HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-1989 PC Agenda CITY OF DUBLIN
, ...Development Services r. Planning;Zoning 829-4916 i
P.O. Box 2340 3uilding & Safety 829-0822
.-Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Agenda for the
Dublin Planning Commission meeting of LeiDettale.q (Q , 19d3, was posted
at the Dublin Library, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, California, on
the l of �--Q b , 194, by �t �Op.m. .
Executed this s L day of r (.ACiet 1981,, at Dublin,
California.
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Commission Secretary by
att.-a': 0102-/Y1-2>
Pla �1ng Secretary
AGENDA
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - Dublin Library Monday - 7:00 p.m.
7606 Amador Valley Blvd., Meeting Room February 6, 1989
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - January 17, 1989
6. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted
to address the Planning Commission on any item which is not on the
Planning Commission agenda. Comments should not exceed 5 minutes. If
any person feels that this is insufficient time to address his or her
concern, that person should arrange with the Planning Director to have
his or her particular concern placed on the agenda for a future meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 88-121 Dublin Security Storage Conditional Use
Permit request to allow the continued operation
of exterior recreational vehicle storage as a
part of the mini-storage activities and to allow
the operation of a truck rental service including
outdoor storage of rental vehicles located at
6005 Scarlett Court
8.2 PA 88-054 Dublin Security Storage Conditional Use
Permit to allow up to a 35' tall double-face
freestanding sign located at 6005 Scarlett Court
8.3 PA 88-150 Goodwill Industries Conditional Use
Permit request to establish a Donation Station
consisting of 25' long, 10' wide and 14' tall
enclosed trailer for Goodwill Industries located
in the easterly portion of the Shamrock Village
Shopping Center parking lot
8.4 PA 88-148 Howard Johnson's Conditional Use Permit
request to add a proposed beauty shop, gift shop,
offices, dance floor, retail sales and auction
activities within the existing building located
at 6680 Regional Street
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1 Proposed Abandonment of the West Terminus of
Betlen Drive
9.2 PA 87-031 East Dublin General Plan Amendment/
Specific Plan Studies and Environmental Impact
Report - Review of the Preliminary Goals,
Policies and Objectives of the East Dublin
General Plan Amendment Study
10. OTHER BUSINESS
11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS
12. ADJOURNMENT
(Over for Procedures Summary)
.
DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES SUMMARY
WELCOME to the Dublin Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission is made
up of five Dublin residents who have volunteered their services to the community. They
were appointed by the Dublin City Council. The Planning Commission encourages and
appreciates participation by Dublin residents. Regular meetings of the Planning
Commission are held on the first and third Mondays of each month in the Dublin Library
Meeting Room, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin.
TIME: Planning Commission meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. No new public hearing item will
begin after 10:30 p.m., and the meetings will be adjourned by 11:00 p.m., except
under unusual circumstances where the Commission votes to hear the item or to extend
the meeting for 30-minute increments.
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the
posted agenda unless: 1) the Planning Commission determines by majority vote that an
emergency situation exists, as defined in the Government Code 2) the Planning
Commission determines by a two-thirds vote, or by a unanimous vote if only three
members are present, that the need to take action arose after the agenda was posted;
or 3) the item was included in a posted agenda for a prior meeting held within five
(5) calendar days and was continued to the current meeting.
ORDER OF PRESENTATION: After the Chairperson opens the public hearing on an item, the
order of presentation will be as follows:
1) Summary Presentation by Planning Staff
2) Questions by Planning Commission
3) Comments by Applicant
4) Comments by Others in Favor
5) Comments by Those in Opposition
6) Rebuttal by Applicant if Necessary
7) Additional Comments by Staff as Appropriate
The hearing is then closed and the item turned over to the Commission for discussion
and action. The audience is not permitted to make any further comments unless
invited by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENTS UNDER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Any citizen desiring to speak on an item not
scheduled on the agenda may do so under Oral Communications at the beginning of the
meeting. After receiving recognition from the Chairperson, please state your name
and address, then proceed with your comments. When an item not on the agenda is
raised by a member of the public, the matter shall be deemed automatically referred
to Staff unless the Planning Commission determines to take action as outlined in the
section above entitled ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON A HEARING ITEM: On a public hearing or other scheduled item, the
Chairperson will ask the audience for its comments, first from those in favor, then
from those in opposition. After receiving recognition from the Chairperson, please
state your name and address, then proceed with your comments.
The Planning Commission wants to hear all citizen concerns. Each new speaker is
asked to be brief, add new information, and not repeat points which previous speakers
have made. The Planning Commission is particularly interested in the specific
reasons why the speaker is for or against an item.
Applause and other demonstrations are prohibited during public hearings. Such
demonstrations tend to intimidate those in the audience who may have valid but
opposing viewpoints.
The Chairperson maintains the discretion to request the use of Speaker Slips and to
limit comments. Anyone who does not want to speak may write comments on the Speaker
Slip and turn it into the Planning Commission while the public hearing is still open.
SMOKING CONTROL: Please do not smoke during the Planning Commission meeting.
ITEM WITHOUT APPLICANT: If the applicant or representative fails to attend the public
hearing concerning their item, the Planning Commission may take action to deny,
continue, or approve the item. The item may be considered for continuance upon
receipt of written notification of the applicant's inability to attend the hearing.
n n
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 6, 1989
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff U"' '
SUBJECT: PA 88- Dublin Security Storage Conditional
Use Permit
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued
operation of exterior recreational vehicle
storage as a part of the mini-storage activities
and to allow the operation of a truck rental
service, including outdoor storage of rental
vehicles.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Glenn Kierstead
Dublin Security Storage
7124 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: 6005 Scarlett Court
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-550-33, 941-550-34
PARCEL SIZE: 6.6 acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage
EXISTING ZONING M-1, Light Industrial District Self
AND LAND USE: Storage/Truck Rental
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: M-1/Burke Co - Building Materials
South: M-1/Valley Volvo/Nissan/Mitsubishi
Auto Dealership
East: M-1/84 Lumber
West: Construction Trailer & Equipment
Company - Storage Yard
ZONING HISTORY:
December 16, 1968: Alameda County approved a Conditional Use Permit
(C-1959) to allow an outdoor storage yard.
July 15, 1970: Alameda County approved a Variance (V-5053) to waive the
solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimeter of the site.
COPIES TO: Applicant
2. Owner
ITEM NO. File PA 88-121
n n
December 8, 19781: Alameda County approved a Conditional Use Permit
(C-2392) to allow a contractor's storage yard and a Variance (V-5620) to
waive the solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimeter of
the site.
April 27, 1977: Alameda County approved a Variance (V-7281) to create
two (2) building sites without street frontage.
October 4, 1978: Alameda County approved a Conditional Use Permit (C-
3466) to allow office use and outside storage of recreational vehicles
in the M-1 District and approved a Variance (V-7766) to reduce the
southerly sideyard to a 0' setback where 10' is typically required for
construction of storage buildings.
August 4, 1986: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional
Use Permit request and Site Development Review (PA 86-060.1 and .2) for
construction of two-story mini-storage structures (70,000 square feet)
and conversion of existing 12,600 square foot building to mini-storage,
with an on-site manager's office (this approval expired on August 14,
1987).
October 17, 1988: The Dublin Planning Commissoin continued
consideration of a Conditional Use Permit request (PA 88-054) for a
freestanding sign where Staff discovered that the sites' Conditional Use
Permit had expired and the site was being used for Ryder Truck Rental
operation.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-87.34(c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance provides an exception
to the 20-foot maximum sign height requirement whereby collections of parcels
under common ownership and use four acres or greater in size, or single use
parcels one and one-half acres or greater in size, may utilize a sign up to 35
feet tall subject to approval of 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 peformance standards established for the district
in which it is located.
Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be
valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the
acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited
to the following matters:
a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings;
b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities;
c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed
use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be
void;
d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the
posting of bond;
e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County
Government.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt, Class 1, Section 15301
Existing facilities, minor alteration of existing
private facility involving negligible or no
expansion of use beyond that previously existing
-2-
n e
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 6, 1989, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
ANALYSIS:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
continued operation of outdoor recreational vehicle storage as a part of the
existing mini-storage activities. Also requested is the addition of outdoor
truck rental storage as a part of the truck rental operation that would also
operate from this site.
The City Zoning Ordinance permits enclosed storage use within an M-1 (Light
Industrial District) outdoor storage can be considered by Conditional Use
Permit request.
Staff has reviewed the site and operation of the Recreational vehicle storage.
All storage is on site in designated parking areas. Staff has received no
complaints regarding the operation of the RV outdoor storage.
The Applicants requested use of the site for Ryder Truck Rental would not
involve any physical expansion of the site. The mini-storage manager handles
the rental activity within the existing office. The Applicant indicates a
maximum of 21 rental trucks would be on the premises at one time. Parking
spaces are available on site behind the fenced area to accommodate the truck
rental parking/storage. A total of 102 spaces exists, 21 maximum would be
used for the truck rental.
The proposed hours of operation for the truck rental is 8 a.m. - 5 p.m., seven
days a week. The manager resides on-site and is present during the office
hours or in case of emergency. During non-business hours rental trucks will
not be allowed to be returned unless the manager is present to process the
return of the rental. Staff review of the rental truck activity observed the
parking of rental trucks along the access easement and in the spaces in front
of the mangers office. In order to ensure the access easement remains safely
accessible and customer parking available, Staff has included, in the
Resolution, a condition prohibiting these vehicles from parking in these
areas.
The proposed use and location appears to be appropriate for the property. The
site contains the mini-storage and RV storage activities. These uses coincide
with one another in a supportive fashion. Additionally, supervision and
monitoring/maintenance of the outdoor rental and RV storage activity might
likely occur in a timely and responsive fashion in that an on-site manager is
presently residing at this site.
Staff believes that the inclusion of the truck rental storage in this site and
continued RV storage would be an appropriate and compatible mixture of uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, or
give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Adopt Resolution approving PA 88-121 Dublin Security Storage
Conditional Use Permit
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Draft Resolution approving PA 88-121
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Applicant's Written Statement
-3-
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Location Map
Attachment 2: Police Services "Standard Commercial Building Security
Recommendations"
Attachment 3: Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance
Agreement
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 88-121 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR CONTINUED OPERATION OF EXTERIOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE
AND TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF TRUCK RENTAL STORAGE
LOCATED AT 6005 SCARLETT COURT
WHEREAS, Glenn E. Kierstead, representing Dublin Security Storage, filed an
application for a Conditional Use Permit request to allow the continued operation
of exterior recreational vehicle storage as a part of the mini-storage activities,
and to allow the operation of a truck rental service including outdoor storage of
rental vehicles at 6005 Scarlett Court; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application
on February 6, 1989; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined to be
categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be
conditionally approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, the adopted City of Dubiln Zoning Ordinance provides for the
established uses in the M-1 Light Industrial Districts, lists storage as a
permitted use, and lists outdoor storage as a conditionally permitted use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find:
a. The proposed continued operation of the outdoor recreational vehicle
storage and truck rental operation, including outdoor truck storage, at the Dublin
Security Storage mini-storage facility serves the public need by providing for
existing demand for recreational vehicle storage and truck rental service.
b. The proposed use will be properly related to other land usees,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity.
c. The use will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the
public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the area, as all
applicable regulations will be met.
d. The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses for
performance standards established for the district in which it is to be located,
in that conditions have been applied to insure conformance with the Zoning
Regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
approve said application for continued exterior recreational vehicle storage and
truck rental with outdoor on-site rental truck storage subject to the following
conditions:
1 rg • 7 •Ym5
n
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior
to issuance of building permit or the establishment of the proposed land use
activity and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval.
1. The operation of the site shall conform to the attached plans (Exhibit B) and
written statements (Exhibit C and D).
2. Additional outside storage, beyond that referenced in this application is
expressly prohibited. All vehicle storage shall be on-site and located within
designated parking spaces.
3. No vehicle storage, including truck rental storage, shall be allowed in the
three parking spaces outside of the security gate.
4. No truck rental parking shall occur along the access easement.
5. All other activities shall be conducted entirely within the structures on the
site. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be permitted outside the enclosed
structures.
6. The Applicant shall provide on-site signage indicating hours of operation for
mini-storage and truck rental, and include instructions for after hours rental
return and include a telephone number for use in case of emergency. Location of
signs shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to
placement.
7. On site parking lot and building lighting shall be maintained and operational
during non-daylight hours.
8. Comply with the City of Dublin Police Services Standard Commercial Building
Security Recommendations (Attachment 2).
9. The Applicant shall sign and submit a copy of the City of Dublin Landscape
Maintenance Agreement (Attachment 3).
10. This approval shall be valid for one (1) year and shall expire on
February 15, 1990. This approval may be extended for up to two (2) additional
years by the Planning Director upon his determination that the Conditions of
Approval remain adequate to assure that the above stated findings will be met.
The Applicant must submit a written request of the extension prior to the
expiration date of this permit.
11. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-2-
•
•
•
•
/ P4' —_—__i____n.-.La.
lii
\1: i I i i I I I I Iill
.�
////. . ITALtb •
j
. __. ••k •
N ////, • I t••;---,.4.
UM
•
j... •;; ' .. •'.` r ,.,...... .
• .
. .
. ,
• :•. _ ... ..:_:,...„.:,„:, , ,. .. ,. .,..,.. ., . ,. ,•,
. .
..
. __,___ i ;...,,,,,„.,... ,..4„. ....___ ,.. ,„ . . ..„,, ,
. ..
( . ,. .. .
. . . .
„•._• ._. . ,,, .. . .._
,.. - .).,-,,,..._
"i-
•
J /Icy •l ••, ' �• "--:OT.f�. )
'C/ i • tl1
h r/7Y.,1 4. , t;,, V 1 N l G• 1,. -CC • .- i w
/ ,yy •/, / V 1 t+ Z tl t t 1 r tZ
/x • ,. /• �-C4'1T11- ". _f _ •
LL t Kn i' y T i . +
/ . : m.4 ]t d y1 t� cj
/ V h •
i
",.•
{�'.? y 4 is - d r ( . •• •, . 't r =yam} ,
,.t. t Qr •7•<3 E '•-• . , ,. r . ✓i - !• - : , '• • - x •t ••I F•.. • t,•.'_a{�'•,f� /' t 12:,,L•at+'�i•1 • ...NJ:
0' r s/� �,�� e , ff. r.; ' A 1+ W .ism.{ � J � � �,
J , • • 2 • yr i L
t9�+• /:;4. �y,• : ;, -
Y ;BURKE•,LEA-E ARf ..r• a i_N EXIS• TING i�. S._ ..., ,E F .t- s..
/f �f�i L' • ', a 4 k t, •▪� S r
• ;rV :% ..tv, . }� A - •,•L ' , Y, W -C�•.'.—}� r r .i a�.l J `. `J3�`" iP r- �'irEs �R.i r �'li'
•A .s t r']l,YS- .I i .< , t
e' t. r 3 1 r rtt a 5 1 .i, r r, . 1
� . .. ,/, 'f•C a �l; '° 'N ['.! rl, rk 4-.4 j` L r;� .Af1,1: t tr r^���r� T, �•��
'V ,� {S•11I n iy,` „, F1 1 ', 'r �t _i • 1`.f•ay+o .. 1• %' ,1.
A/1/l l �r^ ris ' • i rr \• 7 S ,is. [. •,1:, • /'r• rnc.,`'+•R ;t' F!`t��� f:.'•Fv Sir- i� _•
--Q ,. ..YSYFl:aS ip‘ f• r, ..� , < Iu ,'< ':i' r <1 , ZL fa ^1 S':G.i`. .r<
ar` 'yam 1 ti' I'r �,( ��') �9krc 19 r TA `t � ` ♦ i
•' 2.d '- Y fY iW yt.L' , f • !..F , \ ,t -I Y}` ,1 �" y _ 'Fc- ;,-1 $�Z 2� -,„.', .- t-+ t-t zj-4
VV -- ������ � 1 y�•f� �
a� .. •:4 �>_ FAG ,_ : i u4 iM• " �. •^Z II , •}t,� r ,x•. _4.ry3.. �r
,,a:*:}--*- _3£ 1,.,jt -ra u • . �.s. w .1 � i
� , I T 'f li 1 ,�-4 r ,•IhNa'1,,-, •3. —'N:-•
,••-. ).i,:5,-g• i a• , • jt K I y
,• - -t'. tf'VY��'7 1 ['�Y"7 :•ITS Le �a.•-j:a' - - • l.t,• 3,� •�ll:�:';ii ` ..,
, .. -' - [)(1$TING rATF1'tr1% '4.--ii Yv: i- r "sfa - `j p t -,✓, .t j1...• 6LF v ? ,r i* w a ,tt. `a r
.? r^' rJ ''i . 4@F� --`�5+ •a9i[Z] C"d1 ilw+ +':: � N • 4•'''�i' iC • r1. •i. 7 -_i-r IJr..
r TO T.., • j.
.. A < � elli}^. L. r'11:ii :3f > ' �o.a•e Ott �g y -- • -.--f! ,� n.:.'•, 5 :.tl y to• `.+ t +-
♦ �.. �_..w. •.r. ,yj�t Gtrr-�� �tr�t•�� i� G�a�'.��:n' S� ��� j5''�a- -• i t r j F v`,z�� fir' r. �'y.•i',r + i #.;; �j�r•!(rk,
ry s�'14 tr-4 :.f yK. 3 0T.....' J:,�Sj�Re'�7r la.3a�,c �,,,� rwr 'o - '� -:.•t.,t . . �l1,...' • r� :t
•'/ Of _ .. 7i7ae J : i5: y.�': 5r7♦d11lltP�i@F��!YIf/y�t [iQA,gliS�l:fl�L�t7�n'a1�ri>�t.„ ,V. j .�Mb 1, 'v }) >''nt��r � .`!,{V� i1,,,,I‘J
;` ` -r: / �-. u"""' 3 • ;�r r t^nrtt's. a[�ie a'i1:ei• � L-.S r 'I f+�- ; •• 4 t,V K li i.1} 4 r.iKr
c- r .,,.f., • } tr Se�w,,o l' FlyRlIPE7 ri 14 7 • "Y-'� '3i ..' /
;." =A,, { UW1Y SPA I�r• LIGHT.. C tat - '•j t M�
, :c;ce�[ sto� i� 22 —'10 r 241 ,I STALLS
e
fi xr / / // Q •L4r!5142 r r f A ,i
„,,e. -- a 7 a r
•
t
/1 rti
•
A
December 5 , 1988 •
Ms . Laura Hoffmeister _
Planning Department -
1 City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dubl1in, CA 94568
RE : Dublin Security Storage Use Permit and Sign Application
Dear Ms. Hoffmeister :
This letter will serve to confirm our conversation of December 5
regarding the operation of Ryder Truck Rental at the Dublin
Security Storage facility .
1 . The hours of operation of the gate are from 6 : 00 AM to
9 : 00 PM Monday through Friday and 8 : 00 AM to 9 : 00 PM
Saturday and Sunday.
2 . The office hours are from 8 : 00 AM to 5: 00 PM, however , the
manager lives on site. Anytime he is on site and in his
resi6ence , he will check trucks in and out .
3. The gate is computer coded with a manual override switch
operated from the manager ' s office . Anytime a truck is
returned during business hours , the truck is allowed to
enter the facility by using the manual override 'open
switch . The manager then directs the truck lessee to
park in a designated space and the lessee then returns
to the office to consummate the necessary paper work .
4 . We estimate the total number of trucks on site at any one
time to be 21 which includes the vehicles ready to be
released for rental and those returned by the lessees .
When the number of trucks exceed 14 , we make a request
to the main office of Ryder for vehicle pickups .
NOTE: Ryder picks up trucks 4 or 5 times a week from
other locations .
1
A4i" RNIA 94ciif . ')O ----- -
Eel
_x
PAGE Of. .
5. The average number of trips in and out is 3 to 5 in and
3 to 5 out per day. The maximum length of a Ryder truck
that we service is 24 feet . The maximum loaded gross
weight of the 24 foot truck is 14 , 500 pounds . The empty
weight is approximately 8 , 000 pounds .
Yours truly ,
c-,/:'
Glenn E . Kierstead
GEK/cls
•
f_
„..
ExNbftc'
PAGE a.OF.
' • i
R CEIVEL!
i
tUBUIJ f'AANNINO
/ ! '(-7.= / -ems,< <? .
j i7/07/2 / 5., A/J ,`�,:-ems--; . ...-�) `-
m/� / .7-.. G%� c:2/' ,e e-% /c'%, .:zi ��S C--/'_4-A!�
f
7
1 Atj/x-',46C(._ s . jam' j ja E;G r`i7— L % /4'—
//../T�?-< ;.rc`s-7 /G ,�r f )2tJ i 2-✓G. ss yF�-c.2 ;,c-•cl
Wic ,4;,0—/— e eE-ss -,: ;-v CramJ�; c_.&T-s
-,, 1`�,�jz2 u C_r4-7---i c..-/J r
‘ 6,--c----/=1_.(2i 7- --C.-49/(,;
, ---------'t..V:--
r/ s..
.r
t
L
E,dibftC .
PAGE.L...OF
'- ' - `'-• ' ' . s ' • '''T,W4'stb $';'' - —04 ' *.--n*N.,."'...ic,,,,.,..,."Y.,.••• ..- - •
_ ‘ , . - • - t,_.4„ .,..,,,,,t,- ,.•.- ,e•, ,*• . • ''--..... .'` , :••,..-... .., .
- - • ' - • .2-4,14.4,';...,,,,sz.,,,,-4,,it_t•,..,0,*6,4e-r4. .-4?tottil-.:-,fiv.,`;,',..-1 -.-.--,.. . ..
• ., .. , . ,',.._f-,f.,•,--, . -, -•.,.. v ,4‘•'t if.:',,-'43L ,'.'' `P-;• ';--. .
s • ••3 - . ''• '1,1••••`• ,i••• ,".,..V"..1.. I!,,,,'It•..•' ,, ?','. .
• ' • . ' .3 "••+..•,;,-.3....• ,,,,•'#,:•'-,,--*• • , ' • ' : .
• • ,, A
• . . ... , ,.
,, •
. .
1 r: \cs. - 1 • r :7---, • , •,.., 1
','., • • , —
,
• .. , . ...P ,,, ,.., /
•- , .....1:' , /. Z . •t
A. -.-• I II.
" ••••pi
^ .,, , I......."••,.I . ,..„.................N 1 /,'of-...... ••• ..--..... ............--
*I•I I •
':..1;:. 1 4 i •, ) I : • ...1.
'X' ‘,,\;',1,,/,'''
1 il ••
,;....1 ,,,
•,..',...;i1.- - ' /1,1 s'•,).--,'; I, \' . 1 / 3r 1 . .
- e ,...:. .., 14
•
•
(1
,1::&,•••ic .•r•s ,.....• ,,, I , I/
I . — i _ _ .
...t.',.C...," ,,, Jo___.. I • ,/,' 1 / - e
, /,‘1
i , r i
i /
••-..;',. ...-- '., , : : I _____
...:1.,,....!. \ .. I, ,f,
:...y-. • , , , ,
....... I, VI/
I I
( .
1 ! , -.-
;----1-'4
.. ,.1.1,
1 : ••
I '
1 .
I, I
1 '
1 ,
'"-Z"TIC.,....At i
•••'•7•0
:47-....7'•:
•••
•::$Z-7
1 •
.,..
• . I I 1
I •
:. .?.'
. .
, .
, ,
1 , , -1 411k`li;.,. ./o s,:s..„..c.s's
<)/
t•...-e.-,-
--,..:•-,7
-4--,-.5-_
--- .
[fft_:1-_
•.;*2.‘;,'
1
• . vzf111-IIIi..:III:
• :s.I1•/s!iI
1 I
I
•
' /\
•
Ne\
<sC o
15E
1
.!
Seck•
ilk.aa:anat•.,
A,kscx•‘-e
-•T
•
-... 6,01r-L
.;.:Cl•
-_,-4`-:1 • : .
-A
Tz.S._::•-•
CI
--",;1'•-•: : :
...------\
I 1
-- DOUGHERTY RD. ,...--
• ! : /----..--------------.-s............./....
I I 3
........A .5..;, I_
• I. 3
I 4 1 • .c:r-..-_, 3 1
"...-
lo.......-_, I I
Pi•3-..:-- I I
-I•' (N I F n C.', .
•..._- I I 0 ...,••'' 1
4 • 71- -1 > , c. -- -..,,
- •- -
••••i'-., 4 • I ...('' i___, > 7: :-..- >
-- ,
-1 -D
c5-";--1-e•.I ",./ '0 C -- •33 ... _
..-
...
• • ":.•• CP -6 •__ 0 = r - > 5,.. •
- -;.•
x 1 o ) 7::. m . •
.,- Z ; = 1 .7101
''•,.-,..1 2. " "0 > -.1
> ,- • <
> I 3...
1------C o ni c • ,.._ -7
7.,".•--,....: c,. _ 5 I -t- -1
«7 z .19.'':":.•-. .-. > c.)
'
e
I -c..„,,
•••-.',....- I M iti -•-.7:-•..":"-
._i ___I ' 14
I ' fl. .. ,..
I -..*•••• I ,
:•.':...7.- ',ft'.... CO
Is
Ir.:-.• --.% l_-1 ........ ‘...
.".'.
_ I -•••••. ....-.
7-- ....
.•-- • - _ -
I
I \
._ •- - -_-. cl \\\_I:: • Z.- -: o
cco C.
1 , ,
- I
=In
\\'`•,.....:7\
.,,
•-.. •-`: v
... - • ,...
