The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5-2-1988 PC Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - Dublin Library Monday - 7:00 p.m. 7606 Amador Valley Blvd., Meeting Room May 2, 1988 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - April 18, 1988 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item which is not on the Planning Commission agenda. Comments should not exceed 5 minutes. If any person feels that this is insufficient time to address his or her concern, that person should arrange with the Planning Director to have his or her particular concern placed on the agenda for a future meeting. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Sign Program Variance request for four subdivision sale/rent/lease signs; three of which exceed allowable square footage restrictions and all four of which are located in required yard areas located on the west of Dougherty Road north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard (continued from meetings of March 7, March 21, April 4, and April 18, 1988.) 8.2 Proposed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street) 8.3 PA 87-122 Hucke Sign Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request for special easement sign, C-2-B-40 directory signs, and sign program at 7016-7150 Village Parkway (continued from meeting of April 18, 1988). 8.4 PA 88-020 Lyon's Brewery Conditional Use Permit for a Tavern at the Town & Country Shopping Center 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS 12. ADJOURNMENT (Over for Procedures Summary) CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: May 2, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, Sign Program Variance GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: REVISED - Variance request for a Sign Program containing four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs (three of which exceed allowed copy square footage restrictions and all four of which are located in required yard areas). PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development Ron Nahas 20211 Patio Drive, Suite 215 Castro Valley, CA 94546 LOCATION: The Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-278-2782, -2783, -2784 (Portion of each) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: PD, Planned Development, Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant, City of San Ramon South: Vacant, PD, Planned Development for residential uses East: Camp Parks Military Training Reserve West: Open space, PD Planned Development ZONING HISTORY: The original 135+ acre holding was rezoned from an A, Agricultural District, to the R-1-B-5, Single Family Residential-Combining District, and the C-N, Neighborhood Business District, by Zoning Unit 638, approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1964. The Zoning designation R-1-B-5 was subsequently relettered to an R-1-B-E designation. On April 15, 1985, the Planning Commission granted approval for a four-parcel minor subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map 4575. The parcel split was requested to facilitate a purchase option agreement the Applicant (Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development) had with the original Property Owner. On March 24, 1986, the City Council granted approval for the PD, Planned Development District and Tentative Map applications for the 1,165-unit Villages at Willow Creek project (PA 85-041.1 and .2). There are seven residential Villages under separate applications and in various stages. On April 18, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit/Variance request for a sign program containing three directional tract signs (all of which exceed allowed copy square footage restriction and two of which exceed height restrictions). ITEM NO. 2r, I COPIES TO: Applicant APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 8-87-50 of the Sign Regulation states that Subdivision Sale/Rent/Lease signs are permitted in any zoning district to advertise the orginal sale, rent or lease of buildings or lots in conjunction with a subdivision development. A maximum sign area of thirty-two square feet and a maximum height limit of 12 feet must be observed. In addition, the yard limits of the district the sign is located in must be complied with. Also, the sign must be located on private property within the subdivision. Section 8-93.0 (Variance) and Government Code Section 65906 (State law re: Variance findings) indicate that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: 1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification; 2) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; and 3) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15311, Class 11(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 7, 1988 hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to property owners and posted in public buildings. Because this item was continued to the March 21, April 4, April 18, and May 2, 1988 hearings, no further public noticing was required. BACKGROUND At the April 18, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission requested that the Applicant provide additional information to make his application package complete so that a decision could be made on the proposal. On April 27, 1988, the Applicant indicated by letter that he is withdrawing the Variance request and that he would comply with the zoning restrictions established for subdivision sale/lease/rent signs. No further action on this application is necessary by the Commission. ATTACHMENTS Background Attachment: 1. Letter from Applicant to Staff withdrawing Application, dated received by The Planning Department on April 27, 1988. -2- (--(".1.‘ • Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development April 25, 1988 Rod Barger City of Dublin P. O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 RE: On-site Tract Signs Dear Rod: • Please withdraw our application for a variance for our on-site tract for-sale/for-rent signs. We will comply with the standard square • footaae limitations and setback requirements. Very truly yours, Ronald C. Nahas RCN/ds cc: Tarry Tong 1 RtCEIyED i\PR DUBUN PLgNN1NG • CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 2, 1988 SUBJECT: Proposed Plan Line - New Road Parallel to and Southerly of Dublin Boulevard (Between Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibits A) Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of Negative Declaration B) Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of Plan Line Attachments 1) Plan Line Alternatives 2) Proposed Plan Line 3) Description of Proposed Plan Line 4) Proposed Cross Section 5) Environmental Assessment Initial Study 6) Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open Public Hearing Jab, 2) Receive Staff presentation and public testimony 3) Question Staff and the public 4) Close Public Hearing and deliberate 5) Take the following actions a) Adopt Resolution Recommending City Council Adoption of Negative Declaration b) Adopt Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of Plan Line FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No direct financial impacts would occur from the recommended action. Costs to the City as a result of development of the road would depend on the financing mechanism selected for this project. A separate action would be required by the City Council to authorize financing the project. DESCRIPTION: A road parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard is recommended in the City's adopted Downtown Specific Plan (which is part of the General Plan) . The Plan Line for such a road between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road is the subject of this item. Per the direction of the Commission and comments received from the public at the Planning Commission meeting of April 4, 1988, this item was continued to review two additional alignment alternatives, which are evaluated in this report. Alternatives 1) Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative, and is the alignment discussed at the previous Planning Commission hearing. This alignment would fall approximately halfway between Dublin Boulevard and the I-580 freeway. The road would be located between the large retail building which houses Orchard Supply, Ross, Levitz, and others, and the warehouse where Unisource is located. The road would proceed across Golden Gate Drive, with the northern ITEM NO. 43i COPIES TO: Property Owners File edge of the right-of-way falling along the southern property line of Crown Chevrolet, and connect to the land offered for dedication from the Enea Plaza development (see Attachments 1 and 2). As outlined in the Staff report for the April 4, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, this alignment would remove 191 parking spaces (122 from Unisource and 69 from behind Ross/Orchard Supply). Up to 150 additional spaces can be provided for the Unisource building to mitigate the loss of parking. No mitigation was deemed necessary for the 69 spaces from behind Ross/Orchard Supply. Another impact identified in the Staff report is the loss of back-up/maneuvering area for trucks using the loading dock at Unisource. With a narrowing of the right-of-way in this area, a minimum 110- foot area can be provided for trucks. This width is the minimum needed for 55-foot trucks to maneuver. The cost for this Alternative is estimated to be $3 million. 2) Alternative 2 would place the parallel road adjacent to the freeway (I-580) over the Alameda County Flood Control Channel. Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road would each need to be extended. This alternative would result in approximately 3,200 lineal feet of total roadway. Costs for acquisition, design, and construction would be approximately $6.7 million. The pros and cons of this alignment follow. A) The most significant problem is that Caltrans has indicated they need 100 to 150 feet of additional right-of-way in this area (See Attachment 1) for the ultimate width of I-580. The remaining comments are made for completeness; however, they would be rendered moot by Caltrans' need for the right-of-way. B) Construction over the Flood Control Channel would be more costly than construction on flat ground. In addition, if the ACFCD were to grant approval to build over their facilities, they would require purchase of the property. Flood Control (Zone 7) would not be favorable to the enclosing of the channel. The long-term costs to replace underground facilities are considerably higher than the costs to maintain an open channel. For this reason, Flood Control would require the City to take over maintenance responsibilities for the underground portion, as well as the upstream portions of the creek. In addition, any alteration to the channel, as it is a part of Dublin Creek, would require review and approval from the Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers. C) The loss of parking spaces would be less than the preferred alternative (95 vs. 191 spaces). However, there is not the same opportunity for on-site mitigation of the parking spaces lost. The Willow Tree Restaurant would lose 20 parking spaces, and Howard Johnson's would lose 75 spaces. In addition, the roadway would result in dividing the Howard Johnson's parking lot into two separate parking areas. D) In addition to the loss of parking from the extension of Regional Street, approximately 400 feet of mature landscaping would be removed. However, new landscaping could be planted along the right-of-way edge to replace that which is lost. E) The alignment along the creek is inconsistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and would require a General Plan Amendment before a plan line could be established. F) Location along the freeway lessens the opportunity for a landscaped pedestrian parkway which links the block from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road. Pedestrians would not be as inclined to use a road adjacent to the freeway due to noise, nor would the location link retail establishments frequented by pedestrians (see (I) below). G) A road at this location would separate the proposed BARTD parking lot from the freeway and the station. H) This alternative does not provide the incentive for interior circulation, which would lessen the number of vehicles on Dublin Boulevard, because of the greater length and because it moves traffic away from Dublin Boulevard. One of the main objectives of constructing this road is to reduce the traffic on Dublin Boulevard and to ease the congestion at Dublin Boulevard intersections. -2- I) Should the area develop with other uses, there would not be the opportunity for retail business to locate on both sides of the street. Another option for this alternative would be to place the road adjacent to the Flood Control Channel or adjacent to the projected future right-of-way for I-580. Either of these alternatives would put the road through three existing structures: the Unisource warehouse and two offices buildings at the end of Amador Plaza Road. The office buildings would be completely eliminated, but the bulk of the Unisource building could be preserved. The concerns outlined in (C) through (I) above would be similar, however, an additional 26 to 30 parking spaces would be eliminated with no opportunity to replace them. Environmental, fiscal, policy, and regulatory impacts from Alternative 2 would make this alternative undesirable. 3) The third alternative would place the road in the middle of the block but it would be located further south for the area between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road. The length of the road in this area would be only slightly longer than the preferred alternative. This alternative would not separate the two parcels owned by Crown Chevrolet but would put the road at the back (south side) of the vacant parcel owned by the Woolvertons and would allow a direct expansion of Crown Chevrolet to the south. The estimated cost of this alignment is $3.3 million. A) Minor differences in the impact to existing parking would result. Mitigation measures proposed for Alternative 1 could still be implemented with minor modifications. B) This alignment would result in the creation of a 1.06+ acre parcel (adjacent to Enea Plaza) and a 1.29+ acre parcel south of the Alternative 3 road. While both of these lots could develop with commercial uses, it is preferable to have a larger lots (as in Alternative 1) to allow greater design and development flexibility. C) Additional right-of-way would need to be acquired (over the preferred alternative) . The property adjacent to the Enea Plaza development has been offered for dedication. Should the road be located further south, the City would have to purchase the right-of-way and perhaps compensate the owner for splitting an existing parcel. D) This alignment would reduce the BARTD's usable property by about 16,500 square feet. Discussion In order to evaluate the alternatives, Staff has contacted Caltrans, BARTD, and Alameda County Flood Control. From discussion with these three agencies, it appears that Alternative 2 (adjacent to freeway) is the least feasible as all three agencies have serious reservations for that alignment relative to their future plans and current policies. Alternative 3 presents far fewer impacts and reservations than the road adjacent to the freeway. Differences between Alternative 3 and preferred Alternative 1 occur mostly in the eastern area (between Golden Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road) . Alternative 3 would be more costly due to the need to acquire the additional right-of-way from Enea and the need to compensate Enea for severing the property. In addition, Alternative 3 results in the creation of two parcels smaller than preferred for commercial areas on the Enea property. West of Golden Gate Drive, Alternative 3 would require the acquisition of about 16,500 square feet of BARTD property. This could mean the reduction in 40+ parking spaces for the parking lot. -3- Costs Preliminary estimated costs for the three alternatives follow. Estimates include acquisition, design, improvement, and environmental mitigation. Alternative 1 - $3 million Alternative 2 - $6.7 million Alternative 3 - $3.3 million Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolutions which recommend the City Council adopt the negative declaration of environmental significance and the plan line as described in Alternative 1. Should the Planning Commission recommend Alternative 3, a new legal description would have to be prepared for the selected alignment, and this item would have to be continued one meeting to incorporate that description into the Planning Commission Draft Resolution. Should Alternative 2 be recommended, a General Plan Amendment would need to be initiated and the plan line would have to return to the Planning Commission after an amendment is processed. -4- RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING A PLAN LINE FOR A NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN REGIONAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended together with the State's administrative guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and City environmental regulations, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. , a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department with the project specific mitigation measures outlined in Staff's Initial Study of Environmental Significance dated March 28, 1988, regarding: 1) Land Use WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and considered it at a public hearing on April 4 and May 2, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given as legally required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the project, Parallel Road South of Dublin Boulevard (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) Plan Line has been changed by the Applicant and/or the Applicant has agreed to provide mitigation measures resulting in a project that will not result in the potential creation of any significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study of Environmental Signficance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and Local Environmental Law and Guideline Regulations, and that it is adequate and complete. