HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-1996 PC Agenda •
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting-Dublin Civic Center Tuesday-7:30 p.m.
100 Civic Plaza,Council Chambers -January 16,1996
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 MEETINGS-January 2,1996
6. ORAL COMMUNICATION-At this time,members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning
Commission on any item(s)of interest to the public;however,no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any
item which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made
or questions posed,or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore,a
member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person
may arrange with the Planning Director(no later than 11:00 a.m.,on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting)to
have an item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting.
6.1 Election of Officers
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Planned Development Rezone The applicant is requesting a Planned Development
(PD)District Rezone approval for an approximate 210 acre site. The project involves rezoning the site to: PD
Single Family Residential(109.8 acres;570 dwelling units);PD Medium Density Residential(35.7 acres;277
dwelling units)for a total 847 dwelling units and 57.5 acres PD Open Space. This rezone request also includes
a 5 acre neighborhood park and a 2 acre private recreational facility. The project is located within the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area,east of Tassajara Road and approximately 4,000 feet north of the 1-580 freeway.
8.2 PA 95-040 Caffino Inc.,SPA/CUP/SDR Specific Plan Amendment,Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review to allow construction of a 220 square foot drive-up espresso bar/kiosk on the undeveloped portion of property
directly in front of the Workbench True Value Hardware store,located at 7360 San Ramon Road.
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Adoption and Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
The City has completed a draft Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. This
document complies with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program 6Q,which requires the City to
officially adopt Tassajara Road,I-580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors and adopt a set of scenic
corridor policies,and establish review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed.
9.2 PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Study Session The Planning Commission will introduce the project and the
Environmental Impact Report(EIR). The project involves a request for residential and commercial development
including 474 homes and 11 acres of retail/office uses on approximately 500 acres west of the Dublin City
limits. Project applications include a General Plan Amendment,PD Rezone,Annexation,Subdivision Map,and
Development Agreement. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss and receive comments from the public
on the project and the EIR. No action will be taken.
10. OTHER BUSINESS(Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports)
11. ADJOURNMENT
(OVER FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY)
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 16, 1996
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director 4f
SUBJECT: Election of Officers
RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Elect Chairperson
2. Elect Vice-Chairperson
3. Appoint Secretary
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
The Planning Commission Rules of Procedure provide that officers should be
elected at the first meeting of the Planning Commission in December of each year. The
new terms of office would typically run until December, 1996,unless a vacancy in an
office occurs before that time. The Planning Commission may appoint a Secretary who
may be one of its members or someone else.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) elect a Chairperson; 2) elect
a Vice-Chairperson; and 3) appoint the Planning Director as Secretary.
g:agenda/1996/1-16sr
ITEM NO. 6.1 COPIES TO: Agenda File
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 16, 1996
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff CAC,'
PREPARED BY: Carol R.Cirelli,Senior Planner
SUBJECT: PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I Rezone
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: The applicant is requesting a Planned Development(PD)District
Rezone approval for an approximate 210 acre site. The project
involves rezoning the site to: PD Single Family Residential(109.8
acres;570 dwelling units); PD Medium Density Residential(35.7
acres;277 dwelling units)for a total 847 dwelling units and 57.5
acres PD Open Space. This rezone request also includes a 5 acre
neighborhood park and a 2 acre private recreational facility.
APPLICANT: Ted C.Fairfield
Consulting Civil Engineer
P.O.Box 1148
5510 Sunol Boulevard
Pleasanton,CA 94566
PROPERTY OWNER: Jennifer Lin
C/0 Ted C.Fairfield
Consulting Civil Engineer
P.O.Box 1148
5510 Sunol Boulevard
Pleasanton,CA 94566
LOCATION: East of Tassajara Road and approximately 4,000 feet north of the
Interstate 580 Freeway within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
project area.
ASSESSOR 946-680-3;94-680-4;946-1040-1-2;946-1040-2;946-1040-3-2;
PARCEL NO.(S): 99B-3046-2-6;99B-3046-2-9
Item No. 8.1 Copies To: Applicant
Property Owner
PA File
Senior Planner
Admin.File
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family; Medium Density; Open Space
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family; Medium Density; Open Space
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: PD Single Family; PD Medium Density; PD Open Space/
Cattle Grazing and Agriculture
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING: North: Cattle Grazing; Agriculture/PD Community Park;
Agricultural District;
South: Cattle Grazing; Agriculture/ PD Medium Density
Residential; PD Single Family Residential; PD Open
Space
East: Cattle Grazing; Agriculture/PD Open Space
West: Equestrian Facility/PD Medium Density
ZONING HISTORY:
October 10, 1994: Dublin City Council approved the Eastern Dublin Planned
Development District Overlay Zone (Prezone) for a 1,538 acre site
(PA 94-030).
November 14, 1994: Alameda County LAFCo approved the Eastern Dublin Reorganization
request for PA 94-030.
January 12, 1995: Alameda County LAFCo unanimously disapproved the request to
reconsider the Eastern Dublin Reorganization approval.
January 23, 1995: Dublin City Council approved Eastern Dublin Annexation/Detachment
No. 10 (PA 94-030).
October 1, 1995: Eastern Dublin Reorganization (Annexation/Detachment No. 10)
became effective for a 1,538 acre site (PA 94-030).
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-31.0 Planned Development District of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance applies to this
project.
BACKGROUND:
A public hearing for this project was held before the Planning Commission on
January 2, 1996. Because some of the Commissioners requested additional project
information, the Commission, with a split vote, closed the public hearing and continued the
item to the January 16, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
, ,. ,) c r,..P
Li
ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission requested additional project information covering the
following four items: 1) school district responses to the modified school mitigation
condition;2) Dublin San Ramon Services District's(DSRSD)project comments;3) Medium
Density neighborhood roadway widths(i.e.adequacy of fire vehicle access and parking),
and 4) number of units(i.e.clarifying the process for approving a certain number of units
for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project).
This report also includes responses to a letter received after the January 2nd public
hearing,the Contra Costa County letter presented at the public hearing,and a landowner's
concern. Lastly,additional minor draft Resolution revisions were made clarifying certain
conditions of approval.
School District
A second letter was sent to both school districts(Livermore and Dublin)asking for
written confirmation and concurrence of the revised school mitigation agreement. As of
this date,only the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District submitted a written
response(see Attachment 1). The City Attorney has submitted an update of this issue(see
Attachment 2).
DSRSD
DSRSD submitted a letter(see Attachment 3)clarifying their concerns with the
previous January 2nd Planning Commission staff report. The letter specifies that the
infrastructure illustrations,(Attachment 3 of the January 2 staff report),portrayed a
reasonable preliminary plan for off-site potable and recycled water and wastewater
collection system improvements. However,the attachment's references to the
responsibility for construction may be premature or inaccurate. In accordance with the
District Policy for Major Infrastructure(Res. 29-94),DSRSD will determine who shall design
and build the District's off-site improvements.
DSRSD also revised condition of approval#34. Exhibit B incorporates the revised
condition.
Medium Density Neighborhood Roadway Widths
The Commission had concerns with fire access and parking availability within the
Medium Density Neighborhood. The applicant is now proposing that the minimum width of
roadways be 32 feet with parking on one side,not 30 feet as previously proposed. Exhibit
A from the January 2nd staff report will be revised to incorporate this change,and these
changes are depicted in Exhibit A of this staff report.
DRFA's Fire Prevention Officer stated that there would be no fire access problems
even with a 30 foot wide roadway and parking on one side. The Uniform Fire Code and
DRFA's code requires a minimum 20 foot free and clear right-of-way(10 feet in each
direction). The Commission was also concerned with the length of the roadways through
the Medium Density area. According to DRFA,there are adequate egress and ingress points
all along the abutting Tassajara Road,providing adequate emergency access.Attachment 6
provides additional information. A DRFA official will be present at the January 16 meeting
to answer any additional questions.
OF
A.
Regarding par King,the applicant has calculated the number of off-street parking
spaces that would be available throughout the Medium Density area. This information will
be presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
Number of Units
This PD rezone approval will set the maximum number of residential units that can
be constructed for the entire Dublin Ranch Phase I project. The maximum number of units
for this PD rezone would be 847. When the applicant applies for future Tentative Map
approvals,the City would be approving a certain number of units for each residential
category. As the draft Resolution specifies,the number of dwelling units and mix of
dwelling unit types can vary under each residential land use category while staying within
the approved density ranges.
Hypothetically,if an approved Tentative Map for Dublin Ranch requires an
amendment due to the discovery of a seismic or geologic safety problem,the City may
approve a decrease in the number of units that was previously approved for the Tentative
Map. However,the total number of units approved for the Tentative Map amendment could
not exceed 847 unless a new PD rezone is approved for a different maximum number of
units.
The following chart depicts the maximum and minimum number of units that would
be allowed within each residential land use category for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project.
Maximum Capacity(regulated by PD Rezone)-847 Dwelling Units
Land Use Designation Density Range Dwelling Units Allowed
Single Family 0.9 du/ac-6.0 du/ac 99 dus(min)to 659 dus
(max)
Medium Density 6.1 du/ac-14.0 du/ac 218 dus(min)to 500 dus
(max)
Letters and Landowner Concerns
A letter was received after the January 2nd public hearing requesting that the City
consider requiring the applicant to provide an interim bicycle path along the north side of I-
580(see Attachment 4). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires this bicycle route. This
required bicycle route does not run through the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. Attachment 5
is Public Works'response to this letter and the Contra Costa County's letter.
The Dublin Land Company landowner expressed concern over the conceptual
alignment of Gleason Road as shown on the applicant's site plan. This roadway
configuration,which complies with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,cuts through the
northern portion of the Dublin Land Company property,located just south of the project's
Medium Density area,and leaves a narrow strip of land(approx.900'x 120',or approx.2
acres)for development. Public Works and Planning Staff informed the landowner that it
would be best if he resolved this issue with the Dublin Ranch landowner.
4 PAGE rF
Minor Resolution Changes
Draft Resolution Exhibit B, includes the revised conditions that were presented at
the January 2 meeting, DSRSD's revised condition #34, and minor condition revisions for
language clarification. These revised conditions (nos. 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 23, 24, 34-36,
43, 48) are indicated with strikethroughs, and bold and italicized letters.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from the applicant and the public.
3) Question staff, the applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate
5) Adopt Resolution Exhibit B relating to PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch
Phase I PD Rezone, or give staff direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution
recommending City Council approval of the Planned Development District
Rezone, Exhibit B.
To approve the project as presented, a Planning Commissioner may make a
motion such as:
l move to adopt the Resolution approving the Planned Development District
Rezone, Exhibit B, for PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: (Refer to January 2, 1996 Planning Commission staff report Exhibit
A); Exhibit A Revisions Depicting Roadway Width Modification for
Medium Density Residential
Exhibit B: Planned Development District Rezone Resolution
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Letter from Robert E. Thurbon, representing LVJUSD, dated January
9, 1996
Attachment 2: Dublin City Attorney Correspondence
Attachment 3: DSRSD Letter dated January 9, 1996
Attachment 4: Letter from Robert S. Allen dated January 3, 1996
Attachment 5: Public Works Memos dated January 11, 1996
Attachment 6: Memo from DRFA dated January 5, 1996
g:\pa95030\1-16pcsr
PAGE.L_OF
5
20 SCALE PLOTTING
____—is\---- .
_ „� Area M-2 45x70 Lots
' •
Area M-3 35x70 Lots
-- GRADED
------------
NA-RJR-Al SLOPE ATj 1
jl L__.
STUDY
' lipq ; N ` ST AREA
AM- 41701
hi
.41
`' �� �:itiS4,,,,z5:fip-
� ��.•j.....••�.� • ,Ili..-;:sit
T�,n�
AI -----
lk ( "A_
III4vilW .Nip. , ,..-., -Nli,:.-..,1,,:Is - .....,-.
32' 4' WALK.40 \` 1
a.� , �a (-llllll````������ I //ram
AlliPiAerlf
MI
®,.•
i�ilI U RIP U 15
kil''' LOCATION MAP
,ilIl�� ,-... ...._. --4,, nilir; 1 4A5')(71
l lr
='III = �e ' F
_ i ............,....4p„, r
�� T
DUBLIN RANCHgr is
\o° 140 PHASE I
,
it ) 12• PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT/
PC LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
O'911Ij �b —aillil E 11111FAd"p .�_ ' LI\
a,�, ®��I , Dublin, California
• . LIIII �11111 in-tar Aim ma i
'!la— 1u- _
4' WALK 32, wzai EIRE,RUCK WHEEL 1Rnc1...- August 4, 1995
J Rev. January 1996
1 CEK ' 4 immr.....77
. kit - . .
im" .._., 40 ±0_10,
0. M �, North 7• ,2� 0 20 40 60
PROPERTY 30' •
LINE-�� �—M tt��
MacKay & Somps • Engineering & Planning
William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. •
RAIL FENCE ON BERM M, Architecture and Planning
( NUVIS • Landscape Architecture
Dublin Ranch Design Guidelines • August 4,/995 • Rev.January 1996
Pilasters,Walls and Fences
All fencing visible from any residential street shall be a good
neighbor fence with an open lattice top.
Cul-de-sac Connections
Residential streets terminating in cul-de-sac's should be designed to
provide visual access to the natural open space. To define the open
r% space from residential lots a rail fence shall be tied into sideyard
lg.
fencing. 'The rail fence shall be placed on the property line and
continue out towards the street and terminating in a stone pilaster to
Ov allow access into the open space. Removable bollards shall be placed
at the back of the sidewalk at the opening in the rail fence to control
motorized maintenance and emergency access into the open space.
Native or indigenous planting materials shall provide transitional
landscaping into the natural open space.
Private Residential Streets-Medium Density Neighborhood
Private residential streets are designed to serve the residents of
medium density neighborhood and should be more intimate in scale.
Dimensions
The private residential streets shall have a 32'curb to curb dimension
with two travel lanes and a parking lane on one side only. A 4'
monolithic sidewalk will be constructed on one side of the street.
Courtyard driveways will have a 20'curb to curb dimension and will
not include a sidewalk and parking lane.
One additional option may include a 36' curb to curb width with
parking on both sides of the street and a 4' monolithic sidewalk
constructed on one side of the street.
Landscape Treatment
Street trees shall act as the primary landscape element within each
medium density neighborhood. Through the use of a single species,
a grove effect similar to a planted orchard shall be achieved
supporting the character of the community. One street tree per lot
shall be required. Of the total trees,these may be placed throughout
the neighborhood where space allows.
Ex.A (p. S3(6 cPa
Page N-15
PAGEL O sL.l
RESOLUTION NO. - 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND ESTABLISHMENT OF FINDINGS
AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONE
CONCERNING PA 95-030 DUBLIN RANCH PHASE I
WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Lin, submitted a Planned
Development(PD) District Rezone request(PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I) for rezoning an
approximate 210 acre site to PD Single Family (Low Density)Residential (109.8 acres; 570
dwelling units); PD Medium Density Residential (35.7 acres; 277 dwelling units); and PD Open
Space (57.5 acres). The PD Rezone request also includes a 5 acre neighborhood park and a 2 acre
private recreational facility. The project is generally located east of Tassajara Road and
approximately 4,000 feet north of the Interstate 580 Freeway, within the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan project area; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 1994, the City Council approved a Planned Development District
Overlay Zone (Prezone) for a 1,538 acre site located within the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan project area(PA 94-030); and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 1994, the Alameda County LAFCo approved the Eastern Dublin
Reorganization for PA 94-030; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1995, the Alameda County LAFCo unanimously disapproved the
request to reconsider the Eastern Dublin Reorganization approval (PA 94-030); and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 1995, the City Council ordered the territory designated as
Annexation/Detachment No. 10 annexed to the City of Dublin, which includes the 1,538 acre site
and annexed to the Dublin San Ramon Services District and detached from the Livermore Area
Recreation and Park District(PA 94-030); and
WHEREAS, Annexation/Detachment No. 10 became effective on October 1, 1995; and
WHEREAS,the Dublin Ranch Phase I project site is located within the 1,538 acre site that has
been prezoned and annexed, and the Applicant's request complies with the existing Planned
Development District Prezone provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's PD Rezone request amends the initial PD Prezone and includes a
District Planned Development Plan as required under Section 11.2.7 of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and a Land Use and Development Plan as required under the City's Zoning
Ordinance, Title 8, Chapter 2, Section 8-31.16; and
1 E)(HIBITB
g:\pa95-030\perel-16\crc /�
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider this request on January 2
and January 16, 1996; and
WHEREAS,proper notice of this request was given in all respects as required by law for the
Planning Commission hearing; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared for the project dated November 17, 1995 and found
that the project is exempt according to section 15182 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project
is a residential project undertaken pursuant to and in conformance with the adopted Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and none of the events described in section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines
have occurred since the adoption of the Specific Plan or certification of its EIR. No new effects
could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the Dublin Ranch Phase I PD
Rezone project that were not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern
Dublin project, and the PD Rezone is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending Planning Commission approval of the
Planned Development District Rezone subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports,recommendations,
written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing as herein above set forth.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find:
1. The proposed PD Rezone, as conditioned, is consistent with the general provisions
and purpose of the PD District Overly Zone (PD Prezone),the City General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provisions and design guidelines; and
2. The rezoning, as conditioned, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of
being compatible with existing land uses in the area, and will not overburden public
services; and
3. The rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public
improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends City
Council approval of PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I subject to the general provisions listed below:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Purpose
This approval is for a Planned Development(PD) District Rezoning for PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch
Phase I. This PD District Rezone that includes a Land Use and Development Plan and District Planned
Development Plan is consistent with the initial Planned Development(PD) District Prezone and amends
2
PAGE 0f
g:\pa95-030\perel-16\crc
a
a
the initial Prezone with more detailed land use and development plan provisions. The PD District Rezone
allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals,policies
and action programs of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met. More particularly,the
PD District Rezone is intended to ensure the following policies:
1. Concentrate development on less environmentally and visually sensitive or constrained
portions of the plan area and preserve significant open space areas and natural and
topographic landscape features with minimum alteration of land forms.
2. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning, building design and construction to
create a range of housing types and prices, and to provide housing for all segments of the
community.
3. Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment.
4. Develop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open
areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities.
5. Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile.
B. Dublin Zoning Ordinance -Applicable Requirements
Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District Rezone, all applicable and
general requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to this PD District.
C. General Provisions and Development Standards
1. Intent: This approval is for the Planned Development(PD) District Rezone PA 95-030
Dublin Ranch Phase I. This approval rezones 109.8 acres to PD Single Family Residential
(570 dwelling units; 5.2 du/ac); 35.7 acres to PD Medium Density Residential (277
dwelling units; 7.8 du/ac), for a total maximum of 847 dwelling units; and 57.5 acres to PD
Open space. The number of dwelling units and mix of dwelling unit types (i.e. ratio of
Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential)can vary under each residential
land use category while staying within the approved density ranges. However,the total
number of units shall not exceed the maximum number of dwelling units, which is 847.
This approval also rezones 5 acres for PD neighborhood park and 2 acres for a private
recreational facility. Development shall be generally consistent with the following PD
Rezone submittals labeled Exhibit A on file with the Dublin Planning Department:
a. District Planned Development Plan, Land Use and Development Plan, comprising
the Phase I Site Plan, 20-Scale Plotting Maps, and Boundary and Phasing Plan,
prepared by MacKay and Somps, William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. and
NUVIS dated received August 10, 1995 and November 15, 1995.
3
PAGEI D
gApa95-030\pere1-16\crc
G}
b. Dublin Ranch Phase I Architecture and Landscape and Open Space Design
Guidelines prepared by MacKay and Somps, William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc.
and NUVIS dated received August 10, 1995 and November 15, 1995.
2. Single Family Residential: Development standards within the Single Family land use
designation shall conform to the City of Dublin R-1 District provisions and the PD District
Overlay Zone for PA 94-030 Eastern Dublin(City Council Resolution No. 104-94). As the
R-1 District base zone, all the R-1 District provisions shall apply, except those superseded
by the following provisions. Only detached single family units are allowed in this District.
Lot Size: 4,000 sq. ft. minimum
Median Lot Width: 50 feet
Minimum Lot Frontage: 35 feet
Minimum Lot Depth: 80 feet
Front yard Depth(setback from back of sidewalk):
Minimum 12 feet to porch or living area.
Minimum 17 feet to garage, except for side opening garages
(minimum 15 feet to side opening garages).
Driveways less than 20 feet in length require automatic
garage door openers and"roll up" doors
Side Yard(setback): Minimum 5 feet to living area-Minimum 10 feet at corner
conditions
Garages located at the rear half of a lot have no minimum
side yard. Building restrictions for zero lot line structures
shall be applied as conditions of Site Development Review
approval.
Rear Yard (setback): 5 feet minimum. Include a useable yard equal to 10% of the
lot size with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any
direction. Garages located in the rear half of a lot have a 3
foot minimum rear setback.
Minimum Building
Separation: 10 feet(excluding allowable encroachments).
Maximum Building
Height: 30 feet or 2 stories at any one point.
4
PAGE '
g:\pa95-030\perel-16\crc
GF....�J
3. Medium Density Residential: Development standards for attached and detached units
within the Medium Density land use designation shall conform to the City of Dublin R-S
District provisions and the PD District Overlay Zone for PA 94-030 Eastern Dublin(City
Council Resolution No. 104-94). As the R-S District base zone, all the R-S District
provisions shall apply, except those superseded by the following:
Attached Standards:
Front Yard Depth: Minimum 10 feet to porch or living area.
Minimum 5 feet to garage.
Side Yard (setback): Minimum 5 feet including encroachments (UBC standards).
Rear Yard (setback): Minimum 10 feet to living area.
Yard Space: Provide a useable yard of 150 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 10 feet in any direction.
Upper floor units shall have a deck of at least 50 square feet
with a minimum dimension of 5 feet.
Minimum Building
Separation: 10 feet including encroachments (UBC building standards).
Maximum Building
Height: 30 feet, or 2.5 stories at any one point.
Detached Standards:
Minimum Lot Size: 2,000 square feet
Median Lot Width: 30 feet at building setback; 35 feet at corner conditions
Average Lot Depth: Not Applicable
Front Yard Depth(setback from back of sidewalk):
Minimum 10 feet to porch or living area.
Minimum 5 feet to garage without driveway, or greater than
17 feet to garage with driveway, except for side opening
garages.
5
g:\pa95-030\perel-16\crc PACE IOF 3
Driveways less than 20 feet in length require automatic
garage door openers and"roll up" doors.
Side Yard (setback): 3 feet minimum- 6 feet at corner conditions.
Garages have 0 foot side yards.
Rear Yard(setback): 5 feet minimum. Provide a minimum useable yard of 150 sq.
ft. with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in any direction.
Garages may have 0 feet rear yards.
Minimum Building
Separation: 6 feet
Garages may be attached.
Reciprocal easements may be used to satisfy yard
requirements.
Maximum Building
Height: 30 feet, or 2.5 stories at any one point.
Additional Standards:
Garages: Parking requirements may be met with tandem garages.
Adjacent Uses: Interior side yard setbacks adjacent to common open space,parks,
greenbelts and stream corridors shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
Encroachment: The following encroachments shall be allowed to project up to 2 feet
into yard setbacks: eaves, architectural projections, fireplaces,
(including log storage and entertainment niche), balconies,bay
windows, window seats, exterior stairs, second floor overhangs,
decks,porches and air conditioning equipment. All non-fire rated
encroachments must be at least 3 feet from property lines.
Front Yard
Landscaping: The applicant/developer shall install front yard landscaping within all
the medium density neighborhoods.
4. Curvilinear Streets: Site design of the individual neighborhoods may vary from that
shown in Dublin Ranch Phase I Rezone (PA 95-030) if the number of units in a
neighborhood is adjusted or attached units are substituted for detached (in medium density
neighborhoods only). However, the concept of curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs cannot
be altered.
5. Architectural Design: Eight distinct architectural styles are described in the Dublin
Ranch Phase I Architecture and Landscape and Open Space Design Guidelines and
architectural elevations. Any or all of these styles can be utilized in an individual
6
PAGE 17 r7-)
g:\pa95-030\perel-16\crc
neighborhood. Additional styles can be permitted at Site Development Review if it is
determined they would not change the overall character of the Dublin Ranch Phase I plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend City Council approval of PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone subject to the
following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any
building, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes
represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of
approval: [PL] Planning, [B] Building, [P] Parks and Community Services. [PO] Police, [PW] Public
Works, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance. [F] Dougherty Regional Fire Authority,
[DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District [Zone 7].
GENERAL
1. The Land Use and Development Plan, District Planned Development Plan and Architecture and
Landscape and Open space Design Guidelines for Dublin Ranch Phase I (PA 95-030) are
conceptual in nature. No formal amendment of this PD Rezone will be required as long as the
materials submitted for the Tentative Map and Site Development Review are in substantial
conformance with this PD Rezone and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planning Director
shall determine conformance or non-conformance and appropriate processing procedures for
modifying this PD Rezone (i.e. staff approval, Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use
Permit, or City Council approval of new PD Rezone). Major modifications, or revisions not found
to be in substantial conformance with this PD Rezone shall require a new PD Rezone. A
subsequent PD rezone may address all or a portion of the area covered by this PD Rezone. [PL]
2. Prior to obtaining building permits, the applicant must receive Site Development Review(SDR)
approval as established in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, unless the Planning Director
approved a SDR waiver and a zoning approval is granted upon the determination that the
construction constitutes a minor project and building permit plans are in accord with the intent and
objectives of the SDR procedures. [PL]
3. Except as may be specifically provided for within these General Provisions for PA 95-030,
development shall comply with the City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions
(see Attachment A-1). [PL]
4. Except as may be specifically provided for within this PD, development shall comply with the
City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements (Attachment A-2). [PO]
5. The design, location and material of all fencing and retaining walls shall be subject Site
Development Review approval unless the Planning Director waives the SDR requirement. [PL]
g:\pa95-030\pere 1-16\crc
6. The applicant shall comply with all applicable grading guidelines as indicated on page 103 of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. [PW, PL]
7. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of one or more Dublin
Ranch Phase I homeowners associations shall be submitted with the Tentative Map and/or Site
Development Review application, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning
Director and City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, or prior to Site
Development Review approval. [PL,ADM]
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
8. The Dublin Ranch Phase I project proponent and the City of Dublin shall enter into a development
agreement prior to Tentative Map approval, which shall contain, but not be limited to,provisions
for financing and timing of on and off-site infrastructure,payment of traffic, noise and public
facilities impact fees, ift-tieti affordable housing,fee, and other provisions deemed necessary by
the City to find the project consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. At some future date,
the applicant shall be responsible for paying all fees required by the Development Agreement.
[PL]
SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPACT MITIGATION
9. No tentative subdivision map for all or any part of the area covered by this Land Use and
Development Plan shall be approved by the City Council until the applicant has entered into a
written mitigation agreement with the affected school district(s) and the City. The mitigation
agreement shall establish the method and manner of financing and/or constructing school facilities
necessary to serve the student population generated by the development. The mitigation
agreement shall address the level of mitigation necessary,the amount of any school impact fees.
the time of payment of any such fees and similar matters. The City shall be a party to any such
agreement only for the purpose of assuring uniformity with respect to different property owners
and appropriate land use planning. [PL,ADM]
NOISE
10. A noise study shall be required for the Tentative Map application submittal to show how interior
noise levels will be controlled to acceptable limits. [PL, B]
SCENIC CORRIDOR POLICIES
11. The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and
Development Standards. If the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Development
Standards have not been adopted prior to approving the Tentative Map for the project,the
applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan's scenic corridor,
development standards and grading policies and action programs through a detailed visual analysis
submitted with the Tentative Map application. [PL]
8
g:\pa95-030\perel-16\crc PACE S jj
LANDSCAPE/OPEN SPACE/TRAILS
12. As part of the Tentative Map approval, the applicant shall be conditioned to offer to dedicate the
intermittent stream/open space and trail corridors. If the City accepts this dedication of
improvements, no credit for these areas and improvements shall be given towards parkland
dedication requirements. [P, PL, PW]
13. All graded cut and fill slope areas shall be revegetated as described in Policy 6-22 of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, withwith-natiw-tfeesrshfubs-andi-er-gfasses3 subject to Site Development
Review approval. [PL, PW]
14. All landscape within the open space and common areas, including the neighborhood park and the
intermittent stream and open space corridor shall be subject to Site Development Review approval.
The proposed landscape plans to be submitted with the Site Development Review application shall
take into consideration Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone comments prepared by Singer, Hodges,
Evans, dated received October 10, 1995. [PL]
15. Appropriate all weather surface (e.g. crushed gravel or rock) vehicular access to open space,
various trail systems and some residential areas, as shown on Exhibit A, shall be provided and
maintained on a continuous basis, to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, Public Works Director and
Planning Director. [F, PW, P]
16. A minimum 25 foot setback from the intermittent stream/open space corridors shall be required
encouraged wherever possible. Setbacks for this purpose shall be measured from the edge of
drainage corridors as shown on Figures 4.1, 6.2 and 7.33 of the Specific Plan. [PL]
BUILDING
17. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit. [B]
18. The following information shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application: 1) Dublin
Ranch Phase I Geotechnical Report dated June 19, 1995; 2) solar panel guidelines; 3) clarification
of new Zone 2 or Zone 3 water reservoir location and need; 4) City of Pleasanton's water reservoir
details (i.e., fences, retaining walls, roadway for access). [B]
PARKS AND RECREATION
19. The applicant shall comply with the City's Dublin Municipal Code , Chapter 9.28 Dedication of
Land for Park and Recreation Purposes and the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan park
dedication and design requirements by either dedicating 12 acres of park land, or paying park
dedication in-lieu fees, or providing a combination of both park land dedication and in-lieu fees
based on the maximum number of units proposed,prior to Final Subdivision Map approval. The
City may consider the applicant's request to improve the neighborhood park and receive credit
for those improvements. [P, PW, PL]
9 rr. r
PA�cLL O
g:\pa95-030\perel-16\crc
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
20. The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Stream Corridor Restoration Program and the
Grazing Management Plan. The project's intermittent stream enhancement and restoration
improvements shall comply with the Plan requirements and shall be submitted with the Tentative
Map application for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. If a Stream Corridor Restoration Program
and the Grazing Management Plan have not been adopted prior to approving the Tentative Map for
the project, the applicant shall provide project specific stream corridor restoration and grazing
management requirements and shall submit this plan during the Tentative Map project review.
[PL, Zone 7, PW]
21. The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for
mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts (e.g. Applicant shall submit a
preconstruction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to verify the
presence of sensitive species. A biologist shall prepare the survey and shall be subject to the
Planning Department review and approval). Any updated surveys and/or studies that may be
completed by a biologist prior to Tentative Map application submittal shall be submitted with the
Tentative Map application. [PL]
PARKING
22. The availability of adequate on-street parking within the Medium Density Residential area shall be
re-assessed prior to Tentative Map approval to determine its adequacy. [PL, PW]
TRAFFIC/PUBLIC WORKS
23. The Applicant shall meet all City of Dublin minimum roadway standards for public streets prior to
Tentative Map approval. All minor modifications to the City's roadway standards shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. [PW]
24. Applicant shall pay a traffic impact fee or construct required improvements based on the adopted
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (per Resolution No. 1-95) and the I-580 Interchange Traffic
Impact Fee (fee that has been agreed upon by the City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton for
interchange improvements)). These fees shall be paid prior to final inspection of each unit, unless
and until, the City Council amends Resolution 1-95 to make the fee payable prior to issuance of
building permits. [PW, B]
25. The applicant shall submit an update of the traffic study prepared by TJKM dated December, 1995
with the Tentative Map application and the study shall be subject to review and approval by the
Public Works Director. Appropriate traffic mitigation measures will be identified and included as
conditions of Tentative Map approval. Such traffic mitigation may include, but not be limited to:
[PW]
a. Traffic signalization
b. Roadway shoulder construction
10
g:\pa95-030\pere l-16\crc
•
c. Frontage improvements
d. pavement widening
e. Overlays of existing pavement
f. Dedications of right-of-way
g. Restriping
26. Where decorative paving is installed in public streets, pre-formed traffic signal loops shall be used
under the decorative paving. Where possible, irrigation laterals shall not be placed under the
decorative paving. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be included in a landscape
and lighting maintenance assessment district or other funding mechanism acceptable to the City
Manager. Decorative paving plans shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application
submittal and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. [PW,
ADM]
27. Street lights on arterial streets shall be the City Standard cobra head luminaries with galvanized
poles. Where decorative lights are to be used on residential streets,these lights shall be designed
so as to not shine into adjacent windows, shall be easily accessible for purchase over a long period
of time (e.g. 30 or more years), and shall be designed so that the efficiency of the lights do not
require close spacing to meet illumination requirements. A street lighting plan demonstrating
compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application and shall be
subject to the Public Works Director's review and approval. [PW]
28. Street name signs shall display the name of the street together with a City Standard shamrock logo.
Posts shall be galvanized steel pipe. A street sign plan shall be submitted with the Tentative Map
application and shall be subject to the Public Works Director's review and approval. [PW]
29. The applicant shall construct a minimum 10 foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path between the looped
residential collector street and Fallon Road, as shown on Exhibit A. [PW, PL]
FIRE
30. Applicant shall comply with all DRFA fire standards, including minimum standards for
emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees. [F]
31. A fire buffer zone between the development area and open space area shall be provided and
maintained by a home owners association on a continuous basis to the satisfaction of the
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. [F]
32. The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Wildfire Management Plan. The Plan
requirements shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. If a
Wildfire Management Plan has not been adopted prior to approving the CC&Rs for the project,the
applicant shall provide a project specific wildfire management plan and shall submit this plan
during the Tentative Map project review. [F, PL, PW]
11 f.,1: 3�7ii
gApa95 030\perel 16\crc
i
UTILITY SERVICES/POSTAL SERVICES
33. The location and siting of project specific wastewater, storm drainage and potable water system
infrastructure shall be consistent with the resource management policies of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. [PL, PW, DSR]
34. All on-and off-site potable and recycled water and wastewater facilities shall be constructed in
conformance with DSRSD Major Infrastructure Policy (Res. 29-94). The applicant shall submit
plans for the potable and recycled water der-and sewer system to service this development
acceptable to DSRSD, pay fees required by DSRSD and receive DSRSD's approval prior to
issuance of any building permit. Developer shall construct these facilities prior to final inspection
of the first unit. Developer-dedicated facilities shall be in conformance with the DSRSD
Standard Specifications and Drawings. [B, PW, DSR]
35. The applicant shall provide a"will" serve letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of the grading
permit for the grading that creates individual building sites, which states that the Dublin Ranch
Phase I project can be served by DSRSD for water and sewer prior to occupancy. [B, PW]
36.