5 -I
5.'z- ...-' . 1. - c)---
i,.. --•••• i --:. ,...., - ,.: ‘ i- -<
•-:- -,- - 1 _ ,..,
‘• % 7!
7.,
a a \
\
•••-• -.....I ,
.1
• //
•;--.•• I • -----'---------.--..--•-A
:77.:.".• I .
\ -
..____ r__.,-1----"/
I:•'. I r---,
- • • 1 1 1_____. _.L.....:____ _______i ul-
I TASSAJAHA RD.
7
I
• -• .
• . i .
4 .
: .
.....
ftE6r: k . R•'' )1: 'r,,-..
,
LO
m ..,
7HAI'(:):IP:30N. :. t
.
i;
, -
, )
I : -\- ^-1. ' .. ...._.
__ _
AttliChMent / .
• CITY O F DUBLIN
FOLD SERVICES
STANDARD CCMMEPCIAL BUILDING SECURITY RECCI=7CATTCNS
I. DOORS
All exterior doors are to be constructed as follows:
a) Wccd doors shall be of solid core construction, no less than 1-3/4
inches thick.
b) Auxiliary locks are to he added to each door and shall be double
cylinder, one inch, throw de_adboit cr of ui.val ent burglary resistant
locks where re' ttea by the Building and F-_ Codes. The ci i rclPrs
are to be protected by cylinder ring guards so they cannot he gripped
by pliers or other wrenching devices.
c) In-swinging doors shall have rabbited jails, cr alternate reans of
strengthening. •
d) Exterior hinges shall have non-removable hinge ins.
e) Exterior and interior garage cut-swinging ,doors shall l have non-
.removable, hidden or non-accessible hinge pins.
f) Dccrs with glass panels and doors that have glass tanels adjacent to
shallb secured withironsteel
i1
the door frame e __pork Crcr _ _ r__ s of at
least 1/8th inch material cr 2 inch resin secured cn the inside of the
glazing. •
g) All exterior doors, excluding front doors, shall have a i.. nt= of
40 watt bn 7 over the outside cf the door. Such bulb b shall be
(1irected onto the door surfaces by reflectors.
h) The strike is to be a wrought box strike, or arm a!`nt.
i) Sliding glass doors: All sliding glass doors shall be e_uipped with a
locking device that shall engage the strike sufficiently to prevent its
being disengaged by any possible rlcve-e_nt of the Coon within the scace
or clearances provided for installation and ccea`cn. • The bolt and
strike shall be reinforced by hardened rater_a_l so as to crevent their
separation by pulling, prvi^g or similar attack. The locking device
function may be operable by a keyed cr coded lock inside and cut as
permitted by the Fire Department or Building Cods.
Double sliding glass doors shall be locked at the meeting rail.
II. WINDC rcS
A_ All accessible rear and side glass windows shall be secured as follcU:'.
1) Any accessible window shall be secured cn the inside with a
locking device capable of withstanding prying cr wrenching.
2) Louvered windows shall not be used within eight feet of ground
level, adjacent structures, or fire escapes.
DP 83-012 taint r
/N /1
, •
•
B. Accessible-Transoms
All exterior transoms exceeding 8" x 12" cn the side and rear
of any building or premise used for business purposes shall be
protected by one of the following:
1) Outside ircn hays of at least 1/8" material spaced no more than
2" apart.
2) Outside iron or steel grills of at least 1/8" material, but not
more than 2" mesh.
3) The window barrier shall be secured with belts, the rounded
• . or flush head on the outside. •
4) Wire hung glass with positive lcck rc devices.
III. ROOF OPE:`tD C-S
A. All glass skylights cn the roof of any building or premises used
for business purposes shall be provided with:
1) Iron bars of at least 1/8 material sued no more than 2" apart
under the skylight and securely fast med as in B-3.
2) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material of 2" mesh under the
skylight and securely fastened as in 8-3.
3) Other skylight protection of approved design.
E. All hatchway ccenings cn the roof of any building or premises used
for business pur:cses _hall be secured as follows:
1) If the hatchway is of women material, it shall be covered on
the inside with at least 16 guage sheet steel or its equivalent
attached with screws at 6".
2j The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slidpnar
or Slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock oust be
approved by the Fire Marshal.
3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings's_:all be provided with
non-removable pins when using pin-tyoe hinges.
C. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" cn the roof
or exterior walls of any building or pramise.used for business
purposes shall be secured by covering the sere with either of the
following:
1) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or 1" x 1/4" flat steel
material, spaced no more than 5" apart and securely fastened
as in II B-3.
2) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material of 2" mesh and securely
fastened as in II B-3.
` THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568 (415) 829-4600
STANDARD PLANT MATERIAL, IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
I (property owner) do hereby
agree that all plants (trees, shrubs and ground cover) will be
installed in accordance with the City of Dublin' s approved
landscape plan for (name of
project) located at
• (address) . All plants will be replaced in kind as per the
approved plan at such time as they are found to be missing,
diseased, damaged, or dead, for at least one (1) year from the
date of their installation.
I further agree that all plants will henceforth be irrigated,
fertilized, weeded and tended on a regular basis such that they
will maintain a healthy and weedfree appearance.
I further agree that the irrigation system will be installed
according to the irrigation plans as approved by the City of
Dublin, and that said system will be kept in good working order
for at least one ( 1) year from the date of the landscaping
installation.
This agreement is binding against this and all property owners
of record.
Signed:
Date:
Attahnie
Form 83-05 1/83
•
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 6, 1989
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 88-054 Dublin Security Storage Conditional
Use Permit
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit for an on-site 35-foot
tall double-face freestanding sign
APPLICANT: Shirley Simpson-Johnson
Arrow Sign Company
1051 46th Avenue
Oakland, CA 94568
PROPERTY OWNER: Glenn Kierstead
Dublin Security Storage
7124 Village Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: 6005 Scarlett Court
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-550-33, 941-550-34
PARCEL SIZE: 6.6 acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage
EXISTING ZONING M-1, Light Industrial District Self
AND LAND USE: Storage/Truck Rental
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: M-1/Burke Co - Building Materials
South: M-1/Valley Volvo/Nissan/Mitsubishi
Auto Dealership
East: M-1/84 Lumber
West: Construction Trailer & Equipment
Company - Storage Yard
ZONING HISTORY:
December 16, 1968: Alameda County approved a Conditional Use Permit
(C-1959) to allow an outdoor storage yard.
July 15, 1970: Alameda County approved a Variance (V-5053) to waive the
solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimeter of the site.
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
ITEM NO. File PA 88-054
r•
December 8, 19781: Alameda County approved a Conditional Use Permit
(C-2392) to allow a contractor's storage yard and a Variance (V-5620) to
waive the solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimeter of
the site.
April 27, 1977: Alameda County approved a Variance (V-7281) to create
two (2) building sites without street frontage.
October 4, 1978: Alameda County approved a Conditional Use Permit (C-
3466) to allow office use and outside storage of recreational vehicles
in the M-1 District and approved a Variance (V-7766) to reduce the
southerly sideyard to a 0' setback where 10' is typically required for
construction of storage buildings.
August 4, 1986: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional
Use Permit request and Site Development Review (PA 86-060.1 and .2) for
construction of two-story mini-storage structures (70,000 square feet)
and conversion of existing 12,600 square foot building to mini-storage,
with an on-site manager's office (this approval expired on August 14,
1987).
October 17, 1988: The Dublin Planning Commissoin continued
consideration of a Conditional Use Permit request (PA 88-054) for a
freestanding sign where Staff discovered that the sites' Conditional Use
Permit had expired and the site was being used for Ryder Truck Rental
operation.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-87.34(c) of the City's Zoning Ordinance provides an exception
to the 20-foot maximum sign height requirement whereby collections of parcels
under common ownership and use four acres or greater in size, or single use
parcels one and one-half acres or greater in size, may utilize a sign up to 35
feet tall subject to approval of 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 peformance standards established for the district
in which it is located.
Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be
valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the
acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited
to the following matters:
a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings;
b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities;
c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed
use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be
void;
d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the
posting of bond;
e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County
Government.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt, Class 1L(4), Section 15301
and Class 11(a), Section 15311, accessory
structure and construction of on-premise sign
-2-
,
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 6, 1989, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
ANALYSIS:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a
35-foot tall freestanding sign at Dublin Security Storage, 6005 Scarlett
Court.
The proposed double-faced freestanding sign is setback approximately 5
feet from the southerly property line and 50 feet from the easterly property
line and approximately 320+ feet from Scarlett Court. The proposed sign face
is 15 feet by 7.5 feet (225 square feet double-faced sign area of 112.5 square
feet for each single-faced side).
A freestanding sign may utilize allowable sign area from the primary
building frontage and/or secondary building frontage. There are no existing
signs on this site. The proposed freestanding sign is in compliance with the
Sign Ordinance regulations based on setback, height and maximum allowable sign
area and proportion of sign area. The signs proposed placement would need to
be modified to allow for the required 10-foot minimum setback from the
southerly property line. Staff has prepared two possible alternative
locations (shown on Exhibit B, Site Plan) which would meet the City code
setback requirements.
The Commission has approved similar types and heights of signs on
nearby sites (i.e., Valley Volvo, Nissan). However, the sign area of these
more recent approvals were considerabliy smaller (66+ square feet each face)
than the Applicant's proposal (112 square feet, each face). City code allows
for consideration of up to a 300 square feet double faced sign area (150
square feet, each face). The Applicant's requested area is 112 square feet
per face. Staff believes the Applicant's requested area should be modified to
be more compatible and proportional to available landscape area and to be more
consistent with the nearby newer approvals. A sign size of 7 x 12 (84 square
feet per face) would be more in proportion to the existing landscape planter
area which is 10 - 12 feet wide.
If the Commission feels a freestanding sign over 20 feet tall is
inappropriate for this site, the Applicant could construct on-site wall signs
request a special easement sign.
Since this site has a legal recorded access easement from Scarlett Court
across Valley Volvo/Nissan/Mitshubishi property, a special easement sign could
be considered and located near the Scarlett Court right-of-way, allowing for
customers to better identify the sites driveway of of Scarlett Court that
leads to the Mini Storage Ryder site.
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for this
proposed freestanding sign with the Staff alternative recommended
dimensions/location.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, or
give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Adopt Resolution approving PA 88-054 Dublin Security Storage
Conditional Use Permit
-3-
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Elevation
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Location Map
Attachment 2: Applicant's Written Statement
Attachment 3: Minutes from the October 17, 1988 Planning Commission
Meeting
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 88-054 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
FOR A 35-FOOT TALL DOUBLE-FACED FREESTANDING SIGN
LOCATED AT 6005 SCARLETT COURT
WHEREAS, Shirley Simpson-Johnson, representing Arrow Sign Company, filed an
application for a Conditional Use Permit to locate a 35 foot tall double faced
freestanding business identification sign, located at 6005 Scarlett Court; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application
on February 6, 1989; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be
conditionally approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth;
NOV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find:
a. The use is required by the public need in that it provides visible
identification to the general public for the Dublin Security Storage.
b. The use would be properly related to other land uses and transportation
and service facilities in the vicinity.
c. The use, if permitted under all circumstances and conditions of this
particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the
public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the area, as all
applicable regulations will be met.
d. The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clause or
performance standards established for the district in which it is to be located,
in that conditions have been applied to insure conformance with the Zoning
Regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
approve said application as shown on Exhibits B and C, as attached and on file
with the Dublin Planning Department and subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior
to issuance of building permit or the establishment of the proposed land use
activity and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval.
1. The freestanding sign shall not exceed a maximum height of 35 feet and shall
not exceed a total maximum sign area of 168 square feet double-faced (84 square
feet each face), and shall be for the purpose of the on-site business
identification.
LAW
2. The freestanding sign shall be located a minimum of 10' from the southerly
property line and located within the existing landscape planter area. Final
placement to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department.
3. The Applicant shall re-landscape the planter area in front of the manager's
office. Planting plan shall include the use of 5 gallon shrubs. The landscape
planter shall be provided with an irrigation system.
4. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department prior to or concurrently with issuance of the sign permit.
5. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Building Code requirements.
6. Building permits for the proposed sign shall be secured and construction
commenced within six (6) months after the effective date of this permit.
7. Any modifications to said sign shall be subject to review and approval of
the Dublin Planning Department.
8. This permit shall be valid for one (1) year, expiring on February 15, 1990,
to correspond with the expiration of PA 88-120/121 Dublin Security Storage/Ryder
Conditional Use Permit. The approval for the Conditional Use Permit may be
extended for up to two (2) additional years by the Planning Director upon the
Director's determination that the conditions are being complied with and remain
adequate to ensure that the stated findings will continue to be met. The
Applicant must submit a written request of the extension prior to the expiration
date of the permit.
9. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3
of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-2-
I 1 i ...,,/ •..,
-
• , 1
• .
. -
.--"*"......--
\ .
. / ' / • (,/ . /// // / o. • .
. _-.. . .
cr• , ‘••••.,,,\\NN
,
19 - ;0 A 24 5TALL.5
,.. ,
4 4.
r ' • ' :"
,
'
•
""0 ; ... ... ..
I
• 4
%'-7''''•, AW•lt",•".. k.:- :i-, ' " - :1";.53 ,1 4 '-ikt4(1`fl,(114 ,c.,--., ,, ...`''-,:t...:1'...,,,,,..::%-., .,,.;0.4',"'',..i..' ''. - . .'. . ', t.... ,
•,Wis'..k,,- , ., !'4'./,4,1' - ; .. . •4r.4.'4. ,'4...r...?Vii4.0 -......
root
...... ............I I, • ''''. A . '',F-•-4F 4"•-•%•,• ' • '
' 1
>IC •,:t.Aktip.Ae''••••
...• 4 ••'..'
'M'fik.) k• ';'. t •, 4•• „ 1';10 .L.`''..%1 4.0•••4' '7..'1:4.i.•':A.-4:4'04h:4' 4 ''4 4•
.•. , ' ' 4• '‘k — ,,',. • 1,,,,. fry-4,',4 0).!•. , -r,,Olt.ktii•F•Ottio,: '-. , - ', • • 0) • , •br .4., • ' •••`. . . - f''A;t
`chilpirL., gfor
_ _
•
i H !
t
CO
' ' , —' F
)
mom, i
-
memill C''') ,
. ..... ____
I ' ., -"EA
- - ,
i.i., ',}Y't %.'-'•%..-4-.'',,...,'.:,. .1 `.7..•.....` i41- '014,...4'''''.;Al:4, .
•.. i' ' •' , 'el i:i•-e'-- JO' • '
', , .,..it '.41:,4-111,:,, "-,w. • •.*:,.41:4;, -' %.,,,,-: ,k1.:PW,-4- i vtli-400pfilt.„. . .i4',."-'',.;,, `;', . , • .-
, -e s•;,..,-.e., . ', J.IK, . f.rt,,siv:.,-,,,., ...- • . ,,,,;.z,
.:,..„, fr , '1. ,.r .-' ,AY.IP"; ‘4,.•••:54 y A4*--4+..,41 hlr. , :,'.- C',LA-
• ,
r.• ...1,• 4,,',•,•, , 4t3,0-,...: • , .,,_, 1, .1,' „ .' •,, ,,,},att,1"/r...'4,1" •'.......v.C.r.;:.4"•%1.- • . • . ..!Psi:,.'''. 1,',e'
LtileiLt 1 Ole,,'t'll,',',. .,,.. • . :, ,jr-a, . -
,• ,,,, ,.•-,• 4),:*, -..e.r ,lit:.,
•
• "--- ••••• ,
' •<••••• t \,
, a
- - j
63
.r_
l'a
. ,
g .
.. . .. . .
,.,,...„.....4 ,.... , . ..,., , .. ' ...„... ., _de' ,-' rif .' : - ',-;v.it-.,. ' '', .,.,.,.‘,-;..‘. .t, .Y;1,....4`'1'•".. '•,.-/- . .', ____ 1
.-,Ci) A t'l: ';-<'; •••.,••• • ' • '.,''' •.1. ,..",,,L.-. :.• f; •';• -Kt',c."‘1,,.
''to ..., . ,,,--,* •-,-' _ -...-/,,,,414;, 4,f,,.., .'. ,,,....l','•;.t..47,4`4 24...,,k:h.. ••
• Y, . F it 1 1-1 . s •.-4 i.k..",,^f;'.,* .`'..-,,•;..•:'-'- '• '-lci,,, -., . .• -Is; ,,r'.17,•'•::. ..',,,-14,•,.4:.,- ,--\ 4., .,.... „21C-1,,..,,„,.., . , .. ,... ,..:..,, 4•1;2es;•• .5,7A.,:e,:',.,.1 ' .3:,4".
' ' _'_...-•`l'h' . tr.ra.. ...' ' , r'l:Ni r\I 7 LI ,
(.4.1 ..
I ...,..,, (...;
.--.
. -
•
, • -..,— .-.1 44.i T.: as ['- e__„,..-------------kr'-.'"."- •"..
. =••
----......-.... ,.......,,
. ,
, . , 0..1:4'„.•.i. .k ., , ...... .4 ...'741". e '4, *f''''r'.'OP.'S'1 I ..,44141:174 - ' - •1414.4t 444 .
•- .4,41.4.er I r t 5,9
!:-..--..
. .Air."'.•, ,, ,••1•• 4...4.. ,..... '4,1..,rip* Ai:.rr.air, -thr• ....S. ' 4 i . "'e'4 • IIIIIk ' ,___J ,
. r,, . , . .,„-.4,... ,/4 1....:T4 I..t•tIti'Mjapr, f.....^,*e f'',.... ' • - „.,. ;2""444-,, ' , , I
.
. • ,,,,..,.k,, f • - - ,l, ;-' t• .'---)''''.:,z•vti rk. iii4 ' ''.07-•:.4*:' ---
,. , , . • .! ., •7. , - ,,.., .i.,yv..., `, . , - •-•,s--;.,‘-..... . x. -,-c,
)
et- - -
11 "
-- --
. ,..,
. •
•
.
t \
•
1
•
.
. ,
\---2
•.
f• ,
*.
..-1
1, (
. ..0%., .••••••••.
. .
• ,
, .,... . .......... + '"..,•"'- 1 .,
, •
k
e i ' ' ill 711
,...
-. ••••A'>/. 4i4'.: '4***1.'* * f,:4 • , ) \ I I
4,
- . .1.4 ' '
....-....-...........-------- , . . t
I i
Ii'..... 't x ' t :t,
ITT 1.: : . , • ts I. i I, r-,-)
.: • ; ' ' • •t
- ,
' ' "V.'4,',%" 'P'Fr-s ,:, •,,, - , ;..i ... _I
, Lati.....,,,, At .,,,x-,., , 4..„,' •' :,7 4 . i- • I I -
. , .liti,i)t-toil,4 g'.it. A, ''.;4,‘.,""4Vi. 'A, ''',• ,>?1* — — , 1 0
• :i' `• ' ot.rkytt 4 r•.*N C.o.'"'''.'" -, i,t::
) 0 l <1--"-- -it
'-''.LI'.I.: '''j '.-., '"'',4',I 15.-•.o'''\:./Tr'-i.',tie'• r;-"A .-,--1 . . ,'„ X. i 1 -
•• s-r • !'",,,1.47,••;:r T.,;; `..t •. I -,-," ' •.z — —' -.2 ...te- i , 0
- -• -i i 1
- — --I i N.3 1•II u., . I -
o) , C
-- . ------N --
.... .. , .
'‘ '1-4' ' ',..:-: -•,•"1-.....,'• 4-4 :•<1, .-. , •
04 , :4,V..•:7.1,it„ ?ter-,,,,• ,
,„,. . .-'5.,,,i!,:.,%-crt;..10•••-.s4,4
1 :..rel.,ff'".-:'* ''. ••••-'" *' •.7- •
- -4 •
. • F . .---------------- .
. .5th
' N1[ r\ 7 7
• , I
,
,
It A i
I
1'
i E I E I >311k)
4. i i il
. i r..
' 1
t I A
._
• ' -4• _,i' -..-40r%W,0 - '.-.41
.•. -..'r:`"-:'1,...*: '''.''eks..'le, •.-,-SI . - lutAti ,
i,....,, ... •„,,:-... '.-i ,,,,,,"7.• 4,',.: --• A.,--414', .4...j.,-2• . •,-# I ' : 1
..., ..,...... 1 IA,.4 , „0•,.'7,4, -•f.,, . ..--„...., ,,,,<.:4,. s• • - .--1 „ 1., .6-
;"-4 •.-74".1t:•P •*-, .4- fr...0 .;.•I'tf!r:t..t',.ti,ii,-.IIIII'•-•:•.* -4, , . ''' 4 I''',. '--, '4 '-,.„ ' •i.N,'"4\
f
1 - ....
i . -
I ' •Ii '•
' I .
• I—
'I f•''11 %.,c-s , 3 i • x
- 1
c 1 .- •
i Z. %II ,,1/4 ___;•, I _ , l 0'
• ; 0 , - • r-- 1 -, ,
lS1 r,\e• cr1 - ,_
. D §IL o IN
.. 2 a.
11
, ,
l' 1 ill
e.
t - • ...2 ,.
- I •4- :x
.... -
.._
= ..
•
. .
(-, ,,-
VA-LLEY Vu.,\/0 • c\
• - .
- .i_
____Y
1-4,11S U 131541 -
--cl
--
A-0To Peg ev_sk-Ft P 0 .o
.. ,,
5, c0
— 0
4—57Y-
, .
•
• ,. ,, .
, •
PsIcV.55 if-XinT . .
•
• •• -
. .
- ---------. --
---=._—_ ._. • ,
. . • .- .. . •
• • . • . ,•
•
.
C.0 U if -'1- • . . •
- .
.
,• • - ' • ' -' --- ' •-;;- •- . • -,.••. . ., . .
- •
_ • ..,
..,..1 • F •
-,..e....i.. :,„ ye .ttir:4-‘-44
.._
A .AP te••-- .--..1 et s.‘ ‘01:4
.:-VNA...45tc„.5.1.4•440" r • - .1, ., i - -44) 4...)--. ' t - •
,dn._ A _ . ro „Al. .1.,, , ,q•-•f „O'
R CH A , ...,
R[D,';A--'''' 13011K,. . ...Q: , ,....z ._ , 'I, ,.., •0 1.' ..
- 'It- •' ' ..... ' ; , • , .•,`
--.._,.„\- k i...,„Jo it' -r'••••—.,...,,,,,..- • •,_...-0" '''-4''''''' --'0',1 .4"tit; r ''fs!"t'''' - ''•'1.,,-, - ,-* li"A- •-•1 • '. ft
... .•, •*; v•I•zi •-..,%4 • ,Ati-?, 1/41 11\41 E IFI.Thie't'''''e''''449411 41)t - 1.1 •' ••••.'e ' "" .t- •P''' '-' - v ,'
.• I"' x Act,- ,,, A.--.1 1 .1 •
' ....., •,., , , ,...\ . ..,"„•••Ap .- :. ,teit,lit f• ,A14-9 4. -.-v... - , ro. .....tt,--*A1 .. 'Ar -• .-,‘. •-•,e..,...-, -.•• . 1,T'
% ..... • -- -r4V ' -7:t'' ":'A.,-4,-.17t '. ,. ' ', - .. 14. -"Ptt- ' - *".''-. ,- Vith- wit 4-t•t.:: 1:1, t . 41.1.".4 Fi A A"",;',ir-.;
•,•""-e•:•- 7, ' .L,, tcl- k.Y:••_,.,... ..?"-,*,4 : .4.,. ..., --c,.... -zr 1 .„...,„ - ).tqc.,...--;... k A. , , t,4' k • , • . . ..si.o....4 F. '4,I1.„fro;
4 'v.1 .', A ... :"..-4,A.,:,'eV\-t:':'4'' -ti)'1,"le.' S.•4' 4 .1,'Ig" ,',•-••` -. -,_It.- "4,'$1.1(4,,,V'A:. t,d, . 1.4.*:1".,'Il'it . i''e.,44 P"
- "" '" '4'.1 - .'-• "7-4 %ni.4 4 ,,,,,i---*, 4-4,,%-.,,,,E,-. 1, • -..7'st,.....\.-•,,,,..,,, ...- ,,,,+".• ..14 .41- 1-'tt":''' • .' .",' 4.' -- • - '
:., • . - .1 •• l' - ,e .. - .:21: - ,..• ••,-!'t0,...it: 4 ..0, --- -; - i
NIIVikeVil‘, • ----- ,,:-Vt zr. , •R•°. 41-) .„,,-4,- t.,-.,-,-...., --•°-:- ,,i.:-,* ..v '.- ,,,,,, „ ,.. ,
I , f-V 0 i ,-10;••---' h' -° ,1 •r.T0'.- ,.-, K -..:-•,, -'.,. -3 ' , ,• ,,- • 't.; , _ „ ,, •
• •••"•• ,iftIN
. i .-"'-r'I'L-t C.A-N1/4.t' .-‘•' '-
. ..
. 4,---- -
7.........__
- .
. .• ,
2,111
1 .
. .
_
I \
\ . .
C--
• -
iii'-d a i-Od
I i
. ;
, . 1 1-C''• 7,,, 0
I
_
-;4--
-.--
! i
; •
' ! 1
ill
. .
-
...--
' I
' 1
, 1
i
; .
; 1 .
i
1 ; i
t
/ 1
I I I
Ilt 9R.U.AiXfS 5-VAO
--- ---,
...ExHIBIT C .1,)?,\Liqti.Dios ‘ 1046-45th Avenue
/ .„ :.