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director A RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH A PLAN LINE FOR PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD FROM REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD WHEREAS, the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin by Resolution No. 55-87 on July 21, 1987; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan contains an objective in the vehicular circulation plan to develop a plan line for a new street south of Dublin Boulevard connecting Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on April 4 and May 2, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been recommended for adoption (Planning Commission Resolution No. 88- ) for this project, as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the plan line is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing and proposed land uses and conforming to the underlying land use designation and it will not overburden public services; and WHEREAS, the plan line will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the plan line as described on the attached Exhibits A and B dated March 28, 1988. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director J n L L DUBLIN BLVD. 01 'N (- ci]=1] — _ C i 90 a W V o El L1 L. r m RCI oROWD LL I H - -a UNIg• $ D PM )6 -- , I T. 2. LI % -1=437," PRHHWAV 1-15130 PARALLEL ROAD IODt , p, ,o, SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARDll r_ eo DO FEET REGIONAL STREET AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD - I° �T ' 6APT.ME ,6,LI&NMENT ANY RNATIV t ATTACHMENT_I - PAQAu t goo ....... --- \\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \ . \ \\ \ su•4°. \\N\ III \ \\ \ \ \\ \ 10 \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ „11111111k \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \\ \ ..P1017AP 11,1 ';''\ ,,,,,............ .. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ t 7, •,r.. „ell>. l '' ,Il ir*" .\\ \\ 111111110 ATTACHMENT Z 10111 --- , ••• -.- -- --------------- -.-- ., _L ------- - ---- PROPOSED PLAN LINE: 3/23/88 — -- PARALLEL ROAD ° 200 400 800 P.1111. ,44 (REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD) 100 300 Proposed Street Right-of-Way SOUTH O? DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND REGIONAL STREET All that certain real property situated in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of Amador Plaza Road on the south line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to Enea Plaza recorded December 19, 1980, as Instrument No. 80-224805, Records of Alameda County; thence northerly along said west line of Amador Plaza Road 427 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said west line of Amador Plaza Road along the arc of a non-tangent 30.00 foot radius curve, concave to the northwest, to a point on the prolongation of the north line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to Robert T. & Betty J. Wolverton recorded December 20, 1978, as Instrument No. 78-248211, Records of Alameda County; thence on a course tangent tothe previous curve westerly along said prolongation of said north line (7 8-24 8211) a distance of 285 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of said Wolverton Parcel (78-246211); thence westerly along said north line (78-248211) and its prolongation 430 feet, more or less, to a point on the centerline of Golden Gate Drive, hereon referred to as Point "A"; thence in a southwesterly direction 380 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 966 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 105 feet, more or less, to a point on the east line of that certain parcel of land described in the deed to Peter B. Bedford recorded November 21, 1982, as Instrument No. 82-193550, Records of Alameda County, said point hereon referred to as Point "B", lying South 4 feet, measured at right angles to, the prolongation of the south line of an existing warehouse lying on said Bedford parcel (82-193550);thence westerly on a course parallel with said south line of the existing warehouse 330 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 332 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 125 feet, more or less; thence on a course tangent to the previous curve southwesterly 130 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 266 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 120 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line of said Bedford parcel (82-193550); thence on a course tangent to the previous curve along said south line (82-193550) a distance of 165 feet, more or less, to the east line of Regional Street; thence leaving said south line (82-193550) southerly along said east line of Regional Street to a point 68 feet south, measured at right angles to said south line (82- 193550); thence in an easterly direction parallel with said south line (82-193550) a distance of 165 feet, more or less, to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius 334 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 90 feet, more or less; thence on a course tangent to the previous curve, ATTACHMENT3 northeasterly 130 feet , more or less , to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 268 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 80 feet, more or less, to a point 68 feet south of, measured at right angles to , the prolongation of the south line of said existing warehouse lying within the Bedford parcel (82-193550); thence easterly parallel with said prolongation 330 feet, more _or less, to a point south 64 feet from Point "B" , at the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 1034 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 105 feet, more or less; thence on a course tangent to the previous curve, northeasterly 375 feet, more or less , to a point on the centerline of Golden Gate Drive , said point being South 68 feet from Point "A"; thence easterly on a course parallel with the north line of said Wolverton parcel (78-248211) , and its prolongation 735 feet , more or less , to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the southwest, having a radius of 30 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 40 feet, more or less, to a point on the west line of Amador Plaza Road; thence northerly along said west line of Amador Plaza Road 130 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD) RAW RAJ 2 WAY LEFT TURN G8 I a. 20' I2' 20' s, OPTIMUM SECTION NrTACH1a • CITY OF PU Llt4 PA Nc, Si13VIRC3l@JIMENTAL• ASSESSMENT FC3RM, (NiEf LM (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sed_) . . Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. ' SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF Name of Project or Applicant: DUBLIN BOULEVARD PARALLEL ROAD . • C A.• ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING- Description of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability;plants and animals;historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; existing structures;and use of structures INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL'AREAS. '" 1/2 OF PROJECT SITE IS DEVELOPED AS PARKING & DRIVEWAYS. THE OTHER 1/2 IS UNIMPROVED LAND. • • • Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of Icnd use;and scale or development. DEVELOPED AREAS WITH COMMERCIAL RETAIL & OFFICE AS WELL AS ' WAREHOUSE. NO SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES SUCK AS_PLANTS ., ,,. TOPO_ GRAPHY, ETC., EXIST IN PROJECT AREA. B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -Fcctucl explanations of all answers except"no" are re-. quired on attached sheets. • EI T • 32•TACTS SCALE OF IiMPAC2 I NO QT2AL IrD YES U[PCNCS^tN . Iaa PO f FI 13 • - . IE" t w 1O It:, • . 0lIa 12ll§' i I- • 1 1 I l.o WATER 1 1 1.1 Hydrologic Bolance • Will construction of tha project alter the hydro— X logic balance? 1.2 Ground Water Will the project affect the quality or quantity of X I ground water supplies? 1.2 Depth to Water Table Will the rote of water withdrawal change the depth X r gradient of the wester table?_ 1.1 Drainage and Csannel Form Will construction impede the natural drainage pattern causeor alteration of stream channel form? X ' 1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in an a result i major sediment Influx into adjocent water a bodies?n X ' 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of loss of life or property due X j In!lording? • 5 A—S ATTACHMENT_ COMPONENT • • 'PACTS SG_ . OF IMPACT • NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNOWN to a1g1aIH OIjIO• I� I�115 At_ 1.7 Water Quality Doe,drinking corer supply fail to meet state end • 1 1 federal standards? Will sewage be inaleluatoly accommodated and • • treated? Will receiving wavers foil to meet lonl,sre•e and federal eteodords? k • Will ground water suffer contamination by er*fore • seepog.e,intrusion of soli or polluted rater from adjacent warn bodies or from another cnnr,rio,tcd • • • aquifer? _ ( _ • • 2.0 AIR • • 2.1 Air Pollution- Will there be generation and dispersion of p,lluronr, • by project related activities or in pro r.irr tp tlAs project whits will e..eed stare n•rue•s-.ne o quality standards? 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and terrain-impede prevcilirg wind flow mining channeling along certain rwrri:s-s•sr obstruction of wind movements? • I- 3.0 EARTH - 3.1 Slope Stability Are there potential dangers related to dupe failures? X 3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or p•operry'sr-erIe of excessive deformation of materials? X 3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or property tecan;e of - excessive consolidation of foundation mntn.iol,? k 1 3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground subsidence associated with the project? } 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of domage or loss resulting from earth- qw activity.? k 1 . - 3.6 Liquefaction Will the project muse or be exposed to liquefection • of soil,in slopes or under faundaHcne? -x 1 3.7 Erodibiliy - Will there be substantial loss of,nd dot to coo- 1 struction proc X 1 _ 3.8 PermeabilityWill the permcobiliry of sods ossoc,ated with the project present adverse conditions aelative tc de- velopmeor of we'll? . 3.9 Unique Feature, Will any unique geological features be dammed or destroyed by project activities? 3.10 Minerol Resource, Are there geologic deposits of potential cx,-ercinl value close to the project? �( • 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS • 4.1 Plont and Animal Species Are there mere or endangered species present? �t Are there species pre ent which ore pa-tic•rlorly - susceptible to impact from human activity?• k Is there ve.aetotion present,,the fort of which will deny food or habitat to important wildlife species? Arc there nuisance species of plant or mima�s for • which conditions will he improved by the project? \t' 4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusuol populotions of pinnrs that may be of scientific interest? k I Are there vegetative community types which are porricularly susceptible to impact from tsumon activity? \( I_ Are there major trees or major vegetal,.that will ha eiversely offer.tcd by the proj-et? •. Arc there vegetative community types rite----t.'se lop • of which oiil deny food or haAftn•to i- or to a rubstenrinl numb,of,-.•e-.r c.,rmal 'X — — 4.3 Diversity Is there subsrm:;ol diversity in th,nrt••on'...lmer.nty 133 reflected in the n•mbpr and typo of 1,t T..ears e' species present or the throe-dimensinnclorr r n. of plant species present? • • • A-6 i - COMPGIIENT INLPAcrs SCATS OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES U6IIRQa9N • NO , 1 • • j i t6 • 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES • 5.1 Educoliorel Facilities Will projected enrollments odversely affect the ex- . . • (sting or p-opnud facilities in terms of spacing for • all activities,including classrooms,recreational areas,end staffing needs? X ' Will the project impact the pupil/teacher ratio so 1 • as to impede the learning process? X j Is the school located such that it presents a hardship • for o portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, j . distance,or safety hazards? X j • 5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be on inadequate supply of and occe,,to 1/ r commercial facilities for the project? 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for sevens capacity inadequate far the needs of the project without exceeding quality • standards? X Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors asucioted with wostewoter treatment plants? X 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadequate provision for disposal of solid wastes generated by the project? X 5.5 Water Supply Is there inadequate quantity or gwliy of water supply to meet the needs of the project? X 5.6 Storm Water Drainage Will storm water drainage be inadequate to prevent - downstream flooding and to meet Federal State and local standards? X 1 5.7 Police Will the project's additional population,focilities, or �� s other features generate on in se in police services cote a police hazard? X t 5.8 Fire Will the project's additional population,facilities, or other features generate on increase in fire services �/ orr eate o fire hazard? /u 5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate Facilities to meet - the recreational needs of the residents? MA 5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project residents? NA i . 6-0 TRANSPORTATION j • 6.1 Tronsportation Facilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent reads c.rrently at or above capacity? If not,will the traffic gee,, emoted by the project cause the adjacent roods to ' each or exceed capacity? X Are the other transportation facilities which serve the Iproject inadequate to accommodate the project's ,, - • 1 travel demands? 6.2 Circulation Conflicts Will design of the project or conditions in the surround- ing6.3andDesign area increase accidents due to circulation conflicts? X y g Will project residents and users be exposed to increased accident • risks dun to roadway and street design or lack sz - _ of traffic controls? A 7.0 HEALTH - - F • 7,1 Odor, Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense ' odors? 