION NO. 85-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 4575 CONCERNING
PA85=02T RAFANELLI & NAHAS/PONDEROSA HOMES
WHEREAS, Rafanelli & Nahas/Ponderosa Homes propose to
subdivide 135+ acres of land generally located . at the southwest
and northwest corners of the intersection of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Dougherty Road, more specifically described as
APN ' s 941-500-2-2, 941-500-7 , 941-500-8, and 946-010-1-2 , into
four parcels ; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require
that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels for
the purpose of sale, lease, or financing unless a Tentative Map
is acted upon and a Parcel Map or Final Map is approved
consistent with the Subdivision Map 'Act and City of Dublin
Subdivision Regulations ; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has previously
adopted a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for
the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the
proposed Tentative Parcel Map will not have a significant
environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the
proposed Rafanelli & Nahas/Ponderosa Homes Tentative Parcel Map
4575 at a public hearing on April 15 , 1985 ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered and
reviewed the submittal information at their regularly scheduled
meeting on April 15 , 1985 ; and
WHEREAS, property owners in the vicinity of the
subject property were notified of the s;uhject, proposal as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider
all said reports and recommendations as herein above set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Planning
Commission finds :
1. Tentative Parcel Map 4575 is consistent with the intent
of applicable subdivision regulations and City Zoning and related
ordinances .
2 . Tentative Parcel Map 4575 is consistent with City ' s
General Plan as it applies to the subject property.
3 . Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 4575 will not result
in the creation of significant environmental impacts.
4 . The Tentative Parcel Map 4575 will not have substantial
adverse effects on health or safety or be substantially
detrimental to the public welfare , or be injurious to property or
public improvements .
5 . The site is physically suitable for the proposed
development in that the parcels are individually large enough and
of a physical character and configuration that location of a
_ 0
s i
single satisfactory building site on each parcel is reasonable if
the planned residential development for the subject property were
to fail to materialize. �t.A"
6 . The request is appropriate for the subject property in
terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area and
will not overburden public services .
7 . This project will not cause serious public health
problems in that all necessary utilities are, or will be,
required to be available and Zoning, Building, . and Subdivision
Ordinances control the type of development and the operation of
the uses to prevent health problems after development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
approves Tentative Parcel Map 4575 PA 85-021 subject to the
conditions listed below:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: `
Unless otherwise specified the following conditions shall -be
com lied with prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map. -- Each
item is subject to review and approval by the Planning Department
unless otherwise specified. a_
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1 This request is approved for four (4) parcels, as generally reflected on the Tentative
Parcel Map submitted with the application and dated received March 15, 1985.
ARCHAEOLOGY:
2. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, construction in :e
vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the City Planning Depa_zr- ent
notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are significant,
measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect therm.
EAS=:ITS: .
3. The land divider shall acquire ease-Tents, and/or obtain rights-of-entr,1 from t^.e
adjacent property owners for any improvements required outside of the land division.
Copies of the easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be. in written forn and be
furnished to the City Engineer.1.
4. Existing and proposed access and utility easements shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to Parcel Map approval. These easements shall
allow for practical vehicular and utility service access for all parcels.
EROSION:
5. Prior to any grading of the site, a detailed construction grading plan and a drainage,
erosion and sedimentation control plan, shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City Engineer. Said plan shall include detailed design, location, periods when
required, and maintenance criteria, of all erosion and sediment control measures. The
plan shall attempt to insure that no increase in sediment or pollutants from the site
will occur. The plan shall provide for long-term maintenance of all permanent erosion
and sediment control measures such as slope vegetation.
PARCEL MAP:
6. A note shall be placed on the Parcel Map indicating that Parcel 4 is reserved as a
future park site and shall not be developed for residential use.
7. An additional note shall be placed on the Parcel Map indicating that the City may elect
at its discretion to accept such dedication upon development (ire., recordation of a
subsequent Final Map or issuance of building permits) on either Parcel 2 or Parcel 3 of
this Tentative Parcel Map.
8. At the time recordation of the Parcel Map is pursued a resolution by the City shal be
adopted providing constructive notice to existing and/or future property owners of the
/subject property that Parcel 4 is to be reserved as a future park site and shall not be j
developed for residential use.