SIGN CO. . Oakland, CA 94601
(415 ) 533 -769..,3
.„...,,,,,.. ..-„ ,...,...t,,..„,.,0•,-,. .„:,-„:-........_-•., ,. ,.. r.,,,...,...g...,.„...„.•-..... .. .. . . - .
. ,
,..,•
- .
'• ' , , -, , , ' '.'.. ' " :: t 7 t. - ._ ' ' - . -',`, , ' ' .-,: .•--.; , X q.A.Nit i..>„tt-.;‹,...4",‘1.;.."."' ' 2 ' — `,7,1"`„
mig-74..4--.,---fti it-1.-'-x..#..,,w.---k---...c-t,--,..c-.., limski....rotot.-s.,,,.4114,-Aocol'*--t.'"'"• ** *toplas-z:.1,-,:t.l.it,44-Aemimstookotrisvatotatteca.vio-,‘- ., — . _ , , , . ...
, .
1 •
1W0( t CA T., Ve.oPL,
(\‘2..5 th) SI-Pcf--, /1.-L,TEe-t\N Ac 11\IC
r -
. .
• T'i jj -.7 --ML 1(-- /...........,
i
I _
I
I i
(
1 1 ' • .
1
\ ,1 _1 7/ 1
—
.
• ;
i , • -
, , , ..,. ... • . .
L... _
-
,
• .
,z -0.
i
•
_. .
.e
N I
• 1, 1, 1 ,i ., .
I'V
. .,
, .• .
• ' ' 1.t.?•' >,' +:,.. ...:,.'',4.41titi:r 4„
' - _.__! :.,4f.;;i,A
. •
i . t7__ ) •4410.ws4.43.441;..k.t..,1,„: '.•'ffl. ;
- ...,'"1-‘',1;.".,r: ..' ,,. „, .„. .; -. . .'' .; ':.' '' ' '' '',.'-.,t,',-.,:,'. ,,'•,-,,,,,•:',W,-4.,
, -
I 1 L-L-vr--1•
, .,..
_--
- LE-ow...4-i ..\"/ vi i-r-e L- FW-60, t YE:L.L.GN,/ 36 -4,1
1 ' 1)P . ... -
6-,o1-9-r - i'mikli- -:.-frolz.„64-E." - rfFI9 36,0-..- -3' • '- _ ' •
,
, ,. 1 ....(12644...,, _
01111,1HE-
.,.r.'...
4 I4 6 r I,.
. #..".I i.f 1;'I-f_.) - 17_,t-' -g-E-:[..- '56 7.0--a>.!-•
- ei..‘1.44.W....
(' CAI?.t k4 a-1- 1' I•;:*.x.-C-..-: - c:11.-6,,,,,.-C
•
Sy▪s ::'_ - -, i i
Plt
i I.: :
`rr '`N,'
•-%4 . t.-� <`
v. A
-. i e
1t▪rS
-;..„,-,. i / SITC •
▪ 1 Gob5 + a
+ _ I: DOUGH ERTY RD. r--•---%
E.:-: :; a'r i'
z�i--_'. rnn O I _i I < - Z> 7
;= I n i ' >
`.••,-----,
A ' n r \,
•
c I =
_ criz
IA
: ' i:
1V. `
` `I i
TASSAJARA RD.
I
nPARTOFTHE
.' m ��-11 F.�_L CITY OF n SANTINA ,._� ZONING MAP
i .°` , •"i : ? 4. DUBUN11"`NyI THODiPSON»»'1' THE CITY Of
E
H s DUBLIN
Locoitt 12A ,.-054 Attachment I
/ R . - i-i-y f
SIGN CO.
STATE CONTR.CCRS LICENSE NO.314794
d
April 12, 1988 KE .CEIVED 1
,11p -a 1 ,�1f 1 .� isa
City of Dublin
Planning Department DUBLIN PLANNING
6500 Dublin Blvd. P qy_�J
Dublin, CA 94568
4
Dear Sirs :
We hereby request the approval of a conditional use
permit for signage at 6005 Scarlett Court, Dublin, CA.
We propose one 7 ' 6" x 15' 0" illuminated display to be
thirty-five feet from top to grade.
Due to the location of the above referenced property
it is imperative that the Dublin Security Storage
facility be allowed adequate identification. The
property is accessible only by private road off the
nearest main street, Scarlett Court. It is set back
a great distance from the street and therefore very
hard to locate.
There are no costs to the City of Dublin in the granting
of this request. It is, however, beneficial to the
community as it will offer increased visibility of a
service the community needs .
Thank you for your consideration of our proposal.
Sincerely yours,
ARROW SIGN CO.
r
/T-I.
SHIRLEY SIMPSON-JOHNSON-
SSJ:ckd
1051-46th AVE., OAKLAND, CA 94601
(415) 533-7693
Mail all correspondence to: Post Office Box 7469, Oakland, CA 94601
•
Attachment . A -._ rwr j___oF....
n
STATE CONTRACTORS I ICENE NO 314794
RECE ) VEEI
_ O C T 13 1::3
DUBLIN PLANNINO
October 14 , 1988
Laura Hoffmeister
CITY OF DUBLIN
6500 DUBLIN BLVD .
DUBLIN CA
RE: FILE PA 88-054
DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR 35 ' TALL - FREESTANDING SIGN
Dear Ms . Hoffmeister
Arrow has no objection to continuance of this matter to give the
City time to work out problems with the landowner .
Sincerley,
ARROW SIGN, COMPANY
LORI GILLIAM
Admin. Assistant
CC : Shirley Simpson-Johnson
Glen Kierstead
1051-46th AVE., OAKLAND, CA 94601
(415) 533-7693 • FAX (415) 533-0815
Mail all correspondence to: Post Office Box 7469, Oakland, CA 94601
•
•
Attachment AGE a or 5
--Ii711(]1
i; / Fe
STATE CONTRACTORS LICENSE NO 314794
FFi
t Y
) E1)
C C i 1 11,3�3
October 13, 1988 - DUBLIN PLANNING
CITY OF DUBLIN
6500 Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, CA 94568
A1'1'N: LAURA HOFFMEISTER
Dear Laura:
Per our conversation, I am writing to confirm knowledge of staffs
recommendation for a continuance on my application for a conditional
use permit for a 35' pylon sign. The application number is PA 88-054
and was scheduled for the October 17, 1988 hearing.
Due to the fact that property owner has an expired use permit which
must be renewed on or before the sign approval, I accept staffs
recommendation for a continuance.
Once the property owner has remedied his situation with the City of
Dublin I would like to be re-scheduled for the next available hearing
for the sign review.
Thank you,
ARROW SIGN COMPANY
LLC� i7� ' �
irley Simpson-Johnson
SSJ:jw
Y
1051-46th AVE., OAKLAND, CA 94501
(415) 533-7693 • FAX (415) 533-0815
Mail all correspondence to: Post Office Box 7469, Oa 'and, CA 94601
•
• . Am , OF. .
/''N
PUBLIC E ARINGS
SUBJECT: PA 2 8-0f/4 iiublin Secur{ty tr try.;ge
Conditiona:. Usc ?ern;, tor
freestanding sign at 6005 Sca.rle tt Court
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
During review of this application Staff discovered that one of the Applicant's
current site uses (Ryder truck rental) had been established without obtaining
a City approved use permit and the previous use permit (PA 86-060) which
allowed for rented space of outdoor storage for private vehicle storage and
expansion of the mini-storage operation lapsed in August 1988.
Staff recommends that this item be continued to allow Staff an opportunity to
work with the Applicant and property owners in submitting additional permit
applications for consideration concurrently with this application.
Staff has reviewed this matter with the Applicant who is in agreement with the
continuance. Upon submittal of the additional information Staff will
reschedule and renotice the application for a future public hearing.
There being no comments from the public or the Commission, Cm. Barnes
continued the item indefinitely.
* * * *
SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan
Amendment Study, EIR, Planned Development
Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No.
5766 and Annexation request for 245
dwelling units on 147 acres, west of
Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive
(continued from the October 3, 1988
Meeting.
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Ms. O'Halloran stated that this item had been continued from the October 3,
1988, Planning Commission meeting at which time the Commission received
comments from the Applicant, Public and Staff. At that meeting Staff was
directed to prepare resolutions for Planning Commission consideration at the
October 17, 1988 Commission Meeting.
Staff was directed by the three Planning Commissioners present at the October
3, 1988 Commission meeting to prepare a resolution with favorable
recommendations concerning the following: 1) Adequacy and completeness of the
Final EIR; 2) Amend General Plan to incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch
project within the primary planning area; 3) Amend General Plan to delete
Areas 5, 6 and 7 from Table 1 and Figure 4 of the General Plan; 4) Amend
General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension; 5) Amend
General Plan to include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site; 6)
Amend General Plan to include policy establishing level of service D as
Regular Meeting PCM-7-192 October 17, 1988
•
•
Attachmofl
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 6, 1989
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff 1/04
SUBJECT: PA 88-150 Goodwill Conditional Use Permit
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit request to allow the
operation of a self contained 25' long, 8' wide,
13' tall trailer for use as a donation drop-off
station in a portion of the Shamrock Village
Shopping Center parking lot.
APPLICANT: Goodwill Industries
Ronald Turnbow-President
1301 30th Avenue
Oakland, CA 9460
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Sonny Escudero
Mr. Mike Flynn
1301 30th Avenue
Oakland, CA 94601
PROPERTY OWNER: Ms. Barbara Cross
P. 0. Box 2247
San Rafael, CA 94912
LOCATION: Easterly portion of the Shamrock Village
Shopping Center parking lot
7767 Amador Valley Boulevard
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-173-4-5
PARCEL SIZE: .84 acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial/Retail/Office
(Downtown Specific Plan)
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: C-1 Retail Business District
Commercial Retail Shopping Center
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: C-0 Administrative Office/currently
undeveloped
R-S-D-20/Multi-Family Residential
Apartments
South: C-1 Retail/Dublin Plaza Shopping
Center
COPIES TO: Applicant
L Owner
.
ITEM NO. File PA 88-150
East: C-1 Medical Office
West: C-1 Shamrock Village Retail Shopping
Center
ZONING HISTORY:
PA 86-130: On January 5, 1987, the Dublin Planning Commission approved
a Conditional Use Permit to allow a donation trailer in the Mervyns'
parking lot at 7117 Regional Street (one-year approval).
PA 87-174: On January 18, 1988, the Dublin Planning Commission denied a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a donation trailer in the parking lot of
Howard Johnson's hotel site. On appeal (February 22, 1988), the City
Council upheld the Commission's denial of the requested use permit as it
was determined to be inappropriate use on the site with the hotel and
nearby restaurants.
On October 27, 1988, the Planning Director approved a request for Site
Development Review waiver to allow for minor exterior alterations for
Goodwill Stores to the existing commercial building within the Shamrock
Village Shopping Center in connection with a building permit request.
PA 88-118: On November 8, 1988, the Planning Director approved a Site
Development Review request to install three new fascia mounted signs for
the Goodwill Store located in the Shamrock Village Shopping Center.
October 28, 1988 - January, 1989: Interior and minor exterior
alternations made on an existing 5679 square foot vacant commercial
space within the easterly portion of the Shamrock Village Shopping
Center to allow for the operation of a Goodwill Industries Store Retail
Outlet.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan establishes policies and standards to
control development within the downtown area.
Section 8-48.2(g) Conditional Uses: C-1 Districts allow "recycling
centers when operated in conjunction with a permitted use on the same
premises" subject to approval of 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 peformance standards established for the district
in which it is located.
Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be
valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the
acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited
to the following matters:
a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings;
b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities;
c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed
use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be
void;
d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the
posting of bond;
e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County
Government.
[PA88-150:Ag Stmt PC 2/6/89]
-2-
r'1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt, Class 4(e), Section 15304 -
Temporary use of land having negligible or no
permanent effect on the environment
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 6, 1989, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
ANALYSIS:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a Goodwill Donation Station in the easterly portion of the Shamrock
Village Shopping Center (see Exhibit B). The donation station consists of a
self-contained blue and white truck trailer standing 13 feet in height, with a
length of 25 feet and a width of 8 feet (see Exhibit C).
The City Zoning Ordinance does not list a specific category for this
use; however, the use is considered similar to a recycling center which
requires a Conditional Use Permit. This site was one of several sites
suggested by Staff at the time of Goodwill's request for consideration of the
proposed Howard Johnson's site which was denied.
As proposed, the truck trailer would be located along the easterly
property line and occupy approximately four parking spaces. The temporary
loss of the parking spaces does not create a problem since the property would
continue to comply with on-site parking requirements as established in the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan.
The trailer's location would not reduce visibility to the existing
businesses as it would be located behind the building line of the Medical
Offices. The existing Goodwill Store and Medical Office screen views to this
portion of the parking lot and businesses.
Staff has evaluated other locations at this site for potential trailer
placement. Other locations are more visible to nearby residential areas or
public streets. A location outside of the marked parking spaces, north of the
lamp post, would not be possible as the lamp post restricts the required room
necessary for the trailer. Placement of the trailer perpendicular to the
property line would create traffic safety problems as the trailer would
project into the required drive isle area.
The proposed hours of operation for the station are 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
seven days a week. A Goodwill employee will be present at the trailer during
operating hours. During non-business hours the Donation Station trailer doors
will be secured and locked. After hours a truck will make pick ups of any
items outside of the trailer during the evening, during the day a pick-up
delivery vehicle will be available on an on-call basis. When the trailer is
full it will then be replaced by an empty one. The purpose of the station is
to receive donations of items used to provide vocational training and
employment services for the handicapped.
The proposed use and location appears to be appropriate for the
property. The site contains the Goodwill store as well as other retail
activities. These uses coincide with one another in a supportive fashion.
Additionally, supervision and monitoring/maintenance of the donation station
might likely occur in a timely and responsive fashion in that the Goodwill
store is located nearby.
Staff feels that the inclusion of a Goodwill Donation Station on this
site would create an appropriate and compatible mixture of land uses.
Although the location of the truck trailer in the parking area is visible from
some locations along Amador Valley Boulevard it would be less obtrusive than
other parking lot locations which are more open towards Amador Valley
Boulevard and Starward Drive.
[PA88-150:Ag Stmt PC 2/6/89]
-3-
n /'1
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Draft Resolution Exhibit A, regarding Conditional Use
Permit PA 88-150, or give Staff and Applicant direction and
continue the matter.
ACTION: Adopt Resolution approving PA 88-150 Conditional Use Permit for
Goodwill Donation Station
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A; Resolution approving PA 88-150 Conditional Use Permit
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Elevations
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Location Map
Attachment 2: Applicant's Written Statement (2 sheets)
Attachment 3: Applicant's Background Information (3 sheets)
[PA88-150:Ag Stmt PC 2/6/89]
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 88-150 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES DONATION STATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A 25 FOOT LONG TRUCK TRAILER LOCATED IN THE SHAMROCK VILLAGE SHOPPING
CENTER PARKING LOT NEAR GOODWILL STORE, 7767 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, Sonny Escudero, representing Goodwill Industries, filed an
application for a Conditional Use Permit to locate a 25 foot long truck trailer
for a Donation Station in the Shamrock Village Shopping Center near Goodwill
store, 7767 Amador Valley Bouleard.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said
application on February 6, 1989; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the
provisions of California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be
conditionally approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find:
a. The use is required by the public need in that it provides a
location for the general public to drop off reuseable items.
b. The use would be properly related to other land uses and
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity.
c. The use, if permitted under all circumstances and conditions of
this particular case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety
of persons residing or working in the vicinity or be materially detrimental to
the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the area, as
all applicable regulations will be met.
d. The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clause or
performance stnadards of the General Plan and zoning established for the
district in which it is to be located in that conditions have been applied to
insure conformance with the zoning regulations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
approve said application as shown on attached Exhibit B and C subject to the
following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with
prior to issuance of building permits or establishment of proposed land use
activity and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval.
1. The Donation Station truck trailer shall be located in the Shamrock
Village parking lot areas near the Goodwill store and the Medical Center
building, as generally depicted in Exhibit B and C.
2. The Donation Station shall not interfere with or obstruct vehicular
access or movement within the parking lot.
3. Hours of operation shall be from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 7 days a
week. After hours, the trailer shall be locked and secured.
1
r 1 e'N
4. Parking lot and building lighting shall be maintained and
operational during non-daylight hours.
5. The Applicant, Goodwill Industries, shall be responsible for
maintaining the Donation Station and parking lot surrounding the truck trailer
in a clean and orderly manner. No items shall be left at the truck trailer for
more than 24 hours at a time.
6. The Applicant shall provide on-site signage indicating hours of
operation drop-off instructions for after hours and a telephone number for use
in case of emergency. Said signage shall be limited to two signs each a
maximum of 8 square feet of area. Location of signs shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval prior to placement.
7. This permit shall expire on February 15, 1990 and shall be
revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
•
-2-
e a,�,411, ��/ &«/i
ni.ri
'v
R
I'
u
01
/ I • ) 1 r
\�" s ck
\\/ ifs
is. 14'
�— - - \In '
------J \s„),.k.) \ /,'Cigt7 c I m
C
1
. h ..... i
N_
,$)
_, J�.
DO
t_. r_.
St-ID
S RECEIVER
ULU '4u 1993
DUBLIN MA'!NINO
Sanr7 i,BifiL° 9-
sTAewo2D Pe . E d
Pict-88-►50
Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay
DONATION STATION
BLUE LETTERS
g BLUE STRIPES
`J HEIGHT OF LETTERS 1 FOOT
25' -
BACK VIEW
1
SIDE VIEW
(FRONT) I (REAR) $8-160
RECEIVED
DLC Z 8 1988
LENGTH:25'
HEIGTH: 13' DUBLIN PLANNING
WIDTH: 8'
SEE SHEET 1,1 s
--...- -----(m
III \,p. N�;
i ..1• ).._ ..,„ ,v/' l r •s\� n 1 vi 1.p
O f1 ` C C
:Fici3
I.• c 70 g C
• V .
I ,ili LS:7k—;■ 1-\---\- --4__J .
° a H o ' �•!*
I '
.., u;...12 DA -lob, -c..1.-
.„, • In r .._ .. ......
41 -. 0,....:a .
I = +
., i*or' 4,4. / z:
IC �,0 ,.,, ,1 I10 mr
J.
m f.� •U:'�, aroma"]i■w ,....i;g =.•%f=C.i!
arm
' i. Obt$Ve . I " >, ;
8 rs,\,..0 tolltli % 0011, , ! % Ir--T-
-: . **A titie; ' '" ....."6 '''' .
.P. ,
Im
°�a 1
a =p ��I
"°° �� Cn'V xn � p olligi'lli#1"1111":M A", uT. 5
D I•
n �'•• •."a' •R,•I•ry
I� '' t7 t0 l • •. c'
= C� "�`N °9 r r n
\_ t \ ��
`;'• `�
\ 1 !71.
\ , \ \ ,. \ .17...i.
• v Z.
Na 1
>w
•
A
�. � ny� �
1 oI ^��^•°^ .•�»... A PART OF THE
�: erjy o CITY OF SANTINA . ,`•• I ZONING MAP
�a3^ - THC....
, •:` 1 AAR VA Q!d-t5D _
A� I __--- --- l.ocprTlai
1 - �►'M�.
9
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES
OF THE GREATER EAST BAY, INC. •
•;01 30th AVENUE • OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA • 94601
TELEPHONE(415)524-6666
December 23, 1988
Larry Tong,
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
This letter is to request permission to place a Goodwill
Donation Station trailer at 7667 Amador Valley Boulevard Shamrock
Village - Dublin, California.
Goodwill utilizes new blue and white trailers that are both
clean and attractive. Each trailer is staffed by a Goodwill
employee to assist with donations, insure cleanliness of the
surrounding area and give tax receipts to donors. The trailers
are open seven days a week for convenience and accessibility.
As you know, Goodwill depends on the collection and sale of
materials to fund the vocational rehabilitation and job placement
programs we provide to the handicapped. Placement of the trailer
will result in jobs for 6 - 8 persons who are unable to compete
in the regular workforce and will serve as a symbol of Shamrock
Village's concern for the community it serves.
Mr. Sonny Escudero, our Donation Field Supervisor, will
contact you shortly to discuss this matter.
Goodwill is prepared to represent Shamrock Village and the
handicapped community with pride and professionalism.
It is our hope that you will support Goodwill's efforts to
provide "not charity, but a chance" to handicapped and disadvantaged
citizens by approving this request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, !. E C L j 1y E
.Lot./A-$ iJ -/
H. Ronald Turnbow DUBLiNPL4NNi1V(
;;�� 2•
President
+ �Llt
OUR BUSINESS WORKS. SO PEOPLE CAN
Shaping New Futures For Persons With Handicaps to Employment in Alameda,Contra Costa,and Solano Counties
. riS eliN
. (
7 cy,...i-e-- --il,,- ''g,..t..< /7_,---,,,,_ /6) //1---,-(--(- -
74-L J--- ?"-i /72"r•
/,- -fr ‘-)
'''.-.7"?-176•6 ---. z-z- 6e- 17...-1.-- &-e - ...1,1,-,--- ei 7-p a-'-
/ /
76 . ,-z- 2--, 6-?-.-? ,:-"z---7 /../ 4_,,_,.../(
dr/
(clay_... cyi c etg ,.p,4.- c - up crtil)
/,,,,q.,.._,,.. /-;,, /-,..,:_. 6,6c 7: ,--". /i_c_.Z- 1 . t-;r,-‘z.-,a*/4.,,,,.•,,.
-Vke- A-L--,..../-4.-c -fr/ Z.-
GI--c A---2-2 ----4:, j"-k-z -( ,
7
/Z-Z.-2.--e-t-fr4-4.• 6.---7 c-:-_,_-_,..6-. --z.:
..i/ :- ,..f- 3' 1---
/ Z-7 5/(srl
RE .CEHVED_
is88
• DUBLIN PLANNING
PAGE Of
BAGSHAW, MARTINELLI, CORRIGAN & JORDAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RODERICK P.MARTINELLI 950 NORTHGATE DRIVE A.E.BAGSHAW
LELAND H.JORDAN 'Id.2 198a
STEPHEN P.MSG EE SUITE 303
LAWRENCE M.REIFURTH SAN RAFAEL. CALIFORNIA 94903
JUDITH AUSTIN BROWN WILLIAM G.CORRIGAN
TELEPHONE I415) 472-4500 I1933-19831
JOHN E.SHARP FACSIMILE '415) 472-4508
OF COUNSEL
November 30, 1988
Goodwill Industries of the Greater
East Bay
1301 30th Avenue
Oakland, CA 94601
Attention: Mr. Michael P. Flynn
Donation Services Manager
Dear Mr. Flynn:
Reference is made to your November 21st letter addressed to
our client, Mrs. Barbara Cross, who, as trustee, is the lessor of
the new Goodwill store at 7745 Amador Valley Road, in Dublin.
As per your request, Mrs. Cross has signed the City of
Dublin's Planning Application form, and the executed form is
enclosed herewith. Mrs. Cross did not, however, sign your
"standard" Goodwill Industries form permitting the location of a
donation station at the property. Such form is not required.
Under the terms of the August 25, 1988 Lease Agreement
between Barbara Cross, Trustee, as Lessor, and Goodwill
Industries, as Lessee, Goodwill Industries has the right to
install a "donation station" . In this connection, I am enclosing
a copy of Page 18 of the Lease Agreement, together with a copy of
Exhibit A attached to the lease. Pargraph 54 (h) on Page 18 sets
forth the permission for the facility, in the area outlined on
Exhibit A.
Should you have any further questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
1
RODERICK P. MARTINELLI
RPM/rf <<� i
Encl .
cc. : Mrs. Barbara Cross
MtathnLit CUCLI - vI 1 •�,�
`AGE ( OF., ..
•
(g) . Acts of Lessor . All acts of Lessor concerning this
Lease, the leased premises or the Center shall be performed on
behalf of Lessor by an officer of Lessor, unless written notice
to the contrary is given to Lessee.
eft��'6-�ed�/rt (H) (y 47-D17E1) ELou) .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand and
4
executed 'this instrument this ,Z VD day of August, 1988L
LESSOR: LESSEE:
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF THE
GREATER EAST BAY
, /
i • l r . By:
'BARBARA CROSS, Trustee Under 1 mc- •➢i Ecrbe
Will of Gertrude Dibble, dec ' d
President
The Following paragraph shall be incorporated into and shall
become a part of this lease agreement between Barbara Cross,
Trustee Under will of Gertrude Dibble, Deceased, and Goodwill
Industries of the Greater East Bay:
54 . (h) . Donation Station
Lessor agrees to allow Lessee, at Lessee ' s option, and hereby
gives permission to Lessee, to place and use a Goodwill Donation
Station Facility in the parking lot of the shopping center on which
this subject property is located, subject to compliance with any
applicable governmental restrictions . Lessee agrees to maintain
such Donation Station in a clean and orderly condition. Said
Facility to be located in the Northeasterly corner of the Center as indicated
on Exhibit "A".
LESSOR: LESSEE:
•
•
BARBARA CROSS, Trustee Under Vice' Chairmzr{1 Bo rd of Directors
Will of Gertrude Dibble, dec ' d
j
President
-18-
RECEIVED
t. •_n l
UAL I;Job
DUD tN PLANNING
� 4 (•c-7y�1
PAGE,a.OF..
O t9
▪ W , Z 1
f T_
- J ;-z a
. lY W 4
I =
: i I '�
i I 7\I
•
I Goodwill Donation Station
o
a I �I Facility
o
IFt
o � I
-_. _. I
•i.:t
i -g
i I I
i I .....1 z
il
( I• } I i d � :�sd
,1: I i j 0 mi
\ ...
aMpooa
a.