7.2 Crowding and Density Will the residents and users be exposed to crowding or high density in their physical living environment? X 7.3 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generate factors that maybe considered es nuisances? X 7.4 Structural Solely Will design and proposed construction techniques fail r r • to meet state end local building codes? x 8.0 NOISE 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be exposed to or generate adverse x noise levels? 8.2 Vibrations Will the project be exposed to vihraticns nnnoying to humans? X 6_S • COMPONENT IN)PACIS •SCALE OF INPACP NO Q(TALIF'IID l—( —UNXNaN NO IN I 10 a � • l IIF 61Q1215 . 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER v - 9.1 Community Organization Will the project disrupt on existing set of organizations or groups within the con...miry? 9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character e/the • community in terns of distribution or concentration X of income,ethnic,housing,or age group? 9.3 Community Stability and Will the project be exposed to or generate en • Physical Conditions area of poor stability end phy ieel conditions? • V 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY /� t (- • 10.1 Views V/ill residents of the surrounding ore.be adversely _ • affected by views of or from the project? k 5 V/ill the project residents be adversely affected by - views of or Gam the surrounding e,oe X 10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive shadows? X • 11.0 HISTORIC ANDCULTLHAL - . • RESOLEICES - _ 11.1 Historic and Cultural . Will the project involve the destruction or alter- • " Resources ration or a historic resource? - X Will the project result in solution of a historic• X ' resource from its surrounding environment? Will the project introduce physical,visual,audible i i «atmosphnic elements that are not in character with , o historic resource or its setting? 1 I 11.2 Archaeological Sites Will the project involve the destruction or alteration end Structures of on erchaeolo3icolresource? X .I Will the project res.,lt in isolation of en archaeological 1- Will the.project introduce physical,visual,audible X or atmospheric elements that ore not in character with • on erchoeologicol resource or its setting? X 12.0 ENERGY / 12.1 Energy Requirements Ara there potential problems with the supply f TPYe energy required for the project? . X Will the energy requirements exceed the capacity • of the service utility company? k Will there be o net increase in energy wed for the project compered to the no project alternative? - X 12.2 Conservation Measures Does the project planning and desk,fail to include ovnilcb!e energy conservation measures? J( 13.0 LAND USE • 13.1 Site Hazards Da conditions o/the site,proposed site development, or tending area create potentially hazardous situ- v 13.2 Phys cod Threat Wil!the project or the surrounding area create a feeling of insecurity and physical threat among the residents and users? - 'X • 13.3 Sanitary Landfill Will the project be exposed to structural d,mnge, noise,air,or surface and round water pollution n other nuisances associated with a unitary landfill? X 3.4 Waterways Wilt the project erect on existing waterway Through filling,dredging,draining,culvnring,.,rule dis- • charges,loss of viswl quality or other land on `' ---'--- practices? n A-8 . • OOb]PMENT "IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT ' NO QUALle'lr1J YES UtZ:OG N NO 1" r II to • H oltoi 181 .10 LAND USE Will the project affect the X use of property which would • result in impacts to general plans or local ordinances? i - I • • • • Orhar E,,,,.mmml C. onr:nrr. ' . C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QUAL7"'TT NO NO 'YES UIS?O N (1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a X fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number cr restrict • the range of a rare or endangered plant cr animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history cr prehistory? (2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X goals? (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project - may impact on two or more separate resources where X the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) (4) Does the project have environmental effects which X • will cause substantial adverse effects on human ' beings, either directly or indirectly? • • D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitiga`e the significant effects identified, if any: P ►ctQ. azidtvrinicifi y (,&-e . a tfi p IW 1 T WA M i (a 'adr•� . • E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: The City of Dublih finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par- ticular characteristics of this project and the mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the project proiid.: the ':actual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE - DECLARATION IS REQUIRED. I-1 The City of PLthlin finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED** • Signature and date: Q� 3 2� 8e Name and title: �� N( L ,Tr. rL -N- 1: (2 , • • • • • **NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to an Initial Study so that po!-e-i ial adverse effects are mitigated to a point where no significt nt environmental effects would occur, a • revised Initial Study will be prepared and a Negative Declaration will be required i Ns'ead of an EIR. A-1 n March 23, 1988 PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (REGIONAL STREET TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD) INITIAL STUDY B. Environmental Impacts - Factual Explanations 2.1 Air Pollution Temporary construction-related air quality impacts will occur by increasing dust, especially if existing paved areas need to be removed. Construction techniques should include watering exposed areas to reduce dust, especially during windy periods. Project will improve traffic circulation in the vicinity which will result in fewer idling vehicles, having a positive benefit to local air quality. 5.2 Commercial Facilities Project will improve access to commercial properties. 6.1 Transportation Facilities Traffic demands on vicinity roads and intersections are projected to approach the design capacity, offering Levels of Service D or E. This project will help alleviate some of that congestion. 11.2 Archaeological Sites and Structures Much of the project site has been disturbed with no evidence of archaeological resources. Occasionally, resources are discovered in previously disturbed areas. Project will include condition that construction will be halted in the event that archaeological resources are discovered in order that a qualified archaeologist can examine the find. 13.5 Land Use The project involves the acquisition of property currently used for parking and driveways. In one case (APN 941-1500-47-2 Unisource), parking will be reduced below the amount that is required per the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for Unisource (PA 85-024) and zoning requirements for a warehouse. Zoning normally would require 300 spaces; however, the Variance/Conditional Use Permit specifies 187 spaces, with annual review to determine if additional spaces should be provided up to 236 spaces. The project would remove 122 existing spaces, leaving 65 spaces. Areas allocated for the additional 49 future parking spaces are not affected by this project. - 1 - The project will also result in reduced back-up space for the truck loading and parking area for this same parcel. Currently, 121 feet is available. The resulting 110 feet is the minimum back-up required for 55- foot tractor-trailers. The largest trucks currently using the site do not exceed 55 feet in length. _ The zoning and Site Development Review (PA 83-069) for APN 941-1500-44 (Orchard Supply Hardware and others) requires 619 spaces. This plan line would remove 69 spaces for this property. The Downtown Specific Plan indicates that this area had a peak parking demand for 26% of the spaces provided. Even if all of the 242 parked cars identified in the survey were on this property, the peak demand would be only about 45%. The parking that will be removed is used primarily for employees. Upon construction of the road, they will be displaced to parking at the front of the building. This reduction in available parking is not considered significant. The new road will provide a landscaped walkway, thus meeting one of the goals of the Downtown Plan to provide more landscaped areas among paved surfaces. - 2 - CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) LOCATION: New road located approximately midway between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 between Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road PROPONENT: City of Dublin DESCRIPTION: Plan line for a new road with a 68-foot cross section at the above location. FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. INITIAL STUDY: The initial study is available with a brief discussion of the following environmental components: Air pollution, transportation facilities, archaeology, and land use. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attachment. PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin Planning Staff, (415) 829-4916. SIGNATURE: `") i--- t,• : DATE: Lau?ence L. Tong, Planning Dir.ctor PARALLEL ROAD SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road) Mitigation measures included in project to -eliminate impacts or reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Land Use Additional parking shall be provided on-site for APN 941-1500-47-2. Annual review of the number of employees and parking demand will determine how many spaces are needed, to a maximum indicated below. The additional parking can be accomplished as described below (see also Figure 1) . 1. Restripe driveway along west side of building to provide 900 parking and a drive aisle (net gain of 12 spaces) . 2. Build new parking area west of.building (47 spaces) . 3. Restripe front area to preserve 17 standard size spaces and 5 handicapped sized spaces. 4. Provide the parking spaces shown on the variance permit at the rear of the property as expansion parking (49 spaces) . 5. Encourage a 7,200+ square foot property exchange between this property and the BART property to the east. The exchange will furnish an area of sufficient dimensions to provide 42 spaces, plus will provide the BART property with direct street frontage on the new road. The total 122 spaces which will be removed as a result of this project can be replaced with 108 spaces, with an additional 42 available if the property exchange is executed (total of 150) . The City is currently preparing an ordinance that would provide a conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming due to a City action such as condemnation. If this ordinance is enacted, it should be applied to this project. If a new business wants to locate at the Unisource site, the parking will have to be re-evaluated, considering that the parking may be less than the standard requirement due to the loss of available parking area. 1,33 r I—" 1 �� N N 3AId0 31VJ N30100 , ,9 0 tiiC) i 2 '< Z H CO 4 a cl • 'Liz J I . .. Ja Q NJ N 1 Q I-- -M t\l .9 1 ::: a Z IIIit d a I m a DO1 1 :::::::. .... .... .... ........ .... .... 1 E..•• ` _.... _, H] .=1 0 0 Q Iil - 0 0 cc ¢ a < 1 1 7 • > 0 . I _-1 y i ¢0 rl ON = 0 u c W 1 =1 < I = < CA —/ CAu 0 — x %= 1 Vii.-.i.:: ee........., 12:::Sir1 133111S 1VNOID311 . ROSS ORCHARD SUPPLY rl ...L.L Billi- LI ..C.ri 1. .1'••••"'"'"-->-PLAN.LINE...... cc ........,..... ."Mr.--- .. co .. ..........1.7,....- :::mm.gg: /..1 .. < ..__________, ..........______________—_,Miii Z ...•3 _—— .......•.................. ................•........ i u = i >1 FE UN1SOURCE BART Property CI LU (.." TRI-VALLEY 1- 4 tu 0 0 0 • .,:).s,.,:zi•_,_,,,__ _;._t 3:„.... .:;;,,:_:,,•,, PARALLEL ROAD [ PLAN LINE PMKIN6 mITIATIoN1 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL SCALE 11111111 ) esnuPe. 17- Imi=6"...mg t•Mw PAvv-tANT" L47 inn axc1AAN4e. L12_ At - CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: May 2, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff 0'// if SUBJECT: PA 87-122 Hucke Signs Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review 7016 - 7150 Village Parkway GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Site Development Review for two C-2-B-40 Directory Signs and Sign Program for the Wall Signs at 7016 - 7150 Village Parkway and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Special Easement Sign. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Don Hucke 25 Crocker Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 REPRESENTATIVE: J. Ronald Pengilly Pettit & Martin, Attorneys at Law 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 LOCATION: 7016 - 7150 Village Parkway ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-210-2-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5 PARCEL SIZE: 4+ acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail/Office and Automotive EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Zoning: C-2-B-40 General Commercial Combining District Land Use: Variety of commercial retail and commercial service facilities. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - C-2-B-40 vacant lot-grading occuring for an automotive service facility South - C-2-B-40 Retail/Office complex East - C-2-B-40 Commercial retail/office West - I-680 Freeway ZONING HISTORY: 1. Alameda County approved several Conditional Use Permits for a variety of uses between September 6, 1966 - October 7, 1968: C-1654, Machine Shop, approved in M-S District COPIES TO: Applicant t?". 3 Owner ITEM N0. File PA 87-122 r� C-1707, Auto Body Repair, approved in M-S District C-1846, Restaurant, approved in M-S District C-1865, Home Delivery Food Service, appliance repair, service and sales, wholesale carpet and installation, Hobby Craft Shop, and tire wholesale retail sales approved in M-1-B-40 District C-1883, Tavern, approved in M-S District C-1911, Fabric Retail Store, approved in M-1-B-40 District C-1936, Newspaper Office, approved in M-1-B-40 District 2. V-4538, Alameda County 1) denied Variance for projecting signs, August 19, 1968 and 2) approved Variance to relocate sign and locate sign in front setback, August 19, 1968. 3. S-291/V-4982, Alameda County approved Site Development Review and Variance for reduced front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet, November 19, 1969. 4. S-330/V-5231 Alameda County denied request to locate four 12 foot tall freestanding signs in the required front yard setback, October 19, 1970. 5. S-462 Alameda County approved Site Development Review for 10,200 square foot building, January 3, 1973. 6. S-541/V-6802, Alameda County approved addition to restaurant. 7. PA86-052, Planning Director approved Site Development Review for awning and signs for East West Karate School, July 3, 1986. 8. PA86-111, Planning Director approved Site Development Review for wall sign for Buck Stoves, October 21, 1986. 9. PA88-022, Planning Director approved Site Development Review for wall sign for Automotive Consultants, April 27, 1988. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-87.10(c) requires signs to be located on the premises or parcel which the business is located. Section 8-87. 34 permits only one freestanding sign per parcel. Section 8-87.33 Wall Signs and Projecting Signs establishes maximum dimensions for wall signs and permits the maximum sign height, sign width and sign area to increase subject to approval of Site Development Review. Section 8-87.35 Alternate Types of Freestanding Signs establishes provisions for alternate types of freestanding signs which are permitted within the required setback subject to Site Development Review. Section 8-87.60(f) Signs requiring Conditional Use Permits, requires Conditional Use Permit approval for special easement signs for businesses located on parcels without direct access or frontage on an improved public right-of-way when the sign is located on a different parcel from that which the business advertised is located. Provided the properties have a non-revocable, non-exclusive recorded access easement. 