Phase I area per City of Dublin, Zone 7 and DSRSD requirements. A recycled water distribution
system for the landscaping within Dublin Ranch Phase I area shall be provided per the City of
Dublin,Zone 7, and DSRSD requirements. The landscaping areas must meet City of Dublin
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements. [PW, Zone 7, DSR]
37. Applicant shall provide Public Utility Easements per requirements of the City of Dublin and/or
public utility companies as necessary to serve this area with utility services. [PW]
38. The applicant shall confer with local postal authorities to determine the required type of mail units
and provide a letter from the Postal Service stating their satisfaction at the time the Tentative Map
and Site Development Review submittal is made. Specific locations for such units shall be to the
satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Dublin Planning Department. [PL]
39. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall provide "will serve" letters from
appropriate agencies documenting that adequate electric, gas,telephone and landfill capacity is
available prior to occupancy. [PL]
4(1 The applicant shall work with DSRSD to help fund a recycled water distribution system computer
model that reflects the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment.
[DSR]
41. The applicant shall comply with all Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District-Zone 7 Flood Control requirements and applicable fees. [Zone 7, PW]
12 - l —
g.\pa95-030\perel-16\crc Pn�C � ' ,...m..
MISCELLANEOUS EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL
EIR MITIGATION MEASURES
42. Applicant shall work with LAVTA to establish the need, bus route(s), bus turnouts, bus stop sign
locations, bus shelter locations, and other transit amenities for this project prior to Site
Development Review approval. [PW]
43. Applicant shall design bus turnouts, transit shelters and pedestrian paths (sidewalks) consistent
with the proposed LAVTA routes and stops and the City of Dublin's requirements and standards
prior to issuance of building permits for the residential units. These Conceptual design plans
shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application submittal and subject to the Public Works
Director review and approval. Construction shall be undertaken as part of the street improvement
work. [PW]
44. The applicant shall comply with the City's erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. [PW]
45. The applicant shall comply with all visual resource mitigation measures of the FEIR relative to
grading, scenic corridors, scenic vista preservation, and similar visual resources. [PL, PW]
46. The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements.
[ADM]
47. All new reservoir construction shall comply with DSRSD's requirements. [DSR, PW]
48. The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and applicable mitigation
measures of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final
Environmental Impact Report(FEIR), respectively,that have not been made specific conditions of
approval of this PD Rezone. [PL]
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
13 3
g:\pa95-030\perel-16\crc PAGE° rr J
01/09 '96 17:11 ID:THURBON&'YOUNGBLOOD FAX:9166492491 PAGE
THLJRBON Sc YOUNGBLOOD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1485 RESPONSE ROAD.Burt[105
1ACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 03013
TELEPHONE FACSIMILE
10101 649.320+ 10101 M0-9A01
January 9, 1996
Lawrence L. Tong VIA FACSIMILE AND
City of Dublin FIRST CLASS MAIL
Post Office Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
Dear Mr. Tong:
I am in receipt of your correspondence dated January 4, 1996.
I apologize for the delay in my original response to this issue,
however, I understood Libby's request, to be a request for a
response confirming our agreement with Mr. Inderbitzen's proposal
for the school mitigation condition result regarding the above-
referenced project. The purpose of this letter is to set forth our
position regarding the issue and is being provided to you in
accordance with your January 4, 1996 correspondence so that you may
incorporate our comments accordingly.
The District appreciates the efforts the City has undertaken
to adopt school impact mitigation conditions and the efforts that
you and the Planning staff have expended in getting to where we are
today. At first glance, Mr. Inderbitzen's suggestion for
resolution of the school issue has some appeal. However,
conditions attached to tentative maps may be more susceptible to
legal challenge than simply enforcing the original condition in
accordance with the requirements established when the City adopted
the condition pursuant to its earlier legislative act. The
original condition basically requires project proponents to comply
with the school mitigation requirements prior to the final
legislative act affecting a project.
Mr. Inderbitzen has proposed, as I understand it, that as the
final legislative.actapproaches that the condition be modified for
the subject project to read that "no tentative subdivision map for
all or any part of the area covered by this land use and
development plan shall be approved by the City Council until the
applicant has entered into a written mitigation agreement with the
affected school district(s) and the City.tl As a general rule,
conditions placed on a subdivision map are enforceable and it would
seem, at first glance that such a condition would provide adequate
protection to schools. However, cities and counties, when
considering requiring developers to mitigate their impacts on
schools, act from their strongest position when they deny or
condition the project pursuant to a legislative act. ATTACHMENT
I understand that it is the intent of the City and Mr.
Inderbitzen that the restriction on approval of subdivision maps
occur pursuant to a legislative act. However, if the city does not
01i09 '96 17:12 ID:THURBON&YOUNGBLOOD FAX:9166492491 PAGE 3
Lawrence L. Tong
City of Dublin
Re: Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
January 9, 1996
Page 2
require the project proponent to enter into a written mitigation
agreement consistent with the original condition, a subsequent
purchaser of the property may choose to challenge the City's
ability to deny a tentative subdivision map based on mitigation of
school impacts because approval of a tentative subdivision map is
not a legislative act. This puts the City at some risk and
ultimately, reduces the protection that the school districts have
from the condition as originally adopted by the City. This may not
seem like a significant issue today, but it could be an issue in
the future.
For example, we are currently involved in litigation with
another county over a very similar issue. Specifically in that
case, the County, during a rezoning process and a CEQA review,
recommended that a condition be adopted requiring a project
proponent to enter into an agreement with affected school districts
to mitigate the development's impacts on the school district. The
condition was similar to the one proposed in Dublin and the
condition was placed on the tentative map stating that prior to
approval of the final map, the project proponent had to negotiate
a written agreement with the affected school districts regarding
school impact mitigation. Once all legislative actions had been
taken and the condition attached to the tentative map, the project
proponent sold portions of the project to other individuals and the
process of working towards a final map took many months.
During that time financial conditions for the parties involved
changed, County Counsel retired and a new County Counsel came into
the picture and ultimately a new Planning Director was hired by the
County. Thereafter, portions of the project had been sold a second
time, counsel for the new owners decided that they could
successfully challenge a school mitigation condition attached to
the tentative map. We have been in litigation on the issue for
several months and—while we are close to settling the matter, the
school district's position has been compromised during settlement
discussions. When faced with the legal challenge, County Counsel
and the new Planning Director, as well as the County Board of
Supervisors took a neutral position and refused to enforce the
condition based on the threat of litigation from the new owners of
the project. Ultimately, the County approved the final map
notwithstanding the condition which led to the current liti4fl'14CIJMENT_l
ation.
Arguably, from a technical standpoint, placing the
condition on a tentative map should protect the City and the
affected school districts. However, under the current state of the
law in California the City, if challenged in the future, may find
itself in the position of not being able to enforce the condition
as originally anticipated. Mr. Inderbitzen has represented that
there is no intent to sell portions of the project at this time.
- O1/Oa =ii:, 17:1 I D:THURFOPJC>YO_JIJGE:LOOIi PH'_E 4
Lawrence L. Tong
City of Dublin
Re : Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
January 9, 1996
Page 3
However, as we all know, the complete development process takes a
long period of time and based on economic issues circumstances may
change in the future . In short, enforcement of the original
condition at this point in time, as adopted by the City, presents
little legal risk and secures the interests the City sought to
protect with the original condition. Modifying the condition as
suggested merely delays, what we all anticipate will be the
inevitable (a mutual agreement between the developer and the school
district) and unnecessarily weakens the City' s legal position as it
relates to enforcing the condition as a tentative map condition.
The District recognizes the need for Mr. Inderbitzen and his
client to continue their development process without unreasonable
delays. To that end, the District is prepared to meet with Mr.
Inderbitzen and his client, on a daily basis if necessary, to
arrive at an equitable agreement which will satisfy the original
condition adopted by the City and allow Mr. Inderbitzen and his
clients to proceed with their development uninterrupted. I have
contacted Mr. Inderbitzen and advised him of our position in this
matter. I suggested that we immediately begin meeting to reach an
acceptable agreement between the parties which will comply with the
original condition and allow his project to continue uninterrupted.
In the meantime, we respectfully request that the City adhere to
the condition as originally adopted.
If you need further clarification or have any questions,
please feel free to call me .
Very truly yours,
THURBON & YOUNGBLOOD
By:
ROBERT E. THURBON
RET:mbp
cc : Dr. Joyce Mandesian
MikeWhite j
Libby ATTACHMENT
Silver, City Attorney
JAN-1.1-96 THU 15:40 MEYERS.NAVE,RIBACK&S1LV, FAX NO, 510 351 4481 P.02/04
MCHAELR NAVE MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK,SILVER&WILSON
STEVEN R.MEYERS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ELIZABE YI H.SILVER SANTA RO.^,A OFF:c0
MICHAEL S.RIBACK
KENNETH A WILSON GATEWAY PLAZA 555 FIFTH STREET,SURE 230
CLIFFORD F.CAMPBELL 777 DAVIS STREET,SUITE 300 SANTA ROSA,CA 0E401
MICHAEL F.AUBIONUQ TELT•PML (/07)545-0000
KATHLEEN FAUBION,AICP SAN LEANDRO,CALIFORNIA 94577 FACSIMILE;(roe:sasse,>
WENDY A.ROBERTS TELEPHONE:(510)351-4300
OAVIO W.SKINNER FACSIMILE; )RIC0YENKW.T.MATTAS (51D 351�481
RICK W.MRVIE
1 AOICG M NEED
DEBBIE F.LATHAM
WAYNE K SNODGRASS
OF COUNSEL
ANDREA J.SALTZMAN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission DATE:January 11, 1996
City of Dublin
FROM: Elizabeth H. Silver
City Attorney
RE: Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
The staff has asked me to address several issues which may arise at your continued
public hearing on January 16 on the Dublin Ranch Phase I PUD.
Environmental Review
Because the project before you--a PD rezone--is a residential project undertaken
pursuant to and in conformity with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan the PD rezone is
exempt from CEQA,as indicated in the Agenda Statement for your January 2 meeting.
(State CEQA Guidelines,section 15182.) If the PD rezone is approved,the applicant will
still need to process a tentative map and site development review before development cart
occur. No further environmental review is required at tentative map approval or at site
development review unless the initial study performed at that time disdosures some new
environmental impact not previously addressed in the Program EIR prepared for the
Specific Plan. (Ibid.)
Condition Requiring School Mitigation Agreement Prior to Tentative Map Approval
In 1994 the Council prezoned 1500 acres,including the property in question,and
imposed a condition on the prezoning("Prezoning Condition")which stated that
n applicants for PD rezonings must enter into a school mitigation agreement with the
affected school district prior to PD rezoning. The mitigation agreement would require
developers to pay school impact fees in excess of the amount of school mitigation fees that
nor
Z
A 77•d/Mr Alma ow.
JAN-11-96 THU 15:41 MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK&SILV, FAX NO, 510 351 4481 P.03/04
TO: Planning Commission,City of Dublin
FROM: Elizabeth H.Silver,City Attorney
RE: Dublin Ranch Phase i PD Rezone
DATE: January 11, 1996
PAGE: 2
State law requires developers to pay. The Council imposed the Prezoning Condition
because the Specific Plan includes a policy(Policy 8-3)requiring adequate school facilities
and the Council concluded that the amount of the State school impact fees is not
adequate to fund the necessary schools. The Council was authorized to impose such a
condition because the prezoning is a"legislative"act and because the Specific Plan includes
Policy 8-3. The school districts have no power to impose school impact fees over and
above the amount required to be paid by State law.
The applicant has requested that the Prezoning Condition be satisfied by a
condition imposed on the PD rezoning("Proposed Rezoning Condition")which states that
no tentative map shall be approved until the applicant enters into a mitigation agreement
with the affected school district. The staff believes,and I concur,that the Proposed
Rezoning Condition is consistent with and would implement the Prezoning Condition.
Both the applicant and the staff notified both the Dublin Unified School District
and the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District of the Proposed Rezoning
Condition. The Dublin district has indicated its concurrence with the Proposed Rezoning
Condition provided it receives certain assurances from the applicant. The applicant and
the Dublin district are in the process of preparing an agreement to provide such
assurances.
The Livermore district has submitted a letter(January 9, 1996 letter from Robert.
Thurbon to Lawrence Tong)which,although not stated explicitly,appears to object to the
Proposed Rezoning Condition. The Livermore district's reason for objecting are misplaced,
in my opinion. Mr.Thurbon's primary concern appears to be that the Prezoning
Condition would be modified. That is not,however, what the applicant is requesting.
The Prezoing Condition would not be modified. Rather,the Proposed Rezoning
Condition would be the means of complying with the Prezoning Condition.
Mr.Thurbon is also concerned that a condition requiring a mitigation agreement
which is imposed as a condition of tentative map approval may not he legally binding. I
concur with Mr.Thurbon. It is clear from California case law that the City Council
cannot impose a legally binding condition requiring a school mitigation agreement when
approving a tentative map because approval of a tentative map is not a"legislative act".
PAGEv-� OF_,
• JAN-1 i-96 THU 15:41 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK&S I LV, FAX NO. 510 351 4481 P. 04/04
.-. TO: Planning Commission, City of Dublin
FROM: Elizabeth H. SiIver, City Attorney
RE: Dublin Ranch Phase I PD Rezone
DATE: January 11, 1996
1 (AYE: 3
The case Mr. Thurbon described involved a condition imposed on the tentative map.
That, however, is not what the applicant is requesting and the staff is recommending. The
Proposed Rezoning Condition would be imposed on the Pll rezoning, which is a
"legislative" act. The Council has the power to impose such a condition in this case when
taking a "legislative" act.
The question before the Planning Commission is whether it believes that the
proposed project is consistent with the Specific Plan and the zoning on the property. If
the Commission believes that the Proposed Rezoning Condition is consistent with and
implements the Prczoning Condition, the Commission can make the required finding of
consistency notwithstanding the fact that one or both school districts may have voiced
objections to the Proposed Rezoning Condition_ There is no legal requirement that the
school districts agree with the Proposed Rezoning Condition because, as noted above, it is
the City Council and not the districts that has the power to impose the requirement for a
mitigation agreement which includes a fee.
As indicated above, I believe that the Proposed Rezoning Condition is consistent
with and implements the Prezoning Condition and provides adequate protection to the
City that adequate school facilities will be available for the students who will reside in the
homes to be constructed on the property.
Very truly yours,
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER &WILSON
Feeit
Elizabeth H. Silver
EHS:rja
I'1WPD'rMNRsWv141M.EMo1,SO\COMMISSI.wo 1
O'
Fi U� r!if''....e,.ot,
�TT1f1lilir►pr 7
•
01/10/96 16:04 FAX 510 829 1180 DUBLIN SR SVCS D 4,. CITY OF DUBL USA V1002/003
BAN
/14 DUBLIN , ��, 4- 1 7051 Dublin Boulevard
SAN RAMON ^• Dublin,California 94568
SERVICES FAX 510 829 1180
DISTRICT
es 10 510 828 0515
January 9,1996
Carol Cirelli,Senior Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
Subject: PA 95-030 Dublin Ranch Phase 1 PD Rezone,
Planning Commission Meetings
Dear Carol:
We have reviewed the City's staff report,the proposed conditions of approval and the included
illustrations for the subject project. The following comments shall serve to clarify the concerns
which we expressed previously regarding the information provided.
1. The infrastructure illustrations(Attachment 3)portray a reasonable preliminary plan for
the off site potable and recycled water and wastewater collection system improvements.
However,the District Policy for Major Infrastructure(Res.29-94,copy enclosed)must
be consulted on a case by case basis for a determination of whom shall design and build
District off site improvements. Thus the references on these illustrations to the
responsibility for construction may be premature or inaccurate. Please note also that the
illustration for recycled water facilities does not show the storage tank required by the
District's master planning for this area.
2. We suggest the following revision to Condition No.34 of the Conditions of Approval to
clarify the District's determination of responsibility for construction of on and off site
facilities:Condition of Approval#34: ATTACHMENT ._3
All on and off site potable and recycled water and wastewater facilities shall be
constructed in conformance with DSRSD Major Infrastructure Policy(Res.29-
94). Applicant shall submit plans for the potable and recycled water systems and
sewer system to service this development acceptable to DSRSD,pay fees required
by DSRSD and receive DSRSD's approval prior to issuance of any building
P CT a I_
01/10/96 16:05 FAX 510 829 1180 DUBLIN SR SVCS D +++ CITY OF DUBL USA 003/003
Carol Cirelli,Senior Planner
January 9,1996
Page 2
permit. Developer dedicated facilities shall be in conformance with DSRSD
Standard Specifications and Drawings.
Thank you for considering our comments and incorporating them into the approval of this
project. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, f D�
BRUCE W.WEBB,
Engineering Planner
cc: Martin Inderbitzen
Robert Gresens
Bert Michalczyk
F:\user\conley\wp51\webb\1995\cireli96.ly ATTACHMENT 3
223 Donner Avenue
Livermore , CA 94550-3040
January 3 , 1996
Dublin Planning Commission
Re : Dublin Ranch ( Lin ) proposal
I hope that your action will provide for an interim bicycle
path along the north side of I-580 on land that would later allow
widening of I-580 to allow a BART extension in the median.
A narrow strip about . 8 miles long linking Croak Rd. ( at
Fallon and El Charro ) with Northside Dr. east of Tassajara Rd .
would be a big part of an ultimate bike route linking Dublin and
the new BART station with Las Positas College and Livermore in the
I-580 corridor. ( Bikes now have only one east-west route in the
valley - Stanley Blvd. ) All that would be left is a small . 3-mile
link between Croak Rd. and Collier Canyon Road West .
Requiring the dedication of such a strip, which would
ultimately be needed to widen I-580 for a further BART extension,
would be a key ingredient in encouraging inter-city bicycle travel
within the valley.
Very truly yours,
Robert S . Allen
449-1387
RECEIVE,
- 4 1996
G�fy pL, ,
.. Sd�
�I v
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 11, 1996
TO: Carol Cirelli,Sr. Planner
f1S
FROM: Mehran Sepehri,Sr.Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Contra Costa County's letter dated January 2, 1996 re: Dublin Ranch
Development Traffic Impacts.
I received the copy of Mitch Avalon's letter dated January 2, 1996. As Mitch indicated in his
letter, Dublin Staff has been working with him on studying the impact of Contra Costa County
development on Dublin's road system and vice versa.
The purpose of this study is to determine the traffic impact fee to mitigate the impact of each
development on other jurisdictions. We are hoping that this study will be completed within
approximately six months. When the traffic impact fee between Dublin and Contra Costa
County is established,that fee will be incorporated into the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
g:Icomeslmslavalon
ATTACHMENT 5
PACE ✓� OF-.1q
01,02,96 TUE 16:22 FAX 510 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC WORKS 002
lford
Contra Public Works Department P.bMic Worksael tare
[� Public Director
Costa 255 Glacier Drive
Martinez,California 94553-4897 Milton F.Kubicek
Corn FAX:(510)313-2333 Deputy'Engineering
Telephone:(510)313.2000 Patrice R.McNamee
Deputy•Operations
January 2,1996
Mr.Larry Tong Maurice M.Shin
Planning Director
Deputy•Transpora on
City of Dublin S.Clifford Hansen
P.O.Box 2340 Deputy•Administration
Dublin,CA 94568 File: Dublin JEPA
Dear Mr.Tong:
I am writing to respond to a couple of concerns raised by Dublin regarding the mitigation of development
impacts on large scale projects in the area. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recently approved
the rezoning and development agreements for the Dougherty Valley development project.During the
hearings,Dublin requested removal of any proposed cap on the traffic impact fee and expressed concern
about having a time limit placed on determining the fee,if there were delays not subject to Dublin's control. I
am pleased to inform you that the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning and development agreements
with provisions that did not include a cap on the traffic impact fee,and also allows an extension of time for
any delays in determining the fee caused by the County or the developer.
County staff and Dublin staff have been meeting on and off for almost two years to determine the appropriate
traffic fee to mitigate impacts of development in each jurisdiction.We are using the Tri-Vallcy
Transportation Council model as a basis for determining the fee. The model is used to determine the impact
of Dublin traffic on County roads and to determine the impact of Dougherty Valley traffic on Dublin roads.
The impacts between the two jurisdictions will be compared and the difference will be used to calculate the
fee.
•
It is our understanding that the Dublin Ranch project in east Dublin is being heard before the Dublin Planning
Commission tonight. We request that any approval of the Dublin Ranch project aclnowledge that the County
and City are working towards a mutual traffic impact fee to mitigate the impacts of development in Dublin
and the County.Traffic impacts from the Dublin Ranch project should be included in the determination of
this fee.
County staff and Dublin staff will continue to meet to determine a traffic impact fee. I believe we will have a
draft fee and agreement ready for review within the next three months:
Very truly yours,
2� • i
R.Mitch Avalon
Assistant Public Works Director
IL+rArs •
Engineering Services Division
G:lengsvclmrrehltong.rl
c: V.Alexeeff,GMEDA
J.M.Wedord,Pubic Warns
M.Wu,Pubic Works
L Thompson,Dubin ATTACHMENT 5
M.Sepehri.epehd.Dubin
D.Barry,COO
S.Goele,CDD
J.Stares,Pubic Works
PAGE ✓ ` C .✓�l
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 11, 1996
TO: Carol Cirelli, Sr. Planner
It S
FROM: Mehran Sepehri,Sr.Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Letter Dated January 3, 1996,re: Dublin Ranch(Lin)Proposal
I have received a copy of the letter from Robert S.Allen dated January 3, 1996,regarding the
Dublin Ranch(Lin)proposal.
Mr.Allen stated in his letter that he would like to see provision for a bicycle route to connect the
East Dublin BART Station and Ironhorse Trail to the Las Positas College in Livermore. This
bicycle route has already been included in the City of Dublin Specific and General Plans and
will be along the Dublin Blvd. Extension to Livermore.
To facilitate reserving right-of-way for the widening of 1-580 and a further BART extension,a
copy of the future Planning Applications located adjacent to 1-580 should be sent to BART,
Caltrans,and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council for their comments and requirements for
right-of-way dedication for freeways.
glcorreslmslallen
ATTACHMENT 5
_3 Donner Avenue
Livermore . CA 94550-304()
January 3 , 1996
Dublin Planning Commission
Re : Dublin Ranch ( Lin ) proposal
I hope that your action will .provide for an interim bicycle
path along the north side of I-580 on land that would later allow
widening of 1-580 to allow a EART •extension in the median .
A narrow strip about. . 8 miles long linking Croak Rd . ( at
Fallon and El Charro ) with Norths; de Dr . east of Tassajara Rd .
would be• a big part of an ultimate bike route linking Dublin and
the new BART station with Las Positas College and Livermore in the
I-580 corridor. ( Bikes now have only one east-west route in the
valley - Stanley Blvd . ) All that would be left is a small . 3-mile
link between Croak Rd . and Collier Canyon Road West .
Requiring the dedication of such a strip, which would
ultimately be needed to widen I-580 for a further BART extension,
would be a key ingredient in encouraging inter-city bicycle travel
within the valley.
Very truly yours .
Robert S . Allen
449-1387
ATTACHMENT
5
4 1996
Y`' 'd�Nv�
`wort,,
W`+P�G1l'LF�'�Z= DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
5.1
eo ! 1 � y
j=`!►;� 9399 Fircrest Lane • San Ramon, Ca 94583
I����"�,� Office: (510) 803-8600 • Fax: (510) 803-8630
SERVING
DUBLIN 8 SAN RAMON
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 5, 1996
TO: CAROL CIRELLI, SR. PLANNER
FROM: Russell Reid, Fire Inspector
SUBJECT: MEETING CONDUCTED ON JANUARY 5, 1996, REGARDING FIRE DEPARTMENT
ACCESS AT THE DUBLIN RANCH PROJECT
The 30 foot wide unobstructed roadways, proposed in some areas of the Dublin Ranch project, exceed the
minimum roadway width requirements of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (See copy of standards
below).
1. Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. of the most remote first floor exterior
wall of any building. (UFC, 1991, Sec. 10.203)
2. Fire apparatus roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and an
unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Streets under 36 feet shall
be posted with signs and red curbs painted with labels on one side and under 28 feet on both
sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE-CVC 22500.1". (UFC, 1991, Sec.
10.204 (a))
3. Fire apparatus roadways must be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fire apparatus
and must be provided with an all weather driving surface. Only paved surfaces are
considered to be all weather driving surfaces. (UFC, 1991, Sec. 10.204(b))
4. The maximum grade for a fire apparatus roadway is 20%.
a. Grooved concrete or rough asphalt over 15% grade. (S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #14,
Sec. 10.204 (f))
5. Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 ft. in length must make provisions for approved
apparatus turnarounds. (UFC, 1991, Sec. 10.204 (d))
If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 803-8604.
Sin --
i
�� daddy `'.`. .e."
-
RU LL 'EID Fr
Fire Inspector
RR:sg
Oadmin\fpbureau\rrdubrnch.mem y
nrkd vA al
JAN 16 '9E 11:15AM BREON ODONNEL I/Ib q(+9 ltYciziF.2/5
BREON. O'DONNELL, MILLER. BROWN &DANNIS
ATTCR'FYS Al LAW
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
71 Sleveraon S•ae.
<eith`:.e-ron nin-een:h Boor
slur:.L.O'Cianne:! San Het/..C.{94:0S
]eald C.MO!+a• Tel:4:5i$43.4::1
ritadla 9rtait r.e a:5/443.43f4
Gregory I.Oe--:+
Eta!R.a;ehaea 25SC Via Trion
0041 A Plaregan guile 3.{
.Nancy Soigne Palm Wain.CA 90274
January 16,1996 Tel:710.374.6837
gnhrLA lame Pox:310i2T3.9011
34.rIrvn I.Cleveland
Laurie..:image:
lour.Sad, :7942 6:nro Road
David A tro! Suitt 71.22
Awe.T.ite Salina/:A 93907
Claudia P andngal Tel.a06i665-0470
riandiii 0.Puen.
Pew 56.Srurgx Lie Anf elta,CA
Laurie`Rnw:da
Td.910I042-::23
Guy A 30-1t
lane t
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S.MAIL coma mew,CA
&WEN he.Stun 'lel:n eb63.6E77
Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
Re: Dublin Ranch Phase 1,Land Use Development Plan
Our file 5180.1.000
•
Dear Mr.Tong:
This letter is to advise that the Dublin Unified School District and the Lin Family,owners of the
above-referenced project,have reached a mutually satisfactory agreement regarding the imposition of
the condition regarding school impact mitigation(copy enclosed). Therefore,the District has no
objection to the City's approval of the Land Use and Development Plan being considered by it on
January 16.
Very truly yours,
BREON,O'DONNELL,MILLER,
BROWN&DANNIS
Priscilla Brown
PE:land
Enclosure
cc. Vince Anaclerio,Superintendent,Dublin Unified School District
'5 1 8011 000\tong I.I96
1-442d O d-
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
20. The applicant shall comply with the City's proposed Stream Corridor Restoration Program and the
Grazing Management Plan. The project's intermittent stream enhancement and restoration
improvements shall comply with the Plan requirements and shall be submitted with the Tentative
Map application for the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. If a Stream Corridor Restoration Program
and the Grazing Management Plan have not been adopted prior to approving the Tentative Map for
the project,the applicant shall provide project specific stream corridor restoration and grazing
management requirements and shall submit this plan during the Tentative Map project review.
[PL,Zone 7,PW]
21. The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for
mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts(e.g.Applicant shall submit a
preconstruction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to verify the
presence of sensitive species. A biologist shall prepare the survey and shall be subject to the
Planning Department review and approval). Any updated surveys and/or studies that may be
completed by a biologist prior to Tentative Map application submittal shall be submitted with the
Tentative Map application. [PL]
PARKING
22. The availability of adequate on-street parking within the Medium Density Residential area shall be
re-assessed prior to Tentative Map approval to determine its adequacy. [PL,PW]
TRAFFIC/PUBI,IC WORKS
23. The Applicant shall meet all City of Dublin minimum roadway standards for public streets prior to
Tentative Map approval. All minor modifications to the City's roadway standards shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. [PW]
24. Applicant shall pay a traffic impact fee or construct required improvements based on the adopted
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee(per Resolution No.1-95)and the 1-580 Interchange Traffic
Impact Fee(fee that has been agreed upon by the City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton for
interchange improvements),as such fees may hereafter be modified or amended. These fees
shall be paid prior to final inspection of each unit,unless and until,the City Council amends
Resolution 1-95 to make the fee payable prior to issuance of building permits. [PW,B]
25. The applicant shall submit an update of the traffic study prepared by TJKM dated December,1995
with the Tentative Map application and the study shall be subject to review and approval by the
Public Works Director. Appropriate traffic mitigation measures will be identified and included as
conditions of Tentative Map approval. Such traffic mitigation may include,but not be limited to:
[PW]
a. Traffic signalization
b. Roadway shoulder construction
10
g:\pa95-030\pere 1-I 6\crc
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 16, 1996
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff,
PREPARED BY: Ralph Kachadourian,Assistant Planner/Zoning Investigator
SUBJECT: PA 95-040, Caffino Inc.,SPA/CUP/SDR
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Specific Plan Amendment,Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to construct a 220±
square foot drive-up espresso bar/kiosk on the undeveloped portion of property directly in front of the
Workbench True Value Hardware store, located at 7360 San Ramon Road.
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT:
A Specific Plan Amendment(SPA)to Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan is proposed
to allow a drive-in or drive-through restaurant,which serves food for consumption in a short amount of
time,as a conditional use.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) is requested to allow a drive-in or drive-through
use and to allow the alteration or expansion of a pre-existing use(Workbench).
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW:
Approval of a Site Development Review(SDR)is required for the construction of the espresso
bar/kiosk, including the installation of new landscaping,revised parking lot striping and other on and off-
site improvements.
APPLICANT: Brenda Gillarde,Project Planner
Caffino Inc.
6140 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 450
Pleasanton, CA 94588
PROPERTY OWNER: John&Leona Nichandros
Workbench True Value Hardware
7360 San Ramon Road
Dublin,CA 94568
Item No. LI, Copies To: Admin.File
J.&L Nichandros
PAGE I Brenda Gillarde
Q�_ PA 95-040 File
D.Carrington
R.Kachadourian
•
LOCATION: 7360 San Ramon Road
ASSESSOR PARCEL: 941-040-2-3
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Retail/Office
SAN RAMON ROAD
SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNATION: Area 3;(San Ramon Road Properties)
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: C-1,Retail Business District
SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: C-1, Retail Business District,PD,Planned Development District(C-1
underlying zoning); The Sleep Shop&Hayward Fishery Restaurants
South: PD,Planned Development District; Stroud's Plaza
East: C-1, Retail Business District; Shamrock Village Shopping Center,
K& S Retail Center(Casual Male Big& Tall)
West: PD,Planned Development District; Kildara Residential Development
ZONING HISTORY
A building permit was issued by Alameda County to construct the hardware
store building on August 9, 1969,with final inspection on November 26, 1969.