SHAMROCK VILLAGE
DUDLt14 CALFOAWA
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 6, 1989
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 88-148 Howard Johnson's Conditional Use
Permit
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit request to add a proposed
beauty shop, gift shop, offices, dance floor,
retail sales and auction activities within the
existing building
BACKGROUND:
Due to recent unforeseen circumstances, the Police Department was unable to
provide comments to the Planning Staff in time for review and analysis of this
application. Given the inclusion of dancing and temporary/short-term retail
sales and auctions as a major part of this application, Staff believes it is
important to obtain their comments and concerns prior to recommending an
appropriate action for the Commission to consider. Since their comments would
likely include suggested conditions, the Commission may wish to consider them
in their review of the application.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this application to the
February 21, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting.
COPIES TO: Applicant
8 9 Owner
ITEM NO. File PA 88-148
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
Planning Commission Meeting Date: February 6, 1989
SUBJECT: Abandonment of a Portion of Betlen Drive
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Resolution
2) Plat of Street Area Proposed to be Abandoned
3) Location Map
RECOMMENDA ON: Adopt Resolution finding that the proposed street
vacation is consistent with the General Plan.
0.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
DESCRIPTION:
When the right-of-way of Betlen Drive was originally dedicated, the
street ended at the boundary of Tract 2534 (adjoining Valley Christian
Center), as shown on Exhibit 3 attached. When Tract 5777, the Pulte Homes
development (Hacienda Heights), developed, the westerly end of Betlen Drive
was constructed as a knuckle cul-de-sac at its junction with Las Palmas Way.
This configuration leaves the remainder of the end of Betlen Drive as excess
right-of-way. The area to be abandoned is approximately 0.16 acres.
If the abandonment is approved, this excess right-of-way will revert to
the owners of the adjacent properties - from the centerline south to Pulte
Homes and from the centerline north to DSRSD. Pulte has stated that they are
not interested in utilizing the property as part of the Hacienda Heights
Development and plan to quitclaim the property to DSRSD.
DSRSD is interested in using this area as a parking area to service
their water reservoir. The area would not be used to store vehicles or
equipment and would be screened by a six-foot fence. It is anticipated that
this use would not have a negative visual impact on the neighboring
properties.
Section 65402 of the Government Code states:
"If a General Plan . . . has been adopted, . . . no real
property shall be vacated or abandoned, . . . until the
location, purpose, and extent of such . . . street
vacation or abandonment . . . have been submitted to and
reported upon by the Planning Agency as to conformity
with said adopted General Plan . . .
This stub end of Betlen Drive cannot physically be constructed through
the Valley Christian Center and has been closed off by providing a knuckle
cul-de-sac into the Hacienda Heights development (Pulte Homes, Tract 5777).
In addition, Betlen Drive is not indicated as a through street on the City's
General Plan.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the necessary finding
of conformity to the General Plan so that the City Council may hold a public
hearing on February 13, 1989.
ITEM NO. 1, 1 COPIES TO:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF THE WESTERN TERMINUS
OF BETLEN DRIVE TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, Betlen Drive was originally constructed as a stub street
to the west in anticipation of additional development requiring public street
access; and
WHEREAS, Valley Christian Center was developed at the end of
Betlen Drive but obtained access from Dublin Boulevard rather than from Betlen
Drive; and
WHEREAS, Tract 5777 reconfigured the end of Betlen Drive to
recognize the fact that this street will not be extended to the west;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning
Commission finds that the abandonment of Betlen Drive westerly of Las Palmas
Way is in conformance with the City of Dublin General Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT
V ,
D
ASSENML/ES or coo, ;j r m __ x —
VALL EY CHR/ST/AN y .
CENTER N ro
. - o
v
. r
----
0 N 0'47'30'E G4.00' /
T
/ N O'47'30'E i 4-00' (
CI)
• toco
m o B
n , o .o n ,
. .. . ' r 0 Z Z N H - ut 0 \ u GI NI
ill 0
(j ° �"r �o
c > A I o1
J om
9 `—i r- ^ I ti
�� N v i , )
Z ' I a
o t'1
N
ist
Y CD � � • � �.
• m �'
'I (�� (, /D 50
m l:1 N,
z 1_ p.rr7'70'es,
R. 'O / Idw< ` J
c,ci O 2
in n N V
1
1.
11..1 ___..../ ,
OW O
. Z. 41 ♦ I N (R)o0'E
_nc. 1 .2J
m m LAS PALMAS WAY
.�A A y. .
\,r
2 \ m Z 94/ //7-/Y
EXHIBIT1
- .•.-, .•, .- )1,,,k,0•4,4Foimr,WW.4.,, rif..,Wi-:1•••
•-••• • ..,;::.,•,',27---••-•;,t4,"',.;•:,,.. ',• ;',.,:,, ; -.•.•-:: .-:.,.,' -:-.,-7,,,'4!•:•,,:44, ,f?i, ,-;•/.,:, :`-y 74;fs-,:.,1•::'•,',- •
C
n....,ream..
..
.-- ---- I.----......-..
I ,
I \\• : ! ,
. . -
-
. ti) 4-----7-7.---,-1....4.:.\,,, _j_____:__\ ,,,,•'4"' .....,...›.7:—.7—
.45
I
\ .
0
, I '
1 , -. 1 I
1
,
B
* \erLe,vi vi-
V:-LL E Y
SL
49
CHRISTIAN ./
• Z
2, ', \ 1
CENTER ?Oa-ri
N. c...
A -Fi- .rbki..11:0\1 ).
.... \ \
. V
I f.
•,-/----
I \
1 .
t
1 I \, I
/ , I EETLEs
NO SCALE— /
i \
, I
I ..,..-.
„up...R.,.
\-t .......
c i-r sr
. , • ,
• ! , •
•
. . _ .
•
• EXHIBIT 3
4►0 l'`t
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 6, 1989
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff 5
SUBJECT: PA 87-031 East Dublin General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan Studies and
Environmental Impact Report. Review of the
Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives
of the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Study
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: PA 87-031 East Dublin General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan Studies and
Environmental Impact Report
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: City of Dublin
LOCATION/ZONING: The East Dublin General Plan Amendment Study
Area contains approximately 7400 acres extending
from both sides of Tassajara Road, east to both
sides of Doolan Road. The study areas' north
boundary is the Alameda/Contra Costa County
line, while its south boundary is Interstate
580. The lands are owned by numerous individual
property owners and are for the most part
located in unincorporated Alameda County. The
majority of the area is zoned Agricultural,
except for portions of the Alameda County
property, which is zoned Planned Development
District per an agreement between the County and
City
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In conformance with California Environmental
Quality Act Guildelines, an Environmental Impact
Report is being prepared for this project
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 6, 1989 review session was
published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted
in public buildings.
ANALYSIS:
As an initial step towards completing the East Dublin General Plan
Amendment Study, a preliminary set of Goals, Policies and Objectives has been
prepared for review. Based generally upon early discussions with members of
the City Council, Planning Commission, City Staff and affected property owners
(regarding the overall direction of the General Plan Amendment), this document
is meant to provide, in conceptual terms, guidelines for the type of community
to be created in the 7400 acre planning area.
In addition to using information collected in those interviews, the
consultant also utilized data from an Environmental Setting Document. This
document (completed by the consultant) provides a comprehensive environmental
database on the entire study area. It will be used to assist in the
preparation of an environmentally sensitive General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan, as the baseline data component in preparing the EIR on both
COPIES TO: Applicant
(1 1 Owner
ITEM NO. File PA 87-031
•^ -1
studies, and finally, to identify and define preliminary environmental
opportunities and constraints in the study area. A review of existing
conditions on topography, geology and soils, hydrology and drainage,
biological resources, cultural resources, land uses (including agricultural
and open space), visual quality, traffic and circulation, climate and air
quality, noise, community services, utilities, population, employment and
housing, is included in the document.
The Environmental Setting Document was originally prepared for review
and input by City Staff. Staff would like to make this document available to
the Commission at tonight's meeting in order to provide a full review of the
background data used to prepare the Goals, Policies and Objectives. The
Commission is not expected to review the document tonight, however it is hoped
it could be read by the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 21, 1989.
Copies of the Environmental Setting document will be made available at
both the Dublin Library and City Planning offices for public review.
Staff recommends that the Commission hear the presentation by Wallace
Roberts & Todd, and continue the review of the Preliminary Draft Goals,
Policies and Objectives of the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Study to the
meeting of February 21, 1989. This will give the Commission and the public
time to review the Environmental Setting Document as a part of their
assessment of the Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Hear Staff presentation.
2) Hear Consultant's presentation.
3) Question Staff and Consultant.
4) Continue the review of the Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies
and Objectives to the next regularly scheduled meeting of
February 21, 1989.
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Commission hear the presentation by
Wallace Roberts and Todd, continue the review of the Preliminary
Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives to the meeting of
February 21, 1989, in order to give the Planning Commission and
public an opportunity to review the Environmental Setting document
prior to making a decision on the Goals, Policies and Objectives
of the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Study.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives of the East
Dublin General Plan Amendment Study
Exhibit B: Summary of Comments on the Preliminary Draft Goals, Policies and
Objectives - Review Meeting of January 31, 1989
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Written Response from Donna Ogelvie
Attachment 2: Written Response from Curtis & Carolyn Morgan
Attachment 3: Written Response from Contra Costa Planning Department
Attachment 4: Written Response from Bay Area Council
Attachment 5: Written Response from California Archaeological Inventory
Attachment 6: Written Response from Ed Diemer
[PA87-031:Ag Stmt PC 2/6/89]
-2-
Attachment 7: Written Response from Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee
Attachment 8: Written Response from Ted Fairfield
Attachment 9: Written Response from Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District/Zone 7
Attachment 10: Written Response from Cal Trans
Attachment 11: Written Response from Phil Molina, Dublin Finance Director
Attachment 12: Written Response from Jim Rose, Dublin Police Chief
[PA87-031:Ag Stmt PC 2/6/89]
-3-
r `+ wRT
j MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Dublin
FROM: East Dublin Consultant Team
SUBJECT:Preliminary Goals and Policies -- East Dublin General Plan
Amendment (work program, Task 6)
.1: DATE: January 4, 1989
-i
Introduction •
1
One of the initial tasks in the planning process for the East Dublin General Plan
Amendment is an early discussion by the City and affected property owners regarding the
.-` general direction of goals, objectives and policies which will constitute a major part of
the General Plan Amendment. This effort is intended to guide the City's thinking, in
conceptual terms, about the type of community desired on the 7400-acre planning area.
Accordingly, the consultant team has assembled the following set of general
preliminary general
goals, objectives and policies for City review. In certain instances, noted in italics,
alternative policies have also been identified. It is intended that some degree of
consensus be reached about the various alternatives. Once consensus is reached, the
consultant team will return to the City with general plan land use diagrams which reflect
the goals and policies desired by the City. In the event that consensus cannot be
reached at this stage on all or a portion of the goal statements the land use diagrams
will portray the various alternatives so that additional review and discussion can occur.
•
Two items should be noted: First, the goals, objectives and policies are intended to be
preliminary in nature and should not be considered as fixed. There will be ample
opportunity to further examine the goals as part of the overall draft General Plan
Amendment and land use concept alternative discussions, Second, it is anticipated that
certain goals, objectives and policies may change as the consultant team learns more
about the project site and existing conditions. These changes will be noted as part of
future draft documents: •
Relationship to Other Study Elements
While the City is reviewing these preliminary goals, objectives and policies, the
consultant team recently concluded a detailed environmental analysis of the planning
area. The environmental analysis includes studies covering geotechnical factors,
hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources, transportation, visual quality,
noise, air and water quality. Based upon this comprehensive analysis, an overall
opportunity and constraint analysis is being completed. This analysis will identify
those areas within East Dublin which can accommodate future urban development and areas
which should be excluded from development. 8 _C E i D.
Exm I
a• r r'1
•
Overview of Preliminarily Goals.Objectives and Policies
The following preliminary goals and policies have been structured to be consistent with
the content and essential approach of Dublin's existing General Plan in that a primary
goal statement is postulated as the highest level of desired end state. However,because
we need to provide a level of detail sufficient to serve the needs of a specific plan,we
have found it necessary to introduce an additional tier,statements of objectives,into
the hierarchy between goals and policies. Objectives help make the broad goals more
operational and,in turn,are achieved through application of guiding policies--
features or considerations that need to be built into the General and Specific Plans,and
jmolementina policies --features or considerations that need to be taken by the City in
order to carry out the intent of the plans. It will thus be noted that in many cases,
• the guiding policies proposed here are rather more detailed than those in the General
Plan.
Sections entitled Planning Implications have been included at strategic points to explain
the purpose and possible ramifications if the City elects to pursue particular goal
statements.
Format
Goals,objectives and policies have been prepared covering the following areas. land
use,circulation,open space,public facilities,housing,safety,conservation,noise.
The following general format system has been used to differentiate between the various
levels comprising the goals statement.
pal
I. Goal statements will be numbered consecutively throughout the study paper for
all substantive areas(ie,land use,circulation etc.)
Objectives
A.
Guiding Policy
Implementing Policy
1.1
1.2
Planning Implication
0
0
Please note that,for a variety of reasons, not every category is filled in for every
goal. As an example,some recommended guiding policies do not require implementing
policies. For other goals,there may be no planning implications listed.
LAND USE GOALS,OBJECT'F.S, AND POLICIES
Land Use - Community Image
GOAL:
I. Provide for attractive,high quality development in East Dublin which extends the
existing community of Dublin and is compatible with the existing natural and scenic
resources.
Objective:
A. Establish and maintain linkages between the East Dublin planning area and the
established Dublin community.
Guiding Policy:
1. Support and plan for the extension of Dublin Boulevard as the primary east-west
link.
Implementing Policies:
a. Develop special design standards such as lighting,signage,and landscape
design standards for this thoroughfare to establish both physical and
visual continuity.
Guiding Policy:
2. Encourage the interaction of new residents and the existing community to the
greatest extent possible.
Planning Implications:
o City officials have made it clear that they want the extended planning area to be a
logical extension of Dublin with strong ties to the existing community.
o The amount of potential development in East Dublin combined with existing traffic
congestion in the area mandates that a fair amount of activity(i.e.employment.
recreation,local shipping etc.) in the new area remain local.
o One proposal of the East Dublin Planning Team is to maintain the major focus of
community activity within the established downtown area but to promote the
development of neighborhood activities and services in the extended planning area.
o The GPA should provide for major recreational uses of a City-wide scale which.by
their size, cannot feasibly be sited within the existing community.
Objective:
B. Protect the natural open beauty of the hills including significant knolls,
hillsides,and steep slope areas which add to civic identity,aesthetic
appreciation,and economic viability.
Guidine Policy:
1. Site grading, development, and means of access shall not disfigure the
ridgelands which are within the viewvshed of travellers along scenic routes,
including I-5S0 and future Dublin Boulevard.(Refer to open space objectives C
and D).
' Implementing Policies:
1.1 Discourage any form of development,including grading,on steep slope areas
which have a 30%slope gradient or higher.
1.2 Discourage development or grading on the southfacing slopes of the first
111 series of foothills north of I-580,regardless of degree of slopes.
1.3 Promote development and associated grading to occur on flatter portions of
the site adjacent to I-580 and within areas suitable for development with
corrective grading which do not impact the visual or environmental
resources of the extended planning area.
1.3.1 (alternative policy)Allow urban development to occur within areas shown on
the Land Use diagram, which will likely involve less grading. Grading to
be governed by design guidelines which will require contour grading to
generally reflect existing,natural topographical features.
j 1.4 Provide a greenbelt/buffer between the East Dublin area and surrounding
communities to preserve community identity and provide visual relief from
development.(See Open Space Objective C).
Planning Implications:
o Hillside development and grading is related to slope stability and safety,as well
• as the importance of visual resources and open space to a community.
o The East Dublin foothills are a dramatic backdrop for the Livermore-Amador Valley
and the future community in East Dublin. Whether the natural character of this
landform should be retained is an important consideration.
o The intent of this policy section is to encourage grading and development in the
flatter portions of the area and in the back canyons which cannot be viewed from
other developed areas or the freeway. By implementing this objective,development,
scenic resources,and open space preservation can all be accommodated in the study
area. Alternative 1.3.1 recommends a more extensive grading program along with
design guidelines to minimize visual impacts of mass grading.
•
o Several methods can be implemented for long term preservation of hillsides,
including density transfers,homeowner association maintenance,or dedication of
land to a public agency, such as the East Bay Regional Parks District,the City of
Dublin,or other means.
o Major constraints associated with the preservation of hillsides include liability
insurance requirements,as well as questions of ownership and public access.
•
o One common complaint associated with suburban development is that local communities
lose their individual identity as unique areas. The hillsides of East Dublin afford
an opportunity to establish an identity for the new community and define an eastern
and northern boundary for Dublin. The greenbelt area should be planned in
conjunction with the natural terrain, the desires of landowners,and the viabilit
of agriculture. The GPA should address the question of priorities and strategies
for implementing a greenbelt. Given limited resources,should the greenbelt be
located on the northern and eastern periphery of the study area,or just the
northern boundary?
4
Guiding Policy:
2. Design public and private projects to minimize damage to trees,riparian
vegetation,and other visual,natural landmarks.
Implementing Policies:
a. Restore natural contours after grading and other land disturbances to
conserve the scenic beauty of the planning area.(Reference objective B,
guiding policy 1.)
b. Refer to Conservation goals,objective and policies.
Planning Implications:
o All creeks, and their associated riparian vegetation'and major tree areas should be
protected in their natural state to the fullest extent possible as they are a
dominant visual feature of East Dublin and of the high value to wildlife and plant
species.
o Alternatives will be explored in terms of how these potentially sensitive areas can
be incorporated into the land use plan.
o Flood hazard protection should be integrated with environmental protection.
•
Objective:
D. Require high-quality attractive development in East Dublin as viewed from within and
outside of the GPA area.
Guiding Policy:
1. Develop special design standards to apply to properties on the north side of
I-5SO.
Implementing Policies:
1.1 Within the land use plan, provide for differing types and intensities of
land use for properties fronting on the north side of the freeway.
1.2 Develop special landscape, height and setback requirements for freeway
frontage properties to create an attractive southern entrance for the GPA
area.
5
Planning Implications:
o The I-580 corridor Is an important element for the entire Dublin community,not just
the eastern planning area. High quality design treatment is essential to preserve
its special scenic qualities.
Guiding Policy:
2. Promote high quality development within East Dublin.
Implementing Policies
2.1 Provide general development criteria as part of the General Plan Amendment
and more detailed standards as part of future Specific Plans.
2.2 Provide an integrated set of urban design standards to define and organize
the major elements of East Dublin,including community gateways,streets
and open space areas.
2.3 Provide special design treatment for the major drainage courses in the East
Dublin area,to encourage natural drainage via natural swales rather than
channelization in concrete structures,so long as minimum public safety
standards are maintained.
2.4 Architectural style and landscaping should reflect the natural open beauty
of the hills and valleys.
Planning Implications:
o The intent of this policy is to include in the General Plan Amendment an overall
vision of how the major land uses in the community should look and function. A
description of this will assist landowners in preparing future specific plans for
projects within East Dublin and the City to review and process such plans.
o It is important to encourage landowners to jointly develop properties in order to
achieve the objectives of the General Plan Amendment.
o Would the City of Dublin consider undertaking formal design review,either by staff
or appointed body,of all major projects in the East Dublin area in order to oversee
compliance with urban design policies as part of the project approval process?
o The maintenance of drainageways (i.e. creeks and natural drainage courses)will be
considered as part of the planning process
Land Use - General
GOAL:
II. To achieve and maintain an efficient, balanced community of desirable neighborhoods,
a strong employment base,and a variety of community services and facilities.
6
Objective:
A. Obtain a balanced distribution of land uses within the GPA area.
Planning Implications:
o As the East Dublin Study progresses and more is learned about the physical
• characteristics of the site, more definitive land use objectives will be
identified. This will include an optimum mix of residential, commercial, employment
and open space/recreation uses intended to minimize off site trips.
o Major determinants for selecting and arranging various land uses in East Dublin will
be: preservation of significant natural features, minimizing the effects of natural
• hazards, market demand, constraints imposed by infrastructure, air and water quality
concerns and the potential fiscal impacts of development on public agencies.
o The GPA land use diagram will portray recommended land use types, locations and
intensities.
Land Use - Residential
Objective:
B. Provide a diversity of housing types, densities, designs, and prices while ensuring
community compatibility and quality residential development.
Guiding Policies:
1. Provide opportunities for Dublin residents to live conveniently close to work.
2. Locate high density residential land uses near interchanges azd business parks in
the flatter portions of East Dublin.
3. Promote residential development within identifiable villages or neighborhoods,
each of which should include a boundary and neighborhood focal point, or central
feature.
Implementing Policies
3.1 Provide regulatory mechanism to allow for cluster residential development.
•
4. Avoid abrupt transitions between single-family development and high-intensity
development on adjoining sites.
Implementing Policy:
4.1 Where feasible, promote simultaneous development and sale of a variety of
housing types.
7
Planning Implications:
o The vision for residential development is to encourage residential villages or
neighborhoods in the northern portion of the study area,consisting of a mixture of
density types along with retail support services,public facilities and amenities.
In the flatter portion of the area, promote higher residential densities
interspersed with other land use types in a more urban fabric.
o Clustering of residential units is to be encouraged as one way of preserving open
space and significant environmental features while permitting development to occur.
Land Use - Commercial
Objectives:
D. Maintain the viability of major retail uses in downtown Dublin.
E. Provide a hierarchy of neighborhood and community retail/commercial service uses
designed to serve local residents and employees,as well as highway travellers along
• I-580.
•
Guiding Policies:
•
1. Establish the limits of business areas to avoid conflicts between commercial
and nearby residents.
2. Promote attractive,functional commercial development along major arterials.
3. Plan for small convenience centers in residential areas where they would reduce
travel time and traffic congestion and can be visually integrated into these
areas.
4. Locate neighborhood retail and service uses at a community scale within village
centers.
Implementing_Policy
a. Prepare design standards and guidelines for commercial development as part
of future specific plans in East Dublin. The standards will describe
height and bulk requirements, landscaping architectural treatment and
related features.
Planning Implications:
o These policies reflect the city of Dublin's desire to encourage linkages with
existing downtown, while maintaining the City's existing healthy retail tax base in
the downtown area.
o The proposed residents of East Dublin should have sufficient conveniently located
community services to sere their needs and reduce the number of auto trips.
o The general plan should make sufficient commercial land available to accommodate
large scale commercial use which may be precluded from locating in the downtown
area.
Land Use- Office,Industrial...Mixed Use .-.
Objective:
F. Provide employment uses,including corporate and administrative offices,light
industrial,mixed use,and research and assembly in selected areas of the planning
area.
Guiding Policies:
1. Site high-intensity office and light industrial near freeway interchanges and
at arterial intersections,especially Dublin Boulevard.
f.1 (alternative)Consider permitting high-tech research&development facilities
within the northerly portion of the site.
2. Provide support services adjacent to or near employment centers,including food
service, limited retail services,child care facilities,and usable open
space/recreation amenities.
Implementing Policy
a. As part of future specific plans within East Dtiblin,include standards and
guidelines for office,industrial and similar employment uses,which will
govern building height and bulk requirements,landscaping and architectural
treatment, compatibility with adjacent uses and similar elements.
Planning Implications:
o The consultant team believes that the East Dublin area will attract employment and
office activity because of its high visibility,location,and access.
o In addition to Hacienda-like office and business parks,would the City permit
flexible research and development,light industrial assembly-type uses,which could
be converted to one- or two-story office complexes as the market changes?
o Would the City permit general industrial-type uses such as warehouses,contractors
storage lots or distribution centers, like those found at the periphery of Dublin,
within East Dublin?
Guidine Policy:
4. Encourage high density mixed-use projects in the flatter portions of the site
adjacent to circulation nodes to reduce auto traffic,efficiently spread
development costs,use developable land efficiently,and preserve open space
and sensitive lands.
Implementing Policies:
4.1 Allow flexible development standards for mixed-use projects(such as
reductions in off-street parking or reductions in distances between
buildings)where it can be demonstrated that such projects will reduce auto
trips or provide other substantial benefits to the community.
4.2 Reference environmental goals and policies for land use siting criteria.
4.3 Require the provision of usable open space amenities in mixed-use projects.
9
•
Planning Implications:
o Mixed use projects,generally considered to be projects which contain two or more of '
the following types of uses: residential,office,retail,institutional or open
space,linked together by a path or trail system,can offer many advantages to the
City. These advantages include an integrated appearance,increased marketability,
and reduction of auto usage.
o Questions remain concerning the ability of the Tri-Valley market to absorb
substantially more commercial and light industrial uses in the next ten to twenty
years given the amount of these uses currently programmed for the Tri-Valley area in
existing developments.
• o The obvious site to accommodate mixed use development in East Dublin is the Alameda
•
County land,which is well situated in terms of BART,freeway access,visibility,a
lack of major site constraints and size. Questions must be resolved concerning
proximity of the Sant Rita jail facility.
o In order to fulfill land use and environmental goals,are City officials willing to
impress upon the County the need to make adjustments in the current zoning of the
site?
o If retail commercial uses are deemed appropriate on a portion of County land,care
should be taken so that these uses are complementary,not competitive,with downtown
Dublin(reference Goal II, objective D)
Land Uss - Open Space
Obiective:
G. Provide an integrated open space system to preserve scenic qualities,environmental
resources,recreation opportunities,and public health and safety.