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 -2- 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. Section 8-95.1 establishes procedures for the Site Development Review process. The site is located within The Downtown Specific Plan Development Zone 10 and Interim Use Zone B (see Attachment 9 for excerpts) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically exempt Class II Section 15311. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the April 18, 1988, 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 and Site Development Review for signs for the businesses at 7016 - 7150 Village Parkway. The application consists of two parts: 1) Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for two C-2-B-40 Directory Signs/Special Easement Signs and 2) Site Development Review Sign Program for business identification wall signs which exceed the height, length and sign area restrictions established by the City's Zoning Ordinance. Special Easement - C-2-B-40 Directory Signs As a result of the citywide sign survey conducted in September 1986, the property owner and tenants were notified by the City' s Zoning Investigator in April 1987, of all illegal signs identified on the property at 7016 - 7150 Village Parkway. Illegal signs identified included Wall Signs, Freestanding Signs and illegal A-Frame Signs. The illegal Freestanding and A-Frame Signs were subsequently removed. The City Zoning Investigator has deferred enforcement of the illegal wall signs pending action on the Applicant' s sign program application. The site layout and development of the property consisting of a group of buildings fronting directly on Village Parkway and another group of buildings situated directly behind the front building has caused signage difficulty for tenants located in the rear buildings who wish to increase and enhance business identification from Village Parkway. The C-2-B-40 Directory Sign is the appropriate type of sign to achieve identification for the rear businesses. The applicant is requesting approval of two single faced C-2-B-40 directory signs. The Applicant proposes to locate Sign "B" within the front planter area at 7124-7150 Village Parkway (APN 941-210-2-2) and locate Sign "A" in the planter area in front of Wolds House of Hobbies at 7100 Village Parkway (APN 941-210-5-4) . The Applicant proposes to situate the single faced directory signs parallel to the front property line. The Applicant proposes a maximum sign height of 6 feet and a maximum sign area of 16 sq. ft. (4 ft. x 4 ft. ) . The Applicants proposed tenant identification for each directory sign is indicated on Attachment 2. Three of the tenants identified on Sign "B" are located on the adjacent parcel (APN 941-210-5-4) . A Conditional Use Permit (for Special Easement Signs) is required to locate business identification signs on parcels other than the parcel on which the business is located. However, the Special Easement Sign can only be granted for parcels without direct access or frontage on an improved public right-of-way. Additionally, said properties must be interconnected with a traversable non-revocable, non-exclusive recorded access easement. -3- Both parcels have direct access on Village Parkway. Additionally, in reviewing the property profile provided by the Applicant, there does not appear to be a recorded access easement between the two properties. Therefore, H & K Manufacturing, Valley Auto Clinic and Electra Door are not permitted business identification on Sign "B" . These businesses may locate identification signs on Directory Sign "A" . Staff and the City Attorney' s office have spent a significant amount of time reviewing the Applicant's Special Easement/C-2-B-40 Directory Sign Site Development Review request related to the parcels involved in the application. It appears the parcels indicated on the County Assessor Maps may not be legally subdivided lots in particular APN 941-210-5-5. This parcel was recorded in December 1982 after the City had incorporated. The City's Zoning Ordinance defines a lot as "a separate parcel of land shown and identified as such on the records of the County Recorder or on the Final Map of an approved and recorded subdivision. . . . " . If APN 941-210-5-5 is a legally subdivided lot, it is the only lot in this application which would qualify for the Special Easement Sign, in that the lot would not have direct access on a publicly improved street. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Special Easement Sign should be contingent upon the Applicant providing verification of a legal subdivision or submit an application for a Tentative Parcel Map in compliance with the California Subdivision Map Act within 90 days and obtain Final Map approval within 6 months, or the Applicant may locate the C-2-B-40 Directory sign on the legally subdivided lots (as permitted through the Site Development Review process) . However, it is noted that a landlocked parcel (regardless of existing easements) does not meet the City's minimum standards for subdivision purposes. Staff recommends the following modifications to the Applicants proposed C-2-B-40 Directory Sign which are included in the Draft Resolution of Approval: 1. Provide verification to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Planning Director that the parcels as shown on the assessor parcel maps are legally subdivided parcels, or submit an application for Tentative Map within 90 days and Final Map within 6 months. 2. Revise the directory signs to a) increase the sign area to a maximum 32 sq. ft. (single face only) , b) conceal means of support posts , c) include address range, d) eliminate the word "Directory" from sign. 3. Sign "B" tenant identification shall be limited to the tenants located at 7130, 7136 and 7140 Village Parkway located at the rear of Parcel 941-210-2-2. 4. Sign "B" shall be situated perpendicular to Village Parkway with sign copy facing, south bound traffic. Address range may appear on back face of sign. 5. Traffic signs and trees proposed for relocation and removal by the Applicant shall not occur without prior review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. Sign "A" tenant identification shall be determined pending verification of legal status of parcels. 7. Sign "A" shall be situated on the south side of the driveway entrance between 7078 (Buck Stoves) and 7100 (Wolds House of Hobbies) Village Parkway, perpendicular to Village Parkway with the sign copy facing south bound trafic. Address range may appear on the back face of the sign. 8. The Applicant shall provide another directory sign to identify businesses at 7026, 7042 and 7050 Village Parkway located on the rear portion of the site behind Box World. Said sign shall be located on the south side of last driveway entrance adjacent to 7022 (Box World) Village Parkway. Said driveway shall be modified to allow ingress only instead of the current exit only, subject to review and approval of the City Traffic engineer. Sign copy shall face south bound traffic and shall include the address range on the back face. -4- Sign Program Under a previous Alameda County approval (S-291 approved November 19, 1969) a sign program for the site was established restricting the maximum sign area per business to 40 square feet. The sign program also established a maximum of 60 sq. ft. per group of locator signs for businesses located in the rear buildings . The City wide sign survey conducted by the Zoning Investigator in September 1986 revealed that the majority of business identifiction signs located on the Applicants property were illegal, in that the signs did not comply with the approved sign program. This was primarily due to the fact that the tenants use of signs painted directly on the building face do not require building permits. The lack of a requirement for a building permit or sign permit makes the monitoring and regulation of wall painted signs difficult from a zoning standpoint. In conjunction with the Applicant' s request for approval of Directory Signs, the Applicant is requesting approval of the existing wall painted signs as they currently exist (See Attachment 3 Applicants submittal material) . Staff notified the Applicant on September 29, 1987 (See Attachment 4 Application Submittal Status) that the sign program submitted was inadequate, as the proposal did not establish uniform or compatible signage for the development. The Applicant's proposal did not address placement of signs, sign type, letter height, sign length or sign area, items which are standard items addressed in sign programs. Follow-up correspondence with the Applicant in November 1987 and January 1988 (See Attachment 5) did not result in the submittal of any additional sign program information by the Applicant. However, the Applicant did subsequently indicate he still wanted to pursue the matter (See Attachment 6) . Staff recommends denial of the Applicants request for approval "en masse" of the existing wall painted signs and recommends approval of the following sign criteria outlined in Figure 1 and included within the draft Resolution of approval. The Staff proposed sign program promotes uniformity in signage among the tenants by establishing maximum sign area, letter height and length, and by designating location of signage. The sign program does not exceed the maximum dimensions permitted by the Zoning Ordinance through the Site Development Review process. In processing one single Site Development Review for the signs on the site it eliminates the need for each tenant to file a separate Site Development Review application and $105 fee for each individual sign. All signs will require zoning approval prior to placement. The proposed sign program criteria permits larger signs than some of the existing business signs and smaller than others. Those signs which are nonconforming with this Sign Program because they are larger may continue until a new planning application is processed for the individual business. Additionally the sign program establishes a 60 day time period for illegal signs to comply with the new provisions. 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 relating to PA 87-122 or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Adopt Resolutions Approving PA 87-122 Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for Sign Program and C-2-B-40 Directory Signs as modified by Conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Sign Program - Wall Signs Exhibit "B" - Resolution of Approval Conditional Use Permit for Special Easement C-2-B-40 Directory Sign. -5- Exhibit "C" - Resolution of Approval Site Development Review for Sign Program and C-2-B-40 Directory Sign. li Background Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Tenants Directory 3. Applicant's submittal letter dated August 9, 1987 4. Status Submittal letter Dated 9/29/87 5. Letters to Applicant dated November 1987 and January 1988 6. Applicants letter dated received 1/20/88 7. Applicants proposed Directory Sign 8. Site Plan (Commission Staff/Applicant Only) 9. Downtown Specific Plan excerpts -6- Figure I Sign Program Business (Tenant) Identification Wall Signs April 14, 1988 I. INTENT The intent and purpose of this Sign Program is to establish uniform and compatible signage for business identification of the businesses/tenants located at 7016-7150 Village Parkway (commonly known as Don Hucke's Buildings) . Uniformity and compatibility of Signage may be achieved through restrictions on sign placement, letter height, sign length and sign area. II. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1) Provisions established in this Sign Program are considered the maximums allowed per business tenant space. Total signage per tenant space shall not exceed the maximums established in this Sign Program. 2) Each business/tenant space is permitted one primary frontage for signage and two secondary frontages for signage, provided the tenant frontage is situated adjacent to a public roadway or public open space area, such as a private street or driveway, open plaza or square or parking lot located on site. 3) The total sign area permitted per tenant space shall consist of the total sign area permitted for each tenant space primary frontage and secondary frontage. A tenant's sign area square footage not utilized as wall signage may be utilized within the appropriate C-2-B-40 Directory freestanding sign, subject to compliance with the established provisions for said directory sign. 4) Method for calculating sign height, sign length and sign area shall be subject to the provisions established in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, wall signs situated on a background of contrasting color from the tenant's building color or on a board or similar material shall be considered a can sign for the purposes of calculating sign area, sign height and sign length. 5) Specific signage provisions not established within this Sign Program shall be subject to provisions established in the Sign Ordinance. III.PRIMARY FRONTAGE 1. Maximum sign area: Total sign area per tenant space shall not exceed 10% of the surface area of the individual tenant' s building frontage available for signage. 2. Maximum letter height: A. Signs shall not exceed two rows of letters stacked. B. Maximum height of individual stacked letters: 18 inches (1 foot 6 inches) . C. Total sign height for stacked letters: 42 inches (3 feet 6 inches includes 6 inches separation between rows) . D. Maximum letter height single row letters or sign can: 36 inches (3 feet) . 3. Maximum sign length (width) : Total length of signage per tenant space shall not exceed 60% of individual tenant building frontage length. 1'A ea-,z 2 Hu"kt 3 L /41 S 4. Copy Restriction: A. Business name, goods or services available at the business, logos. B. Telephone numbers shall be prohibited, except on windows or doors in compliance with Section 8-87.50 1) of the City Zoning Ordinance. C. Addresses shall be located above the door and directional information located on directory sign in compliance with Section 8- 87.50 b) and e) of the City Zoning Ordinance. 5. Location: A. Village Parkway frontage: Centered within the top one fourth (1/4) of building height. B. Rear buildings/rear facing tenant spaces: Centered within the width of the top fascia band. If fascia band does not exist sign shall be centered within the top 5 feet of the building height. IV. SECONDARY FRONTAGE 1. Maximum sign area: Total sign area per tenant space shall not exceed 7.5% of the surface area of the individual tenant's building frontage available for signage. 2. Maximum letter height: see Primary Frontage. 3. Maximum length (width) : see Primary Frontage. 4. Copy Restriction: see Primary Frontage. 5. Location: A. Driveway frontage: top one fourth (1/4) of building height. B. Rear frontage: top fascia band or top one fourth (1/4) of building height. IV. APPROVAL Prior to the placement of signs on buildings, signage shall obtain zoning approval in compliance with provisions of this Sign Program. V. COMPLIANCE WITH SIGN PROGRAM 1. All new signage shall comply with Sign Program. 2. Existing signs rendered nonconforming as result of approval of this Sign Program may remain until such time as new signage is requested. 3. Existing illegal signs shall comply with the provisions of this Sign Program within 60 days of the effective date of this Sign Program. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 87-122 HUCKE SIGNS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A C-2-B-40 SPECIAL EASEMENT DIRECTORY SIGN AT 7016 - 7150 VILLAGE PARKWAY WHEREAS, Don Hucke, the property owner and Applicant file an application for Site Development Review for two C-2-B-40 Directory Signs and Sign Program for Wall Signs and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Special Easement Sign at 7016-7150 Village Parkway; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on April 18, 1988 and May 2, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings 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; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 88-_ approving PA 87-122 Site Development Review request for C-2-B-40 Directory Sign and Sign Program for Wall Signs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: a. The use as proposed is required by the public need in that the proposed signs provide business identification for businesses which may not have direct access on a public street. b. The proposed use would be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, in that the sign will comply with all applicable zoning regulations. 