C-2160/S-331X: On October 28, 1970,the Alameda County Planning Commission denied a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request for a plant
nursery with commercial retail development.
S-367: On November 12, 1971,the Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site
Development Review to John Nichandros for a 48,000±square foot retail/office
center with plant nursery and storage. (the project was not constructed)
S-475: On June 1, 1973,the Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site
Development Review to John Nichandros for a 38,000±square foot retail/office
center with plant nursery and storage. (the project was not constructed)
S-592: On May 16, 1977,the Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site
Development Review to John Nichandros to construct a new 28, 500 square foot
Workbench hardware store,a 4,800 square foot plant nursery and enclosed
storage area, and to convert the existing hardware store into six tenant spaces.
(the project was not constructed)
S-554: On August 4, 1976,the Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site
Development Review to John Nichandros for building additions to the existing
hardware store. (the project was not constructed)
C-3797/C-4105: On May 28, 1980, and October 21, 1981, Conditional Use Permit approvals were
granted for the installation of subdivision directional signs identifying the
Ponderosa Village development.
PAGE ds 0 14).
2
Resolution
No. 36-83: On July 25, 1983,the Dublin City Council adopted the San Ramon Road
Specific Plan.
PA 86-007: PD,Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review application
request was withdrawn by John Nichandros.
PA 90-097/
PA 91-084: On October 31, 1990, and November 1, 1991, Administrative Conditional Use
Permit approvals were granted by the Dublin Planning Director to allow the
operation of the High Fidelity X-mas Tree Lots.
PA 92-048: On July 24, 1992,the Planning Director approved a Sign Site Development
Review to the Workbench True Value Hardware for an existing wall-mounted
cabinet-type sign.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
General Plan Seismic Safety Element
The guiding policy of the Seismic Safety Element of the Dublin General Plan indicates that
geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away from geologic hazards in order
to preserve life,protect property,and reasonably limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other
public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities.
All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Uniform Building Code and the
Dublin Grading Ordinance. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from any
active fault trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close as 25 feet. These distances
may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate the fault trace. Generally, facilities
should not be built astride potential rupture zones, although certain low-risk facilities may be considered.
San Ramon Road Specific Plan
A proposal to amend the San Ramon Road Specific Plan may be initiated by Resolution
initiating a Specific Plan Study or Specific Plan Amendment Study by the Planning Commission or by
the City Council.
Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan prohibits drive-in or drive-through restaurants
which are considered retail commercial uses defined as convenience stores,which sell food, drugs or
other household goods for consumption in a short time.
The General Development Criteria of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan adopted on July 25,
1983,require in Section 2,Compatibility of Uses,that special attention be placed on insuring
compatibility of uses proposed in any new development with existing residential or other commercial
development located within or adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. During review,attention must be
given to the height of proposed structures, design, landscaping, setbacks, street side design treatment,
distance between buildings, loading areas,walls, fences,pedestrian/bicycle and service circulation.
Conditional Use Permit
Section 8-48.2 (A)(8), CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL, of the Zoning Ordinance identifies a drive-in/drive-through business as a conditional use in
the C-1, Retail Business District
PAGE 3.....�,
nF41
3
Section 8-94.0, CONDITIONAL USES,of the Zoning Ordinance states that conditional uses
must be analyzed to determine: 1)whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2)whether or
not the use will be properly related to other land uses,transportation and service facilities in the vicinity;
3)whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity; and 4)whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance
standards established for the district in which it is located.
Site Development Review
Section 8-95.0 of the Zoning Ordinance states that Site Development Review is a discretionary
review process intended to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious site and structural development
compatible with surrounding properties and neighborhoods;to resolve major project related issues
including,but not limited to,building location, architectural and landscape design and theme,vehicular
and pedestrian access and on-site circulation,parking and traffic impacts;to ensure compliance with
development standards and general requirements established for Zoning and Planned Development
Districts, including,but not limited to, setbacks, heights,parking, fences,accessory structures and
signage;to stabilize property values; and to promote the general welfare.
PARKING
Section 8-63.18,of the Zoning Ordinance states in part the parking spaces required for a
restaurant,bar or other establishment of dining or drinking as one(1) space for each sixty(60)square
feet of Floor Area, or one(1)space for each four(4)such"occupants"whichever is the greater
requirement.
Section 8-63.16, states in part that the Floor Area shall mean the floor area of space used for
service to the public as customers or patrons,but shall not include floor space used for non-public
purposes such as storage or the processing or packaging of merchandise. Floor space used principally for
toilet or rest rooms within a building shall also be excluded from floor area.
Environmental Review
A Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), State CEQA guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The project, as
proposed,will not have a significant effect on the environment.
BACKGROUND:
At the Applicant's request,this project was continued from the December 5, 1995,Planning
Commission meeting in order to submit revisions to the layout of the project and to address circulation
and parking concerns expressed by Staff and the Workbench and Sleep Shop property owners. Revised
site plan and elevation drawings were submitted reflecting a larger kiosk structure with an attached rest
room,an improved traffic circulation pattern, and the maintaining of the required number of parking
spaces.
ANALYSIS:
Specific Plan Amendment
The San Ramon Road Specific Plan geographic designation of this site is"Area 3",(San Ramon
Road Properties). This designation allows for the development of retail shopper stores oriented to
providing additional comparison shopping goods for both Dublin and nearby community residents. It is
the intent of the Specific Plan that the principal uses within Area 3 be reserved for retail shopper stores.
vi
DArc nr go
Under certain circumstances, a limited amount of development can be for other types of uses such as,
personal service,financial institutions or office uses.
The San Ramon Road Specific Plan identifies Caffino's drive-through proposal as a prohibited
use. On November 21, 1995,the Planning Commission authorized a Specific Plan Amendment Study to
consider allowing drive-in and drive-through restaurants,which sell food for consumption in a short
time,as a conditional use within Area 3. This could permit Caffino to operate a drive-through espresso
bar/kiosk within this Specific Plan area.
When the San Ramon Road Specific Plan was adopted in 1983,the only developed properties in
Area 3 were the Workbench True-Value Hardware store and the Dublin Iceland sites. The Sleep Shop,
Hayward Fishery,Public Storage and Stroud's Plaza(formerly known as the Town& Country Center)
were constructed after 1983. Drive-through uses were prohibited in order to foster attractively designed
large scale commercial development which eventually occurred and to avoid having a concentration of
unattractive drive-through uses on San Ramon Road. Smaller individual in-fill sites suitable for drive-
through uses remain undeveloped today.
Staff examined several specific issues regarding the drive-in or drive through operation:
1. Is a drive-in or drive-through use an appropriate use within Area 3 of the Specific Plan?
At the time that the Specific Plan was adopted, a new General Plan for the City of Dublin was
being proposed. The Specific Plan was adopted with the realization that the new General Plan may
necessitate a revision of the uses and development criteria established in the Specific Plan. The General
Plan identifies Area 3 as Retail/Office, which is the same designation identifying existing retail uses
within downtown Dublin.
Given that the intent of the Specific Plan to foster large scale commercial development has been
met;that in-fill parcels remain to be developed and that under certain circumstances,a limited amount of
personal service uses are allowed; and that other drive-in or drive-through businesses and uses currently
exist within the downtown area, drive-in or drive-through uses would also be viewed as an appropriate
use within Area 3.
2. Should a drive-in or drive-through use be considered a conditional use within Area 3?
Drive-through uses exist within the C-N, C-1, C-2 and M-1 districts throughout the City of
Dublin. They were approved as conditional uses pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of a drive-
through use within Area 3 should also be considered as a conditional use, since a Conditional Use Permit
provides for the review of a development proposal by the Planning Commission and the application of
conditions of approval will insure that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is met.
3. Determine if certain types of specialty drive-in or drive-through uses should be allowed,such
as the Caffino espresso bar/kiosk, as opposed to the typical fast food restaurant drive-through
operations,such as Burger King or McDonald's.
A drive-through operation such as Caffino should be allowed, but should not be distinguished
from other drive-through uses. As stated above,a drive-through use would be appropriate in Area 3 of
the Specific Plan and should be considered a conditional use. Given the protection offered by the
Conditional Use Permit review process, Staff feels that distinguishing between different types of drive-
through uses is not necessary.
The proposed drive-through espresso bar/kiosk would be compatible with uses currently
operating within the surrounding C-1 district and within Area 3 of the Specific Plan. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution(Exhibit C)recommending that the City
5
a
Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment for Area 3 to allow drive-in or drive-through restaurants,
which sell food, drugs or other household goods for consumption in a short time.
Conditional Use Permit
The Zoning Ordinance identifies the proposed espresso bar/kiosk use as a conditional use in the
C-1,Retail Business District. The kiosk will have two drive-up windows and a walk-up window.
Vehicle stacking or queuing to the drive-up windows will average from 2 to 4 vehicles during peak hour
time periods. The proposed site layout is designed to prevent vehicle stacking problems within the
parking lot. The hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m. with peak operating hours from
7:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m.
The San Ramon Road Specific Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit for any alteration or
expansion of a pre-existing use, such as the current Workbench True Value Hardware store operation.
The project site is a small, undeveloped portion of the hardware store property. This site has not been
effectively utilized by the Workbench property owner. The installation of the espresso bar/kiosk,
including the parking and landscaping improvements,would be considered as an alteration and
expansion of the pre-existing use.
Parking
The Zoning Ordinance requires a total of twenty(20)parking spaces for the hardware store use.
Parking spaces for the espresso bar/kiosk use is not required since the Zoning Ordinance identifies Floor
Area as space used for service to the public as customers or patrons, but does not include floor space
used for non-public purposes such as storage or the processing or packaging of merchandise. The floor
space used principally for a toilet or rest room within a building shall also be excluded from floor area.
The espresso bar/kiosk use is occupied only by employees in preparing and serving to the drive-
through or walk-up customers. The Workbench currently utilizes nineteen(19)parking spaces with a
portion of these parking spaces located on the adjacent property to the south at 7348 San Ramon Road,
which is also owned by the Workbench property owner.
In order to efficiently utilize the limited amount of available space to develop the project;to
maintain a clear drive aisle for unobstructed vehicle access and to provide the required number of
parking spaces for the site,the Applicant is proposing twenty-two(22)parking spaces. The Applicant
will provide fifteen(15)parking spaces within the front portion of the project site and seven(7)parking
spaces behind the Sleep Shop property, on a vacant parcel adjacent to and owned by the Workbench
owner.
These seven(7)parking spaces will be available as additional customer or employee parking
spaces for the Workbench,and as employee parking for Caffino,only if cross access easements are
obtained from the Sleep Shop and Hayward Fishery property owners. The twenty-two(22)parking
spaces for both Caffino and the Workbench will be sufficient because their peak operating hours are
different. Caffino would have a.m. peak hours during weekdays and the Workbench will have peak
hours on weekends.
Site Access
Caffino proposes to utilize street access to the espresso bar/kiosk from Amador Valley
Boulevard and from San Ramon Road. The revised layout will have access lanes traversing across City-
owned right-of-way directly in front of the Sleep Shop property. Caffino will enter into negotiations
with the city for purchase of this right-of-way. According to the Public Works Director,this portion of
land will need to be merged with either the Sleep Shop property or the Workbench property. The merger
of this portion of property will require a cross access easement for the drive-through aisles. Conditions
cr.*
have been included in the Draft Resolution of the Conditional Use Permit(Exhibit D)requiring the
purchase and merger of this portion of right-of-way and requiring the cross access easements prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
The additional parking spaces proposed behind the Sleep Shop will require access across the
Sleep Shop and Hayward Fishery sites. Cross access easements will be required to legally allow access
across these properties in order to gain access to the additional parking spaces. Conditions requiring the
cross access easements have been incorporated into the Draft Resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit(Exhibit D).
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution(Exhibit D)
recommending that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow drive-in or drive-through
restaurants,which sell food,drugs or other household goods for consumption in a short time, in Area 3 of
the San Ramon Road Specific Plan, and to allow the alteration or expansion of a pre-existing use. The
proposed drive-through use will meet the intent of the C-1 zoning district and would be consistent with
existing uses in the surrounding area.
Site Development Review
The Caffino pavilion is an attractive design reflecting an upscale Italian motif accented in the
Italian national colors. The 220±square foot kiosk will be constructed with high quality steel, glass and
ceramic tiles. The kiosk will be located 10 feet from the property line along San Ramon Road and
approximately 53 feet north from the curb face along Amador Valley Boulevard.
The existing landscaping embankment along the Amador Valley Boulevard frontage will be
improved and enhanced. Additional landscape improvements will be made within the Workbench
parking lot area and along the landscaped frontage of the Sleep Shop. The City of Dublin is currently
installing new landscaping within the San Ramon Road right-of-way and bike trail directly in front of the
project site. Additional on-site improvements will include new AC paving,curbing and restriping.
Caffino's proposal to locate the espresso bar/kiosk on the Workbench True-Value property and
the improvements in front of the Sleep Shop,together with the City of Dublin's right-of-way landscaping
improvements,will visually improve and upgrade an undeveloped and unkept frontage. These
improvements will meet the general development criteria established in the Specific Plan. The various
building elevations are shown on Exhibit A, Sheet A2.
Calaveras Fault
A trace of the Calaveres Fault runs through the subject property. The espresso bar/kiosk will be
located 50 feet from this fault trace as shown on the Site Plan,Exhibit A, Sheet Al. Review of the
geotechnical report, prepared by Hallenbeck&Associates on June 23, 1995,by Dale G. Wilder,C.E.G,
determined that the current location of this fault trace is accurately shown on the site plan and the
location of the kiosk structure conforms to the seismic safety requirements of the General Plan. A
Condition of Approval has been included in the Draft Resolution of the Site Development Review
(Exhibit E)which requires that the kiosk must be located no less than 50-feet from the known location of
the fault trace.
Traffic Impacts
The traffic analysis performed by George W.Nickerson,P.E.,determined that a total of 126 net
new daily vehicle trips would be generated by the project. The projects share of cost to mitigate traffic
impacts for the planned Dublin Boulevard widening improvements will be in the amount of$1,097.00.
This fee will be voluntarily paid by the Applicant prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore all
impacts would be pre-mitigated by this voluntary contribution toward roadway improvements.
FACE
OF
7
On November 27, 1995, Staff received a letter(Attachment 9)from a concerned resident
opposing the approval of the Caffino project. The resident feels that a major public safety hazard will
result from the location of the Caffino drive-through use and that the use will increase the overall amount
of traffic at the intersection and may effect the safety of pedestrians crossing at the intersection. The
Public Works Director has determined that no traffic or pedestrian safety hazards will result at the
intersection from the proposed drive-through use and no increase in the amount of traffic will result.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Draft Resolution(Exhibit E)recommending
that the City Council approve a Site Development Review to allow a 220±square foot drive-up espresso
bar/kiosk on the undeveloped portion of property directly in front of the Workbench True Value Hardware store,
located at 7360 San Ramon Road.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation
2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the Public.
3) Question Staff,the Applicant and the Public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Draft Resolutions recommending that the City Council approve
PA 95-040,Negative Declaration(Exhibit B), Specific Plan Amendment
(Exhibit C), Conditional Use Permit(Exhibit D), and Site Development Review
(Exhibit E)or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Draft Resolutions recommending
that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration(Exhibit B), Specific Plan
Amendment(Exhibit C),Conditional Use Permit(Exhibit D), and Site Development
Review(Exhibit E)for PA 95-040,Caffino Inc.
To approve the project as presented,a Commissioner may make a motion such as:
I move to adopt the Draft Resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the Negative
Declaration, Specific Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Development Review for PA
95-040, Caffino, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Revised Project Site and Elevation Plans
Exhibit B: Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Negative Declaration
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Specific Plan Amendment
Exhibit D: Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit
Exhibit E: Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Site Development Review
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Applicant's Revised Project Description,dated December 21, 1995
Attachment 2: San Ramon Road Specific Plan Land Use Map
Attachment 3: Site Development Review Standard Conditions
Attachment 4: City of Dublin Non-Residential Security Requirements
Attachment 5: Typical Public Works Conditions of Approval for Commercial/Industrial Site
Development Review or Conditional Use Permit Development and City of Dublin
Improvement Plan General Notes
Attachment 6: Standard Plant Material,Irrigation System and Maintenance Agreement
Attachment 7: Typical Parking Striping Detail
8
Attachment 8: Location/Zoning Map
Attachment 9: Letter from David A.Cambra,dated November 21, 1995, in opposition of the Caffino
drive-through espresso bar/kiosk proposal
Pi"i'.;:L.... r naaWN
9
DICTA LHN, CA
GENERAL NOTES PROJECT 5UMMARY INDEX OF DRAWING5
I. CONTRACTOR SHAH FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS
PRIOR TO DID. ANY P15CKEFANGIE5 IDENTIFIED ON THE
DRAW INOS SHALL DE OKOUGPT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OCCUPANCY GKOUP: B-2 AO TITLE SHtE
ARCHITECT.
2,
CONTRACTOR SHALL DE RESFON51DLE FOR JOS SITE SAFETY
AX UNok pR AL OVIDEFORSAFEfA55AGE CON5TKUCTION TYPE: VA NOT 5PRINKLEKED, MODULAR, Al 51TE PLAN
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ALL EXISTING FACIUTIES AND
CONOTTIONSDAMAGEDASARESULTO-15WORR D.O.H. APPROVED •. CONTRACTOR 6HALL REMOVE ALL KUDISH FROM SITE. A2 ELEVATION5
ITEMS NO-ED TO DE SKVAGED SHALL DE DC-E[EO TO C1
LOCATION DESIGNATED DY OWNER' 6UILDING AREA: 220 5F
5. CONTKAETOK SHALT fKOVIDE ALL DEMOLITION.
SAWCUFTING,EXCAVATING. 5HOKING. ETC. AS REQUltE0 TO Lt -LANDSCAPE PLAN
PROVIDE NEW WORK AS SHOWN CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY
ARCHITECT OF ANY UNFORESEEN CONO:TION5 NOT SHOWN
ON DRAWINGS INCWO.NG DUILDING STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS.
SUffORT5. SHEAR W ALL5, AND 0-HEK ESSENTIAL DUI
SYSTEM COMFOVENT5.
6. ALL WORK SMALL CONFORV TO A•FUCADLE STATE, LOCAL
REGIONAL, AND FEDERAL CODES. LAWS. AND ORDINANCES.
INCLUOING.
1991 USC WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS
CALIFORNIA CODE OF KEOULATIONS MILE 24
T991UMC
99 UK
99Q NEC
1990 A
OSHA
7. ALL MATERIALS SHALL DE INSTALLED PER THEIR
MANJFACTUXE['5 RECOMMENDATIONS.
D. DETAILS NOT SHOWN ON DRAWINGS SHALL
DE CONSTRUCTED TO MATCH SIMILAR CONDITIONS THAT
ARE SHOWN NEC IFIEO, OR EXISTING.
S. DIMENSIONS ARE GWEN TO FACE OF STUD OK CENTERLINE
OF INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS A5 5HOWN, UNLE55 NOTED
OTHERWISE
W. DESI5WOU10 ELECTRICAL CONTR TOK SHALL OF51GN
AND FROVIDE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM CONNECTED TO THE
EXISi;NG ELECTKICAL 5T5TEM AS
REQU:lED FOR IMFROVEMEHTS 5HOWN CONTRACTOR
5H ALL SUCMIT DE51GA/DUILD DOCUMENTS AS
RE a-ED FOR fE[NI TO ALL UTILITY COMFANIE5 AND
GOVftMNG AGf NCIES HAVING JUK15DICTION FOR FERMIT.
ALL E�ECTKICAIWOCK SHALL CONFORM TO AffUCADLE
CODES. LAWS. ANDORDINANCE5. CONTRACTOR SHALLfAY ALL FEES. L
ALI L—NAIRES AND AfILIC AfLE CO4FONENTS SHALL DE
C.E.L. KfROVEp. ALL CO4fONENT5 OF E CE . CAL SYSTEM
SHALL DE U.L. LISTED.
11. DESIGWDUI.D RUMDING CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN
AND PROVIDE fLUMDING SYSTEM CONNECTED TO EXISTING
SITE fWMDING SYSTEM AS REQUIRED FOR
IMMOVEVENT5 SHOWN. CONTRACTOR 5HAV15UPMY
DE510WOU'.LD DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED TO ALL
GOVERNING AGENCIES AND UTILITY COMFAHIES HAVING
JURI5D.CTION FOR FERMIT. CONTRACTOR SHAL PAY ALL -EES.
ALL FUNDING WORK SHALL CONFORM TO A—CCALE
CODES. LAWS. AND ORDINANCES.
12. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. IF DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOWN
OR DIMENSIONAL DI5CREFANC:ES ARE IDENTIfIED ON THE
DRAWINGS, NOTIFY AND all ATtTY OF - E IOC EXTINGUISHERS
RHERS S EXHIBITA
13. REQUIRE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF F RE EXTINGUISHERS .
REQUIRED BY flRE pEFARTNENT HAVING JU[ISOIR.ON
N. GRADING NOTE5:
519If 6 CLEAT SITE OF ALL VECWATION DEDKI5. 60RGAWC
LADEN To
SOIL AFTER CLEARING AWAY DE6KIS, SCARIFY 1 —'
TOF 6" OF EXFOMP SOIL. E):TENO 2DEYOND CU[D LINES.
MO15TLKE CONDITION 6 KECOMFACT SOL AS RECOMMENDED
BELOW.
ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO CAL-05HA KEOVIKEMENTS
FOR WORK SAFETY.
COMFACTIOA KECOMMENPATION
COVFACT 57
6RADE, ENGINEERED FILL. AND TRENCH
5ACKFILL IN 6' UR5 AND ENTI[E FILL TO A MIN. 50Y COMIACTION
AT 2 TO 51 OVER OFTIMUM V OIST IKE CONTENT (30% MAX.)
ALL FILL MATERIAL SHALL HAVE V AXIMUM fAXTICIE WE OF AT LEAST
3 INCHES. LE55-HAN 15 fV5TICITY INDEX, AND LE55 THAN 30[
°°'°LIMIT. 77 LIGHT POLE DASE 3/4"=1'-D" VICINITY MAf NO SCALE
Z. COACI HANK SHALL VERIFY ALL UTILITY REQUKEMENTS -jE COL%LIERCUL
COACH MANUFACTURER'S REQUIREMENTS. Ut V,. l' IEQUME HAVING
JJRISDCTOK ANDL VERIFY
E—FROCATIO OWNER, REOUR S WITH
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFYEXACTLOCATIONOF K"STUDSWRH
UCO Tl M KCIA. COACH MANUFACTURER. CONTRACTOR SHALL AP Kl 12
U TILEIY STUDS CLEAN OUTS. AND EQUIFMOfT RALIT VEL HANDICAP
ACCF551DLE RAM(, 1AV01NG5 AND IAiH Of TRAVEL GARDCO LIGHT FRTUtE
IS, COWRACTJ[ 5HAL VERIFY EXIST SLA6 CONFIGURATION AND WYH H192 WRH 50W HFD
ROOMED REQUIRENENIS. INCLUDING JTILITY KEOU;RE4ENT6. RECESSED 6 MFR'S. FOLF. FACTORY WONT STANDARD (SEE ELECTRICAL
FLOOR 51WKS AND EQUIPMENT, AND HOLD DOV/N LOCATIONS WITH 6 RANTED DARK D[OFL'E p[AWINGS fOt hEIGNT6 MFR.)
,LOOK
DUILOING MANUFACTURER
17. CONCRETE
TROWEL FINISH
FOO-IHG5 5HAL. EXTEND TO UNDISTUROED SOIL FOOTING DERH5 SHOWN SLOPE ALL AROUND W H SM
ON OKAWINGS AKE MINIMUM DEPTHS.
KEINFOKCINO OAKS 5-IALL CONFORM TO A51M A6 . LA✓DAIS 4001-ITEO U.N.O. 16 (4)5W DlA. a fb ANCHOR SOLT
CLEAR 0151ANCE5 (51EEL TO FORMS U.NO.): TE TOLE UM. r PACE (LATE pp
FORMED SURFACES EXf06ED TO WEATHER
7EMfJ,TE BY PO_E SUPPLIER bpo �I
FOKME:O SURFACES IN CONTACT W/EARTH 2' �� (3)E3TIE50TOf OFfEDESTA. 6�
UeFORMEp SURFALES:NCONTACTW/EARTH 1. CURD @PLANTER 3/4"=1'-O"
SLABS ON ROLLED DTOWEATHE3. GIRDERD6 COLUMNS IU2' A3TIES Oil"O.C.
ADS
NOT E%f05F0 TO WEATHER 3/4'
CLEAR 015TANGf MTV, EE N C AR5 2" CONC. DASE {ry(
MATE[IALS; AGGREGATE A5TM C W. FOKTLANO TYfEY CEMENT AST. C-150, SONOfU6E' FORM W/ LINER
FOTA" WATER, TRANSIT MIX ASTM C 9L. NO ADMIX WITHOUT WRFFTEN a z
WxOVAI. NO FLY ASH FEt4ITTE 0, 2500 F5126 DAY 5TKENGTH, 1112 1 NC[EfE. AC. PAVING. E ; F�
MM AGG 512E IN fO0ITN65. I' VAX. ADC. 5-E IN SLAP _ / RANTING AREA (SEE SITE ^�
FLAN FOR LOCATIONS) ai
We' RADIUS EDGES '
AC PAVING
"DO 'DO D -' O �00 '60 �DO "OO 60 'DO
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ SAN RAMON ROAD
o
VARIES
CONDUIT AND OKOUNPINC,
TOT 50LL \ \ \A (SEE ELECT. DRWGS) ��
AGGREGATE
DAM\MID-DAM /\/ - \ ` oil
�\ / / / (a) s4 DK5 NDOR 060TTOM,
NEW CONC. CURD \/ - _ \// TIE IO ANCHOR DOLTS
E%TEND FTC. Y-0' NIN
DNDI5IDKDFp SOIL
LYMAN OHNSON
ARCHITECTS
12711 LOCIIR FT 1261. WALNUT C1811K, CA 945%
T149109604 FAR Ste Fee RMF
REVISION:
JOB TITLE:
`A...l llJL Y Y 1 V
AMADOR VALLEY BLVD.
k SAN RAMON RD. ,
DUBLIN, G
D c c ` 6 1995
Dlk' N E AIN ;, -lj 7,
OWNER:
CAFFINO
6140 6'MIaSIDC9 MALL
D", SUI11t 430
FI EASAWOR CA %5811
310. 460. 2900
SHEET TITLE:
TITLE
SHEET
DATE: 11/16/95
JOB No.
SHEET:
Of
V d NIGH STL DOLLA[O,
•AIMED PER OWNER.6"
EMOED COLLARD IN 15 ROUND/CONC.
FTG.. Y d DEEP. (EA CORNER)
O p
_ _ u
FASCIA
III III
b
III III
''
III III
l I III
1h
Ju IL
DUILDING MFR DTI
F AASS„IE�P
_— _— _— _— _J
— I
II r 1
UNLIM RFD
E
Ill OANR5EDRIVE
VACAYILLE, CA 6
I
rH. (707) -7 7376
1F.,
OUTLINE OF PRE FADRICATED
I Y fy1
I
CAFFID DJILDING
, I I I
SEE PLANS DT SIGN
5' LOLL. SLAB W/Su00iH FlNISH
SERVICE UNLIMITED FOR
UTI.ITIES-0 FLOOR SINK
III OVER 4'iREE DRNUNG GRAV EL 1
IN SLAD
OVER PREfAKEO SD GRADE.
III 2500 f'N
5TREM1MK. rKOV DE
LANE DLACK COLCR:NG FEK TO. III
III
I
FtOM CURS
I
Mp FRCM
DUILDING
III
, I I
3' 0' NIGH STL DOLLARD.
11
I
FAINTED FEK OWNEK. G'
L I I
KOUND, FILLED AND CAFFED W/CO
CED .IE 15" ROUND C00.
Ib Try�
I I
FTC. G.. S 0- DEEP. E. COSHES)
II I
� IIII
FACE OF
III
�T _— _—
ILI rE MAX. 0
O
MED. D[OON PIN.
U� y
FINISH
CONCRETE NANDICIP RAM' - FLUSH
1A2 5LOrE M.M. PROVIDE
12' WIDE DOKDE[ WITH i.'4'
GROOVES. 314" O.C. AT LANDING
NED. OCOOM FIN. w
y 1:6 SLOPE b M
1:6 SLOPE MAX 0.'AX
4'1/i'
1r r
FOUNDATION PLAN 1/4"=1'-0" REFER TO 51TE PLAN FOR TRUE ORIENTATION
/ I,C//PRE FAD[ICATEO BUILDING
WE13'A
6i SEE MN5
FOR WEDGE NCNO[
SEAUNT CONNERORS
1/2' [ADIOS 84 AT 16' O.C. EA WAY AT MID DERV
CON". SEALANT
612'fKEMOLDED
E.J. FILLER i _ .. _ ._..
6 NIL YAIO[
O ` O / .AIRIER
2 3- ASPFIALT - "SAND
w PAVING ramm"
EAz5 LNGSUSG[ADE ,� '{�cll �/�/\\j/�\%/
16 FOUNDATION 5ECTIO
/ 2[ MMm
C
4 - GKAYE} DME
CCNC[ETE FOOTING
O °L�2-15 DAK5 TOP
`` II AND DOTTON
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
FLUSH
6' DUILDING MfL THRESHOLD
SEA,.. )//f'
LOCK OUT FOR DLDG. WALL
\\ FIN.=Lt
S' THICK CONC. 5LAb
212" STEP VECIFY W1 ° U ° ... . `... .
DJLLOING MANUFACTURERS .1`f° (�-
19 THKE5HOLD SECTION
"
CONCRETE FOOTING
1 1/2" = 1'-O"
a t
5AN PAMON IZD
"(E) DIKE TRAIL
I �
NEW CONIC. ,ow,DOLP. Dr.
I�FCC
� \ I
\ I
\ �I
�yC:� M—E
NEW
\ I.RN05CA/91f
(E) CURD TO \
DE REMOVED
L fOETION OF (E)
CURD TO KEN N
LANDSCAPED
(E)'NONE
SERVICE DO[
CITY
---ULKE OF CUED
MEW
DY CITY
(TREET
T
--NEW K ��
PAVING
p
`
(E) 51DEWALK
MEWL Kfft
`
DTL 77/A0�
Y \ 0
NEW CONC. CURD
5NOW. W. Tyr.
\ ,
I
rEt DTL 59/A0
i
Y
PIMP (E) CUKO
5 PAVING
eO
I
NEW
`NE
'IKECnLNIDSCNINO
KKOW
`I
A
Y
W"
ELS10f5
ANTE
AMINO,
AVING, TY
6
.
\
DEMO (E) pE As0—FINT
Eav
0. KE-GRADE AS REO'D
(E)
PARSING
/
`
' TO REMNN
NEW CONC.
CURS SHOWN ( fA[tINO
50LD, TYr. TO DE REMOVED
\
PROF E tTY
LINE
(E) WIDE
FCC DTL 59/A0
\
PAINTED DASHED
MNE ON rACAFOR
LANE DEMARCATION � �
T
AFFROR. LOCATION Of
\ / FAULT NALIENDEC
`0.ASSOC.C.
E551
K0-09lESTKLW/ R—PROfER1.
' OIE LM
LCAOWIDE ACCAISLE
LOADING NSLE 1��IIIIL\\
J IrEA[K— F I I
; \..
W (E) DRIVEWAY
EXI51-ING bLDG E—wE� Y-0RYY
(5LEEP SHOP & KIDS & TEENZ) uWVE[SAL SYMDOL
OF ACCESSIDRAY
FAINTED ON GROUND
NEW I F[EESTA"AP SIGN PER OT175/AO
Z EXI5TING BLDG
1 (TRUE VALUE HARDWARE)
^ T
3
(E) TRASH
PINS U
(E) PAVED
A;cA
�la
M 1 �ff E ENCLOSURE I
IO
I I I I
I 14
AREA OF NEW fAVING I O
n srKLS ADoco)
(15 DIRT
I 20'? I z � AREA
DEMO f0[TION I 7 /� VA� C1
Of E)CVRDNEW CONIC.
III I ✓1 A'
I I PER D1L 59 b D
III — —`-
51TE PLAN 1/16" = 1'-O"
EXHIBIT
6W.'el- Z-
rKOFEKTY LINE
alLYM[AN N
ARCHITECTS
13" LOCUST IT no, W,[,UT ME". CA %W
TI6p5Tm TLI 3L9 TSE NpT
IREVISION:
IJOB TITLE:
CAFFINO
AMADOR VALLEY BLVD.
k SAN RAMON RD.,
DUBUN, CA
t "'' C Io, 1 z S ,,.
OWNER:
CA"INO
6140 STONHJUDGE MALL
DRIVE, SUITS 450
FLEASAMOR G1 945N
SHEET TITLE:
SITE PLAN/
DETAILS
DATE: 11/16/95
JOB No.