Guidine Policy:
1. Refer to Open Space and Recreation Goals and Objectives.
2. Require all major projects to be Planned Developments to ensure that
developments have an integrated trail and open space system and to create a
sense of community.
3. Link local recreation and open space areas to major regional parks and trails.
Planning Implications:
o Property owners should be encouraged to work together in order to achieve the
objectives of an integrated open space plan for the GPA area rather than the
appearance of an incremental accumulation from separate subdi,isions.
10
I '
Land Use- Agriculture
Objective:
H. Allow for the continuation of existing agricultural operations within the planning
area and as an interim use.
Guiding Policies:
1. Where feasible,promote agricultural and grazing uses on lands reserved for
permanent open space.
2. Refer to Open Space Guiding Policy B.1.
Planning Implications:
o Agricultural preservation polices contained in the Dublin General Plan should be
• carefully reviewed by the City for appropriateness.
Land Use - Fiscal
GOAL:
III. New development in East Dublin will not be a fiscal burden to the City of Dublin,
either on a total project basis or, to the fullest extent feasible,in any phase of
development.
•
Ob iective:
A. Capital improvement costs to extend and maintain infrastructure and community
services to East Dublin shall be financed to the greatest extent possible by
• resources within East Dublin. This includes property owners,future residents,
tenants and lessees.
Guiding Policies:
1. Capital improvement costs shall be financed by a combination of development
fees and exactions,Mello-Roos Community Services Districts,Assessment
Districts and similar techniques which minimize reliance on financing by the
City of Dublin.
2. Ongoing maintenance costs for community facilities shall be partially funded by
• user fees,homeowner assessments and other mechanisms,including special
districts.
Implementing Policies:
•
2.1 Assessment Districts,Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts or similar
vehicles shall be established for the purpose of financing major facilities
and infrastructure.
2.2 Infrastructure elements,including local streets,water,sewer lines and
all other necessary community facilities,shall be provided as a
requirement of subdivision or building permit approval.
2.3 Anticipated fiscal impacts of development proposals shall be documented as
part of the development review process.
11
Planning Implications:
o In keeping with policies expressed in the Dublin General Plan,facilities and
services which will benefit a defined geographic area should be financed by
residents and non-residental development within that area.
o One outcome of this policy will be to pass the cost on to the eventual resident by
raising housing prices,rents and commercial lease rates to offset the cost of fees
and bonds. This additional burden on monthly house payments and rentals will result
in further limiting forgettable goals. To compensate for this effect,the GPA will
explore various options for housing affordability programs. These are discussed as
part of the Housing goals, objectives and policies.
o Is the City willing to fully or partially finance any type of public facility in
order to assist in reducing the expected high cost of housing due to infrastructure
finance costs? Examples could include partial housing subsidies or equity
participation programs.
o Are there other sources of grant or loan money available for public improvements?
•
Land Use - Regional
GOAL:
IV. Consider regional growth patterns and issues when planning the development of East
Dublin.
Objective:
A. Coordinate plans for East Dublin with on-going regional and subregion plans.
Guiding Policy:
1. Ensure that sufficient utilities and community services can be provided to
support an urban level of development.(Refer to the Public Facilities Goals
and Objectives section.)
Implementing Policy-
a. The City of Dublin shall establish and maintain a liaison with regional
utility agencies to ensure that plans for East Dublin are coordinated with •
regional plans and policies.
Guiding Policy:
2. Coordinate plans for East Dublin with the existing and proposed plans of major
surrounding property owners,jurisdictions,and regional agencies.
Implementing Policies:
• 2.1 The City of Dublin shall consider existing,planned and proposed land uses
in surrounding jurisdictions when preparing land use and circulation plans
for East Dublin.
2.2 The City of Dublin shall continue to coordinate land use,housing and
transportation plans with the Association of Bay Area Governments.
12
Planning Implications:
o Additional development in East Dublin cannot occur without the provision of basic
services and utilities, which are provided by regional or sub-regional agencies. It
is imperative that all regional agencies be kept informed of planning activities in
A East Dublin, so that development in East Dublin will be included when agencies
calculate the amount of new development to service.
o The City must also consider existing and proposed developments and trends in
surrounding jurisdictions in relation to proposed land uses in East Dublin.
Balancing a regional perspective with site environmental conditions and property
owner desires is an important objective throughout the planning process.
•
•
13
CIRCULATION GOALS,OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
GOAL:
V. Achieve and maintain a feasible,effective transportation system,keeping capital
costs low through alternative,non-structural means.
Ohjective:
A. Coordinate land use goals and policies with transportation needs and facilities to
maximize the effectiveness of the circulation system.
Guiding Policies
1. On a regional and sub-regional level,contribute to solving the jobs-housing
imbalance which currently exists.
2. Within the East Dublin GPA area,locate land uses to minimize vehicular travel.
Planning Implications
o The intent of this goal is to promote more efficient vehicular circulation through
appropriate land use planning,i.e. closer placement of housing,employment,
shopping and recreation to reduce travel distance,and other means in concert with
system-wide transportation improvements.
GOAL:
VI . Develop and manage an integrated transportation system which accommodates future
growth of Dublin/East Dublin while maximizing the free flow of regional circulation
patterns.
Objective:
A. Avoid or minimize the need for freeway widening and maintain Level of Service D at
current and future freeway and arterial roadway interchanges.
Guiding Policy
1. Encourage use of I-5S0 freeway and associated interchanges for regional, not
local, trips.
Implementing Policies
1.1 Plan a system of parallel roads, including Dublin Boulevard extension,to
provide alternatives to the freeway for local trips.
1.2 Balance land uses to allow the linking of trips within the GPA area.
1.3 Provide opportunities for employees to live conveniently close to work,
shopping,child care and other daily needs.
1.4 Phase the plan to ensure early development of employment uses as well as
residential and commercial/service uses to establish positive jobs/housing
balance commuting patterns.
14
Guiding Policy
2. Promote access to regional employment centers by means other than I-680/I-580.
Implementing Policies
2.1 Identify and evaluate potential overpass locations,separate from I-580
interchanges,to connect the GPA area to existing and potential employment
centers south of I-580.
2.2 Site business parks in locations that allow convenient transit systems to
'= serve employees.
2.3 Require park and ride facilities or shared parking arrangements at
convenient locations along Dublin Boulevard Extension.
Guiding Policies
3. Require the early development of employment-generating uses together with
housing.
4. Consider requiring employers to assist in provision of convenient economical
transit systems to serve employees.
5. Encourage jurisdictions in the region and Tri-Valley area affected by regional
transportation issues to participate in cooperative planning for the use,
financing, location,and sizing of regional roadways.
Implementing Policy
• a. Link building permit issuance to maintenance of Level of Service D at major
intersections or freeway interchanges potentially impacted by new
development.
Planning Implications:
o Identify and use existing opportunities for decisionmaking meetings or create a new
• multi-jurisdictional task force to devise and monitor policies regarding regional
•
land use and circulation issues.
• o Other means of improving freeway access are available such as implementing a •
Transportation Management System. The level of commercial development and highway
congestion warrenting a TSM program must be determined before such a program can be
recommended.
Objective
• B. Use a variety of methods to implement transportation system improvements.
•
Guiding,Policies:
1. Require new developments,on and off-site,to pay their fair share of planned
roadway improvements.
15
n
•
2. Phase development w...sn the first and subsequent specific plat. .eas to ensure
transportation improvements will be in place when needed.
Implementing Policies:
2.1 Identify appropriate means of deciding fair shares and a financing
structure such as an assessment district,or other vehicles.
Ob iective:
C. Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to allow the free flow of
project and cross-site through traffic on north-south and east-west arterials and
collector streets.
Guiding Policy
I. Provide for adequate north/south vehicular circulation to and through the GPA
area.
Implementing Policy
l.la Link development approvals to maintenance of Level of Service D(refer to
implementing policy for Objective B,above).
1.1b Identify one north/south arterial road and size it appropriately.
Implementing Policy
Follow recommendations of current studies concerning Dougherty,Tassajara,
Arnold,and Collier Canyon Roads.
l.lc Plan for more than one north/south arterial.
Implementing Policy
Plan for opportunities for future north/south connections to the Dougherty
Valley via Hacienda Drive extension.
l.ld Discourage connections to Contra Costa County by sizing and designing roads
to limit through traffic. Implications for this policy would be to protect
local development in Dublin,perhaps at the expense of making regional
traffic worse.
Planning Implications:
o It is important to know the intent of the City of Dublin regarding connection to
housing and employment developments in Contra Costa. Encouraging use of Dougherty,
Tassajara, and any future roads which provide access to Contra Costa County would
provide some relief to I-SS0 and I-6S0.
Guiding Policy
2. Provide for adequate east/west vehicular traffic to and through the GPA area.
Implementing Policies
2.1 Design and construct Dublin Boulevard Extension as the major east west
arterial.
2.2 Plan for opportunities for additional east/west collector streets in the
future,depending on land use and traffic needs.
16
•
Planning Implications:
o Dublin Boulevard must be located and designed so as to maximize the use and value of
frontage property.
o The intersections of north/south arterial and collector streets with Dublin Boulevard
must be carefully designed to avoid congestion.
o The continued cooperation and support with Camp Parks is essential for the extension
of Dublin Boulevard.
Guiding Policy
3. Prevent misuse of neighborhood collector streets by through traffic by the use
of route signs and a designated route for truck traffic.
Implementing Policy
3.1 Consider use of local roadway sizing,signals,stop signs,and roadway
layout to protect neighborhood streets.
Objective:
D. Support local and regional transit improvements.
Guiding Policies:
I. Support the BART extension into the Livermore-Amador Valley,including the
extension of stations beyond the I-580/I-680 interchange.i.e.current plans for
stations near the Southern Pacific right-of-way and at Airport Boulevard in west
Livermore.
Planning Implications:
o Encouraging the use of public transit and carpooling will reduce freeway congestion
and protect capacity as development of the Tri-Valley intensifies in future.
o Alternatives for the type of development in the vicinity of the BART station need to •
be considered. Two are listed below:
1. Encourage higher density land uses and a joint development program for the
Alameda County property adjacent to the proposed BART station.
2. Encourage land uses which would primarily support park and ride uses in the
vicinity of the proposed BART station .
17
Guiding Policy
2. Support the extension of other transit services and alternative means of
j transportation into the GPA area to serve all residents.
Implementing Policies
2.1 Promote the extension of the Livermore-Amador Valley bus service to serve
the GPA area.
2.2 Explore the concept of reserving right-of-way along Dublin Boulevard
extension for a transit way.
1 2.3 Provide for Park-and-Ride services to link the GPA area to employment
centers and regional transit systems for public transit patrons.
2.4 Identify appropriate locations for park-and-ride lots in proximity to major
arterial and connector streets on the land use plan.
2.5 Support preservation of the Southern Pacific right-of-way as a potential
transportation corridor.
2.6 Provide safe routes along selected major arterial streets for trails, where
2 appropriate.
• Planning Implications:
o The local transit system could be either a bus or light rail system. However, when
BART is extended into the Livermore-Amador Valley, a parallel rail system would be
redundant.
o Requiring park-and-ride facilities or extra capacity in retail parking lots for
o
commuter parking near the intersections of major collector and arterial streets with
Dublin Boulevard extension will help to promote public transit and reduce congestion
at major freeway interchanges.
o Park-and-ride facility capacity should be carefully managed with a view to limiting
growth inducement effects on areas beyond the Altamont Pass.
o While perhaps not feasible in early phases, BART stations should be planned with the
intent to allow future high intensity mixed use development to capitalize on the
investment in transit infrastructure.
1S
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
GOAL:
VII. To conserve and manage natural resources and open space areas for the preservation
and production of resources, the promotion of outdoor recreation, the protection of
public health and safety, the maintenance of visual quality, and the separation of
communities.
Objective:
A. Develop an open space system in the planning area which preserves natural resources.
Guiding Policies: •
•
I. Connect open space with corridors of native vegetation.
2. Preserve high quality habitat areas such as oak woodlands, riparian vegetation,
•
• and natural creeks as open space.
Planning Implications:
o Implementing an open space and recreation system will reduce the amount of land
available for development and will increase public costs for improvements and
•
maintenance.
o A carefully designed open space system can help to protect the public health and
safety, maintain visual quality of the site to the greatest extent possible, and preserve
any endangered and rare wildlife,habitat and plant species that may exist in the planning
area.
o Open space viability will depend upon contiguity and adequate size.
Objective:
B. Protect and maintain viable grazing and agricultural land as permanent uses within
designated open space area and as interim uses for lands slated for future urban
• development.
Guiding Policies:
1. Maintain steep slopes in open space areas as agricultural and grazing uses,
wherever feasible.
2. Provide protection for land owners who wish to remain in agricultural use.
Alternative Guiding Policy:
3. Minimize conflicts between agriculture and urban uses.
Implementing Policies:
2.1 Exempt properties remaining in active agricultural use from any local
• assessment district or improvement fees implemented in the area, until such
time as development approvals are received.
Alternative Implementing Policies:
3.1 Delineate a development limit line and an open space system.
19
3.2 Promote policies, such as the Williamson Act Contract and agricultural
zoning, to keep grazing land in production.
Planning Implications:
1 o Preserving viable agricultural land is a guiding policy within the City of Dublin's
existing General Plan which should be examined in light of the East Dublin GPA.
4 '
Objective:
C. Provide a greenbelt buffer area between Contra Costa County and Alameda County, as
well as between Dublin and Livermore.
Guiding Policies: •
1. Identify appropriate methods for ensuring preservation of the land in the
greenbelt.
Implementing Policies:
1.1 Explore the use of open space zoning, transfer of development rights, and
conservation easements as a method for providing a greenbelt.
1.2 Encourage agricultural lands to maintain Williamson Act contracts.
Guiding Policies:
2. Locate open space to take advantage of existing or planned open space in
adjacent jurisdictions.
3. Incorporate safety features such as fire trails and fire breaks into the
greenbelt.
Planning Implications
o A density transfer system to preserve agricultural land and environmentally
sensitive land should be explored as part of future specific plans and/or amendments
to the city's zoning ordinance.
Objective:
D. Develop an open space system which preserves significant scenic qualities and areas
from which extraordinary views can be seen.
I
�a
20
':5
•
Guiding Policies:
I. Maintain major ridgetines and hillsides as the key component Of the planning
area's visual open space system.
Implementing Policies:
1.1 Consider scenic guidelines and a design review procedure for major •
arterials gateways and view protection.(reference goal I,objective B)
Ob iective:
E. Achieve a comprehensive park and recreational open space system within the GPA area.
Guiding Policies:
1. Provide sufficient public parks to accommodate existing and future needs of
residents,workers,and visitors for outdoor recreational activities.
Implementing Policies
1.1 Incorporate a multi-use trail system,including bike lanes to link major
parks,schools,employment centers and recreation facilities within the
land use plan.
1.2 Site park and recreation facilities so that they can be equally accessible
to residents and employees when ever possible
Guiding Policies:
2. Provide for regional parklands within the GPA area to replace Tassajara
Creek Regional Palk.
Implementing Policies
2.1 The City of Dublin shall work with East Bay Regional Parks District(EBRPD)
to prepare a park master plan for a future regional park.
Guiding Policies
3. In addition to the regional park facility,provide for a range of neighborhood
and community parks in the East Dublin planning area as well as specialized
park and recreational facilities.
Implementing policies
3.1 Locate neighborhood parks as key elements in neighborhood structures.
3.2 Site a minimum of one community park per residential village intended
primarily for use as athletic playing fields and courts.
3.3 Provide one City-wide sports/recreation facility in East Dublin which can
be used for community events as well as sports.
3.4 Continue existing City policies and practices of requiring on-site
recreational amenities for medium density residential projects and granting
partial credit towards City park dedication/in-lieu fee requirements.
3.5 Annually examine the City's park in-lieu fee structure and update
accordingly depending upon the increasing cost of land and improvements as
well as other variables.
21
•
•
•
Planning Implications:
o Allowing for the use of recreation facilities such as health clubs and formal parks
by both residents and employees provides an opportunity to reduce the number of
t• vehicle trips made within and from the project area.
l:
•
it
•
•
•
•
•
22
}3
•
PUBLIC FACILITIES GOALS,OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
GOAL:
VIII. Provide a full range of high quality public services and facilities to support
the types and intensity of land uses planned for East Dublin.
Objective:
A. Proposals to develop lands within the jurisdiction of the General Plan Amendment
shall be phased in conjunction with infrastructure and other public facilities
improvement.
Guiding Policies:
1. Coordinate with the governing school district to ensure that a sufficient
number and size of educational facilities are provided for in the General Plan.
Implementing Policies:
1.1 Refer all development proposals to the local school district prior to
approval.
Guiding Policies:
2. Promote the development of a system of large and small outdoor recreation areas
conveniently located to meet the needs of all segments of the present and
future population.
Implementing Policies:
2.1 Refer to Open Space Parks and Recreation Goals and Policies.
Guidine Policies:
3. Coordinate with appropriate local officials to ensure that additional fire,
police, rescue and other public services can be provided within acceptable
municipal service levels.
Implementing Policies:
3.1 Coordination with public service providers shall occur as part of follow-on
specific plans and individual development proposals.
3.2 Fiscal impacts of major development proposals shall be assessed as part of
project review(refer to Land Use- Fiscal goal).
Planning Implications:
o Serious questions need to be resolved regarding the extension of basic services to
the planning area, the primary concern being local schools. East Dublin is
presently within the Livermore school District,although many of the property owners
in the study area have expressed a preference to be served by the Dublin School
District.
o There will likely be a need for a City multi-purpose center in East Dublin.
equivalent in size and function to the Shannon Center. Sufficient land must be
reserved for this use.
Objective:
A� B. Provide major public utilities,including water,wastewater collection and
3 treatment,and stormwater drainage at an urban level to serve new development.
Guiding Policies: •
1. Provide an adequate water system for development in East Dublin.
it
Implementing Policies:
1.1 As project planning proceeds and projected land uses are more refined,
developers and city staff should consult with DSRSD staff to develop
modifications to their water system master plan.
1.2 The Dublin City staff and DSRSD staff shall coordinate development plans
related to sizing of water system improvements.
1.3'Promote DSRSD involvement in the design,construction and operation of the
; City of Pleasanton's proposed Tassajara Reservoir.
1.4 Design and construction of the water system facilities must be in
accordance with DSRSD standards.
'4 1.5 Protect the water quality of existing wells in East Dublin.
Guiding Policy:
•
2. Provide for adequate wastewater collection,treatment and export from the
Livermore-Amador Valley.
Implementing Policies:
2.1 As project planning proceeds and projected land uses are refined,consult
DSRSD staff to develop modifications to their Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan.
2.2 Estimation of wastewater flows for sewer permits should be based on the
City of Dublin approved levels of densities and DSRSD approved wastewater
flow factors.
2.3 Developers and City staff should periodically consult with DSRSD staff on
remaining sewer permits available for purchase,available wastewater
treatment plant capacity and on any planned expansions of the wastewater
treatment plant.
2.4 Design and construction of wastewater systems must be in accordance with
DSRSD standards.
2.5 In accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board policies,
discourage on-site wastewater treatment systems such as package plants and
septic systems.
2.6 Support Tri Valley Wastewater Authority(TWA)planning efforts to develop a
new wastewater export system designed to handle future wastewater flows.
2.7 As project planning proceeds and projected land uses are more defined,
consult with DSRSD staff and TWA staff to refine wastwater flow estimates
from East Dublin for export from the Valley.
24
I
Guiding Policy:
3. Ensure adequate storm drainage facilities in the East Dublin area.
Implementing Policies:
3.1 Require refined hydrologic analyses as part of the project approval
process.
3.2 Consider runoff impacts from upstream development and impacts on downstream
facilities when planning stormwater facilities.
3.3 Design and construct the stormwater drainage system in accordance with the
standards of Zone 7 and the City of Dublin.
Planning Implications:
o The current limit on the amount of treated wastewater which can be exported from the
Livermore-Amador Valley may limit the amount of development which can take place in
the GPA area for some time.
•
•
•
•
25
it
HOUSING GOALS,OBJECII Y ES, AND POLICIES
GOAL:
IX. Ensure that East Dublin contributes equitably toward achievement of a jobs-housing
balance in the Tri-Valley area.
Ob iective:
A. Establish a development program that balances on-site jobs and housing.
Guiding Policies:
I. At a minimum,achieve a 1:1 ratio between housing units and jobs in East
Dublin, based on programmed commercial and industrial floor area.
2. Should a higher ratio be desirable to assist achievement of a balance in
adjacent cities,consider entering into revenue-sharing agreements with those
jurisdictions.
3. Plan for a mix and density of housing types that protects the availability of
East Dublin housing for Dublin workers. (See.Goal II.)
Implementing Policies:
3.1 Encourage voluntary participation by prospective employers in underwriting
a portion of housing development cost through incentives or regulation.
3.2 Participate in a study of the incomes and household characteristics of
existing and anticipated Tri-Valley workers and continue to monitor
changes.
3.3 Consider imposing linkage fees on new employment-generating uses to assist
in meeting housing affordability objectives.
3.4 Propose and participate in an effort to establish Valley-wide fair shares
of housing and net revenue-producing land uses.
Planning Implications:
o Meeting the state mandate to plan for a jobs/housing balance requires more than a
mere balancing of the quantities of jobs and housing. The type of housing provided,
addressed under Goal II,will help determine whether East Dublin will be home to
local workers. As part of the planning effort,the consultant team will attempt to
compute anticipated household income ranges,housing costs and the approximate type
of employment to be located in east Dublin.
GOAL:
X. Ensure that East Dublin's residential development continues the strong effort being
made by the City to meet housing needs.
•
26
Obiective:
A. Encourage housing of varied types,sizes and prices to meet the needs of existing
Dublin residents and future local workers.
Guiding Policies:
I. Direct at least half of the East Dublin units to existing Dublin residents or •
future local workers.
2. Include in the East Dublin housing program a percentage of multi-family units
in reasonable relationship as the percentage planned in the existing City at
buildout(25 percent).
• 3. Provide for single-family homes scaled for affordability in terms of lot size
and floor area while promoting high quality site planning standards.
4. Minimize site development costs as a percentage of total cost as a means of
maintaining affordability.
5. Plan for and encourage the use of density bonuses,including state-mandated
bonuses.
Implementing Policies:
5.1 Encourage voluntary participation by future employers in the underwriting
of certain residential development costs or consider mandating linkage fees
to help assure availability of new housing to local workers.
Planning Implications:
• o Dublin's Housing Element notes that"today's moderate income households ...cannot
afford today's new single-family homes, forcing the City to choose between
attempting to maintain its traditional type of housing and maintaining a community
with housing available to its traditional residents."
o Exacerbating the problem in East Dublin is the fact that site development costs for
traditional single-family subdivisions,given the topographic and soil conditions of
much of the GPA area, will likely be unusually high. (See Goal III.)
o The hills can provide opportunities for higher-end housing on large lots wherever
grading can be safely minimized. Flatter parts of the area will need to be used as
efficiently as possible for residential development. In those areas, incentives
will be important because,as discussed in the City's Housing Element,"regulating
density solely on the basis of units per acre provides an unintended incentive to
build the largest units that can be marketed. Because small units have less impact
as measured by household size, floor area and vehicle trip generation,it is logical
to market more of them."
Objective:
B. Make maximum feasible accommodation of special housing needs.
27
Guiding Policies:
1. Encourage inclusion of small, rental, and/or subsidized units in developments
within the GPA through the application of density bonuses and/or other
incentives.
2. Note locations where density designations and proximity to transit and services
would lend themselves to purchase for special needs housing developments.
implementing Policies:
2.1 Work for equal housing opportunity and access for all persons regardless of
race,religion, national origin, sex, marital/family status, or other
similar factors. (City Housing Element Guiding Policy D.)
2.2 Continue support for the affordable housing efforts of non-profit
organizations and semi-public institutions including the Dublin Housing
Authority. (City Housing Element Guiding Policies D, G, and H.)
2.3 Consider granting a density bonus to developers guaranteeing rental tenure
of a percentage of units in large multi-family projects for a specified
period of time. (City Housing Element Implementing Policy E.)
2.4 Explore programs sponsored by other public agencies which could assist in
meeting housing objectives.
GOAL:
XI. Achieve a residential environment that offers a high level of choice, efficiency and
quality of life and makes sensitive use of the land.
Objective:
A. Offer opportunities to potential residents seeking to minimize living costs.
Guiding Policies:
1. Encourage the phased development of mixed-use projects, especially in
connection with BART, to provide a convenient and efficient living environment
for a segment of the East Dublin population.
2. Consider designating an area as a second urban center, a focus for East Dublin
available for medium, medium-high or high density as well as commercial and
service uses.
3. Plan for and encourage the sharing of commercial, service and recreational
amenities between business and residential uses.
2S
•
• r t
CONSERVATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
GOAL:
XII. To maintain and enhance the basic environmental resources and natural systems of the
planning area.
HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES
Objective:
A. Maintain and enhance natural hydrologic.systems including permanent and intermittent
streams, ponds, springs and seeps.
Guiding Policies:
1. Encourage drainage improvements which will enhance the natural appearance of
• streams and minimize man-made characteristics of flood control and erosion
projects.
Implementing Policies:
1.1 Use native species for bank stabilization projects.
1.2 Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition of subdivision
approval.
1.3 Regulate grading and development activities adjacent to streams and wetland
areas.
1.4 Enact and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance
establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of water qualit,,
and protection of stream channels.
1.5 Require revegetation of all areas of ground disturbance immediately after
construction and before winter rains to reduce erosion.
1.6 Assign responsibility for channel maintenance.
Guiding Policy;
2. Incorporate natural drainage features into land use and open space plans as
linear features and trails.