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 the sign does comply with and meet the intent of the Sign Ordinance to promote uniformity of signage. 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 the sign complys with the sign regulations and promotes uniformity and orderly development, which is a primary intent of the City's Sign Ordinance. lbrF4 iZ . 17/487 -112 I. ucke SiG-, 5 Guff /y BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve PA 87-122 Hucke Signs Conditional Use Permit for a Special Easement C-2-B-40 Directory Sign subject to the following Conditions of Approval and Conditions of Approval for the related Site Development Review request: Unless otherwise stated, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the establishment of the use of the property and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. 1) The Applicant shall provide verification to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, City Engineer and Planning Director that the parcels as shown on the assessor parcel map are legally subdivided parcels or submit an application for Tentative Map in compliance with City Subdivision Regulations within 90 days and receive Final Map approval within 6 months. 2) The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Approal for the related Site Development Review application for the C-2-B-40 Directory Signs including but not limited to sign location, dimension and sign copy PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -2- r, RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 87-122 HUCKE SIGNS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR A C-2-B-40 SPECIAL EASEMENT DIRECTORY SIGN AND SIGN PROGRAM FOR WALL SIGNS AT 7016 - 7150 VILLAGE PARKWAY WHEREAS, Don Hucke, the property owner and Applicant filed an application for Site Development Review for two C-2-B-40 Directory Signs and Sign Program for Wall Signs and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Special Easement Sign at 7016-7150 Village Parkway; and WHEREAS, the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, notice of Public Hearing was given in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, a Staff analysis was submitted recommending conditional approval of the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 18, 1988, and May 2, 1988, to consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A. All provisions of Section 8-95.0 through 8-95.8, Site Development Review, of the Zoning Ordinance are complied with. B. Consistent with Section 8-95.0 this application, as modified by the Conditions of Approval, will promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development, recognize environmental limitations on development; stabilize land values and investments; and promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of signs having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and which are not consistent with their environmental setting. C. The approval of the application as conditioned is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. D. General site considertins, including site layout, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks, height, public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment for the development. E. General architectural considerations, including the character, scale and quality of the design, building materials and colors, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project in order to insure compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of adjacent buildings and uses. F. The project is consistent with the policies in the General Plan and the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve PA 87-122 Hucke Site Development Review as shown by materials labeled "Exhibit A" on file with the Dublin Planning Department subject to the approval of the related Conditonal Use Permit and to the following Conditions: ?AB -iiz. Ucxtt SIts/IS S1jR r � CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise stated, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits and establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. 1) Wall Signs on the site shall conform to the sign program prepared by Staff dated April 14, 1988 labeled Exhibit"A" Figure 1 on file with the Dublin Planning Department and shall conform with the Conditions of Approval. 2) The approved sign program shall regulate the letter height, sign length, sign area, copy restriction, location, compliance and approval of wall signs. Sign provisions not specifically provided for in the sign program shall be regulated by the City' s Sign Ordinance. 3) This approval shall supercede all previously approved sign programs for the site. 4) This approval is for one C-2-B-40 Directory Sign per legally subdivided parcel. 5) C-2-B-40 Directory Signs shall not be located within the public right-of-way. 6) C-2-B-40 Directory Signs shall provide business identification for businesses located on the parcel on which the sign is located. 7) C-2-B-40 Directory Signs shall be single faced, situated perpendicular to Village Parkway on the south side of the adjacent driveway. The sign copy shall face south bound traffic and may include the address range on the back face of the sign. 8) C-2-B-40 Directory Signs shall maintain a minimum sight distance setback from the edge of driveway and public sidewalk intersection subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Planning Director. 9) Prior to installation of the C-2-B-40 Directory Sign the applicant shall submit an accurrately drawn and dimensioned site plan depicting the location of the Directory Sign. The Plan shall include dimensioned setback from the public right-of-way and driveway entrances. 10) The Applicant shall modify the southern most driveway on site to allow enter only subject to review and approval of the Planning Director and Traffic Engineer. 11) The Applicant shall provide each existing and all new tenants with a copy of the approved sign program and Conditions of Approval for the property. 12) The Applicant shall revise the proposed C-2-B-40 directory sign to: A) increase the total sign area to maximize the sign area for tenant identification. Total sign area for the single faced sign shall not exceed 32 square feet; B) to eliminate the word "Directory" ; C) the Directory Sign shall include the address range at either the top or bottom of the sign. Panels reserved for tenant identification shall be uniform in size, material, letter color, style and height. 13) The precise location of the C-2-B-40 Directory Signs shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director and City Engineer, upon the Applicant's submittal of an accurately drawn and dimensioned Site Plan indicating the proposed location. 14) The property owner shall increase landscaping within the front setback area subject to review and approval of the Planning Director. -2- 15) Trees and traffic signs located within the public right-of-way shall not be removed without prior written approval of the City Engineer. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this May 2, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -3- • '. . \ .‘ ,-,:.....„. • • 1. st .0. -1. •-' - • ),- .( ;$),S---"--...\\ ..\,, .\\r:-7,!\\,),e, .a........c.... r"-N - 0.00. 1.-- , .-,,- •• -:11. -0-41' +----' i i • \\ ,\ \\ I. At - .•' ..,•\ 0" \\ 1.6 , •:::•.....a.=.2!'::::!...•1.':1.:S:P; II ."...\ •..•°2:C(. ..1. sow% ' 1 CNN). 10 , -1 . , ••. - __ -- ' n 1 ' \...-- —iL__ N1--,' I _,....)1. ,'„,•,• " DUBLIN COMMUNITY ..,.. , , \ \ \\ , .•0\ \, \ •C\_A-1...D., ' ---- .c ..--.2.e..` ‘ ...-\•c-','-' ' 1 .. .t V- • \\ \ • o. - V` 8 -r" „ . 7 .. • - —,,. \--ji- x \\ 'A\ ,i• • - ',' L L- ) 'N.,-----' s ,c • 7-1-7\-L1H; _ t 4- ' , ...pi N.... 1-- ..40_,-•!-- , , \\ \ --:--- ' C • P \ \- )--:-•••___..t. - ' 2 "-xi.), _.:r-- .4-) \ _ __ ,,, ''IL .•••:"'C , --......_: ''''11'.--r' '1 Lif 7."'L.,•'''' .'41L,.,-..''.''. L..../........0 .---- , \ Ite (.. /.<:,,..,,,s.P'......h.• i HIGH SCNOOL • , \\I ,0% • . (...ra...„,_.ts ,---, ".' • < a/es"c-- 1---'7Z------- ' '-\ 's\ \ , ,___. ....-.""-Th•••-..,.......j , -, V , >,\ ,,,, \ A ., , C----) . L---------_________---;;---' t...„, . \.•,.... , NfC..., N 'N,\% \ ..-----\ " s • s s ,-,• • •, \.,..<-.0 ,,,,-,--k--,,--- \ .__ m .7,----- 1 . , • . - \< , . ,.,- -r__,•------ .....- ---'. \_ • „.- . • , m ____, . .„, r . • .1,.....-_,--,N \ \ J/a, •---i .----- ----.--__ --__ • ‘• \ \, \ \\\‘‘'S\' '41 ' \:: • h"\ '--- N-----"-- , ........ ____.....__ ,._ ; ..__1 ._ .• \ ...k • T;t. , - \ _I__,-..... ,__ .___, ,--e,,IV . --__2 ---- , •1 I >N• .!'...r- < . E....„._. r•---. . • • .•• ;-''. \Ss\\ L 2\ • .Vs • ,.•••,,,, \ \\ \ L , , 1;\ ', ••-1'‘, 1 :— 1.--------. ------••....' if .-- I •-• •',), . \ L. • X "•\ -. . • ‘s • • ''' L-__,. '''' ---•3.._ ---j----r— ----11-__ i ; T.--T--------------, L-.,_ '----- - ---::: ---.17 —11 f . "...--k A,... .. \\ \ '--,„ : :-.....,...___::-....,1"--"::-.'**--- " r----;t:::itil-j-4 ------ , • IIIIECIENIKSEN e ------,....^ -••• 4 N•,\\\\ s ..... ''..7.... --;,. ',S.," .- : --, • ------------___, z \ • . \\V., II SCHOOL I lki.,' g_s_„____• , rsi ss. f--.-. .• V. \\\‘ \ NA•,.., --.7.----• • • N )• - 'Ps'..' '‘ .-. ' \ " ' \‘‘\‘‘ "C `' ../* `------.. \ F , -..--...;--"1.___. , a , --,e> \ .•, ...,.,' \\ , s \ s \ % 1% 'g 17"..---'--2;-:4 i------.771.-' '--------7) •-•"ri"--""1 L--4 9 -.'" .' 's N. ' '.".„-, \ •\*----f ,e-',\--lif---' '-'.,,-'. ........ ......--1% .0.),..........., ........,,,:, .•.....,\ 40,\'‘..\\‘‘‘‘‘,\N 401, '' ,1-," 1(.5. ,/......4:63 __AI ___ ito, V.:,..x\)0..\.,,,,r - :., , -'\._), ),.5\1,.%%%-. so, 1.:,...,,40,, I-- 4 "'S . .,...).'' 1•1‘.16 4\\‘‘‘,\‘‘‘‘,\‘ li110:: it:-:77 1 - t ) 77 '‘k' .".s, ,I(' \C \ •,...--,:.•(.___, t ..., . , AO0` .. . .. • .. 1----—i7\\N ),, , ,.,.. Sk0 'e\i). • •^ -.%.. x........> ...s, s\c C10 like 40710 * it. e' WELLS ' ir 'idik&St' 1 \ Ai t aS4 frr ' A-14114 0,4, I ortcruaoran' r 111Illni ill MI 1114 ' i \ ‘` \ .191, IN i A'I.r*re e \• 's- 11 swag mill .........,ilk ‘• \‘‘, ,..-\\ .0 , #41, 41411 .... \\s\ .`iii .,.,/\Tfr NV? \‘ .` -- ite " - \ , -/v .0", . - , l • i' 1 ....... A' \ • \ & . \ • 1... ., y i ••. i • .... , ‘I 44 ..-1: °Ili \ ‘\ \la' .' A di: `. •' <•('- . i ,..........,H,' . C •s\):: '<s /' ,°*\>4.. '* c;Pow,ft • r'',•:.,....ftt, \ / f-• \ , '...... __.-• ',`,.\ k \: \ 9eX,, .', 'C.. /.',N .\. .D, .. \ / ., ,,,..... \ • ,.‘ ..... ... . • - „. - \ ' . j,, ,--- --1.._' '-.--,/ZZ••• --c \ - . \ \\C.,......../4 - 4,V:\ ' — -\ \ ----- " VI n. \.. ---\\-- \ . \ --4,,N, /'•-...._ -7-\\ ,.."........:\ _ , , .• \ 'I , AIV1/4" I ...)-- r i2,:I.....5<)„(<,..„.......4ss.......:-e.-- -..-...,...„.......„..............\ --\--- -- t, . .. , , , - • ., _!.......-----:...______,------__-_-_-__,, , - 2... . s,. . ,.. , . . ., .. ----,..,...„......„ . • , Du AL ft ELT --"- , r+-........ ... \ „ ,‘ +. .-- . , • . .-- _---** -S------ \ \ \ \ 1' 4 \ _ 009....,--....) _..7.. .. ., . ..,,, t _ _— ,---- ---- _ \ , ,s,, . . ,_ 2)- -tr\.\\ ‘ \ ' ATTACHMENT / , ) —-- -. -----r LOCATtbAri ' _-- - .t\ _______,------' TA 87— 12.2. 14ock6516/4 /AAP k r '. , .., ,- _ __ DON HLJCKE 25 Crocker Ave. , Piedmont, CA. , 94611 - (415) 547 5066 *************************************************************** January 15, 1988 addenda to Sign Development Review PA 87-122 Hucke TENANTS ON DIRECTORY "A" 7016 John's Transmission 7042 Amaddor Ceramics 7050 Dublin Garden Equipment 7080 Car Wash 7104 Dublin Tire co. 7106 d'Old Shoppe TENANTS ON DIRECTORY "B" 7102A Valley Auto Clinic 7112 H & K Manufacturing Co. 7114A Electra-Dor of Dublin 7130 Parkway Body Shop 7136 Automotive Consultants 7140 Broadway Muffler Directory signs to be essentially as specified on separate drawing. Due to smaller number of tenants on each directory from original plans, panels will be 8" wide rather than the 6" on drawing. Top panel to be changed to 12" wide for better ision. Don Hucke RECEIVED ATTACHMENT z T A 87- I2Z 141/4-cKe 5/6- 1S Di-e.+. e'N '87 - 1 2 2 D O N H U C K E 25 Crocker Ave., Piedmont, CA., 94611 - (415) 547 5066 **********icytic**tick*************ik*ik*lkfc**,**************it**,t,t**** August 9, 1987 RECEIVED Planning Department E. 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D CEP i Dublin, CA. 94568 pLANNING Sign Development RR�I! Don Hucke 7016-7150 Village Parkway The enclosed application for a Sign Development Review is for the purpose of obtaining a permit for two free-standing Directory signs, described on the enclosed drawing. These Directory signs will serve two main purposes: 1. Display postoffice addresses and names of tenants in the rear portion of the shopping complex who now have no suitable means of directing customers to their place of business. 2. Get rid of a mish-mash of locater signs that various tenants have tacked on to the sides and ends of the front buildings. A notice will also be sent to tenants to discontinue the use of so called sandwich signs in front of their stores. All of this will, of course, improve the appearance of the buildings and hopefully improve business for those tenants in the rear portion of the complex. At this same time I respectfully request the Planning Department to thoroughly review the painted signs on all of the buildings and approve them "en masse" in light of the following comments: Sec. 8-87.33 limits the area of business signs to 42 sq.ft. but can be increased in a Sign Development Review as can the height of the letters and length. I assume that the specifications for the signs granted to the Buck Stove company for their building at 7078 Village Parkway are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and certainly give limits that apply to similar businesses and buildings in the same area. Using those sign limits on all of the other businesses in the complex would, I am sure, place them all in the permitted class and allow a general ruling to let them stand as is. I will see to it that future new tenants who desire to change the sign language are notified to check with the Planning Department and obtain any necessary permits, etc. ATTACHMENT 3 e-P14 122. j+ucke" cr uS ALe+'-ktr s All of these buildings except Building No. 6 on Lot 2 were originally designed for light industrial back in the 1960's. Thus they all had big truck high roll steel doors 12' x 14'. The rear buildings still have these doors while the front buildings have been filled in with glass but still retain.the 14 ft. high openings. This just naturally puts the signs on all of the buildings higher than the 14 ft. limit. Comments on each of the business signs in question are as follows: 7016 V.P. , John's Transmission This seems to meet the present ordinance except for height of the letters. I did not climb up to measure them but as a guess I believe they are certainly less than 24 inches high. The present locater sign or signs will be removed. 7022 VP. , Box World Area of signs seems to meet limits set on Buck Stove building. This was an entirely new type of business in Dublin in 1985 and tenant had to get his message across that a new service was available for Dublin citizens. With UPS service available for shipping in Dublin it has proven to be a definite success. He intends, I believe, to make a franchise chain out of this beginning. To deny the moderate advertising he now has would be a hardship to a new and fresh business. 7026 V.P. , McCurley's Floor Covering This business has just been sold and I do not know what the new owner plans about name and signs. I am notifying him in writing that he must contact the Planning Department if he has any idea of changing the signs. 7030 V.P. , Dublin Trophy House This tenant is a sub-lessee of Alan Winton of the same address. From my inspection of the sign it seems to be a question of measurement - the entire surface area of the area of the letters only. At any rate it is certainly within present limits of SDR and I request that it be allowed to remain. 