SHEET:
"A I-'
6C,4
0
RIGHT EXTERIOR ELEVATION
LEFT EXTERIOR ELEVATION
x Imp
6 HAL-OUNO RED NC
NON -ILLUMINATED SOFFIT
SEYOND
F
METAL FARMET
FAINTED WHITE
DARR MEEN CAIN AW'NMG
W/WHITEIETTERS
REDREVEAL
METAL FASCIA
FAINTED WHTTE
jI
S' NHF ROUND RED FVC
WTVO ROWS OF WHITE NEON
METAL WINDOW AMES
FAINTED GREEN
METH FASCIA
"
A
NT
OR,, F
x MFT&GUARDRAL
FAINTED GREEN
1' WHITE TILE A GROUT
ELECTRICAL fANEL SOX (200..,) -
WMINOEO COVER
METAL fASCIA
FAINTED GREEN
METAL SAND
CONC. SUS (SEE SITE FLAN)
FRONT
EXTERIOR
ELEVATION
EXHIBIT
Ste- 3
FLGUREDENT Si ff
WAIT W/ WF CASE.
D' NALF-ROUND RED INC
NON.XLUMINATEO SOfFTT
WOO WNITE NEON TUBE
WHITE META.
FANET SOFFIT
NETALFARAFETSEYOND
0
FAINTED WHITE
VINYL SION COVERING
REDREVEH
DRIVE THRU
METAL fAscI)
j
ESPRESSO
FAINTED WHTTE
6 NALF ROUND RED NC
SOFFIT. TWO ROWS OF WHITE
NEON, SEE GET: DIM
WMIIE METAL DOOR A 1LI
/
T, S,
4' WNITE TILE S GROVT
LIGHTED MENU
DOARD
METAL FAXIA
FAINTED RED
Y- METH DAURD RAIL
METH FASCIA
TAINTED DARK GREEN
METH DAND
O
COW. SLAD (SEE STTE RAN)
DRAM OUTLET
PEAR EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE : 1/2" = 1' 0"
FJ
LYMAN OHNSON
fl-RARCHITECTS
LSH LDCUI T 9T.201, WALNUT CREEK, CA "IN
S1
0T00$m FAX NO "I fflf
REVISION:
JOB TITLE:
CA FI V
AMADOR VALLEY BLVD.
k SAN RAMON RD. ,
DUBLIN, G
C�
1995
OWNER:
GAFFING
4140 STONHREDCH MALI
DIU". SUITH 450
PUASANMK CA 94588
SHEET TITLE:
ELEVATIONS
DATE: 11/16/95
JOB No.
'sET:
A2
s-
RESOLUTION NO.96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SIGNIFICANCE FOR PA 95-040 CAFFINO INC.SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW,LOCATED AT 7360 SAN RAMON ROAD
WHEREAS, Caffino Inc.,submitted an application requesting approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to
modify Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan to allow drive-in or drive-through restaurants as a conditional
use;Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-in or drive-through restaurant,which serves food for consumption in a
short amount of time;to allow the alteration or expansion of a pre-existing use;and Site Development Review to
construct a 220±square foot drive-up espresso bar/kiosk at 7360 San Ramon Road;and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),State CEQA guidelines and City
Environmental Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that
environmental documents be prepared;and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project as it will not have
a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on December 5,
1995,and continued the public hearing to January 16, 1996;did review and consider the Negative Declaration;and
did adopt Resolution No.96-00,recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for PA 95-
040 Caffino Inc., Specific Plan Amendment,Conditional Use Permit,and Site Development Review;and
WHEREAS, public notice of Negative Declaration was given in all respects as required by law.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby find:
1. That the project will not have a significant effect on the environment;and
2. That the project complies with State and local laws and guideline regulation;and
3. That the Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for PA 95-040 Caffmo Inc.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
EXHIBIT B•
RESOLUTION NO.96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PA 95-040 CAFFINO INC.SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, Caffino Inc., submitted an application requesting approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to
modify Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan to allow drive-in or drive-through restaurants as a conditional
use;Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-in or drive-through restaurant,which serves food for consumption in a
short amount of time and to allow the alteration or expansion of a pre-existing use;and Site Development Review to
construct a 220±square foot drive-up espresso bar/kiosk at 7360 San Ramon Road;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said Specific Plan Amendment on
December 5, 1995,and continued the public hearing to January 16, 1995;and
WHEREAS,proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project as it will not have
a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission approved a Specific Plan Amendment study request on November
21, 1995;and
WHEREAS, Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan allows for the development of retail shopper
stores oriented to providing additional comparison shopping goods for both Dublin and nearby community
residents;and
WHEREAS, it is the intent that the principal uses within Area 3,be reserved for retail shopper stores;and
WHEREAS, under certain circumstances,a limited amount of development can be for personal service
uses which includes services of a personal convenience nature;and
WHEREAS,Area 3 regulations prohibit drive-in and drive-through restaurants,which sell food for
consumption in a short time;and
WHEREAS, the intent of prohibiting drive-in or drive-through uses was to foster attractively designed
large scale commercial developments within Area 3 of the Specific Plan;and
WHEREAS, said large scale development has occurred with small in-fill sites remaining;and
WHEREAS, said small in-fill sites could be suitable sites for drive-through uses if subject to Conditional
Use Permit approval;and
WHEREAS, to allow drive-in and drive-through restaurants as a conditional use in Area 3 would allow
additional retail uses to be developed on individual in-fill sites suitable for drive-through uses;and
WHEREAS,such uses would be valuable commercial uses to the City of Dublin;and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend
City Council approval of the application;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,recommendations,and
testimony hereinabove set forth.
EXHIBIT C
l
1
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution to amend the San Ramon Road Specific Plan to allow drive-in
and drive-through restaurants,which sell food for consumption in a short time,as a conditional use within Area 3.
This amendment is subject to the following:
AMENDING AREA 3 USES AS FOLLOWS:
1. modifying and deleting from Permitted Uses
Eating and drinking establishments selling prepared food and liquor
opt those defined as drive through
2. adding to Conditional Use
d. Drive-in and Drive-through restaurants
3. deleting from Prohibited Uses
d. Drive in and Drive through restaurants
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PA 95-040 CAFFINO INC.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOCATED AT 7360 SAN RAMON ROAD
WHEREAS, Caffino Inc.,submitted an application requesting approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to
modify Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan to allow drive-in or drive-through restaurants as a conditional
use;Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-in or drive-through restaurant,which serves food for consumption in a
short amount of time;to allow the alteration or expansion of a pre-existing use;and Site Development Review to
construct a 220±square foot drive-up espresso bar/kiosk at 7360 San Ramon Road;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said Conditional Use Permit
application on December 5, 1995,and continued the public hearing to January 16, 1996;and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project as it will not have
a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS, Section 8-48.2(A)(8),CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVAL,of the Zoning Ordinance identifies a drive-in/drive-through business as a conditional use in the C-1,
Retail Business District;and
WHEREAS, the proposed use would meet the intent of the C-1 District because it would allow drive-in
and drive-through restaurants as a conditional use in Area 3 and would allow additional retail uses to be developed
on individual in-fill sites suitable for drive-through uses;and
WHEREAS, such uses would be valuable commercial uses to the City of Dublin;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did consider a Specific Plan Amendment to allow drive-in and
drive-through restaurants as a conditional use in Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan and did recommend
that the City Council approve said Amendment;and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally
approved;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby find:
1)The use is required by the public need in that it will provide a convenient drive-through use that will
effectively serve commuters traveling on San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard;and
2)That the use will be properly related to other land uses,transportation and service facilities in the
vicinity in that it is located within compatible retail land uses;at a location with adequate access to and from San
Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard;and that all public facilities are adequate and available;and
3)The proposed project will not materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity since all applicable regulations will be met;and
EXHIBIT
4)The project will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for
the district in which it is located since conditions have been applied to ensure conformance with applicable zoning
regulations,and the use would be consistent with the character of the surrounding downtown area;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
the City Council conditionally approve PA 95-040,Caffmo Inc.,Conditional Use Permit application,as generally
depicted by materials labeled Exhibit A,stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning Department and
subject to the approval of the related Site Development Review,the Area 3, San Ramon Road Specific Plan
Amendment and to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise,all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits
or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes
represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PIA
Planning. [B] Building. [PO]Police,[PW]Public Works.[ADM]Administration/City Attorney. [FIN]Finance, [F]
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. [DSR]Dublin San Ramon Services District. [CO]Alameda County Department
of Environmental Health.
GENERAL
1. This Conditional Use Permit approval for PA 95-040 is to allow a drive-in or drive-through restaurant,
which serves food for consumption in a short amount of time,and the alteration or expansion of a pre-
existing use(Workbench). This approval shall generally conform to the revised plans prepared by Johnson
Lyman Architects,dated received by the Planning Department on December 26, 1995,consisting of 3
sheets labeled Exhibit A, stamped approved and as may be modified by the conditions of this Resolution.
[PL]
2. The Applicant and Property Owner shall provide twenty-two(22)parking spaces and shall maintain this
required number of parking spaces for both the hardware store and the espresso bar/kiosk uses at all times.
[PL]
3. The hours of operation for the espresso bar/kiosk use shall be from 6:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m. The espresso
bar/kiosk use may operate seven(7)days per week. [PL]
EASEMENTS/AGREEMENTS
4. To allow for parking,driveway access and drive-through aisleway access to the project,cross vehicular
access easements,or other appropriate documents approved by the Planning and Public Works
Departments,shall be recorded between the subject property and the properties to the north,up to Martin
Canyon Creek,in exchange for cross vehicular access easements through those properties. The cross
vehicle access easements shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works
Director and the City Attorney prior to recordation. [PL,PW,ADM]
5. The Applicant shall acquire any easements or rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners to the
north for improvements and/or construction activity that occurs or is required outside of the subject
property. Easements or rights-of-entry shall be in a written form and shall be furnished to the Public
Works Director. [PW]
6. A recorded copy of the cross vehicular access easements required by Condition#4,and the easements or
rights-of-entry required in Condition#5,shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. [PL,
PW,B,ADM]
MISCELLANEOUS
7. The Applicant and Property Owner shall comply with all applicable Planning,Building,Public Works,
Dublin San Ramon Services District,Dougherty Regional Fire Authority,Dublin Police Services and the
Alameda County Environmental Health regulations and requirements. [PL,B,PW,DSR,F,PO,CO]
8. All signage proposed for the espresso bar/kiosk and use shall be subject to the requirements of the sign
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. [PL]
9. The Applicant and Property Owner shall be responsible for clean-up and disposal of any project-related
trash and shall maintain the site in a clean,litter-free condition at all times. [PL]
10. The espresso bar/kiosk use shall be conducted so as not to create a nuisance to surrounding and/or adjacent
businesses. [PO,PL]
11. Amplified music or other noise generated by the use shall not be permitted to project off-site.
[PL,PO]
12. All activities associated with this use shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed espresso bar/kiosk,
with the exception of the drive-through and walk-up windows. [PL]
13. The use of any accessory structures,such as storage sheds or trailer/container units, used for storage or for
any other purpose,shall not be allowed on the site at any time. [PL,B,F]
14. Long or short term storage and/or parking of motor vehicles shall not be permitted on the site. [PL]
15. All landscape areas on and off the site shall be installed as shown on Exhibit A, Sheet Al,and shall be
properly maintained at all times. Any proposed or modified landscaping to the site shall require prior
review and written approval from the Planning Department. [PL]
16. On at least an annual basis,this Conditional Use Permit approval shall be subject to Zoning Investigator
review and determination as to the compliance with the Conditions of Approval. [PL]
17. This approval shall become null and void in the event the approved use is not constructed within 1 year or
ceases to operate for a continuous one-year period. [PL]
18. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit may be subject to the issuance of a
citation. [PL]
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
RESOLUTION NO.96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PA 95-040 CAFFINO INC.SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
LOCATED AT 7360 SAN RAMON ROAD
WHEREAS, Caffmo Inc.,submitted an application requesting approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to
modify Area 3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan to allow drive-in or drive-through restaurants as a conditional
use;Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-in or drive-through restaurant,which serves food for consumption in a
short amount of time;to allow the alteration or expansion of a pre-existing use;and Site Development Review to
construct a 220±square foot drive-up espresso bar/kiosk at 7360 San Ramon Road;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said Site Development Review
application on December 5, 1995,and continued the public hearing to January 16, 1996;and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project as it will not have
a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally
approved;and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby find that:
A. The approval of this project is consistent with the intent/purpose of Section 8-95.0 SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. The approval of this project,as conditioned,complies with the General Plan,the C-1 District
regulations and the general requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance.
C. The approval of this project,as conditioned,is in the best interests of the public health, safety and
general welfare.
D. The proposed site development, including site layout,vehicular access,circulation and parking,
setbacks,height,walls,public safety and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment
for the development.
E. Architectural consideration,including the character,scale and quality of the design,the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings,building materials and colors,screening of exterior
appurtenances,exterior lighting and similar elements have been incorporated into the project in order to insure
compatibility of this project with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings
and uses.
F. Landscape considerations,including the locations,type,size,color,texture and coverage of plant
materials,provisions and similar elements will be considered to insure visual relief and an attractive environment
for the public.
EXHIBIT E
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council conditionally approve PA 95-040,Caffmo Inc. Site Development Review
application,as generally depicted by materials labeled Exhibit A,stamped approved and on file with the Dublin
Planning Department and subject to the approval of the related Conditional Use Permit and to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits
or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes
represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL]
Planning, [B] Building, [PO]Police. [PW]Public Works. [ADM]Administration/City Attorney, [FIN]Finance. [F].
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.[DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District. [CO] Alameda County Department
of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone Seven.
GENERAL
l. This Site Development Review approval for PA 95-040 is to allow for the construction of a 220±square
foot drive-up espresso bar/kiosk to be located on the undeveloped portion of property directly in front of
the Workbench True Value Hardware store, located at 7360 San Ramon Road in the C-1,Retail Business
District. This approval shall generally conform to the revised plans prepared by Johnson Lyman
Architects,dated received by the Planning Department on December 26, 1995,consisting of 3 sheets
labeled Exhibit A,stamped approved and as modified by the conditions of this Resolution. [PL]
2. The placement of the espresso bar/kiosk structure must be located at least 50 feet from the known
earthquake fault trace of the Calaveras Fault, identified by the geotechnical report prepared by Hallenbeck
&Associates on June 23, 1995. [B,PL]
3. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard
Conditions and the City of Dublin Non-Residential Security Requirements(Attachments 3 and 4). [PL]
4. All signs for the espresso bar/kiosk structure and use shall be subject to the requirements of the sign
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. [PL]
PUBLIC WORKS
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the Applicant shall voluntarily pay the amount of$1,097.00,
payable to the City of Dublin,to mitigate traffic impacts. [PW,B]
6. The project shall conform to requirements of the City of Dublin"Typical Public Works Conditions of
Approval for Commercial/Industrial Site Development Review or Conditional Use Permit Development"
and"City of Dublin Improvement Plan General Notes"(Attachment 5). [PW]
7. The Applicant shall have a land survey prepared of the subject site to accurately determine the location of
the property line along San Ramon Road. Said survey shall be submitted for review by the Public Works
Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. [PW,B]
8. The Applicant shall purchase from the City of Dublin,with approval by the City Council,the existing
portion right-of-way property directly in front of the Sleep Shop parcel(Assessors Parcel Number 941-
040-2-10)for landscaping and drive-through aisle-way improvements. Said portion of right-of-way
property shall be merged with either of the existing lots(APN 941-040-2-10,Perkins;or APN 941-040-2-
3,Nichandros)with approval of the property owners and the merger shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Public Works Director. [PW]
2 f yGc X.OF—21-()
9. The Applicant shall submit a grading,drainage,striping and improvement plan subject to review and
approval by the Public Works Director. If needed,a grading permit shall be required for site grading and
drainage. [PW]
10. Roof drains shall empty into approved dissipating devices. Roof water,or other concentrated drainage,
shall not be directed onto adjacent properties,sidewalks or driveways. [PW,B]
11. Where storm water flows against a curb,a curb with gutter shall be used. The flow line of all asphalt
paved areas carrying water shall be slurry sealed at least three feet on either side of the center of the swale.
[PW]
12. All catch basins within paved areas not against curb and gutter shall be a 3 foot concrete apron around all
sides of the inlet per City of Dublin Standard Plans. [PW]
13. The Applicant and Property Owner shall comply with all National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System(NPDES)regulations and requirements at all times. [PW]
14. The Applicant shall be responsible for correcting deficiencies,if any,in the existing frontage
improvements and to the existing driveways to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and shall be
accomplished at no expense to the City. [PW]
PARKING/STRIPING
15. The Applicant shall submit a revised parking lot layout and striping plan for all parking areas subject to
review and approval of the Planning Director and the Director of Public Works and shall generally
conform to the parking plan shown on Exhibit A,Sheet Al,dated December 26,1995. All newly-striped
parking spaces shall be double-striped with 4-inch wide stripes set approximately 2 feet apart as shown on
the"Typical Parking Striping Detail"(Attachment 7). Handicapped,visitor,employee and compact
parking spaces shall be appropriately identified on the pavement and designated on the parking plan.
[PL]
16. Handicapped ramps,parking stalls and designated pathways shall be provided and maintained as required
by the State of California Title 24 provisions. ]PL,B]
17. The Applicant shall provide a minimum one foot wide raised curb or equivalent on landscape fingers and
islands adjacent to parking stalls to allow for pedestrian access. [PL]
ARCHITECTURAL
18. Exterior colors and materials used for the kiosk structure shall conform to the colors and materials
specified by the Applicant's Revised Project Description,submitted to the Dublin Planning Department,
dated December 21,1995. All ducts,meters,air conditioning equipment and other mechanical equipment
that is on-site or roof-mounted shall be effectively screened from public view. [PL]
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS
19. A final detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan(at 1 inch=20 feet or larger),along with a cost estimate of
the work and materials proposed,shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director.
Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be signed by a licensed architect or other landscape professional
acceptable to the Planning Director. Final landscape plans shall indicate the common and botanical
names,container size,growth rate and number of each plant. All landscaping,as shown on the
Landscape and Irrigation Plan,shall include drought tolerant vegetation. [PL]
20. Landscaping shall not obstruct the sight distance of motorists,pedestrians or bicyclists. Except for trees,
landscaping at drive aisle intersections shall not be taller than thirty(30)inches above the curb.
Landscaping at drive aisle intersections must not be taller than thirty(30)inches. [PL]
21. The Applicant shall complete and submit to the Dublin Planning Department the Standard Plant Material,
Irrigation and Maintenance Agreement(Attachment 6). [PL]
LIGHTING
22. Exterior lighting shall be provided and shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto
adjoining properties,businesses or roadways. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to
provide for security needs(1.5 foot candles). Any wall lighting around the perimeters of the kiosk
structure shall be supplied to provide"wash"security lighting. The Applicant shall provide photometrics
and cut sheets subject to the review and approval of the Police Department and the Planning Director. [PL,
B,PO]
POLICE SERVICES
23. As required by the Dublin Police Services,all security hardware for the new kiosk structure must comply
with the City of Dublin Non-Residential Security Requirements(Attachment 4). [B,PO]
24. The Applicant shall work with the Dublin Police Services prior to submittal of building plans and on an
ongoing basis to establish an effective robbery,theft prevention and security program. [PO]
25. The Applicant and Property Owner shall keep the site clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and
continuous basis at all times. The Applicant should consider the use of anti-graffiti coating on all windows
and wall surfaces of the kiosk. [PO]
26. Prior to issuance of building permits,the Applicant shall provide written documentation to the Planning
Department that all Dublin Police Services requirements have been,or will be,met. [PO,PL]
FIRE PROTECTION
27. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of the Dougherty Regional
Fire Authority(DRFA). [F]
28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,a one time Fire Impact Fee in the amount of$600.00,shall be
collected,in accordance with DRFA requirements. [F,B]
29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the Applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning
Department that the requirements of DRFA, including any fees,have been,or will be,met. [F]
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT(DSRSD)
30. Prior to issuance of any building permit,complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that
conform to the requirements of the DSRSD Code,the DSRSD"Standard Procedures,Specifications and
Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities",all applicable DSRSD Master
Plans and all DSRSD policies. [DSR]
31. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed
to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD
Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. [DSR]
4 r..•,,r (-
1,1j•,
32. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site development permit,the locations and widths of
all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by
DSRSD. [DSR]
33. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to
DSRSD. [DSR]
34. Prior to issuance by the City of Dublin of any Building Permit,all utility connection fees,plan checking
fees, inspection fees,permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to
DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. [DSR]
35. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit,all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be
signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the
District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by
the District Engineer,the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees,and provide an engineer's estimate
of construction costs for the sewer and water systems,a performance bond,a one-year maintenance bond,
and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to
DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for fmal improvement drawing review by
DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. [DSR]
36. No sewer line or water line construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has
been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition#34
have been satisfied. [DSR]
37. The Applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors,commissions,employees,and agents of DSRSD
harmless and indemnify the same from any litigation,claims,or fines resulting from completion of the
project. [DSR]
38. A separate water meter for landscaping shall be installed. A utility construction permit to install the new
water meter shall be issued by DSRSD.A utility construction permit will only be issued after all of the
items in Condition#34 have been satisfied. [DSR]
39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the Applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning
Department that the requirements of DSRSD,including any fees,have been,or will be,met. [DSR]
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT(Zone 7)
40. Special Drainage Area 7-1 was established by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District(ACFC&WCD)Board(Resolution 6922,May 17, 1966)to provide for a program of flood control
improvements along the major streams and arroyos within Zone 7 of the ACFC&WCD Board. Ordinance
No. 53 of the ACFC&WCD prescribes fees and charges within SDA 7-1 to be collected at the time of
issuance of a building or use permit. The fees and charges collected are used to finance SDA 7-1 flood
control improvements. These drainage fees shall be paid to the ACFC&WCD. [Z7]
41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the Applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning
Department that the requirements of Zone 7,including any fees,have been,or will be,met. [Z7]
DEBRIS/DUST/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
42. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash,construction debris,and materials on-site until disposal off-site
can be arranged. The Applicant shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City of
Dublin. [B,PW]
5 -,2C
43. Areas undergoing grading,and all other construction activities,shall be watered,or other dust palliative
measures used,to prevent dust,as conditions warrant. [B,PW]
44. The use of any temporary construction fencing shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director
of the Department of Public Works and the Building Official. [PW,B]
MISCELLANEOUS
45. Approval of the Site Development Review shall be valid for one year after the effective date of this
approval. Building permits for the proposed project shall be secured and construction commenced within
that time. If construction has not commenced by that time,this approval and the subsequent Conditional
Use Permit approval shall be null and void. The approval period for the Site Development Review may be
extended six(6)additional months(Applicant must submit a written request for the extension prior to the
expiration date of the permit)by the Planning Director upon the determination that the Conditions of
Approval remain adequate to assure that the above-stated findings of approval will continue to be met.
[PL]
46. To apply for building permits,the Applicant shall submit six(6)sets of construction plans to the Building
Department for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will be complied with.
Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The
Applicant will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City agencies prior to the
issuance of building permits. [B,PL]
47. Prior to issuance of building permits,the Applicant shall submit for review and approval a scaled fmal site
plan in conformance with the Conditions of Approval. Said plans shall be fully dimensioned(including
building elevations),accurately drawn(depicting all existing and proposed conditions at site),and prepared
and signed by a licensed civil engineer,architect or landscape architect. The site plan,landscape plan and
details shall be consistent with each other. [PL]
48. This permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit may be subject to the issuance of a
citation. [PL]
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
r/i�l3 r
� RECEIVEry
U 1'10,. DEC 2 5 1995
DRIVE THRU ESPRESSO BARS
DUBLIN PLANNING
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CAFFINO,INC.
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Background
The previous application dated September 28, 1995,proposed a 126 square foot drive-
through espresso bar on a vacant parcel located at the corner of San Ramon Road and
Amador Valley Boulevard. Access to the site would be from Amador Valley Boulevard.
Based on internal review by Caffino of access and operational characteristics,it was
determined that the Dublin application should be revised to incorporate our larger
building. The resulting layout offers several advantages which are discussed below
("Proposed Use").
Existing Use
The proposed site is a vacant portion of an existing developed parcel located at the corner
of San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. The True Value Hardware store is
located on the rear of the property;the front portion has been vacant since the parcel was
created and is currently covered by dirt and weeds.
Proposed Use
The project has been revised to incorporate a larger building for the espresso bar. The
building includes a bathroom and totals 220 square feet. The pavilion would still have two
drive-up windows and a walk up window; access would be from both San Ramon Road
(SRR)and Amador Valley Boulevard(AVB). The revised site layout differs from the
previous submittal in that access lanes would traverse across adjacent City-owned
property which fronts the Sleep Shop. It is understood that Caffino would need to enter
into negotiations with the City for the purchase of the land needed to accomplish the
proposed layout.
The revised layout offers several advantages over the previous submittal
greater separation between circulation patterns for the Caffino,True Value Hardware
and the Sleep Shop;
additional stacking capacity for Caffino customers
provision of the full number of required parking spaces;and
access from both SRR and AVB.
The concept behind Caffino is very simple-to provide an authentic cup of cafe style
Italian espresso without getting out of one's car. The business is designed to attract
Caffino Revised Project Description ATTACHMENT 1 1'. L 0r 7i
12/21/95 Page 1
Caffino,Inc. • 6140 Stoneridge Mall Road,Suite 450,Pleasanton,CA 94588 •TEL 510.460.2900 FAX 510.416.0120
passby traffic-people who are already out on the road commuting to work,school,
daycare or shopping.
Caffino is proposing to connect to existing sewer and water lines. The only grading would
be associated with leveling the site for paving and construction of the building pad for the
Caffino pavilion.
Project Operations
Caffino is tailored to the needs of the morning commuter. As previously stated,the
business attracts people who are already out on the road. These people are generally in a
hurry and while wanting a great cup of java,do not want to drive around looking for a
parking space in front of a walk in/sit down Italian cafe or deli. The Caffino building is
designed with two drive-through windows which expedite service and enable us to
maintain a transaction time of about 60 seconds per order.
Business hours typically are from 6:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.with the peak hours of operation
from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.. The maximum number of employees on a shift would be three to
five employees during the peak hours of operation;during the remaining hours of
operation,two employees will be present on the site.
During the peak hours,the average number of customers served is 69 per hour. After
9:00 a.m.the number of customers drops dramatically,to about 30 per hour or one every
2-3 minutes. After 12:00 noon the average number of customers is 20 per hour,or one
every 3-4 minutes. (Refer to previously submitted traffic study dated April 1995 for
additional information.)
During morning peak hours of operation,one or two greeters will be present outside of
the pavilion to greet customers,take orders and direct patrons to the most available drive-
up window,if necessary. This prevents any problems with uneven queuing and ensures no
traffic backups. This system is employed in all of the existing Caffino's and is 100 percent
successful in managing the flow of customers during the morning peak hours of operation.
Project Layout and Design
The Caffino pavilion will be located adjacent to an existing retail business but will create
its own distinct identity and character. The Caffino architecture reflects an upscale Italian
motif,which is reinforced by the building materials and colors. High quality steel,ceramic
tile and large paned windows were selected to create an open,inviting and sophisticated
style that is unique to Caffino. The Italian national colors were selected to emphasize the
nature of our product and enhance consumer identification with our use. Off-white is the
predominant color,accented by red and green trim elements.
Project Traffic Volumes,Access,Circulation and Parking
As stated in the April 1995 Master Traffic Study,approximately 90%of Caffino
customers are pass-by-traffic.These are people either on their way to work,day care,
school or shopping. Given the high percentage of pass-by-traffic customers,Caffino
•
Caffino Revised Project Description
12/21/95 Page 2 I
PACT Z62.Or k
generates very few new traffic trips,which is a plus in any community. Based on existing
traffic volumes and patterns within the project area,it is expected most of the Dublin
Caffino peak hour customers will be heading southbound on San Ramon Road and will
access and exit the site via right turns from San Ramon Road or Amador Valley
Boulevard.
Average queues during the morning peak hours(generally 7:00-9:00 a.m.)are 2-3 cars,
with an occasional 3-4 car queue for brief periods of time within the peak hour period.
The revised site layout is designed to comfortably accommodate anticipated queuing needs
of the Caffino.
The previous Caffino submittal requested a 25%reduction in the amount of required
parking. The revised submittal provides the full complement of required parking-22
spaces. Fifteen spaces will be provided on the front of the site for hardware store
customers;the seven remaining spaces will be provided in the back for employee parking
(hardware employees currently park in the front customer spaces).
Landscaping
The proposed site will be fully landscaped to enhance not only the appearance of the
Caffino pavilion but also the site itself;which currently presents somewhat of an eyesore
to those traveling along this section of San Ramon Road. The landscape palette will
include a variety of shrubs and groundcover. Terra cotta planters filled with brightly
colored annuals will also be located at both ends of the building,adding to the cheerful
and inviting appearance of the Caffino site.
Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed site is located within Area 3 of the San Ramon Specific Plan,which was
prepared in 1983. The Plan stipulates this area for retail shopper stores and prohibits
convenience stores including drive-thru uses in Area 3. The reasons why these types of
uses are not allowed is not provided in the Plan.
This application requests an amendment to the Specific Plan to allow the Caffino use.
Performance standards could be developed to govern the size and scope of drive-thru uses
within Area 3. Caffino successfully made a similar application to the City of Davis which
developed specific parameters for drive-thru uses within its commercial highway district.
Conditional Use Permit
Because the proposed use would be a drive-thru,a conditional use permit is required. In
order to the City to approve a conditional use permit,certain findings must be made:
The use is required by the public need The proposed Caffino would provide a service
that allows commuters and persons in their autos a convenient way to obtain authentic
Italian espresso drinks and other fine quality beverages. It also provides a product that is
not readily available within the Dublin community.
Caffino Revised Project Description
12/21/95 Page 3
PAGE..x0F_Lk
The use is properly related to other land uses and transportation/service facilities in the
vicinity. The Caffino would be located in an area designated for retail stores. The site is
located on a major arterial which makes it an auto oriented,rather than pedestrian oriented
environment. The Caffino business is oriented to the auto traveler,and specifically targets
the morning commuter. Although the Specific Plan prohibits drive-thru uses,it obviously
did not envision a uses such as a Caffino. Undoubtedly the plan's language for Area 3 was
designed to prohibit larger drive-in restaurants;the proposed Caffino does not fit into this
category given its small size,no interior or exterior seating,no food preparation(other
than coffee),no on-site food consumption,no litter generation and quick turnover(most
transactions occur within 60 seconds of arrival on the site).
The use will not affect public health and safety. The Caffino use primarily draws from
existing traffic trips and therefore generates minimal new traffic trips. No odors of any
kind are generated by a Caffino and it does not generate any excessive noise that would
affect surrounding uses.
The use is not contrary to the specific intent or standards established for the district it
would be located in. The Specific Plan does stipulate that Area 3 should develop as retail
shopper goods,which is defined as comparison goods based on price and quality. Since
the Plan was written in 1983,a major shopping center has developed on the south side of
AVB;on the north side of Amador Valley,a series of single use retail stores has
developed including a hardware store,a bedding store,a restaurant and a self-storage
facility. The Caffino use would be compatible with these existing uses in that it is a single
use,retail store that is primarily oriented to customers who arrive by automobile.
The proposed Caffino location lies within the C-1 Retail Business Zoning District. The
proposed espresso bar would be compatible with the purpose and intent of this district.
Caffino Revised Project Description
12/21/95 Page 4
pAq or
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
FIGURE 3 yyJ
LAND USE PLAN
MAY 1983
SCALE 1" 200
p
100
1 2001 300
1
? L
to
_ AREA 1 AREAS
NORTH".
OFFICE PERMITTED LAND USES
�SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
�. 6
1
9 SEE TEXT FOR EXACT DESCRIPTIONS
�.Lll FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0
AREA 1 MWIS D. GROSS ACRE -� I--' ' v
AREA
:..,: AREA 5
_. ULTI FAEwAI _ �-1
E. 4.
13-18. i�:U11GROSS A��� .:.� rn -
�, 3 L OPEN QFfPE use
. SPACE USES
AREA 3 R _ tr
�-
, a
A.�� . 1 � 0�. !� " � _ i � , , ,.•tom ,'
ATTACHMENT
OWN
+K
s
CITY OF DUBLIN
1 PLANNING DEPT.
- r
l.w .cs°''- _ _'�•�.,° fir.. , �•�� y �•�jam- ,r^ y
r
t AREA 4�,
y A SANTINA
�;
N COMMERCIAL AS BUILT Inv
THOMPSON INC.