Implementing Policy:
2.1 Maintain a minimum buffer of I00 feet on all sides of a protected water
site.
Guiding Policy:
3 Promote public access to stream corridors.
Implementing Policy:
3.1 Require drainage and flood control rights-of-way to be dedicated for public
purposes where the stream corridor is designed for trail use.
30
,-.
i .
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Objective:
F B. To preserve and enhance wetland areas.
a
Guiding Policies: .
1. Identify wetland areas of high environmental value and implement a plan for
their protection and maintenance.
1
Implementing policies. see objective A.
2. Preserve vernal pool areas.
-I
3. Incorporate wetland areas into the open space plan.
4 4. Enhance wetland areas degraded by grazing by buffering, fencing, and planting
native species.
i 5. Encourage landowners to dedicate or set aside'wetland areas and consider the
.•t use of open space zoning for these areas.
:i
Objective:
C. To protect sensitive species from the potential adverse impacts of development.
-) •
Guiding. Policies
1. Preserve those natural wildlife habitats which may support rare and endangered
•
species of plants and animals, where appropriate.
2. Circumvent avoidable losses and minimize losses by modifying project design and
protecting unique habitat.
Implementing Policies:
2.1 The City of Dublin shall establish and maintain a liaison with resource
management agencies (i.e. California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purpose of
monitoring compliance with GP/SP plans and policies.
• 2.2 Require further studies as part of follow on approval processes to verify
' the presence of sensitive species, especially the San Joaquin kit fox,
• raptor nesting areas, the red-legged frog, and the California tiger
salamander, in both the GPA and SP areas. •
Guiding Policies:
3. Incorporate any unique habitat areas into the open space system.
4. Require placement of transmission lines underground to avoid the potential for
raptor electrocutions.
Implementing Policies:
4.1 Work with utility providers to implement design specifications aimed at
avoiding raptor electrocutions.
:,r
] 31
•
•
Guiding Policies:
5. Restrict the use of rodenticides and herbicides within the project area.
6. Restrict the removal of native trees or large snags.
Planning Implications:
o Involvement and consultation with the organizations listed above throughout the
planning and development process will avoid violations of state and federal
regulations and ensure that specific issues are recognized and addressed.
o Specific habitat areas must be identified and delineated if significant habitats are
to preserved by restricting development in particular areas.
•
CULTURAL RESOURCES
GOAL:
XIII. To preserve Dublin's historic structures and cultural resources.
Ob iectives:
A. Identify and protect areas with special archaeological and historic resources.
Implementing Policies:
1. Require archaeological studies in areas of known archaeological significance
prior to development approval.
2. Follow recommendations contained within archaeological studies regarding
rehabilitation or preservation of archaeological structures and sites.
NOISE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
GOAL;
XIV.To maintain noise levels in the planning area at levels compatible
with existing and future land uses.
Objectives:
A. Minimize exposure to noise from outside sources by modifying the land
use plan and buffering residential areas as necessary.
B. Identify noise sources from outside the GPA area and establish noise
reduction policies.
Guiding Policy:
1. Implement specific noise reduction policies for Livermore
Airport, Camp Parks, and I-580.
Implementing Policy:
1.1 Use noise contours to determine the need.for noise studies
and require new development to pay for noise attenuation
features as a condition of approving new development.
Obiective:
C. Ensure that noise levels do not exceed exterior levels of 60 decibels
for residential uses and 70 decibels or less for office, retail, and
industrial uses.
Guiding Policies:
1. Design and monitor the circulation system so as to reduce noise
levels in adjacent areas.
2. Mitigate the need for sound walls through sensitive land use
planning.
Planning Implications:
o This section will require further research. Recommendations need to
be reviewed and augmented by Charles Salter & Associates.
33
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE JANUARY 31, 1989 REVIEW MEETING
ON THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
OF THE EAST DUBLIN GENERAL AMENDMENT STUDY
The following is a summary of comments raised at the review session held last
Tuesday. The session was open to all interested agencies, organizations and
individuals. The comments are in response to the presentation of the
preliminary draft goals, policies and objectives by Wallace Roberts & Todd.
The names of individuals raising the concerns are not included.
It was felt that areas identified with significant
landslide potential can be corrected through
engineering procedures, in order to accommodate
development.
It was recommended that significant sized open space
buffer zones be provided both within and around the
General Plan Amendment Study area.
It was stated that riparian corridors established by
the Department of Fish and Game should have substantial
development setbacks, in compliance with Fish and Game
standards.
It was suggested the Dublin Boulevard extension
alignment have multiple alternatives for consideration.
Scenic corridor areas, as identified by the Alameda
County General Plan, should be shown on study maps and
considered in the planning process.
It was mentioned that the environmental constraints
identified by the Environmental Setting document are
too restrictive and if development is going to be
halted in certain areas because of these constraints,
then there is no need to proceed with these studies.
Development should be allowed to occur as long as it
pays its own way with respect to sewer, water, roadways
and other public improvements.
It was felt that if development is restricted by the
constraints identified in the Environmental Setting
document, then there would not be a wide range of
housing types and prices available (from a competition
and affordability standpoint). The only homes that
would be built would be the higher priced estate homes
if the constraints are fully recognized.
It was felt that there was an over reaction to the
slope conditions in the area and if development was
limited by these slopes, it would be fiscally
impossib'. . to develop the are-
A request was made asking for an opportunity to review
the fiscal analysis (which is to be completed in the
future as a part of the studies).
There was a desire to have less restrictive goals,
policies and objectives in order to make development
more economically viable.
[PA87-031:Ag Stmt PC 2/6/89] 1 EXHIBIT
There was a request to rewrite all of the goals that
preserve the ridgelands so that development on
reconstructed portion of the ridgelands could occur.
It was requested that the studies do more than simply
conform with the flight path requirements of the
Livermore Airport. A complete analysis of project
development in the study area should address impacts on
the airport.
It was requested that the Williamson Act map also show
dates when non-renewals are effective.
•
II
[PA87-031:Ag Stmt PC 2/6/89]
-2-
Donna Ogelvie
5360 Doolan Canyon Road
Livermore, Ca. 94550
(415) 443- 4069
January 31st. 1989
Mr. Rod Barger
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin , Ca. 94568
Wallace, Roberts & Todd
121 Second St.
San Francisco, Ca. 94105 E C E I V E D
FEB 11989
Dear Planners and Consultants, DUBUN PLANNING
I have been a landowner in Doolan Canyon for 21 years and a
resident for 16 years. My property and five other parcels adjoining me
are surrounded by property owned by an investment corporation. the
former "Bailey Ranch" (proposed Doolan Ranch Development) comprizes
aroximately 900 acres. The "Bailey Ranch" was a profitable cattle
ranch for aproximately 45 years. The death of Mr. & Mrs. Bailey forced
the sale of th0 s property due to inheritance taxes. This land was
rated "Prime Gracing Land " according to the U. S. D. A. survey March , 1968.
It has been in the Williamson Act. This act was established to preserve
agricultural land.
The buyers of the "Bailey Ranch" , John Ferrarri , Ted Fairfield ,
and Wilson De Witt , bought agricultural land which was in the land
preserve. This property is located in unincorporated Alameda County. The
county has a one unit per 100 acre parcel minimum building code
restriction.
These buyers formed an investment corporation and applied for a
non renewal of the Williamson Preserve Act . This investment corporation
has a plan for industrial and high density residential development for
Doolan Canyon and surrounding 6000 acres, which is within their
control .
Doolan Canyon is a natural box canyon. Doolan Road is 3. 5 miles
long and dead ends i<1 at a locked ranch gate. The canyon has moderate to
steep terrain with peaks to 1224 ' a. s. 1 . The soil is Diablo clay with
excessive shrink and swell characteristics. Many landslides are visible.
AUfl
`^ -
'
-
^
Cottonwood Creek , its tributaries and watershed , originate in the
north beyond the Alameda County line. Cottonwood Creek flows southerly
� adjacent to Doolan Road and empties into the Arroyo Los Positas on the
west end of the Livermore Airport .
The environment is sensitive in the canyon. The wildlife, some
endangered , find habitat in the, creeks, ponds, streams and springs. The
canyon is also refuge for many human inhabitants who now face possible
extinction.
Ted Fairfield claims to be a consulting civil engineer. He has
� chosen to defer with 54 issues addressed in the general plan amendment.
� Will you please note that the vast majority of his responses appear to
' be predicated on a purely profit motive. If Ted Fairfield and
associates needed flat land with which to make a profit why did they
� purchase a canyon that was primarily agricultural hillsides? Could it
be that they have been ill advised by their civil engineer?
/
i
`
|
Sincerley,
i
D O Ivi Donna ge e
i
'
�
/
'
/
|
�
|
�
^
i
)
/
|
'
` z
,
` *
'
�
° .
Curtis & Carolyn Morgan
5184 Doolan Rd.
Livermore, Ca. 94550
(415) 455-6666
January 31st. 1989
!
Mr . Rod Barger
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
| P. O, Box 2340
/ Dublin , Ca.
Wallace , Roberts & Todd
121 Second St.
7th. Floor '
� San Franc
isco, Ca. 94105
/
/ Dear Planners and Consultants,
After reading your policies and objectives, I have found that
there are areas that I object to.
Your plan calls for the discouragement of development of
properties with a 30% slope or greater. Since the phrase discourage
could lead to disputes as to it 's intent perhaps it should be more
specific and state that development and grading on slopes of 30% and
greater should be prohibited. Since the majority of the areas of 30%
slope or greater are of known landslide sites , or highly potential risk
to landslide the probability of severe erosion is greatly increased by
the removal of the natural vegetation and root systems that have been
established there. The effects of development ie. grading , increased
runoff , and landscape watering further increase landslide and erosion
potential .
Would you please devote more attention to leaving no vagueness or
ambiguities in your planning language. Your efforts to be SPECIFIC and
leave no room for no misinterpretation would be appreciated. There
should be no misunderstanding of what the General plan states.
There should be some address as to people that have choosen to
live a rural lifestyle on 5, 101 & 20 acre parcels. Placing high
density housing in the backs of canyons around ranches and ranchettes
will serve to turn these rual homes into islands surrounded by a sea of
!
'
'
+ ,
?k,�i SM
RA
houses. Are you not required to address how this will effect their
lifestyles? These two forms of lifestyles are not compatable and can
even become hazardous. Children getting into open fields or pastures
will become trampled or kicked by livestock. Horses being ridden down
streets of these villages can become spooked by cars, bikes and a
multitude of other problems could be encountered. This would endanger
not only the animal and rider but it would be hazardous to anyone in the
vicinity. There is a specific need for open areas devoted to permanent
riding trails with access corridors to these ranches. Thus insuring
that these two lifestyles are maintained seperately.
Placing high density housing near grazing-ranch lands has not
worked in the past , present nor will it work in the future. This plan
did not work in Dublin U years ago when I moved there. History will
� show that even Dublin agrees that these two are not compatable. How
manyhorses
h are now still inside Dublin 's city limits? How many Cattle?
And I ' ll bet you cannot find one pig !
This kind of co-inhabatability did not work in Concord , Clayton ,
nor the lower portions of Morgan territory and IT WILL NOT WORK HERE.
If specific examples are required please ask and I could cite a
multitude of examples.
What plans have been made for sewer and water? Of the
developments submitted to Dublin , just two projects Dublin Ranch North
and Dublin Ranch have already exceeded the sewer capacity that Dublin
has been allocated . So why is Dublin planning for more land than they
have the potential capacity to service? Perhaps the developers should
be required to provide such facilities since it was they who decided to
develop agricultural land.
And what about the Livermore airport? Have you any concept of
how much time it requires to do a noise study? Have you addressed the
probability of how the airport growth will effect the aforementioned
housing that has been submtted? Much more attention need be given to
this issue of the Livermore airport .
' --
Thank You
L�LC&�
Curtis & Carolyn Morgan
-, r:= :7�`
.
'
'
.- .
' '
•a Hz "L ,7" e)14'1'' f nr w.14{ .9 4 �z
'r
ctA
J 1 t;: • y .,T. F r:J9'J y:,^', �, ,,.�,. "�. +x'' ,t
r awl
� '� -'� J4 '� tt,S" -744
.. - r
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: January 31, 1989
TO: Rod Barger, Senior Planner C E I V E D
Dublin City Planning Dept.
AN 311989
FROM: Eric Parfrey, Senior Planner DUBLINPLANNING
Contra Costa County
SUBJECT: East Dublin General Plan Amendment Draft Goals
We have reviewed the draft goals and polices prepared by WRT for the East Dublin
General Plan Amendment. Attached is a memo from our department' s transportation
planning section with their comments, which we concur with. Below are additional
comments.
Draft Contra Costa County General Plan
A major obvious issue regarding the GPA study is the question of north-south
access between East Dublin and the Dougherty Valley-Tassajara-San Ramon portion
of Contra Costa County, as well as the impacts of planned growth in that area
upon Dublin and vice versa. For your information, we will provide you with a
copy of the draft Contra Costa County General Plan to clarify the county' s
position. Staff is currently preparing an environmental impact report on the
plan update; we hope to have the draft plan in public hearing before the County
Planning Commission sometime in May, 1989, with adoption at the Board of
Supervisors later this year.
The draft Transportation and Circulation Element map (Figures V-3 and V-4)
indicate that Dougherty Road is planned as an "expressway on existing road,"
while Tassajara Road is designated an "arterial on existing road." Although the
data regarding the proposed number of lanes were not included on these initial
figures, the draft plan calls for two lanes on both these roadways.
The accompanying land use map indicates that the County plan has designated the
Dougherty Valley (the Gale and Windemere Ranches) as "Agricultural Lands. "
However, the draft plan also designates these properties as "Priority General
Plan Amendment Areas" (see text and map on pages 100-101) . As the text
describes, this designation is applied to several unincorporated areas that are
judged to potentially be appropriate for an expansion of the existing pattern of
urban development. This designation acknowledges the various General Plan
studies that are currently being conducted by individual cities and the county.
The intent of the "Priority General Plan Amendment Areas" designation is to
require a comprehensive (at least countywide) analysis of the potential impacts
of development in these designated areas.
AttachflEflt 3
•
Thus, the draft Contra Costa County General Plan recognizes the ongoing studies
by the City of San Ramon in the Dougherty Valley, but has not designated that
area for urban uses. The draft plan also contains numerous agricultural
preservation policies and programs in the Open Space/Conservation Element (pages
237-251) . The plan continues the policy of 2218 RZ, a rezoning of approximately
28,500 acres in the Tassjara area to 20, 40, and 80 acre minimum parcel sizes as
partial mitigation of the growth inducing impacts of development along Camino
Tassajara.
The draft plan includes a detailed growth management program, outlined on pages
52-64, as well as numerous policies requiring the verification of adequate
infrastructure capacity prior to approval of development projects (see sections
in the Public Facilities/Service Element) .
As part of the county' s General Plan Review program, staff has developed a
detailed land use and transportation model in order to project infrastructure
needs. The transportation model utilizes an EMME-2 software package and includes
land use projections for 515+ traffic zones within Contra Costa County, as well
as another 30+ zones that represent land uses in the remaining eight counties of
the San Francisco Bay region. The transportation model used demographic
projections for the areas outside Contra Costa based upon ABAG's Projections '87
series. This projection series did not take into account the degree of growth in
the east Dublin and North Livermore areas that is now being studied by the two
cities.
Comments on the East Dublin GPA Draft Goals
The draft goals and policies are generally well written, although some conflicts
seem apparent. For example, on page 8 a land use objective calls for the
maintenance of viable retail uses in downtown Dublin, yet the consequences of
other policies may be to accomodate or encourage large scale retail uses in East
Dublin. The ability of East Dublin and other areas in the Tri-Valley market to
absorb more commercial growth during a reasonable planning period has been noted
by the consultants, and should be examined on a sub-regional level (i .e. taking
into account planned commercial uses in the San Ramon Valley) .
The draft goal and policy language which encourages cooperative planning efforts
involving the cities and two counties in the Tri-Valley region (pages 12 and
15) is heartily supported by Contra Costa. As you are aware, County staff has
been participating in the fledgling Tri-Valley Transportation Committee. Staff
also agrees with the consultant remarks on page 13 that the City of Dublin
should plan within the context of subregional service and utility providers and
that "The City must also consider existing and proposed developments and trends
in surrounding jurisdictions in relation to proposed land uses in East Dublin."
We look forward to reviewing the draft General Plan Amendment and its
environmental documentation. Please let us know if we can be of any assistance
during the process.
ericl2/dubiin.ltr
•
..,.e- ,..::...t,_......„M....t .r.....:..,..... .::.'..:_. r n.E' ':n...... . :...:.. r,.,m„+.v..+e..p.4r.... � .� a. ..•. _... —vaH:.,.- ., .,... .. .,.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: January 31 , 1989
TO : Eric Parfrey , Comprehensive Planning Division
FROM : Steven L . Goetz , Transportation Planning Divisi
SUBJECT : East Dublin General Plan Amendment
The Transportation Planning Division is pleased to submit the
following comments on the Draft Goals , Policies , and Objectives
of the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Study .
As an overall comment , the analysis of the goals , policies , and
objectives focuses on each goal , policy , or objective
individually . Consequently , some goals or policies conflict .
The Draft General Plan Amendment should devote more attention to
analyzing the relationship among these goals , policies , and
objectives .
Page 9 : Application of the land use objective for office ,
industrial , and mixed uses needs to be balanced with the housing
needs of not only the Tri -Valley area , but the entire Bay Area .
The Dublin BART extension will reinforce the area ' s function as a
bedroom community for the San Francisco and Oakland employment
centers served by BART , creating more demand for housing in
Dublin . Existing business parks planned for the Tri -Valley area
are creating further competition for close-by housing . This
objective should be applied so as not to worsen the growing
imbalance between jobs and housing in the Bay Area .
Page 14 : The early development of employment uses in East Dublin
is not needed as a guiding policy to establish positive
jobs/housing balance community patterns . The existence of
Hacienda Business Park on the other side of the freeway currently
provides the employment uses that could generate complementary
commuting patterns with any housing developed in East Dublin .
The comment also applies to the Guiding Policy No . 3 on page 15 .
Page 16 : Implementing Policies No . 1 . 1a through 1 . 1d are not
consistent with the objective of constructing the improvements
necessary to allow the free flow of north - south and east -west
traffic . 1 . 1b calls for one north - south arterial while 1 . 1c alls
for more than one north - south arterial . Discouraging arterial
connections with Contra Costa in 1 . 1d may exacerbate freeway
congestion and make LOS D on surface streets unattainable unless
East Dublin remains as open space . The policies needs to be re-
examined in relation to the regional land use goal on page 13 and
the regional circulation goal on page 14 .
tle
"i-" r / j !�¢ Ea r 1' N.. �45, 1 ,.. ;14 i f N '.. " .1• ; 8('+ f •rK' q 44 l ,13 „ g. ' .€l " j ,.
w yr H� rIr, i 7.e tz,--. * 4 � y .J� i a a a r s r' { z js�+
..r - • 3 .�s1..5 � *7 yj}r' � ..As� � s* g a .,,, ..,;t4r x, f ,,..t 'Y .,0. „�e. . tu ...4
.--.., . . ,"
.....
; fi s ' + ° • '' -ir;; p3 e-. a ' r Fir xX < k do ` r I^Frl r,u,: .a ti� 3?;,44$ , . ( yi , . ff e' '1, f ),--f -!•- yJ �s �nr
•
Page 18 : The implications of managing the capacity of park- and-
ride lots on inducing growth beyond Altamont Pass are rather
insignificant compared to the land use decisions made in East
Dublin .
Page 26 : The scope of the territory for measuring job/housing
balance should include more of the East Bay area than just the
Tri -Valley . The Dublin BART extension reinforces the link
between housing in the Tri -Valley and jobs in Oakland and San
Francisco . This needs to be recognized in analyzing the
implications of East Dublin land uses on the jobs/housing
balance .
Thanks for the opportunity to comment . Let me know if there are
any questions on this material .
SLG/Edublin
cc : B . Neustadter
•
•
•
:j
V. • Via• .tip•.11%.•"'
F y " • y ..
._tea.. _ . _
, - '� Z - Ns:f�':s 0 a ik r 3x' r P s `yy- N t' ,
ati
• .. .� _
•
BAY MEAN' COUNCIL
•847 Sansome Street January 25, 1989
San Francisco �+ E I �/
California 94111 •
`1A
(4151 981-6600 ;; 7 1223
•EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Mr. Rod Barger
U$L}N, in
CHAIRMAN Planning Department
GEORGE M.KELLER
Chairman of the Board&CEO City of Dublin
Chevron Corporation 6500 Dublin Blvd. , Suite D
DAVID A.BOSSEN
President&CEO Dublin, CA 94568
Measures Corporation
ALBERT BOWERS
Chairman&CEO Dear Mr. Barger:
Syntex Corporation
IAMES
Regionalonal Managing Partner The Dublin City Planning Department and its consultants deserve high
Coopers&Lybrand praise for the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Draft Goals,
RICHAR RKE . Policies, and Objectives. The draft shows a strong sense of re-
Chairmann of
of the the Board&CEO
Pacific Gas and gional responsibility, makes an explicit commitment to provide ade-
Electric Company
A.W.CLAUSEN quate housing for the people who live and work in the City of
Chairman&CEO Dublin, allows for the broad application of mixed-use development,
Bank of America
and coordinates infrastructure investment with land-use planning.
PAUL M.COOK
Chairman of the Board&CEO. The Bay Area Council, as a business-sponsored regional public af-
Raychem Corporation fairs organization, firmly supports these planning principles.
MYRON DU BAIN
. Chairman of the Board
SRI International Cooperation among local governments in providing adequate housing
SChairman Gn&CEO � py:: and transportation capacity is essential to sustain employment
^airman
Pacific Telesis Group growth and the quality of life in the Tri-Valley. With this draft,
LAMES R.HARVEY
Chairman of the Board&CEO Dublin is offering leadership to the surrounding jurisdictions with:
Transamerica Corporation o a commitment to jobs-housing balance within the East Dublin
P,AUL HAZEN planning area;
President
Wells Fargo Bank o willingness to build more housing to help solve the sub-re-
IOHN M.LILLIE gional jobs-housing imbalance;
Chairman&CEO
LckyStores.lnc o a commitment to development patterns which reduce traffic
CHARLES A.LYNCH impacts
President&CEO
Levolor o support for cooperative planning.
RKHARD B.MADDEN These policies will ensure that the city gains the maximum benefit
Chairman&CEO
Potlatch Corporation from development in East Dublin. The Bay Area Council looks forward
CORNELLC.MAIER to working with the City of Dublin to bring about the land use plan
Director&Consultant
KaiserTech Limited for East Dublin which best implements these worthy goals.
ROBERT T.PARRY
President&CEO
Federal Reserve Bank of
We have a number of specific suggestions, listed by priority, which
San Francisco we believe would strengthen the draft without changing its inten-
!AMESA.VOHS tions. These are contained in the attached appendix.
Chairman&President
Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan Inc
Sin r y,
•EX OFFICIO
ANGELO I.SIRACUSA
President
Bay Area Council
to Siracusa
■Tne Bay Area Council, es ident
estAished in 1945,
is a business-sponsored
organization dedicated enclosure
to analysis and action on
regional issues.Its pro-
tram currently focuses C: Paul Moffatt, Mayor
on economicValerie Barnes, Chair, Planning Commission
strategic growth and land
use issues,housing,
transportation,and
employment trainingAtt2Chnelt
•
3 ,
•
•
Appendix: Suggested Amendments to the East Dublin General Plan
Amendment Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives.
A. Housing supply and affordability
1) Amend guiding policy X.A.2. (p.27) as follows:
Include in the East Dublin housing program a percentage of
multi-family units in reasonable relationship to the city's
housing need for people of all income levels.
The change makes this guiding policy compatible with the guiding
policy to "plan for a mix and density of housing types that
protects the availability of East Dublin housing for Dublin
workers" (IX.A.3). Setting a 25% limit on multi-family housing
is premature until a study of the projected incomes and housing
needs of future Dublin workers has been completed. Housing must
also be provided for Dublin's share of elderly, disabled, and
other non-working residents.
2) Replace guiding policy X.A.3. (p.27) with:
Plan for and encourage all possible means of creating low- and
moderate-income housing, including use of federal, state and
local programs; cooperation with for-profit and non-profit
developers; and use of incentives such as density bonuses.
Provision of affordable housing is a difficult task under
current conditions and requires use of all possible resources.
3) Add to guiding policy II.B.1 (p.7)
Provide opportunities for Dublin residents and those who work
in Dublin to live conveniently close to work.
This reinforces the draft's concern for jobs-housing balance.
4) Add to guiding policy II.B.2 (p.7)
Locate high density residential land uses near interchanges
and close to and within business parks in the flatter portions
of East Dublin.
This strengthens mixed-use as a way to reduce auto usage.
5) Add implementing policy II.B.4.2 (p.7)
Adopt appropriate design standards to ensure compatibility
between multi-family, attached and detached homes within the
same neighborhood.
This ensures that housing types are not unnecessarily segregated
from each other.
•
•
•
•
B. Sub-regional cooperation
1) Add to guiding policy IX.A.2 (p.26)
Should a higher (housing to jobs) ratio be desireable to
assist achievement of a balance in adjacent cities, consider
entering into revenue-sharing agreements with those jurisdic-
tions or find other ways to share costs.
This is an important but as yet unexplored form of sub-regional
cooperation, so flexibility is needed. Alternatives might
include assistance in providing infrastructure needed in the
sub-region or planning area.