7038 V.P., The Frame Co. This sign has been here since 1977 and certainly comes under the limit of the 7078 V.P. building. I know that all work on the inside of the store in 1977 was done under a permit - whether or not that included the sign I do not know. At any rate it certainly is not above present limits. 7042. V.P., Amador Ceramics I didn't get up to measusre the height of the letters but my guess is that they are not over 18 inches high which is certainly not out of line. Their locater signs will be removed. /y 7054 V.P., D's Needle Arts and Crafts I believe that the letter height and width and the area are within the limits set on Buck Stove. The awning, I'm told, was put up by an outside company who were supposed to get any necessarey permits. Mr. Day, the owner, is quite willing to apply for and obtain a post facto permit if you desire one. 7050 V.P., Dublin Garden Supply Here again, I believe, the sign should be satisfactory under the limits allowed to 7078 V.P. Because of the fire doors required by the County at the rear of the rear buildings and because of the Flood Control ditch easement of 12 ft. back there, a platform in the back of each building is a safety necessity and they were built right after the buildings were finished in the early 1970's. The new manager of this store has agreed to build a new fence around it to improve the appearance from the car wash side. None of these platforms are visible from the freeway - I checked that out personally. 7066 V.P. , Red Wing Shoes I believe that this sign is within all specs as approved under a previous SDR. 7078 V.P., Buck Stove Co Approved previously 7080 V.P., Car Wash No signs at present - will have space on Directory 7100 V.P., Weld's Hobbies I didn't get up and measure the letter height but it certainly is less than 24 inches. Otherwise it should be OK. 7102A V.P., Valley Auto All locater signs will be removed when Directory signs are up. I believe all other specs are OK (the smog control sign is a State sign and should not be counted) 7102 V.P., King Fu Karate Approved previously. 7104 V.P., Dublin Tire Sign is, I believe, OK. Locater signs will be removed. 7106 V.P., Dold's Workshop Locater signs will be removed. 7108_V.P.i_AAA I,<.<•k•smith•s Approved previously. 7112 V.P., H. & K Machine Shop No signs 7114 V.P. , Video Central Seems to be OK - note on width not explained and not apparent. 7114A V.P. , Electra-Dor Signs seem to be OK, certainly within Buck Stove limits. Locater sign will be removed 7130 V.P. , Parkway Body Shop I believe this is easily within Buck Stove SDR limits but some art (?) designs can be removed if absolutely required. 7136 V.P., Automotive Consultants Letter size is questionable - I did not climb up to measure it. I'd guess it less than 24 inches easily withouot the painted background. I'll get him to change it if you insist but it seems quite harmless back there. 7138 V.P. , Stoecker's Lounge This business has been sold and the new owner will take over as soon as the liquor license is transferred - hopefully Sept. 1st. He will be told to get a sign permit from you. 7140 V.P., Broadway Muffler Locater sign will be removed. The can sign on th;e north side of the building is, I believe, legal according to the definition of Secondary Frontage. The sign overlooks an open plaza and/or an auto parking area. The advertising value is unmistakably good. NOTE; The property in question is owned by Don Hucke Kathryn F. Hucke (my wife) Phyllis Hucke Sutton (my daughter) I have their permission - yea, their pleas - to represent them in any necessary legal way in this matter. Submitted by Don Hucke 25 Crocker Ave. Piedmont, CA. 94611 (415) 547-5066 • Don Hucke eeN LON i-iUCICE 25 Crocker Ave., Piedmont, CA. , 94611 - (415) 547 5066 *******************************,******************************* August 23, 1987 Planning Department 6500 Dublin B:vd. Suite D Dublin, CA. 94568 Conditional Use Permit Don Hucke 7016-7150 Village Parkway In addition to the Sign Development Review (papers enclosed) I am requesting a Conditional Use Permit as follows: The property that I and my wife and my daughter own - 4 acres included in Post Office addresses 7016 to 7150 Village Parkway, noludes a rear area where several businesses are located who badly need some sort of identifying signs on the Village Parkway frontage so they can be found by prospective customers. At the urging of the Planning Department I have agreed to construct and emplace two directory type signs in the front parkway next to the street. There are two driveways that lead to the rear area so a directory is obviously indicated for each. (The narrow driveway at the south boundry is for EXIT only). The only reasonable locations are as indicated on the enclosed sketch of the area: "A", which is a perfect spot as the driveway angles to extend a few feet there so the sign is away from the front entrance of 7100 Village Parkway. South on the other side 'f the driveway is a solid concrete slab used for extra parking. The second location is at "B" on the same sketch, which is also a preferred location. The base is asphalt which is easily pierced. It is requested that the above two locations be approved even they are both on the same acre of property - the distance between them is approximately 130 feet and the proposed locations are very much preferred. In addition, since the directory at "A" is to locate three tenants in Bldg 5 which is owned by Mrs. Hucke, as well as two tenants in Bldg 2 plus the car wash; and, similarily the directory at "B" will locate three tenants in Bldg 5 and t;wo tenants in Bldg 1; I request that strict adherence to the ordinance be waive•_; because: RECEIVED J[P 1 i9?7 DUBLIN PLANNING ATTACHMENT 3 ?' $?- IZZ Sucke 51 ir+vS . /"N /'� 1 . The four properties are owned by myself, my wife and my daughter and are administered by me. 2.The deeds for each of the four pieces of property all have inter-connecting and overlapping easements for all parking and driveways each to each as is given by the deed copies enclosed. 3, Simply stated, the request is that the property be treated for this rather minor usage as one land holding. Submitted by Don Hucke 25 Crocker Ave. Piedmont, CA. 94611 (4,15) 5 7-5066k " _ Don Hucke RECEIVED DON HUCKE DJ$if11 PLANNING 25 Crocker Ave. , Piedmont, CA. , 94611 - (415) 547 5066 ***********************,tic***********ik*Fic*,********************* August 31, 1987 Planning Department 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D Dublin, CA. 94568 Addenda Conditional Use Permit Don Hucke 7016-7150 Village Parkway In connection with the approval of the two directory signs to be placed in the front of the above mentioned property, I also request that consideration be given to allowing the two directory signs to be made two-sided, that is, with a duplicate directory list on the reverse side. It seems sensible to do so, rather than having a big blank piece of plywood on the reverse side; the printing would certainly be better looking and would have added value in giving information to people walking in the other direction. While it would, of course, be a little more expensive, I would gladly take care of that just to have a better looking directory. Surely such a two sided directory can have no adverse effect on any person, property or neighbor. Don Hucke P TACHMENT 3 '... P1487-12 - Ike-5i' S • .uF.iruLGiY44fN=1wG•.:�i^ .ar:r.. . .----�.- « CITY OF DUBLIN 'Development Services ( Plannino2oning 829 4916 P.O. fox 2340 'Building &Safety 829-0822 'Dublin, CA 94568 'Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL STATUS FILE COPY DATE: Sept er 29, 1987 Re. Planning Application #: PA 87- 22 Hucke $ign Program CUP/SDR-Sign Project Description: Site Development Review for C-2-B-40 Directory Sign and Sign Program, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Special Easement Sign. Finance Control #: N/A Project/Site Address: '7016 - 7150 Village Parkway Assessor Parcel Number(s) : 941-210-2-2; -5-3; 5-4; 5-5 Applicant/Owner: Don Hucke 25 Crocker Avenue • Piedmont, CA 94611 ' Dear Applicant: For planning purposes, I have been assigned to be your Project Planner. I will be your key contact and coordinator with the City during the planning approval process. When communicating with us regarding your project, please refer to your Planning Application Number (PA 87-122) , the title of your project (Hucke - SDR/Sign-CUP) , and, if applicable, the Finance Control Number (N/A) . We have reviewed your application submittal packet for completeness in compliance with State and local requirements. The application submittal packet is complete. Processing will commence as of this date. If your application submittal required a deposit, please note that the deposit amount is an estimate and may be subject to change. Upon completion of the project, any remaining funds will be returned to you or you will be billed for any costs not covered by the deposit. Also note that if environmental studies are required, you will be obligated to pay for them. Any additional comments are indicated below. XX The application submittal packet is incomplete. A list of items needed to complete the application submittal is indicated below. After these items are submitted, you will be mailed another letter to verify the date when processing will begin. COMMENTS: 1. Please submit a title report or property profile for each parcel. 2. Please identify on site plan or in list form the business name, building location of business, and which directory sign the business will be identified on. FILE COPY ,. t22_ Nv estc N • . • PA 87-122 Hucke Sign Program CUP/SDR-Sign • 3. The site plan submitted is inadequate. Please provide a fully: and accurately dimensioned site plan. The site plan must show all existing improvements accurately dimensioned, including driveway locations, landscape area, and existing structures. Additionally, the site plan should show the location of proposed freestanding signs with 'setbacks dimensioned from the property line and driveways. 4. The sign program submitted is inadequate. The purpose of a sign program is to establish uniform or compatible signage for a development. Sign programa typically address the following -issues: a) Placement of signs - The sign program should designate a specific location for placement of signs in the development. An approved sign program should be applicable to all tenants or a majority of tenants within the development. b) Sign Type - The sign program should designate the specific type of sign permitted, i.e. , individual letters or can sign, wall mounted or building surface painted signs, or directory sign. In designating the type of sign permitted, the sign program should also identify sign materials. • c) Letter Height or Sign Can Height - The sign program should designate the permitted sign height for tenant identification signs. d) Sign Length - The sign program should designate a specific sign length permitted for the tenant identification signs. e) Sign Area - The sign program should designate the maximum sign area permitted. Please address items a) through e) in your proposed sign program. Attached are examples of approved sign programs within the City. 5. Two tenants within your building have awnings attached to the front of the building. Please address the sign program, the specific location, site and materials of awnings to be permitted on the building. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at 829-4916. Sincerely, Al / -40ate/Zge(/t_ Maureen O'Halloran Associate Planner MO'H/ao CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services Planning/Zoning 829 4916 $ox 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 '.Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 November 17, 1987 FILE COPY Don Hucke 25 Crocker Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 • SUBJECT: PA 8 - 22 Hucke Signs - 7016-7150 Vilalge Parkway Site Development Review/Conditional Use Permit Dear Mr. Hucke: This is a follow-up to the application submittal status letter mailed to you September 29, 1987. The letter notified you that your application submittal was incomplete and included a list of items needed to complete your submittal. To date you have not submitted any of the items listed in the previous letter (see attached) . If you do not wish to apply for the Site Development Review for the Sign Program for wall signs or awnings, you may disregard items #4 and #5. However, items #1 through #3 are still required for the proposed C-2-B-40 directory and special easement signs. In addition, the City's Sign Ordinance requires directory signs to be located in a landscaped planter of appropriate dimensions with the sign's means of support concealed. The site plan and elevations previously submitted do not indicate whether the signs are located in a planter or if the sign supports are concealed. When resubmitting the site plan and elevations (item #3 on status letter dated September 29, 1987) , please clarify this issue. The tenants at 7016-7150 Village Parkway and you as the Property Owner of those buildings were notified (by the Zoning Investigator in a letter dated April 30, 1987) of the existing illegal wall signs on the buildings. To date few of these illegal signs have complied with the notification to conform with the Sign Ordinance or former Sign Program for the buildings. Since the Planning Department anticipated a Sign Program submittal from you to bring the illegal signs into conformance, the Zoning Investigator has not actively pursued enforcement of these signs. If you choose not to pursue the Sign Program for wall-mounted signs, the Zoning Investigator will once again begin enforcement procedures to obtain compliance with the former Sign Program S-291. FILE COPY ATTAC HMENT -5. 81- 122 14.44 Spins �_�_. • • Don Hucke November 17, 1987 Page 2 Please submit the required items to complete your application submittal by November 30, 1987, or notify the City Planning Department if you intend to withdraw your application. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call. • Sincerely, Maureen O'Halloran Associate Planner MO'H/ao cc: File PA 878-122 Laurence Tong, Planning Director • Juanita Stagner, Zoning Investigator Dublin Tire CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 January 11, 1988 Don Hucke 25 Crocker Avenue Piedmont, cA 94611 SUBJECT: PA 87-122 Hucke Signs - 7016-7150 Village Parkway Site Development Review/Conditional Use Permit Submittal Status Dear Mr. Hucke: This is a follow-up to the application submittal status letters mailed to you September 29, 1987, and November 17, • 1987. As you are aware, those letters notified you that your application submittal was incomplete and included a list of items you needed to submit to the Planning Department to compelte your application. Three months have passed and you have not submitted any of the items listed in the previous letters (see attached) . You indicated in a telephone conversation in November that you did not wish to pursue the Site Development Review request for a sign program for wall signs on your Village Parkway property. Withdrawal of the sign program portion of your application reduces the required items needed to complete your application submittal to the following: 1. Please submit a title report or property profile for each parcel. 2. Please identify on a site plan the tenant location, business name, and which directory sign the business will be identified on. 3. The site plan submitted is inadequate. Please provide ten copies of a fully and accurately dimensioned site plan. The site plan must show all existing improvements accurately dimensioned, including driveway locations , landscape area, and existing structures. Additionally, the site plan should show the location of proposed freestanding signs with setbacks dimensioned from the property line, buildings and driveways. 4. Directory signs are required to be located within a planter. The sign supports are required to be concealed. Please indicate planters on the revised site plan. Please revise the sign elevation plans indicating concealed sign supports and resubmit 10 copies of the revised plan. A copy of this letter is being sent to tenants of your buildings as Staff has received a number of inquiries from them concerning the status of the directory sign application. __ .......