.jkJti .> >>. `. `S' i •_s , - ', •,�rw. '-• L... .� .:a.-, � _ j7. , 3 r.f . � 1040 t, •� 1. , •', ` A a{ Oak Grove Road, Concord, California
CITY OF DUBLIN
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARD CONDITIONS
All projects approved by the City of Dublin shall meet the following standard
conditions unless specifically exempted by the Planning Department.
1. Final building and site development plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a building
permit. All such plans shall insure:
a. That standard commercial or residential security requirements as
established by the Dublin Police Department are provided.
b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other appropriate
physical features for the handicapped, are provided throughout the
site for all publicly used facilities.
c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking
stalls.
d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed
onto adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from
direct offsite viewing.
e. That all mechanical equipment, including electrical and gas
meters, is architecturally screened from view, and that electrical
transformers are either undergrounded or architecturally screened.
f. That all trash enclosures are of a sturdy material (preferably
masonry) and in harmony with the architecture of the building(s).
g. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, fleshings, etc., are painted
to match the color of adjacent surface.
h. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the Dublin.
Planning Department. Once constructed or installed, all
improvements are to be maintained in accordance with the approved
plans. Any changes which affect the exterior character shall be
• resubmitted to the Dublin Planning Department for approval.
i. That each parking space designated for compact cars be identified
with a pavement marking reading "Small Car Only" or its
equivalent, and additional signing be provided if necessary.
j. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and no:
detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in
harmony with the exterior of the building.
k. That all other public agencies that require review of the project
be supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and
that compliance be obtained with at least their minimum Code
requirements. ATTACHMENT 3
2. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plans, tree preservation
techniques, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the Dublin
Planning Department prior to the issuance of the building permit. All
such submittals shall insure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy
growth within the given range of soil and climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so
that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from
the time of planting.
c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at least 75% of the
proposed trees on the site are a minimum of 15 gallons in size,
and at least 50% of the proposed shrubs on the site are minimum of
5 gallons in size.
d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be provided which
assures that all plants get adequate water. In unusual
circumstances, and if approved by Staff, a manual or quick coupler
system may be used.
e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters
and paving surfaces.
f. That all cut and fill slopes in excess of 5 feet in height are
rounded both horizontally and vertically.
g. That all cut and fill slopes graded and not constructed on by
September 1, of any given year, are hydroseeded with perennial or
native grasses and flowers, and that stock piles of loose soil
existing on that date are hydroseeded in a similar manner.
h. That the area under the drip line of all existing oaks, walnuts,
etc., which are to be saved are fenced during construction and
grading operations and no activity is permitted under them that
will cause soil compaction or damage to the tree.
i. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required
guaranteeing all schrubs and ground cover, all trees, and the
irrigation system for one year.
j. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be
required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization
and weed abatement.
3. Final inspection or occupancy permits will not be granted until all
construction and landscapinz is complete in accordance with approved
plans and the conditions required by the City.
`a\\,V ��821 CITY OF DUBLIN
s • -�% ' P.O.Box 2340,Dublin,California 94568 • City Offices,100 Civic Plaza.Dublin,California 94568
CITY OF DUBLIN
NON-RESIDENTIAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
City Ordinance No. 21-89
1988 Building Code
Section 4101
1. Doors. Exterior doors which are located at the rear, or side, or away from the
primary entrance shall be solid doors with no glazing and shall be installed in
metal frames. Exterior wood doors shall be solid wood construction 1 3/4"
thick or hollow metal doors.
2. Locking devices. Exterior swinging doors which are exit doors as setforth in
Chapter 33 shall have cylinder dead-bolt locks which shall be openable without
the use of key, special effort, or knowledge. In Group B occupancies, a double
cylinder dead-bolt lock may be used on the main exit door if there is a readily
visible, durable sign on, or adjacent, to the door stating, "this door to
remain unlocked during business hours." The sign shall be in letters not less
than 1 inch high on contrasting background. When unlocked the single door and
both leaves of a pair of doors shall be free to swing without operation of any
latching device. Doors which are not exit doors shall have the inactive leaf
secured with flush-bolts at the top and bottoms. The bolts shall be hardened
steel 1/4" minimum diameter and shall engage a metal strike plate to, a minimum
depth of 3/8 inch.
The dead bolts shall be hardened steel and shall have a minimum of a one inch
throw. If the cylinder of the lock protrudes from the face of the door it
shall be fitted with a cylinder ring geared so that it cannot be griped with
pliers or other wrenching devices.
Vehicle door, overhead doors, and sliding doors shall be secured with metal to
metal locking devices which prevent the door from opening.
3. Strike plates. Strike plates for wood jambs shall be the high security type
and shall be secured with a minimum of two wood screws 3" long which shall
engage the door studs.
4. Jambs. Inswinging doors with wood jambs shall have rabitted jambs. The jambs
on the strike side shall have solid shims above and below the strike plates and
the opposite jamb shall have solid shims at the level of the strike plate.
Both door studs shall be reinforced with horizontal solid blocking at the
approximate height of strike.
5. Hinges. Exterior doors shall have non-removable hinge pins.
6. Sliding glass doors. Sliding glass doors shall comply with Chapter 54.
Sliding glass doors shall be fitted with a locking device that shall engage the
strike sufficiently to prevent its being disengaged by any possible movement of
the door within the space or clearances provided for installation and
operation. The bolt and strike shall be reinforced by hardened material so as
to prevent their separation by pulling, prying or similar attack. An auxiliary
locking device shall be installed on the door which may be a pin, lock, or
similar device of not less than 1/4" diameter. The pin shall be of hardened
Administration(415) 50•City Council (415)833-6605•Finance(415)833-6640•� s �(i�ril`N 620
Code Enforcement(415)833-6620 • Engineering(415)833-6830 • Pia Police(415)833-6670 • Public Works(415)833-6630 • Recreation 4 ,_",_
material and engage the metal portion of the sliding door. The primary locking
device shall be operable by a keyed or code lock inside. Doors with 2 sliding
panels shall be locked at the meeting rails and shall have an auxiliary locking
device as described above.
8. Windows. All accessible windows which are not located at the front or main
entrance side of a non-residential building shall be made secure as follows:
a) Sliding glass windows shall be secured on the inside with a locking device
capable of withstanding prying or wrenching. An auxiliary lock shall be
installed on each sliding window that prevents movement in the sliding
track.
b) Louvered windows shall not be used within eight feet of ground level,
adjacent structures, or fire escapes.
c) Casement type windows shall be secured with a :petal to metal locking device
contacting both frames of the window at the meeting edge. Auxiliary locks
such as a pin that penetrates both frame structures shall be installed on
casement and double hung windows.
d) Windows shall not be located within 40 inches of the locking device of any
door not located on the main entrance side of the non-residential building
unless the windows are glazed with 1/4" tempered glass.
9. Openable transoms. All exterior openable transoms exceeding 8 x 12 which are
not located on the front or main entrance side of a non-residential building
shall be protected with a steel grill and 1/4" minimum bars not more than 2" on
center or by a screen with 1/8" diameter wire mesh not more than 2" on center
mounted on the inside.
9. Roof openings. All skylights on the roof of a non-residential building shall
be protected by:
a) Iron bars 1/2 inch minimum diameter not more than 8" on center or;
b) A screen with 1/8" diameter wire mesh not more than 2" on center.
All roof access hatches of non-residential building shall be protected as
follows:
a) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the inside
with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws at
6" o.c.;
b) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide
bolts;
c) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non-removable
pins when using pin-type hinges.
All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior
walls of any building or premise used for business purposes shall be secured by
covering the same with eitherof the following:
E"itair OF....�
04 Tf3 '?ATTA
a) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or 1" x 1/4" flat steel material, spaced no
more than 8" o.c. apart and securely fastened.
10. Exterior ladders. Exterior ladders to the roof are not permitted.
1/90
• SAMPLE
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza (415) 833-6630
Dublin CA 94568
In order to assist applicants in the development of commercial/industrial property,
the City of Dublin Public Works Department has prepared the following list of
Conditions of Approval that have typically been used. This list should not be
considered all-inclusive.
This list should be used as a guide only.
Each application is analyzed separately and only Conditions that apply to a
specific application will be recommended as Conditions of Approval for that
application. Additional Conditions may be imposed as deemed necessary by the City.
Prior to the actual preparation of development plans, it is highly recommended that
Applicants meet with City Planning and Engineering Staff members to discuss Zoning
and Engineering design requirements, submittal requirements and processing
procedures.
TYPICAL PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
ARCHAEOLOGY:
1. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, construction
in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the City Planning
Department notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the remains are
significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning Director, shall be taken
to protect them.
CREEK:
2. Buildings shall be no closer than 20 feet from top of the bank along the
Creek, where the top of bank is either the existing break in topography, or a point
at the existing ground line which is the intersection of a line on a two-
horizontal-to-one-vertical slope begun at the toe of the slope in the Creek
(whichever is more restrictive.)
DRAINAGE:
3. Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, or other approved
dissipating devices. Concentrated flows will not be allowed to flow over walkways.
4. A minimum of 12" diameter pipe shall be used for all public storm drains to
ease maintenance and reduce potential blockage.
5. Under-sidewalk drains shall be provided to allow on-site drainage to be tied
in, should the need arise.
- 1 -
Rev: 5/17/89 ATTACHMENT
3 3- Q
DEBRIS:
6. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and
materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. Developer shall be
responsible for corrective measures at no expense to City of Dublin.
DUST:
7. Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be
watered, or other dust-pallative measures may be used, to prevent dust, as
conditions warrant or as directed by the Public Works Official.
8. Dust control measures, as approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer
shall be followed at all times during grading and construction operations.
EASEMENTS:
9. The developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the
adjacent property owners for improvements required outside of the development site.
Copies of the easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in written form and be
furnished to the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
10. Existing and proposed access and utility easements shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to acceptance
of the development. These easements shall allow for practical vehicular and
utility service access for all lots.
EROSION:
11. Prior to any grading of the site, and in any case prior to issuance of a
grading permit, a detailed construction grading/erosion control plan (including
phasing); and a drainage, water quality, and erosion and sedimentation control plan
for the post-construction period, both prepared by the Project Civil Engineer
and/or Engineering Geologist, shall be approved by the Public Works Director/City
Engineer. Said plans shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance
criteria, of all erosion and sediment control measures. The post-construction plan
shall attempt to insure that no increase in sediment or pollutants from the site
will occur. The plan shall provide for long-term maintenance of all permanent
erosion and sediment control measures such as slope vegetation. The construction
grading/erosion control plan shall be implemented in place by October 15th and
shall be maintained in place until April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing
by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. It shall be the developer's
responsibility to maintain the erosion and sediment control measures for the year
following acceptance of the development by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
FEES AND/OR DEPOSITS
12. Fees and/or deposits will be required per the City of Dublin Public Works Fee
and Deposit schedules.
- 2 -
Rev: 5/17/89
PAGE f,'
FIRE:
13. Install fire hydrants at the locations approved by the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of development. A
li raised blue reflectorized traffic marker shall be epoxied to the center of the
paved street opposite each hydrant.
14. All materials and workmanship for fire hydrants, gated connections, and
appurtenances thereto, necessary to provide water supply for fire protection, must
be installed by the developer and conform to all requirements of the applicable
provisions of the Standard Specifications of Dublin San Ramon Services District and
Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. All such work will be subject to the joint
field inspection of the Public Works Director/City Engineer and Dublin San Ramon
Services District.
15. The development plans must be approved by the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority as evidenced by their signature on the Title sheet.
FLOOD CONTROL:
16. Comply with Alameda County Flood Control District requirements.
17. In the 100-year Flood Hazard Zone, commercial buildings shall either provide
flood-proofing, or have their finished floor elevation above the 100-year flood
level.
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS:
18. Dedication of land shall be made to the City of Dublin such that it conveys
land sufficient for the approved streets' right-of-way. Improvements shall be
made, by the applicant, along all streets within the development and as required
off-site, to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, drainage, and work on the
existing paving, if necessary, from a structural or grade continuity standpoint.
FUTURE CONFORMANCE:
19. The design and improvements of the development shall be in conformance with
the design and improvements indicated graphically, or as modified by the Conditions
of Approval. The improvements and design shall include street locations, grades,
alignments, and widths, the design and storm drainage facilities inside and outside
the development property, grading of lots, the boundaries of the development
property, and shall show compliance with City standards for roadways.
GRADING:
20. The minimum uniform street gradient shall be 1.0 percent. Parking lots shall
have a minimum gradient of 1.0 percent, and a maximum gradient of 5.0 per cent. No
cut or fill slopes shall exceed 2:1, unless approved by the project's Soils
Engineer and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
Slopes shall be graded so that there is both horizontal and vertical slope
variation, where visible from public areas, in order to create or maintain a
natural appearance.
- 3 -
Rev: 5/17/89
21. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials,
all underground utilities shall be installed and service connections stubbed out
behind the sidewalk. Public utilities, Cable TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines,
shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb,
gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made.
22. Grading shall be completed in compliance with the construction grading plans
and recommendations of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, and
the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan, and shall be done under the
supervision of the Project Soils Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, who shall,
upon its completion, submit a declaration to the Public Works Director/City
Engineer that all work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in
the soils and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and
specifications.
23. Any grading on adjacent properties will require written approval of those
property owners affected.
24. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project
dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as is found
necessary by the Public Works Official.
25. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the soil and geologic investigation report, or
where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the
original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted
for approval by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by
an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of
land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity.
HANDICAPPED ACCESS:
26. Handicapped ramps and parking shall be provided as required by State of
California Title 24.
IMPROVEMENTS:
27. An as-built landscaping plan prepared by the project Landscape Architect and a
declaration by the Project Landscape Architect that all work was done under his
supervision and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the landscape
and soil erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be submitted to the Public
Works Director/City Engineer.
28. Grading of the subject property must conform with the approved grading plan
and recommendations of the soils engineer to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director/City Engineer.
29. The following shall have been submitted to the Public Works Director/City
Engineer :
a. An as-built grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, including
original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations,
lot drainage, and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage
facilities.
- 4 -
Rev: 5/17/89 AO
F=1r '„ r
b. A complete record, including location and elevation of all field density
tests, and a summary of all field and laboratory tests.
c. A declaration by the Project Civil Engineer and Project Geologist that all
work was done in accordance with the recommendations contained in the soil
and geologic investigation reports and the approved plans and
specifications.
30. Prior to issuance of the encroachment permit, a cash bond or surety bond shall
be provided and approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer to guarantee
the proper installation of public improvements.
31. Prior to release of the bond posted on encroachment permit:
a. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved plans.
b. All required landscaping shall be installed and established.
SITE PLANS AND GRADING PLANS:
32. Obtain copies of and comply with conditions as noted on "City of Dublin
General Notes on Improvement Plans" and "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review
Check List."
33. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb gutter,
sidewalks, driveways, paving, and utilities, must be constructed in accordance with
approved standards and/or plans and may be constructed only after an encroachment
permit has been issued.
34. Complete site plans and grading plans shall be submitted to, and be approved
by, the Public Works Director/City Engineer and other affected agencies having
jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to issuance of the grading or
encroachment permit. Plans shall show the existing and proposed improvements, both
on-site and along adjacent public street(s), and property that relate to the
proposed improvements.
MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREA:
35. Maintenance of common areas, including ornamental landscaping, graded slopes,
erosion control plantings and drainage, erosion and sediment control improvements,
shall be the responsibility of the developer during construction stages and until
final improvements are accepted by the City Council and the securities are released
(one year after improvements are accepted). Thereafter, maintenance shall be the
responsibility of a property owners' association or individual property owners,
depending upon how maintenance is to be handled.
MISCELLANEOUS:
36. Copies of the plans indicating all public improvements shall be submitted at
1"— 400-ft. scale, and 1"— 200-ft. scale for City mapping purposes.
37. The developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or
other pest problem due to construction activities.
- 5 -
Rev: 5/17/89
R"GcE07
NOISE:
38. Construction and grading operations shall be limited to weekdays (Monday
through Friday) and the hours from 7:30 a.m, to 5:30 p.m., except as approved in
writing by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
PERMITS:
39. Commercial/industrial property within the City of Dublin generally requires a
grading and/or encroachment permit. A grading permit is required to review and
inspect onsite improvements, typically involving but not limited to grading,
drainage, and public access. An encroachment permit is required for all work done
in the public right-of-way.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:
40. Any relocation of improvements or public facilities shall be accomplished at
no expense to the City.
STREETS:
41. The street surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The Public Works
Director/City Engineer shall review the project's Soils Engineer's structural
pavement design. The subdivider shall, at his sole expense, make tests of the soil
over which the surfacing and base is to be constructed and furnish the test reports
to the Public Works Director/City Engineer. The Developer's soils engineer shall
determine a preliminary structural design of the road bed. After rough grading has
been completed, the developer shall have soil tests performed to determine the
final design of the road bed. In lieu of these soil tests, the road may be
designed and constructed based on an R-value of 5.
42. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the Public Works Director/City
Engineer for any work done within the public right-of-way.
STREET LIGHTS:
43. Install street light standards and luminaries of the design, spacing, and
locations, approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer and P.G.& E.
STREET TREES:
44. Street trees, of at least a 15-gallon size, shall be planted along the street
frontages. Trees shall be planted in accordance with a planting plan, including
tree varieties and locations, approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
Trees planted within, or adjacent to, sidewalks shall be provided with root
shields.
WATER:
45. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system, and must be installed
at the expense of the developer, in accordance with District standards and
specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains, and appurtenances
thereto, must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water
Code of the District and will be subject to field inspection by the District.
- 6 Rev: 5/17/89
PAGE. O"/I
46. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or exploratory boring shown on the
map, that is known to exist, is proposed, or is located during the course of field
operations, must be properly destroyed, backfilled, or maintained in accordance
with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. Zone 7 should be contacted (at
443-9300) for additional information.
ZONING:
47. Comply with all zoning provisions, including Zoning Ordinance and rezoning
Conditions of Approval.
- 7 -
Rev: 5/17/89
CITY OF DUBLIN
IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL NOTES
(Use only those applicable and/or add as necessary)
Use 1/8" lettering of appropriate weight to assure legibility,even after reduction or other means of reproduction of drawings.
1. Basis of elevation datum (if City/County benchmark,give number,location,and elevation).
2. All street Improvements shall be constructed In accordance with the provisions of the current City ordinance code,
State Standard Specifications, and City or County Standard Plans. The improvements are subject to inspection
and approval of the Public Works Department. Contact Public Works Construction Inspection at 510/833-6630 at
least 24 hours prior to the start of any work to arrange for inspection.
3. All revisions to this plan must be reviewed by the Public Works Department prior to construction and shall be
accurately shown on revised plans signed by the City Engineer.
4. Notify Underground Service Alert 8001642-24A,A. 72 hours prior to any excavation. The USA authorizaticr, number
shall be kept at the jobsite.
5. All new utility distribution services shall be placed underground.
6. Prior to placing curb, sidewalk, asphalt concrete, subbase,or base material,all underground facilities within the
right-of-way shall be installed, backfill completed,and the Public Works Department's Construction Division not-died;
by each of the utility companies having facilities within the work area,that the utility installation has satisfactorily
passed acceptance tests.
7. All manholes or inlets over 5 feet in depth shall be provided with polypropylene steps. The steps shall be integrally
cast into the walls of the manhole or inlet whether precast or field cast. The steps shall be installed in accordance
with Caltrans specifications and City of Dublin/Alameda County Standard Plans.
8. When widening the pavement on an existing road,the existing pavement shall be sawcut to a neat line and removed
back to an existing adequate structural section,or to the original road section. An exploratory trench,er potholing,
may be required to determine the limits of pavement removal.
9. Should it appear that the work to be done,or any matter relative thereto, is not sufficiently detailed or explained on
these plans,the contractor shall contact (name of design engineer)at
(phone number)for such further explanations as may be necessary.
10. A building permit shall be required for construction of all retaining walls over 3 feet in height(2 feet in height with a
surcharge). Prior to acceptance of the improvements as complete,verification that Building Inspection has signed
off on the permit shall be provided to the construction inspector. All wood in contact with the ground shall be
pressure-treated,whether a construction permit is repined or not.
11. All public storm drain lines shall be Class Ill RCP unless otherwise specified on the plans.
12. No trees shall be removed unless they are shown and noted to be removed on the improvement plans. All trees
conflicting with grading, utilities, or other improvements,or overhanging the sidewalk or pavement so as'a form a
nuisance or hazard, shall be trimmed and properly graded and sealed. The drip line of trees to be saved will be
fenced,and'no grading shall take place within this fenced area.
13. Existing curb and sidewalk within the project limits that are damaged or displaced,even though they were not to be
removed, shall be repaired or replaced even if damage or displacement occurred prior to any work performed by the
contractor.
•
October 28,1993
14. Erosion control facilities shall be installed complete prior to October 15 and shall be maintained daily urt:i P oril 15.
The person responsible for the daily maintenance of these facilities is (name)and car .7e
reached 24 hours a day at (telephone/pager number). These facilities shall cor.:rci and
contain erosion-caused silt deposits and provide for the safe discharge of silt-free storm waters into existlrg
storm drain facilities. Design of these facilities must be approved/updated each year prior to September 30 and
shall be signed by the City Engineer.
15. The typical section of the following listed streets shall be continued through the intersection:
(List of street names)
16. The thickness of subbase, base,and surfacing shall be based on traffic index and soil test for"R"value. (See
pavement design chart below.)
17. All traffic striping and markings shall be Thermoplastic.
18. Asbestos Cement Pipe(ACP)shall not be used in the construction of any storm drainage facilities.
19. All striping on major roads shall be cat-tracked prior to final installation. Final installation of striping will ce ailcwed
only after approval of the striping layout by she construction inspector.
20. Order of work for road widening and median island construction in which traffic striping will be relocated:
a. Rough grading g. Install final striping
b. Storm drain&drainage structures h. Install final signing (at
c. Utility installation interim locations if necessary)
d. Curb and sidewalk i. Construct median curb
e. Pavement construction j. Complete final striping,pavement
f. Remove conflicting striping, pave- markers,and sign installation
ment markers,and signing,and
install interim striping.
21. If,during construction,archaeological remains are encountered,construction in the vicinity shall be halted,an
archaeologist consulted,and the City Planning Department notified. If,in the opinion of the archaeologist.the
remains are significant,measures,as may be required by the Planning Director,shall be taken to protect:hem.
22. A California Division of Occupational Safety and Health(CAL OSHA)permit shall be obtained for trend^es=ve feet
or greater in depth. A copy of this permit shall be supplied to the Public Works Department. An adaiticrai copy
shall be kept at the jobsite at all times.
Example of a pavement design chart:
LIMITS R
ROAD NAME From To AC A5 A5 VALUE TI
rS E m
October 25, 1993
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O.Box 2340
Dublin,CA 94568 (415)829-4600
STANDARD PLANT MATERIAL, IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
I (property owner) do hereby
agree that all plants (trees, shrubs and ground cover) will be
installed in accordance with the City of Dublin's approved
landscape plan for (name of
project) located at
(address). All plants will be replaced in kind as per the
approved plan at such time as they are found to be missing,
diseased, damaged, or dead, for at least one (1) year from the
date of their installation.
I further agree that all plants will henceforth be irrigated,
fertilized, weeded and tended on a regular basis such that they
will maintain a healthy and weedfree appearance.
I further agree that the irrigation system will be installed
according to the irrigation plans as approved by the City of
Dublin, and that said system will be kept in good working order
for at least one (1) year from the date of the landscaping
installation.
This agreement is binding against this and all property owners
of record.
Signed:
Date:
ATTACHMENT 6
11Z--lib
Form 83-05 1/83
,
, SAMPLE
_ . . . . . .
. _
-i7';;!;',...‘7":::-:::;:-'-'::::-.,:..--.:..Cf..:1-',,-5-"1.:-.; .:T1'.:.:"•,7-1,:.':.::' '..f-.;-...:y.'I:,...t.':'::;.::;'--",:r::-.1.-J.,4'..4.;7-::.=',: :;:'.7j.'5'.:'.--
?..7::';',i1.1-.. ."...:.-_`...1 :::„0 __. •_. -_:":,_:'_:-,:,....,‘it:C) . .: ; . : .-', 7. ...„... ' .-
.:',;-2,--•'•.;,,1:1,• .-::- : . - : " ' '•:-: ,...---,./ ---. '.: •:''. . -•. -' • -. ."1 :. •
:;:cs.':i.-:`:r -- ..•-.-•;.,•••"2.- ‘ -• ;.• -t.:1 • •:. '•-,•:: : . -: - .:: • ; ' ••,:''•••••;:- ' •....• •••:
• 0 . . : .. ...• .•
. .
I '
.. .
. - II 1 1 , _. " i - -
. _ .
. . , ......
- 1 111 j
I IT li .
(-\
li ,!, . ,.... .
,
:
, 1 •• •.
11 I 11 . 01
ii
s.1 i
' I I
I I I
i .
I ' :•
L—)'
I I I
. "-J.7.• is I ,,;I :
" \--.
I
I I I
I
_ -•=i-r__IF)t----4.(__,
ve. ildf
ATTACHMENT 7
• CURB
ENLARGED
SECTION
f /y
r / 4-0
r
- I
ENLARGED PLAN
SECTION NOT TO SCALE
CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING DEPT.
APPROVED PARALLEL PARKING
DETAIL
SHEET I OF I (8
, , ' _;N
°• y �R S D 3
- ` . �� `. a I500 ,
�i . C . .. T _ . 10,....... : MBS
ii kr t. 1•4 ... .•. • VII \ 0 (---‹ , .
OA
i,, :1_____\ F . •more-. • • .0 TS-D-20 ,// /f;
iii/0/// 44.:/,/ /, /
•
\V-,,,i- \ I.%• . � '� //. „/ ff,/ / N.. r /,/ / / , / ,,/ /,/ ,,/ ' / / .,
••, • • / /f // / / ,/ / ,/ / // ,/ ,/ ,/ /
�\ r .. •c. /// ,/// // ,//, // ,// / 6// // ,// / // ,f//
\4 • .!'.'• •'• //,/ ,j/ // ,// // ,// //e// // // ,, ,/ ,/ ,//
1 / // q, ,/ 1(�(,, // n/•/ ,/ // // / / / / /
Q . . , f/ / , / , /,, 1// ,,/�./f/ / / ,, /,/� ,// /// // ' ii'i
1 \ S . / /// /// / / /// /// /// // // /// /// /// /// /// /// //� /
�;: • . •. / •/,/ /// / / /// /// ,/ ,// / j,//ii `/// /// /// /// ///
IA APE PARK • • '/ /// /// / / ///////// it// // /// /// / / /// /// /// ///
,EN • .-p.1.. . ..', .' . // /,,i/,i, i// /�/ , ,/ //////////// /,//i,/i,//,,/ //
Q 3 • './ f/;/f///f ///// //7// / ,// /j/ / /// /// f// //'
�` Pp 1 �AB� • ;r ',, % / / '_/;/,/// ; /
A 84-084 ,/ / // -...____ • 4,,,,... WI , • ,
• /, /// ,f/ // // / / //, // / // // // /� //
. •. • •' ' / / /,/ /,/ Tf�j\/ //,/// ' ////�/,/,// cJ7-✓/�,//�//
\\"Y1016 ~• �• . ' %/�%//% /%/� / //%/ / /,///,,//.// ,///I,/////
.,+i // /��//,// ,//� / / //' %/ j// // //'///// /'\//j////''/fit
daiso
0, ‘ ,,,,..ip. -on.. ..-p.A.-..14,74._,...,„. ...A. ....,.-0,.-; , ,,,,/,,,,,/„,/,„/,
'// /,'/-////-/////./////./ // ( ///ii// / •-• /// ''/// ///////4
. � •est; .• • ;/ //i/////i//i// /// //i//i //////i ///////
• ,,/i//i//i// / //, //,/'/,/i,/,,/,, i,''/,',,
�' �//i//i i ,f •, ,,ff , „, ,,, ,/f1f/' /�' ,/
-I-3Z.�U. • , //,/ /,//,/ /,/ / ,,/ /, , //f //f /// ////iif
• ..' • ///,//if, / / • // /// /f // // ///,',/rt,/ ,,/ ,
Y / /// /// ,// /// / //,// ,// ,// ,// //' /f //
/'' /'' ''' '''1 ' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''/ ' '.�. ;/ ////�//i/// /j / /i /i //////////' /// r
.- ti. ,//,/// ,/i r�// / // /// /// //f // /:
\V 'I •, v.•' 1 ii,/ ( i.///i_/1 / /// ////i, ////,/// /,, //.
�. •. r . ' ,//////// ///// / // ,,//,Py+` /,//,7/ ,/ /
) '�''/' /-r/k ///I /' //' //' /// / / /'/ /'' /'/ /' /''
• i' ///,;,/j// ///,////��/ ,1/,, /,//,i/,//,/�,f///cl \ /
//// /// /// ///,// ,,/ /// ///////,/ //
•
V '— . •I'• -vc /////:/y;/' //�/Vi,
,,�, , ,�,, ,, ,/,,/,,�/, /,, ,,/;2;
,f//
✓�, r� -- i /%//' /// / / f// / f/
\ . :-- i
C-0la ----...____,
PD / // / // ,/ / ,/ // // /
\ , ��, ,/ / ,,� //i / / „ / ,//,//, //f//, ///
` ,,// ,,,/�////, i�/f //,,,//,,,/ , / /,,/ ,// , ///////,
,/,,, ,,
ail / / // / / / /// /// / // / / / / / /31- ''r { i '`M
.--' 1-\---1-----:
A:\// 1362 Z.U. / // // / // // // ,/ f /f
//, ,//// ,/ ///�/,// , /,/,/ ,,, /f///,�y
_ PD __-_ -fir _____- __-
--- --- - - p/� Q''7 -- i�E(r��
ATTACHMENT
RECEIVE6
November 21. 1995 Noll 2 7 1995
Planning Director, DUaIINPi•1RV1''
Planning Commission,
City Council
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin CA 94568
Regarding Project Name:
PA 95-040, Caffino Drive-Up Espresso Bar/Kiosk
Dear People:
While I believe an Espresso Bar offers value to our community, I
feel a Drive-Up establishment at this location will be a major
public safety hazard.
The intersection of San Ramon Blvd. and Amador Valley Blvd. is
very busy through out the entire day. It is especially busy
between 6:00 am and 9:00 am in the morning when most people are
on their way to work. This is the same time when I would expect a
drive-up espresso bar to be the most popular. A drive-up espresso
bar located on the North West corner of the intersection will not
only increase the overall amount of traffic at the intersection
but also increase the amount of stop-and-go traffic, slowing the
overall flow through the intersection.
This specific intersection also has a significant amount of
pedestrian traffic throughout the entire day. The intersection
only allows for pedestrian crossing of San Ramon Blvd. on the
North side of Amador Valley Blvd. Pedestrians attempting to cross
from West to East across San Ramon Blvd. will be directly in the
path of oncoming vehicles leaving this drive-up espresso bar.
I believe it is not in the best interest of community public
safety, to allow a drive-up espresso bar/kiosk at this location.
Sincerely,
David A. Cambra
11863 Flanagan Court
Dublin Ca 94568
ATTACHMENT
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 16, 1996
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff ^Q
liM1v
PREPARED BY: Carol R. Cirelli, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Adoption and Eastern Dublin
Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: The City has completed a draft Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards document. This document complies
with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program 6Q,
which requires the City to officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-
580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors and adopt
a set of scenic corridor policies,and establish review
procedures and standards for projects within the scenic
corridor viewshed.
LOCATION: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
BACKGROUND
In August, 1995,the City hired the consulting firm of David L. Gates and
Associates to prepare the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Visual Survey
project. The successful completion of this project required the skills of a consulting
firm with landscape architecture,visual survey/viewshed analysis and computer
graphics simulation expertise.
In compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program 6Q,the
City is required to officially adopt Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as
designated scenic corridors and adopt scenic corridor policies and review procedures
and standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed.The intent of these
scenic corridor policies and standards is to minimize the potential project
development impacts of altering the character and obscuring the view of prominent
ridgelines,watercourses,and distinct landscape features, and altering the visual
Item No. 9.1 Copies To: Project File
Senior Planner
Admin.File
experience of travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin.
Significant Scenic Features/Vistas
The Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and General Plan Amendment assessed the project's potential effects on the visual
or aesthetic qualities of resources and addressed mitigation measures that would
help preserve these important natural resources. Two primary natural features of
the project site's visual character are hillsides and ridges, and watercourses.
Tassajara Creek, located along the western edge of the Specific Plan area, is
a distinctive watercourse feature that contributes to the visual character of Eastern
Dublin. Distinct visual landscape elements,such as riparian vegetation and oak
woodland,exist along Tassajara Creek's northern portion within the Specific Plan
area.