C. Coordination of land use and infrastructure investment.
1) Add guiding policy VII.A.4 (p.23) on public facilities.
Minimize per unit costs of public facilities through
location and density of residential development.
This will support policy X.A.4. (p.27) to minimize site develop-
ment costs as a apercentage of total cost in order to maintain
affordability.
2) Add to guiding policy V.A.2 (p.14) on circulation.
Within the East Dublin GPA area, locate land uses to
minimize vehicular travel and ensure adequate densities
to support transit.
This will support objective XI.A (p.28) on opportunities to
minimize living costs, particularly with regard to guiding
policy XI.A.1, encouraging development convenient to BART.
D. Homeowners associations
1) Add implementing policy III.A.2.4
When homeowners' associations maintain public facilities the
city will ensure that appropriate management training is pro-
vided to the homeowners association and is available on an
ongoing basis.
Volunteer homeowner boards of directors often have difficulty
dealing with their management responsibilities. See the Common
Interest Homeowners' Associations Management Study, California
Department of Real Estate, 1987
, ��, .•
....� .� {f s it ' r ..r ,r
a f 3 r �
ALAMEDA
COLUSA MARIN Northwest Information Center
California CONTRA COSTA MENDOCINO SAN MATEO Department of Anthropology
DEL NORTE MONTEREY SANTA CLARA
Archaeological HUMBOLDT NAPA SANTA CRUZ Sonoma State University
LAKE SAN BENITO SOLANO Rohnert Park, California 94928
Inventory SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA (707)664-2494
YOLO
27 January 1989 File No: 89—AL-1E
Rod Barger
Development Services
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
re: East Dublin General Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Barger,
This office concurs with the Cultural Resources section goal and
objectives to preserve Dublin's historic structures and cultural resources,
and to identify and protect areas with special archaeological and historic
resources. We also concur with the Implementing Policies to require studies
and follow the recommendations of the studies to rehabilitate or preservation
archaeological structures and sites.
The Cultural Resources section, however, refers only to known cultural
resources. There is the liklihood that the project area contains prehistoric
and historic archaeological sites and historic structures which have not yet
been identified, but are also worthy of protection. It is recommended that a
process be established to identify known and currently unidentified cultural
resources in the planning process.
If you would like information on establishing such a process, please
contact this office. Thank you for this opportunity to comment and do not
hesitate to give us a call if you have any questions or if we can be of
assistance.
Sincerely,
(131/V
' )11-Ajle
Christian Gerike
Assistant Coordinator
R :, E ; VED
JAN 301'] 9
iBti' W NN1NO
' s.t ..._ ___
'' %(r' Y t t ti• J j 43^1r n: • Y
• Y r t ._ i 5 ka;$,° ! S44: ) >% •
}
iz �yrr • t ff� y.7 ! _ 4 ''� r "f
3- ,.✓�.r ,w M,r ft; "i 'z€3 •3 .-,..f r xt�, •k.' �•"`t-1
••
COMMENTS ON EAST DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENT STUDY
January 31, 1989
CCE1V. 'ED
►
Ed Diemer rA%31 1969
11528 Betlen Drive
Dublin DUNINPUNNING
I am a member of the Pilots to Protect the Livermore Airport.
This committee represents the members of four pilot groups:
Livermore Valley Airmen's Association
Flying Particles, Inc.
Experimental Aircraft Association, Chapter 663
EAA Antique/Classic Division, Livermore Chapter
The approximately 370 pilot members and associates of these
four organizations are residents of the valley and use the
Livermore Airport. We hope that this opportunity for land use
planning is taken advantage of to provide for the valley asset
of the Livermore Airport in the East Dublin General Plan. We
hope that the mistakes that other cities in California have
made about their airports can be avoided by Dublin's proper
planning at this stage.
The airport, although operated by the City of Livermore, is
clearly a valuable asset to the City of Dublin. Dublin,
Pleasanton, and Livermore each benefit from the airport
individually just as each benefits from I580. This asset
provides both business and recreational use. The airport and
I580/I680 complement each other as transportation assets to
attract clean, high-tech businesses to locate in the East
Dublin plan area. As San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose
airports and the Interstate highways become more saturated in
the future, the Livermore Airport is more likely to have
scheduled regional air transport available. This is likely in
the same time frame as the build out of East Dublin.
Recreation interest in the airport will continue as the
airport is outside of the congested Bay Area but still a
gateway to the San Joaquin Valley and points north and south.
I am a Dublin resident who has made use of the Livermore
Airport for both business and recreation purposes.
Our concern is primarily the use of the strip of land along
I580 at the east end of the City of Dublin. We feel that
light industrial , research, and assembly would be the most
Attathnn1 _
•
•
i
•
appropriate designated uses for this area. Residential use
should be avoided near the freeway in this area to protect
future residents from possible noise and safety hazards.
There is much east/west air traffic along the I580 corridor
through the valley. The freeway is a readily identifiable
landmark even when there is haze or all of the valley is
brown. Both conditions are -common. Some of the air traffic
is to/from the Livermore Airport; some of it overflies the
valley to/from the Hayward and Oakland Airports. If high
density uses, either commercial or residential, are encouraged
very close to I580, the air traffic is pushed into a narrower
area, reducing safety.
Some of those living in a residential area of another city
adjacent to the LiveLulore Airport have been very vocal about
the airport. Among other things, they have been pushing to
require aircraft taking off to the west at Livermore (Runway
25) to turn right 45 degrees after takeoff to avoid their
community. If this were to be implemented, aircraft would be
headed right into the S.E. corner of Dublin after takeoff.
The implemented land use of each community will definitely
affect the air traffic patterns in the valley and the safety
of both those in the air and on the ground. The effect of
land use on the air traffic obviously decreases as distance
from the airport increases.
Some of the items under consideration in the general plan
study have potential for complementary use with the airport:
Open space presently exists on the south side of I580 due to
the airport and golf course. This could be picked up on the
north side of I580 to provide a green belt or buffer that
would help to maintain city identities in the valley. This
would also provide safety and noise benefits. Careful
preservation of the character of the foothills immediately
north of I580 near the airport will provide a natural
separation between Dublin and Livermore. Park-and-Ride
services also could potentially be implemented in the area
close to the S.E. corner of Dublin. This would complement
connection of Dublin Blvd. through to Airway Blvd. for access
to a BART station or to the airport which may be important for
regional transportation by then.
We strongly feel that the impact of the proposed land use on
the Livermore Airport, and the impact of the Livermore Airport
on the proposed land uses, must be addressed in the East
Dublin General Plan Ammendment Study. The airport is also a
transportation issue which will affect Dublin and should have
a position in Dublin's planning policy.
.."..
•
•
•
•
•
�/r ter' _ _ ^, i
. pARc
PRESERVE AREA _ , l • ; \, ' ;` r ,`� ,, g'y
RIDGELANDS COMMIT"I EE
1262MadisonAve. Mr. Rot? Barger - Senior Planner
Livermore, CA94550 Dublin City Planning Department
6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D
Dublin, CA 94568
Board of Directors
Presidents
Margaret Tracy e� QQ January 30 , 1989
447Livermor-0115e ,t1N al iJaa
Vice-Pres. & DUBLIN MANNING
Secretary,
Marjorie La Bar RE : Draft Goals , Policies and Objectives of the East Dublin
Dublin
829-6096 General Plan Amendment Study
Treasurer,
Susan Coburn-
Yalom Dear Mr. Barger:
Livermore
447-0270
David Eller Any discussion of policy concerning East Dublin is
Livermore premature until a detailed Environmental Impact Report for
447-5501 the planning area is released. It is extremely difficult
Stuart Guedon to comment on this policy document without an EIR to place
Fremon657-61t thosepolicies in a proper planningcontext.
657-61z5 P P
Harvey Scudder
Certain basicquestions must be answered before any
828-4995 policy is made for the area . No decision has been made by
Bob Walker LAFCO as the boundary of the Dublin Sphere of Influence.
San Francisco Serious issues have been raised as to what portion of the
626-1386
area might be better served by inclusion in the Livermore
Sphere of Influence or should remain under the jurisdiction
of Alameda County. Until a decision is reached by LAFCO,
the final size of the planning area cannot be determined.
Limitations will be placed on the amount and type of
development by the availability of water and sewage
capacity. Any development in the proposed planning area
must "pay its ' way" for the extension of infrastructure and
services . A complete fiscal analysis should be done as
part of the amedndment process . The document expresses
admirable goals providing a mix of housing types reflecting
the income levels provided by local jobs . Until the EIR is
released, discussion on this issue will be impossible as
the actual acreage available in relatively flat terrain in
less environmentally sensitive areas is unknown. The
document also makes an important cautionary statement as to
ability of the local real estate market: to absorb
commercial and light industrial sites beyond those already
planned for construction in the next decade. It should be
noted that at least one local jurisdiction has re-zoned
land from commercial/industrial use to housing uses.
���` 7
PIF
Planning for the future of Dublin cannot occur in in a
vacuum. Dublin shares air quality, freeway capacity, and water
availability with other jurisdictions in the region. The
cumulative impacts of the buildout of current general plans for
the entire Tri-Valley area must be carefully considered be
before expansion is planned. The suggestion that Tassajara Road
could serve as a major traffic arterial is questionable as this
narrow country road was not designed for an urban traffic
burden. The statement discouraging the placement of package
sewage plants in the proposed planning area is to be commended
due to the high dissolved solids count in local ground water.
Many very good open space policies were put forth in the in
the draft policy document. Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee
is particularly concerned with the preservation of public and
private open space and quality wildlife habitat. In order to
support a diverse population of wildlife, many types of habitat
must be preserved. Small surrounded pockets or island habitats
are to be avoided. A detailed EIR is required to pinpoint those
portions of the proposed area which should be excluded from
development. The concept of retaining streams in most natural
state possible and the conservation of wetland areas is vital to
preservation of wild life habitat. Open space designations for
these areas may provide a rare and unique wildlife viewing
experience for Dublin residents. The diversity of landscape and
habitats in the proposed planning area would make many sites
ideal as a regional open space resource.
The City of Dublin should consider the concept of an urban
limit line and a transition zone to avoid placing premature
development pressure on remaining grazing land. The intrusion
of people and pets can have tragic consequences for livestock as
demonstrated by the sheep killed recently by roving dogs in the
Livermore area. Rural vandalism has also been an increasing
problem for ranchers in Alameda County. It is also important to
plan from the earliest possible date for trail corridors and
recreational open space to avoid the problems of access to
public land which have occurred in other jurisdictions which
developed in a piecemeal fashion. The designation of a
greenbelt on both the north and east boundaries of proposed
planning area would greatly improve the viability of remaining
ranches provided the the designation was legally enforceable.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. We
look forward the release of the EIR and wish to comment on all
stages of the development of the General Plan Amendment Study.
Please send all notices to 11707 Juarez Lane - Dublin, CA 94568 .
Sincerely, ' •
Marjorie R. LaBar
President - Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee
TED C. FAIRFIELD
Consulting Ciuil Engineer
January 30, 1989 ►_• " i U
(JAN 311989
Mr. Rod Barger
Senior Planner DUBUN PLANNING
CITY OF DUBLIN
P .O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Rod:
This constitutes our initial response to your request for comments on
WRT' s Draft Goals, Policies and Objectives for the eastern Dublin planning
area. Our response is broken into two cements; first, some overview
statements of concerns and, secondly, specific comments on language in the
draft document.
OVERVIEW
1 . We are concerned that the goals, etc. , have been presented to us
absent any explanatory graphic exhibits, such as preliminary land plans.
We find it difficult, if not impossible, to react intelligently and to
develop confidence in the planning effort, when such things as "south
facing slopes" are not graphically defined but appear to be destined for
little or no development.
2 . We remind you that, upon adoption of general and specific plans, the
underlying policy statements have the force of law. We are of the
opinion, in order to facilitate the implementation of the plans without
future, inordinate numbers of general plan amendments and conflicts as to
the authority of the governing body to "interpret" the statements, etc. ,
that statements of absoluteness should be kept to a minimum -- for the few
cases where zero flexibility in such interpretations is intended. By
this, we encourage the use of words or phrases such as "should," or "if
reasonably possible," or "should strive for," or "minimize" or "maximize" ;
as opposed to "shall " or "must," or "will achieve" or "prohibit," etc.
We have too often seen the good mutual intentions of the City and the
developer, in the preparation and approval of a subsequent development
plan, stifled by statements that were just as well intended when inserted
into the General or Specific Plan, but which contained little or no
"breathing room" or were not subject to negotiation or interpretation. By
no means do we mean to suggest that a General Plan or Specific Plan should
be less than clear in its intentions . However, we do know that such
plans, by definition, are prepared with much less knowledge (physical ,
social , political , economic) than will exist when the subsequent
development plans are prepared, and we urge that the General and Specific
Plans should not attempt to be so precise and finite that they, instead,
become self-defeating.
P.O. Box 1148 • 5510 Sunol Blvd. • Pleasanton, Ca Atilt
el
♦,�y_��i;:� xiJi��! . { "'� y'f �.. tt✓. '� ,
-r;..• r .y.� r r { i srT
;� s�i;,r``r
ki K.14:4 ' +. ♦ a j -8w.ytf'Ti'r J.afA #
'v Hc�,h'€�a—�Yr a` ��:'��`'�..°L�i., .�'y r.�.. .. ° ''rr.,4o�'��u.Su.`i�-.r...,_....��<�f`�i�'y�` >L..._, .. .a.-:__..,,_, u..•- . ,
Page Two
January 30, 1989
3. We have strong reservations about the inclusion of "social
engineering" experiments in the plan (commerce and industry subsidies of
housing, etc. ) . Not only do we doubt that such efforts will succeed, we
believe that the economics will , in the end, necessarily be relegated to
the art of the possible, given the political , regulatory, financing asnd
market demand realities at the time of development.
Likewise, we fear that to include such unusual experiments in the
plan would create a red herring that could be debated and modified
"forever," thereby unduly interfering with, and possibly preventing the
timely adoption of the General and Specific Plans. Conversely, it is our
fear that, should such speculative measures be built into the adoption of
the Plan, future compliance would become problematical , if not impossible,
thereby dictating an otherwise unnecessary round of formal amendments.
4. In the long run, the concept that eastern Dublin development must
"pay for itself," in the literal sense, can lead only to problems;
confrontations , competition, separateness, jealousy, etc. In reality, the
people and businesses in eastern Dublin will be shopping in (and thereby
supporting with their purchase and tax dollars) downtown Dublin
facilities. Likewise, the residents will be attending (hopefully) Dublin
schools and thereby generating ADA funds and residential development fees
for those schools. Conversely, it seems that eastern Dublin development
is being expected to provide major recreational and other community
facilities that will certainly be used by residents of existing Dublin.
While we harbor no naive presumptions that existing Dublin will provide
heavy infrastructure subsidies for the development of eastern Dublin, we
do suggest that the sooner that the bookkeeping/fiscal line between the
two areas becomes a blur, the better it will be for all concerned. If
this is not to be the case, then eastern Dublin should more properly be
developed as a free-standing "city," with its own separate tax base„
downtown area and other facilities necessary to make it independently
viable.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
We offer the following suggestions concerning some of the statements in
the Draft Goals. In each case, the subject of our comment is stated in
bold type prior to our comment.
1 . GOAL:
I. Provide for attractive, high quality development in East Dublin
which extends the existing community of Dublin and is compatible with the
existing natural and scenic resources.
We have no quarrel with what we presume to be the intention of this
statement. However, we suggest that words be added to acknowledge that
"high quality" does not necessarily dictate "expensive" or "luxury"
developments. Likewise, we are concerned with the infinite number of
interpretations that could be applied by different persons to the word
"compatible. " If that word is meant to be significantly limiting to the
types of development, we suggest that it needs to be expanded upon. If
that isn' t the intent, perhaps the phrase should be stricken and a period
should be placed after "Dublin."
•
•
Page Three
January 30, 1989
2 . Guiding Policy:
1 . Support and plan for the extension of Dublin Boulevard as the
primary east-west link.
This should be amended to acknowledge the ultimate need for at least
one other east/west link, thereby creating a complete circular loop
between Tassajara and Doolan Roads.
3. The GPA should provide for major recreational uses of a City-wide
scale which, by their size, cannot feasibly be sited within the existing
community.
We have some concerns with the potential significance of this
statement; as to the size, scope and plurality of the facilities, as well
as to the meaning of the word "provide."
4. Objective:
B. Protect the natural open beauty of the hills including
significant knolls, hillsides, and steep slope areas which add to civic
identity, aesthetic appreciation, and economic viability.
We question the need for two words in this statement -- "natural " and
"open." While quite often they will be open and natural , quite often they
should not or could not hope to remain entirely so.
We also would suggest substitution of the word "major" for
"significant," lest this section later be deemed to dictate preserving 80%
of the planning area in natural open space.
5. Guiding Policy:
1 . Site grading, development, and means of access shall not
disfigure the ridgelands which are within the viewshed of travellers along
scenic routes, including I-580 and future Dublin Boulevard. (Refer to
open space objectives C and D.)
We think we understand and are in general agreement with this
statement, but we offer several ccmments:
a. The words "shall not" imply "zero," even though all parties
might later agree that the best answer from all perspectives is to allow
what some might call disfigurement.
b. It is very important that "the ridgelands" be defined
immediately, so we can understand and react to what is really meant by the
statement. If this is meant to apply only to the true, major ridgeline;
i .e. , the background "skyline," then there should be little objection. On
the other hand, if it could be interpreted to relate to each and every
hill and/or lesser ridgeline, then we would have strong objection and
would argue that such a statement would be untenable.
6. Implementing Policies:
1 .1 Discourage any form of development, including grading, on steep
slope areas which have a 30% slope gradient or higher.
•
•
Page Four
January 30, 1989
We like the word "discourage," as opposed to prohibit. In addition,
we suggest inserting either "major" or "very large," between the words
"on" and "steep." Quite often, it will be evident that smaller pockets of
30% slope can and should (for geotechnical , land planning, circulation or
a variety of other reasons) be developed-- even if only to build a street
through such an area.
7. 1 .2 Discourage development or grading on the southfacing slopes of
the first series of foothills north of I-580, regardless of degree of
slopes.
This is another area in which we suffer from the lack of definition
of potentially affected area. It is essential that such a statement be
limnited to very specific areas, or controversy will reigh forever:
Likewise, in all such cases where land is to be "taken" for such scenic
elements, parallel provisions for density transfer should be adopted.
Also, as written, this section would apply to virtually flat land:
Why?
8. 1 .3 Promote development and associated grading to occur on flatter
portions of the site adjacent to I-580 and within areas suitable for
development with corrective grading which do not impact the visual or
environmental resources of the extended planning area.
We suggest modifying this statement to read, " . . . .suitable for
development with corrective grading that does not substantially and
negatively impact the visual or. . . ."
9. 1 .3.1 (alternate policy) Allow urban developjment to occur within
areas shown on the Land Use diagram, which will likely involve less
grading. Grading to be governed by design guidelines which will require
contour grading to generally reflect existing, natural topographical
features.
Be aware that we have had less than successful results from "contour
grading." We suggest that smoothing or rounding the major transitions in
steep slopes should be the goal , instead.
10. 1 .4 Provide a greenbelt/buffer between the East Dublin area and
surrounding communities to preserve community identity and provide visual
relief from development. (See Open Space Objective C.)
We seriously question the wisdom, purpose, and need of a greenbelt
buffer between eastern Dublin and surrounding communities. First of all ,
there will be very substantial greenbelt land within the planning area, as
a result of other policies (30% slope limits, etc. ) . Many of these open
areas will , in fact, be around the periphery of the planning area. This
proposed policy, would be onerously additive and unnecessary and, we
believe, a passe planning concept.
r -
•
•
•
aw.21111 " ••••.....m«.c..e...w.:s.od.:+.. =..,,.. ...... .>-. •2.41 ••••••...".ra.w..w ktx.�. x.1�,�eit•A.F..wiF tMr..,s..-..i.:..."- r::..-µ" ._..".i
Page Five
January 30, 1989
11 . The intent of this policy section is to encourage grading and
development in the flatter portions of the area and in the back canyons
which cannot be viewed from other developed areas or the freeway. By
implementing this objective, development, scenice resources, and open
space preservation can all be accommodated in the study area. Alternative
1 .3.1 recommends a more extensive grading program along with design
guidelines to minimize visual impacts of mass grading.
We suggest the following amended version of this statement.
"The intent of this policy section is to encourage grading and
development to be focused on the relatively less steep portions of the
planning area, and also in those steeper areas (generally not in excess of
30%o slope) which are not readily viewed from scenic routes and I-580."
As initially written, an ardent .anti-development spokesman could
argue that the statement would bar development in as much as half of the
planning area.
12. One common complaint associated with suburban development is that
local communities lose their individual identity as unique areas. The
hillsides of East Dublin afford an opportunity to establish an identity
for the new community and define an eastern and northern boundary for
Dublin. The greenbelt area should be planned in conjunction with the
natural terrain, the desires of landowners, and the viability of
agriculture. The GPA should address the question of priorities and
strategies for implementing a greenbelt. Given limited resources, should
the greenbelt be located on the northern and eastern periphery of the
study area, or just the northern boundary?
While we don' t dispute much of the underlying logic in this
statement, we do differ with at least two aspects of it:
a. Agricultural uses, except for minimal grazing by cattle, soon
become anathema to the users and maintainers of open space/greenbelt
areas . In addition to the readily apparent conflicts, agricultural uses
can and usually do create drainage, erosion, insect, pest and other kinds
of conflicts that the residents soon demand to be rid of.
b. As stated previously, the basic precepts of the plan and the
topography of the planning area will create much permanent open
space/greenbelt land. The addition of another purposefully imposed, fixed
greenbelt, would be overkill , whether along the northerly or easterly
boundary. Also, such a greenbelt would almost certainly interfere with
the logical route of some of the essential circulation elements.
13. Guiding Policy:
2. Design public and private projects to minimize damage to trees,
riparian vegetation, and other visual , natural landmarks.
We suggest inserting the word "significant" between "other" and
"visual ."
•
•
'
•
Page Six
January 30, 1989
14 . Implementing Policies:
a. Restore natural contours after grading and other land
disturbances to conserve the scenic beauty of the planning area.
(Reference objective B, guiding policy 1 .)
See comment 49, above.
15. All creeks, and their associated riparian vegetation and major tree
areas should be protected in their natural state to the fullest extent
possible as they are a dominant visual feature of East Dublin and of the
high value to woldlife and plant species.
a. Again, it is imperative that this statement be backed up by
graphics, before it can be reacted to intelligently. Is it meant to be
applied only to Tassajara Creek? Also to Cottonwood Creek? To the full
length of those creeks? To other "creeks ," too? (Are there any other
creeks?)
b. We strongly suggest that the word "possible" be replaced with
"reasonable."
c. This statement, as written, ignores the presence of federally
and locally mandated criteria for drainage/flood control improvements.
d. This statement, as written, ignores the fact that Tassajara
Creek is badly eroded, several times larger than needed for design flows,
fraught with unstable and liability ridden sections, and incapable of
being left it its natural condition. That creek cannot be preserved in
its natural state (which is forever changing) without incurring
substantial land and property damage (and potential personal injury) due
to future hydraulic instabilities.
16. 2.3 Provide special design treatment for the major drainage courses
in the East Dublin area, to encourage natural drainage via naturalswales
rather than channelization in concrete structures, so long as minimum
public safety standards are maintained.
We know of only Tassajara and Cottonwood Creeks. Are there more, in
the views of the authors of the statement? Rather than merely referring
to "major drainage courses," why not name the creeks that are to be
affected?
17 . It is important to encourage landowners to jointly develop properties
in order to achieve the objectives of the General Plan Amendment.
We believe that the Specific Planning process will resolve virtually
all "differences" that might otherwise arise from independent planning
efforts. Likewise, the land holdings are typically large enough to render
"joint development" illogical and unnecessary.
18. Would the City of Dublin consider undertaking formal design review,
either by staff or appointed body, of all major projects in the East
Dublin area in order to oversee compliance with urban design policies as
part of the project approval process?
•
•
Page Seven
January 30, 1989
Isn ' t the current general plan, specific plan, PUD, tentative map,
final map process already more than adequate to accomplish the goals? :
19. As the East Dublin Study progresses and more is learned about the
physical characteristics of the site, more definitive land use objectives
will be identified. This will include an optimum mix of residential ,
commercial , employment and open space/recreation uses intended to minimize
off site trips.
As written, we would interpret this as suggesting that most necessary
shopping facilities will be provided in eastern Dublin, thereby minimizing
the need for eastern Dublin residents to shop in downtown Dublin. Is this
the C i ty' s goal ?
20. 2. Locate high density residential land uses near interchanges and
business parks in the flatter portions of East Dublin.
Shouldn' t high density also be encouraged near community facilities
such as parks, neighborhood shopping centers, etc. , which will not all be
located near business parks and interchanges:?
21 . 4. Avoid abrupt transitions between single-family development and
high-intensity development on adjoining sites.
We suggest replacing the word "Avoid" with "Attempt to minimize the
number of."
22. 1 . Site high-intensity office and light industrial near freeway
interchanges and at arterial intersections, especially Dublin Boulevard.
f.l (alternative) Consider permitting high-tech research &
development facilities within the northerly portion of the site.
We believe that several unique opportunities exist for locating such
facilities on other than the flattest areas of the planning area. We
would be glad to point out some of these potential sites to you.
23. 4. Encourage high density mixed-use projects in the flatter
portions of the site adjacent to circulation nodes to reduce auto traffic,
efficiently spread development costs, use developable land efficiently,
and preserve open space and sensitive lands.