�-am...:..:.: .. . :.. .. � "_." wC x.ri„+'w»w.�Jb`�#`r�,v x..-..t...,.,_ ......- • .... ...... +.+�s-. .-_.��..�d.....�...,..__..._........._._ ... . �• • 0 Don Hucke January 11, 1988 Page 2 Please submit the required information as soon as possible, in order that Staff may begin processing your application. If you have any questions concerning this matter please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, " / Maureen O'Halloran Associate Planner MOH/df Attachments cc: PA 87-122 Larry Tong, Planning Director Juanita Stagner, Zoning Investigator Amador Ceramics Dublin Tire DON H U C PC E 25 Crocker Ave., Piedmont, CA. , 94611 - (415) 547 5066 *********icicic************fcic*****ic***********9c******************* January 15, 1988 Planning Department RECEIVED . 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA. 94568 JACK 2 Att: Ms. Maureen O'Halloran DUBLIN PLANNING The enclosed title reports and ten new large prints of the property with accompanying letters, will, I certainly hope, allow you to process our request for permit for two directory signs so I can go ahead and have them made up and installed. I believe the prints include all of the information you have asked for over the past several months and answers the items in your January 11th letter. At your suggestion I changed the location of the "B" Directory sign. I found that the existing planter area in front of the Hong Kong restaurant can be used providing the sign is set in parallel to Village Parkway, so I changed the "A" sign in front of 7100 Village Parkway to also be parallel to the street. Hence, cancel my letter of August 31 asking for permission to use letters on both sides of the directory. Originally as I understood it, the main the only purpose of the Conditional Use Permit was to clear up a very minor technical matter that arose because the total property is divided into three sections, mine, my wife's and my daughter's. The Directory Signs will advertise tenants that are on other property than that of the signs. It would seem to me that such a small point can be settled without an expensive and time consuming hearing. However, I did not aoree or intend that the Sign Development Review be abandoned. You suggested that we set aside the sign problem for the moment and get on with the Directory Sign permit, with which idea I heartily agreed. The $235.00 fee that I paid way back on Sept. 1, 1987 includes the two applications and I still request a hearing on the matter of some 20 odd tenant signs. ATTACHMENT 6 1437-122 14,-)cke5cco I.0188 • , , I( .1 . • 1101 _ 41 tp- - • , - 41.21 errs• IJ • ma- a M4 la irr.ti lN�'I Far- limmosismial Yv n January 15, 1988 Hucke - Page 2 I do request serious consideration of a variance, if one is needed, to Sec. 8-87.35. The term "shall have their means of support concealed" is not within the means of modern science unless by that it is meant that there be plants or shrubs planted around the base and hiding the support posts. That will make the Directory appear to grow out of a big flower pot - a hideous and unpleasant idea that I object to mightily. Two signs on Sierra Lane are neater, better looking and far more practical - see 6591 ( "vs'eS and 6465-6557 Sierra Lane. I presume these have the Planning .‘,'lase' Department's approval (even though the one looks like the designer was trying to copy a Japanese Tori gate). Since the change in location of Directory "8" a corrected addenda to PA 87-122 Hucke superseding one dated Nov. 17, 1987, is enclosed. Sincerely, Don Hucke c: Larry Tong, Planning Director Juanita StagnOer, Zoning Investigator Amador Ceramics Dublin Tire d'Old Shoppe Automotive Consusltants • ' ' RECEIVED d Y Jer P tcte \, L '' Sam` '�' : ( t' I 1987 3 ° ro IQ —I 7I DUBLIN PLANNING i— _ A any. s45 (6 t Er s ;S ° 7 023 P\ \ Vii_ v_T \e i \i -f-ca , - -4- A 5 9 � s- sr i /i 'c ? P l' C� h' -s - CO .7 o G .3,'. 1 i '__ -__' ' S o '') p ?6 I 07 i2 n t HEX Z_c SCCeWS 'Li' LU I -7�JurrJi�Hm or '1 - 3ronZe car dZ ru.; "'` _ 6 3 6 I /3ras s e) r •-1'3 n , I js -r ) _...r Chrome )afeei 0 !-' ,N 1400 if ....__J 1Nosher Vh-71 .a re TA At y fl, I ° 1 o 03 ---3- i . _ •5 Ji S ).-yid - . , , . t ' :, \ -7- J� q)_ / �O b C. r e'}e I r n /05 h ee( os bo Y . J ts, j - /e ✓e/ 1 ( 1 n 9/our�c i ✓ /e✓e)��o, �Je �l __ V-__� Qrrl -true veYf-, a1 Ll _ t "' a �' 90° f-o amide wall,- //n„, ,. - �� L►i'c+ HUCKE '87 • 1 2 2 • City of Dublin Dublin Downtqwn ec� i c Plan Adopted by the City Council on July 1 , 1987 J WURSTER , BERNARDI AND EMMONS , INC . ATTACHMENT-pot.,,.,n-a I f l`g7 I22 Hy J��s ' cite,.-s An increase of height over a portion or all of the site (77 up to that specified in the Development Standards section of this report may be granted if the city finds that such an increase would not be detrimental to adjacent residents. ` 11) The city shall seek the creation of a downtown plaza space for joint public and private uses. E. URBAN DESIGN 1) Additional public improvements within the downtown area shall be used to identify the area more strongly with the City of Dublin. 2) The city shall require adequate landscaping between sidewalks and parking lots. iiimulliiPP' 3) The city shall encourage and require a high level building, landscaping and signing quality. 4) Properties adjacent to the freeways shall be required to adequately landscape the edges of their property as part of any development approval . 5) The use of tar and gravel roofs shall be discouraged. 0 6) Substantial areas of sloped roofs shall be encouraged. 7) The use of colorful fabric awnings shall be encouraged. 8) A strong pedestrian environment shall be encouraged along Amador Plaza Road. 9) Uses along San Ramon Road shall be encouraged to increase their orientation toward that street and to implement appropriate building and landscape improvements. F. IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING 1) Implementation of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan shall be considered a joint public and private sector effort. The city shall re-evaluate the plan implementation progress annually to determine whether private sector participation and cooperation warrants the continuation of projected public funding levels. 2) The city shall consider the establishment a city-wide Business License Fee Program. 3) The city shall establish a Traffic Monitoring Program to periodically assess current and projected traffic impacts and shall take appropriate actions to revise the downtown or other area plans to maintain traffic congestion at J levels acceptable to the city. 12 ' f .. • \ // 1 N \\\\ .--1 r ,i ,:<:=-Ilk\ .v1::, /\r \'. S� \ j; ;\ \ /// V ''''L/' \ \\ .;"':,-)''' -- --.‘-''''• •\‘\\,.„._.....,.):.—,--\00- 1_f,,-, cR ¼ T � � ›, .....,,.,.t_,.,t____,__,\,,_:-___,1_1--11_-_1___._'‘,_'i•_,.-'",).. ..;• .,1,G,,;I_(..,.\...... _,,\__,_,\_,%\.tc._.-,%.\.—...—::.:-..,s..,....,.....,',:,„-,_,....-\\n_'\.'„','._,,\ \,::,\..",,k---—s,\ s.'1I.A• --..\..%,_,,..,,.0\.,1..(v_—,,. i.-. ,..U.....,C, /, c %G w L . ' `, ,� , , _ ,\•�\ y Y' ',, \ , +/ ` y \ / I ...,...... ...,1,\"\\:\;,/, .... ...'//'0 ---- t"-----------.\t___ \....:\ 400111k ,.,.. \ , _;4,.t .\ V \ ',,,‘;. .:\' .i( a\ ,41' Illir I -1'\:\.7C\\ A:'' ''' / , -- A ' '' .,Al''' ' \''\ \.\ Vi \ W"',..".......„. ... 11�� %.\,,;,r , = _--:;- „_______,\:i , A. ..,,,,), ,,€.„„..,,, 6, ..._ ,--% , ., , ,.-\---0, ,, c, , .-, ,,o-.,„, s\., . . --i— ..rillilliii;iiT T-74-1-• t-mt-:..:_Ar.....,:I----At---At.----A,_A\. Op li \\ ..:- ,.....---/,) \ .----- A----t%,.....3, s. --\9 & // '''.. ...-;':-...7.--\\C VI ' - -----: ... -:=---, '..' 2 ,,,,----- T. \\ "1 671 • ,r____: , it , c---- ).' ... -..---::"—'...\-\-: C .\ 1.--- AV\. \O# . \ Ji ii\ <(;>\\j \ tt\ \ 7-.. \- '''• g/ 7- le_ \,Q-.7 e;7 v.\ et,• •4• I , "'" --t-A -,--i _ \ / , • 1 �� 1 `� % ,, "2, �_ y /,( ; iii y ��' \ ......1..... \\N4,---A ' , \ V--- '' . _______--_____ ;;;T:-.00"*"" 1 .J-7-7 • -------A% , „. 111 • --' �f .,,,\, \(i/ \ _.,-------7 ----- \\ _ • De (CIA\ ----",/ velopment Zones Map DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 20 feet 0 DUBLIN, -CALIFORNIA 2 9 Diagram 10 Zone 8: Restaurant and Specialty Retail Located between I-680 and the proposed Dublin "Restaurant Row" this zone will be encouraged over time to increase its pedestrian orientation for restaurant, specialty retail and entertainment uses. Zone 9 : Amador Valley Boulevard Commercial Strategically situated in a good location relative to traffic access within the downtown area, this zone will be encouraged to intensify its development in the future. A mix of uses with some two or three story structures is desired. Design cohesiveness among portions of the area will be strongly encouraged. Proposals providing direct access to San Ramon Road will be considered. Zone 10: Village Parkway Mixed Use Currently occupied by a wide mix of commercial uses, this zone will continue to serve a variety of needs in the future. Visual landscape and building design improvements will be sought to compliment the city's substantial investment in public improvements along Village Parkway. Zone 11: Retail/Office Located on two streets which serve the nearby residential population, this area will continue as a mix of commercial uses. Small scale resident-serving offices such as medi- cal or dental offices will be encouraged along with retail uses oriented to the nearby residential areas. Proposals which incorporate residential uses will be considered. MINMOMIIOPP3) INTERIM USE ZONES Four areas of Downtown Dublin have been identified as interim use zones. These are areas which will likely remain in their current use for the foreseeable future but for which substantial later change is possible. Interim use standards will be developed for each zone to allow current uses to continue and to encourage property changes where appropriate to mitigate negative visual impacts on adjacent properties. Interim use zone locations and general standard are shown on Diagram 11. Interim Use Zone A: This area currently contains three warehouse structures containing non-retail uses and a large vacant property. The area is the potential location for a BART Park- f . and-Ride facility initially and a later parking �-/ resource for a BART station or other regional 31 • . .-...._.,a........, ....._..�u .. 1 :...X;:fi,e•,&/_,;Jl a .: 14e1 =taat: --a.y c...J,...Sw w.t,.,. ,. _ .— ...- _.-. r..-..... • ROPERTY CHANGES SHALL INCLUDE, ` _ACREASED LANDSCAPING AND VISUAL, -\ �` ANY ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO EXIST' ING7 %\' ': 1 . , ♦ DEVELOPMENT SHALL STRUCTURES 1 - Vy\,: _ j I fO v /BE CONTINGENT UPON ' SCREENING SERVICE USE -Ny. 1, / v�\ r11ro`,� °° vvAND INCREASED ��-� ` �—'' �� •.A.k�\ o • LANDSCAPING INTERIM USE LIMITED \, o �--' • � o ,, V'N . - .6�. TO AUTOMOBILE ��\,..... :\--TT-"----7\-.1---• � =� \, �:" " . .DEALERSHIP /j�i 1:C(>- ----) ',•ram' ///��.:\'.:\i-\'...::\\::c.i:i-;::;.:.:.i.:1i::?.::::::::':'•\:.'• , . iii i :;________„7- 11\ ..,..\--,-,--N-\\,,,',/ T.,\ , ,__-_-_,-\\ ,,,,,..t .. ,-",., ,, \ , -A. ,ow \-_____________________ t '-e\,:\;-- s/4,:..._.„ \ ,-----‘,2._,\.,_ \ .:4: ii.iiii:--- \ \ \,f,>\..,c -- . - _ \. ,..„. o � �� c, ::::,:::,: ...;..„._ ,A i'�� „cs, ',.:,,:,„.,.. ::....,:, ..\ , , ... v r_s_i „2„.._-_:--;_A ,_,_.____- \-,-----_-_—_-_,\.,,-, :.:4pp.tv.. • ' [=\ : eT_,.., ,✓. \ a ,,�,�> \\ \ ,ii , \ \, __} / IT) 1 u U � � �c1. \\30 \�� 11. ,ems . y,l- \ \ -"2 e'-\\ A \\ • \ :... ;?. 1 ) ,\\N ... .I'' ''''. 1 Nille. _..„;0 ....'. ..::.;: "....i .............:i?.:.:.. .... ‘....e.'f'-' //1// 1 \\ 0 a 1 f-- 0 1--- . \ _ic,,,. 1 0 ri-:".,--... __. ... __iiiit.....41.:.. Ir. 7:::::::::::::.::-:::::::-:.:: , ‘- -- „-w- >/y/ \ ,n ....---r) \c==='\ i _,\:._ * :::.::::::::.,:.:::::::-:-:.:-:::::::::.:::::::::,:.... :. .5;>y/ // Niottlia. I , 5;c7/, ,,___ /( --- ... w.....7111011.1 \ ,, / ANY PARKING Le,, DE1E OPMENT 1' SHALL BE ADEQUA \LY(,� .ANDSCAPED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS SHALL REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STRUCTURES SHALL BE LIMITED TO ROADWAY EXISTING BUILDINGS OR THOSE RELATED TO REGIONAL TRANSIT ACTIVITIES OR TRANSIT-COMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL USES Interim Use Zones and Standards DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN 200 400 feet 11) DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 32 Diagram 11 r transit facility. The need to accommodate these potentials in the future combined with the property' s current relative isolation from Dublin Boulevard requires a different set of development standards than would be desirable for a future commercial mixed use project related to a regional transit facility. Interim standards should: a) Prohibit development which would preclude the economical development of transit parking. b) Require recognition that the property is highly visible from Interstate 580 and does much to establish the image of Downtown Dublin. c) Allow for a new street connecting Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive. d) Recognize the limited retail potential of the property until roadway and transit improvements are implemented. e) Require an overall master plan emphasizing a mix of commercial uses for long term change for the area prior to the approval of any additional structures or uses. Interim Use Zone B: Currently occupied largely by older industrial type structures, this area is in marked contrast to other development in the downtown area. While the area will eventually change, current ownerships patterns and the relatively sound condition of the structures suggest that some time may pass before substantial change will occur. Interim standards are needed to improve the appearance of this area and should: a) Require substantial additional landscaping along the Village Parkway frontage as a condition of any future property improvements. b) Encourage improvements to the visual character of existing structures. c) Encourage additional landscape improvements to all parking areas. Interim Use Zone C: Auto dealership uses contained in this zone are felt to be an asset to Downtown Dublin and will be encouraged to remain. However, it is realized that in the longer term, increased land values may eventually precipitate a change in land use. Development standards for this zone will be 33 D . • . I • -i 1 •O ,t 0,‘ -- , f .. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ti‘ i ' • j� DOWNTOWN DUBLIN Table C 2 3 J DEVELOPMENT ZONES ,.✓ ' LAND USES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 RETAIL STORES • • • • • • • • •• • • OFFICES � ® � � � O 0 0 `1 • • ', FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS • • • • • • • • •• • RESTAURANTS (NON FAST FOOD) • • • • • • • • • • • , HOTEL/MOTEL * (.) a SERVICE COMMERCIAL • • • • • • • • • • COMMERCIAL RECREATION/ O 11 O ENTERTAINMENTi , RESIDENTIAL till • t t • (0) ll 1 w AUTOMOBILE SALES/SER VICE A A 8: • DRIVE-IN BUSINESS l�l `_lto . INIF-- ''' ci)1 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION •CN DISTRICT SHOPS& SERVICE • • t AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITIES .. A A .M-1 DISTRICT USES A REGIONAL TRANSIT FACILITIES a III OTHER C-1 DISTRICT USES `/'� �� / J�— �— lam' �J �/ -�/ �/'• � OTHER C 2 DISTRICT USES OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO* 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.30 r 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.50 0.30 0.30 MAXIMUM BLDG. HEIGHT (FEET)* '45 45 45 45 45 45 45 35 } 45 35 35 t 1 p f j • PERMITTED O CONDITIONAL USE A PERMITTED ON AN INTERIM BASIS L.„1 SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND ). OAPPROVAL AS SUPPORTAIVE OF DOWNTOWN GOALS LIMITED TO SECOND FLOOR OR ABOVE SPACE ONLY * AN INCREASE TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO MAY ■ PERMITTED LAND USES WILL BE DEFINED AS THE ZONING BE CONSIDERED THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING PROCESS ORDINACE IS AMENDED R ♦ INCLUDING FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS 1 . . ,.P.. _:�`�£.."�r",.z.�'��.a..*�..0�,�c'. C :,;a�4 �• _: '%�zi5t,...�a .-aJ'4-:fir"��.�.�:�"-' �.i+.Srs�` xC' ��.:�ifi�S'ii�iKt. �SL°3iBCu .+"�, �, .. VISUAL APPEARANCE FROM • — SAN RAMON ROAD IMPORTANT '7 ,�, \\,\�\ ^�. •" N ;I fr Ayv,. ►�% /B'LDG. ENTRIES BUILDING HEIGH ir IIMITED\T'O`\ J,. %$ �� .