There are also visually-sensitive and prominent ridgelands within and
surrounding the Eastern Dublin area. The higher ridgelands occurring just outside
the Specific Plan area form an important visual backdrop for the lower foothills and
flatlands in the southern portion of the area. The ridgelands within the Specific Plan
area are visible from 1-580,Tassajara Road,and certain points within the Specific
Plan area. The low lying hills located in the southeast portion of the Specific Plan
(designated as Open Space)also form a distinct visual feature. Although their
elevations are considerably lower than the northern ridge elevations,these ridges
form an important backdrop to the flatlands along 1-580.
As the EIR states,these hills and ridges are considered an important visual
and environmental asset contributing to Dublin's identity. They form a natural
backdrop to the Tri-Valley communities and provide a recognizable open space
separator between Dublin and adjacent communities.
Other Related Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Programs.Policies and EIR
Mitigation Measures
The Specific Plan Action Programs 6R and 6S identify some preliminary
procedures and standards that should be implemented. Program 6R requires
projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit detailed visual analysis
with development project applications,e.g.graphic simulations and/or section drawn
from affected travel corridors through the development parcel,representing typical
views of the parcel from these scenic routes. Program 6R further specifies that the
"graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated
landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual
impact."
Program 6S requires the establishment of techniques for implementing the
long term preservation of visually significant portions of hillsides,including density
transfers,homeowner association maintenance,private ownership with public
maintenance by assessment on homeowners,or dedication of land to a public
agency,such as the East Bay Regional Park District.
2
The following are Specific Plan policies and EIR mitigation measures related
to this project:
Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other
important visual resources,such as creeks and major stands of
vegetation.
Policy 6-29: Development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that
borders the planning area to the north and east, but may be
permitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands. Minor
interruptions of views of the main ridgeline by individual
building masses may be permissible in limited circumstances
where all other remedies have been exhausted.
MM 3.8/5.0: Development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that
borders the planning area to the north and east,but will be
permitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands if a backdrop
of natural ridgelines remains visible when viewed from
designated scenic routes and appropriate measures are taken
to minimize visual impacts(relates to Policy 6-29).
Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be
located so that views of the backdrop ridge(identified in Figure
6.3 as"visually sensitive ridgelands-no development")are
generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors.
MM 3.8/5.1: Structures shall not be located where they would obstruct
scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic
ridgetop(i.e.silhouetted)when viewed from designated scenic
routes(relates to Policy 6-30).
Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all
development visible from designated scenic corridors.
* The scenic corridor policies shall not preclude development with some visual
impacts,as long as the development incorporates sensitive design features
that recognize the rural/open space character of the Specific Plan area.
ANALYSIS:
Purpose
The draft Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards(Exhibit A)
and the responses to comments (Exhibit B),complies with all the Specific Plan
policies,Action Programs and EIR mitigation measures. The draft document
contains five overall scenic corridor implementing policies,specific scenic corridor
zone policies and development standards for 6 zones and implementation procedures
3
I.
that promote the preservation of scenic vistas from the three transportation
corridors.
As specified in the document(Exhibit Al,the main intent of these policies
and standards is to allow project development to occur while maintaining the visual
character of the eastern ridgelines,watercourses, and distinct landscape features
for travelers on scenic routes throughout Eastern Dublin. While the applicant should
generally comply with these standards,the City may allow some flexibility with
meeting these standards only if the applicant demonstrates,to the satisfaction of
the Planning Department,compliance with the overall intent of the policies and
standards.
The Specific Plan includes somewhat general policies related to the
preservation of significant visual resources, and offers only advisory design
guidelines for particular areas along the proposed scenic corridors. The draft
policies and standards would supplement and clarify the Specific Plan land use and
natural resource policies and programs. They are not intended to change any land
uses described in the Specific Plan.
Methodoloay
The consultant conducted a visual survey identifying and mapping scenic
corridor viewsheds of existing scenic vistas. Profiles of elevations across the area
were analyzed in order to evaluate the potential impacts of development on specific
views. In addition to the visual survey conducted,the consultant based many of
the policies and development standards on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan figures
specifying land uses and environmental constraints.
Comments on the draft were received from staff and the property owners. A
workshop was held last October and additional meetings were held with staff and
the property owners since then,and with this input,the final document would
include the attached responses to comments.
Policies and Standards
The document begins with the following 5 overall scenic corridor
implementing policies that apply to all development adjacent to a scenic corridor,
generally within 700 feet of such a corridor:
1. Maintain a sense of place for Eastern Dublin with relation to natural
landforms and topography.
2. Allow the traveler along a Scenic Corridor to experience the varied
features of the landscape.
3. Assure that development along the Scenic Corridors is well planned
and sensitively sited to respect the natural topography.
4
4. Achieve high quality design and visual character for all development
visible from designated Scenic Corridors,generally within 700 feet of
a Scenic Corridor.
5. Assure that landscaping adjacent to the Scenic Corridors harmonizes
with the scenic environment.
The Specific Plan area was then divided up into 5 zones. Each of the zone
polices and standards implement the Specific Plan policies i.e.,requiring high quality
design along the corridors,developing parcels that preserve the natural open beauty
of hills and other important visual resources,such as creeks, major stands of
vegetation and backdrop ridgelands,and so forth.
Each zone includes a description of what significant visual features would be
seen from that corridor,viewpoints(representing views of exceptional scenic
quality),development standards and specific implementing policies. The
implementing policies for each zone address the variety of conditions specific to
each segment of the scenic corridor. The objective of the document's review
procedures and standards is to identify how projects should comply with the scenic
corridor policies. Project developers must then demonstrate policy compliance.
Summary of Zone Standards
Zone 1: 1-580:
This zone is located along the entire length of the 1-580 corridor that abuts
the Specific Plan area. It contains three viewpoints,one at Tassajara Creek,one at
the 1-580 and Tassajara Road overpass,and one at the 1-580 and Fallon Road
overpass. This zone is defined by a backdrop of the ridges to the north and east
and large knolls to the northwest. 1-580 also crosses Tassajara Creek corridor,a
significant natural feature,providing a view up the corridor. A low group of hills
along Fallon Road,which are designated as Open Space,visually emphasize the
rural character of the area.
Development standards in this zone include balancing building heights and
setbacks,controlling blockage of visually sensitive ridgelands and foreground hills of
no more than 25 percent or 50 percent of the total horizon line of ridgelands, and
designing development adjacent to the viewshed to complement the view rather
than distract from it,e.g.use varied roof forms or parapets of varying heights to
break down the scale,use base colors and materials of buildings,fences and walls
that are compatible with the natural environment,use landscaping to screen loading
docks.
Zone 2: Tassajara Gateway
This zone is located on Tassajara Road between 1-580 and Gleason Road.
This is a major entry into the Eastern Dublin Town Center. Built form and
streetscape will be the predominant views due to the flatness of topography in this
area. The designated City park will afford views to Tassajara Creek and the knolls
5
beyond,connecting the traveler with natural features of Eastern Dublin. This zone
contains one viewpoint at Tassajara Road south of Gleason Road,where the City
park begins.
For this zone,the advisory guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2,are applied to ensure scenic quality. The development
standards in this zone mainly deal with building heights and setbacks,and landscape
criteria.
Zone 3: Tassajara Creek Valley
This zone is located on Tassajara Road between Gleason and the general
vicinity of the Eastern Dublin Tassajara Village Center. As stated in the document,
this section of Tassajara Road parallels Tassajara Creek through a valley formed by a
series of knolls and low foreground hills. This zones'policies and standards provide
for the periodic view of hills and knolls, and the riparian vegetation along Tassajara
Creek as one proceeds through the corridor. The views from Tassajara Road at the
creek crossings will provide the strongest sense of the rural/open space character of
Eastern Dublin and preserve views of this main water course. This zone contains
one viewpoint where Tassajara Creek's intermittent branch crosses Tassajara Road.
The development standards for this zone involve: building setbacks;building
clustering,or varying of roof heights and pitches allowing views over or through to
the hills beyond;siting of entry roads to developments so that they provide direct
views of hills, knolls and creek vegetation;treating right-of-way landscaping so that
they do not obscure views to the creek;using rural landscaping patterns and signs,
fence and wall materials appropriate for a semi-rural setting.
In addition,providing a transition to Tassajara Village,rural residential
dwelling units east of Tassajara Road should be sited to provide views of the knolls.
Zone 4: Tassajara Village Area
This zone is located generally around the future intersection of Tassajara and
Fallon Roads,and the Eastern Dublin Tassajara Village Center. Ridges and hills rise
on the eastern and western sides. This is the first point of entry to the Eastern
Dublin area from the north. Nearby knolls provide focal points from the corridor and
they serve as natural gateways for both the Fallon Road and Tassajara Road scenic
corridors. Standards include maintaining view corridors that connect Tassajara
Village to the surrounding landscape. This zone includes one viewpoint at the
intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
Some of the design standards include clustering development to generally
allow views to the visually sensitive ridgelands and Tassajara Creek;keeping right-
of-way landscaping open to preserve views;using siting and landscaping to
announce village presence and character;unifying design elements around the Fallon
and Tassajara Road intersections for both residential and commercial uses.
6
Zone 5: Fallon Rural Open Space
This zone is located along Fallon Road,between Zone 4 and Gleason Road.
The character of this corridor is defined mainly by adjacent land uses, i.e.park,rural
residential,open space knolls,open slopes,and riparian drainage swale. The
northern part of this zone allows for an uninterrupted view of the visually sensitive
ridgelands,the rolling hills in the foreground,and the riparian corridor that crosses
the road and joins Tassajara Creek. The southern part of this zone includes
immediate open space, knolls and drainage swales with riparian vegetation,which
blocks or buffers views to development. This zone includes one viewpoint at the
high point of Fallon Road where it emerges between the 2 knolls,just past the
northern boundaries of the residential land uses.
Standards in this zone require that development not be located on tops of
ridges or knolls,or extend above the horizon line of the visually sensitive ridgelands.
There is also a standard generally avoiding the alignment of entries to residential
development with direct sight lines from the road. Other standards include
extension of riparian vegetation along the swale serving as a buffer to the residential
development and keeping street landscaping open to views.
Zone 6: Fallon Road Gateway and Village
9
This zone is located along Fallon Road between Gleason Road and 1-580. It
is anticipated that auto-oriented commercial development will occur in this zone.
This zone's focus will be on the foreground hills that are designated Open Space and
they will provide a significant backdrop to the commercial uses. Fallon Road will
also serve as a secondary gateway to Eastern Dublin. North of this area, Fallon
Road passes through compact residential development. The low lying hills and
community park provide the visual focus in this area. This zone includes one
viewpoint on Fallon Road south of the foreground hills.
The standards for this zone require high quality architectural elevations and
rural landscape treatment for developments adjacent to the corridor. The standards
also include certain building setback requirements.
Implementation
The last section of the documents deals with policy and standard
implementation. An applicant seeking Tentative Map and Site Development Review
approval for development projects within the viewsheds of the 3 corridors,shall be
subject to Scenic Design Analysis during project processing. This section describes
the required materials for conducting this level of analysis and a list of standards
that need to be complied with under each zone. This implementation section
complies with Program 6R of the Specific Plan.
The policies and standards outlined in this document are required for each
applicable Eastern Dublin development. Some of these standards are advisory
7
design guidelines from the Specific Plan,which through adoption of this document,
would be requirements, instead of advisory guidelines.
Any changes that are deemed not in substantial conformance with the
document's policies and standards would require City Council adoption of a
resolution. Any minor modifications would be subject to the Planning staff's review
and approval. Planning staff will make the initial determination of conformity.
The final document would incorporate the responses to comments as
specified in Exhibit A of this staff report.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution
Exhibit C recommending that the City Council officially adopt Tassajara Road,1-580
and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors and recommending City Council
approval of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards(Exhibit Al,
and the Response to Comments document(Exhibit B). The document's policies and
standards comply with the policies and action program requirements of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission may want to continue this item to allow for
additional document review and preparation of staff responses to any Planning
Commission meeting comments. This item would be continued to the February 6,
1996 Planning Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT: 1) Hear staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from the public.
3) Question staff and the public.
41 Deliberate
5) Adopt Resolution Exhibit C relating to the official adoption
of Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated
Scenic Corridors and the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards;or give staff direction and continue
the matter to the February 6, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting.
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution recommending that the City Council officially adopt
Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated Scenic
Corridors and approve the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards;or give staff direction and continue the
matter to the February 6, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
To approve the project as presented,a Planning Commissioner
may make a motion such as:
8
/move to adopt the Resolution recommending that the City
Council officially adopt Tassajara Road(between the Contra
Costa County/Alameda County boundary line);1-580(portion
that abuts the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area);and Fallon
Road(between the Contra Costa County/Alameda County
boundary line),as designated Scenic Corridors and approve the
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
Exhibit B: Responses to Property Owner/Staff Comments
Exhibit C: Resolution Recommending City Council Approval
f:\cirell i\pcsrscen
9
_ ' I _
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies andStandards
lititePC1°F‘i
DRAFT
City of Dublin
David L. Gates &Associates Exo,TA
January 1996
r
��� I /�
�...,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE 1
METHODOLOGY 2
DEFINITIONS 3
OVERALL IMPLEMENTING POLICIES .9
SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONES 19
Zone 1: I-580 19
Zone 2: Tassajara Gateway 25
Zone 3: Tassajara Creek Valley 28
Zone 4: Tassajara Village Area 33
Zone 5: Fallon Rural Open Space 37
Zone 6: Fallon Road Gateway and Village 41
IMPLEMENTATION 47
UST OF FOLD-OUT DIAGRAMS
Fig. 2: Environmental Constraints 5
Fig. 3: Land Use 7
Fig. 4:Visual Features 13
Fig. 5: Zones 15
Fig. 6:Viewpoints 17
Fig. 17:View Study 23
Fig. 26: View Study 35
Fig. 33:View Study 45
`\ I /_, ,/
� ..,,,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE 1
METHODOLOGY 2
DEFINITIONS 3
OVERALL IMPLEMENTING POLICIES 9
SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONES 19
Zone 1: I-580 19
Zone 2: Tassajara Gateway 25
Zone 3: Tassajara Creek Valley 28
Zone 4: Tassajara Village Area 33
Zone 5: Fallon Rural Open Space 37
Zone 6: Fallon Road Gateway and Village 41
IMPLEMENTATION 47
LIST OF FOLD-OUT DIAGRAMS
Fig. 2: Environmental Constraints 5
Fig. 3: Land Use 7
Fig. 4:Visual Features 13
Fig. 5: Zones 15
Fig. 6:Viewpoints 17
Fig. 17:View Study 23
Fig. 26:View Study 35
Fig. 33: View Study 45
PURPOSE
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,in Program 6Q,states that"the City To establish a visually distinc-
should officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-580, and Fallon Road as des- tive community which pre-
ignated scenic corridors; adopt a set of scenic corridor policies; and serves the character of the
establish review procedures and standards for projects within the sce- naturallandforms by protect-
nic corridor viewshed." ing key visual-elements and
This document is an implementing tool which has been created to maintaining views from ma-
carry out the requirements of that Program and other policies and jor travel corridors and pub-
programs of the Specific Plan. Thus,the Scenic Corridor Policies and Cis spaces.
Standards are not intended to change any land uses described in the Eastern Dub!m spec ji Plan Goa(.
Specific Plan. Rather, they are intended to clarify how the land uses
set forth in the Specific Plan will be implemented when development
occurs adjacent to a Scenic Corridor,or affects a significant view from
a Scenic Corridor.
The policies set out in this document do not override other constraints
stated in the Specific Plan. These policies and standards supplement
and clarify the Specific Plan,rather than modify it.The intent of these
policies and standards is to allow project development to occur while
maintaining the visual character of the eastern ridgelines, water-
courses,and distinct landscape features, for travelers on scenic routes
in Eastern Dublin. This document may be modified at any time by
resolution of the City Council. Any such modification shall not con-
stitute an amendment to the Specific Plan.
\ �
L
PLIKI14 •
� y "— Preserve the natural open
beauty of the hills and other
t important visual resources,
such as creels and major stands
Y~� of vegetation.
4btrcy 6-28: Eastern Dublin Specific'Plan
Figure 1:Location Map
��f0
METHODOLOGY
In compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and ac-
tion programs,and the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, the City of Dublin is of-
ficially adopting I-580,Tassajara Road and Fallon Road as designated
scenic corridors. The City hired David L. Gates &Associates as con-
sultant to prepare Eastern Dublin scenic corridor policies,and project
review procedures and standards.
To prepare these policies, procedures, and standards, the consultant
conducted a visual survey of the Specific Plan area to identify and map
scenic corridor viewsheds of existing scenic vistas. Profiles of eleva-
tions across the area were analyzed in order to evaluate the impacts of
development on specific views.
Two maps from the Specific Plan were also key in the development of
these Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The first, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Figure 6.3,Environmental Constraints, (shown here
as Figure 2),indicates the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands and Tassajara
Creek, which are focal points of the Scenic Corridors. The second,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Figure 4.1,Land Use map, (shown here as
Figure 3),indicates where there are opportunities,through use of des-
ignated open space, for example, to maximize the scenic qualities of
the Scenic Corridors. The land Use map also illustrates where the
thoughtful design of the streetscape itself and of the built forms adja-
cent to the Corridor is the main defining characteristic of the Scenic
Corridor, in areas such as the Tassajara Gateway/Town Center or the
Tassajara Creek Valley.
In developing these Policies and Standards, direction was obtained
from City of Dublin staff and from property owners. A workshop was
held with impacted property owners to informally review and com-
ment on the proposed Policies and Standards. Input from the work-
shop and meetings was used in developing the final document.
The Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards integrate two approaches.
1. In order to address the variety of conditions along the Scenic Cor-
ridors, policies specific to each segment of Scenic Corridor were de-
veloped.
2. In addition, Viewpoints were designated where there is a specific
view of outstanding scenic value.
DEFINITIONS
Scenic Corridor-The rights-of-way of I-580,Tassajara Road,and Fallon
Road.
Scenic Design Analysis-Design review, siting criteria and detailed
visual analysis as described in Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.1 of the East-
ern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan EIR and Policies 6-28 through 6-38
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and further detailed under the
Implementation section of this document.
Viewpoint- A point on the Scenic Corridor right-of-way designated as
a "Viewpoint" and indicated on Figure 6, the Viewpoints map, from
which a view of exceptional scenic quality is seen.
Viewshed- The area between a viewpoint and the designated object
of the view, or the area within 500 to 700 feet of a Scenic Corridor.
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands-The areas designated in Figure 6.3 of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as"Visually Sensitive Ridgelands-No
Development."
Fig. 2: Environmental
Constraints
Legend
Geotechnical Avoidance Areas
Geotecnical Avoidance Areas
- Infrastructure Feasible
Slopes over 30%
100-year Flood Plain
Tassajara Creek
Intermittent Streams
F -C
Sensitive Habitat Area
FOO 070
Golden Eagle Protection Zone
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
- No Development
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
Restricted Development
MMI
E A S' T E RNODUBLION"
Specific Plan
wen"
■
Wallace Roberts &Todd
Urban and Environmental Manners
121 Second Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 541-0830
0 600 1200
■ Foot
■
0 v4 It2
� 10
The internal system of
local streets shown in
this figure is
illustrative only. .......................... OjM 5
4P#
irattA
MINE
Xi.
-:-N
JR
Sr
..........
. . .
. . .
. . . .
.
J..........
... . . ...... . .
.ac�s
X. . . . . . . .
HS
X .....
/�♦�♦��i'Ja�����•�� �"IVA FOR
Ar.
Fig. 3: Land Use
Legend
F=—AIM
RESIDENTIAL
Rural Residential/
Agriculture
.01 du/ac
Msing*1e
Family
0.9-6.0 du/ac
Medium Density
6.1-14.0 du/ac
Med-Hi. Density
14.1-25.0 du/ac
High' Density
25,1 + du/ac
COMMERCIAL / IN DUSTRIAL
P72 General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Campus Office
Industrial Park
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
M Public/Semi-Public
Fa7 - *
Elementary School
F-J—R-� Jun'lor High School
HS
High School
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Neighborhood Square
'Neighborhood Park
Community Park
City Park
Open Space
EASTERN DUBLIN
Specific Plan
Wallace Roberts &Todd
Urban and Environinental Planners
121 Second Street 7th Floor
San Francisco. CA 94105
(415) 541-OM
0 600 1200
K:D Fee I
1/4 1/2
Acru 10
1-580 %
NOTE: The internal system of
local streets shown in
discussion) this figure is
ftlo, General Commercial may be permitted by a Planned Development Zoning Process (see text for completeillustrative only. ..........................
te discussion),,-"
Will convert to Future Study Area/Agriculture where determined inconsistent with Livermore APA (see text for comple
OVERALL IMPLEMENTING POLICIES FOR THE EASTERN
DUBLIN SCENIC CORRIDORS
These overall implementing policies apply to all development adja- Sitegrading and access roads
cent to a Scenic Corridor, generally within 500 to 700 feet of such a shall maintain the natural
corridor. Specific policies, set forth in the subsequent section, apply appearance of the upper
to development located along specific segments ("Zones") of the Sce ridgelands or foreground kills
nic Corridors. within the viewshed of trav-
elers along I-580, Tassajara
1. Maintain a sense of place for Eastern Dublin with relation to natural Road, and the future eaten
landforms and topography. sion of Fallon Road Streets
I-580, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road have been designated as Sce- should be a!gned to follow the
nic Corridors by the City of Dublin. The principal elements contrib- natural contours of the hill
uting to the scenic character of these corridors are the sweeping pan-
orama of the foothills and the rural landscape. As the rural landscape of streets across the face of
will be altered by development,maintaining views of the foothills and hillsides shall be availed.
other significant features such as Tassajara Creek is essential if the area Policy 6-33:Eastern Dublinspec ic Tian
is to maintain its visual identity.
Along Eastern Dublin's Scenic Corridors, there are places where
Tassajara Creek, the foothills and ridgelands, and other landscape
features that distinguish the Eastern Dublin area are more visible,and
more directly experienced. The map,Visual Features, identifies par-
ticular features visible from I-580, Tassajara Road, and Fallon. (see
Fig. 4) In order to retain the sense of these natural landforms and
emphasize their importance in defining the Community's identity,and
in order to preserve the sense of openness that characterizes the East-
ern Dublin area,special provisions are set forth protecting these views.
2. Allow the traveler along a Scenic Corridor to experience the varied
features of the landscape.
Eastern Dublin's Scenic Corridors traverse a range of landforms and
existing and potential land uses. They take the traveler through town
centers and open space, past creeks, parks and residential neighbor-
hoods, and through knolls and valleys. They offer views of near foot-
hills,prominent ridgelands,and distant Mt. Diablo. In order to maxi-
mize the opportunities that these corridors offer, it is necessary to
address each segment as an entity with its own character and priori-
ties.
f 9
The Zones map identifies six distinct zones, each with particular poli-
cies and standards. (see Fig. 5)
Zone 1: I-580
Zone 2: Tassajara Gateway
Zone 3: Tassajara Creek Valley
Zone 4: Tassajara Village Center
Zone 5: Fallon Rural Open Space
Zone 6: Fallon Road Gateway and Village
At certain points, particularly significant views are possible from the
Scenic Corridors. The Viewpoints map identifies these special view-
points, their view cones (where appropriate), and the focus of the
views to be preserved. (see Fig. 6)
Development is not permitter! 3. Assure that development along the Scenic Corridors is well planned
on the main ridge fine that bor- and sensitively sited to respect the natural topography.
tiers the planning area to the
Although development along the Scenic Corridors will alter the rural
north and east,but may be per
miffed on the foreground iii!!s character of the area,sensitive siting of development will preserve the
and ridgelaruls. Minor inter- semi-rural ambiance of the Eastern Dublin Community from the Sce-
nic Corridors. It will prevent unnecessary intrusions into viewsheds,
ruptions of views of the main
strive to preserve horizon lines, and maximize views to open space
ridgelmebyi�rdividualbuildvg
masses may be permissible in and natural features,while still allowing land uses as described in the
lmitedcircumstanceswhereal! Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
other remedies have been ex- • Site buildings so as to blend with the landforms where possible,and
hausted. to minimize the presence of buildings from the Scenic Corridors
when the focus of the zone is the natural landscape.
Policy 6-29:Eastern Dublin Specific Alan
• Cluster buildings where possible in order to maximize open space
and views from the Scenic Corridor.
• Building setbacks are encouraged to allow views to hills and
ridgelines.
• Natural appearing berms may be used to screen buildings from
Scenic Corridors.
4. Achieve high quality design and visual character for all development
visible from designated Scenic Corridors,generally within 500 to 700 feet
of a Scenic Corridor.
High quality design will also complement the area's natural setting. It
will enhance the semi-rural ambiance of the Eastern Dublin Commu-
10 � -
nity from the Scenic Corridors, and will present a positive image of
the Community.
• Architecture should complement the natural environment rather Building design shall conform
than distract from it. to the natural land form as
• Roof lines should be varied in height and pitch to harmonize with much as possidle. Techniques
the rolling and irregular forms of the topography. such as multi level founda
tions,rooflines which comple-
•
• Building masses should be broken so as not to be monolithic. nnent the surrounding slopes
• Base colors and materials used for buildings should harmonize with and topography, and varia-
the colors of the earth and natural colors of the environment. tions in vertical massing to
avoid a monotonous or linear
S. Assure that landscaping adjacent to the Scenic Corridors harmonizes appearance should be used.
with the scenic environment.
Policy 6-36:Eastern Dublin Specific Tian
Planting along the Scenic Corridor right-of-ways should be appropri-
ate to the varied conditions experienced along the corridors.
• In the Fallon Rural Open Space Zone, informal massing of trees
and shrubs harmonizes with the natural riparian and valley vegeta-
tion and the irregular forms of the hills.
• In the Town Center,where the built environment is the focus,more
formal planting is appropriate.
• Where the foreground hills are a focus of the Scenic Corridor expe-
rience, landscaping should allow views of those hills through and/
or over planting.
• Use of landscape plants which have forms that harmonize with the
plants native to this area,and of native-compatible plants is encour-
aged.
- m
� �lI�UALL`� �Et�tT1�1�
K
v
�i
Figure 4: Visual Features
400 god ,0,
'// '/ by David Gates I / '
��
2-1
I
J
31=- - M M 0
ILW�
F090=LM, �
Fig. 6: Viewpoints
Prepared by David L. Gates &Associates
H
SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONES
Zone 1: I-580
From the I-580 Zone, Eastern Dublin is defined by the backdrop of
ridges to the north and east, and by large knolls to the northwest. I-
580 crosses the Tassajara Creek corridor, a significant natural feature,
providing a view up the creek corridor. At Fallon Road, a low group , r t, i t & 4.1
of hills, which are designated as open space, visually emphasize the • ` ""
character of the land. Mt. Diablo is visible in the distance. From the _
I-580 Zone, millions of travelers annually will form their impressions +'
of the community of Eastern Dublin,its fit with the landscape, and its Figure 7:Viewpoint 1(1--580 at Tassajara
Creek)
connection to its rural surroundings and past.
.. -. .,...3.�r _- .�
'''''L .ter _ _... N
Figure 8: Viewpoint 2(I-580 at the Tassajara Road overpass)
-r '
'i'y; ie51 'e''. P..r .g. 4 i.
3 , '1?4 rt 1-x. �S'�.",,I',..'' ,4,,{. . _
ti e%.,,_ =:.t^r irk ` ,7 �+r, .
_` ,.:E'er A. ''''..7 >•` «�-,.. . 'tY1' b ':�,a ':e
' .._.. -
Figure 9: Viewpoint 3(I--580 at the Fallon Road overpass)
Vlt .t CPtvlgtlN.L`( _
rTIW WtXtELA1.M) ,'t/%G �11((rr,,� 1S17N �
HIL
' `
JL
J l _ q eN ,►.Gdt�(h'�eiaGALCAt�p�s aF�t.E
oil 1i 11,111 :-15b0
vIEWpot.rr l: vtewRvik r al viewR211.4T
view CVNE'of
OM.
Figure 10:Location of the 3 viewpoints
� f 19
, r
POLICY 1: Maintain a strong visual identity relating to the natural
landforms and key visual elements in the Eastern Dublin area.
STANDARD 1.1: From the three designated Viewpoints in this Zone,
shown on Figure 10, maintain a generally uninterrupted view to sig-
nificant natural features.
• From Viewpoint 1, (at the Tassajara Creek crossing) preserve a clear
view to the Tassajara Creek corridor from I-580. In order to form a
view cone that will allow the traveler on I-580 to experience this view,
building setbacks must increase closer to the creek crossing. Begin-
ning 450 feet east along I-580 from the creek crossing, a setback line
shall be established at a 23 degree angle from the roadway, as mea-
sured from the center of the northernmost travel lane.
-loaxa,.4146, 641-t4b4 coSTRAC-1: INC
cpeag. FOR VIEW To Mune.
L� C P ICZ
vtw
coNe
( �3.
Ct141t1244.1E of 144V$L sI.lE- I
T ouND Z•5E�
41�
Figure 11: View cone at westbound 1-580 towards Tassajara Creek
• From Viewpoint 2, (at the Tassajara Road overpass) structures
should not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands (as mapped in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan-"Visu-
ally Sensitive Ridgelands -No Development") for more than 25%
of the total horizon line.
VAMP F.GtF-1tt-1E V191114•1.`{ CoEt-l5t"(NE
ZoKet4 8111Wttifs IDg6d tyt;
�I„� ram= 1� n�I /
y i �� wl.wi
4 LI
Ir:it\ t, F_. �•'
'.•" \i,�� i M •
r ,_
Figure 12:Protection of the horizon line and complementary design of development
20
• From Viewpoint 3, (at the Fallon Road overpass) structures should
not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
for more than 25% of the total horizon line or 25% of the horizon
line of the foreground hills located approximately 2500' north of
the viewpoint.
• Design of development adjacent to the viewsheds described should
complement the view, rather than distract from it.
STANDARD 1.2: Structures adjacent to the corridor,generally within Structures shall-not be located
500 to 700 feet of the Scenic Corridor, should be allowed to obstruct where they would obstruct
views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from I-580 for not more than scenic views or appear to
approximately 50% of the developed frontages. extend above a scenic ridgetop
• Views may be maintained by balancing building heights and set (Le.si[fwuette 1)when viewed
backs so as to allow views over the buildings,by clustering buildings from designated scenic corri-
to allow views through, or by siting parking to preserve views to the dors.
hills. Mityation Measure 3.&/5.1:EasternDub!',
GPJ{efr'Specific Plan Eta
view arr. To
`WUAL (0>e Gr tVe.421 s'
Jl GY'BLIN ,60uGEVARD
3
13
44 /.Y WEI14 1-AlintizeWITaba.
��r
z'-58o
Figure 13:Alternative with larger building setbacks
0ulL011.1 wLTH l.s c- .11?)°'c+�
Ai-,-ow vtw3 oveaz c/ikuctuarA
'vt rbti(a,a.4,rTWE
u wz c au o►4
Va.* PeTWEAP44 auu au4Cir
Figure 14:Comparison of sightlines in relation to building setbacks
, r
Jt ,0446./41 ,BOLIZAAQ0
jtLAROTE KALDNer �C1H St'IALLeR •
r
(e+ac.K FROM 1.550 McP AI-i4�-xttyO
14iCY�BIAND�i
s-58o
„------... -6057121.1011012 VIEWS
k1NC Soy OF FPO-WE
♦ TOTAL. tL LoieU rI2OM--CO
Figure 15:Alternative with smaller building setback
POLICY 2: Create a positive image of Dublin for through travelers.
STANDARD 2.1: Architecture visible from the Scenic Corridors
should complement the local environment.
• Use varied roof forms and parapets of varying heights to break
down the scale and add visual interest to commercial buildings.
• The base colors and materials of buildings,fences,and walls should
be compatible with natural environment.
• Use landscaping to screen utility areas such as loading docks from
view from I-580.
• Landscaping should incorporate semi-rural forms, such as formal
windrows, orchard patterns, or informal massing.
• Landscape setbacks should be planted so as to maintain periodic
view corridors for travelers on I-580,either by planting in windrows
with corridors between, or in informal massing with open views
between masses.
q r� 11 1 1 1 1
2-• 0 wtNapaN t'oa VIE14.1c3
Figure 16:Windrow planting along 1-580 allow through views
(Fig. 17: View Study from I-580)
Zone 2: Tassajara Gateway
Tassajara Road will be the major entry to Eastern Dublin from I-580.
The entry to the Town Center for Eastern Dublin will be located along
Tassajara Road. Because of the flatness of the topography in this area,
here, built form and streetscape will be the predominant views.
Moving north on Tassajara Road, views through the park at Gleason
Road toward Tassajara Creek and the knolls beyond again connect the
Scenic Corridor traveler with the natural features of Eastern Dublin.
For this Zone, specific advisory guidelines from the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan are applied, to ensure scenic quality.