9. Prior to recordation of a Parcel Map, a Deed transferring title of Parcel 4 to the City
of Dublin shall be prepared by the applicant and deposited into a long term escrow
.�,
account. The Deed shall include instructions that it shall not be recorded until such
time as development occurs (i.e., recordation of a subsequent Final Map or issuance of
building permits) on either Parcel 2. or Parcel 3 of this Tentative Parcel Map.
10. Documents associated with Conditions #6 through #9 listed above are subject to review
and approval by the City Attorney.
MISCELLANEOUS:
11. Copies of the Parcel Map indicating all parcels and drainage facilities within the
subdivision shall be submitted at 1"= 400-ft. and 1"= 200-ft. scale for City mapping
purposes.
TITLE:
12. A current title report and copies of the recorded deeds of all parties having any
record title interest in the property to be divided and, if necessary, copies of deeds
for adjoining properties and easements, thereto, shall be submitted at the time of
submission of the Parcel Map to the City Engineer. -.
UTILITIES:
13. Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services, extended to each parcel shall be
provided underground in accordance with the City policies and existing ordinances. All
utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements, sized to meet
utility company standards.
14. Prior to the filing the Parcel Map, the subdivider shall furnish the City Engineer with
a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) stating that the District has
agreed to furnish water and se=Ner service to each of the parcels included on the Parcel
Map.
WATER:
be connected to.the DSRSD system, and must be installed at the
15. Water facilities irus�
expense of the developer, in accordant` with District standards an d s. ificat,ons.
All material and wor!ananship for water mains, and appurtenances thereto, trust con�or.
with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and
will be subject to field inspection by the District.
16. Any water well,, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring shown on the trap, that.
is known to exist, is proposed, or is located during the course of field operations,
trust be properly destroyed, backfilled, or maintained in accordance with applicable
groundwater protection ordinances. Zone 7 should be contacted (at 443-9300) for
additional information.
SPECIAL CCNDITIONS:
i
17. The developer and/or his representatives shall notify the Department of Fish and Game
of any proposed or existing construction project within the subdivision that may affect
the streams in accordance with Section 1601 and 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.
18. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, the size, configuration, access and location of
the proposed park shall have been reviewed and approved by the City. to facilitate
this review, the developer shall prepare and submit preliminary grading and drainage
plans and shall fund, if found necessary by the City, a land use study prepared on
behalf of the City, prepared by a qualified park designer, which will address the
potential land uses of the proposed park site. Any changes in the size, configuration,
access or location of the park site resulting from the City's review shall be reflected
on the Parcel Map.
19. The purposes of future calculation of the Park Dedication requirements for residential
projects subsequently developed on the he
property, the proposed park site shall
be credited against the future park contribution requirements of both Parcel 2 and
Parcel 3 of this Subdivision. The amount of the respective credits shall be deter-mined
by the City Engineer at the time subsecuent Final Map is recorded or building permit
applications are issued over eit.. r of these t,.ro parcels.
DP 83-20
20. Cross easements shall be recorded for both sides of Alamo Creek (for that portion of
creek split by Parcels 2 and 3 of this Parcel Map) covering both the existing and
ultimate proposed channel and corresponding setbacks. :..The proposed creek improvement
plans are to be submitted to, and approved as-to alignment and cross-section, by both
the City of Dublin and Zone 7.
21. No existing trees with a trunk diameter of five inches or greater measured two feet
above finished grade shall be removed from any of the parcels of this subdivision,
except in the case for emergency flood channel work.
22. Prior to recording the final Parcel Map, a complete Planned Development Rezoning
application for the entire 130+ acre site north of Amador Valley Boulevard
(Parcels 2 , 3 and 4 ) shall be submitted to the City. If the Planned
Development Rezoning application is ultimately denied, then individual
Planned Development Rezoning applications may be submitted for Parcel 2
and Parcel 3 .
The Planned Development Rezoning application or applications shall be
consistent with the Dublin General Plan, (in particular with Section
2 . 1. 2 Neighborhood Diversity .and Section 2 . 1 .3 Residential ..
Compatibility) .
PASSED, APPROVED AND 'ADOPTED this 15th day of
April , 1985 .
AYES: 5
NOES : 0
ABSENT: 0
P1 ing Commission Chairman
ATTEST .
i I YIT(I
RYanning Director
I