We suggest inserting the phrase, "or clustered in some of the steeper
areas" in between the words "site" and "adjacent."
24 . Property owners should be encouraged to work together in order to
achieve the objectives of an integrated open space plan for the PGA area
rather than the appearance of an incremental accumulation from separate
subdivisions.
Again, we feel that this is the role and, hopefully, will he th?
outcome of the Specific Plan .
25. 1 . Where feasible, promote agricultural and grazing uses on lands
reserved for permanent open space.
2. Refer to Open Space Guiding Policy B.1 .
•
•
Y • •
1%7 / }
Y #... ,i e
+�- 'rt/ `�'w'1fi , .;8'wn'a i'...u,.,.,..'r,.b...°�'so.fa'Y'_,`._s�m+•a r x.a, ...�. �.+s .,,_...-... �._. .., .,.... ,... ..�._:n,.,., �re.�..: ,o. , .. ...
Page Eight
January 30, 1989
See our comment #12.
26. New development in East Dublin will not be a fiscal burden to the
City of Dublin, either on a total project basis or, to the fullest extent
feasible, in any phase of development.
This, as written, is a very absolute statement ( "will not" ) and,
while its premise is understandable, we request that it—EF modified to
reflect the observations stated in our "Overview" comment #4.
27. Avoid or minimize the need for freeway widening and maintain Level of
Service D at current and future freeway and arterial roadway interchanges.
The Route Concept report published by Caltrans a few years back calls
for I-580 to be ten lanes wide in the future, not including any required
auxiliary lanes. All studies have verified the need for at least this
many lanes . Future widening should not be discouraged; on the contrary,
local development along the freeway should be planned to accommodate the
widening needed for two additional lanes plus some widening to fit BART in
the median.
28. 1 .4 Phase the plan to ensure early development of employment uses
as well as residential and commercial/service uses to establish positive
jobs/housing balance commuting patterns.
In our experience, this is just plain "impossible" to accomplish to
any real degree. We hope that the statement will be softened to reflect
the inherent inabilities to cause the new facilities to be constructed in
any idealistic smooth supply curve.
29. Require the early development of employment-generating uses together
with housing.
Same comment as #27 . How about changing "Require" to "Encourage,
through incentives." Elsewhere, the goals indicate that housing is needed
in the near term. This goal #3 suggests that eastern Dublin should be a
self-contained community with its own jobs/housing balance.
30. 2.1 Identify and evaluate potential overpasss locations, separate
from I-580 interchanges, to connect the PGA area to existing and potential
employment center south of I-580.
No such overpass would fit east of the Santa Rita Road area due to
existing development in Pleasanton.
31 . 2.2 Site business parks in locations that allow convenience transit
systems to serve employees.
This seems backwards. Business parks should be designed to
accommodate transit, rather than locate them with respect to transit.
32 . Follow recommendations of current studies concerning Dougherty,
Tassajara, Arnold, and Collier Canyon Roads.
'.Y7� f elf/r yx;2 ay▪ >• �1 v''�.Sti.t'+ s+y. ,6 {�"' _ f,�, r�:�i .� s.,U f .- ..
t s E. "-4 un� "d'.�.^..' •
• f r fYY i+ •;�i
.�. • .Ft Sq JY a � _ 'a3
rs 4. J 'ty rp
_ wn*f,w i
• .I
%ft
1 Y r
•
Page Nine
January 30, 1989
Do such studies exist? By whom? To be adopted by whom? Wouldn' t it
be buying a pig-in-a-poke to commit to such studies without knowing their
recommendations?
33. 1 .1d Discourage connections to Contra Costa County by sizing and
designing roads to limit through traffic. Implications for this policy
would be to protect local development in Dublin, perhaps at the expense of
making regional traffic worse.
The Dougherty Valley will have housing; east Dublin will have jobs
and housing. It just doesn' t make sense to plan to have the link between
them to be congested. With the potential to have a well-planned east
Dublin, this concept is inappropriate when considering both local and
regional traffic issues.
34. 2.1 Design and construct Dublin Boulevard Extension as the major
east/west arterial .
This is highly desirable, but the language does not go far enough.
In addition to "carefully designing" intersections, the City should
establish policies which preserve safety and capacity of the arterial by
limiting driveways and median openings, not designing the street merely to
"maximize the use and value of frontage property." Where driveways are
required, the provisions of auxiliary travel lanes can preserve the
capacity of the through lanes.
35. Dublin Boulevard must be located and designed so as to maximize the
use and value of frontage property.
Yes, but not at the expense of sacrificing traffic flow, which must
be the primary "duty" of Dublin Boulevard.
36. 3. Prevent misuse of neighborhood collector streets by through
traffic by the use of route signs and a designated route for truck
traffic.
Wrong: Signing rarely works. The solution lies in designing the
street patterns so that non-arterial streets are not attractive to through
traffic. This is briefly mentioned in the Implementing Policy as the last
option. The design aspect should be given more emphassis.
37 . GOAL:
VII. To conserve and manage natural resources and open space areaas
for the preservation and production of resources, the promotion of outdoor
recreation, the protection of public health and safety, the maintenance of
visual quality, and the separation of communities.
What "resources" are implied to be available for production?
38. Guiding Policies:
1 . Maintain steep slopes in open space areas as agricultural and
grazing uses, wherever feasible.
See our previous comments on this problem.
a
•
's `Ev1l tM �S � ' it r '"k. ,,. � � ,,-: - •
s• �
)55
'�w 'b r -r� s; ,t 't - r _✓ '3S- kwr/rP v+..y w:� L } r - •,."7- "fi k C�+`i,�gti.7. _
fk�Yr 7" ; •,. t' r : - G� *i4•5''t�7&Ff 1 itY
,p y',t,,,`r�� ?- a .i r :r • � a`;'f " irr� , L ,a
r
• 1� +. y
c,,, ."7:4 Srn: ¢s.., w 1 �t.f.- "'�- / 4-. i j Ri.l ,tt—;=,•:
r'k, �:7 5� : ; tr",�:,y �' 6 r4+pyrY:1/„g'Zt ,a I'
'f"4, Y yt 7+`•,FY+�^E S 7= r d.3. f 41. - A A�i� 4,11gZ 3W i
Page Ten
January 30, 1989
39. 2.1 Exempt properties remaining in active agricultural use from any
local assessment district or improvement fees implemented in the area,
until such time as development approvals are received.
Most property owners would love this, but where would the necessary
infrastructure dollars come from? This would likely be contrary to
special assessment district and Mello-Roos criteria.
40. Preserving viable agricultural land is a guiding policy within the
City of Dublin's existing General Plan which should be examined in light
of the East Dublin GPA.
Agreed: In reality, agricultural uses will atrophy as urbanization
expands over the years.
41 . Objective:
C. Provide a greenbelt buffer area between Contra Costa County and
Alameda County, as well as between Dublin and Livermore.
As stated above, we feel strongly that adequate, large greenbelts
will evolve in the planning process, without the extra requirement of a
formal greenbelt around the periphery of the area. The latter concept
implies major questions of ownership, acquisition costs, maintenance
costs, liability, ad infinitum.
42. Guiding Policies:
1 . Maintain major ridgelines and hillsides as the key component of
the planning area's visual open space system.
Which ones do you have in mind? This is another absolute statement
that should be softened so as to allow its essential realization by mutual
accommodation.
43. 3.1 Locate neighborhood parks as key elements in neighborhood
structures.
3.2 Site a minimum of one cormunity park per residential village
intended primarily for use as athletic playing fields and courts.
What constitutes a neighborhood park? What constitutes a community
park? Must they be "active"? Must they be flat?
44. 3.3 Provide one City-wide sports/recreation facility in East Dublin
which can be used for community events as well as sports.
Given the premise that eastern Dublin must not be subsized by
existing Dublin, does this mean that eastern Dublin must subsidize
existing Dublin? How large a facility is contemplated? A sports park? A
theatre? A major sports stadium? A golf course?
45. Serious questions need to be resolved regarding the extension of
basic services to the planning area, the primary concern being local
schools. East Dublin is presently within the Livermore School District,
although many of the property owners in the study area have expressed a
preference to be served by the Dublin School District.
•
•
Page Eleven
January 30, 1989
We agree wholeheartedly, and are ready to provide time and expertise
towards the resolution of this issue.
46. There will likely be a need for a City multi-purpose center in East
Dublin, equivalent in size and function to the Shannon Center. Sufficient
land must be reserved for this use.
Again, how big? To be paid for by whom? What kinds of
"multi-purposes" are anticipated?
47. A. Establish a development program that balances on-site jobs and
housing.
Within the planning area, city or region? How can such a burden be
imposed on one area?
48. Consider imposing linkage fees on new employment-generating uses to
assist in meeting housing affordability objectives.
A futile exercise in confrontational social engineering.
49. 1 . Direct at least half of the East Dublin units to existing
Dublin residents or future local workers.
We know of no workable way to accomplish this. We also doubt the
constitutionality of such a criteria.
50. Implementing Policies:
5.1 Encourage voluntary participation by future employers in the
underwriting of certain residential development costs or consider
mandating linkage fees to help assure availability of new housing to local
workers.
This should be retitled as "how to chase away future employers from
eastern Dublin" :
51 . Exacerbating the problem in East Dublin is the fact that site
development costs for traditional single-family subdivisions, given the
topographic and soil conditions of much of the GPA area, will likely be
unusually high. (See Goal III . )
We feel obliged to stress that the cost of extending and creating
infrastructure (streets, sewers, water systems , municipal facilities,
green belts, etc. , will far (several orders of magnitude) outweigh the
costs of dealing with topographic and soil conditions.
52. Emphasis on smaller and multi-family units will have benefits to the
region in terms of jobs/housing balance, meeting special housing needs,
and enviromental protection. It must be noted, however, that while a
market for such development undoubtedly exists, it may not be the highest
and best use for which there is a market.
We admit to being unable to understand the purpose or implication of
the last sentence in this statement.
•
Page Twelve
January 30, 1989
53. Objective:
A. Maintain and enhance natural hydrologic systems including
permanent and intermittent streams, ponds, springs and seeps.
We again raise an objection to an "absolute." Must every
intermittent stream, pond, spring or seep be maintained and enhanced? If
so, why not merely color the whole planning area green: Surely this
statement must be selectively modified. (As a matter of fact,
geotechnical requirements will require the abolition of most ponds,
springs and seeps, except in selected open areas. ) The benefits of
improved drainage, increased stability and adequate access should not be
sacrificed to preserve unstable, poorly drained and potentially hazardous
land.
54. Guiding Policies:
1 . Encourage drainage improvements which will enhance the natural
appearance of streams and minimize man-made characteristics of flood
control and erosion projects.
Again, while we certainly don't oppose aesthetic beauty, neither do
we agree that "only natural = beautiful ." The primary purpose of the
major streams must be flood control and drainage -- in fact, that's why
"nature" put them there. We do agree, however, that the concept of
linear, concrete paved channels is anathema to the concepts expressed in
this document and to our own goals for the area, and that a "strong second
place" would be awarded to the preservation and creation of aesthetic
features along the waterways. As an example, Tassajara Creek must be
considered a hydrologic and soils problem in need of corrective
modification -- not an inviolable, naturally stable, hydrologic resource.
55. 1 .5 Require revegetation of all areas of ground disturbance
immediately after construction and before winter rains to reduce erosion.
This should be limited to areas that are deemed to be susceptible to
erosion.
56. Objective:
B. To preserve and enhance wetland areas.
Guiding Policies:
1 . Identify wetland areas of high environmental value and
implement a plan for their protection and maintenance.
Implementing policies. See objective A.
2. Preserve vernal pool areas.
3. Incorporate wetland areas into the open space plan.
4. Enhance wetland areas degraded by grazing by buffering,
fencing, and planting native species.
5. Encourage landowners to dedicate or set aside wetland
areas and consider the use of open space zoning for these areas.
•
•
dl
•
•
•
Page Thirteen
January 30, 1989
We are not aware of any significant areas other than Tassajara Creek
where this objective will clearly apply. Are we safe in that assumption?
57 . 6. Restrict the removal of native trees or large snags.
We would feel better if the word "Restrict" were changed to
"Discourage" or "Minimize. "
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this document, Rod. We sincerely
hope that our ability to provide input and to have a dialogue with the
City and WRT will continue and, in fact, increase as the planning effort
shifts into high gear. We also should express our concern with the
substantial delay involved in reaching the current stage, and we question
whether this lost time can be picked up in the remaining months of the
schedule. Finally, we have our own beliefs that the graphics of the
planning effort cannot lag behind the statements of policies and goals;
that to do one before the other is to ensure later conflicts and
revisions . In fact, this is the first planning effort I have ever
encountered where the first planning efforts did not consist of rough land
planning sketches -- from which the policies and more definitive land
plans both evolved.
In any event, thanks for your continuing good efforts. I suspect we will
be seeing a lot of each other in the coming months.
Very truly yours ,
TEDC. FAIRFIt,D
TCF:ca
cc: Jim Tong
Marty Inderbitzen
John Ferreri
Dee Wilson
-✓ .ham nt i r :,xYS` I r ) . q=) i ' .Y r/+` -'b x' .0-9 y TAB o-✓a " f -s
1 . 4 f•ssD'`41 j ah-" s� {</ f rry x * r` 7 .fi +�.o
''' 1; "' f ;▪'i sk.$v i ,ter - > sr•. e°)e.x+k 'M1 f /y4?�*• sSr-� ,.,•' •7' S Y"'` r �::•
rT� � 7 �r�� � x�rr�i 5 t,,,� �`. :�,fa�
A" x ."-42� - '� ',%'%1�J .i',�1 -- 9�4fl 1S 4��4}- :.. , t t,, r,*x ! Z Lf.„ y' 7 1 'tz"r -A. $ '. d 1 .'� �� �m� f f /.f YV fiT&a• � • '4..�'� ,,,�r Wr y�f f q1 n' J ~•'
Z. i„ .F I ��, :fq ''te r K `tt. f%!' N.r '.�'f•' ,{'r'�.3Y ; ,;rs-d am to ,:i015VA;`tr f.1, x•
t ,,j. 1 ;A-"!^''i s r,.'" ;hr rrt.. ��+L!:� r� r1' " � -_ �;.�p} .�4r.r Yv a�f � � �ry� t�:,,,?lr f N�' � d
.. , A 1 „r 4 :.7 "� ,r� ,v.r ..''.,i"rt , .* `=a.1 s :..?!',,; ri.,'Y^' - . :1� x;._:= f sC'i ;,.p y,_j ', +_".1:.14 q . ;;t' y"`,?,, ,
+,. :, q h IF Y,, t ,, , ,- .S rw, r 3 /.3 'YC.t`1fi,. .4, <-,., ✓`Ss` ie r. 4,'..,�`'
�Y r 'a:�qt—��W � / / �'s � L.h: �M. ', 9.�17 S Kf.1" �1r s dJ .- a �,
,. ' �` 1.S r y lee '' .•i < y ,S r tl', ✓ :r .341,' 4. , '+ } ? 7e
'- � Y F'ALrY +� 1 Ji 4 r IF"t1 t fr MS • f1s'xH $ '�i,r5y rt"r��f`�i1 2 ▪�fiyr.Ca r,4�✓T`�' gam ., �'� y-. ,
r jam ,44r1k .,,otm% r- tF• ,: tE s kv'� ,4 e t>11 l'q▪ . t.4r , i eft?. s ` .. '
•. ".t - r YY 1 ' - .. c 4, ,• 'f J -"
a f t+ dt x , 'x i,. k Zy w..r` A•p� -' ` r
... ..a._,.,r.� a_r.,.: 4� , - -: -XuY`rv - ea , f .'
i
:,�! ' 4. N aY k...- ,-ii- 0 .-a--P's pso - s,: -( Aa,'--rl /f'? * _ s .,u;F f Xt+ e,, 4e-.,. ti
- � b� rs i ' Y . � .4„;, 4
+ 55` �sli4s ? . • yv. 'y - d' ns?: i '415,::�,r+� t�- •_, ...s
f
��0. RES004,
�P
tU ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL r AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
G �
5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE i PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566 1 (415) 484-2600
NAGEN
January 30, 1989
Mr. Rod Barger, Senior Planner Q; '121 I V
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340 FEla 1190
Dublin, CA 94568
�`NNING
DUBLIN
Subject: 1/4/89 Memo on Preliminary Goals and Policies--
East Dublin General Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Barger:
With reference to subject memo, we offer the following comments for your
consideration:
1. Implementing Policies VIII.B.1.1 and 1.2 (page 24)--In addition
to the City staff coordinating with DSRSD staff on water system
planning, the DSRSD staff will need to coordinate future water
demands, peak rates and delivery locations with Zone 7 staff.
2. Implementing Policy VIII.B.1.5 (page 24)--Protection of water
quality of existing wells (i.e. , groundwater protection) requires
any site subjected to toxic spills to be cleaned up. Also, any
abandoned well must be properly destroyed in accordance with a
well destruction permit issued by Zone 7.
3. Implementing Policies VIII.B.3.2 and 3.3 (page 25)--Before
designing and constructing the stormwater drainage system, a
master plan for the storm drainage system must be developed.
This master plan should be consistant with Zone 7 and Caltrans
(I-580) facilities.
4. Implementing Policy XII.A.1.2 (page 30)--How broad should
corridors for natural appearing streams be? A 20—foot setback
from the top of bank is generally required for improved flood
control channels. But this setback requirement may not be
adequate for natural streams with unprotected banks. There may
be some guidance as to how broad the corridors for natural
streams should be in Implementing Policy XII.A.2.1 (page 30)
which states that a minimum buffer of 100 feet should be
maintained.
5. Implementing Policy XII.A.1.6 (page 30)--Zone 7 will assume
maintenance responsibilities of major flood control channels
which are part of our authorized projects provided that the
channels have been improved to Zone 7 standards, and th-
rights—of—way have been offered to and accepted by Zone 7. The
major channels in the East Dublin area include Tassajara Creek
(Line K) and the lower portions of Cottonwood Creek (Line L) and
Croak Creek (Line G-3).
AmnL.......1.„.
'= 1• ' g,dr+.of �y, 1 Y 'r •
-
r'yl. -;�gj�.+, 4r +t t}St f ,..•fi pkr .s a+ya ;:•, t'{i # _
it xZ Ydryyyf^ � ' '.
✓J it°., 7 t�'k"a � + tf>., y.p. Y 1. y
•
c i•'F'^t
t 'ys`r • ;t .,f" wr.3l'. < a`
f a, rF $40 'S, r�r Ys^'.!. r^ t 4k r �" �'� `ri� 4�i1 7> - •
+'t '' # #44ry , +�'i'u'v' wry F<ErnY
•
H * 7 ,p. �., ti s+gr4 g`<�
_<A tk...u.
Mr. Rod Barger, Senior Planner
January 30, 1989
Page 2
6. Implementing Policy XII.A.3.1 (page 30)--Zone 7-owned flood
control rights-of-way may be opened to the public for trail use
under a joint use license agreement between the Zone and the
appropriate recreation agency.
7. Guiding Policies XII.B.5 and XII.C.3 (page 31)--Agencies and
groups which would own and maintain "wetland areas" and "unique
habitat areas" should be identified.
8. Guiding Policies XII.C.5 and XII.C.6 (page 32)—It may be
desirable to restrict the use of rodenticides and herbicides and
to restrict the removal of native trees and large snags; however,
some use and some removal will be necessary to avoid compromising
public health and safety.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments.
Very truly yours,
Mun J. Mar
General Manager
By
Vincent Wong, Tanager
Environmental Resources Division
VW:bkm
•
•
—_c
•
i• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BOX 7310 d ✓?:
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 •
(415) 923-4444
December 15, 1988
ALA-580-PM-
SCH# 88092014
ALA580198
Rod Barger, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd.
P.O. Box 2340 R E
Dublin, • CA 94568 DEC E � .V FD
RE: Administrative Draft East Dublin Plan 9 i988
D
UBLIA,
Dear Mr. Barger : 14NNr
NG•
Thank you for including the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) in the review process for the
above-referenced Administrative Draft East Dublin Plan . Caltrans
has reviewed the plan and forwards the following specific and
general comments :
Page 4, Implementing Policies, Item C
The section on community image could be understood to suggest that
future development would be suitable adjacent to the I-580
corridor . Auxiliary lanes on both side of I-580 between the
I-580/I-680 interchange and the Hopyard Road interchange are
currently under construction. Widening of the Westbound to
Northbound connector ramp between I-580 and I-680 is scheduled to
begin construction in early 1989 .
The city should be aware that the I-580 corridor will eventually
become congested again as a result of the East Dublin plan and the
many other developments in the Tri Valley Area. When this
transpires, the route may need to be widened. The city should
protect adequate right of way to allow this widening . Right of
way protection for alternative parallel facilities should also be
considered. The City of Dublin should not permit types of
development near any transportation corridors which would be
incompatible with transportation by reason of noise, visual, or
other criteria . Should incompatible uses be allowed , it would be
the responsibility of the project proponent to mitigate these
impacts on their development i .e . soundwalls etc .
Attachment IO
•
•
•
ALA580198
Page Two
December 15 , 1988
Page 9 , Guiding Policy 4, "Encourage high density. . . " , Item A
It is very difficult for a proposed future project to
"demonstrate" reduced auto trips , however, the city should review
these projects very carefully to achieve it ' s goals . A
conditional use or provisional permit process may also be used to
ensure that the proposed traffic reductions are in fact realized .
This process would necessitate a monitoring program, which is now
required for all mitigation activities (AB3180 ) .
Page 10, Land Use Fiscal Implementing Policies, Item B
Infrastructure
When the traffic impacts of developments affect the State Highway
system significantly the developer will be expected to mitigate
those impacts as well as the impacts on local streets and roads .
The city might also consider setting standards for acceptable
levels of service which would be maintained throughout the
build-out process . These would certainly apply to traffic, but
might also include water , sewer , etc . The standard levels of
service A-F may present thresholds which seem arbitrary and
insufficiently detailed for small and moderately sized projects .
This is especially true when considering projects which may cause
fractional levels of service deterioration . The standard levels
also give rise to questions of "reserve capacity" , who owns it ,
how it is allocated , and what happens between threshold values .
A better approach might be to set a desired level of service in
percentage points I-100 (on which the A-F designations are based )
and then charge fees according to an estimated change in point
scale rating . An example might be a fee increment for each 1 % ,
2% , or 5% change in level of service created by project generated
traffic . This would also provide a basis for monitoring actual
changes in service levels for continuing traffic mitigation
measures .
• iz=
...�.,....�..Ys..,_.�c.✓. .*., ,<.a .r.y.._1. .:r. .... .,.f..,.. ._�. J s. . . ._..... . a.,..<.o ..,..z_ .o. >:::::.ri��;f...,.+ _.....ir..�.. ,.:w..s_ ... ._ _.• ,. _ .. .
ALA580198
Page Three
December 15, 1988
The fact that the Dublin area is rapidly developing would suggest
that the East Dublin Plan and other planned and future projects
will have substantial cumulative impacts . The projects should
participate in a development fee program and an implementation
plan for mitigation of those impacts . The city should explore
methods for mitigating cumulative traffic impacts such as
implementing Traffic Demand Management, Transportation System
Management , and Traffic Reduction Methods to accommodate these and
other future developments . The development and expansion of
public transit is strongly encouraged .
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on these projects .
We would also be willing to meet with you and you staff to discuss
traffic reduction strategies. Should you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact Don Steiger of my staff
at (415 ) 557-9298 .
Sincerely yours,
BURCH C. BACHTOLD
District Director
by
GARY . A AMS
District CEQA Coordinator
cc : Susan Pultz, MTC
Sally Germain , ABAG
Loreen McMahon, State Clearinghouse
•
•
•
• January 17 , 1989
C VE0
TO: Rob Barger JAN in1989
FROM: Phillip S. Molina DUBUNPLANN�Nr'
SUBJECT: East Dublin General Plan Amendment
•
After a quick review of the Draft Goals, Polices and Objectives
of the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Study, it is apparent
that the "financial" considerations did not play a heavy role in
the study. The lack of any estimates of potential revenues based
upon land mass or planned organization indicates that the
statement "greatest extent possible by resource within East
Dublin" (page 11 ) is just a nice sounding statement. Likewise the
lack of estimated costs of providing services which would include
any needed capital improvements tells me that little attention
has been spent at this point to determine approximate costs of
needed service for police, parks, recreation, administration,
etc. The only exception to this overview of the study is the
inclusion of a standard listing of common debt instruments for
capital improvements.
The statement "new development in East Dublin will not be a
fiscal burden to the City of Dublin" are words that are not
substantiated at this point by the study.
It may be that this study was prepared to show the advantage of
developing the East Side, and if so proven, detailed estimates
will follow. If that is the case I have no objections to the
study. If however , the study is intended to show the types of
development or the ratio of residential versus
industrial/commercial development I would expect estimates of
income and expense figures for City staff to review before
commenting in depth on the contents of the study.
•
otw
-- -.L.s...�
•
•
•
,;;1 r w'a ta-., •
) ''j`)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 23, 1988
FROM: Lieutenant Jim Rose, Chief
TO: Rod Barger, Senior Planner
SUBJ: EAST DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
Both Sergeant DiFranco and I have reviewed the administrative
draft for East Dublin with Sergeant DiFranco being more
experienced in this area. He lays out some good preliminary
concerns to us (Police Services) that we have discussed and I
agree with.
Further, I 'm sure that you realize once this project has been
completed or phased in it will put more demands on the Police
Services; i .e. calls for service, routine patrol, traffic, etc. .
Ultimately it will require more personnel and a beat system.
JR:mj g
Attathmefl /-