•
Icy 34i AT
R i mr r p Ar v.A.?REA
- �t, � �1 p lwa42
I �+ 8K �aEuM.Y 111A1,
1! :XI •
• pA.. �.---V... .•r. . Q �
,oue<.,v etc vo. 1**ErqicIt+
•
a_ : Ili- /k. Nam+63144 i
Mit
IN
(� Tx x
,41111
Figure 18: Tassajara Gateway
��1
POLICY3:Establish Gateway to Eastern Dublin.
STANDARD 3.1: Concentrate building height and mass at the focal
intersection of the Town Gateway.
• Step up building heights toward the Dublin Blvd. /Tassajara Road
intersection.
• Site buildings close to the Tassajara Road right-of-way, to emphasize
the gateway effect.
• Use distinctive right-of-way landscaping to emphasize entry.
• Specific Plan Design Guidelines Sec. 7.4.1, and 7.4.2 contain fur-
ther recommendations, including:
Orient buildings to major arterial streets within eastern Dublin to
enhance the gateway experience. Do not site buildings directly
adjacent to the freeway ROW, where they are oriented primarily
toward passing freeway traffic, turn their backs on community
streets, and block views from the freeway to the hills.
Buildings should increase in height with distance from the freeway,
with lowest buildings nearest the freeway ROW and tallest buildings
near the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and the major north-
south arterial.
Articulate building corners around the intersection, for example
by stepping up in height, adding towers or varying roof form.
Divide parking lots into smaller units, and site buildings to screen
views of parking from major thoroughfares.
Landscape parking lots with one tree per 4-6 parking stalls.
POLICY 4: Convey sense of connection to the vital commercial district.
STANDARD 4.1: Create a pedestrian friendly streetscape with build-
ings facing onto the street.
• Site buildings at the setback line along Tassajara Road.
• Facades should be varied and articulated.
• Site parking behind buildings.
• Landscaping along the Tassajara Road right-of-way should be formal.
• Provide wide sidewalks with shade trees along Tassajara Road.
26
•
ta" � ' / ; 1 l(' ` o - fi.
.if,r0_,- 3, yl lc ,
ff,h, R.t lil• • -,..•
4
Figure 19:Image of Town Center
POLICY 5:Leaving the commercial area, reconnect northbound travel-
ers with sense of natural landforms and place.
STANDARD 5.1: Provide transition from focus on built environment
to focus on natural features.
• Adjacent to the city park, incorporate landscaping for Tassajara
Road right-of-way into park design.
• Maintain views through the park to the Tassajara Creek Corridor.
• High canopy trees may provide views to the creek corridor.
• Incorporate informal massing of trees into right-of-way landscap-
ing.
STANDARD 5.2: From Viewpoint 4 (at Tassajara Road south of
Gleason Road, where the park begins), provide a view to the north-
western knoll.
• By providing spaces between buildings and by keeping landscaping
low between the Viewpoint and the western knoll, maintain a view
corridor to knoll for northbound travelers.
Zone 3: Tassajara Creek Valley
This section of Tassajara Road parallels Tassajara Creek through a
,o• valley formed by a series of knolls and low foreground hills. To main-
>a
tain a sense of this character,it is important to periodically allow views
s Vpi!' +� - of the hills and knolls as one proceeds through the corridor, and to
=,, ...,, ' ?_ - allow the riparian vegetation along Tassajara Creek to periodically be
Figure 20: View of creek vegetation seen from the road. The views from Tassajara Road at the creek cross-
ing will provide the strongest sense of the natural landscape in this
Zone. The semi-rural ambiance of this Zone will be reinforced by the
character of the streetscape.
I r3
I
1
4 eiz. F1A+411 NCr fry
WE RE C N NN. I SouQi
NDW4LL �LI7'
If40-F2o4o,ALLOW ; n
(*.e.4o)IcNat-CTuMf 'Q
of Rom► iroµ 1 g MBE ofv4 plAsmwer
S 0 AT open-I RAt�FENCE
11
, Li =1-
11 } o \ WHOM.Rx�IaLE,ALloW 1/lel I
\'iI I , , .. FO OF zecirwJND 1LIG F+o'1
ce/
4 I N�\\:.' p.m/ TO La
a j�
9 ou _ �+-ro FILL
r.
I `
) I la
i
Figure 21: Tassajara Creek Valley
POLICY 6:Emphasize valley character by creating viewpoints and view
corridors to knolls,foreground hills and to Tassajara Creek.
STANDARD 6.1: Allow intermittent views from Tassajara Road to the
hills, knolls, and creek.
• Where clustering of buildings or varying roof heights and pitches
allows for views over or through to the hills beyond, this is strongly
encouraged.
28 li
• Generally,site entry roads into developments so as to provide direct
views into the hills, knolls, and creek vegetation beyond.
• The Tassajara Creek corridor should be visible through public
lands. Right-of-way landscaping should not obscure views to the
creek corridor. High canopy trees should be used on the western
side of the road where views to the creek corridor are possible.
Trees should be massed informally,or spaced to allow views through
•
to creek corridor.
STANDARD 6.2: From Viewpoint 5 (where Tassajara Creek's inter- Tassajara Creek and other
mittent branch crosses Tassajara Road), maintain views to the creek stream corridors are visual
and riparian vegetation, and to the open space to the east. features that have specialsce-
• In order to form a view cone that will allow the traveler on Tassajara nic value for the planning area.
Road to experience these views, building setbacks must increase `The visual character of these
closer to the creek crossing. Beginning 300 feet in each direction corridors should be protected
along Tassajara Road from the creek crossing,setback lines shall be fromunneressary alteration or
established at a 15 degree angle from the roadway, as measured disturbance, and adjoining
from the center of the outermost travel lane in each direction. development should be sited
to maintain visual access to
the stream corridors.
Polity 6-39:Eastern Dublin Specific ld`an
40 aka t.11-r-PF-04r-pepsi raz cff-st f�
vIEW
PLARTisq AIDJAceut 1.1- ?Apr'
cfze.814 fp-*/ li
� 6;1
44 / s 0
•toi LI 3
Figure 22:Increased building setback for view of creek and riparian vegetation
f 29
• Use a landscape buffer to create a transition between open space
and built areas.
• Design visible structures along the creek corridors to emphasize
the rustic nature of the area.
• Use high canopy trees, and pull back other right-of-way landscap-
ing to allow clear views to the creek and riparian vegetation, and to
the Open Space to the east.
. i
.Nf
YIEW
,.... .
I
1rv. . • oFES
P i . . .
i
• '• K 1 1�W L uirec os. 6: I p
IN t�EtAN WI'll+IN ti ce,
VIEW coNE9 1 0
115 I5
. 1
• , 12.0.4 LAIJtrcAplN�
m op ctzerdg il
- 0 g. , 4RnAFIlAt-iNerieTATIof.4
Figure 23:Right-of-way landscaping pulled back to allow clear views of the creek and
the riparian vegetation
• Right-of-way landscaping should provide smooth transition to ri-
parian and open space areas adjacent to Tassajara Road.
• High canopy trees should be used to preserve views to the creeks.
30 -...,_ `.
POLICY 7:Emphasize the semi-rural character of the area.
STANDARD 7.1: Streetscape should reinforce semi-rural ambiance.
• Use rural landscaping patterns, such as hedgerows, informal clus-
ters, or orchard patterns.
• Avoid continuous sound walls along residential areas.
• Signs, fences, and wall materials should be appropriate to semi-ru-
ral setting.
II,J0L, I LI
19 VPtztED � "> aF
-10$ 4!0 IN41LPINC'S WITH<1C RN�1Ne(
;01 1.4V ext.44DWALl- o +i RAIL ti
' . CAVAr 114TERWerAND tatrIi
U 1.73-F
poi a; i r� 1 1 kauc
IMF. I — C1'1' 1
J 1 I1ofz cEµ Aw kowrr
_ �� p,a-t( AuoW
izsctep. vet.*
0 110 t.1oE t44Ra.-
e A6 RA«
/D.1
u► Ali II
Figure 24:Edge treatment and varied building setbacks
STANDARD 7.2: Site and articulate buildings to provide interest and
reduce perceived density.
• Vary building setbacks from Tassajara Road, and vary building ori-
entation.
• Vary roof lines,pitches,and heights,and breakup building masses.
POLICY 8: Provide transition to Tassajara Village.
STANDARD 8.1: North of the creek crossing at Tassajara Road,rein-
troduce more formal, village elements.
• On the western side of the right-of-way,begin more formal planting
to announce presence of village.
• On the eastern side of the right-of-way,continue the more informal
planting pattern to the end of the rural-residential zone, to empha-
size rural heritage,and to maintain views to rural-residential parcel
and knoll.
• West of Tassajara Road, reduce setback requirements to announce
return to village setting.
• East of Tassajara Road,where possible,site houses on the rural resi-
dential parcel to provide views of knoll for travelers moving north,
and views of the foreground hills for travelers moving south along
Tassajara Road.
Zone 4: Tassajara Village Area
Tassajara Village is the first point of entry to the Eastern Dublin com-
munity from the north. To the south, the hills and ridges rise on the
eastern and western sides. Several nearby knolls provide focal points
from the Scenic Corridors. Traveling north on either Tassajara or
Fallon Road, one passes these knolls as natural gateways into the vil-
lage. Tassajara Village will be the core of the residential areas in the
northern part of Eastern Dublin,with commercial and higher density
uses centered around the "T" intersection of Tassajara and Fallon
Roads. Here, the relationship of community to landform is apparent.
As a coming together of two Scenic Corridors at a village center, this
intersection should be celebrated.
b*T'T view
op r1To if\
V uAL 1'
*Nt.
wad
\\NV*
.,�
v131tb1 E Batt'fAW vtew C.oRWR
/ ►4+ous (24R9e
4 a bs
AT I
cF
i•-lNE-cF
\ \\+�.�
Figure 25: Tassajara Village Area
POLICY 9:Preserve views of the surrounding knolls and to Tassajara Creek.
STANDARD 9.1: From Viewpoint 6 (at the intersection of Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road), maintain view corridors that connect
Tassajara Village to the surrounding landscape.
• Maintain views up Tassajara Road,northwest to Mt.Diablo,by keep-
ing median landscaping open.
� w
• Provide view corridors to the surrounding knolls, and to the Visu-
ally Sensitive Ridgelands to the northeast, by clustering develop-
ment to allow views through.
• Provide occasional views through to Tassajara Creek and its ripar-
ian vegetation.
POLICY 10: Reinforce image of Tassajara Village cts a neighborhood
center nestled into the surrounding landscape.
STANDARD 10.1: Emphasize entries to Tassajara Village.
• From the south, maintain view corridors to the knolls that form
significant landmarks and create "gateways" to Tassajara Village.
• Keep right-of-way landscaping open enough to preserve views to
the knolls south of the village,which are located on rural residen-
tial land.
• Use siting and landscape to announce village presence and charac-
ter.
• North of the "gateway" knolls, reduce setbacks and reintroduce
more formal planting.
STANDARD 10.2: Reinforce image of the intersection of Fallon and
Tassajara Roads as the core of Tassajara Village.
• Unify design elements around this intersection,for residential and
commercial, by using buildings of compatible scales, materials,
styles and colors.
• Maintain pedestrian/village scale in design of both high density
residential and commercial buildings, to emphasize neighborhood
character.
• Use common landscape palette for parcels surrounding intersec-
tion.
34 � .
(Fig. 26: View Study from Tassajara / Fallon intersection)
Zone 5: Fallon Rural Open Space
Along this section of Fallon Road, open space and parkland buffers
the residential development from view. Access roads to development
will be few. The character of this corridor is defined mostly by the
land adjacent to the right-of-way,which will be park,rural residential,
or open space knolls, open slopes, or riparian drainage swale.
In the northern half of this Zone, there are distant, uninterrupted
views to the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands, to the rolling hills of the
foreground,and along the riparian corridor that crosses the road and
eventually joins Tassajara Creek.
4iOttrt
itk ...
v ,,.... PRE/3E4We
4 T'Ata"bie
40w :A\v- A (/VI3uau.Y
l�{#1 oP gi .A N r:
li 7 I D1 ohl /
�� � ` YIEwfhDE
urrqs.
AT cRLrsaIN t \ \1 , cAbl.p,�\\``
P vTAf� ' :;/ii \�
}2Eluropce c! K `/I'_J U4E 1-ANbR%PM -rb
vtiaTtol l I+l\\ ,LiifleES
view rtzom +deft FoigT aim ' j(1 Illy` �\�11
1 ../S ///_____..--(0
- - cfe T2
2 _
• ______/
Figure 27:Fallon Rural Open Space(North)
In the southern half of the Zone,views open across Livermore and the
Amador Valley. Here, however, the character is defined more by the
immediate open space-knolls on the east side and a drainage swale
with riparian vegetation on the west side-which blocks or buffers views
to development. The character of the right-of-way must relate to these
open spaces and enhance the traveler's experience of them.
1
m
PE*11)P-1-471Ai-
r i� tPlaeA
4UP1
e6u -ate
stiW0:(Fiaor( dtRrsCr i� ^,
1.1Ne-of-glcrT I�. VEGe P Oi-1-ro cor•ft.F-1 T
h e' c4z3c v5Crta-4
it 4
OF5CAL.ATTrzi4110t4 za 11P'
e�et -ro Awe iu #44.
MEd(lAke-CF-cAAHT
VlEkt OF 140t) \
Figure 28:Fallon Rural Open Space(South)
POLICY 11: Celebrate open space, with distant views as well as with
foreground view and right-of-way landscaping.
STANDARD 11.1: Emphasize the sense of openness and the distant
views that occur in the northern part of this Zone.
• Preserve views to Visually Sensitive Ridgelands.
• Use rural landscape,and streetscape elements-informal clusters of
riparian and/or oak trees which break the formal geometry of the
street tree pattern, providing scenic rural relief.
• Keep median landscaping open to allow views across and/or
through.
• In the Rural Residential area, homes should not be located on top
of ridges or knolls, but should be nestled into the topography.
Views of roof lines behind hills are permissible.
• Generally, avoid aligning entries to residential development with
direct sight lines from the road.
38 � �
grperiwe wrnt
lANDUL4TIN4 fbRh�3
c4.42Ve aRIvewA`(
C . 'fa vl w DT
p�YfcL 210MWT
Figure 29:Entry alignment to residential development
STANDARD 11.2: Enhance foreground views of the riparian swale
and the open space in the southern part of this Zone.
• Use the drainage swale as a buffer to development along Fallon
Road.
• Extend the riparian vegetation along the swale into the right-of-way
to become an integrated part of the streetscape.
• Use the riparian vegetation along the swale as a buffer to the resi-
dential development and to filter views of development.
Ii4 oRl 444I,E
b►� . fZao+D
-,� . Crla
Cron
aV
9WAI.E
Figure 30:Integrate riparian vegetation with the streetscape
STANDARD 11.3: From Viewpoint 7, (at the crest of Fallon where it
emerges from between the knolls,just past the northern entrances to
the residential development), maintain uninterrupted views of the
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands.
39
• Open street planting to allow views to Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
and knolls.
• In the Rural Residential area, homes should not be located on top
of ridges or knolls,but should be nestled into the topography. They
should not break the horizon line formed by the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands.
40 - ��.�
Zone 6: Fallon Road Gateway and Village
It is anticipated that the area between I-580 and the low lying fore-
ground hills will be comprised of auto-oriented commercial develop-
ment. The foreground hills will remain open space, and provide a
significant backdrop to these uses. In this area, the focus will be on
the hills,and on assuring that development is visually compatible with
the adjacent community-oriented commercial and residential devel-
opment. Fallon Road will be a secondary Gateway to the Eastern
Dublin Community. Both the presence of commerce and the sense
and views of the hills are important in this Zone.
f f fq; —
W 20 1IIIIbBUI� -tom
cZI Yo H1L
■ i
+41t9 mET
v
O 44 L✓N Vo•
�DGNGi suitzlwr ARGUND
500
Figure 31:Fallon Road Gateway and Village
North of the hills, Fallon Road passes through compact residential
development. From there to the end of the Zone, Fallon is bounded
to the west by the community park. The community park provides a
transition from the commercial and neighborhood development to
the open spaces beyond. Traveling south, the community park and
the low lying hills provide the visual focus.
� 1 41
POLICY 12: Establish secondary Gateway to Eastern Dublin, emphasiz-
ing foreground hills and rural heritage.
STANDARD 12.1: Use building setbacks to create a Gateway at Fallon
Road and Dublin Blvd., while remaining in scale with the adjacent
residential and neighborhood development and in character with the
semi-rural surroundings.
• Minimize setbacks at the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin
Blvd.
• Vary forms of roof lines and parapets for building interest.
• Landscape parking lots in orchard patterns or with other agrarian
references.
• Emphasize agrarian heritage in right-of-way landscaping by using
orchard patterns or hedgerows, or informal clusters.
• See Specific Plan Design Guidelines Sec. 7.4.1., and 7.4.3 for rec-
ommendations, including:
Orient buildings to major arterial streets within eastern Dublin to
enhance the gateway experience. Do not site buildings directly
adjacent to the freeway ROW, where they are oriented primarily
toward passing freeway traffic, turn their backs on community
streets, and block views from the freeway to the hills.
Buildings should increase in height with distance from the freeway,
with lowest buildings nearest the freeway ROW and tallest buildings
near the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and the major north-
south arterial.
Site buildings or built elements (freestanding towers, monuments,
architectural walls)within 75 feet of the ROW lines at the intersectin
of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard,to function as gateway markers.
Use varied roof forms and parapets of varying heights to break
down the scale and add visual interest to commercial buildings.
Divide parking lots into smaller units, and site buildings to screen
views of parking from major thoroughfares.
Landscape parking lots with one tree per 4-6 parking stalls.
STANDARD 12.2: From Viewpoint 8 (on Fallon Road south of the
foreground hills), maintain open views of the foreground hills.
42
� M
• In order to form a view cone that will allow the northbound trav-
eler on Fallon Road to have this view for a visually significant
amount of time,building setbacks must increase closer to the hills.
Beginning 400 feet north of the Fallon Road / Dublin Blvd. inter-
section,setback lines shall be established at a 20 degree angle from
the roadway,as measured from the center of the northbound travel
lanes.
• Keep right-of-way landscaping open to allow views of the fore-
ground hills.
POLICY 13: Provide a transition from the commercial and residential
development to the open spaces to the north.
STANDARD 13.1: Reinforce visual connections to foreground hills,
and to the community park.
• Landscaping should reinforce the form of the hills, for example,
avoid planting tall trees around the bases of these hills, because
they would distract from the hills and minimize their apparent
height.
• Unify right-of-way landscaping with community park designby clus-
tering trees to allow views into the park, using natural patterns of
clumping rather than formal geometric streetscape patterns.
• Streetscape at the Fallon Village Center should be of a neighbor-
hood scale.
•
PyT waY
t►`� IAN ,PINg tot
4140IRT4 ••:\.'. l41tT�t PARK t *i
PARK • 44' el PLANT PAI-E.'rra
4 Ql1111A41. pI.A►,mNy
. . • Rim
:�Nlli a.
•
C
Figure 32:Integrate landscaping
� 1 43
(Fig. 33: View Study from Fallon Road)
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Applicants seeking Tentative Map and Site Development Review The City should officiallyadopt
approval for development projects within the viewsheds of Tassajara Tassajara Road, 1-580, and
Road, I-580 and Fallon Road,as defined in the Eastern Dublin Scenic gallon Road as designated
Corridor Policies and Standards, shall be subject during the project scenic corridors; adopt a set
review process to Scenic Design Analysis and the following implemen- of scenic corridor policies;and
tation requirements. establish review procedures and
• Development within 500 to 700 feet of the Scenic Corridors is sub- standards for projects within
ject to Scenic Design Analysis unless the applicant demonstrates the scenic corridor viewshet!
to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that the develop- Program6Q•Eastern DublmSpecific Plan
ment will not be visible from the Scenic Corridor.
• Development located in shaded areas shown on the Eastern
Dublin Viewpoints map, is subject to Scenic Design Analysis un-
less the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning
Department that the development will not be visible from the
Viewpoint. This includes structures which appear in the fore-
ground of a designated view to Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,
slopes, hills, or knolls, even though they do not block the view.
The City should require projects
2. In conjunction with a Tentative Maps and Site Development Review with potential impacts on
application submittal, applicants for development subject to Scenic scenic corridors to submit
Design Analysis shall submit materials described below, according to detailed visual analysis with
the Zone in which their project lies: development project applua-
2.1: All applicants in Zone 1: I-580 shall submit: tions. Applicants will be re-
quired to submitgraphic simu-
• Wireframes, photomontages, plans,and/or cross sections through rations and/or sections drawn
the development, or other material demonstrating that the struc fromaffected travel-corridors
tures to be built will not obstruct views of the Visually Sensitive
through the parcel in question,
Ridgelands for more than approximately 50% of the developed
representing typical views of
frontages.
the parcel from these scenic
• Architectural elevations which show high quality building design. routes. 2hegraphic depiction
• Landscape plans which show high quality landscape treatment in of'the location aruf massing
front of blank architectural walls visible from I-580,and which show of the structure and associated
that utility areas such as loading docks will be screened from view landscaping can then be used
from I-580. to adjust the project design to
minimize the visual impact.
2.1.1: Applicants within the shaded area described as Viewpoint 1
shall also submit: Program69Q;Eastern DublinSpeci is Plan
• Plans demonstrating that the setback requirement set forth in Policy
1.1 is satisfied.
• f 47
2.1.2: Applicants whose project is located in the shaded area described
as Viewpoint 2 shall also submit:
• Wireframes, photomontages, plans, and/or cross sections through
the development demonstrating that the structures to be built will
not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
for more than approximately 25% of the total horizon line.
2.1.3: Applicants whose project is located between Viewpoint 3 and
the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands or the foreground hills shown on the
Eastern Dublin Viewpoints map shall also submit:
• Wireframes, photomontages, plans, and/or cross sections through
the development demonstrating that the structures to be built will
not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
for more than approximately 25% of the total horizon line or of
the horizon line of the foreground hills.
2.2: All applicants in Zone 2: Tassajara Gateway shall submit:
• Plans demonstrating that buildings are sited close to the Tassajara
Road right-of-way, that views of parking are minimized, and that
architectural and landscape treatment is consistent with gateway
prominence.
• Plans and elevations demonstrating increased building heights and
mass toward the Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Road intersection.
• Architectural elevations which show high quality building design.
2.2.1: Applicants whose project is located between Viewpoint 4 and
the northwestern knoll shall also submit:
• Wireframes, photomontages, plans, and/or cross sections through
the development demonstrating that a view of the northwestern
knoll is maintained from the Viewpoint.
2.3: All applicants in Zone 3: Tassajara Creek Valley shall submit:
• Plans demonstrating that entry roads generally are sited so as to
provide views into the hills, knolls, and creek vegetation, and dem-
onstrating views to those features between buildings where feasible.
• Architectural elevations which show variation in roof lines, pitches,
and heights, and high quality building design.
48 1 �
2.3.1: Applicants within the view cone described in Policy 6.2 at View-
point 5, or adjacent to the Open Space areas that are focal points of
the Viewpoint, shall also submit:
• Plans demonstrating that the setback requirement set forth in Policy
6.2 is satisfied.
• Landscape plans demonstrating a transition between open space
and built areas.
• Architectural elevations showing that visible structures along
Tassajara Creek are designed so as to emphasize the rustic nature of
the area.
2.3.2: Applicants whose project is located south of Viewpoint 5 shall
also submit:
• Plans demonstrating variation in building orientation and setback
from Tassajara Road.
• Plans demonstrating discontinuous use of sound walls.
• Graphics showing fencing, sign, and wall materials that are appro-
priate to a semi-rural setting.
2.3.3: Applicants whose project is located north of Viewpoint 5 shall
also submit:
• Plans demonstrating siting of buildings in conformance with Policy 8.1.
2.4: All applicants in Zone 4: Tassajara Village Area shall submit:
• Architectural elevations which show high quality building design.
• Site plans and landscape plans demonstrating that the siting, land-
scaping, and setback requirements of Policy 10.1 are met.
2.4.1: Applicants whose project is located adjacent to Viewpoint 6,the
intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, shall also submit:
• For those projects located between the Viewpoint and the Visually
Sensitive Ridgelands or surrounding knolls indicated on the East-
ern Dublin Viewpoints map, plans and cross sections showing that
a view to those Visually Sensitive Ridgelands or knolls has been
preserved,where feasible. If a view to Tassajara Creek and its ripar-
ian vegetation is possible, this is also strongly encouraged.
• Architectural elevations which show high quality building design
which is compatible in scale and style, and in material and color
palette with other development adjacent to that intersection.
� 1 49
A �
• Landscape plan indicating use of landscaping materials compatible
with other development adjacent to that intersection.
• Plans and elevations demonstrating pedestrian/village scale of both
high density and commercial buildings.
2.5: All applicants in Zone 5: Fallon Rural Open Space shall submit:
• Plans demonstrating that entry roads to residential development
generally are not aligned with direct sight lines from Fallon Road.
2.5.1: Applicants within the Rural Residential Zone shall also submit:
• Plans demonstrating that structures are not located on the tops of
ridges or knolls.
• If located between Viewpoint 7 and the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands to the north, plans and cross sections demonstrating
that structures will not extend above the horizon line of the Visu-
ally Sensitive Ridgelands.
2.6: All applicants in Zone 6: Fallon Road Gateway and Village shall
submit:
• Architectural elevations which show high quality building design.
2.6.1: Applicants in the southern portion of the Zone, between I-580
and the foreground hills shall also submit:
• Plans demonstrating that the setbacks around the intersection of
Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd. are minimized.
• Architectural elevations showing variation in forms of roof lines and
parapets.
• Landscape plans demonstrating use of agrarian patterns, such as
hedgerows, orchard patterns, or informal clusters.
2.6.2: Applicants within or adjacent to the view cone described as
Viewpoint 8 shall also submit:
• Plans demonstrating that the setback requirement set forth in Policy
12.2 is satisfied.
2.6.3: Applicants in the portion of the Zone,north of the foreground
hills shall also submit:
• Plans and elevations demonstrating pedestrian/village scale of
streetscape and buildings.
50 � .�
R v
• If adjacent to the foreground knolls, landscape plans demonstrat-
ing that the form of the knolls is not obscured,but rather, empha-
sized.
3. The applicant shall provide wireframes, photo montages, cross sec-
tions, or other graphics that demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
planning department that the specific conditions described for the
Zone in which the project is located,and for the Viewpoint (if any) to
which it is adjacent, are met.
..
Comments on Administrative Draft of
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
Comments have been received from four sources, Elizabeth H. Silver, John DiManto,
Robert Harris, and the Dublin Planning Staff. Minor changes such as spelling and simple
rewording that did not affect the meaning of the text have already been incorporated.
Comments from the various sources are attached, and have been numbered, and the
following responses apply to those numbered comments. The responses in plain type are
modifications that will be made to the final document, if approved. The portions of the
responses that appear in italics are explanatory comments.
aHI ;;
: 3
Post-It°Fax Note 7671 Date'—51�6 aaa s� )N
ICHAELR NAVE
VERS TO 11(!\Ch 6 eia�' From!'Y 7)' /�. ._
ELQABED4.4 SILVER l �M BANTA R08A OFFICE
MICMAEL 6,RIBACK CoCo Cat Co
A.WILSON 686 FIFTH STREET,CA
SUITE z90
Phone Y Phone Y SANTA ROSA CA 86101
CUFFOILO F.CAMPBE _ TBLYF (TOT6 6164109
MICHASL F.ROW410UEZ FBA FACSIMILE•.(707)6/5a617
KATRLEEN
FAUBION,AICP Fax N
WENDY A.ROBERTS
DAVIO W.SKINNER
618VBNT.MATTAS
RICK W.JARVIE
LARISSA M.SETO
OEBBIE F.LATHAM
OF COUNSEL
ANOREA J.SALTZMAN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol Cirelli DATE: December 29, 1995
Senior Planner
FROM: Elizabeth H. Silver
City Attorney
RE: Draft Scenic Corridor"Polices and Standards"
I have reviewed the December 1995 draft Scenic Corridor''Policies and Standards."
Overall,I believe they comply with,and implement the Specific Plan and EIR. I have a
few minor comments which are reflected on the pages which are attached.
Very truly yours,
MEYERS,NAVE,77RIBACK,SILVER&WILSON
Elizabeth H. Silver
EHS:rja
Attachments
J\WPD\MNRSW\114\MEMO\01\DEC95\CORRIDOR.DFT
POLICY I: Maintain a strong visual identity relating to the natural
landfarnts and hey visual elements in the Eastern Dublin area.
STANDARD 1.1: From the three designated Viewpoints in this Zone,
shown on Figure 10,maintain a generally uninterrupted view to sig-
nificant natural features.
• From Viewpoint 1,(at the Tassajara Creek crossing)preserve a clear
view to the Tassajara Creek corridor from I-580.In order to form a
view cone that will allow the traveler on I-580 to experience this view,
building setbacks must increase closer to the creek crossing.Begin-
ning 450 feet east along I-580 from the creek crossing,a setback line
{-i ,/_/J shall be established at a 23 degree angle from the roadway,as mea-
5l(AheLel )"l`'t -T7 sured from the center of the northernmost travel lane.
, ,,,,, ,y.,,,,,,,,,,
a•.'•aw Eus.pwa .+..peas.
�.G'�.�-� 4Reeu. ;�-►oR vul�+lbownsLr,
t I `am- j .,,2,.d.,9
,,.., ,
4
4. Yato) 1 „,,,,www.arr,./....1..6.4.3„-- 1 wo.Te.,...,1..„,„
Figure 11:View cone at westbound 1,580 towards Tassajara Creek
• From Viewpoint 2, (at the Tassajara Road overpass) structures
should not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands(as mapped in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan-"Visu-
ally Sensitive Ridgelands-No Development")for more than 25%
of the total horizon line.
%AMC I+a'rt.s 'L¢ttal.U{oewgtlMa korowes etaz
pt
-7 htir a m a
'w tT
, ,t,i^Ipp v )I '('
/J I
;till�i9 !p!',,ir4 t•� t )�iK , a ~
fail
i a • i atu► ..4. 6` t e ,,!? L .L
1
Figure 12:Notection of the horizon tine and complementary design of development
20 — -=_
! .
IFMPLEMENTAT1ON
1.Applicants seeking Tentative Map and Site Development Review ifieCity should&fa%adopt
I approval for development projects within the vicwsheds of Thssajara Tassajara!Pad,I-580,and
Road,1-580 and Fallon Road,as defined in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Fallon Road as designated
I Corridor Policies and Standards,shall be subject to Scenic Design scenic corridors;adopt a set
Analysis and the following implementation requirements. of sceniccorridor policies;and
establtthreview procedures cud'
• Development within 500 to 700 feet of the Scenic Corridors is sub- P
I ject to Scenic Design Analysis unless the applicant demonstrates standanls for projects within
to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that the develop- the scenic corridor viewshed,
1 ment will not be visible from the Scenic Corridor. anmcQ z,ra,r vuaa,spec�rfc7 fan
C t Go d
• Development located itn)shadea areas shown on the Eastern
' Dublin Viewpoints marl,is subject to Scenic Design Analysis un-
less the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning
Department that the development will not be visible from the
I Viewpoint. This includes structures which appear in the fore-
ground of a designated view to Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,
slopes,hills,or knolls,even though they do not block the view.
2.In conjunction with a site development review,applicants for devel- 1le City shouldregrtireprojeets
opment subject to Scenic Design Analysis shall submit materials de- with potential impacts on
1 scribed below,according to the Zone in which their project lies: scenic corridors to submit
2.1: All applicants in Zone 1:I580 shall submit: detailed visual'analysis with
development project applies-
• Wireframes,photomontages,plans,and/or cross sections through ans. Applicants will be re-
the development,or other material demonstrating that the struc- luiredmsrtbrnrtgrnp lac sirrst-
ill tures to be built will not obstruct views of the Visually Sensitive lations and/or sections drawn
Ridgelands for more than approximately 50% of the developed fromaffected travel corridara
I frontages. rhroughtfupatrtlinquestiorn,
• Architectural elevations which show high quality building design. representing typical views of
LI • Landscape plans which show high quality landscape treatment in Pane!from scenic
front of blank architectural walls visible from I-580,and which show the ra a egrttp these e scenic
on
that utility areas such as loading docks will be screened from view of the location and massing
from I-580. of the structure and associated
landscaping can then be used
2.1.1: Applicants within the shaded area described as Viewpoint 1 to adjust the project desyn to
shall also submit: minimize the visual impact.
111 • Plans demonstrating that the setback requirement set forth in Policy 4hgram pt.ruianDuaanspalflelYan
1.1 is satisfied.