` •♦� ;ORIENTED TO 2 STORIES AQ/JACE. T T/O�T E,�1;\ 1�� '." .� AMADOR PLAZA RD. PR01'1RTY��k NES/'_L/ ` V-_--i�� v ' �! 15' MIN. LANDSCAPED \` / ,...\ :\ "V GCS f� s . SETBACK REQ'D. ---\' N `•40 IiVCv ''i ♦ <l l„\: ':' y=T j;t , --,` `, '�e . \ STRONf� PEDESTRIAN ♦ ♦ i i, �►/C\ --„ -_, *\ \* V .•, E'er"�`Q'ONMENT REQ'D. ''* '�Q " i' % Syr,` / - \ (10 .` ' \V , -. „-r\.-\\V\\,..‘',,, ,---"". „ ,--A__,\ ,:\:;\., ,„• \ \:11-Illip' V V \'.„F :\--\'- '4't'____, \ \V--,_-_">-`_,\. ..;\-V- 0 'y.':ii \,. .•_Ai- \-----------....„._ .. _4.::- ,,,,,--___A, -;:.,c4 , , eI .*,,„ I -_ ._ ft p-\\.‘1%‘ \ , :-..."------ ---k ,,' A_ `.„ = \.r ,,a, II 1 _ igi tiV.,,.. .: .i ts,'",-,40A ' , . :.\, .jc)C,1 \I1.i\Ii1 r `T j.:.—..-2iAi-ii..,, -,t„-,,A-\,,—\-0__-c_.\--?_-*—:,I_:.6.,-0._.t-:.--_.:;‘,,,_1,:--.,:—r.,.:\-2-.1.,..:t.%„,:._-,',- k,„,,. Z '•`%/ et4,t,.I a' \V \c Q\b\1 \I ,,-;,l s\\'',\-'c,*-\-\_,?.,_ •2\V\. - % \\: `� )) ' i \ (> -s\ ,, -----7•••••• . ,. 11 ‘i\\\\ —2- Z Q 1 fir' 0' '`.' :.5- 'k 10, ;'.7,,,:i. 4_* lit a.4.; // -,,,t.111:11 '-• L-- fil.:;4:7.1.4r... e lib �' 1 � •• II AND �t DIT Of�A1AL SPECIALTY _, l�� RETAIL USES E• • UR,A6;D% STRONG PEDESTRIAN CO NEICTION SU—WTANTIALI LAN SOAPING ENCOURAGED ' REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING ENCOURAGED NEW ROADWAY AND LANDSCAPED PEDESTRIAN WAY REQUIRED . INTEGRATED PROJECT WITH PUBLIC FOCAL POINT COMMERCIAL USES AND REGIONAL TRANSIT PARKING DESIRED U Special Site Development Requirements DUBLIN DOWNTOWN PLAN =400 feet 4110 . • DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 39 Diagram 13 -r - . . CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: May 2, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff ' SUBJECT: PA 88-020 - Lyon' s Brewery, CUP GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: PA 88-020 Lyon's Brewery Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Judy Ashworth 7692 Arbor Creek Circle Dublin, CA 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: Richard Jeha 1460 Maria Lane #420 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 LOCATION: 7294 San Ramon Road ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-40-7-2 PARCEL SIZE: 4.8 acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: San Ramon Road Specific Plan Area 3A (Retail Office) EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Planned Development (PA 83-042) Town & Country Shopping Center (Vacant Storefront) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: C-1 South: C-1 East: C-1 - Commercial West: PD - Residential (under construction) ZONING HISTORY: 1983 - City Council rezoned property from C-1 to PD (PA 83-042) July 1983 - City Council adopted San Ramon Road Specific Plan October 1983 - City Council adopts Appendix A - Definitions for San Ramon Road Specific Plan June 1986 - City Council approves an amendment to SubArea 3A (Town & Country Center) to permit uses generally provided for by the C-1 zone which included taverns as a Conditional Use. (PA 86-050.1) COPIES TO: Applicant Q� Owner ITEM NO. V File PA 88-020 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The San Ramon Road Specific Plan (as amended by City Council Resolution 54-86) established SubArea 3A which permits Taverns subject to the 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 NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the May 2, 1988, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: Consistent with the requirements of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan and the Planned Development zoning the Applicant has submitted this application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Tavern at the Town & Country Shopping Center. The shopping center was built in 1984. Due to low occupancy rates of the building the property owner initiated an amendment to the specific plan which expanded the permitted and conditionally permitted uses. Taverns were added to the list of conditional uses. Taverns are establishments used primarily for the serving of alcoholic beverages by the drink. Food and sale of packaged liquors (if permitted) would be accessory to the primary use. Concerns that might be related to the establishment of a Tavern include proximity to residential uses, noise, traffic and parking. The proposed location of the Tavern is in the building closest to San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. The residential units currently under construction to the west are adequately separated from the proposed location by other buildings in the shopping center thus minimizing impacts. Traffic and parking are expected to peak at hours different from retail uses in the center. There may be some coincidence of traffic from the Tavern with the adjacent restaurant. Adequate parking exists near both of these -2- . , �. establishments so no conflicts are anticipated. Traffic on local streets should not be impacted as evening peak hour traffic for San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard will occur earlier. Parking requirements for Taverns are higher than other uses in the shopping center. A retail use in the same space would require about 7-9 spaces versus the 24 spaces required for this Tavern. However, the overall parking requirement for the shopping center (270 spaces) anticipated a combination of uses and provides adequate parking for restaurants and taverns among retail establishments. Dancing is not automatically permitted in a tavern unless a conditional use permit application for community recreation (dance floor) is approved and the Police Department issues a Dance Permit. This application does not include a request for dancing. If the Tavern is approved the Applicant has the option to submit a separate request for dancing which would not affect the permit for the Tavern. Noise is not expected to be a problem with this project. A condition has been included in the draft condition of approval which prohibits loud speakers or amplified music outside the building. In addition, there is also a condition which requires the owner to control activities so as not to create a nuisance to existing or future adjoining businesses. Based on the previous analysis, Staff believes the request is appropriate and recommends the Planning Commission approve the request for a Tavern. 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 the draft Resolution of Approval or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Tavern and adopt the attached draft resolution. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A: Draft Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit PA 88-020 Background Attachments 1. Applicant' s Statement of Operation 2. Floor Plan 3. Area Map -3- RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING PA 88-020 LYON'S BREWERY REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TAVERN AT 7294 SAN RAMON ROAD, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Applicant, Judy Ashworth, Owner of Lyon's Brewery, filed a Conditional Use Permit application to allow the operation of a Tavern at 7294 San Ramon Road; and WHEREAS, the adopted City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance restricts the operation of a Tavern until a Conditional Use Permit is secured; WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and has been found to be categorically exempt; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing was published in The Herald, posted in public buildings, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, a Staff analysis was submitted recommending conditional approval of the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 2, 1988, to consider all reports, recommendations, and testimony; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: a) The use is required by the public need in that there are no taverns in the immediate vicinity. b) The use will be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity as the peak hour use of the tavern can be anticipated to be during mid-day and early evenings and are not expected to conflict with other businesses or roads 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 injuries to property or improvements in the neighborhood, as all applicable regulations will be met. d) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the District in which it is to be located, as a tavern is consistent with the character of the Planned District and the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless otherwise specified, the following Conditions shall be complied with prior to issuance of building permits. Each item is subject to review and approval by the Planning Department unless otherwise specified. 1. Development shall be generally as shown on the floor plan submitted with the application dated received by the Dublin Planning Department on March 27, 1988. Development shall be subject to final review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit or establishment of the requested use and shall be subject to the conditions listed below. 2. The permit shall be valid for a period of three (3) years until May 2, 1991, at which time it shall be necessary to apply for renewal. Failure to establish the use within one (1) year of the effective date of the permit will cause the permit to become null and void. The uses established under this .a :a PA Silt-O7M P6io1.tlnoN oP permit shall be subject to review after the one year anniversary of initiation of use of the tavern to determine compliance with the above conditions and/or to determine what additional requirements may be needed to be imposed. 3. No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be permitted outside the enclosed building. All activities associated with the proposed uses shall be conducted entirely within the subject building. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or establishment of the proposed use, detailed floor plans of the tavern shall be prepared by the Applicant and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. 5. Any new signs proposed to be established for this use shall be in conformance to the tenant signing program approved for PA 83-042 (sheet 6 of Exhibit "A") and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. Temporary signs indicating special promotional events shall not be located on this site unless the necessary CUP or ACUP permit has been processed and approved covering such signage. 6. The Applicant shall not allow any nuisance to be maintained or conducted on the premises. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Dublin Building Department. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the establishment of the proposed use, the developer shall submit a letter documenting that the requirements of the DSRSD Fire Department have been satisfied (see attachment A) . 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the establishment, plans showing plumbing fixtures must be reviewed and approved by DSRSD. 10. No dancing shall be permitted on the premises unless a separate Conditional Use Permit is approved. 11. Hours of operation shall be limited to the following days and times: Monday through Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 12. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8- 90.7 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Non-compliance of any provisions of the above conditions shall be cause for the initiation of hearings before the Planning Commission to determine whether cause is present to revoke this permit. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -2- DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE ADMINISTRATION 7051 Dublin Boulevard 9399 Fircrest Lane Telephone: San Ramon,California Dublin,California 94568 829-2333 28 March 1988 RE'CElv'D. City of Dublin MAR ,^,5 I"7 1 P. O. Box 2340 Dublin 94568 DUBLIN PLANNINO Attention: Trudi Ryan, Project Planner Dear Ms. Ryan: This department has the following requirements for PA88-020 (Lyon's Brewery): I. All drapes, hangings, curtains, drops and all other decorative materials shall be flame-retardant. 2. All exit doors shall be equipped with panic hardware. Panic hardware may be omitted from the front door provided a readily visible sign is posted above the door stating "this door must remain unlocked during business hours." 3. Any room or area having an occupancy load of 50 or more shall have a sign posted in a conspicuous place near the main exit. 4. Open flame shall only be permitted under written permit of the Fire Chief. 5. The relocation of dividing walls may interfer with the operation of the fire sprinkler system. Please notify this department for an informal inspection. 6. Exits shall be illuminated at any time the building is occupied. 7. Exit signs shall be installed at required exit doorways. 8. Exit signs shall be internally or externally illuminated. 9. A 2A-10BC fire extinguisher shall be mounted in a location accessible to the staff and public. The travel distance to the extinguisher shall not exceed 75 feet. 10. The address of the facility shall be placed in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. II. Please contact this department for a final inspection prior to opening. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sin ere1F 7ON OVER, Fire Inspector, Fire Prevention Bureau TLH/liw ATTACHMENT A PA ee-ow 4. C.414:ttor.s aPP+' . • - ! �� LYON'S BREWERY OF DUBLIN OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES (beer and wine only) Hours — M—Thur. 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 A.m. Fri & Sat. 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Food Service — Daily lunches — fresh salads and sandwiches — appetizers — chips and salsa, pastries, bockworst sausages. There will be no deep frying. The food service will be comparable to the food served at "Jimmy O'Gils" in Dublin. Entertainment Schedule — Live Jazz Thursdays 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Solo Singer on Friday evenings 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Jazz and Rhythm & Blues Sunday afternoons 2:00 p.m. tp 6:00 pAm. ATTACHMENT -I-- SI-AmetAeor OF OPERATOA.)S PA 88"o I 5 6' . /2' 36 WONENS — YEY.kooM (W/CE ?STORAGE COOLER /2' 12' — l NENr I L —` RES/R:0W1 ice 84« JAR NOUR C. i/ NAgd WOOb F/OC R/NG r ' q I J 1. t R Q. K 1 42 him/bar/5 --1 1 ENIRAxCE /,1( LYONS BREWERY or' DUBUN scat -4 /' • ATTACHMENT 1 PJ4r4e$•OZo 'Floor Pla.0. v 1. :(......:.1 1. r ; \ tal 1 _ • �: • 1 fie p . - -` LOC.A�T I ON 1. /:;_ __ ; 1 .rP i 1 L -_ . a !L I I r Il• • ........ I 7\ I / d -- • I I .. I • 'UM I • .. If i:::1. 11 ! I I T 1 •• • ... j I '� a 1 ;, .7....':L a -I-T -.IL L... _a ' i 1 It' 1 I K ' III 1 , ' (—J_ ;�\ --- c- � , 5*) RA MOO R+ - etc--LIVED , ATTACHMENT_ �: =3 ,..oc t"p P�88"OZo DU. Bum pLPNNING NOT TO SCALE •� .. Q2 0 Plot Plan INITIAL CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: County Clerk - County of Alameda FROM: City of Dublin 1225 Fallon Street Planning Department Oakland, California 94612 6500 Dublin Boulevard Suite D Dublin, CA 94568 PROJECT TITLE: PA 88-020 Lyon's Brewery Conditional Use Permit PROJECT LOCATION: 7294 San Ramon Road Dublin, Alameda County, CA 94568 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use Permit for a Tavern. The City of Dublin, on April 22, 1988, found that the above approved project has the following exempt status: Categorical Exemption, Class 1, Section 15301. Reasons why project is exempt: The Tavern will operate in an existing structure with minor interior alterations. TELEPHONE: (415) 829-4916 SIGNATURE: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director DATE OF SIGNATURE: DATE OF MAILING: CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services r Planning;Zoning 829-4916 P.C'Box 2340 'lding & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineenng/Public Works 829-4927 DECLARATION OF POSTING I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Agenda for the Dublin Planning Commission meeting of / 8Y, w // , 19as posted (/f7 at the Dublinf/ Library, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, California, on the /5�Le" ofZI,?;:02/J,_19 , 198 f by c .r p.m. . Executed this /J day of54%.!--02.,' , 198Srat Dublin, California. Laurence L. Tong • Planning Commission Secretary by 012-- ..t,- 7d/f-i0e----' P lanning Secretary