5-111 ...:I... -la
. ,
C '
2.1.2:Applicants whose project is located in the shaded area described
.5 i 4 N'`{v�37 / �as Viewpoint 2 shall also submit: �° “ 3 "`���
i^� /
• Wireframes,photomontages,plans,= d or •as sections through
/� r ,I the development demonstrating that a e structures to be built will
not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands L
a, i for more than approximately 25%of the total horizon line,
i.
f 2.1.3: Applicants whose project is located between Viewpoint S and fo i
/ ..II__ the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands or the p��» d hills shown on the [_�
l /Wi)4-T"" 1- Eastern Dublin Viewpoints map also submi t Cf»-t igj
l/ ,i Pj • Wireframes,photomontages,plans, d/ cross sections through *F1.� C
(i«^"" 1 the development demonstrating that the structures to be built will
not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands r
for more than approximately 25%of the total horizon line or of
the horizon line of the foreground hills,
2.2: All applicants in Zone 2: Tassajara Gateway shall submit: [
• Plans demonstrating that buildings are sited close to the Tassajara
Road right-of-way,that views of parking are minimized,and that C
architectural and landscape treatment is consistent with gateway
prominence. [
• Plans and elevations demonstrating increased building heights and
mass toward the Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Road intersection,
• Architectural elevations which show high quality building design. C
2.2.1: A plicants whose project is located between Viewpoint 4 and (`
the northwesern`1tro11 1 also bmit:
v' L'1''1-"~ • Wireframes,photomontages,plans,,44 _cross sections through 4t5- (�
2_,,, .? the development demonstrating that a view of the northwestern L
,Jy( knoll is maintained from the Viewpoint.
p4A'4 2.5: All applicants in Zone 5:Tassajara Creek Valley shall submit C
• Plans demonstrating that entry roads generally are sited so as to C
provide views into the hills,knolls,and creek vegetation,and dem-
onstrating views to those features between buildings where feasible.
• Architectural elevations which show variation in roof lines,pitches, [
and heights,and high quality building design.
C
C
0- . C
Y.3.1:Applicants within the view cone described in Policy 6.2 at View-
point 5,or adjacent to the Open Space areas that are focal points of
the Viewpoint all also to it: #
• • Plans demons ng that the setback requirement set forth in Policy
6.2 is satisfied,
• Landscape plans demonstrating a transition between open space
..and built areas.
• Architectural elevations showing that recognizably visible structures
along Tassajara Creek are designed so as to emphasize the rustic
nature of the area. l,�
Y. Applicants whose project is located south of Viewpoint 5 shall
tO sue, t
itrv•
10
•' Plans demonstrating variation in building orientation and setback
from Tassajara Road.
• Plans demonstrating discontinuous use of sound walls.
• Graphics showing fencing,sign,and wall materials that are appro-
priate to a semi-rural setting,
Y. Applicants whose project is located north of Viewpoint 5 shall
* 11
• Plans demonstrating siting of buildings in conformance with Policy 8.1.
L4: All applicants in Zone 4:Tassajara Village Area shall submit:
•.Architectural elevations which show high quality building design.
y;.
'•'"; • SIte plans and landscape plans demonstrating that the siting,land-
scaping,and setback requirements of Policy 10.1 are met.
L4.1:Applicants whose project is located adjacent to Viewpoint 6,the
1:+
s intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road,shall also submit:
,, • For those projects located between the Viewpoint and the Visually
Sensitive Ridgelands or surrounding knolls indicated on the East
em Dublin Viewpoints map,plans and cross sections showing that
a view to those Visually Sensitive Ridgelands or knolls has been
tt, 'preserved,where feasible. If a view to Tassajara Creek and its ripar.
ian vegetation is possible,this is also strongly encouraged.
•
e'r • Architectural elevations which show high quality building design
which is compatible in scale and style,and in material and color
;. i •
palette with other development adjacent to that intersection.
m.
rw I: - 49
hyi
• Landscape plan indicating use of landscaping materials compatible
with other development adjacent to that intersection.
• Plans and elevations demonstrating pedestrian/village scale of both
high density and commercial buildings.
2.5: All applicants in Zone 5:Fallon Rural Open Space shall submit:
• Plans demonstrating that entry roads to residential development
generally are not aligned with direct sight lines from Fallon Road,
2.5.1: Applicants within the Rural Residential Zone shall also submit:
• Plans demonstrating that structures are not located on the tops of
ridges or knolls,
• If located between Viewpoint 7 and the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands to the north,plans and cross sections demonstrating
that structures will not extend above the horizon line of the Visu-
ally Sensitive Ridgelands.
2.6: All applicants in Zone 6:Fallon Road Gateway and Village shall
submit:
• Architectural elevations which show high quality building design.
2.6.1: Applicants in the southern portion of the Zone,between h580
and the foreground hills shall also submit:
• Plans demonstrating that the setbacks around the intersection of
Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd.are minimized,
• Architectural elevations showing variation in forms of roof lines and
parapets.
• Landscape plans demonstrating use of agrarian patterns,such as
hedgerows,orchard patterns,or informal clusters.
41- a 2.6.2: Appli in or adjacent to the view cone described as
Viewpoint: , ubmit:
7
ry l • Plans demo nng that the setback requirement set forth in Policy
12.2 is satisfied:
2.6.8: Ap licants in the portion of the Zone,north of the foreground
I3 hills all als ub it:
• PI rid elevations demonstrating pedestrian/village scale of
streetscape and buildings.
50
NOTES FROM MEETING WITH JOHN DIMANTO 12/26/95
Page 21 Standard 1.2
How much are we restricted by this graphic?
Wants to make sure buildable area is adequate-avoid non-bankable/unbuildable footprints.
At1 Page 17
Would it be more appropriate to have 2 narrower view cones?
Page 25
3
Can we have an alternative footprint and still preserve 50%of the view?
1c44. Page 48 2.2- 1st bullet
Add wording to permit alternatives that achieve the same goal.
RIMRobert Harris& Associates
Colut,Ilants
In Planning,
Development and
Entitlement
Pmcos ning
January 5, 1996
Carol Cirelli
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
P.O..Box 2340
Dublin,CA 94568
Dear Carol:
We have reviewed the draft of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
report prepared by David 1„Gates and Associates and have several comments with regard
to it. This letter reflects the collective opinion of those representing the Dublin Ranch
property in Eastern Dublin.
Our comments are both general and specific. We will start with the former. Our overall
impression of the document is that while it is a creditable attempt to address the myriad
visual resource related policies,programs and mitigation measures of the Dublin General
Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR,the result is a complicated and
sometimes confusing program which lends itself to being subject to a wide range of
interpretation. Those involved in its preparation understand the intent of the document
but we're afraid as time increases and the program is administered by staff not intimately
involved with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,this intent could he distorted.
This potential for misinterpretation is caused by trying to"kill so many birds with one
stone". The document deals with 20 disparate goals,policies,programs and mitigation
measures of the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR.
Complicating this is the nebulous nature of the subject being addressed-visual resources.
The authors and planning staff have made a worthy effort to accomplish this task, The
methodology utilized in the report seems appropriate considering the nature of the
assignment. The problem is the policies,programs and mitigation measures being
addressed in the report were not always well thought out in the documents in which they
originally appeared. Gates and Associates,therefore,is attempting to synthesize ofttimes
vague,conflicting and even unworkable concepts;an admittedly difficult task to
accomplish successfully.
Because of the high potential for the intent of the document to become clouded as it is
administered over the thirty or more year buildout of the Eastern Dublin area,we suggest
the following language be inserted between the third and fourth sentences of the last
*1
paragraph on page 1: "Should any of these policies or standards conflict with the land
use goals,policies or programs of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan,the land use constraints of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
shall govern." We would ask that this language he shown in bold type.
fi7,Wont Neal Sired,Plemi nton,CA 946s8 • Phonu(bl(U WIG 83% • I',tx(510)84ti-1878
We have numerous specific comments/questions/suggestions. First of all,on page 1,
4f-Z third paragraph we suggest you insert"as shown in the Plan"between the words
development and to in the third sentence.
In the definition of Viewshed on page 3,does the clause"or the area within 500 to 700
2,- feet of a Scenic Corridor"mean everything between the Scenic Corridor and a strip of
land which ranges from 500 feet to 700 feet distant from the Corridor?
ei Figure 4 doesn't show the community park on Tassajara Road.
4ktj' There is no page 18. Is it missing or is this a numbering problem'?
"total horizon line"under Viewpoints 2 and 3 on pages 20 and 21 will have to be
quantified in some manner.
+441 On page 21 the first paragraph states buildings should not extend above the horizon line
of the foreground hills for more than 25%of the total length of the horizon line when
seen from Viewpoint 3. These hills get quite low toward the western terminus;so low
that one story buildings may project above them. We have a concern that the 25%figure
may be too restrictive to allow the expected development in the vicinity of these
particular landforms. More importantly,views of the foreground hills are not regulated in
any manner in the Specific Plan. For this reason we would ask that the 25%restriction be
removed from these hills.
How does the 25%restriction mentioned above work in conjunction with Standard 1.2
which limits blockage of the"visually sensitive ridgelands"to 50%of frontage? Is the
25%horizon allowance allowed in addition to the 50%or is it subtracted from it?
Standard 1.2 governs blockage of views of the"visually sensitive ridgelands". The
.1 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is inconsistent with regard to what part.of these landforms
are to be visually protected. Policy 6-29 talks about maintaining views of the main
ridgeline while Policy 6-30 protects views of the visually sensitive ridgelands. 'there is
no reason given for this distinction. Standard 1.2 doesn't seem to conflict with either of
these policies but it is an example of how confusing the subject can be and how difficult
it may he to consistently administer the procedure in the future.
A.
In figures 17,26 and 33 the source reference should be MacKay and Somps not McKay
/0 and Somps.
On page 25 the bold type mentions the"advisory guidelines"from Chapter 7 of the
Pi( Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Some of these guidelines are listed on page 26. Does this
mean all guidelines described under Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 of the Specific Plan apply to
the scenic corridor report or just those mentioned on page 26?
The 15 degree setback angle for Viewpoint S(page 29)conflicts with the PD Rezone
401, submitted for Dublin Ranch Phase I. For this reason we ask that this particular
restriction be removed or at least modified so no redesign of the already submitted Dublin
Ranch Phase I PD Rezone would be required.
The term"recognizably visible"is used on pages 30 and 49 but it is not defined
j/3 anywhere.
In several instances fairly rigid design themes are established for development occurring
J,ci along scenic corridors. We have concerns that adhering to these particular themes may
not always be the only or best solution to meeting the intent of the scenic corridor
document and suggest more flexibility he built into these restrictions. Standard 7.1 is an
example of this problem. Hedgerows,informal clusters of plants or orchard patterns may
not he the only way to achieve the results desired. Also under Standard 7.1,Figure 24
shows fencing set back more than 30 feet from Tassajara Road. This is not a requirement
of the Specific Plan,therefore,this figure should be revised.
Figure 27 indicates buildings should not be located on the view side or high points of
4tk/` — knolls. Does this apply to reservoirs? Such a location could be necessary for this type of
infrastructure feature.
Standard 11.3 calls for"uninterrupted"views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from
/fP Viewpoint 7. This is a wide ranging restriction which could have a major impact on the
development of land east of Fallon Road. We ask that more flexible language such as
was used in Standard 1.2 be substituted for uninterrupted.
Standard 12.1(page 42)calls for the tallest buildings to be located near the intersection of
tf�7 Dublin Blvd.and Fallon Rd. Tall buildings in this location could project above the
horizon line of the foreground hills thereby utilizing some or all of the 25%allowance
from Viewpoint 3 mentioned previously. This brings up the issue of sequence of
development. What if the 25%allowance is already used up by buildings in the
background at the time someone wants to construct a tall building at the intersection(or
anywhere in the foreground)? If the latter would block a structure in the background and
thereby not exceed the 25%limit,could it be allowed? All of this would be moot,of
course,if the 25%restriction was removed as requested earlier in this letter,
f/Sj With regard to Standard 12.2,the precise location of the Fallon Rd/Dublin Blvd.
intersection has not been tied down.
pq A general comment regarding the Implementation Section of the report;"standards"are
consistently referred to as"policies".
In the first paragraph under Implementation on page 47 it should he clarified to indicate
2 Za that development is not within a viewshed(and,hence,not subject to Scenic Design
Analysis)unless it is visible from a scenic corridor or viewpoint. This is articulated for
objects within the 500 to 700 foot band but not for development within the area between
a viewpoint and the designated object of that viewpoint. Additionally,this exemption
,ipzt should be for development not visible under existing conditions rather than as conditions
may exist in the future, The two bullets under the first paragraphs should also be revised
to reflect the exemption under existing conditions.
Why does Section 2.1.3 apply to projects located between Viewpoint 3 and the Visually
Oa. Sensitive Ridgelands when in the cases of viewpoints 1 and 2 special requirements apply
only to developments within the shaded areas of those viewpoints? The area subject to
Section 2.1.3 is probably 10 times larger than the area regulated by Section 2.1.2
(Viewpoint 2)and 100 times larger than the area subject to Section 2.1.1 (Viewpoint 1).
We can see no distinction among these viewpoints which would legitimize such a large
disparity. Additionally,Section 2.1.3 refers to the foreground hills which we have
previously requested not to be regulated.
In the first line of Section 2.3.1 "view cone"should be changed to"shaded area"and"as"
should be substituted for"in Policy 6.2 at".
In Section 2.4.1 "adjacent to"Viewpoint 6 needs to be tied down a little more concisely.
Section 2,5.1 is a little more flexible regarding Viewpoint 7 than is Standard 11.3 because
it(Section 2.5.1)only regulates the horizon line of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
rather than the Ridgelands themselves. We feel further flexibility is needed,however,
and ask that where feasible be added at the end of the second bullet of this Section.
Section 2.6,2-"or adjacent to"should be deleted and"shaded area"should be substituted
for"view cone".
The area subject to Section 16.3 is not delimited. Much of this area could be outside of
if-etviowsheds. It needs to be more precisely defined.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the draft Policies and Standards
report. This has been a long process and needs to be completed soon to comply with the
implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Hopefully the purpose of the report
as set forth on page 1 of the document and as suggested for revision in the fourth
paragraph of this letter will be strictly adhered to as it is administered over the years.
Sincerely,
RO$ERT J.HARRIS
cc: Ted Fairfield
Marty lnderbitzen
Dave Chadbourne
Comments from Planning Staff
1. The document needs a general comment to allow flexibility.
2. It is confusing to have the Corridor described using a range of 500 to 700 feet. It
would be better to just use the"700 feet",dropping the"500 to"altogether.
3. Specific Plan Policy 6-30 is significant,and should appear in this document.
4. Beginning on page 19,where there are photos of Viewpoints,the visually significant
features that are identified in the text discussing that Viewpoint(such as the Visually
Sensitive Ridgelands,Tassajara Creek,foreground hills,knolls,etc.),should be
identified in the photos.
5. On page 21,second bullet: "adjacent to"is too vague.
6. On page 30,second bullet,the term"rustic"needs clarification.
7. On page 32,last bullet,reference to"foreground hills"is confusing because these hills
have not been identified on the visual features map.
8. Page 43,last bullet,the term"neighborhood scale"also needs clarification.
9. Page 51,Implementation Section 3 should be moved up to become Section 2,with the
current Section 2 and subsections renumbered accordingly.
Responses to Comments
Responses to Comments of Elizabeth H.Silver
1. Figure references will be added throughout.
2. See response to#1.
3-5. At Subsections 2.1.2,2.1.3,and 2.2.1,first bullet,after"sections,"add"as is
appropriate".
6-13. At Subsection 2.1.2,first sentence,omit"also,"and after"submit,"add",in
addition to the requirements of Section 2.1". Language in Subsections 2.1.3,and
all subsequent Subsections which contain the same language shall be changed in
the same manner.
Responses to Comments of John DiManto
1. Add"-example"to Figure 13 and Figure 15 captions.
These graphics are presented as examples,only. They are not meant to restrict
the possible range of alternatives for meeting the standards,but only to illustrate
some options.
2. For Viewpoints 2 and 3,the view cones indicated by the shadowed areas(as
modified)are not very restrictive,due to the fact that those Viewpoints are
located on the overpasses for Tassajara Road and Fallon Roads. These
Viewpoints are much higher than the adjacent Scenic Corridors. For Viewpoint
2,a 40 foot building located at approximately 50 feet north of the freeway,would
not screen views to the ridgeline,and a 60 foot building,set back 400 feet,would
not screen views to the ridgeline. Given the general commercial land use
designation,and the percentage of parking required,it is unlikely that a situation
would occur where more than 25%of the view would be screened.
3. Alternative footprints are certainly possible;this illustration is meant as an
example,only.
4. At Section 2.2,first bullet,reword as follows: "Plans demonstrating that
buildings are sited and designed in a manner consistent with gateway
prominence."
Responses to Comments of Robert Harris
1. Modify as suggested.
2. Modify as suggested.
3. Add,at the end of this definition,"that is visible from the Scenic Corridor."
4. Modify Figure 4 to show the Community Park off Fallon Road,and the
Neighborhood Park adjacent to Tassajara Creek.
5. Page 18 is the back of a figure page.
6. Add,at the end of the second and third bullets under Standard 1.1(for both
Viewpoints 2 and 3): "The total horizon line shall be defined as the limits of the
Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as seen from the Viewpoint."
7. Add,at the end of the third bullet under Standard 1.1,after the previous addition:
"The horizon line of the foreground hills is generally described as that part of the
horizon which rises above an elevation of 440 feet."
These foreground hills are discussed at pages 71-72 of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan,where it states that"In particular,no development shall extend
above the natural ridgeline of these low-lying hills." Given that the ground
elevation of most of the area between the Viewpoint and these hills is 360,and
that the Viewpoint itself is located on the overpass,at a much higher elevation,
and given the parking ratios for the neighborhood commercial development
expected to occur in this area(as set forth in the Specific Plan),the application of
this provision to horizon above 440 feet should not be restrictive. Within
Viewpoint 3's shaded area,even at the closest location to the viewpoint,a
building would have to be more than 40 feet tall to obstruct the view.
8. The 25%restriction applies to the areas shaded on the Viewpoint Map,and
represents the total view blockage allowed. Again,because these Viewpoints are
located on the overpasses,some 20 feet above the ground level,this provision
should not be restrictive.
9. Some of the provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are in fact
inconsistent. These Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards are intended to
clarify and resolve some of these inconsistencies as they apply to visual resources
in relation to Scenic Corridors.
10. No longer applicable,because wireframes are not being used in this document.
11. At Standard 3.1,fourth bullet,after"recommendations,"delete"including"and
add the following sentence: "The following provisions from the Specific Plan
Design Guidelines are incorporated into this Standard as requirements:"
12. At Standard 6.2,first bullet,second sentence,after"creek crossing,"add
"building".
We have reviewed the setback with this change,and while it does affect the
extreme rear portion of one large corner lot,is does not seem to conflict with the
plan submitted for Dublin Ranch. No redesign should be necessary.
13. The word"recognizably"has been deleted.
14. Revise graphic to state"30 ft.average setback."
The fencing setback in this illustration is derived from the Tassajara Road cross
section in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Community Design Guidelines. By
using the word"average,"flexibility is added. It is the intent of this Standard to
be flexible about the means of achieving the semi-rural ambiance described. The
words"such as"indicate that hedgerows,informal clusters,or orchard patterns
are not exclusive means to achieve this. It should be noted that in this section of
the Scenic Corridor,there are no significant views of a natural feature,so the
scenic quality of this segment must be achieved by establishing and maintaining
the scenic quality of the right-of-way itself. To this end we have suggested the
semi-rural ambiance as the primary scenic feature.
15. Modify by adding the following bullet to Standard 11.1: "Strive to minimize
visual impact of reservoirs in these areas through siting,design,and landscaping."
16. At Standard 11.3,first sentence,after"maintain,"add"generally."
This area is almost entirely open space and rural residential.
17. See discussion under Response#11.
18. At Standard 12.2,first bullet,second sentence,after"Beginning,"add
"approximately."
19. Modify as suggested.
20. The two bullets under Section 1 indicate that if the applicant shows that the
project will not be visible from the Scenic Corridor or from the Viewpoint,it will
not be subject to Scenic Design Analysis. If the project is within the 500-700 feet
of a Scenic Corridor,or is within a Viewpoint's shaded area,it is the burden of
the applicant to show that the project will not be visible.
21. At Implementation Section 1,first bullet,after"that,"add,"at the time of the
application,". At Implementation Section 1,second bullet,first sentence,after
"that,"add,"at the time of the application,".
22. Map has been modified to respond to comment. See also Response#11.
23. Modify as suggested.
24. At Implementation Section 2.4,second bullet,after"the,"add"design,"and
change"Policy 10.1,"to read"Policies 10.1 and 10.2." At Section 2.4.1,delete
"adjacent to"and substitute"falls entirely or partially within a shaded area at"
25. Modify as suggested.
26. Modify as suggested.
27. At Implementation Section 2.6.3,after"Zone,"eliminate"north of the foreground
hills"and instead add"between the foreground hills and Gleason Road."
Responses to Comments of Planning Staff
1. On page 1,third paragraph,after the third sentence,add: "While the applicant
should generally comply with these standards,the City may allow some flexibility
with meeting these standards only if the applicant demonstrates,to the satisfaction
of the Planning Department,compliance with the overall intent of the policies and
standards."
2. Modify as suggested at pages 3,9,10,21,47.
3. In the margin of page 9,below Policy 6-33,add Policy 6-30: "Structures built
near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of the backdrop
ridge(identified in Figure 6.3 as"visually sensitive ridgelands-no development")
are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors."
4. Visual features will be identified on photos,as suggested.
5. Standard 1.1,fourth bullet,delete"adjacent to"and substitute"within;"after
"viewsheds described,"add"or framing those views,".
6. Standard 6.2,third bullet,at end of sentence,add"through articulation of building
mass,landscape treatment and selection of colors and materials to blend with the
setting."
7. Standard 8.1,last bullet,delete end of sentence,after"north."
8. Modify Standard 13.1,third bullet,to read: "At the Fallon Village Center,use
storefront architecture and streetscape design which enhances the pedestrian
experience."
9. Modify as suggested.
4
w.j'
RESOLUTION NO. 96 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OFFICIALLY ADOPT I-580, TASSAJARA
ROAD AND FALLON ROAD AS DESIGNATED SCENIC CORRIDORS AND
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN SCENIC
CORRIDOR POLICIES AND STANDARDS
WHEREAS,the City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan on May 10, 1993 and the Dublin voters approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan on November 2, 1993; and
WHEREAS,the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains an implementation measure
(Action Program 6Q)that requires the City to officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-580, and Fallon Road as
designated scenic corridors; adopt a set of scenic corridor policies; and establish review procedures and
standards within the scenic corridor viewshed; and
WHEREAS,the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards (Policies and Standards)
document implements Action Program 6Q of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and is consistent with the
policies and action programs of Chapter 6 -Resource Management of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
to the extent that the Policies and Standards will promote the preservation of important visual resources
within the Eastern Dublin area; and
WHEREAS the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. and no new effects
could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the project that were not addressed in
the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan, and the project is within the scope of the FEIR. The project implements mitigation
measures of the FEIR and an initial study will be conducted for each development application that is
required to comply with the Policies and Standards document; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council the official designation of Tassajara Road, I-580 and Fallon Road as
scenic corridors, and the approval of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommends that the City Council officially adopt Tassajara Road(between the Contra Costa
County/Alameda County boundary line and I-580); I-580 (portion that abuts the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan area); and Fallon Road(between the Contra Costa County/Alameda County boundary line and I-
580), as designated scenic corridors and approve the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and
Standards as defined in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated 1-16-96.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
fAcrc\scepereso
. ;
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 16, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Tasha Huston, Associate Planner ji—v
SUBJECT: PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Project and EIR
GE ERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: The Applicants are proposing residential and commercial development for
their collective parcels totaling±500 acres west of the Dublin city limits. The
proposed project includes the following:
• A General Plan Amendment for the +500 acres of land under the control of the
property owners, changing land use designations from agricultural to various urban
land uses. In addition,General Plan policies may be added or amended.
• Planned Development Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, Development
Agreement and subsequent Annexation.
• Annexation and/or detachment from various Service Districts, possibly including
the Castro Valley School District, Dublin School District, and Dublin-San Ramon
Services District.
APPLICANTS &
PROPERTY OWNERS: Schaefer Heights,Inc.,(Otto Schaefer,Jr.,Robert J.Yohai,Sal S.Zagari), Schaefer
Heights Associates,and Dennis and Laurie Gibbs.
LOCATION: Schaefer Ranch Road, Alameda County(Adjacent to and West of City of Dublin)
ASSESSOR PARCELS
&PARCEL SIZE: OWNER PARCEL# ACREAGE
Schaefer Heights Associates 85A-1000-001-14 24.49
CC85A-1000-001-16 32.45
85A-1000-001-17 76.51
" GC941-0018-002-02 47.00
" 941-0018-002-03 32.05
" 941-0018-005-00 2.67
" CC941-0018-006-00 73.51
Otto Schaefer, Jr. 85A-1000-001-18 155.87
Robert J. Yohai & Sal S. Zagari 85A-1000-001-09 5.51
85A-1000-001-11 2.07
Dennis & Laurie Gibbs 85A-1000-002-04 48.0
ITEM NO t COPIES TO: PA FILE
OWNER/APPLICANTS
SR.PLANNER
PROJECT PLANNER
hILL ADMIN.FILE
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Western Extended Planning Area
EXISTING ALAMEDA
COUNTY ZONING
AND LAND USE: Agriculture; Cattle grazing with a few rural homesites
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING: North: Cattle grazing;Alameda County Agricultural District
South: Interstate 580 Freeway
East: Grading underway; Planned Development District with residential use
approved (Donlon Canyon project)
West: Cattle grazing;Alameda County Agricultural District
HISTORY:
July 11, 1994 City Council approved a request submitted by James Parsons on behalf of Schaefer
Heights Associates which authorized and initiated the Schaefer Ranch General Plan
Amendment Study. The Council defined the study area boundaries, which initially
included approximately 452 acres, and directed Staff to prepare a consultant contract for
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report which analyzes the project.
October 24, 1994 City Council approved the Contract for Consultant Services for preparation of the
Schaefer Heights General Plan Amendment EIR, and Amended the General Plan
Amendment Study Area to include approximately 48 acres adjacent to the project site,
owned by Dennis and Laurie Gibbs.
March 21, 1995 A Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was distributed by the
City to public agencies potentially affected by the project, and to interested individuals, as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
June 13, 1995 City Council approved the first Amendment to the Contract between the City of Dublin
and WPM Planning Team, Inc.,to add a specialized fire service study to address fire
protection impacts and issues raised in response to the Notice of Preparation distributed
for the project.
October 5, 1995 City Administration Staff approved a minor revision to the Contract between the City of
Dublin and WPM Planning Team, Inc.,to add supplementary Noise and Traffic analyses.
December 21, 1995 A Notice of Completion of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)was mailed to affected
public agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. A copy of the EIR was mailed
to affected public agencies and made available for public review, and the public comment
period was opened.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS•
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to this project. The California State
Government Code also regulates several aspects of this project, including but not limited to the
amendment of the Dublin General Plan, annexation of a project area to the City, subdividing land, and
other development entitlements.
2
BACKGROUND:
This project site is part of an area that the City of Dublin has designated as the Western Extended
Planning Area. The Dublin General Plan states that specific development in this area will be determined
when municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies.
Previous planning in the Western Extended Planning area began in 1989,with the preparation of a
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the entire area. An EIR was prepared and certified in
1992. However,the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment were rejected in a City
referendum that year.
The current Schaefer Ranch development proposal involves a much smaller area. The proposed plan was
designed as the result of the input provided by concerned citizens,governing agencies,and service
agencies in numerous meetings during and since the previous planning efforts in the Western Dublin area.
The City Council,in July of 1994,authorized the Staff to conduct a General Plan Amendment Study for
this project,including preparation of an EIR. The EIR document is the result of studies conducted over
the past 14 months to assess the environmental effects and considerations pertaining to the project.
ANALYSIS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
For the EIR analysis,the Schaefer Ranch project is defined to include the Schaefer Heights project
component and the Gibbs project component.
The Schaefer Heights component properties are mainly under the control of Schaefer Heights Associates,
and comprise approximately 452 acres. The Gibbs project component,comprising one parcel owned by
Dennis and Laurie Gibbs,involves approximately 48 acres.
The Schaefer Ranch project studied in the EIR proposes the following land uses:
474 housing units
10.7 acres of retail office uses
33.9 acres of public/semi public land(includes major street rights-of way)
162.6 acres of parks and recreation uses
89.0 acres of other open space(includes areas owned and maintained by homeowner's association)
At buildout,the project site would have a maximum of about 1,517 residents. The overall project density
would be less than one unit per acre. About 11.5 acres of woodland would be removed by grading,and
the proposal includes plans for contour grading with 3:1 slopes to create softer,more natural appearing
landforms,reduce erosion,and improve revegetation programs.
The Applicants have also proposed a number of restoration and environmental education efforts,
including:
-revegetation of native grasses and oak woodlands,
-protection or enhancement of three existing ponds as aquatic and avian habitat,
-introduction of State-protected wildlife to the enhanced habitats,
-creek restoration program to enhance riparian habitat currently degraded by cattle grazing,
-creation of an"eco-camp"site for learning experience in environmental and natural sciences.
PAGE 3 OF5
3
PROJECT ISSUES
As required by State Law,several aspects of the project are analyzed in the EIR in considering the
environmental impacts of the project. Through this analysis,several issues have been raised and are
discussed further in the EIR. A partial list of the issues which have arisen through study of the project to
this point appears below:
A. Project grading on steep slopes
B. Protection of woodland areas
C. Provision of Public Safety and fire protection services
D. Access to the remainder of the Westem Extended Planning Area
PROJECT ACTIONS
There will be no formal action by the Planning Commission regarding the Schaefer Ranch project at this
introductory Study Session meeting. As the planning process proceeds,several steps will be taken as the
various aspects of the project are considered. The Schaefer Ranch project will include the following
actions:
General Plan Amendment: The Dublin General Plan map would be amended to accommodate the project
site. Land use designations would be changed from agriculture to various urban uses. In addition,
General Plan policies would need to be added or amended. The specific revisions and policies affected by
the project are contained in the Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment document which has
been prepared as part of the project analysis.
Prezoning: The site would be prezoned from the existing County agricultural zoning to a City Planned
Development(PD)District.
Annexation to City: The City will make a request to LAFCO to approve annexation of the site to the
City.
Annexation to Special Service Districts: The project site would need to be annexed to the Dublin-San
Ramon Services District and to the Alameda County Zone 7 Water Agency for provision of water,
wastewater,and drainage services.
Securing approval of permits from various agencies: Various permits include,but are not limited to,
California Department of Fish and Game,Caltrans,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Regional Water
Quality Control Board,etc.
Securing approval of plans and permits from the City of Dublin for other aspects of development:
Various permits include,but are not limited to,a Development Agreement,Subdivision Map,Site
Development Review,etc.
Other actions associated with project approval will be taken as necessary. The EIR document contains a
more comprehensive discussion of the actions associated with the project.
4
PLANNING PROCESS
The purpose of this Study Session is to introduce the Schaefer Ranch Project and EIR to the Planning
Commission and public, and to provide an opportunity to inform and receive public comments on the
project. This meeting was designed to occur during the official "public comment" period for the EIR,
and intended to provide the opportunity for public involvement in the planning process, consistent with
the objectives of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public comments are encouraged
either verbally at the public meeting, or in writing, submitted to the Dublin Planning Department.
The processing steps and estimated schedule for the City's consideration of the project and EIR is as
follows:
December 21, 1995: EIR Public Comment Period Begins
January 16, 1996: EIR Public Comment Meeting and Study Session before the Planning Commission
February 12, 1996: EIR Public Comment Period Ends
March 12, 1996: Contract Amendment - Consultant begins responding to Comments on EIR
April 1996: Final EIR Distributed; General Plan Amendment (GPA) Document under review
May 1996: Public Hearings on EIR Certification and GPA adoption begin
July 1996: Final Public Hearings on EIR Certification and GPA adoption
CONCLUSION
For the purposes of the January 16, 1996 Public Meeting and Study Session on the EIR, Staff
recommends that the Commission consider this report as an introduction to the Schaefer Ranch Project.
The public meeting format will provide the opportunity for questions and comment from the public
regarding the EIR or the project. Public comments on the EIR will be accepted through the public
comment period, which ends on February 12, 1996.
The project will be analyzed and discussed in greater detail at public hearings to be held after the Draft
EIR is reviewed, and when the Final EIR and the General Plan Amendment document are considered for
certification and adoption later this year.
ROMMENDATI N.S:
FORMAT: 1) Hear Staff, Applicant, and EIR consultant presentations
2) Open public comment session
3) Take testimony from the public
4) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
5) Close public comment session and discuss
6) Adjourn study session
(g:\pa#\1994\94028\SRPC 1-16.doc)